Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i
Statistical Information onPlantation Crops
2012
Ministry of Plantation Industries55/75, Vauxhall Lane, Colombo 2.
November2013
2- CM 17140
ii
iii
PREFACE
The publication of “Statistical Information on Plantation Crops - 2012” is its24th issue which contains the key statistical information on tea and rubbersectors as well as other major plantation crops.
The objective of this publication is to provide basic statistics andinformation on the plantation crops of the country for the use of decisionmakers and stakeholders in plantation sector. General public, students andacademics who engage in research oriented higher studies are also benefited.
This publication mainly deals with the tea and rubber sectors, whichcome under the purview of Ministry of Plantation Industries at present.Time series data of the period from 2000 to 2012 and tables of statisticalanalysis for current year (2012) along with relevant narratives are theinformation given herein.
In this publication, data/information on Tea and Rubber are given undereach section and subsequent section assigned for Estate Sector which coversRegional Plantation Companies as well as the State Plantations. The finalsection is assigned for statistics on other plantation Crops. By and largebasic information on both smallholding and estate sector is included in thispublication. In addition to that the information on world scenario under Tea& Rubber crops is also available.
I acknowledge with appreciation the support extended to this Ministryby the relevant Agencies, Associations, and Institutions by furnishing data/information enabling the successful completion of this task.
My sincere gratitude to Mr. U.K.S. Mihindukulasooriya, AdditionalSecretary (Development), Mrs. Ratna Edirisinghe Director (Planning), Mrs.O.R. Wijegunasinghe, Statistical Officer and all others who had been involvedin making this effort a success.
Sudharma KarunaratneSecretary.
Ministry of Plantation Industries55/75, Vauxhall LaneColombo 02November 2013.
iv
FOREWORD
“Statistical Information on Plantation Crops - 2012” is the 24th annualpublication of the Ministry of Plantation Industries of which the staff of theDepartment of Census & Statistics engaged on its preparation.
The publication covers a wide range of statistical tables with relevantnarratives of the period 1990 to 2012 on Tea, Rubber and Estate Sector whichinclude both Regional Plantation Companies (RPCs) and State Plantationsunder the current mandate of Ministry of Plantation Industries. Furtherstatistics on other crops (Cashew, Coconut and Sugarcane) are presented.
It is felt that, the statistical information disseminated in this publicationwill be immensely useful to Decision Makers, Researchers, Academics,Students and Stakeholder who are engaged in plantation industries.
I would like to thank Mrs. O.R. Wijegunasinghe, Statistical Officer whoengaged in this task with the assistance of the Ministry of PlantationIndustries and Institutions under its purview as well as Associations,Agencies responsible for data sources on the plantation sector.
I am confident that who use this publication will find it educative,informative and easy to use. Therefore your suggestions, views on furtherimprovement will definitely encourage the staff, preparation of thispublication.
D. C. A. GunawardenaDirector General
Department of Census and Statistics5th FloorRotunda Tower109, Galle RoadColombo 03
19th November 2013
v
CONTENT
Index V-XCharts, Maps, overviews XIAbbreviations XIIWeights and Measures Conversion Table XIIIExchange Rates Conversion Table XIV
1. TEA SECTOR( Area, Production, Price, Export and World Scenario )
Table Page1.1 Key Indicators : Tea 01
Review : Key Indicators of Tea 02
Tea Area1.2 Holdings & Extent by sector & by district - 2002 04
Review: Tea Holdings & Extent 051.3 Tea Extent by ownership 2000-2012 061.4 Tea Smallholdings & Extent – by district 071.5 Tea Smallholdings & Extent by District- 2005 08
Review : Tea Small Holdings & Extent by District 091.6 Area Replanted & New Planted Tea 101.7 Tea Growing Incentives for Small Holding Sector 11
Review : Area replanted & New planted for tea and 12incentives for tea smallholdings
Tea Production1.8 Made Tea Production by Category 141.9 Monthly Tea Production under Different Categories-2012 15
Review: Monthly Tea Production by category 161.10 Tea Production by Elevation 191.11 (i) Geographical Distribution – High Elevation Tea 20
(ii) Geographical Distribution – Medium Elevation Tea 21(iii) Geographical Distribution – Low Elevation Tea 22
Review : Geographical Distribution of High, Medium & 23Low Elevation Tea Production
vi
Table Page
1.12 Tea Production by Different Type 241.13 Made Tea Production by Sector 251.14 Monthly Tea Production by Leaf Ownership - 2012 26
Review : Monthly Tea Production by Leaf Owership 271.15 Made Tea Production by Type of Manufacturer 281.16 Tea Production, Export & Local Consumption 29
Tea Prices
1.17 Green Leaf Price to Small Holders - 2012 341.18 Average Colombo Auction Prices by Elevation 351.19 Average Tea Prices & Quantity Sold at Colombo Auction – 2012 391.20 Monthly average Auction Prices by Manufacturer - 2012 40
Review : Monthly average Auction Prices by 41Manufacturer - 2012
1.21 Monthly tea Auction Prices at Main Auction Centers 421.22 Average FOB Tea Prices by Category 43
Tea Exports
1.23 Quantity & Value of Tea Exports by Category 451.24 Monthly Export Quantity & Value by Category – 2012 46
Review: Export Quantity & Value of Tea by Category 471.25 Sri Lanka Tea Exports by Destination 51
Review: Sri Lanka Tea Exports by Destination 531.26 Tea Imports & Value Added Re Exports 541.27 Tea Imports for Re export – Country wise 55 1.28 Cess Collection from Tea Exports 56
World Tea Scenario
1.29 World Tea Planted Area 58Review : World Extent of Tea Planting 59
1.30 Countrywise World Tea Production 601.31 World Tea Production by Type of Manufacturer 61
Review: World Tea Production 621.32 World Main Tea Exporters by Destination – 2012 63
vii
Table Page
1.33 World Tea Export Quantity & Value 64Review : World Tea Export Earnings 65
1.34 World Tea Consumption – Selected Countries 66 Review: World Tea Consumption 67
2. RUBBER SECTOR( Area, Production, Price, Export & World Scenario )
2.1 Key Indicators : Rubber 73Review : Key Indicators of Rubber 74
Rubber Area
2.2 Rubber Area by Ownership 2000 - 2012 762.3 Rubber Holdings & Extent by Sector/District-2002 772.4 Rubber Holdings & Extent by Sector/District-2010 78
Review: Rubber Lands by District, 2002 & 2010 Censuses 792.5 Small Holding Extent by Size Class – 2010 802.6 Small Holding Extent by Size Class and by District – 2010 812.7 Smallholding Area of Immature and Mature – 2010 822.8 Estate Sector Area of Immature and Mature – 2010 83
Review : Immature & Mature Rubber Extent by District 842.9 Clonal Composition of Small Holding Extent- 2010 85
2.10 Smallholdings & Extent under Different Clones 86by District – 2010
2.11 Estate Sector Extent by Different Clones by district – 2010 87Review : Clonal Composition by District & Sector 88
2.12 Rubber Area Re Planted & New Planted 89Review : Rubber Area Re Planted & New Planted 90
2.13 Plants Issuance & Target of RDD Nurseries 912.14 Plants Issued from Rubber Nurseries 92
Review : Plants issuance of RDD Nurseries and Private 93Nurseries
2.15 Planting Incentives Paid to Small Holders 94
Rubber Production
2.16 Comparison of Production, Export & Consumption 96Review: Rubber Production, Export & Consumption 99
viii
Table Page
2.17 Production by Different Type 2000-2012 1002.18 Monthly Production by Type - 2012 101
Review : Raw Rubber Production by Different types 1052.19 Rubber Production by Type of Management 1062.20 Cost of Production – Smallholding Sector 1072.21 Cost of Production – Estate Sector 108
Review : Rubber cost of production - Small Holding & Estates 109
Rubber Prices
2.22 Colombo Auction Price by Type 1112.23 Monthly Rubber Auction Prices – 2012 1152.24 FOB prices on monthly Raw Rubber Exports – 2012 116
Review: Auction Prices & FOB Prices on Raw Rubber 117
Rubber Exports/Imports
2.25 Raw Rubber Export Quantity & Value 1192.26 Monthly Export Quantity and Value – 2012 120
Review: Raw Rubber Export Earnings 1232.27 Raw Rubber Exports by HS Code - 2012 1242.28 Raw Rubber Exports by Destination 125
Review: Raw Rubber Exports by Type & Destination 1262.29 Rubber Imports by Type 2000 – 2012 1272.30 Raw Rubber Imports by HS Code – 2012 128
Review: Imports of Raw Rubber 1292.31 Rubber Finished Products Import by HS Code - 2012 130
Review: Rubber Finished Product Import 1312.32 Export Income from Product Categories 1322.33 Rubber Finished Products Export by HS Code – 2012 134
Review: Rubber Finished Products Export 1352.34 Monthly Cess Collection on Rubber 136
Review : Monthly Rubber cess collection 137
World Rubber Scenario
2.35 Extent of World Rubber Plantation 1392.36 World Rubber Production 1402.37 Key Rubber Indicators of ANRPC Countries – 2012 141
Review: World Rubber Extent & Production 142
ix
Table Page
3. ESTATE SECTOR( RPCs & State Plantations)
Extent & Employment
3.1 Status of RPCs & State Plantations, 2011 – 2012 1453.2 Land Utilization of RPCs & JEDB, SLSPC 2000 - 2012 1463.3 Staff, Labour Force & Wage for RPCs, JEDB, SLSPC 147
Review: Extent & Labour Force in Estate Sector 1483.4 Extent Cultivate in RPCs & State Plantations 1493.5 Extent in Bearing in RPCs & State Plantations 150
Review: Extent Cultivate & Bearing in Estate Sector 1513.6 Area Tea/Rubber Replanted & New Planted 152
Tea Extent & Production
3.7 Tea Extent in Estate Sector – 2012 1533.8 Tea Production in Estate Sector - 2012 1543.9 Tea Extent, Production & Yield in Estates 2000– 2012 157
Review: Tea Extent, Production & Productivity 158
Rubber Extent & Production
3.10 Rubber Extent in Estate Sector - 2012 1593.11 Rubber Production in Estate Sector - 2012 1603.12 Rubber Extent, Production & Yield in Estates 2000- 2012 163
Review: Rubber Extent, Production & Productivity 164
Coconut Extent & Production
3.13 Coconut Extent & Production in Estate Sector - 2012 1653.14 Coconut Production & Yield in Estate Sector 2000– 2012 166
Review : Coconut Production in Estate Sector 167
Oil Palm Extent & Production
3.15 Oil Palm Extent & Production in Estate Sector 1683.16 Oil Palm Industry 171
Review : Oil Palm Extent & Production in Estate Sector 172
x
Table Page
Forestry Extent
3.17 Forestry Extent in Estate Sector – 2012 173
4. OTHER CROPS(Cashew, Coconut & Sugar Cane )
4.1 Extent of Cashew Cultivation by District 1774.2 Extent & Bearing Extent of Cashew 1784.3 Cashew Production & Yield 1794.4 Cashew Kernel Production & Consumption 1834.5 Quantity & Value of Cashew Exports 1844.6 Sugar Statistics 2011 – 2012 1854.7 Sugarcane Extent by District & DS Division - 2002 1864.8 Key Indicators : Coconut 1874.9 Coconut Production, Consumption & yeild 2000-2012 188
4.10 Imports of Oils & Fats to Sri Lanka 1894.11 Export of Coconut Products by Different Type 2011/2012 190
xi
Page
CHARTS
Chart 1 Tea – Total Production 17Chart 2 Tea – Yield 31Chart 3 Tea – Colombo Auction Average Prices 37Chart 4 Tea Export Income by Category 49Chart 5 Rubber – Total Production 97Chart 6 Rubber Production by Different Types – 2012 103Chart 7 Colombo Auction Average Prices RSS - I 113Chart 8 Rubber Export Values by Different Types – 2012 121Chart 9 Tea Production in Estate Sector – 2012 155Chart 10 Rubber Production in Estate Sector – 2012 161Chart 11 Palm Oil Production in Estate Sector – 2012 169Chart 12 Cashew – Production and Yield 2000 – 2012 181
MAPS
Map 1 Extent of Tea Plantation by District xviiMap 2 Extent of Rubber Plantation by District 71
OVERVIEWS
Overview 1 Tea Area 03Overview 2 Tea Production 13Overview 3 Tea Prices 33Overview 4 Tea Exports 44Overview 5 Tea World 57Overview 6 Rubber Area 75Overview 7 Rubber Supply (Production) 95Overview 8 Rubber Prices 110Overview 9 Rubber Export & Import 118Overview 10 Rubber World 138
xii
ABBREVIATIONS
ANRPC Association of Natural Rubber Producing CountriesAPCC Asian and Pacific Coconut CommunityCDA Coconut Development AuthorityCOP Cost of ProductionCRI Coconut Research InstituteCTC Cut Tear and Curl; A Tea Manufacturing MethodDC Desiccated CoconutDCS Department of Census and StatisticsFOB Free on Board; Fob Price to calculate Export ValueGDP Gross Domestic ProductHa HectaresIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentIRSG International Rubber Study GroupITC International Tea CommitteeJEDB Janatha Estate Development BoardKTFL Kalubovitiyana Tea Factory Ltd.Kg/ha Kilogram per HectareMn kg Million KilogramMT Metric TonsNFS National Fertilizer SecretariatNR Natural RubberRDD Rubber Development DepartmentRPCs Regional Plantation CompaniesRSS Ribbed Smoked SheetSLSPC Sri Lanka State Plantation CorporationSLTB Sri Lanka Tea BoardSPEnDP Small Holder Plantations Entrepreneurship Development ProjectTIEP Temporary Import for Export PurposeTRI Tea Research InstituteTSF Tea Shakthi FundTSHDA Tea Small Holdings Development AuthorityTSHFL Tea Small Holdings Factory LimitedTSR Technically Specified Rubber; A method of Raw Rubber
Processing
xiii
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES CONVERSION TABLE
Imperial to Metric Metric to Imperial
1 Inch = 2.540 Centimeters 1 Centimetre = 0.3937 Inches
1 Feet = 0.3048 Meters 1 Metre = 3.281 Feet
1 Yard = 0.9144 Meters 1 Metre = 1.094 Yards
1 Mile = 1.609 Kilometers 1 Kilometre = 0.62137 miles
1 Acre = 0.4047 hectares 1Hectare = 2.471 Acres
1 Pound = 453.6 Grams 1 Gram = 0.002205 Pounds
1 Ounce = 28.35 Grams 1 Gram =0.03527 Ounces
1 Pound = 0.4536 Killograms 1 Kilogram = 2.205 Pounds
1 Lb/Acre =1.121 Kgs/Ha 1 Kg/Ha = 0.892 Lb/Acre
1 Long Ton Mile =1.635 Mt Kms 1 Mt Km = 0.612 Long Ton Mile
1 Pint = 0.75 Litres 1 Litre = 1.76 pints
1 Imperial Gallon = 4.55 Litres 1 Litre = 0.219 Imperial Gallons
xiv
EXCHANGE RATE
1 US Dollar = Sri Lankan Rupees
Year/ Month Annual Year End MonthlyAverage Average - 2012
2000 75.78 80.062001 89.36 93.162002 95.66 96.732003 96.52 96.742004 101.19 104.612005 100.50 102.122006 103.96 107.712007 110.62 108.722008 108.33 113.142009 114.94 114.382010 113.06 110.952011 110.57 113.902012 127.60 128.35January 113.90February 117.23March 125.52April 128.66May 129.38June 132.04July 132.87August 132.07September 131.78October 129.11November 130.33December 128.35
Source : Central Bank of Sri Lanka
TEA SECTORxv
xvi
Map 1
xvii
xviii
1
Tab
le N
o 1.
1 K
EY
IN
DIC
ATO
RS
: T
EA
Item
Uni
t20
0720
0820
0920
1020
1120
12
1. P
rodu
ctio
nM
n kg
304.
631
8.7
291.
133
1.4
327.
532
8.4
1.
1 H
igh
grow
n“
72.5
84.2
73.0
79.1
78.2
73.7
1.2
Med
ium
gro
wn
“54
.449
.044
.856
.152
.652
.6
1.3
Low
gro
wn
“17
7.7
185.
217
3.3
196.
219
6.7
202.
12.
Ext
ent *
T
otal
Ext
ent
‘000
Ha
212.
721
2.7
212.
721
2.7
206.
120
3.0
E
xten
t in
Bea
ring
‘000
Ha
181.
418
1.4
181.
418
1.4
197.
019
4.5
3. Y
eild
kg/H
a1,
356.
01,
421.
01,
312.
01,
478.
01,
662.
01,
688.
44.
Rep
lant
ing
Ha
1,48
2.3
1,42
4.9
1,41
8.0
1,68
3.0
1,85
1.0
1,83
2.0
5. N
ew P
lant
ing
Ha
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
31.0
255.
06.
Pric
es 6
.1 C
olom
bo A
uctio
nRs
/kg
279.
5231
0.53
361.
4737
0.61
359.
8939
1.64
6.
2 Ex
port
f.o.b
.
“36
0.97
429.
7647
0.10
501.
8851
1.08
563.
947.
Cos
t of P
rodu
ctio
nRs
/kg
210.
7523
1.49
269.
0131
3.17
355.
0239
0.89
8. E
xpor
ts**
Mn
Kg
309.
9031
7.30
289.
7032
4.40
322.
6031
9.90
9. E
xpor
t Ear
ning
sR
s M
n11
2,83
413
7,58
513
6,18
016
2,78
916
4,85
418
0,43
0U
S$ M
n1,
020.
01,
270.
11,
184.
81,
439.
81,
491.
01,
414.
0
Sour
ce : S
ri La
nka T
ea B
oard
T
ea S
mal
l Hol
ding
s D
evel
opm
ent A
utho
rity
D
epar
tmen
t of
Cen
sus
and
Stat
istic
s *
Exte
nt a
nd e
xten
t in
bea
ring
up t
o 20
10
base
d on
the
Cen
sus
of
Agr
icul
ture
in
2002
**In
clud
e re
- ex
port
quan
tity
(impo
rt w
ith l
ocal
ble
nds)
2
Key Indicators of Tea(Reference to Table 1.1)Out of reported total tea extent 203,020 ha, the extent 194,509 ha was maturedtea area as at end of the 2012. In the year 2012, the extent replanted ie. 1,832ha was a slight decline compared with the year 2011, while new planted areahad substantially increased to 255ha due to enhancement of Government’ssubsidy scheme on new planting.
In 2012 only a marginal increase of total tea production was recorded (0.9mn kg)as weather condition and climatic pattern prevailed for tea cultivationwas very similar to 2011. However, in term of the elevationwise tea productionis concerned, it has shown fluctuations, especially high and low grown in2012. The high grown tea production decline 6% or 4.5 mn kg while lowgrown production increased by 3% or 5.4 mn kg compared to previous year.There is no any significant change reported on Medium grown tea productionin the current year.
Tea yield is concerned in 2011 & 2012 the substantial increase was recordeddue to change on computation method. with effect from 2011. Up to 2010,yield computation was based on dividing total tea production by registeredtea extent recorded at SLTB (221,969 ha). This method of computation resultsthe low value of yield. In 2012, with the decision of switching the base(denominator) to mature tea extent (194,508 ha) the yield value increased to1688 kg/ha. As this is the internationally accepted method of yieldcomputation it will be continued in following years as well. (There issubsequent potential to enhance the achieved yield level at present in teaindustry).
As tea prices, both Colombo auction and FOB export are shown inincreasing trend in this decade and the auction price and FOB price in 2012are the recorded highest values in the history. Colombo auction averageprice which was Rs 391.64 per kg indicates 9% increase while export averageprice of Rs. 563.94 per kg was 10% increase in the year 2012, compared withprevious year. In 2012, cost of production of made tea had reached atRs. 390.89 per kg level as a result of continuous increase in input cost ofproduction and the issues related to the wages of the employees.
Including re-exports quantity with local blends, total tea export for the2012 was 319.9 mn kg and reflects very marginal decline, 2.7 mn kg (0.8%)compared to previous year. However, export earnings increased by Rs 15.6billion (9%) to Rs. 180.4 billion due to 10% increase of FOB price.
3
TEA AREAOverview - 2012
Extent in HectaresSmallholdings Estates Total
2005 116,492 95,288 211,7802011 120,955 82,065 203,020Mature* 116,492 78,016 194,508 (96%)Immature* 4,463 4,049 8,512 (4%)*Estimated
Holdings of TeaNo. of smallholdings - 397,223 (2005)Estimate - 400,000 (2012)Average holding size - < ½ ha – 51% of extent
- > 5 ha – 16% of extentNo. of estates - 286 In RPCs & 35 in StateSize of holding - Mostly 20 ha & above
Tea Growing Districts - 14Highest extent - NuwaraeliyaLowest extent - GampahaHighest extent in Central Province - 78,000 ha (37%)
Replanting Extent & Rate to Mature Area:Past 5 year average - 1,642 ha (0.8%) -NationalRate prevailed for - Smallholdings - 0.8%
- Estates - 1.1%Replanting Incentives:
Subsidies to smallholders (2012) - Rs. 227 mnPlants infilled – 5 year average - 529,369
4
Table No : 1.2
NUMBER OF HOLDINGS AND EXTENT OF TEA BY SECTOR &BY DISTRICT - 2002
Province & Smallholding Estate Sector TotalDistrict
No. of Extent No. of Extent No. of ExtentHoldings (hec.) Holdings (hec.) Holdings (hec.)
WESTERN 23,371 6,222 85 1,114 23,456 7,336
Colombo 366 93 7 60 373 153Gampaha 38 12 - - 38 12Kalutara 22,967 6,117 78 1,054 23,045 7,171
CENTRAL 31,115 12,010 517 65,986 31,632 77,995
Kandy 18,432 7,609 235 14,990 18,667 22,599Matale 747 356 87 4,774 834 5,130Nuwaraeliya 11,936 4,045 195 46,222 12,131 50,266
SOUTHERN 105,796 39,828 524 9,946 106,320 49,773
Galle 58,314 22,062 235 3,568 58,549 25,629Matara 45,863 17,326 289 6,378 46,152 23,704Hambantota 1,619 440 - - 1,619 440
NORTH WESTERN 95 31 1 10 96 41
Kurunegala 95 31 1 10 96 41
UVA 17,800 5,686 168 25,876 17,968 31,561
Badulla 17,553 5,616 161 25,024 17,714 30,639Monaragala 247 70 7 852 254 922
SABARAGAMUWA 84,841 29,984 445 16,025 85,286 46,010
Ratnapura 70,752 25,433 331 12,918 71,083 38,352kegalle 14,089 4,551 114 3,107 14,203 7,658
Total 263,018 93,760 1,740 118,956 264,758 212,716
Source: Department of Census and Statistics - Census of Agriculture - 2002
5
Tea Holdings & Extent(Reference to Table 1.2)
Number of holdings and extent of tea cultivation for both Small holdings andEstate sectors were compiled, based on the Agriculture Census – 2002conducted by the Department of Census & Statistics (DCS). In this Census,the definition applied for Small holding sector was below 8 ha (20 acres)and for the Estate sector it was above 20 acres.
As a unit below 20 ha is considered as a Small holding administrativelyby respective institutions, the number of holdings and extent indicated inthis table may differ from those shown in other tables and in sources otherthan DCS.
Accordingly, in 2002, total number of Small holdings was 263,000 andtotal extent was 93,760 ha, which was a definite increase due to the abovedefinition. Similarly number of holdings (1740) in Estate sector andcorresponding extent of 118,957 reduced as the minimum size of 20 ha ofholding was applied.
As far as the macro picture is concerned the largest extent i.e. 78,000ha of tea cultivation was in the Central Province of which 50,000 ha (65%)were in the Nuwaraeliya District, followed by Southern, Sabaragamuwaand Uva Provinces. Tea Small holdings are mostly accumulated in theSouthern and Sabaragamuwa provinces (72%) and the Districts ofRatnapura, Galle & Matara had the highest extent of small holder ownedtea land (69%). The majority of Estate sector extent of tea was in Centraland Uva provinces (77%) out of which 60% was in Nuwaraeliya & BadullaDistricts alone.
6
Table No. 1.3TEA EXTENT BY OWNERSHIP
Hectares
Year Estate Sector Small Holding TotalSector
2000 99,564 84,703 184,2672001 98,882 85,102 183,9842002 97,172 85,664 182,8362003 93,522 86,307 179,8292004 91,384 91,668 183,0522005 95,288 116,492 211,7802006 97,587 117,992 215,5792007 90,752 119,492 210,2442008 92,108 119,768 211,8762009 88,624 120,009 208,6332010 84,119 120,500 204,6192011 85,440 120,664 206,1042012 82,065 120,955 203,020
Source : Tea Small Holdings Development AuthorityRegional Plantation Companies (RPCs)
In terms of the definition of Smallholding sector, tea land consist of below 4ha or 10 acres is come under the purview of the Tea Small HoldingsDevelopment Authority while Tea Commissioner of SLTB inspects andsupervises Smallholding sector in range of 4 ha - 20 ha and the Estate sectorplantations.
Extent of total tea lands highlighted a declining trend for the period 1996to 2004. Since 2004 a gradual increase was recorded till 2008 and it hasdeclined to 203,020 ha in current year.
Estate sector tea extent ownership has gradually declined since 1996onwards due to various factors. This has declined of an average rate of 2,400ha per annum. Compared to previous year in 2012, the extent of tea landownership in the Estate sector (RPCs and State owned JEDB, SLSPC andElkaduwa Plantation) declined by 3,375 ha while 291 ha increase was reportedin the Smallholding sector.
7
Tab
le N
o. 1
.4
INC
RE
ASI
NG
TE
A S
MA
LL
HO
LD
ING
S &
EX
TE
NT
S B
Y D
IST
RIC
T
Dis
tric
t19
83 C
ensu
s19
94 C
ensu
s20
05 C
ensu
s
No
ofEx
tent
No
ofEx
tent
No
ofEx
tent
Hol
ding
s(H
a)H
oldi
ngs
(Ha)
Hol
ding
s(H
a)
Col
ombo
- -
1314
491
236
Gam
paha
- -
--
92
Kal
utar
a1,
843
881
8,49
42,
566
38,2
637,
587
Kan
dy40
,388
19,2
6914
,198
9,73
330
,747
12,4
86M
atal
e1,
631
1,69
470
51,
305
1,40
81,
190
Nuw
arae
liya
13,7
636,
559
10,8
927,
053
17,5
475,
971
Gal
le36
,479
13,6
0356
,547
17,8
5590
,524
25,3
25M
atar
a27
,964
13,3
4244
,051
16,8
8667
,613
22,9
71H
amba
ntot
a60
920
71,
186
306
2,53
349
2K
urun
egal
a22
412
413
542
151
99B
adul
la13
,171
7,03
015
,287
6,89
929
,679
7,86
3M
onar
agal
a-
-77
2563
767
Rat
napu
ra17
,713
9,81
849
,161
17,7
8997
,984
28,2
32K
egal
la6,
080
3,24
25,
906
2,44
619
,637
5,75
3To
tal
159,
865
75,7
6920
6,65
282
,919
397,
223
118,
274
Sour
ce :
Tea
Sm
allh
oldi
ngs
Dev
elop
men
t A
utho
rity
8
T
able
No:
1.
5
TE
A S
MA
LL
HO
LD
ING
S &
EX
TE
NT
BY
DIS
TR
ICT
- 20
05
Dis
tric
tD
iffer
ent
Cla
ss S
ize
of h
ecta
re
< 1
/2 h
a1/
2 -
< 1
ha
1 -
< 2
ha
2 -
< 5
ha
> 5
ha
Tota
lH
oldi
ngEx
. H
aH
oldi
ngEx
. H
aH
oldi
ngEx
. H
aH
oldi
ngEx
. H
aH
oldi
ngEx
. H
aH
oldi
ngEx
. H
a
Col
ombo
423
7535
2522
278
253
9449
124
6G
ampa
ha9
2 -
- -
- -
- -
-9
2K
alut
ara
35,7
935,
441
1,92
71,
268
396
497
112
312
3530
538
,263
7,82
3K
andy
25,4
575,
329
3,34
52,
258
1,09
41,
407
559
1,59
929
25,
465
30,7
4716
,058
Mat
ale
1,01
122
916
612
181
106
7823
172
985
1,40
81,
672
Nuw
arae
liya
15,2
702,
936
1,66
31,
082
302
387
177
536
135
2,26
417
,547
7,20
5G
alle
79,4
3215
,361
8,29
65,
640
1,84
02,
372
743
2,12
121
31,
933
90,5
2427
,427
Mat
ara
58,4
7012
,140
6,83
54,
647
1,29
61,
654
720
2,11
629
24,
860
67,6
1325
,417
Ham
bant
ota
2,37
342
614
191
1417
512
- -
2,53
354
6K
urun
egal
a11
130
2315
810
515
411
015
118
0B
adul
la26
,989
4,95
31,
747
1,19
157
473
726
773
710
21,
402
29,6
799,
020
Mon
arag
ala
551
122
7253
1114
310
- -
637
199
Rat
napu
ra87
,070
17,6
747,
910
5,31
71,
880
2,41
987
52,
539
249
2,49
297
,984
30,4
41K
egal
la17
,333
3,26
41,
680
1,14
240
050
816
347
961
700
19,6
376,
093
Tota
l35
0,29
267
,982
33,8
4022
,850
7,91
810
,155
3,71
510
,732
1,45
820
,610
397,
223
132,
329
%88
.251
.48.
517
.32.
07.
70.
98.
10.
415
.610
010
0
Sour
ce:
Tea
Smal
l H
oldi
ngs
Dev
elop
men
t Aut
hori
ty -
Sm
all
Hol
der
Tea
Cen
sus
- 20
05
9
Tea Small Holdings & Extent by District(Reference to Table No. 1.4 & 1.5)
Three censuses conducted on smallholdings and corresponding extent hadshow an significant increase. Cumulative figure of holdings and extent rapidlyincreased during the 10 year period between 1994 & 2005 compared to theperiod 1983 to 1994. The main contributory factor was encouragementprovided for the smallholders through government subsidy program andother incentive schemes. Smallholdings extent increased rapidly in districtsof Ratnapura ,Matara,Galle & Kalutara. During this 20 year period the totalextent declined for Kandy,Matale & Nuwaraeliya districts due to variousreasons.
As given in table 1.5 the total extent of 132,329 ha includes the abandoned/neglected tea extent of smallholding over and above 118,274 ha of maintainedtea lands. Subject to such an over stated extent 51% of extent was of the sizeof < ½ ha holdings. Some 84% of smallholdings are of extent below the sizeclass of 5 ha. As smallholder tea lands were expanded in recent past since1990s in the Kalutara & Kegalle districts the abandoned tea lands wereminimum in these districts in relation to other districts according to thecensus of 2005.
10
Table No. 1.6
AREA REPLANTED AND NEW PLANTED TEA
Replanting New Planting Infilling(Hectare) (Hectare) (No. of
Year plants)Small Estate Small Estate Smallholder Sector holder Sector HolderSector (RPCs & State) Sector (RPCs & State) Sector
2000 518 880 255 9 812,174
2001 574 2,446 399 9 1,078,000
2002 736 380 562 12 2,522,872
2003 765 349 643 11 1,639,601
2004 994 309 12 7 1,489,167
2005 1,058 398 8 7 1,242,648
2006 1,001 389 1 4 520,610
2007 1,024 454 0 3 516,471
2008 881 544 0 0 519,607
2009 777 641 0 0 431,699
2010 847 836 0 3 424,227
2011 772 1,079 28 3 504,322
2012 937 895 239 16 766,991
Source: Tea Small Holdings Development AuthorityRegional Plantation Companies (RPCs)
11
Table No. 1.7
TEA GROWING INCENTIVES FOR SMALLHOLDING SECTOR
Rs Mn
Replanting New Planting Infilling/Crop Total
Year Rehabilitation
Rs Mn % Rs Mn % Rs Mn % Rs Mn
2000 69.60 86.35 7.23 8.97 3.77 4.68 80.60
2001 77.76 81.26 12.71 13.28 5.22 5.46 95.69
2002 99.17 70.33 30.62 21.71 11.21 7.95 141.00
2003 122.82 76.69 27.95 17.45 9.38 5.85 160.15
2004 188.10 87.00 3.25 1.50 14.46 6.71 205.81
2005 174.83 95.29 0.30 0.16 8.11 4.42 183.46
2006 179.42 95.57 0.31 0.01 7.81 4.16 187.73
2007 172.89 97.59 4.13 2.33 0.15 0.08 177.17
2008 194.59 97.57 - - 4.84 2.43 199.43
2009 178.17 98.21 - - 3.25 1.79 181.42
2010 177.85 98.03 - - 3.58 1.97 181.43
2011 187.64 96.15 1.19 0.61 6.33 3.24 195.16
2012 226.83 83.79 23.12 8.78 14.36 5.43 264.40
Source : Tea Small Holdings Development Authority
12
Area Replanted and New Planted for Tea and Incentives forTea Smallholding Sector(Reference to Table No. 1.6 & 1.7)
The government continuously provides financial incentives to encouragereplanting / new planting and infilling in the small holder sector in Sri Lanka.In the year 2011, the government has decided to provide financial subsidiesfor small holders at the rate of Rs. 150,000 per hectare to enhance the newplanting extent. As a result of that in 2012, the newly planted extent hasincreased by 8 folds than the previous year. Since 2004, financial incentivesfor new planting has not been provided during this period only few newplantings were recorded as the past commitments and no new plantings atall since 2007 to 2010. During the period of 1990 and 1995, the newly plantedarea was 1600 ha average per year and it was 400 ha from 1996 to 2003.
Extent replanted shows a gradual increase since 2000 to 2007 since thena decline was recorded by 2011. However, owing to the increment of subsidypayments in the latter part of the 2011, an improvement of the replantedextent was reflected in the year 2012.
The number of plants infilled shows a significant decline since 2006 to2011 due to various reasons. In the year 2012, a significant improvement wasrecorded.
In table 1.7 the three types of incentive schemes was introduced in termsof expenditure parallel with extent and other inputs along with pastcommitments to be paid in arrears are given. Key portion (86%) of incentivepayments were incurred for replanting. In 2012 compared to 2011, majorimprovement (increase of Rs 69 mn) was reported as incentive expenditure inthe smallholding sector.
13
TEA PRODUCTIONOverview - 2012
In 4th Place next to China, India & Kenya
Total Production in million kilogram - 328.4 mn kg (328,397 Mt)
By Elevation : Yield kg per Hectare
High - 73.7 – 22% 1,688 kg/ha - NationalMedium - 52.6 – 16%Low - 202.1 – 62%
By Type : By Sector :
Orthodox - 302.1 – 92% Smallholder - 234.2 – 71%CTC - 23.3 – 7% Estate Sector - 94.2 – 29%Green Tea - 3.0 – 1% (RPCs & State)
By Manufacturing Factory : By Leaf Ownership :
Private - 200.6 –61% Own leaf - 100.6 – 31%RPCs - 119.9 –41% Bought leaf - 223.3 – 69%State - 7.9 – 2%
Top eight production DistrictsNuwaraeliya -20%, Badulla -10%,Galle, Matara, Ratnapura,Kegalla, Kalutara & Kandy together –67%
14
Tabl
e N
o. 1
.8M
AD
E T
EA
PR
OD
UC
TIO
N B
Y C
ATE
GO
RY
TIM
E S
ER
IES
DAT
A F
OR
10
YE
AR
S
Mill
ion
Kilo
gram
Cat
egor
y20
0020
0520
0620
0720
0820
0920
1020
1120
12Q
ty.%
Qty.
%
(1) E
leva
tionw
ise
- H
igh
83.8
80.4
74.7
72.5
84.3
73.0
79.1
78.2
2473
.722
- M
ediu
m56
.455
.151
.554
.449
.044
.856
.152
.616
52.6
16 -
Low
166.
518
1.7
184.
617
7.7
185.
317
3.3
196.
219
6.7
6020
2.1
62
(2)
By
Type
- O
rthod
ox T
ea28
8.3
298.
528
9.2
284.
929
8.9
273.
030
9.7
301.
992
302.
192
- C
ut, T
ear
& C
url (
CTC
) Te
a17
.516
.318
.416
.216
.515
.818
.422
.67
23.3
7-
Gre
en T
ea0.
92.
43.
23.
53.
22.
33.
33.
01
3.0
1
(3) B
y G
reen
Lea
f Ow
ners
hip
-Sm
allh
olde
rs18
3.6
205.
821
2.4
205.
721
4.8
201.
923
0.1
229.
070
234.
271
(Bou
ght l
eaf)
-N
on S
mal
lhol
ders
123.
111
1.4
98.4
98.9
103.
889
.210
1.3
98.5
3094
.229
(Ow
n le
af)
-R
PCs
113.
