North East India's Tryst with Rubber- A Saga of Missing Innovation

Indraneel Bhowmik, Dept of Economics, Tripura University, eyebees@gmail.com & Prof. PK Viswanathan, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi Campus, pkviswam@gmail.com

Abstract:

The growth and development of Natural Rubber (NR) sector in North Eastern Region of India is an outcome of the government's import substitution initiatives. The present paper argues that the policies adopted for the expansion of the production and productivity of the crop was structured under the narrow innovation system framework which does not have the answers to the challenges posed by the liberalised regime following economic reforms. Owing to several missing linkages the region failed to exploit the advantage and opportunities for the crop to the fullest extent. Adoption of policies under broad innovation system will certainly facilitate greater diversification and fuel growth in the backdrop of the strategic location of the region.

1. Introduction

Natural Rubber (NR) is a globalised product in the real sense of the term. The divergence between its primary area of production and dominant regions of consumption is a facilitator of international trade. One of the most widely used industrial raw material, NR requires specific agro-climatic conditions to grow but its usage is universal and is positively correlated to the size and degree of automation of an economy (Bhowmik, 2008). India stands unique in the international rubber economy featuring among the top consumers as well as leading producers. Moreover, India is the only major rubber goods manufacturing country, which has a dominant NR sector unlike developed and industrialised countries that are characterised with

greater usage of Synthetic Rubber (SR), made from petrochemical feedstocks. The Indian rubber economy has two distinct components, the agro-plantation based NR producing sector, on one side and the consumption sector on the other side consisting of the rubber goods manufacturing industries. Basically, the strategic importance of NR was instrumental for the formation of Rubber Board immediately after independence as the nodal agency for long-term expansion of NR production in India through the framework of Rubber Act of 1947. The policy and institutional interventions saw that the NR production increased from around 15000 tonnes / annum in 1950-51 to more than 900000 tonnes/ annum by 2010-11. The growth of the rubber production in the country is an outcome of increasing domestic demand by the rubber goods manufacturing industry buoyed by the protected regime catering to import substitution goals (prior to economic reforms) effective yield enhancing scientific interventions and sincere and dedicated extension service by the nodal agency innovating with schemes for spreading out the plantation area beyond the traditional zones. It is in this background that NR came to the North Eastern region (NER) of India. We may note that 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. In spite of possessing diverse and abundant natural resources, larger part of the region still remains to be backward in terms of development in comparison to the states in India’s mainland, rather it is often argued that the economies of the states in the region are yet to experience the kind of structural transformation that occurred in other states of the country. The overall economic development of the region has been afflicted by

problems of growing socio-political unrest, unemployment, food deficit, ethnic conflicts and human rights issues, drug trafficking, immigration, militant turmoil and insurgency (Fernandes, 2004; Shimray 2004). The landlocked nature of the region has imposed further constraints on its economic prospects (Prabhakara, 2004) with industrialisation, particularly, manufacturing being minimal. However, interventions from both the national and the respective state governments have been pursued for bridging the gap and most of these interventions focused on various social and economic upliftment programmes, including 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 also promoted under various government programmes as alternatives to shifting cultivation. 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 a lead under the centrally sponsored programmes. Such agency-led crop development programmes were initially intended to make a demonstration effect and were largely planned and maintained by the departments on individual land made available by the farmers or common pool lands owned and operated by village (tribal) communities. Initially, the involvement of the villagers was limited in terms of providing their labour services for establishment and maintenance of the plantations during the immaturity (gestation) period. Once attained productivity, these plantations were handed over to the communities 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, extension and market services are provided to the farmers through

specific schemes promoted by the respective crop promotional agencies/ commodity boards (Viswanathan, 2006; Choudhury, 2012). Among these several initiatives, the most encouraging results have been observed from rubber particularly in Tripura, Assam and Meghalaya (Viswanathan and Bhowmik, 2014). We may note that 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 on a commercial scale in the NER by the Indian Rubber Board (Viswanathan, 2006). The period since then, particularly in the early 1990s (synonymous with economic reform) witnessed a rapid and tremendous expansion of monoculture rubber plantations in the NER. 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 indicated by the emergence of Tripura as the second largest rubber growing state in India after Kerala in south India. 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.Nonetheless, all is not well in the rubber plantation sector especially with price of NR plummeting from a high of above Rs 200 per kg to less than Rs. 100 per kg, leading to a situation where almost 40% of the growers in Kerala have stopped tapping and many of them have either cut down plantations or shifted to other crops like Cocoa and Nutmeg. The slump in the sector is visible in its reduced production and the reduced productivity of the crop (NRPPD, 2016; Joseph, 2016). The present study emerges in this backdrop to critically analyse the process of expansion of NR in the NER and explore the future options in the framework of Agricultural Innovation System in order to benefit

from the emerging policy regime and facilitate greater integration of the region with the global market. Objectives of the Study:1. To critically analyse the gains from the introduction of Rubber Plantations in the region as a developmental intervention2. To assess the challenges that constrains the development and diversification of the rubber sector in the region3. To suggest policy measures for better integration of the NER into the global NR economy

We follow a mixed methodological approach in this paper by integrating the major components, such as review of development interventions, secondary data analysis, primary survey among the stakeholders of the rubber economy of the region, particularly the three states, viz., Tripura, Meghalaya and Assam, which together account for almost 80% of total rubber plantation area and 90% of total rubber production of the region. The present paper is structured in four sections including the present Introduction. The second section provides a snapshot on the Present Status of the Indian Rubber Economy with special focus on the NER. The third section titled Outcome of Rubber Intervention in the NER narrates and the development experiences in the region and examines the missing linkages that are the causes of the existing challenges for the sector. The final section is the Conclusion.

