The ‘white paper on sugar’, as presented by Agriculture Minister Noel Holder, is a non-paper. It is another cruel and shameless attempt to change the narrative. Like the previous desperate attempts, this white paper is just as futile; the ugly narrative cannot be changed. Far from changing the narrative, the white non-paper confirms that, at the very least, APNU+AFC is maliciously downsizing SUGAR as a prelude for its CLOSURE. This is the narrative they desperately want to change, but the Guyanese people are not buying APNU+AFC’s misinformation and misdirection.
The white paper, a doomsday presentation, provides neither assurances nor plans on how three sugar estates — Albion, Blairmont and Uitvlugt — will stay open. In fact, reading between the lines, the definite closure of three more sugar estates in 2017, added to Wales which was closed in 2016, represent the beginning of a plan to close sugar.
David Granger, Nagamootoo, Ramjattan, Holder, Trotman, Charandass, Thomas and the whole APNU+AFC machinery, together with the hatchet team of GUYSUCO senior management and Board, must carry this shame with them forever. The scandal, fiasco and shame of SUGAR downsizing; the subsequent closure and the loss of more than 15,000 jobs; and the threat of poverty for between 50,000 and 100,000 people, will be tattooed on their foreheads forever.
More than half of the paper is filled with interesting but irrelevant historical information, with a hefty dose of inaccuracies. Production data, even if historical, is meaningful only if it is accurate.
For example: between 1976, when SUGAR was nationalised, and 1992, production averaged about 245,000 tons annually, and not 328,000 tons. This average production under the nationalised industry was significantly below the average sugar production between 1946 and 1976, when the industry was operated by Bookers. GUYSUCO’s records, Bank of Guyana’s Annual Statistics, Bureau of Statistics and National Budget data will confirm my statistics.
In fact, production in the 1980s fell to an average of about 200,000 tons; and, by 1991, had fallen closer to 100,000 tons. Production rose to an average above 250,000 tons in the 1990s, and even surpassed 300,000 tons on several instances in the 1990s, before encountering difficulties beginning in 2010. These difficulties followed the EU’s arbitrary 37% reduction of the price for sugar, the impact of climate change, and the need for accelerated mechanization — all difficult but solvable issues, but each of them but unaddressed in the paper.
Interestingly, the white paper omitted relevant information. SUGAR provided to Central Government almost G$100B in monetary worth at today’s value through the Sugar Levy imposed between 1976 and 1996. This omitted information is relevant, as it places present-day cash inputs from Central Government in a different perspective: Central Government is repaying, not subsidizing, SUGAR.
In addition, the white paper ignored the G$30B in EU Budgetary Support as compensation for the arbitrary reduction of sugar prices. This, too, is relevant information for relevant assessment of what is going on in SUGAR. Significantly, diversification of GUYSUCO’s operation was an important part of the 1980s’ SUGAR Story. This was ignored in the white paper. The omitted information does not support a narrative that APNU+AFC wants to disseminate to people.
The so-called white paper ignored the recommendation of APNU+AFC’s own CoI, and further ignored the recommendation of the IMF. While it makes reference to some aspects of the CoI Report, it conveniently ignored the more relevant information, and it simply pretended that the IMF had nothing to say about SUGAR.
The historical perspective, with its hefty portion of inaccuracies and its listing of problems, represent more than 75% of the paper. The section dealing with the future of SUGAR is skimpier than the bikinis that are just lines on almost naked women, leaving little for the imagination. In fact, there is little for us to imagine or speculate on, whether it is the skimpy bikinis or the white paper on sugar.
It is clear that SUGAR is being downsized, to begin with; and three estates will continue, but without plans in regard to making them more efficient and profitable, and ready for diversification; thus these will also be thrown aside.
Diversification has always been a much-touted plan for GUYSUCO. The white paper ignored any discussion of the disastrous 1980s’ diversification schemes. Yet, the elephant in the room is APNU+AFC’s much touted plans, adverted in various public engagements, to resuscitate some of these same failed diversification plans. Are these still being considered?
The PPP’s approach on diversification in the 1990s to 2015 was diversification of sugar-based products, as opposed to the PNC/APNU+AFC’s plans, which diversify into non-sugar areas. For example, the PPP sought to add value by reducing bulk sugar production while increasing packaged sugar – Demerara Gold and other branded packaged sugar products and bottled molasses. The white paper completely ignores the Blairmont and Enmore sugar and molasses packaging plants. These are profitable value-added sugar products for CARICOM and other markets around the world. Is it an oversight or deliberate because it does not fit the narrative for closing SUGAR?
The PPP’s diversification plan included production of ethanol to meet, first, the demand of the local market, as legislation was being prepared to mandate ethanol-based gasoline for all vehicles, with at least 10% ethanol as a requirement at all gas-stations. A prototype ethanol plant was established at Albion and showed that ethanol production was feasible and could add value to sugar.
Name and address withheld
