Of GuySuCo and Sceptics – a Committee

Jul 22, 2014 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
I made allowances for the fact that the particular reporter was hardly as familiar as the officials on either side of the discussion about GuySuCo’s prospects. Despite the rather tentative review of the exchange between the industry’s officials and representatives of the Economic Services Committee of Guyana’s Parliament, those of us who not only claim to, but will assert that they do, know more, could easily detect from the press columns, that all involved parties were demonstrably under-informed about the past, present and, logically, the future of sugar.
One would not help but feel embarrassed for the subject Minister, who otherwise is profusely glib. But such presence was superfluous, as it could add no value to, what could better be described as a ‘present’ (give-away), and hardly a ‘presentation’, which when examined was found to be but an imaginatively sweet concoction with miniscule sugar content.
The confusion was understandable, given that a document, wantonly described as a ‘Strategic Plan 2013-2017’, originated from the position of Executive Chairman, peddled by a Minister of Agriculture.
It seems reasonable not only to enquire why the fait accompli of 2013’s meagreness should be worthy of reference, except for inflating by comparison the production of 2014’s ‘first crop’, about which incidentally, the Minister misled the President to proclaim a productive prospect for GuySuCo.
In the current ‘presentation’ not only were ESC members befuddled by a different set of members (nothing else) but they would have had to reconcile themselves to the substantive apparition of a Chief Executive Officer vice (in place of) an Executive Chairman. Their legitimate confusion must have been further compounded when the much publicised resignee CEO Paul Bhim – was introduced as the CFO (Chief Finance Officer). But then these ‘stakeholders’ were soon to discover that the ‘stakes’ of 2013-2017 were essentially changed – consistent with the ‘strategy’ to fool others as the ‘presenters’ obviously fooled themselves, with a plan which had fallen between  two Boards (or possibly stools), who in any case would not have known better.
My own guessing was whether the enquirers were any more informed about (for example) ‘mechanised harvesting’ (or indeed of the manual version); or have had any inkling that the EU’s last tranche of compensation for the sugar industry was publicly declared as being tied to targets of mechanised cultivations – not necessarily restricted to Skeldon Estate – a location which distracts focus, certainly from the point of view of cane farmers in the Upper Corentyne, and of course those across the whole of Berbice and Demerara.
So it is barely a question of varying numbers. It is more critically an issue of what are the right numbers, related, for example to:
i) relevantly qualified staff, specialist competencies, effective management and leadership. [There is one General Manager for Skeldon and Albion/PM Estate]
ii) organisational relationships, communication structures and procedures for motivating the achievement of targets;
iii) a) related plans for training and development for succession; [Imagine in the current context optimistically advertising for a Chief Industrial Relations Officer – From WHERE?]
b) updating the apprentice training to match the required technology
iv) the incentives (social and moral), core values, objective performance appraisal systems that will re-establish GuySuCo as an employer of choice [Note the migration statistics in Region 6].
None of the three sides of the Economic Services Committee would claim to be better informed than the other, of any of the above management principles and practices. In fact they enjoy the same status as GuySuCo’s presenters.
The recommended ‘strategy’ therefore is for the parties to ‘plan’ a schedule of visits to every location – not just to see and hear, but importantly to be advised by relevant external specialists on the veracity of what they see and hear. Indeed organise a series of symposia across estates, and Head Office Departments, inclusive of worker representatives.
For the time being there is one last myth to be explored, if not exploded – that of cost of production. There must be a properly audited analysis of the related compensation packages – negotiated, granted and/or imposed, estate by estate – over the last thirteen (13) years, in order to establish trends that would indicate cost increases over the projected plan periods; then relate the ‘numbers’ to past and projected sugar sales. The least our stakeholders would arrive at is an undiluted consensus as to whether sugar is, or will be worth it!
E.B. John

---

---