Major 2 and Sinar Sugar Factory partnership: between high hopes and limited results ✍️ Dr. Al-Zubair Hamza Al-Zubair
The Major 2 area, in the south of the island, is one of the rich agricultural areas of the island project, and it is known for its abundant production of cash crops such as cotton and wheat. The idea of establishing a partnership between farmers and factory was born, based on the principle of “mutual benefit”, where the farmer provides the land and effort, while the factory provides financing, inputs and technical services. However, what seemed like a promising development dream quickly turned into an experience full of challenges and failures.
The stated objective of the partnership was:
1. Secure raw materials for the factory by expanding sugarcane cultivation in Major 2.
2. Improve farmers’ income through equitable profit sharing.
3. Stimulate the local economy and create employment opportunities for local residents.
The contracts stipulate that the factory is responsible for preparing the land, irrigation, seeds and fertilizer, while the farmer agrees to supervise the fields and plant on the specified dates.
The ground reality has proven that the farmer is the biggest loser
Over time, a gap emerged between planning and implementation.
Agricultural inputs were delayed, leading to a deterioration in productivity.
The factory management has also not committed to ensuring fair prices for cane, which cover the cost of cultivation.
Farmers faced irrigation and maintenance problems due to poor infrastructure of secondary canals.
The result was that the farmer bore the brunt, while the factory benefited from being guaranteed part of its needs without bearing all the risk.
This experience had a negative impact on farmers’ confidence in future agricultural partnerships.
Many Major 2 farmers became less willing to continue growing sugarcane, and some began turning to growing corn and sesame, safer crops.
Poor financial distribution has also caused social tensions within associations between farmers and local administrations.
The main weaknesses of the experiment are as follows:
1. Lack of transparency in contracts and accounting.
2. Weak technical and administrative support from the factory.
3. Lack of fair guarantees regarding sugarcane prices.
The MIGER 2 experience shows that successful agricultural partnerships require more than signing agreements; This requires good governance, ensuring the balance of interests and a fair mechanism for distributing benefits and risks. The absence of these foundations tilted the partnership in favor of the factory to the detriment of the farmer, which transformed the project from a development initiative into an economic and social burden for small producers.
The weaknesses mentioned above can be fixed as follows:
1. Re-evaluate old contracts with the participation of farmer representatives.
2. Determine a fair price for the cane which takes into account the real cost of cultivation.
3. Activate the supervisory role of the State through the management of the Al Jazeera project.
4. Establish permanent joint committees between the factory and farmers to monitor implementation and resolve disputes.
In conclusion, we can say that the experience of the Major 2 partnership with the Sucrerie de Sennar provides very important lessons in terms of development management. Large projects do not succeed solely through administrative decisions, but rather require justice in partnership and the belief that the farmer is the pillar of true development. If the relationship is reformulated on new grounds, this experience can move from a limited failure to a model of sustainable agricultural development.
Dr. Al-Zubair Hamza Al-Zubair
