Sugar Council questions unity call, disputes sugar price gains

By Dolly Yasa

BACOLOD CITY — The Sugar Council has pushed back against recent statements by Sugar Board Planters’ Representative Dave Sanson, saying his call for unity in the sugar industry amounts to “blind obedience” rather than genuine consensus.

In a statement issued Monday, the Sugar Council said it has consistently worked toward unity within the industry and has repeatedly expressed its willingness to collaborate with the Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) to craft viable and sustainable solutions to long-standing sectoral problems.

The group said its numerous communications with the Sugar Board demonstrate this commitment to dialogue and cooperation.

However, the Council criticized Sanson’s public appeal for unity, arguing that the version he promotes requires stakeholders to accept SRA-backed solutions even when these contradict the outcomes of consultative meetings.

“That is not genuine unity — that is blind obedience,” the statement said.

According to the Sugar Council, real unity should be grounded in consensus among all stakeholders, particularly sugarcane farmers, whom Sanson represents as Planters’ Representative.

The Council added that many farmers were surprised by Sanson’s remarks, noting that a majority of planters have had little direct engagement with him.

It further argued that proposals opposed by most millers, the largest federation of labor groups in the sugar industry, and at least three major planters’ federations—representing the bulk of national sugar production—cannot reasonably be considered a consensus position.

The Sugar Council also disputed Sanson’s claim that a recent PHP 20–PHP 30 increase in average mill-gate prices demonstrates the failure of alternative proposals advanced by the Confederation of Sugar Producers Associations Inc. (Confed) and supported by other federations and labor groups.

It said the increase is negligible compared with the PHP 300–PHP 500 average weekly decline in mill-gate prices versus the previous crop year, which it said translates to billions of pesos in foregone industry revenue.

The Council noted that the situation has been particularly damaging to small farmers and agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) who harvested during the first 12 weeks of milling and were unable to benefit from the recent price uptick.

The group attributed persistently low sugar prices to over-importation arising from the export-with-import-replenishment scheme under Sugar Order No. 5 and importation under Sugar Order No. 8 during the previous crop year.

It also expressed concern that the Sugar Board appears poised to pursue a similar importation program anew.

Despite public assurances from the Secretary of Agriculture that no sugar importation will take place until December 2026, the Council pointed out that the Sugar Board, including Sanson, signed Sugar Order No. 2, Series of 2025–2026, which was released on Jan. 14.

The Council emphasized that the order’s title—“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”—signals an intention to grant priority access in future importation programs.

“This Sugar Order keeps a back door ajar for importation, despite repeated assurances to the contrary,” the Sugar Council said, adding that Sanson’s conformity to the order raises serious questions about whose interests are ultimately being served.