A REPORT BACK ON THE SECOND ISSCT MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP, MAY 2008 

By 

AT WYNNE¹, B MILFORD² & E WALLIS³

¹South African Cane Growers Association, PO Box 888 Mt Edgecombe, 4300, South Africa
E-mail: awynne@canegrowers.co.za
²CANEGROWERS Australia, GPO Box 1032, Brisbane, 4000, Australia
bernard_milford@canegrowers.com.au
³BSES Ltd, PO Box 86, Indooroopilly Q 4068, Australia
EWallis@bses.org.au  

KEYWORDS: Management, workshop, research, supply-chain, markets, renewable energy 

Abstract 

The second ISSCT Management Workshop held in Townsville, Australia in May 2008, attracted 41 delegates from 10 countries. The intention of the Management Commission and its workshops is to enlarge the role of senior industry managers in the ISSCT, with particular reference to integrating management aspects into research and technological initiatives. The workshop format comprised presentations around a particular theme followed by interactive discussion where problems were contextualised and pragmatic solutions sought. In an effort to add additional value to delegates, the Townsville Workshop was aligned with the annual conference of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists (ASSCT), which facilitated the launch of the ISSCT Workshop having the theme of “Advancing Sugar Cane: Leading and managing change”. A forum for CEOs and senior staff of research organisations took place immediately after the Workshop. Overall the workshop was a success with helpful outcomes emanating from the four sessions; viz renewable energy, supply chains, research and development (R&D) and special projects. Suggested topics for future workshops include (1) the R&D fraternity should identify three or four R&D priorities for the next ten years (2) experience and business strategies of large multi-national sugarcane related companies should continue (3) technology transfer and extension needs to be revisited (4) human resource issues related to attracting and retaining talent in the organisation and change management tools (5) investigating the use of “economic/commercial” skills in the R&D context (6) cane payment approaches applicable to the renewable energy paradigm and (7) environmental concerns  

Introduction 

The second ISSCT Management Workshop held in Townsville, Australia in May 2008, attracted 41 delegates from 10 countries. The intention of the Management Commission and its workshops is to enlarge the role of senior industry managers in the ISSCT, with particular reference to integrating management aspects into research and technological initiatives. In this regard, the workshop format of the first ISSCT Management Workshop held in Durban, South Africa in July 2006, was considered by the delegates at that time as appropriate; i.e. presentations around a particular theme followed by interactive discussion where problems were contextualised and pragmatic solutions sought. A similar format was adopted in Townsville where full scientific papers were not requested from presenters, only a PowerPoint presentation, the focus of the workshop being the interactive discussion. Although some delegates at the Durban Workshop suggested the inclusion of breakaway groups to address special interests with a plenary report back, this was not adopted at the Townsville Workshop because the plenary was of a size that (1) facilitated inclusive discussion and (2) diverse expertise and experience facilitated “fresh” approaches to problem solving.

In an effort to add additional value to delegates, the Townsville Workshop was aligned with the annual conference of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists (ASSCT), which was facilitated by Prof Robert Lawn and his conference organising committee. Its theme of “Embracing Change in a Global Environment” provided an extremely helpful platform from which to launch the ISSCT Workshop having its own theme of “Advancing Sugar Cane: Leading and managing change”. Immediately after the ISSCT Management Workshop, Eoin Wallis (Chief Executive Officer, BSES Ltd, Australia), as he did in Durban, coordinated a forum for CEOs and senior staff of research organisations to brain storm common issues. In essence, the overall program was as follows: 

Monday 28 April          ISSCT Management Workshop Field Tour
Tuesday 29 April:         ASSCT Opening Day 1 of 4
Wednesday 30 April:    ASSCT Day 2 of 4
Thursday 1 May:          ISSCT Workshop Session 1: Renewable Energy in Practice
ISSCT Workshop Session 2: Supply Chains
Friday 2 May:               ISSCT Workshop Session 3: Research
ISSCT Workshop Session 4: Special Projects
Saturday 3 May:           Research Organisation CEO Forum 

Delegates were asked to complete a questionnaire (Appendix 1) to review the overall ISSCT Workshop during Session 4. The purpose of this paper is to give ISSCT members a précis of the proceedings and the main lessons learned from the perspectives of both the organising committee (the authors of this paper) and the delegates themselves (i.e. from questionnaire responses).  

