THE Skeldon sugar factory, commissioned in 2010 and considered the country’s largest investment (US$200M), was described as a modern, state-of-the-art facility in which the future of the sugar industry was placed. In justifying the need for this factory, the then People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Administration informed the nation that Guyana was operating at a competitive level in the international marketplace; and the European Union preferential price, while being reduced overtime, would eventually be eliminated.
The decision to undertake this major investment was made by a few persons. The money invested was, at the time, bigger than the National Budget, and the investment was done without discussion/consultation with stakeholders, including the Parliament — the nation’s most representative and highest decision-making forum.

From the onset, including conceptualisation of the idea, the factory was plagued with problems.

The Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo), which owns the Skeldon sugar factory, is a state company, which means it belongs to the people of Guyana. Conscious of this ownership and role, it is not unreasonable to have expected that the administration at the time would have sought to have had national discourse and parliamentary consensus on undertaking this investment. Instead, the nation was subjected to a narrative that said non-support for this investment meant being against a specific race. This tactic effectively prevented sane and constructive discussions surviving in the public sphere.
In effect, what the PPP/C achieved was having a blank cheque to do as it like, without feeling it had to be held accountable by the people and the checks and balances in governance being enforced. In so doing, a few made decisions on the cost of the mill, where it would be sourced, and the contractor assigned to the project. When difficulties arose, these said persons presided over the withdrawal of money from the Consolidated Fund for various reasons.

The capacity of the Skeldon mill, from its inception, had shown the availability of land to produce the required canes to sustain it was not there, which not only pointed to poor decision-making, but lent to the perception of unethical practice. Outside of the PPP/C Administration’s failing to respect the fact that an investment of such magnitude required the broadest consultation and support, building a factory for a capacity that could not be met, along with failure to put measures in place to meet that capacity, gave rise to suspicion. The technical problems that had confronted Skeldon resulted in millions of dollars being channeled to correct deficiencies, of which various continue to surface, resulting in underperformance. On one hand, the canes were not there to meet capacity; and on the other, the factory was plagued with technical difficulties which, in both instances, saw money being thrown behind what is clearly a bad investment. It is against this background that the opposition’s promise to revive the sugar industry must be viewed with suspicion and according to General Secretary of the GTUC, Lincoln Lincoln Lewis, they must not be trusted.

Lewis has correctly put it that it was during the PPP administration that sugar’s fortune changed drastically, and it proved incapable of salvaging the industry. When presented with the opportunity to diversify and retool with financial support offered from the European Union, the PPP blew it and, according to Lewis, “The nation witnessed a scatter-shot approach in decision-making.” Frankly put, the PPP never had a plan to turnaround the fortunes of the industry, which they managed for 23 years. It is hardly likely they have one now despite all the talks of caring for sugar workers.