Continuing from last week, on page 4 of the document, the first paragraph under the heading “future of the sugar industry” stated that:
“The Government of Guyana is cognizant of the invaluable contribution of the sugar industry over the years. It will not allow GUYSUCO to die from preventable causes. The Government, however, cannot let GUYSUCO continue to utilize a business model that is based on waste, inefficiency and hopelessness, ultimately leading to its undoing. Neither option is a formula for improving the income and wealth of sugar workers while seeking to provide the good life for current and future generations.”
In an attempt to examine and critically evaluate the abovementioned statement in a scholarly manner, I will do so by thoroughly focusing on, and interpreting, each of its parts. A university professor might ask these questions: “What is the basis for such a conclusion? Is this assertion provable?” This is just an unsupported assertion, lacking merit and substance. The paper should have expounded, or needed to expound, on this contention with supporting evidence.
In the first sentence, “The Government is cognizant of the invaluable contribution of the sugar industry over the years”, the key words here are ‘cognizant’ and ‘invaluable contribution’. If a government is aware of something that is invaluable, why would that same government dismantle and destroy such an instrument? If we are destroying this invaluable system, what are we replacing it with? If a man has a gem that he knows is of priceless value, the world’s richest billionaire could offer him ¾ of his wealth, that man would never sell such a gem. This is basic logic. By downscaling the industry, there will be no certainty in transforming the livelihoods of the thousands of persons anticipated to be affected into predictable stable financial family units. It is stated that the sugar workers would be given access to land for other agricultural purposes, but this has to be carefully thought out, and form part of a wider transformative and economic development plan, for the reasons stated hereunder.
The process to convert cane lands into alternative agricultural lands would attract a financial cost which sugar workers and farmers would certainly not be able to bear. Consideration must be given to what other crops will be planted. There is excessive production of the common provisions and cash crops, and lack of export market for these produce is another concern. In addition, without value-added mechanisms in place, excessive production would ultimately lead to wastage and depressed pricing.
Further, the agriculture sector contributes on average 18 – 19 percent to GDP, with sugar alone accounting for 3.5 percent on average. In 2016, real GDP growth was recorded at 3.5 percent, while nominal GDP was close to 10 percent. It can therefore be inferred that, should sugar be taken away or downsized, the economy would experience an overall reduction in GDP and a likely negative economic growth. Such an outcome has the potential to develop into a depression.
The paper went on to cite the recommendations put forward by the CoI, albeit in a very brief manner, suggesting a large part of all the recommendations were not emphasised and were thus ignored in the paper. In this regard, it stated that, “the COI recommended that the Corporation should be privatized within three years. The Commission recommended, also, that a serious evaluation of all diversification options be conducted to avoid total reliance on sugar for GUYSUCO’s revenues. The COI called for an evaluation of the options.”
Having referenced that, the paper, and effectively the Government of Guyana (GoG) did not conduct any such evaluation suggested above, from the recommendations of the CoI. A thorough evaluation of all the options, including most importantly a social impact study and an economic impact study, ought to have been conducted and addressed within the state paper on this subject matter. There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that these studies were done.
Moreover, in order for a comprehensive, thorough and effective social and economic study to be carried, wide consultations with the sugar workers and the people in the sugar producing communities ought to have been done. To my surprise, the Government and the Speaker of the National Assembly boldly announced such a consultation is not necessary. This is utterly the most nonsensical statement I have ever heard. Is there a new, contemporary way I am unaware of to conduct a social impact study without proper research and consultations with those who are going to be affected on an issue?
Hence, with all these limitations presented in this column, in summary, underpinning a state white paper, the essence — or I should say the heart — of the paper should have been an economic and social impact study, which sadly was not done; and a comprehensive and thorough cost benefit analysis evaluation of all the options and recommendations arising from the findings of the CoI need to be conducted. Clearly none of these was done as well. It is clear the GoG had their own preconceived plan on this matter, which is economically & socially destructive for the economy and the nation at large. For these reasons, I reiterate that the paper is akin to a high school student’s essay – characterised in the highest degree possible as an unscholarly piece of work coming from the highest offices in the country’s bureaucratic and hierarchical political structure.
