I REFER to a letter entitled “A new model for GuySuCo operators” (KN 14/4/2012).
The letter is a disguised attack on GuySuCo and its management, wherein it sources all of GuySuCo’s woes to the ineptitude of management. The solution the writer proffers is that GuySuCo should lease all its cultivable land to private cane farmers.
Such a “solution” would make matters worse for a number of reasons, among which are the following:- 1.  Government has just made a subvention of $4B to the industry. Handing over to private cane farmers would be handing most of these billions of dollars of public funds to private individuals. 2. The annual investment of hundreds of millions of dollars has to be made by the private cane farmers, and may not be forthcoming.
3. Sugar cultivation requires continuous research and knowledge of the kinds of improvement which occur in the industry worldwide. It requires the maintenance of proper laboratories and employment of scientists. Private cane farmers may not continue this level of research and improvement which currently exist. 4. To cultivate sugar successfully on the Guyana coast requires centralized drainage and irrigation. Hundreds of private cane farmers would never be able to run and maintain a centralised drainage and irrigation system. Failure would overtake the industry within a few years, causing the industry to find itself in serious problems.
5. The writer’s proposal fails to address the fate of GuySuCo’s thousands of workers, who are employed in various cultivation tasks.
There are many other factors against handing all of GuySuCo’s cultivable land to private cane farmers.
I fully agree with the letter writer’s fundamental assumption, which is that the industry has not been successful over the last several years, and that faulty management must be largely blamed. A better solution would be the following:-
A. Divide the industry into two (2) segments, so that each would enjoy the benefits of specialization and thus optimise performance. One segment would have the industry’s factories remaining under GuySuCo’s control and management. The next segment is cane cultivation, and this would be the responsibility of the industry’s thousands of field workers.
B. The field workers would group themselves into productivity units, each of which would consist of a number of field workers who could be mobilized to work cooperatively together. They would agree on the quantum of acreage they are able to work successfully within the specified time cycles of the industry. The members would comprise the tillers, planters, weeders, fertilizers (manure gang), and harvesters; and would also include supervisors, foremen and charge-hands who are experienced in the production of sugar cane.
C. GuySuCo would provide the productivity units with the necessary inputs; such inputs would include wages, fertilizers, herbicides, etc. Strict accountability has to be kept of all GuySuCo inputs, since the productivity units would have full responsibility for the “payback”.
D. The productivity units would be responsible for the production of cane and for handing it over to GuySuCo. The GuySuCo costs of inputs would be deducted from the revenues of the sugar produced, and the profits would be distributed to  members of the respective units.
E. The development of a successful model for GuySuCo field operations would require a commitment to improve the social profile of sugar workers. The personal growth of each worker must be enhanced through training to ensure they develop their ability to self-manage the production of cane.
The involvement of the respective sugar unions is paramount to ensure a successful transformation.
I have prepared a detailed description of this model, explaining the economic and social benefits for GuySuCo, the field workers and the unions, and how it could be executed. Copies of this description have been dispatched to GuySuCo and GAWU for their inputs and implementation.