B. The Present Status Table 1 indicate that the traditional rubber-growing zone of India, Kerala and the Kanya-Kumari district of Tamil Nadu stand as the undisputed leaders of the rubber plantation economy of India. The area under rubber cultivation in the country has increased from around 75000 ha in 1950-51 to almost 778000 ha in 2013-14.

However, over the years the area under rubber has been growing steadily in the non-traditional areas, particularly the North Eastern region, which accounts for 20% of the total plantation area in the country currently. It may be noted that the NER accounted for 7% of the total plantation area in 1990-91. The declining share of the traditional areas in the total pie is owing to land saturation in Kerala. Among the NER states, Tripura leads in terms of both area and production followed by Assam and Meghalaya. The growth of plantations in Tripura has been an outcome of several factors of which profitability from rubber plantations is the foremost. Moreover, the government has used rubber plantations as an effective means for the rehabilitation of landless shifting cultivators in Tripura for whom a unique beneficiary led development model1 had been initiated. Subsequently, the “Tripura Block Plantation Project” had been

1 The rehabilitation schemes for tribal beneficiaries generally provide for land occupancy rights over one hectare per household with income accruing to the recipient on the sale of latex and ribbed smoked sheets as soon as the trees mature and reach the tapping stage. Natural Rubber is a long duration crop with a seven-year gestation period. During the immature stage, the beneficiary is engaged as a labourer in his own field for land development and production augmenting activities on a wage basis by the rehabilitating agency. Moreover, intercropping of banana, pineapple, etc. are encouraged for ancillary income. The beneficiary is entitled to the various financial subsidies of the Rubber Board and provided technical support and training by the implementing agencies in active cooperation of the Rubber Board. Resettlement programmes club together the beneficiaries of an area into a group behaving as a single unit for the processing stage to reap the economies of scale. In most cases, the beneficiaries tap their trees and bring the latex to the processing centre, where it is coagulated, laid, smoked and dried into sheets. The beneficiary is then paid in accordance with the quantity of latex and its dry rubber content. This rehabilitation model of landless tribal jhum cultivators was utilised mutatis mutandis by other rehabilitating agencies such as the Department of Tribal Welfare and the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC), besides the three major agencies – the TFDPC, the TRPC and the Rubber Board. The total plantation area promoted by the three major rubber-promoting agencies – the Rubber Board, the TFDPC and the TRPC – account for almost 20000 hectares in the state. In this context, it may be noted that the TFDPC Ltd is the largest rubber-growing agency in the country, having more than 11000 ha of plantation under its aegis.

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.

Table 1: State wise area Natural Rubber in 2013-141950-

511980-

811990-

912000-

012010-

112013-

141.Traditional

Kerala 70365(93.9)

253784 (89.31)

407821 (89.45)

474365

(84.31)

534228

(75.08)

548225

(70.4)

Tamil Nadu 3025(4.03)

15513 (5.46)

17150 (3.61)

18710 (3.33)

19767 (2.78)

20890 (2.7)

Sub Total 73390(97.96)

269297 (94.77)

424971 (93.06)

493075

(87.64)

553995

(77.86)

569115

(73.1)

2.Non Traditionala) North-EasternTripura 2746

(0.97)17320 (3.65)

26495 (4.71)

59285 (8.33)

71370 (9.2)

Assam 568 (0.2)

9380 (1.97)

12117 (2.15)

32659 (4.59)

47945 (6.1)

Meghalaya 923(0.32)

3466 (0.74)

4029 (0.72)

10584 (1.49)

13875 (1.8)

Other NE states

216 (0.07)

3453 (0.73)

4244 (0.75)

11157 (1.57)

22430 (2.9)

Sub Total 4453 (1.57)

33619 (7.07)

46885 (8.33)

113685

(15.98)

155620 (20)

b) Other States 1525(2.03)

10416 (3.67)

16493 (3.47)

69595 (12.37)

43880 (6.17)

53665 (6.9)

Grand Total 74915 (100)

284166 (100)

475083 (100)

562670 (100)

711560

(100)

