CHAPTER VII

SUPPLY RESPONSE OF RUBBER IN KERALA

As mentioned earlier in different occasions the cropping pattern in

Kerala has turned in favour of plantation/cash crops and particularly the

trends are in favour of coconut and rubber. The supply response of paddy

and coconut were discussed in Chapters V and VI. In this chapter, an attempt

is made to examine the growth and trends in the area, yield and production of

rubber and also to estimate the supply response of rubber in the state.

According to world rubber statistics, among the main rubber

producing countries in the world, lndonesia has the largest area under rubber

(3241 thousancl hect:) followed by Thailand (1939 thousand ha:), Malaysia

(1837 thousand ha:) and China (603 thousand ha:). India has the fifth rank

w i t h 516 thousand ha. of area under rubber. The country-wise area under

rubber in the world is given in Table 7.1.

In India Kerala has the largest area under rubber for four and a

half decades, which showed continuous upward trend over the years.

Table 7.2 prt:sents state-wise area under rubber over the years. From

1358809 Ha. in 1960-6 1, area under rubber increased to 2 11808 Ha: in

1975-76 and thereafter to 443300 Ha: by 1994-95. Tamilnadu ranks second

and Karnataka ranks third in area under rubber in India. Kerala showed

94.37 per cent of the total area under rubber in India. The percentage area

under rubber in Kerala compared to all-India level had declined over the

years as the renlaining states started rubber cultivation. By 1994-95, the

state's share to the country was 85.98 per cent. Elowever, in absolute terms

area under rubber had shown sharp increase over the years in Kerala.

Table 7.1

Group.

hectares)

Study

Area

Source:

under - rubber in main

Territory (1)

Indonesia

Thailand

MaJaysia

China

India

Sri Lanka

Brazil

Nigeria

Liberia

Viet-nam

Zaire

Philippines

Myanmar

Cote d'Voire

Cameroon

Rubber Statistical

producing countries

End of 121

1994

1994

1990

1990

1994

1994

1989

1990

1973

1994

1959

1992

1994

1994

1994

Bulletin of the

(In thousand

Total Area (3)

324 1

1939

1837

603

516

162

197

247

120

250

93

88

90

68

4 1

International Rubber

Table 7.2

I I Figures in brackets are per cent to total area Source: Indian Rubber Statistics. Vol. 21, The Rubber Board, Kottayam

The largest rubber producing country in the worltl is 'Thail;~ntl

(1722 thousand metric tonnes in 1994) followed by Indonesia and Malaysia.

With 464 thousand metric tonnes of production of rubber India ranks fourth

in the world. Production of Natural Rubber in main producing countries are

presented in Table 7.3.

-

State-wise

K e r a l a

T a m i l nadu

Karnataka

T r i p u r a

A s s a m

M e g h a l a y a

N a g a l a n d

M i z o r a m

M a n i p u r

A n d a m a n & N i k o b a r

G o a

M a h a r a s h t r a

O r i s s a

A n d h r a - pradesh

A r u n a c h a l - p r a d c s h I T o t a l

hectares) l c > O . l .O!j

443300 (85.98)

17430

14955

10252

10122

4550

1450

979

1253

c100

936

9 1

2 19

<50

75

515572

area

1950-5 1

70365 (93.133)

3025

14 15

EI.A

P1.A

h1.A

P1.A

h1.A

R1.A

110

N .A

N .A

N .A

N .A

N.A

74915

under

I O O O ~ i > I

135809 (94.37)

6256

1659

N.A

N.A

N.A

N.A

N.A

N.A

181

N.A

N.A

N.A

N.A

N.A

143905

year 1085-HO

341506 (89.2 1)

16567

11392

7742

1242

1410

355

570

355

919

773

< 100

< 100

N.A

< 100

382831

(Area in 1900-~) I

407821 (85.84)

17150

13995

17320

9380

3466

1300

950

1203

9h0

970

145

245

178

100

475083

rubber at 1970.7 I

193763 (89.21)

11712

6525

N.A

N.A

N.A

N.A

N.A

N.A

537

N.A

N.A

N.A

N.A

N.A

217198

the end 1075 76

211808 (89.80)

13776

8585

417

116

141

N.A

N.A

N.A

8 10

223

N.A

N.A

N.A

N.A

235876

of each I080 8 1

253784 (89.2 1)

15513

9004

2746

568

923

N .A

<I00

216

900

512

N - A

N.A

N.A

N.A

284166

Table 7.3

Group.

Production of Natural Rubber in Main producing countries

Only 4.1 per cent of total world production of rubber was shared by

India in 1975. During 1990, while Thailand, the largest rubber producing

count.& of world produced 1271 thousand metric tonnes, lndia produced only

324 thousand metric tonnes, which contributed 6.3 per cent to the world

production. According to the latest statistics, by 1994, lndia produced

( In

Country

Thailand

Indonesia

Malaysia

India

China

Philippines

Nigeria

Sri Lanka

Vietnam

Cambodia

Liberia

Brazil Total

464 thousand metric tonnes of rubber, less than by 1258 thousand metric

Source: "Rubber statistical Bulletin" of the International Rubber Study

Tonnes)

1990

1271

1262

1291

324

264

61

152

113

103

35

19

30 5120

Thousand Metric

1975

355

823

1459

136

69

51

68

149

20

10

83

19 33 15

tonnes from Thailand. India's share to world rubber production increased to

1994

1722

1361

1101

464

34 1

58

95

105

88

42

3 1

2 8 5680

8.2 per cent by 11994. The state - wise production of rubber in lndia is givrn i l l

Table 7.4.

