dot dot
dot
เพิ่มเราเป็นเพื่อนในไลน์ เพื่อติดต่อ-สอบถาม
dot
dot
ไม้อัด/MDF/Particle Board
dot
bulletเช็คราคาไม้อัด
bulletเลือกซื้อไม้อัดเกรดไหนดี?
bulletไม้อัด/MDF/Particle Board
dot
ไม้แปรรูป Timber
dot
bulletไม้แปรรูปที่เรามีจำหน่าย
bulletTimberX CCA Treated Wood
bulletRubberwood AB
bulletRubberwood C
bulletไม้แปรรูปอื่นๆ Other Species
dot
พาเลท IPPC
dot
bulletพาเลท ชนิด Four Way
bulletพาเลท ชนิด two way
dot
พาเลทStandard Pallet
dot
bulletพาเลท IPPC Pallet
bulletพาเลท LOSCAM
bulletเกี่ยวกับ EURO Pallet
bulletพาเลทสำหรับCONTAINER
dot
นานาสาระArticle
dot
bulletการเลือกใช้ไม้ชนิดต่างๆให้เหมาะกับประโยชน์การงาน
bulletลิงค์เกี่ยวกับไม้ Hot Links
bulletผลิตภัณฑ์กลุ่มวัสดุแผ่น
bulletการตกแต่งผนังโดยไม้อัดสัก Italy
bulletSoftwood & Hardwood
bulletตารางแสดงค่ากลสมบัติของไม้ชนิดต่างๆ
bulletตารางการหดตัวของไม้ชนิดต่างๆ Wood Shrinkage Table
bulletPlain Sawn or Quarter Sawn ?
bulletการติดตั้งพื้นไม้ Decking
bulletข้อกำหนดไม้เนื้ออ่อนไม้เนื้อแข็ง
bulletวิธีการเลือกซื้อเฟอร์นิเจอร์ไม้
bulletผลิตภัณฑ์ไม้กับความชื้น
bulletวิธีการเลือกซื้อพื้นไม้
bulletทางเลือกในการซื้อพื้นไม้
bulletการป้องกันและรักษาเนื้อไม้
bulletความรู้เกี่ยวกับไม้สัก
bulletFSC และการรับรองทางป่าไม้ (Forest Certification)
bulletWood to the rescue
bulletAbout Rubberwood
bulletRubberwood 1,2
bulletRubberwood 3
bulletRubberwood 4 - Utilization
bulletRubberwood 5, 6
bulletข้อมูลเศรษฐกิจไม้ยางพารา
bulletอุตสาหกรรมไม้ยางพารา
bulletไม้ยางพาราในประเทศไทย
bulletคุณรู้จัก IPPC หรือยัง?
bulletกฎใหม่ลังไม้ไปนอก
bulletIPPC- ISPM 15 by country April 2006
bulletผู้ผลิตบรรจุภัณฑ์ไม้ ISPM15
bulletประเภทของป่าไม้ในประเทศไทย
bulletThailand’s forests and the forestry sector
bulletสถิติการป่าไม้ของประเทศไทย 2545-2549
bulletอุตสาหกรรมแปรรูปไม้ยางพารา
bulletการใช้ประโยชน์จากไม้ยางพาราในปัจจุบัน
bulletมารู้จักศัพท์ทางด้านการบรรจุภัณฑ์ดีกว่า
bulletHeat treated หรือ Methyl Bromideเลือกแบบไหนดี?
bulletการใช้ไม้เพื่อการหีบห่อ
bulletลังไม้และกล่องไม้
bulletEPAL Pallet System
bulletPallets in a container, on a truck or wagon
bulletLike Box




Rubberwood 3- Resources Availability article
3. RESOURCE AVAILABILITY

3.1 Rubber plantations

Today, rubber plantations are found in several countries in the tropics, from its native habitat in the Amazon Basin to Guatemala and Mexico in the Americas; Nigeria, Liberia, Cameroon and Côte d'Ivoire in West Africa; and continental and insular Southeast Asia and the Indian sub-continent, where they are significant (see Table 3).

In Southeast Asia, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand rank first among the world's rubber cultivators and rubberwood producers. According to various estimates, they contain more than 90% of the world total (Table 3). Other countries in Asia with relatively minor rubber plantations are China, Vietnam, India, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Myanmar and Cambodia. In comparison, rubber plantations outside Asia are insignificant, including in its native homeland, the Amazon Basin. A growing trend is observed in Africa, however, particularly in Côte d'Ivoire.

Table 3 Rubber plantation area of major producing countries in 1999

Geographical region

Area (`000 ha)

Share of world total (%)

Indonesia*

2,269

31.6

Malaysia**

1,420

19.8

Thailand***

1,555

21.6

China****

390

 

Vietnam

380

 

India*****

374

 

Sri Lanka

158

 

Philippines

98

 

Myanmar

48

 

Cambodia

39

 

Asia

6731

93.7

Liberia

28

 

Nigeria

225

 

Cameroon

53

 

Côte d'Ivoire

60

 

Africa

366

5.1

Guatemala

27

 

Brazil

59

 

Americas

86

1.2

World******

7,183

100

*Elsewhere, Indonesia's plantation area is estimated at 3.5 million ha (Indonesian Rubber Association); the Association of Natural Rubber Producing Countries (ANRPC) reported a figure of 3.399 million ha for 1998; Indufor in 1993 estimated Indonesia's rubber plantation area at 3.04 million ha.

