The Issue with GUYSUCO : Production and Productivity

Sep 29, 2017 Letters

Dear Editor,
GUYSUCO- the state owned sugar producing enterprise remains to date the subject of production retrogression. The entity has up to 2015 incurred a debt of G$82B with government plunging subsidies to the sum of approximately G$32B within just two years as futile means of financial relief from the treasury.
According to the Bank of Guyana’s Annual Report 2016 production in 2016 fell by approximately18.7% whereas a corresponding decline in export earnings was realized at 15% less. GUYSUCO has developed into a national cyst with problems that plague the production system being compounded by social and political interventions.
GUYSUCO a once distinct contributor to the revenues of the economy now finds itself behind and competing with the likes of mining, the rice industry, forestry and other agricultural commodities. Putting aside all the political and social mayhem that hamper the system– GUYSUCO has a major issue with production and productivity that is somewhat chronic to the eyes of management. With reference to a declining TCTS ratio –GUYSUCO was able to achieve 264,983 tonnes of sugar from an annual average of 2,966,591 tonnes of cane in the years 1996 to 2005. In the following years of 2006-2015 a pattern of diminishing output was realized where 2,548,294 tonnes of cane produced just 208,718 tonnes of sugar.
Where 11.2 tonnes of cane were initially needed to produce one tonne of sugar now shifted to12.30 tonnes of cane being needed. This waning in TCTS ratio corresponds to a 14% decline in cane output and a 21% decline in sugar output. TCTS is immensely important in breathing back life into the enterprise – the cane cutters know this, the factory workers know this.
If you ask the old foremen they would tell you that years ago the TCTS was bordered on an extremely well 7 tonnes cane to 1 tonne sugar. So what caused this change? Changes in TCTS – it is postulated have emerged as a result of changes in agronomic practices and changes in production parameters. But who has the authority to manipulate crucial parameters such as planting densities and fertilizer regimes?
Parameters that have seen the industry through decades of reasonably well performance – cut and made insignificant by individuals that drag the industry to its demise. You do not make production parameters negligible under any circumstance. Sugar has played in the political ball field for a very long time, however it is an agricultural commodity and it will not produce under ignominious politics.
The industry is in crisis and there are a lot of issues and relentless proposals for change, however maybe rehabilitation may be a better answer. I don’t see how disguising mismanagement and embracing cessation of an overwhelming industry to the disadvantage of thousands of dependents can be the right answer.
Nafeeza Khan

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News