Transcript
The leader of Fiji's National Federation Party, Biman Prasad, blames the poor returns on deductions made by the Fiji Sugar Corporation or FSC.He says the loan repayments were so high that it has left some farmers with barely an income to live off. For example one grower who harvested 236 tonnes of sugarcane in 2016, was left with just 82 cents after a deduction of $US728 ($FJ1500) by the FSC.
"What we have got for the farmers is quite shocking. It is just that about 70%, that's about 9,000 cane growers have basically received nothing after the payments."
Mr Prasad says he questions how the FSC and other stakeholders are making such decisions that don't bode well for farmers. Cane farmer Khalid Ali agrees his latest invoice was a shock after seeing the deduction. He says it doesn't give a detailed breakdown in costs. While Mr Ali received $US194 ($FJ400) he says he knows of others who got one dollar or nothing at all which he says doesn't seem fair. Mr Ali says it feels like the FSC is playing games with people's livelihoods, causing them to suffer.
"They see it differently and I think they are trying to play politics with us. They give us some more sweeteners if we support the government and all that. They should be more honest in their approach to farmers."
Mr Ali says even though the final payment was done after Cyclone Winston, when the crop was badly affected, it still doesn't add up.
"Like I have got this gut feeling because the FSC is broke this is one indirect way of rolling the FSC by getting our deductions and let them use it. I just got this gut feeling that this is what is happening."
Some farmers have indicated they will approach the Sugar Industry Tribunal to investigate what have been called illegal deductions by the FSC. The NFP's Jaganath Sami says the FSC can only deduct from payments made to farmers for their cane and this money does not fit that description.
"If this money was given to the farmers to recover from the cyclone damages and the loss of crop, so that they could continue with their normal maintenance, then it is very clear that this money is not defined as cane payment. This is a payment by the tax payers of this country, facilitated by government."
Jaganath Sami says some growers plan to approach the Sugar Industry Tribunal and have them adjudicate on the matter. Vijay Naidu from the University of the South Pacific, says the sugar industry has struggled with historical issues, land tenure problems, a lack of government investment, obsolete machinery, rising costs and the impact of the various political coups.
"Topping all of that is the fact that Fiji, through the Coutonou Agreement through the EU will be losing all preferences this year. It has been gradual over time and farmers have seen a decline in their returns so much so that this year they are putting more and more into their farms, than getting returns."
Mr Naidu says unless drastic changes are made in relation to production and costings or more support is provided for farmers, alongside better marketing, the industry will collapse. Biman Prasad proposes a minimum price of about $US48 ($FJ 100) for a tonne of cane, saying it is a sensible way to try to bring production back to provide economies of scale. Khalid Ali says the future is not bright.
"Basically our lot is the last generation that will stay. People with decent education, or they got jobs they are moving away. Even those that they are left with land, they are not wanting to come back because you are still getting better pay working as a labourer than a sugar cane farmer because 99% of the sugar cane farmer is below the poverty line."
The FSC declined an interview but in a statement said half of growers benefited from the 2016 final cane payment and the FSC reduced their deductions for fertiliser, weedicide, rice and sugar by 50 percent in this last pay. But it said growers have individual loan repayments which the FSC has no control over and the payment takes into account debt to borrowing institutions and their own low tonnage of cane. The FSC said there were thousands more who had a good yield and because they had low debt they got more income.
