The new minister of human services, Jenifer Webster, recently announced that her ministry will be re-launching the “Domestic Violence Campaign”. Originally launched by her predecessor some four years ago, the programme had some success in highlighting both the extent of the phenomenon in our society and the relative ineffectualness of the measures that were in place to combat it.
However, it is our considered view that the various ameliorative measures have focused on the symptoms of the problem rather than its root cause. Let us take the case of the victim of the overwhelming number of instances of domestic violence – women. The cause has been stated very succinctly in the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women of December 1993. “Violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women…”
We are not advocating abandoning the efforts in dealing with the symptoms: sensitising the police in recognising domestic violence as a serious infraction of the law; establishing shelters, improving the legislative regime; establishing a family court etc. But all of these measures skirt around the root of the problem: that many men generally view women (and children) as lesser beings and in the extreme case, as chattel. It is generally men who inflict violence on women. The instances of the converse occurrences are relatively small.
The facticity of violence against women as a universal problem signals there are deeper, underlying structural imperatives that determine this outcome rather than any peculiarity in our Guyanese makeup. Within countries, the violence cuts across boundaries of culture, class, education, income, ethnicity, and age. Studies estimate that, from country to country, between 20 and 50 per cent of women have experienced physical violence at the hands of domestic partners. From anecdotal evidence gleaned from newspapers, Guyana appears to be at the high end of the spectrum.
But just as revealing is the statistic that the rates of violence against women are not constant in countries across the world and in those countries sometimes by region. All studies show a direct correlation between the lack of recognition of the rights and autonomy of women and the level of violence directed against them. This offers hope that measures to ensure that women have equal rights with men and that those rights are enforced stringently by all the institutions of the state and society are the only road to successfully extirpating the root cause of domestic violence against women.
One of the most significant indices of the equality or inequality of women in the society is their relative presence – in numbers and in position – in the institution regarded as the ultimate repository of power: the political system.  But in every country there is the tendency on the part of the authorities – even women in authority – to compromise on the question of equality. Take the instance of the incumbent minister as she announced the initiative mentioned at the onset of this editorial. She pointed out that the number of female ministers of government has increased from 12 in 1992 to 21 at present. This figure is commendable and in fact, fulfils the goal of one third of our parliamentarians being female.
But the question is, why not parity? One answer could be to acknowledge that we have to move gradually in a progressive direction. But our position is that we shall never have equality – or justice for women – if the ideal of equality is not always stated right up front. The iniquity in accepting piecemeal progress was exemplified in the recent charges by Dr Faith Harding of the PNC who revealed how shabbily she was treated by men in her party’s selection process for its presidential candidate. And not even women protested.

