Economy Of Suriname

Suriname’s economy has historically been anchored in the extraction and exportation of bauxite, a mineral rich in aluminium oxide, which served as the foundation for its industrial activities. The country possessed significant bauxite reserves, and mining operations focused on extracting this resource to produce aluminium oxide, a key intermediate in aluminium manufacturing. Alongside aluminium oxide, limited quantities of refined aluminium were also produced and exported, contributing substantially to the nation’s foreign exchange earnings and industrial output. The bauxite industry not only provided employment opportunities but also shaped Suriname’s economic landscape for much of the twentieth century, positioning the country as a notable player in the global aluminium market. However, this economic structure underwent a significant transformation following the departure of the aluminium company Alcoa, which had been a dominant force in Suriname’s mining and refining sectors. Alcoa’s exit marked the end of an era characterized by aluminium-centric economic activity and compelled Suriname to diversify its sources of revenue. In the aftermath, the country’s economic dependence shifted predominantly towards the export of crude oil and gold, two commodities that rose in prominence as alternative pillars of the national economy. The oil sector, buoyed by offshore exploration and production, became a critical contributor to government revenues and foreign exchange, while gold mining, both large-scale and artisanal, expanded rapidly due to rising global gold prices and increased investment in mineral exploration. This transition reflected broader efforts within Suriname to adapt to changing global market conditions and to reduce vulnerability associated with reliance on a single commodity. The diversification into crude oil and gold exports not only helped stabilize the economy but also attracted new investments and fostered growth in related sectors. Despite these shifts, challenges remained in managing resource wealth and ensuring sustainable development, particularly given the volatility of commodity markets and the environmental impacts associated with extractive industries. In terms of investment climate, Suriname’s position on the global stage was assessed in March 2011 when it was ranked as the 124th safest investment destination worldwide according to the Euromoney Country Risk rankings. This ranking reflected a composite evaluation of political, economic, and financial risks that influence the attractiveness and security of investments in the country. Being placed 124th indicated that while Suriname presented certain opportunities for investors, it also faced considerable challenges related to governance, regulatory frameworks, and economic stability. Such assessments played a role in shaping foreign direct investment flows and informed both government policy and investor decision-making processes. The ranking underscored the need for continued reforms and improvements in institutional capacity to enhance Suriname’s appeal as a destination for sustainable and secure investment.

Suriname’s membership in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has played a significant role in shaping its trade relationships and export activities. As a member of this regional organization, Suriname benefits from preferential trade agreements and cooperative economic policies that facilitate the movement of goods and services among member states. This affiliation has enabled Suriname to integrate more closely with Caribbean markets, thereby influencing the composition and destinations of its agricultural exports. The CARICOM framework encourages regional collaboration, which has helped Suriname to access broader markets for its agricultural produce, despite the relatively small scale of its export volumes. Agricultural exports from Suriname are characterized by modest quantities but a diverse range of products. Among these, rice stands out as one of the primary staples cultivated for both domestic consumption and export. Suriname’s rice production benefits from the country’s fertile alluvial plains and tropical climate, which provide favorable conditions for paddy cultivation. Alongside rice, shrimp represents a significant export commodity, reflecting the country’s engagement in both marine and aquaculture industries. The shrimp harvested in Suriname is valued for its quality and forms an important part of the country’s seafood exports. Timber is another key agricultural export, derived from Suriname’s extensive forest resources, which are managed to provide a sustainable supply of wood products for both domestic use and international markets. Additionally, Suriname exports bananas, a fruit crop that thrives in the tropical climate, as well as a variety of other fruits and vegetables that contribute to the country’s agricultural diversity and export portfolio. The Fernandes Group is a prominent Surinamese company that has made a notable impact within the country’s agricultural and food processing sectors. Specializing in the production of soft drinks, the Fernandes Group has established a strong brand presence locally and regionally. Its beverages are bottled and distributed on a global scale through a partnership with Coca-Cola, which has facilitated the expansion of Fernandes products beyond Suriname’s borders. This collaboration has enhanced the visibility of Surinamese agricultural byproducts and value-added goods in international markets, underscoring the importance of domestic companies in leveraging global distribution networks to promote local products. In addition to the primary agricultural exports, Suriname cultivates a range of other crops that contribute to the country’s agricultural output. Palm kernels are produced as part of the country’s engagement with oil palm cultivation, which provides raw materials for the production of palm oil and related products. Coconuts are another important crop, grown extensively in coastal areas where the climate supports their development. These coconuts serve both local consumption needs and export demands, supplying raw materials for food products and other uses. Peanuts are also cultivated in Suriname, adding to the variety of leguminous crops that support both human nutrition and soil fertility through nitrogen fixation. Together, these crops enhance the agricultural diversity of Suriname and provide additional sources of income for farmers. Livestock farming forms a complementary component of Suriname’s agricultural sector, with beef and poultry production contributing to the country’s food supply and economic activities. Cattle farming is practiced on a scale that supports both local consumption and limited commercial distribution, providing beef that meets domestic demand. Similarly, chicken farming is an important source of protein for the population, with poultry products widely consumed across the country. The development of livestock farming in Suriname reflects efforts to diversify agricultural production and reduce reliance on imported meat products. These activities are integrated with crop production systems, often utilizing crop residues and byproducts to support animal feeding, thereby enhancing overall agricultural sustainability. Suriname’s vast forest resources play a crucial role in the country’s utilization of forest products, which extend beyond timber exports. The tropical rainforests cover a significant portion of the national territory, offering a wealth of biodiversity and raw materials. Forest products harvested in Suriname include not only timber but also non-timber forest products such as resins, fruits, nuts, and medicinal plants. Sustainable forest management practices have been implemented to balance economic exploitation with environmental conservation, ensuring that forest resources continue to contribute to the country’s economy without compromising ecological integrity. The forestry sector supports local communities through employment and provides raw materials for various industries, including construction, furniture manufacturing, and handicrafts. Shrimp production represents a vital intersection between Suriname’s agricultural and aquaculture sectors. The country’s coastal and estuarine environments provide suitable habitats for shrimp farming and wild shrimp harvesting. Aquaculture initiatives have been developed to enhance shrimp production, employing modern techniques to increase yields and improve product quality. Shrimp from Suriname is recognized for its freshness and flavor, making it a sought-after commodity in regional and international seafood markets. The shrimp industry not only contributes to export earnings but also supports employment in coastal communities, where fishing and aquaculture activities are integral to local livelihoods. Efforts to maintain sustainable shrimp production include monitoring environmental impacts and implementing best practices to preserve aquatic ecosystems.

In 2018, Suriname’s agricultural sector demonstrated its continued reliance on staple crops, with rice production reaching a total of 273 thousand tons. This substantial output underscored rice as one of the most significant agricultural products within the country, reflecting both its role as a dietary staple and its economic importance. The cultivation of rice in Suriname has historically been concentrated in the coastal plains, where fertile soils and abundant water resources create favorable conditions for paddy farming. The production volume in 2018 indicated not only the persistence of traditional farming practices but also the adaptation to modern agricultural techniques aimed at increasing yield and efficiency. Rice farming in Suriname supports a considerable portion of the rural population, contributing to food security and providing employment opportunities across various stages of the production and distribution chain. Alongside rice, sugar cane production also played a vital role in Suriname’s agricultural landscape during 2018, with a recorded output of 125 thousand tons. This figure highlighted sugar cane as another cornerstone crop, reflecting its longstanding presence in the country’s economy since the colonial era. Sugar cane cultivation is primarily concentrated in the coastal districts, where the climate and soil conditions are conducive to its growth. The sugar industry in Suriname has historically been linked to both domestic consumption and export markets, with processing facilities transforming raw cane into sugar and related products. The 2018 production volume demonstrated the sector’s resilience and its contribution to the agricultural GDP, despite challenges such as fluctuating global sugar prices and competition from alternative sweeteners. The coexistence of rice and sugar cane as major crops illustrates the dual focus of Suriname’s agricultural policy on food staples and cash crops. In addition to rice and sugar cane, Suriname’s agricultural output in 2018 included a variety of other products, albeit in smaller quantities. Bananas, for instance, were produced at a volume of 48 thousand tons, reflecting their role as a significant but secondary crop within the agricultural sector. Banana cultivation in Suriname benefits from the country’s tropical climate, which supports year-round growth and harvesting cycles. The production of bananas is concentrated in specific regions where soil fertility and rainfall patterns favor the crop. Although the volume produced in 2018 was modest compared to rice and sugar cane, bananas contribute to both local consumption and export earnings. The banana industry also provides livelihoods for smallholder farmers and contributes to the diversification of Suriname’s agricultural base, helping to mitigate risks associated with reliance on a limited number of crops. Orange production in Suriname during 2018 amounted to 19 thousand tons, further contributing to the diversity of the country’s agricultural sector. Citrus fruits, including oranges, are cultivated in areas with suitable microclimates that support fruit development and quality. The production of oranges adds nutritional variety to the domestic food supply and supports local markets. Although the scale of orange production is relatively small compared to staple crops, it represents an important segment of horticulture that has potential for growth through improved cultivation techniques and market development. The presence of orange groves also reflects efforts to expand the range of agricultural commodities, thereby enhancing food security and economic resilience. Coconut production in Suriname was recorded at 14 thousand tons in 2018, exemplifying the range of agricultural commodities produced within the country. Coconut palms thrive in the coastal and riverine areas of Suriname, where they contribute to both subsistence and commercial agriculture. The harvested coconuts serve multiple purposes, including the production of coconut water, oil, and copra, as well as use in traditional cuisine and handicrafts. The 2018 production volume indicated a steady contribution of coconuts to the agricultural sector, supporting rural economies and providing raw materials for local industries. The cultivation of coconuts also plays a role in environmental management, as the palms help stabilize coastal soils and provide shade and habitat for other species. Together with rice, sugar cane, bananas, and oranges, coconuts form part of a diversified agricultural portfolio that underpins Suriname’s rural livelihoods and economic development.