Table 7.4

Production of Rubber in Different states of India. (In metric tonnes)

source: Government of India (1996). Indian Rubber Statistics, The Rubber Board, K0ttaya.m.

With an increasing production of rubber over the years Kerala

ranks f ~ s t in India, followed by Tamilnadu and Karnataka. The states

share to the country had increased from 90.19 per cent in 1960-61 to 93.86

per cent in 1994-95. That means between 1960-61 and 1994-95, the increase

in production of rubber in Kerala was 419665 metric tonnes while that in India

was 446118 metric tonnes, making the performance of the state a s

remarkabIe.

Kerala ranks first in area under rubber as well a s in the

production of rubber. The state's share to all India-level has been increasing

Figures in brackets are per cent to total.

Others

38

30

68

1784

4220

Years

1955-56

1960-61

1975-76

1990-91

1994-95

Total

23730

25697

137750

329615

471815

Tamilnadu

1606

2040

763 1

13645

15065

Kerala

216;SO (91 3 6 )

23175 (90.1.9)

128769 (93.48)

307521 (93.30)

4421330 (93.86)

m a t a k a

406

452

1282

6665

9700

over the years. The Rubber Board, Kottayam had reported that, high yielding

planting materials, particularly the variety RRII-105, developed and re1easc.d

by the Rubber Research Institute of India towards the close of 1970s, have

contributed to the significant achievement of rubber production in Kerala.

Currently more than 90 per cent of the planting is with this variety.

(Government of India (1996) Indian Rubber statistics,vol.21, The Rubber Board,

Kottayarn). How far the area and yield of different districts are responsible for

the splendid performance of rubber production in Kerala are discussed in the

coming section 7 1.

7.1 District-Witre Analysis of Area, Yield and Production o f Rubber in Kerala: 1960-61 to 1995-96.

The area under rubber has been increasing over the years in Kerala.

During 1960-61, area under rubber in the state was 122870 Hectares. During

the next five years 26760 Ha. increase in area has been observed. An increase

of 29630 ha. was observed from 1965-66 to 1970-71. During 1975-76 the

area under rubber again have increased and reached a level of 206686 ria.

After 1975-76, the area increased to 237769 Ha. in 1980-81 and to 330315 IIa.

in 1985-86. From 1975-76 level the area showed an increase of 204939 I-la.

by 1990-91 reaching 411615 Ha. under rubber. 1992-93 recorded

444096 Ha. under rubber where as during 1994-95 a decrease of 796 Ha.

from that level has been shown. During 1995-96, the area under rubber

was 448988 Ha. in Kerda. Compared to 1975-76, the increase in area under

rubber in Kerdi~ was 242302 Ha. The increase in area between 1960-61 to

1975-76, 1975-76 to 1990-91 and 1990-91 to 1995-96 was 83816, 204929

and 37373 Ha. respectively in the state. The changes in area under rubber in

Kerala with district-wise estimates are available from table 7.5.

During 1960-61, Kottayam district shared 35.11 per cent of state's

area under rubber, with 43136 Ha. under the crop. Kollam has the second

largest share of rubber area of the state with 17.53 per cent recording

21534 Ha. Kozhikode with 14927 Ha. shared 16.27 per cent of area under the

crop. 12.93, 8.45, 5.09, 4.12, 2.58 and 11.60 percentage of total area untler

rubber of the state, occupied respectively by Ernakularn, Kannur, Thrissur,

Palakkad, Thiruvananthapuram and Alappuzha districts.

During 1975-76 also Kottayam, Kollam and Ernakulam were the

first three districts having largest area under rubber cultivation. Kottayam

with 52600 Ha. of rubber cultivation showed 225.45 per cent of the state's

area under the crop. Kollam with 33995 Ha. and Ernakulam with 23096 Ha.

under rubber shared 16.45 and 11.17 per cent of the state. Those districts

were followed lby Kannur (22125 Ha.), Kozhikode (17250 a ) , Idukki

(1 6369), Malappurarn (15220 Ha.), Palakkad (7910 Ha.), Thrissur

(7785 Ha.),Thiruvananthapuram (8735 Ha.) and Alappuzha (42.73 Ila.) (area

under rubber of' the districts are given in brackets) respectively showing

10.70, 8.35, 7.92!, 7.36, 3.83, 3.77, 3.05 and 1.79 percentages of state's area

under rubber. During the period between 1960-61 to 1975-76, Kottayam

followed by Kollam and Ernakulam districts have shown more area under

rubber cultivation than the remaining districts. From 1960-61 to 1975-76,

the area under rubber have increased in all the districts. Table 7 .5 shons thr

district wise increase in area under rubber in Kerala. According to the order of

absolute increase in area under rubber from 1960-61 to 1975-76, the districts

can be ranked a s follows.

