The president of Indian Sugar Mills Association (ISMA) Vivek M Pittie claims on the basis of empirical evidences of recent years that this country, which in the last two seasons overtook Brazil to emerge as the world’s largest producer of the sweetener, has ceased to be visited by the “infamous cycle” in the commodity.The phenomenon of the past when “three to four years of surplus production would be followed by two to three years of shortfall in output,” as Pittie points out, would see India alternating as an exporter in times of abundance of supply and an importer during the “down cycle.”
Millions of farmers in the sugarcane growing states and crushing factories were periodically put to much distress as the wheels of “infamous cycle” rolled. New Delhi was for long in a wilderness to find curatives for the major agro-based industry where only a handful of large groups with value generating assets in the downstream based on sugarcane by-products were somewhat immune to the fluctuations in industry fortunes.
In a move to put the whole industry on an even keel, the C Rangarajan committee suggested a number of corrective steps in 2012, the most important being the recommendation that total revenues from sale of sugar and sugarcane by-products such as electricity generated by way of burning bagasse, ethanol and press mud used as soil conditioner should ideally be shared between farmers and sugar producers in the ratio of 70:30.The committee also recommended that payment to farmers be made in two instalments. First, the disbursal of floor price, that is, the government determined fair and remunerative price (FRP) for the season. Second, the balance will be payable based on official half-yearly ex-mill sugar prices.
The Rangarajan committee formula automatically assumes cane growing states will forego the much abused privilege of imposing a price premium on FRP to humour growers, irrespective of its negative impact on industry working. No stakeholder of the sugar economy, including the central government, has questioned the logic of revenue apportionment between the constituents of farmers and factories in 70:30 ratio. But neither the Manmohan Singh government nor the present dispensation in Delhi could get the states on board to make a new beginning with the judiciously crafted revenue-sharing formula along with liberalisation of sugar export-import trade.The question then is in spite of the government putting Rangarajan committee recommendations into cold storage, how did the sugar industry manage to breakout from the “infamous cycle” marked by years of high imports or exports depending on local production? Pittie says for the import and export opportunities that this country offered in the past and the way production here would move world raw and white sugar prices in the global market, India would remain under close watch of global trading houses.
Millions of farmers in the sugarcane growing states and crushing factories were periodically put to much distress as the wheels of “infamous cycle” rolled. New Delhi was for long in a wilderness to find curatives for the major agro-based industry where only a handful of large groups with value generating assets in the downstream based on sugarcane by-products were somewhat immune to the fluctuations in industry fortunes.
In a move to put the whole industry on an even keel, the C Rangarajan committee suggested a number of corrective steps in 2012, the most important being the recommendation that total revenues from sale of sugar and sugarcane by-products such as electricity generated by way of burning bagasse, ethanol and press mud used as soil conditioner should ideally be shared between farmers and sugar producers in the ratio of 70:30.The committee also recommended that payment to farmers be made in two instalments. First, the disbursal of floor price, that is, the government determined fair and remunerative price (FRP) for the season. Second, the balance will be payable based on official half-yearly ex-mill sugar prices.
The Rangarajan committee formula automatically assumes cane growing states will forego the much abused privilege of imposing a price premium on FRP to humour growers, irrespective of its negative impact on industry working. No stakeholder of the sugar economy, including the central government, has questioned the logic of revenue apportionment between the constituents of farmers and factories in 70:30 ratio. But neither the Manmohan Singh government nor the present dispensation in Delhi could get the states on board to make a new beginning with the judiciously crafted revenue-sharing formula along with liberalisation of sugar export-import trade.The question then is in spite of the government putting Rangarajan committee recommendations into cold storage, how did the sugar industry manage to breakout from the “infamous cycle” marked by years of high imports or exports depending on local production? Pittie says for the import and export opportunities that this country offered in the past and the way production here would move world raw and white sugar prices in the global market, India would remain under close watch of global trading houses.

)