Several large companies have been actively involved in the extraction of hardwood from Suriname’s extensive jungle regions, capitalizing on the country’s rich tropical forest resources. These enterprises operate primarily in the interior areas, where dense, biodiverse forests provide valuable timber species such as mahogany, teak, and purpleheart. The hardwood industry in Suriname has historically contributed to the national economy by supplying both domestic and international markets, with timber exports representing a significant source of foreign exchange. Logging operations have often been concentrated in regions accessible by rivers and rudimentary road networks, facilitating the transportation of heavy timber to processing facilities and export terminals. In recent decades, there have been numerous proposals aimed at expanding the exploitation of Suriname’s tropical forests and the largely undeveloped interior territories. These proposals often involve increased logging activities, infrastructure development, and resource extraction in areas traditionally inhabited by indigenous peoples and Maroon communities. The Maroons, descendants of escaped African slaves, along with various indigenous groups, have maintained a close cultural and subsistence relationship with the forest, relying on its resources for food, medicine, and spiritual practices. The expansion of commercial logging and other extractive activities into these territories has raised complex issues regarding land rights, cultural preservation, and sustainable development. The prospect of intensified exploitation of Suriname’s forests has generated considerable concern among environmentalists and human rights activists, both within the country and on the international stage. Environmental advocates have highlighted the risks of deforestation, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem degradation associated with large-scale logging operations. Suriname’s forests are recognized for their ecological significance, harboring numerous endemic species and serving as vital carbon sinks that contribute to global climate regulation. Human rights organizations have drawn attention to the potential displacement of indigenous and Maroon communities, violations of their customary land tenure, and the erosion of their traditional ways of life. These groups have called for greater recognition of indigenous land claims, more stringent environmental safeguards, and inclusive decision-making processes that respect the rights and voices of local populations. Despite the vocal opposition from environmental and human rights advocates, these groups have not yet established a strong or influential presence within Suriname’s domestic political or economic landscape. Factors contributing to this limited influence include the relatively small size and dispersed nature of activist organizations, limited access to resources and media platforms, and competing national priorities centered on economic growth and development. Additionally, the government and commercial interests have often prioritized resource extraction as a means to stimulate economic activity and generate revenue, sometimes at the expense of environmental and social considerations. Consequently, while concerns regarding sustainable forest management and indigenous rights persist, the balance of power within Suriname currently favors continued exploitation of hardwood resources, with environmental protection and human rights advocacy remaining on the periphery of policy-making and enforcement.

The state-owned banana producer Surland ceased its operations on April 5, 2002, after failing to meet payroll expenses for the second consecutive month. This financial inability to pay workers underscored the deepening crisis within the company, casting significant doubt on its continued viability. The cessation of operations not only disrupted the livelihoods of employees but also raised broader concerns about the future of Suriname’s banana industry, which had long been a component of the national economy. The shutdown highlighted systemic issues within Surland, including operational inefficiencies and financial mismanagement, which had plagued the company for years. In the aftermath of Surland’s closure, efforts were made to salvage the banana sector through a comprehensive restructuring process. This led to the establishment of a new entity named Stichting Behoud Bananen Sector Suriname (SBBS), which translates to the Foundation for the Preservation of the Banana Sector of Suriname. The creation of SBBS marked a strategic shift aimed at sustaining and revitalizing the banana industry, which was seen as vital for both employment and export revenues. The foundation was tasked with overseeing banana production and implementing reforms designed to restore profitability and stability to the sector, reflecting a renewed commitment by the government and stakeholders to preserve this agricultural industry. Amid the operational and financial challenges faced by Surland, there were persistent rumors suggesting that political differences played a significant role in the company’s downfall. Some observers speculated that external political influences may have manipulated circumstances to precipitate the shutdown, indicating that the closure was not solely the result of economic factors. These allegations pointed to possible internal power struggles or conflicts of interest that could have undermined the company’s management and decision-making processes. While concrete evidence remained elusive, the perception of political interference contributed to the uncertainty surrounding the banana sector’s future and complicated efforts to achieve a transparent and effective restructuring. Following the transition to SBBS management, the banana sector experienced a remarkable turnaround. For the first time in two decades, banana production under SBBS became profitable, signaling a significant improvement in the economic viability of the industry. This success was attributed to a combination of improved management practices, cost control measures, and strategic investments aimed at increasing productivity and quality. The profitability achieved by SBBS not only restored confidence among producers and workers but also demonstrated the potential for sustainable growth within Suriname’s banana industry. This positive development was instrumental in securing the sector’s role in the national economy and provided a foundation for future expansion. In addition to bananas, Suriname has a widespread cultivation of plantains, which form an important part of the country’s agricultural output. Plantains are grown extensively across various regions, contributing to both local consumption and food security. The cultivation of plantains complements the banana industry, as both crops share similar growing conditions and agricultural practices. Together, bananas and plantains represent significant components of Suriname’s horticultural sector, supporting rural livelihoods and diversifying the agricultural landscape. The prominence of plantains alongside bananas highlights the broader importance of these staple crops in the nation’s economy and dietary habits.