778400

(100)Source- Compiled from various Rubber Grower’s Companion

Apart from the economic viability and the consistent demand from the domestic rubber goods manufacturing industries, the other major factors for the growth and development of the NR sector in the state

have been the effective extension efforts of the Rubber Board and its coordination with the rubber promoting agencies of the state, namely Tripura Forest Development and Plantation Corporation Ltd. (TFDPC) and the Tripura Rehabilitation and Plantation Corporation Ltd. (TRPC). Expansion of rubber plantations in Tripura was a win-win situation for both Rubber Board and the state government. The former wanted area of operation and expansion and the latter wanted funds for investment in the state. The Rubber Board had an advantage over the other commodity Boards such as Coconut and Spices Board owing to its larger official infrastructure and manpower in the North Eastern region and Tripura in particular. The subsidy oriented Accelerated Rubber Development Scheme for the North East provided an edge to Rubber as compared to other commodity boards. Another major factor behind the success of the crop has been the institutional support in marketing. The rehabilitating agencies of the state has ensured a steady market for the beneficiaries, as all of them has their own marketing wings that buy crude rubber and process it for further value-addition as Ribbed Smoked Sheets (RSS), acting as a rubber trader. The activities of the Manimalayar Rubber, the subsidiary of Rubber Board, have been an additional boon to the growers as this PSU provided better price quotes. It may be noted that the locational distribution of the producing and the consuming zones also ensures of a sizeable NR trading sector in the country. Moreover, the declining tea sector and the uncertainty of horticultural crops in the state has also fuelled the growth of NR (Viswanathan and Bhowmik, 2014) as a result rubber has emerged as the 2nd largest crop in the state after paddy. Growth in Assam has been attained within a shorter span of one and a half decades since early 2000s, particularly. Currently, Assam holds the second position in rubber area and production in the entire NER with almost all the districts having adopted rubber monoculture.

Goalpara district has the highest proportion of area under rubber, while the proportions of tapped area and production are the highest in case of Karbi Anglong district and in terms of productivity of rubber, Nagaon leads (Viswanathan and Bhowmik, 2014). The viability of rubber plantations have certainly reduced following the fall in price yet the plantations remain profitable (Viswanathan, 2006; Nath and Bezbaruah, 2010) though as a response to the price mechanism, small farmers with relatively lower size of rubber areas or lesser 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 this context, it may be noted that the National Land Survey Board had stated about a potential of 650000 ha or rubber plantation in NER of which 200000 ha was in Assam.

Table 2: State wise area & production of Natural Rubber in 2013-14State/ Zone 2008-09 Production (T)

In Tonnes

Share (%)

In Tonnes

Share (%)

1.TraditionalKerala 783485 90.63 648220 83.8

Tamil Nadu 24355 2.82 25000 3.2Sub Total 804425 93.45 673220 87.0

2.Non Traditionala) North-EasternTripura 23280 2.69 39000 5.0Assam 6395 0.74 13600 1.8

Meghalaya 5760 0.67 7570 1.0Other NE

states1805 0.20 3520 0.4

Sub Total 37240 4.31 63690 8.2b) Other States

Karnataka 18175 2.10 35230 4.6Others 1245 0.14 1860 0.2

Sub Total 19420 2.25 37090 4.8Grand Total 864500 100 774000 100

Source- Compiled from various Rubber Grower’s Companion

The case of rubber development in Meghalaya has been quite distinct in terms of a rubber grower co-operative, called the Mendipathar Multi-purpose Co-operative Society (MMCS) acting as an intermediary agency in extending the rubber development programmes in the Garo Hills as promoted by the Indian Rubber Board. The introduction of rubber in the Garo Hills, which cater to 70% of the total plantations of the state, in the late 1980s, had brought in drastic transformation in the villages. 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 rubber as achieved by the non-tribal rubber growers in the neighbourhoods have motivated the tribal communities to grow rubber. 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). The growth process of NR production in India can be understood from Table 2 and Figure1. NR is a long duration crop with almost six-seven years of gestation period. Output accrues only after the tree attains a specific girth and maturity. Thus, production of NR is more a function of tappable area, which is lesser than the total area2. The steady growth of the tappable area in India is an outcome of newer areas attaining maturity every year. The production of NR in India grew

2 NR plantations have two distinct phases- immature and mature stages. Immature phase is the gestation period when the tree is allowed to grow and gain strength; matured phase is synonymous with production where the bark of the tree is cut in a specialised manner to allow flow of latex.

rapidly due to increased use of land and improved productivity. But the most important feature in this context is the decline in production of NR, which was at its peak in 2012-13 with more than 900000 tonnes of output but came down drastically in 2015-16, where output was only 562000 tonnes. Table 2, indicates that the fall in production had occurred in Kerala only whereas, other rubber growing areas including the NER posing growth in output which was certainly unique and surprising. Kerala enjoyed a near monopoly in production of NR (George and Joseph, 1992) with more than 90% share of the Indian total and remains the pivot of the country's rubber plantation sector. Even today, the production sphere remains skewed heavily as the NER with 20% area contributes only 8% of the output.

