Dear Editor,
The recent debates in the National Assembly produced a number of speeches, but the principal value of the process should have been the opposition’s ability to expose waste, inefficiency, and the flawed strategy that framed the 2026 National Budget. Given its numerical disadvantage, the opposition was never in a position to prevent the Budget from being passed; its responsibility instead was to challenge the Government on substance and persuade the wider electorate through principled, evidence-based argument.
In that regard, the combined opposition missed an important opportunity during these 2026 budget debates. With numerous documented examples of fiscal waste and mismanagement by the PPP Government, the task of scrutiny should not have been difficult. Yet the opportunity to convincingly advance the public interest and build confidence ahead of the next election was largely squandered.
As a citizen, therefore, I find it necessary to examine the claims made by Govern-ment officials themselves and to test those claims against observable outcomes. One such claim appears in the Budget Minister’s statement (page 30), where he asserts that:
“Agriculture and food security sit at the centre of Guyana’s economic strategy for resilience. Government has invested, and will continue to invest heavily in projects, initiatives and systems that keep the Guyanese people fed, that improve incomes for our farmers, and that reduce Guyana’s exposure to external shocks. We remain committed to the transformation that is underway in the agriculture sector, driving national and regional food security and safety, and improving the competitiveness of our agricultural commodities both nationally and regionally.”
On behalf of the many Guyanese who continue to live in poverty, I challenge this assertion. The claim that food security sits at the centre of Government strategy is not supported by outcomes. While commitment and investment are frequently cited, public policy must ultimately be judged by results. If agriculture truly occupied a central role in Guyana’s economic strategy, the benefits would be visible, measurable, and broadly felt by both farmers and consumers.
The available export data tells a different story. When examining Guyana’s main food exports—excluding rice because of its scale—export earnings across key food categories have declined since 2020, despite approximately $800 billion reportedly being spent in the agriculture sector over the same period. (See graph below)
Even when rice is included, the rice exports in 2025 were approximately US$6 million lower than in 2020 (see table below). Overall food exports in 2025, when compared to 2020 dropped by some US$41 million. This cannot credibly be described as transformation.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that every major food export category has underperformed since the PPP returned to office. These facts underscore the need to rigorously scrutinize official claims made by the PPP officials, which too often do not withstand verification.
There is also a clear explanation for persistently rising food prices. Rapid expansion of the oil and gas sector has increased domestic demand for our locally available foods, while local food production has not kept pace. The result is too much money continue to chase too few available pounds of locally produced food. In this context, the Government’s failure to expand food exports or meaningfully increase domestic supply to the oil sector is particularly troubling.
If the investments described by Minister Zulfikar Mustapha were producing their intended results, Guyanese households would not be facing sustained high food prices or growing dependence on imported staples. These imports are themselves more expensive due to Guyana’s high logistics costs and the absence of a deep-water port. Food security is defined by affordability and availability—not by policy statements or press releases. Similarly, claims of improved farmer incomes are not borne out by reality. Were incomes truly rising, fewer farmers would be exiting the sector, less farmland would be abandoned, and rural livelihoods would be strengthening. Instead, farmers continue to grapple with escalating input costs, poor infrastructure, limited market access, and chronic drainage failures.
More than $150 billion has reportedly been spent over five years by the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority and the Ministry of Agriculture. Yet farmlands continue to flood annually, and promised drainage projects in West Demerara, West Berbice, and the Corentyne have not delivered lasting relief. These persistent failures raise serious questions about project execution, accountability, and value for money.
Guyana also remains highly exposed to external shocks because its agricultural sector has not significantly expanded value-added production or exports. The continued importation of basic food items that could be produced locally illustrates this vulnerability. A resilient agricultural system would prioritize local production, climate adaptation, storage, and agro-processing—areas where progress has been slow and uneven.
Transformation cannot be proclaimed; it must be demonstrated. After years of promises, Guyana remains largely a primary producer with limited value-added exports. True regional competitiveness requires processing capacity, quality standards, reliable supply, and international certification—objectives that remain frustratingly elusive.
The 2026 Budget statement, like all other statements made in the past by Minister Ashni Singh, reflects ambition but not achievement. Until public spending produces affordable food, stable farmer incomes, reduced import dependence, and genuine resilience, agriculture cannot credibly be described as the centre of Guyana’s economic strategy.
The issue is not whether large sums should be spent, but whether those expenditures are delivering outcomes. The State owes a duty to lift all Guyanese—pensioners, farmers, and workers—out of poverty. With substantial oil revenues now flowing, citizens are entitled to expect tangible improvements in their daily lives. Too many are still waiting. What is required now is honesty, maturity, and an acceptance of the reality that a significant proportion of the population continues to live in poverty. Action is needed urgently—not at some distant future date.