310
5.4
92.9
93.8
98.3
84.6
96.9
94.4
2990
.228
-St
ate
9.8
6.0
5.5
5.1
5.5
4.6
4.4
4.1
14
2
(4) B
y M
anuf
actu
rer
- Pr
ivat
e Fa
ctor
ies
143.
915
6.6
163.
015
7.9
167.
716
4.4
183.
118
5.8
5720
0.6
61-
RPC
Fac
torie
s14
8.3
139.
812
8.3
126.
213
1.0
115.
413
6.1
134.
141
119.
937
- St
ate
Fact
orie
s14
.520
.819
.520
.519
.911
.312
.27.
62
7.9
2
Tota
l Pr
oduc
tion
306.
731
7.2
310.
830
4.6
318.
629
1.1
331.
432
7.5
100
328.
410
0
Not
e : L
eaf o
wne
rshi
p of
stat
e de
note
s ow
n le
af fr
om JE
DB
, SLS
PC, T
ea S
hakt
hi a
nd T
RI.
M
anuf
actu
re o
f Priv
ate
Fact
orie
s inc
lude
s Coo
pera
tive
and
TSH
FL F
acto
ries.
S
tate
man
ufac
ture
den
otes
the
fact
orie
s be
long
to J
EDB
, SLS
PC, T
ea S
hakt
hi,T
RI &
Kal
ubow
itiya
na L
td.
Sour
ce :
Sri L
anka
Tea
Boa
rd
15
Tab
le N
o. 1
.9
MO
NT
HLY
TE
A P
RO
DU
CT
ION
UN
DE
R D
IFFE
RE
NT
CA
TAG
OR
IES
- 201
1
' 0
00 K
ilogr
am
Cat
egor
yJa
nFe
bM
arch
Apri
lM
ayJu
neJu
lyAu
gSe
ptO
ctN
ovD
ecTo
tal
Qty
%
(1) E
leva
tionw
ise
- H
igh
5.4
5.5
6.4
7.3
8.7
6.0
4.1
5.4
4.9
5.9
7.4
6.7
73.7
22.0
-
Med
ium
3.7
4.0
4.6
5.8
5.9
3.8
3.4
4.4
3.5
4.0
5.3
4.2
52.6
16.0
- Low
14.3
13.1
17.9
17.0
18.1
16.7
17.5
16.1
19.0
17.5
17.9
16.9
202.
162
.0(2
) B
y Typ
e-
Orth
odox
21.6
21.0
26.7
27.6
30.1
24.7
23.1
23.4
25.5
25.0
27.9
25.4
302.
192
.0- C
TC1.
51.
41.
92.
22.
31.
61.
72.
31.
72.
12.
42.
123
.37.
0- G
reen
Tea
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
3.0
1.0
(3) B
y L
eaf O
wne
rshi
p-
Smal
lhol
ders
(Bou
ght L
eaf)
16.5
15.6
20.8
20.7
22.0
19.1
19.2
18.5
20.8
19.9
21.4
19.6
234.
271
.0-
Non
Sm
allh
olde
rs(O
wn
Leaf
)6.
87.
08.
29.
310
.77.
55.
87.
36.
67.
59.
28.
294
.229
.0-
RPC
s6.
66.
77.
88.
910
.27.
25.
56.
96.
47.
38.
87.
990
.228
.0- S
tate
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3
4.0
1.0
(4) B
y M
anuf
actu
rer
- Pr
ivat
e Fa
ctor
ies
14.2
13.3
17.7
17.4
18.6
16.4
16.8
16.1
18.1
17.2
18.0
16.7
200.
661
.0- R
PC F
acto
ries
8.6
8.7
10.5
11.8
13.3
9.6
7.7
9.1
8.7
9.6
11.8
10.5
119.
937
.0- S
tate
Fac
torie
s0.
60.
60.
70.
80.
80.
60.
50.
70.
60.
60.
80.
67.
92.
0
Tota
l Pro
duct
ion
ofea
ch C
ateg
ory
23.4
22.6
28.9
30.1
32.7
26.5
25.0
25.9
27.4
27.4
30.6
27.8
328.4100.0
Sour
ce :
Sri L
anka
Tea
Boa
rd
4 - CM 17140
16
Made Tea Production by Category
(Reference to Table No 1.8 & Table No. 1.9)
Tea production has shown in these two tables were based on the elevation,type of production, leaf ownership and the type of manufacturer. On averageelevation wise contribution to made tea production recorded as 59% for lowgrown, 24% for high grown and 17% for mid grown since the year 2005 to2012. However, in 2012 it was 62%, 22% & 16% for low, high and mediumgrown respectively. Compared to the year 2011, Low grown tea contributedsignificantly to increase the production by 2% in 2012. This elevation wiseproduction variation was caused by several factors such as weather, soilcondition, fertilizer applying etc., in addition to the extent of cultivationunder each elevation.
Monthly tea production has declined the period of January/Februaryand the period of June to July in 2012. Latter part of the year, the tea productionkept on an increasing trend. Weather conditions prevailed throughout theyear was caused for this discrepancy.
Black tea and Green tea were the two main types of made tea contributionin the year 2012 out of which 99% for black tea and 1% for green tearespectively. Based on the processing method the black tea had divided intotwo types as Orthodox and Cut Tear & Curl (CTC) which accounts 92% and7% respectively.
The green leaf ownership mainly reflects the Smallholder sectorproduction and the Estate sector production as well. In 2012, Smallholdersector contribution to the national production was 71% and this was thehighest amount ever recorded in the history while the Estate tea productionwas reported 94.2 mn kg or 29% contribution to the national tea production.
When the manufacturer base tea production is considered, there werethree types of manufacturers engaged in tea production ie. Private factories,RPC factories and factories owned by State Institutions. Some 10% increaseof made tea production was recorded from Private factories during previousthree consecutive years owing to the increase of Smallholding sector supplyof green leaf. In contrast, made tea production of RPC factories declined by12% during previous three consecutive years. In the same period State ownedfactory made tea production declined by 35%. Non availability of sufficientquantities of bought leaf due to competition from Private factories and declineof own leaf production were the main contributory factors for such decline.
Cha
rt 1
Sour
ce :
Sri L
anka
Tea
Boa
rd
17
18
19
Table No. 1.10
TEA PRODUCTION BY ELEVATION
Mn Kg
Year High Medium Low TotalGrown % Grown % Grown %
2000 83.5 27 56.2 18 166.1 54 305.82001 75.1 25 53.8 18 166.2 56 295.12002 87.0 28 53.9 17 169.1 55 310.02003 81.6 27 53.9 18 167.7 55 303.22004 75.2 24 49.9 16 184.3 60 309.52005 80.4 25 55.1 17 181.8 57 317.22006 74.7 24 51.5 17 184.6 59 310.82007 72.5 24 54.4 18 177.7 58 304.62008 84.4 26 49.0 15 185.3 58 318.72009 73.0 25 44.8 15 173.3 60 291.12010 79.1 24 56.1 17 196.2 59 331.42011 78.2 24 52.6 16 196.7 60 327.52012 73.6 22 52.6 16 202.1 62 328.4
Source : Sri Lanka Tea Board
20
Table No. 1.11 (i)
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF TEA PRODUCTION - 2012HIGH ELEVATION - TEA LANDS ABOVE 4000 FEET
Administrative Agro-Climatic TeaElevation District District Production
Kilograms
High Nuwaraeliya Agarapatana 6,833,524Bogawantalawa 5,409,711Hatton/Dickoya 7,401,780Kotmale 911,038Mathurata 2,658,803Nanuoya/Lindula/Talawakelle 11,820,100Nuwaraeliya 3,563,956Patana/Kotagala 4,538,615Pundaluoya 2,204,878Ramboda 1,506,517Udapussellawa/Halgranoya 3,190,730Upcot/Maskeliya 7,720,750
Sub total 57,760,400High Kandy Ramboda 909,246
Sub Total 909,246
High Badulla Bandarawela/Poonagalla 2,953,154Demodara/Haliella/Badulla 1,993,107Ella/Namunukula 10,830Haputale 3,770,704Koslanda/Haldummulla 6,763Madulsima 2,078,866Malwatte/Welimada 1,955,160Udapussellawa/Halgranoya 1,275,099
Sub Total 14,043,682
High Ratnapura Balangoda 108,800Upcot/Maskeliya 820,458
Sub Total 929,258
Total Production (High Grown) 73,642,587
Source : Sri Lanka Tea Board
21
Table No. 1.11 (ii)
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF TEA PRODUCTION-2012MEDIUM ELEVATION - TEA LANDS BETWEEN 2000-4000 FEET
Agro-Climatic TeaElevation District District Production
KilogramsMedium Badulla Demodara/Haliella/Badulla 5,773,609.50
Ella/Namunukula 1,169,367.00Koslanda/Haldummulla 306,973.00Madulsima 289,077.00Malwatte/Welimada 1,242,333.50Passara/Lunugalla 4,003,917.00
Sub Total 12,785,277.00Medium Kandy Gampola/Nawalapitiya/Dolosbage 7,537,247.50
Hunnasgiriya/Matale/Yakdessa 74,721.00Kadugannawa 1,315,862.00Kandy/Matale/Kurunegala 1,339,300.00Kotmale 386,650.75Madulkelle/Knuckles/Ragala 5,192,588.50Nilambe/Hantane/Galaha 1,254,702.00Pussellawa/Hewaheta 4,764,369.00
Sub Total 21,865,440.75Medium Kegalle Gampola/Nawalapitiya/Dolo 804,428.00
Sub Total 804,428.00Medium Matale Hunnasgiriya/Matale/Yakdessa 919,339.00
Kandy/Matale/Kurunegala 253,420.00Madulkelle/Knuckles/Ragala 265,228.00
Sub Total 1,437,987.00Medium Matara Deniyaya 232,304.00
Sub Total 232,304.00Medium Nuwara Eliya Gampola/Nawalapitiya/Dolosbage 3,117,972.50
Hatton/Dickoya 1,193,199.50Kotmale 903,259.50Maturata 168,497.50Patana/Kotagala 1,693,370.50Pundaluoya 293,445.26Pussellawa/Hewaheta 1,783,471.00Ramboda 723,405.00Udapussellawa/Halgranoya 404,386.50Watawala/Ginigathhena/Norton Bridge 2,836,537.00
Sub Total 13,117,544.26Medium Ratnapura Balangoda 1,529,524.00
Balangoda/Rakwana 463,164.65Deniyaya 397,459.00
Sub Total 2,390,147.65Total Production (Medium Grown) 52,633,128.66
Source : Sri Lanka Tea Board
22
Table No. 1.11 (iii)
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF TEA PRODUCTION - 2012LOW ELEVATION - TEA LANDS BELOW 2,000 FEET
Administrative Agro-Climatic TeaElevation District District Production
Kilograms
Low Colombo Kegalle 675,457Galle Galle 44,359,233
Kalutara 4,196,149Morawaka 238,231
Hambantota Matara 284,332Kalutara Kalutara 17,357,166Kandy Gampola/Nawalapitiya/Dolosbage 3,063,422
Kadugannawa 5,777,615Kandy/Matale/Kurunegala 1,456,582
Kegalle Kadugannawa 702,939Kegalle 10,141,605Ratnapura 372,343
Matale Kandy/Matale/Kurunegala 522,932Matara Deniyaya 14,830,201
Galle 33,687Matara 4,175,330Morawaka 25,250,005
Nuwara Eliya Kelani Vally 828,544Ratnapura Balangoda 6,994,718
Balangoda/Rakwana 3,105,452Deniyaya 1,085,245Ratnapura 56,670,132
Total Production (Low grown) 202,121,318
Source : Sri Lanka Tea Board
23
Geographical Distribution of High, Medium & LowElevation Tea Production(Reference Table Nos. 1.11 (i), (ii) & (iii))
Tea production can be disseminated geographically in to three elevationsaccording to the altitude i.e. high, medium and low elevations. In addition tothat tea production is classified by agro-climatic districts and administrativedistricts as well. As there is any exactly demarcate boundaries, there aresome overlapping in this criteria is concerned.
The geographical distribution of tea production is considered, highestproduction of high grown tea recorded from the Nuwaraeliya district whichaccounts 78% and medium grown tea comes from Kandy district (41%) andlow grown tea comes from Ratnapura district (33%).
In accordance with the administrative districts are concerned, Nuwaraeliyadistrict contributed 71 mn kg ie. 22% to the national tea production in 2012which consists of 57.8 mn kg for high grown tea and 13.1 mn kg for lowgrown tea. Badulla district had contributed 26.8 mn kg ie. 8% to the nationalproduction consists of 14 mn kg for high grown tea and 12.8 mn kg formedium grown tea. Predominantly Ratnapura, Galle, Matara, Kalutara, Kandyand Kegalle districts in low elevation had generated 200 mn kg ie. 61% to thetotal production and 99% to the low grown tea production.
With respect to the Agro- climatic districts of high, medium and lowelevations are concerned, the highest tea production was recorded byRatnapura agro climatic district of low elevation in Sri Lanka.
24
Table No. 1.12
TEA PRODUCTION BY DIFFERENT TYPE
Mn Kg
Year Black Tea Green Tea % Total
Orthodox % CTC %
2000 288.30 94 17.50 6 - 305.80
2001 277.95 94 17.14 6 - 295.10
2002 292.18 94 17.85 6 - 310.00
2003 285.60 94 17.60 6 - 303.20
2004 292.05 94 16.10 5 1.35 1 309.50
2005 298.49 94 16.29 5 2.42 1 317.20
2006 289.19 93 18.42 6 3.19 1 310.80
2007 284.90 94 16.20 5 3.50 1 304.60
2008 298.95 94 16.53 5 3.22 1 318.70
2009 273.00 94 15.80 5 2.30 1 291.10
2010 309.70 93 18.40 6 3.30 1 331.40
2011 301.90 92 22.60 7 3.00 1 327.50
2012 302.10 92 23.30 7 3.00 1 328.40
Source : Sri Lanka Tea BoardNote : Orthodox Category includes Bio, Instant & Reclaimed Teas
25
Table No. 1.13MADE TEA PRODUCTION BY SECTOR
Mn kgYear Small % Estate Sector % National
Holder ProductionSector RPCs State
2000 183.8 60.1 114.2 7.9 39.9 305.72001 183.4 62.1 105.1 6.6 37.9 295.12002 189.6 61.2 113.4 7.1 38.9 310.02003 188.0 62.0 109.1 6.1 38.0 303.22004 203.0 65.6 99.9 5.2 34.0 309.52005 205.8 64.9 106.0 5.4 35.1 317.22006 212.4 68.3 93.7 4.7 31.7 310.82007 205.7 67.5 94.1 4.8 32.5 304.62008 214.8 67.4 98.3 5.6 32.6 318.72009 201.9 69.4 84.7 4.5 30.6 291.12010 230.1 69.4 96.9 4.4 30.6 331.42011 229.0 69.9 94.4 4.1 30.1 327.52012 234.2 71.0 90.2 4.0 29.0 328.4
Source : Sri Lanka Tea Board
In 2012, Small holding sector and Estate sector have contributed 234 mn kg(71%) and 94.2 mn kg (29%) to the national production of 328.4 mn kg.Compared to 2011, Smallholder sector enhanced their production by 2%while Estate sector was recorded 4% drop in 2012. However, in 2000 thesetwo sectors Smallholder & Estate added only 60% and 40% respectively tothe total production. In 2006, a sudden change of ratio was recorded as68:32 for Smallholder and Estate sector respectively. The year 2012 registeredthe best performance of Smallholder sector tea production ever.
In 2004 the Estate sector recorded a great reduction compared to previuosperiod. Since then a gradual decline can be seen in estate sector. Thatdecrement is represented by the RPCs and State institutions such as JEDB,SLSPC & Elkaduwa Plantation Ltd.
Effective financial incentives and subsidized inputs for cultivation andfertilizer provided by the Government were the main attributing factors forthe increased share of production in the small holding sector. Low labourproductivity, low rate of replanting/ new planting were some causes forreduction of the share of the production in Estate sector.
26
Tabl
e N
o. 1
.14
MO
NT
HLY
TE
A P
RO
DU
CT
ION
- 20
12 C
OM
POSI
TIO
N O
F L
EA
F O
WN
ER
SHIP
'00
0 K
iIogr
am
Inst
itutio
nLe
afJa
n.Fe
b.M
arch
Apri
lM
ayJu
neJu
lyAu
g.Se
pt.
Oct
.No
v.D
ec.
Tota
lO
wne
rshi
pQ
ty.
%
Reg
Reg
iona
lO
wn
6,56
9
6,6
69
7,
844
8,86
3
10,
226
7,2
34
5,
519
6
,943
6,38
8
7,2
79
8,7
57
7,8
82
90,
174
7
5Pl
anta
tion
Com
pani
es (R
PC)
(Elk
aduw
a PL
Cin
clud
ed)
Bou
ght
2
,011
2,06
1
2,6
52
2
,936
3,06
4
2
,352
2,22
9
2,1
33
23,
187
2
,351
3
,056
2
,585
2
9,74
9
25
Stat
e - J
EDB
, SLS
PCO
wn
24
4
288
31
6
442
43
0
212
16
3
3
50
229
218
389
275
3,55
5
99
Bou
ght
3
4
5
7
7
3
-
1
-
-
1
-
30
1St
ate
- Tea
Sha
kthi
Ow
n
3
8
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
22
5
5
2
Bou
ght
128
13
0
175
19
9
226
1
80
172
175
19
9
1
91
2
12
1
46
2,
131
9
8St
ate -
Tea
Res
earc
hO
wn
2
3
25
2
5
27
4
4
24
2
4
28
2
6
31
3
3
30
338
5
1In
stitu
teB
ough
t
31
27
2
8
30
3
0
26
2
7
28
2
4
23
2
5
24
322
4
9Pr
ivat
e Te
a Fa
ctor
ies
Ow
n
379
50
8
465
53
0
615
6
77
572
477
42
6
4
94
7
52
5
08
6,
401
3 (
Indi
vidu
al)
Bou
ght
13,
056
12
,115
1
6,30
9
15,
980
17
,075
1
4,84
1
15,2
93
14,8
24
16,
706
15
,795
16
,361
15,
360
183
,713
9
7Pr
ivat
e - T
ea S
mal
lO
wn
-
-
-
-
-
-
60
-
-
-
-
-
60
1H
oldi
ngFa
ctor
y Li
mite
dB
ough
t
4
38
328
52
7
486
46
6
454
41
9
4
30
543
509
517
478
5,59
7
99
(TSH
FL)
Priv
ate
- Co-
Ow
n
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-op
erat
ives
Bou
ght
354
34
7
442
40
8
414
4
30
409
372
44
7
4
15
4
21
3
85
4,
843
100
MPI
Kal
ubow
itiya
naO
wn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
-
Tea F
acto
ry L
TDB
ough
t
1
24
120
15
0
142
11
2
109
10
9
1
08
126
104
110
111
1,42
6 1
00To
tal
Prod
uctio
n :
2
3,36
2
22,6
27
28,
940
3
0,05
4
32,
711
2
6,54
3
25,0
00
25,8
71
27,
435
27
,413
30
,635
27,
806
328
,397
of w
hich
Ow
n le
af
7,
218
7
,498
8,65
3
9,
866
1
1,31
7
8
,149
6,34
0
7,8
00
7,
071
8
,025
9
,933
8
,717
100
,587
3
1B
ough
t lea
f
16,
144
15
,130
2
0,28
7
20,
188
2
1,39
5
18,
395
18
,660
18
,071
2
0,36
4
19,3
88
20,7
01 1
9,08
9 2
27,8
11
69
Leaf
Ow
ners
hip
:Sm
allh
olde
rs :
Qty
.
16,
523
15
,638
2
0,75
2
20,
718
2
2,00
9
19,
072
19
,232
18
,547
2
0,78
9
19,8
81
21,4
53 1
9,59
7 2
34,2
12
71
(Bou
ght l
eaf)
%
71
6
9
72
6
9
67
72
77
7
2
76
7
3
70
70
7
1N
on S
mal
lhol
ders
:Q
ty.
6,83
9
6,9
90
8,
188
9,33
6
10,
702
7,4
72
5,
768
7
,323
6,64
6
7,5
31
9,1
82
8,2
09
94,
185
2
9(O
wn
leaf
) %
2
9
31
2
8
31
3
3
28
2
3
28
2
4
27
3
0
30
29
Not
e : I
n or
der t
o ca
lcul
ate
smal
lhol
der a
nd n
on sm
allh
olde
r con
tribu
tion
in to
tal t
ea p
rodu
ctio
n th
e ow
n le
af p
ortio
n of
Priv
ate
Tea
Fact
orie
s is t
reat
ed a
s bou
ght l
eaf.
As
a re
sult
the
sect
or c
ontri
butio
n ad
just
ed to
78%
and
29%
res
pect
ivel
y w
hich
is g
iven
in o
ther
tabl
es a
nd e
lsew
here
.So
urce
:Sr
i Lan
ka T
ea B
oard
27
Monthly Tea Production by Composition ofLeaf Ownership - 2012(Reference Table No. 1.14)
The supply chain of the tea leaves are concerned there are two ways ofsupplying leaves to the factory. The own leaf which belongs to owner of thefactory and the bought leaf which is outsource to the factory from the others.Although in order to compute the Estate and Smallholder contribution intotal tea production the own leaf portion of private factories is treated asbought leaf.
Out of these manufacturing institutions the highest production of ownleaf was brought by the Regional Plantation Companies (RPCs). In contrast,highest production of bought leaf was gained by the Private Factories. Inspite of that maximum contribution to the 328.4 mn kg of made tea productionwas accomplished by the Private Factories. In 2012, bought leaf obtainedtop production which accounts 69% and own leaf obtained 31% from thetotal production.
With regard to the Smallholder and Estate contributions to the nationalproduction, 71% by the Smallholder sector and 29% by the Estate sector.Private Factories, TSHFL, Co-operatives and Kalubowitiyana Tea Factorymainly depend on the bought leaf. Moreover, the allocation of State Factories(JEDB, SLSPC, TRI & TSHFL, Kalubowitiyana Tea Factory LTD) is just 2%.
28
Table No. 1.15
MADE TEA PRODUCTION BY TYPE OF MANUFACTURERMn kg
RPC State Private NationalFactories (JEDB, Factories Production
Year % SLSPC, % %TSF & TRIFactories)
2000 147.9 48.4 14.3 4.7 143.5 46.9 305.72001 140.0 47.5 14.4 4.9 140.7 47.7 295.12002 148.5 47.9 16.7 5.4 144.8 46.7 310.02003 143.9 47.5 20.8 6.9 138.5 45.7 303.22004 133.6 43.2 20.0 6.5 154.5 49.9 309.52005 139.8 44.1 20.8 6.6 156.5 49.3 317.22006 128.3 41.3 19.5 6.3 163.0 52.4 310.82007 126.3 41.5 20.5 6.7 157.9 51.8 304.62008 131.0 41.1 19.9 6.3 167.8 52.6 318.72009 115.4 39.6 11.3 3.9 164.4 56.5 291.12010 136.2 41.1 12.2 3.7 183.1 55.2 331.42011 134.1 40.9 7.6 2.3 185.8 56.7 327.52012 119.9 37.0 7.9 2.0 200.6 61.0 328.4
Source: Sri Lanka Tea Board
Three types of manufacturers are engaged in production process of madetea such as RPC factories, State owned factories and Private factories. RPCfactories which depend on 75% own leaf & 25% bought leaf showed adecline in share of production from 48% in 2000 to 37% by 2012.
In the decade the category of private factories that consist of individuals,TSHFL and Co-operatives which mainly depend on bought leaf (97%)increased their share of production from 47% to 61% comparatively. Theshare of State factories (JEDB, SLSPC, TSF, TRI & Kalubowitiyana FactoryLtd) is around 2% at present. TSHFL & Co-operative manufacturers whichwere categorized under state by mistake are corrected since 2011. As a resultstate production is adjusted to 7.6 mn kg (2.3%) in 2011 and 7.9 mn kg (2%)in 2012 while increasing the share of private factories.
29
Table No. 1.16
TEA PRODUCTION, EXPORT & LOCAL CONSUMPTION
Mn kgYear Production Yield Exports % Local %
(kg/ha) (without Consumptionre-exports)
2000 305.8 1618.0 281.4 92.0 24.4 8.02001 295.1 1562.0 288.9 97.9 23.0 7.82002 310.0 1649.0 287.3 92.7 22.7 7.32003 303.2 1613.2 291.5 96.1 21.0 6.92004 309.5 1461.0 290.6 93.9 22.0 7.12005 317.2 1418.0 298.8 94.2 23.5 7.42006 310.8 1386.0 314.9 101.3 24.0 7.72007 304.6 1356.0 294.3 96.6 25.0 8.22008 318.7 1421.0 301.2 94.5 27.0 8.52009 291.1 1312.0 279.9 96.2 28.0 9.62010 331.4 1478.0 305.8 96.2 32.8 9.92011 327.5 1662.0 303.2 92.6 28.0 8.52012 328.4 1663.0 306.0 93.0 27.8 8.5
Source: Sri Lanka Tea BoardInternational Tea Committee (ITC) Bulletin
Tea Production, Export, Local Consumption(Reference to Table 1.16)In the 1990s, national tea production increased by 70 mn kg. However, inprevious decade (2000-2010) the production increased marginally by 25 mnkg. In 2012 the production increased slightly by 0.3% compared to previousyear. The quantity exported from national tea production remained around94% on an average term throughout the decade. This excludes quantityused for blending with tea imported for re-export. In 2012, exported quantityis raised by 0.9%. Following similar trends of production in the 1990s exportsincreased by 65 mn kg. In the previous decade the quantity of exportincreased only by 25 mn kg.
On average terms around 8% of the total tea production is used for localconsumption. The equation of the quantity of production to export pluslocal consumption is not always matched due to the adjustment of stockremaining at the year end.
30
Cha
rt 2
31
32
33
TEA PRICESOverview - 2012
Average Green Leaf PricesRealized to Smallholder
Uva Western Uva Western LowHigh High Medium Medium grown
Rs per kg 49.71 55.62 61.56 50.78 59.66
Colombo Auction Average Sale Price & Quantity SoldHigh Grown Medium Grown Low Grown All
Rs per Kg 375.53 351.08 407.14 391.64Mn Kg 69.7 49.8 202.9 322.50
Colombo Auction Average Sale Price by Factory TypeRPCs JEDB/ TSHFL Co- TS Fund TRI Private
SLSPC operativesRs/kg 381.41 301.25 417.60 405.57 360.91 426.10 400.64
Major Auction Centers Tea Export prices (FOB)by category
Average Unit Price AverageUS$ /kg Rs/Kg
Kolkata 2.81 Black TeaCochin 1.80 - Bulk 495.29Guwahati 2.47 - Packets 516.16Cuittagong 2.41 - Tea bags 1,084.01Mombasa 2.88 Instant tea 884.50Jakarta 1.97 Green Tea 1,112.46Colombo 3.07 Average FOB 552.26Malawi 1.70
34
Table No. 1.17GREEN LEAF PRICE TO SMALL HOLDERS
BY ELEVATION - 2012Rs/Kg
Month Uva Western Uva Western LowHigh High Medium Medium Grown
January 42.73 50.95 48.81 45.14 53.29February 43.50 51.14 46.50 46.29 53.18March 46.36 52.54 50.10 48.52 57.01April 51.35 54.11 56.39 53.13 64.11May 47.59 52.84 51.28 49.89 61.58June 48.27 52.85 51.09 49.98 60.14July 50.21 55.14 51.03 50.44 61.36August 56.78 63.29 53.14 53.29 59.51September 59.04 61.84 56.44 54.28 63.03October 56.95 62.71 55.02 53.79 60.16November 59.14 63.37 56.49 54.91 59.26December 59.39 66.47 57.91 57.80 62.13Average 49.71 55.62 51.56 50.78 59.66
Source: Sri Lanka Tea Board
High grown & Medium grown elevations were subdivided into four specificgreen leaf categories on prices monthly basis in 2012. Low grown prices arethe highest followed by high grown and medium grown. However, since theend of the third quarter in 2012, Western High green leaf prices got highprices and as an average law price were reported for other High and Mediumcategories of green leaf.
Currently the net proceeds of made tea sold at auctions is divided at aratio of 68:32 between the smallholder (grower) and manufacturer (factory)respectively based on reasonable price formula. The smallholders’ portion isinformed by Sri Lanka Tea Board on a monthly basis as minimum price levelfor green leaf intake which manufacturer is liable to pay.
Green leaf prices of low grown category during April to December arehigher than the rest of months. An almost similar pattern of monthly averageprice variation can be seen for High and Medium growns. Within High growncategory the prices of Western high were attractive than Uva high with adifference of Rs 3/= to Rs 8/= per kg. In Medium grown category pricesmaximum of Rs 3/= difference per kg is realized for Uva medium above theWestern medium.
35
Table No. 1.18
AVERAGE COLOMBO AUCTION PRICES OF TEABY ELEVATION
Rs/kg
Year High Medium Low All Elevations
2000 128.46 119.08 144.79 135.532001 135.56 122.63 154.50 143.962002 141.73 126.61 160.55 150.282003 138.31 126.18 160.86 149.052004 171.78 157.96 189.86 180.742005 172.24 163.27 199.01 186.202006 204.58 177.25 204.50 199.842007 253.41 245.72 299.35 279.522008 276.06 272.73 336.61 310.532009 320.93 315.86 389.11 360.672010 337.83 330.88 393.40 370.612011 329.95 319.77 381.27 359.892012 375.53 351.08 407.14 391.64
Source: Sri Lanka Tea Board
In the decade the annual average auction price for tea remained the highestfor low grown, second for high grown and the lowest for medium grown.Further, national average price was always higher than the high and mediumelevational price (exception for 2006) and below the low grown pricethroughout. The price fetched at the auction for three different elevationswere in parallel with the quantity of tea production for respective elevationsin the past 2 decades. Taste of teas, type of production, brands, weatherconditions and manner of operation have contributed to the price differencesamong the elevations.
In 2012, the three elevations High, Medium and Low the average auctionprices enhanced by 13%, 10% and 7% respectively and national avaverageprice computed was increased by 9% for compared to 2011.
36
Cha
rt 3
Sour
ce :
Sri L
anka
Tea
Boa
rd
37
38
39
Table No 1.19
MONTHLY AVERAGE TEA PRICES & QUANTITY SOLDAT COLOMBO TEA AUCTION - 2012
Month High Grown Medium Grown Low Grown All Elevations
Mn kg Rs/kg Mn kg Rs/kg Mn kg Rs/kg Mn kg Rs/kg
January 7.0 331.87 5.1 303.84 20.5 365.11 32.6 348.39
February 5.0 333.28 3.7 315.08 15.6 364.28 24.3 350.35
March 5.7 345.58 4.2 334.33 15.7 390.55 25.7 371.25
April 5.9 364.22 4.3 371.87 17.1 438.31 27.3 411.81
May 6.8 349.11 5.1 343.18 17.0 420.48 28.9 389.98
June 7.3 351.16 5.1 343.24 16.9 410.91 29.3 384.20
July 7.6 366.60 5.2 347.25 20.1 420.97 32.9 396.84
August 4.2 421.11 3.3 366.33 16.2 408.61 23.7 404.99
September 5.0 418.18 3.6 375.66 15.5 430.61 24.2 419.78
October 5.8 420.63 4 372.17 20.1 411.68 29.9 408.17
November 5.0 425.98 3.3 379.75 16.0 405.70 24.3 406.39
December 4.3 439.08 2.9 397.49 12.2 425.54 19.4 424.38
Total Qty(Mnkg) andAveragePrice(Rs/kg) 69.7 375.53 49.8 351.08 202.9 407.14 322.5 391.64
Source : Sri Lanka Tea Board
40
Tabl
e N
o. 1
.20
MO
NT
HLY
AV
ER
AG
E C
OL
OM
BO
AU
CT
ION
PR
ICE
S O
F T
EA
BY
MA
NU
FAC
TU
RE
R -
2012
Rs/k
g
MO
NTH
RPCs
TSH
FLCo
-Tr
iPr
ivat
e T
eaJE
DB/
AVER
AGE
oper
ativ
esFa
ctor
ies
Shak
thi F
und
SLSP
C
Janu
ary
335.
4837
9.69
364.
0038
0.79
360.
0230
2.33
250.
6534
8.79
Febr
uary
338.
9338
0.84
367.
8938
8.18
359.
5131
2.53
272.
3335
0.93
Mar
ch35
6.29
401.
4939
2.94
401.
5438
3.88
353.
1829
3.29
371.
87A
pril
386.
4943
9.54
439.
8244
2.40
430.
0240
2.77
336.
2341
2.03
May
367.
8343
3.20
419.
6142
9.88
409.
6136
0.04
294.
2139
0.39
June
363.
4741
9.58
412.
3940
9.85
403.
3737
2.20
298.
1038
4.99
July
378.
4443
5.96
413.
7543
0.54
411.
8337
0.01
288.
9439
7.14
Aug
ust
411.
7042
0.04
394.
1344
5.04
402.
7737
2.01
304.
6440
5.25
Sept
embe
r41
7.04
443.
4243
0.90
461.
9742
3.38
389.
8033
9.54
420.
08O
ctob
er41
3.24
421.
2740
9.82
438.
5340
6.87
374.
4831
1.93
408.
25N
ovem
ber
414.
9141
1.15
405.
2844
9.67
403.
0836
9.38
322.
5840
6.88
Dec
embe
r43
2.35
426.
8742
1.57
491.
7142
1.24
384.
3634
9.24
424.
67Av
erag
e38
1.41
417.
6040
5.57
426.
1040
0.64
360.
9130
1.25
392.
03
Sour
ce :
Sri L
anka
Tea
Boa
rd
41
Monthly Average Colombo Auction Prices of Tea byManufacturer
(Reference to Table 1.19 & 1.20)
In terms of the table no 1.20 Tea Research Institute (TRI) has recorded thehighest average price for its made tea in 2012. This was followed by TSHFL,Cooperative Factories and Private Tea Factories respectively. RPC factoriesand Tea Shakthi Factories were below the national average. JEDB & SLSPCfactories reported the lowest auction price which was below Rs 91 per kgcompared to national average of 2012. Throughout the year the auctionprices of Tea Shakthi factories and state owned factories (JEDB/SLSPC)were below the national average.
The type of manufacturers are concerned, Sri Lanka has tea manufacturersin terms of the supply chain of the Ceylon tea production. Some manufacturesare required to concern on their raw materials quality, Modernizations offactories and methods followed by the other competitors in order to relationin the market and to obtain a good price. On the other hand it is theresponsibility of the Tea Research Institute which was reported the bestprice in the auction for Ceylon tea to share the experience with other stakeholders in the market for the best prices.
42
Tab
le N
o. 1
.21
MO
NT
HLY
AU
CT
ION
PR
ICE
S O
F T
EA
AT
MA
IN A
UC
TIO
N C
EN
TE
RS
201
1/20
12
US$
/Kg
Mon
thK
olka
taC
ochi
nG
uwah
ati
Chi
ttago
ngM
omba
saJa
kart
aC
olom
boM
alaw
i
2011
2012
2011
2012
2011
2012
2011
2012
2011
2012
2011
2012
2011
2012
2011
2012
Janu
ary
2.56
2.22
1.85
1.62
2.09
1.73
2.68
1.91
2.91
2.63
2.04
1.88
3.56
3.06
1.66
1.66
Febr
uary
2.23
2.08
1.87
1.75
1.88
1.71
2.46
1.96
2.79
2.64
2.06
1.83
3.55
2.98
1.56
1.66
Mar
ch1.
901.
721.
821.
861.
751.
651.
531.
382.
742.
732.
041.
793.
572.
951.
681.
69A
pril
2.97
2.56
1.85
1.98
2.53
2.89
2.50
N.A
.2.
672.
781.
951.
863.
373.
201.
571.
74M
ay3.
083.
211.
721.
862.
762.
932.
202.
262.
612.
801.
891.
843.
123.
021.
471.
57Ju
ne3.
933.
092.
011.
693.
642.
822.
872.
672.
702.
881.
881.
963.
912.
911.
461.
64Ju
ly3.
293.
041.
701.
722.
772.
592.
132.
402.
802.
991.
972.
013.
102.
991.
571.
87A
ugus
t3.
013.
061.
741.
752.
522.
552.
282.
522.
773.
082.
002.
083.
163.
071.
631.
95Se
ptem
ber
2.80
3.03
1.85
1.85
2.33
2.50
2.26
2.53
2.67
3.03
2.00
2.11
3.15
3.18
1.84
2.04
Oct
ober
2.73
2.95
1.80
1.87
2.27
2.55
1.97
2.38
2.69
2.88
1.96
2.10
3.24
3.16
1.87
2.02
Nov
embe
r2.
512.
861.
581.
812.
092.
431.
802.
622.
663.
051.
932.
153.
173.
121.
741.
