Dear Editor,
There is a scenario which continues to disappoint. Those persons who have some understanding of the sugar industry must wonder by now when the promises of development will be realised, and at what cost.
The Guyana Sugar Corporation developed a ten year Strategic Plan for the period 1998 – 2008. It is not clear whether that Plan was ever laid in Parliament.
Briefly, the Strategic Plan conceived the construction of a new 350 tonnes cane per hour factory at Skeldon; expanded cane cultivation; a significant percentage of which was to be contributed by farmers, in order to adequately feed the new Factory. Other initiatives included the following:
Co-generation of electricity for sale to the national grid
Establishment of a Distillery – to take account of the increased molasses production from the new Factory; and
Construction of a Refinery to produce refined sugar.
This Year 2008 it would appear to be a good time for the relevant Parliamentary Committees to require a comprehensive briefing, on site, of the state of readiness of this critical economic facility.
Projected earlier to be operational in 2007, the last estimate is now the first crop in 2008.
Incidentally a related analysis completed previously had projected that Skeldon would require over 1400 extra workers by 2005. Someone should be auditing this development as it may have some bearing on the cost of production.
On the question of Skeldon related employment, it was interesting to hear the announcement made at the 50th Anniversary of the Port Mourant Apprentice Training Centre early in 2007, that consideration was only then being given to reconstructing the Centre’s curricula in order to equip students with the technical skills relevant to the maintenance of the new Skeldon Factory. Only now! Again someone should check how far the implementation of this belated policy has progressed.
In the meantime, it is interesting to note that up to very recently no managerial or skilled technical Guyanese has been assigned to the operations with the new Skeldon Factory.
Again someone should enquire into Guysuco’s strategy for human resource development in respect of the Skeldon expansion, in the first instance and, at the same time, Guysuco in general.
The situation regarding the expansion of the cane cultivation makes equally disconcerting reading. Some weeks ago Guysuco’s Chief Executive was heard on television to explain the existing shortage of cane supply for the new factory. Incredibly he rationalized that rainfall over the period 2005 – 2007 hampered Guysuco’s own field expansion activities. 2005 is understandable given the flood. But were there flood conditions at Skeldon?
More disturbing perhaps was the admission that the farmers in the Corentyne (Skeldon) Area had not progressed with the projected expansion – which had to be organised for mechanical harvesting.
Guysuco appears to have their collective heads in the sand (or mud) since a number of things need to be addressed to facilitate the significant cane farming development so much talked up.
For one, there is the matter of the transportation facility by which farmers in the Moleson Creek area for example, can transport their cane to the factory. Two, there is the question of the technical capacity of new farmers to develop the land for purposes of mechanical harvesting.
Of course there is the general training to be provided through a technical assistance programme to be conducted by Guysuco Management so that farmers are properly oriented to the agronomic practices that will generate acceptable levels of productivity.
Perhaps more important than the foregoing is the issue of the price to be paid for cane supplied by farmers, which must be resolved in advance.
The existing price formula cannot be changed by a mere gentleman’s agreement, so to speak. The current formula is established by statute and presumably will have to be changed appropriately by statute. All parties concerned therefore need to refer to the National Cane Farming Committee Act. They will most likely observe the necessity to resuscitate the functioning of the National Cane Farming Committee. They will also appreciate that it is a legal requirement that relations between farmer and manufacturer be confirmed by a contract as prescribed by the NCFC Act.
That some prospective farmers might need financial assistance is fairly predictable.
Less predictable is the accessibility to the type of funding needed to facilitate the development of agricultural projects of this size.
All this raises questions about the certainty of cane cultivation expansion at Skeldon.
Hopefully, it raises questions to which answers can be pursued by the relevant Parliamentary Committee, so that the latter can in turn advise the public from a comprehensively informed position.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