Field Trip 

The field trip involved a bus tour to the Burdekin District, 80 km south of Townsville, where the first stop was with the HCL Harvesting Group (120 000 tons cane). Insights were shared with respect to the Groups organisational structure and work force compliment, its equipment and operations, its farming systems including controlled traffic using GPS guidance, minimum tillage and break crops. A cane planting operation was demonstrated before leaving for the BSES Burdekin Sugar Experiment Station located near Ayr, where cane variety trials were explained and innovative cane planting practices demonstrated, amongst other elements of sugarcane husbandry. This was followed by a short visit to an independent growers farm where the challenges of cane farming were frankly explained in the context of aspiring to Australia’s acclaimed Sugar Yield Decline Joint Venture Programme. The delegation then returned to the BSES Station for lunch (prawns and other delicacies!), followed by a visit to Pioneer Mill, which is owned by CSR (collectively across all its mills, CSR produces approximately 40% of Australia’s sugar output). The focus of the mill tour was its cogeneration capability (68 MW with 50 MW export capacity) and bagasse handling facilities (> 110 000 tons), where additional bagasse is sourced from nearby mills.  

There was general consensus amongst the delegates that the field trip was appropriate despite the diverse backgrounds of delegates; i.e. the mix between growing and milling, research activities and practical operations. Some delegates indicated that more attention needed to be given to certain areas including cane breeding, farm related research, farm equipment suppliers and milling. Most delegates appreciated the frank discussions regarding agronomic challenges, the insights into grower/miller relations, the hospitality of all the hosts and Bernard Milford’s expert commentary on the bus as the official Field Trip organiser and host.  

Workshop Session 1 – Renewable Energy  

Three presentations were made; viz ‘Dombe ethanol and cogeneration project in Mozambique’ by Graeme Bullock (Adjunct Professor and Consultant to Principle Energy, Australia), ‘The EID Parry experience with renewable energy’ by Ramesh Ponnuswami (Vice President: Refinery, EID Parry Ltd, India) and ‘Next generation technologies towards a sustainable biofuels future’ by Emile Van Zyl (Chair of Energy Research: Biofuels and Alternative Clean Fuels, South Africa). A number of questions were raised in the subsequent discussion; (1) what are the drivers of global renewable energy and why? (2) what are the renewable energy options from sugarcane, current and future, and what is their technology status?(3) where does sugarcane fit into global renewable energy planning and how can this status be improved? (4) what fundamental changes are needed for sugarcane operations to sustainably embrace renewable energy? (5) what are some of the “gaps” or “short comings” in fast tracking implementation programs? (6) what options are available to narrow these “gaps” and “short comings”? and (7) how can the change process or paradigm shift be fast tracked? Some of the salient points emanating from the discussion and questionnaires received are summarised as follows: 

·        There are four fundamental global drivers of renewable energy that are not specific to sugarcane; viz (1) global warming and environmental factors (2) national energy security in terms of a supply and demand imbalance (3) national balance of payment concerns where the importation of energy is often a nations single biggest cost and (4) job creation and socio-economic factors.

·        Simplistically, ‘clean’ sugarcane currently delivered to a mill comprises water, fibre, sucrose and dissolved solids including sugars other than sucrose. The inherent energy sources are approximately 30% from the sucrose, 13% from the dissolved solids and 57% from the fibre. Converting the sucrose and other dissolved sugars into energy is well established through fermentation and distillation processes. Efficient and economic conversion of fibre into energy remains a challenge. Research around the world is currently focused in the following “second generation” energy from fibre areas: (1) combined cycle cogeneration to produce electricity (2) gasification to produce multiple products in a bio-refinery (3) pyrolysis to produce a crude bio-oil and (4) hydrolysing the cellulose, hemi-cellulose and lignin into their constituent sugars for fermentation into ethanol (lignocellulosic ethanol). Commercial viability and role-out of some technologies is expected to be within 3-5 years.

·        In terms of existing “first generation” renewable energy harvests from sugarcane, cogeneration (the combustion of bagasse to produce high pressure steam that in turn drives turbo-alternators to produce electricity) is the most prevalent around the world. Generally, the viability of cogeneration depends on either (1) an inherently high local electricity price or (2) a premium paid for its “renewable” attributes that is facilitated through government legislation. The production of ethanol from sugar streams is second.