The personnel, money, time and effort are seemingly ‘limitless’ when it comes to combating truancy in Guyana. Well it stands to reason: if the input is great, it must not be wasted. And it is common knowledge that the easiest way to waste educational resources is to neglect the problem of truancy.
In Guyana, schooling is not a must normally. The socio-cultural norm is not amenable to the legal measures that make schooling a realised fact. First, a cursory check will reveal that many homes are inundated with ‘boom boxes’ and alcoholic imbibing. This milieu is clearly a deterrent to anything academic. Add to this, the factor of unconscious mal-absorption, from the various visual and audio media entities, and academic death is natural.
Many flock the airwaves but what do they offer? Entertainment and not education. So school- aged listeners are ‘deejayed’ into going to the hotel for ‘valentine’. These vulnerable and innocent ‘baby listeners’ are duped into thinking that ‘loud is good’, and that ‘entertainment is education’. They actually come to love and embrace obnoxious conspicuousness. Hence, school loses it lustre. This ruse must be stopped.
A second ruse is that of Guyana’s children being drawn into the family tradition. The fisherman at sea gives the impression of gay abandon. The furniture maker appears as if money is easier than education, and the businessman falsely conveys that getting rich is just about a fast turnover. So, the appeal towards truancy is natural and strong. Hence, some may correctly argue that the battle to curb it starts from a position of defeat.
However, all is not lost, but the effort must be concerted. Each school and each community must take the initiative to reduce truancy. These anti-truancy decisions must be made with the active involvement of parents, educators, law enforcement personnel, juvenile and family court judges, and representatives from social service, community, and religious organisations. All must come forward and help in this fight.
The communities that have had the most success in deterring truancy not only have focused on improving procedures (such as those that accurately track students’ attendance), but each also has implemented a comprehensive strategy that focuses on incentives and sanctions for truants and their parents.
So, firstly, parents must be a part of the war. Parents play the fundamental role in the education of their children. This applies to every family, regardless of the parents’ station in life, their income, or their educational background. Nobody else commands greater influence in getting a young person to go to school every day and recognising how a good education can define his or her future. So what if these parents are not inclined to this belief in education? Then, this is where the law kicks in. These negligent parents must be legally coerced into adherence – school attendance is binding – no room to negotiate.
Then there is the need to ensure that students face firm sanctions for truancy. These erring children must be tracked down. They must face the penalty for not being in school when they should be. They should be rounded up at the minibus parks and other areas where they hang out, and this should not be done on a one-off basis, it must be done daily until there is enough evidence to show that we have managed to bring the situation under control.
Taking these stringent measures can go even one step further – those who are aware of truancy and do not report the folly must be answerable. The decadence is so far gone that measures for retrieval must be commensurable with the abysmal low. No ‘gentle hands’ approach will work.

Libyans are marking the anniversary of the uprising that led to the fall of strongman Colonel Muammar Gaddafi after his iron-fist rule of more than 40 years. Celebrations are currently taking place in towns and cities across Libya. In fact, persons have started the celebrations long before in the eastern city of Benghazi, where the revolt began. The big question is; how much better off is the country in economic, social, and political terms?
For sure, not much has changed in terms of security in the country. According to a New York Times report, hundreds of militias are roaming unimpeded and observers point to an institutional void in the country. The militias arose during last year’s eight-month-long civil war against Gaddafi. Soon after anti-regime protests first erupted nationwide on February 17, 2011, Libya’s second largest city, Benghazi, and the rest of the eastern half of the country threw off rule from Tripoli. As Gaddafi clamped down in the west, Libyan citizens formed local militias based around a city, town or even neighbourhood, taking up arms to fight alongside breakaway army units.
Backed by NATO airstrikes, the militias swept into Tripoli in August, driving out Gaddafi. The militias then were at the forefront of battles for the last regime strongholds, ending with Gaddafi’s capture and killing in October. The NY Times report states that since then, militias have carved up neighbourhoods in Tripoli and other cities, establishing their hold with checkpoints at the entrances. But borders often overlap. Disputes break out over personnel or relatives from one militia detained by another. Then the weapons come out and shooting begins.
When Tripoli fell, most police fled and shed their uniforms, fearful of revenge attacks. The revolutionary militias contend they are Libya’s heroes — the ones who drove Gaddafi from power and who now keep security in the streets at a time when the police and military are all but nonexistent. They insist they won’t give up their weapons to a government that is too weak, too corrupt and, they fear, too willing to let elements of the old dictatorship back into positions of power. Observers say that, as a result, Libya has been flipped upside down, from a country where all power was in the hands of one man, Gaddafi, to one where it has been broken up into hundreds of different hands, each taking its own decisions.
The National Transitional Council (NTC), which officially rules the country, is struggling to incorporate the militias into the military and police, while trying to get the economy back on its feet and reshape government ministries, courts, and other institutions hollowed out under Gaddafi.
The NY Times report explains: “In one sign of the lack of control, Finance Minister Hassan Zaklam admitted that millions of dollars from Gaddafi family assets returned to Libya by European countries — a potentially key source of revenue — have flowed right back out of Libya, stolen by corrupt officials and smuggled out in suitcases through the ports.”
“The money comes for transit only,” Zaklam said in a recent interview on Libya state TV. He threatened to resign if the government did not impose control over ports or stop unfreezing the assets. Government spokesman Ashur Shamis blamed revolutionaries in charge of ports and middle- and lower-ranking bureaucrats from the old regime who still retain their posts.
Several of Gaddafi’s children are in exile in neighbouring countries, from where some have made so far fruitless appeals for a counter-revolution. The most prominent son, Saif al-Islam, who at one stage was tipped to succeed his father, has been held by a militia in the Libyan town of Zintan since he was captured deep in the Sahara desert. Highlighting the weakness of the government, local commanders have refused requests to hand him over to the authorities in Tripoli.
From all indications, there is widespread political and social instability and it will take much more efforts on all sides, including the militia and the NTC, to establish stability, peace, and reconciliation. Of utmost importance too is that the rights of the ordinary people must be protected as this will help preserve the unity of purpose that defined the revolution in the first place.

