BSCFA members vote to continue lawsuit against Tate and Lyle/BSI

Cane farmers affiliated with the Belize Sugar Cane Farmers Association, BSCFA, have voted against a proposal that would have seen them withdraw their ongoing lawsuit against Belize Sugar Industries, BSI, and its parent company, Tate and Lyle Sugars.  The decision came out of a pivotal meeting held yesterday in San Roman Village, Corozal District, where farmers, along with their legal representative, gathered to examine two proposals and their legal implications. Attorney Magali Marin Young was present for the discussions, which focused on determining the way forward in a dispute involving more than eleven million dollars in alleged unpaid Fairtrade premiums owed to farmers.  During the meeting, members were presented with two options. The first, from BSI and Tate and Lyle, called for the BSCFA to drop its lawsuit. The second, put forward by the Government of Belize, offered financial support in the form of one million dollars in fertilizer assistance along with an additional one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars subsidy over a six-month period.  Despite the proposed financial relief, farmers ultimately rejected the option to discontinue the case, signaling their intent to pursue what they believe is rightful compensation through the courts.  Vice Chairman of the Committee of Management of the BSCFA, Alfredo Ortega, explained the depth of discussions held during the 3-hour meeting meeting.

Alfredo Ortega, Vice Chairman, Committing of Management, BSCFA: “We had an emergency meeting yesterday on which it was set forward to the members, the proposal that was sent to us by Tate and Lisle and BSI together, and also a proposal that came from the government, on which their proposal from BSI Tate and Lisle is clearly to drop the case, to forego all the premium that is that is being owed to the BSCFA and that’s once we sign no other branch chairman, no other directors no other group can renegotiate the issue so we should abandon that completely without getting anything and abandoning everything even the premium and not only that but also moving forward that we won’t be able to negotiate and anything unless they agree to that. In the side of the government, they also were asking us to drop the case and in order for us to drop the case they were promising or they were proposing granting the farmers a million dollars out of fertilizer but in two parts. 500,000 in first tranche and 500,000 in second tranche and granting the association a cash flow of $25,000  per month for six months. The lawyer presented to the farmers the implication of signing that proposal that was set forward to us. She was very clear and explicit and the farmers understood very clear and the farmers voted “no” to the proposal. The farmers voted in favor to continue with the court issue. We don’t have a number in voting because it didn’t count. What was asked to the farmers by the chairman is that they move, who were in favor and who were against, move to the left or move to the right. And the wave of farmers that moved to the side of not accepting what was proposed on the table was I would say 98% of the farmers present at the meeting. So it was clearly voted that we continue with the issue in court and “no” to the proposal that was brought forward to the the table yesterday.”

Reporter: Is there any fear from the BSCFA part that perhaps with this voting and this continuation of the lawsuit that you all could lose the power that you have right now in the sugar industry? 

Alfredo Ortega, Vice Chairman, Committing of Management, BSCFA: “Well ma’am, I think that yesterday the farmers demonstrated that they’re resilient, that they are willing to move ahead with the sacrifice that has been going for the past five years. The farmers know the injustice that is being played against us, so there’s no fear of whatsoever have to come. We are prepared to face, we are prepared to face what is coming on board because we believe that we have a good case, we believe as farmers that we should look forward into a situation that will grant benefit to us. Not having a doubt that it might could be or not could be unless the court brings forward clear clarity to this issue.”

With the association under pressure to drop the lawsuit, and the members’ persistence to seek legal recourse, the association could face financial struggles down the road.  According to Ortega, he is aware of the turbulence that lies ahead, but the association feels confident in their fight against Tate and Lyle and BSI.  

Alfredo Ortega, Vice Chairman, Committing of Management, BSCFA: “In regards to how the associations operate, we have the contribution that comes from the farmers on the delivery of cane of a dollar and there are other branches in Corozal that are 60 cents, but that makes the administration alive of the organization. In the meantime, we have to find and seek other avenues, other ways because as we speak, the association has invested, the farmers have invested to maintain the certification alive under fair trade. So we continue to be fair trade certified even though we are not receiving, we have not been receiving our premium, which is unjust. It’s an injustice that is being done to the farmers of the BSCFA because we comply. Under the fair trade standards, we comply with everything that is needed. But they have been using this as a weapon against us. But in your question that you have done, yes, we have to seek ways. We have to find ways on how we can continue alive as an organization. And as you rightly said we need money to continue maintaining the certification because that is very important for us since we have this thing in court. And as leaders, we have to find a way how we can survive and how we can seek assistance for our farmers in the meantime we are not getting our fair trade premium.”