Dear Sir,
They say never look a gift horse in the mouth. We should just be gracious and accept gifts when given to us, even though it is not exactly what we wanted. By that logic, we, or at least banana farmers, should be happy with the UWPs promise to provide them with a pension despite not having made NIC contributions (plank 4 of SOS7).
However, we are also warned to be wary of Greeks bearing gifts. So, when politicians, particularly those known for their prevarications, offer us gifts or make us promises, we must be wary and scrutinise them for their practicality, efficacy, and fairness. This submission seeks to unpack and scrutinise the UWP’s promise to pay banana farmers a pension and make a few suggestions.
The UWP claims that the basis of their proposal is because banana farmers made a sterling contribution to Saint Lucia’s development, and now, in their old age, they are vulnerable and unable to provide for themselves. It is not clear whether the proposal makes a distinction between farmers and farm workers. The proposal seems not to recognise that banana farmers weren’t the only ones who made sterling contributions to Saint Lucia’s development, and who, now in their old age, are vulnerable and find difficulty in providing for themselves.
What, therefore, is the proposal for all those, like fishers and vendors, who contributed to Saint Lucia’s development but did not pay into NIC? Is there an equitable and cost-effective way to provide for all who are so affected?
Definitionally, a farmer owns or manages the farm and bears responsibility for its operation, whereas a farmworker is a hired employee who performs agricultural labor, such as planting, harvesting, and caring for crops and livestock, under the direction of the farm owner or manager. According to the last agricultural census, completed in 2007, there were 9800 farm holdings/owners. Of that number, 8287 of them held holdings of less than five acres. Given the relative historical share of bananas in agricultural exports, for purposes of this submission, no distinction is made between banana farmer and farmer.
According to the 2007 Agricultural Census 19,069 people reported working full-time on farms, whilst 13028 reported part-time engagement. Whilst it would be fairly easy to identify who were banana farmers, accurately identifying their farm workers of that period would be more difficult. This challenge matters for whether a means test is to be administered to decide who should receive the pension. The census also reported that the median age of the farmer was 50 years. This would mean that 20 years later, at least 4900 of those farmers would be 70 and older.
We know that less than 8 percent of NIC contributions are from self-employed. Thus, it is unsurprising that most farmers did not make contributions to the NIC, and as such are unlikely to have paid NIC on behalf of their workers. The farm workers, who were always more vulnerable, were as important in the development of the sector and, as such as deserving of consideration as the farm owners.
So, what are the cost implications of plank 4?
Since the amount of the pension has not been stated, some extrapolation and assumptions are necessary. The NIC currently pays out a monthly pension to approximately 11,000 people, at a minimum of $500. The Government pays a monthly pension to approximately 3200 people and gives them a monthly minimum of $750.
Based on a mortality rate of 8.6 per 100,000, approximately 790 of those who were farmers in 2007 have passed away. Thus, the number of farmers above 65 would be 4200. On the assumption that a minimum monthly pension of $500 be paid to them, that monthly total would be $2.5 million, and $30 million annually.
Based on the population census of 2021, there are over 25,000 persons above age 65. Accounting for the 11,000 NIC pensioners and the 3200 government pensioners, there are still more than 11,000 who are not receiving a state pension. What is the plan for those persons?
Among the primary concerns for the elderly are the cost of healthcare, social isolation, and home condition. The focus should be on expanding services in those areas.
The state already has a Public Assistance program in place to serve the most vulnerable. Approximately 3500 persons are currently on the program, and another 1500 are waiting to be placed on it. Not all who receive public assistance are elderly. The minimum amount paid to an individual is $215, whilst the maximum paid to a household is $465. Government spends monthly, approximately $1,035,905 on the program. Therefore, would it not be more equitable, practical, and efficient for an expansion of public assistance as opposed to creating a pension only for banana farmers who did not contribute to the NIC?
The “Caregivers Programme” being run by the SSDF, which has garnered some recent attention, has an annual budget of $13.5 million. The allocation for that program could be expanded to widen their clientele. It would also be more efficient and less discriminatory to lower the age of eligibility from 80 to receive care, free of cost, at public health institutions.
Banana farmers need not be pawns nor props in our political theater. Let’s truly put things in place for all our citizens to live economically and socially secure lives.
The post Are St Lucian farmers props? appeared first on Caribbean News Global.