compatibility of institutional architecture for … · states, viz., arunachal pradesh, assam,...
TRANSCRIPT
NRPPD Discussion PaperNRPPD Discussion PaperNRPPD Discussion PaperNRPPD Discussion PaperNRPPD Discussion Paper
3838383838
COMPATIBILITY OF INSTITUTIONAL
ARCHITECTURE FOR RUBBER
PLANTATION DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH
EAST INDIA FROM A COMPARATIVE
PERSPECTIVE OF KERALA
P.K. Viswanathan and Indraneel Bhowmik
2014
COMPCOMPCOMPCOMPCOMPAAAAATIBILITY OF INSTITUTIONTIBILITY OF INSTITUTIONTIBILITY OF INSTITUTIONTIBILITY OF INSTITUTIONTIBILITY OF INSTITUTIONAL AL AL AL AL ARCHITECTUREARCHITECTUREARCHITECTUREARCHITECTUREARCHITECTUREFOR RUBBER PLANTFOR RUBBER PLANTFOR RUBBER PLANTFOR RUBBER PLANTFOR RUBBER PLANTAAAAATION DEVELOPMENTTION DEVELOPMENTTION DEVELOPMENTTION DEVELOPMENTTION DEVELOPMENT
IN NORIN NORIN NORIN NORIN NORTH EAST INDIA FRTH EAST INDIA FRTH EAST INDIA FRTH EAST INDIA FRTH EAST INDIA FROM OM OM OM OM A COMPA COMPA COMPA COMPA COMPARAARAARAARAARATIVETIVETIVETIVETIVEPERSPECTIVE OF KERALAPERSPECTIVE OF KERALAPERSPECTIVE OF KERALAPERSPECTIVE OF KERALAPERSPECTIVE OF KERALA
PPPPP.K. .K. .K. .K. .K. VVVVViswiswiswiswiswanathan and Indraneel Bhoanathan and Indraneel Bhoanathan and Indraneel Bhoanathan and Indraneel Bhoanathan and Indraneel Bhowmikwmikwmikwmikwmik
2014
4
ABSTRAABSTRAABSTRAABSTRAABSTRACTCTCTCTCT
Institutional interventions for agricultural development of the
backward Northeastern region of India have been a prerogative for the
Central government and the respective state governments for long.
Various national and state agricultural development agencies, especially
the commodity boards have been constantly engaged in the
development of agriculture in the region. Among the commodity boards,
the interventions by the Rubber Board have been quite significant in
terms of social and economic impacts and the entire NER is emerging
as the ‘Hub of rubber production’ in the country accounting for 18.62
percent of the total area and 6.05 percent of the total production. The
phenomenal growth of rubber plantation areas in the NE region was
mainly due to the policy and institutional interventions by the Rubber
Board and other state agencies in the NER, which was triggered by two
major reasons, viz., (a) the ever increasing domestic demand for natural
rubber from the manufacturing sector (dominated by tyre industry);
and (b) the saturation of agro-climatically suitable lands in the
traditional regions, especially, Kerala. Moreover, from a social
development perspective, the promotion of rubber cultivation in the
NER has been considered to have greater impacts in terms of
rehabilitating the erstwhile shifting cultivators in the region and thereby
leading to their social and economic empowerment.
In the backdrop of the institutional interventions by the Rubber
Board in the wide-scale promotion of rubber cultivation in the NER,
the present paper makes a critical examination of the compatibility and
adaptability of the Kerala model of institutional interventions for rubber
development in the specific context of the NER. If we examine the
trajectory of development of rubber plantations in Kerala under the
institutional interventions spearheaded by the Rubber Board, it emerges
that the Board had promoted a system of rubber production that was
highly oriented towards monoculture without considering the crop
5
promotion from an agriculture system perspective. The paper further
argues that given the agro-ecological diversity and the specific socio-
economic, ethnic and institutional settings as well as the pattern of
livelihoods followed, the institutional interventions for rubber
development in the NER should have an integrated and holistic
approach, so as to minimise the damages caused to the fragile agro-
ecosystems of the region. Replication of the rubber based monoculture
as widely promoted in the traditional regions, especially, Kerala to the
NER, can be a cause of conflict with the pre-existing as well as co-
existing agricultural production (including food crops) practices/ farm
integrated livelihood systems. Moreover, the institutional makeover,
including infrastructure support of the Rubber Board in the region also
require major restructuring to evolve an integrated approach towards
development or rubber along with promotion of other farm livelihood
and rubber integrated agro-forestry systems. Dedicated trials for mixed
cropping in the lines of the rubber based integrated farming systems as
exist in Thailand and Indonesia may be adopted with better networking
and collaborations between the various line departments and similar
developmental institutions of the state and the central governments.
1. The Rationale1. The Rationale1. The Rationale1. The Rationale1. The Rationale
The north eastern region (NER) comprising the seven sisterly
states, viz., Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram,
Nagaland and Tripura and the Himalayan state of Sikkim (Map 1)
accounts for about 8% of the geographical area and 4% of the country’s
population. The population density of the region (174 persons/ sq km)
is less than half of the national average (368 persons/ sq km), though it
varies from a high of 397 persons/ sq km in Assam to a low of 17
persons/ sq km in Arunachal Pradesh. The extent of tribal population
(27%) in the region is three times more than the national average (8.6%),
with Mizoram (94.4%), Nagaland (86.5%), Meghalaya (86%) and
Arunachal Pradesh (69%) exhibiting the highest trend. The region is
nevertheless, quite diverse in terms of languages, cultural ethos and
pursuit of livelihoods. Jhuming (shifting cultivation) has been the
traditional economic practice for a large number of communities in the
region1 though it is in the wane in the recent decades.
Owing to the unique socio-economic, demographic as well as
agro-ecological specificities, the trajectory of agricultural development
and transformation in the NER has always been a matter of serious
contention among academic, policy as well as environmental activist
circles. Yet, despite such diverse agriculture and the abundant natural
resources, the fact remains that a large part of the region still remains to
8
be backward in terms of development and commercialisation of
agriculture in comparison to most of the states in the country. People
are predominantly agrarian though the state of development of the
primary sector remains at the lower tier2. It may even be argued that the
economies of the states in the region are yet to experience the kind of
structural transformation taken place in a typical developed state of
India. Farmers are mostly marginal and rainfed rice is the principal crop
grown with minimum usage of fertilizers and pesticides. Further, the
overall economic advancement of the region has been marred by
problems of growing socio-political unrest, unemployment, food deficit,
ethnic conflicts and human rights issues, drug trafficking, immigration,
ethnic turmoil and insurgency (Fernandes, 2004; Shimray 2004). The
landlocked nature of the region has imposed further constraints on the
economic prospects of the region (Prabhakara, 2004).
Map 1: Map showing the geographical boundaries of the NorthMap 1: Map showing the geographical boundaries of the NorthMap 1: Map showing the geographical boundaries of the NorthMap 1: Map showing the geographical boundaries of the NorthMap 1: Map showing the geographical boundaries of the NorthEastern StatesEastern StatesEastern StatesEastern StatesEastern States
Source: www.mapsofindia.com
9
Both national and the respective state governments were seriously
concerned about the sorry state of affairs of the region and have
attempted, since the 1970s, various interventions for integrating the
almost isolated NER with rest of the country3. A major thrust of these
interventions has been the integration or mainstreaming of the states in
the region through various social and economic upliftment programmes,
like- development and modernization of agriculture, along with
transformation of shifting cultivation with a thrust on horticulture and
cash crop promotions. Plantation/ cash crops, such as coffee, tea, rubber,
cashew and spices crops, besides horticultural crops such as pineapple
and citrus were promoted through various government programmes as
alternatives to shifting cultivation4.
Development and expansion of cash crops are taking place in
the region at the behest of the commodity Boards, viz., Coffee Board,
Tea Board, Rubber Board and Spices Board, who take the lead under
the centrally sponsored programmes. Such agency led crop
development programmes initially were intended to make a
demonstration effect and were largely planned and maintained by the
departments on land made available by the farmers. Initially, the
involvement of the villagers was limited in terms of providing their
labour services for establishment and maintenance of the plantations
during the gestation period. Once attained productivity, these
plantations were handed over to the villagers to manage and take the
benefits from the sale of the main produce and the ancillary products.
To encourage subsequent adoption and expansion of such cash crops,
subsidies and extension services are provided to the farmers through
specific schemes promoted by the respective crop promotional
agencies (Viswanathan, 2006; Choudhury, 2012).
Despite the timely interventions made by the crop development
agencies, the success of such programmes was not really encouraging
until recently with a few exceptions, such as tea and rubber. Factors such
10
as the lack of familiarity with the crops and their management, difficulty
in sourcing seed and saplings as well as inadequate access to marketing
and technical backstopping make the farmers hesitant to adopt some of
these commercial crops. Reportedly, farmers seem to be less enthusiastic
to grow even horticultural crops such as pineapple and other fruits
because of their high perishability as well as the persistent marketing
problems, lack of processing facilities, etc. Moreover, it is also reported
that farmers who grew many of such crops had to make distress sales in
view of the marketing problems and lack of storage facilities (Choudhury,
2012). The much more striking and critical factors that perhaps hinder
the wide-scale adoption of many of the cash crops, including tea, coffee,
rubber and spices are the disparate gestation periods during which there
are hardly any economic returns other than the wage earnings received
by the farmers while planting the crops. The virtual absence or lack of
access to markets or processing facilities and the price risks involved are
also critical issues that would have resulted in the lukewarm adoption
of these crops5
1.1. Research Questions1.1. Research Questions1.1. Research Questions1.1. Research Questions1.1. Research Questions
It is against this backdrop of the limited success of adoption and
growth of many of the commercial crops that the unique case of
expansion of rubber cultivation assumes significance in the context
of the NER. Though rubber was first introduced in the Cachar district
in Assam by the British as early as in 1913 (Guha, 1991), it was only
since the late 1980s that the first generation of rubber plantations were
established by the Indian Rubber Board on a commercial scale in the
NER (Viswanathan, 2006). The period since then witnessed a rapid
and tremendous expansion of rubber plantations in the NER especially
in the states of Tripura, Assam and Meghalaya. Unlike the other
commercial crops, including plantation crops of tea and coffee, the
growth in adoption of rubber among the tribal economies of the NER
has been quite remarkable over the past two and a half decades, as
11
indicated by the emergence of Tripura as the second largest rubber
growing state in India after Kerala. Interestingly, by now, while Tripura
has earned the distinction of the ‘Second Rubber Capital of India’,
the entire NER is emerging as the ‘Hub of rubber production’ in the
country.
Nevertheless, if we examine the trajectory of development of
rubber plantations in the traditional region of Kerala vis a vis the non-
traditional regions of NE states, it emerges that the institutional model
of rubber development as evolved for the traditional regions in a
particular historical context, has been replicated to the non-traditional
regions, especially, the NE states. A critical assessment of the institutional
model of rubber development would reveal that the system of rubber
production developed in the traditional regions was highly oriented
towards development of monoculture without adequately considering
the crop promotion from an integrated agriculture system perspective.
The result being that Kerala, which is a severely land constrained state,
had lost much of its erstwhile integrated land use and farm management
practices to rubber monoculture. The institutional interventions by the
Board have earned wider acclaim and acceptance in the traditional
regions of Kerala and others in terms of their intensive crop promotional
strategies and farmer outreach and support programmes. Apparently, the
more elaborate and all-encompassing interventions by the Board
rendered it prominent over other crop promotional agencies, which in
turn, have also made those crop- based institutional agencies and
interventions (like the Coconut Development Board, Coffee Board,
Spices Board, state government schemes for promotion of paddy, Kerala
Horticulture Development Board, etc) less effective to a large extent in
Kerala. Given the specific socio-economic, historic and political factors,
the institutional architecture evolved for the promotion of rubber had
been quite successful in the traditional regions of Kerala and others, in
terms of its perceived targets and goals as well as developmental
outcomes. In other words, the institutional architecture had turned out
12
to be highly compatible in the specific context of the traditional regions
especially, Kerala and its sanctity and legitimacy had never been
contested by any political, developmental, environmental or civil
society bodies, for well known reasons.
But, the question of compatibility of institutional architecture for
rubber development assumes greater relevance especially in the context
of the North Eastern states in the current scenario, when rubber expansion
activities get a major boost in the NE region due to the increasing scope
and growth potential for rubber in the region as a strategic product
facilitating socio-economic advancement along with global market
integration.
Against this backdrop, a critical assessment of the issue of
compatibility of institutional interventions for rubber development in
the NE states from a comparative perspective of Kerala becomes
important.
1.2. Objecti1.2. Objecti1.2. Objecti1.2. Objecti1.2. Objectivvvvves, Methods and Conceptual Framees, Methods and Conceptual Framees, Methods and Conceptual Framees, Methods and Conceptual Framees, Methods and Conceptual Framewwwwworkorkorkorkork
This paper makes an attempt in this direction and it tries to offer
explanations to some of the important issues raised above that determine
the compatibility of the existing institutional interventions for rubber
development in the NE region. The specific objectives of the paper
are:
1. To provide a comparative perspective on the policy and
institutional interventions for the development of rubber
plantations in the traditional regions, especially, Kerala vis a vis
the NE region;
2. To assess the overall economic and social development outcomes
realized by the tribal communities in the NER emerging from the
existing institutional interventions; and
13
3. To bring out the major policy as well as institutional development
challenges that constrain the development and further scaling up
of rubber plantations and their compatibility in the NE context.
To address the above objectives and the underlying research
questions, we use a mixed methodological approach by integrating
major components, such as review of development interventions,
secondary data analysis, primary survey among the beneficiaries of
rubber development in the select locations of three major NE states, viz.,
Tripura, Meghalaya and Assam, which together account for almost 90%
of the rubber planted area in NE India. Interactions/ discussions were
also held with the important stakeholders in rubber development in the
three major rubber growing NE states, including R&D officials of the
Rubber Board/ Research stations in the NE states; local development
leaders, village heads (Gaon Bura/ Sarpanch), local NGOs/ development
institutions, state government officials, etc.
Following the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD)
framework as proposed by Ostrom (1990; 2005; 2007), this paper uses a
broader conceptual definition to the term institutions. Accordingly, we
define institutions as a set of prescriptions that include rules, norms, and
shared strategies (Ostrom, 2005: 3). Institutions are further delineated as
being formal or informal; the former characterized as rules-in-form and
the latter as rules-in-use. In the specific context of rubber, we consider
all interventions being adopted by the institutional agency, viz., Rubber
Board, for the overall development of the rubber sector as well as socio-
economic upliftment of the beneficiary communities (mostly tribal) in
the North Eastern states in particular. For conceptual clarity, we consider
the important interventions undertaken by the Rubber Board as cutting
across the technological, institutional and organizational domains of
rubber production and management in India. Needless to say that all
these interventions have been targeted at: (a) strengthening the capacity
of the domestic rubber production sector; (b) enhancing its trade
14
competitiveness; and (c) sustaining the livelihoods of the small and
marginal producers and the dependent labour communities.
The paper is organised into five sections, including this
introductory. Section 2 provides an overview of the institutional models
of plantation development with particular focus on rubber development
in the South and Southeast Asian countries, which has several
commonalities with the rubber and other plantation development
programmes in India. Section 3 discusses the major outcomes and impacts
of the rubber development programmes among the tribal communities
in the NER with specific reference to the three major NE states of Tripura,
Assam and Meghalaya, which together account for almost 91% of the
rubber planted area in the region. The section also reviews the overall
impacts of the institutional interventions in plantation development in
the region with focus on the economic and financial strengthening and
empowerment of the regional economies. Section 4 discusses the major
challenges and issues surfacing the compatibility and sustainability of
the institutional model of rubber development in the NER. Section 5
concludes the paper highlighting the policy and institutional
imperatives emerging from the study.
