Since Friday, we’ve been telling you all about the suspension that the Belize Sugar Cane Farmers Association is trying to reverse. Fair Trade has audited the organization, and found that one of its members committed a major act of non-compliance. As a result, 1.2 million dollars in Fair Trade premiums is at risk of being withheld from over 3,000 farmers.

That farmer is Eloy Escalante and he entered into a business relationship with the son of Cabinet Minister Edmond Castro. You saw how Castro explained in detail that his son bought out Escalante’s quota of sugar.  Castro became Escalante’s administrator, which means that he can farm his land, and deliver cane in his name. The problem is that Escalante admitted to a Fair Trade Auditor that he was not producing cane for the past 3 years. 

So, it immediately called into question whether the Castro family was practicing what is referred to as phantom farming. That’s where a person licensed as a cane farmer, is not producing cane, but he or she either buys cane from unlicensed farmers, or sells his rights to deliver cane to the mill.

That got the BSCFA suspended, and Castro mauled them in our interview, saying, that it is their own fault that they are in this position. Well, today, their broke the silence and held an hour and a half long press conference to discuss what is happening. 

Today, the CEO of the BSCFA stressed that they are not in charge of regulating cane farmers. They say that it is the Sugar Cane Production Committee, and it is that organization that needs to fix this;

Oscar Alonzo - CEO, BSCFA
“Production, cultivation and delivery of cane is regulated under the act okay and the acts clearly specify okay who is it that determines that a cane farmer appears on the cane farmer registry. Section 2 of the act defines a cane farmer as a person or entity who is engaged in production of sugar cane for the purpose of being manufactured into sugar or any other derivate and registered by the Sugar Cane Production Committee. This definition of the cane farmer in the act clearly puts the onus on the SPCP and not on the associations for registering a person or entity as a cane farmer. We can’t register a cane farmer it is the SPCP that does that. He does there applies to be registered as a cane farmer, he fills out all the forms that are required right and once the SPCP does what it’s supposed to do then it can include that cane farmer in the registry. Now Section 2 now of that act also defines the estimated cane production as each sugar cane farmer estimated production of sugar cane per crop expressed in tons as determined by the SPCP. We can’t determine what will be the production estimate of the came farmer in the cane farmer register. It is the SPCP that does that. Also Section 17 1E of the act specifies that the SPCP and not the association shall establish a cane farmer’s register for the registration of cane farmers. We cannot establish this register it is the SPCP that does that. Section 17 1B of the act also stipulates that the SPCP and not the association shall conduct yearly field survey to ascertain registered cane farmers actual in production, their acreage under production and the estimated deeds. Each year gentlemen and ladies it is the SPCP that goes out in the fields.â€￾ 

The BSFCA will conduct its own field surveys of the cane farms which their over 3,000 members own. They want to introduce their own system of accountability. That will take them a few months and a whole lot of money, but they say they will make the sacrifice. So, what does the suspension exactly mean? Here’s how the CEO explained it:

Oscar Alonzo - CEO, BSCFA
“We have requested the membership to approve one that the cane farmer that was found not complying with this criteria to be excluded as a member of our association and so that will affect the other 3,772 cane farmers. And we have informed the SPCP accordingly because we notice that in the list that they have produced this year once more, the name again reappears and we have asked then, we told them about the decision of our membership to exclude the name from the list of names that appears under San Estevan branch together with the corresponding production estimate and also to remove it from the BSCFA total production estimate. We did not say to remove it from the official list. The suspension seemed to have been too much of a harsh decision on their part. Since it is a situation that is out of our control, it is under the purview of the SPCP. When you decertify, you’re out and once you’re out you don’t get anything. When you’re suspended whatever contract you have signed before that suspension remains in place so whatever premium you were entitled to before that suspension you have to get that. But at the same time you can also be eligible for signing a contract of 50% of the volume that you had traded before and once the suspension is lifted then you can move to the 100%. In a meeting we had in October they had indicated that they’re going to purchase the same amount of sugar under the fair trade that they did this for this last crop. So in that case what we’re looking at in terms of the BSCFA is another 10 thousand tons that is at stake. Now it means if the suspension is not lifted right and we are decertified it means that the sugar that is produced by 3,772 farmers will not fair trade eligible.â€￾