Reasons for the present issues in the rubber industry
My attention has been drawn to an article on October 21 in the Business Times under the title of “ways to revive the crisis-hit RRI” by P.H. Sarath Kumara, who says he is an advisor of rubber in Liberia and former Research Officer of Rubber Research Institute of Sri Lanka (RRI). Since Mr. Kumara has made some serious allegations against the Rubber Development Department (RDD), where I serve as the Head of the organisation, this is a response to his allegations.
A private rubber nursery
In the recent past, I have observed that, not only Mr. Kumara, but so many other writers have also made various comments in their articles about the production and productivity drop of the rubber industry and finally they all end up attacking two elements; the Rubber Master Plan (RMP) introduced by the Ministry of Plantation Industries (MPI) and the Rubber Development Department (RDD).
I focus my article only to reply on two common allegations made against RDD, i.e. (I) The main reason for the drop of production and productivity in the rubber sector is the amalgamation of the Advisory Services Department (ASD) which came under RRI with the Rubber Control Department (RCD) to form the RDD in 1994 and handing over extension activities to RDD, and (II) RDD does not have a proper data base to help taking vital decisions in the rubber sector.
Formation of RDD
The RCD, which transformed into be RDD in 1994, existed since 1934. During the colonial period and immediate aftermath, the main expectations of the RCD were to regulate all activities of rubber cultivation and rubber industry and to provide subsidies for rubber replanting and new planting. In view of the issues faced during the early 90’s, the then government took a policy decision to form RDD by amalgamation of RCD and the ASD came under RRI at that time. The objective was to restructure the government machinery to suit the new requirements of development. Since some writers including Mr. Kumara and some individuals with vested interests attempt to pinpoint that this formation of RDD had disastrous consequences to the rubber industry, I would like to highlight the situation before and after 1994 in terms of production, productivity and other developments through statistical data published by the Central Bank and the MPI, which would give a clear idea to the public on this issue.
Production, productivity and extent of rubber Present situation
The table clearly shows that both rubber production here and the productivity have fluctuated before and after the formation of the RDD and generally it has shown a positive trend until 2012. Therefore, these statistics illustrate the fact that there is no disastrous decline of production and productivity after the formation of RDD. The present notable decrease of production in the rubber industry after 2012 has nothing to do with the policy decisions taken in 90’s but it is a direct consequence of low rubber prices in the world market. I append below some of the prices in major rubber auctions in the world in table 2 which clearly demonstrates that the price drop is a global phenomenon. It is important to note that Sri Lanka produces less than 0.8 per cent of the global natural rubber production and therefore, we are only a price taker in the world market.
Average Rubber prices in major markets
The main reason for the production drop is the unwillingness of rubber farmers to regularly tap rubber under the given price. Although the current production has dropped to the level of 80,000 – 90,000 MT per year, Sri Lanka has the capacity to produce more than 130,000 MT per year, if full potential of rubber lands are unleashed. But, the present global price does not encourage farmers to take that additional trouble to gain full potential. Most of the rubber tappers, who toil in rubber lands, are also reluctant to engage in tapping due to decreased income, which is usually 50 per cent of the sale price of rubber sheets, and try to look for alternative employment. If the market price of rubber goes beyond Rs. 350 per kg, production will rise beyond forecasts, even without the support of both RDD and RRI. Therefore, as suggested by Mr. Kumara et al, production drop in rubber lands is not an outcome of handing over the extension activities to RDD from RRI. It is also important to point out that some 7-8 years ago, we had a flourishing period of rubber cultivation with prices going up to the level of Rs. 500 – 600 per kg. All stakeholders were delighted about the returns of the rubber cultivation. Production went up and a large number of new farmers entered the rubber industry. This situation arose nearly 15-16 years after the amalgamation of RCD and ASD, but there was no one to attribute that boom in the industry as a success of RDD. We also did not claim so since we very well knew that those positive price fluctuations and subsequent developments are mainly driven by market forces. But, unfortunately, when the trend is negative, there are so many pundits to put the blame on the RDD.