Gold exports have played a pivotal role in Suriname’s economy, consistently constituting between 60% and 80% of the country’s total export earnings. This dominant contribution underscores the sector’s critical importance to the nation’s trade balance, as gold remains the principal commodity driving foreign exchange inflows. The reliance on gold exports reflects Suriname’s rich mineral endowment and the sector’s well-established infrastructure, which together sustain a significant portion of the country’s international trade activities. Over the years, fluctuations within this range have mirrored global gold price dynamics and domestic production levels, yet the sector’s prominence has remained largely unchallenged within Suriname’s export portfolio. In 2021, the gold industry’s significance was further highlighted by its contribution of 8.5% to Suriname’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), illustrating the sector’s integral role within the broader national economy. This substantial share of GDP reflects not only the value of gold extraction and processing activities but also the ancillary economic effects generated through employment, investment, and related services. The gold sector’s contribution to GDP demonstrates its capacity to influence economic growth trajectories and fiscal revenues, positioning it as a cornerstone of Suriname’s economic development strategy. The sector’s performance often serves as a barometer for the country’s overall economic health, given its substantial weight in both export earnings and domestic economic output. Suriname’s gold production is characterized by a dual structure comprising large-scale mining operations and small-scale mining activities. Large-scale mining accounts for approximately 58% of the country’s total gold output, reflecting the presence of significant industrial mining companies that employ advanced extraction technologies and operate extensive concessions. These operations typically involve mechanized processes and are subject to regulatory oversight, contributing to formal sector production and export channels. Conversely, small-scale mining contributes the remaining 42% of gold production, representing a substantial informal and artisanal mining sector. This segment often involves individual miners or small groups using less mechanized methods, frequently operating in remote areas with varying degrees of regulatory compliance. The coexistence of these two mining modalities illustrates the complex nature of Suriname’s gold sector, encompassing both formal industrial enterprises and informal artisanal activities. The economic impact of the gold sector is further evidenced by the export value recorded in 2023, which reached USD 1.83 billion. This figure underscores the sector’s substantial contribution to export revenue generation and highlights its role as a major source of foreign currency inflows for Suriname. The high export value reflects a combination of increased production volumes and favorable international gold prices, which together have bolstered the sector’s financial performance. The USD 1.83 billion in export earnings not only supports the country’s balance of payments but also provides critical fiscal resources that underpin government spending and economic stability. The magnitude of these export revenues illustrates the gold industry’s capacity to drive economic growth and sustain Suriname’s external trade position. However, in early 2025, Suriname’s gold industry faced intense scrutiny following revelations of significant oversight failures by the Foreign Currency Committee, the governmental body charged with monitoring gold exports and managing foreign currency flows. These failures raised concerns about the effectiveness of regulatory mechanisms governing the sector and highlighted vulnerabilities in the oversight framework. The Foreign Currency Committee’s mandate includes ensuring that gold exports are accurately reported and that the associated foreign currency proceeds are properly accounted for, making its role central to maintaining transparency and fiscal integrity within the gold trade. The exposure of oversight lapses prompted calls for urgent reforms and increased regulatory vigilance to safeguard the economic benefits derived from gold exports. A particularly notable incident involved Finance and Planning Minister Stanley Raghoebarsing, who disclosed that a private plane carrying gold with an official export permit was intercepted. Despite possessing the necessary documentation, the shipment generated no revenue for the state, indicating irregularities in the export process. This case exemplified the systemic weaknesses in the monitoring and control of gold exports, revealing that official permits did not always correspond to legitimate or revenue-generating transactions. The interception of the private plane underscored the challenges faced by authorities in enforcing export regulations and preventing illicit or unauthorized gold shipments. Minister Raghoebarsing’s revelation brought to light the complexities of managing gold export logistics and the need for enhanced scrutiny of export documentation. The incident exposed broader systemic issues within the gold export regulatory framework, including the issuance of numerous opaque and unjustified export permits. Many of these permits were granted to entities that were not actively engaged in gold exporting activities, raising questions about the criteria and oversight applied during the permit approval process. The proliferation of such permits suggested potential abuses and a lack of transparency, which compromised the integrity of the export monitoring system. These irregularities hindered the government’s ability to accurately track gold exports and foreign currency inflows, thereby undermining fiscal accountability and economic governance. The situation highlighted the necessity for reforms aimed at tightening permit issuance protocols and enhancing institutional capacity to prevent misuse. Despite the backdrop of elevated gold prices and increased mining activity, official gold export figures during this period were anomalously low, suggesting significant discrepancies between reported data and actual export volumes. This divergence raised suspicions of underreporting or misreporting within the sector, potentially linked to the aforementioned irregularities in export permits and oversight failures. The inconsistency between production levels and export statistics complicated efforts to assess the true scale of gold exports and their economic impact. Such discrepancies not only distorted official economic indicators but also impeded effective policy formulation and resource allocation. The anomaly in export data underscored the critical importance of reliable statistics for managing the gold sector and maintaining economic stability. The government estimated that these irregularities in gold export monitoring and permit issuance resulted in a financial loss of at least US$300 million in recent months. This substantial loss reflected the revenue foregone due to unreported or improperly accounted gold exports, which deprived the state of valuable foreign exchange earnings and tax revenues. The magnitude of the financial shortfall highlighted the economic consequences of weak regulatory oversight and the urgent need for corrective measures. The estimated loss also had broader implications for Suriname’s fiscal health, affecting budgetary planning and the government’s capacity to finance public services. This fiscal impact reinforced the imperative for strengthening institutional controls and enhancing transparency within the gold export sector. The oversight failures and export irregularities contributed to adverse macroeconomic effects, including the depreciation of the Surinamese dollar and an increase in foreign currency prices. The erosion of confidence in the management of foreign exchange inflows, particularly those derived from gold exports, exerted downward pressure on the national currency’s value. The resultant depreciation increased the cost of imports and fueled inflationary pressures, thereby negatively impacting the overall economy. The volatility in foreign exchange markets underscored the interconnectedness of the gold sector’s performance with broader economic stability. These developments emphasized the critical role of effective regulatory oversight in maintaining currency stability and safeguarding economic resilience. In response to these challenges, Minister Stanley Raghoebarsing committed to implementing stricter oversight mechanisms and comprehensive reforms aimed at addressing the identified weaknesses in the gold export regulatory framework. These measures were intended to enhance transparency, improve permit issuance procedures, and strengthen the monitoring of gold exports and foreign currency flows. The proposed reforms sought to restore confidence in the sector’s governance and ensure that gold exports translated into tangible economic benefits for Suriname. Minister Raghoebarsing’s commitment reflected a recognition of the sector’s strategic importance and the necessity of robust institutional frameworks to support sustainable economic development. The government’s reform agenda aimed to mitigate risks associated with illicit activities and promote greater accountability within the gold industry.

Suriname’s economy historically relied heavily on the export of aluminium oxide, commonly known as alumina, which was produced from the abundant bauxite reserves found within the country. Bauxite mining formed the cornerstone of Suriname’s industrial sector, providing the raw material necessary for the production of alumina and, to a lesser extent, refined aluminium. The extraction and processing of bauxite into alumina represented the primary source of foreign exchange earnings and employment, underpinning the nation’s economic stability for much of the 20th century. Although the country also produced limited quantities of aluminium metal, the bulk of its economic output in this sector was concentrated on alumina exports, which were shipped to global markets for further refinement and use in various industries. A pivotal moment in Suriname’s aluminium industry occurred in 1999 when the aluminium smelter located at Paranam was permanently closed. This smelter, which had been operational for several decades, played a critical role in the downstream processing of alumina into aluminium metal within the country. Its closure marked a significant shift in Suriname’s aluminium production infrastructure, effectively ending the domestic production of refined aluminium. The decision to shut down the Paranam facility was influenced by a combination of economic factors, including fluctuating global aluminium prices, rising operational costs, and the challenges of maintaining competitiveness in an increasingly globalized market. The closure resulted in the loss of direct aluminium production capacity, compelling Suriname to rely more heavily on the export of raw alumina rather than finished aluminium products. The bauxite mining landscape in Suriname underwent further transformation in November 2015 when Suralco, the primary company responsible for bauxite extraction in the country, completely ceased all mining operations. Suralco, a subsidiary of the multinational corporation Alcoa, had been the dominant player in Suriname’s bauxite industry for decades, managing extensive mining sites and associated infrastructure. The cessation of mining activities by Suralco was a consequential development, reflecting both the depletion of economically viable bauxite reserves and the shifting priorities of the global aluminium market. This closure effectively ended Suriname’s role as a major bauxite producer, disrupting the economic model that had sustained the country for much of the previous century. The shutdown also had significant social and economic repercussions, including job losses and reduced export revenues, which prompted the government and other stakeholders to explore alternative avenues for economic diversification and development. Throughout the period leading up to these closures, Suriname’s bauxite industry had been characterized by a complex interplay of resource management, international partnerships, and market dynamics. The country’s rich bauxite deposits, primarily located in the central and western regions, had attracted foreign investment and technological expertise, enabling the development of large-scale mining and processing facilities. However, over time, challenges such as resource depletion, environmental concerns, and global competition exerted increasing pressure on the industry. The closure of the Paranam smelter in 1999 and the complete halt of mining by Suralco in 2015 symbolized the end of an era for Suriname’s bauxite sector, necessitating a reevaluation of the country’s economic strategies and resource utilization. These developments underscored the vulnerability of economies heavily dependent on finite natural resources and highlighted the need for sustainable economic planning in the face of changing global market conditions.