2.2.2.2.2. Institutional Models of Plantations Development: The Case ofInstitutional Models of Plantations Development: The Case ofInstitutional Models of Plantations Development: The Case ofInstitutional Models of Plantations Development: The Case ofInstitutional Models of Plantations Development: The Case ofNatural RubberNatural RubberNatural RubberNatural RubberNatural Rubber
The history of evolution of plantation development in the South
and Southeast Asian countries is replete with the emergence and
continued existence of several institutional models in the case of the
major plantation products, viz., tea, rubber, oil palm, coffee, spices crops
(pepper, cocoa, and cardamom), sugarcane, cassava, banana, etc. Among
these plantation commodities, the case of rubber is distinct in terms of
three specific models, viz., (a) the ‘large scale plantation model’ of the
colonial vintage (late 19th to mid 20th centuries); (b) the dominant small
and medium farmer (SMF) plantation model (evolved during the
intervening period between 1940s through 1990s); and (c) agri-business
15
oriented plantation models, being currently (early 21st century) promoted
in the emerging economies of Myanmar, Cambodia and Lao PDR
facilitated by the inflow of financial capital owned by the foreign firms
located in China, Vietnam and Thailand (Barlow, 1997; George et al.,
1988; Lipton, 2009; Hayami, 2010;Viswanathan, 2006; Byerlee, 2014;
Byerlee et al., 2014).
Interestingly, the above three rubber plantation models have several
distinctions with respect to their developmental outcomes as well as the
interface with the economy, society, environment and ecosystems
prevailing in the regions/ areas where rubber plantations are established.
Moreover, though the models broadly depict the structure and
organisation of production, they may vary in terms of production
relations, processing and product marketing arrangements, composition
of the value chain, extent of value addition as well as the distribution or
sharing of gains (farm business income) among the various actors in the
value chain, including the small and marginal producers and the workers
in the case of the SMF model.
The characteristic features, the development outcomes as well as
the socio-economic and environmental (ecological) interface of these
three institutional models of rubber plantations are presented in Table
1. Based on the major distinctions of the three plantation models as
presented in the Table, it may be observed that the small and marginal
farmer (SMF) model appears to be an ideal and highly inclusive model
in the regional context of India, especially, Kerala and NE states, where
an overwhelming majority of the rubber growing households own and
operate smaller and marginal plots of land. It is also important to observe
that the pathway of rubber development in India has been greatly
influenced by the SMF model (SMFRDM) due mainly to the smallholder
friendly policy and institutional interventions by the state under the
aegis of the Rubber Board over time.
16TTTT T
able
1:
Fea
ture
s, d
eab
le 1
: F
eatu
res,
de
able
1:
Fea
ture
s, d
eab
le 1
: F
eatu
res,
de
able
1:
Fea
ture
s, d
e vvvv vel
opm
ent
outc
omes
and
soc
io-e
cono
mic
and
en
elop
men
t ou
tcom
es a
nd s
ocio
-eco
nom
ic a
nd e
nel
opm
ent
outc
omes
and
soc
io-e
cono
mic
and
en
elop
men
t ou
tcom
es a
nd s
ocio
-eco
nom
ic a
nd e
nel
opm
ent
outc
omes
and
soc
io-e
cono
mic
and
en v
iron
men
tal
(eco
logi
cal)
int
erf
viro
nmen
tal
(eco
logi
cal)
int
erf
viro
nmen
tal
(eco
logi
cal)
int
erf
viro
nmen
tal
(eco
logi
cal)
int
erf
viro
nmen
tal
(eco
logi
cal)
int
erf a
ce o
fac
e of
ace
ofac
e of
ace
ofin
stit
utio
nal
mod
els
of r
ubbe
r pl
anta
tion
dev
elop
men
tin
stit
utio
nal
mod
els
of r
ubbe
r pl
anta
tion
dev
elop
men
tin
stit
utio
nal
mod
els
of r
ubbe
r pl
anta
tion
dev
elop
men
tin
stit
utio
nal
mod
els
of r
ubbe
r pl
anta
tion
dev
elop
men
tin
stit
utio
nal
mod
els
of r
ubbe
r pl
anta
tion
dev
elop
men
t
Dis
tinc
t fe
atur
esC
ount
ry/
Reg
iona
lco
ntex
tP
rom
otio
nal
age
ncie
s:(d
evel
opm
ent,
rese
arch
, e
xten
sion
and
mar
keti
ng)
Dev
elop
men
tou
tcom
esS
ocio
-eco
nom
ic a
nd e
nvir
onm
enta
l(e
colo
gica
l) i
nter
face
1.
Lar
ge S
cale
Pla
ntat
ion
Rub
ber D
evel
opm
ent m
odel
(LSP
RD
M):
[Si
nce
late
180
0 co
ntin
ue –
but
has
bee
n on
the
decl
ine
in c
ount
ries
, su
ch a
s Ind
ia]
1.
Lar
ge S
cale
Pla
ntat
ion
Rub
ber D
evel
opm
ent m
odel
(LSP
RD
M):
[Si
nce
late
180
0 co
ntin
ue –
but
has
bee
n on
the
decl
ine
in c
ount
ries
, su
ch a
s Ind
ia]
1.
Lar
ge S
cale
Pla
ntat
ion
Rub
ber D
evel
opm
ent m
odel
(LSP
RD
M):
[Si
nce
late
180
0 co
ntin
ue –
but
has
bee
n on
the
decl
ine
in c
ount
ries
, su
ch a
s Ind
ia]
1.
Lar
ge S
cale
Pla
ntat
ion
Rub
ber D
evel
opm
ent m
odel
(LSP
RD
M):
[Si
nce
late
180
0 co
ntin
ue –
but
has
bee
n on
the
decl
ine
in c
ount
ries
, su
ch a
s Ind
ia]
1.
Lar
ge S
cale
Pla
ntat
ion
Rub
ber D
evel
opm
ent m
odel
(LSP
RD
M):
[Si
nce
late
180
0 co
ntin
ue –
but
has
bee
n on
the
decl
ine
in c
ount
ries
, su
ch a
s Ind
ia]
Pla
ntat
ions
adm
easu
ring
mor
e th
an 2
0-50
hect
ares
(av
erag
esi
ze r
angi
ng f
rom
200
ha-2
000
ha)
Mal
aysi
a, I
ndia
,In
done
sia,
Sri
Lan
ka,
Tha
ilan
d,C
hina
, V
ietn
am
Col
onia
lgo
vern
men
ts/
FE
LD
A/
RIS
DA
/M
RB
/ R
RIM
/ IR
B/
RR
II/
OR
RA
F/ R
RIT
/R
RIS
L/
VR
A
Inte
grat
ion
ofpr
oduc
tion
, p
rim
ary
proc
essi
ng,
prod
uct
deve
lopm
ent,
who
le-
sale
mar
keti
ng a
ndex
port
s ac
tivi
ties
(a)
Em
ploy
men
t ge
nera
tion
(b)
Eco
nom
icgr
owth
(c)
Mon
ocul
ture
ori
enta
tion
/ ca
rbon
sequ
estr
atio
n(d)
Pro
cess
and
pro
duct
was
tege
nera
tion
, (e
) P
ollu
tion
pro
blem
s- d
edic
ated
envi
ronm
enta
l m
anag
emen
t sy
stem
s in
pla
ce
2.
Smal
l and
Med
ium
Far
mer
Rub
ber D
evel
opm
ent m
odel
(SM
FRD
M) [
dom
inan
t mod
el si
nce
1940
s – g
oing
to st
ay in
the
futu
re w
ith fe
w e
xcep
tions
] 2
. Sm
all a
nd M
ediu
m F
arm
er R
ubbe
r Dev
elop
men
t mod
el (S
MFR
DM
) [do
min
ant m
odel
sinc
e 19
40s –
goi
ng to
stay
in th
e fu
ture
with
few
exc
eptio
ns]
2.
Smal
l and
Med
ium
Far
mer
Rub
ber D
evel
opm
ent m
odel
(SM
FRD
M) [
dom
inan
t mod
el si
nce
1940
s – g
oing
to st
ay in
the
futu
re w
ith fe
w e
xcep
tions
] 2
. Sm
all a
nd M
ediu
m F
arm
er R
ubbe
r Dev
elop
men
t mod
el (S
MFR
DM
) [do
min
ant m
odel
sinc
e 19
40s –
goi
ng to
stay
in th
e fu
ture
with
few
exc
eptio
ns]
2.
Smal
l and
Med
ium
Far
mer
Rub
ber D
evel
opm
ent m
odel
(SM
FRD
M) [
dom
inan
t mod
el si
nce
1940
s – g
oing
to st
ay in
the
futu
re w
ith fe
w e
xcep
tions
]
Pla
ntat
ions
are
smal
l an
dm
argi
nal
hold
ings
bel
ow20
ha
(maj
orit
ybe
ing
belo
w 2
ha-
aver
age
of 1
ha &
bel
ow i
nIn
dian
sta
tes,
incl
udin
g N
ER
Mal
aysi
a, I
ndia
,T
hail
and,
Chi
na,
Indo
nesi
a,B
angl
ades
h, L
aoP
DR
, C
ambo
dia,
Mya
nmar
,V
ietn
am
Gov
ernm
ent
agen
cies
/S
tate
Far
ms
in C
hina
[70-
73%
as
of 2
004-
farm
ers
wor
k as
prod
ucti
on w
orke
rson
con
trac
ted
farm
s]/
Com
mod
ity
Boa
rds
(MR
B/
RB
/ C
RR
I/O
RR
AF
)/ R
ubbe
rP
rodu
cer
Co-
oper
ativ
es/
Blo
ck o
rG
roup
Pla
ntin
g U
nits
Indi
vidu
al a
ndC
olle
ctiv
e (c
o-op
erat
ive)
sys
tem
sof
pro
duct
ion,
proc
essi
ng a
ndm
arke
ting
(a)
Mos
t in
clus
ive
mod
el w
ith p
rovi
sion
of
empl
oym
ent,
live
liho
od s
uppo
rt t
o th
e pl
anta
tion
bas
ed c
omm
unit
ies
dire
ctly
and
ind
irec
tly;
(b)
Tho
ugh
envi
ronm
enta
lly
soun
d w
ays
of p
rodu
ctio
n an
d pr
oces
sing
ar
e av
aila
ble,
com
plia
nce
is o
ften
fou
nd t
o be
mis
sing
; (c
) M
onoc
ultu
reor
ient
atio
n is
a t
hrea
t to
the
pre
and
co-
exis
ting
land
use
syst
ems,
eco
logi
cal
and
hydr
olog
ical
reg
imes
; (
d) B
ut,
ther
e ar
e su
stai
nabl
e sm
allh
olde
r ag
ro-f
ores
try
mod
els
as e
xist
in
Indo
nesi
a (J
ungl
e R
ubbe
r),
inte
grat
ion
offo
od c
rop
prod
ucti
on a
nd o
ther
liv
elih
ood
(fis
hery
,li
vest
ock,
fru
it t
ree
prod
ucti
on)
syst
ems
in T
hail
and-
rubb
er p
rodu
ctio
n in
the
NE
R o
ffer
s a
maj
or p
oten
tial
in t
his
case
(e)
iss
ues
in s
hari
ng o
f ca
rbon
cre
dit
bene
fits
17
Not
es:
MR
B- M
alay
sian
Rub
ber B
oard
; OR
RA
F - O
ffic
e of
Rub
ber R
epla
ntin
g A
id F
und;
IRB
– In
dian
Rub
ber B
oard
; RR
II –
Rub
ber
Res
earc
h In
stitu
te o
f In
dia;
RR
ISL
– R
ubbe
r R
esea
rch
Inst
itute
of
Sri L
anka
; RR
IT –
Rub
ber
Res
earc
h In
stitu
te o
f T
haila
nd;
VR
A –
Vie
tnam
Rub
ber
Ass
ocia
tion.
CR
RI
– C
ambo
dia
Rub
ber
Res
earc
h In
stitu
te;
RR
IM-
Rub
ber
Res
earc
h In
stitu
te o
fM
alay
sia;
FE
LD
A –
Fed
eral
Lan
d D
evel
opm
ent A
utho
rity
(M
alay
sia)
; RIS
DA
- R
ubbe
r In
dust
ry S
mal
lhol
ders
’ Dev
elop
men
tA
utho
rity
(M
alay
sia)
.
Sour
ce:
Aut
hors
’ com
pila
tion
base
d on
var
ious
rubb
er p
lant
atio
n re
late
d st
udie
s, in
clud
ing
Vis
wan
atha
n, 2
006;
200
8 &
2013
; Bye
rlee
, et
al.,
2014
.
Pla
ntat
ions
deve
lope
d by
fore
ign
owne
dco
mpa
nies
/ F
DI
thro
ugh
land
conc
essi
ons
obta
ined
fro
mth
e do
nor
coun
trie
s –
aver
age
size
of
land
con
cess
ions
rang
e be
twee
n50
00 –
100
00 h
aad
mea
suri
ngm
ore
than
20-
50he
ctar
es (
aver
age
size
ran
ging
fro
m20
0 ha
-200
0 ha
)[V
isw
anat
han,
20
13
]
3.
3.
3.
3.
3. A
gri-
bA
gri-
bA
gri-
bA
gri-
bA
gri-
b usi
ness
Rub
ber
De
usin
ess
Rub
ber
De
usin
ess
Rub
ber
De
usin
ess
Rub
ber
De
usin
ess
Rub
ber
De vvvv v
elop
men
t m
odel
(A
BR
DM
) [n
eel
opm
ent
mod
el (
AB
RD
M)
[ne
elop
men
t m
odel
(A
BR
DM
) [n
eel
opm
ent
mod
el (
AB
RD
M)
[ne
elop
men
t m
odel
(A
BR
DM
) [n
e wly
de
wly
de
wly
de
wly
de
wly
de vvvv v
elop
ed a
nd y
et e
mer
elop
ed a
nd y
et e
mer
elop
ed a
nd y
et e
mer
elop
ed a
nd y
et e
mer
elop
ed a
nd y
et e
mer
ging
mod
el]
ging
mod
el]
ging
mod
el]
ging
mod
el]
ging
mod
el]
Lao
PD
R,
Cam
bodi
a an
dM
yanm
arac
coun
t fo
ral
mos
t 60
%(1
.74
mil
lion
ha)
of t
he t
otal
glob
al a
rea
ofco
nces
sion
sun
der
rubb
er(2
.95
mil
lion
ha)
[Bye
rlee
et
al.,
20
14
]
Pri
vate
inv
esto
rs/
firm
s/ n
atio
nals
fro
mC
hina
, V
ietn
am a
ndT
hail
and
wit
h lo
ansu
ppor
t fr
omIn
tern
atio
nal
fina
ncia
lfi
rms
Bul
k of
the
rub
ber
outp
ut m
arke
ted
toex
port
ori
ente
dfi
rms
in C
hina
,V
ietn
am a
ndT
hail
and
afte
rpr
imar
ypr
oces
sing
(a)
Lea
st i
nclu
sive
in
term
s of
gro
wth
in
the
coun
trie
sof
feri
ng t
he l
and
conc
essi
ons,
exc
ept
the
empl
oym
ent
bene
fits
;
(b)
The
sur
ge i
n la
nd c
once
ssio
ns h
as l
ed t
o is
sues
of
nega
tive
soc
ial
and
envi
ronm
enta
l im
pact
s.
(c)
Poo
rly
defi
ned
prop
erty
rig
hts
lead
to
man
y cl
aim
sof
ove
rlap
ping
lan
d ri
ghts
and
dis
plac
emen
t of
exi
stin
gus
ers,
dis
plac
emen
t of
liv
esto
ck c
omm
unit
ies
(the
cas
eof
Lao
PD
R)
[Vis
wan
atha
n, 2
013]
;
(d)
Lan
d is
sues
oft
en l
ead
to c
onfl
ict
(in
Cam
bodi
ala
nd i
ssue
s w
ere
surf
aced
in
2013
ele
ctio
ns t
hat
even
shar
ply
redu
ced
the
supp
ort
to t
he l
ong
ruli
ng p
arty
[Bye
rlee
et
al.,
2014
].
18
2.1.2.1.2.1.2.1.2.1. Institutional Interventions for Rubber Development in India:Institutional Interventions for Rubber Development in India:Institutional Interventions for Rubber Development in India:Institutional Interventions for Rubber Development in India:Institutional Interventions for Rubber Development in India:
A Comparative Perspective of Kerala and NERA Comparative Perspective of Kerala and NERA Comparative Perspective of Kerala and NERA Comparative Perspective of Kerala and NERA Comparative Perspective of Kerala and NER
In this regard, we present an overview of the specific institutional
interventions in the development of rubber smallholder sector in India
under the aegis of the Rubber Board since its formation in 1954 under
the Rubber (Production and Marketing) Act 1947.
In India, rubber plantations were first established in the
southernmost state of Kerala as early as 1902 by the colonial government.