·        The “greenfields” Dombe ethanol and cogeneration plant currently being established in Mozambique by Principle Energy demonstrates that the business model is (1) economically viable and internationally cost competitive (2) significant “spin-offs” such as job creation and infrastructure development benefit neighbouring communities and (3) provides balance of payment advantages to the Mozambique nation as a whole.

·        The success of EID Parry in India as a company is based on the following principles: (1) ensuring international competitiveness (2) continuous improvement and innovation (3) building a strong home base (4) staying informed with best practice and latest trends and (5) networking and collaborating in the global arena. Investing in the renewable energy sector is considered strategic. Their inventiveness in maintaining a credible cane supply from approximately 100 000 small-scale farmers in a difficult business environment is remarkable.

·        It was affirmed that sugarcane is likely to be the commercial energy crop of the world in the not too distant future but its momentum to-date has been constrained by (1) the complex nature of the value chain and the quantum of change required; i.e. linking agriculture to agri-processors to petro-chemical companies or electricity distributors and to the consumer or public at large (2) inappropriate government legislation and ill-informed politicians and government officials in terms of reviewing legislation (3) indecision or ignorance on the part of sugarcane growers and millers in terms of which technology to invest their capital and (4) the unforeseen risks associated with new technology and immature markets. Sugar industries around the world should consider embarking on a well thought out marketing campaign to inform all stakeholders of renewable energy advantages of sugarcane.

·        Little focus has been given to researching appropriate agronomic practices associated with “energy” cane, their linkages with the processing facilities and  associated institutional frameworks. For example, what are the soil health impacts of delivering most of the biomass to the mill, how will the high bulk/density biomass be economically transported to the mill, how will the mill manage the initial volumes of biomass without compromising other products and how will growers be paid for biomass? 

Workshop Session 2 – Supply Chains  

Five presentations were made; viz ‘Integrating the Mauritian supply chain’ by Kassiap Deepchand (MSIRI, Mauritius), ‘Legislative versus contractual miller / grower relationships in Australia’ by John Pollock (Mackay Sugar, Australia), ‘Harvesting and transport logistics in Thailand’ by Kanchana Sethanan (Khon Kaen University, Thailand), ‘Transport scheduling and related issues in South Africa’ by Peter Lyne (SASRI, South Africa) and ‘An holistic approach to new farming systems in Australia’ by Alan Garside (BSES, Australia). A number of questions were raised in the subsequent discussion; (1) what is the role of government policy within sugarcane supply chains? (2) how can incentives and relationships be aligned in the absence of government legislation? (3) what are the relative roles of legislation, contracts, trust and integration in terms of improving supply chain efficiencies,? (4) how will renewable energy and other products impact supply chain efficiencies? (5) how can season length extensions be attained for the benefit of all stakeholders? and (6) how can sugarcane growers be incentivised to deliver feedstock that optimises downstream value adding activities? Some of the salient points emanating from the discussion and questionnaires received are summarised as follows: 

·        The Mauritian experience demonstrates that a crisis is an excellent change agent! A 36% sugar price reduction in the EU was the catalyst to re-engineer the Mauritian sugar industry where all stakeholders were forced to make compromises in order to survive!

·        A re-engineering of the supply chain in the quest for efficiencies and optimisation requires a good understanding of the supply chain and its interrelationships. Effective logistics planning necessitates that ALL supply chain components are effectively integrated.

·        The sugarcane supply chain definition in the context of the workshop was “on-farm sugarcane production, sugarcane harvesting and transport to the mill and sugarcane processing at the factory”. Most sugarcane supply chains around the world are fragmented in terms of different segments having different decision making authorities, causing a breakdown in communication between stakeholders. This fosters misunderstandings about common problems resulting in little or no commitment to jointly addressing problems, which ultimately manifests itself in high costs and an inefficient supply chain. The fundamental element of any efficient supply chain is transparency of factual information derived from measurement and benchmarking. Sound information facilitates collective understanding of common problems and develops trust between stakeholders. Trust is the essential element needed for stakeholders to make meaningful commitments in addressing common problems.

·        EID Parry (India) and Mitr Pol (Thailand) are helpful case studies demonstrating that innovation happens in an environment where millers and growers constructively work together. In essence, a secure, viable and consistent cane supply is a critical success factor for any sugarcane processing facility.