**Malaysia's plantation area has been reported as low as 1.1 million ha (Bangkok Post, March 27, 2000).

***Thailand's 1996-97 plantation areas was estimated as high as 1.965 million ha (Thai Rubber Research Institute, quoted in Promdej, 1997).

****China's 1992 rubber tree plantation area was estimated at 616,000 ha, which would mean a 36 percent decrease over 7 years to the current 390,000 ha reported by FAO.

*****India's 1996-97 plantation area was elsewhere estimated between 533,000 ha (Mathew, 1998) and 597,000 ha (ITTO, 1998).

******The less conservative estimates reported in these footnotes would bring the world total to roughly 9 million ha.

Source: FAO, 1999.

Until the late 1980's, Malaysia was the world leader in rubber plantations. Although a number of related factors have since relegated Malaysia to third place, the country remains an important producer of rubber and leader in rubberwood and trade (see Table 4).

Table 4 Rubberwood production trend in the three top countries

Year

Indonesia

Malaysia

Thailand

 

(`000 ha)

(% share)

(`000 ha)

(% share)

(`000 ha)

(% share)

1981

1564

35

1620

36

1269

28

1991

1878

38

1610

33

1420

29

1999

2269

43

1420

27

1555

30

Source: Killmann and Hong, 2000

Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the trends in rubber plantation harvesting in Asia-Pacific producer countries during the 1990s. Note that the alternative figures indicated in the footnote of Table 3 would lead to somewhat different figures (assuming that the figures FAO reports refer in fact to total plantation areas). The main variation would be a less pronounced increase in Indonesia, a quicker expansion in Thailand and a more accelerated decline in Malaysia. India and China would have larger areas today, but the trend would be unclear.

The following sections provide a more detailed overview of rubber plantations in some of the Asia-Pacific region's leading producer countries.

Figure 3 Rubber plantation harvesting in major Asia-Pacific producer countries in 1990-1999

Source: FAOSTAT.

Figure 4 Rubber plantation harvesting in minor Asia-Pacific producer countries in 1990-1999

Source: FAOSTAT.

3.1.1 Indonesia

The overwhelming majority of Indonesia's rubber plantations are located in Sumatra and Kalimantan (Indonesian side of Borneo), but land cover under rubber is expanding rapidly on other islands as well. Sumatra accounts for about 40 percent of Indonesia's annual rubber output of about 1.5 million tonnes (Reuters, July 7, 2000). Natural rubber is one of the more important commodities in Indonesia, a source of both foreign exchange and cash income for more than twelve million people who depend on the rubber industry for their livelihood, including an estimated 1.3 million farming households which rely directly on rubber production. Since rubber planters in Indonesia are predominately smallholders (84 percent), the quality and quantity of Indonesian rubberwood depends mainly on their production conditions.

Smallholder rubber production systems in Indonesia exist within a wide range of management intensities. Only about 15 percent the smallholder rubber farmers have been reached by development projects and they have adopted estate plantation systems with high input/output characteristics. Monocultural plantations with clonally propagated germplasm of high latex productivity are a norm in these areas. However, the majority of the area is (still) under a `jungle rubber' agroforestry system comprised of mixtures of rubber with native tree flora at varying densities. Nearly all shifting cultivation in Sumatra's peneplains has been replaced by rubber-based agroforestry, which now constitutes the predominant land use system (Budiman et al., 1994).

Average smallholder rubber production is very low, primarily because most farmers use traditional technology, unselected seedlings, no soil conservation, low fertilizer input, low plant maintenance, high planting density (more than 500 trees/ha) and over-tapping; and because of the low fertility of the red-yellow podzolic (ultisol) land used for rubber development. No information on replanting, whether on estates or on smallholdings has been found.

The Asian financial crisis has had a significant impact on Indonesia's rubber industry. On the one hand, falling rubber prices have forced many tappers to increase tapping frequency, sometimes to twice a day, to obtain more latex, which temporarily increases production but damages the plantation in the long-run. On the other hand, many tappers have looked for jobs elsewhere or switched to oil palm, leading to supply shortages in North Sumatra (where violence compounds the current difficulties), South Sumatra and Jambi.

Furthermore, reported escalations in plantation looting have led to soaring production costs as operators have had to hire armed security guards (Reuters, July 7, 2000). By some estimates, looting in 1999 affected some two million ha of private and state-owned oil palm, rubber and coffee plantations, causing losses totaling billions of rupiah and threatening investment and privatisation plans (Nirang, 2000). This problem is exacerbated by land disputes in which plantation companies have been accused of failing to pay compensation for properties that villagers claim belonged to their ancestors. As Indonesia moves to a more open political climate following the ousting of the Soeharto regime in May 1998, demands have grown for compensating past seizures of land by plantation and mining companies.

