Dear Editor,
The 2026 Budget lays bare what has long been obvious but rarely admitted: the resurrection of GuySuCo is a political project, not a commercial one. When the world market is paying roughly 15 US cents per pound for raw sugar while GuySuCo’s cost of production hovers around 40 cents, no amount of spin can disguise the gap. That 25‑cent difference on every pound is not efficiency; it is a subsidy. And that subsidy is not coming from some magic pot – it is ultimately being underwritten by oil money and taxpayers.
Over the past five years, the government has poured billions of dollars into reopening estates, refurbishing factories, and mechanising fields. Officials point to 8,300 jobs and revitalised rural economies as justification. No one disputes that sugar estates are economic lifelines for entire communities. The real question is: at what cost, and with what endgame? If GuySuCo cannot even come close to breaking even at current global prices, then its continued survival depends on permanent political protection and continuous budgetary transfusions. That is not a turnaround plan; it is a welfare scheme wrapped in industrial language.
The 2026 Budget doubles down on this approach. More money for boilers, harvesters, dryers, roads, and “value‑added” projects is being sold as the path to financial viability. But viability, in any serious business sense, means being able to stand on your own feet without recurring bailouts. If your cost per pound is nearly three times the market price, you are not in a business – you are administering a jobs programme.
There may be valid social reasons to keep such a programme alive, but the government should be honest enough to call it what it is.
That honesty becomes even more urgent when we shift the lens to the Natural Resource Fund. After roughly six years of oil production, the NRF balance of about US$3.25 billion sounds impressive at first glance. But once the 2026 Budget yanks out US$2.5 billion to plug its financing needs, what is left is roughly US$750 million. Averaged over the life of production so far, Guyana will have “saved” the equivalent of about US$115 million per year from a once‑in‑a‑century windfall. For a country sitting on one of the world’s fastest‑growing oil frontiers, that is a sobering figure.
The rhetoric speaks of inter‑generational equity and sustainable development; the reality is a Fund treated as a high‑yield ATM. Year after year, withdrawals have grown alongside production, as if the only measure of success is how much can be spent today. In that context, calling the NRF “raped” is not mere hyperbole; it is a pointed description of a policy choice that prioritises immediate political gains over long‑term national resilience. The country is effectively burning through its inheritance to finance a bloated budget, with comparatively little left as a genuine savings buffer against future shocks.
Taken together, the sugar policy and the NRF policy tell the same story. The state is using oil revenues to postpone hard decisions: whether to fully restructure or scale down uncompetitive industries, how to design targeted social protection without hiding it behind loss‑making enterprises, and how much to truly save for the day when oil prices fall or wells decline. The government has chosen the path of maximum present spending, cushioning politically sensitive constituencies, while presenting this as a technocratic development strategy.
This may be smart politics in the short term. It keeps estates open, contractors busy, and budgets fat. But it is fiscally and economically fragile. If oil revenues stumble – whether through price volatility, production issues, or global energy transitions – Guyana will wake up to an uncomfortable reality: an under‑capitalised savings fund, entrenched recurrent spending, and legacy industries still unable to pay their own way. By then, the sugar cheques will have long been cashed, and the NRF’s best years may already be behind it.
A serious national conversation is needed, not about whether sugar workers deserve protection – they do – but about the most honest and efficient way to provide it. Direct, transparent social and regional development programmes are one option. Persisting with a 40‑cents‑per‑pound sugar industry in a 15‑cent world, financed by an oil fund that is being rapidly drained, is another. Guyana is free to choose. What it cannot escape are the consequences of that choice.
Sincerely
Hemdutt Kumar
