GuySuCo’s COI members to develop 15-year plan

Minister Holder (center) and members of the COI

Guysuco[] – Members of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) that will be looking into the affairs of the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) met with Agriculture Minister, Noel Holder on Friday, June 26 to discuss the Commission’s Terms of Reference in charting the way forward for the industry.

According to a GINA report, the eleven-member Commission, during its investigation will develop a 15-year plan which is expected to bring the industry back to profitability to ensure long-term environmental and economic sustainability.

Among the work which will be carried out by the Commission is investigating the current state of cane cultivation, factory operations, and production and marketing of sugar, molasses and other by-products. Special emphasis will also be placed on human resources, research and development, diversification of the industry, community obligations, weather events, marketing, finance, procurement, factory performance and management.

The Commission is expected to work closely with the Interim Management Team of GuySuCo over a three- month period commencing July 1, 2015, after which the findings will be made public.

The Commission’s members are: Mr. Vibert Parvatan (Chairman), Prof. Clive Thomas (Financial and Economic Analysis), Dr. Harold Davis and Mr. John Piggot (Agronomists), Mr. John Dow and Mr. Joseph Alfred (Factory Operations), Mr. George James (Sugar Processing), Mr. Nowrang Persaud (Industrial Relations), Mr. Claude Housty (Marketing), Mr. Seepaul Narine, GAWU Representative and Mr. Omadatt Chandan who will serve as the Commission’s Secretary.

The Ministry of Agriculture will provide all logistical support to ensure the Commission executes its duties effectively.



  1. SK, This is a COI. It must be free from prejudice and bias.That is the underlying premise on which it should operate.
    Now that you have asked ,i would have a very neutral group to deal with this.
    From your logics they should include Raj Sing as a COI member.

  2. Moderator Madam, allow me to make another comment,
    What is exactly the TOR for this elaborate and high profile COI. I was expecting that it be put in the public domain so like many others i now await eagerly.
    Some preliminary comments did i hear a 15 year plan.Why would the Minster entertain a 15 year plan without first understanding the problems of the industry.
    I believe that the COI has to first point out the problems of the industry and the through a number of townhall forum discuss these issues and then from an economic and financial perspective decide on the first 3 year plan.
    Did CY
    20 year plan will be riddled with assumptions.
    In commodity production the secret as one young GM mentioned to us is to be low cost. He however said that in a delicate labour diverse situation as Guysuco is faced with,low cost is not practically achievable on the basis of non existence of economies of scale and the fact that Guysuco has learnt nothing from its mechanisation drive which started in the early 70’s and has continued.
    In fact i caught up with this Guy on a Flight from Brasil and i asked him a straight question do you think Guysuco has a future and he said it depends on what form the business takes and by definition its expected contribution.

    He said Guysuco should not waste it resources on ethanol production, but rather forge relationships with the distillers DIH and DDL because of their experience and the existing infrastructure.
    GPL arrangement with Guysuco to say was idiotic would have been an understatement. Now that it is sold no comments.
    I asked him if he will want to be part of the COI and he said he had some serious runs in with the unions and management on principle positions he took as GM and was made a political football and he has since moved on.

  3. Quite an interesting pick for the COI. I am seeing names that were associated with the Skeldon Factory John Dow, once director of the SSMP. This will be a conflict of interest as John will say that the poor specifications was not an issue rather the operational aspects are poorly executed.
    John Piggot and Harold were both sent off on rather suspicious circumstances and are carrying proverbial baggage for which they will have to clear the air before they accept the responsibilities of a commission member and for that matter should not have been on the COI.
    GAWU should have no representation on a COI as they are part of the problem.
    Some of the people that are on that commission has no appreciation of the new and novel technology.
    I dont expect anything new from the COI deliberations.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.