1. Kollam (12461 Ha.)

2. Kannur (1 1743 Ha.)

3. Kottayam (9464 Ha.)

4. Ernakulam (7.207 Ha.)

5. Thiruvananthapuram (5560 Ha.)

6. Palakkad (2846 Ha.)

7. Kozhikode (2323 1 la.)

8. Allappey (2313 Ha.)

9. Thrissur (1525 Ha.)

From Table 7.5, it was clear that, Kottayam, Ernakulam and

Pathanamthitta were dominant in Kerala sharing 107937, 60913 and

437 15 hectares of rubber respectively during 1990-9 1. The percentage

shares to total area of rubber in the state were 26.22 per cent for Kottayarn,

14.80 per cent for Emakulam and 10.62 per cent for Pathanamthitta.

During sixties a n d seventies the area under rubber in Kollam district was next

to Kottayam. Prom 1985-86 onwards the second position of Kollam with

regard to rubber-area was found to be loosing, instead Emakulam occupied

that place. During 1990-91, Idukki shared 8.40 per cent of state's area

under rubber which took 34595 Ha. Kollarn, Palakkad, Kannur,

Thiruvananthapuram, Malappuram and Kasaragod were the districts next to

Idukki having 30076, 24045, 23098, 22657, 20455 and 18308 [la. untlrr

rubber respectively with 7.31, 5.84, 5.61, 5.50, 4.97 and 4.45 per cent of state's

area under rubber.

Table 7.5 District-wise area under rubber in Kerala: 1960-61 to 1995-96 (in Ha.)

I Districts

Thiruvantha- puram Ko!lam

Pathanamthitta

Alappuzha

Kottayam

Idukki

Ernakulam

Thrissur

Paiakkad

hlalappuram

Kozhikode

Wayanad

kannur

iiasaragod

State

Figures in parenthesis are percentage share of each district to state. Source: Government of India, Indian Rubber Statistics, The Rubber Board, Kottayam. (Various Years)

Table 7.6 District-wise percentage changes in area under rubber in Kerala: 1960-61 t o 1995-96.

Kozhikode (1 13'42 Ha.) shared 2.76 per cent of state area. Thrissur,

Wayanad and LUappuzha districts have poor performance which shared only

1.67, 1.14 and 0.70 percentages of area of rubber cultivation i.e., 6861,

4712 and 290 1 Ha. of land only.

The recent trends in area under rubber would be clear from

1995-96 estimates. Kottayam was far above in area than other districts,

showing 24.41 per cent of state's area under rubber with 109582 Ha. The

next largest area under rubber comes in Ernakulam district with 55247 Ha.

(12.30 per cent) Pathanamthitta and IduM followed by Kollam has 47063,

37240 and 35347 Ha. under rubber and they were 10.48, 8.29 and

7.87 per cent of rubber-area of the state. Kannur (28420) shared

6.33 per cent, Malappuram (26305) shared 5.86 per cent, Palakkad

(26031 Ha.) shared 5.80 per cent and Thiruvananthapuram (25995 Ha.)

shared 5.79 pel- cent of state's area under rubber. Kasaragod recorded

19280 Ha. ie., 4.29 per cent. Very low contributions were from Kozhikode

(17349 Ha.), Th~issur. (12254 Ha.), Wayanad (5302 Ha.) and Alappuzha

(3573 Ha.). The corresponding percentage shares to the state's of these four

districts were 3.36, 2.73, 1.18 and 0.80 per cent. From 1960-61 to 1995-96

itself Kottayam shared highest area for rubber cultivation. All other

districts have area under rubber far below than Kottayam. Upto 1980-81

Kollam district (38890 Ha) has the largest area under rubber next to Kottayam.

But from 1985-86 onwards Ernakulam district (37769 Ha.) became the

second largest area contributor of rubber. Kollam has only 36033 ha. under

rubber during 1085-86. The position of Kollam came down by 1995-96.

Kottayam, Ernakulam, Pathanamthitta, Idukki and Kollam had the highest

area under rubber during 1990-91 to 1995-96, whereas Kasaragod,

Kozhikode, Thrissur, Wayanad and Alappuzha were the lowest area districts of

rubber.

The changes in area are presented in Table 7.6. The changes

over 1975-76 t,o 1995-96 showed that Ernakulam district having an increase

of 32151 Ha. has the highest area increase of rubber followed by Idukki,

Malappuram artd Thiruvananthapuram, the increases being 20871 and

17260 Ha. The remaining districts that have shown area increases were

Palakkad (1812 1 Ha.), Kannur (6295 Ha.), Kottayarn (5692 Ha.), Thrissur

(4469 Ha.) Kollam (1352 Ha. ) and Kozhikode (99 Ha.). The only district

having area decrease of rubber during the second sub-period was Alappuzha.

From 4029 Ha. of area under rubber in 1975-76, the area declined to 3573 by

1995-96 showing 456 Ha. decline. From 1985-86 onwards the area under

rubber has been declining in Alappuzha. Though during 1994-95 and

1995-96 the area. have shown an improvement with 3543 and 3573 Ha. under

rubber, it does not reach the level of 1975-76. That was the reason for area

decline of rubber in Alappuzha district during 1995-96 with respect to 1975-76.