The Americans have an expression – borrowed from their character-defining sport, baseball: “three strikes and you’re out!” In the contest between (round) bat and ball, the hitter is given two free chances (“strikes”) if he misses the ball. A third miss and he’s out.

In the so-called ‘new dispensation’ of ‘consensus and cooperation’ ushered in at the last elections, the opposition that secured a majority in parliament was allowed two “strikes” at building trust with the executive. There was first the selection of the Speaker: the opposition broke tradition and snatched both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker. Strike one! Next came the Committee of Selection. Again the opposition changed the rules of the game and seized control. Strike two!

And on Thursday, came the final ‘ball’. The government was going to present two papers on ‘Supplemental Expenditures’ for approval to parliament. Now such expenditures are inevitable fixtures of the budgeting process: it is impossible to foresee all contingencies and the work of government must continue. Ahead of the engagement, however, the opposition telegraphed that it would be taking a cynical and opportunistic stance when they accused the government of ‘unlawful’ spending. Approval of some expenditures were finally denied and the second paper had to be deferred. Strike three!! The opposition has just struck out in the trust department.

When then President, Lula of Brazil, was engaged in trying to defuse the tensions between the U.S. and Iran on the latter’s nuclear programme, he made an observation that is very pertinent to our fast developing political impasse. “It’s not about trusting anyone. It’s about generating the mechanics under which people can prove that they deserve that trust. That’s what it’s about.”

From the moment the results of the elections were announced, President Ramotar very forcefully articulated his vision of what lay ahead in terms of the relationship among the three parties that had secured seats in parliament. He spoke of the need to build trust, a commodity that was sorely lacking in the body politic, and the absence of which had led to a most rancorous and debilitating political culture.

But he did not stop at the level of rhetoric, which, if the truth is told, is very cheap in the political arena. He took up Lula’s challenge and introduced ‘the mechanics under which (the opposition) can prove that they deserve that trust.’ He unilaterally established a ‘Tripartite Committee’ where the principals of the three parties could meet and freely share their proposals on ‘governance’. He was sharing a prerogative of the Executive with the opposition.

The president then went on to establish two other tripartite committees to specifically discuss security and economic matters while inviting the opposition to make inputs to the Ministry of Finance’s budget drafting process. He also acceded to the opposition’s request to nominate individuals to the Committee of Tax Review that he had earlier established. Then and afterwards we expressed scepticism over the president’s magnanimity in establishing these mechanisms for the opposition to demonstrate they were deserving of trust.

Apart from our knowledge of the demonstrated hawkish proclivities of the major players in the opposition, there was the early tip-off from the leader of the combined opposition. He demanded a direct substantive policy-making role in the budgeting process. It was a paradigmatic example of our ‘give an inch and they’ll take a mile’ fears.

So the question is: Where does the president go from here? When the opposition would try to derail a speciality hospital for our country that is being funded by a soft loan, one would expect him to accept that his ‘mechanics of trust’ has sussed out the opposition. They are not interested in the development of the country but only in scoring cheap political points. They do so always with their eyes firmly fix on their goal of paralysing the executive so that they may seize that office.