The oil sector constitutes a vital component of Suriname’s economy, contributing approximately 10% to the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and thereby playing a significant role in bolstering the overall economic framework. Central to this sector is STAATSOLIE, the national oil company, which serves as the principal entity responsible for the development, extraction, and refining of petroleum resources within the country. STAATSOLIE’s operations encompass a broad spectrum of activities, ranging from upstream oil production to downstream refining processes, positioning it as the cornerstone of Suriname’s oil industry. In 2012, STAATSOLIE achieved a daily production rate of 16,200 barrels of oil, which is equivalent to approximately 2,580 cubic meters per day. This level of output underscored the company’s capacity to sustain domestic petroleum supplies and meet local energy demands. The company’s refining operations are primarily conducted at the Tout Lui Faut refinery, situated in the District of Wanica. At this facility, STAATSOLIE refines around 16,500 barrels of crude oil daily, enabling the production of various petroleum products essential for both domestic consumption and commercial distribution. Beyond extraction and refining, STAATSOLIE has diversified its portfolio to include significant contributions to Suriname’s energy infrastructure. It owns and manages a 96 megawatt (MW) power plant, which forms a crucial part of the country’s electricity generation capacity. Additionally, the company operates a 189 MW hydroelectric power plant, further enhancing the national grid’s reliability and sustainability. These power generation assets not only support the energy needs of the oil sector itself but also contribute to the broader electricity supply for Suriname’s population and industries. STAATSOLIE also maintains a network of retail gas stations under the brand name Gow2, which serves as the primary outlet for distributing petroleum products to consumers across the country. This retail presence complements the company’s upstream and midstream operations by ensuring a direct link to end-users, thereby enhancing market penetration and brand recognition. Furthermore, STAATSOLIE has established itself as a reputable bunker fuel supplier within the Caribbean region, providing marine fuel to vessels operating in the area. This regional engagement underscores the company’s strategic role not only domestically but also within the wider Caribbean maritime fuel market. Financially, STAATSOLIE demonstrated robust performance in 2022, reporting total revenues of USD 840 million. From this revenue, the company contributed a substantial USD 320 million to the Surinamese state treasury, highlighting its importance as a source of government income and fiscal support. However, in 2023, the company experienced a decline in revenue, which fell to USD 722 million. This decrease was primarily attributed to lower global oil prices per barrel, reflecting the volatility of international energy markets. Despite the reduction in total revenue, STAATSOLIE’s contribution to the state treasury increased to USD 335 million in 2023, indicating effective fiscal management and possibly enhanced tax or royalty arrangements. The offshore oil sector in Suriname has attracted significant interest from major international oil companies, including Total Energies, Apache, Shell, and Petronas. These companies have entered into production sharing contracts (PSCs) with STAATSOLIE, facilitating collaborative exploration and extraction activities in Suriname’s offshore oil blocks. The inaugural production sharing contract was signed in 2015, marking the beginning of formalized partnerships aimed at unlocking the country’s offshore hydrocarbon potential. Building on this foundation, three additional PSCs were signed in 2023, further expanding the scope of offshore exploration and development in collaboration with foreign investors. A landmark event in Suriname’s oil industry occurred in 2020 with the discovery of the first offshore oil reserves. This discovery represented a significant milestone, opening new avenues for resource development and economic growth. In response, STAATSOLIE, together with local partners, Surinamese companies, and the government, has been actively engaged in preparations for the expansion of the offshore oil sector. These efforts encompass regulatory frameworks, infrastructure development, and capacity building to support the forthcoming phase of offshore production. The initial phase of offshore oil production is slated to commence with the development of oil block 58, projected for 2028. STAATSOLIE holds a 20% stake in this block, reflecting its continued strategic involvement in the country’s evolving oil landscape. The commencement of production from block 58 is anticipated to mark the beginning of a new era in Suriname’s oil industry, characterized by increased output and enhanced economic returns. Projections estimate that Suriname will generate approximately USD 7 billion in revenue during the first five years of offshore oil production, underscoring the transformative potential of these developments for the national economy.

In January 2002, the government of Suriname undertook a significant renegotiation of civil servant wages, resulting in agreements to increase salaries by as much as 100 percent. This substantial wage adjustment affected a large segment of the public workforce and consequently had a pronounced impact on government expenditure. The decision to double wages for many civil servants was aimed at addressing long-standing demands for improved compensation but raised immediate concerns about the fiscal sustainability of such increases. The anticipated surge in government spending placed considerable pressure on the national budget and monetary stability, setting the stage for subsequent currency fluctuations. Following the agreement on wage increases but before their full implementation, apprehensions grew regarding the government’s capacity to finance these elevated expenses. These concerns manifested in a weakening of the Surinamese currency, the Surinamese guilder (SRG), which depreciated from an exchange rate of approximately SF 2,200 per U.S. dollar in January 2002 to nearly SF 2,500 by April of the same year. This depreciation reflected market skepticism about the government’s fiscal discipline and the potential inflationary consequences of higher public sector wages. The decline in the guilder’s value during this period underscored the vulnerability of the currency to domestic policy decisions and external economic pressures. On March 26, 2003, the Central Bank of Suriname (CBvS) formally adjusted the official exchange rate of the U.S. dollar against the Surinamese guilder, resulting in a further devaluation of the local currency. The CBvS set the official selling rate at SF 2,650 per U.S. dollar and the purchasing rate at SF 2,600 per U.S. dollar. This adjustment was a response to persistent pressures on the guilder and aimed to bring the official exchange rate closer to the realities of the parallel market. Prior to this official devaluation, the black market rate for the U.S. dollar had reached approximately SF 3,250, indicating a significant divergence between the official and unofficial currency values. By narrowing this gap, the Central Bank sought to reduce the incentives for black market currency trading and stabilize the foreign exchange market. At the beginning of 2004, Suriname implemented a major currency reform by introducing the Surinamese dollar (SRD) to replace the Surinamese guilder (SRG). The conversion rate was established at 1,000 guilders to 1 dollar, effectively redenominating the currency to simplify transactions and restore confidence. This redenomination was part of broader economic measures designed to address inflationary pressures and improve the functionality of the monetary system. The introduction of the SRD marked a significant milestone in Suriname’s economic history, as it sought to create a more stable and manageable currency framework. Prior to the 2004 currency reform, the Surinamese guilder was subdivided into 100 cents, similar to many decimal currency systems. With the introduction of the SRD, the value of coins and currency notes was effectively multiplied by 1,000, so that the value expressed in SRD cents corresponded directly to the former value in SRG cents. This conversion maintained the relative value of smaller denominations while simplifying the overall currency structure. For example, a coin or note that had been denominated as SRG 1 or SRG 2.50 retained its proportional value when expressed in the new currency system, albeit scaled down by a factor of 1,000. This revaluation applied not only to circulating coins and banknotes but also to denominations that had previously held very low official value but were of interest to collectors. Coins such as the SRG 1 and SRG 2.50, which had seen diminished purchasing power due to inflation and currency depreciation, were revalued in the new system to reflect their adjusted worth. While these denominations had limited practical use in everyday transactions prior to 2004, their collector’s value remained notable. The currency reform thus preserved the relative values of these denominations while streamlining the monetary system. Historical exchange rates of the Surinamese guilder against the U.S. dollar illustrate the currency’s progressive depreciation over the late 1990s and early 2000s. In 1998, the exchange rate stood at approximately 401 guilders per U.S. dollar. This rate nearly doubled to 859.44 in 1999, increased further to 1,322.47 in 2000, and escalated to 2,178.5 in 2001. By 2002, the rate had reached approximately 2,346.75 guilders per U.S. dollar. These figures demonstrate a consistent and rapid weakening of the guilder, driven by economic instability, inflationary pressures, and fiscal challenges within Suriname. The accelerating depreciation underscored the urgency of monetary reforms and exchange rate adjustments during this period. In 1998, the exchange rate regime became fragmented into four distinct rates, reflecting a complex and unstable foreign exchange environment. This fragmentation created confusion and inefficiencies in currency trading and economic planning. In response, the government floated the guilder in January 1999, allowing market forces to determine its value. However, when the black-market exchange rate plummeted sharply, the government intervened by fixing the currency once again to stabilize the market. This oscillation between floating and fixed exchange rate regimes highlighted the challenges faced by Suriname in managing its currency amid economic volatility. Subsequently, the government adopted a more flexible approach by permitting currency trading within a band of SRG 500 around the official exchange rate. This band system allowed for limited fluctuations in the guilder’s value, providing some market responsiveness while maintaining overall exchange rate stability. The band system represented a compromise between rigid fixed rates and fully floating regimes, aiming to balance monetary control with market dynamics. This approach persisted until the introduction of the Surinamese dollar in 2004, which sought to address the underlying issues more comprehensively. Between 2004 and 2022, the value of the Surinamese dollar (SRD) was tightly controlled by the Central Bank of Suriname. The CBvS utilized a significant portion of the country’s foreign currency reserves to support the official exchange rates and maintain currency stability. This interventionist policy aimed to prevent excessive depreciation of the SRD and to anchor inflation expectations. However, sustained inflationary pressures and other economic factors gradually eroded the real value of the SRD against major reserve currencies during this period. The Central Bank’s efforts to defend the currency placed considerable strain on foreign exchange reserves and limited monetary policy flexibility. The divergence between the official exchange rate and the SRD’s declining real value created conditions conducive to the growth of black market currency trading. Similar to the situation experienced under the previous Surinamese guilder, the persistent gap incentivized unofficial currency transactions at rates more reflective of market realities. This parallel market activity undermined the effectiveness of the Central Bank’s exchange rate policies and complicated efforts to stabilize the economy. The black market became a significant feature of Suriname’s foreign exchange landscape, reflecting broader economic challenges. In June 2021, the Central Bank of Suriname implemented a decisive policy shift by devaluing the SRD by 33 percent and announcing that the currency would thereafter float freely. This move marked a departure from the previous regime of fixed or managed exchange rates and acknowledged the unsustainability of maintaining artificially supported official rates. The devaluation aimed to realign the official exchange rate with market conditions, reduce distortions in the foreign exchange market, and restore confidence in the currency. The transition to a free-floating exchange rate system represented a critical step toward greater monetary policy autonomy. By June 2022, official exchange rates began to more accurately reflect the real floating exchange rate of the Surinamese dollar. This alignment signaled the end of the prolonged period during which official rates were disconnected from market realities. The adoption of a floating exchange rate allowed the SRD’s value to be determined by supply and demand dynamics in the foreign exchange market, promoting greater transparency and efficiency. This development was an important milestone in Suriname’s ongoing efforts to stabilize its economy and strengthen its monetary framework.

