Dear Editor,
I make reference to the article captioned ‘Unsettled weather not a factor in sugar decline’ in your January 6 edition, and note with disbelief the GuySuCo Commission of Inquiry in its report stating that “unsettled weather has not been a factor in the ‘precipitate’ decline in cane yields and sugar output, rather it has been a case of a shortage of cash and poor agricultural practices”. I find it most disappointing that this could have been the finding of two experienced sugar cane agriculturists who sat as members of the said commission.
Editor, it’s a known fact that the sugar industry over many years has been affected by the vagaries of the weather. The worst performance of the sugar industry was in 1990 when 129,920 tonnes of sugar was produced. The main factor for such low production was extremely heavy rainfall in the second crop. Each estate at that time had to make video recordings of the effect the rainfall had had on sugar production so that the then Marketing Director could make a case of force majeure and convince the European Community not to interfere with the then sugar quota in the preferential quota agreement.
It is a known fact that both dry and wet weather have an almost equal impact on cane yield and cane quality. Under wet conditions, GuySuCo, over the years, has continuously lamented its inability to complete its mechanical tillage and replanting programme. Under dry conditions, the company has complained about the acute shortage of water to effectively complete its irrigation programme, as happened in 2009-10. This caused the subsequent ‘drying off’ of canes, leading to production being only 233,736 tonnes in 2009, and 220,818 tonnes in 2010.
Mr Paul Bhim, the Chief Executive Officer, in a report on NCN on December 17, 2012 said “GuySuCo is unlikely to meet its 2012 production target as bad weather, low yield and unstable workforce continue to be the contributing factors.” He further stated, “The tremendous decrease in production is a result of the changes in weather pattern, and the recent changes in the weather pattern have impacted negatively on the industry”. Editor, this is a comment from a former CEO on the reason why the company failed to achieve its target in 2012. The actual production in 2012 was 218,060 tonnes, a deficit of almost 32,000 on the year’s target.
On October 29, 2012, Mr Tony Veira, in a letter to the press had this to say on the effect of weather on sugar production: “We have had one of the driest 2nd half of the year periods in recent history with virtually no rainfall since July. A few heavy showers, which are the norm in the country… will again expose the tenuous situation of the sugar industry.” Editor, this comment on the effect of rainfall on sugar production comes from an experienced sugar estate manager, and one who currently sits on the GuySuCo Board.
There is absolutely no doubt that the weather pattern in Guyana is responsible for the performance of the sugar industry, and for anyone to assert that “unsettled weather” is not a factor for the decline of sugar production over the years is being extremely economical with the truth. I cannot rule out a shortage of cash being a factor for sugar production decline.
The report cited a range of “unsound agricultural practices for the reduced performance and output. Among these were superficial tillage, planting outside of the recommended planting windows and the late timing of inputs”; and “the undesirable practice of bringing forward canes to meet production targets was also prevalent over the past 5 years.” Planting “outside of the recommended planting windows” was influenced primarily by weather. “Superficial tillage” ‒ a term unheard of agronomically speaking, but accepted in the current circumstance ‒ is not weather or cash related, but primarily a company decision to abolish the use of a certain type of machine that normally gave “non-superficial tillage,” ie, tillage with the correct depth and tilth. In the past 5 years, all chief executives, in the circumstances, will be considered culprits in the “undesirable practice of bringing forward canes to meet production targets”. Why is the report silent on another “undesirable practice,” namely, that of carrying forward canes over the same 5 years?
Editor, I could only conclude that given the report’s “gross exaggeration” of sugar workers’ wage levels (on which I commented previously), and its failure to concede the role of the weather in meeting production targets, its credibility is questionable.
Yours faithfully,
Rajendra Parmanand