|
List Of Topics:
Quest for Finance
Global Forum for Agricultural Research
Quest for Finance
During 1999 attempts were made to raise finance for research and
development activity through the involvement of major consumers.
So far this has failed to elicit any positive response. It might
have been tempting to omit mentioning this, but for an editorial
which appeared in Rubber World in February 2000. In this, the Editor,
Don R. Smith, comments upon the end of the International Natural
Rubber Organization, the increasing significance of the International
Rubber Study Group (IRSG), and within the present context, the appeal
by the IRRDB for assistance in research funding, which he considers
to be a worthwhile cause: "hopefully they'll be heard".
At the same time another important avenue has become available,
notably the Global Forum for Agricultural Research.
Before reconsidering the basis for the direct approach to consumers,
it is worth noting two significant factors. The first is that some
major consumers may consider that the major international funding
agencies are performing the task for them. In the case of natural
rubber, the appropriate agency is the Common Fund for Commodities
(CFC).
Membership of this Fund is open to all countries, whether rich
or poor, but it needs to be stressed that two of the countries where
the three major multinational tyre companies are based (the USA
and France) are not members of the Fund. The CFC is faced with considerable
pressure for its funds to alleviate poverty in a large number of
extremely poor countries. Nevertheless, the CFC has financed several
rubber projects, some of which involve the IRRDB. Currently, the
Fund is financing the African Natural Rubber Project (which aims
to enhance the quality of African rubber), a GAPKINDO agroforestry
project in Indonesia and is willing to fund work to combat Corynespora
leaf fall disease provided that co-financing can be found. The IRRDB
is directly involved in the last.
Prosperous consuming industry
The second significant factor is that low natural rubber prices
have been of inestimable financial value to the rubber consuming
industry: some of the major manufacturing corporations have vastly
increased their profits. For two consecutive years presentations
have been made at IRSG Meetings which emphasised the benefits of
low raw material prices to profitability and employment in consuming
countries. In the first case (in Bali, Indonesia) the identity of
the European country concerned will not be revealed as it clearly
embarrassed the local member of the Embassy staff to read a statement
that stated the benefits of low commodity prices upon the industrial
activities within his own nation.
In the second (in Mexico) an official from the United States Department
of Commerce blandly stated all the benefits of low raw material
prices for job prospects at home. On the previous day, some of the
South East Asians in the party were shocked at the levels of rural
poverty in the State of Veracruz whilst en route to visiting the
field trials at the local IRRDB Member Institute. Whatsoever the
state of the rubber industry in Asia, in Mexico rubber cultivation
is perceived as a key means for alleviating rural poverty and it
is noteworthy that the potential rubber output from Mexico could
be vastly increased should adequate capital become available.
Clearly, big business is unlikely to be moved by such concepts
as "social justice", or the "spread of democracy",
and it is necessary to elucidate the benefits that a sustainable
rubber industry has for them. Firstly, it appears that the rubber
consuming industry, especially the tyre industry, finds natural
rubber a useful raw material. Natural rubber remains the paradigm
rubber, and it is significant that in the Commonwealth of Independent
States work continues in an attempt to make synthetic polyisoprene
more like natural rubber, even to the extent of admixing it with
proteins. The failure by the natural rubber industry to capture
the market for Russian synthetic polyisoprene broadly approximates
to the industry's excess output.
Although the pattern of natural rubber consumption has been interrupted
by the recent Asian financial crisis, it will, in the short term,
return to a sustained growth rate, but the prospects for growth
in natural rubber supply may prove to be an increasing cause for
concern, even if the Russian tyre industry cannot be persuaded to
upgrade to natural rubber. Major factors which will contribute towards
this situation include the rapid growth in output in Thailand, which
had been spearheaded by large-scale replanting in the 1970s funded
by ORRAF, has now reached its peak. There is no other extension
programme, or large scale replanting to take the place of the gap
left by Thailand. In the most ecologically-favourable areas for
rubber cultivation oil palm and other higher value crops are tending
to displace natural rubber.
It is possible to argue that synthetic polymers will gradually
take the place of natural rubber should its production decline,
although pure and simple substitution does not appear to be a credible
future hypothesis. Firstly, the technological properties have not
yet been fully matched by synthetic polymers (these are fully enumerated
later). Furthermore, natural rubber is unmatched in two respects.
