Ratatouille

Let me first give you an update on the situation in Rwanda. The government had imposed an export ban on raw hides and skins in order to promote value adding. The intention was that the country would benefit from its natural resources and increase its income through foreign exchange. The local tannery lobbied for this measure with the assurance that it would be able to transform straight away all Rwandan hides and skins into wet-blue, then crust and finished leather. Reality is that in 2005 Rwanda earned about $5.5 million in foreign exchange from its export of raw hides and skins. This figure dropped in 2006 to $1.5 million, thanks to the export ban, and slightly increased to $2.5 million in 2007, still less than 50% of what was achieved before. Some quantities of hides were converted into wet-blue in 2006. However, in 2007 no hides were processed because the tannery was unable to find clients, partly due to quality problems and partly due to the Chinese competition in Uganda. The bottom line is that presently 100% of Rwanda wet-salted hides are now smuggled out of the country because official exports are not allowed and what has proven to be an erroneous policy is not revoked. This deprives the country of a cool $1.5 million of hard currency. The ministry that issued the export ban is aware of this but is unable or unwilling to address the problem in an efficient and conclusive way. One thing is sure, some people who were behind the export ban are making a tax-free fortune out of this situation. Assomac of Italy is now lobbying in Rwanda for the development of a new tannery. The Rwandans are reported to put great hopes in them, considering that their own tannery has been performing so badly. But why should Rwanda get a new tannery (financed probably by the EU or the Italian government with taxpayers' money) when the existing tannery has a production capacity that matches the country's total production of raw hides and skins but lacks an efficient effluent treatment plant? Wouldn't it be more effective to finance an ETP rather than a white elephant? I always write about things that I don't agree with. This time I would like to write about things I do agree with and, in particular, with articles published in Leather International recently, both by very knowledgeable friends, Jakov Buljan and Ron Sauer. The benchmarking paper of Mr Buljan smoothly intertwines with an earlier Limeblast, though written after his presentation, that dealt with quality consistency. Although few tanneries in developing countries recognize that quality consistency is very important and even crucial, it is THE benchmark for successful marketing and profitability. Setting a benchmark for quality consistency  and trying to live up to it automatically assists in setting other benchmarks. Although Jakov has not said so in so many words, a benchmark in a tannery is not a stand alone parameter but part of a number of other parameters or benchmarks. Benchmarks can, however, differ from one tannery to another and are as much subjective as objective. Let me explain how I see this. The subjective quality benchmark of a tannery in East Africa is different from that of a tannery in Europe. The quality of the local raw materials is different. On a quality scale the benchmark in Africa stands at ‘x', whereas the quality scale of the European tannery stands at ‘y'. The objective benchmark is that both tanneries, the one in Africa as well as the one in Europe must reach the best possible consistent quality possible with the raw  materials they have at their disposal. Once tanneries in developing countries and elsewhere understand that benchmarking is to their advantage, they would then see a huge increase in their profits and a huge decrease in their losses. Benchmarking also means being critical, knowing you don't always do it right, and that you are short of your own standards. Being able to understand that, is a huge step forward on the road to good quality leather and increased profitability. Having your tannery audited for its efficiency doesn't come cheap and small tanneries will balk at the cost, presuming that auditing and benchmarking are a luxury rather than a necessity. Specialised companies such as Systemhaus have very sophisticated programmes, eg ‘Antara', that help tanneries to audit their performance. After an audit, benchmarks are set right from the purchase of the raw materials, throughout the tanning process up to the moment that a buyer pays his invoice for finished leathers. By introducing benchmarking, a tannery knows at each and every second of each day its performance in terms of quality and finance. Benchmarking is not something you set up today and that's it. You need to update and upgrade continuously. For that tanneries will have to have a continuing relationship with the supplier of the software and hence benchmarking also has, apart from the cost of the initial audit and purchase of a computer programme, a maintenance cost. However this cost is worthwhile when one looks at the end of the year at the bottom line. Jakov, thanks for your expertise and insight. Ron Sauer made a presentation at the IILF in Chennai and I fully agree with him. He said amongst a lot of other things, that the consumer actually cares about only three things: price, fashion and functionality. Whether an article is made of leather or not is irrelevant. He did, however, forget to mention that the consumer, on top of that, knows zip about leather. Our professional knowledge enables us to identify full aniline uncorrected glazed leather but we don't always realise that the consumer has no way of distinguishing between full aniline, semi-aniline or pigmented leather. Remember the e900 Valentino bag at Rome Airport made of split? The consumer is unable to distinguish between leather and plastic, let alone made from goat, buffalo or chicken. All they care about is that ‘it looks nice' and that it has the right seasonal colour and that the heel is of the right height, or that the bag is of the right size for the season. And, of course, that it's the right price. Whether a handbag is made of printed cow or real croc or ostrich, makes little or no difference, unless you go into communities where prestige and branding and not price is the deciding factor. Last but not least I'd like to react to Amanda Michel's article about ‘butcher strain' resulting from machine pulling of hides and skins. The subject is very important, and one would wish that it is also read by butchers rather than only by tanners. I believe that butcher strain is not a major problem in terms of occurrence. Hides are normally always opened and hand flayed at the bellies in order to avoid the pectoral muscles and fat of the carcase remaining on the hide rather than on the carcase during pulling.  Furthermore during the mechanical pulling of hides, flayers assist, or should assist, the action by hand or with Jarvis knives, again to avoid meat and fat remaining on the hide rather than on the carcase. The pulling speed is indeed crucial. The faster you pull, the more meat and fat remains on the carcase and the more power you need. Then you are more exposed to butcher strain. When the pulling is done slowly, knife assistance is easier and more effective. Less power is needed and hence there is less risk of butcher's strain. Sam Setter samsetter@limeblast.org