Issue 4/2013

2013 BOEREVERENIGING

HOFMEYR LANDBOUVERENIGING
NUUSBRIEF
OCT2013

BELANGRIKE DATUMS
OCT 09
15:00 by die Sportklub

NOV 29
Jaareind - 18:00 by die Sportklub

Boerevereniging Vergadering Program vir 09 OKT 2013 Sprekers MKFPA RADIOS : Matt Marrell : Egbert (Tierhoek)

Here, almal wat vir U ken, vertrou op U want U sal die wat U aanbid nooit in die steek laat nie. (Spr.18:10-11) Daar is geen ander God wat met U vergelyk kan word nie, want U vergewe die sonde van u volk wat oorgebly het. U bly nie vir altyd kwaad nie, en U wil graag u getroue liefde aan ons bewys. U sal ons weer jammer kry en ons sondes on-der u voete vertrap en hulle diep in die see gooi (Miga 7:18). Sonder iets wat ons van ons kant af verdien het, het Hy dit vir ons verniet ge-gee, want sy Seun wat Hy so lief-het , het dit moontlik gemaak. Dit is deur die bloed van sy Seun dat God ons verlos en ons alles vergewe wat ons teen Hom gedoen het (Ef.1:6). Julle is saam met Christus lewendig gemaak en het nou `n nuwe lewe. L julle dan toe op die dinge van die hemel, waar Christus nou in die ereplek aan die regterkant van God sit. (Kol.3:1,3).

INHOUDSOPGAWE
LETTER TO ESKOM: AGRI SA MKFPA INVOICE UPDAYE RMLA LEVY UPDATE DEPT. LABOUR FEEDBACK 2 2 3 4

ESKOM: LETTER FROM AGRI SA

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen This letter has been written to you on behalf of the 3000 commercial farmers which our organisation represents in this Province. As you know, we are a Provincial affiliate of Agri South Africa. The concerns which we are raising are matters which have been brought up repeatedly by our members, and which have received vague or contradictory responses from your Provincial officials. We still, therefore, do not feel that we can answer to our members on these points, so we are now appealing to your Head Office to supply us with these answers in writing and in detail, so that we can decide whether we should take further action regarding them. 1. ELECTRICITY FOR IMPOVERISHED FARM LABOURERS In town, any household with an income of less than approximately R2520.00 (TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND TWENTY RAND) per month is entitled to 50 (FIFTY) units of free electricity. Our farm labourers, who would otherwise qualify, are not given this, and we as landowners are expected to bear all their costs of electricity usage. ESKOM has informed us that this subsidy is only available through the Municipalities and is not provided where ESKOM supplies direct. However, we have noted that, even in the remotest rural areas of the former Transkei and Ciskei, where ESKOM supplies electricity to an isolated mud hut, free basic units are supplied by yourselves through meters. If ESKOM is prepared to do this in these areas of our Province, then why not, throughout the Province, to all poor households? Are two different rules being applied here? 2. LINE CHARGES It was agreed that ESKOM should charge these for 20 years (later 25 years), to pay for the capital costs of their installation. However, after this period, ESKOM continues in all cases to continue to charge these, under "Network Charge" (as opposed to "Service Charge"). Why has ESKOM reneged on its deal? It was originally agreed in all cases that such charges would not be levied after the 20 or 25 year period required to pay off the capital costs. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL LEVY Our members feel that this is just another ESKOM charge, and that it is not being utilised for the purpose originally intended. In our Province,Threatened and Protected Bird Species such as Blue Crane (our National bird), Cape Vultures and Kori Bustards are being electrocuted over a wide area by your lines, without preventative measures being taken. You have received such complaints on a number of occasions, with little reaction. Kindly supply us with a detailed breakdown of how this Environmental Levy is being applied in our country, with special reference to the Eastern Cape. If this Environmental Levy is another form of tax which goes into government coffers, we need to know where it is being spent. 4. NERSA MYPD The percentage increment awarded by NERSA, does it apply only to units of electricity? Or is Eskom granted carte blanche to apply the same percentage increment to the following: Network Access Charge Network Demand Charge Reliability service charge 5. DETAILED ACCOUNT CHARGES Please clarify and provide details of these charges: Network Access Charge of R28.61 per day Network Demand Charge @ R0.1741/kWh Reliability service charge @ R0.0027/kWh 6. FEEDBACK INTO ESKOM LINES Our farmers have noted that, in certain metropolitan areas, users have been given the option of feeding electricity into the grid through the installation of renewable systems, such as solar power. There is a great capacity for the utilisation of such options on all our farms, and a large number of our members are keen to do this. Why is this not being encouraged? We need the support and assistance of ESKOM to implement such systems, and so far we have not obtained this. Why? There is no doubt that most farms have the potential of generating enough electricity to provide a surplus feedback. We would appreciate a detailed response to all our concerns, and have sent a copy of this letter to Agri South Africa. We wish to remind you that your organisation is a public benefit monopoly, and that you are therefore obliged to give us this response. We look forward to your reply. Agricultural Greetings EL PRINGLE

