ASIA-PACIFIC FORESTRY SECTOR OUTLOOK STUDY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
Working Paper No: APFSOS/WP/50
THE UTILIZATION, PROCESSING AND DEMAND FOR RUBBERWOOD AS A SOURCE OF WOOD SUPPLY
by
Joerg Balsiger Consultant FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific
Jamal Bahdon Consultant FAO Forestry Planning and Statistics Branch
and
Adrian Whiteman Forestry Officer (Sector Studies) FAO Forestry Planning and Statistics Branch
Forestry Policy and Planning Division, Rome Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok
Rome, December 2000 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
The Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study is being undertaken under the auspices of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission.
This report comes under Workplan Number E24.2.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INFORMATION NOTE ON ASIA-PACIFIC FORESTRY SECTOR OUTLOOK STUDY...... I
ABBREVIATIONS ...... III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... V
1 INTRODUCTION...... 1
2 RESOURCE PROPERTIES...... 3 2.1 Asian origins...... 3 2.2 Rubber tree cultivation...... 3 2.3 Environmental considerations ...... 5 2.4 Rubberwood yield...... 7 2.5 Rubberwood properties...... 8
3 RESOURCE AVAILABILITY...... 11 3.1 Rubber plantations ...... 11 3.1.1 Indonesia...... 13 3.1.2 Malaysia...... 14 3.1.3 Thailand...... 16 3.1.4 India...... 17 3.1.5 China...... 18 3.2 Rubberwood production ...... 19 3.2.1 Malaysia...... 19 3.2.2 Thailand...... 20 3.2.3 India...... 21 3.3 Ownership...... 22 3.3.1 Indonesia...... 23 3.3.2 Malaysia...... 24 3.4 Switch to other crops ...... 25
4 RUBBERWOOD UTILIZATION...... 27 4.1 Industrial processing of rubberwood ...... 28 4.1.1 Primary industrial processing...... 28 4.1.2 Secondary industrial processing...... 31 4.1.3 4.1.3. Other uses ...... 33 4.2 Rubberwood cost and prices ...... 33 4.2.1 Stumpage prices...... 34 4.2.2 Log and sawnwood prices...... 35 4.3 Current consumption in producing countries ...... 38 4.3.1 Consumption by the primary processing industries ...... 38 4.3.2 Consumption by the secondary processing industries...... 38 4.4 Current world demand for rubberwood...... 38
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
5 OUTLOOK...... 41 5.1 Rubberwood availability...... 41 5.1.1 Malaysia ...... 42 5.1.2 Thailand...... 44 5.1.3 Indonesia ...... 45 5.2 Rubberwood demand by processing industries...... 46 5.3 Export potential of rubberwood furniture ...... 47 5.4 Export potential of rubberwood sawnwood...... 53
6 CONCLUSION ...... 55
REFERENCES...... 57
ANNEX A: NOMENCLATURE OF RUBBER TREE CLONES...... 61 Clonal seedling families ...... 62
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50
LISTING OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1 World production of natural rubber in 1999...... 4 Figure 2 Nutrient removal and yield of different crops...... 6 Figure 3 Rubber plantation harvesting in major Asia-Pacific producer countries in 1990-1999...... 12 Figure 4 Rubber plantation harvesting in minor Asia-Pacific producer countries in 1990-1999...... 13 Figure 5 Age distribution of rubber plantations in Peninsular Malaysia in 1993 ...... 16
Figure 6 Wood quantity exploited from old rubber trees in Thailand in 1986-1996 ...... 20 Figure 7 Oil palm and natural rubber areas harvested in Malaysia 1990-99...... 26 Figure 8 Flow of rubberwood logs and primary products in Malaysia in 1992 ...... 27 Figure 9 Malaysian exports of furniture in 1988-1995 ...... 32 Figure 10 Adjusted outlook to 2016 for rubberwood log availability in Malaysia...... 44
Figure 11 Adjusted outlook to 2016 for rubberwood sawnwood availability in Malaysia...... 44
Table 1 Usable and available trunk volume/ha from nine Hevea cultivars before felling...... 8 Table 2 Strength properties of (air-dried) rubberwood and other species ...... 9 Table 3 Rubber plantation area of major producing countries in 1999 ...... 11 Table 4 Rubberwood production trend in the three top countries ...... 12 Table 5 Trend in Malaysia’s rubber plantations 1990-1999...... 15
Table 6 New planting and replanting of rubber in Thailand in 1992-1996 ...... 17 Table 7 Rubber plantation areas in India in 1990-97...... 18 Table 8 Rubberwood plantations in China - 1992 (‘000 ha) ...... 18 Table 9 World rubberwood log production in 1991 ...... 19 Table 10 Malaysia’s planted acreage of natural rubber and rubberwood log production...... 19
Table 11 Rubberwood exploitation in Thailand, 1986-1996...... 21 Table 12 Age distribution of rubber trees felled in Thailand in 1996 ...... 21 Table 13 Proportion of rubber plantations owned by estate and smallholders in selected rubber producing countries in 1998...... 22 Table 14 Average annual income (per hectare) of farmers with jungle rubber and clonal rubber in Indonesia in 1999...... 23 Table 15 Area of rubber plantations held by estates and smallholders in Malaysia in 1990-9924
Table 16 Trends in estate crop areas harvested in Indonesia 1990-1999...... 25 Table 17 Crop diversification in rubber replacement planting in Thailand 1992-1996 ...... 26 Table 18 Malaysian export of rubberwood sawnwood to major countries*...... 28 Table 19 Properties of single-layer particleboards made from rubberwood flakes ...... 29 Table 20 Properties of rubberwood MDF...... 30
Table 21 Existing and projected capacity of MDF plants in 1996...... 31
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
Table 22 Secondary rubberwood processing and utilization in China in 1994 ...... 31 Table 23 Rubberwood stumpage prices in selected countries in the third quarter of 1992...... 34 Table 24 Comparative prices of logs and sawnwood in May 1992...... 36 Table 25 Comparative prices of logs and sawnwood in November 1996 ...... 36
