And while government’s road infrastructure overhaul was today’s “big reveal”, the hardest line came down on the subject of bagasse. As we told you earlier, the PM unveiled what he said is the government’s official position. He says Cabinet adopted a position with key input from Minister Godwin Hulse, who has been on the BSI Board for years. Somewhat surprisingly that position does not square with the BSI position, in fact it is directly opposite:
Prime Minister Dean Barrow
“We are convinced and as a lawyer, I am entirely satisfied that there is every basis for our conviction, we’re convinced that the farmers have a case. We looked at the provision in the memorandum of understanding that talks about the sharing of revenue arising from the sale of any by-product will be subject to future discussions, and the sharing of revenue will be based will be based on the result of those discussions. And in our view that clearly contemplates some form of compensation to farmers for the bagasse. The argument that the bagasse is waste, and is not a by-product in our minds cannot stand. You cannot say that the bagasse is not a by-product. To me, it doesn’t hold water for that argument to be made. So we are absolutely positive that the farmers have a case and that case needs to be addressed.”
And while the government is with the cane farmers on that central issue, GOB is not with them on the plan to undermine the start of the crop season. He explained why he feels the farmers are going about it all wrong:
Prime Minister Dean Barrow
"We think that the farmers are perfectly in order to say, we want to bring this thing to a head. We want a resolution, but it's been around that long, don't - I don't think that you get from a position where it's been dormant, to a position where you say, 'Solve it tomorrow, or we strike.' We cannot consider it helpful for the industry, for the economy of the north and for the country for there to be this talk about strike and non-commencement of the crop. That will hurt all of us, but it will hurt most the very farmers that are being encouraged not to deliver. So, we think that while we will side with the farmers, while we do side with the farmers in saying that they have a case, we have to talk to them in about the manner in which they can go forward, with Government's solidarity. We have to concede that were it not for ASR and the investment they made, the purchase of BSI, we would perhaps today not have a sugar industry. He have to concede that in addition to purchasing the factory, ASR has made already an investment that increases capacity, and plans to make an additional investment. We have to concede that in the current industrial relations climate, the people will pull back, and certainly phase 2 of the expansion is not likely to take place unless we can come to terms. It is in the interest of the farmers for all of that expansion to take place, especially in view of what is going to happen in 2017. But, hope springs eternal, and we want to feel that if Government tries to bring the 2 sides together, hopefully, there might be some understanding that will allow for the crop to proceed. I will then try to meet with the farmers no later than Monday of next week. I am then prepared to go to ASR and see if we can't kick-start a process that could lead - if not to a resolution, at least to an understanding that would allow us move forward, that would find some sort of modus vivendi that would permit deliveries of to take place while we're working out the solution in the longer term."
Email
Print