State's conditional assistance to cane farmers

[posted 15 April 2010, 1530]

It is not right or practicable for the State to pin its assistance to cane farmers on the stipulation that they diversify into rice or potato farming or keep dairy cattle.

Not all cane farms are suitable for rice or potato farming. The National Farmers Union itself has been advising farmers for some years now to diversify into other crops in order to supplement their falling incomes from cane.

The Fiji Times reports today that according to the Permanent Secretary for Agriculture, Colonel Mason Smith, cane farmers can only expect assistance from the State if they plant a quarter acre of potatoes or rice alongside cane.

Such regimentation of farming practices should be avoided. In fact, State assistance should go to any farmer who is productive. We have seen in the case of the recent crop replanting programme that assistance was given without discretion, even to indolent farmers, resulting in widespread wastage.

Meanwhile, the NFU welcomes the State’s move to ensure that cane farmers are assured of, at least, the full forecast price of $45.67 for the 2010 season.

This will be facilitated through another loan of $5.6 million to the Fiji Sugar Corporation from the Finance Ministry as revenue from sugar exports falls short by $3.13 per tonne to meet the forecast price.

Without the loan, FSC will only be able to pay $42.54 per tonne to farmers. .

The 2009 season forecast price $ 61.70 did not materialise. Instead, farmers received only $ $56.59 per tonne supplemented by an advance (loan) of $ 3.74 per tonne which brought the total cane price to $60.33. The loan given as an advance is to be repaid from the proceeds of the 2011 and 2012 seasons.

Farmers should realise, therefore, that deductions will be made from their proceeds this year to repay the advance payment.

Since the shortfall in the 2010 forecast price is being met by FSC, one may ask: Why is the same not being done in respect of the 2009 season?

But the actual loss to farmers running into tens of millions of dollars, has been forgotten by the industry barons – even the SCGC is not talking about it anymore. This loss arose as a result of the shocking milling inefficiency which saw the TCTS rise from 10 to 13.8 tonnes of cane to a tonne of sugar.

S. Lal