SC ruling on sugar land bad for industry—producers

BACOLOD CITY, Philippines – The Supreme Court decision affirming the inclusion of sugar plantations in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program will lead to lower sugar production that will force the country to import sugar, industry leaders warned Saturday.

Sugar Regulatory Administrator Bernard Trebol said subdividing sugar lands to one hectare or less would cause sugar production to drop tremendously.

Sugar is a plantation crop, he said, and it would not be viable for farmer beneficiaries to grow sugarcane on small tracts of land.

“We will go back to carabao farming and more people will be impoverished,” he said.

According to Trebol, a landowner will need at least 25 hectares to make sugar planting viable.

Manuel Lamata, president of the United Sugar Producers Federation of the Philippines, said the Supreme Court ruling was bad for the sugar industry.

“When sugar lands are cut up, production will continue to drop,” he said. “This will mean higher domestic sugar prices and the need to import domestic sugar needs from a world market also suffering from tight supply.”

With CARP making vast sugar plantations a thing of the past, Lamata projected that the time would come when the country will no longer produce enough sugar for its domestic requirement.

Lamata believed that the incoming administration would have to make a choice between food security and land security.

Enrique Rojas, president of the National Federation of Sugarcane Producers, said sugarland owners have no choice but to abide by the high court’s decision.

But he too warned that parceling out the sugar plantations will eventually mean the Philippines will be producing less and less sugar.

The Supreme Court, in a resolution dated April 13 but made public only on Friday, affirmed a ruling it issued in 2007 that sugar plantations are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or Republic Act 6657.

The tribunal also said it was not within its power to question Congress’ decision to include sugar lands under agrarian reform.

Big sugar producers led by the Confederation of Sugar Producers Association Inc. (Confed) had earlier petitioned the high court to exclude sugar plantations from agrarian reform coverage, claiming it was “unwise” and “impractical” to distribute sugar lands under CARL because these lands could be more efficiently and economically run as “organized, mechanized, plantation-type agriculture” rather than as small, “parcelized,” owner-cultivated farms.

source: newsinfo.inquirer.net