The media houses today often reflect how societies are perceived. Sometimes they also project a view that they want to be perceived. People have to remember that just as man is humble, he is also arrogant and deceptive.  In other words, there is uncertainty in the air when people discuss ‘media credibility.’
Different societies around the world get different versions of the true happenings. These can be overlooked, exaggerated or more often than not, twisted. It is human nature to believe what benefits, even if for selfish reasons. If it shows us as the correct party, it has to be correct. This mindset has caused prejudice and discrimination to prosper. Many readers have allowed the media to plant the seeds of half-truths into their minds, and as the seeds grow into trees, mindsets are established.
When the media take sides and refuse to report all aspects of a story, credibility is then at stake. This seems to be Guyana’s fundamental problem. Stick to print journalism, and examine some important issues that all precede the ‘credibility factor’. What percentage of people actually read newspapers? Which sections are read by whom?  What is the average level of academic achievement of these readers? The forgotten element many times is: “How many do a cross-paper analysis?”  If these figures can be empirically ascertained, then there will be a tremendous growth towards the ‘credibility factor’. For now, local newspapers seem to be engrossed in a battle for who can be loudest, most entertaining and most salacious. These factors really do nothing for credibility.
Another blow to the ‘credibility factor’ is that of immediacy and ‘face to face’ repartee and riposte. So readers are left in waiting, many times, in vain too. ‘The gauntlet is thrown down, but not taken up.’  It then becomes a case of the ‘vulnerable’ or even ‘innocent’ being ‘captured’ with the first, the frequent and the loudest. Danger zone – the only!
Undoubtedly, media entities craft societies’ mindset, towards issues that either make or break a nation. Therefore, when such an important factor of people’s lives is at stake, media houses must carefully observe the existing intricate web of ambiguity, and act ingenuously. The all-important caveat here is that of the ‘impossibility of disabusing’. If readers doubt that this ruse has already ensnared them, then ‘stereotyping’ would have been long evanescent. So since ‘societies are there for the taking’, they must be ‘discriminating’ in response to the mass media.
Firstly, societies must quickly realise their overwhelming dependence on media entities. Readers are surrounded by opinions, views and mindsets and have to question intent, integrity and reliability, when choosing any particular source of information. It is well known that certain sources are biased in what they publish or convey to the public. Therefore, people must learn to take things, at times, with ‘a pinch of salt’.
Also the awareness that the media houses are constantly expanding is of utmost importance. In comparison to what it was 10 years ago, the media outlets have progressed rapidly compliments of the burgeoning of scientific developments. Newspapers, magazines, television programmes, radio channels and now the World Wide Web are all effective mediums of spreading the ‘influential’ word.
If societies choose to indulge in believing every word, they themselves become devoid of credibility. Every country thrives on ‘good propaganda’ just so chaos will not break out. Ignorance is bliss, just as naivety is destruction.
The ‘good news’ must be heard repeatedly. It is a cause and effect partnership that the media avenues and societies share. Societies have indirectly encouraged certain attitudes towards issues. Thus, it is unfair to state that ‘media’ have lost credibility, when it is also actual societies that allow these influences to penetrate. People must learn not to remove the ‘embedded truth’. Conversely, they must be unwilling to instil new ideas and beliefs that will ultimately destroy.
If reciprocation can be achieved – the tested ‘good news’ fashioning the society, and societies’ wholesome reflection of this, then the relationship augurs well. So, for now, the ‘good mediums’ must overcome the ‘bad’ and the ‘ugly’ ones.