Its production is an essential ingredient within the economic strategy
of many developing countries, and contributes to their growth and
development, thus strengthening their ability to become integrated
within the global economy. In this way the overall markets for vehicles
and tyres will be increased. Well-conducted rubber cultivation is
a sustainable form of agriculture which conspicuously contributes
to the preservation of the environment and a reduction in deforestation.
Rubber cultivation is a key asset in combatting global warming.
ISO 14000 standards are being applied increasingly in production
areas. Therefore, the maintenance of natural rubber capacity at
a significant level can be justified for both economic and ecological
reasons.
< Back to top >
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Global Forum for Agricultural Research
At its Meeting in Hainan in October the Board had been impressed
by the involvement of one its Vice Chairmen, M Omont, in the work
of the Global Forum for Agricultural Research (GFAR). GFAR was established
in 1996 to bring together representatives of national agricultural
research systems (NARS) from developing countries with a wide range
of bodies with expertise, or interests in the problems facing rural
communities. These include universities, international agricultural
research centres, farmers' representatives and the private sector.
Problems being addressed include poverty, the need to increase productivity
(especially in food production) and environmental degradation. Although
GFAR was founded under the auspices of CGIAR its mandate is wider
as is shown by the last of its five priority areas:
information and communication technologies (although these are poorly
developed at present);
support to regional fora and NARS sub-regional groupings;
genetic resource management, biotechnology and intellectual property
rights;
natural resource management and agro-ecology;
international cooperation for agricultural research on commodities
outside the CGIAR mandate
At the Board Meeting it was suggested that all Member Institutes
should make approaches to their appropriate regional fora for Asia,
Latin America, or Africa to outline their priorities.
GFAR's goals are to:
- facilitate the exchange of information and knowledge;
- force cost-effective, collaborative partnerships among the stakeholders
of agricultural research and sustainable development;
- promote the integration of NARS and enhance their capacity to
produce and transfer technology that responds to users' needs;
- facilitate the participation of all stakeholders in formulating
a truly global framework for development-orientated agricultural
research;
- increase awareness among policymakers and donors of the need
for long-term commitment to, and investment in, agricultural research.
What is a "Global Programme"?
Emile A. Frison, Wanda W. Collins, and Suzanne L. Sharrock have
written Global Programs: a New Vision in Agricultural Research for
GFAR (Issues in Agriculture 12). This gives further indications
of the advantages which are expected to follow from GFAR involvement
plus some indication of the type of projects envisaged. They state
that it is increasingly recognized that many research problems are
global in nature. It is also clear that individual institutes do
not possess all of the skills and facilities necessary to address
major international research issues.
The problems are usually of such magnitude and are so crucial to
world food security (the commodities covered fell within the CGIAR
mandate) that partnerships are essential. Within the context of
global programmes, partnerships are developed, fostered, and ensured.
A global programme, thus, consists of a coordinated set of activities,
performed by a wide range of programme participants, or partners,
and directed towards solving a specific problem or set of problems
identified at the global level. The overriding aim of developing
a programme in this way is to create "added value" through
more efficient partnerships and the sharing of information, materials,
and results. Stated in another way, the output of the programme
as a whole will be greater than the sum of its component parts.
Two important principles that should be applied within the context
of global programmes are those of equity and subsidiarity. All partners
in a global programme should have an equal status, and benefits
from the programme should be shared with equity. Furthermore, according
to the principle of subsidiarity, the primary responsibility for
an activity should be devolved to the lowest level in the hierarchy
- from global to regional to national - where it can be carried
out most effectively and efficiently. The programmes considered
by Frison et al relate to breeding bananas and measures to combat
a potato blight. In both cases the programmes extended to crops
which are grown under a very wide of conditions in a large number
of countries. Both programmes incorporate a large number of techniques,
including genetic modification.