Table 26 Prices of Sawnwood in Taiwan province of China in October 1996 ...... 37 Table 27 Consumption of rubberwood in 1991...... 39 Table 28 Use of rubberwood by country and product type in 1991 ...... 39 Table 29 Estimated rubberwood consumption in 1991 and 1996 ...... 40 Table 30 Projected total wood production from rubber plantations in Peninsular Malaysia from 1996-2012...... 42
Table 31 Projected log and sawnwood production from rubber plantations in Peninsular Malaysia from 1996-2012 ...... 42 Table 32 Outlook for rubberwood availability in Thailand...... 45 Table 33 Potentially available rubberwood logs and sawnwood in Indonesia in 1998...... 46 Table 34 Supply and demand of rubberwood sawlogs in Malaysia in 1996-2012...... 47 Table 35 Supply and demand of rubberwood chip logs in Malaysia in 1996-2012 ...... 47
Table 36 Outlook for demand for various wood products in Thailand ...... 47 Table 37 Relative importance of rubberwood in imports of wooden furniture in 1991...... 48 Table 38 Japanese imports of wooden furniture by source (Million yen)...... 49 Table 39 World furniture imports in 1992-1995 ...... 51 Table 40 World furniture exports in 1992-1995...... 51
Table 41 The sources of European Union furniture imports 1990-1995...... 52
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 i
INFORMATION NOTE ON ASIA-PACIFIC FORESTRY SECTOR OUTLOOK STUDY
At its sixteenth session held in Yangon, Myanmar, in January 1996, the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, which has membership open to all governments in the Asia-Pacific region, decided to carry out an outlook study for forestry with horizon year 2010. The study is being coordinated by FAO through its regional office in Bangkok and its Headquarters in Rome, but is being implemented in close partnership with governments, many of which have nominated national focal points.
The scope of the study is to look at the main external and sectoral developments in policies, programmes and institutions that will affect the forestry sector and to assess from this the likely direction of its evolution and to present its likely situation in 2010. The study involves assessment of current status but also of trends from the past and the main forces which are shaping those trends and then builds on this to explore future prospects.
Working papers have been contributed or commissioned on a wide range of topics. They fall under the following categories: country profiles, selected in-depth country or sub-regional studies and thematic studies. Working papers are prepared by individual authors or groups of authors on their own professional responsibility; therefore, the opinions expressed in them do not necessarily reflect the views of their employers, the governments of the Asia- Pacific Forestry Commission or of the Food and Agriculture Organization. In preparing the substantive report to be presented at the next session of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission early in 1998, material from these working papers will be an important element but will be blended and interpreted alongside a lot of other material.
Working papers are being produced and issued as they arrive. Some effort at uniformity of presentation is being attempted but the contents are only minimally edited for style or clarity. FAO welcomes from readers any information which they feel would be useful to the study on the subject of any of the working papers or on any other subject that has importance for the Asia-Pacific forestry sector. Such material can be mailed to the contacts given below from whom further copies of these working papers, as well as more information on the Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Study, can be obtained:
Rome: Ms. Qiang Ma Bangkok: Mr. Patrick Durst Forestry Officer (Econometrics) Regional Forestry Officer Policy and Planning Division FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific Forestry Department Maliwan Mansion Food and Agriculture Organization of Phra Atit Road the United Nations Bangkok 10200 Viale delle Terme di Caracalla THAILAND Rome, 00100, ITALY Tel: (66-2) 281 7844 Tel: (39-6) 5225 3506 Fax: (66-2) 2800445 Fax: (39-6) 5225 5514 Email:
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply ii Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 iii
ABBREVIATIONS
ANRPC Association of Natural Rubber Producing Countries ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FELCRA Federal Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority (Malaysia) FELDA Federal Land Development Authority (Malaysia) FRIM Forest Research Institute of Malaysia IRRDB International Rubber Research and Development Board IRTF Indian Rubberwood Taskforce IRSG International Rubber Study Group LTC Timber-latex clones MDF Medium-density fibreboard MRB Malaysian Rubber Board ORRAF Office of the Rubber Replanting Aid Fund (Thailand) OSB Oriented strand board RISDARubber Industry Smallholders Development Authority (Malaysia) RRIM Rubber Research Institute of Malaysia RRIT Rubber Research Institute of Thailand
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply iv Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The rubber industry was established in South and Southeast Asia at the end of the 19th century after the rubber tree, Hevea brasiliensis, was introduced from its native South America. Rubber plantations around the world presently cover some 9 million ha, with almost 95 percent in Asia and more than 75 percent in the three largest producer countries Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia. Further Asia-Pacific producers include China, India, Vietnam and Sri Lanka, which together account for another 18 percent. Increasing tendencies are observed in Indonesia, Thailand, China and Vietnam, while declines are experienced in Malaysia and Sri Lanka.