The recent situation could be analysed only through data during

1990-91 to 1995-96. Tables 7.5 and 7.6 present the changes in area under

rubber from 1990-91 to 1995-96 and the following results observed. In

Emaliulam district, area under rubber declined from 60913 Ha. in 1990-9 1 to

55247 Ha. in 1995-96, the decline in area being 5666 Ha. Since 1992-93, the

area under Enlakularn has been declining and hence if the situation

continues, the position of Emakulam as the second highest area

contributing district for rubber will loose in the near future as happened in the

case of KoUam.

The increase in area under rubber during 1995-96 with respect to

1990-9 1 could lbe arranged as follows.

Table 7.7

Changes in h a under rubber since 1990-91 in Kerala.

1. Kozhik:ode

2. Malappuram

3. Thrissur

4. Kannur

5. Kollam

6. Thiruvimanthapuram

7. Idukki

8. Pathanamthitta

9. Palakkad

11. Kasaragod

12. Alappuzha

13. Wayanad

Change (Ha.)

6007

5850

5353

5322

527 1

3338

2645

3298

1986

1645

972

672

590

566

Kozk~ikode, Malappuram, Thrissur and Kannur districts with

higher area increase have low area under rubber comparing with

Kottayam, Em.akulam, Idukki, Pathanamthitta etc. In districts of higher

rubber area aka there was area increase. This indicates performance of

Kerala farmers towards rubber plantations. Production of rubber in Kerala was

increasing over the years in the state as a whole. From 7410 tonnes of rubber

production in 1960-61, by 1975-76 pmduction increased to 128769' tonnes,

to 307521 tonnes in 1990-91 and to 474555 tonnes in 1995-96.

District-wise pjroduction of rubber from 1960-61 to 1995-96 in Kerala is

available from T.able 7.7. During 1960-61, the highest production of rubber

was in Kollam clistrict ie., 5470 tonnes which shares 73.82 per cent of state

production followed by Ernakulam (2589 tonnes), Kozhikode (2540 tonnes),

Thrissur (2394 tonnes) and Palakkad (1650 tonnes) with state's share of

34.93, 34.28, 32.31 and 22.27 per cent respectively. Kannur district has

1064 tonnes of rubber production with 14.36 per cent of the state

during 1960-61. With only 573, 646 and 181 tonnes of production,

Thiruvananthapuram, Kottayam and Alappuzha constituted respectively

7.73, 6.26 and 2.24 per cent of state production.

During 1975-76, Kottayam district shared 26.42 per cent of state's

production, where with 34021 tonnes of production, an increase of 34014.74

tonnes from 1960-61 level has been observed. Kollam, Ernakulam and

Kozhikode districts have increased production of 23906, 12292 and

10266 tonnes following Kottayam. The respective shares to total production

of the state was 18.52, 9.55 and 7.97 percents. The remaining districts

were Kannur ((10238 tonnes in 1975-76), ldukki (10 187), Malappurarn

(9332 tonnes) and Thrissur (6969 tonnes) having 7.95, 7.91, 7.25 and

5.41 percents of state's production shares respectively.

Though production of rubber in Alappuzha district increased from

181 tonnes in 1960-61 to 2409 tonnes in 1975-76, the district with lowest

rubber production in the state was Alappuzha in both the periods. Sharp

improvement in production has been observed for Kottayam district during this

period. Kollarrk, Ernakulam and Kozhikode were the other districts having

high production of rubber before mid-seventies.

Dunng 1990-91 also Kottayam was top most in rubber

production shwmg 24.02 per cent of state's production. The production

increased to 73854 tonnes in 1990-91. The next district followed was

Ernakulam conlributed 11.10 per cent, far below than Kottayam. The rubber

production of Eimakulam was 34148 tomes during 1990-9 1. The production

of Kollam, Pathanamthitta, Idukki, Malappuram, Kozhikode and Kannur

districts during this period increased to 32092, 25681,24479, 19990, 196 17

and17474 tonnes respectively by 1990-91. The state's share of those

districts were 10.43, 8.35, 7.96, 6.50, 6.38 and 5.68 per cent The lowest

rubber production levels with less than 5 per cent of state production

were observed in Thiruvananthapuram, Kasaragod, Thrissur and

Alappuzha, the production of these districts being 14652, 129 17, 11001 and

4370 tonnes. The recent estimates have shown almost same ranking of the

districts. During 1995-96, with 25.49 per cent share to state production,

Kottayam district, recorded 120946 tonnes of rubber production, keeping up

the top-most rank. The second highest producer Emakulam district

showing only 13.10 per cent, was far below than Kottayam. The production

in Ernakulam was 62 159 tonnes.

Table 7.8 District-wise production of rubber in Kerala: 1960-61 to 1995-96 (in tonnes)

I

Districts

puram

(73.82) (19.76) Pathanamthitta

Allapuzha 181 445 1630 (2.44) (0.95) (2.07)

Kottayam 464 538 965 16.26) (1.15) (1.23)

-

(34.93) (11.06) (12.14) T t rissur 2394 3935 5152

(32.3 1) (8.38) (6.54) Palakkad 1650 1923 1488

Malappumn

Kozhikode

Wayanad

iiannur

ksaragod

State

Figures in parenthesis are percent to state total of each district. Source: Government of India, Indian Rubber Statistics, The Rubber Board, Kottayam. (Various Years)

Table 7.9 District-wise percentage changes in production of rubber in Kerala: 1960-61 to 1995-96.