93D
ecem
ber
2.33
2.79
1.52
1.91
1.87
2.48
1.90
2.94
2.61
3.08
1.86
2.24
3.12
3.31
1.66
1.87
Avar
age
2.78
2.81
1.73
1.80
2.33
2.47
2.14
2.41
2.72
2.88
1.97
1.97
3.26
3.07
1.64
1.70
Sour
ce: S
ri La
nka
Tea
Boa
rd
43
Table No. 1.22FOB AVERAGE TEA PRICES BY CATEGORY
Rs/kgBlack Tea
Year Bulk Packeted Tea Instant Green AverageTea Tea Bags Tea Tea Other Price
2000 159.19 181.73 399.74 506.53 413.99 267.50 181.422001 173.66 204.09 469.71 599.03 523.14 308.41 205.372002 175.16 221.45 491.12 645.59 505.14 339.02 212.992003 176.41 212.35 500.85 767.67 573.95 332.90 216.362004 203.52 238.37 518.95 581.59 520.11 380.77 243.952005 222.75 239.94 545.69 614.29 551.76 392.32 258.822006 230.96 264.93 557.82 739.63 575.39 439.81 274.162007 313.08 349.13 605.37 661.48 713.89 526.38 360.972008 378.53 415.86 722.13 898.98 810.18 597.38 429.762009 410.53 457.58 785.70 826.62 865.79 650.27 470.242010 437.15 475.24 792.91 803.38 891.11 781.59 494.592011 442.66 473.32 912.47 861.26 976.98 - 500.642012 495.29 516.16 1,084.01 884.50 1,112.46 - 552.26
Source : Sri Lanka Tea BoardNote : Volume of "Other" category which was appeared previously absorbed in to
main categories in 2011 and thereafter.
During past two decades, export price for all categories of tea have beenshown increasing trends despite a few exceptions in prices in some years.However, annual average prices were continuously in increasing trend. In2011 “Other” category of tea exports which existed till 2010, has been absorbedinto 5 major categories and average FOB price was adjusted accordingly.
FOB price of bulk tea category of black tea showed a considerable growth(12%) in 2012 while Packeted tea FOB price was increased by 9%. Tea bagscategory of Black tea recorded the highest growth (19%) of FOB price greaterthan the 2011 growth. With regard to Instant tea & Green tea FOB priceshighlighted a growth of 3% & 14% respectively. For the average FOB priceof all 5 categories, the growth recorded in 2012 was significant i.e. 10%.Current FOB price of value added tea bags and Green tea had recorded thehighest price in the market, Rs 1,084 and Rs. 1112.46 per kg respectively.These two categories had taken more than double the price of bulk tea. Itshows the market trend of the value addition of tea.
44
TEA EXPORTSOverview - 2012
Total Exports – 319.9 mn kgQuantity Unit Price Export Earnings(mn kg) (FOB Rs/Kg) (Rs mn) ($ mn)
Normal 306.0 552.26 169,015 1,324.5Re export 13.9 820.84 11,415 89.5Total 319.9 563.94 180,430 1,414.0
Category wise ExportBulk tea 129.5 495.26 64,136.6 502.6Packeted Tea 151.9 516.50 78,457.0 614.9Tea Bags 20.6 1,084.20 22,333.5 175.0Instant Tea 1.6 857.63 1,372.2 10.8Green Tea 2.4 1,131.33 2,715.2 21.3Re Exports 13.9 821.25 11,415.4 89.5Total 319.9 563.94 180,430.3 1,414.0
Major Destinations – in mn kg (57% share)Russia Iran Syria Iraq Libya Turkey47.2 38.1 24.7 23.5 16.3 23.1
Tea Imports mn kg Tea Re-exportsCTC - 2.7 Quantity mn kg - 13.9Green Tea - 2.8 Value Rs. mn - 11,415Speciality - 0.7Total - 6.2Value Rs mn - 2,230
Tea Export Cess Collected:
Rs 2,051 mn (Bulk Rs 10/= & Value Added Rs 4 per kg)
45
Ta
ble
No.
1.2
3
TE
A E
XPO
RT
VO
LU
ME
& V
AL
UE
BY
DIF
FER
EN
T C
ATE
GO
RY
Blac
k T
eaYe
arBu
lk T
eaPa
cket
ed T
eaTe
a Ba
gsIn
stan
t Te
aG
reen
Tea
Oth
erTo
tal
Mn
kgRs
mn
Mn
kgRs
mn
Mn
kgRs
mn
Mn
kgRs
mn
Mn
kgRs
mn
Mn
kgRs
mn
Mn
kgRs
mn
2000
182.
829
,105
74.7
13,5
6912
.14,
850
1.2
617
0.6
266
9.9
2,63
528
1.3
51,0
42
2001
175.
130
,407
84.9
17,3
2113
.06,
133
1.4
826
0.8
427
13.7
4,21
328
8.9
59,3
27
2002
188.
132
,954
68.9
15,2
6114
.16,
944
1.3
838
1.1
533
13.7
4,65
928
7.3
61,1
88
2003
176.
031
,040
82.7
17,5
5715
.57,
763
1.3
1,01
71.
584
514
.54,
842
291.
563
,064
2004
186.
637
,979
68.5
16,3
3917
.89,
256
1.4
829
2.3
1,22
213
.85,
270
290.
670
,895
2005
175.
439
,072
89.1
21,3
7118
.09,
816
1.1
655
2.7
1,50
912
.54,
904
298.
877
,327
2006
197.
845
,696
79.4
21,0
4219
.110
,659
1.0
773
3.5
2,02
114
.06,
146
314.
986
,337
2007
179.
856
,317
72.7
25,3
9222
.013
,313
1.5
988
3.5
2,47
014
.77,
737
294.
310
6,21
7
2008
178.
067
,387
84.3
35,0
5120
.314
,652
1.3
1,18
33.
93,
184
13.4
8,00
730
1.2
129,
464
2009
164.
667
,554
75.5
34,5
4218
.714
,686
1.4
1,12
53.
93,
370
15.9
10,3
3728
0.0
131,
613
2010
176.
877
,275
89.8
42,6
6225
.720
,405
1.8
1,42
32.
82,
494
8.9
6,96
330
5.8
151,
222
2011
125.
055
,316
149.
970
,611
23.9
21,7
781.
91,
630
2.5
2,44
2n.
a.n.
a.30
3.2
151,
777
2012
129.
564
,137
152.
078
,457
20.6
22,3
341.
61,
372
2.4
2,71
5n.
a.n.
a.30
6.0
169,
015
Sour
ce
: Sr
i Lan
ka T
ea B
oard
Not
e
:
In
2011
Tea
exp
ort
unde
r "O
ther
" ca
tego
ry n
ot e
xist
as
in p
revi
ousl
y si
nce
it w
as a
bsor
bed
in t
o m
ain
cate
gorie
s
46
Tabl
e No.
1.2
4
TE
A M
ON
TH
LY E
XPO
RT
VO
LU
ME
AN
D V
AL
UE
BY
CAT
EG
OR
Y -
2012
Blac
k T
eaIn
stan
t Te
aG
reen
Tea
Re-E
xpor
ted
Tea
Tota
lRT
D
Mon
thBu
lk T
eaPa
cket
ed T
eaTe
a Ba
gs
mn
kgRs
mn
mn
kgRs
mn
mn
kgRs
mn
mn
kgRs
mn
mn
kgRs
mn
mn
kgRs
mn
mn
kgRs
mn
Lite
rsRs
mn
Janu
ary
9.40
4
,200
.1
10.
45
4,7
96.5
1
.70
1
,601
.0 0
.200
0
118
.5
0.10
1
45.4
1.40
977
.923
.25
11,
839
56,
384
16.
200
Febr
uary
9.00
3
,967
.2
11.
54
5,4
52.3
1
.60
1
,673
.8
0.2
0
124
.8
0.20
2
11.5
1.20
892
.923
.74
12,
323
65,
473
25.
300
Mar
ch
11.
60
5,5
08.2
1
3.65
6
,865
.9
2.0
0
2,0
44.4
0
.10
1
16.5
0.
20
212
.5
1.
50
1,1
54.9
29.0
5 1
5,90
2
4
0,74
3 1
5.80
0
Apr
il
9.
00
4,3
43.4
1
2.44
6
,337
.3
1.5
0
1,6
14.7
0
.10
1
02.5
0.
20
200
.4
1.
20
9
33.3
24.4
4 1
3,53
2
6
2,04
8
13.
3
May
1
1.80
6
,058
.7
15.
74
8,3
38.5
2
.10
2
,243
.2
0.2
0
153
.6
0.20
2
28.2
1.40
1
,055
.931
.44
18,
078
61,
292
2
0.2
June
1
0.00
4
,918
.5
11.
10
5,7
44.6
1
.50
1
,596
.6
0.1
0
131
.1
0.20
2
20.5
0.90
770
.923
.70
13,
382
65,
747
1
3.8
July
1
0.50
5
,288
.5
13.
27
7,0
31.5
1
.70
1
,785
.3
0.0
01.
6
0.20
2
04.7
0.80
682
.326
.47
14,
994
63,
566
7.8
Aug
ust
1
0.10
4
,972
.7
9.
17
4,7
66.5
1
.60
1
,858
.0
0.0
3
2
6.9
0.
20
208
.9
0.
90
8
03.1
22.0
0 1
2,63
6
4
4,45
6
16.
8
Sept
embe
r
12.
40
6,3
42.8
1
5.89
8
,449
.1
2.0
0
2,3
05.9
0
.10
1
15.1
0.
20
242
.9
1.
20
1,1
42.3
31.7
9 1
8,59
8
14
7,20
1
41.
9
Oct
ober
1
1.10
5
,758
.7
11.
24
6,0
31.8
1
.50
1
,775
.8
0.2
0
165
.2
0.20
2
55.6
1.20
986
.225
.44
14,
973
69,
697
1
9.2
Nov
embe
r
12.
50
6,4
94.0
1
2.25
6
,653
.7
1.5
0
1,8
15.1
0
.20
1
68.9
0.
30
318
.4
1.
00
9
71.1
27.7
5 1
6,42
1
-
-
Dec
embe
r
12.
30
6,2
83.7
1
5.20
7
,989
.3
1.8
0
2,0
19.7
0
.10
1
47.5
0.
20
266
.2
1.
20
1,0
44.6
30.8
0 1
7,75
1
8
3,01
6
27.
3
Tota
l12
9.50
64,1
36.6
151.
9478
,457
.020
.60
22,3
33.5
1.
601,
372.
2 2
.40
2,71
5.2
13.
9011
,415
.431
9.9
180,
430
759
,623
217.
6
Sour
ce: S
ri La
nka
Tea
Boa
rd
47
Export Quantity and Value of Tea by Category(Reference to Table No. 1.23 & 1.24)
Bulk tea export quantity which was 65% of total export in 2000 declinedgradually to 58% in 2010 and further to 42% in 2012 indicates positive trendsof more value addition in the Sri Lankan tea market. However, absolute sumof export earnings of Bulk tea increased by Rs. 35 bn from 2000 to 2012, dueto increase of unit price and quantity as well as the devaluation of Sri LankenRupee time to time. In between 2000 and 2012 there was a substantial increaseon quantity and value in terms of the export of tea packets under the valueadded categories. However, a much higher value added category, Tea Bagsshowed a significant increase in quantity from 4% to 7% and in exportearnings from 9.5% to 13.2 % in the period between 2000 and 2012 respectively.
As a result of the Cess increase in 2011, from Rs.4 to 10 per kg to discouragebulk tea exports the export quantity was declined by 47 mn kg and earningsby Rs.13 bn in 2012 over the year 2010. As expected from Cess adjustment inlast year the export earning of tea packets and tea bags increased by 8 bnand 1 bn respectively. In 2012, the amount of bulk tea has expanded by 4.5mn kg while tea packets expanded by 2.1 mn kg compared to the year 2011.On the other hand quantity of tea packets exported had been declined by 3.3mn kg. At present export volume is consisted Bulk of Black tea Packets andBags which contribute to total exports 42.3%, 49.7% and 6.4% respectively.Also very small fraction of exports is shared by Instant tea (0.5%) and Greentea (0.8%). Even in value terms only 2.3% (Rs 4 bn) is accounted for thesetwo categories. A marginal decline has reported for the export volume ofInstant & Green teas. The Ministry of Plantation Industries has alreadygiven the guidelines to respective agencies to improve the market share ofthese two categories.
In 2011 “Other” category of Black tea which existed in previous yearswas absorbed into main categories and as a result monthly breakdown ofcategories was also streamlined. Monthly analysis for year 2012 highlightedthat in February, April and August export quantity was less than in otherperiods on main categories of black tea. With re exported teas 13.9 mn kg(earning Rs.11.4 bn) total export stood at 319.9 mn kg and correspondingvalue of Rs.180.4 bn. Imported quantity of other origin tea in re exportedcategory is as much as 13.90 mn kg in the year 2012. In addition to that ReadyTo Drink (RTD) category recorded exports of 760,000 liters at value of Rs.218mn in the year 2012.
6 - CM 17140
48
Cha
rt 4
Sour
ce :
Sri L
anka
Tea
Boa
rd
-
1,0
00
.0
2,0
00
.0
3,0
00
.0
4,0
00
.0
5,0
00
.0
6,0
00
.0
7,0
00
.0
8,0
00
.0
9,0
00
.0
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Income Rs Mn
Mon
th
Exp
ort
Inco
me
by
Cat
ego
ry -
2012
Bu
lk T
ea
Pac
kete
d T
ea
Tea
Bag
sIn
stan
t Te
a G
ree
n T
ea
Re
-Exp
ort
ed
Te
a
49
49
50
51
Tab
le N
o 1.
25
SR
I L
AN
KA
TE
A E
XPO
RT
S B
Y D
EST
INAT
ION
Mn
kg
CO
UN
TRY
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
RUSS
IA48
.553
.854
.955
.752
.859
.348
.745
.442
.444
.449
.147
.2U
AE
34.2
30.9
27.5
29.6
37.6
44.1
43.7
45.2
30.9
31.1
21.8
11.6
SYR
IA24
.830
.128
.528
.827
.630
.627
.326
.129
.528
.228
.824
.7T
UR
KE
Y17
.016
.319
.025
.216
.813
.314
.515
.915
.719
.319
.223
.1IR
AN
11.8
14.9
13.8
20.4
24.9
27.9
31.7
31.0
27.7
29.1
30.9
38.1
SAU
DI A
RA
BIA
9.7
10.1
10.4
9.3
9.9
7.4
8.5
7.3
4.8
4.2
4.7
4.5
IRA
Q13
.317
.76.
06.
610
.812
.19.
011
.69.
813
.122
.623
.5U
K8.
17.
67.
05.
33.
84.
73.
12.
42.
21.
81.
31.
7LI
BYA
19.0
5.5
19.5
1.6
10.8
5.4
9.3
7.2
8.1
10.7
7.4
16.3
EG
YPT
3.8
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.2
3.3
1.5
1.1
1.3
1.5
2.4
3.6
JAPA
N7.
67.
28.
19.
08.
510
.910
.310
.29.
511
.211
.69.
5JO
RD
AN
8.4
8.3
11.4
14.3
12.0
9.5
5.9
14.3
13.4
17.7
7.3
9.4
UK
RA
INE
8.1
7.9
8.5
8.2
7.6
8.3
7.4
7.7
6.9
7.7
8.1
8.0
TU
NIS
IA6.
46.
34.
86.
25.
98.
05.
64.
93.
50.
82.
0-
CH
ILE
5.4
6.3
5.6
6.2
6.8
7.2
6.4
7.2
6.1
6.5
6.6
6.6
GER
MA
NY
5.3
5.6
5.8
5.9
5.2
6.0
5.5
5.9
4.9
5.7
6.2
5.6
PAK
ISTA
N2.
73.
23.
23.
03.
03.
50.
71.
41.
61.
01.
54.
5U
SA3.
33.
33.
53.
53.
13.
73.
02.
72.
83.
23.
43.
0H
ON
G K
ON
G3.
53.
63.
74.
14.
54.
74.
64.
85.
15.
25.
14.
4N
ETH
ERLA
ND
S3.
43.
64.
13.
63.
64.
52.
44.
53.
82.
62.
62.
1A
UST
RA
LIA
2.7
3.2
3.2
2.8
2.9
2.7
3.0
3.2
3.0
3.2
2.7
2.7
GR
EEC
E3.
82.
52.
62.
42.
92.
32.
52.
22.
02.
12.
6-
ISR
AEL
2.9
2.6
2.3
2.1
2.0
2.4
1.8
2.0
1.6
1.4
1.5
-K
UW
AIT
2.5
3.0
2.6
2.2
2.7
2.6
2.5
7.5
10.1
11.6
9.1
7.3
52
T
able
No
1.25
(Con
td.)
Mn
kg
CO
UN
TRY
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
POL
AN
D2.
11.
82.
22.
82.
42.
73.
22.
12.
62.
12.
52.
4A
ZER
BA
IJA
N1.
82.
21.
71.
61.
51.
21.
42.
73.
110
.412
.010
.6L
EB
AN
ON
2.9
1.9
2.4
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.8
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.1
FIN
LA
ND
4.4
6.1
6.0
6.0
6.4
3.0
6.4
2.1
1.9
0.6
0.3
-IT
ALY
1.3
1.7
2.0
2.0
1.4
1.4
2.0
1.6
1.7
3.2
1.7
1.8
CA
NA
DA
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.1
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.7
-O
TH
ER
S18
.817
.818
.817
.717
.319
.119
.518
.120
.823
.225
.431
.7T
OTA
L28
8.9
287.
329
1.5
290.
629
8.8
314.
929
4.3
301.
327
9.9
305.
830
3.2
306.
0
Sour
ce :
Sri
Lank
a Te
a B
oard
53
Sri Lanka Tea Exports by Destination
(Reference to Table No. 1.25)
Top twenty five (25) tea importing countries from Sri Lanka shared 90% oftotal exports of Sri Lankan own made tea in the year 2012, which exclude reexport blended component of 13.9 mn kg. With a few exceptional cases theimport quantity of each country presented is more than 1 mn kg. The balance10% of export quantity was exported to other 100 odd tea consumingcountries of which annual volume of exports between 10,000 kg and 1 millionkg. Compared to previous year exports, a marginal increase (1%) was recordedin the current year.
As far as the top 25 export destinations are concerned, in the year 2009which world economic recession was severely affected for total tea importsdeclined to 280 mn kg. However, past 3 years (except 2009) the level of totalimports remained the same. A considerable increase (6 mn kg) shows inrespect of destinations in ‘Other’ category in 2012 compared to the period of2008-2011. However, total tea exports to all destinations have shown in therange between 280 – 315 mn kg over the decade despite of annual variationshighlighted for some importing countries.
Since 2000, even in 2010 the top five tea export destinations of Sri Lankawere Russia, UAE, Syria, Turkey and Iran. However, in the year 2012 Iraqcame into this category replacing the status of UAE. These top five importersalong shared 51% of total tea exports from Sri Lanka. The improving exportmarkets in the recent past are Iraq, Japan, Ukraine, Germany, Chile &Azerbaijan. However, the importers who reduced purchase of Sri Lankan teain the past few years are UAE, UK, Finland, Canada and Saudi Arabia.
54
Table No. 1.26TEA IMPORTS AND VALUE ADDED RE-EXPORTS
Year Imports Re-ExportsQty Value Total Qty Value
Mn Kg Rs Mn Mn Kg Rs Mn
2000 4.2 578 7.5 n.a2001 3.8 647 5.5 2,5832002 3.5 606 4.6 2,3532003 6.2 1,190 6.8 3,4402004 7.4 1,416 10.0 4,5712005 7.8 1,487 11.5 5,0852006 10.7 n.a. 16.0 5,3302007 13.7 4,210 15.3 6,6172008 14.8 7,730 18.6 8,1212009 10.0 2,980 9.8 4,5702010 12.2 3,768 18.6 11,5682011 11.4 3,770 19.4 13,0772012 6.2 2,230 13.9 11,415
Source : Sri Lanka Tea Board
In order to fulfill the demand of overseas customers’ taste, the local teaexporters import other origin teas under TIEP (Temporary Import for ExportPurpose) scheme, which is implemented by Sri Lanka Customs and Sri LankaTea Board. Further, importation of other origin teas to Sri Lanka for re-exportin value added form after blending with local tea is regulated due to maintaintea quality. Under this scheme exporters earn substantial volume of foreignexchange.
In the year 2012, the quantity of CTC and speciality teas imported showsa significant decline. India & Kenya, were the two main producers of CTCtea of which Sri Lanka imported entire need of special category of CTCrequirement as unable to produce such teas locally. Similarly major portionof green tea requirement imported from China. Import of Green tea fromvietnam declined in 2011 & 2012 compared to 2010. Other speciality categoriesof Black/orthodox type teas imported mainly from India. In the year 2012compared to the 2011 total importation of other origin teas declined by 45%.
The quantity of imported other origin teas peaked at 14.8 mn kg. in 2008and dropped to 6.2 mn kg in 2012. Re-exports with local blends recorded thehighest quantity (19.4 mn kg) and export value (Rs. 13.1 billion) in 2011 hasdeclined to 13.9 mn kg and value of Rs. 11.4 bn respectively in the currentyear.
55
Sri L
anka
n po
sitio
n is
mar
gina
lly b
elow
the a
vera
ge o
f oth
er co
mpe
titor
s in
rela
tion
to th
e sub
ject
of t
ea im
porta
tion
for t
he re
-exp
ort p
urpo
ses.
In o
rder
to re
tain
the
com
petit
iven
ess o
f the
mar
ket,
Sri L
anka
n sh
are
of re
-exp
orta
tion
to b
eex
pand
ed in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
e mar
ketin
g st
rate
gies
of o
ther
com
petit
ors s
uch
as C
hina
, Ind
ia, K
enya
, and
Vie
tnam
etc.
Tab
le N
o. 1
.27
TEA
IMPO
RT
FO
R R
E - E
XPO
RT
PU
RPO
SE -
CO
UN
TRY
WIS
EM
T20
1120
12Co
untry
CTC
Gre
enSp
ecia
lity
Tota
lC
TCG
reen
Spec
ialit
yW
hite
Dec
affe
in-
Tota
lTe
aTe
aTe
aTe
aTe
aTe
aTe
aat
ed T
ea
Arg
entin
a0.
00.
00.
00.
00.
00.
00.
00.
08.
08.
0Ch
ina
0.0
2,72
0.8
175.
02,
895.
80.
02,
663.
822
1.6
8.5
2.0
2,89
5.9
Ger
man
y0.
00.
023
.923
.90.
00.
01.
80.
00.
01.
8In
dia
3,06
1.9
2.6
1,28
9.0
4,35
3.5
1,42
9.9
5.8
491.
50.
0428
.21,
955.
4In
done
sia
182.
60.
00.
018
2.6
27.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.8
Japa
n0.
00.
00.
00.
00.
00.
20.
00.
00.
00.
2K
enya
3,67
8.6
0.0
11.8
3,69
0.4
1,23
0.6
3.5
0.0
0.0
3.5
1,23
7.6
Mal
awi
150.
70.
00.
015
0.7
--
--
-0.
0N
epal
0.0
0.0
1.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
1.5
Taiw
an0.
00.
00.
00.
00.
00.
00.
20.
00.
00.
2Vi
etna
m0.
097
.90.
097
.90.
010
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
104.
0U
nite
d K
ingd
om0.
00.
010
.010
.0-
--
--
0.0
Tota
l7,
073.
82,
821.
31,
510.
911
,406
.02,
688.
32,
777.
371
6.6
8.54
41.7
6,23
2.4
Sour
ce: S
ri La
nka T
ea B
oard
56
Table No: 1.28
CESS COLLECTION FROM TEA EXPORTS
Year Export Cess Value of ExportsQuantity CollectionMn kg Rs Mn Rs Mn US $ Mn SDR Mn
2000 281.3 416.5 51,042.9 673.6 510.92001 288.9 1,066.5 59,327.6 663.9 521.62002 287.3 767.5 61,188.0 639.7 493.72003 291.5 739.6 63,064.0 653.4 466.32004 290.6 726.5 70,893.2 700.6 473.02005 298.8 771.0 77,326.7 769.4 520.92006 314.9 755.0 86,336.7 830.5 564.32007 294.2 1,146.6 106,217.0 960.2 627.12008 301.2 1,186.0 129,464.0 1,195.1 756.12009 279.9 1,103.1 131,613.5 1,145.0 742.72010 305.8 1,193.9 151,222.0 1,337.5 876.62011 303.2 2,057.8 151,776.5 1,372.7 869.62012 306.0 2,051.4 169,015.0 1,324.5 865.1
Note: Excludes re-export quantity which Cess is not entitleSource: Sri Lanka Tea Board
Cess on tea exports was increased to Rs. 4 per kg in 2006 against theprevious rate of Rs.2.50 per kg which was implemented since 1997. Theincrease of the Cess rate became around 1% of tea export value since 2007.
In terms of the annual budget of the 2011, the Cess rate for bulk tea whichis considered to be above the 10 kg packs of made tea was increased up toRs. 10/- per kg while remaining Rs. 4/= per kg on all the other categories. Asa result of this total Cess collection for the year 2011 was amounted to Rs.2057.8 mn. This was a 72% growth of Cess income over the previous yearand 1.4% of annual export proceeds of tea. The Cess collection of the currentyear is reported to Rs. 2051.4 mn which indicates slight decline as against tocollection of the previous year.
57
TEA WORLDOverview - 2012
Tea Extent (Thousand Hectares) – 4,021Asia Africa Other3, 620 309 92
Of whichChina 2, 280 Kenya 191 Argentina 40India 580 Uganda 29 Georgia 36Sri Lanka 203 Tanzania 23Indonesia 121 Malawi 19Vietnam 124
Tea Production (Thousand Metric Tons) – 4,620Asia Africa Other3,939 570 11185.3% 12.3% 2.4%
Production by Type (Thousand Metric Tons) – 4,214Orthodox CTC Green Tea
Total 1,027 1,695 1,492Asia 88.1% 67.0% 100%Africa 1.8% 32.6%Other 10.1% 0.4%
Export Quantity & Value – Top 4 ExportersSri Lanka China India Kenya
000’ Mt 306 322 202 430% to Total 17% 18% 11% 24.3%Value $ mn 1,325 1,116 687 1,328% to Total 24.6% 20.7% 12.7% 24.6%
Tea Consumption (kg per head/year)Higher end Lower end ModerateKuwait – 3.25 France – 0.24 Sri Lanka – 1.33UK – 1.97 Germany – 0.33 China – 0.95Libya - 2.39 Indonesia – 0.32 Russia/CIS – 0.99
58
Table No. 1.29
DISTRIBUTION OF WORLD TEA PLANTED AREA - COUNTRYWISE EXTENT
Thousand Hectares
Country 2001 2005 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Asian RegionChina 1,141 1,352 1,719 1,849 1,970 2,113 2,280India 509 556 578 579 579 578 580Sri Lanka 184 212 212 209 205 204 203Indonesia 151 139 128 125 124 124 121Vietnam 102 124 131 130 130 128 124Turkey 77 78 78 77 78 78 78Japan 50 48 48 47 48 48 46Bangladesh 49 52 54 55 55 54 55Myanmar 72 78 78 78 78 79 79Nepal 14 16 17 17 17 17 17Taiwan 19 18 16 15 15 14 13Iran 35 23 18 18 18 17 17Other Asia 5 6 7 7 7 7 7
(Korea & Malaysia)Sub Total - Asia 2,393 2,701 3,095 3,187 3,303 3,458 3,620African RegionKenya 124 141 158 158 172 188 191Malawi 19 19 19 19 19 19 19Rwanda 13 12 12 12 12 12 13Tanzania 21 23 23 23 23 23 23Uganda 21 22 24 25 26 29 29Other Africa (Eight 36 36 35 33 33 33 34
Countries)Sub Total - Africa 234 253 271 270 285 304 309South AmericaArgentina 37 37 38 39 40 40 40Other (Brazil, Peru, Ecuador) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9Sub Total - South America 46 46 47 48 49 49 49CIS RegionGeorgia 36 36 36 36 36 36 36Other (Azerbaijan, Russia) 7 4 3 2 2 2 2Sub Total - CIS 43 40 39 38 38 38 38OceaniaAustralia & Papua 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
New GuineaTotal Extent 2,721 3,045 3,457 3,548 3,680 3,854 4,021
Source : International Tea Committee (ITC) BulletinWeb sites of the Tea Producing Countries
Note: Total Planted Tea area (irrespective of bearing & immature extent) at theend of each year is given.
59
World Extent of Tea Planting
(Reference to Table No. 1.29 )
At present world tea extent is around 4,021,000 ha which was as low as2,721,000 ha in 2001. Asian region dominates the tea planted area sharingabout 88% - 90% of world tea extent in the decade. African continent sharesabout 7.5% - 8.5% while rest of the tea growing world, South America, CISregion and Oceania together contribute 2% - 3% of the world tea extent.Since the year 2001, tea extent increasing by 1.2 million hectares or 51% inAsia, in African region extent increase recorded by only 75,000 hectare,which is 32%.
In Asia, top five tea growers (China, India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia & Vietnam)possessed over 76% of the world tea extent and 87% of Asian region in theyear 2001. In 2012, the contribution of extent to world total and Asian totalprevails as much as 82% and 91% respectively. This was due to a substantialextent enhancement under extensive new planting program in China at therate of mroe than 100,000 ha annually. No significant increase in tea extentrecorded for other main growing countries. However, in the decade India, SriLanka & Vietnam enhanced the extent by 71,000 ha, 19,000 ha & 22,000 harespectively, while extent in Indonesia declined by 15,000 ha since the year2001. A stagnant status of tea extent is highlighted for rest of the Asiancountries other than Taiwan & Iran where declining extent in this period.
As a dominant tea grower, Kenya owned 62% of tea extent in Africa atpresent. Since 2001 Kenya expanded tea extent from 124,000 ha to 191,000 ha(54%) through its ambitious new planting scheme targeted to increase teaproduction rapidly. Apart from Uganda all other tea growers in Africa showedstagnant tea extent in the decade.
In South America, Argentina is the main tea grower which recorded sameextent of tea land in the decade. In CIS region, Georgia possesses 36,000 haof tea extent. Tea land extent of other South American countries, other CIScountries and Oceania recorded insignificant quantity and no expansion atall. Currently world tea extent is dominated by 9 Asian countries (includingtop five growers) and Kenya with 3.7 million hectares or 93% of world extent.
60
Table No. 1.30
COUNTRYWISE WORLD TEA PRODUCTION
Thousand Metric Tons
Country 2001 2005 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
AsiaChina 702 935 1,258 1,359 1,475 1,623 1,790India 854 946 981 979 966 1,116 1,126Sri Lanka 296 317 319 290 331 329 328Indonesia 167 156 153 153 151 142 137Vietnam 77 133 166 175 170 178 190Turkey 143 135 155 153 148 145 147Japan 90 100 93 86 83 82 86Bangladesh 57 61 59 60 59 59 62Myanmar 17 18 19 19 19 19 20Nepal 12 13 16 16 17 17 17Taiwan 20 19 17 17 17 17 15Iran 59 25 18 18 17 16 15Other (Korea & Malaysia) 7 6 6 6 7 7 7Sub Total - Asia 2,501 2,864 3,260 3,331 3,461 3,751 3,939AfricaKenya 295 323 346 314 399 378 370Malawi 37 38 42 53 52 47 42Rwanda 18 16 20 21 22 24 25Tanzania 25 30 32 32 32 33 32Uganda 33 38 43 51 59 54 55Other (8 Countries) 59 43 38 43 46 47 46Sub Total - Affrica 467 488 521 514 610 583 570South AmericaArgentina 67 80 72 90 95 93 84Other (Brazil, Ecuador, 9 10 10 10 10 11 11
Peru)Sub Total S. America 76 90 82 100 105 104 95CIS RegionGeorgia 5 3 4 4 4 4 5Other (Azerbaijan, Russia) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Sub Total CIS 9 7 8 8 8 8 8OceaniaAustralia & PNG 7 8 8 8 8 8 8Grand Total 3,060 3,457 3,879 3,961 4,192 4,454 4,620
Source: International Tea Committee (ITC) BulletinWeb Sites of the Tea Producing Countries
61
Table No. 1.31
WORLD TEA PRODUCTION BY TYPE OF MANUFACTURE
Thousand Metric Tons
2011 2012Black Tea Green Total Black Tea Green Total
Country Ortho- CTC Tea Ortho- CTC Teadox dox
Asia RegionChina 114 - 1137.6 1251.6 132 - 1,248 1,380India 104 874 10.2 988.2 99 1,016 11 1,126Sri Lanka 303 23 3 329 302 23 3 328Indonesia 80 9 31 120 94 10 33 137Vietnam 8 6 12 80.1 178.1 87 13 90 190Turkey 145 - - 145 148 - - 148Japan - - 77.4 77.4 86 86Bangladesh 3 56 0.2 59.2 3 59 0 62Myanmar 19 - - 19 20 - - 20Nepal 2 15 - 17 2 15 - 17Taiwan 1 - 16.7 17.7 1 - 17 18Iran 16 - - 16 15 - - 15korea - - 4.1 4.1 - - 4 4Malaysia 2 - - 2 2 - - 2Sub Total Asia 875 989 1,360 3,224 905 1,136 1,492 3,533African RegionBurundi - 7 - 7 - 7 - 7Kenya 14 364 - 378 13 357 - 370Malawi - 47 - 47 - 42 - 42Rwanda - 24 - 24 - 25 - 25Tanzania - 33 - 33 - 32 - 32Uganda - 54 - 54 - 55 - 55Zimbabwe - 15 - 15 - 13 - 13Camaroon 4 - 4 5 - - 5Other Africa - 22 - 22 - 22 - 22Sub Total Africa 18 566 - 584 18 553 - 571CIS 8 - 1.2 9.2 8 8South AmericaArgentina 91 - 1.9 92.9 84 84Other 10 - 0.6 10.6 12 12Sub total South 101 - 2.5 103.5 96 - 0 96
AmericaPapuwa New Guniea - 7 - 7 6 6Grand Total 1,002 1,562 1,364 3,928 1,027 1,695 1,492 4,214
Source: International Tea Committee (ITC) Bulletin : Websites of the Tea Producing countries
62
World Tea Production
(Reference to Table No. 1.30 & 1.31)
First time of the history, in the year 2012, world tea production was 4.6 millionmeteric tons. This is a 51% growth compared to 2001 and 4% growth overthe previous year. The share of tea production over the decade has recordedwithin the range of 82% - 85% for Asia, 12% to 15% for Africa and 2-3 % forrest of the world. Compared to 2011, total tea production increased by 167,000metric tons which was caused mainly by an increase in tea production of167,000 mt in China.
In 2012, major tea producing countries in Asia such as China, India, SriLanka, Indonesia, Vietnam and Turkey had shared 80% or 3.7 mn mt of theworld tea production and 94% of Asian tea production. This indicates thepositive trend throughout the decade. Tea production in China has increasedrapidly with an annual growth of 13% resulting in more than doubling theproduction since 2001 and owned by 39% of global share currently. Indianproduction growth rate was slightly below the growth rate of China. Indiaowned global share of 24%. Since 2001, Sri Lanka & Vietnam increased theirproduction by 11% and 147% respectively while Indonesian productiondeclined by 18%.
Kenya dominates the African region producing 8% of world productionand 65% of African share. Argentina which is the main producer in SouthAmerica, produces 2% of world production in comparison to Sri Lankanshare which remains 7% currently. It is significant fact that Kenya hasincreased its production by 25% since 2001 and has currently surpassed SriLanka which was similar status at beginning of the decade. In respect ofother producers, they have not shown significant production increase in thedecade.
Currently the shares of three types of manufacturing of world teaproduction are Orthodox 24%, CTC (40%) and Green tea (35%). Asian regionproduces all three types showing Green tea (42%), CTC (32%) and Orthodox(26%) of Asian total in 2012. Also China, Vietnam, Japan & Taiwan areprominent in Green Tea production while CTC is the main production inIndia and Bangladesh. Orthodox production is dominated by Sri Lanka,Indonesia, Turkey & Vietnam. Tea production in African region is confinedto CTC (97% of region total) and Kenya production alone is about 65% ofAfrican CTC or 357,000 mt in 2012. In South American region, Argentinaproduces Orthodox exclusively. Overall China dominates Green Teamanufacturing producing 84% of total Green Tea while 81% of total CTC isproduced by India & Kenya. Orthodox type is concerned, 5 main producers(Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Vietnam, Turkey and Argentina) share 715,000 mt or70% of global Orthodox total.