When you make a mistake, don’t look back at it long. Take the reason of the thing into your mind and then look forward. Mistakes are lessons of wisdom. The past cannot be changed. The future is yet in your power. (Hugh White – U.S. politician (1773 – 1840)
Not a single human being likes making mistakes. But they are inevitable, even if one is cloistered and a total recluse; that person is guaranteed to make some wrong moves, even if only sporadically. Imagine then how the young will be difficult to keep ‘upright’. Rectitude is not an easy thing.
So, since ‘mistakes’ seem natural, the next question is if there is hope.
An example suffices here.
Many may not have heard of Georgia Durante, but her story is now an inspiring one. A model by 12 and nationally known as the model for Kodak by age 17, Durante turned to a life of crime right after marriage. Her husband, Joe Lamendola, convinced her to become the ‘second-in-command’ for many of his criminal activities.
Criminality finally came to an end when Durante decided that she had finally had enough of her husband’s abusive ways. During her divorce, she testified against many of the criminals she used to work for and with. Consequently, Durante wrote a book about her life’s experiences. Later, she became the ‘body double’ for Cindy Crawford and Priscilla Presley.
Here, locally, these types of stories must be told. Many youths are blundering. If the turnaround is not effected, many will be lost.
But first to help them, they must take the responsibility and effect the changes.
Primarily, when the young make mistakes (that even harm other people), it is vital that they acknowledge their follies, and then move to offering an honest and a dignified apology. They must recognise that they have created an unfortunate situation, and commit to a no-repeat.
Good ‘heartbroken’ apologies go a long way to restoring trust. They manifest contrition.
Also, it is always better and more effective to apologise in person, rather than through a means – person or email. Apologies must be direct-heart to heart.
However, no one is a perfectionist. As life is lived, mistakes may be repeated. What is important here is that the young be cognisant of this fact, and in a positive way. Yes, apologies, when genuine, will be manifested via the desire and effort to ‘changing of ways’ that minimise ‘repeating of mistakes.’
In Guyana, the headlines are beginning to be clogged with captions that tell the sad stories of erring youths – pregnancies, possession of arms and ammunition, activities of suicides and homicides, truancy etc. The picture is sombre.
What is even darker is the fact that many of these young offenders are left bereft of hope and restoration.
Yes, they may apologise and genuinely too, but what comes next?
The suggestion from the literature is to give second chances.
This is because whenever mistakes are made and trust is betrayed, restoration is sometimes possible, only when the opportunity is given to do again.
Sir Winston Churchill failed sixth grade. He was subsequently defeated in every election for public office, until he became prime minister and that at the age of 62. He later wrote, “Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never, never, never, never give up.”
Youths must understand the reasons for mistakes’ being made. They occur for various factors. For example, they may have acted or spoken in anger and haste. However, it is for their helpers to understand what led them to be angry in the first place. Perhaps they were chronically tired, or nursing an unrelated grievance. Many times, youths complain (kind of unconsciously) that they are forced to live surrogately for their parents. They resent this, and the expected takes place – a faux pas emanates.
Having understood the factors, at least one of the major ones, leading to mistakes, the second major move is to take mistakes as opportunities to learn.
Sometimes in life, it is not what happens to a person, but what happens inside. Mistakes can make the young gain wisdom and accelerate self-improvement. The important thing is to view mistakes as a useful stepping stone to a higher reality and better looking life.
So irrespective of the gender, and the nature of the crime, youths must never ever be cast aside, after perpetrating a ‘sinful’ deed. They must be restored.