1 Figures in parenthesis are absolute changes

With increased production of 52974 tonnes Pathanamthitta shared

11.16 per cent 1.0 total state production followed by Kollam (38821 tonnes)

sharing 8.18 per cent, Idukki (38356 tonnes) sharing 8.08 per cent,

Thiruvananthap~~ram (27298 tonnes) sharing 5.75 per cent, Kannur

( 26876 tonnes ) sharing 5.66 per cent and Malappuram having share of

5.15 per cent. F'alakkad (22571 tonnes) had a share of only 4.76 per cent

to state producti~on. Kozhikode (19490 tonnes), Kasaragod (18971 tonnes),

and Thrissur (15513 tonnes) have shared 4.76, 4.11, 4.0 and 3.27 per cent

respectively to state production. Alappuzha and Wayanad have only 3 1 15

and 3015 tonnes rubber production with 0.66 and 0.63 percents. Kottayarn

was the largest rubber producing district in Kerala since 1975-76. Still up to

1995-96 Kottajram remains to be the largest producer of rubber with

increased produc:tion. Based on estimates between 1990-91 to 1995-96, the

recent situation of rubber production of the districts could understand.

Kottayarn, Emakulam, Pathanamthitta, Kollam and ldukki were

largest rubber producing districts. Kasaragod, Thrissur, Alappuzha and

Wayanad remained to be lowest rubber producing centres during nineties.

Table 7.9 gives the gross changes between 1960-61 to 1975-76 and 1975-76 to

1995-96.

The production increase was high in Kottayam (33557 tonnes),

followed by Kollam (18436 Tonnes), Emakulam (9703 tonnes), Kannur

(9194) and Kasaragod (7726 tonnes) between 1960-61 and 1975-76. This has

resulted in higher production of rubber in these districts by 1975-76.

Thiruvananthapuram, Thrissur, Malappuram and Alappuzha have shown

4650,4575,2316 and 2228 tonnes of respective production increases.

The. production increase between 1975-76 and 1995-96 was as

follows. Kottz~yam (86935 tonnes), Pathanamthitta (37633 tonnes),

Thiruvananthapuram (22075), Ernakulam (49867), Idukki (28169), Palakkad

(18605), Kannur (16638), Malappuram (15098), Kollam (14915), Kasaragod

(12207), Kozhikode (9 194), Thrissur (8544), Wayanad (1380), Alappuzha

(726 tonnes).

The situation after 1990-91 would be quite helpful to understand

the recent developments in rubber production. Therefore the changes during

1995-96 with respect to 1990-91 was worked out and showed the following

results. The production increase from the district with highest increase of

production in descending order could be ranked as follows.

Table 7.10

Meanwhile Alappuzha recorded 1235 tonnes and Kozhikode

recorded 127 tonnes decline in rubber production. The high production of

rubber in Kc~ttayam, Ernakulam, Pathanarnthitta, Kollam and Idukki

Changes in production of Rubber in Kerala since 1990-91

districts was the consequence of higher area under the crop. The

- Districts

1. Kottayam

2. Ernakulam

3. Pathanarnthitta

4. ldukki

5. 'Thiruvananthapuram

6. :Kannur

7. l'alakkad

8. I<ollam

9. Kasaragod

10. Thrissur

11. Malappuram

12. Wayanad

13. Alappuzha

14. Kozhikode

production as well a s area increase in those districts signified scope for higher

production of rubber in future also. The role of yield of rubber in

production is also attempted.

Change (tonnes)

47092

2801 1

27293

13877

12646

9402

791 1

6729

6054

4512

4440

429

(-) 1235

(-)I27

Table 7.11 District-wise average yield of rubber in Kerala: 1960-61 to 1995-96 (Kg. / Ha.)

1 Districts 11960.61 11965-66 1 1970-71 1 1975-76 1 1980-81 1 1985-86 1 1990-91 1 1992-93 1 1994-95 1 1995-96 1 Thiruvantha- 154 puram Kollam 254

Pathanamthitta

Alappuzha 92

Kottayam 172 (88.37) (36.42) (46.38) (-22.54) (27.34)

Idukki 66 638 788 708 886 (866.67) (23.51) (-10.15) (25.14)

Ernakulam 163 242 36 1 532 597 5 14 56 1 720

Palakkad 160

Malappuram

Kozhikode 170

Wayanad

Kannur 103

Kasaragod

State 187

I I

I Figures in parenthesis are percent to state total of each district. Source: Government of India, Indian Rubber Statistics, The Rubber Board, Kottayam (Various Years).

Table 7.11 shows the changes in productivity of rubber over thr ycwrs in

Kerala. In the state as a whole the yield was increasing continuously from

1960-61 to 1995-96. Kottayam district showed continuous increase in yield in

all the years. After 1990-91 the yield of rubber has increased considerably.

Ernakulam district also has shown yield increase from 1960-61 to 1995-96.

Since 1990-91, all the districts with higher production of rubber viz.,

Kottayam, Emalsulam, Pathanamthitta, Kollam and ldukki has shown yield

increases. The fairly good yield levels were also responsible for a rise in

production.

7.2 Trend Anallysis.

Trends in area, yield and production of rubber in the state are

presented in Table 7.12.