63
Table No 1.32WORLD MAIN TEA EXPORTERS BY DESTINATION - 2012
Importing E xporting Country - Quantity Export in Metric TonsCountry
Sri India China Indon- Vietnam Kenya Argen-Lanka esia tina
United Kingdom 1,693 19,950 2,001 9,121 400 59,312 2,053Germany 5,630 7,730 9,341 4,919 4,000 758 2,924Greece 1,071 - - - - - -Italy 1,690 - - - - 23 -Netharlands 1,991 3,110 1,926 711 1,300 1,885 2,346Poland 2,402 3,470 1,537 3,558 3,600 4,905 1,431Russia & CIS 69,393 54,040 52,172 11,703 23,200 33,185 941Canada 603 1,010 1,512 491 1,888 317USA 2,950 11,030 25,921 4,000 7,500 2,793 48,055Chile 6,551 - - 583 - - 12,451Kuwait 7,278 - - - - - -Saudi Arabia 4,438 2,380 - 506 - 2,061 -UAE 11,240 18,690 698 2,048 4,500 23,844 -Hongkong 4,389 - 10,649 190 - -Iran 38,111 13,780 6,900 1,298 900 4,985 -Iraq 23,464 90 - 8,000 - -Japan 9,540 3,220 17,703 761 1,858 -Jordan 9,355 - - - - - -Lebonan 2,118 - - - - - -Pakistan 4,487 23,720 4,887 8,876 6,700 90,394 340Syria 24,712 - 25 - - - -Turkey 23,129 290 - 966 900 2,109 -Egypt 3,633 5,440 1,395 1,635 - 88,830 -Libya 16,281 3,260 4,985 - - - -Tunisia 16 - 3,265 - - - -Australia 2,705 3,670 1,586 2,003 - - -Malaysia 725 1,472 7,222 3,200 - -Afganistan - 660 975 951 4,000 41,808 -Indonesia - - 225 - 18,000 - 802Taiwan 1,936 - - 758 21,000 - -Senegal - - 7,702 - - -Yeman - - - - - 13,798 -Mali - - 6,465 - - -Nigeria - - 194 - - 3,904 -Niger - - 3,804 - - -Sudan - - - - - 24,884 -Algeria - - 14,374 - - - -Togo - - 12,178 - - - -Cameroon - - 7,702 - - - -Mauritania - - 12,513 - - - -Morocco - - 54,979 - - - -Sri Lanka - 1,860 2,807 39 - 1,123 -Kenya - 9,620 - 77 - - -China 3,025 - - 1,933 13,000 - 290India 488 - 54 1,114 4,000 3,053 1,213Total 285,044 187,020 271,947 65,463 124,200 407,400 73,163% of total export 93% 92% 85% 93% 83% 95% 95%
Source : International Tea Committee (ITC) Bulletin
7 - CM17140
64
Table No. 1.33
WORLD TEA EXPORTS QUANTITY AND VALUE
2010 2011 2012
Country Quantity Value Unit Quantity Value Unit Quantity Value UnitMT US$ Price MT US$ Price MT US$ Price
mn US$/ mn US$/kg mn US$/kg kg
ProducersIndia 218,660 639 2.92 213,174 685 3.21 202,400 687 3.39Bangladesh 913 2 2.30 1,454 3 1.98 1,507 3 1.82Sri Lanka 296,383 1,300 4.38 301,271 1,358 4.51 306,040 1,325 4.33Indonesia 87,101 179 2.05 75,450 167 2.21 70,071 157 2.24China 302,525 784 2.59 322,581 888 2.75 321,785 1,116 3.47Taiwan 2,627 18 6.74 2,816 18 6.50 3,145 20 6.30Japan 2,287 50 21.95 2,420 60 24.88 2,408 64 26.76Turkey 4,000 6 1.48 3,700 6 1.54 4,200 6 1.52Vietnam 137,970 201 1.45 130,000 200 1.54 150,000 227 1.51Kenya 441,021 1,234 2.80 421,272 1,231 2.92 430,205 1,328 3.09Malawi 48,579 77 1.58 44,893 69 1.54 41,834 64 1.54Rwanda 21,350 56 2.61 22,958 62 2.70 23,000 64 2.78Tanzania 26,133 48 1.83 27,114 47 1.74 27,777 56 2.02Uganda 53,178 96 1.80 46,150 92 2.00 52,272 98 1.87Argentina 85,346 93 1.09 86,197 104 1.21 76,840 104 1.35Brazil 2,544 9 3.38 1,965 9 4.37 1,643 7 4.20Papua New 5,800 7 1.21 5,100 7 1.41 5,000 8 1.56
GuineaOther 47,283 54 1.14 48,235 57 1.18 50,525 61 1.20
CountriesTotal 1,783,700 4,894 1,756,750 5,063 1,770,652 5,395Exported % of
Global CropNon ProducersUnited 30,653 327 10.68 26,434 262 9.90 21,288 196 9.20
KingdomFrance 3,974 51 12.89 3,150 50 15.75 3,105 52 16.64Germany 25,935 194 7.49 28,337 225 7.93 26,149 217 8.30
Source: International Tea Committee(ITC) BulletinWebsites of the Tea Producing Countries
42.40 39.40 38.20
65
World Tea Export Earnings
(Reference to Table No. 1.32 & 1.33 )
In 2012, global tea export stood at 38% of global crop (production) andcompared to previous year this was a 1% decline. Quantity of export increaseddeclined marginally while export earnings increased by $ 332 mn due toincreasing FOB unit price in 2012 than of 2011. Major 7 tea producers (India,Sri Lanka, China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Kenya & Argentina) were the significantexporters as well sharing 88% of global export which is similar to the shareprevailed in 2011. Except for Kenya & Vietnam no significant increase wasrecorded in 2012 by major exporters while export of india and Agentina in adeclining trend. Due to heavy local consumption of tea produced by China& India export share was around 18% of production. In contrast, Sri Lankaand Argentina export accounted more than 90% of their production whilethis share for Indonesia and Vietnam was 51% & 79 % respectively. Turkeyand Japan as other two main tea producers export only insignificant quantityas local tea consumption out of owns production is heavy. Kenya exportsmore than its production as adding with some other teas.
As presented in table 1.32 seven major exporters dominate in certainregions/ countries in terms of export quantity. Russia & CIS region, thelargest tea consumer is the top destination of Sri Lankan tea exports. UKmarket is one of the highest destinations of Kenyan exports. Middle Eastregion (UAE, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey) is also a market for Sri Lankan exports,however, Kenya & India are entering gradually. USA tea consumption isprovided mainly by Argentina while India & China also remain as substantialsuppliers. Main tea supplier to Pakistan, Egypt & Afghanistan is Kenya atpresent. Significant export destinations of China are North Africa (Morocco,Algeria), Japan & Russia/CIS. Taiwan & Russia are the main destinations ofVietnam exports.
In 2012, Sri Lanka shares 17% of global tea exports with the highestexport earning ($1.33 bn) and the highest unit price at $4.33 per kg. The sameamount of tea export earning ($1.33 bn) was realized by Kenya with exportshare of 24% including teas from some other producers in Africa. Share ofIndian tea exports declined marginally from 12% in 2011 to 11% in 2012.China earned $ 1,116 million with a global export share of 18% and attractiveFOB unit price of $ 3.47 per kg. Indonesia, Vietnam & Argentina togethershare the 17% of global exports and $ 488 mn (9%) of total export earning in2012.
Non tea producers (UK, France & Germany) re exported some importedteas with the higher unit price worth of $ 465 million in 2012. However, thehighest unit price ($ 24.8 per kg) of tea export was reported for Japan in 2012.Share of global exports held by black tea (Orthodox & CTC) and Green teawere 80% & 20% respectively as main green tea producer, China consumedmajor portion locally.
66
Table No. 1.34
WORLD TEA CONSUMPTION IN SELECTED THIRTY COUNTRIES
Country Tea Imports for Consumption (MT) ApparentConsumption
2010-2012 Average
2010 2011 2012 Total Kg per (1000 MT) Head
Tea ProducersChina 11,500 12,200 11,000 1,279 0.95India 20,040 21,170 20,620 872 0.73Indonesia 10,870 19,812 24,397 75 0.32Japan 43,274 41,972 37,735 122 0.96Sri Lanka - - - 28 1.33Turkey 8,700 8,900 9,000 152 2.04Iran 55,000 66,500 67,200 63 0.97Taiwan 31,041 29,267 29,918 44 1.64Kenya 13,735 7,793 8,940 20 0.49Tea ConsumersUK 119,178 128,066 123,287 124 1.97France 15,311 14,924 14,730 15 0.24Germany 24,912 25,937 29,836 27 0.33Poland 29,395 33,978 29,483 31 0.80Russia & CIS 266,437 274,497 279,029 275 0.99Canada 15,880 17,470 16,422 17 0.48USA 126,836 127,469 125,653 127 0.41Chile 21,362 21,945 21,060 21 1.24Afganistan 57,700 46,600 43,500 49 1.97Iraq 41,400 40,750 38,900 40 1.21Kuwait 10,500 8,500 7,050 9 3.25Pakistan 120,345 126,170 131,250 126 0.74Saudi Arabia 14,800 16,400 14,600 15 0.54Syria 27,300 28,000 24,200 27 1.25Egypt 93,500 84,000 97,400 92 1.14Libya 12,300 8,900 19,600 14 2.39Morocco 56,300 58,500 53,700 56 1.74South Africa 19,800 19,500 17,000 19 0.37Australia 12,500 11,800 11,400 12 0.53Hong Kong 9,395 9,416 9,649 9 1.34New Zealand 4,400 4,440 4,200 4 0.99
Source : International Tea Committee (ITC) Bulletin
67
World Tea Consumption in Selected Countries
(Reference to Table No. 1.34)
During the period from 2010 to 2012 the two main tea producers; China andIndia reported an average local consumption of 81% and 78% of their localproduction respectively. The import quantity of these two countries on otherorigin teas for consumption was not significant. Apparent annualconsumption of two countries are in moderate level, i.e. 0.95 & 0.73 kg perhead per year. While Sri Lanka is not importing other origin teas for localconsumption at all, Kenya imported a negligible volume. Despite beingmoderate tea producers; Iran, Taiwan and Japan import large quantities astheir average production were 27%, 34% and 70% of total consumption needrespectively. Among tea producing countries Indonesia reported the lowestlevel of tea consumption per head while Turkey is the highest in the scaleconsuming its total production along with some imported volume. In respectof Taiwan, Sri Lanka and Japan tea consumption per head is also in thehigher side of the scale.
As defined in FAO World Tea Model there is a simple equation consistingof 5 parameters for a particular country on tea industry activities. They areProduction, Export, Import, Stock and Consumption of tea in unit of quantity.The formula is Production plus Imports minus Exports adjusting to Stockshould equal to the Consumption or vise versa by changing any parameters.As the formula is applied for tea producer countries, it almost tallies forIndia, Sri Lanka & other countries except China, Iran and Kenya. In thesethree countries due to issues on tea statistics, heavily depending on importedtea for re export and difficulties in stock verification, some adjustments needto be incorporated to activate formula properly.
Merely tea consumer countries are concerned, apparent annual averagetea consumption is more than 100,000 mt for UK, Russia/CIS, USA & Pakistanwhere Russia/US at the top. However, tea consumption per head was high inthe scale (more than 2.0 kg per head/yr) only in 3 countries i.e. Turkey,Kuwait & Libiya. The highest consumption per head (3.25kg) was recordedin Kuwait while the lowest (0.24 kg) is highlighted in France among teaconsuming nations.
68
RUBBER SECTOR
69
70
Map 2
71
72
73
Tab
le N
o 2.
1K
EY IN
DIC
ATO
RS:
RU
BBER
Item
U
nit
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
1. P
rodu
ctio
nM
n K
g10
4.4
109.
211
7.6
129.
213
6.9
153.
015
8.2
152.
1 2
. Are
a
2.1
Und
er c
ultiv
atio
n '
000
Ha
116.
111
9.5
119.
512
2.2
124.
312
5.6
128.
113
0.8
2
.2 U
nder
tapp
ing
,,
8996
.893
.293
.595
.396
.710
1.7
104.
2 3
. Yie
ld
Kg/
ha1,
171
1,12
81,
246
1,38
21,
437
1,58
21,
555
1,45
9 4
. Rep
lant
ing
Ha
1,25
74,
353
5,19
26,
105
6,36
15,
942
3,05
03,
243
5. N
ew P
lant
ing
Ha
1,03
21,
900
2,03
43,
189
1,82
42,
888
3,01
63,
382
6. P
rices
6.1
Expo
rts f
.o.b
. R
s/kg
148.
0720
1.57
234.
6527
8.39
202.
3033
8.23
535.
4142
0.77
6.2
Col
ombo
Auc
tion
RSS
1
,,14
1.17
202.
3423
3.69
267.
9020
2.79
402.
7151
3.05
416.
61 7
. Cos
t of P
rodu
ctio
n(C
OP)
,,
77.3
797
.20
112.
6911
4.00
118.
5611
9.80
129.
5613
6.00
8. E
xpor
ts
Mn
kg31
.63
46.3
51.4
248
.62
55.9
951
.50
42.6
137
.38
9. D
omes
tic c
onsu
mpt
ion
,,
72.7
63.1
73.9
80.1
84.9
107.
211
1.7
110.
310
. Exp
ort e
arni
ngs
1
0.1
Raw
R
ubbe
r R
s Mn
4,72
49,
674
12,0
6613
,535
11,3
2719
,256
22,8
1115
,726
1
0.2
Sem
i Pro
cess
ed R
ubbe
r(R
ecla
imed
, Com
poun
ded
etc.
)R
s Mn
2,66
45,
535
1
0.3
End
Pro
duct
s R
s Mn
39,8
3646
,864
53,6
0558
,785
44,3
0063
,968
95,1
6910
3,92
1
Tot
al E
xpor
t Ear
ning
s R
s Mn
44,5
6056
,538
65,6
7172
,320
55,6
2783
,224
120,
644
125,
182
US$
Mn
443
544
594
668
484
736
1,09
198
1
Note
:In
som
e so
urce
s 10.
2 &
10.
3 tre
ated
as e
nd p
rodu
cts
Sour
ce :
Rub
ber D
evel
opm
ent D
epar
tmen
t:
Sri L
anka
Cus
tom
s
74
Key Indicators of Rubber(Reference to Table 2.1)
In terms of the data source on rubber production by Rubber DevelopmentDepartment (RDD) the continuous growth rate of production prevailed asaveraged 7% for a year between 2005 and 2011 has declined in 2012 by 3.8%or 6.1 mn kg. This was due to reasons such as the growth of replanting area,price fluctuations in the global market and bad weather conditions etc. Theannual production level based on more realistic estimate could be between110,000 and 115,000 mt per year. Based on census of rubber lands-2010 con-ducted by RDD and its subsequent annual updating the area under rubbercultivation and matured area further expanded by 2,660 ha and 2,500 ha re-spectively in 2012 over the status in 2011.
In 2012, the total extent of replanted and new planted were 3,243 ha and3,382 ha respectively. These extents showed substantial improvements overthe previous year. The acceptable replanting rate of 3% has been maintained.The enhanced value under the government subsidy schemes for replantingand new planting caused to this trend in addition to encouragement onsmallholders & RPCs created by attractive rubber prices realized during past3 years in supply chain.
In 2012, Colombo auction price and FOB export price declined by aroundRs.100 per Kg compared to previous year of which peaked both prices fetchedin the decade. As in usual trend cost of production of sheet rubber insmallholding sector was increased by Rs. 6.44 per Kg in 2012 compared toprevious year. Around 110 mn kg appearing as domestic consumption out oflocally produced rubber in rubber product manufacturing sector in 2012 andthis was 73% of total rubber production in the country reflecting much highvolume of value addition.
The quantity of raw rubber export in 2012 was declined by 12% to 37,377mt from 42,605 mt which was in previous year. The corresponding exportearnings also declined by Rs.7,085 mn as declining of FOB price and volume.In addition Rs.5,535 mn earned by semi processed rubber exports which istwofold of previous year earning in 2012. The quantity of this category ac-counted 15,356 mt of which majority was compound rubber. In 2012, exportearnings from rubber finished products reached at Rs.104 billion recording9% growth over previous year. Thus, total export earning of rubber reachedat Rs. 125 bn in 2012. However, due to depreciation of rupee value, foreignexchange earning confined to US$ 981 million lesser the US$ 1,091 mn com-pared to total earning of US$ 1091 mn in 2011.
75
RUBBER AREAOverview -2012
Extent in HectaresSmallholdings Estate Total
2005 68,109(59%) 47,941 (41%) 116,0502012 81,863(63%) 48,917 (37%) 130,780Mature 71,272 32,928 104,200 (80%)Immature 10,591 15,989 26,580 (20%)
Holdings of RubberNo. of small holdings - Mature 97,074; Immature 30,018Average holding size - < 1 Acre – 50,078 (39%)
- 1 - < 2 Acres – 51,980 (41%)No. of Estates (2012) - 135 in RPCs & 9 in StateSize of holding - Mostly 20 ha & above
Rubber Extent by Clone (ha) - 2010% Smallholding Estate
PB 86 35 34,220 9,329RRIC 100 26 20,421 12,782RRIC 121 23 17,083 11,865RRIC 102 3 3,275 514Other 13 4,397 11,759Total 79,396 46,250
Rubber Growing Districts - 18 of which 6 non traditionalNon-traditional - Killinochchi, Ampara, Monaragala,
Hambantota, Mulativu & VauniaExtent of top 3 Districts (74%)in ha - Kegalle(37,165), Ratnapura(26,604),
Kalutara(28,765)
Replanting Extent & Rate (2012) : 3,243 ha; 3.1% (National)Extent Rate
Smallholders 1,117 ha 1.6%Estates 2,126 ha 6.5%
76
Table No. 2.2RUBBER AREA BY OWNERSHIP - 2000-2012
HaYear Estate Small Holder Total
Sector Sector2000 56,832 100,199 157,0312001 56,105 100,995 157,1002002 55,498 59,183 114,6812003 52,044 62,752 114,7962004 50,100 65,219 115,3192005 47,941 68,109 116,0502006 50,360 69,140 119,5002007 49,867 69,676 119,5432008 50,360 71,736 122,2002009 48,968 75,332 124,3002010 46,250 79,395 125,6452011 48,516 79,604 128,1202012 49,435 81,345 130,780
Source: Rubber Development Department
Table 2.2
According to the Agriculture Census-2002 of DCS, it was revealed that theextent stood at 115,000 ha approximately in 2002 Smallholder sector ownershipof rubber extent reported about 59,000 ha in 2002. The extent reported in 2002may be the definition applied for DCS Agriculture Census of which smallholderwas considered below 8 ha (20 acres) of land and Estate sector was above 8ha of land in ownership. Since 2002 to 2012 Smallholder land ownershipindicated a significant improvement with annual average growth of 2,300 haextent of new planting. The census of rubber lands conducted by RubberDevelopment Department (RDD) in 2010 confirmed that 79,395 ha belongingto the ownership of smallholders. This extent updated by RDD for 2011 &2012 has shown an improvement of 79,604 ha and 81,863 ha respectively.
Since 2005 to 2012, the fluctuations of the extent of Estate sector (RPCsand state agencies) shows a marginal increase. Since the lowest extentreported in the total rubber extent in 2002, it has improved up to 130,780 ha in2012 with annual average growth of 1,600 ha , due to significant contributionof the Smallholding sector.
77
Table No. 2.3
RUBBER HOLDINGS & EXTENT BY DISTRICT 2002DCS AGRICULTURE CENSUS
Size Class of <20 Size Class of >=20 TotalHectare Hectare
District No. of Extent No. of Extent No. of ExtentHoldings (Ha) Holdings (Ha) Holdings (Ha)
Colombo 5,048 3,580 18 3,482 5,066 7,062Gampaha 4,039 2,867 5 211 4,044 3,078Kalutara 24,849 15,280 98 14,572 24,947 29,852Kandy 1,648 1,137 2 93 1,650 1,230Matale 306 469 20 1,403 326 1,872Nuwaraeliya 37 33 0 0 37 33Galle 3,422 2,501 35 4,175 3,457 6,676Matara 2,473 2,254 24 1,477 2,497 3,731Hambantota 114 71 0 0 114 71Kurunegala 896 967 17 1,888 913 2,855Badulla 76 144 7 288 83 432Monaragala 902 592 7 1,273 909 1,865Ratnapura 14,967 11,797 72 10,350 15,039 22,147Kegalla 24,309 16,959 106 18,614 24,415 35,574Tolal 83,086 58,651 411 57,826 83,497 116,478
Source: Department of Census & Statistics.
78
Table No. 2.4
RUBBER HOLDINGS & EXTENT BY DISTRICT 2010RDD CENSUS OF RUBBER LANDS
Size Class of <20 Size Class of >=20 TotalHectare Hectare
District No. of Extent No. of Extent No. of ExtentHoldings (Ha) Holdings (Ha) Holdings (Ha)
Colombo 6,774 4,159 20 2,161 6,794 6,320Gampaha 5,916 3,548 6 287 5,922 3,835Kalutara 33,556 17,804 153 10,961 33,709 28,765Kandy 2,699 1,548 6 306 2,705 1,854Matale 489 542 14 769 503 1,311Nuwaraeliya 4 6 0 0 4 6Galle 4,190 2,815 83 3,167 4,273 5,982Matara 3,301 2,719 38 1,286 3,339 4,005Hambantota 276 155 0 0 276 155Kurunegala 1838 1512 25 1,506 1863 3,018Puttalam 234 193 0 0 234 193Badulla 368 352 28 1,274 396 1626Monaragala 7802 4402 8 403 7810 4,805Ratnapura 21,028 14,048 138 12,557 21,166 26,605Kegalla 38,473 21,316 193 15,849 38,666 37,165Tolal 126,948 75,119 712 50,526 127,660 125,645
Source: Rubber Development Department
79
Distribution of Rubber Lands by District under2002 & 2010 Censuse(Reference to table 2.3 & 2.4)
In Agriculture Census - 2002 the Smallholding was defined as extent below8 hectares while estate sector as above 8 hectares. In Census of rubber lands- 2010 Smallholding sector was defined as rubber land owned by the small-holder irrespective of upper limit subject to individual ownership limit underLand Reform Commission (LRC) Law while estate sector land ownership isconsidered as all rubber lands belonging to Regional Plantation Corpora-tions (RPCs) and State Agencies. It is difficult to disaggregate the real in-crease between Smallholding and Estate sector in said two Censuses due todifferent definitions applied.
Therefore in order to make much realistic comparison two benchmarkswere applied distinguishing the size class of extent less than 20 hectares (<20) and extent greater than or equal 20 hectares (>= 20) for tables 2.3 and 2.4to show number of holdings and corresponding extent in hectares by dis-trict. However, in the size class of extent greater than or equal 20 hectares,there are smallholder sector owned combining parcels of land of family unionunder the LRC Law while it is very unlike the estate ownership of rubberlands in the size class of less than 20 hectares category.
Subject to above explanation it is evident from two tables that total num-ber of holdings and extent increased by 53% and 8% respectively between2002 and 2010 period. Class size of < 20 hectare category, virtually Smallholdingsector, both holding and corresponding extent were increased by 53% and28% respectively. However, class size >= 20 hectare category by and largeestate sector was increased number of holdings from 411 to 712 while extentdeclined from 57,800 ha to 50,500 ha by 13% over the period 2002 and 2010.Reasons for this decline were the diversification of rubber lands into Oil Palmand abandoning of rubber plantations in State Agencies (JEDB, SLSPC,Kurunegala and Elkaduwa Plantations)
The main rubber growing districts (Kalutara, Kegalle, Ratnapura) are con-cerned, both number of holdings and extent had been increased significantlyin relation to the below 20 ha category (Smallholders) during 2002 & 2010.Further in the Monaragala district it was reported that the seven fold increasein relation to the smallholders and extent. Other districts Colombo, Gampaha,Galle & Matara are shown only marginal increase of rubber growth. Puttalamis one of the districts introduced rubber cultivation in recent past. Also extentof Estates and large size smallholders (>= 20 ha category) has declined by5200 ha for main districts (Kalutara, Kegalle, Ratnapura & Galle) due to cropdiversification & other reasons in this period. However, a rubber holding hasincreased from 300 to 550 in the districts where the Smallholdings are largerthan 20 hectare.
8 - CM17140
80
Table No. 2.5RUBBER EXTENT BY SIZE CLASS OF HOLDING -2010
SMALL HOLDING SECTORSize Class of Number % Share Extent % Share
Holding & of (Hectares) in ExtentHoldings Holding
Less than 1/4 Acre 1,414 1.1 78 0.11/4 - < 1/2 Acre 9,616 7.6 1,216 1.51/2 - < 3/4 Acre 23,491 18.5 4,955 6.33/4 - < 1 Acre 15,557 12.2 4,920 6.21 - < 2 Acre 51,980 40.9 24,299 30.62 - < 3 Acre 14,552 11.4 12,642 15.93 - < 5 Acre 5,864 4.6 8,336 10.55 - < 10 Acre 2,891 2.3 7,435 9.410 - < 20 Acre 1,111 0.9 5,723 7.220 - < 50 Acre 472 0.4 5,514 6.950 Acres & Above 144 0.1 4,277 5.4Total 127,092 100.0 79,395 100.0
Source : Rubber Development Department : Census of Rubber Lands 2010
Disaggregated data on number of rubber holdings and correspondingextent under different size classes are depicted in table no. 2.5 while districtwise breakdown is given in table no. 2.6. In the rubber sector related legisla-tions, smallholder is defined as a holder of rubber land up to 10 acres or 4hectares. Accordingly there are 125,365 smallholdings with a total extent of63,881 ha or 80% of total extent of smallholdings. However, the balance 20%is also managed by the Rubber Development treating as Small holdings.
As Land Reform Commission law stipulates the provision that maximumland ceiling for an individual can hold up to 50 acres and rubber relatedinstitutions adhere this rule to compute smallholder extent and provide facili-ties and subsidies. Without effect to 50 acre family units of which a cumula-tive extent of 4,277 ha (5.4%) was revealed in 2010 Census of Rubber Lands.These lands are also come under the smallholder definition.
The extent of holdings below 1 acre size shows 14.1% of total while 10 to50 acre category shares the same percentage. As a single category size class1-2 acre represents maximum percentage i.e. 30.6% while less than ¼ acresmallholder share of extent is the lowest 0.1% of total.
81
Tabl
e N
o. 2
.6
RU
BB
ER
L
AN
D
BY
SI
ZE
C
LA
SS O
F H
OL
DIN
G &
BY
DIS
TR
ICT
SM
AL
LH
OL
DIN
G S
EC
TO
R -
2010
Less
than
1 A
cre
1<=
2 Ac
re2<
=5
Acre
5<=
10 A
cre
10<
=50
Acr
eAb
ove 5
0 Ac
reTo
tal
Dis
tric
tH
oldi
ngs
Exte
ntH
oldi
ngs
Exte
ntH
oldi
ngs
Exte
ntH
oldi
ngs
Exte
ntH
oldi
ngs
Exte
ntH
oldi
ngs
Exte
ntH
oldi
ngs
Exte
ntha
haha
haha
haha
Col
ombo
3,09
466
22,
328
1,13
01,
027
1,11
322
055
410
570
06
150
6,78
04,
309
Gam
paha
2,24
250
82,
326
1,12
31,
156
1,23
114
036
252
324
255
5,91
83,
603
Kal
utar
a15
,361
3,40
313
,423
6,25
73,
840
3,95
557
21,
471
360
2,71
842
1,25
433
,598
19,0
58K
andy
1,13
124
51,
039
486
427
446
6917
533
196
00
2,69
91,
548
Mat
ale
181
3213
462
101
109
3810
335
236
932
349
886
5N
uwar
aeliy
a0
01
02
21
40
00
04
6G
alle
1,57
033
91,
688
767
671
716
174
442
8755
15
180
4,19
52,
995
Mat
ara
794
187
1,58
071
968
276
315
439
591
655
717
43,
308
2,89
3H
amba
ntot
a77
2112
960
6665
49
00
00
276
155
Kur
uneg
ala
568
128
682
323
457
477
7820
253
382
929
01,
847
1,80
2Pu
ttala
m5
298
4111
612
115
300
00
023
419
3B
adul
la46
920
382
8876
1334
1815
18
310
376
662
Mon
arag
ala
636
141
4,76
72,
059
2,34
22,
017
4310
414
810
07,
802
4,40
2Ra
tnap
ura
7,97
71,
836
8,39
63,
910
3,53
13,
735
734
1,89
839
02,
669
2468
721
,052
14,7
35K
egal
la16
,396
3,65
715
,186
7,28
05,
910
6,15
263
61,
653
345
2,57
432
853
38,5
0522
,169
Tota
l50
,078
11,1
7051
,980
24,2
9920
,416
20,9
782,
891
7,43
61,
583
11,2
3714
44,
276
127,
092
79,3
95
Sour
ce :
Rub
ber D
evel
opm
ent D
epar
tmen
t : C
ensu
s of R
ubbe
r lan
ds 2
010
82
Tab
le N
o. 2
.7
IMM
ATU
RE
& M
ATU
RE
RU
BBER
AR
EA B
Y A
GE
GR
OU
P &
DIS
TRIC
T - 2
010
SMA
LL
HO
LD
ING
SE
CT
OR
Imm
atur
e Rub
ber L
and
Mat
ure R
ubbe
r Lan
dTo
tal
0<=7
No.
of
7<=1
313
<=19
19<=
2525
<=31
Ove
r 31
Toto
al%
No. o
fEx
tent
No.
of
Dist
rict
year
s%
Hol
ding
sye
ars
year
sye
ars
year
sye
ars
mat
ure
Hol
ding
s(H
a)H
oldi
ngs
Hec
tare
Hec
tare
Hec
tare
Hec
tare
Hec
tare
Hec
tare
exten
t(H
a)
Col
ombo
636
151,
089
376
796
1,09
587
053
73,
674
855,
691
4,31
06,
780
Gam
paha
625
171,
167
232
573
1,04
768
943
72,
978
834,
751
3,60
35,
918
Kalu
tara
3,00
516
5,78
91,
147
3,41
95,
177
3,42
52,
885
16,0
5384
27,8
0919
,058
33,5
98K
andy
222
1449
410
120
226
630
944
81,
326
862,
205
1,54
82,
699
Mata
le96
1140
4963
104
8247
176
989
458
865
498
Nuw
arae
liya
6 -
40
00
00
0 -
06
4G
alle
349
1252
174
337
743
782
710
2,64
688
3,67
42,
995
4,19
5M
atara
321
1146
520
940
082
953
659
82,
572
892,
843
2,89
33,
308
Ham
bant
ota
8857
153
2311
1310
966
4312
315
427
6K
urun
egala
425
2450
892
276
282
210
518
1,37
876
1,33
91,
803
1,84
7Pu
ttala
m18
395
227
64
00
010
57
193
234
Badu
lla25
839
286
1113
1172
297
404
6190
662
376
Mon
arag
ala3,
713
846,
627
279
227
109
3539
689
161,
175
4,40
27,
802
Ratn
apur
a2,
585
184,
383
1,12
43,
008
3,11
52,
995
1,90
812
,150
8216
,669
14,7
3521
,052
Keg
alle
4,21
719
8,26
51,
711
3,51
05,
309
3,85
03,
572
17,9
5281
30,2
4022
,169
38,5
05To
tal
16,7
2921
30,0
185,
434
12,8
3918
,100
13,8
6512
,429
62,6
6779
97,0
7479
,396
127,
092
Sour
ce : R
ubbe
r Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent :
Cen
sus o
f Rub
ber l
ands
201
0
83
Tab
le N
o. 2
.8
IMM
ATU
RE
& M
ATU
RE
RU
BBER
AR
EA B
Y A
GE
GR
OU
P &
DIS
TRIC
T - 2
010
EST
ATE
SE
CTO
R (R
PCS
& S
TAT
E)
Imm
atur
e Rub
ber L
and
Mat
ure R
ubbe
r Lan
dTo
tal
0<=7
No.
of
7<=1
313
<=19
19<=
2525
<=31
Ove
r 31
Toto
al%
No. o
fEx
tent
No.
of
Dist
rict
year
s%
Hol
ding
sye
ars
year
sye
ars
year
sye
ars
mat
ure
Hol
ding
s(H
a)H
oldi
ngs
Hec
tare
Hec
tare
Hec
tare
Hec
tare
Hec
tare
Hec
tare
exten
t(H
a)
Col
ombo
417
217
379
504
539
153
181,
593
7939
2,01
046
Gam
paha
6729
214
6710
696
166
719
233
11K
alutar
a2,
013
2176
1,03
61,
997
2,82
21,
702
137
7,69
479
301
9,70
737
7K
andy
103
346
3371
4653
020
366
1430
620
Mata
le17
038
20
019
025
727
662
744
69
Nuw
arae
liya
0 -
00
00
00
0 -
00
0G
alle
533
1834
442
475
1,05
043
355
2,45
582
155
2,98
818
9M
atara
193
1715
144
273
220
222
6091
983
731,
112
88H
amba
ntot
a0
-0
00
00
00
-0
00
Kur
uneg
ala34
829
1111
517
836
121
40
868
7144
1,21
655
Putta
lam
0 -
00
00
00
0 -
00
0Ba
dulla
517
5417
6712
314
556
5644
746
1396
530
Mon
arag
ala41
108
134
227
00
036
190
840
216
Ratn
apur
a3,
495
2961
1,33
22,
124
3,20
21,
546
170
8,37
471
275
11,8
6933
6K
egall
e3,
058
2089
2,10
02,
172
4,14
43,
128
394
11,9
3880
460
14,9
9654
9To
tal
10,9
5524
328
5,79
68,
211
12,5
587,
576
1,15
335
,294
761,
398
46,2
501,
726
Sour
ce : R
ubbe
r Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent :
Cen
sus o
f Rub
ber l
ands
201
0
84
Immature and Mature Rubber Extent by District
(Reference to Table No. 2.7 & 2.8)
As reveal in Census of Rubber Lands - 2010 the table 2.7 highlighted thatimmature rubber extent of smallholding sector was 21% while remaining 79%as mature portion of the total extent of 79,395 ha. However, as highlighted intable 2.8 Estate sector immature & mature share were 24% and 76%respectively under the same parameter used for the computation such asimmature period of 7 years.
Smallholding sector is concerned, traditional rubber growing districts sharearound 10% - 20% of immature extent while in non-traditional districts(Monaragala, Puttalam) this rate was over 85% indicating new planting ofrubber has expanded rapidly in the recent past. On the other hand Hambantotaand Badulla districts highlight the share of mature extent 43% & 61%respectively being the rubber lands grown over the decades but withconsiderable portion of immature areas as well.
In the smallholding sector, three age group categories between 13 and 31years comprise the maximum extent of mature areas, ie. 44,800 ha (71%) oftotal mature lands. Economic life of this extent is considered, the current levelof production will be assured for next few years. The very young maturecategory (7 - 13 yrs) extent is around 9% of total mature extent. The extent of12,429 ha or 20% of total mature area which is over 31 years of age requiresimmediate replanting with high yielding clones to ensure continuous rubbersupply with increasing production in future.
In the Estate sector (comprising RPCs & State Plantations) three agecategories between 13 and 31 years consist of 28,350 ha or 80% of totalmature extent. This is the strength of economical rubber supply in estatesector. Young mature category (7 -13 years) remains 16% while extremely oldmature category (over 31 years) which need immediate replanting in highyielding clones consisting 1,153 ha or 3% of total mature lands.
In estate sector traditional rubber growing districts (Ratnapura, Kegalle,Gampaha, Kalutara) highlight 20% - 30% of immature extent and more than 2/3 of mature lands. Immature portion of Galle and Matara districts werecomparatively low while in Monaragala this share is always 10% in contrastto the smallholding sector. In Badulla district where estate rubber plantationis more prominent, immature share is very high (54%) as recent trend of cropdiversification in favour of rubber. This mature and immature composition ofrubber lands came out at 2010 Census should be updated with RDD finalizedfigures for end of current year 2012.