Rubber trees are generally grown on large estates or in smallholdings, the latter often in rubber- based agroforestry systems. Smallholdings dominate Asia, with shares of 96, 86 and 84 percent in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, respectively. Only in Vietnam, China and Papua New Guinea do estates account for more than half of the total area. Estate rubber areas have been declining throughout the region, a trend that will likely continue in the medium term, largely because of the higher profitability of other crops, such as oil palm. Due to its susceptibility to insect and fungal attacks, rubberwood has to be processed shortly after the trees are cut. Many experts have argued that rubberwood cannot be economically produced from remote and fragmented smallholdings, even though smallholder resources are usually included in projections.
Rubberwood has traditionally been used for fuelwood and charcoal in rubber processing, steel industries, tobacco curing and brick manufacturing. Most rubberwood has been burned at the clearing site, except in the wood-scarce countries of South Asia. Although there exists a large number of rubber tree clones with different properties, they are generally replanted after 25-35, when they yield 100-200 m3 per hectare, the lower ranges being more typical for smallholdings.
Large-scale industrial utilization started with sawnwood production in Malaysia and Thailand during the 1980s. Malaysia has promoted the development of its downstream rubberwood industry with the institution of an export quota and in 1994 a complete ban on sawnwood. Consequently, Malaysia has the most diversified rubberwood industry with various types of wood-based panel plants and furniture mills.
Ready and low-cost availability, light color, easy machining and staining properties have all contributed to the establishment of rubberwood as an important wood product. However, residual PCP content limits certain uses in scrupulous markets. Today, aside from the traditional uses, rubberwood is used primarily for furniture, furniture parts and wood-based panels.
Rubberwood stumpage prices have generally been very low or negative when compared to other wood species, due largely to the fact that rubberwood is an agricultural by-product. Poor quality logs, distance to processing facilities, seasonality and rubberwood traders’ opportunism has contributed to these low prices. The price differential between rubberwood logs/sawnwood and other species is narrower, but the former is still cheaper in many places. However, localized shortages and variable qualities have translated into considerable price ranges.
Detailed, recent and accurate information about rubberwood utilization is not regularly collected. The most recent comprehensive study was carried out by the International Trade Center in the early 1990s. Consumption of rubberwood logs in 1991 was estimated to be about 2.5 percent of Asian tropical log production or 4.6 million m3, most of which was used by sawmills. In 1993,
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply vi Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman the wood-based panels sector used some 1.1 million m3 of rubberwood, in large part because of the rapidly growing MDF sector. Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia in 1994 had a total of 12 MDF plants, out of which six were based on rubberwood. Six more were planned for the following three years.
There has been a consensus that rubberwood is under-exploited. Indonesia’s estimated use during the early 1990s was a mere 27 percent of its available resource, while Malaysia’s was 62 percent and Thailand’s 83 percent. The rubberwood processing industry has also been suffering from low recovery rates (15-35 percent), partly due to the use of poor technology.
In secondary processing, the main use of rubberwood has been in furniture manufacturing, mouldings and joinery. Rubberwood’s physical characteristics mean that it can substitute for many other species, including ramin, meranti, teak oak and pine. Rubberwood furniture exports accounted for some 70 percent of the combined Malaysian and Thai furniture exports in 1995.
Annual consumption of rubberwood products (sawnwood and furniture) during the early 1990s was around 240,000 m3 (product volume). It was estimated that this market would grow to 350,000 m3 by 1996. Most rubberwood is traded in the form of finished furniture (55 percent) and furniture parts (17 percent). Trade in rubberwood sawnwood was small and mainly confined to exports to Taiwan Province of China and Japan.
It is very likely that all of the above figures have increased since the early 1990s, although the 1997 Asian financial crisis and its aftermath have probably somewhat dampened rubberwood’s advance. According to various estimates and projections, today’s combined rubberwood log availability in Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia alone is more than 6.8 million m3.
Factors contributing to a positive outlook for rubberwood include:
• Rubberwood’s properties, particularly its light color and easy machining will continue to make it a popular substitute for wood from increasingly scarce natural forest trees. Modern heat/steam/vacuum systems have largely mitigated the problems associated with the wood’ latex content.
