See full statement below from the Ministry of Agriculture:
APNU’s Agriculture Month statement rests on the charge: “More Money, But Where Is the Production?” Its argument relies heavily on the first-half 2026 result and treats that six-month movement as proof of a sustained decline in agriculture.
The official data do not support that conclusion. Sector growth moved from 11.1 per cent in the first half of 2025 to a contraction of 0.5 per cent in the first half of 2026, a deterioration of 11.6 percentage points. This was a sharp slowdown. It was not, however, evidence of a multi-year collapse, nor does it establish that agricultural investment has failed. A half-year comparison cannot substitute for a longitudinal assessment of production and sector value.
APNU states: “In the first half of 2025, agriculture, fishing and forestry grew by 9%. One year later, in the first half of 2026, the sector contracted by 0.5%.” The official comparison is 11.1 per cent growth in the first half of 2025 and a 0.5 per cent contraction in the first half of 2026.
The 11.6 percentage-point deterioration was driven principally by Other Crops, which moved from growth of 10.0 per cent to a contraction of 6.4 per cent. Sugar, rice and fishing did not contract; they grew by 19.3 per cent, 4.4 per cent and 4.1 per cent, respectively, although at slower rates than one year earlier. Livestock and forestry accelerated by 5.8 and 9.2 percentage points. The factual record therefore shows a weak aggregate half-year result concentrated in Other Crops, alongside continued growth in several major subsectors. It does not show a sector-wide loss of production.
THE LONGER-TERM PICTURE
APNU asks: “If the country is spending more, why are significant areas of agricultural production performing worse?” The premise is incomplete because it places one budget allocation beside one half-year growth rate and treats the two as directly equivalent. Agricultural capital expenditure moves through design, procurement, construction, commissioning and production cycles before its full effect appears in output. Drainage and irrigation works, farm roads, planting material, technology, storage and market access must therefore be assessed against completed works and measurable outcomes over an appropriate period. Weather, flooding, drought, commodity prices, biological cycles and base effects also influence short-term production. The relevant test is the sector’s performance over time, supported by data on output, yields, productivity, farmer incomes, market access and resilience.
- APNU says: “The trend is a downward loss in production.” The official annual series contradicts that claim. At constant 2012 prices, agriculture, forestry and fishing recorded compound annual real growth of approximately 2.1 per cent in 2015–2020 and approximately 6.1 per cent in 2020–2025.
- APNU says: “The issue is whether the money is producing the required results.” Expenditure is being assessed against the purpose, completion status and measurable outputs of each programme—not against the assumption that every capital dollar must generate production within the same six-month period.
- APNU says agriculture must be judged by whether farmers can “plant more, produce more, earn more and sell food at prices ordinary Guyanese can afford.” Those outcomes are measured through acreage, yields, production volumes, farm incomes, losses, market access and prices. An aggregate half-year GDP result alone cannot establish performance across all of those indicators.
- APNU says expenditure is not performance. The same evidentiary standard applies to APNU’s claim: one weak half-year is not proof of long-term sectoral failure.
- APNU links the production result directly to rising food prices. That assertion omits other material drivers, including weather, import costs, transport costs, distribution margins and international prices. The claimed causal link is not established by the data presented.
- The full record is the proper test. The relevant assessment is what was spent, what was completed and what measurable results followed over a period long enough for capital investments and agricultural programmes to take effect.
APNU’s claim of a “downward loss in production” is contradicted by the official annual data series. At constant 2012 prices, agriculture, forestry and fishing grew at a compound annual rate of approximately 2.1 per cent between 2015 and 2020. Between 2020 and 2025, the sector’s compound annual growth rate increased to approximately 6.1 per cent. The pace of real sector growth was therefore almost three times as high under the PPP/C Government period. The first-half 2026 contraction requires a targeted response, particularly in Other Crops, but it does not overturn the stronger preceding five-year record.
The subsector record reinforces this conclusion. Livestock growth accelerated from a compound annual growth rate of 2.8 per cent in 2015–2020 to 12.6 per cent in 2020–2025. Forestry moved from a compound annual contraction of 6.5 per cent to compound annual growth of 8.0 per cent, while fishing moved from a compound annual contraction of 1.8 per cent to compound annual growth of 10.7 per cent. Rice shifted from a compound annual contraction of 1.1 per cent to compound annual growth of 2.7 per cent. Other Crops expanded in both periods, at compound annual growth rates of approximately 6.1 per cent and 5.9 per cent, respectively. Sugar remains the principal structural challenge, notwithstanding the first-half 2026 recovery.
The current-price series shows an equally clear difference between the two periods. The nominal value of agriculture, forestry and fishing declined from G$224.9 billion in 2015 to G$192.2 billion in 2020, equivalent to a compound annual contraction of approximately 3.1 per cent. From 2020 to 2025, the sector’s nominal value increased from G$192.2 billion to G$437.0 billion, equivalent to compound annual growth of approximately 17.9 per cent. In absolute terms, the sector lost approximately G$32.7 billion in nominal value during 2015–2020 and gained approximately G$244.8 billion during 2020–2025. Nominal value is distinct from real output because it also reflects price movements, but the period comparison plainly does not support APNU’s claim of a continuing downward trend.
So, where is the production? The official record shows a sharp 11.6 percentage-point slowdown in the first half of 2026, concentrated mainly in Other Crops. It also shows materially stronger performance over the complete five-year period under the PPP/C Government: real agricultural GDP grew at a compound annual rate of approximately 6.1 per cent in 2020–2025, compared with 2.1 per cent in 2015–2020 under APNU. At current prices, sector value rose by approximately G$244.8 billion in 2020–2025 after declining by approximately G$32.7 billion in 2015–2020. These facts support continued intervention where performance weakened; they do not support APNU’s claim that agriculture is broadly or persistently collapsing.
Source: INews Guyana