Figure 1: Tappable Area, Production and Productivity of NR in India

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17p

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1576 15761705 1663 1705

17961879

1799 18671775 1806 1841 1813

16291443 1437

1553

Tappable area [Hectare] Production[Tonne] Average yield[kg/ha]

Source: Rubber Statistical News, Rubber Board’s various issues

Moreover, the productivity rates have also fallen substantially since 2013-14 thereby India losing its prime position as the world leader in yield rate to Vietnam. The fall in the Indian average yield has been influenced largely by a fall in productivity in Kerala, where rates declined from 1896kg/ha in 2010-11 to 1183kg/ha in 2014-15 (Joseph, Thapa and Wicken, 2018). The fall in output and yield (as visible in

Figure 1) is definitely a fall out of the globalisation under WTO regime that India adopted as a mandatory component of economic reforms. The fall in output and productivity of NR in India in general and Kerala in particular has been attributed to the falling prices of NR (Joseph et al 2018). Figure 2: International and Domestic Price of Rubber (in INR/Quintal)

19761978

19801982

19841986

19881990

19921994

19961998

20002002

20042006

20082010

20122014

20160

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2INT DOM

Source: Rubber Statistical News, Rubber Board’s various issuesNotes: Ratio of Domestic and International Price on secondary axis

NR prices in India (real) showed a steady upward trend in the long run till 2012-13 save a brief aberration during the mid 1990s just preceding the Asian Financial Crisis and the fall of the NR growing South East Asian countries. Rather, the domestic price of NR had been higher than the international price during the protected regime prior to the economic reforms of 1991. However, the open trade agreements and free trade regime under WTO exposed the Indian rubber growers to global competition and the domestic price became significantly determined by the world market price (Bhowmik, 2008). The fall in price since 2012-13 has seen rubber growers in Kerala leave out trees untapped as the returns were low indicating the

validity of the statement that prices act as a major determinant of investment decision for agriculturists (Mohanakumar and Chandy, 2005; Varkey and Kumar, 2013; Joseph, et al, 2018). Figure 2 shows that Indian NR growers enjoyed huge benefit during the pre-reform period as the protected regime prevented imports even though domestic prices had been much higher than the international prices. However, things are different now. The rubber consumption sector, made up of rubber goods manufacturing industries, in India, continued to grow during this period as seen in Table 3. NR being the dominant form in India accounted for almost 78% of the total of NR and SR in 1990-91. The share of NR in the total pie decreased to around 70% in 2010-11 even though consumption of NR increased by three-fold during the 20 year period. Further, the slow down in oil prices have reduced the prices of SR leading to the replacement of NR in certain industries. As a result, the ratio of consumption between NR and SR in India in 2015-16 was 64:36.

Table 3: Consumption of NR and SR in India

Total NR Total SRNR & SR

1970-7187237 (72.46)

33160 (27.54) 120397

1980-81173630 (78.68)

47050 (21.32) 220680

1990-91364310 (77.67)

104735 (22.33) 469045

2000-01561765 (76.70)

170670 (23.30) 732435

2010-11947715 (69.71)

411830 (30.29)

1359545

2015-16994415 (64.25)

553370 (35.75)

1547785

Source: Rubber Statistical News, Rubber Board’s various issuesNotes: Figures in parentheses denote the percentage share

The dominant rubber-consuming sector in the country is the Auto Tyres and Tubes industry. It accounts for more than two-thirds of both, the NR and SR, consumption in India. The automotive tyre and

tube sector is undergoing a change through a reduced preference for NR in favour of SR owing to changing composition of India's automotive sector. NR has been an absolute necessity for large and heavy-duty tyres while smaller tyres and can be made with SR too. Further, the Tyre and Tube industry has been procuring cheaper block rubber in large quantities from South East Asian countries instead of the traditional Ribbed Smoked Sheets (RSS), which is the most common form of NR produced by the small rubber growers of India including those from the NER. Tyres and Tubes are large-scale industrial products and are integrated to the global value chain and mostly operated under the aegis of multinational companies having extensive use of knowledge and technology. Figure 3: Export and Import of NR in India (in tonnes)

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

Export

Import

Source: Rubber Statistical News, Rubber Board’s various issuesNotes: Ratio of Domestic and International Price on secondary axis

The demand for NR has been higher than the domestic production thereby warranting imports. NR, which shared only 8% of the total rubber, imports of India in 2000-01 accounts for 57% of the total rubber imports of 2015-16. It may be noted that the import of rubber in India has been for all forms but in the last few years, the surge in

import was mainly because of imported block rubber for catering the automotive tyre sector.On the other hand, the Non-tyre rubber goods industries produce a diverse range of products, mostly low-valued, and are ordinarily small-scale using low levels of knowledge and technology. However, among the non-tyre section is included the health care products, which calls for large scale and advanced technological interventions and is a specialised sector. But most of the other products are in dire straights particularly in the post globalisation phase (Mohankumar, 2014). Competition from Chinese firms and their products coupled with environmental regulations has forced many of these small firms to shut down operations. The consumption of NR is spread across the country with Kerala, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat leading the pack. None of the NER states feature in the list and rather they are all part of the óthers' category (Joseph et al, 2018) that accounts for less than 1% of the total consumption in the country thereby giving a glimpse to the status of rubber goods industry in the region. C. The Outcome of Rubber Intervention in NERRubber Plantations have been of significant importance in the NER. Its outcome can be considered under economic, social and ecological manifestations. The foremost outcome, which has to be noted, is the improved economic condition of numerous rubber growers. Rubber plantations are economically viable and have improved the life and livelihood of more than 100000 rubber growers in the region (Viswanathan and Sivakoti, 2006; Viswanathan, 2008; Bhowmik, 2008; Nath & Bezbaruah, 2010; Ghoshal, 2014; Dey et al, 2014). 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). In other words, the growth of NR in Tripura has vastly improved the quality and standard of life of numerous landless