During the first sub-period area under rubber increased by 53.47

per cent from the base year 1960-61, whereas, during the second sub-period

the increase was 117.23 per cent from the base year 1975-76. In absolute

terms, the area under rubber was 122870 hectares in 1960-61 which went up

to 206686 hectares in 1975-76 and thereafter reached 448988 hectares in

1995-96. There had been a tremendous continuous increase in area under

rubber since 1060-61. The tappable area was 65355 hectares in 1960-61. By

1975-76 tappable area had risen to 167742 hectares and by 1995-96 reached

316760 hectares. According to the index analysis, during the first

sub-period tappable area increased by 146.28 per cent whereas during the

second sub-penod there had been an increase of 96.73 percentage.

Table 7.12

Indices of Area, Yield and Production percentage contribution of Area and Yield towards the changes in production of Rubber in Kerala.

Year

1960-6 1

1961- 62

1962-63

1963-64

1964-65

1965-66

1966-67

1967-68

1968-69

1969-70

1970-7 1

1971-72

1972-73

1973-74

Indices Of

Area Under Tappable Yield Production

rubber area

Base Period: 1960 196 1

100 100 100 100

109.72 105.99 101.69 107.68

118.63 120.14 104.52 125.38

122.63 136.99 106.50 145.81

126.07 156.26 114.41 178.60

128.53 163.14 124.29 202.60

131.95 164.18 133.05 217.89

135.96 170.45 151.98 258.80

139.26 178.92 160.45 286.83

142.67 193.34 172.03 33 1.8 1

146.11 205.19 182.77 374.43

147.6 1 217.27 190.11 412.08

149.20 224.86 203.67 457.10

151.39 239.28 211.86 505.8 1

- Contribution Of

Area(tappab1e) Productivity

-

Base Period of First triennium

1960-61,61-62 and 62 - 63

7.97 x 10 -5

8.26 x 10 -5

8.20 x lo-" 8.46 x 10-j

7.60 x 10-5

6.71 x 10."

6.09 x 10-5

5.29 x 10.;

5.23 x 10-i

5.24 x 10.9

5.20 x 10.5

5.26 x

5.12 x 10-5

5.18 x lO~'

1.95 x 10~"

-3.05 x 10.'

1.94 x lO~j

1.56 x lo-"

2.41 x

4.18 x 10.'

1.57 x 10-j

4.70 x 10-5

4.76 x 10.:

4.77 x 10-5

4.80 x

5.25 x

4.88 s lo-"

4.83 x 10~"

Base Period: 1975 - 1976 Base = 1975-76, 76-77 and 77-78

During the first sub-period from 1960-61, level production of rubber had

increased by 121359 tonnes which showed an increase of 424.52 per cent.

During the second sub period, production had shown an increase of 345786

tonnes by 1995-96 the percentage increase was 268.53. The yield of rubber

showed contin~~ous increase between 100 to 213.28 per cent during 1960-61

to 1974-75. Since 1975-76, upto 1981-82, the yield index had shown

fluctuating beh~~viour with decrease during 1977 to 1979 and increase during

1980 to 1982 which again declined in the subsequent year. After 1981-82,

yield indices showed continuous upward trend, and showed 169.66 per cent

by 1995-96. 'me index analysis showed that production increase of rubber

was mainly due to area increase followed by yield increase.

The decisive role played by area and productivity towards output

have shown by decomposition analysis. In both f i t and second sub-periods

area contributions were more than yield contributions to production of rubber

as it is evident fiom Table 7.12. The changes in the percentage contributions

of both area as well a s yield, were only marginal over the years. Both index

as well decomposition analysis had shown greater contribution of area than

yield towards total output of rubber in Kerala, in both the periods viz., before

and after mid-st:venties

For measuring the rate of growth, the exponential functional form

was considered and was fitted to the time series data on total area and tapped

area under rubber along with production and yield for the first and second

sub-periods as well as for the entire period of 1960-61 to 1995-96. The

estimated equations and respective compound growth rates are presented in

Table 7.13. The area under rubber during the second sub-period had a greater

growth rate o!F 4.71 per cent than the 2.70 per cent growth rate during the

first sub period. The entire period had shown a growth rate of 3.49 per cent for

total area undei- rubber.

Meanwhile the tapped area had a higher growth rate of

6.41 per cent during the first sub-period than the 3.75 per cent growth rate of

second sub period, the entire period of 1960-61 to 1995-96 had shown growth

rate of 4.18 per cent in tapped area under rubber.

Thr: growth rate of production of rubber during the first

sub-period was 12.46 per cent whereas during the second sub-period the

growth rate reduced by half of it showing only 6.41 per cent. Between 1960-6 1

and 1995-96 the gmwth rate of production of rubber was 7.89 per cent.

The: yield of rubber during 1960-61 to 1974-75 had a growth rate

of 6.41 per clent while it was only 2.65 per cent after mid-seventies.

The whole period of 1960-61 to 1995-96 had shown growth rate of

3.39 per cent in the yield of rubber with only a marginal change from the

growth rate of area under rubber (3.49 per cent). The growth rates of

tappable area, yield and production of rubber were found to be higher beiorc

mid-seventies. But in absolute terms, all the three factors were increasing

over the years continuously from 1960-61 to 1995-96.

