Press Release: APNU’s call for an Agricultural transformation plan ignores the Government’s existing policy agenda and the sector’s performance record
The Ministry of Agriculture has taken note of APNU’s Agriculture Month 2026 press statement calling for a National Agricultural Transformation Plan, while accusing the PPP/C Government of failing to deliver results.
The Ministry welcomes serious discussion on the future of agriculture. However, APNU’s statement presents a selective account of the sector’s performance, ignores the Government’s existing policy agenda and, rather conveniently, overlooks the damage done to agricultural production under the APNU/AFC administration.
The central problem with APNU’s argument is that it treats a six-month contraction as evidence of a failed agricultural development strategy, while ignoring the performance of the sector over the preceding five years.
Let us examine the facts.
THE PRODUCTION RECORD: 2015–2020 VERSUS 2020–2025
The Government’s Mid-Year Report confirms that agriculture, forestry and fishing contracted by 0.5 per cent during the first half of 2026. The Ministry does not dispute this result. The contraction was driven principally by the Other Crops subsector, which declined by 6.4 per cent following sustained above-normal rainfall that disrupted planting cycles, damaged crops and restricted access to agricultural lands.
What APNU failed to acknowledge is that, during the same period, sugar expanded by 19.3 per cent, rice by 4.4 per cent, livestock by 17.5 per cent, forestry by 15.4 per cent and fishing by 4.1 per cent.
Therefore, the evidence does not establish a generalised decline across agriculture. It establishes a contraction concentrated in one subsector, notwithstanding positive growth in the others.
More importantly, a comparison of the two complete five-year periods provides a more reliable assessment of the sector’s performance.
Between 2015 and 2020, agriculture, forestry and fishing contracted at an average annualised real rate of approximately 3.1 per cent. Between 2020 and 2025, the sector expanded at an average annualised real rate of approximately 17.9 per cent—a decisive reversal of the trend that prevailed during the preceding period.
These rates are derived from the value of the sector at constant prices.
Between 2015 and 2020, the value of agriculture, forestry and fishing declined from approximately G$224.9 billion to G$192.2 billion, a reduction of G$32.7 billion.
Between 2020 and 2025, the value increased from G$192.2 billion to approximately G$437 billion, an expansion of G$244.8 billion.
Because these are constant-price values, they remove the effect of price changes and therefore measure changes in real output. On that basis, the real value of the sector fell by approximately 14.5 per cent between 2015 and 2020, and has more than doubled since 2020.
The subsector performance reinforces this conclusion. Annualised livestock growth increased from approximately 2.8 per cent to 12.6 per cent between the two periods. Forestry, fishing and rice moved from contraction to growth.
These are not projections, promises or political declarations. They are the Government’s official economic statistics.
APNU is entitled to question the effectiveness of public expenditure. But it cannot reasonably conclude that agricultural production has been declining when the longer-term evidence establishes the opposite.
THE AGRICULTURAL TRANSFORMATION PLAN ALREADY EXISTS
APNU’s central demand is for a comprehensive agricultural transformation plan, including climate-resilient infrastructure, agricultural financing, agro-processing, research, improved market access and export development.
These are precisely the areas already incorporated into the Government’s economic and agricultural development agenda.
The President’s policy programme for the next five years identifies agriculture as a central pillar of economic diversification, supported by the development of 100,000 acres of additional arable land, expanded drainage and irrigation infrastructure, modern agricultural production, agro-processing, industrial development and improved access to financing.
The programme is connected to the broader national infrastructure and industrialisation strategy, including major road networks, enhanced logistics, food-processing facilities, industrial parks, cheaper energy and improved access to domestic and regional markets.
This is important because agricultural transformation does not occur in isolation. Expanding production without storage, processing capacity, affordable energy, financing and access to markets will not produce a competitive agricultural economy.
Budget 2026 allocated G$113.2 billion to the sector, including G$81.9 billion for drainage and irrigation. The programme provides for additional pumping capacity, improved sluices, major drainage infrastructure and the continuation of Hope-like drainage systems.
Other allocations support climate-resilient cultivation, shade houses, agricultural research, planting materials, agro-processing, cold storage, mechanisation, aquaculture and improved logistics.
The Government has also operationalised the Guyana Development Bank, creating a new financing mechanism through which eligible farmers, agricultural entrepreneurs and other small businesses can access loans of up to G$3 million without interest or collateral.
These initiatives address several of the financing and productive-capacity constraints identified in APNU’s own statement.
Of course, expenditure alone does not establish success. Infrastructure must become operational, cultivated acreage must expand, productivity must improve, and farmers must derive greater income from their production.
The Ministry accepts these as legitimate measures of performance.
However, there is a fundamental difference between acknowledging the need to improve implementation and claiming that no agricultural transformation strategy exists.
APNU’s statement fails to make that distinction.
GUYSUCO: APNU CANNOT ESCAPE ITS OWN RECORD
APNU’s criticism of GuySuCo is perhaps the most revealing part of its statement.
The party now proposes restructuring, diversification, professional management and the protection of sugar-dependent communities.
Yet, when APNU/AFC was in Government, it closed the Wales, East Demerara, Rose Hall and Skeldon estates, directly affecting 7,047 workers, comprising 5,262 permanent workers who were severed and another 1,785 temporary workers who were affected.
The consequences extended to their families, private cane farmers, village businesses and entire communities dependent on the sugar industry.
