Farmers' perspectives on slash-and-burn as a land clearing method for small-scale rubber producers in Sepunggur, Jambi Province, Sumatra, Indonesia

摘要

On 10 September, 1997, President Soeharto of Indonesia renewed a ban on the practice of burning forests to clear land. At that time a thick haze caused by land-clearing related fires in Kalimantan and Sumatra, Indonesia, blanketed large parts of Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, the Philippines and Thailand. These fires, aggravated by the El Nino weather pattern and described as the worst in Southeast Asian history, renewed a long-term debate on slash-and-burn (S&B) as a method of land clearing. Acceptable alternatives to S&B should address both the problems and the benefits of the use of fire. A social/economic/agronomic survey was therefore conducted among 37 small-scale rubber producers in Sepunggur, Jambi Province, Sumatra. The objectives were to: (1) characterize S&B techniques; (2) characterize farmers' perspectives on land clearing methods related to agronomic/economic factors (soil fertility, plant growth, production); and (3) evaluate alternatives to S&B that would be acceptable toindividual farmers at present and in the near future. Small rubber producers (average farm size～5 ha) were selected because rubber gardens are the major land use type in this area, small producers are the main contributors, and most of the forest thatis presently converted for agricultural use is being planted with rubber seedlings. Farmers generally start slashing in March and burn in the month of August. Burning takes place in 2 steps: broadcast burning followed by piling-and-burning. The 5 advantages of using fire cited by the farmers were: (1) burning creates space (51%); (2) ash acts as a fertilizer (23%); (3) burning improves soil structure, thus enabling faster establishment of seedlings (15%); (4) burning reduces weed/tree competition (5%);and (5) burning reduces the occurrence of pests/diseases (3%). Alternatives to S&B should be economically acceptable. Mulching does not provide an alternative to any of the benefits of burning. Slash-and-remove-wood addresses only the first advantage andrequires a tremendous effort in labour. If forced to accept either of these alternatives, farmers expect a reduction in income due to difficulties in establishing new rubber gardens, reductions in yield, and an increase in labour costs. At present, small quantities of wood with economic value are sold on the local market. Slash-sell-and-burn is an alternative that could maintain the advantages of using fire while supplying the farmer with extra income and the initiative to remove and not burn the trees. Even though forest is rapidly being converted to rubber gardens, land clearing will remain in practice to rejuvenate the old rubber gardens or to convert them to other land use systems. By selling rubberwood, farmers could cover costs of land clearingand earn enough to cover some of the costs of buying higher-yielding clones for rubber planting. This alternative has benefits similar to using fire and could significantly reduce pollution problems, but a change in local trade regulations and taxes is required for its successful adoption.