shifting cultivators (Joseph, et al, 2010; Viswanathan, 2005, Viswanathan and Bhowmik, 2014). The jhumia3 household moved from one place to another in search of new lands for cultivation; as a result, health and education facilities were mostly beyond their reach. However, rubber plantations have provided regular employment and settled them to a particular place, thereby facilitating the institutional benefits that have lead to noticeable improvement in the human development component of these households. The children of these households are not illiterate like their ancestors; rather many of them have obtained their education at various parts of the country and abroad and are well settled in other vocations. The asset base of the grower households have widened along with improved housing conditions, consumer goods and nutrition (Kuki & Bhowmik, 2013). One major factor behind the adoption of monoculture rubber in the NER is because of the default plantation development programme and the subsidy policy promoted by the Rubber Board. The policy of 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. The rubber growers (irrespective of the size of land put in for rubber) are not supposed to grow any other intercrops inside the rubber plantations except the seven years of immaturity period. In view of this many crops and land use practices have ceased to exist after they started growing rubber, including the jhum cultivation, which had remained as a habitual practice for the growers for generations together and continued to offer food security benefits. An increase in the NR area has, of course, come at the expense of natural vegetation and old trees, including medicinal plants. There are many reports of NR plantations being promoted 3 shifting cultivators in the local dialect

illegally through encroachment of forest areas (Viswanathan and Bhowmik, 2014) and it is often reported that the traditional agrarian economy of Tripura has undergone a change and that is likely to have an impact on the issue of food security (Mohanakumar, 2012). The issue of rubber monoculture extends further to report negative externalities like foul smell and odour emitted during the processing of latex to sheet rubber. Disposal of wastes from the processing centres is also an issue of concern. Further, in Tripura, there is a growing sentiment that NR plantations are not eco-friendly and are primarily responsible for climate change in the region. No scientific studies are, however, available to prove or disprove such a claim. Nonetheless, rubber plantations being monoculture is always a threat to the sustenance of bio-diversity, though more than 40 species of flora belonging to 30 families have been recorded in the plantation area (Jacob, 2000). By comparison, the extent of biodiversity is certainly more obvious in the natural vegetation of areas adjoining to the rubber plantations in Tripura (Deb, et al, 2014). Missing LinkagesThe growth of NR plantations in NER is very much in the line of narrow innovation system that focussed on the systemic use of scientific knowledge for promoting increased production and productivity. The broad innovation system (Joseph, et al, 2018), which focuses on diversification and development of production linkages are missing in the context of NR sector of the NER. The institutional framework adopted in the NER has been the replica of the one adopted in Kerala. Promotion of rubber monoculture ignoring the local knowledge base and the mixed cropping system, jhum, have led to the compromise of the integrated farming system prevalent in the region for ages which provided greater livelihood security. Dependence on a single commercial crop exposes the tribal and marginalised persons to the vagaries of global market. Adoption of

rubber integrated farm livelihood systems would certainly be a safer bet for the rehabilitated persons (Viswanathan, 2008). Promotion of rubber agro-forestry systems (RAS) considering the knowledge based learning under the Broad Innovation System will certainly foster socioeconomic and environmental benefits that include: (a) reduced risks for smallholders emanating from persistent decline and volatility in rubber prices; (b) increased biodiversity; and (c) environmental and ecosystem benefits as emerging from integrated farming systems (Viswanathan and Bhowmik, 2015). The economic reforms of 1991 have revamped the industrial sector of the country and the growth of the rubber goods manufacturing sector is visible, but NER is nowhere to be seen in the industrial map. NER remains as the supplier of raw material to the industries of other regions. Initiatives by Government of Tripura along with Rubber Board to promote the Rubber Park covering 90 acres of land at Bodhjungnagar Industrial Estate for Rubber based industrial development, in 2011, could not augment the manufacturing base. Though more than 20 manufacturing units had registered for setting up their unit most of them have wind up their business. Availability of raw material failed to be the incentive for business. Table 4 gives us an indication about the locational distribution of the rubber goods manufacturing industries. None of the NER states are listed independently. They are all part of others. The decline of West Bengal as a major NR consumer is also to be taken note off suggesting about the industrial environment of the region as a whole. In this context, it may be noted that the entire production of NR in the NER is in the form of RSS, which is costlier than Technically Specified Rubber (TSR), the preferred form of raw material of the large-scale tyre industries. The shift towards block rubber is due to the lack of homogeneity in RSS produced by millions of small rubber growers. Absence of platform and institutions to link the growers to the tyre

sector can be classified as the missing linkage under the broad innovation framework.