The period since Independence had witnessed tremendous expansion
of rubber plantations in the southern states, dominated by Kerala,
Tamilnadu and Karnataka (traditional regions), following the setting up
of the Rubber Board in 1954 and the Rubber Research Institute of India
in 1955 under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The process of
development of rubber plantations gathered momentum in the traditional
regions in the 1960s through 1980s under this institutional and policy
support regime leading to the emergence of a dynamic smallholder
sector in the country. Apparently, the growth of the rubber smallholder
sector in Kerala, in particular, has been contingent upon the institutional
architecture created under the aegis of the Rubber Board and the R&D
support system provided by the Rubber Research Institute of India
(George, et al., 1988; Viswanathan, and Shivakoti, 2007; 2008).
The institutional architecture comprising an array of smallholder
support measures, broadly called as Rubber Plantation Development
(RPD) schemes ranging from planting (new planting and replanting)
subsidies to market protection (Box 1), had attracted a large segment of
the enterprising native peasantry to take up rubber cultivation as the
major source of livelihood. This was also facilitated by a host of political,
socio-economic and institutional factors, including the land reforms,
besides the favourable agro-climatic conditions prevailed in Kerala.
Over time, the dynamic smallholder sector has far exceeded the estate
sector in area and production of rubber and currently, the share of the
smallholdings is as high as 89% in area and 93% in production of
rubber (Viswanathan and Shah, 2012; 2013).
19
While area under rubber cultivation had relentlessly continued in
the traditional regions, especially, Kerala, the need for expanding it
onto the non-traditional regions became imperative ever since the late
1980s. This was mainly due to: (a) the ever increasing domestic demand
for natural rubber from the manufacturing sector (dominated by tyre
industry); and (b) the saturation of agro-climatically suitable lands in
the traditional regions, especially, Kerala. In the process of expansion,
the North Eastern states have been identified as the potential regions
due to the agro-climatic suitability of the region. Hence, efforts had
been on especially since late 1980s to develop rubber plantations in the
NER, which was also legitimized by the national government in terms
of the perceived developmental goals that the rubber development
programmes would bring forth social and economic upliftment and
mainstreaming of the tribal communities in the NE region, a vast majority
of whom have otherwise been allegedly engaged in shifting cultivation
practices, as observed.
1. Newplanting and Replanting subsidies
2. Provision of Inputsubsidies; Setting up orfinancial assistance toRubber Nurseries;Promotion of scientificfarming practices andplant protectionmeasures
The scale of assistance provided: Rs.19500/ ha for traditional regions andRs.22,500/ ha for non-traditionalregions, including NER. Subsidyprovided in 6 annual installments.Rubber Board also facilitates financialcredit from commercial banks.
Box 1: Important Institutional Interventions of Rubber Board in IndiaBox 1: Important Institutional Interventions of Rubber Board in IndiaBox 1: Important Institutional Interventions of Rubber Board in IndiaBox 1: Important Institutional Interventions of Rubber Board in IndiaBox 1: Important Institutional Interventions of Rubber Board in India
Support measures Details
For purchase of planting materials,fertilizer, material inputs, sprayers,setting up of smoke house, purchaseof rubber roller, weed cutter, etc.Growers in non-traditional regions areeligible for reimbursement of cost ofplanting materials and transportationgrant @ Rs. 4000/ha.
table cont'd....
20
The current scenario of development of rubber plantations in India
is quite revealing in that the share of traditional regions (southern states,
dominated by Kerala) had declined from almost 100% during 1960-61
to 82% during 2011-12 (Table 2). On the other hand, the share of the
NER (comprising 7 states) had almost doubled from mere 7% to almost
18% during the last two decades. More importantly, there was almost
four-fold increase in rubber area in the North Eastern states in absolute
terms from 33619 ha (1990-91) to 1,28,470 ha (2011-12).
3. Formation ofFarmer GroupsandEmpowerment
4. Training in RubberGrowing, Tappingand Processing
5. Primary Processing,Marketing, ProductDevelopment andExports of rubber
6. Price StabilizationFund (PSF)
7. Other schemes ofgeneral nature
Technical and financial support for setting upof Rubber Producers’ (Growers’) Societies(RPS/RGS); Block Planting Units (RPUs);Group Processing Centres (GPCs); WomenSelf Help Groups (SHGs); Rubber Agro-Management Units (RAMUs), etc.
Tappers Training Schools (TTS) have beenestablished for imparting training on scientificways of rubber tapping. Growers from Non-traditional regions are given training in rubbergrowing, tapping and processing.
Networking of Rubber Producers Societieswith the Private Rubber Companies formarketing and trade of processed rubber.
PSF is a Trust Fund under the aegis of theNABARD and aims to provide income supportto rubber growers when price of rubber fallsbelow remunerative level.
Award for best RPS; Award for best rubbergrower; Commercial Promotion of rubberhoney and rubber wood; Promotion of rubberbased industries.
Source: Compiled from: Rubber Plantation Development Scheme (PhaseVI Rules): Newplanting & Replanting Components 2007-08 –
2011-12 [www. rubberboard.org.in].
Support measures Details
21TTTT T
able
2:
Sta
tus
of r
ubbe
r pl
anta
tion
de
able
2:
Sta
tus
of r
ubbe
r pl
anta
tion
de
able
2:
Sta
tus
of r
ubbe
r pl
anta
tion
de
able
2:
Sta
tus
of r
ubbe
r pl
anta
tion
de
able
2:
Sta
tus
of r
ubbe
r pl
anta
tion
de vvvv v
elop
men
t in
Ind
ia (
Are
a in
ha)
elop
men
t in
Ind
ia (
Are
a in
ha)
elop
men
t in
Ind
ia (
Are
a in
ha)
elop
men
t in
Ind
ia (
Are
a in
ha)
elop
men
t in
Ind
ia (
Are
a in
ha)
Yea
rK
eral
aTa
miln
adu
&So
uthe
rn S
tate
sN
orth
Eas
tern
Oth
er s
tate
sBA
ll In
dia
Kar
nata
ka S
tate
sA
1960
-61
1358
09 (
94.4
)79
15 (
5.5)
1437
24 (
99.9
)—
-18
1 (0
.13)
1439
05 (
100)
1990
-91
4078
21 (
85.8
)31
145
(6.6
)43
8966
(92
.4)
3361
9 (7
.1)
2498
(0.
53)
4750
83 (
100)
2000
-01
4743
65 (
84.3
)38
445
(6.8
)51
2810
(91
.1)
4688
5 (8
.3)
2975
(0.
53)
5626
70 (
100)
2006
-07
5022
40 (
81.6
)45
268
(7.4
)54
7508
(89
.0)
6488
3 (1
0.6)
2809
(0.
46)
6152
00 (
100)
2007
-08
5120
45 (
80.6
)48
240
(7.6
)56
0396
(88
.2)
7148
0 (1
1.2)
3524
(0.
55)
6354
00 (
100)
2011
-12
5395
65 (
73.4
)61
378
(8.4
)60
0943
(81
.8)
1284
70 (
17.5
)53
67 (
0.73
)73
4780
(10
0)
Not
e: F
igur
es i
n pa
rent
hese
s ar
e re
spec
tive
shar
es a
t th
e A
ll In
dia
leve
l. A
- N
orth
Eas
tern
sta
tes
com
pris
e of
Ass
am,
Meg
hala
ya,
Tri
pura
, A
runa
chal
Pra
desh
, N
agal
and,
Sik
kim
and
Man
ipur
. B
- O
ther
sta
tes
incl
ude
Mah
aras
htra
,O
riss
a, A
ndhr
a, a
nd W
est B
enga
l.
Sour
ce:
Vis
wan
atha
n an
d Sh
ah, 2
013.
22TTTT T
able
3:
able
3:
able
3:
able
3:
able
3:
Rel
ativ
e sh
are
of m
ajor
cro
ps i
n cr
oppe
d ar
ea a
nd t
he g
ross
val
ue o
f ag
ricu
ltur
al o
utpu
t in
Ker
ala,
Rel
ativ
e sh
are
of m
ajor
cro
ps i
n cr
oppe
d ar
ea a
nd t
he g
ross
val
ue o
f ag
ricu
ltur
al o
utpu
t in
Ker
ala,
Rel
ativ
e sh
are
of m
ajor
cro
ps i
n cr
oppe
d ar
ea a
nd t
he g
ross
val
ue o
f ag
ricu
ltur
al o
utpu
t in
Ker
ala,
Rel
ativ
e sh
are
of m
ajor
cro
ps i
n cr
oppe
d ar
ea a
nd t
he g
ross
val
ue o
f ag
ricu
ltur
al o
utpu
t in
Ker
ala,
Rel
ativ
e sh
are
of m
ajor
cro
ps i
n cr
oppe
d ar
ea a
nd t
he g
ross
val
ue o
f ag
ricu
ltur
al o
utpu
t in
Ker
ala,
dist
rict
-wis
edi
stri
ct-w
ise
dist
rict
-wis
edi
stri
ct-w
ise
dist
rict
-wis
e
Dis
tric
tR
elat
ive
shar
e of
maj
or c
rops
inR
elat
ive
shar
e of
maj
or c
rops
in G
ross
val
ue o
f ag
ri. O
utpu
t (%
)G
ross
Cro
pped
Are
a (%
)R
ice
Coc
onut
Rub
ber
Ric
eC
ocon
utR
ubbe
r20
03-0
420
07-0
820
03-0
420
07-0
820
03-0
420
07-0
8T
VM
1.8
43.9
18.4
1.7
0.7
43.2
26.1
25.0
40.4
KL
M2.
335
.021
.42.
70.
834
.418
.030
.942
.9PT
A2.
616
.449
.02.
40.
514
.36.
261
.466
.8A
LPZ
A32
.537
.04.
121
.418
.956
.135
.97.
614
.1K
TY
M5.
116
.152
.02.
72.
112
.96.
070
.879
.6ID
KI
0.7
6.2
13.8
0.9
0.6
6.3
2.7
23.7
32.7
ER
NK
M7.
225
.832
.57.
02.
124
.112
.049
.563
.3T
RIS
R16
.144
.38.
513
.99.
555
.135
.218
.032
.6PL
KD
30.6
18.8
11.1
27.4
22.4
25.1
12.3
25.8
35.8
ML
PM4.
543
.615
.24.
11.
845
.524
.222
.237
.8K
ZK
D2.
059
.19.
81.
10.
865
.440
.915
.233
.9W
YN
D6.
75.
84.
96.
35.
36.
13.
86.
610
.8K
NR
3.6
36.5
19.9
2.1
1.5
38.9
19.2
30.7
51.1
KSG
D3.
637
.521
.11.
81.
147
.717
.819
.932
.8K
ER
AL
A8.
729
.219
.25.
94.
132
.716
.231
.345
.3
Sour
ce:
Vis
wan
atha
n, 2
014.
23
One of the important outcomes of the institutional interventions
in case of rubber in Kerala’s agricultural landscape was the emergence
of rubber as the second major crop in the state after coconut in terms of
relative share in land area. In fact, rubber occupied almost 20% of the
gross cropped area (the share of coconut being 29%) during 2009-10
(GOK, 2011).
The impacts of the institutional interventions of the Rubber Board
have been quite dramatic in Kerala over time, with the result that the
relative share of rubber in area as well as gross value of agricultural
output (GVAO) had grown in all the districts, except Alapuzha and
Wyanad with respect to share in gross cropped area as evident from
Table 3.
Apparently, while the relative share of rubber in gross cropped
area seems to have outpaced that of coconut in four districts, its share in
gross value of agricultural output has grown over coconut in 11 of the
14 districts (exceptions being Alapuzha, Thrissur and Kozhikode).
3.3.3.3.3. Institutional Interventions in Rubber Development and Outcomes Institutional Interventions in Rubber Development and Outcomes Institutional Interventions in Rubber Development and Outcomes Institutional Interventions in Rubber Development and Outcomes Institutional Interventions in Rubber Development and Outcomesin the NER with Specifin the NER with Specifin the NER with Specifin the NER with Specifin the NER with Specific Reference to ic Reference to ic Reference to ic Reference to ic Reference to TTTTTripura, Meripura, Meripura, Meripura, Meripura, Meghalaya andghalaya andghalaya andghalaya andghalaya andAssamAssamAssamAssamAssam
A closer look at the latest data on rubber planted area and rubber
production as presented in Table 4 reveals that the NER accounts for
about 19% of the planted area while the contribution of the region to
rubber production at the national level is only 6%. This sharp contrast
in area and production shares of NER in other words depicts that a large
chunk of the rubber plantations are new plantations that have been
established during the last 5-6 years. This also suggests that the share of
the NER in production would be more than doubled during the next 5-
6 years once these young plantations attain tappability. Based on the
emerging scenario, it may also be noted that the country’s future prospects
in rubber production would largely be determined by the expansion of
rubber in the NER.
24
TTTTTable 4:able 4:able 4:able 4:able 4: State-wise total area and production of rubber in India State-wise total area and production of rubber in India State-wise total area and production of rubber in India State-wise total area and production of rubber in India State-wise total area and production of rubber in Indiaduring 2012-13during 2012-13during 2012-13during 2012-13during 2012-13
State/ Region Total rubber Total rubber
area(ha) Production (%)share
(%)share (tonnes)
1. Kerala 545030 71.95 800050 87.56
2. Tamilnadu 20770 2.74 25350 2.77
3. Karnataka 44900 5.93 31250 3.42
4. Tripura 67730 8.94 33220 3.64
5. Assam 43335 5.72 11740 1.28
6. Meghalaya 12865 1.70 7110 0.78
7. Rest of India 22890 3.02 4980 0.55
All India 757520 100.0 913700 100.0
NE Region 141035 18.62 55280 6.05
Source: Rubber Board (2013): Rubber Statistical News, 72 (6)
[November].
In rest of the section, we attempt to make an assessment of the
institutional interventions in rubber development by the Rubber Board
and other institutional agencies, including the state agencies in the
context of Tripura, Meghalaya and Assam.
3.1. Institutional Interv3.1. Institutional Interv3.1. Institutional Interv3.1. Institutional Interv3.1. Institutional Interventions for Rubber Deentions for Rubber Deentions for Rubber Deentions for Rubber Deentions for Rubber Devvvvvelopment in elopment in elopment in elopment in elopment in TTTTTripuraripuraripuraripuraripura
Tripura leads among the non-traditional rubber growing regions
of India. Initiated by the state forest department (SFD) fifty years back as
part of afforestation, rubber plantations have now emerged as an engine
of growth for the state contributing around Rs. 600 crores per annum
which is approximately 3 to 3.5 percent of the Gross State Domestic
Product (GSDP) of Tripura. The growth of commercial rubber plantations
in Tripura was initially at the behest of the state initiatives. Tripura
characterised by low levels of industrialisation, poor connectivity, and
inflated population has been in quest for economic activities that can
25
effectively create employment opportunities for the heterogeneous
sections of the people living across its undulated lands. In a historical
perspective, the state Forest Department introduced rubber trees in
Tripura in 1963. Patichhari in South Tripura and Manu in North Tripura
had the earliest plantations as part of afforestation programme.
Encouraged by the success of these experimental plantations, the state
forest department (SFD) sought to expand plantation cover. Sensing an
opportunity for extension, the Rubber Board set up its one man field
office in 1967. Nonetheless, being a new commercial crop hitherto
unfamiliar in Tripura, rubber was subjected to diverse tests from various
quarters of the state and the society. Often, it was abandoned due to
misunderstanding and rejection. Hence, though extension activities
began at an increasing rate, it was mostly confined to the public sector.
The state government realised that rubber plantations apart from
being a source of revenue also had the potential as a viable means for
resettlement of the landless shifting cultivators. The Tripura Forest
Development & Plantation Corporation (TFDPC) was formed in 1976-
77 and was entrusted with the management and operational activity of
the existing plantations of the state forest department. Alongside, the
corporation was assigned to undertake the rehabilitation of the landless
jhum cultivators. The first rubber based rehabilitation package,
undertaken by TFDPC, came up in 1976 at Warrangbari, West Tripura.
The programme offered a maximum of 1.5 ha of rubber plantation with
the owner himself providing the labour. Buoyed at the growing stature
of NR in Tripura, the Rubber Board set up its regional office in 1979 at
Agartala and subsequently Nucleus Rubber Estate and Training Centre
(NRETC) was established in 1984 with the Jt. Rubber Production
Commissioner, Rubber Board as the administrative head under the
scheme of Accelerated Rubber Development (ARD) in the North-East.