Recently it was reported in the media that the governments of Guyana and Germany have finalised another agreement to utilise five million euros for the development of the Guyana Protected Areas System (GPAS). The funds are expected to be channelled through the German Development Bank, with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Natural Resources and Environment Ministry, functioning as the implementing agency for the continuation of the project.
The authorities have said that the funds will help to realise the Protected Areas Commission, a major component of the National Protected Areas Act. This Act was passed in the last Parliament and assented to by former President Bharrat Jagdeo. It is expected that in addition to protected areas identified in GPAS Phase One which include: the Kaieteur Falls, Kanuku Mountains and Shell Beach, others will be added.
Guyana is indeed blessed to have a large part of its territory covered with virgin rainforests, flora and fauna and many species of birds and animals among other plant and animal life which we must protect and preserve. Some protected areas require many years of efforts before they are established. Others are set up in only a fraction of that time. In each case, a hard process of research, consultation and advocacy is required before the areas are officially assigned a protection status.
For us in Guyana, what is important is that we have started the process some time ago and have been making progress in not only identifying and delineating areas for protection status, but also putting the legislative framework in place to ensure certain areas are legally protected. What is lacking though, is that, even though some public awareness was done, the authorities will need to launch a more aggressive public awareness and education campaign across the country with respect to the what the Act in itself provides for and the role of citizens themselves in the process.
That aside, Guyana and Germany have a history of collaborating in various projects which support the whole concept of sustainable development. For example, the German Development Cooperation Agency assisted Guyana with more than US$ 7 million during 1996-2004, through the Natural Resources Management Project. This saw the introduction of Geographical Information Systems for agencies such as: the Guyana Forestry Commission, the Lands and Surveys Commission, and the Geology and Mines Commission.
Also, it would be recalled that in 2004, Guyana received 2.56 million euros from Germany for the implementation of the Guyana Protected Areas System-Conservation of Tropical Forest Project (GPAS Phase One). This initiative led to the drafting of the National Protected Areas Act, delineation plans for both the Kanuku Mountains and Shell Beach, and a draft of the Kanuku Management Plan. From all indications, a Draft Management Plan for Kanuku Mountains is being prepared and will be fast-tracked with the new fund that has been made available from Germany. Some one million euros are expected to be used for that project, and we were told that the other four million euros will be used to develop suitable infrastructure for all of the identified protected areas. This is aimed at ensuring that these areas are properly managed. Such funding is necessary as it will allow government to put institutional and other arrangements in place to better manage our protected areas, consistent with national and international obligations.
Over the years, the administration has managed to implement quite a few aggressive policies in terms of utilisation of the country’s natural resources, and every effort must be made to ensure that this continues to be done within a sustainable development framework. On this note, we urge the authorities to move with speed to establish the Protected Areas Commission as is provided for in the National Protected Areas Act.

In the current issue of Psychology Today, Jesse Prinz reflects on a topic that has dominated the news in Guyana recently. “It will not have gone unnoticed that men are more violent than women. Men perpetrate about 90 per cent of the world’s homicides and start all of the wars. But why?
A recent article in the “Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society” contends that evolution has shaped men to be warriors. More specifically, the authors claim that men are biologically programmed to form coalitions that aggress against neighbours, and they do so in order to get women, either through force or by procuring resources that would make them more desirable.
The male warrior hypothesis is alluring because it makes sense of male violence, but it is based on a dubious interpretation of the science. Such evolutionary explanations of behaviour are often worse than competing historical explanations.
A historical explanation of male violence does not eschew biological factors, but it minimises them and assumes that men and women are psychologically similar. Consider the biological fact that men have more upper-body strength than women, and assume that both men and women want to obtain as many desirable resources as they can. In hunter-gatherer societies, this strength differential does not allow men to fully dominate women, because they rely on the food that women gather.
But things changed with the advent of intensive agriculture and herding. Strength gives men an advantage over women once heavy ploughs and large animals become central aspects of food production. With this, men become the sole providers, and women start to depend on men economically. The economic dependency allows men to mistreat women, to philander, and to take over labour markets and political institutions. Once men have absolute power, they are reluctant to give it up. It took two world wars and a post-industrial economy for women to obtain basic opportunities and rights.
This historical story can help to explain why men are more violent than women. The men who hold power will fight to keep it, and the men who find themselves without economic resources feel entitled to acquire things by force if they see no other way. With these assumptions, we can dispense with the male warrior hypothesis, which implies that male violence is natural and inevitable.
Social history explains violence against women by proposing that men have taken power by their greater strength, leading to violent competition and the abuse of women. This approach correctly predicts cross-cultural variation in gender differences. As women gain economic power, they cease being treated as male property, age differences between romantic partners shrink, and violence against women diminishes. On the flipside, women who gain power, like Margaret Thatcher and Condoleezza Rice, are often hawkish, suggesting that power, not gender, determines belligerence. Women in the judiciary dole out harsher penalties than men.
To reduce male violence, it is not sufficient to reform men, as the defenders of the male warrior hypothesis recommend. Nor will it suffice to empower women. This will reduce domestic violence, but not war, because women can be as aggressive as men. Warfare did not decline precipitously with women’s suffrage, and during recent conflicts with Russia, 43 per cent of Chechen suicide bombers have been women. Crucially, we must reduce the incentives for violence.
Violence is a complex problem, which no simple biological approach can diagnose or remedy. Factors such as political instability, population density, and income inequality are associated with massive differences in violence across cultures, and these differences are observed while gender ratios remain constant. Of course, men still hold most of the power in the world, and it is no surprise, then, that they perpetrate most of the violence.  But that too is a historical fact, not a biological given.  If we focus on biology instead of economic and historical variables, we will miss out on opportunities for progress.”