Table 4: State-wise consumption of NR in India

State/UT1970-71

1980-81

1990-91

2000-01

2010-11

2014-15

2015-16

Andhra Pradesh 0 1.28 2.44 3.15 6.09 6.93 6.83Delhi 2.24 3.63 4.29 2.91 0.86 0.00 0.00Goa & Daman 0 1.39 1.71 3.73 2.08 3.70 3.60Gujarat 1.37 1.75 1.89 5.56 7.12 9.00 9.28Haryana 5.13 8.62 6.24 6.12 4.81 3.43 3.75Karnataka 0.72 3.32 4.66 4.95 7.48 6.09 5.75Kerala 7.72 11.11 15.2 13.97 14.43 12.93 12.81Madhya Pradesh 0 0 1.13 4.39 3.87 3.21 2.53Maharashtra 22.58 19.07 12.96 10.82 12.29 10.13 10.60Orissa 0 0 0 3.81 3.95 0.93 1.28Punjab 2.61 7.62 12.67 13.12 8.35 6.63 6.62Rajasthan 0 3.16 4.92 5.68 6.71 6.92 6.32Tamil Nadu 20.12 9.82 5.82 5.16 9.45 19.90 21.54Uttar Pradesh 1.33 13.01 12.84 8.82 8.89 3.62 3.56Uttarakhand 0 0 0.00 4.01 2.87West Bengal 35.52 15.79 11.61 6.85 2.59 1.22 1.16Others 0.66 0.43 1.61 0.96 1.02 1.35 1.51

Source: Rubber Statistical News, Rubber Board’s various issuesNotes: Figures in parentheses denote the percentage share

Similarly, there has hardly been any attempt to attract quality healthcare producer to the NER to take advantage of the availability of raw materials. It is extremely unfortunate that a rubber thread manufacturing unit in Agartala had to close down owing to lack of consistent raw materials. Another state of the art latex gloves manufacturing unit was gutted down by fire just before its inauguration. Economic viability has not been a challenge as like Kerala in Tripura, during the current recession, mainly because of lower cost of production following meagre labour wage rates in the NER. However, in the post reform period the domestic price of NR has integrated with the world price (Lekshmi & George, 2003; Mohanakumar &

Chandy, 2005) and the local rubber price hovers in the vicinity of the domestic market price (Viswanathan & Bhowmik, 2014). As a result, the current slump has affected the rubber growers in the region adversely to a large extent though they are yet to reach the shut down point (Bhowmik, 2008 Ghoshal, 2014; Dey et al, 2014). The frequency of tapping has been reduced by many growers while a new revenue sharing model, alike share tenancy, has emerged (Chouhan & Bhowmik, 2017). The existing policy framework was more focussed on increasing production in the region. The aspect of quality has always been ignored. Tapping is of very poor standard. Most of the trees are bruised due to faulty tapping, which significantly reduces yield. In other words, the yield rate in the region is affected by poor tapping standards, which can definitely be improved through better training, which is again part of the forward linkage. However, with almost 7000-8000 ha of NR plantations maturing every year, around 2500 trained tappers becomes necessary every year. Such a possibility is really tough in the context of the current functional and operational approach of Rubber Board. Lack of wage differential for quality tapping has been blamed for this lackadaisical attitude (Bhowmik, 2008). At the processing stage too, there are compromises often, latex coagulation is done with inferior chemicals and sheets are sun dried instead of smokehouse drying. Most of the RSS from the region are thus ungraded thereby fetching the lowest price. This is certainly missing the right linkage. Extension activities ensured increase in area but not increase in productivity (Bhowmik, 2012). Even though Rubber Board and its subsidiary RRII has strong footprint in the region, there have been no development/ innovation of any NER specific clone. The most widely used clone in the NER is RRIM 600, a native of Malaysia, which has much lower yield rates than the Kerala specific HYV clones developed by RRII. Mention may

be made of RRII 105 which has been the highest yielding variety in the world and the sole contributor to India's emergence as the country with highest productivity has not been very successful in Tripura. Tall and straight, RRII 105 is susceptable to strong winds and norwesters, a common feature in the NER. Thus, economic realisation has also been missed out in this aspect of backward linkage. The framework of broad innovation system considers not just STI (science technology and innovation) mode of learning but also considers the experience based DUI (Doing, Using and Interacting) mode of learning (Jensen et. al. 2007). The NR sector in the NER needs to build on this framework and explore opportunities of being part of the global value chain of the international tyre sector offering itself as a collabotrator with its international neighbours. The current policy framework of ACT EAST places the NR plantation sector in the vicinity of the world's largest NR growing regions. However, small policy hurdles had been a deterrent for long. It was only on 2nd August, 2018 that NR was included as an item of trade from the Agartala Land port to Bangladesh. However, the benefits can accrue only if transaction costs can be kept within limit to enable economic gains. D. Conclusion One cannot deny the fact that growth of the NR plantation sector in the country has been at the behest of the central government's policy of making India independent of import of this strategic raw material. The expansion of the product in the NER has been part of the increase in production and improvement of productivity goals. It has generally said that natural resource abundance retards economic growth and NER is a resource abundant region. However, opening up of the economy offered new challenges in the development process. The unique social economic and environmental framework of the NER was altered and not necessarily all were for the good even though the

