Sugar bill, again-2E

I am not aware of any agricultural industry in the Philippines, other than bananas and pineapple that had been studied and volumes of proposals submitted since the beginning of 1909 until today. The sugar industry has a surfeit of studies and through these years, the proposals to keep it competitive and profitable had been tried and many had failed.

Those who are engaged in the industry know this but the industry’s plans to achieve an economy of scale to reduce the cost of production and make it attractive to investors and profitable to producers have been unsuccessful. The comparison of the cost of production cited yesterday shows that the price of each pound of Philippine sugar is higher than others except Hawaii that had already closed down, unable to compete. It is cheaper to import.

The bill filed by Rep. Alfredo Benitez is another proof of this search.

The task is of great magnitude but I believe we have enough men and women of competence to attain the objective. The bill, in reality is a rehash, a compendium of many proposals, plans and programs that have lain for decades in the shelves unvisited and therefore we run into circles.

A study made by a US team commissioned USAID in 1986 came out with a study and not surprisingly covered many of the subjects in the Benitez bill, like energy co-generation, utilization of farm and mill wastes, diversification, alcohol (today’s ethanol), animal feed, etc.

Simply said then, the ideas in the Benitez bill, as one radio caller reminded us, are not new. I am certain this caller is a planter because he is well-versed in these plans of yesteryears that could have answered the call for diversification and saved plenty of money.

Indeed, when the Philippine Sugar Technologists Association was founded in later part of the 1920s’ (I think sometime in 1928), the idea of diversification was already broached by the Philsutech founder, Dr. Carlos Locsin of Victorias Milling Company. In fact, how many times in so many years have diversification been called upon that today when one talks to planters of diversification, they would look you in the eye as if to say “are you crazy?”

Consider this USAID 1986 study. It proposed the establishment of a Sugarland Development Commission. Sounds familiar in the Benitez bill?

At the time that the proposal was made, the Philippine Sugar Commission was in place as the National Sugar Trading Corporation, or Nasutra. These were abolished when the new government established by the Corazon Aquino government after the EDSA revolt and in its stead the present Sugar Regulatory Administration was created. The SRA thus took on the mantle for the development of the industry. Its charter provides for that.

The 102-page USAID study proposed the formation of agro-industries which is identical to the Benitez proposal for economic zones - same banana with a different name.

One set of recommendations includes more ports which is understandably anathema to Benitez because we can have products that must be moved from farm to market. Considering that we are an island, the recommendation talks of ports close to the market.

Imagine if we moved farm products through Bredco across the narrow and busy streets of Bácolod. There will be pandemonium.

This is not to say that the Benitez bill should be junked, only that the industry must be reminded that many of the solutions proposed by the bill had been made before, tried and failed.

This means that the Philippine agencies related to sugar, like the SRA, the Philippine Sugar Corporation, and others and the producers associations and federations intended to be tapped to implement the provisions of the Benitez bill in the event it becomes law have already a point of departure so that we do not repeat the same mistakes or get into the same traps that are still laid out behind the proposed measures.

History shows that the industry has not been able to attain its objectives of desirable profitability because the fault lies within. Benitez in his speech issued a warning, but these same warnings have made many times before and we are still in the warning stage.

In 1986, the sugar producers faced similar problems and they called Governor Daniel “Bitay” Lacson to make representations with the new president, Corazon Aquino who declared that sugar is a “sunset industry”.

Bitay had to placate the planters. The planters were told, “Put your acts together.”

When Aquino spoke before the national convention of the National Federation of Sugarcane Planters in February 1987, she issued a more dire statement that almost led to the formation of a Negros Independent State – the sugar lands were to be placed under an aggressive agrarian reform program.

So we are back to square one, and worse.*

back to top