85
Table No. 2.9
CLONAL COMPOSITION OF SMALL HOLDING SECTORRUBBER EXTENT - 2010
Mature Area Immature Area
CloneNo. of Extent No. of No. of Extent No. of % ShareHold- (Hect- trees Hold- (Hect- trees ofings are) ‘000 ings are) ‘000 extent
by clone
PB 86 50,729 33,495 12,539 1,249 725 323 43.1RRIC 100 30,350 19,295 7,817 2,283 1,126 519 25.7RRIC 102 3,254 2,052 877 2,414 1,223 561 4.1RRIC 121 5,223 3,870 1,624 22,993 13,213 6,028 21.5RRISL 203 67 97 44 375 225 103 0.4RRISL 2000 Series 6 4 2 77 42 19 0.1Clonal Rubber 7,448 3,851 1,374 627 176 79 5.1 Total 97,077 62,664 24,277 30,018 16,730 7,632 100.0
Source : Rubber Development Department ; Census of Rubber lands 2010
86
Tabl
e N
o. 2
.10
DIS
TR
IBU
TIO
N O
F S
MA
LL
HO
LD
ING
S &
EX
TE
NT
UN
DE
R D
IFFE
RE
NT
CL
ON
ES
BY
DIS
TR
ICT
- 2
010
PB 8
6RR
IC 1
00RR
IC 1
02RR
IC 1
21RR
ISL
203
RRIS
L 20
00C
lona
lTo
tal
Dis
tric
tNo
. of
Exte
ntNo
. of
Exte
ntNo
. of
Exte
ntNo
. of
Exte
ntNo
. of
Exte
ntNo
. of
Exte
ntNo
. of
Exte
ntNo
. of
Exte
ntH
oldi
ngs
haH
oldi
ngs
haH
oldi
ngs
haH
oldi
ngs
haH
oldi
ngs
haH
oldi
ngs
haH
oldi
ngs
haH
oldi
ngs
ha
Col
ombo
3,62
82,
275
1,65
61,
093
241
133
1,07
872
417
100
016
074
6,78
04,
309
Gam
paha
2,67
31,
749
1,67
799
938
122
296
153
324
153
119
984
5,91
83,
603
Kal
utar
a13
,863
8,44
210
,230
5,70
271
346
35,
493
3,06
062
127
31
3,23
41,
263
33,5
9819
,058
Kan
dy1,
173
720
514
286
9441
467
223
187
21
431
270
2,69
91,
548
Mat
ale
123
271
8411
36
229
581
20
025
541
949
886
5N
uwar
aeliy
a0
00
00
03
41
20
00
04
6G
alle
2,27
11,
515
958
865
9863
442
304
63
11
419
245
4,19
52,
995
Mat
ara
1,61
81,
598
1,00
378
611
798
381
317
54
00
184
903,
308
2,89
3H
amba
ntot
a42
2763
352
116
791
00
00
21
276
155
Kur
uneg
ala
507
640
403
362
8944
470
438
105
00
368
313
1,84
71,
802
Putta
lam
00
45
11
229
187
00
00
00
234
193
Bad
ulla
7435
016
636
1525
029
10
00
00
037
666
2M
onar
agal
a51
729
846
627
272
837
36,
086
3,45
62
10
03
27,
802
4,40
2R
atna
pura
7,12
45,
406
6,73
64,
826
762
499
4,89
43,
340
4524
177
1,47
463
321
,052
14,7
35K
egal
la18
,365
10,9
298,
823
5,07
12,
400
1,32
07,
266
4,05
725
112
257
351,
343
635
38,5
0522
,169
Tota
l51
,978
34,2
2032
,633
20,4
215,
668
3,27
528
,216
17,0
8344
232
283
468,
072
4,02
912
7,09
279
,395
Sour
ce :
Rub
ber D
evel
opm
ent D
epar
tmen
t : C
ensu
s of
Rub
ber L
ands
201
0
87
Table No. 2.11
DISTRIBUTION OF RUBBER EXTENT UNDER DIFFERENT CLONESBY DISTRICT ESTATE SECTOR - 2010
Hectare
District PB 86 RRIC RRIC RRIC RRISL Clonal Other Total100 102 121 203 mix extent
Extent Extent Extent Extent Extent Extent Extent Hectare
Colombo 496 558 51 644 0 199 63 2,011
Gampaha 68 67 43 54 0 0 0 232
Kalutara 1,715 2,287 69 2,063 47 3,254 272 9,707
Kandy 53 15 25 156 0 30 26 306
Matale 0 25 19 130 15 19 238 446
Nuwaraeliya 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Galle 279 1,526 0 881 2 7 291 2,986
Matara 194 550 7 262 0 20 79 1,112
Hambantota 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kurunegala 318 122 16 347 58 276 80 1,217
Puttalam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Badulla 45 127 4 263 0 464 62 965
Monaragala 121 33 41 0 0 208 0 403
Ratnapura 2,185 3,904 26 3,310 376 1,247 821 11,869
Kegalle 3,855 3,568 213 3,755 149 2,619 837 14,996
Total 9,329 12,782 514 11,865 647 8,343 2,769 46,250
Source : Rubber Development Department : Census of Rubber Lands 2010
88
Clonal Composition by District & Sector(Reference Table No. 2.9, 2.10 & 2.11)
As presented in table 2.9 and 2.11 three popular clones PB 86, RRIC 100,and RRIC 121 cover mature and immature extent of 71,724 ha or 90% of totalextent in smallholding sector while in Estate sector the coverage of theseclones is 33,976 ha of total extent or 73% at present. However, immature extentof PB 86 and RRIC 100 share only 1851 ha or 2% of total extent indicating ofthese clones are no longer a trend of further expanding while RRIC 121 is stillattractive as remains 13,213 ha (17% of total) among smallholders. InSmallholding sector all other clones contribute 10% or 7670 ha of extent. Asdisaggregated data presented in table 2.10 main rubber growing districtsKegalle, Kalutara, Ratnapura are dominated by said three popular clones withtotal extent of 50,473 ha (64%) while large scale new planting of RRIC 121 wasattracted by smallholders in Monaragala District.
As highlighted in table 2.11 Census of Rubber Lands - 2010 found that inEstate sector most popular clone is RRIC 100 with the coverage of 12,782 haor 28% of total at present. This followed by RRIC 121 which is extended to26% of clone composition. Further clonal mix category is also significant at7,120 ha in extent in said three districts i.e. Kegalle, Kalutara and Ratnapura .RRIC 102, RRISL 203 and Other clones have not expanded in Estate sectorindicating marginal extent, 8% of total hecterage.
89
Table No. 2.12
RUBBER AREA REPLANTED & NEW PLANTED
Hectare
Replanting New Planting
Year Estate Small Total Estate Small TotalSector Holding Sector Holding
(RPCs & Sector (RPCs & SectorState) State)
2000 1,853 770 2,623 34 243 2772001 4,584 558 5,142 14 150 1642002 2,066 712 2,778 7 227 2342003 494 565 1,059 7 451 4582004 1,264 819 2,083 5 518 5232005 2,329 1,257 3,586 11 1,032 1,0432006 2,331 1,122 3,453 297 1,603 1,9002007 4,199 993 5,192 333 1,701 2,0342008 5,293 812 6,105 414 2,775* 3,1892009 5,360 1,002 6,362 74 1,750* 1,8242010 4,756 1,186 5,942 96 2,792* 2,8882011 1,927 1,123 3,050 838 2,178* 3,0162012 2,126 1,117 3,243 1,086 2,296* 3,382
* Note : New planting in small holding sector includes cultivated area, under IFADProject
Source : Rubber Development Department Regional Plantation Companies (RPCs) IFAD SPEnDP Project.
90
Rubber Area Replanted & New Planted(Reference No. Table 2.12)
National Rubber replanting rate computed (replanted area of particularyear divided by mature extent of the year end) that should be around 3% orabove as acceptable norm which indicates the average growth of the indus-try. Although replanted extent has shown a high quantity in the recent years,the average of the decade was around 3000 ha per annum in Smallholdingsector and Estate sectors as well. The annual replanting extent is much higherdue to encouragement under the Government Subsidy Scheme and new in-vestments of the RPCs. The smallholders who received government subsidythrough the RDD eligible to replant around 900 ha on annual basis. It isestimated that apart from the government subsidy schemes, there was an-other 200 ha replanted by the Smallholders from their own funds.
Although rubber new planting extent in Estate sector was very low in thedecade, in 2012 it has reported that they planted 1086 ha. Since 2005 newplanting in Smallholding sector was increased at annual average extent of2000 ha under the government subsidy scheme. New planting extent inMonaragala District was substantially expanded under IFAD Credit programfrom 2008 to 2012. The new planting under IFAD project accounted 4,827 ha.Also in view of the expansion of rubber cultivation in non-traditional areas itis reported that 150 ha had been cultivated in the district of Ampara.
91
Table No. 2.13
PLANTS ISSUANCE AND TARGET OF RDD NURSERIES
RDD Nurseries
District Nursery Target Production Plant Target2012 2012 Issuance 2013
2012
Gampaha Welikadamulla 450,000 417,287 379,608 450,000Mirigama 350,000 295,154 168,361 350,000
Kalutara Egaloya 325,000 306,705 262,408 350,000Gurugoda 350,000 310,460 238,150 400,000
Ratnapura Karapincha 175,000 102,109 90,611 200,000
Monaragala Kumbukkana 450,000 395,673 124,626 450,000
Hambantota Middeniya 100,000 128,212 97,836 1,500,000
Total 2,200,000 1,955,000 1,361,600 3,700,000
Source: Rubber Development Department
92
Table No. 2.14
ISSUANCE OF PLANTS FROM RUBBER NURSERIES
No. of Plants Issued
Year RDD Private TotalNurseries Nurseries
2002 629,829 41,500 671,3292003 723,409 10,900 734,3092004 83,975 79,000 162,9752005 1,359,685 258,000 1,617,6852006 1,557,735 169,520 1,727,2552007 1,574,249 500,719 2,074,9682008 1,476,651 803,026 2,279,6772009 1,264,556 622,253 1,886,8092010 1,597,937 834,314 2,432,2512011 1,316,974 1,049,244 2,366,2182012 1,361,600 1,869,415 3,231,015
Source: Rubber Development Department
93
Plants Issuance of RDD Nurseries and Private Nurseries(Reference to Table No. 2.13 & 2.14)
During the 10 year period from 2002 - 2012, rubber nursery plants issuedby Rubber Development Department (RDD) from its seven nurseries havebeen increased up to 1.4 mn in 2012 with certain annual fluctuations. Thehighest output is recorded in 2010. The private sector contribution on rubbernurseries is also shown higher growth. They equally contributed to the na-tional growth along with the RDD. The plant production target of RDD nurs-eries for 2012 was same as previous year (2.2 mn ) but achievement recordedonly 62%.
In 2012, the total requirement of planting material for entire extent (3400 hareplanting and new planting in Smallholding sector) was 1.9 mn plants at therate of 550 plants per hectare. However, quality plants which were distributedfrom Rubber Development Department nurseries were limited to 1.36 mn in2012, which creates a vacuum of 540,000 plants. This gap was bridged byprivate nurseries and small portions from Estate sector (RPCs) rubber nurser-ies. In 2012 planting material total requirement was 2.4 mn (for 4400 ha ofreplanting and new planting) had been fulfilled. RPCs managed their ownnurseries to meet the planting material requirements to a great extent. Plantproduction of private sector nurseries are part of the intake for the Smallholdingsector.
All the nurseries are inspected by the extension officers attached to theRubber Research Institute (RRI) especially for the quality assurance of theplants. The RDD is running 7 large scale nurseries in the island while privatesector and the Regional Plantation Companies maintain about 200 and 90nurseries respectively.
94
Table No. 2.15
FIELD DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE PAYMENTS FOR RUBBERSMALL HOLDING SECTOR
Rs. Mn.
Smallholdings
Year Replanting New Planting
2000 63.3 26.52001 51.1 17.72002 38.2 15.82003 42.1 18.82004 33.9 15.82005 77.7 31.12006 89.8 71.12007 97.4 32.32008 92.9 102.02009 77.9 55.62010 121.5 128.52011 176.3 211.72012 162.0 125.4
Source: Rubber Development Department
95
RUBBER SUPPLY(Production)Overview - 2012
Production in Metric Tons (Mt)Sheet Crepes TSR Centrifuged Total
& Other2005 50,170 18,536 5,880 29,766 104,3522011 59,242 39,732 8,672 44,403 152,050
SectorwiseSmallholdings Estates (RPCs & State)
2005 69,200 (66%) 35,100 (34%)2012 122,360 (81%) 29,690 (20%)
Supply, Export and Consumption (Mt)Supply Export Consumption
2005 104,400 31,700 72,7002012 152,050 37,377 110,038
2012 Monthly Production (Mt) – 12,671 (Average)Highest Supply - 16,272 in MarchLowest Supply - 10,651 in December
Supply by Management (Mt)Regional Plantation Companies (RPCs) - 28,834 (19.0%)State (JEDB, RRI, Elkaduwa etc.) - 856 (0.6%)Smallholders/dealers - 122,360 (80.4%)
Yield (kg/ha) 2012 = Production/Tapped Area = 1,459 (National)Smallholdings - 1,717 Estates (RPCs & State) - 902
In 2012 Cost of Production (Rs/kg)Smallholding Sector – 136.00 Estate Sector – 223.70
9 - CM17140
96
Table No. 2.16
RUBBER PRODUCTION, EXPORTS AND CONSUMPTION 1990 - 2012
Mn. kg
Year Production Exports Domestic Consumption
mn kg mn kg % Dry Rubber Latex Totalmn kg % mn kg % mn kg
2000 87.6 32.5 37 40.2 73 14.9 27 55.12001 86.2 32.0 37 35.2 65 18.8 35 54.02002 90.5 36.1 40 35.5 65 18.9 35 54.42003 92.0 35.2 38 39.4 69 17.4 31 56.82004 94.7 40.3 43 29.3 54 25.1 46 54.42005 104.4 31.6 30 41.8 57 30.9 43 72.72006 109.2 46.3 42 36.4 58 26.7 42 63.12007 117.6 51.4 44 42.4 57 31.5 43 73.92008 129.2 48.6 38 46.1 58 34.0 42 80.12009 136.9 56.0 41 48.0 57 36.9 43 84.92010 153.0 51.5 34 60.6 57 46.6 43 107.22011 158.2 42.6 27 62.4 56 49.3 44 111.72012 152.1 37.4 25 60.4 55 49.6 45 110.0
Source : Rubber Development Department
MONTHLY BREAK DOWN - 2012
Mn kgMonth Production Export Domestic Consumption
Dry Rubber Latex Total
January 13.52 4.05 4.24 3.87 8.11February 13.28 4.94 5.48 4.15 9.63March 16.27 5.99 7.03 5.58 12.60April 13.80 3.52 4.80 3.40 8.20May 12.31 2.34 4.75 3.31 8.06June 13.35 1.73 5.26 5.15 10.41July 13.16 1.39 5.56 4.46 10.02August 12.17 1.78 5.63 4.10 9.73September 11.27 2.99 4.49 3.75 8.24October 11.22 2.64 4.44 4.10 8.55November 11.05 2.47 4.63 4.11 8.74December 10.65 3.53 4.09 3.66 7.75Total 152.05 37.38 60.41 49.62 110.04
Source : Rubber Development Department
Cha
rt 5
Sour
ce :
Rub
ber D
evel
opm
ent D
epar
tmen
t
97
98
99
Rubber Production, Exports & Consumption(Reference to table 2.16)
Since 2001 with 6.5% average annual growth the production increasedthroughout the decade showing a record level in 2011 at 158 mn kg, with onlya marginal increase in tapping (mature) area. Such a continuous increase ofrubber supply was realized as a result of yield increase due to adopting goodagricultural practices, attractive prices that prevailed in the past & favourableweather conditions. In 2012 the production declined by 3.9% due to badweather conditions prevailed throughout the year. Disaggregated data on2012 monthly production reveals that during the month May and August toDecember the production declined in comparison to the rest of the year.
Rubber demand is created through raw rubber export market and domesticconsumption for local manufacturing industry. In the decade, export of rawrubber grew with a 2.5% annual average growth. The exports peaked in 2009recording 56 mn kg or 41% of the production long after 75% exports prevailedin early 1990s. In 2012 volume of export decreased by 5.2 mn kg compared to2011 and ratio adjusted to 25% of production. Within three consecutive yearssince 2009, raw rubber exports declined by 18.6 mn kg or 33%. The averageratio of export that prevailed for the decade is 35% of production. Rubberprices in global markets and government policy favourable for rubber productmanufacturing industry are the factors contributing to adjust the rubberdemand ratio between exports and consumption. Monthly breakdown ofrubber exports in 2012 showed similar trends to that of production and exportsdeclined in the period from June to August.
Concerning the domestic raw rubber consumption, in this decade, it remainsas 65% - 72%. Dry rubber content, bulk of which goes for tyre sector was 55%of domestic consumption in 2012. The Latex component used for the highestlevel of value addition such as surgical & examination gloves increased from32% in early 2000s to 45% in the 2012 reacting the growing requirement ofLatex based products. As certain value added products must incorporatesynthetic rubber in the formation to meet required standards, 25 mn kg perannum has been imported to Sri Lanka in average. Monthly consumption ofrubber (Dry & Latex) in 2012 varied between 7.8 mn kg and 12.6 mn kg.
100
Table No. 2.17
RUBBER PRODUCTION BY DIFFERENT TYPE
MT
Year Sheet Sole Scrap Latex TSR Centri- TotalCrepe Crepe Crepe fuged
latex andother
2000 34,003 4,512 1,788 28,110 3,879 15,344 87,6362001 30,344 3,915 2,743 26,112 3,657 19,461 86,2322002 42,770 2,987 2,185 20,831 1,231 20,514 90,5192003 50,015 2,195 3,117 17,131 1,193 18,359 92,0102004 46,705 2,035 3,708 12,481 2,812 27,000 94,7412005 50,170 2,739 2,883 12,914 5,880 29,766 104,3522006 46,260 3,949 1,606 20,224 9,038 28,076 109,1532007 48,875 4,077 1,693 21,756 9,564 31,586 117,5512008 55,011 3,937 2,711 21,043 10,968 35,573 129,2432009 54,550 5,448 3,502 31,670 11,775 29,934 136,8802010 59,248 6,711 1,842 52,504 8,341 24,341 152,9872011 60,699 3,384 1,332 59,933 7,981 24,869 158,1982012 59,242 1,902 1,280 36,550 8,672 44,403 152,050
Source: Rubber Development Department
101
Table No. 2.18
MONTHLY PRODUCTION OF RAW RUBBER BY TYPE - 2012
Mt
Year Sheet Sole Scrap Latex TSR Centri- TotalCrepe Crepe Crepe fuged
latex andother
January 5,271 130 108 4,798 784 2,424 13,516
February 5,379 187 126 1,916 797 4,876 13,281
March 6,623 130 143 3,121 976 5,279 16,272
April 5,382 165 124 1,718 856 5,556 13,800
May 4,431 141 111 1,333 739 5,554 12,308
June 5,205 125 100 5,378 694 1,844 13,346
July 4,962 126 105 4,865 717 2,385 13,161
August 4,539 113 93 4,598 655 2,174 12,172
September 4,283 229 96 4,429 514 1,719 11,270
October 4,377 197 90 1,819 617 4,123 11,223
November 4,531 157 98 1,139 685 4,440 11,050
December 4,260 202 85 1,436 639 4,029 10,651
Total 59,242 1,902 1,280 36,550 8,672 44,403 152,050
Source : Rubber Development Department
Table
repe
102
Cha
rt 6
Sour
ce :
Rub
ber D
evel
opm
ent D
epar
tmen
t
103
104
105
Raw Rubber Production - Different Types(Reference to table 2.17 & 2.18)
Currently 3 main products: RSS sheet (39%), Latex Crepe (24%), andCentrifuged Latex (29%) contribute to 92% of total production. Total naturalrubber production was reduced by 6,148 mt in 2012 compared to 2011. RSSsheet the main production category of small holder sector grew by 25 mn kgin the period of 2000 to 2012, maintaining average 40% share of totalproduction. Latex Crepe mainly produced by RPCs and private owned factorieswas showing a declining trend up to 2008 and then increased up to 2011 at arecord level and 14.9% over the previous year. In 2012 it was declined by 23mn kg or 39% which is very unusual. Average annual production of CentrifugedLatex & other specialized product category has shown a remarkable boost(79%) by adding 19.5 mn kg compared to 2011 that is also peculiar withindustry practies. This increasing trend was attributed to the demand forgloves and foam products which are based on centrifuged Latex.
In 2012, the contribution to total production by Sole Crepe, Scrap Crepeand TSR were 1.3%, 0.8% and 5.7% respectively. These types are mainlyproduced by private sector & RPCs. Sole Crepe production has remained at3.5 mn kg of annual average up to 2008 and a sudden increase was shown in2009 & 2010. However, in 2012 44% reduction was recorded in Sole Crepecategory. Since 2005, but except in 2009, the Scrap Crepe production has beendecreasing due to increased TSR production using Scrap Crepe as raw material.
Monthly production data in 2012 highlights that RSS sheet supply declinedfrom August to December compared to rest of months. Centrifuged Latexproduction has also declined during June to September and in January. Inrespect of other categories no clear pattern of monthly variation shows.
106
Table No. 2.19
RUBBER PRODUCTION BY TYPE OF MANAGEMENT
Mn Kg
Year RPCs % State (SLSPC, % Small % TotalJEDB, Holdings
Elkaduwa PL,KurunegalaPL & RRI)
2000 36.1 41.2 - 51.5 58.7 87.62001 38.4 44.5 - 47.8 55.5 86.22002 34.8 38.5 0.5 0.6 55.2 60.7 90.52003 33.6 36.5 0.4 0.4 58.0 63.0 92.02004 32.9 34.3 0.4 0.4 62.5 65.3 95.72005 34.8 33.3 0.3 0.3 69.2 66.3 104.42006 34.5 31.6 0.3 0.3 74.4 68.1 109.22007 37.8 32.1 0.3 0.3 79.5 67.6 117.62008 33.8 26.2 0.3 0.3 95.1 73.6 129.22009 32.5 23.7 0.3 0.2 104.1 76.1 136.92010 32.2 21.1 0.3 0.2 120.4 78.7 153.02011 30.7 19.4 0.9 0.6 126.6 80.0 158.22012 28.8 19.0 0.9 0.6 122.4 80.5 152.1
Source: Rubber Development Department, RPCs and JEDB
Since 2000 RPCs contribution to production had been declined from 40%to 19% while small holding sector contribution had increased from 59% to81%. Since 2011 onwards Elkaduwa Plantations Ltd., Kurunegala Plantationsand Rubber Research Institute were included for the State sector apart fromthe JEDB/SLSPC. Therefore production of State sector has risen by 600 mt in2011, producing only 900 mt per annum and same trend prevailed in 2012 too.Small holding sector growth in raw rubber production recorded 3% decline in2012 against the previous year. Thus, sector wise raw rubber production ratiois 80:20 between small holdings and RPC estates at present.
Rubber processing plants & factories in RPCs produced crepe types mainly.Individual smallholdings and group processing centers produced RSS sheetpredominantly. Other types such as scrap crepe, TSR & centrifuged are theproducts of private sector rubber factories depend on bought latex. In additionto that, large quantity of field latex was supplied to latex based manufacturingplants by the farmers.
107
Tab
le N
o. 2
.20
RU
BBER
CO
ST O
F P
RO
DU
CTI
ON
- SM
ALL
HO
LDIN
G S
ECTO
R
Rs/
kg
Item
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
1. C
ultiv
atio
n C
ost
Labo
ur38
.9841
.1151
.6543
.0066
.0180
.0080
.0085
.3088
.50M
ater
ials
6.79
7.16
9.00
7.53
27.42
7.50
8.00
8.40
8.50
Mai
nten
ance
1.78
1.88
2.36
3.23
8.13
2.50
2.50
3.20
3.40
Sub
Tota
l47
.5550
.1563
.0153
.7510
1.56
90.00
90.50
96.90
100.4
02.
Pro
cess
ing
Cos
tLa
bour
5.75
6.06
7.61
43.00
4.69
12.00
12.00
14.25
15.50
Mat
eria
ls4.8
45.1
06.4
11.1
90.9
51.5
62.3
01.8
12.0
0Su
b To
tal
10.59
11.16
14.02
44.19
5.64
13.56
14.30
16.06
17.50
3. M
arke
ting
Cos
t2.6
12.7
53.4
54.0
02.3
55.0
05.0
05.5
06.2
5
4. O
ther
Cha
rges
&M
aint
enan
ce12
.6213
.3116
.7210
.754.4
510
.0010
.0011
.1011
.85
G
rand
Tot
al73
.37
77.3
797
.20
112.
6911
4.00
118.
5611
9.80
129.
5613
6.00
Sour
ce: R
ubbe
r Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent
108
Tab
le N
o.2.
21
RU
BBER
CO
ST O
F P
RO
DU
CTI
ON
EST
ATES
- 20
AC
RES
AN
D A
BOV
E
Rs/K
g
Cos
t Ite
m20
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
07/0
820
08/0
920
09/1
020
10/1
120
11/1
2
1.M
aint
. of M
atur
e R
ubbe
r9.5
414
.6710
.0414
.7225
.7819
.6728
.7833
.6830
.5237
.23
2.Ta
ppin
g &
Col
lect
ing
Cost
16.77
22.10
27.93
28.72
25.88
31.47
33.78
39.52
44.98
50.59
3.M
aint
. of I
mm
atur
e Rub
ber
5.23
5.70
6.41
13.04
12.65
13.00
18.27
21.38
28.52
43.32
4.Fa
ctor
y C
ost
6.53
4.82
4.47
5.92
4.01
11.67
6.71
7.85
12.32
18.54
5.Es
tate
Mai
nten
ance
2.54
4.29
6.98
4.33
4.68
5.85
7.42
8.69
8.48
13.78
6.G
enar
al C
harg
es18
.4813
.6515
.9320
.3528
.8637
.2340
.1546
.9861
.9257
.58
7.M
arke
ting
& R
elat
ed E
xp.
0.68
0.75
0.80
0.57
0.44
1.00
0.72
0.84
1.49
2.66
T
otal
59.77
65.98
72.56
87.65
102.3
011
9.89
135.8
315
8.94
188.2
322
3.70
Sour
ce :
Dep
artm
ent o
f C
ensu
s and
Sta
tistic
s
109
Rubber Cost of Production Small Holding & Estates(Reference to table 2.20 & 2.21 )
In 2012 the cost of production in Smallholding sector increased marginallyRs. 6.44 (5%) per kg compared to the previous year. All the cost componentsincluding the labour cost increased slightly.
Based on a separate methodology adopted for the calculation of Estatesector, the cost of production was recorded an increase of Rs. 35.47 per kg incost of production in 2012. It is an increase of 19% in six cost componentsexcept general charges compared to previous year. Thus, the cost of produc-tion between these two sectors has much widened in 2012.
110
RUBBER PRICESOverview - 2012
Auction Price by Type (Average: Rs/kg)RSS-1 RSS-2 RSS-5 Scrap Latex
Crepe (1XBR) Crepe (1X)2005 141.17 138.66 133.75 124.68 152.702012 416.27 407.99 391.92 375.93 409.10
2011 MonthlyHighestApril 465.68 457.67 429.08 443.00 469.25
LowestAugust 363.29 356.93 318.00 336.78 378.00December
In 2012 Price Growth (%) Over 2011RSS-1 Scrap Crepe Latex Crepe-19% -19% -29%
FOB Export Price (Average -2012)RSS Sole Latex TSR CentrifugedSheets Crepe Crepe Latex & other
Rs/kg 430.36 618.25 407.18 351.20 479.80US$/kg 3.37 4.85 3.19 2.75 3.76
FOB US$/kgHighest April 3.81 3.68
January 6.00May 3.77June 5.21
Lowest September 2.99November 3.98 2.78 2,89December 0.84
111
Table No. 2.22
RUBBER : COLOMBO AUCTION PRICES BY DIFFERENT TYPES
Rs/Kg
Year RSS1 RSS2 RSS3 RSS4 RSS5 Scrap LatexCrepe Crepe
(1XBR) (1X)
2000 54.91 52.10 50.16 48.75 47.67 49.62 66.702001 54.77 52.84 51.48 50.20 49.31 46.31 58.492002 68.89 66.84 65.25 63.47 61.86 56.91 76.922003 102.58 99.86 97.38 95.67 93.71 90.06 122.712004 127.04 126.59 122.96 120.76 118.34 117.62 142.432005 141.17 138.66 136.66 134.89 133.75 124.68 152.702006 202.34 196.82 192.93 189.08 186.07 179.50 242.752007 233.69 229.20 226.62 222.60 219.29 206.96 236.822008 267.90 264.79 262.22 257.89 254.93 245.61 273.792009 202.79 198.62 194.76 190.25 183.82 176.28 208.622010 402.71 394.52 390.63 379.47 373.01 364.11 455.942011 513.05 504.56 492.45 486.12 470.92 461.83 575.652012 416.27 407.99 395.13 388.70 391.92 375.93 409.10
Source: Rubber Development Department
Colombo auction price for different types of rubber mainly RSS 1 - 5 grades,scrap crepe & latex crepe increased in every year over the decade excludingthe year 2009, in which global financial crisis affected adversely to the rubberindustry. However, having recovered from recession, attractive auction priceswere realized in 2010 above 99% for RSS-1, 106% for scrap crepe and 118% forlatex crepe compared with the previous year. The auction price showed afurther growth in 2011 for all types. The auction prices for all types wereturned down in 2012. This decrease was recorded in 17% - 20% range for RSSgrades, 19% for scrap crepe and 29% for latex crepe respectively. All types ofproducts recorded the highest auction price in 2011 due to depreciation oflocal currency, benchmarks in other rubber markets in Asia, prevailed gapbetween global rubber supply-demand, and favorable domestic market re-sponses etc. In contrast auction price declined by the range of Rs. 100 to Rs.165 per kg for all types in 2012.
10 - CM17140
112
Cha
rt 7
Sour
ce :
Rub
ber D
evel
opm
ent D
epar
tmen
t
113
114
115
Tabl
e N
o. 2
.23
AVE
RA
GE
MO
NT
HLY
PR
ICE
S O
F R
UB
BE
R A
UC
TIO
N B
Y T
YPE
- 20
11
R
s/kg
Mon
thJa
nu-
Febr
-M
arch
Apri
lM
ayJu
neJu
lyAu
gust
Sept
e-O
cto-
Nov
em-
Dec
em-
Aver
a-ar
yua
rym
ber
ber
ber
ber
ge
Late
x C
repe
1X38
2.63
413.
5045
1.81
469.
2543
8.00
410.
0040
9.07
382.
0040
7.60
409.
0037
9.17
378.
0040
9.10
137
3.21
409.
4044
4.68
457.
4043
2.79
406.
0040
6.39
372.
5039
9.25
405.
2237
6.88
376.
4040
4.45
236
3.00
403.
2044
1.56
451.
3342
9.83
393.
6039
6.63
356.
3338
8.38
393.
1336
5.25
364.
0039
3.82
336
2.00
398.
1443
7.50
447.
1742
4.56
385.
2039
0.03
353.
0037
7.38
381.
5635
3.56
358.
0038
8.98
435
8.00
393.
0043
7.36
447.
0042
6.10
373.
4238
7.56
347.
6737
2.69
374.
3334
7.56
352.
5038
4.56
Scra
p C
repe
1 X
Br
348.
2238
7.80
430.
6744
3.00
418.
6036
6.42
378.
0033
6.78
361.
6336
1.06
338.
2234
8.00
375.
932
X B
r33
1.77
380.
2541
6.00
433.
6040
9.25
372.
6736
8.70
332.
0033
2.67
344.
6733
1.71
336.
8836
6.12
3 X
Br
339.
5738
0.71
416.
7842
9.67
392.
5735
8.55
352.
7232
4.56
324.
0832
7.00
323.
4432
3.84
356.
774
X B
r33
0.11
372.
7941
1.89
427.
2039
1.67
345.
2034
2.78
314.
2932
0.60
318.
6731
2.22
315.
7534
9.83
Flat
Bar
k33
1.50
343.
3340
4.16
403.
3337
2.33
unq
331.
2529
2.00
296.
4030
5.17
301.
7530
5.00
336.
37Sh
eet
RSS
138
1.42
431.
7146
1.66
465.
6845
4.60
414.
8343
7.96
363.
2942
2.42
412.
3637
9.00
374.
4241
6.27
RSS
238
3.57
426.
7144
8.86
457.
6745
6.67
405.
8742
2.21
356.
9340
7.70
407.
1737
1.20
370.
1740
7.99
RSS
337
6.67
413.
3044
2.25
445.
3344
1.56
394.
8040
8.40
345.
4238
9.00
395.
0036
6.38
360.
4039
5.13
RSS
436
7.75
407.
4342
6.17
435.
0043
6.33
386.
1039
2.50
339.
7536
1.00
378.
0035
6.50
348.
6738
8.70
RSS
535
8.00
394.
0041
6.00
429.
0841
6.50
381.
5038
4.33
318.
0035
9.00
409.
00un
q34
3.00
391.
92Sk
im31
3.33
334.
4337
8.89
431.
9042
3.43
370.
4037
0.61
311.
4229
2.00
304.
0629
2.50
313.
6034
4.31
Sour
ce: F
orbe
s an
d W
alke
r C
omm
odity
Bro
kers
(Pv
t) Lt
d.un
q - u
nquo
ted.
116
T
able
No.
2.2
4
FOB
PR
ICE
S O
N M
ON
TH
LY R
AW R
UB
BE
R E
XPO
RT
S - 2
012
RSS
Shee
tSo
le C
repe
Late
x Cre
peTS
RCe
ntrif
uged
Lat
exM
onth
& O
ther
Rs/K
gU
S$/K
gRs
/Kg
US$
/Kg
Rs/K
gU
S$/K
gRs
/Kg
US$
/Kg
Rs/K
gU
S$/K
g
Janu
ary
386.
843.
4068
3.79
6.00
370.
633.
2542
1.34
3.70
408.
983.
59Fe
brua
ry42
5.18
3.63
541.
764.
6238
9.36
3.32
415.
403.
5445
6.04
3.89
Mar
ch47
0.96
3.75
632.
105.
0444
3.18
3.53
448.
213.
5751
1.71
4.08
Apr
il48
9.67
3.81
631.
104.
9147
3.20
3.68
484.
793.
7755
3.81
4.30
May
486.
323.
7665
4.72
5.06
450.
153.
4848
7.70
3.77
540.
044.
17Ju
ne41
9.44
3.18
736.
635.
5843
4.43
3.29
446.
763.
3868
7.67
5.21
July
398.
883.
0068
0.79
5.12
400.
093.
0141
6.57
3.14
614.
844.
63A
ugus
t42
4.26
3.21
631.
694.
7839
1.02
2.96
468.
013.
5466
5.35
5.04
Sept
embe
r39
3.67
2.99
609.
224.
6237
9.88
2.88
391.
942.
9754
3.91
4.13
Oct
ober
423.
003.
2858
2.92
4.51
377.
622.
9236
6.38
2.84
520.
654.
03N
ovem
ber
393.
983.
0251
8.40
3.98
362.
052.
7838
7.48
2.97
376.
722.
89D
ecem
ber
394.
033.
0759
4.00
4.63
380.
392.
9610
7.27
0.84
412.
933.
22Av
erag
e43
0.36
3.37
618.
254.
8540
7.18
3.19
351.
202.
7547
9.80
3.76
Sour
ce: R
ubbe
r Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent
117
Monthly Auction Price & Fob Price of Rubber - 2012(Reference to Table No. 2.23 & 2.24)
Average monthly auction prices recorded in the highest for Sheet (RSS), overthe other types of processed natural rubber in 2012. A slight decline of priceshas been reported in the month of January, August, November & December.The difference between the highest (in April) and the lowest (in December)price for latex crepe 1X grade was Rs. 91 per kg. For Latex Crepe type whichwas taken as the second highest average price has recorded at the Colomboauction with increasing prices from January to April while May to Decemberprices was declined gradually other than the month of September and Octoberon all Latex Crepe grades. Auction prices of other types i.e. Scrap Crepe, FlatBark and Skim declined the later part of the year since July.
There was a difference between FOB price and the auction price prevailedfor RSS and latex crepe grade. The price margin was not significant betweenauction price & FOB price on RSS grades throughout the year. FOB prices onsole crepe were highest among all types exported recording upper end valueof $ 6.0 per kg. In respect of Latex Crepe export FOB prices were high uptoJuly and since then recorded a declining trend FOB prices of TSR type peakedin April & May at $ 3.77 per kg and declined significantly in the latter part ofthe year. Similarly export price of Centrifuged latex recorded much highervalue in June while declining the FOB price November to February period.
118
RUBBER EXPORTand IMPORTOverview - 2012
Raw Rubber Exports EarningsType Quantity(Mt) Rs Mn $ Mn
Direct Supply Sheets 11,222 4,817 37.8Crepes 19,131 8,107 63.5TSR 4,462 1,556 12.2Centrifuged & other 2,562 1,248 9,8
Semi-Processed Reclaimed/Compounded 15,356 5,535 43.4Total 52,734 21,262 166.6
Major Destinations for Raw RubberMalaysia Pakistan India Germany USA
Mt 11,640 5,382 5,598 1,951 1,723$ Mn 33.2 15.8 19.5 6.8 6.3
Raw Rubber Imports Import Cost Quantity(Mt) Rs Mn $ Mn
Sheets 11,147 4,659 36.5Centrifuged/other 4,529 1,382 10.8Synthetic 33,789 11,011 86.3Semi-Processed 21,599 3,197 25.1Total 71,064 20,249 158.7
Rubber Products Import at cost of Rs. 13.7 bn ($ 107 mn)1.7mn units of Tyres at Rs 6.9 Bn, Machinery/Vehicle Parts Rs 2.3 bn
Rubber Products Export Earnings Rs. 103.9 Bn.($ 814 mn)Major Categories and Values• Solid Tyre (18,4 mn units) Rs. 42.2 bn• New Pneumatic Tyre (10.1 Mn units) Rs. 26.5 bn• Gloves (25,190 mt) Rs 22.5 bn.
