At the top of our newscast, we showed you our interview with Prime Minister Barrow in which he discussed the continued delay of the sugar crop season despite his government's best efforts to break the stalemate between the factory owners and cane farmers.
Part of the reason that the 18 directors don't want to sign the compromise agreement is that they have misgivings about certain language in the draft agreement.
Fuelled by agitation of the NTUCB and Naysayers within their own ranks, these directors are trying to convince their follow branch chairmen to back out and return to square one of the negotiations for a commercial agreement.
So, amidst the tough criticism of the compromise hammered out by himself and Deputy Gaspar Vega, does Prime Minister Barrow still think the compromise agreement is beneficial to both sides? He gave us hiw views today:
Reporter
"And you agree that both sides got a fair deal?"
Hon. Dean Barrow, Prime Minister
"I certainly think so. The farmers very clearly made some concessions, I said right at the start when it appeared to me that a breakthrough had occurred, that they demonstrated tremendous flexibility, but given all that was involved, given how important the crop and the industry are to the farmers - given that absent ASR/BSI we won't have industry - it struck me that the concessions they made were not concessions that in fact cost them to their with respect to BSI, they got by way of a draft agreement the longevity, the predictability, the certainty that they said they needed, they also undertook to make a kind of investment in the industry including both, in terms of capacity expansion where the milling process is concern, but also in terms of assisting the farmers to increase productivity - to get better yields - they undertook to make that sort of additional investment as the quid pro quo for the farmers agreeing to on the face of it a 7 years deal, so all together I did think that we reach a point where the compromise ended up being fair to both sides."
That's pretty much the same sentiment that BSI's Chief Finance Officer had when we asked him about it last week Friday evening. Here's that conversation with Belizario Carballo:
Belizario Carballo - CFO, BSI
"BSCFA has agreed to a long term agreement. They have also agreed to clarify the bagasse payments until BELCOGEN becomes profitable and they have also agreed with respect to the ownership of cane. On BSI side, we have conceded to pay a quantum for bagasse. We have agreed to backdate that payment to last crop. We have also agreed to review the bagasse payment once BELCOGEN becomes profitable and we as well agree to discuss any new bi-products with farmers and to negotiate any potential investment and or revenue participation by cane farmers if any new bi-product is determine to be viable in the future."
But, the minority within the cane farming community who do not want their association to sign this agreement say that the farmers are giving up far more than they are getting in return. Alfredo Ortega, the former Vice-Chair of the Association's Committee of Management has become one of the most vocal personalities to speak out against signing of this agreement. Last week Friday, when we asked him why it is that he and other farmers see this agreement a bad move for farmers, he discussed each of the 3 compromise points with us. Here's how he described the flaws:
Right now, the decision remains in the hands of the 18 Directors as to whether or not the association will sign the agreement.
Email
Print