High Copra Price To Continue

Will Not Be Less Than 1949 In Current Year

THE price of Pacific Islands copra, in 1950, is going to be as high as it was in 1949—perhaps a little higher. This happy news for planters became known about the end of December.

Towards the end of 1949, it was an nounced that the MOF (British Ministry of Food) price—fixed under the guarantee covering the period 1949-1957—f0r 1950 would be around £45 Sterling per ton, compared with £4B per ton for FMS grade in 1949. This was a reduction of over 6 per cent. Under the guarantee, the price was to be negotiated each year but was not to be more than 10 per cent, higher or lower than the previous year.

It was assumed that there would be some reduction in 1950.

But the copra producers in some British countries —Ceylon, notably—pro tested strongly against any reduction.

They reminded Britain that the devalua tion of the £, if it meant anything at all, meant that copra was now more valuable in terms of the £, because copra held its intrinsic value, as a foodstuff. In the ultimate analysis, a commodity like copra should be valued in terms of gold (or dollars, of course); and this meant that, if copra was worth £4B per ton in mid-1949, it now was worth over £6O per ton, America is such a big consumer of copra that the intrinsic value of the commodity (that is, its gold value) could not be ignored.

The British Ministry apparently ac cepted this view. It was announced at the end of December that the Sterling price of FMS copra in 1950 would not be less than the 1949 price, plus an addi tional 10/- per ton.

This makes the price for 1950, in Fiji currency, £53/14/3 per ton; and, in Aus tralian currency, about £6O per ton—a very acceptable Christmas Box, Fiji planters will, in 1950, get the equi valent of the MOF price, less handling charges. They were getting 25/- per ton more than that in 1949, but that was done in order to get rid on an accumulation of planters’ funds in the hands of the Fiji Copra Board. Those funds have now been distributed.

There has been no official announce ment regarding the 1950 price for planters in Papua-New Guinea; but that is not surprising, in view of the Governmental changes that are taking place. It is safe to say that the price will not be below 1949—and, probably, it will be higher.

Fiji was fortunate in that its Director of Agriculture, Mr. C. Harvey, was in London in December negotiating the Sugar Agreement. When he saw what was happening in relation to copra, he promptly pressed the claims of Fiji and the Western Commission territories, and got a prompt response. This is one of the few examples of a high official bar gaining strongly on behalf of producers.

As a rule, officials do not do as well as the producers themselves.

No one, as far as we know, has yet taken up the matter of the Papua-New Guinea price with MOF: but the rate, whatever it is, will be retrospective to January 1,

That “Stabilisation Fund”

PAPUA-NEW GUINEA planters and merchants should take the oppor tunity, presented by the change in Government, to press their claims for an accounting in respect of the “stabilisa tion” deduction—ranging from £5 to £7 or £8 per ton—taken from their returns by the Production Control Board, over three or four years.

No one was able to get from Socialist Minister Ward any details of this trans action —the amount of the accumulation or what was ultimately to be done with it—but it may be taken as certain that the fullest information will be supplied by the new Minister.

It is believed that the total accumula tion is now between £400,000 and £500,000.

This money belongs to the planters. There has been no need for a Stabilisation Fund since Papua-New Guinea got the benefit of the MOF nine-years’ guarantee.

The method of distributing it to planters is likely to cause some headaches. The planters who suffered the original deduc tion naturally will claim that the money is theirs. But the officials—unless they have kept very exact records of deliveries and payments over the past four years— will be inclined to get rid of the accumu lation by simply making an additional per ton payment on future deliveries, as they did in Fiji in 1949.

In any event, the matter calls for early clarification.

There will be a meeting of the Aus tralian Parliament in February or March, and it is expected that the new Minister for Territories, having had a chance to examine the whole position, will then make a statement concerning the copra market and the Papua-New Guinea copra prices and control, and the future of the Production Control Board.

Planters Should Be

Represented

AVERY good point is made, in a letter to the editor, by “Planter,” written before the new British price was an nounced:— “Planters in the British areas of the Pacific are doubtful whether the various copra boards have any real bargaining powers with the British Ministry of Food.

They would prefer a system which would ensure them open and independent re presentation at any price-fixing con ference when the dickering and ‘horse trading’ begins.

“A strong suspicion exists amongst planters that the present method of price fixing has taken control of their product away from them, and that, in many cases, their side of the bargaining is in the hands of Government representatives or nominees who have too many points of contact and Administrative connections with the gentlemen on the other side of the table.

“I suggest that an elected representa tive of the planters, from the Empire producing areas of the Pacific and Ceylon, should meet the representative of the British Ministry of Food in Sydney to wards the end of each year, during the currency of the agreement, and that they should agree upon the price for the com ing year. The one basic price (with local variations) should be agreed upon by all the representatives at the one price-fixing conference.”