• Environmental concerns in consumer markets will increasingly shift preferences to wood products obtained from plantations. This will give rubberwood an advantage over some of the more traditional tropical woods used in furniture and wood-based panel manufacturing. Recent strides in rubberwood plantation certification confirm this development. On the other hand, rubberwood has to be able to compete with increasingly abundant softwood plantation species, particularly New Zealand pine.
• Where rubber tree planting programs are effective and economically accessible, rubber plantation areas can be maintained, as in Thailand, secure rubberwood supplies can provide the investment security necessary for expanded rubberwood utilization. In Thailand, for instance, potential sawlog and sawnwood availability is projected to increase from 2.8 million m3 to 4.18 million m3 and 0.84 million m3 to 1.25 million m3 from 1997 to 2012, respectively.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 vii
Obstacles to increased rubberwood utilization comprise:
• Rubberwood’s susceptibility to insect and fungal attacks will continue to make it economically unviable for the majority of rubber producers. Increased accessibility will only come with general socio-economic development, particularly in the transportation sector.
• Trends in the ownership structure indicate that smallholders will produce an increasing share of rubber. Their difficulties in profitably utilizing rubberwood will likely bring about shortages where demand outstrips what estates can supply. In Malaysia, for instance, where both estate and smallholding areas have been declining since the 1980s, sawlog availability is expected to decrease from more than 1.3 million m3 in 2000 to less than 0.5 million m3 in 2010 and sawnwood availability from more than 300,000 m3 to just over 100,000 m3. In Indonesia, estate areas have declining as well, but improving current underutilization may compensate for the smaller volume of mature trees available to 2010. Localized supply shortages and associated price developments may end rubberwood’s comparative advantage over other wood species. Since rubberwood comes in small sizes, it is suitable for the wood-based panel industry. If Malaysia’s OSB trials become applied at larger scales, for instance, competition for rubberwood between furniture and panel manufacturers may lead to further price hikes.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply viii Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 1
1 INTRODUCTION
The Asia-Pacific Region is undergoing a rapid transformation due to fast economic development. There are social and economic changes that exert pressures on the forest resources of the region and, at the same time, some changes are creating new opportunities for forests and trees to contribute to development. In order to assess changes affecting the forest sector, their trends and prospects for the future, FAO has proposed an outlook study for the forestry sector to the year 2010. This proposal was welcomed by the Asia Pacific Forestry Commission at its sixteenth Session in Yangon, January 1996. This thematic study forms part of a series and was conducted analyzing all relevant and available documents at FAO Headquarters.
The Asia Pacific Forestry Outlook study has the overall function of assessing the status trends and outlook for the Forestry Sector to 2010. Implementation will involve the collection of specific studies, which will then be assembled for the final report. This thematic study provides a description of the current consumption, utilization and trade of rubberwood and rubberwood products in main producing countries and of the likely market prospects for rubberwood products.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 2 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 3
2 RESOURCE PROPERTIES
The emergence of rubberwood (also referred to as heveawood or parawood) as an internationally established wood product has often been termed a ‘success story.’ Various factors have contributed to this development, first and foremost the fact that rubberwood represents a relatively sustainable alternative to tropical woods extracted from natural forests. Furthermore, rubberwood has proven to be very versatile in its use in furniture manufacturing and the wood-based panels industry. Where forests are scarce, particularly in South Asia, the use of rubberwood as fuelwood continues to mitigate pressure on natural forest resources. This section provides an overview of the origin of rubber trees (hevea brasiliensis) in Asia, their cultivation, the environmental impacts of rubber plantations, rubberwood yields and rubberwood properties.
2.1 Asian origins
Hevea brasiliensis arrived in Asia in 1877 from its native Brazil by way of the British Colonial Office. Initially, rubber trees were grown experimentally in Sri Lanka, from where they were brought to Singapore and Malaysia. Much of the pioneering work was carried out at the Singapore Botanical Garden, where Henry Ridley, the Garden’s director from 1888-1911, discovered a sustainable harvesting method to obtain continuous yields over a period of years. By the turn of the century, rubber tree production had spread to what was then Indochina (Vietnam and Cambodia), the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and Thailand; the British in Malaysia and the Dutch in Indonesia cleared large areas of rainforest to create rubber plantations. Although cultivation at first took place on plantations, smallholders rapidly adopted hevea as a source of income (Killmann & Long, 2000; International Rubber Research and Development Board (IRRDB, 2000; Goldthorpe, 1993). Today, rubber trees are cultivated in more than 30 countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
2.2 Rubber tree cultivation
As a tropical tree, Hevea brasiliensis grows best under conditions of temperatures between 20- 28°C, well-balanced annual rainfall of 1,800-2,000 mm and protection from high winds. It develops reasonably well up to 600 meters above sea level (but is capable of growing to at least 1000 meters near the Equator) and will perform on most adequately drained soils. Its prime growing area is between 10° latitude on either side of the equator, although it is also found further north, as in China, and south (IRRDB, 2000). The current distribution of rubber production is shown in Figure 1.