As of February 2021, Suriname’s total external debt stood at approximately US$4 billion, reflecting a significant financial burden relative to the country’s economic size and fiscal capacity. This level of indebtedness underscored ongoing challenges in managing the nation’s external obligations, which had accumulated over years of borrowing to finance development projects, budget deficits, and balance of payments needs. The composition of this debt included various bilateral and multilateral loans, commercial borrowings, and bonds, each with differing terms, maturities, and interest rates. The sizable external debt posed risks to Suriname’s fiscal sustainability and economic stability, particularly amid fluctuating commodity prices and limited foreign exchange reserves. Within this overall debt portfolio, the government identified a subset of loans amounting to US$675 million as priorities for restructuring. These loans were likely characterized by onerous repayment schedules, high interest costs, or imminent maturities that threatened to exacerbate the country’s debt servicing difficulties. The targeted restructuring aimed to alleviate immediate fiscal pressures by negotiating more favorable terms, such as extended maturities, reduced interest rates, or partial debt forgiveness. This strategic focus on a defined portion of the debt was intended to create a manageable framework for debt relief while maintaining access to international capital markets and preserving relationships with creditors. To navigate the complexities of this debt restructuring process, the Surinamese government enlisted the expertise of Lazard, a prominent French investment bank with extensive experience in sovereign debt advisory services. Lazard’s role as financial advisor involved conducting comprehensive analyses of Suriname’s debt profile, assessing the country’s repayment capacity, and formulating restructuring proposals that balanced creditor interests with the government’s fiscal realities. The bank also facilitated negotiations with creditors, coordinated communications, and helped structure agreements that could restore debt sustainability. Engaging Lazard reflected Suriname’s commitment to a professional, transparent, and orderly approach to resolving its external debt challenges, leveraging international financial expertise to achieve a viable outcome. The decision to restructure the US$675 million in loans came amid a broader context of economic difficulties exacerbated by declining commodity prices, particularly of oil and gold, which are critical to Suriname’s export earnings and government revenues. The COVID-19 pandemic further strained the economy by disrupting trade and reducing fiscal inflows, intensifying the urgency for debt relief measures. By focusing on restructuring a significant portion of its external debt, Suriname sought to create fiscal space necessary for economic recovery and social spending. The involvement of Lazard also signaled to international markets and creditors that Suriname was pursuing a credible and structured debt resolution process, which is often a prerequisite for accessing additional financial support from multilateral institutions such as the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank. The restructuring negotiations required balancing the interests of diverse creditor groups, including commercial bondholders, bilateral lenders, and multilateral agencies. Each creditor category had distinct priorities and legal frameworks governing debt contracts, complicating the negotiation process. Lazard’s advisory role was critical in coordinating these efforts to achieve consensus and avoid protracted disputes that could undermine Suriname’s creditworthiness. The restructuring process also involved detailed assessments of Suriname’s macroeconomic projections, fiscal policies, and external financing needs to ensure that the restructured debt terms were sustainable over the medium to long term. Suriname’s external debt challenges and the ensuing restructuring efforts reflected broader patterns observed in several emerging market economies facing similar fiscal and external vulnerabilities. The US$4 billion total debt, while substantial for Suriname, was part of a global context where many countries sought debt relief to manage the economic fallout from the pandemic and commodity price shocks. The targeted restructuring of the US$675 million subset represented a pragmatic approach to debt management, focusing on the most pressing liabilities while maintaining overall financial stability. The engagement of Lazard underscored the increasing reliance on specialized financial advisory services in sovereign debt restructurings, highlighting the technical complexity and strategic importance of such processes in safeguarding national economic interests.

The Suriname Stock Exchange (SSX) functions as the official stock exchange of Suriname, providing a regulated marketplace for the trading of securities within the country. It was established in 1994, marking a significant development in Suriname’s financial infrastructure by creating an organized platform for capital market activities. The founding of the SSX was spearheaded by the Association for Securities Trading in Suriname, known by its Dutch acronym VvES (Vereniging voor Effectenhandel in Suriname), which played a central role in laying the groundwork for securities trading in the nation. The Association for Securities Trading in Suriname was officially founded on January 1, 1994, with the primary objective of fostering the development of the securities market in Suriname. This association was instrumental in creating the regulatory framework and operational procedures necessary for the establishment of the stock exchange. By bringing together market participants, including brokers, investors, and regulatory authorities, the VvES sought to promote transparency, efficiency, and investor confidence in the emerging Surinamese capital market. Unlike many larger stock exchanges around the world that operate on a daily basis, the Suriname Stock Exchange holds trading sessions only twice a month. This schedule reflects the relatively modest size of the market and the volume of securities trading activity in Suriname. The bi-monthly trading sessions are conducted on the first and third Thursday of each month, providing a predictable and structured timetable for market participants to engage in buying and selling securities. This arrangement allows for the consolidation of trading activity, which can help maintain liquidity and orderly market conditions despite the limited frequency of trading days. As of the present, the Suriname Stock Exchange lists a total of twelve companies, representing a diverse range of sectors within the Surinamese economy. These listed companies provide investors with opportunities to participate in the ownership and financial performance of some of the nation’s key enterprises. The relatively small number of listed entities reflects both the size of the Surinamese economy and the nascent stage of its capital markets development. Nonetheless, the existence of these listings on the SSX signifies an important avenue for capital formation and investment within Suriname, contributing to the broader economic growth and financial sector maturation of the country.