·        Distrust between millers and growers appears to be a global problem, which can partly be ascribed to the miller being a monopsony; i.e. the mirror image of a monopoly where the miller is a single buyer from many sellers (growers), who as individuals have little or no negotiation leverage with the miller in terms of price setting. In recognition of this disproportionate economic “power”, governments have historically legislated local sugar industries. In Australia, abolished legislation was simply replaced with commercial agreements, achieving the same result. However, commercial agreements provide more flexibility; they are more easily changed to adapt to a dynamic market environment. Nevertheless, commercial agreements must provide for a fair and robust conflict resolution mechanism if such changes are to transpire in reality.

·        The concept of “best” practice is a misnomer because different environments inherently necessitate the application of different management practices. This is particularly evident between countries, but also between on-farm fields. Effective supply chains make continuous incremental improvements in an effort to chase “better” practice. In this regard, raising the performance of below average stakeholders can make significant improvements; i.e. by simply reducing performance variation.

·        Innovative technology is available to streamline the supply chain such as vehicle scheduling, GPS, etc. However, difficulties associated with the effective implementation of technology are often under estimated; systems generally need to be adapted or even tailor made for specific applications as was the case with vehicle scheduling in South Africa.

·        Technology adoption should preferably be guided by a supply chain strategy because technology is the “accelerator/enhancer” of business strategy. The question that arose was “who drives supply chain strategy”? The answer that emerged was R&D! For example, BSES (Australia) questioned the sustainability of sugarcane agriculture in yesteryear, which lead to the development of BSES’s new cropping system as the current foundation of the Australian sugarcane supply chain strategy. In practice, R&D organisations need to concurrently work on business strategies and new technologies but the former should provide a lead for the later, where at some point a consolidated “package” is presented to industry for adoption (this could be “turn key” or “iterative” in nature).

·        The new BSES cropping system advocates (1) green cane harvesting and trash blanketing, (2) breaking the monoculture with increased fallow periods and/or legume break crops (given recent fertiliser prices, “free” legume nitrogen has significant value), (3) controlled infield traffic and (4) minimum tillage. If heavy infield machinery is used, it is unlikely that the full potential benefits of this system will be realised. Improvements in precision guidance technologies for harvesting and haul-out operations have accelerated/enhanced this strategy. The system is management intensive.

·        Supply chain R&D should (1) identify current and future challenges/opportunities and then (2) provide a suite of solutions to enable industry to meet/capture these challenges/opportunities. It was noted that (1) “breakthrough” R&D is uncommon, meaningful progress is more often achieved through trial and error so it is important to make a start! where (2) actual implementation preferences are usually the sole preserve of industry itself. 

This session attracted some criticism in that there were two many diverse speakers that made it difficult to integrate the subsequent discussion. Two shorter sessions would have been more appropriate. 

Workshop Session 3 – Research 

Three presentations were made; viz “Experiences from Mitr Phol, Thailand’ by Pipat Weerathaworn (Mitr Phol, Thailand), ‘Experiences from CTC, Brazil’ by Nilson Boeta (CTC, Brazil) and ‘Experiences from BSES, Australia’ by Eoin Wallis (BSES, Australia). A number of questions were raised in the subsequent discussion; (1) research organisations lead change but how do they ascertain the direction they take? (2) research is an investment not a cost, how can this message best be communicated to stakeholders? (3) human capital is “everything” to a research organisation, how can this resource be optimised for best effect? (4) how can researchers best influence the strategic intent of an organisation, or visa versa? (5) research is worthless if results are not implemented, how can technology transfer be improved? (6) is collaboration relevant in an environment of intellectual property protection? Some of the salient points emanating from the discussion and questionnaires received are summarised as follows: 

·        Mitr Phol (Thailand) and EID Parry (India) are both large independent milling companies that (1) own and operate sugarcane research facilities and (2) make substantial investments in the sustainability of sugarcane supply. This is necessary to maintain the viability of their milling operations because both milling companies are largely supplied by resource poor small-scale farmers who have to-date being unable to collectively establish effective sugarcane research and sustainability programs of their own.