MKFPA INVOICE FEEDBACK

Hi Bronwyn I did get all the books back from the auditors, so I will be able to look up every payment. I know there were a few payments without any reference numbers or names, but I will let you know as soon as I went through all the payments. I worked from a spreadsheet that was provided to send out this year,s invoices. If there are any other queries, please let me have them I would also complain if I did pay and it does not show. I wrote receipts for ALL the payments received from 1st April 2013 (that was when the auditors took the books for an audit). It will not be a problem to provide a receipt for the payments received from 1st April 2013. The payments made during the previous book year, will be issued in another receipt book and I will make sure that we get that to the members as soon as possible. I already asked for an extra receipt book. The only reason therefore is that it will make the audit much easier. Otherwise the payments for both financial years will be in one book. As I understand from Matt, the registration as NPO was finalised. I printed all the invoices for this financial year and that will also be done in the future. If it is in a file it makes cross-reference a lot easier. Then I wrote the receipt number on the invoices in the files. My cell phone number is: 0725519654. If any of the members want to phone me, or sms any complaints, they are more than welcome. If I cannot help I will find out what to do and make sure that the complaints are handled. I also have my own e-mail address: wilna.business@gmail.com . I really strive to get the paper work on track so that looking up and keeping record will no longer be a problem. The bank statement for August 2013 will also be waiting for me when I arrive home and those receipts will also be written during the next week. Keep well and thank you very much for your help. I really appreciate it. Kind regards Wilna Pp: MK FPA

PS: If any interest was charged on invoices already paid, it will be removed accordingly.

THE RESPONSE FROM ESKOM IS ATTACHED AS IT IS TOO LONG TO INCLUDE IN THE NEWSLETTER
2

RMLA LEVY
Vriende Dit is die voorstel wat van die Federasie van Produsente na die RMIF gestuur is.Dit spreek vanself.In kort beteken dit dat die heffing verdeel word en die primere produsent beheer kry oor sy lede se gedeelte.Op hierdie manier gaan daar ook druk verlig word op die vrywillige ledegeld om Produksie ontwikkeling projekte te ondersteun. Ons se ook dan dat ons gaan kyk na n verhoging in die heffing vir die primere produsent vanaf R4,26 per bees(speenkalf) na nie meer as R7 nie en vir n skaap is dit tans R1,30 om verhoog te word na nie meer as R2,00 nie.Hierdie besluit is nog nie geneem nie,en ek wil vir julle voorberei dat dit dalk sal nodig wees om n spesiale Jaarvergadering te roep om n mandaat daarvoor te kry. Die huidige heffing verteenwoordig 0,07% van die totale omset van vee geslag en verhandel.Die gemiddelde heffing wat die ander 12 kommoditeite by die Bemarkingsraad invorder is 0,43%.Ons het dus baie ruimte om te vermeerder.Die varkbedryf byvoorbeeld hef tans R8 per R1000 varkeenheid.Internasionaal is die heffings ook deur die bank baie meer as ons sn. Gegewe ons die Federasie as diensverskaffer vir Produksie ontwikkeling registreer,en dit dan n produsente gedeelte van die heffing sal beheer,het ons dus baie meer se oor wat met die geld gedoen sal word.Selfs die 20% van die heffing wat vir Transformasie moet gaan sal dan ook onder die Federasie resorteer en ons sal ook n se he oor wat met die geld moet gebeur. Just an explanation as to what is currently happening.Please feel free to communicate questions to me as I am on top of what is happening.The rest of the role players on the Forum are not to happy with the current events,but they can use their own money to fund their functions,not ours any more. I will keep you updated as negotiations proceed. Lekker naweek. Pieter Dr. PW Prinsloo Dentist B.Ch.D (Stell) 5431581

RMLA LEVY/..
With regard to core functions it is suggested that all core functions be funded on a 50/50 basis from the two levies. The core functions be managed by the Forum and that current service providers stays the same except for the possible new functions where service providers should be appointed by the Forum. In the case of any function be funded by more than 50 % by either the trade or primary producer levy it deemed to by a function to be managed by that grouping. The contribution to the core functions by the producer levy be done on a contract basis with the RMIF with the proviso that payments be done pro rata according to budgeted versus actual income. CORE FUNCTIONS Costumer assurance Food safety Transformation (except for producer and auctioneers transformation) Compliance Research and development Information Collection and Dissemination (on general issues) Industry liaison (only the RMIF)

PRODUCER FUNCTIONS Production Development Producer Transformation Producer Liaison Agents and Brokers Liaison and Transformation Consumer Communication (Beef, sheep meat and myth busting) Producer information Collection and Dissemination

Chairman

Red Meat Producers Organisation EC Stock Theft Forum EC Federation Red Meat Producers SA

DEAR MICHELLE MANAGER RMIF Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the issue of the functions and the proposed duel levies. The Federation of Red Meat Producers together with SAFLA would like to apply for the producer levy. It is suggested that both the applications for the producer and trade levies to the National Agricultural Marketing council be submitted simultaneously. It is suggested that the point of collection for the producer levy is at the abattoirs as this is the only practical way. It is also suggested that the current levy administrator be contracted to collect the producer and the trade levies and that the primary producers together with SAFLA will appoint their own levy committee.

