An article in the Business Times some weeks back by Dr LMK Tillekeratne, former Director of the Rubber Research Institute, prompted me to write this piece. He has justifiably expressed concern on an apparent government decision to diversify some of the rubber lands in Ratnapura, Kalutara and some other Wet Zone Districts to oil palm despite the very attractive rubber prices.
A CEO of a plantation company recently told me that at the prevailing prices the returns from the two crops are comparable, but a simple calculation on national productivity of the two crops, costs of production and current prices indicate that rubber is probably more profitable. However, some oil palm planting enterprises say that, with their new plantings, nearly double the average yields are expected from about the 10th year after planting, in which case the scenario would be very different.
The prices and profits of course fluctuate based on supply and demand, but with growing affluence in many countries the demand of both commodities will continue to rise. Therefore, on economic considerations both crops have strong claims. Oil palm requires comparatively less labour but much more fertilizer than rubber, as Dr. Tillekeratne had also stated. On the other hand, shortage of skilled tappers is an overriding deterrent for rubber.
The national vegetable oil requirement is over 150,000 tons/yr, the bulk of which is imported as the local coconut oil production at best can meet only about a third of it. Coconut is no longer competitive as an oil crop with a global and even local average production of less than one ton /ha as against oil palm which is three to four times more.
Even with expansion of coconut cultivation in the North and East, due to decades of low rates of replanting of the existing coconut, and other deterrents such as the Weligama Coconut Leaf Wilt Disease (WCLWD), which is devastating large tracts of coconut in the south, with yet no prospect of its control, the national coconut oil production will hardly increase, and coconut will continue to be predominantly a culinary crop.
Is oil palm a ‘moisture-puffing giant’?
The strongest argument against oil palm in that article is that it transpires far more than rubber, drying up the soil. The writer goes on to say that ‘even more than these economic factors, RRI scientists strongly felt that if oil palm is expanded in Galle and Kalutara districts where it had been planted, the impact of that on the climate and the environment of the country would be very drastic’.
Surely, scientific decisions cannot be made on ‘feelings’ but on hard (research) evidence. The debate on oil palm versus rubber erupted in 2002 essentially in regard to their supposed impact on soil water. Had the RRI then undertaken comparative water balance study of the two crops, this issue would have been resolved by now.
Though belated, it is important that such a study is done at least now. Oil palm, on average, produces four to five times more biomass per unit area than rubber, if not more. Thus it may well transpire more than rubber.
A scientific comparison should be on the basis of water loss per unit of dry matter production, or in economic terms, return per unit of water consumption.
In any case, we are talking of cultivation of these two crops in the wet zone where soil moisture would be limiting usually only for a few months of the year. (The wet zone of Sri Lanka receives an average rainfall of over 3500 per annum as against only about 2000 mm in Malaysia except that in the latter it is better distributed across the year). So even if oil palm transpires more it may not be an overriding consideration for cultivation in the Wet Zone.
Bold decisions
It is unfortunate that successive ministers in charge of the subject of plantation industries failed to take a decision on expansion of the oil palm cultivation in Sri Lanka. This decision should have in fact been made 50 years ago or at least in the early 1990s when rubber prices declined drastically to the point many growers and plantation companies even stopped tapping.
However, though belated, now that there appears to be a minister with a mission and resolve, and a decision has been taken, the future only will tell whether it is right or wrong; but decisions need to be made on available evidence and calculated risks. The wonder oil crop of the humid tropics is oil palm for which the temperate oil crop lobbies are envious. In fact its average yield (4 to 5 t /ha) is three to four times that of most temperate oils such as soya, sunflower and canola.
Where is the land?
The issue is, however, finding land suitable for oil palm which is essentially a crop of the humid tropics thriving under conditions of well distributed rain, although African countries like Ghana and Nigeria with long dry spells as in our Dry Zone cultivate oil palm, but the yields are low. However, it is worth investigating whether drought tolerant varieties/germplasm are obtainable from any African country.
Dr. Tillakeratne has suggested cultivating it in the eastern dry zone, but there is evidence that oil palm stomata close in dry air, even when soil moisture is not limiting, explaining why expected yields have not been achieved in some soil irrigation experiments.
So, ideally, oil palm should be grown in the wet zone, and the concern is whether a part of the now highly profitable rubber should make way for oil palm. On the other hand there is greater rationale for replacing part of the coconut in the Wet Zone on simple economic considerations; it being the least profitable of the tree crops.
(The writer is former Chairman, Coconut Research Board and former Chairman/Managing Director, Kurunegala Plantions Ltd) |
E-mail
