Sugar master plan

Two weeks back, Senatorial bet Miguel Zubiri asked whether the sugar industry has a plan to address the situation in 2015 when the tariff on sugar imports drops to 5 percent, a mere token tax. The trade of agricultural products (not just sugar) within the ASEAN will move as freely as possible, the thinking being that it will be good for all the members.

While that is true, there are also negative effects. The less efficient agricultural sectors will be unable to compete price-wise against the efficient ones that can offer customers a lower price. Customers have no respect for nationalities, race or creeds – people will buy comparably cheaper goods regardless where it is made or by whom.

This is the situation of Philippine sugar. The production of our sugar is admittedly so inefficient that it cannot compete with Thailand's sugar. Ergo, unless the Philippine sugar industry undertakes a massive and collective effort to become efficient it will be at a great disadvantage to imported sugar which can compensate the cost of transport due to its low production cost.

The sad part is that the government cannot mandate a floor price to protect the local industry. The other way is for the government to subsidize the industry but this is outlawed by the ASEAN agreement.

Zubiri said the SRA “has no clear plans” or that it has failed “to formulate short and long term plan” and that the “government shows a complete lack of political will.

He cited the case of his planters in Bukidnon who also asked him the same question. In a sense he was merely reiterating the plaints of his planters.

The disappointment of Zubiri was met immediately by a statement from the Sugar Regulatory Administration that said there is a “road map” to address the concerns of Zubiri and that this road map was presented in several forums with the various planters associations and that their federations had been briefed of the plans. The leaders of the planters of Bukidnon were briefed, SRA claims.

SRA also claims that the planters are “united in closely preparing for 2015, citing “increasing efficiency, productivity at lower cost and diversification” among others.

The planters, however, spoke of a master plan while SRA speaks of a road map. Are they the same, similar or different, and if different, in what respects?

Zubiri was reportedly briefed of the road map (but not the master plan?). It is clear that he is not satisfied because he said there is a need “to speed things up” for the sugar industry “to survive.”

So it seems that while Zubiri was briefed of the master plan or road map, he felt that the implementation was slow.

I think, considering that he is running for office and would not rock the boat, Zubiri was kind and expressed his dissatisfaction in the most diplomatic way – no political will which can be understood to mean that nothing is really there or none or little is moving along the lines he had in mind.

The statements from the planters and the SRA seem to be discordant for while the SRA speaks of a road map, the planters speak of a master plan. From the explanations of the SRA about its map there is a target but the planters' master plan has not been spelled out for the ordinary planter to understand and thus to take active part in the implementation of the plan.

If there is anything clear and palpable, it is the Sugar Master Plan Foundation which had been issuing press releases about its activities – seminars, forums and consultations, but what planters want from both the foundation and from SRA are specifics.

A plan has characteristics and contents that so far have not been published by the two agencies. From their own statements to the press, the two have targets and objectives – where and what they intend to do but objectives and targets are only the one aspect of a plan.

There must be specifics, like what I always ask people when they present a plan: who does what, when, where and how, how long, etc. These are general aspects of a plan which SRA and the foundation have not given the planters. To my mind this is what Zubiri and many others are looking for.

So far they have objectives and, well, a map but as with maps they tell you directions and locations but going there is a different matter.

On the other hand, a master plan, by its very name should be comprehensive from targets to outcomes at specific times and the details in between.

So far, we have not heard of these and this is the reason why questions arise and sadly, so far, there is no satisfactory answer. *

back to top