Home Letters A counterargument to PNCR/APNU’s fertiliser manufacturing proposal
Dear Editor,
The recent press statement by the PNCR/APNU pledges to fast-track fertiliser manufacturing from Guyana’s gas resources if they return to office. While this proposal sounds appealing on the surface, it is based on overly simplistic assumptions and misleading claims. It is essential to scrutinise their promises through the lens of past actions and realities they conveniently ignore.
1- PNCR/APNU’s track record: Broken promises and disregard for Agriculture
It is impossible to trust PNCR/APNU’s sudden commitment to farmers and agricultural development, given their track record during their last term in office. In 2015, they campaigned on promises to support farmers, notably pledging to increase paddy prices for rice farmers. Yet, once in power, their attitude toward the rice sector took a sharp turn. When rice farmers faced economic hardship and sought government intervention, the APNU-led government coldly responded, stating that “rice is a private business.” This dismissive attitude not only contradicted their campaign promises but deeply disrespected the very farmers they now claim to champion.
In light of this, how can Guyanese farmers trust that PNCR/APNU’s sudden promises of “free fertilisers” and support for agriculture are genuine? Their failure to support rice farmers in the past is a clear warning that their new promises may simply be political rhetoric aimed at winning votes rather than substantive commitments to improve the lives of farmers.
2. Failure to follow recommendations: The sugar industry debacle
The PNCR/APNU also has a track record of ignoring expert recommendations, particularly in the agriculture sector. The closure of Guyana’s sugar estates is a prime example. Despite recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry to not close the sugar estates due to the devastating impact it would have on workers, their families, and the economy, APNU proceeded with shutting them down. This reckless decision plunged thousands of workers into unemployment and severely affected rural economies. How can a government that so blatantly disregarded the welfare of agricultural workers now claim to prioritise the farming community?
The Commission of Inquiry was clear in its recommendation to keep the estates open and explore alternative ways to make the sugar industry more viable. Instead of heeding these recommendations, APNU closed the estates, betraying the trust of thousands of Guyanese families. Their sudden concern for agriculture is therefore highly questionable, especially when juxtaposed against their past disregard for one of the country’s largest agricultural sectors.
3. The question of gas utilisation studies: Where are the results?
The PNCR/APNU claims to have conducted “several studies” on the utilisation of Guyana’s gas resources for power generation and Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) production. However, they fail to provide any concrete evidence of these studies, their results, or even who conducted them. Where are these studies? Who were the experts involved, and why haven’t these findings been made public? Guyanese have the right to know the outcomes of these supposed studies, yet APNU remains silent on the matter.
Their vague reference to these studies seems to be nothing more than a distraction, designed to give the illusion of competence and foresight. If these studies truly exist, why didn’t APNU act on them when they were in power? After five years of governing, APNU now promises to fast-track initiatives they had years to implement but failed to do so. Are we to believe they’ve only now realised the potential of our gas resources? Or are these promises simply a political ploy, designed to deceive voters into thinking they have a plan? Guyanese deserve transparency and accountability, not vague promises. APNU’s failure to produce any substantive results from these so-called studies raises serious doubts about their competence and commitment.
4. Unrealistic claims about fertiliser production and free distribution
The idea that the PNCR/APNU will produce nitrogen fertiliser domestically and distribute it “free of charge” to farmers across all ten regions is not only unrealistic but also misleading. Fertiliser production is a highly capital-intensive process that requires specialised infrastructure, skilled labour, and consistent access to raw materials. The cost of setting up such facilities, managing production, and ensuring efficient distribution is massive. In fact, global fertiliser markets are competitive, and it is highly unlikely that a fledgling industry in Guyana could produce fertiliser at a lower cost than established producers.
Furthermore, even in countries where fertiliser production is well-established, governments do not distribute it for free. Subsidies, if any, are carefully calculated to avoid burdening the state’s finances. PNCR/APNU’s suggestion that they can offer free fertiliser to all commercial farmers is financially irresponsible and would lead to significant fiscal deficits. Such promises are not grounded in reality and could result in poor management and corruption, as is common with overly centralised, state-controlled industries.
5. Environmental and Economic Implications
While the PNCR/APNU claims that fertiliser production from natural gas is environmentally friendly, the reality is that nitrogen-based fertilisers contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, especially nitrous oxide—a potent climate-change driver. Furthermore, fertilisers can have detrimental effects on soil quality, water sources, and ecosystems if not managed properly. Their rush to establish this industry without a detailed environmental impact assessment is reckless and could cause long-term harm to Guyana’s environment.
Additionally, the suggestion that fertiliser production alone will reduce food prices by 25-30% is overly simplistic. Fertiliser is just one input in the agricultural process. Many other factors—such as labour costs, land management, transportation, and market conditions—also determine the price of food. To focus solely on fertiliser as a solution to high food costs is misleading and distracts from the larger, more complex challenges faced by the agricultural sector.
-Empty Promises and Questionable Intentions
PNCR/APNU’s fertiliser manufacturing proposal is not only unrealistic but disingenuous given their past failures in the agricultural sector. Their dismissal of rice farmers, closure of sugar estates against expert advice, and lack of transparency regarding gas utilisation studies raise serious doubts about their ability and willingness to deliver on their promises.
Instead of offering vague assurances and unrealistic claims, PNCR/APNU should be transparent about their past failures and present a detailed, credible plan for the future. Guyanese deserve honest leadership that provides realistic solutions, not empty promises designed to win political points. Our agriculture and energy sectors need careful planning, environmental responsibility, and economic foresight—not quick fixes or politically motivated rhetoric.
Sincerely,
Tilaknauth Parboo
Corentyne Farmer