That the service providers for consumer communication for beef stays with the SA Feedlot Association and the function be funded on a 50/50 basis by the producers and trade levies. The 50 % contribution of the beef consumer communication by the trade levy also be done on a contract basis as explained above. The service providers for the other producer functions be appointed by the Federation of Red Meat Producers. Kind regards THE FEDERATION OF RED MEAT PRODUCERS ORGANISATION GERHARD SCHUTTE CEO RPO AGGREY MAHANJANA CEO NERPO
3

DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR TALK IN CRADOCK SEPT 2013

DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR TALK IN CRADOCK SEPT 2013

REPUTATION: There can be no doubt that black people have a bad perception of white commercial farmers. The reality is that they could not have been blamed for not thinking very highly of white farmers, because in the past the views of farmers, who were always white, were shaped by numerous events of extreme brutality suffered by black people at the hands of racist farmers, as reported by the black press. It would be naive of me to try and deny these perceptions however, I want to point out that as in any industry, there will always be the bad guys who are guilty of tarnishing the image of any Industry. This is also applicable in the Agricultural Industry. The question is how fair is it to be fowlmouthing the whole agricultural industry, as a consequence of the actions of some irresponsible individuals? Agri EC, as the commercial farmers representative body, have always asked that these individuals should be named, so that they can be shamed. We as commercial farmers understand and accept that transformation has to take place, and are therefore open to new entrants into the industry. We would also like to be seen as being part of the solution to the problems of this country - rather than part of the problem. One of the biggest challenges facing the commercial farming sector is that of changing the poor image we are portraying to the general public as a whole, but in particular to the black media. This is an area that Agri EC is working hard on addressing. We welcome opportunities such as this, for us to hear what the concerns in the workplace are so that we can try and address them. WHAT OTHER CHALLENGES ARE FACING COMMERCIAL FARMING: Commercial farmers in SA operate in a high-risk market environment. In most other countries, farmers are seen as an essential service suppliers of food and protectors of food security. SA farmers receive little or no import protection. Imports, not only export jobs from agriculture, but destroy local producers and rural communities and contribute to inflation. Companies, including big food retailers and multinational food processors, have the muscle to ensure that they control the farmers completely which makes us price-takers as opposed to price-makers. Yes, this is an international trend but in SA it is made worse because the government does nothing to protect or compensate farmers. After all, we are only the producers of the food you eat. Here is a suggestion - Instead of the Trade Unions and the Media attacking us on a regular basis about the minimum wages issue, it is my view that their focus should rather be on attacking the huge profits that are being made by these big food retailers and multinational food processors. If they had to pay the producers more realistic prices for their products it would the Producers in a better position to afford higher minimum wages. It must be remembered that approx 50% of all commercial farmers in SA have a gross annual turnover of less than R300,000. In the Mohair and Wool industry, labour costs add up to around 35% of their production costs. In addition, we are having to face continual increases, amongst others, in Fuel, Electricity, Fertilizer, Transport of produce costs the list is endless. Another area where we are being penalised is with the supplying of electricity to our workers. Any household in town and even in the remotest rural areas of the former Transkei/Ciskei, with an income of less than R2,520.00 per month, is entitled to 50 units of free electricity. Farm labourers should qualify - but are not allowed this subsidy. Instead we as landowners are expected to bear all their costs of electricity usage.

The recent huge increase of 52% in agricultural minimum wages has placed an additional burden on farmers, in an already hostile environment, because of the lack of protection for the sector in terms of cheap subsidized imports. Simply put over a short time, a large number of farmers are not going to find the additional money to meet the massive increase in wages they will shed workers or sell up and simply leave agriculture. This will, in turn put further pressure on the government in term of catering for additional unemployed people, who are predominantly unskilled. No wonder the commercial farming numbers have decreased from around 120,000 in 1994 to about 37,000 today. What is very worrying is that over the same period jobs generated by the agricultural sector have declined by almost 400,000. If this trend should continue then more of our unskilled workers, whose only access to the economy is through jobs in the agricultural sector, will become destitute. It is perhaps an emotional argument that people could not survive on the old minimum wage, and make no mistake, it must have been difficult, but it must be a lot harder to survive on Zero Rands per month. Just to tell you that the majority of our commercial farmers, provide far more generally for their employees than just their basic wage, which, sadly goes unnoticed. For example, most farmers contribute significantly to the education of their workers children. They supply transport to and from their nearest towns, they provide emergency basic health care. They provide housing, electricity, water, loans, grazing for their livestock and so on, for their employees. We are wanting to encourage young people to enter the industry and have repeatedly been asking the DoL to look into a two tier wage structure. A basic entrance level for beginners so as to afford them the opportunity to learn the trade before being placed on a par with experienced workers, as the case is today. These are some of the challenges facing commercial farmers today. It must also be remembered that there is an interdependence that exists between the employees in agriculture and their employers. It is therefore of paramount importance that we have more of these meetings throughout the Province so as to afford the various parties the opportunity to interact with each other. Report by

JD Stern