The Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) having read the APNU column – Facing reality GUYSUCO – which appeared in the June 25, 2017 Kaieteur News, finds it necessary to offer a response to some of the assertions made therein.
Our Union, at the outset, must admit that it is pleasing to see the APNU referring to the Sugar Commission of Inquiry (CoI), especially since its one of the more costly CoI’s that was established since the APNU/AFC took the reins of power. GAWU and, we are sure, many others were of the view that the Coalition forgot about the CoI as there is hardly any reference to it now-a-days and seemingly none of the recommendations it made are being adopted. At this juncture, we must remind the APNU that the CoI clearly, unambiguously and without contradiction recommended that no estate be closed yet we see one estate already closed and two (2) more slated for closure. That CoI also said that non-sugar diversification, were they to be pursued, should be done on non-sugar lands recognizing the uncertainties with such ventures as well as the limited employment prospects. Moreover, the CoI recommended that the industry pursue diversification into areas such as electricity production, refined sugar and other sugar cane by-products. Clearly, as we see from the Government plans the CoI’s report has been placed on a shelf to gather dust and its findings and conclusions may not have been the tune the Government wanted to hear.
The APNU also drew to attention an important finding that despite production falling by 14 per cent between 2006 and 2015, foreign exchange earnings fell only by 6 per cent. This statistic serves to illustrate how important the industry is to the economy. At a time when foreign exchange is a growing concern, we ask the APNU can the economy afford to lose sugar’s foreign exchange earnings?
While APNU says the industry will be sustaining losses of about $10B in year 2025, the Skeldon Co-Generation facility, when production at that estate was less than one-third of its potential, realized income of about $9.5B last year. We make this point to illustrate that with the Skeldon Co-Generation facility together with similar facilities at Albion, Blairmont, Enmore and Uitvlugt and other plausible ventures would see the industry not in the red, but would see indeed billions of dollars in profits. The fact that APNU continues to sell GuySuCo as only and solely a raw, bulk sugar producer is causing wrong conclusions to be drawn. We wish to remind that the CoI even advised how the industry could move forward in a diversification programme. In its structural proposal it indicates that sugar revenue becomes part of several revenue earning streams accruing to the industry.
While, APNU tells us that GuySuCo’s short-term debt stood at $37.7B at the end of 2015, the Corporation’s Chairman Professor Clive Thomas told the Parliamentary Economic Services Committee that short-term indebtedness was $11.7B at the end of 2016. If the APNU figure is indeed correct, this is a significant movement and is telling us that GuySuCo is seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Moreover, we wish to advise the APNU, according to 2015 GuySuCo financial statements, the Corporation has pledged to its debtors of $1.4B in assets at that time and not $42B as APNU says.
What the APNU does not question for whatever reason is the value-for-money it received for the $32B it gave GuySuCo. Despite the large investment the results are not spelt out in improved production and productivity. Certainly this should stick out in the dark to the Coalition policymakers. The GAWU, as we outlined in our presentation to the Government on February 17, 2017, strongly holds that sugar has a very bright future if the correct decisions are made. Furthermore, as we see at Wales the planned diversification initiatives are not even close to being realized but depravity and misery is steadily growing and the situation is becoming more and more depressing. We ask APNU if this is what the ‘Good Life’ is meant to be.
