Kerala Growers and their Interest in Rubber Cultivation

The drastic crash in the price of natural rubber since 2012 coupled with rising cost of production and declining yields from the progressively ageing rubber holdings put the rubber plantation sector in the country into a major crisis (Ali and Manoj 2020). Both large estates and small holdings were badly affected due to the low price of rubber. The relatively large overheads and social costs put the large estates in great difficulty even as the crisis badly affected smallholders, especially those who were largely dependent on rubber cultivation for their livelihoods. Those growers who had a substantial share of their family income coming from sources other than rubber were mostly likely the ones who abstained from tapping their rubber holdings when the price was low and their share of area was as large as 25%–30% (Jacob and Chandy 2020; Joseph and Jacob 2018).

While most large estates are legally not allowed to convert their estates into any other crop or activity (the Kerala Land Reforms [Amendment] Bill, 2013), it was feared that small and medium rubber growers in the traditional region, especially Kerala were losing interest in rubber cultivation and large-scale conversion of rubber holdings into other crops or land uses was already happening or about to happen in Kerala (Ali and Manoj 2020). In the past, Kerala has witnessed sudden rush in the cultivation of crops such as vanilla, cocoa, etc, when their prices were high and a reversal of fortunes when their prices crashed (Johnson  2018). 

It is important to address whether such a trend is presently happening in the natural rubber plantation sector in Kerala, the largest traditional rubber-growing region of India, because Kerala contributes the largest share of rubber holdings (67%) and production (75%) in the country (Rubber Board 2019). Rubber is a major contributor to the agricultural gross domestic product (GDP) of Kerala (Lekshmi and George 2003). Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu is also a traditional rubber-growing area, but it is a small player with just 2.4% of the total area and 3% of the total production in the country. Although there are constraints in further raising production from the traditional regions due to rising costs, declining productivity, lack of new areas for further expansion of rubber cultivation, adverse impacts of climate change, etc, these regions will still continue to be the major source of natural rubber supply in the country for the foreseeable future (Satheesh and Jacob 2011). Given the long immaturity period and the time required for yield to peak and stabilise after tapping starts (Joseph and Jacob 2018), it will take more than a decade to obtain production from a new planting that is done today. Thus, it may be about two decades before we see a substantial increase in rubber production coming from any new initiative for large-scale expansion of rubber cultivation in the north-eastern states that has commenced this year (Debbarma and Purkayastha 2019). Therefore, the importance of continued rubber cultivation in Kerala cannot be overstated (Government of Kerala 2016) both from the national and state perspectives. 

It is hypothesised that drastic decline in the price of rubber since 2012 must have influenced the growers’ attitude towards rubber cultivation and, thus, their planting decision. We made use of satellite-based remote sensing techniques to test this hypothesis by analysing the spatio-temporal changes in the extent of rubber cultivation in the traditional rubber-growing regions of Kerala and Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu in the past 15 years when the price of rubber witnessed extreme volatility. Our findings show that the total rubber-cultivated area continued to expand in Kerala when rubber prices crashed, but a few districts showed a declining trend. 

Methodology

The study was carried out by monitoring changes in the area under rubber cultivation in the traditional rubber-growing regions of Kerala and Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu during the 14-year period between 2005–06 and 2019–20. This period was selected for the present study because the first half of this period witnessed record increase in the price of rubber and the second half saw it crashing down sharply (Rubber Board 2011, 2012, 2019). 

Satellite data like IRS LISS III and Sentinel 2A/2B MSI were used to map rubber plantations in the study area (Table 1). L-3 satellite data as of 2005–06, 2012–13 was obtained from the National Data Centre of ISRO. Sentinel MSI data was downloaded from USGS Earth Explorer. Satellite data processing and analysis were carried out according to the standard methodology adopted for mapping rubber plantations (RRII and ATMA 2014; RRSC and RRII 2012). District-wise spatial extent of rubber cultivated area (age three years and above) during 2005–06, 2012–13 and 2019–20 were estimated using digital classification techniques followed by extensive ground truth in the study area. GPS readings of rubber holdings were collected around 10,000 locations in various parts of the study area to verify the rubber area map. Spatio-temporal changes in the extent of rubber cultivated area during the periods 2005–06 to 2012–13 and 2012–13 to 2019–20 were calculated from the rubber distribution maps obtained from the satellite data and compared with the changes observed in rubber prices during the same periods.

Table 1: Technical Details of the Satellite Data Used in the Study

Results and Discussion

During the first half of the study (from 2005–06 to 2012–13), rubber prices recorded a steady rise touching the highest price recorded in the history of rubber cultivation in India (Rubber Board 2011; 2012). The mean price of RSS 4 was Rs 123/kg and the annual rate of increase in the price was Rs. 19.8/kg/yr during this period (see Table 2). Total area under rubber cultivation in the traditional region increased by 38,691 ha in the same period. The increase in area was only marginal in Kanyakumari district (1,166 ha) whereas most of the area expansion occurred in the state of Kerala (37,525 ha) and this happened across all the rubber growing districts in the state without exception (see Table 2). Ernakulam, Kasaragod, Kannur, Kottayam and Palakkad districts registered the largest expansion in terms of the actual extent of area during this period.