Cogeneration in GuySuCo must mainly be approached as the “sugar industry” to produce excess power and export to the national grid, and if the sugar industry in Guyana is to remain competitive and alive, the industry will have to gain momentum and this must be the order of the day. In fact, additional revenue stream by sale of exportable power to the national grid (or third-party customers), has become the only way for achieving long-term sustainability, given the fiercely competitive domestic and international sugar markets. Sugarcane bagasse is an ideal renewable source of energy and is readily available from sugar mills in Guyana. The successful operation of cogeneration plants in GuySuCo’s factories’ operation has given the required confidence for the sugar industry to implement cogeneration plants since the factories do have the capabilities to execute this very important function. In fact, GuySuCo will have to understand that the profitability of a sugar plant is centred on the revenue from export of power. The encouragement being given by the central government for promoting the use of bio-mass/non-conventional, eco-friendly energy further encourages the continued implementation of cogeneration plants in sugar industries in Guyana. Today, the headlined word in the industry is to “to maximise the export of power”. Maximisation of power generation from bagasse-based cogeneration plants is the thrust factor in implementation of cogeneration plants in GuySuCo. The basic design of the plant consists of the selection of power cycle parameters, the number of units and capacities of the boiler and turbo generator. The techno-economical viability will be depended on the correct selection of the technology and adopting higher cycle parameters.  GuySuCo will have to ensure that the issues relating to the selection of the size, the number of units, and the design of various other systems such as bagasse handling system, the water system etc, be detailed, analysed and solved using a more in-depth study approach with the feedback and operating experience that is successfully being engaged globally in sugar producing nations.
The industry’s technical team will need to understand that there is considerable loss of energy during the process of conversion from one form to the other and the right selection of the systems technology, equipments etc play a vital role in the overall energy conservation process, and adopting modern concepts like automation, VF drives, energy efficient motors, correct choice of transmission gears, high efficiency pumps, and correct sizing of all equipments will reduce energy losses due to leakages, radiation, friction and reduction in downtime etc.  Important aspects to be taken care of while aiming at energy conservation include the execution of a detailed energy audit of all the systems in the factory as this is essential to identify the inefficiencies and move to implement improvements so as to enable prudent energy usage. Being the most important subject from the point of view of operation and maintenance of the cogeneration plant, this subject deserves a lot of attention. Distributed Control System (DCS) is the order of the day. The technology for the planning and designing the complete control and instrumentation system for the cogeneration plants is available, but what is required is to create the awareness among sugar plant people about the importance of instrumentation in the operation and maintenance of the cogeneration plant.
If GuySuCo is to move successfully into using bagasse as the fuel for power generation then it is important that comprehensive approaches be used to deal with the full cycle of cogeneration by understanding that bagasse from the mills contains 40 per cent to 50 per cent moisture and in order to garner maximum calorific value from the use of bagasse then moisture will have to be extracted before it is fed into the boiler as high moisture content can reduce boiler efficiency to 70 per cent or less. It must be noted that for every five per cent reduction in moisture the boiler efficiency will go up by about one per cent. This means that with the same quantity of bagasse available the capacity of the cogeneration plant can be increased.  GuySuCo will be required to investigate the various methods of drying and a very cost-effective solution may be to tap off the flue gas from the boiler at a higher temperature and use it in a rotary bagasse drier, but this method decreases the efficiency of the boiler due to tapping off of the gas at a higher temperature and has added disadvantages of pollution problems due to spreading of the dry pith in the bagasse. So, the bagasse is best dried in the furnace. If an alternate heat source of surplus low pressure steam is available, then it could be utilised in a rotary steam drier.
It is important to note that the cogeneration plant configuration is site specific, even though some levels of standardisation could be made for the grassroot plants. The GuySuCo cogeneration scheme should consider the available bagasse, the variations in the bagasse availability, and the allowable percentage of the pass through using conventional fuels like diesel, the process’s steam requirements and the pressure levels. Considering the variations in the bagasse availability and the possible variations in the process’s steam consumption and the number of days of operation, it may be better to downsize the plant and ensure maximum plant load factors. The plant cycle should be optimised to give the best efficiency and this will create the roadmap to the sugar industry success.

