HOW TO BRIDGE THE PADDY-RICE DATA GAP AND WHAT NEXT?

by A. Bedgar Perera

The timely and usually well written middle page article in the Sunday Island of January 19 by Rajan Philips titled ” Paddy-Rice Data Gap: How much grown? How much sold?” caught my attention. The “rice price ” is a hot topic these days and, having retired from the Dept. of Agriculture after a long career, I have some familiarity with the subject. Also, I noted that the writer wanted “to provoke some discussion, if not action”.

So here I am burning the midnight oil, trying to provide some relevant information on the issue at hand based on the little I know arising from my work experience, plus what I continuously gather due to my thirst for knowledge.

The quantitative production data on rice which the writer seems to have painstakingly sourced and provided in an easily comprehensible manner are about the best that is formally available at present. For purposes of discussion, I wish to make two points about these statistics, even though they are the best available.

· It is well known that substantial quantities of rice grown in Sri Lanka is now being used for the following industries, but quantitative information is not collected by the Department of Census & Statistics or any other state organization compiling rice production numbers. Hence these do not get into the formal usage information on rice. Users of rice (other than what’s consumed by humans) are the animal feed industry, and biscuit, rice, noodles and beer manufacturers. It is important that quantitative information on rice used for these activities be ascertained regularly in order to bridge part of the data gap.

· In addition to lack of data on market information regarding paddy/ rice specified by Rajan Philips, there is also no formal system in place to regularly gather information on paddy/rice stocks held by at least the major rice millers who have large storage facilities enabling intensive purchasing during the peak harvesting season.

Given the fact of the foregoing lack of data, we can discuss the least cost way, if any, of accessing the required information without heavy incremental costs. There should be a way out given that those state organizations (other than the Department of Census and Statistics) that are involved in relevant data gathering, are already staffed and functioning funded by the Government budget. Their allotted formal functions include data collection. They are Food Commissioner’s Department (rice as the staple food), Paddy Marketing Board, Consumer Protection Authority, Department of Animal Production and Health (on the use of rice as animal feed) and the Industrial Development Board (other industrial uses of rice like .biscuits, beer etc.)

The Food Department is legally mandated to collect all relevant data on rice. As Rajan Philips has pointed out, the Paddy Marketing Board is empowered by the Paddy Marketing Board Act to undertake the same function. The Consumer Protection Authority too has a role. The government could decide which of these organizations will source this vital information and give appropriate directions to ensure availability of data regarding how much rice is needed for human consumption.

The Department of Animal Production and Health can easily access the information regarding how much rice is used in the animal feed industry (which is substantial and linked to the price of maize which is the main ingredient in animal feed), through its network of field officials. Information on the use of rice in the manufacture of beer and also biscuits, which is growing, could be sourced by the Industrial Development Board or any other relevant state organization to be identified by the Ministry of Industries. This should facilitate accessing the missing information on rice usage for indirect consumption referred to above.

Getting back to Philips’ article with regard to “commonly marketed nadu, red, samba and keeri samba rice varieties,” let me add a clarifying note. Currently, the rice trade lumps all long and medium grain rice varieties like nadu, round grain rice varieties like samba, varieties with red colored grains and a third category as keeri samba. Actually these are trade names and not varietal names. Keeri samba of course is a name coined by the farmers/rice trade for a specific rice variety named BG (Batalagoda) 360, which has short round grains and is gluten free and hence not sticky.

In the process of the aforesaid lumping, the variety specific qualitative characteristics have no place and end users are not aware of them as differentiation is only based on the physical appearance of the rice grain. This results in a situation where though 93 developed paddy varieties are available, some end users do not even know about the existence of specific varieties which in fact suit their needs. The farmer of course is always aware of what rice variety he is growing.

I thought of including the above issue here for discussion, because of its relevance to variety specific rice production data also frequently called for by the policy makers as well as the general rice industry and the trade. This is currently evident when there is lot of talk about the shortage of red raw milled rice.

In Thailand and Philippines rice varietal names are used as brand names. It avoids confusion and the consumers who are made aware of the grain qualities of different rice varieties can choose exactly what they want as the camouflaging that occurs by bulking rice based only on grain shape and colour, does not occur. Branding using the name of the rice variety is successfully adopted by the rice trade in those countries. One can ask “why not here?”.

Let us now consider how all relevant production and marketing data once sourced in the best possible manner, given the limitations, could be effectively used for government policy making. Even though we live in changing times, it could be beneficial to look back on success stories in policy mechanisms adopted in the past even under less progressive administrations.

Back in the 1990s – early 2000s, there was a National Food Security Committee (NFSC), chaired by the Cabinet Secretary which used to meet weekly every Friday afternoon. Key officials responsible for data from the following Ministries/Departments/Institutions attended: .Ministries of Food, Agriculture, Fisheries, Livestock, Finance, Food Commissioner’s Dept., Department of Census and Statistics, Customs, Agrarian Research and Training Institute, Paddy Marketing Board and Cooperative Wholesale Establishment.

All relevant statistical information requested by the Cabinet Secretary in light of discussions the previous week had to be shared by the relevant institutions. Based on this, a note was submitted by him for discussion at the following meeting of the Cabinet. To cut a long story short, as an officer who represented the Ministry of Agriculture at the aforesaid NFSC over a number of years, I am personally aware that the regular evidence based reviews made at the NFSC using the data provided by the relevant officials, paved the way for informed decisions on various policy issues that came up for discussion regularly. This could be regarding imports of rice and other food commodities or any other issues of relevance like import duty adjustments etc.

Later on, the NFSC which was re-designated as the National Cost of Living Committee was convened weekly in the Ministry of Trade under the chairmanship of the Secretary, Ministry of Trade and it successfully continued to fulfill the same functions.

The foregoing is not to say that everything was hunky dory at that time given the fact that there would have been lapses on the part of the Governments that were in power. But the fact remains that the NFSC in particular was a successful policy mechanism that helped the Government to make informed decisions. I am not aware of similar policy mechanisms used at present. While there is no need to duplicate mechanisms adopted in the past, the current administration will do well if appropriate regular reviews along with feedback from responsible officials from key institutions are conducted. This could facilitate informed and reliable evidence based decisions.

Given the fact that left leaning politicians of repute in Sri Lanka were known to look for details and make decisions supported by facts, let us hope for the best from a leftist Government with a big majority. Haphazard decisions would prove costly to the country.

(The writer is a Retired Director/Agric.Development, Ministry of Agriculture)

email <bedgarperera@gmail.com>