3.1.2 Malaysia

In contrast to Indonesia, Malaysia's rubber plantation area has decreased throughout the 1990s. At the beginning of the decade, the country had about 1.84 million ha of rubber plantations of which 1.5 million ha were in Peninsular Malaysia (mostly Kedah, Johor, Malacca and Negeri Sembilan), 208,000 ha in Sarawak and 80,000 ha in Sabah. According to FAO, the area declined to 1.42 million ha in 1999 (see Table 5). In March 2000, Malaysia's Minister of Primary Industries voiced a more conservative estimate when he announced that land use for rubber plantations had dropped to 1.1 million hectares (Bangkok Post, March 27, 2000). At the same time, however, the economic importance of rubberwood products, particularly furniture and furniture parts, has increased tremendously.

This decline occurred despite the country's awareness of the socio-economic role of rubber and rubberwood and the latter's environmental importance. In fact Malaysia continues its efforts in rubber research and development and considers the decrease in rubber production more critical than ever, given the global appeal of rubberwood products, particularly furniture. Factors that led to the decreasing acreage of the rubber plantations include labor shortage and conversion to other crops, particularly oil palm.

Prior to the 1997 economic crisis, Malaysia shared the strong economic growth that occurred in the ASEAN region as whole. This not only acted as a "push" factor for rural-urban migration, but also increased job opportunities in other sectors. Rural-urban migration and the increased standard of living contributed to the reduction of the labor potential that would have been available to undertake rubber plantations. As shown in Table 5, Malaysia's rubber plantation areas decreased by 20 percent in the period between 1990 to 1999. The relative decreases for estates and smallholdings were 45 and 14 percent, respectively.

Table 5 Trend in Malaysia's rubber plantations 1990-1999

Year

Estates

(`000 ha)

Smallholdings

(`000 ha)

Total

(`000 ha)

1990

348.75

1,487.96

1,836.71

1991

333.41

1,485.33

1,818.74

1992

314.13

1,478.22

1,792.35

1993

292.52

1,470.00

1,762.52

1994

274.98

1,462.90

1,737.88

1995

255.69

1,433.11

1,688.80

1996

223.95

1,420.43

1,644.38

1997*

200.70

1,415.80

1,616.50

1998*

183.01

1,372.68

1,555.69

1999*

191.60

1,273.20

1,464.80

*Preliminary estimates. Source: Malaysian Timber Council, 1998

With rubberwood furniture and panels becoming significant export commodities, the government has made an effort to maintain rubber replanting. During the mid-1990s, replanting rates ranged from 30,000-40,000 ha per year, although with a decreasing trend. In 1996 the Rubber Industry Smallholder Development Association (RISDA) also began to promote higher productivity levels with its "Minus One Plus Two" concept, whereby replanting densities were to be increased to 800 from the usual 400-450 per hectare (Malaysian Timber Bulletin, 1996). However, in 1999 RISDA reported that only 7,500 ha had been replanted in 1998, down from 11,500 ha in 1997 (Ghazali, 1999). In 1999, the Minister of Primary Industries announced a target of annual replanting with latex timber clones (LTCs; harvestable in 12-15 years) of 30,000 ha.

The need to draw up a definite replanting policy for the smallholder sector has repeatedly been highlighted. Difficulties in replanting are said to be worsened by the prevalence of small-sized plots and affected by the drop in replanting funds, the diversion of part of these funds for replanting with oil palm and the removal of government top-up resources. There is also a consensus among domestic critics that the implementing agency selected to administer replanting funds should be one that is fully committed to the future of rubber and accepts the principle that it should be the anchor crop. Some also want the rubber industry to be under the purview of just one ministry and not be spread over three different ministries as is the case now.

Figure 5 shows the age distribution of estate and smallholder rubber plantations in Malaysia. Of particular importance in the context of rubberwood is the variability of replanting and new planting, since this will translate into variable availability at maturity (see Section 5). The Figure also confirms the declining trend in replanting and/or new replanting. While the early 1990s experienced levels around 50,000 ha, information quoted above has seen levels during the late 1990s as low as 7,500 ha, casting doubt on whether the government's ambitious plans can be realized.

Figure 5 Age distribution of rubber plantations in Peninsular Malaysia in 1993

Source: FELDA, FELCRA, RISDA and Department of Statistics, quoted in Ismariah & Norini (1994).

3.1.3 Thailand

Rubber was introduced in Thailand as an exotic in 1911 from Malaysia. In 1996-97, about 1.965 million ha of rubber plantations were estimated to be in existence, with 0.105 million ha or 5.3 percent on estates and 1.86 million ha or 94.7 percent in smallholdings. The average size of the approximately 820,000 small production units is 2.4 hectares (Thai Rubber Research Institute, quoted in Promdej, 1997). However, Asian Timber in 1996 argues that the actual area is by 320,000-480,000 ha larger because there are unrecorded plantations on illegally cleared forest areas. Geographically, 1.705 million ha in the southern peninsula, 0.191 million ha in the southeast, and 0.069 million ha in the Northeast. The average annual rubber plantation area which has been felled and replanted through the Organization of Rubber Replanting Aid Fund Board (ORRAF) is 36,065 ha per annum.