In April 2025, Suriname witnessed a notable surge in the price of the euro, which escalated to SRD 41.33. This marked a significant shift in the exchange rate, reflecting broader international economic dynamics rather than domestic factors. The sharp increase in the euro’s value against the Surinamese dollar drew considerable attention from policymakers and financial analysts alike. The movement underscored Suriname’s vulnerability to external economic forces, particularly those emanating from major global economies. Finance and Planning Minister Stanley Raghoebarsing provided an official explanation for the euro’s price surge, attributing it primarily to developments on the international stage. He emphasized that the principal driver behind the euro’s appreciation was the weakening of the U.S. dollar, which had experienced a decline in value relative to other major currencies. Minister Raghoebarsing highlighted that this depreciation of the dollar was not a result of Suriname’s internal economic conditions or policy decisions, but rather stemmed from shifts in the global financial landscape. His statements aimed to clarify the origins of the currency fluctuations and to delineate the impact of external factors on Suriname’s economy. The weakening of the U.S. dollar was closely linked to new trade policies announced by U.S. President Donald Trump on 3 April 2025. On that date, President Trump declared the imposition of a 10% tariff on all imports entering the United States, alongside higher tariff rates specifically targeting goods from approximately 60 different economies. This sweeping tariff initiative represented a significant escalation in protectionist trade measures and was intended to bolster domestic manufacturing and reduce trade deficits. However, the announcement sent shockwaves through global markets, as it introduced considerable uncertainty regarding international trade relations and economic stability. The tariffs announced by President Trump were perceived by many analysts as potentially destabilizing for the global economy. Experts warned that the broad application of a 10% tariff on all imports, coupled with increased rates on goods from a wide array of countries, could provoke retaliatory measures and disrupt established supply chains. Such disruptions had the potential to slow global economic growth, increase costs for consumers and businesses, and heighten volatility in currency and commodity markets. The prospect of a trade war or prolonged economic tension between major trading partners raised concerns about the resilience of the global economic system. In response to the currency fluctuations and the broader economic uncertainty, Minister Raghoebarsing sought to reassure the Surinamese public. He underscored that the rise in the euro’s value was not attributable to any missteps or policy errors within Suriname itself. By clarifying this point, Raghoebarsing aimed to dispel any misconceptions that domestic economic management was responsible for the currency’s movement. Furthermore, he urged citizens to remain calm and avoid panic in the face of the exchange rate volatility. His call for composure was intended to maintain social and economic stability during a period marked by external shocks and to prevent any adverse reactions that could exacerbate the situation. The events of April 2025 thus illustrated the interconnectedness of Suriname’s economy with global financial and trade developments. The surge in the euro’s price to SRD 41.33 was a direct consequence of international currency market shifts triggered by U.S. trade policy changes. Minister Raghoebarsing’s public statements framed these developments within a context of external influence rather than domestic economic weakness, emphasizing the importance of measured responses to global economic challenges. The episode highlighted the sensitivity of Suriname’s currency and economy to geopolitical decisions made by larger economic powers, underscoring the ongoing need for vigilance and strategic economic planning in an increasingly complex international environment.

The general Chamber of Commerce and Factories (KKF) in Suriname, headquartered in the capital city of Paramaribo, was established on 1 May 1910. Over the course of more than a century, it evolved into a pivotal institution within the Surinamese economy, serving as a central organization representing the interests of the private sector. By 2019, the KKF had grown substantially, boasting nearly 30,000 members that spanned a wide array of industries and sectors. Collectively, these member enterprises provided employment for over 150,000 individuals, underscoring the Chamber’s significant role in job creation and economic development within the country. The KKF functions not only as a platform for business advocacy but also as a facilitator of networking, information exchange, and policy dialogue between the government and the private sector, thereby influencing economic mechanisms at both national and regional levels. Complementing the domestic efforts of the KKF, several international Chambers of Commerce have played instrumental roles in supporting Suriname’s economic activities beyond its borders. Among these, the Suriname-Netherlands Chamber of Commerce holds particular importance due to the historical and economic ties between the two countries. This Chamber is strategically located at the embassy of Suriname in The Hague, serving as a bridge for commercial and investment relations between Suriname and the Netherlands. It provides crucial support for Surinamese entrepreneurs and companies seeking to establish a presence in the Dutch market, offering guidance on regulatory compliance, market entry strategies, and business networking opportunities. The Chamber’s activities have helped facilitate the founding of Surinamese companies in the Netherlands, thereby promoting bilateral trade and investment flows and strengthening economic integration between the two nations. In addition to the Suriname-Netherlands Chamber of Commerce, other international Chambers have emerged to foster economic linkages with neighboring and global partners. The Suriname-Guyana Chamber of Commerce, for example, focuses on enhancing trade and investment relations with Guyana, a neighboring country with which Suriname shares geographical and cultural affinities. This Chamber works to identify opportunities for cross-border collaboration, facilitate joint ventures, and address trade barriers that may impede economic cooperation. Similarly, the Suriname-India Chamber of Commerce and Industry aims to expand commercial ties with India by promoting bilateral trade, encouraging investment, and supporting the exchange of technology and expertise. The Ghana-Suriname Chamber of Commerce further exemplifies Suriname’s outreach to diverse international partners, fostering economic cooperation with Ghana through initiatives that promote trade, investment, and cultural exchange. These international Chambers collectively contribute to diversifying Suriname’s economic partnerships and integrating its economy into broader regional and global networks. Recognizing the importance of attracting foreign investment and boosting export performance, the government of Suriname took a significant step in 2021 by establishing the Suriname Investment and Trade Agency (SITA). This agency was created with the mandate to promote and support international investments in Suriname, acting as a one-stop institution designed to streamline investment processes and provide comprehensive assistance to potential investors. SITA’s role extends to enhancing the export capacity of Surinamese products by identifying new markets, facilitating trade missions, and supporting exporters in meeting international standards and certifications. By fostering a more conducive environment for both inward investment and outward trade, SITA aims to stimulate economic growth, diversify the economy, and increase Suriname’s competitiveness on the global stage. The establishment of this agency reflects the government’s strategic focus on leveraging international economic linkages as mechanisms to drive sustainable development and integration into the world economy.