Mature trees on rubber plantations are commonly 20-30 meters tall with a relatively slim trunk of up to 30 cm diameter at breast height, an average branch-free bole of 3 meters and upwards-extending branches. Young trees have a smooth brown-green bark. Rubber trees flower once a year. Insect cross-pollination results in large fruits containing several thimble-sized seeds with hard outer coats (in some countries, such as Malaysia, a second round of seed production may occur). If satisfactorily germinated and planted within 2-3 weeks (at about 500 trees per hectare, although some clones are planted at much higher densities), seeds grow to produce seedling plants. Depending on conditions, these take 5-10 years to reach 'maturity’, which is defined as the stage when tapping can be started. In practice, this is when the trunk has about 500 mm circumference at 1 meter above ground level.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 4 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
Figure 1 World production of natural rubber in 1999
Other 93.0% Other East & SE Asia 1.0% 77.1%
South America 0.9% South Asia 10.0%
Africa Other Asia 5.1% 5.9%
Source: FAOSTAT.
When the rubber plantation industry began in Southeast Asia the main source for propagation was unselected seeds. It was soon found, however, that using selected seeds from higher yielding trees could lead to appreciably higher yields. This method attained commercial acceptability in the early 1920s. Among the many possible vegetative methods of propagation, only bud grafting has been adopted commercially.
At least once a year the leaves of the tree die and fall off in wintering, after which new leaves are formed. The sixteen-week wintering period greatly affects the tree’s metabolism, latex constitution and yield, which together with other climatic factors, causes distinct seasonal variations in natural rubber production, with important repercussions for the primary rubberwood processing industry (IRRDB, 2000).
Tapping of rubber trees starts in the fifth to seventh year after planting and continues for 25 to 30 years. The classical method for tapping is the removal at each tapping of only a thin layer of bark from the cut end, thus permitting a smooth flow of latex and allowing the bark to regenerate. However, improper tapping in smallholdings often has negative consequences for wood recovery. After 30 years, a decline in latex production renders further tapping of the trees uneconomical, although smallholders may continue for many years. The trees are then removed and replaced with new seedlings.
The age at which rubber trees are actually replaced can vary considerably, depending on the health of the tree, prevailing rubber prices and access to replanting funds. Table 12 on page 21 provides information on harvesting ages in Thailand.
The rubber plant is infected by many diseases. Some are common to many countries while others are restricted to a region or only a few countries. A 1998 survey by the International Rubber
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 5
Research and Development Board found the occurrence of 22 severe diseases (Hashim, 1998); the survey also noted the emergence of many new diseases since a similar study was carried out eight years earlier. The most significant are Colletotrichum anthracnose (reported in Indonesia), Colletotrichum leaf fall (China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam), Oidium leaf fall (China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam), Corynespora leaf fall (India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka), Black stripe (China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam), Pink disease (India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam) and white root disease (Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Thailand). In certain countries, Corynespora leaf fall has been considered the most severe disease, causing substantial economic loss. The IRRDB has repeatedly warned producers of this disease and the risk of outbreaks remaining undetected for a long time.
2.3 Environmental considerations
Rubberwood discussions make frequent reference to the product’s environmental sustainability, due primarily to the fact that it is procured as a by-product of a tree plantation crop. In view of the potential availability of rubberwood from existing plantations (see next section) and the increasing scarcity of tropical woods from natural forests, there is little doubt that rubberwood relieves pressure on remaining forest areas.
Agroforestry researchers are also paying increasing attention to the role of smallholder cultivation (sometimes called ‘jungle rubber agroforestry’) as an alternative to certain types of unsustainable food crop-based shifting cultivation systems. Jungle rubber agroforestry is widely practiced in Indonesia (Sumatra and Kalimantan) and Southern Thailand; similar approaches are being introduced in Vietnam and are being considered for Myanmar.
When hevea arrived in Sumatra at the end of the 19th century, farmers and shifting cultivators quickly adopted the cultivation of hevea in their fields. Realizing the value, as well as the ease and flexibility of its management, they transformed their fallows to a semi-permanent form of agroforestry. Following slash and burn of existing vegetation in secondary or primary forests or other land types, rubber trees are planted in between upland rice. Secondary forest species are allowed to regenerate with some selection pressure on type and intensity of species dominance. This practice has create complex agroforestry systems yielding diverse harvestable products, including timber, fruits, rattan, bamboo, vegetables and medicinal plants in addition to rubber. Rubber cultivation thus assisted the transition from shifting cultivation to a more permanent settled form of agriculture, which has been recognized as a ‘best bet’ land use system for the humid tropics when local and global impacts are both considered (van Noordwijk et al., 1995; Tomich et al., 2000).
Aside from the role of rubberwood plantations vis-à-vis other land use forms, numerous studies have been carried out to evaluate the environmental impact of rubber plantations as such. While many of these may exaggerate in their favorable comparison of hevea ecosystems to primary forest, they all present convincing evidence of positive effects.