economic benefits were substantial albeit threats of market vagaries. Nonetheless, the achievements could have been more if the missing linkages were addressed in a better way. However, a major concern about the NR plantation sector has been from the aspect of ecological and environmental outcomes. Even though studies on these aspect has been too few for the region, caution has to be taken as there are evidences of depletion of groundwater table in rubber plantation areas (Shaji, 2011; Karunakaran, 2014) as well as contamination of streams, rivers and other water bodies as caused by the flow of effluents from rubber sheet processing activities in Kerala (Sreelakshmi, et al., 2007). However, these issues still remain grossly under-reported in the NER and, hence, there is an urgent need for detailed investigations across rubber growing regions. In other word, the approach towards the development of the NR plantation sector in the NER has been under the framework of narrow innovation system which targeted a single objective of enahnced production. To conclude, we suggest that policy be directed in the light of broad innovation sytem framework such that the NR sector of the NER can avail the benefits of the proposed Act East Policy from the economic aspect. Further, to mitigate the threats of rubber monoculture a paradigm shift in policies towards rubber integrated farm business and livelihood systems (RFBLS) is recommended in tune with jungle rubber 4 to cater to the growing demand for green certified rubber, an outcome of the growing consumer awareness of the loss of biodiversity through monoculture farming.

References

Barlow, Colin (1997): ‘Growth, structural change and plantation tree crops: The case of rubber’, World Development,25(10): 1589-1607.

4 Jungle rubber refers to rubber agroforests in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand where farmers incorporated rubber in their traditional “slash-and-burn” practices, allowing rubber to grow with natural secondary vegetation, as well as timber and fruit trees.

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 Prospects of Natural Rubber Production in India, Visva Bharati University.

Bhowmik, Indraneel (2012) ‘Globalisation, Natural Rubber and Tripura: Exploring the Linkage’ in Contours of Globalization; (eds) Halder PK, C Scarboro, SS Bhadra, P Chakraborty & UK Khatri, Global Publishing House, Vishakhapatnam (2012).

Chakraborty, S. (2012): “Rubber transforms life of poor tribals in Tripura”, sujit.c@ians.inhttp://www.readandknow.org/rubber-transforms-life-of-poor-tribals-in-tripura, IANS 28th October 2012.

Chattopadhyay, Srikumar (2015): ‘Environmental Consequences of Rubber Plantations in Kerala’ NRPPD Discussion Paper No 44, National Research Programme on Plantation Development, Centre for Development Studies, Trivandrum, Kerala, 54p. http://cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/44_Srikumar.pdf

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 a Changing Environment in Northeastern India, New Delhi/ UK: Routledge (Taylor and Francis Group), pp. 78-100

Chouhan, Pradip and Indraneel Bhowmik (2017) ‘Exploring the Relative Growth & Stability of Price, Farm Income and Labour Wages in the Rubber Plantations of Tripura’ Ïndian Journal of Regional Science, 49(1) pp 77-85

Deb Sourabh, Dipankar Deb, Abhijit Sarkar and Joydeb Majumder (2014): ‘Biodiversity Inventory In and Around Rubber Plantations’ in Environmental Impact Assessment Report Submitted to TFDPC Ltd, Agartala.

Dey S.R., S.M. Muniyandi, H Basavraja, G.N. Kulkarni, B.Banakar and R.V. Hegde (2014), ‘Economics of Rubber Plantations in Tripura’, Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Science, 27(2):160-164.

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., and T. Joseph. 1992. “Rubber-based Industrialisation in Kerala: An Assessment of Missed Linkages.” Economic and Political Weekly 27 (1/2): 47–56.

Ghoshal, Dr. Pallab Kanti (2014), Economic Feasibility Study of Natural Rubber Plantation in Tripura, Tripura Journal of Social Science, Vol 1 No 2, available at http:/ssrn.com/abstract= 2523737

Gouyon, A., H de Foresta and P. Levang (1993): Does Jungle Rubber trees deserve its name? An Analysis of rubber agro-forestry, Agroforestry Systems, 22, 181-206.

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 in Economics. 18.4, pp. 3305-3322.

Jacob, James (2000): “Rubber Tree, Man and Environment” in George P.J. &C.K.Jacob (Eds.) Natural Rubber: Agro Management and Crop Processing, Rubber Research Institute, Kottayam, pp 599-610.

Jensen, M. B., B. Johnson, E. Lorenz, and B. A. Lundvall. 2007. “Forms of Knowledge and Modes of Innovation.” Research Policy 36 (5): 680–693. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006

Joseph KJ, Namrata Thapa & Olav Wicken (2018) Innovation and natural resource-based development: case of natural rubber sector in Kerala, India, Innovation and Development, 8:1, 125-146,

Joseph, Babu (2016): ‘Natural Rubber- Urgent Need for Safeguard Duty’, Stakeholder Feedback at the National Consultation on Crisis in Plantation Sector: In search of long term strategies, NRPPD, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram available at http://cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Babu-Joseph.pdf

Joseph, Joby and George K., Tharian and S.K, Dey (2010): Report on the socio-economic impact of Natural Rubber cultivation under the block planting scheme in Tripura available at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/52370/

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.