Table 2: Changes in the Extent of Rubber Cultivated Area in Kerala and Price of Rubber in the Past 15 Years

During the second half of the study (from 2012–13 to 2019–20), price of rubber witnessed a sharp fall for four consecutive years and then saw a modest recovery and stabilisation in the following three years (Rubber Board 2016, 2019) with the mean price of the period for RSS 4 hovering around Rs 140/kg (refer to Table 2). During this seven-year period, the total area under rubber cultivation registered an increase of 47,825 ha in the traditional region (refer to Table 3), which is 23.6% more than the increase noticed in the immediately previous seven-year period. There was no area expansion happening in Kanyakumari district indicating a saturation of area (refer to Table 3). The entire area expansion occurred in Kerala state, but unlike during the first phase of the study, this did not happen in all rubber-growing districts. The maximum area expansion was noticed in the two southernmost districts of Trivandrum and Kollam and three northern districts of Malappuram, Palakkad and Kasaragod as well as Thrissur (Table 3 and Figure 1). In the central Kerala districts of Kottayam and Idukki, there was an appreciable decline in the area and Pathanamthitta, a major rubber-growing district in the region registered only a marginal increase in area (see Table 3).

Figure 1: Spatio-temporal expansion of rubber plantations (age three years and above) in Palakkad district of Kerala during the last 14 years (2005-2012-2019)

Table 3: Spatio-temporal Changes in natural rubber cultivated area that have occurred in the past 14 years in various rubber growing districts of Kerala and Tamil Nadu

The satellite data could only identify with certainty rubber holdings that were older than three years (RRSC and RRII 2012). Thus, the area estimates made during 2005-06 will not reflect felling/planting done in the immediately preceding three years, but this will reflect in the area estimate made during 2012-13 (as these areas will be more than three years old). Similar explanation applies to the area estimates made during 2019-20. But it may be pointed out that during the first half of the study period when rubber prices were sharply increasing, it was highly unlikely that much area was felled for replanting that would be included in the estimates made in 2019-20. There was more new planting happening as can be seen from the satellite derived rubber distribution maps for districts like Palakkad (Figure 1). A decline in rubber area noticed in Kottayam and Idukki districts during the price declining period could be in theory possible due to large-scale felling for replanting that has happened in the three years just preceding 2019-20 or conversion of rubber areas into other activities.

While it is easy to attribute a cause-effect relationship between the sharp rise in rubber price and increase in rubber area witnessed during the first seven years of the present study, the same explanation does not hold good for the second half of the study period when much more area expanded despite a crash in the price of rubber, even as the mean price of rubber remained higher during the second than in the first half of the study. It was not just the total area under rubber cultivation that expanded when rubber prices were increasing as well as decreasing. Both as a share of the total geographic area and the gross cultivated area of Kerala, the share of rubber plantations steadily increased during the first and second halves of the study period (refer to Table 4) indicating that compared to other crops, the rubber plantation sector is still robust in the state. 

Table 4: Changes in the per cent share of rubber cultivated area in Kerala

The present findings clearly disprove two popular arguments, namely (i) as the price of rubber crashed conversion of rubber plantations into other crops/activities was rampant in the state, and (ii) there was no additional land available for rubber cultivation in the state. It is understandable that the rate of increase in rubber cultivated area seen in the last 14 years is smaller than the rate of expansion of rubber cultivation seen during the 1980s when there was much more land available for its cultivation (Rubber Board 1997). Nevertheless, there was still land available in certain parts of the state to which rubber cultivation expanded in the last 14 years, as seen from the present study.

Although rubber prices showed a drastic decline during the second phase of the study, interestingly, the mean price remained considerably higher than in the first half of the study. This shows that despite the downward trend in rubber price noticed during the first four years since 2012, the prevailing price was still acceptable to growers of those districts where rubber cultivation witnessed an expansion, namely the southern and northern districts of the state. This also proves that there was indeed some land available for area expansion in these districts. It is important to study whether the prevailing price was acceptable to these growers only because they did not have any other choices but to continue to depend on rubber cultivation for their livelihood.

While our results present convincing evidence to conclude that despite the last price crash growers in the traditional rubber-growing regions still have faith in rubber cultivation, there appears to be considerable local variations. It will be interesting to examine the reasons for decline in rubber area observed in more recent years in the districts of Kottayam, Idukki and Ernakulam and the marginal increase seen in Pathanamthitta district which are historically major rubber-growing districts in Kerala. These are also the districts where rubber growers are generally perceived to be more economically affluent. It is worth noting that all these districts had registered an appreciable increase in area during the first half of the study period when rubber price was on the rise. It will be interesting to study whether growers in those districts where rubber cultivation showed a declining trend were also the regions where more number of growers abstained from tapping their rubber holdings due to the price decline. This will help understand how economic affluence of rubber growers influenced their attitude towards rubber cultivation in terms of their tapping decision vis-à-vis the market price of rubber. In other words, whether the relatively well-off rubber growers were more price-conscious than the less affluent growers.

Our findings based on satellite-derived spatio-temporal changes in the rubber landscape of the rubber-growing districts of Kerala indicate a more opportunistic behaviour by rubber growers hailing from the relatively more affluent districts of central Kerala than growers from the southern and northernmost districts of the state vis-à-vis the latest volatility in rubber price. This interesting finding gives a new insight into growers’ attitude towards rubber cultivation and their planting decision in different districts of Kerala as rubber prices fluctuate. We postulate that the growers in the districts that witnessed an expansion in rubber areas are likely to be more dependent on rubber cultivation to meet their livelihood than their counterparts in the districts that registered a drop in rubber cultivation when prices crashed. Efforts to increase rubber production could be more profitably concentrated in those districts where growers remain more dependent and, therefore, more positive towards cultivating this crop. 

To conclude, we successfully employed state-of-the-art satellite-based remote sensing techniques to assess growers’ attitude towards rubber cultivation in response to market fluctuations in rubber price. We found that despite the drastic fall in rubber prices, growers still maintained their interest in cultivating this crop, but the response was not uniform across all districts. The socio-economic reasons behind the differential attitude of rubber growers from different parts of Kerala towards rubber cultivation as the rubber market fluctuated merits further research.