Natural rubber production and plantation areas have been increasing substantially, assisted by an accelerated rubber replanting subsidy scheme introduced in the late 1970s. At present, however, rubber production in the southern peninsula and southeast of the country is considered almost saturated, evidenced by diversification into other crops due to labor shortages or loss of income (Tables 15). It has even been argued that rubberwood production may become more economic than latex production in the near future in Thailand (Paechana & Sinthurahat, 1997).

On the other hand, the country's northeast has the potential to become a new base for rubber production as land and labor are still plentiful. Changes in the production base and system from the Southern peninsula to the Northeast are already planned and work on improving planting materials for both economically high yield of latex and volume of timber is being accelerated. Aside from mitigating the saturation in traditional planting areas, this shift to the northeast also aims at strengthening rubber farmers' livelihood security; providing employment and thereby avoiding rural-urban migration to Bangkok and other large cities; and improving the environment (Promdej, 1997).

Table 6 New planting and replanting of rubber in Thailand in 1992-1996

Year

New Planting

(`000 ha)

Replanting

(`000 ha)

Total

(`000 ha)

1992

7.65

35.88

43.53

1993

7.64

39.47

47.11

1994

8.53

38.40

46.93

1995

11.76

29.33

41.09

1996

7.61

35.73

43.34

Total

43.10

178.81

222.00

Average

35.76

44.40

Source: Promdej (1997).

An example of the government's efforts to improve the living standards of rubber farmers and mitigate environmental impacts, not only in the Northeast, is the Rubber Intercropping Research Project set up by the Rubber Replanting Fund. Under this project, replanting loans are granted even when intercropping is practised. Intercrops include longgong, mangosteen, neem, satow, bamboo, jampada, riang, durian. So far, the lessons learned from diversifying rubbertree-based agroforestry systems include that agroforestry techniques are more labour intensive and therefore face difficulties in family-run plantations (Juriprik, 1996).

In spite (or as a result) of the tenuous situation in which many of Thailand's rubber farmers operate, smallholders are reported to be "reasonably well organized" (Indufor, 1993). Furthermore, rubber plantations are reported to be well managed and the potential for rubberwood production to be increasing. Tables 6 and 10 (see below) show that combined replanting and new plantings have averaged above 42,000 ha during the period 1990-1996. Compared to other Asian producers, these figures also reveal an above-average rubberwood yield of 207 m3 per ha.

3.1.4 India

Whereas most of the major rubber producing countries, except China, experience moderate and well distributed rainfall, the rubber growing regions of India are characterized by excessive and highly seasonal rainfall. This produces a longer gestation period, loss of tapping days, fungal diseases and escalating cultivation and production costs. In addition, labor productivity is considered lower than in the major producing nations. In Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia, Indian rubber executives point out, higher labor output coupled with more assistance from the government have kept the cost of production at lower levels (Nair, 1999).

In 1996-97, India's rubber plantation area was estimated at between 533,000 ha (Mathew, 1998) and 597,000 ha (ITTO, 1998), with 95 percent located in the state of Kerala. Out of the 533,000 ha quoted by Mathew, 365,500 ha are estimated to be under tapping. Rubber cultivation in India is overwhelmingly smallholder-oriented. There are about 911,000 smallholdings, having a total share of 86 per cent in area and production. The trend in the rubber plantation area in India is shown in Table 7 below.

Table 7 Rubber plantation areas in India in 1990-97

Year

Area (`000 ha)

1990-91

475

1991-92

489

1992-93

499

1993-94

508

1994-95

516

1995-96

523

1996-97

533

Source: Mathew (1998).

3.1.5 China

Rubber plantations in China are found primarily on Hainan Island, Xishuangbana (Yunnan Province) and the western part of Guangdong Province. In 1992, the total area was reported at 616,000 ha, ranking fourth in the world (ITTO (1995) - see Table 8).

Table 8 Rubberwood plantations in China - 1992 (`000 ha)

Planting condition

Hainan

Yunnan

Guangdong

Total

Total area

374.2

156.5

88.1

616.0

Total area*

248.6

73.0

65.4

401.3

Planting time

1950-early 1960s

1958-early 1970s

1950-1970

 

Species

PB 846, PR107, GTI, RRIM600**

RRIM600, GF-1, PRL-10, PP-86

   

*by agricultural reclamation system

**also a small number of Haiken No.1 and Haiken No.2

Source: ITTO, 1995.

Differences in geography and climate have a strong influence on the occurrence of mold and blue stain infection. In Hainan and Guangdong, where moist and wet climates prevail, mold and stain infection of rubberwood is serious; in Yunnan Province, where the climate is dry or arid, mold and stain infection is light.