Given the uniqueness (for us) of the results delivered at our last elections, President Ramotar’s inaugural address to the National Assembly was salutary for several reasons. There was first of all the need to remind the leadership of this country – not just the political elite present in parliament – of what is at stake at this crucial juncture in our nation’s history. There is the choice between gridlock and stagnation versus progress and growth.
There was the choice between placing the needs of the nation in the forefront versus narrow partisan interests. As the president said, “Today we are on another open path.  I believe that we are at the threshold of a rapid development that can take us to great heights. I urge that we must not miss this opportunity and allow our country to traverse the narrow and difficult roads again”.
In our estimation, the gist of the speech was to remind everyone of the ‘state of the state’ that has been delivered by the administration of ex-President Jagdeo, which makes the attainment of ‘great heights’ possible. President Ramotar first placed Guyana within its international environment that has played and will continue to play such a key role in our development.
The major point was the opportunity presented to us by our geographical proximity to Brazil and the rest of South America. Major initiatives that include infrastructural integration, trade linkages and political cooperation have already been launched and they must be maintained and intensified. Appropriate credit was given to ex-President Jagdeo for the role he played in creating an international space for Guyana in the major global initiative of climate change alleviation.
Even though the naysayers in and out of Parliament would have it otherwise, the gains that our economy has undergone since 1992 are nothing less than startling. A tripling of the GNP; an eightfold increase in per capita income; a halving in the crippling external debt; a comfortable position in external reserves – all achieved with inflation kept in single digits is exemplary in any part of the world. But especially so in a country where internal political and criminal elements spent most of the last decade in waging a vicious armed struggle to destabilise the state. The latter insurrection was decapitated by the previous administration and makes it possible for us to achieve “great heights”.
Looking forward, the president highlighted the role that a secure and affordable energy source is for the future growth of our economy. Just before his speech, the president had acceded to the request of the opposition to be briefed on the Amaila Falls Hydro project, and it is our hope that they will not oppose for the sake of opposing this project.
While locating himself firmly in the tradition of his party – always unabashedly oriented towards the ‘working class” – President Ramotar was just as vociferous in his support for businesses to remain as the engine of growth for the economy. He accepted that at this juncture, the working class can best be served by providing them with high paying jobs. The president was refreshingly not doctrinaire in the exact business model: “We must not rule out any forms of organisation of production of goods and services.  We will embrace large and small companies, public and privately owned firms. All have advantages.”
Accepting the need for both foreign and domestic investments, the president stressed the need for our ‘human capital’ to be developed. This approach, of course, centres our developmental efforts around people and not goods but simultaneously ensure the most efficient production and delivery of the latter. He highlighted the structural changes that have been made in the educational system and with the potential for a quantum leap through integration of the One Lap Per Family (OLPF) initiative.
While the president did not mention it, institutions such as the University of Guyana (UG) will have to change with the times or risk being left behind.