What is particularly important is that the Commission of Inquiry commissioned by the APNU/AFC Government did not recommend the closure of these estates at that time.
APNU/AFC received the findings and proceeded with the closures nonetheless.
Those decisions dismantled productive capacity built over decades. Large areas of cane cultivation were discontinued, factories and supporting infrastructure were taken out of operation, and experienced agricultural and factory workers were displaced.
Restoring that capacity is not simply a matter of reopening an estate.
Abandoned fields must be rehabilitated and replanted. Cane must reach maturity. Drainage systems, machinery and factories must be restored, and skilled workers must be recruited and trained.
These are multi-year processes.
The Ministry is not suggesting that the industry’s present operational, management and productivity problems should be excused. They must be addressed. The downward revision of the 2026 sugar production target is disappointing and demonstrates the work that remains.
However, APNU cannot credibly demand accountability for the industry’s present performance while refusing to acknowledge its own decisions that substantially reduced the industry’s productive capacity.
The Government’s approach is to restore production while pursuing mechanisation, improved field and factory operations, value-added production and commercially viable diversification.
The success of this programme must ultimately be measured by higher output, lower unit production costs, improved financial performance and the welfare of sugar workers.
That is the standard against which the Ministry expects the industry to be assessed.
FOOD PRICES, FARMERS’ INCOMES AND CLIMATE RESILIENCE
APNU also refers to the 6.7 per cent increase in food prices between December 2025 and June 2026.
This is a legitimate concern. The Ministry recognises that higher food prices affect household purchasing power and that improving the reliability and affordability of domestic food supplies must remain a priority.
However, food price movements cannot be attributed exclusively to agricultural production or Government expenditure.
Domestic food prices are influenced by several factors, including weather-related supply disruptions, imported inflation, transportation costs, distribution margins and changes in demand.
The Government’s response therefore addresses both production and supply-chain constraints.
This includes expanding domestic cultivation, improving climate resilience, supporting farmers with planting materials and technical assistance, investing in storage and agro-processing, and developing more direct connections between farmers and consumers.
The Ministry’s farmers’ market programme is a practical example of this approach. By bringing farmers directly to consumers, the programme has helped to ease food prices for households while expanding market access for producers. The initiative has been successful and well received by both farmers and consumers.
The Government has also provided direct financial support to rice farmers, including approximately G$2.8 billion distributed to 5,106 farmers during the first half of 2026. Crop-insurance payments have also commenced for farmers affected by adverse weather conditions.
APNU refers to declining rice export earnings but overlooks the distinction between export receipts and production. Rice output increased during the first half of 2026, with production reaching approximately 414,088 tonnes of rice equivalent, compared with 410,194 tonnes in the corresponding period of 2025.
Export earnings must be assessed in relation to volumes, realised prices and market conditions. A decline in export receipts, by itself, does not establish a contraction in rice production.
On climate resilience, the Ministry agrees that increasingly severe weather conditions require continuous adaptation. This is precisely why drainage, irrigation, flood protection, modern farming technologies and resilient production systems are receiving substantial investment.
The objective is not merely to increase agricultural production in favourable conditions, but to improve the sector’s capacity to withstand excessive rainfall, drought and other climate-related disruptions.
THE IMF’S ASSESSMENT MUST ALSO BE PRESENTED ACCURATELY
APNU has cited the International Monetary Fund’s October 2026 assessment in support of its criticism.
However, the IMF’s assessment also recognises that the Government’s development strategy appropriately emphasises economic diversification, resilience and sustainability.
The IMF has recommended continued investment in productivity-enhancing infrastructure, food security, climate resilience and stronger public-sector oversight.
Those recommendations are consistent with the Government’s existing policy direction.
They reinforce the need for effective implementation and accountability. They do not establish that Guyana lacks an agricultural development strategy.
THE REAL ISSUE IS IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS
The Ministry agrees that the effectiveness of agricultural investment must ultimately be judged by measurable outcomes.
These include cultivated acreage, production volumes, yields, drainage capacity, operational infrastructure, agricultural exports, value-added production, farmers’ incomes and the affordability of food.
The Ministry does not claim that every challenge has been resolved. Sugar requires further improvement. The Other Crops subsector must recover from the disruption experienced during the first half of 2026. Drainage and irrigation infrastructure must continue to be expanded and maintained, and greater investment is required throughout the agricultural value chain.
But acknowledging these challenges does not invalidate the progress already made.
The wider economic record demonstrates that agricultural production has expanded materially since 2020, notwithstanding the continuing constraints and the effects of adverse weather conditions.
APNU’s proposal contains several objectives with which the Ministry agrees. The difference is that these objectives are already part of a funded national development programme, with implementation underway.
APNU should therefore be more forthcoming about the record of its own administration, particularly the consequences of dismantling major productive assets in the sugar industry, before presenting itself as the architect of agricultural transformation.
Agricultural transformation requires sustained capital investment, professional management, technical expertise, productive infrastructure, private-sector participation and time. It cannot be measured solely by a single half-year outcome, nor can it be achieved through policy declarations.
The PPP/C Government’s commitment is to continue expanding the productive capacity of the agricultural sector, improving its resilience and competitiveness, and ensuring that farmers, agricultural workers and consumers benefit from that development.
The appropriate test is not what APNU now promises to do. It is what the respective administrations actually did, what productive capacity they inherited and left behind, and what the evidence shows.
On that test, the record speaks for itself.
Related
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
