Yesterday, we analysed the Cocoa Management System (CMS) policy being introduced by the management of the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) to streamline the operations of the sector, and also help farmers overcome their challenges. This new policy, as we understand, is geared towards addressing a number of issues, including the protection of the interest of cocoa farmers and their welfare.
Per assurance given by COCOBOD, the problem of produce buying companies stealing from the farmers through the illegal adjustment of their weighing scales, and stealing of the cocoa in the process of being dried, will be a thing of the past if the CMS starts full operation.
We commended the management of COCOBOD for the innovative idea, but were not happy with the way the pension scheme for the cocoa farmers is going to be implemented. According to COCOBOD, a percent of the produce sold by each farmer will be deducted and saved in the pension fund. The government, through COCOBOD, will top up for each farmer as done with the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) operations.
The farmers can access the funds after specific period of time to give them financial cushion during old age or deformity. As we have already indicated, this is noble idea, which is surely going to help our poor cocoa farmers. The problem The Chronicle has with the scheme is that it appears the drafters were only aiming at the real owners of the cocoa farms. In other words, if a farmer does not own a farm, he or she cannot benefit from the pension scheme.
If we all agree that the scheme is meant to address financial challenges facing the poor in our cocoa growing areas, then the policy must be reviewed. We are saying this because it is an undeniable fact that most of the cocoa farmers do not own the farms. We can best described them as labourers or hwesofuo (caretakers) in the Akan language who have been hired to weed, pluck the cocoa from the trees, dry and sell the beans, and then share the proceeds with the owners of the farms. In most of the cases, the hwesofuo take one-third of the proceeds, with two-thirds going to the owner of the farm.
Though these labourers or hwesofuo constitute major stakeholders in the production chain, but all policies are surprisingly directed towards the real owners of the farms. These people we are referencing live under abject poverty in the rural areas, even though their hard work is what is keeping the economy of Ghana moving.
The Chronicle is, therefore, suggesting to COCOBOD that these poor farmers must also be captured under the pension scheme. This can be done by registering and giving them cocoa pension scheme numbers or codes. Any time they sell the cocoa, part of the one-third of the proceeds that will go to them would be taken and paid into the pension scheme.
With this, even if the owner of the farm decides to sack the laborer or hwesofuo, he can still contribute towards the scheme if he is employed by another farm owner. In this way, COCOBOD will be helping to fight against poverty in the country, especially in the cocoa growing areas.
Cocoa farmers, especially the farm hands or labourers, do not know what is called investment because the money they earn at the end of each cocoa season is nothing to write home about. But if they are compelled through a government policy, they can also contribute towards their retirement – that is when they become old and can no more do any hard work.
This is the reason why The Chronicle thinks they must not be left out of the equation. The pension scheme must cover all categories of cocoa farmers, and not limited to only the owners of the farms. We hope COCOBOD will listen to our advice in the interest of cocoa farmers who are categorised as hwesofuo (caretakers) in the Akan language.
The post Editorial: Has COCOBOD left out hwesofuo in the cocoa pension scheme? appeared first on The Chronicle Online.
Read Full Story
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Instagram
Google+
YouTube
LinkedIn
RSS