Research on the ecological impact of rubber plantations on soils degraded by shifting cultivation in Northeast India has demonstrated an improvement of soil properties after the establishment of Hevea. Rubber plantations adopting proper agroforestry management practices (including terracing; silt pitting and bunding; and the growth of leguminous cover plants between the rows to assist with nitrogen fixation) were found to help in the enrichment of organic matter, which consequently
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 6 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman improved soil physical properties, such as bulk density, soil porosity, moisture retention and infiltration. An increase in organic matter was also observed. (Krishnakumar et al., 1990).
Similarly, a review of Malaysian research argues that of all the agroforestry cropping systems rubber plantations approximate closest to the rainforest system, in terms of canopy, leaf litter and in nutrient cycling (see Figure 2 and Joseph (1991) quoted in Goldthorpe, 1993). Fertilizer inputs are considered very low and soil surrounding rubber trees appears to be enriched by abundant leaf fall.
Figure 2 Nutrient removal and yield of different crops
Oil palm (2500)
Magnesium Coconut (1400) Potassium Phosphorus Nitrogen Tea (1300)
Rubber (1800)
0 50 100 150 200 250 kg/ha
Note: parentheses behind crop names indicate yield in kg/ha. Source: Sethuraj et al (1996).
According to some researchers, the most understated aspect of Hevea cultivation is that of its role as a carbon sink. Physiological studies have shown that Hevea is more effective than teak grown in plantation conditions in taking up carbon dioxide (Sethuraj et al., 1996). This is thought to be due to the extra energy required to produce the latex inside the tree: in contrast to a synthetic rubber plant which consumes energy and produces carbon dioxide to convert pure energy (crude oil) into elastomers, the natural rubber plant converts carbon dioxide into an elastomer. The leaf area created by a mature rubber tree is also sizeable: the leaf area index of a mature rubber plantation can be as high as six or seven. Because of the high photosynthetic rate and leaf area index, the biomass production per unit land area within a given time is very high in Hevea. With a planting density of 450 trees per hectare, the canopy closes in less than five years.
Environmental considerations in the context of rubberwood plantations have also attracted the attention of certification/labeling schemes. In 1994, a United Kingdom do-it-yourself retailer contracted SGS Silviconsult and Certification to undertake a Forest Audit of a Malaysian firm’s Hevea plantations in Johor (southern tip of Peninsular Malaysia). The audit, the first of its kind on sustainable management of rubber plantations in Malaysia, was carried out using the principles and criteria for forest management of the European Forest Stewardship Council. While the auditors recommended certification, they also found areas in need of improvement, including the storage and
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 7 use of herbicides; health, safety and environmental issues at sawmill sites; biodiversity conservation; and the use of pesticides and fertilizers (Chan et al., 1995).
In Indonesia, Forest Stewardship Council/SmartWood certification has been granted to a company sourcing naturally occurring Pulai wood (Alstonia spp.) for its pencil slat processing plant from rubberwood agroforestry systems in Musi Rawas District, South Sumatra (SmartWood, 2000).
Finally, strides toward certification are also made in Thailand. In 1998, the Ministry of Agriculture announced that it would apply ISO 14000 environmental standards to all farm products, starting with rubberwood, one of the country’s top five exports. The Ministry expected at least 30 percent of all rubberwood would be certified by 2001 (Bangkok Post, 1998).
2.4 Rubberwood yield
Rubberwood yields per tree vary according to clone, site conditions and management. The global rubberwood study carried out by Indufor under the auspices of the International Trade Centre estimated yield at 140 to 200 m3/ha, with the higher ranges observed in countries where plantations are carefully managed, i.e. Malaysia, Thailand, India and Sri Lanka (Indufor, 1993).
A 1995 study on using Malaysian rubber plantations as timber resources used as the following as a basis for its calculations (Arshad et al., 1996):
Greenwood production up to 8 cm diameter 0.8 m3/tree Surviving tree stand – estate 240 trees/ha Surviving tree stand – smallholding 228 trees/ha Length of logs extracted 1.8 m Replanting cycle 25 years Sawnwood recovery – estates 32 percent Sawnwood recovery – smallholders 20 percent
Accordingly, estates and smallholdings can yield 190 and 180 m3 of greenwood per hectare, respectively. In the case of usable logs, estates recuperate about 57 m3 and smallholdings about 54 m3 per hectare. After sawing, the estates and smallholdings produce about 18.1 m3 and 10.8 m3 of sawnwood, respectively.
In another study, gross yield in 1994 for estates in Peninsular Malaysia was quoted at 180 m3/ha, which included branches greater than 5 cm diameter. In smallholdings, where trees are generally of poorer form, average yields were found as low as 100 m3/ha (Khoo et al. (1987) quoted in Ismariah & Norini, 1994). Net volumes suitable for sawnwood processing were 20% and 15% of total volumes for estates and smallholdings, respectively.
