The government’s plans for a new Development Bank could succeed or fail on a factor receiving little public attention—the availability of trained credit professionals capable of evaluating, supervising and recovering development loans. That is the position advanced by former GAIBANK General Manager Dr. C. Kenrick Hunte, who says the experience of Guyana’s former state development bank demonstrates that capital alone is not enough.
In a letter published Village Voice News today under the title “Skills Training for Credit Staff in Developing Bank,” Hunte argued that development banking requires specialised technical expertise and a decentralised operational structure if it is to effectively serve farmers, manufacturers, miners and small businesses across the country.
“Nothing successful could be completed in developing banking in Guyana without skills training, and a decentralised credit system. Believing otherwise would be counterproductive,” Hunte wrote.
His comments come amid continuing debate over the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) government’s proposed Guyana Development Bank, which officials have promoted as a vehicle to expand access to financing for agriculture, small businesses and productive sectors that often struggle to secure loans from commercial banks.
While much of the public discussion has focused on governance arrangements, lending powers and oversight mechanisms, Hunte’s latest intervention shifts attention to the technical capacity required to operate a development finance institution.
Drawing on the experience of the now-defunct Guyana Agricultural and Industrial Development Bank (GAIBANK), Hunte said credit officers were required to conduct feasibility studies and appraise projects across a wide range of sectors, including rice, sugar, livestock, food crops, fishing, manufacturing, logging, mining and food processing.
According to Hunte, many of those officers possessed formal training in agricultural science from the Guyana School of Agriculture or the University of Guyana before receiving additional instruction in financial analysis, project appraisal and loan supervision.
“Employing trained agriculturalists formed an important connection with the farmer, who could converse with someone who was knowledgeable of the science behind his farming activities,” he stated.
He said engineers, economists and business professionals were similarly trained to evaluate non-agricultural projects, with support from institutions such as the Caribbean Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank.
Hunte emphasised that development banking differs significantly from conventional commercial lending because officers must assess not only a borrower’s creditworthiness but also the viability of complex development projects.
He also highlighted what he described as one of GAIBANK’s most important strengths—a decentralised network of offices operating in nine of Guyana’s ten administrative regions.
The former General Manager noted that GAIBANK maintained offices or operations in all ten administrative regions, in communities ranging from Kumaka and Anna Regina to Bartica, Lethem, Linden and Ebini, allowing credit officers to work directly with farmers, miners and entrepreneurs.
According to Hunte, that regional presence reduced costs for borrowers, strengthened project monitoring and enabled closer coordination with suppliers, buyers and local authorities.
“Credit officers operating in the community reduced transaction costs for farmers and borrowers, who did not have to travel to Georgetown to complete loan applications or conduct project business,” he wrote.
Hunte further stressed that lending decisions were based on project viability rather than political, racial, religious or social considerations.
“Loan approval had nothing to do with a client’s social, racial, religious, or political affiliation, but only with whether a project and loan request submitted by a client was in support of a financially viable project,” he stated.
The former ambassador’s comments are also significant because they revive discussion about the closure of GAIBANK, which remains one of the most debated decisions in Guyana’s financial history.
GAIBANK was established in 1973 to provide development financing for agriculture and industry, was formally dissolved on May 31, 1995, under the PPP administration of President Cheddi Jagan.
Hunte has long argued that the closure was misguided and stemmed from the government’s failure to implement recommendations made by then Auditor General S. Anand Goolsarran regarding the treatment of foreign exchange losses incurred by the institution.
Writing in Stabroek News in previous years, Hunte maintained that those losses were obligations of the State and should not have been attributed solely to the bank. He has repeatedly contended that GAIBANK remained capable of supporting agriculture and industry and should have been restructured rather than closed.
The PPP, however, defended the decision, arguing that the institution had accumulated significant financial problems and was no longer sustainable. Government representatives have previously maintained that GAIBANK suffered from operational weaknesses, declining financial performance and a loss of confidence among international lenders.
The debate has resurfaced with the government’s efforts to establish a new Development Bank. Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh has said the institution is intended to address financing gaps in productive sectors and provide support to entrepreneurs who are often unable to secure adequate funding through traditional banking channels.
The proposed bank has already attracted scrutiny over its governance structure, oversight mechanisms and the extent of political control that could be exercised over lending decisions.
Ultimately, Hunte’s contribution shifts the debate beyond funding and into the realm of governance. The real challenge, he suggests, is not establishing another state-backed financial institution but ensuring it possesses the expertise, independence and discipline required to avoid becoming another costly experiment. The history of GAIBANK demonstrates that development banking is only as effective as the people and systems entrusted to manage it.