Table 7.13 Estimated Trend Equations For Area, Yield and Production of Rubber in Kerala:

Period I: 1960-61 to 1974-75 Period 11: 1975-76 to 1995-96 Period 111: 1960-61 to 1995-96.

Y = A + B t W CGR I n Y = A + B t R2 CGR

(A) Total Area

Period I Y = 143611.83 + 4720.7 t 0.95 2.64 InY =5.16+0.01 t t (15.81) t = (12.28) 0.92 2.70

Period 11 Y = 178510.26 + 14 t In Y = 5.29 + 0.01 t t (37.07) 0.99 4.82 t (32.25) 0.99 4.71

Period I11 Y = 105235 + 8733.10 t In Y = 5.13 + 0.01 t t (17.99) 0.9 1 3.83 t (28.05) 0.96 3.49

(B) Tapped Area - Period I Y = 60281.60 + 6716.50 t In Y = 4.82 + 0.02 t

t (3 1.80) 0.99 6.36 t (17.75) 0.96 6.41

Period I1 Y = 136198.09 + 8322.90 t In Y = 5.17 + 0.02 t t (9.51) 0.85 4.03 t (1 1.28) 0.88 3.75

Period 111 Y = 58225 + 6536.80 t In Y = 4.98 + 0.02 t t (22.20) 0.94 4.53 t (24.11) 0.95 4.18

I

Period I Y = 271.60 + 33.02 t t (22.87)

Period 11 Y = 662.66 + 24.19 t t (10.72)

Period 111 Y = 337.70 + 23.10 t t (24.85)

(D) Production

Period I Y = 5757.39 + 7448.20 t In Y = 4.32 + 0.05t t (23.95) 0.98 15.16 t (17.01) 0.96 12.46

Period 11 Y =71685.17 + 13316 t t (9.10)

Period I11 Y = -12600.12 + 8847.30 t t (15.94)

Sinc:e mid-seventies the total area under rubber had greater

growth rate of 4..71 per cent than that of yield of 2.65 per cent. The output

increase of rubber was due to area increase followed by yield increase. The

inference drawn from the analysis bawd on growth rates was found to be the

same obtained from the trend analysis. According to the district-wise

analysis also, area contribution to output of rubber was more

pronounced compared to the yield.

7.4 Supply Res;ponse o f Rubber in Kerala

7.4.1 Short -Te~m Yield Response of Rubber in Kerala During 1960-61 to

1974-75 and 1975-76 to 1995-96.

Sep.wate functions were fitted for the first sub-period 1960-61 to

1974-75 and tht: second sub-period 1975-76 to 1995-96 to know the short-run

yield response of rubber in Kerala. The form of the function was as follows,

Yt = F (Pt, t, Wt)

where Y1. = Yield of rubber

Pt = Price of rubber

t = Time trend

and Wt = Annual rainfall.

For the filst sub--period the yield response function fitted was given in

equation (7.1)

Yt = 209.11 + 35.08 t"' + 0.02 Wt'+ ..... (7.1)

For the recond sub-period the yield response function was obtained

as in equation (7.2)

* Significant alt 1 per cent level.

*** Significant at 20 per cent level.

The estimated function with all the variables considered and

elasticities are given in Table 7.14.

During the iirst sub-period rainfall and time trend were found to

be the major yield increasing factors. Price of rubber, time trend and annual

rainfall explained 98 per cent variation on yield per hectare. Instead, during

the second sub-period, time trend and price of rubber were found to have more

influence on yield of rubber. It was seen that technological factors like

timely application of fertilizers, use of HW's, proper use of pesticides etc. have

more yield response. Since tapping is suspended during rainy seasons, rainfall

in the short-nm would not be an important factor in the short-run in

tappingg decisions. After mid-seventies, the price of rubber played an

important role in short-term yield adjustment decisions. Price of rubber,

time trend and annual rainfall together explained 92 per cent variation in the

yield of rubber after mid-seventies. The price elasticity of yield of rubber was

greater during the second sub period (1.83) than in the first sub-period

(0.92). After 19;75-76, the relative changes in yield of rubber in the short-run

was greater with respect to the relative changes in price. That means in the

short-run, the yield of rubber was found to be price-responsive since

1975-76.

Table 7.14 Estimated Short Run Yield Response of Rubber in Kerala

Signincance at 1 percent level * Signincance at 20 percent level

Figures in parenthesis are corresponding standard errors.

1960-6 1 to 1974-75

1975-76 to 1995-96

Constant Term

209.11 (2.23 x 10)

649.04

Explanatory Variables

Pt t Wt

-4.92 x 10-2 3.51 x 10 2.44 x 10 -2 (5.390) (1.57 x 10 -2)

*** *

5.41 x 10-2 2.48 x 10 -1.84 x 10-2

(3.15 x 10 -2) (4.965) (2.85 x 10 -2) tt* *

Co-efficient of determination

R ' 0.98

0.92

D-W

0.75

0.74

5

Short Term elasticity

-0.92

1.83

7.4.2. Long-Term Yield Response of Rubber in Kerala During 1960-61 to

1974-75 and 1975-76 to 1995-96.

The long - run yield response function of rubber was of the following form:

Y t = f ( Y t - l , P t e , p t . c e , P R t e )

Where Yt = Yield of rubber in period t.