Research on the development of more productive varieties (clones) has been carried out in a only a few countries, where trials for identifying clones as suitable for large-scale introduction often last ten to fifteen years. In 1998, for instance, Malaysia launched latex-timber clones that can produce timber in a shorter period of time compared to other tropical species and can be densely planted. The clones RRIM 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 have been reported capable of producing 0.81 to 1.87 m3 of wood per tree, significantly higher than the 0.68 to 1.33 m3 of the earlier 2000 series clones
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 8 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
(Malaysian Timber Bulletin, 1998). Some more detailed statistics on rubberwood yield in Malaysia are also presented in Table 1
In 1992, Ramli Othman reported that some of the Hevea spp. found in South America are potential rubber trees for timber production. The species are H. guianensis, H. nitida, H. pauciflora and H. benthamiana. These species are known to have high diameter and height growth with reasonably good stem straightness. Efforts were initiated to import the materials for trial and testing.
Table 1 Usable and available trunk volume/ha from nine Hevea cultivars before felling
Cultivars Stand Trees Measurements (cm) taken from Estimated Values (trees/ sampled standing trees before felling ha) Dia. at 0.6 Dia. at 1.8 Clear bole Mean usable Available m from the m from the height* trunk Trunk ground ground m3/tree** m3/Ha*** PBFP Seedlings 207 157 42.7 (9.3) 30.3 (7.6) 583.3 (292.6) 0.629 (0.48) 130 Tjir 1 Seedlings 252 300 39.2 (8.3) 31.8 (8.0) 426.1 (169.5) 0.432 (0.25) 109 RRIM 623 234 47 40.6 (9.9) 37.5 (9.0) 413.0 (146.6) 0.530 (0.42) 124 RRIM 605 255 103 31.1 (6.5) 29.2 (6.0) 356.3 (14.5) 0.251 (0.12) 64 RRIM 603 242 90 33.3 (8.5) 30.8 (7.2) 344.3 (50.9) 0.278 (0.13) 67 RRIM 607 242 93 40.3 (11.3) 37.0 (10.7) 555.5 (161.1) 0.670 (0.47) 162 RRIM 501 265 30 32.5 (3.4) 28.7 (3.4) 280.0 (89.3) 0.196 (0.06) 52 GT 1 259 103 38.4 (7.1) 32.8 (7.6) 481.2 (113.1) 0.477 (0.24) 124 PB 5/51 230 164 32.3 (5.0) 27.4 (4.8) 418.3 (130.9) 0.281 (0.11) 65 * Measured from ground level to the first branch from the ground. ** Estimated by πr2I, where π = 3.142, r = mean of tree radius (diameter - 2) at 0.6 and 1.8 m, I = clear bole height. *** Estimated from mean trunk volume/tree x stand. Figures in parenthesis are standard deviations. Source: S. K. Khoo, 1993.
2.5 Rubberwood properties
The natural color of rubberwood is one of the principal reasons for its popularity. The air-dry density is between 560-640 kg/m3 and it has good overall woodworking and machining qualities for sawing, boring, turning, nailing and gluing. It also takes finishes and stains well. Its strength and mechanical properties are comparable to traditional timbers used for furniture making and woodworking. However, there are more than 20 clones of rubber trees used in commercial plantations and some of the variations between clones are reflected in wood characteristics.
Rubberwood can substitute for several timber species that are essential for the primary and secondary industries in tropical and sub-tropical countries. They include the following species: ramin, meranti, sersaya, merbau, kapur, tangile and teak. A comparison with other species is shown in Table 2. In appearance, it can substitute for well-known African species (sapelli, iroko, and kosipo), South American species (imbuia) and heavily traded Asian species (ramin, meranti, mersawa, seraya, merbau, kapur, tangile, and teak). In Japan, rubberwood is increasingly used to replace more traditional timbers such as buna (Fagus spp) and nara (Quercus serrata).
Rubberwood is easy to saw and causes no significant blunting of the saw teeth. The presence of latex in rubberwood tends to clog the saw teeth, which can be reduced by using router bits with larger than standard clearance angles. Rubberwood slices or peels well when converted into veneer.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 9
Rubberwood can be turned without burn marks or tear outs on standard lathes and the wood is easy to drill or bore. There are two common methods used for the primary breakdown of rubberwood logs. One is to break the logs into two halves, each of which is then converted into sawnwood. The other method is to cut a slab from one side of the log, then turn it 90 degrees to cut the sawnwood.