In 1980, Suriname’s economy was characterized by a gross domestic product (GDP) measured at 2.19 billion US dollars in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), while its nominal GDP stood at 1.28 billion US dollars. Despite these figures, the country experienced a real GDP growth rate of -6.5%, indicating a contraction in economic output that year. Unfortunately, data on inflation rates, unemployment levels, and government debt were not available for 1980, limiting a full assessment of the economic conditions during this period. Throughout the 1980s, from 1981 to 1989, Suriname’s GDP measured in PPP terms fluctuated between 2.29 billion and 2.79 billion US dollars. This decade was marked by significant volatility in economic growth, with real GDP growth rates ranging from a low of -8.8% in 1987 to a high of 10.8% in 1988, reflecting periods of both economic contraction and rapid expansion. Nominal GDP increased steadily from 1.43 billion to 2.18 billion US dollars over the same period, suggesting some nominal growth despite the fluctuations in real terms. However, comprehensive data on inflation, unemployment, and government debt were not reported during these years, leaving gaps in understanding the broader economic context. By 1990, Suriname’s GDP in PPP terms had risen to 2.85 billion US dollars, with a GDP per capita of 6,984.2 US dollars PPP, indicating an average economic output per person. In contrast, the nominal GDP was recorded at 0.58 billion US dollars, with a per capita nominal GDP of 1,413.6 US dollars, highlighting a significant disparity between nominal and PPP valuations. The real GDP growth rate for 1990 was -1.5%, signaling a slight economic contraction. Government debt was notably high, amounting to 72.9% of GDP, which suggested fiscal pressures on the state’s finances. Data on inflation and unemployment for this year were not available, thus limiting a comprehensive economic analysis. Between 1991 and 1994, Suriname experienced highly volatile economic conditions. The GDP in PPP terms ranged from 2.54 billion to 2.70 billion US dollars, while GDP per capita hovered between approximately 6,100 and 6,440 US dollars PPP. Nominal GDP, however, showed a downward trend, decreasing from 0.64 billion to 0.52 billion US dollars during this period. Real GDP growth rates were negative throughout these years, with a steep decline of -13.8% in 1991 and a somewhat less severe contraction of -7.0% in 1994. Inflation surged dramatically, escalating from 14.0% in 1991 to an extraordinary 255.8% in 1994, reflecting severe price instability and economic distress. Unemployment was recorded at 12.4% in 1994, indicating significant labor market challenges. On the fiscal front, government debt showed a notable decline, falling from 75.7% of GDP in 1991 to 30.5% in 1994, which may have reflected efforts to stabilize public finances amid economic turmoil. The year 1995 marked a period of economic recovery for Suriname. The GDP in PPP terms increased to 2.92 billion US dollars, and GDP per capita rose to 6,676.7 US dollars PPP. Nominal GDP showed a substantial increase, reaching 0.99 billion US dollars. The real GDP growth rate rebounded strongly to 11.3%, signaling a significant expansion in economic activity. Interestingly, the country experienced deflation of -49.3%, indicating a general decline in price levels, which contrasted sharply with the hyperinflation of the preceding years. Unemployment decreased to 8.4%, suggesting some improvement in the labor market. Government debt as a percentage of GDP was reduced to 16.3%, reflecting a more sustainable fiscal position. From 1996 to 1999, Suriname’s economy demonstrated steady growth in several key indicators. The GDP in PPP terms rose from 3.31 billion to 3.74 billion US dollars, while GDP per capita increased from 7,470.8 to 8,103.4 US dollars PPP. Nominal GDP fluctuated between 1.23 billion and 1.31 billion US dollars during this period. Real GDP growth rates varied, ranging from a robust 11.2% to a slight contraction of -0.9%, indicating periods of both economic expansion and minor downturns. Inflation rates displayed considerable volatility, moving from a low of 4.2% up to a high of 71.9%, reflecting ongoing challenges in price stability. Unemployment rates ranged from 8.4% to 12.0%, showing persistent labor market issues. Government debt increased from 11.8% to 32.3% of GDP, suggesting growing fiscal pressures toward the end of the decade. In 2000, Suriname’s GDP (PPP) reached 3.82 billion US dollars, with a GDP per capita of 8,180 US dollars PPP. The nominal GDP was recorded at 1.36 billion US dollars. The real GDP growth rate was slightly negative at -0.1%, indicating near stagnation in economic output. Inflation was relatively high at 44.7%, pointing to significant price level increases. Unemployment rose to 13.8%, reflecting labor market difficulties. Government debt increased to 35.7% of GDP, signaling a growing fiscal burden. Between 2001 and 2005, Suriname’s economy experienced notable growth and fluctuations. The GDP in PPP terms expanded from 4.09 billion to 5.57 billion US dollars, while GDP per capita increased from 8,646.6 to 11,171.8 US dollars PPP. Nominal GDP more than doubled, rising from 1.17 billion to 2.39 billion US dollars. Real GDP growth rates fluctuated between 4.9% and 11.3%, indicating periods of robust economic expansion. Inflation rates varied widely, from a low of 0.9% to a high of 20.1%, reflecting ongoing challenges in maintaining price stability. Unemployment rates ranged from 6.5% to 13.7%, showing variability in the labor market. Government debt decreased from 37.2% to 27.1% of GDP, suggesting improvements in fiscal management. From 2006 to 2010, Suriname’s economic indicators continued to improve. GDP in PPP terms increased from 6.07 billion to 7.68 billion US dollars, and GDP per capita rose from 12,042.7 to 13,453.2 US dollars PPP. Nominal GDP grew significantly from 2.81 billion to 4.68 billion US dollars. Real GDP growth rates ranged between 3.0% and 5.8%, indicating steady economic expansion. Inflation rates were relatively moderate, varying between 1.3% and 10.3%. Unemployment declined from 12.3% to 7.2%, suggesting improvements in employment conditions. Government debt fluctuated between 14.6% and 22.5% of GDP, reflecting a relatively stable fiscal situation. In 2011 and 2012, Suriname’s GDP (PPP) increased from 8.30 billion to 9.15 billion US dollars, with GDP per capita rising from 15,363.4 to 16,889.6 US dollars PPP. Nominal GDP grew from 4.74 billion to 5.33 billion US dollars. However, real GDP growth slowed from 5.8% in 2011 to 2.7% in 2012, indicating a deceleration in economic expansion. Inflation decreased from 5.2% to 4.3%, showing some stabilization in prices. Unemployment increased slightly from 7.5% to 8.1%, reflecting modest labor market challenges. Government debt rose from 18.7% to 20.1% of GDP, suggesting a slight deterioration in fiscal balance. During 2013 and 2014, Suriname’s GDP (PPP) continued to grow, increasing from 9.85 billion to 10.23 billion US dollars, with GDP per capita rising from 17,908.8 to 18,301.2 US dollars PPP. Nominal GDP increased from 5.51 billion to 5.61 billion US dollars. Real GDP growth slowed markedly to 0.3% in 2014, indicating near stagnation. Inflation remained low, recorded at 0.6% in 2013 and 3.9% in 2014, reflecting relative price stability. Unemployment decreased from 6.6% to 5.5%, suggesting improvements in the labor market. Government debt fluctuated between 25.2% and 27.9% of GDP, indicating a relatively stable fiscal position. The years 2015 and 2016 were marked by economic contraction in Suriname. GDP (PPP) declined from 9.62 billion to 8.51 billion US dollars, and GDP per capita fell from 16,962.5 to 14,777.8 US dollars PPP. Nominal GDP dropped sharply from 5.13 billion to 3.32 billion US dollars. Real GDP growth rates were negative, at -3.4% in 2015 and -4.9% in 2016, signaling a significant downturn. Inflation rose sharply, reaching 25.1% in 2015 and soaring to 52.4% in 2016, indicating severe price instability. Unemployment increased from 7.0% to 10.0%, reflecting worsening labor market conditions. Government debt escalated dramatically from 41.1% to 74.8% of GDP, highlighting growing fiscal challenges. In 2017 and 2018, Suriname’s economy showed signs of recovery. GDP (PPP) rebounded to 10.23 billion and 9.62 billion US dollars, respectively, while GDP per capita increased to 17,879.6 and 18,997.3 US dollars PPP. Nominal GDP rose to 3.59 billion in 2017 and 4.00 billion US dollars in 2018. Real GDP growth was positive, at 1.6% in 2017 and 4.9% in 2018, indicating renewed economic expansion. Inflation decreased significantly to 9.3% in 2017 and further to 5.4% in 2018. Unemployment was recorded at 7.0% in 2017 and increased slightly to 9.0% in 2018. Government debt declined from 71.5% of GDP in 2017 to 66.1% in 2018, suggesting some fiscal consolidation. In 2019, Suriname’s GDP (PPP) declined to 8.51 billion US dollars, while GDP per capita rose to 19,292.1 US dollars PPP. Nominal GDP was 3.98 billion US dollars. Real GDP growth was modestly positive at 1.1%, indicating slight economic expansion. Inflation was relatively low at 4.2%, and unemployment stood at 8.8%. However, government debt increased to 80.8% of GDP, reflecting continued fiscal pressures. The year 2020 marked a severe economic downturn for Suriname. GDP (PPP) was recorded at 9.83 billion US dollars, with GDP per capita at 16,311.2 US dollars PPP. Nominal GDP fell sharply to 2.88 billion US dollars. The real GDP contracted significantly by -15.9%, reflecting a deep recession. Inflation soared to 60.7%, indicating hyperinflationary pressures. Unemployment rose to 11.1%, highlighting worsening labor market conditions. Government debt increased dramatically to 143.8% of GDP, underscoring a critical fiscal crisis. In 2021, Suriname’s GDP (PPP) slightly increased to 9.99 billion US dollars, with GDP per capita at 16,379.9 US dollars PPP. Nominal GDP was 2.99 billion US dollars. Despite this slight increase in output, the real GDP growth rate remained negative at -2.7%, indicating ongoing economic contraction. Inflation remained elevated at 60.7%, maintaining severe price instability. Unemployment was recorded at 11.2%, reflecting persistent labor market challenges. Government debt decreased to 117.0% of GDP, suggesting some fiscal adjustment. International Monetary Fund (IMF) staff estimates for 2022 projected Suriname’s GDP (PPP) at 10.83 billion US dollars, with GDP per capita estimated at 17,549.9 US dollars PPP. Nominal GDP was forecasted at 3.52 billion US dollars. Real GDP growth was expected to rebound modestly to 1.3%, signaling tentative economic recovery. Inflation was projected to remain high at 54.6%, indicating continued inflationary pressures. Unemployment was estimated at 10.9%, reflecting ongoing labor market difficulties. Government debt was forecasted to increase slightly to 123.2% of GDP, suggesting sustained fiscal challenges. For 2023, projections indicated further economic improvement with GDP (PPP) estimated at 11.51 billion US dollars and GDP per capita at 18,427.1 US dollars PPP. Nominal GDP was projected at 3.47 billion US dollars. Real GDP growth was expected to accelerate to 2.3%, reflecting strengthening economic activity. Inflation was forecasted to decline to 28.2%, suggesting gradual stabilization of prices. Unemployment was projected at 10.6%, indicating a slight improvement in the labor market. Government debt was expected to decrease to 112.2% of GDP, signaling progress toward fiscal sustainability. Looking ahead to 2024, projections anticipated a GDP (PPP) of 12.11 billion US dollars, with GDP per capita rising to 19,871.4 US dollars PPP. Nominal GDP was forecasted at 3.78 billion US dollars. Real GDP growth was expected to reach 3.0%, indicating continued economic expansion. Inflation was projected to fall further to 15.1%, reflecting ongoing efforts to control price increases. Unemployment was estimated at 10.3%, suggesting a gradual improvement in employment conditions. Government debt was forecasted to decline to 103.2% of GDP, pointing to a more manageable fiscal position. For 2025, GDP (PPP) was forecasted to continue its upward trajectory, although specific figures for this year were not fully detailed in the available data. These projections collectively illustrate Suriname’s economic fluctuations over several decades, characterized by periods of growth and contraction, significant inflationary episodes, varying unemployment rates, and fluctuating government debt levels. The data reflect the country’s ongoing challenges and efforts to stabilize and grow its economy amid internal and external pressures.