Joseph, K.J (2016): Report of ‘National Consultation on Crisis in Plantation Sector: In search of long term strategies’, NRPPD, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram available at http://cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Report_Crisis_Feb6.pdf

Karunakaran, N (2014): Crop Diversification and Environmental Conflicts in Kasaragod District of Kerala, Agricultural Economics Research Review, 27 (2): 299-308 (July-December), http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/196987/2/15-N-Karunakaran.pdf (accessed 12 January 2016).

Kuki, Vanlalrema & Indraneel Bhowmik (2013), ‘Empowerment of Scheduled Tribes through Natural Rubber Plantations in Tripura: A Case Study of Dhuptali Village’. Paper presented at the 15th Annual NEEA Conference, organised by Department of Economics, Mizoram University.

Majumder, Abhik, Sadrita Datta,,Bal Krishan Choudhary and Koushik Majumdar (2014): Do Extensive Rubber Plantation Influences Local Environment? A Case Study From Tripura, Northeast India, Current World Environment, 9(3): 768-779.

Mohanakumar, S. (2012) ‘The State Mediated Shift in Cropping Pattern in Tripura-Impact on Employment and Income of Farm Workers and Peasants’. Paper presented on V.V. Giri National Labour Institute, Noida.Pp.349-369.

Mohanakumar, S. 2014. “Indian Rubber Goods Industry (Non-tyre Sector) under Globalised Market Regime.” Paper presented at National Research Programme on Plantation Development Workshop, Emerging Issues in India’s Plantation Sector, March 31 and April 1

Mohanakumar, S., and B. Chandy. 2005. “Investment and Employment in Rubber Small Holdings: Impact of Market Uncertainty in the Reforms Phase.” Economic and Political Weekly 40 (6): 4850–4856.

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.pdf(accessed 29 March 2014).

Pereira Ignatius (2009): “Rubber erases unrest in Tripura tribe”, http:// www.hindu.com/2009/12/24/stories/2009122454360400.htm

Prabhakara, M.S (2004): ‘Is North-East India Landlocked?’, Economic and Political Weekly, 39 (42): 4606-4608 (October 16-22).

Shaji, E (2011): ‘Groundwater quality of Kerala – Are we on the brink?’, paper presented at the Disaster, Risk and Vulnerablity Conference 2011, School of Environmental Sciences, Mahatma Gandhi University, India in association with the Applied Geoinformatics for Society and Environment, Germany, March 12–14, 2011, Kottayam, Kerala, http://www.indiawaterportal.org/sites/indiawaterportal.org/files/disaster_research_shaji_e.pdf

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).

Somboonsuke, B., G.P. Shivakoti, and H. Demain.(2001): ‘Agricultural Sustainability through the Empowerment of Rubber Smallholders in Thailand’, Asia-Pacific Journal of Rural Development, 11 (1): 65–89.

Sreelakshmi, K., George K. T., A.P. Thomas, C.M. John and H. Vijith (2007): ‘Pollution impact assessment based on geographical information system: Preliminary observations on rubber processing industry in Kerala’, W orking Paper ER/2, Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam.

Varkey, L.M. and Pramod Kumar (2013): Price Risk Management and Access to Finance for Rubber Growers: The Case of Price Stabilisation Fund in Kerala, Ind. Jn. of Agri. Econ.Vol.68, No.1, Jan.-March 2013.

Viswanathan, P.K and Indraneel Bhowmik (2014): ‘Compatibility of Institutional Architecture for Rubber Plantation Development in North East India from a Comparative Perspective of Kerala’, NRPPD Discussion Paper 38, Centre for Development Studies, Trivandrum, 71p.

Viswanathan, P.K; Amita Shah (2012): ‘Gender Impact of Trade Reforms in 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).

Viswanathan, P.K. (2002): ‘Irrigation and Agricultural Development in Kerala: An analysis of missed linkages’, Review of Development and Change, July December 2002, 7 (2): 279-313.

Viswanathan, P.K. (2006): A Comparative Study of Smallholder Rubber and Rubber integrated Farm Livelihood Systems in India and Thailand, Report of the postdoctoral research study submitted to the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok, January 2006, 108p.

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.), Agriculture and 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: Analysis of 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.

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. (2015): Farmer Migration and Agrarian Transformation in Kerala: Impacts on the Local Economy, Society and the Agrarian Landscape

in the Erstwhile Malabar Region, NRPPD Discussion Paper 43, 38p., Centre for Development Studies, Trivandrum http://cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/43_ViswanathanII.pdf

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. 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 (2008) ‘Emerging small holder rubber farming system in India and Thailand’ A comparative economic analysis’. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Vol.5,No.2,pp 1-20

Woods, K., (2012):‘The Political Ecology of Rubber Production in Myanmar: An Overview’, 66p,

Wu Zhao-Lu, Hong-Mao Liu & Lin-Yun Liu (2001): Rubber cultivation and sustainable development in Xishuangbanna, China, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 8:4, 337-345