While the sugar industry’s public good through drainage and other services remains incalculable, the 2025 annual report of the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) reveals a staggering level of disingenuousness on the part of the government that should not sit well with any right-minded Guyanese. It seems patently obvious that there is little realistic prospect of turning this failing enterprise around. Its financial position is dire, its losses are mounting, and the continued injection of billions of dollars by the government has yet to produce anything resembling a convincing recovery.
The figures in this report are nothing short of alarming. The corporation recorded a net loss of $16.9 billion, despite receiving $13.3 billion in government support, more than half of which was for capital assistance. For this year, GuySuCo is targeted to receive $16.4 billion. All signs point to the corporation being unable to stand on its own feet unless there are drastic changes and this has been evident for quite a while. Yet, the economists at the helm of this country continue to behave as though the haemorrhaging of public money is merely a temporary measure.
GuySuCo’s production figures lay bare the extent of the problem. It produced 59,600 tonnes of sugar in 2025, an improvement on the 47,108 tonnes recorded in 2024, but only 59.6 percent of its target of approximately 100,000 tonnes. Excessive rainfall, labour shortages, poor field access, machinery constraints and factory downtime were among the difficulties cited. Nothing new there, that is an ongoing story. Of course one cannot deny that these are real challenges, and the industry cannot be expected to operate independently of weather conditions or the availability of workers. However, the persistence of such problems, alongside repeated shortfalls and escalating expenditure points to an uncomfortable truth: the promised turnaround remains elusive, and there is little evidence that the corporation is on a sustainable path to recovery.
Indeed, GuySuCo’s present predicament is not a recent development. Sugar was once one of Guyana’s foremost exports, bringing in substantial amounts of foreign exchange. But it did so in a largely protected market that cushioned the corporation from the full force of international competition. From 1959 to 2009, Guyana benefited from preferential trading arrangements, initially through the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, alongside eight other countries, and subsequently through the Sugar Protocol under the preferential system for African, Caribbean and Pacific countries trading with the European Union (EU) then known as the European Economic Community (EEC). Guyana also enjoyed preferential access to the Canadian and United States markets. The United Kingdom, then an EEC member, was the principal destination for the bulk of Guyana’s sugar exports.
These arrangements were enormously beneficial. Preferential sales to the EU accounted for approximately 50 percent of GuySuCo’s sugar output but generated 70 percent of its revenue. The corporation was therefore not simply competing solely on the basis of its production costs and efficiency. Indeed, guaranteed access and prices made the industry considerably more viable than it might otherwise have been. When that protection ended – and the government was given ample warning years before – Guyana had to sell its sugar on the world market, finally exposed to competitive pressures and prices. At this point things began to unravel.
Several countries that had enjoyed similar advantages responded by diversifying their economies and agricultural production. Guyana chose to remain heavily invested in an industry whose cost structure and production capacity were ill-suited to the new reality. Meanwhile, another game-changer, the climate crisis, was also making its presence felt on the agriculture sector in general. Still the decision, in the face of all this, was to preserve the status quo. The industry’s downward trajectory became a swift slide, and successive promises of revival have done little to arrest it.
Two years ago, when Paul Cheong was confirmed as chief executive officer, in an interview with the now-defunct Stabroek News, he swore that sugar could still be profitable and that GuySuCo could become viable under his leadership. His subsequent strategic plan promised mechanisation, stronger accountability, improved factory reliability and diversification into coconut cultivation, as well as greater use of molasses and bagasse among other things. These might all be worthwhile initiatives, but where is the evidence that they are beginning to make a meaningful difference? There has been no convincing demonstration that the promised transformation is taking hold. There is still not even a hint of financial viability.
In fact, over the last decade, including the sum budgeted for this year, the government has poured tens of billions of dollars into GuySuCo. A cursory look at previous budgets puts the total at some $84.4 billion when capital and supplementary spending are added. And what are the odds that even now with next year’s national budget on the horizon, another $16 billion or more is being contemplated? The bookies can have a go with that one. Seriously though, consider what such sums could have achieved if directed towards poverty alleviation, improved public services or other pressing national needs. This is taxpayers’ money, spent without any convincing assurance of a return. What a shame.
It is time for honesty to enter the equation. If the declarations of confidence in sugar’s future are genuine rather than political posturing, the government needs to lay out a credible timeline for achieving viability without perpetual financial propping-up, supported by measurable targets and independently verifiable results. If it cannot demonstrate a realistic path to sustainability, then it must have the courage to confront the alternatives and act on them.
Discussion