·        Mitr Phol (Thailand) started as a simple single sugar factory and is now a multi-national (significant investments in China), multi-faceted (includes raw and refined sugar, cogeneration, ethanol, paper milling, logistics companies and others) conglomerate, including its Sugarcane Research Centre. The company’s Board of Directors largely dictate strategic direction for the Sugarcane Research Institute within the context of the larger conglomerate, driven by the shareholders’ profit maximisation mandate. The result is a focused and accountable Sugarcane Research Centre involving a wide range of research activities; viz agronomic practices, development of new cane varieties, processing properties associated with different varieties, actual processing of sugar and ethanol, production of cogeneration and biodegradable plastics, etc. Strategic focus and accountability is more difficult for research organisations that do not have (1) a profit maximisation mandate or (2) a relatively homogenous Board of Directors that mostly operate within the context of one organisation.

·        Research centres that have a governing body comprising individuals from diverse backgrounds with varied interests (e.g. independent miller and grower fraternities) often results in either (1) little or no strategic direction being agreed by the governing body or (2) increasing reliance placed on the management team to guide strategy through the ranking and allocation of research funding, where the governing body has an oversight and approval role. However, management teams cannot effectively formulate a strategic research direction if they have to compete with other research organisations for limited funding from numerous funding agencies with different agendas. In such an environment, strategic research direction can be (1) absent (2) vague or (3) unrelated to stakeholder profits that often remain confidential. In such an environment, fewer “industry” funded research centres are expected to facilitate better strategic research direction, in the absence of which, industry “needs” are unlikely to be met, resulting in a “disconnect” between industry and the research centres.

·        This “disconnect”, according to most delegates, is prevalent to a larger or lesser degree in most industries. Such “disconnects” can be mitigated by (1) researching economic value adding industry “needs”, (2) eliminating research on uneconomic industry “wants” and (3) quantifying the economic return of R&D outcomes (i.e. R&D is an investment and not a cost). This can be achieved by employing “economic/commercial” skills at research centres that can better communicate in the “language” of industry. Further mitigation measures include increased participation of stakeholders at strategic stages in the iterative R&D planning process.

·        Part of the Australian “disconnect” arises from industry’s dissatisfaction with limited productivity improvements arising from R&D, where productivity is defined as tons cane per hectare, which is also true of other industries around the world. In this context, research centres need to reinvent their marketing/communication approaches because (1) in the absence of R&D and its associated technology transfer productivity would otherwise have been in decline! and (2) productivity benchmarks should be used in conjunction with economic related benchmarks to ensure research centres speak the same language as industry. Economic benchmarks might be more meaningful but are more elusive; they require a clear definition and explanation. A growing international trend is to replace historical productivity R&D objectives with a “vision of sustainability”, from a collective economic, environmental and social perspective. More attention needs to be given to this topic at future ISSCT Management Workshops.

·        CTC (Brazil) has a unique challenge in that its membership base and demand for its services is growing at an alarming rate (CTC had 29 member mills in 2004 and 155 in 2008). Its principle response has been to decentralise its technology transfer operations to: (1) increase response times by reducing travel times (and associated travel costs) (2) improve relationships with local millers and growers, and (3) develop regional specialists to meet regional needs. The disadvantage with this approach is that regionalised technology transfer is isolated from centralised R&D, which CTC have countered by implementing a sophisticated web based intranet, which provides remote web based training of staff, millers, growers and other stakeholders through e-learning programs and technical seminars. As a consequence, CTC has been able to partially outsource some technology transfer functions.

·        Some of CTC’s key focus areas are to (1) better identify and address sustainability needs of the industry (2) hire, train and retain motivated staff (3) foster partnerships and collaboration at all levels of the business and (4) better market the value of CTC to existing and new potential members.

·        The effectiveness of technology transfer was raised as a concern in most industries. CTC’s web based services are appropriate in the current “electronic era” but more sociology type research needs to be undertaken to increase the effectiveness of this approach, which is expected to be context specific. A global challenge for technology transfer is overcoming grower perceptions that extension advice is “quasi” academic, having little bearing on the real challenges of growing sugarcane and therefore, advice is discounted. Context specific web based services might be helpful in this regard because technology transfer becomes demand lead as opposed to supply lead!  