Subsequently Regional offices at Udaipur (in South Tripura district)
and Dharmanagar (in North Tripura district) were set up in 1988 and
1994 respectively (Paribalan, 2006).
26
The rubber development and extension activity of the Rubber
Board comprising of free distribution of planting materials (i.e. polybag
& budded stumps), provisions for maintenance cost, fencing materials
and technical advice saw the emergence of increasing number of private
plantations also. Moreover, with the Cash Subsidy Scheme introduced
by the Rubber Board in 1980, augmentation of new plantation occurred
in Tripura. This scheme of financial subsidy and the success of the
rehabilitation programme of the TFDPC encouraged the state government
to establish the Tripura Rehabilitation & Plantation Corporation (TRPC)
in 1983 with the specific objective of settlement of landless tribal people
for reclamation of lands under Jhum cultivation.
Subsequently, the “Tripura Block Plantation Project” has been
introduced in 1992-93 for the settlement of tribal families in
collaboration with the Rubber Board and the Department of Tribal
Welfare, Govt. of Tripura with sponsorship from the World Bank. Two
more agencies to implement rubber plantations- the office of the Tripura
Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC) and the office of
the Sub-divisional Magistrates (SDM) were added in the pursuance of
the rubber based development and rehabilitation scheme from 1998.
On the other hand, the Rubber Board with its increased official
strength in the state pursued its policy of extension among the private
growers. The economic reforms and the succeeding industrial spurt in the
early 1990s resulted in a spectacular rise in the prices of NR particularly in
1994 and 1995 attracted a lot of private initiatives. The subsequent
depression in the international rubber market in the late 1990s had a toll on
the rubber economy of Tripura and the growth was unstable. However, the
international NR sector indicated a revival since 2001, which naturally resulted
in renewed interest for rubber plantations among the private sector investors.
The state government realising the potential of NR as an instrument
for development, in 2006, constituted “the Tripura Rubber Mission in
the Forest Department with the objectives to bring a total of 85094 ha
27
land under rubber cultivation in the next 20 years” (GOT, 2006). The
new areas were supposed to include both non-forest as well as degraded
forestland spread along the international border with Bangladesh and
by the side of the national and state highways (Bahuguna, 2005).
3.1.1. The Rehabilitation Model in Tripura3.1.1. The Rehabilitation Model in Tripura3.1.1. The Rehabilitation Model in Tripura3.1.1. The Rehabilitation Model in Tripura3.1.1. The Rehabilitation Model in Tripura
Generally, the resettlement scheme for the tribals encompasses
land occupancy rights over one hectare for a family with income accruing
to the beneficiary from the sale of rubber latex and the rubber sheets as
the trees start yielding. It may be noted that during the seven-year long
gestation period, known as immature stage, the beneficiary is employed
as a labourer in his own field for land development and production
augmenting activities on a wage basis. Further, he/she can pursue
intercropping of banana, pineapple and the like. He/ she is also entitled
to the subsidy provided by the Rubber Board and given technical support
and training in rubber tapping. Usually, each resettlement programmes
are done with number of beneficiaries clubbed together as a unit to
enjoy the economies of scale in the production process. This
rehabilitation model was utilised mutatis mutandis by other rehabilitating
agencies like the Department of Tribal Welfare and the Tripura Tribal
Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC) apart from the three
major agencies- TFDPC, TRPC and Rubber Board (Sinha, 2007).
Rubber based rehabilitation in Tripura has been a success story as
is evident by the numerous cases and reports about the improved life
and livelihood of erstwhile shifting cultivators (Pereira, 2009;
Chakraborty, 2012). Table 5 shows that the three major agencies adopting
the rehabilitation model have helped in the resettlement of more than
20000 tribal beneficiaries and these rehabilitated rubber growers, in
unison, holds control over almost one-third of the total rubber area in
Tripura. Thus, it may be observed that the rehabilitation model adopted
by the major public agencies of the state has created the foundation for
the rubber success story that the state showcases.
28
TTTTTable 5: Rubber based rehabilitation by major deable 5: Rubber based rehabilitation by major deable 5: Rubber based rehabilitation by major deable 5: Rubber based rehabilitation by major deable 5: Rubber based rehabilitation by major devvvvvelopment agencieselopment agencieselopment agencieselopment agencieselopment agenciesin in in in in TTTTTripuraripuraripuraripuraripura
Agency Total Total Area (%) share
Beneficiaries (ha)
(Numbers)
1. TFDPC 3250 3268 16.6
2. TRPC 7285 6600 33.5
3. Rubber Board 9778 9845 49.9
Total (3 agencies) 20313 19713 100.0
Notes: There are other smaller agencies like TTAADC and office of the
SDM pursuing rubber based rehabilitation, but their contribution
is much lesser
Source: Annon. (2012a), Annon. (2012b), Rubber Board (2013).
The initiatives of the state government in setting up the two major
agencies for rehabilitation deserve some mention in this regard.
3.1.1.a. TFDPC Ltd.3.1.1.a. TFDPC Ltd.3.1.1.a. TFDPC Ltd.3.1.1.a. TFDPC Ltd.3.1.1.a. TFDPC Ltd.
Tripura Forests Development & Plantation Corporation Ltd.
(TFDPC Ltd.) is the pioneer in the state that launched the rubber
development as a source of economic settlement of jhumias. The TFDPC
model explored the possibilities of resettlement of landless jhum
cultivators through rubber plantations. This has been a major success
and beneficiaries of the scheme were given usufruct benefits. Thereafter,
rubber plantations were raised over 3178 ha of lands released by the
GOI involving 3200 beneficiaries. The success achieved by TFDPC
induced the state government to adopt rubber plantations as viable
economic activity for the tribal jhumias/shifting cultivators. The income
generated from rubber had increased over time from Rs. 10,000/- per
annum in the beginning to Rs. 15,000-16,000/- per month now. The
ownership of land remains with the state, whereas, usufructory benefits
29
are extended to beneficiaries. The plantations are allocated to the Jhumia
beneficiaries at 1 ha per family wherefrom they get the rights to collect
the rubber latex on a daily or alternate daily basis. The collected latex is
brought to TFDPC’s Resettlement centres, processed into sheet, dried
and smoked by the beneficiaries themselves. TFDPC procures the sheet/
scrap at a price determined based on the market rates and pursues further
marketing operations. TFDPC, remains the largest rubber growing unit
in Tripura.
3.1.1.b3.1.1.b3.1.1.b3.1.1.b3.1.1.b. . . . . TTTTTripura Réhabilitation Plantation Corporation Ltd.ripura Réhabilitation Plantation Corporation Ltd.ripura Réhabilitation Plantation Corporation Ltd.ripura Réhabilitation Plantation Corporation Ltd.ripura Réhabilitation Plantation Corporation Ltd.
Tripura Rehabilitation Plantation Corporation Limited (TRPC
Ltd) was set up on 3rd February, 1983 with the primary objective of
rehabilitating the Tribal Shifting Cultivators (Jhumias) and landless
people of Tripura through Rubber. The corporation helps the tribal
beneficiaries in setting up the plantation and as the trees mature, it
procures the latex from them and sells the processed rubber as sheets
and scraps in the market. TRPC has since then played a significant role
in expanding rubber plantations in Tripura including the rehabilitation
of the surrendered extremists after the peace accord between the state
government and the Tribal National Volunteers (TNV) in 1988-89. Till
date, the corporation has raised 6600 ha Rubber plantations benefiting
7285 jhumias. It is akin to the model of TFDPC for Jhumia rehabilitation,
but the difference lies in status of land. TFDPC raised plantations over
government lands whereas TRPC has raised plantations over private
lands with the funding support of the Tribal welfare department. The
beneficiaries are engaged as plantation workers during the immature
period of the plantations. The latex collected by the Beneficiaries is
purchased by the Corporation at a fixed price and is sold in the market
after processing. A beneficiary earns an average of Rs. 1.5-2.0 lakhs per
annum which is quite sufficient for a household to come out of poverty
within 3 to 5 years.
30
3.1.1.c. Block Planting Scheme (BPS) in Tripura3.1.1.c. Block Planting Scheme (BPS) in Tripura3.1.1.c. Block Planting Scheme (BPS) in Tripura3.1.1.c. Block Planting Scheme (BPS) in Tripura3.1.1.c. Block Planting Scheme (BPS) in Tripura
The Block Planting Scheme (BPS) was introduced by the Rubber
Board in Tripura in 1992 in three different units/blocks with a total area
of 113.99 ha (Rubber Board, 1992). Under the BPS, a compact land
(block) owned by SC/ST households is identified and the plantation is
raised by engaging family labour as wage earners. The important criteria
for raising a block planting unit (BPU) are: (i) minimum extent of land
available in each colony shall be around 50 ha.; (ii) the land shall be in
contiguous plots; (iii) tribal beneficiaries who own land should hand
over the land to the Rubber Board for a period of seven years; (iv)
assurance from beneficiaries for the engagement of family labour during
the immature phase; (v) the beneficiary should have the clear title to the
land; (vi) the extent of land ranges from around 1 ha to 2 ha; (vii)
formation of RPS after BPUs start yielding rubber; (viii) retention of the
plantation by Rubber Board for two more years after opening the trees
for stabilizing harvesting, processing and marketing procedures before
handing over the plots back to the beneficiaries; (ix) the financial
expenditure will be borne by the State Government and the Rubber
Board, while beneficiaries contributions are in the form of family labour
(Rubber Board, 1992; 1997; 2005). The compulsory engagement of
family labour as wage earners ensures employment and income to the
beneficiary households during the immature phase (Viswanathan and
George, 2005; Joseph et al., 2010). Figure 1 shows the increase in area
of rubber developed under the block planting scheme in Tripura.
However, the area planted under the BPS constituted hardly 9% of the
total rubber planted area during 2006-07.
31
Figure 1:Figure 1:Figure 1:Figure 1:Figure 1: Rubber planted Rubber planted Rubber planted Rubber planted Rubber planted Area under block planting scheme inArea under block planting scheme inArea under block planting scheme inArea under block planting scheme inArea under block planting scheme inTTTTTripura, 1992-93 to 2006-07ripura, 1992-93 to 2006-07ripura, 1992-93 to 2006-07ripura, 1992-93 to 2006-07ripura, 1992-93 to 2006-07
Source: Rubber Board Zonal Office, Guwahati.
The average household income from productive (mature) block
planting units (BPUs) was Rs. 99168 compared to Rs. 46824 of immature
(young rubber planted) BPUs, which indicates that there was an addition
of Rs. 52344 from rubber after plantations become productive. The
annual average value of household savings and assets was Rs. 41966
and Rs. 183278 respectively for members of BPUs after rubber
plantations start yielding (Joseph, et al., 2010).
3.1.2. Growth of Rubber Plantations in Tripura3.1.2. Growth of Rubber Plantations in Tripura3.1.2. Growth of Rubber Plantations in Tripura3.1.2. Growth of Rubber Plantations in Tripura3.1.2. Growth of Rubber Plantations in Tripura
Rubber plantations in Tripura are certainly younger compared to
those in the traditional regions (Kerala and others) even though it appears
to be one of the earliest among the non-traditional areas. Tripura reported
the existence of 103 hectares of rubber plantation in as early as 1973.
The initial years witnessed growth due to state initiatives, and response
from private sector was slow. However, the institutional support and
extension activities of the Rubber Board gave a major boost to the
private growers. In fact, the rubber stakeholders in Tripura are from
divergent sections and comprise of government agencies, petty business
32
persons, agriculturists, traders and government servants. Rubber farms
are also owned by residents/firms from other states or regions. Farms are
mostly small holdings, though the estates sector plantations account for
20 percent of the total rubber planted area.
It may be seen that within a span of 40 years, the area under rubber
has witnessed a quantum jump to around 60000 ha by 2012-13. The
steady increase in the area under rubber plantations in Tripura is visible
in Figure 2. The growth process however, has had occasional spurts as
we see that the volume of the incremental area has not been uniform
across the period. The first phase of growth in plantations started in the
late 1970s and peaked up in the late 1980s. It was a period of state
initiatives in the form of rehabilitation of landless shifting cultivators.
The process, as we know, was pioneered by TFDPC and then followed
up by TRPC. The growth in the 1990s had a significant contribution
from the Block Plantation Scheme of the Rubber Board, which was
funded as part of a World Bank Aided Project. However, the boom in the
NR prices in the world market has been the primary motivator behind
Figure 2: Figure 2: Figure 2: Figure 2: Figure 2: Area under Rubber Plantations in Area under Rubber Plantations in Area under Rubber Plantations in Area under Rubber Plantations in Area under Rubber Plantations in TTTTTripura (in ha.)ripura (in ha.)ripura (in ha.)ripura (in ha.)ripura (in ha.)
Source: Various issues of Indian Rubber Statistics
33
the huge increase in the new plantations in recent years. Almost 14000
hectares of new rubber plantations were raised in the three years
beginning from 2006-07 and the majority of them were by the private
sector. Table 6 presents the trends in rubber tapped area, production
and productivity over the past decade.
TTTTTable 6:able 6:able 6:able 6:able 6: TTTTTapped apped apped apped apped Area, and Production and ProductiArea, and Production and ProductiArea, and Production and ProductiArea, and Production and ProductiArea, and Production and Productivity of NR invity of NR invity of NR invity of NR invity of NR inTTTTTripuraripuraripuraripuraripura
Year Tapped Area Production Productivity
(ha) (MT) (kg/ha)
2000-01 11000 9980 907
2004-05 13184 15364 1165
2009-10 29737 26810 902
2010-11 31102 29698 955
2011-12 31977 32332 1011
2012-13 (P) 33344 36300 1089
Source: Rubber Board, Indian Rubber Statistics (various issues); Basic
Statistics of Tripura & Economic Review of Tripura
Tapped area has increased three fold from 11000 ha (2000-01) to
36300 ha (2012-13). Production of NR has also increased by more than
3.5 times during the same period from 9980 tonnes to 36300 tonnes in
the immediate past year. Production as expected is dependent on the
area under cultivation. The production of rubber in Tripura has been
growing over the years owing to the fact that more areas are attaining
the stage of maturity. During the same period however, the yield rates
exhibited wide fluctuations. The productivity of NR in Tripura was at a
peak in 2004-05, 1165 kgs/ hectare. Though there was notable increase
in rubber tapped area and production since then, the yield rates have
remained lower, recording the next highest at 1089 kg/ha during
2012-13.
34
3.1.3. Status of Rubber in the Agrarian Landscape of Tripura3.1.3. Status of Rubber in the Agrarian Landscape of Tripura3.1.3. Status of Rubber in the Agrarian Landscape of Tripura3.1.3. Status of Rubber in the Agrarian Landscape of Tripura3.1.3. Status of Rubber in the Agrarian Landscape of Tripura
As per the land use statistics of 2012-13, Tripura reported a gross
cropped area ratio of 45% out of the total geographical area of 1.05
million ha. However, the net cropped area was hardly 25%, though there
was a notable increase in cropping intensity from 176% to 186% between
2004-05 and 2012-13. The reported forest cover was 60%, recording a
4% increase over 2004-05. Tripura has constraints in terms of availability
of land for rubber expansion and a significant proportion of land (16%)
is not available for agricultural use or is left fallow. Moreover, with
growing urbanisation and developmental activities, more and more lands
are coming under non-agricultural use every year. Traditionally,
highlands in the state were used for jhum or shifting cultivation, while
settled farming and cultivation are found in the plains.
TTTTTable 7:able 7:able 7:able 7:able 7: Area under major crops in Area under major crops in Area under major crops in Area under major crops in Area under major crops in TTTTTripura between 2004-05 andripura between 2004-05 andripura between 2004-05 andripura between 2004-05 andripura between 2004-05 and2012-13 (hectares)2012-13 (hectares)2012-13 (hectares)2012-13 (hectares)2012-13 (hectares)
Crops 2004-05 % share 2012-13 (%) share1. Rice 256078 52.05 254743 53.702. Rubber 34686 7.05 61231 12.913. Coconut, Arecanut
& Cashewnut 13480 2.74 17776 3.754. Pineapple 4980 1.01 11840 2.505. Banana 5374 1.09 13580 2.866. Orange 2698 0.55 5280 1.117. Jackfruit 9032 1.84 9020 1.908. Pulses 8071 1.64 8439 1.789. Oilseeds 3939 0.80 4814 1.0110. Tea 8000 1.63 7500 1.5811. Potato 5280 1.07 8321 1.7512. Other crops* 140382 28.53 71834 15.14Total 492000 100.00 474378 100.00
Note: Other crops* - include maize, wheat, cotton, mango, oilseeds,mesta, jute, spices, lemon, fruits and vegetable crops.
