The Sugar Council on Monday, Jan. 19, said it has always worked for unity within the sugar industry, and has continuously signified its willingness to collaborate with the Sugar Regulatory Administration to come up with viable and sustainable solutions to the problems hounding the industry.
Numerous communications of the Sugar Council to the Sugar Board attest to that, a press release from the Sugar Council said.
Dave Sanson, who sits in the Sugar Board as planters representative, on Sunday called for unity among from all stakeholders.
“But Sanson’s idea of unity is unity at their own terms, which means for stakeholders to swallow whatever solution SRA wants, sometimes with little or no regard for what was discussed in a stakeholders consultative meeting. That is not genuine unity – that is blind obedience,” the Sugar Council said.
Genuine unity demands consensus among various industry stakeholders, especially farmers who Sanson supposedly represents as “Planters Representative”. For sugar farmers, the majority of whom have never even seen Sanson’s shadow, Sanson’s statements came as a surprise, the Sugar Council said.
Pushing for a solution, which is opposed by the majority of the millers, by the largest organization of labor groups in the industry, and by three planters’ federations who account for the majority of sugar production in the country, can never be called a consensus, it said.
Sanson is patting himself on the back for the recent P20 to P30 average increase in mill gate prices. This increase is so insignificant when compared to the P300 to P500 average weekly decrease from the previous crop year’s mill gate prices, the Sugar Council said.
When summed up, those year-on-year negative variances in weekly mill gate price represents billions of foregone revenue, it said.
This is excruciating for all sugarcane farmers, especially for small farmers and ARBs who finished harvesting in the first 12 weeks of milling, and now cannot benefit from the P20 to P30 increase touted by their supposed planters representative, it added.
“And yet, Sanson claimed that this miniscule price increase is proof that the solutions proposed by Confed and backed by other federations and the organized labor sector, did not work. His claim is illogical, for how can he conclude that a proposal, which has not been given the opportunity to be implemented, does not work?” the Sugar Council asked.
Over-importation due to this same export-with-import-replenishment scheme under Sugar Order No. 5 and importation under Sugar Order No. 8 last crop year directly caused the low sugar prices since the start of milling this crop year, it said.
And it would seem, the Sugar Board is once again pushing for the same export-with-import-replenishment program, it added.
Notwithstanding pronouncements by Agriculture Sec. Francisco Tiu-Laurel that there will be no importation until December 2026, Sanson, together with the entire Sugar Board, signed Sugar Order No.2, Series of 2025-2026, and released it on January 14, the Sugar Council said.
The title of the Sugar Order reveals the true intention of the Sugar Order: “Voluntary Purchase of Crop Year 2025-2026 Locally Produced Raw Sugar in Order to be Given Priority in the Selection of Participants in Future Sugar Import/Export Programs”, the Sugar Council pointed out.
Thus, it is clear that the very purpose of the Sugar Order is to give those who voluntary purchase raw sugar, priority treatment in the selection of participants in future importation, it said.
“So, while DA Sec. Francisco Tiu-Laurel can repeatedly proclaim that there will be no importation, this Sugar Order keeps a back door ajar – just in case they suddenly decide to import. And Sanson signed his conformity to this Sugar Order?” the Sugar Council said.*
[sibwp_form id=1]