Abstract
The rubber agroforestry experiments in Jambi started with the theory of change that productive clonal rubber could be economically used in low-labour intensity rubber agroforests, allowing selective retention of forest species or planted fruit trees in interrows. At the end of what was expected to be a 25-year production cycle we revisited the farmers (or their next generation), recorded what had happened to the plot and registered farmer plans for a way forward. Qualitatively, the results showed a wide range of directions of actual change. The envisaged plots, with full-grown tapped rubber in a secondary forest setting did occur – but as exception rather than rule. Some plots had early on been converted to oil palm when white root rot disease killed many of the rubber trees. Others were in a gradual transition to oil palm, already interplanted, or depended on natural regeneration of rubber within the plot for the trees currently being tapped. Some plots had been completely destroyed as the land was sold to a local coal-mine developer. Overall tapping frequency was low, as farmgate rubber prices have in recent years been low and farmers had other options (including participating in small-scale gold mining). Farmer experience with the various clones tested led to mixed opinions on which (if any) of the clones introduced were superior to what farmers used in the past (and what still regenerates in the landscape). GT1, a robust clone, was seen as hardly more productive as local germplasm, the PB260 and BPM1 clone were productive, but especially PB260 clone sensitive to white root rot disease. The quality of rubber wood was a concern for some farmers. The most successful intervention, from farmers’ as well as environmental perspective, has probably been the interplanting of meranti (Shorea leprosula) or tembesu (Fagraea fragrans) trees in young rubber stands, with good prospects for generating substantial income.
Highlights
Para rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) was introduced into Jambi in equatorial Sumatra in 1904, with seed supply supported by downstream traders who had a captive market as all transport of goods and people at that time was based on the Batanghari river and Jambi city controlled trade at the outflow (Martini et al 2010)
Experiments on intensifying rubber agroforestry started in Jambi on 1995, with the ‘theory of change’ that productive clonal rubber could be economically used in low-labour intensity rubber agroforests, allowing selective retention of forest species or planted fruit trees in interrows (Penot, 2004; Joshi et al 2002)
Clonal rubber planting supported by the SRAS (Smallholder Rubber Agroforestry System) project of CIRAD/GAPKINDO/ICRAF and the Indonesian ASB (Alternative Slash and Burn) partnership for the tropical forest margins started in December 1995, in collaboration with rubber farmers in the villages Muara Buat, Rantau Pandan, and Sepunggur in Bungo District; and Aur Duri and Pulau Temiang in Tebo District in Jambi Province
Summary
Para rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) was introduced into Jambi in equatorial Sumatra in 1904, with seed supply supported by downstream traders who had a captive market as all transport of goods and people at that time was based on the Batanghari river and Jambi city controlled trade at the outflow (Martini et al 2010). Jambi province has a coastal zone with peatlands that became the last frontier of settlements in the 1990’s, a lowland peneplain of acid upland soils of moderate fertility after the forest was gone, a foothill zone to the Bukit Barisan range with better soils, and the mountain range (van Noordwijk et al 1998). Rubber was planted in the lowland peneplain and foothills between food crops such as rice and vegetables and was allowed to grow into a fallow vegetation with spontaneously established forest trees, until the trees could be tapped and part of the vegetation was cleared for ease of access. Experiments on intensifying rubber agroforestry started in Jambi on 1995, with the ‘theory of change’ that productive clonal rubber could be economically used in low-labour intensity rubber agroforests, allowing selective retention of forest species or planted fruit trees in interrows (Penot, 2004; Joshi et al 2002). At the end of what was expected to be a 25 -year production cycle we revisited the farmers (or their generation), recorded what had happened to the plot and registered farmer plans for a way forward
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
