Does FSC have a plan
The chairman of Fiji Sugar Cooperation Board, Nitya Reddy, responded last week to my article of 24th February 2024, titled “The Sugar Industry — To be or not to be”. Mr Reddy’s essay, though a highly exaggerated descriptor and somewhat lacking in any evidential basis, does not actually answer farmers’ concerns raised by me. And so, the question remains, largely unanswered.
I must, however, acknowledge that the chairman’s rather elongated response has hopefully opened up a space for informed debate on the issues facing the industry. In response, Mr Reddy attributed the first and the last paragraph of the article on a personal note to me which I don’t see necessary to respond because the important subject matter of discussion is the sugar industry which he rightly stated affects a quarter of our near 1million population. While being highly critical of my article and attempting to respond to some of the issues I had raised, the chairman has left more questions unanswered.
I will address a few here.
THE first one being the setting of targets for sugar cane production. On June 9, 2022 an article on the website of a broadcast company quoted the then board director Prakash Chand speaking at the opening of the crushing season at the Labasa Sugar Mill, saying due to TC Yasa and TC Ana, crop size dropped to 1.4million tonnes in 2021 and the challenge was to increase it to 2million tonnes.
So, the ambitious figure of 2million was set in June 2022 when the harvesting season started.
That means that the effects Cyclone Yasa and Ana had nothing to do with the 2022 and 2023 season targets.
So, what was the plan in 2022, 2023 and what is the plan in 2024 to reach the 2-million-tonne mark?
The Fiji Sugar Cooperation needs a concrete strategy on how to achieve the 2-milliontonne production and not hide behind a statement from the chairman to defend itself from the failures of the organisation.
In the article it also complains about the effects of climate change.
There are seven different elements of the sugar industry which currently affect its performance:
❏ New cultivation, replanting and crop rehabilitation;
❏ Fertiliser; Weed and weedicide;
❏ Harvesting;
❏ Delivery;
❏ Milling; and ❏ Climate change
One of them is climate change.
Indeed, there is no conclusive evidence in recent studies with the three largest sugar producing countries (India, Brazil and Australia) on the effects of climate change on the sugar industry around the world.
Climate change has been in discussion for the world for the last two decades.
All living species or plants have been affected by the ever-changing climate and environmental change both by an act of God and by an act of mankind.
We have managed to live around it in Fiji.
We still have fresh vegetable such as bhindi, bora and baigan and fruits such at watermelon and pineapple in abundance in seasons despite the challenges of climate issues.
Sugar is no exception because it is a resilient crop.
Like other cash crop and fruits, farmers adjust to the changes.
Why is then the sugar industry only blaming climate change for not achieving the 2-million-tonne target in the last two years?
The simple answer is that FSC does not have a plan.
And even when you get the funding from the government, they don’t have a strategy to implement, monitor and comply with good practice according to the plan.
Take for example the $5million provided in this year’s budget for drainage improvement in the cane belt areas by Government.
Information provided by the chairman of Lautoka Cane Producers Association (LtCPA) and current board member of Sugar Cane Growers Association (SCGC) Bala Dass that LtCPA also provides drainage assistance to canefarmers in Lautoka, Nadi and Sigatoka district.
The cost for LtCPA to hire an excavator (digger) is $90 per hour and in an hour the excavator digs 300 to 400 meters of drain in length in a farm.
In comparison Mr Dass revealed that the FSC contracted excavator charges $5 per meter of digging which would calculate to $1500 for 300 meters of digging which is more than 16 times or 1600 per cent more than what is charged to LtCPA by digger operators. So here we go:
❍ The industry knows the challenges;
❍ The industry has the money allocated to overcome our challenges ($5million for drainage); and
❍ FSC has the people to implement it (as confirmed by the chairman of FSC).
But they don’t know how to find the best options to do what is required.
While the chairman’s global concerns on these matters is laudable, it would help the corporation if for a start there was an acknowledgement that FSC is indeed the “sick man in the room”.
It has recently had selfenriching executives and remote chairmen.