Member of Parliament (MP), Jermaine Figueira of Region #10 in a letter which appeared in some sections of the media spoke about, among other things, the sugar industry. While the MP has a right to have a view – a right we uphold – we could not help but notice what seems to be a slanted approach in his missive.
Mr Figueira writes that European Union (EU) Sugar Protocol is what provided ACP sugar producing countries certain prices and market access. What the MP does not say, maybe it is because he is unaware, is that the Sugar Protocol was a commercial agreement between the EU and ACP. In the 1970’s when the world market price of sugar rose to historical highs, the ACP abided by the terms of the agreement notwithstanding sugar producing states could have received higher prices outside of Europe. The ACP had abided by the agreement in good faith, but nevertheless, the agreement was abdicated by the EU.
The MP also informs that “…that sugar has been on a downward slide in the region as Belize, Barbados, St Kitts and Trinidad and Tobago, had abandoned sugar”. This is a clearly inaccurate statement and could be attributed to Mr Figueira unfamiliarity with the industry. For the sake of correctness, Belize and Barbados still produce sugar. Indeed St Kitts and Nevis and Trinidad and Tobago exited the sugar production. At the same time, however, we cannot fail to consider the limitations to sugar production in small island states such as access to large areas of flat arable land and the need for large amounts of freshwater. In the case of Trinidad and Tobago, a study conducted by UWI – St Augustine concluded that following the cessation of sugar production, those who were linked with the industry had “…a great dependence on other sources of income such as children. Also the majority of the farmers’ monthly individual income was decreased and the majority of the farmers dependence on public services increased.” It is not hard to imagine the ramifications in Guyana’s case, where our economy is less diversified and now-a-days finding itself in difficulty. At the same time, we do not confront the limitations in terms of land and freshwater other regional sugar producing nations confront.
The Region #10 Parliamentarian refers to the performance of the Skeldon factory which indeed has experienced its fair share of difficulties. While indeed its performance has been below expectations, Mr Figueira seems not to know that the very estate he is critical of has a fairly profitable electricity plant. As GAWU has said time and again, the plant realized in 2016, the most recent data we have, some $9.5B in revenues. Dismayingly, those revenues went to Skeldon Energy Inc (SEI) and not GuySuCo. Certainly with improved performance, a feat which can be realized, the estate’s value to GuySuCo and Guyana would be further demonstrated.
The MP also tells us about GuySuCo’s losses and, among other things, says its attributed to “…too many workers…”. This is the first time we have ever heard such an explanation being provided as GuySuCo has always complained about not having enough workers. We recall the July 20, 2018 Stabroek News reported that “…GuySuCo’s Corporate Communications Manager, Audreyanna Thomas revealed that there are presently over 600 vacancies at the Albion Sugar Estate”. The crux of the industry’s difficulties relates to poor productivity and production in the fields. It is not the first time that the industry has faced such challenges and GuySuCo is well aware of what needs to be done to overcome those difficulties. We recall positive efforts made in this regard when the industry’s production reached 231,000 tonnes sugar in 2015 as a result of work done in 2014. Dismayingly, those efforts were not sustained and production fell significantly.
The public is also told by Mr Figueira that GuySuCo’s losses are in part due to “…Guyana’s inability to compete with large producers like Thailand and Brazil…”. Again, the MP’s strangeness to the industry is demonstrated. For his information, Guyana and GuySuCo never had any intentions of competing with major sugar producing nations like Thailand and Brazil. That is akin to an ant versus an elephant. Guyana’s intentions were always to have a diversified sugar sector production direct consumption sugars, refined white sugar, electricity, extra-nuclear alcohol and fuel alcohol. Interestingly, it was these very things that the Sugar Commission of Inquiry (CoI) recommended be pursued.
We are also reminded by the MP of then President Jagdeo’s remarks regarding the importance of sugar. But weren’t those remarks correct? Today we see in real terms the vacuum created by closure of Skeldon Estate. Today, we see and hear of the hardships the people face, the troubles that their minds must contend with and the difficulties they must face up to. Today, as former President Jagdeo said, the Skeldon has become “…a ghost town…”.
The MP also refers to GuySuCo’s current Finance and Marketing Director, Paul Bhim’s presentation to the Economic Services Committee in 2014. We are told by Mr Figueira that Mr Bhim informed that the industry’s debt was $58B apart from a further $22.4B owed to lenders regarding the Skeldon project. It seems that the MP is mistaken or misinformed and we urge him to consult the Parliament to receive a copy of Mr Bhim’s presentation. On this score, the July 18, 2014 Stabroek News reported “[t]he Guyana Sugar Corporation is currently $58 billion in debt with $22.4 billion (US$112M) stemming from loans needed to build and operate the beleaguered Skeldon Sugar Factory”. What the statement clearly indicates is that the Skeldon debts were subsumed in the total debt figure Mr Bhim presented.
Mr Figueira speaks about the Government support to the industry. But strangely, doesn’t see it amiss that the support jumped from $6B in 2014 to $12B in 2015, a two-fold increase. Yet in spite of that support production tumbled from 213,000 tonnes in 2015 to 183,000 in 2016 and 138,000 tonnes in 2017. In that period too, workers wages stagnated apart from 7,000 workers being made jobless. But, at the same time, sums relating to key managerial personnel leapt up astronomically.
While the MP says “…the country could not continue to flog a dead horse”, it seems to us he fails to see several contributions sugar made and makes. We need not repeat the massive contribution to the State arising from the Sugar Levy which totalled billions of dollars. Or the substantial transfer of skills to the economy from the GuySuCo Training Centre, deemed the best technical school in the Caribbean and which, we hear, will close its doors. Certainly, the MP would, for instance, recall voting in favour of $1B in supplementary allocations in 2018 in order for the State to undertake drainage works previously done by the industry. He also doesn’t see, it appears, the connection between the consumption of goods and services by the workers and its role in generating economic activities and tax revenues – a fundamental economic principle. To make the statements being made is, in our view, to be ignorant of the contributions of sugar to the Guyanese people and nation.
Today, while the MP, atop his perch, makes incorrect statements and assertions, tens of thousands of Guyanese are in miserable situations. They exist without an even glancing look from the State. They face life not knowing what tomorrow will bring and what challenges they will encounter. They know not whether they will have adequate meals; or afford to send their children to school; or to pay their bills. Today, for this group of Guyanese the unknowns of a jobless life is a bitter pill they need not had swallowed. Indeed, this shouldn’t have been the path they are on but is the reality they now confront.