In 2018, Suriname achieved a significant milestone in its electrification efforts, reaching an overall electrification rate of 97.4% for its total population. This high level of access to electricity was particularly notable in urban areas, where the electrification rate climbed to 99%, reflecting near-universal availability of electrical power in cities and towns. Rural areas, often more challenging to serve due to geographic and infrastructural constraints, attained an electrification rate of 94.3%, demonstrating substantial progress in extending electricity access beyond urban centers. These figures underscored Suriname’s commitment to improving energy infrastructure and ensuring widespread availability of electricity across diverse regions of the country. By 2020, Suriname’s installed electricity generating capacity stood at 542,000 kilowatts (kW), reflecting the total maximum output that the country’s power plants could produce under optimal conditions. This capacity was derived from a mix of energy sources, encompassing both renewable and non-renewable technologies. The installed capacity represented the foundational infrastructure supporting Suriname’s electricity supply, enabling the country to meet domestic demand and maintain grid stability. The development and maintenance of this capacity were critical to sustaining economic activities and improving living standards through reliable power availability. Electricity consumption in Suriname was estimated at approximately 2,938,391,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 2019, indicating the total amount of electrical energy utilized by residential, commercial, industrial, and public sectors throughout the year. This consumption level reflected the growing demand for electricity driven by population growth, urbanization, and economic development. Despite this substantial consumption, Suriname did not export any electricity in 2019, with recorded exports amounting to zero kWh. The absence of electricity exports suggested that the country’s generation capacity was primarily dedicated to meeting internal demand rather than supplying neighboring countries or regional markets. Conversely, Suriname imported a significant volume of electricity in 2019, totaling 808 million kWh. This importation indicated reliance on external sources to supplement domestic electricity production, possibly due to limitations in generation capacity, peak demand periods, or economic considerations favoring imports over local generation. The electricity imports contributed to the overall energy mix available to consumers and helped bridge gaps between supply and demand. However, the need for imports also highlighted areas for potential investment in expanding or optimizing local generation infrastructure to reduce dependence on foreign electricity. The transmission and distribution system in Suriname experienced losses amounting to 234 million kWh of electricity in 2019. These losses represented the electrical energy dissipated during the process of delivering electricity from power plants to end-users, primarily due to technical inefficiencies such as resistance in wires, transformer losses, and other system inefficiencies. Additionally, non-technical losses, including theft and metering inaccuracies, may have contributed to this figure. Reducing transmission and distribution losses remained a priority for improving overall energy efficiency and ensuring that generated electricity effectively reached consumers. The composition of Suriname’s electricity generation capacity in 2020 revealed a diversified energy portfolio. Fossil fuels accounted for 40.5% of the installed capacity, indicating a significant reliance on conventional thermal power plants fueled by petroleum products or other hydrocarbons. Hydroelectricity constituted the largest share at 58.8%, reflecting the country’s utilization of its abundant water resources to generate renewable energy through hydroelectric dams and facilities. Solar energy contributed a modest 0.4%, highlighting early stages of adoption for photovoltaic technologies within the national grid. Biomass and waste energy sources accounted for 0.3%, representing small-scale generation from organic materials and waste-to-energy processes. Notably, Suriname had no installed capacity from nuclear, wind, tide and wave, or geothermal energy sources, indicating the absence of these technologies in the country’s energy mix as of 2020. In 2020, Suriname reported no production, consumption, exports, or imports of coal and natural gas reserves, underscoring the minimal role of these fossil fuels in the nation’s energy sector. The lack of coal and gas activities suggested that Suriname’s energy economy was primarily centered around petroleum products and renewable sources, with coal and natural gas either unavailable in economically viable quantities or not yet developed for commercial use. This situation influenced the country’s energy policy and infrastructure development, focusing on alternative fuels and energy diversification. Suriname’s total petroleum production was estimated at 14,800 barrels per day (bbl/day) in 2021, reflecting the output from domestic oil fields and extraction activities. This level of production positioned Suriname as a modest oil producer on the global stage, contributing to its energy supply and export potential. Petroleum production played a crucial role in the country’s economy, providing revenue, employment, and energy resources for both domestic consumption and potential export markets. Refined petroleum consumption in Suriname was recorded at 15,800 bbl/day in 2019, indicating the volume of processed petroleum products used within the country. This consumption encompassed fuels such as gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and other refined products essential for transportation, industry, and residential energy needs. The consumption figure slightly exceeded domestic production, suggesting reliance on imports or stockpiles to meet demand. In 2018, Suriname’s crude oil and lease condensate exports were zero barrels per day, indicating no outbound shipments of these raw petroleum products during that year. Conversely, crude oil imports amounted to 200 bbl/day, reflecting the country’s need to supplement domestic supply with foreign crude oil, possibly for refining or blending purposes. The absence of crude oil exports highlighted a domestic focus on utilizing petroleum resources internally rather than engaging in significant export activities. Estimated crude oil reserves in Suriname stood at 89 million barrels in 2021, representing the proven quantities of crude oil that could be economically extracted under existing technological and market conditions. These reserves provided a measure of the country’s potential for sustained petroleum production and future energy security. The size of the reserves influenced investment decisions, exploration activities, and long-term energy planning. In 2015, Suriname produced 7,571 bbl/day of refined petroleum products, ranking 101st globally in refined petroleum production. This production level reflected the capacity of domestic refineries to process crude oil into usable fuels and other petroleum derivatives. The country’s position in the global ranking underscored its relatively small but significant contribution to the worldwide petroleum refining sector. Refined petroleum product exports were recorded at 14,000 bbl/day in 2015, placing Suriname 74th worldwide in terms of export volume. This export activity indicated that Suriname not only met domestic demand but also supplied refined petroleum products to regional or international markets. The ability to export refined products contributed to the country’s trade balance and economic diversification. Refined petroleum product imports amounted to 10,700 bbl/day in 2015, with Suriname ranking 145th globally in imports of these products. The simultaneous import and export of refined petroleum products suggested a complex trade dynamic, possibly involving the importation of specific product types not produced domestically or the re-export of imported fuels. This pattern reflected the interconnected nature of Suriname’s petroleum market and its integration into regional energy trade networks. Suriname’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions totaled 2.372 million metric tonnes in 2019, representing the aggregate greenhouse gas emissions from energy consumption and industrial activities. This level of emissions was relatively low on a global scale, reflecting the country’s modest industrial base and significant use of renewable energy sources, particularly hydroelectricity. The emissions profile was an important factor in assessing Suriname’s environmental impact and commitments to international climate change mitigation efforts. Emissions from coal and metallurgical coke were zero metric tonnes of CO2 in 2019, consistent with the country’s lack of coal production or consumption. This absence of coal-related emissions further emphasized Suriname’s limited reliance on coal as an energy source and its consequent lower carbon footprint compared to coal-dependent nations. Emissions from petroleum and other liquid fuels accounted for 2.361 million metric tonnes of CO2 in 2019, constituting the vast majority of Suriname’s total carbon dioxide emissions. These emissions arose from the combustion of petroleum products in transportation, power generation, and industrial processes. The dominance of petroleum-related emissions highlighted the environmental challenges associated with fossil fuel use despite the country’s renewable energy capacity. Emissions from consumed natural gas were relatively minimal, totaling 11,000 metric tonnes of CO2 in 2019. This small figure aligned with the reported absence of significant natural gas production or consumption in Suriname, indicating that natural gas played a negligible role in the country’s energy and emissions profile. Globally, Suriname ranked 156th in carbon dioxide emissions in 2019, reflecting its position as a low emitter relative to larger industrialized and developing nations. This ranking corresponded with the country’s energy mix, economic scale, and population size, positioning Suriname among countries with modest contributions to global greenhouse gas emissions. Energy consumption per capita in Suriname was 82.356 million British thermal units (Btu) per person in 2019, ranking 71st worldwide. This per capita consumption level illustrated the average energy use by individuals within the country and served as an indicator of living standards, economic activity, and energy efficiency. The ranking suggested that Suriname’s per capita energy consumption was moderate, reflecting a balance between developing economic sectors and the utilization of energy resources.