Several Factors Hover Over Dispute between A.S.R./B.S.I. and B.S.C.F.A.
The dispute between A.S.R./B.S.I. and the B.S.C.F.A. Sugar Cane Farmers Association hovers mainly over them not being able to come to terms on a commercial agreement. But to sign off on that agreement, there are several factors at play. We heard from both sides today about what their gripe is with the other. What they both seem to agree on is that the other party has not been fair in their approach.
Oscar Alonzo
Oscar Alonzo, B.S.C.F.A., B.S.C.F.A.
“The formula that they are proposing is worst than we would get and the formula that we are saying let us negotiate – we started at sixty-forty but they are saying they are not willing to negotiate if it involves the transfer of value from them to us.
Okay, if forty is not amenable to you, let us come to see – can we get forty-two, and so on. But they are firmly bent on all their proposals to not budget all. In fact, they are even implementing one of their proposals that we are still negotiating and haven’t come to an agreement with. That has to do with changing the terminology of one of these costs from ocean freight to ocean freight and terminal handling and another one – adding the matter of stevedoring fee. Those are two costs that they are altering without us having negotiated and reached an agreement. What we’re seeing with B.S.I. is that they are using these costs as a means of introducing their investments and to try to use it to recover it totally at our expense without us being able to verify that those expenses are really such.”
Shawn Chavarria
Shawn Chavarria, Director of Finance, B.S.I./A.S.R.
“One of the big factors we really want to see is an objective assessment under part of the B.S.C.F.A. negotiating team assessment team to assess not only the current realities but also the economic arguments that we have presented as to why their proposals would not work. It would result in a 20 million dollar transfer of value away from the mill to the B.S.C.F.A. in a time when we have just come off $100 million dollar of investment value added in Big Creek, in these environmental projects. So simply that would lead being unviable. It would mean a shutdown of the industry, which is not in anyone’s interest.”
