‘Downsizing’ not the right option for sugar

May 08, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Our Union – the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) – has taken note of the editorial of May 03, 2017 titled “Downsizing will save GuySuCo”. Our Union acknowledges that the media plays an important role in society and while being respectful of Freedom of the Press we also believe that it is incumbent upon us to offer some clarity bearing in mind that the editorial is reflective of the newspaper’s position.
While the paper, has quoted President David Granger who said ”we want to save the sugar workers’ jobs”. The fact is that as a result of the Administration’s policy to sugar, 9,000 workers stand to be affected and thousands more will also be caught up by the short-sighted plans being advocated.
The editorial also charged that the sugar industry cannot be saved unless some estates are closed or sold out. We, however, share a differing view. Our long association with sugar has taught us that the industry can overcome its difficulties; it has demonstrated this time and again. In the past, sugar faced worse challenges and rebounded and we hold such feats are attainable once more.
Moreover, the industry, for whatever reason, continues to be seen only as a raw bulk sugar producer, therefore, causing incorrect conclusions to be drawn. The fact is the industry needs to move to become a sugar cane industry harnessing the full potential of the versatile plant. We envisage the industry moving into the production of white refined sugar, direct consumption brown sugar, possibly ethanol, alcohol, and electricity. Such an expanded diversification will serve to engender the industry’s viability and as the editorial puts it ”…make it more competitive, financially independent and sustainable, and will create more good-paying jobs as well as contribute to economic prosperity of the country.”
We hold that that the industry’s cutting down as envisaged by the Administration will bring to bear greater hardship and difficulties for the peoples and communities connected to sugar. The proof is in the pudding. We see at Wales once vibrant and bustling communities have, seemingly, had their lives sucked out. Gloom is now the order of the day. For us it is disheartening that given the known consequences, we see plans advocated which will certainly exacerbate rather than alleviate the problems.
The editorial calls to attention the level of support given to the industry by the current and past Government. We hasten to point out that between the two (2) Governments, some $48B was provided to GuySuCo. Moreover, isn’t it perplexing that the APNU/AFC Government provided significant sums to the industry yet in 2016 production fell to its lowest since 1990. Something is clearly wrong in the industry’s leadership. On the industry’s indebtedness, we urge that a breakdown be sought; it will be revealing and an enlightening expose.
The industry’s financial predicament is largely due to the poor production levels being recorded. For an industry in which a significant proportion of costs are fixed, lower production levels will push up the cost-of-production. This is elementary accounting and seems to be lost in the discussions. Thus higher production lends to lower costs. Also, for an industry which is now nearly four (4) centuries old and one which the science of cane cultivation is well-established, the production levels being recorded ought to be raising eyebrows.
We ask how it is the closure and sell-out of estates are right for the country and the sugar workers, especially when there is seemingly no real plan to address the large unemployment that would emerge. Even the IMF recently warned the Administration to take into account such factors in addressing sugar’s future. The talk about non-sugar diversification remains just that – mere talk. So far, Wales which should have been the launching pad for this initiative remains a blank canvas and the people there are confronted by misery and hardship.
While the editorial has chosen to label the Skeldon investment as “doomed”. We ask how is it that investors are lining up to take over this “doomed” estate. Doesn’t it defy business logic? Recently, we read in a letter appearing in the Kaieteur News about the windfall that awaits the investors in Skeldon. Certainly, this windfall should be GuySuCo’s and Guyana’s and we strongly feel that it should be so.
We also wish to advise that contrary to what the editorial says sugar is still being produced in Jamaica and Barbados. Only recently, a conference was held in Jamaica to devise ways to secure that country’s industry along the lines our Union has suggested for GuySuCo. If the Jamaicans are doing right, why is there the view that we are wrong?
While the editorial argues that GuySuCo is bleeding the treasury, we hasten to ask what about those several years when the treasury bled GuySuCo through the sugar levy for instance. Moreover, the miniaturization, if pursued, will cause the treasury to fork out large sums, perhaps larger, to deal with the social consequences that would emerge. We remain steadfast in our view that ‘downsizing’ is not the right option for sugar. It is an option that will serve to worsen the country’s social conditions, increase poverty and harm Guyana for years to come.
Seepaul Narine
GAWU

---

---