Income Diversification for Rubber Farmers Through Agroforestry Practices

Abstract

This study was conducted in the framework of the ANR/Heveadapt project1, in Southern Thailand (Phatthalung province), to analyze how smallholder tree plantations can adapt and survive in the face of profound changes in their socio-economic context. The study focuses on rubber-based agroforestry systems in mature plantations to understand the extent to which respectively rubber, associated crops, trees, livestock, and off-farm activities contribute to income stability and farm resilience. Socio-economic performances were evaluated at two scales: the cropping system and the farming system using farming system modelling with the Olympe software. The characterization of the farm’s economic structure sheds light on two main strategies used by farmers to maintain their income despite volatile rubber prices. The best agroforestry systems, both in terms of land and labor valorization, associate rubber trees with fruit and timber trees. Farmers also take on off-farm activities to complement their family income. Finally, prospective modeling showed that most farms were robust to rubber price volatility due to the flexibility of their agroforestry systems. Farmers with no agroforestry system were weakened by their over-reliance on rubber trees.

Rubber agroforestry in Thailand provides some biodiversity benefits without reducing yields

“…Many factors affect the sustainability of agroforestry for farmers aside from rubber yields: shade‐grown crops yield less than unshaded, and labour constraints can make additional crop cultivation unfeasible (Clough et al, ; Langenberger et al, ). However, in southern Thailand, simply structured high‐yielding agroforestry not only improves incomes relative to monocultures, but also provides a social function by generating fruit crops to share within communities, and can provide as good or better return for labour (Romyen et al, ; Stroesser et al, ). Moreover, farmers with smaller plots were more likely to practice agroforestry, suggesting it provides additional benefits for poorer farmers (Romyen et al, ).…”

“…Rubber yield estimates were collected in 2016, via questionnaires with farmers, for a separate set of 47 agroforest and 34 monocultural rubber plots in Phattalung province with considerable spatial overlap to the ‘biodiversity dataset’ (Figure ). These data were collected as part of a wider study of farmer livelihoods and rubber agroforestry, which also included data on agroforestry species composition, and is termed the ‘yield dataset’ (full methods in Stroesser et al, ). Annual rubber yields were either reported for latex (coagulated, reported as dry weight) or as ‘cup‐lump’ values per plot (converted to dry weight assuming dry rubber content of 65%) to give yields in t ha −1 year −1 .…”

“…Over 85% of Thai rubber is now grown monoculturally using clonal planting material at standard planting densities (Simien & Penot, ). However, <15% is grown in agroforests: most commonly in relatively intensive systems combining modern rubber cultivation methods with additional crops (Simien & Penot, ; Stroesser, Penot, Michel, Tongkaemkaew, & Chambon, ), rather than jungle‐type systems. In response to price fluctuations, incentives have recently shifted towards rubber conversion to fruit or oil palm, and a policy promoting diversification through rubber agroforestry was approved in 2014 (ORRAF, ; Stroesser et al, ).…”

“…However, <15% is grown in agroforests: most commonly in relatively intensive systems combining modern rubber cultivation methods with additional crops (Simien & Penot, ; Stroesser, Penot, Michel, Tongkaemkaew, & Chambon, ), rather than jungle‐type systems. In response to price fluctuations, incentives have recently shifted towards rubber conversion to fruit or oil palm, and a policy promoting diversification through rubber agroforestry was approved in 2014 (ORRAF, ; Stroesser et al, ). However, rubber remains the dominant choice for smallholders in southern Thailand due to the well‐established supply chain and local processing facilities, while further north, conversion to oil palm will be restricted by its intolerance of long dry seasons and cold (Warren‐Thomas et al, ).…”

“…Although we are not aware of any biodiversity‐specific policies relating to rubber agroforestry, farmer motivations to undertake agroforestry include: receiving intercropping planting material from RAOT, anticipation of increased incomes and awareness of environmental benefits for soils, water and climate (Romyen et al, ). Rubber remains the main cash crop in such systems (Stroesser et al, ). To our knowledge, no study has assessed the biodiversity value of intensive rubber agroforests relative to monocultures, while research assessing measures to improve biodiversity in rubber monocultures is also scarce.…”