Dear Editor,
The Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) was indeed surprised and, also, not acquainted with some of the assertions and revelations made by Mr Abel Seetaram in his letter titled `Given the state of GuySuCo, benefits to estate managers must be trimmed’ that appeared in the October 14, 2016 Stabroek News.
At the outset, we must express our strong disagreement with Mr Seetaram’s view that the industry is no longer viable.
We wish to draw to the author’s attention that the sugar industry’s viability and future is secured by pursuing certain diversification which has been publicly distilled on several occasions. These endeavours, we must remind, were reflected in the report of the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the sugar industry.
While, indeed, the European Union (EU) price cut posed challenges to the industry it cannot be ignored that the industry’s production has fallen precipitously in recent years. For 2016, sugar production is expected to reach about 194,000 tonnes, according to GuySuCo. It is a dramatic fall from the target of 242,000 tonnes declared in the 2016 Budget.
It is agreed that the industry’s productive capacity is far in excess of the Budget target but the industry continues to be hamstrung by various agronomic maladies. Careful attention to this important aspect of the industry’s operations is required most urgently.
The author also makes reference to the denial of “several packages”. This is indeed a startling revelation and he may want to share with the Union and/or the public the details of these “packages”? From the GAWU’s point-of-view we have always sought to ensure that sugar workers and all workers the union represents get the maximum possible benefits and that their rights and conditions are safeguarded and promoted. We have never and will never engage in action/s which are inimical to such positions and we find Mr Seetaram’s assertions most disturbing and untrue.
We are pleased, however, to note the author’s support for workers to enjoy improved pay and benefits.
It is noted that he seeks to juxtapose the denial of such improvements in 2015 and 2016 to profitability. This raises the question if “profitability” is the only criterion used in determining improvements for workers’ wages in the state sectors? Moreover, isn’t it discriminatory for sugar workers to be the only group of state employees to not benefit from any improvements especially in view of the rising cost-of-living?
It may also be interesting for the author to know that many sugar industries in the world to our knowledge, in one way or another, receive some form of state-support in these times.
Such support takes account of the very important economic and social contributions the industry makes to the country. Furthermore, Mr Seetaram may also find it of interest to learn that the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) in assessing a request for financial assistance to aid the industry’s mechanization, said:- “…it is economically viable for GOGY to continue subsidising and protecting the cultivation and harvesting of sugar cane and processing of sugar for export and local consumption.”
The CDB further said:- “Projects and programmes that enhance sugar cane cultivation and sugar manufacturing have the potential to earn foreign exchange, but may not be always financially profitable. Consequently, given the importance of foreign exchange to the economy, such operations may, at times, need government’s protection and/or support in meeting operating and capital costs”.
Apart from the almost 17,000 direct employees, the sugar company also facilitates close to 2,000 small to large cane farmers. It is estimated that tens of thousands of other Guyanese are indirectly employed due to the sugar industry.
Additionally, one cannot ignore the services the industry provides to various communities and employees of the sugar estates.
Given the direct and indirect employment of the sugar industry, the economic importance of GuySuCo cannot be understated. Following the rebasing of the GDP in 2006, the industry’s yearly contribution is about 5 per cent of national GDP and about 19 per cent of agricultural GDP. Importantly, too, it is still among the largest sources of foreign exchange, and it’s probably the largest net foreign exchange earner.
Should the industry be minimized or be gotten rid of altogether, as is being promoted in some quarters, there will be severe repercussions for all Guyanese.
For instance, in the areas of its operation, it is the single most important economic activity and source of employment. The industry also supports the rice, cash-crop farming and other agriculture sub-sectors in several areas, and helps to manage the anti-flood control systems with its vast network of drainage and irrigation.
If the multiplier effect is considered, the economic impact is extended directly and indirectly to commercial banks, insurers, suppliers and service providers.
Clearly, the letter appearing in Abel Seetaram’s name consists of rather selective information and, unfortunately, excludes important data that could have provided a far better understanding of the industry at this time.
Yours faithfully,
Seepaul Narine
General Secretary
Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union