Further, if we take examples from other sectors, it is clear that there are separate agencies for research and extension. In the tea sector, there is TRI for research and Tea Small Holdings Development Authority for extension work. In the coconut sector, there is Coconut Research Institute (CRI) for research and Coconut Cultivation Board (CCB) for extension work. In other rubber growing countries in Asia too, there are separate agencies for research and extension.
However, my rejection of the claims does not mean that I am happy about the status quo. Many of these writers including Mr. Kumara may not aware that RDD has taken many initiatives with the support of both MPI and RRI, to revive its extension arm. One step was the initiation of research – extension linkage between RDD and RRI, where scientists and Extension Officers of both institutes share their experiences and new knowledge. The extension wing of the RDD is to be fully revitalised under a separate directorate where both training of officers and the monitoring of their performance will be closely supervised. Action has been already initiated to create new positions in the extension wing, to recruit officers with sound scientific background and experience in extension work. Further, it is a blatant lie to claim that RDD extension staff is less- qualified. Rubber Development Officers of RDD and the extension officers of the RRI are equally qualified for the task they perform.
However, I do not deny that RDD has its share of weaknesses, for which we are prepared and committed to take remedial actions.
Data base of RDD
Mr. Kumara claims that sound data base is presently lacking at RDD and the solution is to get the Biometry division of RRI to handle it. At the very inception, I must mention that I have no issue at all if the Biometry Division of RRI is maintaining a data base. RDD is prepared to give our fullest co-operation for any such attempt. But, why Mr. Kumara argues that RDD does not have a data base is a question as RDD has a very sound data base of all vital information. In fact, at the meetings of Association of Natural Rubber Producing Countries (ANRPC), Sri Lanka is often hailed for maintaining a sound data base, which is far better than many other rubber growing countries. Anyone can take a copy of statistical information on plantation crops annually published by the MPI to verify the accuracy of my claim. Therefore, Mr. Kumara’s statement that RDD does not have a good data base is a baseless claim, to say the least.
I also believe that Mr. Kumara’s proposal to hand over the data management in the rubber industry to Biometry section of RRI is an insult, not only to RDD, but to the veteran scientists at RRI, who are well aware of their role in the rubber industry. A person with basic scientific education would know that the role of a Biometry Section is not data management. They are there to support researchers on application of statistical and mathematical methods and sampling strategies for proposed experiments.
Finally, Mr. Kumara suggests reducing RDD in size and limiting its role to payment of subsidies. It is questionable why he does not propose to close down RDD by handing over subsidy management as well to one of the research divisions of RRI! Very soon, he will suggest closing down some other government agencies in order to revive his beloved RRI!
RDD is always happy to see the betterment of its sister organisation, RRI. We see RRI not as a competitor, but as a partner in developing the rubber sector. As an ex-officio member of the Board of Directors of RRI, I am also responsible for the wellbeing of RRI. I am well aware of the significance of R&D to develop the rubber industry. But reviving RRI does not mean that they should be entrusted with roles and responsibilities of RDD or any other government agency. What we should promote is their research capability and the relevance of research findings to the existing issues in the industry.
On one hand, Mr. Kumara laments about the inability of RRI to carry out its present role due to short of staff and other resources. At the same time, he proposes to hand them over some roles already entrusted to RDD. To retain the scientists at RRI, he proposes to bring back the old glory of 1970s by giving them more perks. But Mr. Kumara should understand that unlike the 1970s, today qualified young people have many opportunities both here and overseas. Difficulty of retaining people is not only an issue of RRI. Recently I saw the University Grants Commission publishing the names of 485 university dons, who have left the country violating their bonds with universities. Actual number must be much higher than this when those who repaid their bonds, are included to the list. We all know that universities give better perks to their staff than many other places, but those perks too could not retain people when they want to leave. Therefore, reviving RRI only through better perks is a myth and RRI and all other similar agencies will have to go for a completely different model to perform even their already entrusted tasks.
In this letter, I have only attempted to respond to some baseless allegations made against the RDD. Being a public officer, I do not wish to engage in this debate again and again even if people want to respond to my article. Because I firmly believe that the facts mentioned in my article are sufficient for readers to clear their minds regarding the false allegations made against the RDD.