The planting area of the agricultural reclamation system was 248,600 ha, accounting for 67 percent of Hainan Island. Assuming a reported replanting period of 30 years in Hainan, 8,000 ha were therefore supposed to be cut annually. Due to temporary rubber price increases in the years prior to 1992, however, Hainan's replanting was only 3,300-4,000 ha. In Yunnan, the average annual replanting area according to the agricultural reclamation system was only about 600 ha (ITTO, 1995).

Under the Hainan agricultural reclamation system replanting began in 1982 and had reached a peak by 1995. Yunnan's replanting peak should be around the year 2000 for its later plantations. In Guangdong Province, replanting had almost ceased and other tropical plants were planted instead.

3.2 Rubberwood production

Due to the relatively recent emergence of rubberwood as an important wood product in its own right, little comprehensive information for rubberwood production is regularly collected and available. The results of a 1993 in-depth study by Indufor are shown in Table 9.

Table 9 World rubberwood log production in 1991

Country

Rubberwood production (`000 m3)

Thailand

1,638

Malaysia

1,350

Indonesia

270

India

666

P.R. China

308

Sri-Lanka

170

Vietnam

150

Guatemala

2

Total

4,554

Source: Indufor (1993).

More recent rubberwood production data for selected countries is given in the sections below.

3.2.1 Malaysia

The success of rubberwood in Malaysia sometimes appears to be belied by available data. The seeming paradox of declining plantation areas and increased rubberwood utilization can easily be explained by higher utilization rates and the very fact that disappearing rubber trees have to be converted into something if not burned or left to rot. On the other hand, declining rubberwood production as reported by the Malaysian Timber Council (see Table 10) is more difficult to account for. One possible elucidation is the way in which data for rubberwood production is actually derived. Whether it is deduced from available areas, replanting rates and yield estimates is a different story from what is accounted for as being consumed by the primary processing industry (the difference presumably made up by fuelwood).

Accordingly, annual rubberwood production in 1999 was reported to be in the region of 800,000 m3 and the current stock 140,000 m3 (New Straits Times, 1999). One year earlier, annual availability of rubberwood logs in Peninsular Malaysia was argued to average 3 million m3 while consumption was estimated to be about one-third of this figure. In 1995, rubberwood utilization in Peninsular Malaysia was estimated at about 2 million m3, while the availability was estimated at about 3.2 million m3 and the estimated annual volume available up to the year 2005 at 8-10 million m3 (Asian Timber, 1995).

Table 10 Malaysia's planted acreage of natural rubber and rubberwood log production

Year

Planted area (`000 ha)

Rubberwood log production (`000 m3)

1990

1836

971

1991

1818

1,622

1992

1792

1,837

1993

1762

1,075

1994

1737

1,157

1995

1688

881

1996

1644

284

Source: Malaysian Timber Council (1998).

By way of verification, Figure 5 can be used to give an indication of trends in availability of rubberwood. Using the assumptions outlined by bin Arshad et al. (1996; see Section 2.3), the availability of rubberwood logs in 1999 from estates alone would be 804,000 m3. Even if only a third of smallholder rubberwood is added (due to difficult access), the total figure would come to 1.4 million m3. Therefore, the figures reported by the Malaysian Timber Council in Table 10 are likely to be an underestimation.

3.2.2 Thailand

In Thailand, sound management practices, effective smallholder organization and higher utilization rates have consistently translated into higher rubberwood production figures, even if these have arguably not translated into as much value-added as in Malaysia. By some estimates, Thailand accounts for 30 percent of world rubberwood production.

Figure 6 Wood quantity exploited from old rubber trees in Thailand in 1986-1996

 

Source: Office of the Rubber Replanting Aid Fund; figures for 1992-1996 are estimates.

Table 11 and Figure 6 show data on the country's rubberwood exploitation. Note that the volumes given refer to available greenwood. While Urappepatanapong (1989) found that roughly 58 percent of available rubberwood in 1987 was leftover and burnt at the plantation sites, the utilization rate has since increased considerably. The 1993 Indufor study reported that Thailand utilized 83 percent of the economically available resource (80 percent of total rubberwood availability), translating into an effective utilization rate of 66.4 percent. With the increased popularity of and demand for rubberwood products, this rate has most likely risen somewhat higher since then. Note also that the data in Table 11 indicates an almost 10 percent higher yield than reported for Peninsular Malaysia, namely 207 m3/ha compared to 190m3 (estates) and 180 m3/ha (smallholdings).