Source: Various Issues of Economic Review of Tripura
35
Rice is the principal crop in the state while a variety of other crops
are also cultivated including fruits and vegetables. Plantation crops
like cashew, arecanut and coconut also have long traditions in the state.
However, compared to other crops, the rise in area under rubber has been
quite significant during the eight year period, as evident from Table 7.
In relative terms, the share of area under rubber in the gross cropped
area had increased from 7% during 2004-05 to almost 13% during 2012-
13. The almost doubling of the area under rubber during the period
seems to have corresponded with the decline in area under other crops,
including food crops, like wheat along with mesta, cotton and jute,
which are mainly grown in the plains lands. While this needs further
confirmation, consultations with stakeholders also indicate the felling
of various trees and groves, particularly in the highlands, known as
‘tilla’(in local parlance), clearing of natural vegetations, age old trees,
medicinal plants, etc for growing rubber. There have been several
instances of plantation of rubber trees encroaching forest lands,
authenticated by numerous reports of forest authorities taking punitive
action by cutting down the rubber trees. However, it should be noted
that rubber plantations are considered as a non-forestry activity implying
that it cannot be grown over Reserve Forest areas. The plantations
developed by the state forest department and TFDPC are known to be
on degraded forest lands.
3.1.4. Rubber Development and Improved Socio-economic Conditions3.1.4. Rubber Development and Improved Socio-economic Conditions3.1.4. Rubber Development and Improved Socio-economic Conditions3.1.4. Rubber Development and Improved Socio-economic Conditions3.1.4. Rubber Development and Improved Socio-economic Conditions
To understand the impact of rubber plantations on the life and
livelihood of the people of Tripura, we undertook a survey among a
representative sample of rubber growers in the state. The sample size 39,
was drawn from two most prominent rubber growing districts of Tripura-
Sepahijala and Gomati. The average family size of the rubber beneficiary
households was 5.51, even though the family size ranged from 3 to 11.
The sex ratio was 972, while 37% of the household members were
children.
36
Within the 39 rubber holdings, 3 belonged to the immature stage,
while the remaining 36 were in the matured phase. The age of the
plantation ranged from 5 to 27 years. The total plantation area under the
sample farms were 142.43 acres (56.97 ha). In all, there were 29004
trees, of which 45%, ie., 12955 trees were tapped.
Of the 39 surveyed farms, 28 farms (72%) have received at least
one kind of the various support provided by the Rubber Board. The
support provided by the Rubber Board included: a) planting material
to 14 units, b) labour wage during immature phase, c) fertiliser to 11
units, d) cash subsidy to 15 units among others, apart from tapping
support and material. Majority of the plantations were generally small
(72% below 4 acres), and from Figure 3, we find that 6 farms (15%) were
even smaller than 1 acre in size. The smallest plantation was of 0.5 acre
(0.2 ha), while the largest farm size was 15 acre (6 ha).
Figure 3: Distribution of sample growers based on rubber areaFigure 3: Distribution of sample growers based on rubber areaFigure 3: Distribution of sample growers based on rubber areaFigure 3: Distribution of sample growers based on rubber areaFigure 3: Distribution of sample growers based on rubber areaoperated [N=39]operated [N=39]operated [N=39]operated [N=39]operated [N=39]
Source: Field Survey.
37
It is obvious that with such small sized farms, these people had to
look for alternatives, to maintain their livelihoods. Rubber was not the
only source of income for any of them and rather apart from rubber
holdings, they also pursued other agricultural and horticultural activities.
We find that 77% of the farm owners had supplementary income/
resources from paddy cultivation, while pineapple gardens were in
possession of 26% of the respondents. The other supplementary crops
cultivated included- banana (15%), arecanut (10%), jackfruit (8%),
groundnut, lemon, and even tea. However, it was observed that all crops
thus produced were not for market but were mostly for household
consumption, particularly rice.
However, for rubber, it was purely commercial in nature. The total
rubber output of these units were 18082 kgs, which provided total
revenue of Rs. 31.38 Lakhs while the aggregate cost of cultivation was
Rs. 12.17 Lakhs providing a total business income of Rs. 19.21 Lakhs
to these households (Table 8).
TTTTTable 8: Economics of Rubber Cultiable 8: Economics of Rubber Cultiable 8: Economics of Rubber Cultiable 8: Economics of Rubber Cultiable 8: Economics of Rubber Cultivvvvvation [39 Sample fation [39 Sample fation [39 Sample fation [39 Sample fation [39 Sample farms]arms]arms]arms]arms]
Details 2011 2012
1 Mature holdings (Numbers) 20 35
2 Total Output (Kgs) NA 18082
3 Total Cost (Rs. Lakhs) 21.34 12.17
4 Total Income (Rs. Lakhs) 24.50 31.38
5 Business Income (Rs. Lakhs) 3.15 19.21
6 Average household benefit
from rubber (Rs.) 15770 54881
Note: Many farms had negative business income in 2011 as the trees
were in the immature stage.
Source: Field Survey.
38
The price of rubber, as informed by the households, have varied
from a low of Rs. 120 to a high of Rs. 180 in 2012 and 17 units opined
to have received Rs. 150 as the average price of rubber. Considering an
average yield of 1000 Kgs/ ha and the average price of Rs. 150/kg, the
annual returns are approximately Rs. 1,50,000/ ha for a rubber farm.
Since these farms are mainly run on family labour, the business income
is pretty high. In this context, we may note that a family depending
exclusively on jhum can at the most earn around Rs. 35000-40000 per
annum which is hardly one-quarter of the potential income from rubber.
Though jhum cultivation has been the way of life for the elder
generation and had remained as a habitual practice for few respondents
even after starting rubber cultivation, there was a decline in the practice
in recent years. Besides dwindling of productivity for jhum crops, costs
of cultivation have been on the rise. Moreover, since it was an annual
crop, the land had to be left fallow for most of the year. Some of the
respondents viewed that low productivity of jhum land had adversely
affected the profitability. A few say that they do not have time and
capital for jhuming. Rubber plantations provide income all through the
year which makes it a better alternative for shifting cultivation. Similarly,
the annual income accrued from one hectare of Barak bamboo plantation
is around Rs. 55,000 to Rs.60,000 while for Muli bamboo, the annual
income is hardly around Rs. 45,000 to Rs.50,000 per ha. Naturally,
these instances reiterate the gaining popularity of rubber in Tripura.
It is therefore not surprising that the rubber growers vouch for
rubber as it is a major source of income and has resulted in several
positive externalities, as reported in Table 9. All the farmers, except one
(who is yet to have income flow owing to immature plantation) believe
that the biggest positive contribution of rubber is its regular income
generation potential. Source of employment was found to be the second
39
major positive impact as reported by 44% of the respondents. Among
other positive impacts of rubber, are: (a) possession of long term assets;
(b) benefits of soil conservation and utilisation of barren fallow lands;
and (c) source for funding children education.
TTTTTable 9: Positiable 9: Positiable 9: Positiable 9: Positiable 9: Positivvvvve impact of rubber plantation [N=39]e impact of rubber plantation [N=39]e impact of rubber plantation [N=39]e impact of rubber plantation [N=39]e impact of rubber plantation [N=39]
No Positive impacts Responses (%)
1 Income source 97.44
2 Employment 43.59
3 Long term assets 15.38
4 Children education* 10.26
5 Soil conservation & utilisation of
fallow & barren lands 17.95
6 Honey / Apiary 5.13
Note: * One of the sample rubber grower’s son is reported to be pursuing
Ph. D in Tripura University.
Source: Field Survey.
The contribution of rubber in improving the human capital of the
state is immense. There are several cases of children of rubber growers
attaining their education at various parts of the state and the country
and pursuing a professional career. Moreover, the quality of life has also
been reported to be significantly improved, particularly among the
rehabilitated jhum cultivators. The assessment of the status of the
households in the pre and post rubber scenario is also quite revealing in
many respects (Table 10).
40TTTT T
able
10:
Sta
tus
of h
ouse
hold
s be
fore
and
aft
er r
ubbe
rab
le 1
0: S
tatu
s of
hou
seho
lds
befo
re a
nd a
fter
rub
ber
able
10:
Sta
tus
of h
ouse
hold
s be
fore
and
aft
er r
ubbe
rab
le 1
0: S
tatu
s of
hou
seho
lds
befo
re a
nd a
fter
rub
ber
able
10:
Sta
tus
of h
ouse
hold
s be
fore
and
aft
er r
ubbe
r
Sta
tus
Prio
r to
rub
ber
scen
ario
Post
rub
ber
scen
ario
1. H
ouse
hold
Inc
ome
Rs.
500
-150
0 pe
r m
onth
Rs.
100
00 -
1500
0 p
er m
onth
2. M
ain
occu
patio
nA
gric
ultu
ral
labo
ur,
daily
lab
our,
Reg
ular
wor
k in
rub
ber
plan
tatio
ns,
cut
ting
fore
sts,
sel
ling
fire
woo
d, t
appi
ng, p
roce
ssin
g, m
anag
ing
RPS
.
Jhu
m c
ultiv
atio
n
3. A
ttitu
de a
nd h
abits
Vul
nera
ble;
oft
en m
isgu
ided
Focu
s on
dev
elop
men
t/ so
cio-
econ
omic
upl
iftm
ent
by
anti
– so
cial
s.
4. E
duca
tion
Poo
r, la
rge
scal
e ill
itera
cyA
ppre
ciat
es t
he v
alue
of
educ
atio
n. I
mpr
oved
Lite
racy
5. W
ell
bein
gN
o sa
ving
hab
it, p
oor
heal
th,
Savi
ngs
in b
ank,
buy
ing
new
land
s, c
ultiv
atio
n of
rub
ber,
poor
hou
sing
, po
or c
loth
ing,
bet
ter
hous
ing,
clo
thin
g, b
ette
r nu
triti
on,
cons
umer
s
unde
r- n
utri
tion
dur
able
s. O
wne
d T
Vs,
Car
s an
d m
otor
bik
es.
6. V
illag
e In
fras
truc
ture
Non
- ex
iste
ntM
uch
impr
oved
- br
ick
road
s, e
lect
rici
ty, d
rink
ing
wat
er,
f
acili
ties
Ang
an W
adi
Cen
tres
and
Sch
ools
are
now
ava
ilabl
e
Sou
rce:
Pri
mar
y Su
rvey
, 201
3.
41
3.1.5. Health and En3.1.5. Health and En3.1.5. Health and En3.1.5. Health and En3.1.5. Health and Environmental Issuesvironmental Issuesvironmental Issuesvironmental Issuesvironmental Issues
At the same time, the farmer responses also highlight some of the
negative externalities they face owing to the raising of rubber plantations
in their vicinity (Figure 4). Almost 54% of the respondents apprehend
that rubber plantations cause changes in the local weather conditions.
Again, one-third of the respondents consider rubber as a cause for
increased disease and health problems mainly arising from the foul
smell during processing. Most of the negative impacts indicated by the
households are related to environment/ecology. In this context, it may
be noted that indiscriminate way of growing rubber may affect the micro-
climate and deter bio-diversity6. Though presence of more than 40 plant
species belonging to about 30 different families have been recorded in
a rubber plantation (Jacob, 2000), monoculture rubber always runs the
risk of diseases and damages, which has not received adequate attention
in the policy circles especially in this region, which is quite known for
its rich agri-biodiversity. This also calls for more empirical assessments
to better understand the interface between rubber plantations and the
agri-biodiversity of the region in particular.
Figure 4: Negative impact of rubber plantation [N=39]Figure 4: Negative impact of rubber plantation [N=39]Figure 4: Negative impact of rubber plantation [N=39]Figure 4: Negative impact of rubber plantation [N=39]Figure 4: Negative impact of rubber plantation [N=39]
Source: Field Survey, 2013.
42
3.1.6. Reasons for Relative Success of Rubber in Tripura3.1.6. Reasons for Relative Success of Rubber in Tripura3.1.6. Reasons for Relative Success of Rubber in Tripura3.1.6. Reasons for Relative Success of Rubber in Tripura3.1.6. Reasons for Relative Success of Rubber in Tripura
Rubber development in Tripura is a success story and rubber is
considered as a harbinger of development and peace in the state. The
possible reasons of such a success are discussed below:
a)a)a)a)a) Economic Economic Economic Economic Economic VVVVViability: iability: iability: iability: iability: The prime reason for the success of rubber
is the economic viability of the crop. The rate of returns has been
encouraging even at lower prices and has been higher than
comparable crops.
b)b)b)b)b) Effective Extension in the Production Efforts:Effective Extension in the Production Efforts:Effective Extension in the Production Efforts:Effective Extension in the Production Efforts:Effective Extension in the Production Efforts: The sustained
efforts of the Rubber Board seem to have enabled the rubber
producers achieve higher production and productivity. The
coordination between the Rubber Board and rubber promoting
agencies of the state (TFDPC, TRPC, etc) has also been
commendable and we observe that the beneficiaries have realised
the positive externalities. The input subsidy and cash subsidy
has been attractive to the growers and has been accepted in great
earnest by the rubber growers. The success was also emerge from
the fact that Rubber Board owing to its strong networking with
the growers has gained an edge over other central government
boards, like Coconut Development Board, Spice Board, Tea
Board, etc. The extension and farmer advisory activities in case
of other competing crops often suffer due to the inadequate number
of extension officials located in the field.
c)c)c)c)c) Institutional Support in Marketing: Institutional Support in Marketing: Institutional Support in Marketing: Institutional Support in Marketing: Institutional Support in Marketing: There are quite a number of
rubber traders in the state who act as the linkage between the
growers and the processing industry. The major rubber promoting
agencies also act as rubber trader and often act as a cushion to
ensure remunerative price to the grower7.
d)d)d)d)d) Decline in the Decline in the Decline in the Decline in the Decline in the TTTTTea Sector:ea Sector:ea Sector:ea Sector:ea Sector: Tripura has a long tradition of tea,
however, the sector is not performing well as most of the tea
43
plantation units are either sick or loss making. Since both the
crops have the potential to grow over undulated lands, tea could
have been a severe competitor of rubber, but such a scenario did
not occur. Rather, there have been efforts to plant rubber within
the boundaries of the tea plantations.
e)e)e)e)e) Uncertainty in Horticultural CropsUncertainty in Horticultural CropsUncertainty in Horticultural CropsUncertainty in Horticultural CropsUncertainty in Horticultural Crops: The area and production
of horticultural crops have increased over the years, but the rate
of growth has been lower than that of rubber not just for the
higher rate of returns but also because of the uncertainties
involved with the former. Being perishable in nature, horticultural
crops warrant efficient storage and transport system, which the
state lags. Rubber on the other hand, does not have such pull
back factors.
3.2. Institutional Interventions for Rubber Development in Meghalaya3.2. Institutional Interventions for Rubber Development in Meghalaya3.2. Institutional Interventions for Rubber Development in Meghalaya3.2. Institutional Interventions for Rubber Development in Meghalaya3.2. Institutional Interventions for Rubber Development in Meghalaya
The case of rubber development in Meghalaya has been quite
distinct in view of the extent of mobilisation and collective action
outcomes happened along the process of uptake of rubber cultivation
Figure 5: Figure 5: Figure 5: Figure 5: Figure 5: TTTTTrends in area and production of Natural Rubber inrends in area and production of Natural Rubber inrends in area and production of Natural Rubber inrends in area and production of Natural Rubber inrends in area and production of Natural Rubber inMeghalaya, 2000-2012Meghalaya, 2000-2012Meghalaya, 2000-2012Meghalaya, 2000-2012Meghalaya, 2000-2012
Source: Compiled from Rubber Statistical News, Rubber Board (various
issues).
44
by the tribal rubber growers in the Garo hills districts. As may be seen
from Figure 5, there was more than three-fold increase in rubber planted
area in Meghalaya during the last decade from mere 4000 ha (2000-01)
to about 13,000 ha during 2012-13. The corresponding increase in
rubber production was little more than four-fold, which increased from
1700 tonnes to 7100 tonnes during the same period.
