THE value of our sugar estates production is clearly enhanced by having to withstand the scrutiny of the public which is already knowledgeable and which is sensitive to the correct investment costs.

Since the socio-economic institution of the estates so powerfully dominated with the majority of workers and state funding, production records are vital to the public.
The pictures which were presented by Chief Executive Officer, Paul Bhim that the key European quota will be met, leaving it bare of details or comprising details of questionable accuracy.
From the outset, his records did not give prominence to discussions of the failing Skeldon sugar factory, sugar technology, sugar duties, sugar price and related matters.
It is highly probable that Mr. Paul Bhim made, and input, the thumb-nail sketches of GuySuCo estates, notable in relation to production and the expenditure on improvements and the deficit.
Another political theme which plays a secondary role in the description is the disparagement of economic activities; the greatest source of weakness is in the treatment of private cane farmers occupying the same space in the industry. There is a marked absence of reference to the cane cutters leaving the estates because of temporary and seasonal work.
The Skeldon sugar factory continually draws attention to the heavy capital invested in modernisation and the acreages planted with low production were points at which GuySuCo was dealt heavy blows and caught in a tail-spin by the failure. Unfortunately for GuySuCo’s interests and for the community as a whole, economic revival was short-lived.
Acquiring more land for canes is one thing, but to work it at a profit is another, and the Directors of GuySuCo could not see the way to make revenue out of the estates by putting cultivation, drainage and machinery upon a sound basis, which could be done only by good planning.
The performance and forecast of GuySuCo in the economic and financial spheres from 2001 to the end of 2012 and beyond have not been positive.