Table 11 Rubberwood exploitation in Thailand, 1986-1996

Year

Eastern provinces

Southern provinces

Total (m3)

 

Area

(`000 ha)

Volume

(`000 m3)

Area

(`000 ha)

Volume

(`000 m3)

Area

(`000 ha)

Volume

(`000 m3)

1986

3.3

677.5

40.1

8,330.6

43.4

9,008.1

1987

2.7

568.4

38.9

8,074.1

41.6

8,642.5

1988

2.4

506.0

41.5

8,628.3

44.0

9,134.3

1989

1.8

356.6

33.8

7,020.5

35.6

7,377.1

1990

1.0

207.9

33.5

6,955.6

34.5

7,163.5

1991

2.0

420.6

36.8

7,641.8

38.8

8,062.4

1992*

2.9

605.0

45.1

9,372.7

48.0

9,977.7

1993*

3.2

672.7

40.9

8,494.3

44.1

9,167.0

1994*

3.2

672.7

40.8

8,484.6

44.1

9,157.4

1995*

3.2

672.7

39.6

8,230.4

42.9

8,903.1

1996*

3.3

682.7

40.1

8,331.8

43.4

9,014.5

*Estimates. Source: Office of the Rubber Replanting Aid Fund.

The age at which rubber trees are felled in Thailand shows extreme variation (see Table 12). In the top five rubberwood producing provinces (accounting for 69% of total production, the share of trees harvested after more than 25 years ranges from 40 to 95 percent, while that of trees between 20 and 24 years old ranged from 5 to 53 percent. This variance indicates the flexibility rubber tree growers can apply in controlling rubber and rubberwood supply.

Table 12 Age distribution of rubber trees felled in Thailand in 1996

    Province

Range of age (years)

<15

(%)

15-19

(%)

20-24

(%)

>25

(%)

    Nakhonsi Thammarat

0.08

12.07

42.00

45.86

    Songkhla

0.03

2.96

13.39

83.62

    Yala

-

0.94

9.30

89.76

    Narathiwat

-

0.19

5.11

94.69

    Surat Thani

0.18

7.32

52.76

39.75

    Average

0.06

4.70

24.51

70.74

Source: Paechana & Sinthurahat (1997).

3.2.3 India

A market survey done by an Indian consulting firm in 1998 estimated solid rubberwood availability in India at 1-1.5 million m3 and processing capacity at 100,000 m3. According to the Chairman of the Indian Rubberwood Taskforce (IRTF), only 8 percent of available resources are used for production.

As indicated in earlier sections, the key point to be noted from the above rubberwood production data is that the currently existing rubber plantation areas harbor the potential for significantly greater rubberwood production, even in countries where rubberwood utilization is already quite high. Whether higher levels of utilization will actually be achieved will not only depend on access to some of the more remote resources, but arguably more importantly on:

    1. the evolution of demand for rubberwood products and the extent to which rubber plantations can keep the attention of estate and smallholder operators; and

    2. government efforts to lend support replanting schemes for smallholders.

Some of these dynamics will be examined more closely in the later outlook section.

3.3 Ownership

Rubber plantations are owned or managed by various groups with different interests. In general, there are two main groups of landowners: smallholders and estates. In the three Southeast Asian countries, where rubber plantations are dominant, smallholders hold the majority of rubber plantation areas, with 96, 86 and 84 percent in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, respectively (see Table 13). In the top 10 rubber planting countries only China and Vietnam have higher estate ownership, with 64 and 87 percent, respectively. In terms of size, smallholders' plots vary from 2.5 to 5 ha, while estates are generally large plantations managed by commercial enterprises or state-owned enterprises.

Table 13 Proportion of rubber plantations owned by estate and smallholders in selected rubber producing countries in 199

    Country

Estates

Smallholdings

 

(%)

(%)

    Thailand

4.3

95.7

    Malaysia

13.7

86.3

    India

13.8

86.2

    Indonesia

16.2

83.8

    Nigeria

18.7

81.3

    Brazil

30.1

69.9

    Myanmar

42.1

57.9

    Sri Lanka

43.6

56.4

    Papua New Guinea

54.6

45.4

    Cote d'Ivoire

59.5

40.5

    China

63.5

36.5

    Vietnam

87.2

12.8

Source: Rubber Research Institute of Thailand.

Rubber production on estates tends to achieve higher yields than those observed in smallholdings. In many cases, the quality of rubber is also higher. In many countries estates have a major problem in attracting labor for tapping and means are required to make this task less demanding, more attractive and more productive. Traditionally, estates furnish communities with a wide range of services, including low cost housing, educational and medical facilities, shops and even religious establishments.

The dominance of smallholders in the ownership of rubber plantations raises a number of concerns/challenges, which affect the quality and quantity of rubberwood and consequently household income and socio-economic contributions to the national economy. Smallholders are dependent on the use of traditional rubber management systems characterized by unselected seedling, high density planting and over-tapping. As a result, smallholders are often unable to satisfy the growing demand for rubberwood and continue to suffer from relatively low standards of living.

3.3.1 Indonesia

Smallholder rubber covers 83.8 percent of the total Indonesian rubber area and contributes 74 percent of the country's total rubber production. So far, only 15 percent of rubber smallholders have been reached by the government's smallholder development project. Beside that, between 10 and 20 percent of non-project rubber farmers living close to the projects are estimated to have gained an indirect profit in terms of technical information and improved planting materials. Ongoing government projects provide a mix of credit and cultivation technology, primarily with the aim to consolidate 'jungle rubber' production systems into larger planting units, to improve management practices and increase productivity (Budiman, 1996).