One of the persisting problems encountered in the Garo Hills in
particular was the exploitative rural markets, which have been prevalent
ever since the pre-colonial times. Though evidences suggest that the
communities in the Garo, Khasi and Jaintia Hills were very active in the
periodic markets (Hats) at the interface of the hills and plains (Nair,
1986; Mohapatra, 1994), barter system was predominant especially in
the Garo Hills and the markets were controlled by the colonial powers to
serve their interests. This process continued under the zamindari system
as well, by which the communities were made economically dependent
on the markets for commodities which they never produced. There were
also no professional social groups of artisan or craftsmen, which hindered
the process of local mobilisation and social formation in the Garo Hills.
The zamindars also derived profit by advancing money to Garos and
thus securing to themselves an additional right of pre-emption to the
produce of the hills (Bhattacharjee1984: 198-199). Even the Nokmas8
were reportedly submissive to the zamindars, which, in turn, had broken
the kinship relations existed in the Garo society by reinforcing feudal
relations with the latter having greater control over the village affairs,
including the common property resources (Viswanathan, 2008).
A major impact of the agrarian relations existed in the Garo Hills
was the heavy indebtedness of the communities to the zamindari traders.
Moreover, due to the geophysical conditions and lack of infrastructure
facilities and absence of institutional arrangements including co-
operatives, the rural markets were highly localized and hence, the market
instruments such as pricing, backward and forward linkages, demand
45
and supply of commodities have always turned to the disadvantage of
the communities (Rajagopal, 2005).
In this context, the introduction of rubber in the Garo Hills in the
late 1980s had brought in drastic transformation in the villages. The
Garo Hills districts together occupy more than 70% of the total rubber
planted area in Meghalaya with average holding size ranging from 0.56
ha in East and North Garo Hills to 0.52 ha in West Garo Hills and 0.46 ha
in South Garo Hills. The initial responses towards adopting rubber was
not very much encouraging among the tribal communities due to lack
of awareness about the crop. However, the successful outcomes of regular
rubber output and higher profitability of rubber9 as achieved by the
non-tribal rubber growers in the neighbourhoods have motivated the
tribal communities to grow rubber (Viswanathan, 2008).
The rubber produced mostly as sheet rubber was initially marketed
through a three tier network of private traders operating as local level
dealers, town level dealers, and terminal market dealers, who are rubber
manufacturers or manufacturer-cum-exporters. As in Kerala and other rubber
growing states, the rubber marketing system is institutionalized in the
NER through the licensing system regulated by the Rubber Board. As per
the available information, there are 14 licensed rubber dealers in
Meghalaya as of 2010-11. However, following the expansion in rubber
area, there was a spurt in local trade in rubber with the entry of numerous
unlicensed petty traders to take advantage of the lack of poor transport
and infrastructure facilities in the Garo Hills. The local rubber dealers are
mostly non-tribal traders cum moneylenders who have greater access to
and control over the resources and the communities. As evident, there
were serious imperfections in the local rubber production and marketing
practices in Garo Hills in the initial years of rubber development due to
the lack of knowledge about rubber processing and the absence of
processing facilities. As the tribal communities were yet to come to terms
with the complexities of rubber production process, including its market
dynamics, the local dealers could buy rubber at cheaper prices from the
46
growers in the pretext of ‘high transaction costs’ and thereby earn high
marketing margins through the mere transaction of rubber from one end
to the other. The prevailing rubber marketing practices based on `visual
grading’ further enabled the local dealers to exploit the tribals by offering
lower prices for a `visually downgraded’ produce (Viswanathan, 2008).
The transactions of rubber and other agricultural produce were
taking place in the weekly market located far away from the tribal
settlements and the growers use to carry their produce as head loads in
the absence of transportation facilities. Obviously, growers were ignorant
of the actual price that a ‘industrial raw-material’ like rubber would
fetch in the market. This resulted in extreme situations of exploitation
and the growers were forced to sell rubber at ‘throw away’ prices. In fact,
growers in the EG Hills were receiving only Rs. 12 per kg of rubber
when the actual (officially notified) prices were Rs. 32-35 per kg during
1996-97. In most cases, the growers who carry their rubber as head loads
found it difficult to carry the stock back home. Further, the cash
requirements for buying essential food items made them sell their rubber
at the depressed prices. By contrast, prices of essentials, including rice,
sugar, oil, clothes, etc were kept very high by the traders to their advantage
in the pretext that these items had to be brought either from Tura in
Meghalaya or Guwahati in Assam, both located at more than 100 km
away from the Garo Hills. Surprisingly, the households had to buy
kerosene at Rs. 25 per litre when the actual price was only Rs. 11-12 per
litre (MMCS, 2003 as cited in Viswanathan, 2006). In view of these
double edged exploitative trade practices along with widespread
recourse to consumption loans, the tribals knowingly or unknowingly
were hard-pressed and deprived of the envisaged social welfare goals
intended by the rubber plantation development in the region. Though
institutional mechanisms are in place to regulate the exploitative trade
practices in the rubber markets through licensing as well as quality and
price controls, often the local dynamics seemed to outperform such
state mediated institutional arrangements.
47
It was in that context that the Mendipathar Multi-purpose Co-
operative Society (MMCS) was established (under the Meghalaya Co-
operative Societies Act 1971) in 1997 in Mendipathar village in
Resubelpara Development Block in the WG Hills (formerly part of EG
Hills). Initially, the objectives of the society were to effect an efficient
system for marketing the agricultural produce especially, rubber and
also empower the local communities through various development
activities and interventions. The initial working capital of the MMCS
was mobilized through a refundable share contribution from the Rubber
Board and deposits from tribal members who voluntarily contributed
Rs. 1.5 per kg of rubber sold to the society (Viswanathan, 2008).
The growth of the MMCS was quite dramatic over the past two
decades due to the overwhelming responses from the tribal communities,
who never had thought of mobilising themselves to counter the economic
deprivations they encountered. The membership in the society, which
primarily runs for the tribal rubber growers, had increased from 101
members in 1998 to 275 members by February 2014. Ever since it was
established in 1998, the society has emerged as the major trader of
rubber in the Garo Hills districts and almost all of the tribal rubber
growers in the Garo Hills have started trading their rubber with the
MMCS. The rubber is mainly processed as sheet rubber and growers sell
it as RSS IV or RSS V. The entire volume of rubber purchased by the
MMCS is sold to the leading manufacturers in Kolkata or Cochin
depending on the prices offered by the manufacturing firms. This system
of buy back arrangements with the manufacturing firms has been creating
win-win situations for both the rubber growers (and hence the MMCS)
and the manufacturers and most often, the rubber growers have been
able to get competitive prices for their produce on par with the prices
prevailed in Kottayam and Cochin rubber markets.
The results of the physical performance of the MMCS as well as
the income from rubber earned by the tribal rubber growers who are
members of Society are shown in Table 11.
48TTTT T
able
11:
Ph
able
11:
Ph
able
11:
Ph
able
11:
Ph
able
11:
Ph y
sica
l pe
rfor
man
ce o
f th
e M
MC
S a
nd t
he i
ncom
e fr
om r
ubbe
r sa
les
rece
iys
ical
per
form
ance
of
the
MM
CS
and
the
inc
ome
from
rub
ber
sale
s re
cei
ysic
al p
erfo
rman
ce o
f th
e M
MC
S a
nd t
he i
ncom
e fr
om r
ubbe
r sa
les
rece
iys
ical
per
form
ance
of
the
MM
CS
and
the
inc
ome
from
rub
ber
sale
s re
cei
ysic
al p
erfo
rman
ce o
f th
e M
MC
S a
nd t
he i
ncom
e fr
om r
ubbe
r sa
les
rece
i vvvv ved
by
the
mem
ber
gro
ed b
y th
e m
embe
r gr
oed
by
the
mem
ber
gro
ed b
y th
e m
embe
r gr
oed
by
the
mem
ber
gro w
ers
wer
sw
ers
wer
sw
ers
[thr
ee y
ear
aver
ages
][t
hree
yea
r av
erag
es]
[thr
ee y
ear
aver
ages
][t
hree
yea
r av
erag
es]
[thr
ee y
ear
aver
ages
]
Per
iod
Rub
ber
colle
cted
fro
m g
row
ers
(Ton
nes)
Scra
pR
ubbe
r tr
aded
Inco
me
earn
ed b
y
She
etSc
rap
Tota
l(%
)(m
onth
ly)
mem
ber g
ower
s
[To
nnes
]A
nnua
lM
onth
ly
1999
-01
70.7
410
.61
81.3
513
.40
6.78
2202
218
35
2001
-03
157.
6019
.84
177.
4411
.34
14.7
938
375
3198
2003
-05
204.
7521
.95
226.
709.
7418
.89
6030
350
25
2005
-07
174.
6029
.08
203.
6914
.43
16.9
767
042
5587
2007
-09
148.
7022
.63
171.
3313
.07
14.2
866
139
5512
2009
-11
176.
4714
.60
191.
077.
6115
.92
1149
2995
78
2011
-13
216.
2718
.77
235.
048.
0219
.59
1598
4413
320
Sour
ce:
Men
dipa
thar
Mul
tipur
pose
Co-
oper
ativ
e So
ciet
y, M
endi
path
ar,
Meg
hala
ya.
49
It reveals that there was almost three fold increase in the rubber
traded by the Society and more than 90% of the rubber traded was in
graded sheets with the percentage of scrap rubber becoming almost
negligible over time. Currently, the Society trades almost 20000 tonnes
of rubber on a monthly basis with 275 rubber growers attached to it. In
turn, the average earnings of member growers from rubber cultivation
had significantly increased in recent years to the tune of Rs. 10,000 to
14,000 per month (also see Figure 6).
Figure 6: Monthly earnings from rubber realised by MMCS memberFigure 6: Monthly earnings from rubber realised by MMCS memberFigure 6: Monthly earnings from rubber realised by MMCS memberFigure 6: Monthly earnings from rubber realised by MMCS memberFigure 6: Monthly earnings from rubber realised by MMCS membergrowersgrowersgrowersgrowersgrowers
Source: Mendipathar Multipurpose Co-operative Society, Mendipathar,
Meghalaya.
It is important to note that the MMCS acts as a catalyst between
the rubber growers and the Rubber Board by assuming mediating roles
of delivering the planting subsidies as well as supplying farm inputs
required for rubber production. This enables the growers to get easy
access to the institutional and extension support provided by the Rubber
Board through its Regional Office located far away in Guwahati in
Assam (Viswanathan, 2008).
50
In fact, the MMCS has emerged as an important stakeholder in
the rubber sector in NE region and it has widened the horizon of
activities from the conventional role of a mere marketing co-operative
to a new generation co-operative (NGC) with a wide ranging portfolios
of activities, including management of dairy farm, chicken farm,
rubber nursery, input delivery to the rubber growers and others,
mobilisation of savings and thrift deposits, etc. Besides promoting
fair trade and marketing practices, the MMCS also pays attention
towards improving literacy levels, eradicate malaria, avert
exploitation of money lenders, create awareness about the
environmental degradation caused by poor agricultural/
unsustainable land management practices, etc. Arguably, the
outcomes as described above are certainly reflective of the ‘bonding’,
‘bridging’, and ‘linking’ functions performed by the MMCS as part
of the social capital formation among the tribals in the entire Garo
Hills. In this regard, an earlier study (Viswanathan, 2008) observed
that the institutional roles played by the MMCS in terms of acting as
a catalyst between Rubber Board and the tribal growers as well as the
training in rubber farming and rubber tapping have been effective in
mobilising the tribal rubber growers in the Garo Hills. The
institutional roles played by the MMCS become highly important in
view of the remoteness of the rubber holdings from the extension
offices of the Rubber Board as well as the lack of awareness among
the communities about the scientific aspects of rubber farm
management.
Thus, it emerges from the above analysis that much of the
mobilisation and collective action outcomes came along rubber
development in the state has been mainly due to the development of a
rubber grower co-operative society, called the Mendipathar Multi-
purpose Co-operative Society (MMCS) that has been acting as a
catalyst in the wider promotion of the Rubber Board interventions the
region. Hence, the process of rubber development, its expansion as
51
well as adoption by the tribals in the Garo Hills need to be viewed in
the broader context of the emergence of the MMCS in the specific
socio-economic conditions that prevailed in the region along the
development interventions by the Rubber Board. The specific socio-
economic conditions of the tribals as well as the market and rural
infrastructure facilities prevailed in the Garo villages have been such
that they needed immediate attention for the effective implementation
and acceptance of the rubber development schemes proposed by the
Rubber Board.
3.3. Institutional Interv3.3. Institutional Interv3.3. Institutional Interv3.3. Institutional Interv3.3. Institutional Interventions in Rubber Deentions in Rubber Deentions in Rubber Deentions in Rubber Deentions in Rubber Devvvvvelopment in elopment in elopment in elopment in elopment in AssamAssamAssamAssamAssam
Assam holds the second position in rubber area and production in
the entire NER with a relative contribution of 31% in total rubber area
and 21% in rubber production during 2012-13. As per the latest statistics
of the Rubber Board, rubber planted area in Assam has crossed more
than 43,000 ha during 2012-13. On an average, the state produces about
6500-7000 tonnes of rubber per annum (Table 12).
The tapped area has seen an increase in recent years, suggesting
that more and more rubber plantations are attaining maturity. On an
average, the employment generated through rubber plantation
development in the state has been about 2.7 million mandays during
the latest years reported (Table 12).
From Table 13, it may be seen that almost all of the districts of
Assam have started growing rubber, though the extent of area under
plantations are meager in size. While Goalpara district has the highest
proportion of area under rubber, the proportions of tapped area and
production are the highest in case of Karbi Anglong district. In terms
of productivity of rubber, Nagaon reports the highest (1640 kg/ha),
followed by Karbi Anglong (1590 kg/ha) and Goalpara (1586 kg/ ha)
districts.
52TTTT T
able
12:
Ph
able
12:
Ph
able
12:
Ph
able
12:
Ph
able
12:
Ph y
sica
l, f
ysic
al, f
ysic
al, f
ysic
al, f
ysic
al, f
inan
cial
and
soc
io-e
cono
mic
dim
ensi
ons
of r
ubbe
r de
inan
cial
and
soc
io-e
cono
mic
dim
ensi
ons
of r
ubbe
r de
inan
cial
and
soc
io-e
cono
mic
dim
ensi
ons
of r
ubbe
r de
inan
cial
and
soc
io-e
cono
mic
dim
ensi
ons
of r
ubbe
r de
inan
cial
and
soc
io-e
cono
mic
dim
ensi
ons
of r
ubbe
r de
vvvv vel
opm
ent i
n el
opm
ent i
n el
opm
ent i
n el
opm
ent i
n el
opm
ent i
n A
ssam
Ass
amA
ssam
Ass
amA
ssam
Yea
rTo
tal
rubb
erP
rodu
ctio
nTa
pped
Em
ploy
men
t ge
nera
ted
Pro
duct
ivit
yG
ross
val
ue
are
a (H
a)(M
T)
area
(%)
Man
days
Per h
a (K
g/ha
) o
f ru
bber
per
(‘00
0) (p
erso
ns)
ha
(Rs.
)
2006
-07
1650
830
5017
.65
1504
9110
4710
1750
2007
-08
1827
147
5018
.17
1763
9614
3113
9038
2008
-09
2097
550
9716
.77
2041
9714
4914
0798
2009
-10
2307
598
3228
.19
2710
117
1511
1468
83
2010
-11
2708
310
213
28.3
827
6710
213
2912
9131
2011
-12
3211
710
950
26.8
030
3594
1272
1857
23
Sou
rce:
Aut
hors
’ es
timat
es b
ased
on
data
gat
here
d fr
om R
ubbe
r B
oard
Zon
al O
ffic
e, G
uwah
ati;
Em
ploy
men
t fi
gure
s
gath
ered
fro
m E
cono
mic
Sur
vey
Ass
am-
2012
-13,
Gov
ernm
ent o
f Ass
am.