The IRRDB would appear to be on the strongest ground when (1) increasing
the incomes of those involved in rubber cultivation where this can
be show to alleviate poverty, or where rubber cultivation is introduced
to enhance existing low incomes and (2) promoting the use of a sustainable
resource. In the future, the greatest need for involvement within
such programmes will be in genetic modification. It should also
be noted that many of the IRRDB Member Institutes are involved in
research to enhance the performance of inter-cropping with food
crops. Such crops may include both marketable commodities, such
as tea, and produce for subsistence.
Consumer-related Research
Research relating to natural rubber is either categorized as being
upstream (relating to the tree, harvesting and processing prior
to marketing), or downstream relating to all stages in the manufacture
of rubber products. A small amount of mid-stream research may also
be identified: this mainly reflects the reaction of consumers to
changes in production techniques. Most of the upstream research
has been, and is being, conducted by the research institutions which
make up the IRRDB, although some is performed elsewhere. Downstream
research falls increasingly within the sphere of the consumers,
although many IRRDB Member Institutes are also active in assisting
their local rubber manufacturing industries.
For a time much effort was expended by those research associations
that had been created as a consequence of price stabilization measures
in the 1930s in Britain, France and the Netherlands. One of the
primary stated aims of these institutions was to establish "new
uses" for natural rubber in the belief that such would increase
the demand for, and price of, natural rubber. The development of
such new uses and the protection of existing major markets should
be of concern to all producers. It should be observed that GFAR
is most unlikely to wish to be involved in downstream activity.
History clearly demonstrates that it was not sufficient to take
seeds from the Amazon Basin to Asia to create a plantation industry:
this had to await the development of a market in the form of pneumatic
tyres for motor vehicles which burgeoned during the 1900s. This
led to a boom in rubber planting both on estates and on smallholdings.
Thus it is appropriate to look downstream before examining upstream
developments and needs. The major opportunities are represented
by what are usually termed "engineering applications",
although it may also be possible to recapture a portion of some
lost markets. The major threats are latex protein allergy; changes
in automotive design, and (possibly) insufficient attention being
paid to the prime truck tyre market which dominates natural rubber
uptake.
Jewel in the Crown
The phrase "jewel in the crown" is probably losing its
glitter: nevertheless, the seismic protection of buildings must
be the natural rubber industry's "jewel", and like most
gems the market for this is coveted by other polymer producers who
are working to make an entrée into what to them appears to
be a promising outlet. In spite of earthquakes in many countries,
including some which remained headline news outside the countries
concerned for several days, the impact of the base isolation technique,
which exploits natural rubber bearings, remains extremely modest.
Demonstration buildings in California and Indonesia and other installations
have shown that the technique is capable of protecting both the
structures, and their occupants and contents. Nevertheless, again
and again the television viewer is presented with the pathetic sight
of ill-equipped rescue workers attempting to drag possible survivors
from collapsed "modern buildings".
The Malaysian Rubber Board and its predecessors, with some assistance
from international financing, worked extremely hard to show the
viability of the base isolation concept and this has been recognized
through the receipt of the Prince Philip Award. To a great extent,
as is so often, the real problem is one of finance.
In the United Kingdom there was "great concern" by the
residents of houses near to the route of the high speed rail link
to the Channel Tunnel: these people demanded large financial compensation
for the damage inflicted upon their property values from noise and
vibration. At the same time many builders were, and still are, erecting
dwellings extremely close to existing high speed railway lines and
selling them without difficulty. Inevitably, as it is possible to
sell such dwellings, these are not protected by rubber bearings
which could improve the quality of life in such buildings. Similar
financial constraints apply in most earthquake-prone countries.
It appears to be cheaper to do nothing, but when the big one comes,
its effects may be sufficiently severe to disrupt a nation's economy,
as was almost certainly the case following the Kobe earthquake in
Japan.
Latex protein allergy
It could be argued that latex protein allergy is a mid-stream issue.
In one sense, the source of the problem lies with the end users
who react to the proteins in the latex products. In another sense,
Hevea brasiliensis is the source of the proteins, most of which
can be eliminated or diminished to "acceptable" levels
by careful processing. Natural alternatives (guayule or ficus elastica)
may provide another way around the problem. The Indonesian Rubber
Research Institute has been investigating ficus as a potential source.
It is probable that most of the synthetic alternatives will create
oth
< Back to top >
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