Table 14 Average annual income (per hectare) of farmers with jungle rubber and clonal rubber in Indonesia in 1999

Type of Plantation

Yield
(kg/ha

of dry rubber)*

Gross income
(Rp/ha)**

Costs

(Rp/ha; including amortization of initial costs)

Net Income
(Rp/ha)

Number of ha needed to sustain a household

Old jungle rubber (above 30 years)

400

1,200,000

50,000

1,150,000

3.8

Jungle rubber

600

1,800,000

100,000

1,700,000

2.6

Clonal seedlings plantation

750

2,225,000

225,000

2,000,000

2.2

Young clonal plantation (7- 10 years)

1000

3,000,000

500,000

2,500,000

1.8

Mature clonal plantation

1500

4,500,000

500,000

4,000,000

1.1

*Rubber is processed by farmers into thick blocks of coagulated latex called "slabs", which contain about 50% of dry rubber and 50% of water and dirt.
**World rubber prices have fallen since the Asian crisis because of the depreciation of the currency of the three major world producing countries. At the farmer level, rubber is sold 1,500 Rp per wet kilo or 3,000 Rp per dry kilo. The world price is around 50 US cents or 4,000 Rp per kilo.

Source of data: Guyon (1999).

A study carried out in South Sumatra in 1999 highlights the plight of rubber smallholders (Gouyon, 1999). The majority of rubber farmers own less than four ha of rubber and are close to subsistence level (see Table 14). Since the purchase of high-quality seedling material or the development of their own clones is too expensive and risky for them, their only solution to increase income is to start plantations in unoccupied areas, usually close to logged-over forests, transmigration and agro-industrial companies where fire presents a significant threat and source of plantation damage.

Some of the farmers who had not benefited from development projects were trying to develop clones with their own means, but often faced difficulties in controlling the growth of bushes and Imperata grasses between the young rubber. Hence, their young plantations have been very prone to fire (Gunawan, 1997). It was estimated that about 40,000 ha of smallholder plantations burned in 1997, of which 6,000 ha were young clonal plantations.

3.3.2 Malaysia

The share of Malaysian rubber plantations held by smallholders is more than 86 percent, second only to Thailand. Smallholders are organized under the Rubber Industry Smallholders Development Authority (RISDA), Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA) and Federal Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority (FELCRA), with RISDA being the main agency coordinating rubber planting activities. Whereas some 1.26 million ha comprising 602,000 smallholders were registered with the agency in 1990, RISDA's latest census included 420,193 smallholdings of an average of two ha each in the country (Ghazali, 1999). These smallholders accounted for 78 percent of Malaysia's rubber production and 80 percent of the total acreage.

The average monthly income of a smallholder was RM 456, almost a quarter of the community was reported as living below the poverty line, with another 35 percent in the poverty group. About 49 percent were solely dependent on rubber for their income, with each smallholder having to support an average of four dependents. Half of all smallholders were over 55 years of age (Ghazali, 1999). A special scheme developed by the Malaysian Rubber Board (MRB), FELCRA, RISDA and FELDA to speed up the consolidation of smallholders purports that incomes could rise to as much as RM2,500-3,000 per month.

Table 15 Area of rubber plantations held by estates and smallholders in Malaysia in 1990-99

Year

Estates

Smallholdings

 

('000 ha)

(percent)

('000 ha)

(percent)

1990

348.8

19.0

1,488.0

81.0

1991

333.4

18.3

1,485.3

81.7

1992

314.1

17.5

1,478.2

82.5

1993

292.5

16.6

1,470.0

83.4

1994

275.0

15.8

1,462.9

84.2

1995

255.7

15.1

1,433.1

84.9

1996

224.0

13.6

1,420.4

86.4

1997*

200.7

12.4

1,415.8

87.6

1998*

183.0

11.8

1,372.7

88.2

1999*

191.6

13.1

1,273.2

86.9

*Preliminary figures. Source: Malaysian Rubber Board.

Similar to Indonesia, one of the government's main policy objectives vis-à-vis rubber production has been the consolidation of smallholdings in order to improve productivity and product quality. To this end, FELCRA was set up in the 1960s to persuade owners of small parcels to give up their land to be centrally managed. However, attempts at consolidating the small, scattered and noncontiguous plots are frequently fraught with complications, including "multiple ownership, absentee landlords, the view that land is a speculative asset and the lack of political will to solve the problem," according to a former deputy director-general of FELCRA. State Governments have also been slow in confiscating plots that have been left idle for long periods as provided for in the National Land Code.

To this day, it is argued that converting the current production structure to more economically viable units is central to any exercise to remake the smallholder sector. Accordingly, a 1996 strategy by RISDA aimed at merging 200,000 ha of smallholder rubber plantations into estates of a minimum of 200 ha (Malaysian Timber Bulletin, 1996).