Cess from : Imports - Rs 1,331 mn; Exports - Rs. 581 mn
119
Tab
le N
o. 2
.25
RAW
RU
BBER
EX
POR
T Q
UA
NTI
TY A
ND
VA
LUE
OF
DIF
FER
ENT
TY
PES
Shee
tSo
le C
repe
Scra
p C
repe
Late
x Cre
peT
S R
Cent
rifug
edTo
tal
Late
x & O
ther
Year
Mt
Rs m
nm
tRs
mn
mt
Rs m
nm
tRs
mn
mt
Rs m
nm
tRs
mn
mt
Rs m
n
2000
10,5
6654
62,
971
337
100
16,7
371,
168
1,75
693
462
3132
,502
2,1
7520
019,
523
522
2,80
831
673
216
,986
1,12
61,
830
102
731
4631
,951
2,1
1520
0214
,983
1,01
12,
601
282
177
1016
,174
1,09
453
732
1,63
686
36,1
08 2
,515
2003
16,0
791,
571
2,18
531
162
652
14,3
351,
568
1,18
713
578
868
35,2
00 3
,705
2004
18,5
022,
204
1,99
634
42,
723
7711
,669
1,84
82,
880
389
2,55
427
540
,324
5,1
3720
0512
,246
1,70
62,
724
519
305
3412
,371
1,86
62,
136
310
1,85
324
931
,633
4,6
8420
0619
,800
3,75
92,
493
709
601
7916
,333
3,46
74,
515
911
2,60
141
746
,343
9,3
4120
0718
,079
4,01
43,
225
1,15
565
610
217
,503
4,11
25,
979
1,31
15,
979
1,37
251
,421
12,
066
2008
17,2
574,
583
3,28
31,
077
506
9815
,335
4,25
54,
986
1,39
17,
251
2,13
148
,618
13,
535
2009
24,4
024,
863
2,11
065
922
628
13,6
832,
732
6,54
11,
251
9,02
81,
794
55,9
91 1
1,32
720
1020
,914
7,56
32,
152
1,08
571
1418
,472
6,92
72,
844
1,02
37,
050
2,64
451
,503
19,
256
2011
13,5
616,
936
2,47
11,
743
--
20,9
0411
,101
3,65
51,
822
2,01
41,
209
42,6
0522
,811
2012
11,0
574,
758
1,48
691
917
,645
7,18
74,
582
1,60
92,
607
1,25
237
,377
15,7
26
Sour
ce:
Rub
ber D
evel
opm
ent D
epar
tmen
t
120
T
able
No.
2.2
6
MO
NT
HLY
EX
POR
T Q
UA
NT
ITY
AN
D V
AL
UE
OF
RAW
RU
BB
ER
- 20
12
RSS
Shee
tSo
le C
repe
Late
x Cre
peTS
RCe
ntrif
uged
Tota
lLa
tex
&
Oth
erM
onth
Mt
Rs M
nM
tRs
Mn
Mt
Rs M
nM
tRs
Mn
Mt
Rs M
nM
tRs
Mn
Janu
ary
1,2
72 4
92 9
2 6
3 1
,781
660
425
179
483
197
4,0
53 1
,592
Febr
uary
1,8
15 7
72 1
33 7
2 1
,825
710
472
196
694
316
4,9
40 2
,067
Mar
ch 1
,782
839
91
57
2,9
72 1
,317
604
271
545
279
5,9
94 2
,763
Apr
il 1
,414
692
118
74
1,5
76 5
85 1
89 9
1 2
28 1
28 3
,524
1,7
34M
ay 4
61 2
24 1
05 6
8 1
,246
561
315
154
215
116
2,3
42 1
,124
June
505
212
89
66
896
389
207
93
34
23
1,7
31 7
83Ju
ly 2
56 1
02 1
08 7
3 8
60 3
44 1
25 5
2 4
2 2
6 1
,391
598
Aug
ust
237
100
175
110
1,2
29 4
80 9
6 4
5 4
3 2
8 1
,778
764
Sept
embe
r 8
94 3
52 1
70 1
03 1
,366
519
499
196
59
32
2,9
88 1
,202
Oct
ober
643
272
141
82
1,4
55 5
49 3
81 1
40 1
7 8
2,6
37 1
,052
Nov
embe
r 9
19 3
62 1
21 6
3 1
,085
393
204
79
141
53
2,4
70 9
50D
ecem
ber
860
339
144
86
1,3
54 5
15 1
,064
114
106
44
3,5
29 1
,097
Tota
l 1
1,05
7 4
,758
1,4
86 9
19 1
7,64
5 7
,024
4,5
82 1
,609
2,6
07 1
,252
37,
377
15,
726
Sour
ce -:
Rub
ber D
evel
opm
ent D
epar
tmen
t
Cha
rt 8
Sour
ce :
Rub
ber D
evel
opm
ent D
epar
tmen
t
121
122
123
Raw Rubber Export Earnings of Different Types(Reference to Table No. 2.25 & 2.26)
During the decade from 2002 to 2012 raw rubber exports increased from36,108mt in 2002 to 37,377 mt in 2012. Export earning also increased fromRs. 2.5 billion to Rs. 15.8 billion during the period. However, in 2012 comparedto year 2011, quantity of export declined by 5,228 mt or 12%, while exportearnings decreased by Rs. 7 billion or 31% due to low FOB prices prevailedthroughout the year in all categories of rubber exports.
Export of RSS sheets peaked in 2009 at 24,400 mt and started to decline in2010. A sharp decline was recorded in 2011 & 2012 showing 13,561 mt and11,507 respectively. In past years sole crepe export quantity remained at asteady level but in 2012 a significant decline recorded 985 mt or by 40%. Noscrap crepe was exported in 2011 & 2012 at all as local demand was attractivein terms of prices. In the decade export of latex crepe maximized in terms ofboth quantity and earnings in 2011 but a drastic decline (35%) of earningsreported in 2012. TSR export reached at 6541mt. in 2009 declined to 4,582 mtin 2012 and earned the highest export income in 2011 due to attractive FOBprice. Centrifuged Latex exports are declining sharply since 2009 as localmanufactures’ demand was very high. In 2012, Rs. 1.3 billion earned with2,607 mt of export quantity.
Disaggregated monthly export data for 2012 highlights that sheet rubberquantity exports declined from May onwards. While sole crepe export wasvery low in January, March and June latex crepe recorded the lowest level inJuly Minimum quantity of TSR export recorded in August. Centrifuged latexrecorded the lowest export quantity and earnings in October 2012.
124
Table No. 2.27RAW RUBBER EXPORTS BY HS CODE - 2012
HS HS Description PerformanceHead Code Quantity Value
Mt Rs Mn
Natural Rubber (NR)4001.10 Natural Rubber (NR) latex
40011010 & 90 Centrifuged & other latex 2,064 986
4001.21 Smoked Rubber Sheets (RSS) 11,222 4,81740012110 RSS - 1 704 31540012120 RSS - 2 _ _40012130 RSS - 3 3,495 1,52940012140 RSS - 4 4,270 1,82040012150 RSS - 5 2,588 1,09540012190 Other Smoked Sheets 165 58
4001.22 Technically Specified NaturalRubber (TSNR)
40012200 TSNR 4,462 1,5564001.29 Crepes 19,131 8,107
40012911 Sole Crepe 1,486 91940012912 pale Crepe 8,812 3,79040012913 Brown Crepe 8,833 3,39840012914 Scrap Crepe _ _
40012920 Block Rubber 160 6840012940 Deproteinized Natural Rubber (DPNR) 169 10340012950 MG Rubber 1 140012960 Other (SP Rubber) 152 8540012990 Other NR 16 5
Natural Rubber - Sub Total 37,377 15,72640.02 Synthetic Rubber (SR) 1 1
Semi - Processed Rubber40.03 40030000 Reclaimed Rubber 952 7140.04 40040090 Granules of waste, Parings & Scraps 1,894 13440.05 Compounded Rubber 12,483 5,326
40051020 Compounded with carbon black or silica 320 24440059100 Plates, Sheets, Strips 190 15740059900 Other Compounded 11,973 4,926
40.06 Other Forms of unvulcanized Rubber400610 & 90 Strip & Oter types 27 4
Semi Processed - Sub Total 15,356 5,535Grand Total 52,734 21,262
Source : Sri Lanka Customs - Data from Statistical Unit.
125
Table No 2.28
RAW RUBBER EXPORTS BY DESTINATION
2009 2010 2011 2012
Country Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity ValueMT Rs Mn MT Rs Mn MT Rs Mn MT Rs Mn
Pakistan 9,473 1,798 7,680 2,812 7,628 3,570 5,382 2,014
Germany 1,606 370 3,269 1,128 2,468 1,444 1,951 867
India 14,100 2,846 10,430 3,842 3,865 1,911 5,598 2,483
USA 2,691 615 2,555 1,055 3,259 1,945 1,723 810
Malaysia 10,902 2,008 12,693 4,344 12,635 6,134 11,640 4,238
Japan 1,462 333 1,755 788 2,251 1,425 1,413 670
Italy 1,326 285 1,559 629 1,401 788 1,273 598
UK 326 56 498 210 226 129 388 178
China 2,625 486 789 293 1,371 858 722 320
Spain 330 75 323 122 177 108 191 84
Turkey 715 145 1,054 398 533 285 250 105
South Korea 581 129 376 142 194 131 184 104
Singapore 1,240 238 1,839 656 460 246 495 222
Taiwan 160 39 121 54 207 120 183 85
South Africa 499 171 759 394 1,124 695 476 301
Hong Kong 660 148 728 365 654 440 240 112
France 459 100 312 154 370 234 286 141
Chile 205 42 95 38 51 30 10 5
Netherlands 132 37 328 137 317 190 217 100
Belgium - - - - 306 178 246 121
Kenya - - - - 250 119 455 190
Sweden - - - - 225 139 112 53
Vietnam - - - - 987 735 970 560
Other 6,450 1,394 4,070 1,696 1,647 955 2,972 1,367
Total 55,942 11,315 51,503 19,256 42,606 22,811 37,377 15,726
Source : Rubber Development Department
126
Raw Rubber Exports by Type & Destination(Reference to Table No. 2.27 & 2.28)
Total quantity of raw rubber exports were categorized under customsHarmonized System (HS) head 40.01 to 40.06 was 52,734 mt with correspondingexport value of Rs. 21,262 mn in 2012. Under HS head 40.01 all types(Centrifuged Latex, RSS, TSNR, Crepe, Other NR) are direct supplies fromestate plantations and smallholdings based on field Latex collected andsubsequently processed in the factories or grass root processing centers.Total quantity of Crepes exported was 19,131 mt while realizing Rs.8,107 mn(52% of total) revenue earning in 2012. Other than Sole Crepe the type ofLatex Crepe included both Pale Crepe & Brown Crepe. Crepe is the mainprocessed product of RPC factories and a few private factories.
The volume of RSS grades, TSNR & Centrifuged Latex categories exportedtogether was 17,748 mt and with corresponding value of Rs.7,359 mn. Blockrubber is included in TSNR category. Other NR type (such as DPNR, MG, SP)were not significant comprising of total 498 mt and value of Rs.262 mn. Thus,total quantity exported as direct supply (under HS head 40.01) in 2012 was37,377 mt while total earnings realized was Rs.15,726 mn.
In table 2.28 quantity of direct NR supply exported is presented sorted bydestination. Pakistan which was the highest importer in 2008 declined inshare and became 3rd place in 2012. In 2009 India was top destination whilefrom 2010 to 2012 Malaysia was the highest importer of Sri Lankan rubbersupply. In addition, Germany, USA, Japan, Italy, China and Vietnam are theother significant natural rubber purchasing countries. In 2011 a few newdestinations for raw rubber exports emerged while declining trends wereshown for conventional exporters such as UK, Chile, and Spain.
Other than direct supply of NR (under HS 40.01) there are semi-processedrubber products which are categorized as raw rubber under HS head 40.02 to40.06 as given in table 2.27. Main such types are Reclaimed rubber, Granulesof waste or scrap and Compounded rubber which are processed by localmanufacturers for local consumption or export purpose. In 2012 Reclaimed,Granules and Compounded categories were exported 952 mt, 1,894 mt and12,483 mt respectively and earned cumulative export value of Rs.5,531 mn.
127
Table No 2.29
RUBBER IMPORTS BY TYPES 2000 - 2012
MT
Natural Rubber
Sheet Sole Scrap Latex TSR Centrif- Total SyntheticYear Crepe Crepe Crepe uged Rubber
Latex &Other
2000 2,223 0 0 0 21 518 2,762 16,8512001 636 0 0 13 0 78 727 15,1682002 4,315 0 0 0 0 584 4,899 15,1282003 5,093 0 0 0 121 3,965 9,179 17,6362004 8,836 0 0 44 261 5,116 14,257 20,6342005 9,101 0 0 0 40 1,164 10,305 19,5932006 4,505 1 0 90 0 2,589 7,185 45,3462007 7,467 0 0 0 0 1,181 8,649 30,2342008 2,805 0 0 0 0 830 3,635 29,5212009 3,139 0 0 0 61 1,992 5,192 21,9742010 8,236 0 0 2,035 197 4,156 14,624 29,1012011 11,773 0 0 0 42 4,707 16,522 42,0842012 11,147 68 0 17 187 4,257 15,675 33,789
Source : Rubber Development Department: Sri Lanka Customs
11 - CM17140
128
Table No. 2.30RAW RUBBER IMPORTS BY HS CODE - 2012
HS HS Description PerformanceHead Code Quantity Value
mt. Rs.mn.
40.01 Natural Rubber (NR) in primary forms4001 1010 to 90 Centrifuged NR latex & Other Latex 4,217 1,2674001 21 Smoked Rubber Sheets (RSS)4001 2110 RSS 1 418 1924001 2120 RSS 2 -4001 2130 RSS 3 3,765 1,5164001 2140 RSS 4 4,704 1,9824001 2150 RSS 54001 2190 Other RSS 2,260 9694001 2200 Technically Specified Natural Rubber 126 53
(TSNR)4001 29 Crepes4001 2911 Sole Crepe 68 204001 2912 Pale Crepe 17 84001 2920 Block Rubber 61 204001 2990 Other NR 40 13
Natural Rubber Sub Total 15,676 6,04140.02 Synthetic Rubber in primary forms
4002 1100 Latex of SBR/ XSBR 150 424002 1900 Other - SBR & XSBR 9,179 3,3704002 2000 Butadiene Rubber (BR) 5,200 2,0084002 3100 Isobutene -Isoprene (butyl) Rubber (IIR) 285 1274002 3900 Haloisobutene -isoprene rubber (CIIR/ BIIR) 190 764002 4100 Chlorobutadiene rubber (CR) - Latex 683 3424002 4900 Chlorobutadiene rubber (CR) - Other 616 4464002 5100 Acrylonitrile - butadiene rubber (NBR) 9,611 2,186
Latex4002 5900 NBR - other 4,760 1,0134002 6000 Isoprene rubber (IR) 256 3094002 7000 Ethylene - propylene (EPDM) 126 714002 8000 Mixture with any product of NR - -4002 9100 Latex of other SR 2,541 9354002 9900 Other - Synthetic Rubber (SR) 193 85
Synthetic Rubber Sub Total 33,789 11,011Semi Processed Rubber
40.03 4003 0000 Reclaimed rubber 7,850 74540.04 4004 0010 to 90 Granules, Scrap of tyre & waste & 5,544 407
curing bags40.05 Compounded rubber, unvulcanised
4005 1011 to 99 Compounded with carbon black or 4,744 1,590silica of NR
40.06 4006 10 to 90 Other forms of rubber & articles of 3,462 455unvulcanisedSemi -Processed Sub Total 21,599 3,197Grand Total 71,064 20,249
Source : Sri Lanka Customs - Data from Statistical Unit
129
Imports of Raw Rubber
(Reference to Table No. 2.29 & 2.30)
As one of the main NR producing countries, Sri Lanka discourages the importof NR through high import Cess rate (5% on CIF) along with usual otherCustoms duties. On the other hand fairly high Cess rate (Rs. 15 per kg atpresent) on export of NR is imposed in order to discourage the export of rawrubber out of local production and in turn divert local production to localconsumption for finished products manufacturing.
In 2012, Sri Lanka imported quantity of sheet rubber 11,147 mt to overcomethe scarcity of NR in certain months to meet the demand of rubber productmanufacturers. Compared to RSS export of 11,222 mt the imports are also insimilar range of quantity. Within crepe types Sole Crepe and Pale Crepe wereimported very small quantity only 68 mt and 17 mt respectively. TSR andblock rubber together imported was 187 mt. Centrifuged latex of 4,217 mt wasimported while the quantity of such export was as low as 2,064 mt. Thus, in2012 total import of NR under HS 40.01 was 15,675 mt with the correspondingCIF value of Rs. 6,041 mn.
Other than NR types, the main imported category was Synthetic rubberrelated to HS head 40.02 and in 2012 the quantity imported was 33,789 mtvalued at Rs. 11,011 mn. As Sri Lanka is not a producer of synthetic rubberand certain products must incorporate synthetic rubber to meet requiredstandard the need is there to import synthetic rubber. In the decade syntheticrubber import was within the range of minimum 15,000 mt and maximum 45,000mt on yearly basis. Compared to previous year, synthetic demand decreasedin 2012 by 8,295 mt, which was substantial.
Sri Lanka imports semi processed product type of raw rubber under HSheads 40.03 to 40.06. The quantity imported in such forms of Reclaimed,Scraps, Compounded, other form of unvulcanized was 21,599 mt at CIF valueof Rs.3,197 mn. In the mean time such types were also exported. In 2012, totalof imported raw rubber quantity under three main categories were direct NR15,675 mt, synthetic 33,789 mt, semi processed products 21,599 mt totaling to71,064 mt with cumulative CIF value of Rs.20,249 mn.
130
Table No. 2.31RUBBER FINISHED PRODUCTS IMPORTS BY HS CODE - 2012
HS HS Description PerformanceHead Code Quantity Value
mt. Rs. mn.40.07 40070000 Rubber thread and code 210 111
40.08 Plates, sheets, strip, rods & profile shapes400811 & 19 Products of cellular rubber 237 103400821 & 29 products of non cellular rubber 562 461
40.09 Tubes, pipes & hoses of vulcanised rubber400911 to 42 Various types of products 875 610
40.1 Conveyor/ transmission belts or belting4010 11 to 39 V belts & other types 1,108 819
40.11 New pneumatic tyres of rubber 1,652,124 6,8874011 1000 of a kind used on motor cars (No.) 550,062 2,6974011 2000 of a kind used on buses & lorries (No.) 195,666 3,0404011 3000 of a kind used on aircraft (No.) 503 584011 4000 of a kind used on motorcycles (No.) 224,097 3754011 5000 of a kind used on bicycles (No.) 564,003 1694011.61 to 94 other - Agri. Forestry, construct and industry 51,962 379
vehicle/ machinery (No.)40119910-90 of a kind used for auto tryshows (No.) 65,831 169
40.12 Retreated & solid tyre 208,486 1594012.11 to 20 Retreated tyre (No.) 764 144012.9010 - 90 solid tyre (No.) 207,722 145
40.13 Inner tubes of rubber 2,688,995 1,0184013 1000 of a kind used on cars, buses & lorries (No.) 898,053 6044013 2000 of a kind used on bicycles (No.) 847,433 674013 9000 other use of vehicles (No.) 943,509 347
40.14 Hygenic/ Pharmaceutical articles4014.10 &90 Contraceptives 91 116
40.15 Gloves of vulcanised, unhardened rubber 1,065 92440151100 surgical gloves 943 7944015.19 & 90 Other - Industrial gloves 122 130
40.16 Other articles of vulcanised rubber 2,639 2,42640161000 of cellular rubber 20 164016 9100 Floor covering & mats 390 614016 9200 Erasers 427 674016.93 09 - 90 Gaskets, washers & oil seals 646 1,16440169400 Boat or dock fenders 15 64016.9510 & 90 Air bags, steam bags and inflatable articles 134 1754016.99 09-90 Being parts of textile, agriculture, diary & 1,007 937
poultry machinery & equipments40.17 Articles of hard rubber
40170010 & 90 Waste, scrap & ebonite… etc 31 20Total Mt/Value 6,817 5,588Total No (Units)/Value 4,549,605 8,064Total Value 13,653
2012 Annual Average Exchange Rate , 1 US$ = Rs.127.60Source : Sri Lanka Customs : Data from Statistical Unit
131
Import of Rubber Finished Products
(Reference to Table No. 2.31)
Under the same HS heads 40.07 to 40.17 export as well as import of differenttypes of rubber products is provided. In table 2.31 such types of imports interms of quantity and CIF value are presented for the year 2012. Sri Lankaimported different types in quantity of 6,817 mt and total number of units 4.5million with total CIF value of Rs.13,653 mn. Only tyres and tubes (40.11, 40.12& 40.13) are given in units while all other products are in metric tons.
The main type of imported finished rubber was New Pneumatic tyres (HS40.11) which accounted for 1.7 mn units with corresponding value of Rs.6,887 mn or 50% of total CIF value. In terms of CIF value the next type rankedsecond was articles of vulcanized rubber (Floor mats, Gaskets, Washers,Seals, Machinery parts) which accounted for Rs.2,426 mn or 18% of total.Inner Tubes of rubber (HS 40.13), Belts (HS 40.10), Pipes/hoses (HS 40.09)were followed by CIF values Rs 1,018 mn, 819 mn, 610 mn respectively. Othertypes of import (threads, cellular & non cellular rubber products, solid tyres,gloves and contraceptives) carried moderate quantity and value of CIF at Rs.1,894 mn or 14% of total CIF.
In 2012, Sri Lanka exported new pneumatic tyres greater than 4 fold ofsuch imports in value terms. In respect of solid tyre category compared toimport value, export from Sri Lanka was more than 275 times. Similarly gloveswere exported 24 fold of import value of the same. As rubber product importsare subject to the above 5% of cess rate on CIF value in 2012 the Cess incomecollected was Rs.683 mn.
132
Tab
le N
o 2.
32E
XPO
RT
INC
OM
E F
RO
M D
IFFE
RE
NT
PRO
DU
CT
CAT
ER
GO
RIE
S O
F R
UB
BE
RRs
Mn
Rubb
er P
rodu
ct20
0620
0720
0820
0920
1020
1120
12
(1)
Rub
ber
Thre
ad &
Cor
d3.
57.
315
8.3
23.6
5.2
22
7
(2)
Unh
arde
ned
Rub
ber
1,01
0.3
882.
078
1.0
1,33
8.3
1,9
08.0
1,8
12 2
,258
- P
late
s,sh
eets
,stri
ps,ro
ds &
pro
file
shap
es o
f w
hich
: p
rodu
cts
of c
ellu
lar
1,0
23 1
,404
r
ubbe
r pr
oduc
ts o
f no
n ce
llula
r ru
bber
789
854
(3)
Rub
ber
Hos
es2.
52.
73.
40.
7 5
.3Tu
bes,
Pipe
s, &
Hos
es 3
0 2
0
(4)
Rub
ber
Bel
ts1.
11.
38.
10.
0 1
.0V
- B
elts
& O
ther
typ
e be
lting
13
26
(5)
Tyre
s an
d Tu
bes
Of
Whi
ch :
30,6
23.6
34,3
76.7
36,5
94.7
24,5
91.8
39,
396.
0 6
3,16
9 6
9,04
9N
ew P
neum
atic
tyr
es 2
3,82
1 2
6,46
3So
lid t
yres
39,
065
42,
208
Tube
s 2
83 3
78
(6)
App
arel
Clo
thin
g A
cces
sorie
s O
f Whi
ch :
10,8
79.2
12,2
35.3
12,7
13.7
13,0
70.3
15,
335.
4 2
0,01
2 2
2,54
6Su
rgic
al g
love
s 4
,553
5,7
31In
dust
rial
glov
es 1
5,45
9 1
6,81
5
133
Tab
le N
o 2.
32
EX
POR
T I
NC
OM
E
FRO
M
DIF
FER
EN
T P
RO
DU
CT
CAT
ER
GO
RIE
S O
F R
UB
BE
R (
Con
td.)
Rs M
n
Rubb
er P
rodu
ct20
0620
0720
0820
0920
1020
1120
12
(7)
Arti
cles
of
Har
dene
d R
ubbe
r O
f w
hich
:3,
806.
35,
359.
07,
782.
24,
762.
2 6
,772
.3 9
,871
9,7
73
- F
loor
cov
erin
g &
Mat
s 1
,165
1,1
26
- G
aske
tes,
Was
hers
& o
ther
Sea
ls 2
,482
1,9
63
- P
arts
of
mac
iner
y &
equ
ipm
ents
6,2
24 6
,684
(8)
Foot
wea
r12
3.7
96.8
110.
113
7.3
153
.5 -
-
(9)
Rub
ber
Prod
ucts
Unc
lass
ified
414.
264
4.2
633.
237
6.6
392
.1 2
40 2
42
Tota
l of
Rub
ber
Prod
ucts
46,8
64.4
53,6
05.3
58,7
84.7
44,3
00.8
63,
968.
8 9
5,16
9.0
103
,921
.0
Raw
Rub
ber
Tota
l9,
341.
512
,066
.013
,535
.011
,327
.0 1
9,25
5.7
22,
811.
0 1
5,72
6.0
Sem
i Pr
oces
sed
Rub
ber
Tota
l *
--
--
- 2
,664
.0 5
,535
.0
Tota
l Ex
port
Val
ue56
,205
.965
,671
.372
,319
.755
,627
.8 8
3,22
4.5
120
,644
.0 1
25,1
82.0
Sour
ce :
Exp
ort
Dev
elop
men
t B
oard
Sri
Lank
a C
usto
ms
Not
e :
For
the
year
201
2, t
his
tabl
e is
im
prov
ed i
ncor
pora
ting
disa
ggre
gate
d va
lue
in m
ain
prod
ucts
und
er p
rodu
ct c
ateg
orie
s 2,
5,6
& 7
to
unde
rsta
nd e
asily
and
com
patib
le t
o si
mill
ar o
ther
tab
les.
* S
emi
Proc
esse
d in
clud
e G
ranu
les,
Rec
laim
ed &
Com
poun
ded
rubb
er m
ainl
y.
134
Table No. 2.33RUBBER FINISHED PRODUCTS EXPORT BY HS CODE - 2012
HS HS Description PerformanceHead Code Quantity Value
Mt Rs Mn
40.07 40070000 Vulcanized rubber thread & cordPlates, sheets, strips & profile shapes 12 7
40.08 400811 & 19 Products of cellular rubber 1,804 1,404400821 & 29 Products of non cellular rubber 2,265 854
40.09 400911 to 42 Tubes, pipes & hoses of vulcanized 23 2040.10 401011 to 39 Conveyor/Transmission belting 62 26
(v-belts)40.11 New Pneumatic Tyres of Rubber 10,065,455 26,463
40111000 Tyres on motor cars (No) 45,490 45440112000 Tyres on buses & lorries (No) 1,574,889 3,08240113000 Tyres on aircraft (No) 303 1940114000 Tyres on motorcycles (No) 30,908 2440115000 Tyres on bicycles (No) 6,463,952 2,120401161 to 94 Tyres on Industrial vehicles/ 434,071 2,407
machines (No)40119910 Tyres on Auto Trishaws(No) 83,566 1,44640119990 Other type of Tyres (No) 1,432,276 16,911
40.12 Retreated & Solid Tyres of Rubber 18,371,967 42,208401211 to 90 Retreated Tyres (No) 2,751 740129010 Solid Tyres (No) 7,044,999 24,43340129090 Other types of solid tyres(No) 11,324,217 17,768
40.13 Inner tubes of Rubber401310, 20 & 90 Tubes on motor cars, bicycles & 1,438,750 378
other (No)40.14 401490 Contraceptives (mt) 284 21840.15 Articles of apparel - Gloves etc 25,190 22,546
40151100 Surgical Gloves 4,483 5,731401519 & 90 Other Industrial Gloves 20,707 16,815
40.16 Other Articles of Vulcanized 18,453 9,792rubber
40169100 Floor coverings and mats 5,058 1,12640169390 Gaskets, washers & seals 1,138 1,96340169910 to 90 Being parts of textile machinary
and other type of machinary/equipments/ vehicles 12,233 6,684
40169510 & 90 Other miscellaneous items 24 1940.17 Articles of Hard rubber
40170010 &90 Waste, scap & ebonite.. Etc 57 4Sub Total mt/ Value 48,150 34,871Sub Total No Units/ Value 29,876,172 69,050Total Value 103,921
Source : Sri Lanka Customs Statistical Unit.
135
Rubber Finished Products Export(Reference to Table No. 2.32 & 2.33)
In accordance with the table 2.32, since 2006 export value of rubber finishedproducts increased gradually except for 2009. In 2006 it was Rs.46.9 bn and by2008 with a 25% growth recorded to Rs.58.8 bn. However, with global eco-nomic recession experienced in 2009 export earnings declined by 25% overthe previous year (2008). Having recovered from the recession in 2010 thegrowth recorded was a moderate 9% against the year 2008. In 2012 the high-est export earnings achievement was recorded with Rs.103.9 billion exportearnings and 9% growth over the previous year. During the period from 2006to 2012 total rubber product export earnings increased by Rs.57 billion or122% which is extremely outstanding. The table 2.32 is improved since 2011disaggregating export values in main product categories for easy understandand to make compatible to similar type of other tables.
In 2012, the highest export earnings were realized by solid tyre export ofRs.42.2 billion with corresponding to 18.4 million units. This was followed bynew pneumatic tyre export amounting to Rs.26.5 billion and 10.1 mn units.Thus for tyre sector alone export earning was Rs.68.7 billion or 66% of totalearnings of the current year. Other than tyre sector Gloves export earnedRs.23 billion or 22% of total value of export. Other articles of vulcanizedrubber under HS head 40.16 (Mats, Gaskets, Washers, Seals and Machineryparts) accounted Rs. 9.8 bn or 9% of total export value. Balance 3% of exportearnings were realized from cellular and non-cellular rubber products (HS40.08), Inner rubber tubes (HS 40.13) and contraceptive (HS 40.14) exports.
Thus, in 2012 total export income of Rs.103.9 billion was earned exportingrubber finished products manufactured in local firms. Total units of tyres &tubes exported was 29.9 million while other products measured in metric tonswere 48,150.
136
Tab
le N
o. 2
.34
RU
BBER
: M
ON
THLY
CES
S C
OLL
ECTI
ON
Rs M
nM
onth
2011
2012
Impo
rtsEx
port
sLo
cal
Tota
lIm
ports
Expo
rts
Loca
lTo
tal
Janu
ary
74.95
26.41
45.40
146.7
611
8.62
63.40
17.45
199.4
7Fe
brua
ry74
.3229
.0128
.3013
1.63
78.12
76.70
21.86
176.6
8M
arch
86.84
38.56
17.30
142.7
012
5.93
93.00
30.88
249.8
1A
pril
80.46
52.11
22.88
155.4
511
6.20
56.10
20.26
192.5
6M
ay86
.0230
.2713
.4012
9.69
101.3
538
.9014
.4015
4.65
June
71.42
28.34
14.52
114.2
899
.5728
.2029
.7915
7.56
July
94.40
34.65
23.87
152.9
310
6.29
24.18
15.23
145.7
0A
ugus
t10
3.57
57.61
19.00
180.1
810
3.01
31.26
17.10
151.3
7Se
ptem
ber
118.6
944
.7318
.5418
1.96
112.3
043
.8417
.8417
3.98
Oct
ober
95.26
42.68
39.28
177.2
212
0.08
42.46
18.69
181.2
3N
ovem
ber
139.1
031
.7215
.0418
5.86
129.2
839
.6615
.9918
4.93
Dec
embe
r12
2.57
55.38
20.37
198.3
212
0.10
43.01
16.01
179.1
3To
tal
1,147
.6047
1.47
277.9
01,8
96.97
1,330
.8658
0.71
235.4
52,1
47.02
Sour
ce:
Sri L
anka
Cus
tom
sR
ubbe
r Dev
elop
men
t Dep
artm
ent
137
Monthly Rubber Cess Collection(Reference to Table No. 2.34)
Compared to previous year, the total cess collection on rubber and rubberproducts increased by 13% in 2012. Cess at 5% of CIF value on rubber andrubber product imports increased by Rs.183 mn over the previous year.Although quantity of raw rubber exports in 2012 declined by 5 mn kg theexport cess collection increased by 23% due to cess rate adjustment fromRs.4 to Rs.8 per kg and further adjustment upwards (Rs. 15 per kg) in the laterpart of 2011.
Cess collection on local consumption of local rubber supply at a fixed rateof Rs.4 per kg depends on quantity consumed by manufacturers yearly. Localconsumption of raw rubber by rubber product manufacturers in 2011 & 2012was 112 and 110 mn kg respectively. When this rate is applied to collectedamount the consumption figure should tally if cess was collected withoutany arrears. However, reported cess collection of Rs.235 mn in 2012 accountedfor local consumption of raw rubber only 59 mn kg which was under statedcompared to actual local consumption given i.e. 110 mn kg leaving substantialgap. This needs to be clarified, as recent industry survey on manufacturerconfirmed that actual consumption was 75mnkg in 2012.
138
RUBBER WORLDOverview - 2012
Rubber Extent (Thousand Hectares) – 12,127 Asia Africa America11,225 (93%) 613 (5%) 289 (2%)
Extent of ANRPC and Non-ANRPC (’000 ha)ANRPC Member Countries - 10,655 (87.8%)Non- ANRPC Countries - 1,476(12.2%)
Extent of Major Growers (’000 ha) – 83%Indonesia - 3,484 Thailand - 2,761 China - 1,110Malaysia - 1,041 Vietnam - 910.5 India - 759
Rubber Production (Thousand Metric Tons) – 11,623ANRPC - 10,647 (92%) Non-ANRPC - 977 (8%)Asia - 10,817 (93.2%) Africa - 493.8 (4.3%)America - 312.1 (2.5%)
Top Three Producers (’000 mt) - 7,741 (68%)Thailand - 3,778 Indonesia - 3,040 Malaysia - 923
ANRPC Performance -2012Production/Tapped Area = Yield 1,454 kg/haTop three (yield) Countries (kg/ha)
• Thailand - 1,903• India - 1,823• Vietnam - 1,707
Cumulative Status (’000 mt)• Consumption - 6,620• Export - 8,184• Import - 4,839
139
Table No. 2.35
EXTENT OF WORLD RUBBER PLANTATION
'000 Ha
Country Year Total
Brazil 2011 184.5Guatemala 2010 90.0Mexico 2010 14.0Cameroon 2011 52.0Ivory Coast 2011 190.0Gabon 2011 28.5Ghana 2010 16.9Liberia 1999 108.9Nigeria 2011 182.0Congo 1999 35.0Bangladesh 2009 40.8Cambodia 2012 280.3China 2012 1,110.0India 2012 759.0Indonesia 2012 3,484.0Malaysia 2012 1,041.0Myanmar 2011 504.7Papua N.G. 2007 24.5Philippines 2012 178.6Sri Lanka 2012 130.8Thailand 2011 2,761.0Vietnam 2012 910.5TOTAL 12,127.0
Source : International Rubber Study Group (IRSG) Association of Natural Rubber Producing Countries (ANRPC)
140
Ta
ble
No.
2.3
6
WO
RLD
RU
BBER
PR
OD
UC
TIO
NM
n kg
Cou
ntry
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
1.In
dia
853
811
881
820
851
893
919
2.In
done
sia2,
637
2,75
52,
751
2,44
02,
736
3,01
33,
040
3.M
alay
sia
1,28
41,
200
1,07
285
693
999
692
34.
Phili
ppin
es88
101
103
9899
106
111
5.Sr
i Lan
ka10
911
812
913
715
315
815
26.
Thai
land
3,13
73,
056
3,09
03,
164
3,25
23,
569
3,77
87.
Viet
nam
555
606
660
711
752
812
864
8.Ch
ina
533
590
548
644
687
727
795
9Ca
mbo
dia
3233
3734
4251
65AN
RPC
Mem
ber
Cou
ntri
es T
otal
9,22
99,
269
9,27
28,
905
9,51
110
,325
10,6
47O
ther
Cou
ntri
es10
.Lib
eria
9412
185
6062
6564
11.B
razi
l10
811
612
312
913
616
617
212
.Mya
nmar
7389
9311
212
012
813
613
.Gua
tem
ala
6579
8381
8389
9514
.Nig
eria
4142
4945
5455
5615
.Ivo
ry C
oast
178
183
194
203
232
234
254
17.O
ther
3916
722
915
620
820
020
0N
on A
NR
PC
Cou
ntri
es T
otal
599
796
856
785
895
936
977
Wor
ld T
otal
9,82
710
,065
10,1
289,
690
10,4
0611
,261
11,6
23 S
ourc
e :
Inte
rnat
iona
l Rub
ber S
tudy
Gro
up (I
RSG
)A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Nat
ural
Rub
ber P
rodu
cing
Cou
ntrie
s (A
NR
PC)
141
Tabl
e N
o. 2
.37
KE
Y R
UB
BE
R I
ND
ICAT
OR
S O
F A
NR
PC M
EM
BE
RS
- 201
2
Item
Uni
tC
ambo
dia
Chin
aIn
dia
Indo
-M
ala-
Phill
ip-
Sri
Thai
-Vi
et-ne
siays
iapi
nes
Lank
ala
ndna
m
1.A
rea
Tota
l Are
a'0
00 h
a28
0.0
1,11
075
93,
484
1,04
117
913
12,
761
911
Tapp
ed A
rea
55.0
640
504
2,81
463
184
104
1,98
550
62.
