A case study of change in the integrated rubber agroforest landscape of Jambi (Sumatra)

1. A case study of change in the integrated rubber agroforest landscape of Jambi (Sumatra) Hesti L. Tata1, Laxman Joshi2, Meine van Noordwijk2 1Forest and Nature Conservation R&D Centre, Bogor, Indonesia 2World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF-SEA), Bogor, Indonesia 2nd World Agroforestry Congress, Nairobi, 23-28 August 2009

2. Presentation Outline • What is Rubber Agroforest (RAF)? • Biodiversity vs profitability • Vegetation diversity • Fauna diversity • Benefits provided by RAF • Integration of function

3. Rubber Agroforests (RAF) Rubber monoculture Complex RAF (See poster presentation Joshi et al. “Rubber agroforest: How to define?”) Simple RAF

4. RAF Establishment 1-3 year >30 year 3-10 year 15-30 year 10-15 year

5. (Source: Van Noordwijk , 2009)

6. Complex RAF Simple RAF Rubber monoculture Source: Wibawa (2007)

7. Study Site

8. 2008 Landcover change in Bungo district in 1973-2008 Source: Landscape Mosaic Bungo Team (2008)

9. Vegetation Diversity

10. Vegetation diversity and tree distribution Note: The area of plot sample was 0.32 ha for forest and RAF (Source: Tata et al., 2009)

11. Tree distribution [RAF is like a forest in structure]

12. Seedling Tree Sapling Species richness (Source: Tata et al., 2009) [Between sapling and tree stratum, selective culling occurs]

13. Curve of species accumulation based on management intensity in RAF Forest Without Extensive Intensive Forest Without management Extensive management Intensive management Rasnovi (2006)

14. Similarity index of Jaccardand Morishita-Horn of sapling between RAF and forest Source: Rasnovi (2006) [RAF is almost similar to forest in family level, but not in species level]

15. Tree species for livelihood and conservation • Selective cutting of sapling and tree in RAF • Retain useful trees: fruits, food, fodder, medicine, dye, resin and timber. Aquilariamalaccensis (Source: Tata et al., 2009)

16. Rarity of species - the IUCN Red List (Tata et al., 2008) [Farmers maintain diversity in RAF, as long as species recognize to provide valuable products and used for livelihood and cultural purposes]

17. Dispersal mode of trees Species proportion based on dispersal modes classification encountered in forest, RAF and both forest and RAF (Rasnovi, 2006) • RAF: > seeds dispersed by bird and bat (long-distance zoochorus); • Forest: > seed self-dispersed (autochorus; or by human or stream water) • RAF as corridor and refuge area for animals

18. Fauna Diversity

19. Studies on fauna diversity in RAF in Jambi:

20. Species cummulation curve for bird in forest and RAF (Beukemaet al., 2007) Forest RAF Monoculture

21. 1988 and 2005 Connectivity & Forest core areas Rubber agroforests maintain ecological connectivity around core forest areas Source: Sonya Dewi & Andre Ekadinata

22. Benefit provided by RAF • Tangible benefits: cash income from rubber, fruits and foods, feed, timber, NTFP. • Extensive management: low cost, low labour. • Intangible benefits: ecosystem services, e.g. water (small-scale hydropower), conservation of endangered species, stepping stone wild animals, landscape beauty.

23. Table. Estimation of the annual family cash-flow of rubber farmer (Wibawa, 1998)

24. Integration of function at field, farm and landscape • Suitable environments for flora and fauna diversity. • Role of RAF in plot level to landscape: providing fruits, food and nesting area for fauna. • Role of RAF in landscape level to plot level: RAF’s fauna act as pollinator and dispersal agent for vegetation. • RAFs provide limited role as conservation area  ‘island’ scope rather than landscape level.

25. Conclusion • Integration of RAF with other land use  Multi-functionality. • Biodiversity conservation depends on RAF management • RAF provide considerable benefit for farmer’s livelihood. • Ecosystem services of RAF  elaborate collective action, PES scheme and eco-certification of rubber/latex. Eco-Certification rubber: a challenge for Sustainagility of RAF

26. Thank You