Dear Editor,
Sugar production in Guyana is generally considered an unprofitable line of business at this point in time, particularly when it is common knowledge that the price for sugar is less than half of what it costs to produce a unit of the item. The bulk of the production cost is associated with the growing and delivery of sugarcane to the factories. Studies about the high agricultural costs have narrowed the problems down to low labour productivity, low crop yields and high material input usage and cost.
However, not every point along the sugar value-chain, or every source of sugarcane can be considered inefficient and unprofitable. Approximately 12% of the sugar produced locally comes from private farmers who operate on a commercial scale. Serious commercial sugarcane farmers are rational profit-seekers, and they continually make decisions and adjust their practices to maximize profits and the longevity of their enterprises.
I have had the opportunity over several years to visit private, commercial level sugarcane farms, and to chat with the farmers and the persons who work for them. During that time, a few things struck me as being remarkably different from what obtained on GuySuCo’s estates. Apart from usually cleaner and better stands of cane, what stood out was the general attitude of their workers. These people seemed almost docile, being willing and committed to doing their jobs. It led me to wonder what could possibly be the underlying reasons for such a difference in attitude. It is also reminiscent of what happens when people emigrate – they each become a different person immediately. So there have to be reasons why the negativity is allowed to prevail under normal circumstances.
There are no ‘specialists’ in these farming operations; all the workers are involved in performing whatever needs to be done during the crop’s lifecycle. The farmer spends his time in the fields, ensuring that problems are anticipated and dealt with quickly; morale is maintained at a high level and his employees are motivated to work. Likewise, the farmer demands and obtains value for the investments he makes.
But it must be noted that many of the farm workers are/were GuySuCo workers. They work on the farms much later, and give far better quality of work than they normally would when working for the estates. One farmer even boasted that he now has a former estates’ Champion Worker and union representatives in his employ, and they do the work given them.
On one occasion, I asked some of the workers why they behaved so differently when they were in the employ of farmers. One worker remarked, “I don’t want to cut down bush to search for canes. So, I does clean it properly.” The same worker when on the estate would go to lengths so as to justify why he should not weed and clean fields as part of his normal duties.
It is evident that there is unrestricted movement of workers between the estate operations and those of the farmers. Farmers maintain a somewhat permanent core of workers, boosted by casual workers taken on as the need arises. This is heartening, as in some ways, this assuages the fears of worker displacement occurring should any attempt at restructuring the sugar industry be accepted. It is also a good indication that persons working for the estates are beginning to accept that the sugarcane farmer is not an enemy, but rather a necessary partner for the industry.
The positive attitude of the workers on the private sugarcane farms essentially summarizes the critical difference between what happens on the estate and in the farmers’ fields. It is worthwhile noting that there is a remarkable level of discipline and commitment among the farmers’ workers, something that estate management struggles to coerce out of its employees. One has to wonder if the absence of organized, structured labour relations has anything to do with this kind of commitment, and the absence of chaos. At the same time, there is no clear evidence that any form of labour exploitation is taking place.
Private sugarcane farmers display a commendable level of ingenuity, initiative, innovativeness and risk-taking, all of which are essential for success in business. The absence of rigid command structures and policies allows farmers to explore new, more efficient and effective ways of growing sugarcane, reaching the mill on time, and maximizing profits. When things are not going as they should, the private farmer does not have to sit around and wait for permission to think ‘outside the box’, he has to do so in order to survive.
Many qualified agriculturalists will scoff at the rudimentary approaches taken by farmers in producing sugarcane: their high reliance on natural opportunities arising from weather changes; their studied approach to working with a lunar cycle or their blunt refusal to use certain agro-chemicals such as cane ripeners, and even conventional fertilizers. However, these farmers are not novices, but in fact are second and third generation sugarcane farmers. They have learnt from their parents, and probably more so, from their own mistakes.
The bottom line to all of this is that sugarcane farmers have been able to achieve excellent results in the fields, and have done so in a cost-efficient manner. Rational thinkers that they are, had things been all doom and gloom, they would not have stayed in business.
Even though sugarcane farmers are obtaining good results, there are points on which improvements can be made. For example, there needs to be greater coordination with the estates to make the best use of limited, shared resources such as land, water, infrastructure, equipment and machines. Another area that can be improved upon is the quality of canes reaching the factories, which should really be the determinant for payment. Focus on cane quality also forces the estate factories to improve on timeliness and thoroughness of processing, as any sugar losses incurred after delivery of the canes will be due entirely to the estates and factories’ overall inefficiency.
I make these points to indicate that there is a good future for sugar if localised privatisation is gradually pursued. So when the GuySuCo CoI suggests ‘privatisation’ it should not be seen as the end, but rather as a chance for renewal of the industry.
Yours faithfully,
Khemraj Tulsie