NR
Pro
duct
ion
'000
mt
65.0
795
919
3,04
092
311
115
23,
778
864
3.Av
erag
e Ann
ual Y
ield
toK
g/ha
1,16
61,
242
1,82
31,
159
1,46
21,
324
1,45
91,
903
1,70
7ta
pped
are
a4.
Ann
ual g
row
th ra
te o
f%
27.5
9.4
2.9
0.9
-7.3
4.7
-3.8
5.9
6.4
prod
uctio
n5.
NR
Con
supm
tion
'000
mt
-3,
834
988
502
459
7211
050
515
06.
NR
Gro
ss E
xpor
t'0
00m
t60
14.0
152,
532
1,34
439
36.6
3,12
11,
023
7.N
R G
ross
Im
port
'000
mt
03,
368
251.
027
.087
1.4
0.1
15.7
3.5
302.
08.
Are
a Pl
ante
dN
ew P
lant
ed'0
00 h
a38
.040
2410
1719
3.5
-79
Rep
lant
ed'0
00 h
a2.
225
1750
370.
94.
3-
12
Sour
ce :
Ass
ocia
tion
of N
atur
al R
ubbe
r Pro
duci
ng C
ount
ries (
AN
RPC
)
142
World Rubber Extent & Production(Reference to Table No. 2.35, 2.36 & 2.37)
At present total extent of World rubber plantation stands at 12,127,000 hect-ares. Out of this extent 10,655,000 ha or 88 % belongs to 9 ANRPC membercountries in Asia. The extent of rubber in rest of the World (non ANRPCcountries in Asia, Africa & America) is about 1,472,000 hectares or 12% of theWorld total. Although data coverage is not comprehensive around 80% ofthe extent came under the smallholding sector while 20% was in estate sectorrepresenting the large scale plantations with the ownership of State or pri-vate sector companies. Out of total rubber extent (10,655,000 ha) of ANRPCcountries, 69% or 7,323,000 ha was at matured (tapped area) stage from whichNR production of 10,647,000 mt is realized at present. Thus, in 2012 averageyield was recorded at 1,454 kg per hectare/ year while varying yield levelrange (1,159 - 1,903 kg per ha) is recorded for individual countries.
Despite total world rubber production increased since 2006 to 2011 (withexception in 2009) at an average annual growth of 2.4 %, in 2012 it grew at ahigh rate of 3.2%. The growth of ANRPC member countries alone averaged2% during the period of 2006-2011, and in 2012 the growth was remarkable ashigh as 3.7%. With regard to ANRPC member countries Thailand, Indonesia,Malaysia, India, Vietnam and China are the major producers ranked in orderfor the period between 2005 and 2012. Among non ANRPC countries majorshare of rubber production comes from Brazil, Ivory Coast and Myanmarthroughout. Total production of this group of countries increased from 599mn kg in 2006 to 977 mn kg in 2012 by 63% while annual average growth ofproduction recorded was 9% which is much higher than ANRPC.
Key rubber indicators as given in table 2.37 highlighted that the highestyield was recorded for Thailand (1,903 kg/ha) followed by India & Vietnam in2012. In ANRPC group the NR consumption out of ANRPC production was62% leaving the balance for export, at present. The formula on NR Produc-tion, plus import, minus export, equal to consumption adjusting with stockalmost tallied in respect of cumulative parameter values for ANRPC in 2012.Total area replanted of ANRPC stood at the rate of 2% of tapped area in 2012while new planted area was 2.2% of total rubber extent.
ESTATE SECTOR
143
144
145
T
able
No.
3.1
RE
GIO
NA
L P
LA
NTA
TIO
N
CO
MPA
NIE
S (
RPC
s)
AN
D
STA
TE
PL
AN
TAT
ION
S (
2011
- 2
012)
No.
of
Esta
tes
Exte
nt C
ultiv
ated
Exte
nt B
eari
ngSt
aff
Labo
urRP
Cs
& S
tate
Age
ncy
Ha
Ha
2011
2012
2011
2012
2011
2012
2011
2012
2011
2012
1H
apug
aste
nne
19
20
9,2
34 9
,106
5,6
23 4
,998
535
615
8,66
97,
833
2W
ataw
ala
20
19
11,
161
10,
307
7,2
85 7
,111
647
723
11,4
2711
,039
3B
alan
goda
23
22
9,3
99 7
,180
7,6
53 5
,674
572
601
10,5
9010
,032
4K
ahaw
atte
16
16
9,0
96 9
,108
5,5
92 5
,334
511
618
7,76
77,
009
5B
ogaw
anta
law
a 2
7 2
8 1
2,90
3 1
1,52
7 7
,927
8,0
1877
571
614
,484
13,0
676
Mal
wat
te V
alle
y 2
3 2
3 9
,519
9,2
32 6
,970
6,8
9155
248
710
,709
9,83
97
Mas
keliy
a 1
8 1
8 1
0,27
7 7
,450
5,5
12 5
,534
650
726
13,3
4812
,602
8A
gala
wat
te 1
5 1
5 7
,697
8,2
95 5
,727
5,8
9547
346
67,
525
7,10
89
Tala
wak
ele
16
14
5,1
32 4
,995
3,9
61 3
,992
450
466
10,3
249,
386
10K
elan
i Va
lley
27
26
9,2
31 9
,787
7,1
01 6
,598
707
696
13,9
3512
,711
11H
oran
a 1
6 1
6 4
,875
4,9
50 3
,994
3,8
8143
246
97,
562
7,55
212
Aga
rapa
tana
21
21
7,8
32 6
,666
6,3
91 6
,395
684
769
14,2
3212
,796
13M
atur
ata
19
19
6,6
92 6
,312
5,3
67 5
,549
544
609
9,20
78,
925
14El
pitiy
a 1
3 1
3 6
,148
6,0
80 4
,394
4,3
5437
036
06,
589
6,42
915
Mad
ulsi
ma
12
12
5,3
93 5
,375
3,7
81 3
,766
486
450
8,69
37,
978
16K
egal
le 1
7 1
7 7
,335
7,6
08 5
,894
5,5
9949
935
67,
165
6,60
917
Puss
ella
wa
24
24
9,0
02 9
,149
5,4
34 5
,383
636
714
9,07
48,
812
18K
otag
ala
22
21
8,7
98 9
,160
6,0
44 5
,816
663
702
10,6
329,
831
19N
amun
ukul
a 1
9 1
9 7
,095
8,1
96 6
,024
5,6
8640
437
76,
932
6,79
720
Uda
puss
ella
wa
7 7
2,8
15 2
,787
2,2
26 2
,269
248
257
4,01
73,
813
Chi
law
Pl
Ltd
8 8
5,2
97 5
,953
4,7
24 3
,756
185
127
820
791
Kur
uneg
ala
Pl L
td 1
0 9
4,6
37 4
,888
3,6
69 3
,785
240
189
1,25
993
9El
kadu
wa
Pl L
td 1
0 1
1 2
,719
2,4
37 1
,975
1,9
6917
912
81,
901
1,75
8JE
DB
1717
6,18
14,
524
4,45
64,
234
370
389
5,80
75,
482
SLSP
C12
126,
168
4,04
34,
884
3,02
027
232
04,
567
4,27
4To
tal
431
427
184,
637
175,
115
132,
608
125,
507
12,0
8412
,330
207,
235
193,
412
Sour
ce:-
RPC
s, S
tate
Pla
ntat
ions
146
T
able
No.
3.2
LA
ND
UT
ILIZ
ATIO
N I
N R
EG
ION
AL
PL
AN
TAT
ION
CO
MPA
NIE
S A
ND
JE
DB
, SL
SPC
No.
of E
stat
esLa
nd ex
tent
in H
ecta
re
Year
RPCs
JED
BSL
SPC
Exte
nt C
ultiv
ated
Exte
nt in
Bea
ring
RPCs
JED
BSL
SPC
RPCs
JED
BSL
SPC
2000
418
18
14
180
,410
6,4
61 7
,812
134
,120
4,4
81 4
,814
2001
411
18
14
176
,399
6,4
45 7
,803
130
,555
4,4
71 4
,888
2002
408
18
14
173
,518
6,4
43 7
,697
128
,257
4,4
72 4
,806
2003
407
16
14
174
,593
5,6
70 6
,058
127
,244
4,2
19 3
,788
2004
401
16
11
166
,150
5,1
63 5
,813
118
,710
4,3
07 3
,639
2005
401
16
11
163
,231
5,1
59 6
,629
124
,581
4,3
00 4
,011
2006
409
17
12
166
,137
6,8
20 6
,624
122
,691
4,6
67 4
,059
2007
388
17
12
156
,765
6,3
00 6
,585
118
,559
4,7
99 4
,025
2008
401
17
12
165
,785
6,2
15 6
,567
123
,060
4,7
87 3
,997
2009
401
17
12
165
,242
6,2
36 6
,614
121
,580
4,8
11 3
,075
2010
400
17
12
164
,659
6,0
87 3
,710
121
,001
4,3
11 3
,620
RPC
s S
tate
Pla
ntat
ions
RPC
sSt
ate
Plan
tatio
ns R
PCs
Sta
te P
lant
atio
ns20
11 3
7457
159
,635
25,0
02 1
12,9
0019
,708
2012
370
57 1
53,2
7021
,845
108
,743
16,7
64
Sour
ce:-
RPC
s, JE
DB
and
SLS
PCN
ote:
T
he R
PC C
ateg
ory
incl
udes
3 P
lant
atio
ns L
imite
d of
Chi
law,
Kur
uneg
ala
and
Elka
duw
a
147
T
able
No.
3.3
STA
FF,
LA
BO
UR
FO
RC
E A
ND
WA
GE
RAT
E F
OR
RPC
s, J
ED
B A
ND
SL
SPC
20
00 -
2012
Staf
fLa
bour
For
ceLa
bour
Wag
e Ra
tes f
or M
ale
and
Fem
ale P
erta
inin
g to
Tea
and
Rub
ber (
Rs)
Year
RPCs
JED
BSL
SPC
RPCs
JED
BSL
SPC
Dai
lyPr
ice
Ince
ntiv
eTo
tal
Wag
eSh
are
2000
14,
260
451
479
261
,417
8,2
58 8
,211
115.
25-
-11
5.25
2001
13,
813
427
466
255
,226
8,2
90 8
,483
121.
00-
-12
1.00
2002
13,
491
467
479
249
,807
8,1
13 8
,180
121.
00-
-12
1.00
2003
13,
249
478
395
239
,902
7,3
22 6
,799
121.
00-
-12
1.00
2004
13,
406
446
366
236
,527
7,9
53 6
,560
135.
00-
-13
5.00
2005
13,
279
376
393
233
,046
6,9
17 6
,515
135.
0020
.00
25.0
018
0.00
2006
12,
811
430
404
231
,845
6,6
84 6
,152
170.
0020
.00
70.0
026
0.00
2007
12,
129
416
363
218
,130
6,4
02 5
,607
200.
0020
.00
70.0
029
0.00
2008
12,
288
393
331
217
,035
6,0
55 5
,564
285.
0030
.00
90.0
040
5.00
2009
12,
162
375
317
200
,439
5,6
93 5
,424
285.
0030
.00
90.0
040
5.00
2010
12,
446
375
256
202
,204
5,8
10 4
,812
285.
0030
.00
90.0
040
5.00
RPC
s S
tate
Pla
ntat
ions
RPC
s S
tate
Pla
ntat
ions
2011
10,
838
1,24
6 1
92,8
8114
,354
380.
0030
.00
105.
0051
5.00
2012
11,
177
1,15
3 1
80,1
6813
,244
380.
0030
.00
105.
0051
5.00
Sour
ce:
RPC
s, JE
DB
& S
LSPC
Pla
nter
s' A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Cey
lon
Not
e: C
hila
w P
l Ltd
., K
urun
egal
a Pl
Ltd
., El
kadu
wa
Pl L
td.,
JED
B &
SLS
PC u
nder
Sta
te P
lant
atio
ns
148
Crop Extent & Strength of Labour Force in Estate Sector (Reference to Table No. 3.1, 3.2 & 3.3)
In the management point of view, Estate Sector comprises of 20 RegionalPlantation Companies (RPCs) & 7 State Institutions namely state ownedplantations of Chilaw, Kurunegala, Elkaduwa; Janatha Estate DevelopmentBoard (JEDB), Sri Lanka State Plantation Corporation (SLSPC) and TRI, RRIwho manage own estates for research purposes. Cropwise estate sectorconsists of Tea, rubber, forestry as major crops and coconut, oil palm withreasonable extent in addition to small extents of other crops such as cinnamon,cashew, spices, fruits etc.
Since early 1990s after privatization of State Plantations, RPCs possessedabout 375 estates while number of estates owned by JEDB & SLSPC were 17and 12 respectively. Throughout, 28 estates belonged to Chilaw, Kurunegala& Elkaduwa Plantations while TRI & RRI managed 2 estates each affiliated totheir research stations. As per disaggregated data given in table 3.2 the extentcultivated in RPCs & State Plantations gradually declined since 2000 byabout 20,000 ha at present due to various reasons. Extent cultivated in JEDB& SLSPC averaged to 6,200 ha each in the decade. The extent bearing (maturedor being harvested) of RPCs declined in the decade from 134,000 ha in 2000 to108,700 ha in 2012. Bearing extent coming under the JEDB & SLSPC wasaround 4,500 ha on an annual average for the decade. Compared to previousyear, in 2012 the extent cultivated and extent matured in estate sector showeda decrease of 5% & 5.4% respectively. However, this may be compromiseddue to some inconsistencies prevailed in the source of data in terms ofdefinition, coverage and accuracy.
In view of the strength of staff and labour force are concerned, in respectof 20 RPCs the number of staff declined over the decade from 14,200 to 12,400in 2010. In 2012 the number of staff increased marginally compared to the year2011. As per disaggregated data provided in table 3.3, labour force in RPCsgradually declined from 261,400 in 2000 to 180,168 in 2012 by 31% which is aremarkable amount. This reduction is very prominent for JEDB & SLSPC by30% and 44% in the same period respectively. The labour wage rate whichprevailed at Rs. 115.25 in 2000 increased up to Rs.515 in 2011 & 2012 by 348%has created long term sustainability to the industry.
149
Tab
le N
o. 3
.4E
XT
EN
T C
ULT
IVAT
ED
IN
RPC
s A
ND
STA
TE
PL
AN
TAT
ION
S 2
010
AN
D 2
011
Hec
tare
sTe
aRu
bber
Coc
onut
Oil
Palm
Fore
stry
Oth
er C
rops
RPC
s &
Sta
te A
genc
y20
1120
1220
1120
1220
1120
1220
1120
1220
1120
1220
1120
12
1H
apug
aste
nne
5,0
00 4
,343
1,5
23 1
,890
31
31
- -
2,4
59 2
,841
221
-2
Wat
awal
a 5
,976
4,4
54 1
,244
722
31
10
2,6
74 3
,071
1,2
26 1
,773
- -
3Ba
lang
oda
4,7
23 4
,449
2,4
10 2
,731
- 6
1 -
- 6
58 8
31 1
,609
441
4K
ahaw
atte
3,8
51 3
,825
2,2
16 2
,284
46
67
- -
2,7
04 2
,755
280
177
5Bo
gaw
anta
law
a 4
,102
3,9
85 5
,803
5,8
15 4
77 4
72 -
- 1
,430
1,2
52 1
26
Mal
wat
te V
alle
y 5
,040
5,0
26 3
,170
3,1
37 -
33
- -
1,1
65 1
,705
75
200
7M
aske
liya
5,8
53 5
,836
28
44
- -
- -
2,2
28 1
,526
30
44
8A
gala
wat
te 1
,491
1,5
03 4
,414
4,8
57 9
9 1
,159
1,3
01 4
28 4
28 1
96 1
969
Tala
wak
ele
4,2
10 3
,962
202
257
- -
- -
720
775
- -
10K
elan
i Val
ley
3,9
14 3
,879
4,5
97 4
,639
51
- -
- 6
69 1
,269
- -
11H
oran
a 2
,283
2,1
83 2
,284
2,3
14 3
3 -
- -
275
402
- 5
112
Aga
rapa
tana
6,6
83 6
,616
- 5
0 -
- -
- 1
,028
121
13M
atur
ata
4,9
25 4
,872
603
683
124
127
- -
1,0
16 4
26 2
2 2
0314
Elpi
tiya
2,6
12 2
,580
1,3
95 1
,410
33
33
1,1
63 1
,210
846
801
82
47
15M
adul
sim
a 3
,832
3,8
02 5
3 8
1 -
- -
1,4
89 1
,478
20
14
16K
egal
le 1
,367
1,3
58 5
,328
5,2
46 4
65 4
51 -
- -
287
425
266
17Pu
ssel
law
a 2
,736
2,7
50 4
,700
4,8
48 1
14 1
14 -
- 1
,452
1,4
37 -
-18
Kot
agal
a 2
,598
2,6
72 4
,527
4,4
55 1
1 1
1 1
19 5
83 1
,111
1,1
10 2
41 2
4819
Nam
unuk
ula
2,5
80 2
,505
2,3
65 2
,252
356
326
1,4
42 1
,598
780
1,3
05 1
66 2
1320
Uda
puss
ella
wa
2,1
51 2
,084
81
92
165
165
- -
267
446
151
-C
hila
w P
l Ltd
- -
- -
4,4
42 4
,442
- -
10
10
850
1,5
00K
urun
egal
a Pl
Ltd
- -
220
247
4,1
89 4
,179
- -
- 3
78 4
62El
kadu
wa
Pl L
td 1
,292
1,2
88 3
55 3
54 3
37 3
42 -
- 3
04 2
98 1
36 1
55JE
DB
3,9
87 3
,927
597
597
- -
- -
723
157
-SL
SPC
4,0
22 3
,954
70
70
2 -
58
19
748
748
1,2
93 1
,293
TRI
212
212
- -
- -
- -
- -
-R
RI
- -
330
323
- -
- -
- 5
- 3
Tota
l 8
5,44
0 8
2,06
5 4
8,51
6 4
9,39
8 1
0,91
5 1
0,87
3 6
,615
7,7
82 2
3,73
7 2
3,90
3 6
,454
5,5
12
Sour
ce:-
RPC
s, St
ate
Plan
tatio
ns
150
Tab
le N
o. 3
.5E
XT
EN
T I
N B
EA
RIN
G O
F R
PCs
& S
TAT
E P
LA
NTA
TIO
NS
201
1 &
201
2
H
ecta
res
Tea
Rubb
erC
ocon
utO
il Pa
lmO
ther
Cro
psRP
Cs
& S
tate
Age
ncy
2011
2012
2011
2012
2011
2012
2011
2012
2011
2012
1H
apug
aste
nne
4,6
27 3
,976
996
1,0
22-
--
--
-2
Wat
awal
a 4
,334
4,3
57 1
,046
687
255
1,87
5 1
,910
--
3Ba
lang
oda
4,6
74 4
,339
1,3
70 1
,275
--
--
1,6
08-
4K
ahaw
atte
3,6
97 3
,618
1,5
75 1
,575
46-
-27
3-
5Bo
gaw
anta
law
a 3
,775
3,7
75 3
,895
3,8
1145
043
2-
-62
-6
Mal
wat
te V
alle
y 5
,001
4,9
92 1
,899
1,8
99-
--
75-
7M
aske
liya
5,5
12 5
,534
- -
--
--
-8
Aga
law
atte
1,4
40 1
,422
3,3
31 3
,340
99
947
947
-17
79
Tala
wak
ele
3,7
75 3
,807
185
185
--
--
-10
Kel
ani V
alle
y 3
,749
3,4
35 3
,302
3,1
6351
--
--
11H
oran
a 2
,214
2,1
16 1
,749
1,7
2632
--
-39
12A
gara
pata
na 6
,361
6,3
96 -
--
--
3013
Mat
urat
a 4
,847
4,8
32 3
96 3
90 1
2412
7-
--
199
14El
pitiy
a 2
,546
2,5
09 9
97 9
92 3
333
785
781
3337
15M
adul
sim
a 3
,762
3,7
56 5
5 -
--
135
16K
egal
le 1
,286
1,2
72 3
,764
3,5
63 4
1940
8-
-42
526
617
Puss
ella
wa
2,5
87 2
,564
2,7
47 2
,706
100
113
--
--
18K
otag
ala
2,4
56 2
,456
3,3
45 3
,360
11
--
232
-19
Nam
unuk
ula
2,5
41 2
,476
2,0
13 1
,898
227
251
1,10
6 1
,061
138
-20
Uda
puss
ella
wa
2,0
14 2
,056
76
76
137
137
--
--
Chi
law
Pl L
td.
- -
- -
3,9
003,
756
--
824
-K
urun
egal
a Pl
Ltd
. -
- 1
91 1
88 3
,478
3,40
3-
-37
819
5El
kadu
wa
Pl L
td.
1,2
78 1
,288
287
302
267
267
--
106
123
JED
B 3
,936
3,9
27 3
63 3
63 -
--
-15
7-
SLSP
C *
3928
3,9
54 6
5 6
5 2
-58
1983
1-
TRI
185
212
- -
- -
--
--
RR
I -
- 2
51 2
46 -
--
--
3To
tal
80,
525
79,
069
33,
848
32,
837
9,3
118,
941
4,77
14,
718
5,1
85 1
,044
Sour
ce:-
RPC
s &
Sta
te P
lant
atio
ns*
Con
tract
plu
ckin
g ex
tent
578
ha.
incl
uded
151
Extent Cultivated & Extent in Bearing in Estate Sector(Reference to Table No. 3.4 & 3.5)
As per disaggregated data given in the two tables, cultivated and bearing(matured) extent under each RPCs and State Plantation Agencies is assessedin respect of main crops for current year and 2011. While tea cultivated extenthas declined by 3,375 ha in 2012, extent in bearing was also declined by 1,458ha in 2012. However, matured extent to tea cultivated extent were at high ratei.e. 94% and 96% in 2011 & 2012 respectively, which is within the acceptablenorms.
In 2012, rubber cultivated extent was 49,398 ha which is a 1.8% increaseover the previous year. However, matured extent was below 1000 ha the sameof 2011. As a result in 2012 the percentage of mature extent of the cultivatedarea further declined from 70% to 66%. Compared to maturity rate in teaimmature share of rubber is substantial and it affects production level andyield parameter.
No significant difference is visible of coconut cultivated area between2011 & 2012 while bearing (mature) extent reported 370 ha less in current year.As a result, the maturity ratio of coconut extent declined from 85% to 82% in2012. This is in between the percentage prevailed for tea & rubber. Oil palmcultivated hectarage increased by 1,167 ha in 2012 over the previous year.However, no increase has taken place on mature extent. At present maturedpercentage of cultivated area is 61% while it was 72% in 2011. This is due torapid growth of immature plantation & sluggish growth of matured extent.
In 2012, the extent under forestry (timber, fuel wood and forest reserve)stood at 3rd place next to tea and rubber reporting 23,903 ha under estatesector. In previous year extent reported was 23,737 ha. For "Other Crops"category in estate sector, extent cultivated in 2012 was 5,512 ha. while it was6,454 ha. in 2011. The percentage prevailing for bearing (mature) extent tocultivated extent in respect of all crops is 81% at present.
152
Table No. 3.6
TEA & RUBBER REPLANTED & NEWPLANTED AREABY RPCs, JEDB & SLSPC
Hectares
ExtentExtent Extent Extent new new
Year Replanted Tea Replanted Rubber planted plantedTea Rubber
RPCs JEDB SLSPC RPCs JEDB SLSPC RPCs RPCs
2000 793 63 24 3,045 - - 9 34
2001 2,421 19 6 4,584 - - 9 14
2002 359 10 11 2,031 35 - 12 9
2003 344 4 1 452 42 - 11 7
2004 306 - 3 1,199 65 - 7 5
2005 398 - - 2,329 - - 7 11
2006 389 - - 3,231 - - 4 297
2007 454 - - 4,199 - - 3 333
2008 544 28 - 5,293 - - - 306
2009 640 9 3 5,309 41 10 - 74
2010 819 7 10 4,717 39 - 3 96
RPCs State RPCs State RPCs StatePlantations Plantations Plantations
2011 977 102 1,882 45 - 761
2012 813 82 2,087 39 10 1,086
Source:- RPCs, SLSPC & JEDBNote: Chilaw Pl Ltd., Kurunegala Pl Ltd., Elkaduwa Pl Ltd., JEDB & SLSPC under
State Plantations
153
Ta
ble
No.
3.7
TE
A
EX
TE
NT
IN
EST
ATE
SE
CTO
R -
201
2R
PCs
&
STAT
E
PLA
NTA
TIO
NS
Hec
tare
sBe
arin
g ex
tent
Imm
atur
eRe
plan
ting
New
Nur
sery
RPC
s &
Sta
te A
genc
yN
o. o
fEx
tent
exte
ntex
tent
plan
ting
exte
ntEs
tate
sC
ultiv
ate
Seed
ling
VPTo
tal
exte
ndRP
Cs
1H
apug
aste
nne
174,
343
1,78
42,
192
3,97
636
76
-16
2W
ataw
ala
174,
454
1,70
92,
648
4,35
697
1-
333
Bal
ango
da23
4,44
92,
529
1,87
04,
399
5031
-20
4 K
ahaw
atte
163,
825
1,36
82,
250
3,61
820
737
-27
5B
ogaw
anta
law
a11
3,98
51,
380
2,39
53,
775
210
184
1018
6M
alw
atte
Val
ley
175,
026
3,42
21,
570
4,99
234
3-
-7
Mas
keliy
a18
5,83
62,
545
2,98
95,
534
502
313
-2
8A
gala
wat
te7
1,50
348
793
51,
422
8178
-22
9Ta
law
akel
le16
3,96
21,
329
2,47
83,
807
155
15-
1210
Kel
ani V
alle
y23
3,87
91,
184
2,25
13,
435
444
23-
911
Hor
ana
102,
183
725
1,39
12,
116
6717
-13
12A
gara
pata
na21
6,61
64,
220
2,17
66,
396
220
31-
1513
Mat
urat
a19
4,87
22,
954
1,87
84,
832
40-
-11
14El
pitiy
a11
2,58
01,
037
1,47
22,
509
7114
-8
15M
adul
sima
123,
802
2,13
21,
624
3,75
646
6-
616
Keg
alle
61,
358
780
492
1,27
286
--
1317
Puss
ella
wa
162,
750
925
1,63
92,
564
186
26-
1918
Kot
agal
a10
2,67
229
42,
162
2,45
621
617
-11
19N
amun
ukul
a10
2,50
51,
567
909
2,47
629
2-
-20
Uda
puss
ella
wa
62,
084
1,03
01,
026
2,05
628
9-
RPC
s To
tal
286
72,6
8433
,401
36,3
4769
,747
3,13
681
310
255
Stat
e A
genc
ies
1El
kadu
wa
Pl.L
td6
1,28
880
447
31,
277
11-
-4
2JE
DB
163,
927
2,67
21,
200
3,87
255
2-
113
SLSP
C11
3,95
41,
799
1,13
7*2
,936
1,01
878
-12
4TR
I2
212
218
218
428
26
3St
ate
Tota
l35
9,38
15,
277
2,99
28,
269
1,11
282
630
T
otal
321
82,0
6538
,678
39,3
3978
,016
4,24
889
516
285
* C
ontra
ct p
luck
ing
exte
nt 5
78 h
a. in
clud
edSo
urce
: R
PCs,
Plan
ters
' Ass
ocia
tion,
Sta
te P
lant
atio
ns
154
Table No. 3.8
TEA PRODUCTION IN ESTATE SECTOR - 2012(RPCS & STATE PLANTATIONS )
Mature Production (MT) Estate Company LevelRPCs & Extent Estate Bought Total Yeild COP NSA
State Agency (hectare) Leaf Leaf kg/ha Rs/kg Rs/kg
RPCS1. Hapugastenne 3,976 4,243 3,059 7,302 1,067 384.61 360.052. Watawala 4,356 6,069 3,209 9,278 1,393 390.56 392.123. Balangoda 4,399 4,050 2,803 6,853 921 361.73 376.764. Kahawatte 3,618 3,197 2,887 6,084 884 400.13 416.215. Bogawantalawa 3,775 5,775 2,537 8,312 1,530 395.86 389.846. Malwatte Valley 4,992 3,903 551 4,454 782 376.45 412.967. Maskeliya 5,534 8,177 661 8,838 1,478 330.50 388.878. Agalawatte 1,422 1,774 689 2,463 1,248 378.87 363.609. Talawakelle 3,807 6,033 1,622 7,655 1,585 392.10 410.73
10. Kalani Valley 3,435 5,922 957 6,879 1,724 369.98 388.4511. Horana 2,116 3,456 435 3,891 1,633 371.08 415.3112. Agarapatana 6,396 7,874 372 8,246 1,231 391.60 388.5813. Maturata 4,832 5,067 1,187 6,254 1,049 351.50 371.4614. Elpitiya 2,509 4,058 991 5,049 1,617 380.31 381.4715. Madulsima 3,756 3,996 924 4,920 1,064 391.60 361.1916. Kegalle 1,272 1,317 934 2,251 1,035 423.94 355.2717. Pusellawa 2,564 3,534 2,901 6,435 1,378 374.44 380.7618. Kotagala 2,456 5,273 1,188 6,461 2,147 358.61 381.9719. Namunukula 2,476 1,780 1,747 3,527 719 363.02 308.1720. Udapusellawa 2,056 2,659 1,010 3,669 1,293 348.69 345.22
Sub Total/Average 69,747 88,157 30,664 118,821 1,264 375.96 383.16STATE AGENCYElkaduwa Pl Ltd. 1,277 2,527 - 2,527 1,979 375.94 249.07JEDB 3,872 2,228 - 2,228 575 373.18 276.26SLSPC 2,936 2,102 - 2,102 716 345.69 285.93TRI 184 338 322 660 1,838 387.91 455.36Sub Total/Average 8,269 7,195 322 7,517 870 366.92 278.90GRAND TOTAL 78,016 95,352 30,986 126,338 1,222 371.44 331.03
Source: Regional Plantation Companies (RPCs ) & State Institutions
TEA
PR
OD
UCT
ION
OF
RPC
s &
STA
TE A
GEN
CIES
- 201
2
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
H a p u g a ste n n e
W a ta w a la
Ba la n g o d a
Ka h a w a tte
Bo g a w a n ta la w a
M a lw a tte Va lle y
M a ske liya
Ag a la w a tte
T a la w a ke lle
Ka la n i Va lle y
H o ra n a
Ag a ra p a ta n a
M a tu ra ta
Elp itiya
M a d u ls im a
Ke g a lle
Pu se lla w a
Ko ta g a la
N a m u n u ku la
U d a p u se lla w a
Elka d u w a Pl L td .
JED B
SL SPC
T R I
RP
Cs
& S
tate
Age
ncie
s
Estate & Bought Tea Production (MnKg)
Est
ate
Le
af
Bo
ug
ht
Lea
f
Cha
rt 9
Sour
ce :
RPC
s & S
tate
Age
ncie
s
155
156
157
Ta
ble
No
3.9
TE
A E
XT
EN
T, P
RO
DU
CT
ION
& Y
EIL
D I
N E
STAT
E S
EC
TOR
(R
PCs
& S
TAT
E)
Exte
nt C
ultiv
ate
Exte
nt i
n Be
arin
gTe
a Pr
oduc
tion
Aver
age
Tea
Yeild
(Ha)
(Ha)
(mn
kg)
(kg/
Ha)
Year
RPC
sSt
ate
RPC
sSt
ate
RPC
sSt
ate
RPC
sSt
ate
JED
BSL
SPC
JED
BSL
SPC
JED
BSL
SPC
JED
BSL
SPC
2000
89,8
434,
654
5,06
780
,374
4,52
24,
828
149.
74.
44.
41,
491
950
920
2001
89,1
914,
641
5,05
081
,721
4,47
14,
888
147.
54.
04.
31,
441
889
896
2002
87,5
924,
638
4,94
279
,264
4,47
24,
806
149.
73.
84.
31,
450
843
887
2003
85,3
184,
323
3,88
178
,606
4,21
93,
788
145.
03.
13.
71,
413
714
867
2004
83,3
364,
307
3,74
178
,774
4,23
73,
639
135.
02.
52.
91,
311
579
784
2005
86,8
804,
300
4,10
878
,027
4,24
04,
011
143.
52.
72.
91,
392
647
707
2006
89,3
344,
261
3,99
278
,572
4,20
93,
949
135.
32.
42.
71,
312
565
670
2007
82,5
134,
177
4,06
270
,346
4,13
74,
025
123.
62.
42.
51,
283
581
669
2008
84,1
813,
930
3,99
773
,862
4,14
73,
997
129.
72.
72.
81,
357
686
769
2009
80,8
334,
173
3,61
872
,955
4,14
63,
523
109.
92.
22.
11,
506
517
591
2010
76,5
344,
001
3,58
472
,741
3,94
93,
495
126.
52.
32.
01,
284
587
583
RPC
s S
tate
Pla
ntat
ions
RPC
s S
tate
Pla
ntat
ions
RPC
s S
tate
Pla
ntat
ions
RPC
s S
tate
Pla
ntat
ions
2011
75,9
279,
513
71,1
989,
327
122.
95.
91,
276
586
2012
72,6
849,
381
69,7
478,
269
118.
87.
51,
264
870
Sour
ce:
Reg
iona
l Pla
ntat
ion
Com
pani
es (R
PCs)
& S
tate
Pla
ntat
ions
Note
: C
hila
w P
l Ltd
., K
urun
egal
a Pl
Ltd
., El
kadu
wa
Pl L
td.,
JED
B &
SLS
PC u
nder
Sta
te P
lant
atio
ns
158
Tea Extent, Production & Productivity - Estate Sector(Reference to Table No. 3.7, 3.8 & 3.9)
The Estate sector (RPCs & State Plantations), 95% of tea extent is matured(bearing) area out of cultivated tea lands at present. This percentage is quitelow (88%) in State Plantations. Total mature extent consists of 38,678 ha(49%) seedling teas & 39,339 ha (50%) VP teas. Seedling tea extent is muchhigher (64%) for State Plantations compared to RPCs. Out of immature teaextent of 4,248 ha in Estate sector shares 24% or 1,018 ha which is substantial.In 2012, 813 ha or 1.2 % replanting rate was shown in RPCs while new plantingwas reported only 10 ha of extent. In estate sector the extent of tea nurserieswhich were maintained was 285 ha as per the table 3.7.
In 2012, estate leaf (Own Leaf) production of RPCs recorded was 88.2 mnkg and corresponding average yield level calculated was 1,264 kg per hectare.The yield for State Institutions remained as low as 870 kg per hectare andthus overall for estate sector it was 1,222 kg per hectare calculated on 78,016ha of mature extent. RPCs tea production was not only based on own leaf butalso on a fairly high volume of bought leaf (26% of total) mainly fromsmallholders. State Plantations entirely depend on own leaf (96%) for theproduction of made tea. Eight RPCs run at Cost of Production (COP) belowthe Net Sales Average (NSA) in the range of Rs. 3 to Rs. 65 per kilogram ofmade tea calculated at company/ head office level. With exception of TeaResearch Institute, State institutions produce tea unprofitably due to its'COP values are greater than the NSA values. In the table 3.8 under each RPCand State institution yield and profitability is enumerated.
As per table 3.9 disaggregated data highlights the declining trend of ma-ture extent for RPCs and main State agencies such as JEDB & SLSPC since2000. Yield calculated for own (estate) leaf also declined in parallel to sametrend in tea production. In addition to JEDB & SLSPC two State agencies i.e.Elkaduwa Pl. Ltd and TRI are included as State agencies in the years 2011 &2012. Further overall Estate Sector tea yield (1,222 kg/ha) is far below thenational tea yield remaining at present.
