NFU statement on the sugar industry
[posted 18 Feb 2010, 1400]
In principle the NFU supports any genuine efforts to return the sugar
industry to viability, but it cannot support policies that completely
marginalise cane growers from an industry in which they have a majority
(70%) stake.
This clarification is issued in response
to FBCL reports of a statement by NFU President Sanjeet Maharaj declaring
the Union’s support for the policies of the interim government in moving the
sugar industry forward, despite differences in the past.
Since March last year, the regime has
dissolved the Sugar Commission of Fiji, the Fiji Sugar Marketing Ltd and the
Sugar Cane Growers Council – three key institutions established as part of
reforms carried out under the 1984 Sugar Industry Act.
These institutions gave growers a
significant voice in the sugar industry after almost a century of
exploitation. They also ensured greater accountability and transparency on
the part of the miller (FSC), and a consultative approach to sugar matters.
Acting arbitrarily, without consultation
with the growers, the interim government dismantled these important
institutions last year. It got rid of all elected growers’ representatives
in the Sugar Cane Growers Council, a body that was fully funded by the
growers themselves.
In another gross imposition, the Council
continues to charge the growers a levy for its operations even though it is
no longer representative. Furthermore, the administration intends to replace
the elected growers’ representatives with its own nominees.
And now it is targeting growers’ unions by
striking at their financial base. From January this year, it has ordered FSC
to stop deducting union dues at source.
None of these decisions can be legally
challenged because the Courts no longer have the jurisdiction to deal with
cases involving government decrees and policies.
Growers have thus been left defenceless
and completely at the mercy of the State and a failed Fiji Sugar
Corporation.
None of these moves are likely to promote
goodwill and cooperation within the industry. Indeed, all the mistrust and
suspicions that governed grower/miller relationships prior to 1984 and that
created so much turbulence in the industry, have surfaced once again – all
to the detriment of the sugar industry.
The NFU cannot support policies which are
anti-grower to begin with, and will definitely undermine the long term
interests of the industry.
Nor can NFU display any confidence in the
policies of an administration that has in 18 months brought the sugar
industry to its knees with losses estimated at a massive $100 million for
the 2009 season alone. Of this, $70m will be suffered by growers through no
fault of theirs.
2009 was the worst season in the
industry’s history with chronic milling problems resulting in frequent
breakdowns and inability to crush cane efficiently. FSC managed to produce
only 168,000 tonnes of sugar from 2.25 million tonnes of cane
supplied to the mills… it had enough cane to produce 240,000 tonnes of
sugar.
Some 40% of cane crushed was reduced to
molasses and thousands of litres of cane juice were simply dumped into the
rivers and creeks at Rarawai, Labasa and Lautoka. The TCTS (the cane to
sugar conversion ratio) stood at an unacceptable 13.4 for the season (the
highest on record). FSC refused to release weekly milling statistics to the
Growers Council, particularly figures on sugar production.
If this was not bad enough, growers
themselves were bullied, threatened, and in several cases, physically abused
and assaulted by the army. NFU officers were harassed and intimidated and,
on two occasions, detained overnight at the Police Station for no reason at
all.
Complaints on these incidents of army
excesses and abuse of power were officially made to the Ministry for Home
Affairs which directed Army headquarters to investigate the complaints.
As for the interim government’s intention
to revive the sugar industry, there has been a lot of rhetoric but little to
show for it on the ground. |