Cane farmers should be informed about the National Cane Farming Committee Act and related subsidiary legislation

Dear Editor, 
It was good to see reported in your columns that the National Cane Farming Committee (NCFC) is being re-instituted by the Minister of Agriculture. It is uncertain, however, how well reported on were the proceedings, as there was particular emphasis on the Minister’s views and expressed hopes, rather than on the structure, objectives and future operations of the committee. 

One does not recall specific reference to the legislation which promulgated the NCFC, ie the National Cane Farming Committee Act Cap 69:04 
It seems important that at this watershed juncture in the history of the sugar industry, major participants like cane farmers should be allowed to appreciate their substantive roles as informed by the National Cane Farming Committee Act and related subsidiary legislation. 

Since the NCFC has not been convened for at least a decade, it seems most desirable that both existing and prospective cane farmers should be respectively refreshed and informed about the realities and implications of the act.

It is true that aspects of the act are outdated.  For example, reference to ‘Development Corporation’ is no longer applicable.  The Cane Farming Development Corporation was established in the nineteen sixties as a special window for funding the development and sustainability of new and existing cane farms. The contributors at the time were Bookers Sugar Estates, Demerara Co, Barclays Bank DCO, and The Royal Bank of Canada. 

It is just possible that current members of the committee may wish to reflect on this kind of support mechanism for future cane farming development. 
On the issue of membership the act refers to ‘District Association’ – as meaning “an association of farmers formed for the promotion, protection and advancement of the interests of farmers in any district.” ‘District’ is also defined. 

Section 3 of the act deals specifically with the appointment by the minister of members of the committee including its chairman and vice chairman, as follows: 
“a) eight persons chosen by the Minister from among farmers who have been recommended for appointment by District Associations:
Provided that until such time as District Associations have been established under section 8, the Minister may appoint any farmer for any district;
b) three persons chosen by the Minister from a panel of seven nominated by the Association;
c) five official members; and

d) one person nominated by the Development Corporation.” 
The above membership criteria may need to be updated. Perhaps, however, the most critical aspect of the act is the contract which must be entered into between the manufacturer (the respective sugar estates) and the cane farmers. The act stipulates that a contract must be entered into between a farmer (as defined) and a manufacturer for the “cultivation, sale and processing of sugar cane”

The contract referred to is contained in the subsidiary legislation titled ‘Cane Farmers Contract (General Conditions) Rules.’ This remarkable piece of legislation demands that the relationships between farmer and manufacturer be legally solemnized, with the clear implication that any default by the parties concerned will constitute a breach of the law.
The above is submitted in the interest of the effective organisation of future cane farming development in the sugar industry.
Yours faithfully,
E B John