159
Table No. 3.10
RUBBER EXTENT IN ESTATE SECTOR - 2012RPCs & STATE PLANTATIONS
Hectares
RPCs & State No. Extent Mature Immature Re New Nursery Aban-Agency of Cultivate (Tapping) Extent Planting Plan- Extent dond
Estates Extent ting Extent
RPCs 135 47,844 31,764 16,052 2,087 1,086 260 235
1. Hapugastenne 7 1,890 1,022 868 194 43 8 -
2. Watawala 4 722 687 35 - - 2 -
3. Balangoda 8 2,731 1,275 1,456 111 361 26 9
4. Kahawatte 8 2,284 1,575 709 120 - 13 -
5. Bogawantalawa 16 5,815 3,811 2,004 190 331 15 -
6. Malwatte Valley 6 3,137 1,899 1,238 31 - 12 -
7. Maskeliya - 44 44 - 16 - -
8. Agalawatte 8 4,857 3,340 1,517 215 - 29 -
9. Talawakelle 2 257 185 72 26 - - -
10. Kelani Valley 13 4,639 3,163 1,449 320 - 26 -
11. Horana 7 2,314 1,726 588 113 - 18 203
12. Agarapathana - 50 - 50 - - - -
12. Maturata 4 683 390 293 - 293 3 23
13. Elpitiya 7 1,410 992 418 45 - 6 -
14. Madulsima - 81 6 75 - 39 3 -
15. Kegalle 12 5,246 3,653 1,593 225 - 29 -
16. Pussellawa 12 4,848 2,706 2,142 301 - 21 -
17. Kotagala 12 4,492 3,360 1,132 127 - 36 -
18. Namunukula 8 2,252 1,898 353 64 - 13 -
19. Udapussellawa 1 92 76 16 5 3 - -
State Agencies 9 1,591 1,164 426 39 0 21 144
Kurunegala Pl.Ltd 3 247 188 58 - - - -
Elkaduwa Pl.Ltd 2 354 302 52 - - - 90
JEDB 1 597 363 234 33 - 8 33
SLSPC 1 70 65 5 - - - 21
RRI 2 323 246 77 6 - 13 -
Total 144 49,435 32,928 16,478 2,126 1,086 281 379
Source : RPCs, Planters' Association & State Agencies
13 - CM17140
160
Ta
ble
No.
3.1
1R
UB
BE
R P
RO
DU
CT
ION
BY
EST
ATE
SE
CTO
R -
2011
RPC
S &
STA
TE
PL
AN
TAT
ION
SM
atur
ePr
oduc
tion
(Mt.)
Yiel
dCo
mpa
ny L
evel
RPCs
& S
tate
Age
ncy
Exte
nt(k
g/ha
.)(H
a.)
Late
xCr
epe
RSS
Cent
ri-Sc
rap
Tota
lCO
PNS
Afu
ged
(Rs/k
g)(R
s/kg)
RPC
s31
,764
8,12
610
,525
1,86
44,
214
2,39
128
,834
1. H
apug
aste
nne
1,02
283
982
122
8.94
360.
482.
Wat
awal
a68
7-
584
--
-58
485
033
0.89
379.
123.
Bal
ango
da1,
275
378
-51
8-
9699
377
931
5.39
385.
884.
Kah
awat
te1,
575
-66
830
2-
124
1,09
469
528
3.29
387.
825.
Bog
awan
tala
wa
3,81
13,
263
-12
1-
328
3,71
297
424
4.13
399.
386.
Mal
wat
te V
alle
y1,
899
216
137
5084
114
31,
387
730
199.
8438
5.47
7. A
gala
wat
te3,
340
251
2,20
413
2-
273
2,86
185
727
6.11
394.
728.
Tal
awak
elle
185
109
109
589
346.
2036
9.00
9. K
elan
i Val
ley
3,16
31,
049
318
-1,
202
280
2,84
990
131
0.25
396.
0010
. Hor
ana
1,72
61,
281
--
-11
21,
393
807
265.
8637
2.27
11. M
atur
ata
390
201
-25
637
494
1,26
719
4.69
366.
6112
. Elp
itiya
992
--
--
-87
187
836
2.11
419.
4613
. Mad
ulsi
ma
6-
--
--
583
315
4.08
398.
9714
. Keg
alle
3,65
3-
1,58
1-
2,17
138
44,
136
1,13
231
2.50
419.
2215
. Pus
sella
wa
2,70
688
21,
700
123
-22
12,
926
1,08
130
7.58
390.
4016
. Kot
agal
a3,
360
330
2,21
214
3-
246
2,93
187
229
5.88
419.
1917
. Nam
unuk
ula
1,89
813
41,
120
219
-14
61,
619
853
294.
0938
6.60
18. U
dapu
ssel
law
a76
31-
--
132
421
428.
0138
6.66
Ave
rage
908
285.
6139
7.31
Stat
e A
genc
ies
1,16
413
214
844
00
856
Kur
uneg
ala
Pl.L
td18
8-
--
--
210
1,11
731
6.00
372.
00
El
kadu
wa
Pl.L
td30
2-
--
--
115
381
338.
6640
7.46
JED
B36
3-
--
--
207
570
355.
8038
5.87
SLSP
C65
32-
--
-32
492
192.
0037
9.34
RR
I24
610
014
844
--
292
1,18
719
7.46
374.
79
A
vera
ge73
528
3.60
381.
34
G
rand
Tot
al32
,928
8,25
810
,673
1,90
84,
214
2,39
129
,690
902
285.
5539
6.85
Sour
ce :
RPC
s , P
lant
ers'
Ass
ocia
tion
& S
tate
Age
ncie
s
Cha
rt 1
0
Sour
ce :
RPC
s & S
tate
Age
ncie
s
161
162
163
Tab
le N
o 3.
12
RU
BB
ER
EX
TE
NT,
PR
OD
UC
TIO
N &
YE
ILD
IN
EST
ATE
SE
CTO
R (
RPC
s &
STA
TE
)
Exte
nt C
ultiv
ate
Exte
nt i
n Be
arin
gRu
bber
Pro
duct
ion
Aver
age
Rubb
er Y
eild
(Ha)
(Ha)
(mn
kg)
(kg/
Ha)
Year
RPC
sSt
ate
RPC
sSt
ate
RPC
sSt
ate
RPC
sSt
ate
JED
BSL
SPC
JED
BSL
SPC
JED
BSL
SPC
JED
BSL
SPC
2000
56,8
32-
-40
,108
--
37.5
5
--
886
--
2001
56,1
05-
-39
,172
--
37.5
1
--
923
--
2002
53,6
761,
822
-37
,055
600
-34
.81
0.45
-88
774
7-
2003
50,2
211,
823
-36
,716
449
-33
.56
0.46
-86
71,
017
-20
0448
,277
1,82
3-
36,5
4546
6-
32.9
80.
37-
838
802
-20
0547
,318
623
-36
,780
458
-34
.81
0.32
-89
269
5-
2006
48,5
381,
822
-36
,349
447
-38
.24
0.31
-83
370
4 -
2007
47,9
481,
822
9736
,005
416
6739
.68
0.31
-1,
048
755
244
2008
48,4
731,
822
6535
,303
396
6535
.85
0.28
-95
870
888
920
0947
,030
1,87
365
33,9
5039
665
32.4
70.
210.
0591
954
282
420
1045
,213
555
6733
,561
362
6532
.20
0.28
0.05
884
777
772
RPC
s S
tate
Pla
ntat
ions
RPC
s S
tate
Pla
ntat
ions
RPC
s S
tate
Pla
ntat
ions
RPC
s S
tate
Pla
ntat
ions
2011
46,9
4315
7332
,691
1157
30.6
80.
9393
980
620
1247
,844
1591
31,7
6411
6428
.83
0.86
908
735
Sour
ce:R
egio
nal P
lant
atio
n C
ompa
nies
(RPC
s) &
Sta
te P
lant
atio
nsN
ote
:Kur
uneg
ala
Pl L
td.,
Elka
duw
a Pl
Ltd
., JE
DB
, SL
SPC
& R
RI c
ome
unde
r St
ate
Plan
tatio
ns
164
Rubber Extent, Production & Productivity - Estate Sector(Reference to Table No. 3.10, 3.11 & 3.12)
Out of cultivated rubber lands in the island (49,435 ha), some 67% or 32,928 haof extent is in bearing or mature area in estate sector at present. Mature sharewas 66% in RPCs while it was 73% for state agencies. In some RPCs immaturerubber extent reported was at a high rate. In 2012, replanted rubber extent was2,087 ha with 4.4% replanting rate in RPCs which reflects a satisfactory leveldue to the fact that the rate was above the accepted norm. New plantingextent was revealed as 1,086 ha, while maintaining 260 ha nursery extentensuring sufficient planting materials for RPCs re/new planting programs.However, abandoned extent remained at 0.8% of the total extent cultivatedthough abandoned land being cultivated extensively throughout the area.
In 2012, total rubber production in RPCs recorded was 28,834 mt and thisincludes a small quantity of production from bought latex. The yield of RPCswas calculated as 908 kg per hectare while for state institutions it was as lowas 735 kg per hectare. Among rubber production types in RPCs, Crepe volumewas 37% of total. While reporting RSS production as 1,864 mt, the productionof Latex and Centrifuged types together was quite substantial i.e. 12,350 mt(43% of total). According to statistics total Crepe production (all types) inRPCs is not more than 20,000 mt in 2012. This is questionable since total LatexCrepe production reported was 36,550 mt along with smallholdings sector in2012, where Crepes were not the predominant product of smallholders. Dueto attractive rubber prices prevailed in 2012, in RPCs on average NSA wasabove the COP by about Rs. 111 per kg. Even for State Plantations, thismargin was Rs.97 per kg on average. However, this is 50% of margin prevailedin the year 2011.
The table 3.12 shows improvement of State Plantations for the year 2011 &2012. Three State agencies such as i.e. Kurunegala, Elkaduwa PlantationsLimited, RRI are included as State in addition to the JEDB & SLSPC. For thecurrent year the rubber yield in RPCs declined to 908 kg per hectare whilecombined state institutions recorded 735 kg/ha which is lower than the reportedyield of the previous year.
165
Table No. 3.13
COCONUT EXTENT & PRODUCTION IN ESTATE SECTOR - 2012RPCs & STATE PLANTATIONS
RPCs & State Extent Extent Total Average COP NSAAgency Cultivate in Crop Yield Rs/nut Rs/nut
bearing ‘000 Nuts/Ha.(Ha) (Ha) Nuts
RPCs 1,932 1,608 6,612 4,111 18.57 23.16
1 Hapugastenne 31 - - - - -
2 Watawala 10 5 - - - -
3 Kahawatte 67 - - - - -
4 Bogawantalawa 472 432 2,566 5,940 21.91 25.23
5 Malwatta Valley 33 - - - -
6 Agalawatte 9 9 7 778 10.42 25.00
7 Kelani Valley 51 51 - - - -
8 Horana 33 32 - - - -
9 Maturata 127 127 303 2,382 19.37 23.30
10 Elpitiya 33 33 54 1,641 10.39 19.61
11 Kegalle 451 408 1,763 4,321 15.01 21.53
12 Pussellawa 113 113 224 1,976 16.29 20.94
13 Kotagala 11 11 - - - -
14 Namunukula 326 251 975 3,886 20.16 22.22
15 Udapussellawa 165 137 720 5,275 14.27 21.94
State Agencies 9,214 7,468 34,876 4,670 18.71 21.33
Chilaw Pl Ltd 4,442 3,756 15,508 4,129 19.80 20.91
Kurunegala Pl Ltd 4,179 3,403 18,103 5,320 17.94 21.69
Elkaduwa Pl Ltd 342 267 1,220 4,569 16.68 21.50
JEDB 251 42 45 1,064 10.19 17.24
SLSPC - - - - - -
Total / Average 11,146 9,076 41,488 4,571 18.69 21.62
Source : Regional Plantation Companies (RPCs) & State Plantations
166
Table No. 3.14
COCONUT EXTENT & PRODUCTION IN ESTATE SECTOR2000 - 2012
Year Extent Extent Produc- Yield COP NSA MarginCultivated bearing tion (Nuts/Ha) (Rs/Nut) (Rs/Nut) (Rs/Nut)
(Ha) (Ha) (Mn Nuts)
2000 11,254 10,085 49 4,887 4.53 4.80 0.27
2001 11,200 9,904 44 4,502 4.13 7.28 3.15
2002 11,337 9,856 32 3,251 5.95 11.20 5.25
2003 12,507 9,634 36 3,720 6.15 8.88 2.73
2004 10,691 9,813 39 3,977 6.35 10.48 4.13
2005 10,799 9,628 32 3,177 8.59 12.35 3.76
2006 10,979 9,553 40 4,082 8.64 10.34 1.70
2007 10,334 9,553 40 4,203 11.91 16.18 4.27
2008 10,791 9,568 38 3,962 13.90 20.29 6.39
2009 10,855 9,601 41 4,501 13.37 16.10 2.73
2010 10,797 9,306 40 4,284 19.82 23.19 3.37
2011 10,914 9,309 37 3,977 17.91 26.09 8.18
2012 11,146 9,076 41 4,571 18.69 21.62 2.93
Source : Regional Plantation Companies (RPCs) & State Plantations
167
Coconut Extent & Production in Estate Sector(Reference to Table 3.14)
At present compared to total coconut extent and production in the coun-try Estate sector share is 2.8% and 1.3% respectively which is negligible.Coconut area both cultivated and matured extent has declined and reportedsince 1995 in the estate sector. As a result of that coconut production andyield per hectare also declined gradually. In 1995 estate sector nut productionwas 48 million which has been dwindling to 37 million by 23% in 2011. How-ever in 2012 the production has increased substantially up to 41.5 mn nuts.Coconut extent and production is concerned, two state agencies i.e. ChilawPlantation Ltd and Kurunegala Plantation Ltd play a prominent in role in theestate sector. These state institutions owned extent cultivated & matured77% & 79%of total in the estate sector respectively. Further these 2 institu-tions are responsible for 81% of total production of coconut.
Out of 15 RPC of which coconut cultivation is maintained even in a reluc-tant manner, a few companies (Bogawanthalawa, Kegalla Namunukula,Udapussellawa) produced 15% of total estate sector production in 2012.Average yield per hectare in overall estate sector was 4,571 nuts per ha whileit was higher for state agencies as much as 4,670 nuts/ha in 2012. AverageCOP was Rs. 18.69 per nut while NSA reported Rs.21.62 per nut leaving aslight profit profit margin of Rs.3/- per nut which is not sufficient enough forthe sustainability. Other than two State Plantations (Chilaw & Kurunegala) allother RPCs & institutions are displaying a declining trend of coconut cultiva-tion & nut production in Estate Sector.
168
Tabl
e N
o. 3
.15
OIL
PA
LM
EX
TE
NT
& P
RO
DU
CT
ION
IN
EST
ATE
SE
CTO
R
Regi
onal
Pla
ntat
ion
Com
pani
es (
RPC
s) &
Sta
teTo
tal
Nam
unuk
ula
Agal
awat
teEl
pitiy
aW
ataw
ala
SLSP
CK
otag
ala
2011
2012
2011
2012
2011
2012
2011
2012
2011
2012
2011
2012
2011
2012
Tota
l Ex
tent
(H
a)1,
442
1,59
71,
159
1,30
11,
163
1,20
92,
674
3,07
158
1911
958
36,
615
7,78
0M
atur
e Ex
tent
(H
a)1,
106
1,06
194
794
778
578
21,
875
1,91
058
19-
-4,
771
4,71
9Im
mat
ure
Exte
nt (
Ha)
336
536
209
354
378
428
799
1,16
20
011
858
31,
839.
43,
063
Prod
uctio
n (M
t)13
,984
14,0
888,
125
6,80
99,
899
10,7
1626
,080
29,7
3322
028
9-
-58
,308
61,6
35 F
resh
Fru
it B
unch
(FFB
)Pr
oduc
tion
(Mt)
of
3,63
63,
663
2,03
11,
770
2,47
52,
786
6,27
47,
294
5575
--
14,4
7115
,588
Palm
Oil
(Cru
de &
Ker
nel)
0N
ew P
lant
ing
(Ha)
-3
00
00
011
921
712
221
7R
e-pl
antin
g (H
a)12
6-
-17
215
90
319
00
--
298
478
Sour
ce :
P
lant
ers'
Ass
ocia
tion
of C
eylo
nSr
i La
nka
Stat
e Pl
anta
tion
Cor
pora
tion
(SLS
PC)
Cha
rt 1
1
Sour
ce :
RPC
s & S
tate
Age
ncie
s
169
170
171
Table No. 3.16
PRESENT STATUS OF EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRY
Unit 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Import of Palm OilPalm Olein mt 73,561 26,084 53,519 105,528 44,878Crude Palm Oil mt 30,114 20,750 15,299 19,300 12,593Palm Kernel & Stearin mt 37,135 4,403 6,425 10,750 9,281
Oil Palm CultivationTotal Extent Ha 5,408 5,625 6,211 6,615 7,780Mature Extent Ha 4,517 4,582 4,761 4,771 4,719Immature Extent Ha 825 982 1,450 1,840 3,063New Planting Ha 257 181 122 217Re Planting Ha - - - 298 478
Edible Oil IndustryLocal Palm Oil Production mt 12,985 13,508 12,729 14,471 15,588
(Crude & Kernel)Cost of Production (average) Rs/Kg 47 55 n/a n/a n/aLocal Coconut Oil Production mt 59,018 75,495 65,133 53,093 81,859Total Edible Oil requirement mt 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000Source : Planters' Association
of Ceylon
Source : Planters' Association of Ceylon
172
Oil Palm Cultivation & Palm Oil Industry(Reference to table 3.15 & 3.16)
At present Oil palm cultivation is confined mainly to RPCs while a smallextent is maintained under SLSPC. In 2008, oil palm cultivated extent with 4RPCs (Agalawatte, Elpitiya, Namunukula & Watawala) and SLSPC stood at5,408 ha. This has increased upto 6,615 ha in 2011 recording annual growth of6% or total expansion of 1,200 hectarages. In alignment with Ministerial Policyconcluded in 2010 on expansion of oil palm cultivation up to 25,000 ha, theRPCs alone are targeting to expand total extent cultivated from present levelto 10,000 ha by 2016. Mature extent of oil palm was 4,517 ha in 2008 andexpanded to 4,582 ha in 2009 and further to 4,761 in 2010. However, in 2012 itwas 4,719 ha recording a marginal decline.
In the current year, total cultivated extent was 7,780 ha which is a 1,165 haincrease from previous year. Although mature extent remained stagnantbetween 2011 & 2012 the increase of cultivated hectarage was occured due toreplanting and new planting process. In addition to new planting extent of583 ha recorded for Kotagala RPC, other 4 RPCs undertook replanting of theirold Plantations in a gradual manner.
As presented in table 3.16 country demand for edible oil (including palmoil and coconut oil mainly) is around 160,000 mt per annum for humanconsumption and industrial use. As local coconut oil production is limited tovarying range of 35% to 50% the balance requirement needs to be providedthrough palm oil. In 2012, imported palm oil quantity was around 66,752 mtwhile locally produced coconut oil quantity was 81,859 mt. As edible oildemand is not fulfilled by local coconut oil industry alone, palm oil import isa continuous Phenomenon for edible and industrial oil need in the country.
The production of Fresh Fruit Bunch (FFB) was around 61,635 mt in 2012.The FFB were processed in two extraction plants owned by producing RPCsand realized 24% of output as crude palm oil and Kernel oil. In 2012, producedquantity was 15,588 mt which is 8 % higher than previous year. Extracted palmoil is refined and graded in a few refineries located around Colombo for valueaddition before exporting or sending to local market depending on prevailingprice structure.
173
Table No 3.17
FORESTRY EXTENT IN ESTATE SECTOR - 2012
Hectares
RPCs & State Timber Fuel Reserve Imma- New ReAgencies Extent Wood Forest ture planting planting
Extent Extent
RPCs 5,527 8,078 4,344 4,666 340 157
1. Hapugastenne 555 1,145 1,141 478 78 7
2. Watawala 177 996 601 1,173 44 -
3. Balangoda - - - - - -
4. Kahawatte 1,161 658 419 658 - 37
5. Bogawantalawa 552 424 275 32 12 6
6. Malwatte Valley - - - - - -
7. Maskeliya 515 571 441 43 - -
8. Agalawatte 75 353 - 112 112 -
9. Talawakelle 65 469 241 206 54 18
10. Kelani Valley - - - - - -
11. Horana - 350 51 - - 12
12. Agarapatana 577 273 208 - 6 8
13. Maturata - 30 - 32 10 -
14. Elpitiya 63 738 68 237 - 40
15. Kegalle 47 165 74 - - -
16. Madulsima 50 1,428 - 445 - -
17. Pussellawa 1,004 190 243 414 - 23
18. Kotagala 477 239 394 716 16 1
19. Namunukula - - - 74 - -
20. Udapussellawa 209 49 188 46 8 5
State Agencies 138 576 287 29 23 0
Chilaw PL Ltd - - - - - -
Elkaduwa PL Ltd 138 - 160 29 23 -
JEDB - 576 127 - - -
SLSPC - - - - - -
TOTAL 5,665 8,654 4,631 4,695 363 157
Source : Regional Plantation Companies (RPCs) & State Plantations
174
OTHER CROPS175
176
177
Table No 4.1
TOTAL EXTENT UNDER CASHEW CULTIVATION BY DISTRICT
Hectares2011 2012
District Total Bearing Total BearingExtent Extent Extent Extent
Puttalam 8,170 6,127 12,631 9,473Kurunegala 6,179 4,634 9,655 7,241Matale 1,022 766 1,909 1,431Polonnaruwa 440 330 973 730Kandy 140 105 201 151Badulla 1,071 803 1,722 1,291Ampara 1,014 760 1,859 1,394Monaragala 1,098 824 1,775 1,331Hambantota 1,107 830 1,804 1,353Ratnapura 416 312 558 418Anuradhapura 3,204 2,403 5,858 1,393Batticaloa 1,086 814 1,981 1,486Mannar 170 128 325 244Vavuniya 209 157 353 265Trincomalee 404 303 965 728Gampaha 907 680 1,165 874Killinochchi 431 323 843 632
Total 27,068 20,299 44,940 30,707
Source : Sri Lanka Cashew Corporation
178
Table No. 4.2
CASHEW TOTAL EXTENT AND BEARING EXTENT1996 - 2012
Hectares
Year Total Extent Bearing Extent
2000 29,136 17,584
2001 32,873 24,752
2002 34,503 25,728
2003 35,646 26,435
2004 37,167 28,641
2005 38,846 28,746
2006 40,506 29,974
2007 41,741 31,306
2008 45,441 34,140
2009 48,999 36,736
2010 22,708 17,031
2011 27,068 20,299
2012 44,940 33,707
Source : Sri Lanka Cashew Corporation
179
Table No. 4.3
CASHEW PRODUCTION AND YIELD 1996 - 2012
Year Production Average yieldMt Kg/Ha
2000 4,678 2672001 6,197 2502002 6,441 2502003 8,319 3152004 8,660 3022005 9,036 3142006 9,721 3242007 11,655 3712008 5,000 146*2009 12,000 3202010 8,000 4702011 6,000 2962012 10,000 312
* Severe yeild drop due to unexpected rains Source: Sri Lnaka Cashew Corporation
180
Cha
rt 1
2
Sour
ce :
Sri L
anka
Cas
hew
Cor
pora
tion
181
182
183
Table No. 4.4
CASHEW : KERNEL PRODUCTION AND DOMESTICCONSUMPTION
Metric Tons
Year Kernel DomesticProduction Consumption
2000 935 843
2001 1,239 1,092
2002 1,288 1,145
2003 1,663 1,596
2004 1,732 1,544
2005 1,807 1,527
2006 1,944 1,744
2007 2,331 2,213
2008 1,000 * 791
2009 2,400 2,199
2010 1600 * 1,325
2011 1200 * 886
2012 2,000 1,854
*Yeild drop has affectedSource: Sri Lanka Cashew Corporation
184
Table No. 4.5
CASHEW : QUANTITY AND VALUE OF EXPORTS
Year Quantity ValueMt Rs Mn
1990 1,281.4 277.01995 309.0 112.02000 92.5 47.42001 147.1 73.82002 142.9 75.92003 66.2 42.52004 187.2 121.62005 279.5 178.42006 170.0 129.02007 117.5 101.42008 208.9 154.62009 201.1 133.82010 275.0 246.42011 314.4 309.92012 145.7 170.3
Source: Sri Lanka Cashew Corporation
185
Table No. 4.6
STATISTICS OF THE SUGAR SECTOR2011-2012
Item Unit 2011(a) 2012(b)
1. Total Area under cane Ha 6,992 9,187 (with ratoons)(c)2. Area Harvested (c) Ha 6,024 7,0343. Cane Harvested (c) Mn kg 290 3484. Private Cane purchased Mn kg 172 1125. Quantity of Cane crushed Mn kg 440 4326. Average Yield (c) Mt.Tons/Ha 45 567. Sugar Production Mn kg 35 36 (without sweeping)8. Sugar recovery rate (d) % 7.9 8.2
(a) Revised(b) Provisional(c) Includes nucleus estates and the allottees.(d) Recovery Rate = Sugar produced x 100
Quantity of cane crushedSource : Central Bank of Sri Lanka : Annual Report
186
Table No 4.7
SUGAR CANE : EXTENT OF SMALL HOLDINGSBY DISTRICT AND DS DIVISION - 2002
AcresDistrcit DS Division Extent
BadullaMeegahakivula 5.6Soranathota 84.5Passara 512.1Lunugala 8.9Badulla 5.2Hali-Ela 4.3Haldummulla 143.5
Sub Total 764.1Moneragala
Bibila 84.3Madulla 1,512.2Medagama 57.4Siyambalanduwa 2,141.4Moneragala 828.2Badallkumbura 2,273.1Wellawaya 1,262.4Buttala 6,304.2Sevanagala 6,518.2
Sub Total 20,981.4Ampara
Damana 65.3Sub Total 65.3Sri Lanka Total 21,810.8
Source : Agriculture Census - 2002
187
T
able
No.
4.8
KE
Y IN
DIC
ATO
RS:
CO
CO
NU
T
Item
Uni
t20
0520
0620
0720
0820
0920
1020
1120
12
1.Pr
oduc
tion
Mn.
nuts
2,51
52,
785
2,86
92,
909
2,85
32,
317
2,80
82,
940
1.1
Des
icca
ted
Coc
onut
MnK
g37
4543
3838
2947
421.
2 C
ocon
ut O
ilM
nKg
2038
7659
7565
5382
1.3
Cop
raM
nKg
3751
117
104
123
101
7712
51.
5 D
omes
tic n
ut C
onsu
mpt
ion
Mn.
nuts
2,04
72,
222
2,45
12,
437
2,26
91,
956
2,32
82,
481
2.To
tal
Exte
nt00
0 H
a39
539
539
539
539
539
539
539
53.
Ave
rage
Exp
ort
Pric
e (F
.O.B
.)R
s/nu
t24
.88
24.2
627
.56
34.9
231
.06
29.3
857
.73
51.5
34.
Ferti
lizer
issu
ed'0
00 M
T.33
4733
2925
5.5*
14.3
-5.
Cos
t of
Pro
duct
ion
Rs/
'000
Nut
s4,
870
5,43
66,
124
8,79
59,
166
9,49
210
,273
11,6
347.
Rep
lant
ing
Ha
3,49
53,
865
2,52
82,
468
3,15
42,
684
1,55
14,
774
8.N
ew p
lant
ing
Ha
3,78
34,
101
2,95
53,
683
4,39
03,
705
1,55
34,
814
9.Ex
port
earn
ings
Rs
Mn
17,5
2919
,661
24,0
9628
,094
29,0
8132
,433
47,3
0646
,667
US$
Mn
173
188
218
259
253
287
428
366
9.1
Ker
nel
Prod
ucts
Rs
Mn
7,93
39,
142
11,2
7013
,667
11,9
7411
,096
21,0
3016
,688
US$
Mn
7887
102
126
104
9819
013
19.
2 O
ther
Pro
duct
sR
s M
n9,
596
10,5
1912
,826
14,4
2617
,107
21,3
3726
,276
29,9
78U
S$ M
n95
101
116
133
149
189
238
235
Sour
ce:
Coc
onut
Dev
elop
men
t Aut
horit
yD
epar
tmen
t of C
ensu
s & S
tatis
tics
Nat
iona
l Fer
tiliz
er S
ecre
taria
tC
ocon
ut C
ultiv
atio
n B
oard
(C
CB
)*
Qua
ntity
of F
ertil
izer
issu
ed b
y C
CB
188
T
able
No.
4.9
CO
CO
NU
T P
RO
DU
CT
ION
, C
ON
SUM
PTIO
N &
YE
ILD
20
00 -
2012
Prod
uctio
nYi
eldC
ost o
fFe
rtiliz
erD
omes
tic%
of D
omes
ticAv
erag
eYe
ar(M
n N
uts)
(Nut
s/H
a)Pr
oduc
tion
Appl
ied
Con
sum
ptio
nC
onsu
mpt
ion
Nut
s per
(Rs/’
000
Nut
s)M
T(M
n Nu
ts)
pers
on
2000
3,09
66,
998
3,16
235
,615
2,12
669
110
2001
2,76
96,
259
3,21
932
,487
2,32
284
124
2002
2,39
25,
407
3,58
437
,048
2,05
686
126
2003
2,56
25,
791
4,13
538
,958
1,92
275
100
2004
2,59
16,
486
4,77
433
,648
1,94
375
101
2005
2,51
56,
370
4,86
932
,842
2,04
781
104
2006
2,78
57,
054
5,43
547
,114
2,22
280
112
2007
2,86
97,
266
6,12
332
,708
2,45
185
122
2008
2,90
97,
368
8,79
529
,131
2,43
784
122
2009
2,85
36,
995
9,16
625
,201
2,26
982
111
2010
2,31
76,
544
9,49
254
56*
1,95
684
108
2011
2,80
87,
112
10,2
7314
,316
2,32
883
111
2012
2,94
07,
446
11,6
34N
A2,
481
84N
A
Not
e:
Cos
t of
Pro
duct
ion
in E
stat
e Se
ctor
(20
Acr
es &
abo
ve)
: *
ferti
lizer
iss
ued
from
CC
B o
nly
NA
:Not
Ava
ilabl
e.So
urce
: C
ocon
ut D
evel
opm
ent
Aut
hori
ty
189
Tab
le N
o. 4
.10
IMPO
RT
S O
F O
ILS
& F
ATS
TO S
RI
LA
NK
A 2
000-
2012
Palm
Ste
arin
** P
alm
Ker
nel
Palm
Ole
inC
rude
Pal
m O
ilTa
llow
Coc
onut
Oil
Soy
Oil
&O
ther
s&
Ste
arin
Sun
Oil
Year
Vol
ume
Ave
rage
Vol
ume
Ave
rage
Vol
ume
Ave
rage
Vol
ume
Ave
rage
Volu
me
Ave
rage
Volu
me
Aver
age
Volu
me
Ave
rage
Volu
me
Ave
rage
M
TC
IF
MT
CIF
M
TC
IF
MT
CIF
M
TC
IFC
IFC
IFC
IFVa
lue
Valu
eVa
lue
Valu
eVa
lue
Valu
eVa
lue
Valu
eU
S$/M
TU
S$/M
TU
S$/M
TU
S$/M
TU
S$/M
TU
S$/M
TU
S$/M
TU
S$/M
T
2000
30,6
1228
84,
237
525
47,0
5741
3-
-10
,053
380
--
1,07
764
97,
096
537
2001
24,3
8324
82,
531
319
36,4
8331
6-
-4,
323
339
222
487
645
597
8,62
043
220
0243
,738
384
36,2
9240
044
,318
379
--
4,99
442
925
,381
429
605
634
17,5
2749
920
0331
,104
437
44,2
3741
622
,773
457
--
3,28
950
664
,086
439
736
691
20,6
1655
820
0437
,240
474
15,9
8840
781
,585
438
--
2,98
953
63,
200
450
772
732
21,6
2863
820
05*
15,0
3041
94,
137
465
98,2
1640
621
2,90
839
53,
119
463
1,36
955
467
567
922
,936
598
2006
*32
,326
478
3,55
955
696
,717
467
168,
083
415
4,07
644
595
358
286
181
926
,345
787
2007
*25
,257
645
4,66
389
157
,245
733
123,
131
706
4,59
762
633
588
35,
566
679
30,0
1879
020
0823
,100
993
14,0
3580
673
,561
1,06
430
,114
868
4,83
094
278
81,
503
541
1,87
119
,218
1,20
020
092,
822
778
1,58
267
226
,083
761
20,7
5064
04,
529
701
805
901
536
1,14
842
,933
892
2010
5,50
01,
032
925
788
53,5
1992
315
,299
850
3,15
594
92,
080
1,17
168
51,
472
13,1
791,
172
2011
10,7
131,
284
372,
603
105,
528
1,20
619
,300
1,01
22,
305
1,27
53,
062
1,88
21,
021
1,77
814
,701
1,58
120
126,
252
1,23
93,
029
864
44,8
781,
067
12,5
9391
882
61,
225
2,16
51,
022
969
1,78
413
,670
1,43
2
* R
evis
ed**
Fig
urs
up to
199
8 in
clud
e pa
lm s
tear
in &
ther
eafte
r onl
y ke
rnel
Sour
ce :
Coc
onut
Dev
elop
men
t Aut
horit
y
190
Table No: 4.11EXPORT OF COCONUT PRODUCTS BY DIFFERENT TYPE 2011/2012
Volume (MT) Volue (Rs Mn)
Product Category 2011 2012 Change 2011 2012 Change( % ) ( % )
KERNEL PRODUCTS1. Coconut Oil 1,931 2,499 29 854.10 1,277.12 502. Desiccated Coconut 45,761 40,224 -12 13,956.87 8,625.57 -383. Copra 2,185 653 -70 280.54 90.49 -684. Fresh Nuts, Seed Nuts & 8,056 19,492 142 467.20 1,000.20 114
King Coconut (‘000 Nuts)5. Coconut Poonac 6,522 9,685 48 202.85 303.45 506. Coconut Cream 1,745 2,000 15 667.22 655.49 -27. Coconut Milk 6,351 9,036 42 1,255.33 1,651.40 328. Defatted Coconut 3,876 3,116 -20 822.99 525.72 -369.Instant Coconut Milk Powder 4,446 4,641 4 2,522.89 2,558.92 1SUB TOTAL KERNEL
PRODUCTS 21,030.00 16,688.36 -21FIBRE PRODUCTS1. Mattress Fibre 78,174 57,924 -26 3,354.62 2,566.22 -242. Bristle Fibre 9,450 8,160 -14 635.62 637.20 03. Twisted Fibre 26,808 45,119 68 1,436.44 2,372.18 654. Coir Yarn 767 1,025 34 68.04 127.56 875. Coir Twine 5,417 7,148 32 869.48 1,037.33 19 SUB TOTAL FIBRE
PRODUCTS 120,616 119,376 -1 6,364.19 6,740.49 6SHELL PRODUCTS1. Coconut Shell Charcoal 4,957 6,919 40 278.42 475.04 712. Coconut Shell & Shell Flour 546 698 28 22.79 34.76 533. Coconut Shell Actvtd. Carbon 31,359 30,271 -3 7,396.07 8,759.17 18 SUB TOTAL SHELL PRODUCTS 36,862 37,888 3 7,697.28 9,268.97 20FINISHED PRODUCTS (FIBRE)1.Coir Brooms & Brushes (Nos) 24,498,840 19,957,696 -19 2,235.14 2,174.05 -32. Tawashi Brushes ( Nos) 23,791,814 26,312,793 11 433.53 558.56 293. Coir Fibre Pith & Husk Chips 146,224 148,342 1 5,036.83 6,118.00 21
(Mt)4. Rubberized Coir Pads & Mettress for bedding -M2
Nos 2,512,641 4,178,312 66 255.01 296.62 165. Coir Mats & Rugs - M2 146,063 39,773 -73 685.00 627.47 -8 Nos 1,533,343 624,581 -596. Coir Mattings (M2) 18,308 15,663 -14 15.54 11.46 -267.Geo Coir Textiles (MT) 3,722 2,536 -32 440.53 385.43 -138.Moulded Coir Products for use in Horticulture (MT) 64,547 66,151 2 2,927.41 3,517.04 20SUB TOTAL FINISHED
PRODUCTS 12,029.00 13,688.64 14OTHER PRODUCTS1. Coconut Arrack & Vinegar 63,340 62,819 -1 18.19 20.25 11
(litre)2. Coconut Ekels & Coconut 8,686 11,034 27 167.14 259.79 55
Fatty Acid (MT)SUB TOTAL NON KERNEL
PRODUCTS 26,275.79 29,978.15 14TOTAL VALUE OF ALL
PRODUCTS 47,305.79 46,666.51 -1Source: Coconut Development Authority
![State: Jharkhandjsac.jharkhand.gov.in/pdf/crop/JKD1-Garhwa-10.08.12[1].pdf · Cauliflower 0.520 0.520 Medicinal and Aromatic crops - Plantation crops - Fodder crops - Total fodder](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5e984abdba1859541f1aa068/state-1pdf-cauliflower-0520-0520-medicinal-and-aromatic-crops-plantation.jpg)