Workshop Session 4 – Special Projects 

Four presentations were made; viz Biotech sugar crops and their market dynamics by Charley Richard (Sugar Processing Research Institute, USA), A strategy to facilitate the commercialisation of GM sugarcane by Warren Males (Queensland Sugar Limited, Australia), Managing multiple environmental challenges in Florida (Canegrowers Cooperative, USA) and Accreditation for sustainability: proposals for international concern by Tim Wrigley (CANEGROWERS, Australia). A number of questions were raised in the subsequent discussion; (1) what can be done to prepare the international sugar market for sugar production from GM sugarcane? (2) what role is there for for international collaboration in promoting market access for sugar from GM sugarcane? (3) “consumers are becoming increasingly aware of their of their environmental footprint,” is this a valid statement? (4) what are some of the burning environmental challenges facing sugar value chains? and (5) how can “better management practices” be marketed in an effort to promote sugar? Some of the salient points emanating from the discussion and questionnaires received are summarised as follows: 

·        Potential sugar industry benefits through biotechnology include (1) increased sugar and by-product revenue per ton of cane together with increased stability of production and (2) lower costs per ton of cane (e.g. weed, pest and disease resistance, drought tolerance, etc.).

·        Many markets across the globe are sceptical of biotechnology. As a consequence, a Sugar Industry Biotech Council (SIBC) has been established in North America, with its core leadership comprising the American Sugarbeet Growers Association, Beet Sugar Development Foundation and the National Sugar Cane Research Effort. Further representation comprises all North American sugarbeet growers associations, sugarbeet processors and marketers, sugarbeet seed companies, beet by-product marketers, sugarcane growers and processors and technology providers. This entire group meets twice a year but the leadership has conference calls every second week on issues related to strategic planning, issue management, information development and “sugar is the same” (more about this later).

·        The purpose of SIBC is to provide science-based information regarding technological advances in both sugar beet and sugarcane crops and to communicate the broad range of environmental and consumer benefits of these advances. Part of this has included the commissioning of independent and accredited laboratories to scientifically test that (1) there is no difference between sugar derived from sugarbeet or sugarcane and (2) that there is no protein and/or DNA in sugar. The robust and conclusive results were affirmative, demonstrating that “sugar is the same”! Managing perceptions is critical.

·        The area planted to commercial biotech sugarbeet varieties in the US is steadily increasing. Despite the establishment of the International Consortium for Sugarcane Biotechnology (ICSB) in the early 1980s in association with the ISSCT, no commercial biotech cane varieties are currently grown anywhere in the world, although South Africa, Brazil, Australia, Columbia, Argentina and the US have experimental plots. Guatemala, Mauritius, India and others are also working towards biotech varieties. A major constraint to the release of commercial biotech cane varieties is the distribution of vegetatively propagated seed; i.e. in the absence of commercial seed companies, industry itself needs to bear the commercialisation costs including lawsuit insurances, countering anti-biotech campaigns and correcting market misinformation particularly amongst existing and potential customers.

·        Commercialisation steps include (1) obtaining regulatory acceptance in the home country (2) building acceptance within the industry and developing market support (3) influencing stakeholder perceptions (industry, consumer and public at large) using factual science based information (4) segregation and identity preservation comprising standards and procedures as required and (5) facilitate commercial uptake and adoption at the local level. A helpful quote that was made in this context was “biotech crop varieties may provide a solution to rising food prices and increasing food scarcity and malnutrition as the world’s population continues to rise”.

·        With similar objectives as the SIBC in North America, the Australian industry as a collective has established the Sugarcane Gene Technology Group to specifically commercialise biotech sugarcane varieties (i.e. separate from the underlying R&D). As “sugar is the same” and the challenges common, the key to commercialising sugarcane biotech varieties is collaboration. Other industries are encouraged to engage in this process.

·        Environmental concerns and awareness is increasing in all sugarcane industries but the levels of concerns and awareness differ. Such concerns and awareness are particularly acute in the South Florida (US) agricultural landscape where sugarcane contributes approximately 73% of gross value. Current issues include (1) water quantity and quality including high levels of phosphorus, nitrogen and pesticides (2) air quality arising from cane burning, ash nuisance and perceived health concerns (3) use of herbicides and pesticides and their effects on natural flora and fauna and (4) habitat loss for indigenous species together with the increase of exotic species.