Yt-l= Yield of rubber in period it t-1

P t = Expected. price of rubber.

P t . = Expected price of coconut.

PR t = Price risk

The estimates of long-run yield response function obtained before

and after mid-seventies are given in Table 7.15. The estimated long-run

yield response function for the first sub-period was,

Yt= (-) 7.35 + 0.98 Y t-I* + (-) 0.17 P t **** + 0.33 P t.c **** + (-) 0.37 PR t e****

(7.3)

For the st:cond sub-period the yield response function was estimated

as,

Y t = 124.60 + 0.76 Y G I * + 0.28 PR t **** (7.4)

* Significant a t 1 per cent level

**** Significant at 50 per cent level

Befoire mid-seventies, in the long-run, previous year's yield was

found to be the most influential factor of yield of rubber.

Table 7.15 Estimated Long Run Yield Response of Rubber In Kerala

* Significant at 1 percent level. - Significant at 50 percent level. Figures in parenthesis are corresponding standard errors.

Long Term

elasticity

-0.47

2.76

Co-efficient of determination -

Rz

0.99

0.98

Periods

1960-6 1 to 1974-75

1975-76 to 1995-96

D-W

1.40

1.46

Constant Term

-7.35

124.60

Explanatory Variables

Y t-I

9.80 x 10-1 (1.79 x 10 -1)

*

7.57 x 10 - 1

(1.54 x 10 *

P t C '

3.27 x 10 -1

(1.02 x 10 - I ) ****

-5.01 x 10 -4

(2.75 x 10 -l)

P r r

-1.68 x 10 -1

(2.03 x 10 - 1 ) *t**

6.23 x 10 -3

(1.90 x 10 -l)

PRtC

-3.68 x 10 -' (4.52 x 10 -I) ****

2.75 x 10 -' (1.68 x 10 -') .t+

The other factors, expected price of rubber, expected price of the competing

crop - coconut and price risk explained 16,33 and 37 percentages of variation

in yield respectively. The price variables viz., expected price of rubber and

price risk involved had shown significant negative influence upon yield

whereas expected price of the competing crop, coconut had shown direct

positive influence in the long-run.

After mid-seventies, all the variables explained 98 per cent

variation of yielfd in the long run. As before mid-seventies, lagged yield and

price risk have shown significant direct influence upon yield, whereas the

remaining variables have shown very poor responses. The long-run

elasticities have shown high values for rubber whereas in the short-run

elasticities have smaller values. Thus, after 1974-75 previous years yield and

price risk were the yield determining factors of rubber in Kerala in the long-run.

7.4.3 Long-Run Planted Area Response of Rubber in Kerala.

The long-run planted area response function was of the form,

PAt=f(Pt e ,P t .ce ,YtC,TAt , PRte )

Where PA = Planted area under rubber

p t e = Expected ]price of rubber

P t., e = Expected price of coconut

Y = Expected :yield of rubber

TA = Tapped area under rubber

and PR t = Price risk

The estimated equation for the first sub-period was

PA = 27410 + 22.92 P t **** + (-) 20 P t.c **** + (-) 13.31 PR t ** (7.5)

and for the second sub-period it was,

PA = 101061.94 + 9.23 P t * + 4.26 P t x e * + (-) 125.67 A t *

+(-) 0.12 PR t **... (7.6)

The estimated results are given in Table 7.16. The expected price

of rubber was ihe only variable having direct significant influence upon

planted area in the sub-period I. Price risk as well as expected price of

coconut had negative influence upon area. During the second sub-period

expected price oti rubber a s well as coconut and yield risk were found to have

direct influence upon area. Tapped area and price risk were shown negative

influence in area. adjustments. The elasticities of both periods have shown low

values. After mid-seventies, in the long-run, planted area decisions were

mainly determined by price expections about the crop as well as about the

competing crop and yield expectations of the crop.

The short-run as well a s long-run yield of rubber and long-run

planted area under rubber were found to be price responsive. Future * expectations about prices is the major governing factor of farmer's decisions.

Past year's yield levels and competing crop's prices are the next two factors

working behind the farmer's area adjustment decisions on rubber whereas

technology plays an important role in yield adjustment decisions.

Table 7.16 Estimated Long Run Planted Area Response of Rubber in Kerala

Significance at 1 percent level Significance at 20 percent level - Signiilcance at 50 percent lwel

Periods

1960-61 to 1974-75

1975-76 to 1995-96

Constant Term

27410.01

101061.94

Explanatory Variables Co-efficient of determination -

R2

0.79

0.91

P t e

2.29 x 10 (2.13 x 10) ****

9.23 (1.85)

D-W

1.92

1.46

P t c C

-2.00 x 10 (2.07 x 10) ****

4.26 (2.04)

t*

Long Term Elasticity

1.38

1.41

Y t e

-1.31 x 10 (6.86 x 10)

9.12 x 10 (1.20)

TA t

3.74 x 10 -2 (1.76 x 10)

-1.26 x 10 (1.99 x 10)

PRte

-1.33 x 10 - 1

(1.06 x 10 - I ) **

-2.3 x 10 - 1

(5.83 x 10 - I ) **

S U ARI! M B CONCLUSIONS