Le sucre à travers le monde →
Copyright © 2006 - 2009 Sucre Ethique
Site réalisé avec SPIP par
A. LE FLOCH
In May of 2009, the European Commission Europeaid Cooperation Office commissioned an audit into the supply of Agriculture Fertilizer for the period of December 7, 2007 to June 6, 2008. Under the Accompanying Measures for Sugar, Belize received aid in the form of fertilizer with the Government of Belize (at the time a PUP government) signing a supply contract for fertilizer with Prosser Fertilizers and Agrotec Company on December 7, 2007.
The summary of the audit points to nine main findings. The first suggests that under the period of review “the organization and set up of the distribution of the fertilizer to the beneficiary farmers has been transferred ‘De facto’ from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF)… to both the Sugar Industry Control Board (SICB) and to the (Belize Sugar Cane Farmers Association (BSCFA). This allowed that the “project was not driven by the MAF who let all decision being taken by the BSCFA, even if there were not in accordance with the policies set up by MAF for this distribution process.”
The report continues : “There has been no Memorandum of Agreement signed between the parties involved in the distribution process. No clear written instructions were given by MAF to the parties involved in the distribution scheme.” The audit points that such a document should have specified eligibility for farmers to benefit from the fertilizers ; the procedures and formulas to determine the number of bags the farmers were to receive.
Other findings indicate that the eligibility criteria set up by the MAF for the distribution of Fertilizer was not implemented by the BSCFA. Under the criteria, small farmers who had access to limited credit were to be the beneficiaries. These farmers were to receive one bag of fertilizer for every 50 ton of cane delivered in the last crop. However, those prerequisites were not adhered to as the SICB and BSCFA decided on other ways of distribution. Of a total of 22,600 bags of fertilizer distributed, the Corozal Division received 65% or 14,690 bags and the Orange Walk Division received 7,910 bags or 35%. Other decisions taken included that “each director (Orange Walk Division) is allowed to decide how to issue the fertilizer, since he knows his farmers and can best make the decision on who gets how much.”
This led to “farmers who had not delivered for the past crops have been given bags of fertilizers ; some farmers received much more than according to what they delivered during the past crop ; some farmers who delivered for the past crop did not receive fertilizers ;” The report continues explaining that “farmers did not receive what they were entitled to. Some farmers received much more than they were entitled to, due to their relationships with Directors who had been authorized… to determine themselves the number of bags to distribute to farmers.”
Added to that, the report cites that “the distribution of fertilizer has not been conducted in a transparent and fair manner.” There were no explanations to beneficiaries as to why they got the number of bags that they did and the allocation was done based on different methods of calculation and were also different depending on which district the beneficiary came from or ‘goodwill’ on the part of directors.
More than that, when distribution took place, the report notes that improper records were kept if any at all of the distribution process. Additionally distribution took place on an ad-hoc manner causing for fertilizer distributed to be unaccounted for as where “testing by the auditor reveal that 175 bags have been delivered on WRONG ID Nr. For 3,174 ? ”, it continues “Sample check and testing by the auditor reveal that 267 bags distributed on wrong location references for 4,843.38 ? for Corozal Division.” There was also printing of waybills twice and distribution of fertilizers being done likewise. On at least one occasion, the audit notes that “due to pressure from a Director, a distribution list had to be established for Progresso Branch - Orange Walk Division, and the waybills not given for signature, but were introduced in the waybill system and printed on a later stage. The list dated 21/01/2008 is for 28 farmers for a total number of 162 bags but corrected and signed for a total of 171 bags (+9 bags with no name of farmer). The value of the 171 bags is estimated at ?3,101.94.”
The report concludes that “criteria set up by BSFCA have given space for abnormal distribution of fertilizer to friends, relatives, or political clans”. The report continues, “Distribution of fertilizers has not been organized in most cases, according to past crop deliveries, but according to other not standardized, fair, and equal criteria.”
The audit is a tell tale sign of what used to happen at the BSFCA and the entire sugar industry on a whole where the distribution of aid was used for political gain at a time when there was to have been concentration of efforts to ensure that the industry became viable.