Dear Editor,
It is obvious that sugar as a traditional pillar of the Guyana economy is now at its cross roads. Hopefully not the end of the road. I write because of the heated conversation now taking place regarding the past, present and future of this historical commodity which featured prominently in our social history, our economic survival, even our political development.
At a recent meeting held between the Management of GuySuCo and the three unions representing the employees, NAACIE, GLU and GAWU, made my view that Guyana, because of politics and international control, is once again heading down a very dark financial path. I am totally aware that sugar would have been the first significant economic venture on a massive scale to bring foreign capital to Guyana’s economy centuries ago. Naturally, Guyana’s sugar also sustained positive economic development in other countries including Britain which continued to be great because of this colonial crop.
I know that small producers worldwide were forced to get rid of exchanging raw sugar for hard currency for various reasons, but the decision by the European Union in 2007 to Arbitrarily revise the Cotonou Agreement and reduce export of sugar from the ACP Sugar Producing Countries, while also reducing the price they pay for the commodity would have caused a great burden on countries that could not get rid of the commodity for other hard currency earners. Guyana included.
My conviction is presently with the announcement made by the authorities about preparing to “live without sugar” which has placed the Managers of the Sugar Corporations in a different mode to the point of destructive behaviour. My own view is that the ailing industry is being positioned into a place whereby we will not be able to purchase machinery, not only for sugar, but for other employment and whereas we once again restrict basic goods and services as in the unholy late seventies, early eighty’s. The cold war and its repercussions for our own policies and economic stagnation are long over.
The September 29, 2016 meeting between the sugar corporation and the three unions in my view portrayed fear and anxiety for the administration by persons whose lives depended on sugar production and sale.
The message to the workers (again my view) should be that we all are in this together and we all have to live or die together. We do not have enough money, and where will we get the money from, should encourage reasonable discussions. It will be wrong for me not to suggest a way out, especially knowing that this situation is a result of the decisions by the European Union affecting the Cotonou Agreement and coupled with the administration actions to deal with it.
Where we are looking for an alternative for the receipt of foreign currency through labour, we should give the sugar corporation assistance, through Government, for a chance to work. The billions that the 18-month-old APNU/AFC Government has had to inject into the industry are indeed a significant sum from tax payers. But I, as a representative Unionist, am directly impacted, and as a tax payer and patriotic citizen, call for added assistance from the Government for many reasons. This includes the fact that a sugar levy once bailed us all out. And any sudden immediate demise of the sugar industry will cause a national economic chaos that will engulf us all. Those funds could be found if much more scientific scrutiny would be paid to the bleeding of revenues from our gold through smuggling, through bauxite earnings and through foreign employers who alone set prices claiming international market realities.
GuySuCo’s workers might be underpaid and underperforming because of low morale born of the Government’s dire predictions and actions. We will certainly be spending much more to bring in less foreign exchange if this trend is not stopped urgently.
Incidentally, has the Foreign Service thrust at economic diplomacy started? Are diplomats marketing and selling our rice, sugar and timber aggressively as yet?
Make the only decision necessary Mr President, find finance to keep a reformed industry alive and refreshed. I see no ready agricultural alternatives, except in urgent talks. Besides finance, programmes must be launched to create ‘new day farmers’ provided with land technical assistance and technology.
Meanwhile, I look forward to see a re-oriented GuySuCo sending committed managers into the fields and factories among the workers. The Unions stand ready to play their part. It is certainly decision time.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Joseph
General Secretary
NAACIE
