Sugarbeet is an important crop in the world agriculture. Out of the total world production of 130 million tons of sugar, about onethird is manufactured from sugarbeet while the remaining from sugarcane, mainly cultivated in the developing countries.
Sugarbeet is, by and large, grown under cold climate, mostly in Europe, the USA, Russia and Turkey, while sugarcane is grown under warm, humid and tropical/sub-tropical climate as in Asia, Africa, Australia and South America.
In Pakistan, only about one percent sugar is obtained from sugarbeet (grown entirely in the NWFP), while the remaining 99 percent from sugarcane. In the NWFP sugarbeet cultivation started in early 1960's, but since then the area sown under it varied from 12000 hectare in 1987-88 to 4000 hectare in 1997-98.
Average yield is about 30 tons per hectare but varied from year to year - 39 tons in 1987-88 and 21 tons in 1997-98. These yearly variations in area and yield impacted on the total production; the maximum of 768 thousand tons was in 1987-88 while the minimum, which was as low as 84 thousand tons in 1997-98. The recovery from sugarbeet averages 8.7 percent fluctuating between 10.4 and 7.3 percent.
At present three of the five sugarmills in the NWFP are processing sugarbeet, which is done soon after sugarcane crushing comes to an end. In doing so, the bagasse which are left unused after processing sugar from sugarcane are used as a fuel which is an important factor in keeping down the cost of production of sugar from sugarbeet.
As the government realised that the country was going to face serious shortage in the days and years to come, they started giving consideration to replace sugarcane crop, by sugarbeet.
The main reason for this shift was that sugarbeet is a low delta crop, requiring only 27-30 acres inches of water against sugarcane which requires about 70-80 acre inches.
The other reasons that go in favour of this crop are: one, sugarbeet occupies the land for about 4-5 months for its maturity while sugarcane takes 10 to 15 months; two, the recovery from sugarbeet is generally higher than obtained from sugarcane; and three, sugarbeet crop is less liable to the attack of insects/pests as against sugarcane.
Keeping in view the above plus factors, the Ministry of Food & Agriculture started advocating through media and otherwise the cultivation of sugarbeet, particularly in Sindh where the climate was considered more favourable for its growth, so that eventually sugarcane could be replaced by this crop, not only because it would help save on the use of water, but also a second crop can be raised after beet. As a result of this campaign, the farmers along the coastline like Badin in Sindh took interest and initiated cultivation of the crop. As a result, it was reported in 2002 that in Badin area, the crop has been grown successfully and as much as 1200 hectares have been sown to this crop and that the yield was expected to be as high as 800 to 1000 maunds (of 40 kg).
The press also reported that a mill manufacturing sugar from sugarbeet has also been set up in the vicinity of this area. This created an excitement amongst those concerned with agriculture development. But there were others who were of the view that although crop could be grown successfully, but it might (or would) not help reduce the area under sugarcane because processing of sugarbeet was considered to be possible and economical only in conjunction with or as a supplement to, sugarcane processing.
Taking note of these divergent views, the President of Pakistan set up a Committee with his Advisor on Food & Agriculture as the Chairman, with representatives from the concerned Ministries, Provincial Governments and other stakeholders.
The Committee visited Badin area in Sindh along with the Provincial Minister of Agriculture and some local growers and also visited the so-called mill set up for processing sugarbeet. The Committee submitted its Report in January 2003 to the President.
THE MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE WERE:
i) Sugarbeet can be grown successfully in Sindh and in some parts of the Punjab with less water than that required by sugarcane and also had other advantages over sugarcane (as discussed above) but Committee strongly felt that more research (in terms of agronomic practices, insect attack, 'shelf-life' of the produce, cost of producing sugar from beet, etc) was needed to confirm the results before launching a full scale campaign for its cultivation.
ii) This exercise should look into the impact of sugarbeet cultivation on wheat area as both these crops are likely to compete for water and land, particularly in Southern Sindh where sugarbeet can be grown more favourably.
iii) During their visit to the reported newly set-up processing plant for sugarbeet, the Committee found that at the entrance a 'stone' was freshly engraved stating that "the mills inauguration and foundation stone" has been done by the then Federal Minister of Agriculture. But when the Committee went into the so called mill, it was fond that even the machinery was not installed and it was revealed that the owner did not get loan for the purchase of machinery and therefore there were no chances for the mill to come into operation for sometime to come.
iv) For the marketing of crop, it is a pre-condition that a sugarbeet processing plant be exclusively set up for sugarbeet. But the Committee found that such a plant would not be economical because the fuel cost would make the cost of sugar production much higher than that obtained by processing sugarcane. The Committee has discussed this issue in details in its report, which has been based on the detailed exercise carried out by the Advisory Cell of the Ministry of Industries.
V) But if the saving of water is not the objective in the shifting of the cropping pattern, then the Committee thought that, as recommended by the Expert Advisory Cell of the Ministry of Industries, sugarbeet-processing equipment could be added to the sugarmills. It would be economical if the capacity of such equipment is of the order of 2,000 to 2,500 tons per day.
vi) Under the existing conditions, sugarbeet-processing plant would only be feasible when operated as a supplement to cane crushing. By doing so, the surplus bagasse left after the sugar manufacture from sugarcane can be used to keep down the cost of manufacturing sugar from sugarbeet. But when this is done, it should be carefully considered whether the objective of reducing area under sugarcane could be reduced.
vii) The Committee thought it advisable that before launching a campaign for the production and processing of sugarbeet on a large scale, whether in Sindh or the Punjab, one or two mills, as a first instance in each province, be selected for experimental basis; for this the Government should provide the necessary incentives. The type of incentives can be discussed and agreed upon by the prospective mill-owners and the Government.
viii) In order to keep the cost of installing additional equipment low, the possibilities of importing second-hand equipment from Poland or some other countries like Spain can also be explored.
In the end it may be pointed out that the Committee submitted the above-mentioned report to the President's office in January 2003. Soon thereafter, the (then) Minister of Food and Agriculture along with his Cane Commissioner and some other 6-8 members, went on a visit to the East European and some other countries in order to study the sugarbeet cultivation and sugar industry based on this crop. During this tour, of 7-10 days, the official group must have obtained a first-hand knowledge about sugarbeet and its derivative sugar.
THE QUESTIONS WHICH NATURALLY ARISES ARE:
i) What are the recommendations of the group as a result of its visit abroad as it must have got deeper knowledge of the issues relating to sugarbeet cultivation and its industry? It would be helpful to all those interested in the subject.
ii) To what extent do these recommendations differ from, or, are a supplement to those made by the Committee set up by the President.
iii) As a result of the findings (as in (i) & (ii) above) what is the policy of the government in connection with the cultivation of sugarbeet, a low delta crop to reduce area under sugarcane, which is a high delta crop? This issue is important in view of the scenario of the shortage of water facing the nation?
iv) If the policy is to reduce the area under sugarcane, what policy measures need to be taken to accomplish this policy objective, keeping in view the future of the existing around 78 mills - more so when further 4 mills are reported to be set up in the Punjab? And also its adverse impact on wheat cultivation.
What action, if any, has been taken on the Report of the Committee set up by the President? Or has it been put on the side-shelf for future consideration.
(The writer is a former Adviser to the Chief Executive of Pakistan.)
Comments
Comments are closed.