THE nation has been advised that the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) will be converting the sugar lands at Wales into rice fields.This came as a surprise, given that this was never previously mentioned, or recommended in the recent Commission of Inquiry Report into the industry. It would have been helpful had the people been made aware prior to the decision, and given the justification for the preference.

The decision to plant rice, whether or not the venture is profitable, has been taken in the name of the citizens, given that the corporation is state-owned. In the absence of a known feasibility study conducted by or on behalf of GuySuCo, the nation is still to be advised accordingly as to the reason behind this decision.

Chairman of GuySuCo, Professor Clive Thomas, once headed the Institute of Developmental Studies at the University of Guyana. With such portfolio, it is reasonable to think it holds expectation that he brings to the Board, and would impress upon colleagues, the utility of evidence-based decision-making. The corporation has, for years, been unable to sustain its operations from its sales, and has had to rely on taxpayers’ bailout to the tune of billions. Apart from money being diverted from other projects of national consideration, the policy makers made a decision to enter into rice production at a time when market opportunities are limited based on Guyana’s cost of production.

It should be noted that most Asian countries consistently produce in excess of 65 bags per acre, and have three crops per year. In fact, these countries may be able to produce and sell rice at a cheaper cost in Guyana than Guyanese may be able to produce the commodity here. It is hoped that considerations have been given to these realities when the decision to invest in rice was taken.

Another issue under observation is that in the inquiry into GuySuCo’s operation, the Board Chairman was a member of the panel. While the public is aware that recommendations flowing from the inquiry did not include production of rice, it opens speculation as to whether the views of the chairman are in conflict with others members of the commission.

Administratively and operationally, the atmosphere within the corporation has been marked by continuous conflicts between the company and the workers’ representatives — the trade unions. This atmosphere lends itself to continuous challenges.

Diversifying GuySuCo is necessary. Efforts in this regard go back decades, and in instances were met with resistance. Its success relies on approaches which would see the development and implementation of projects that would guard against minimising or avoiding untoward consequences. In that GuySuCo has been unable to sustain itself for years, and continues to rely on taxpayers’ funding, further spending must also ensure the appropriate justification and comfort for doing so be given to the people.

The country has already suffered significant losses in what is known as the nation’s largest foreign investment — over US$200 million in the Skeldon Factory, which is a white elephant, the debt of which the taxpayers have to repay. It is also remembered that successive People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) administrations, in withdrawing from the Consolidated Fund to meet the corporation’s expenses, when questioned were insulting to the populace and used ethnicity as a shield to deny accountability and transparency.

No argument is being made for or against the closing of the industry. What is being sought in the interest of the national good is prudent thinking as to its future; which would also factor in understanding of the role it plays outside of producing sugar. It may not be popular knowledge, but GuySuCo is responsible for a significant amount of the drainage and irrigation infrastructure, including maintenance of canals on the coastland which have their DNA in the historical roots of the plantation society. At the human level, the corporation faces competing interests more focused on individual interest, which compromises its ability to seek common ground in determining the future of sugar and what is at stake for the country. In such a climate, the survival and/or diversification of sugar and the well-being of the nation require going beyond the parliamentary and political divide.