I can’t explain why the deferral of fees provided the superior...

I can’t explain why the deferral of fees provided the superior return and I doubt paramazing explanation is the answer. My thoughts are:
Assuming the 2000 MIS Project operates similar to my 2008 MIS project, the growers that deferred their annual fees accepted a reduced proportion of the harvest proceeds. In effect TFC paid the annual fees and received a small percentage of the harvest. Early in the project the forgone fee is 4% per year and closer to harvest it reduces to 2% per year. These growers receive around 50% of the harvest and TFC receives the other 50%.
The ASX update states the growers that deferred their fees received a higher return (3.4x) compared to those that paid their annual fees (1.8x). Therefore, TFC received a lesser return for paying the annual fees on behalf of the growers that elected to defer (this won’t affect future profits of TFC).
The 2015 accounts for the 2000 project state it had a tree survival rate of 69.6% and heartwood yield of 9.7kg per tree. The early projects are not as good as the projects from 2008 onwards because TFC was still learning its farming techniques. (For comparison, the 2015 accounts for the 2008 project state its tree survival at 84.7% and heartwood yield at 12.1kg per tree. This is significantly better than the 2000 project.)
So I suspect the deferral of fees provided the superior return because the oil yields were less than forecast. The initial fee and the annual fee are a fixed amount. Whereas, proceeds from the harvest is variable. But, I believe the harvest proceeds is more than the PDS forecast because the oil price ($US2,800 per kg) was more.
Therefore my above ramblings are nonsense.