53TTTT T
able
13:
ab
le 1
3:
able
13:
ab
le 1
3:
able
13:
Are
a, p
rodu
ctio
n an
d pr
oduc
tiA
rea,
pro
duct
ion
and
prod
ucti
Are
a, p
rodu
ctio
n an
d pr
oduc
tiA
rea,
pro
duct
ion
and
prod
ucti
Are
a, p
rodu
ctio
n an
d pr
oduc
tivi
ty o
f ru
bber
in
maj
or d
istr
icts
of
vity
of
rubb
er i
n m
ajor
dis
tric
ts o
f vi
ty o
f ru
bber
in
maj
or d
istr
icts
of
vity
of
rubb
er i
n m
ajor
dis
tric
ts o
f vi
ty o
f ru
bber
in
maj
or d
istr
icts
of
Ass
am, 2
010-
11A
ssam
, 201
0-11
Ass
am, 2
010-
11A
ssam
, 201
0-11
Ass
am, 2
010-
11
No
Dis
tric
tTo
tal
rubb
erTa
pped
Pro
duct
ion
Pro
duct
ivit
yar
ea (h
a)ar
ea(%
)(i
n M
T)
(kg
/ ha)
1G
oalp
ara
7394
.08
(27.
3)14
.28
1675
(16
.4)
1586
2K
arbi
Ang
long
4174
.00
(15.
4)51
.02
3386
(33
.1)
1590
3K
arim
ganj
3600
.64
(13.
3)35
.25
1396
(16
.7)
1100
4B
onga
igao
n20
45.8
7 (7
.5)
12.3
334
7 (3
.4)
1376
5K
amru
p19
05.0
0 (7
.0)
22.8
364
5 (6
.3)
1483
6C
acha
r12
06.6
9 (4
.5)
54.4
088
4 (8
.7)
1347
7K
okra
jhar
1166
.57
(4.3
)10
.84
155
(1.5
)12
268
Hai
laka
ndi
942.
00 (
3.5)
54.7
673
2 (7
.2)
1419
9D
hubr
i89
6.00
(3.
3)17
.39
210
(2.1
)13
4810
Chi
rang
594.
91 (
2.2)
4.61
37 (
0.4)
1348
11N
agao
n51
0.88
(1.
9)18
.61
156
(1.5
)16
4012
Gol
agha
t40
9.29
(1.
5)17
.10
105
(1.0
)15
0013
Mor
igao
n31
6.00
(1.
2)8.
5440
(0.
4)14
8114
Son
itpu
r30
5.63
(1.
1)35
.56
172
(1.7
)15
8315
Dar
rang
306.
00 (
1.1)
6.54
30 (
0.3)
1500
16O
ther
11
dist
rict
s13
09.0
1 (4
.8)
56.6
524
3.00
(2.
4)32
8
Tota
l27
082.
57 (
100.
0)28
.38
1021
3.00
(10
0.0)
1329
Not
e: F
igur
es i
n pa
rent
hese
s ar
e re
spec
tive
shar
e in
are
a an
d pr
oduc
tion.
Sour
ce:
Eco
nom
ic S
urve
y, A
ssam
201
1; S
tatis
tical
Han
dboo
k of
Ass
am 2
011.
54
The economic assessment based on discounted cash flow analysis
of rubber cultivation in Goalpara districts of Assam reveals that the
benefit cost ratio had increased from 1.6 during 2005 (Viswanathan,
2006) to 3.1 during 2009-10. The corresponding increase in the internal
rate of return (at market rate of interest) was 11% from 25% to 35%. As
rubber prices had declined since, there was a decline in the internal rate
of return during the past two years, which hovered around 23-24% (Nath
and Bezbaruah, 2010; Dharmendra Nath - personal communication dt.
18 March 2014).
As regards the developmental interventions, the case of Assam
stands out in terms of the absence of any specific state agency like the
TFDPC or TRPC as in the case of Tripura or a local level institution, like
the MMCS in Meghalaya. Moreover, as emerge from the interactions
with the rubber growers and other experts working on rubber in Assam,
the rubber development interventions in Assam are mostly confined to
the financial support and extension as well as advisory services provided
by the Rubber Board. Unlike Tripura, state support for the rubber sector
development initiatives by the Rubber Board was certainly lacking in
Assam until recently, though there was a reversal in this trend in recent
years as also indicated by the expansion and spread of rubber cultivation
in most districts of the state as described above.
Nevertheless, one of the major issues facing the rubber production
sector in Assam, as revealed from the interactions with farmers is that the
farmers with relatively lower size of rubber areas or smaller number of
rubber trees enter into contractual arrangements with relatively larger
rubber growers for tapping the rubber trees and the larger growers in turn
recover about 20-25% of the value of the rubber sold in the market. In
most cases, such contracts are in monetary terms. It also reflects on the
ineffective institutional interventions by the Rubber Board in the
marketing of rubber in Assam, unlike Tripura. This calls for evolving
appropriate policies and interventions to deal with the rent seeking
55
attitudes in the local rubber markets and strengthen the capacity of the
small rubber producers especially in the context of Assam.
4.4.4.4.4. Compatibility of Institutional Interventions in Kerala andCompatibility of Institutional Interventions in Kerala andCompatibility of Institutional Interventions in Kerala andCompatibility of Institutional Interventions in Kerala andCompatibility of Institutional Interventions in Kerala andNER: Issues and ChallengesNER: Issues and ChallengesNER: Issues and ChallengesNER: Issues and ChallengesNER: Issues and Challenges
Thus, the three cases of the interventions for rubber expansion
and the development outcomes in the NER bring out the interesting
institutional dynamics, raising several concerns about the replicability
of the institutional model of rubber development devised by the Rubber
Board suiting to the context of the traditional regions, especially, Kerala.
The analysis reveals that rubber development programmes and
interventions by the Rubber Board have been mainly focused on
increasing area and production in the NER and thereby ensure the supply
of rubber catering the ever growing industrial requirements for the raw
material. While the income benefits from the wider adoption of rubber
cultivation by the tribal communities and other prospective rubber
farmers have been quite significant, it seems that the institutional
interventions by the Board have been least concerned about creating
appropriate platforms through which the income benefits could have
been effectively channelised to make greater impacts on the economy
and society. In this regard, though the local interventions by the MMCS
become quite relevant, the scaling up of the same needs careful attention
and thus calls for networking between the Rubber Board and the local
level developmental organisations.
Turing to the question of replicability and compatibility of
institutional interventions for rubber development in the NER vis a vis
Kerala, it may be observed that much of the extant policy and institutional
interventions have been evolved over a longer span of 4-5 decades. As
many of these policies and interventions have co-evolved along with
the rise and growth of the Rubber Board to facilitate the development
and expansion rubber in the traditional regions, especially Kerala, it
may be quite likely that the rubber development process in NER should
56
entail a fresh approach with region and context-specific policies and
interventions.
In this respect, we present some of the emerging issues and
challenges that raise serious concerns about the compatibility of the
existing policy framework and institutional interventions for rubber
development in the context of the NER. These issues logically arise
from the fact that the existing interventions for rubber development
have been evolved for facilitating rubber expansion in the specific
context of the traditional rubber growing regions in Kerala, Tamilnadu
and Karnataka. Hence, there are problems in replicating such
development strategies in the NE context. In what follows, we present
and discuss some of these issues and challenges:
1. Given the specific socio-economic, ethnic and institutional
settings of the NE states, which are also quite diverse in terms of
integrated farm livelihood systems combined with shifting
cultivation practices (Viswanathan, 2006), it is important that
the institutional interventions for rubber development in the
region should be well grounded and be highly sensitive to the
region-specific factors.
2. The institutional architecture working in the context of the NER
may not have incorporated the specific R&D requirements for
rubber development in the region without compromising on the
prevailing integrated farm livelihood (crop/ fishery/ livestock)
systems as well as without disturbing for socio-economic, cultural,
ethnic, ecological milieu of the prospective communities.
3. The land use and property rights regimes are quite distinct in the
NE states and different from that exist in the traditional rubber
growing states of Kerala and others, where rubber is currently
grown. Given this, it is quite likely that rubber development in
the NE region may require innovative approaches, policies and
57
institutional mechanisms for addressing the issues of legal
pluralism in the case of land.
4. It is also important to consider that NER is diverse in terms of
agricultural as well as livelihood practices, including inland
fisheries, upland rice, traditional vegetables, etc. In this regard,
development of rubber plantations as a monoculture system (the
way it was promoted in the traditional regions, especially, Kerala)
may come in conflict with the pre-existing as well as co-existing
agricultural production (including food crops) practices/ farm
integrated livelihood systems.
5. There are several issues that need deeper understanding in terms
of further empirical studies and these relate to: (a) whether there
have been any mechanisms for mobilization of the local
communities for collective action around rubber development?;
(b) what have been the impacts of such collective action
outcomes?; (c) how resilient and sustainable are these outcomes
in terms of achieving the larger welfare goals of rubber
development as well as long-term viability of rubber farming and
its sustainable impacts on the overall development of the local
communities in the region?; and (d) whether rubber development
in the region has been in conflict with the broader objectives of
development and protection of the natural resources, including
the CPRs and the fragile ecosystems of the region?
6. It may be noted that the institutional interventions and support
regime evolved for promoting rubber cultivation in India (and
Kerala) has been quite pervasive in terms of its focus on
monoculture as it was deemed (with some scientific reasoning)
that rubber grown in a mixed cropping system may not yield its
fullest potential. Seemingly, such a system of rubber monoculture
has been widely promulgated by the somewhat stringent
institutional and policy regulations followed from time to time.
58
7. With rubber production becoming a regular activity in the NER,
imperfections in the primary rubber market have also been on the
rise. It is reported that, earlier, the rubber prices offered to the
growers were highly competitive and at par with the prices
prevailed in the Kottayam or Cochin markets. But, in recent years,
the differences in prices have gone to the extent of Rs. 15-20 per
kg in Assam and Tripura. A comparison of the prices realised
between the rubber growers in Meghalaya (who are members of
the MMCS) and Tripura reveals that the price differences were
smaller during the first half of the last decade. But the differences
became quite significant during the last few years10
8. As evident from the analysis, magnitude of area expansion in
rubber plantations in the NE states has been phenomenal during
the past decade, which has been mostly triggered by two major
factors, viz., (a) the saturation in land area available for rubber
expansion in the traditional regions, especially, Kerala; and (b)
the ever increasing domestic as well as external demand for rubber
which also had resulted in a dramatic rise in rubber prices during
the last 4-5 years. As a result, there was a surge in number of
applications for new planting in all the NE states in particular. It
emerged from the discussions with Rubber Board officials that
large numbers of the new planting applications are yet to be
cleared owing to the non-availability of technical staff (including
field staff) for verifying the applications and granting approval
for the same11. Quite interestingly, Figure 7 brings out the glaring
mismatch between number of New planting applications and the
permits issued to the new rubber growers during the past few
years. This highlights the imperative of enhancing the technical
manpower and strengthening the extension support systems of
the Board on a priority basis.
59
Figure 7: Figure 7: Figure 7: Figure 7: Figure 7: TTTTTrends in number of applications for Nerends in number of applications for Nerends in number of applications for Nerends in number of applications for Nerends in number of applications for New Rubberw Rubberw Rubberw Rubberw RubberPlantations and the permits issued in NE StatesPlantations and the permits issued in NE StatesPlantations and the permits issued in NE StatesPlantations and the permits issued in NE StatesPlantations and the permits issued in NE States
Source: Rubber Board Zonal Office, Guwahati.
9. A much more serious and challenging issue in the NE states is
the growing demand for skilled tappers. It may be noted that on
an average, 6000-8000 ha of rubber plantations will become
tappable annually. This necessitates that minimum of 2000-2500
fresh rubber tappers will have to be identified and trained for the
task. In the given scenario, there are serious limitations in
achieving these targets due to the lack of facilities for giving
training to such a number of rubber tappers in a shorter period of
time.
10. Availability of genuine planting material of recommended
cultivars is yet another problem being reported. The market is
flooded with spurious saplings which are planted by many growers
in the absence of availability of genuine planting material. This
might have serious implications in so far as the ultimate survival
and the productivity of the plantations are concerned. It is
reported that neither the Rubber Board nor the government
departments and organizations engaged in the rubber sector in
60
the northeast have adequate nursery infrastructure to support the
massive planting programme underway in the region. It is also
understood that systems of regulation, including inspection and
registration of private rubber nurseries have been discontinued
since 1986.
11. As large proportion of the land grown with rubber in the uplands
of northeast are degraded and impoverished as a result of shifting
cultivation, it requires that the rubber growing soils need more
care in terms of plant protection and application of fertilizers on
a systematic basis. This implies that a hectare of rubber planted
area would need 400-500 kilograms of fertilizers per annum.
Shortage of fertilizer has even otherwise been a perennial problem
in the northeast due to unreliable communication links,
inadequate storage facilities and inefficient distribution network;
and with the priority that agriculture enjoys, rubber ends up as
the worst victim. At the same time, many of the tribals in the NER
are averse to the idea of using fertilizers or use of any such external
inputs for farming.
12. It is important to explore, identify and implement alternative
farming models for commercial rubber cultivation in the northeast
that secure the livelihood needs and other aspirations of the ethnic
communities, who mainly depend on the land with its indigenous
biodiversity, compared to those in the traditional rubber regions
as in Kerala. Hence, there is a dire need for dedicated trials in the
NER to promote rubber in pure blocks of one acre or more
separated by blocks of existing natural vegetation or new
plantations of trees bearing edibles and trees for other utilities
chosen by the local communities. The farmers should be
encouraged for intercropping under immature rubber plantations
with tuber crops and legumes to ensure food security and income
during the long gestation period by linking subsidy to comply
61
with this planting model. Several typologies of the rubber
integrated farming systems being widely adopted by farmers in
Thailand and Indonesia may be important to be considered as
viable options for the NER.
13. Last, but not least, institutional compatibility in the NER context
is also important to be understood with respect to the interface
between Rubber Board interventions and the interventions by
other crop promotional agencies/ institutions in the local settings
of the rubber growing areas in the NE states. Though rubber has
immense potential for enhancing and ensuring inclusive growth
for the tribal communities in the NER, there is a strong case for
devising a sustainable land use plan for the region integrating
rubber with several combinations of horticulture and other crops
along with the existing farm livelihood pursuits (like inland
fisheries, livestock, piggery, etc) of the communities. To a greater
extent, this would be possible only through networking and
collaborative efforts between the various line departments (like
Agriculture, Forestry, Horticulture, Rural Development, etc) as
well as the national and regional agencies, such as the ICAR,
Spices Board, Coffee Board, North Eastern Council, National
Bamboo Mission, State Biodiversity Boards, National Medicinal
Plants Board, Coconut Development Board, etc.
62
Acknowledgements:Acknowledgements:Acknowledgements:Acknowledgements:Acknowledgements:
The authors thank NRPPD and Prof. K.J. Joseph for
encouraging and supporting to take up this study. We
also thank Shri. M.N. Gopinath, Additional Rubber
Production Commissioner, Rubber Board Zonal Office
Guwahati; Dr. Dharmendra Nath; Sister Rose
Kayathinkara; Mr. John Alexnader; Senior Officials of
the Directorate of Agriculture, Government of Assam; and
Dr. Kalyan Das for the useful interactions and inputs
provided during the course of the study. Thanks are also
due to Prof. Amita Shah and other faculty members of
GIDR for their encouragement and support. We are also
thankful to Mr. Pradip Chouhan and Mr. Vanlalrema Kuki,
research scholars from Tripura University for their
assistance in undertaking the field survey in Tripura. The
usual disclaimers follow.
PPPPP.K. .K. .K. .K. .K. VVVVViswiswiswiswiswanathananathananathananathananathan ([email protected]) is Associate
Professor, Gujarat Institute of Development Research,
Ahmedabad.
Indraneel BhoIndraneel BhoIndraneel BhoIndraneel BhoIndraneel Bhowmikwmikwmikwmikwmik ([email protected]) is Associate
Professor (Economics), Tripura University, Tripura.
63
NotesNotesNotesNotesNotes
1 The extent of shifting cultivation practiced in NE region was reported to beabout 14660 sq km (which is about 6% of the total land area of the region)per annum and there are about 4.5 lakh families reportedly engaged inshifting cultivation. As per the Compendium of Environmental Statistics2008-09 & 2012 prepared by the Ministry of Statistics and Planning(MOSPI), the total area under shifting cultivation in the NE states is 34560sq km.
2 (see page 64)
3 Following the India–China war of 1962, it was strategically important to‘integrate’ the NER with the rest of India and this became integral toIndia’s state policy on NER. The formation of the North East Council in1972 and special plans for tribal and hill areas were attempts to focus oneconomic development. Since 1990s, India’s economic reform andliberalisation policies have brought in rapid changes in the NE regionalong with the opening up of trade and commerce across the region’sinternational borders, on the recommendations of the S. P. ShuklaCommission Report (Planning Commission, 2001). In 2001 theestablishment of a ministry responsible for the development of thenortheastern region (DONER) has provided the institutional frameworkand a common budget for regional planning, especially for power,irrigation, roads and communication. The ‘Vision 2020’ documentprepared by the National Institute for Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP)provided the thrust for the government’s policy to ‘look east’ towardsSoutheast Asia (DONER 2007 as cited in Krishna 2012).
