Sugar Industry Supervisory Board Chairman Says He Will Not Respond To Other Unions – Love FM
And while the powerhouse, the Belize Sugar Cane Farmers Association, disagrees with BSI / ASR, there are three other sugar cane farmer associations who want to start the crop. The Progressive Sugar Cane Producers Association, the Northern Sugar Cane Growers Association and the Corozal Sugar Cane Producers have all written to the Sugar Industry Control Board. Together, these associations represent more than a thousand cane producers while the BSCFA represents more than three thousand. President Marcos Osorio confirmed having received the letters and explained to us why he had decided not to respond.
Journalist: Did you not reply to this letter?
Marcos Osorio, President of the Sugar Industry Control Council: “No. You know why? There is a common factor in these three letters, actually in the four letters because BSI sent their letter first, then followed the other three associations and when you read the three association letters , especially the progressive letter and the letter from the producers of Corozal, they do not say anything different from what BSI said in their letter and I even have the impression that the letter was dictated to them what you are going to write. And I like the part, honestly I like the part where they say ‘The canes that would be lost due to this delay in starting, we urge the SICB to compensate the farmers for this sugar cane.’ Right? I wanted to answer in that regard, but I said I didn’t want to do that – “
Reporter: They say SICB should compensate farmers on the – so how many tonnes they say they would lose if –
Marcos Osorio, President, Sugar Industry Control Board: “Well, it’s easy if we say if the mill were to take three thousand tonnes per day and if it is delayed by two days, three days, five days, we just multiply by the number of days, okay? And they would say okay if it’s five days you know what we lost fifteen thousand tons of SICB sugar cane you have to pay the farmers for that. Now my first thought on this was that I would ask them that once they can provide proof and proof to the SICB that BSI paid the farmers for the cane which has been lost from year to year over past years that BSI paid them and they can provide proof and proof of what BSI paid them and they can provide proof and proof of what BSI paid them for those rods left as I did. Said for the last harvest, we had over forty tons of cane that was left in the field so we can classify this as a loss for the farmer. Did BSI pay them? So I said I will answer them and tell them to bring your proof, your proof that the mill paid the farmers or compensated the farmers for the losses of canes that were not milled, so I would lobby the government to pay the farmers for their thousands of tonnes that would be lost to the farmers due to the delay in starting.