Online Reporter
Obert Chifamba
Agri-Insight
RECENT allegations that tobacco farmers may have lost millions of US dollars to “opportunistic” surrogate buyers have left many stakeholders in the industry frenzied, searching for answers to the question: are surrogate buyers a practical solution to supply-chain gaps—or a system that rewards underpayment and leaves producers paying the price?
And coming hot on the heels of claims that some licensed buyers had not started buying the golden leaf for this season, and had, instead, opted to first clear stocks from last term, leaving farmers in a quandary, as they desperately needed to sell and use the cash, the stepping in of surrogate buyers would have naturally brought in the much-needed respite to the growers.
Of course, the ordinary citizenry can easily argue that surrogate buyers stepping in was meant to prevent disruptions to the flow of the season and help keep the wheels turning, but farmers see it differently: the surrogate buyers exploited the gap—short-changed them and reshaped their livelihoods in the process.
To the farmers, the push to sustain that continuity and smooth flow of the season surely did come at a cost—a cost they will not recover from.
Essentially, that outcry by the farmers brought the role of surrogate buyers under the microscope and everyone wants to understand their operations and how they can be relevant to the farmers’ cause without leaving them licking bruised egos.
Surrogate buyers’ presence on the market goes beyond just bridging a gap and buying the golden leaf: it touches fairness, transparency, and whether farmers can rely on them when it most matters.
Yes, surrogate buyers can be a bridge in emergencies—but bridges can also be takeover points with the recent uproar by farmers highlighting a troubling possibility — the same mechanism meant to prevent chaos may also enable unfair pricing and loss of earnings. This then brings in this hard question: when official buyers are not present, who safeguards fairness?
To the farmers, surrogate buyers seem to have failed that test, which leaves most people, the farmers included, arguing that the system needs stronger controls and maybe, not blanket condemnation.
One thing sticks out like a sore thumb here: the outcry from farmers and industry insiders point to a growing suspicion that surrogate buyers may be operating in a compliance grey zone during peak season, seemingly without anyone regulating their operations.
If farmers truly lost millions, as they allege, the solution cannot be silence—it must be enforcement and the adoption of clear rules.
This is the point at which the Tobacco Industry and Marketing Board (TIMB) must remind buyers of the need to respect the contracts they signed when they secured licences to operate during the current marketing season.
Of course, it makes business sense for buyers to first clear the lot from last season before receiving fresh produce but there should be a Plan-B in place to make sure farmers are not disadvantaged in the process. Remember, they are business people with many obligations to meet both on and off the field and obviously need their earnings at the earliest possible time and at the right prices.
It is unfortunate that farmers always bear the brunt of most of the challenges that befall the agriculture sector even if they will not be of their making.
And there seems to be a conspiracy even from the natural world that each time something goes wrong, the farmer, particularly the smallholder, who is not adequately resourced to mitigate the harsh impact of such challenges, is found at the epicentre of the misfortune fighting for her dear life.
Government’s voicing of its concerns over subdued tobacco prices at the auction floors was justified given that someone, somewhere had to talk and act about the situation, lest the season would have advanced to its climax with growers getting very little even for their best leaf grades.
Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisation, Water Resources Development, Professor Obert Jiri revealed that the Government would engage stakeholders to address the price distortions and urged buyers to offer fair prices such that tobacco of the same quality must fetch the same price both at auction and contract floors and reward farmers for their toil.