3.4 Switch to other crops

In Southeast Asia many estates are changing from growing rubber trees to oil palms as this crop provides higher profits and is less demanding in terms of labor (unlike with the frequent tapping intervals demanded by rubber, oil palm is harvested when the fruit is mature). For smallholders, low rubber and rubberwood prices and the low conversion rate of rubberwood into quality logs coupled with distant access to sawmills have become strong deterrents for many smallholders to continue planting rubber.

Table 16 Trends in estate crop areas harvested in Indonesia 1990-1999

Year

Cocoa (`000 ha)

Natural rubber (`000 ha)

Oil palm (`000 ha)

1990

158

1,865

673

1991

184

1,877

772

1992

189

1,966

875

1993

299

2,065

921

1994

359

2,056

1,045

1995

374

2,260

1,190

1996

398

2,245

1,428

1997

386

2,260

1,622

1998

403

2,268

1,795

1999

360

2,268

1,795

Source: FAOSTAT.

This development is illustrated, for instance, by the case of Indonesia, where oil palm and cocoa estate areas between 1990 and 1999 have increased much faster than rubber estate plantations (see Table 16). While the latter increased by only 21.6 percent, oil palm and cocoa estate areas rose by 166.7 percent and 126.7 percent , respectively.

Similarly, Malaysia during the 1990s experienced a reversal of trends in oil palm and natural rubber plantation development (see Figure 7).

Figure 7

Oil palm and natural rubber areas harvested in Malaysia 1990-99

Source: FAOSTAT.

In Thailand, as indicated earlier, the rubber plantation sector in the traditional areas appears to be saturated and a switch to other crops has become evident (see Table 17). As in Indonesia and Malaysia, this switch is only in part caused directly by better income opportunities. In all three countries, concerns for the livelihood security of rubber farmers has prompted agencies to facilitate the diversification of smallholders into other crops. In Thailand, a crop diversification program was incorporated into the rubber replanting scheme as early as 1992.

Table 17 Crop diversification in rubber replacement planting in Thailand 1992-1996

Year

Total Replanting

 

Natural rubber ('000 ha)

Other Tree Crops ('000 ha)

Other Crops as a percentage of rubber plantation area

1992

35.88

0.65

1.81

1993

39.47

3.87

9.80

1994

38.39

7.64

19.90

1995

29.33

6.05

20.63

1996

35.73

1.84

5.15

Source: Office of Rubber Replanting Aid Funds (1997).




นานาสาระ

การเลือกใช้ไม้ชนิดต่างๆให้เหมาะกับประโยชน์การงาน article
ผลิตภัณฑ์กลุ่มวัสดุแผ่น
การตกแต่งผนังโดยไม้อัดสัก Italy article
ผลิตภัณฑ์ไม้กับความชื้น
การป้องกันและรักษาเนื้อไม้ article
วิธีการเลือกซื้อเฟอร์นิเจอร์ไม้
ข้อกำหนดไม้เนื้ออ่อนไม้เนื้อแข็ง
ทางเลือกในการซื้อพื้นไม้ article
ความรู้เกี่ยวกับไม้สัก
FSC และการรับรองทางป่าไม้ (Forest Certification)
ตารางแสดงค่ากลสมบัติของไม้ชนิดต่างๆ
ตารางการหดตัวของไม้ชนิดต่างๆ Wood Shrinkage Table
Softwood & Hardwood
Plain Sawn or Quarter Sawn ?
การติดตั้งพื้นไม้ Decking
ประเภทของป่าไม้ในประเทศไทย
Thailand’s forests and the forestry sector
ข้อมูลเศรษฐกิจไม้ยางพารา article
สถิติการป่าไม้ของประเทศไทย 2545 ->2549 article
อุตสาหกรรมไม้ยางพารา article
ไม้ยางพาราในประเทศไทย article
อุตสาหกรรมแปรรูปไม้ยางพารา
การใช้ประโยชน์จากไม้ยางพาราในปัจจุบัน
Rubberwood 1,2 - Introduction & Resourse Proporties article
Rubberwood 4 - Utilization article
Rubberwood 5, 6- Availability and Conclusion article
เรื่องน่ารู้เกี่ยวกับEURO PALLET
ส่งออกสินค้าไปยุโรป อ่านที่นี่
มารู้จักศัพท์ทางด้านการบรรจุภัณฑ์ดีกว่า article
คุณรู้จัก IPPC แล้วหรือยังว่าคืออะไร article
กฎใหม่ลังไม้ไปนอก article
IPPC- ISPM 15 Implementation Dates by country April 2006 article
Heat treated หรือ Methyl Bromideเลือกแบบไหนดี?
รายชื่อผู้ผลิตบรรจุภัณฑ์ไม้ที่ได้รับการขึ้นทะเบียน ISPM15 article
การใช้ไม้เพื่อการหีบห่อ
ลังไม้และกล่องไม้
EPAL Pallet System
Pallets in a container, on a truck or wagon article
พาเลทหมุนเวียน ลดต้นทุนโลจิสติกส์ article



Copyright © 2010 All Rights Reserved.
Loading