Dear Editor,
Like me, most Guyanese, here and abroad, must have been shocked when they opened the newspapers the day before yesterday and read that Wales Estate would be closed at the end of this year. I was equally saddened when I read the comments from residents of this estate’s community who say they will be badly hit.
The Ministry of Agriculture in its statement contended that “it was impossible to make sugar at Wales viable” and that closing the estate would “allow improvements to be carried out on the better performing estates”. I disagree that “it’s impossible to make sugar at Wales viable”, since this estate was one of the better performing estates not too long ago. The current poor performance of the estate is due primarily to poor management at the estate and head office levels over the past 7 years.
Between 1991 and 2004, when Booker Tate managed the industry, sugar production appreciated considerably each year. The average sugar production during this period for Wales was 24,638 tonnes per year, of which farmers contributed an average 7,746 each year or 31% of the total estate’s production. Cane yield and land productivity was 65 tonnes cane per hectare and 5.54 tonnes sugar per hectare, respectively. After 2004 sugar production precipitously declined on all estates each year to the present time.
Between 1991 and 2008, the full era of Booker Tate, average annual sugar production for Wales was 24, 932, with farmers contributing 7,733 tonnes. Cane yield and land productivity was 68 tonnes cane per hectare and 5.69 tonnes sugar per hectare, respectively. Despite production declining on all estates from 2005 to 2008, Wales consistently sustained a high performance.
Between 2009 and 2015, under local management, the average sugar production for the estate was 20,709 tonnes and the cane yield was 47 tonnes cane per hectare; a decline of almost 4,000 tonnes sugar per year and a drop in yield of 18 tonnes cane per hectare. Herein lies the problem. The farmers’ contribution rose from 31% to 50-52% as result of poor cane yield and low land productivity on the estate. For all the years, unlike the other estates, Wales enjoyed a stable and least disruptive workforce.
Editor, I make this analysis to illustrate that Wales has demonstrated over the years it was a “better performing estate”, but it has suffered immensely through mismanagement of the agricultural operations that has now led to a situation, where close to 1,800 sugar workers will have to be severed from employment. The CoI listed 10 “main issues that led to the current poor, unacceptable state of the sugar industry”, among which is “not adhering to, or being guided by, basic and well established practices, especially in agriculture”.
The fate of these workers and their families is unthinkable, not forgetting the many small and medium-sized businesses that line the pathways from Sisters Village to Free-and-Easy whose main source of sales are sugar workers.
It’s incomprehensible how the closing down of Wales will “allow improvements to be carried out on the better performing estates”. If cost, profitability and viability of operations are to determine what is better in the context of prudent business management, then there are no “better performing estates” in GuySuCo. The CoI revealed that in 2015, the company projected a loss of $15 billion; in 2014 it suffered a $17.4 billion loss, and the average for the period 2009-2015 was a whopping $10 billion per year. Therefore, despite how the estates maybe be deemed now to be “better performing estates” each one of them made huge losses for the past 7 years. There could have been no cross-subsidization in relation to any of the estates, because all were incurring huge losses, so how will the closure of Wales “allow improvements to be carried out on the better performing estates”?
The ministry’s statement further states that workers will be absorbed by Uitvlugt Estate, one of the worst performing estates within the last 5 years. Production on this estate has declined by almost 42% in the last 7 years relative to what obtained in the period 1991-2008. The estate’s current manpower establishment is superfluous to its needs; it has reached saturation point, and as such moving workers from Wales to Uitvlugt is a no-no for starters.
The statement further states that farmers will be moving their canes to Uitvlugt. Anyone with even the faintest knowledge of cane farming at Wales will tell you that it’s a ridiculous proposition. Farmers are already receiving a low price for the canes that they supply to the company, and the huge cost of moving their canes by tractor-drawn cane carts to Uitvlugt which is some 25-30 miles away will drain their financial reserves to the point of churning out massive losses. Inevitably, they will be forced out of the cane-farming business. Operationally, Uitvlugt has a punt dumper, not a hoist, which means that canes transported by cane carts will have to be off-loaded in punts to be taken into the factory. Who will pay for the double handling of the canes, or has this been factored in when it was decided to have the farmers send their canes to Uitvlugt?
Editor, the decision to close Wales Estate and having to sever close to 1,800 workers must be attributed to neglect and mismanagement, and the ownership of this national tragedy points in the direction of all those who have participated in the agricultural management and control of the sugar industry from 2009 to date.
Yours faithfully,
Rajendra Parmanand