4 Schemes were also launched to encourage terrace cultivation with the twinobjectives of expansion of wet rice cultivation (thus reducing the dependencyon shifting cultivation for rice) and promoting soil erosion control(Choudhury, 2012).
5 It is also reported that the restrictions put by the Coffee Board till the late1990s on the sale of coffee in the open market (coffee could be sold only tothe Coffee Board) frustrated the farmers, who abandoned the plantations.In many places, plantations of coffee, cashew and other cash crops were cutdown consequent to the poor market linkages and farmers reluctantlyreverted back to shifting cultivation (Choudhury, 2012).
6 It should be noted that there is a general feeling among a large segment ofthe population in Tripura that the increasing trend of high temperatures inthe state is a cause of indiscriminate way of growing rubber. However, thesepeople, inclusive of all sections of the society do not have any proof tosubstantiate their argument.
7 A case in point is the marketing interventions by the Manimalayar Rubber,the subsidiary of Rubber Board, for its effort in providing a fall back optionto the growers.
641 K
ey in
dica
tors
of a
gric
ultu
re s
ecto
r in
NE
sta
tes,
201
0-11
Stat
e/
Reg
ion
Tot
al
culti
vate
d ar
ea
('000
ha)
Ara
ble
land
pe
r cap
ita
(ha)
Shar
e of
ag
ricu
lture
in
GSD
P (%
)
(%) o
f Agr
icul
tura
l pop
ulat
ion
Mar
gina
l &
Smal
l fa
rmer
s (M
SF- %
)
Fert
lizer
us
e*
(kg/
ha)
Ric
e ar
ea
(%)
Cul
tivat
ors
Agr
i. L
ab.
Tot
al
Aru
nach
al
253
2.93
31
.06
51.5
6.
2 57
.7
37.3
2.
83
34.6
Ass
am
2889
1.
24
27.3
1 33
.9
15.4
49
.3
85.6
65
.98
77.2
Man
ipur
34
8 1.
64
24.7
7 39
.5
9.6
49.1
83
.4
37.8
2 68
.6
Meg
hala
ya
342
4.94
18
.06
41.7
16
.7
58.4
81
.3
14.0
5 41
.8
Miz
oram
19
7 2.
87
18.7
9 47
.2
8.6
55.8
87
.0
37.3
9 60
.2
Nag
alan
d 41
7 4.
47
24.9
9 55
.2
6.5
61.7
15
.8
2.74
55
.8
Sikk
im
82
3.02
10
.84
38.1
8.
4 46
.5
76.6
N
A
11.3
Tri
pura
25
8 0.
65
19.2
5 20
.1
24.1
44
.2
94.9
53
.51
56.3
NE
R
4786
2.
72
21.8
8 40
.90
11.9
4 52
.84
70.2
51
.39
50.7
N
ote:
G
SD
P –
Gro
ss S
tate
Dom
esti
c P
rodu
ct a
t 20
10-1
1 pr
ices
. *
- F
erti
lize
r us
e re
late
s th
e av
erag
es f
or t
he p
erio
d 20
09-1
0 to
201
1-12
. A
rabl
ela
nd p
er c
apit
a re
late
s to
200
5-06
. R
ice
area
is
perc
enta
ge o
f to
tal
cult
ivat
ed a
rea
duri
ng 2
010-
11.
MS
F –
Mar
gina
l an
d S
mal
l F
arm
ers.
Sou
rce:
GO
I, A
gric
ultu
ral
Sta
tist
ics
at a
Gla
nce
2012
; S
tate
of
Indi
an A
gric
ultu
re,
2012
-13.
2.
65
8 Nokma (Gaon Bura, i.e., old man in the village) is the village head (chief)who is the custodian of the village commons and is the authority entrustedwith the allocation of village lands for cultivation. As the kinship relationsthat existed among the tribals in the Garo Hills was a check on developmentof feudalism, the Zamindars of the colonial heritage have tried to bureaucratisethe traditional institutions by recognizing the Nokmas as village chiefs, leadingto a colonial reorientation of the Garo society (Bhattacharjee, 1984).
9 The profitability of rubber cultivation in the NE region was about Rs.44000-55000 per ha per annum as against Rs. 26000 per ha from theexisting integrated farming systems comprising livestock, shifting cultivation,rice cultivation and horticulture (Viswanathan and Shivakoti, 2006).
10 DifDifDifDifDifferences in prices of rubber realised by rubber groferences in prices of rubber realised by rubber groferences in prices of rubber realised by rubber groferences in prices of rubber realised by rubber groferences in prices of rubber realised by rubber growers in wers in wers in wers in wers in TTTTTripuraripuraripuraripuraripuraand Meghalayaand Meghalayaand Meghalayaand Meghalayaand Meghalaya
Year Price of sheet rubber* (Rs. Per kg)
Meghalaya Tripura Difference (Rs.)
2000 29.77 28.73 -1.04
2001 29.44 28.35 -1.09
2002 34.67 33.71 -0.96
2003 48.82 44.63 -4.19
2004 57.69 51.17 -6.52
2005 59.89 55.08 -4.81
2006 84.10 80.92 -3.18
2007 85.93 78.50 -7.43
2008 111.65 96.33 -15.32
2009 100.25 87.92 -12.33
2010 170.10 156.50 -13.60
2011 212.14 201.92 -10.22
2012 182.87 169.58 -13.29
2013 173.50 148.87 -24.63
2014 150.00 137.00 -13.00
Note: The rubber prices for Meghalaya relate to the prices offered by the MMCS,while prices for Tripura are the prices offered by private dealers.
Source: MMCS (Meghalaya) and Private dealer (Tripura).
11 Reportedly, the shortage of technical personnel (including field staff) in theoffices has become acute in recent years in particular. The seriousness of theissue is such that when a technical officer in the traditional region of Keralahas to examine about 600 new planting/ replanting applications and approvesanctions, in NE states the situation is much worse, as a technical officer hasto verify about 1500-1800 new planting applications on an annual basis(Additional RPC, RB Zonal Office, Guwahati: personal communication, dt.March 13, 2014).
66
References:References:References:References:References:
Bahuguna, Dr. V.K. (2005): Action Plan for Expansion of Rubber inTripura, submitted to the Government of Tripura.
Bhattacharjee, J.B. (1984): Pattern of Economic Change in Garo Society,
In: Gassah, L.S. (Ed.) (1984): Garo Hills: Land & The People,
Omsons Publications, Gauhati, pp. 196-215.
Bhowmik, I (2006): ‘A Status Report on Rubber Plantations in Tripura’,
in V K Bahuguna (ed) Natural Rubber in Tripura, Baseline Data& Status Report: Agartala, Government of Tripura, pp 59-81.
Bhowmik, I (2008): Unpublished Ph.D thesis- Problems and Prospectsof Natural Rubber Production in India, Visva Bharati University.
Bhowmik, I (2009): ‘An Insight to the Rubber Economy of Tripura’ in
KN Jena, et al (ed) Development Paradigm and Bottom upApproaches: New Delhi, Abhijit, pp 31-51.
Barlow, Colin (1997): ‘Growth, Structural Change and Plantation Tree
Crops: The Case of Rubber’, World Development, 25(10): 1589-1607.
Byerlee, Derek (2014): ‘The Fall and Rise Again of Plantations in
Tropical Asia: History Repeated?’, Land (Forthcoming).
Byerlee, Derek, Dolly Kyaw, U San Thein and L Seng Kham (2014):
‘Agribusiness Models for Inclusive Growth in Myanmar:
Diagnosis and Ways Forward’, Michigan State University (MSU),
Myanmar Development Research Institute-Center for Economic
and Social Development (MDRI-CESD) & United States Agency
for International Development (USDA), First Draft Report, 15
February 2014, 76p.
Chakraborty, S. (2012): ‘Rubber Transforms Life of Poor Tribals in
Tripura’, [email protected]://www.readandknow.org/rubber-
transforms-life-of-poor-tribals-in-tripura, IANS 28th October
2012
67
Choudhury, Dhrupad (2012): ‘Why Do Jhumias jhum? Managing Change
in shifting cultivation areas in the Uplands of North Eastern India,
in Sumi Krishna (ed.), Sumi Krishna (ed.), Agriculture and aChanging Environment in Northeastern India, New Delhi/ UK:
Routledge (Taylor and Francis Group), pp. 78-100.
Directorate of Economics & Statistics (2006): ‘Economic Review of
Tripura 2004-05’, Government of Tripura, Agartala.
Directorate of Economics & Statistics (2013): ‘Economic Review of
Tripura 2011-12’, Government of Tripura, Agartala.
Directorate of Economics & Statistics, (2014): ‘Economic Review of
Tripura 2012-13’, Government of Tripura, Agartala.
DONER (2007): North Eastern Region Vision 2020, Development of
North Eastern Region, Ministry of Development of North Eastern
Region, Government of India, New Delhi.
Fernandes, Walter (2004): ‘Limits of Law and Order Approach to the
North-East’, Economic and Political Weekly, 39 (42): (4609-4611
(October 16-22, 2004).
Ganguly. J.B. (1969): Economic Problems of the Jhumias of Tripura,
Bookland, Kolkata.
George, K.T., V. Haridasan and B. Sreekumar (1988): ‘Role of Government
and Structural Changes in Rubber Plantation Industry in India,
Economic and Political Weekly, 23(48): M158-166.
GOK (2011): Economic Review 2010, Government of Kerala, State
Planning Board, Thiruvananthapuram.
Guha, Amalendu (1991): Medieval and Early Colonial Assam: Society,Polity, Economy, Calcutta, K.P. Bagchi (on behalf of the Centre
for Studies in Social Sciences).
Hayami, Yujiro (2010): ‘Plantations Agriculture’, Handbooks inEconomics. 18.4, pp. 3305-3322.
68
Jacob, James (2000): ‘Rubber Tree, Man and Environment’ in George
P.J. & C.K.Jacob (Eds.) Natural Rubber: Agro Management andCrop Processing, Rubber Research Institute, Kottayam, pp 599-610.
Joseph, Joby; Tharian George and S.K. Dey (2010): ‘Report on the Socio-
Economic Impact of Natural Rubber Cultivation under the Block
Planting Scheme in Tripura’, Working Paper ER/4, Rubber
Research Institute of India, Kottayam, Kerala, pages: xii+39.
Joshi, L., Wibawa, G., Vincent, G., Boutin, D., Akiefnawati, R., Manurung,
G., Noordwijk M.V., and Williams, S (2002): Jungle Rubber: ATraditional Agroforestry System under Pressure, ICARF-World
Agroforestry Centre, Indonesia, 2002, 38p.
Krishna, Sumi (Ed.) (2012): Agriculture and a Changing Environment
in Northeastern India, New Delhi/ UK: Routledge (Taylor and
Francis Group), 420p.
Lipton, Michael (2009): Land Reform in Developing Countries: PropertyRights and Property Wrongs, New York: Routledge.
Mohapatra, A.C. (1994), ‘Locational Pattern of Markets in Pre and Early
British Period in North-East India,’ (Khasi, Jaintia and Garo Hills),
In: J.B. Bhattacharjee (Ed.): Studies in the Economic History ofNorth East India, Har Anand Publications, New Delhi, pp. 160-168.
Nair, M.K.S (1986), ‘Constraints on the Development of Land Market in
Meghalaya,’ Economic and Political Weekly, 21 (27): PE-60- PE-67.
Nath, Dharmendra and M.P. Bezbaruah (2010): ‘Income Augmentation
in Small Farm Agriculture form Adoption of Rubber Production’,
YSA 2010, 109-132, www.sagw.ch/dms/agrarwirtschaft/.../4.../Nath_Bezbaruah.pdfý (accessed 29 March 2014).
Ostrom, Elinor (1990): Governing the Commons: The Evolution ofInstitutions for Collective Action, New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Ostrom, Elinor (2005): Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
69
Ostrom, Elinor (2007): ‘Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment
of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework’, in
Sabatier, Paul (ed.), 2007, Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Paribalan, P (2006): Role of Rubber Board in Tripura, in V K Bahuguna
(ed) Natural Rubber in Tripura, Baseline Data & Status Report.
TRM/ Technical Bulletin 1, Agartala, pp 41-51.
Pereira Ignatius (2009): “Rubber erases unrest in Tripura tribe”, http://
www.hindu.com/2009/12/24/stories/2009122454360400.htm
Planning Commission (2001): ‘Report of the Working Group on
Agricultural Development in Eastern & North Eastern India for
the Formulation of the Tenth Five Year Plan’, TFYP WorkingGroup, Sr. No. 40/2001, pages: xi+117.
Prabhakara, M.S (2004): ‘Is North-East India Landlocked?’, Economicand Political Weekly, 39 (42): 4606-4608 (October 16-22).
Rajagopal, R. (2005): Rural Marketing System in the North Eastern
States: Problems, Diagnosis and Strategy Perspective, SocioEconomic Research Reports, 72, Planning Commission,
Government of India, 190p. www.planningcommission.nic.in/
reports/sereport/ser/stdy_rulmak.pdf (accessed June 10 2014).
Rubber Board (2013): Rubber Growers Companion- 2013, Kottayam,
Govt. of India.
Shimray, U.A. (2004): ‘Socio-Political Unrest in the Region Called North-
East India’, Economic and Political Weekly, 39 (42): 4367-4643
(October 16-22).
Sinha A. K. (2007):Prospect of Rubber Plantation in NE Region withSpecial Reference to the State of Tripura accessed from
www.tripurainfo.com on 27/10/2008
Viswanathan, P.K. (2006): A Comparative Study of Smallholder Rubberand Rubber integrated Farm Livelihood Systems in India and
70
Thailand, Report of the post doctoral research study submitted
to the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok, January
2006, 108p.
Viswanathan, P.K. and Ganesh P. Shivakoti (2007): ‘Conceptualising
Sustainable Farm-livelihood Systems in the Era of Globalisation:
A Study of Rubber Integrated Farm Livelihood Systems in North
East India’, Social Change and Development, Volume 5, pp.111-
142 (November).
Viswanathan, P.K. (2008): ‘Co-operatives and Collective Action: Case
of a Rubber Grower Co-operative in East Garo Hills in Meghalaya,
North East India’, Working Paper No. 189, Gujarat Institute of
Development Research, Ahmedabad, December.
Viswanathan, P.K. and Ganesh P. Shivakoti (2008): ‘Integration of Tribal
Economies in the Era of Globalisation: Perspectives on Rubber
Based Farming Systems in North East India,’ Asian Profile, 36(3):
281-298, Journal of Asian Research Service, Canada.
Viswanathan, P.K. (2011): ‘Co-operatives and Collective Action: Case
of a Rubber Grower Co-operative in East Garo Hills in Meghalaya,
North East India’, Social Change and Development, 8(1): 89-
125 (July).
Viswanathan, P.K. (2012): ‘Integrated Rubber Farming and Livelihood
Systems in Northeastern India’, in: Sumi Krishna (ed.), Agricultureand Changing Environment in Northeastern India, New Delhi/
UK: Routledge (Taylor and Francis Group), pp. 263-288.
Viswanathan, P.K. (2013): Lao Census of Agriculture 2010/11: Analysisof Selected Themes, Unpublished Report Submitted to the
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Lao People’s Democratic
Republic, Government of Lao PDR, Vientiane and the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAORAP),
Bangkok, 145p.
71
Viswanathan, P.K. (2014): ‘Rationalisation of Agriculture in Kerala and
its Implications on Natural Environment, Agro-Ecosystems and
Livelihoods’, Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, 3
(1) [in print].
Viswanathan, P.K; Amita Shah (2012): ‘Gender Impact of Trade Reformsin Indian Plantation Sector: An Exploratory Analysis’,
Discussion Paper No. 17, Centre for Development Studies,
Trivandrum, Kerala, 69p. http://cds.edu/admin/homeFiles/
nrppd%2017.pdf
Viswanathan, P.K; Amita Shah (2013): ‘Trade Reforms and Crisis in
India’s Plantation Industry: an analysis of Tea and Rubber
Plantation Sectors’, Social Change and Development, 10 (2):
31-85 (July).