·        The South Florida agricultural community, however, has an impressive history of proactively managing their environment. Various best management practices have been established coupled with a comprehensive suite of monitoring and performance evaluation systems. The result is that significantly more bird individuals are found in agricultural fields than in non-agricultural impoundments and equal numbers of fish and more indigenous species in every taxon. Invasive plant species are intensively controlled.

·        The Better Sugar Initiative (BSI) in association with WWF has embarked upon a best management practice accreditation system for sugarcane agriculture internationally. The question was posed whether the ISSCT should in fact be the lead agency in this regard. This was not supported for the following reasons: (1) the nature of environmental concerns varies significantly between industries and within industries and therefore a single set of best management practices is not considered appropriate and (2) the ISSCT is a voluntary, non-profit body that derives benefits for its members through collaborative activities that are of a non-binding nature; an initiative such as this has the potential for conflict which might compromise the initial collaborative objectives of the ISSCT. The ISSCT, nevertheless, has a significant role to play in the sharing of information. 

It was suggested in the questionnaire feedback that country specific experts should be encouraged to collaborate prior to the workshop to explore and report on similarities and differences between industries.  

Review And Future Of The ISSCT Management Workshop 

Qualitative and quantitative data was obtained from the workshop questionnaire, which comprised 25 responses (61%) from 10 countries. Figure 1 summarises the quantitative data regarding the respective workshop sessions and the workshop and field trip overall, indicating that the workshop was well received.

Figure 1: Results from the workshop delegate questionnaire 

A large amount of qualitative data was also forthcoming, some of which was contradictory! The principle criticisms received, however, which are worth recording for future reference include:  

·        Presenters need to be encouraged to send their presentations to the organisers earlier so that all the print outs can be made available at the meeting.

·        The number of presentations should be limited to a maximum of three per session, or less, so that (1) discussion time is not compromised and (2) discussion remains topic focused.

·        Chairing a discussion requires strong leadership. In this regard, the chair needs to both challenge the presenters more and draw “quieter” delegates into the discussion. As an aid to providing focus and structure to the discussions, the chair should refer more often to each session’s initial guideline questions, which should facilitate consensus outcomes.

·        The content of the discussions is valuable and therefore needs to be better recorded.  

Despite these criticisms, delegates overall were complimentary (as supported by Figure 1) with special mention made regarding the venue, organisation and programme including many delegates being complimentary of the session chairmen and the outcomes achieved in the discussions. The link with the ASSCT was welcomed but some delegates indicated that the option of just attending the two-day ISSCT workshop was beneficial. Good time keeping and the informal manner were appreciated as well as the Australian hospitality. Suggested topics for future workshops include: 

·        The R&D fraternity should drive the agenda in terms of (1) identifying three or four R&D priorities for the next ten years and (2) expose the skills and resources that senior R&D management can employ to increase the effectiveness and uptake of their R&D programmes.

·        Sharing the experience and business strategies of large multi-national sugarcane related companies is helpful (e.g. EID Parry and Mitr Phol but there are many others) together with service providers such as Syngenta/Monsanto, Dedini/Praj, etc, particularly with reference to the adoption and role-out of renewable energy (especially co-generation and ethanol). Non-sugarcane related experiences might also be helpful.

·        Technology transfer and extension needs to be revisited particularly with respect to the increasing trend of “tracability” in respect of compliance to an accredited set of better management practices; e.g. the Better Sugar Initiative (BSI). Determining success and failure factors through case study analyses would also be helpful with the objective of facilitating new implementation/adoption strategies for novel technologies and/or measuring extension efficiency. Benchmarking initiatives also need to be considered.

·        A human resource related session was suggested by a number of delegates addressing issues such as attracting and retaining talent in the organisation, understanding performance management of staff and identifying training needs and training opportunities. Aligned to this is embracing change management within R&D organisations and entire sugar industries that may need to adapt from sugar to energy industries.

·        The “disconnect” between R&D organisations and its stakeholders appears to be relatively common and needs addressing. Investigating the use of “economic/commercial” skills that use the “language” of industry needs further investigation together with increased participation of stakeholders at strategic stages in the iterative R&D planning process.

·        Alternative cane payments and other incentive mechanisms to optimise delivery of quality feedstock for processing requires further investigation, particularly in a renewable energy context.

·        Environmental concerns are expected to escalate and should remain on the agenda.