Table 2 Strength properties of (air-dried) rubberwood and other species
Air-dry Static Bending CPaG CPeG Side Shearing strength Species density MOR MOE (N/mm2) (N/mm2) Hardness parallel to grain (kg/m3) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) Rubberwood (Hevea 650 66 9,240 32.2 4.69 4,350 11.0 brasiliensis) Dark red meranti (Shorea 610 77 12,100 39.6 4.14 3,650 8.7 platyclados) Light red meranti (Shorea 575 75 13,600 41.4 2.51 2,940 6.8 leprosula) Sepetir (Sindora coriacea) 690 92 13,600 46.3 5.93 5,210 13.6 Nyatoh (Palaquium gutta) 675 79 12,200 44.5 - 5,430 11.0 Ramin (Gonystylus bancanus) 675 88 15,900 48.8 - 4,580 8.5 MOR: Modulus of rupture; MOE: Modulus of Elasticity; CPaG: Compression parallel to grain; CPeG: Compression perpendicular to grain (stress at limit of proportionality); Side hardness: load to embed 0.0113 diameter steel sphere to half its diameter, N. Source: Lee et al. (1965) quoted in Hong, 1995
While rubberwood exhibits a number of physical weaknesses, many have been overcome through technological advances in processing. Where rubberwood makes a significant economic contribution, research institutions continue their search for feasible remedies. Below is a list of commonly known deficiencies and associated treatments: Non-durability, i.e. the susceptibility to insects and fungi attacks. This is by far the most emphasized weakness of rubber trees, caused by the high starch content that attracts a range of insects and fungal diseases, especially blue stain. Logs must be milled within a few hours of felling. Sawnwood cannot be air dried but is kiln dried immediately after sawing, when it has a moisture content of about 60 percent. Pentachlorophenate (PCP) compounds and copper- chrome-arsenic (CCA) compositions are used to treat the wood, but many mills prefer to use boron-based preservatives to avoid restrictions on PCP and CCA in the USA, Japan and Europe. Smaller sizes compared to other leading timber species. Commonly harvested commercial sizes of rubberwood rarely exceed 50 mm in thickness and 1800 mm in length (Kollert, 1994). This problem is usually avoided by laminating or finger-jointing techniques, as in manufacturing table-tops. Seasoning physical defects, such as cupping, twisting, bowing and checking. Cutting the timber into short lengths of 0.3-1.2 meters and narrow widths reduces the effects of twist, while finger jointing or laminating is used to obtain larger pieces. Clogging of saw teeth caused by remaining latex. Low conversion rate. This is generally compensated by the relatively low cost of rubberwood logs. Low productivity rate, particularly in regards to smallholders of rubber plantations. Where proximity allows, extension agents introduce high-yielding clones and assist in improving tapping methods.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 10 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
Although it is considered a perfect plan to manage the rubber tree for both latex and rubberwood, such perfection rarely exists because under normal circumstances tapping rubber tree for latex affects plant growth significantly (Kollert, 1994). Hence, a focus on either one of them is considered to be prudent.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 11
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.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 12 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
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
2.4
2.2
2
Indonesia 1.8 Malaysia Thailand 1.6
1.4
1.2 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
Source: FAOSTAT.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 13
Figure 4 Rubber plantation harvesting in minor Asia-Pacific producer countries in 1990-1999
0.5
0.4 Cambodia
China
0.3 India
Myanmar
PNG 0.2 Philippines
Sri Lanka
0.1 Viet Nam
0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
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).
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 14 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
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
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 15 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 Estates Smallholdings Total Year (‘000 ha) (‘000 ha) (‘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.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 16 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
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
50000 Smallholdings Estates
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 1 5 9 1317212529 Age 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
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 17
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 Replanting Total (‘000 ha) (‘000 ha) (‘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 8.64 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
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 18 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman 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 Hainan Yunnan Guangdong Total condition 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, RRIM600, GF-1, GTI, RRIM600** 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).
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 19
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
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 20 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
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
10
9
8
7 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 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
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 21 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 Volume Area Volume Area Volume (‘000 ha) (‘000 m3) (‘000 ha) (‘000 m3) (‘000 ha) (‘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.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 22 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
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 1998 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
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 23 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 Gross Costs Net Income Number of ha (kg/ha income (Rp/ha; including (Rp/ha) needed to of dry rubber)* (Rp/ha)** amortization of sustain a initial costs) 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
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 24 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
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 non- contiguous 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.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 25
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.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 26 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
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
2600
2200
1800
1400
1000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Natural rubber Oil palm 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 Other Tree Other Crops as a percentage of ('000 ha) Crops ('000 ha) 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).
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 27
4 RUBBERWOOD UTILIZATION
Before rubberwood found a use in timber and timber products, felled trees were almost exclusively used as fuelwood and charcoal in many countries. A significant share of rubberwood production is still used for these purposes - almost 20 percent during the early 1990s in Malaysia (see Figure 8). Rubberwood charcoal was used extensively in the steel industry, rubber processing, tobacco curing and brick manufacturing.
Figure 8 Flow of rubberwood logs and primary products in Malaysia in 1992
Domestic Production 1872 Log supply 57.7% 3.7% 38.6% Sawlogs Veneer logs Small diameter logs 1080 69.6 722.4
39.5% 285.4 8.8% 63.9 4.5% 32.4 47.2% 340.7 Production of Sawnwood Plywood/veneer MDF Chipboard Cemboard Fuelwood/charcoal primary products 509.7 34.8 (2.0) 158.6 (1.8) 35.5 (1.8) 20.3 (1.6)
7.6% 22.8% 100% Export of primary Sawnwood MDF Chipboard products 38.8 36.2 35.5
92.4% 100% 77.2% 100% Domestic Sawnwood Plywood/veneer MDF Cemboard consumption of 470.9 34.8 122.4 20.3 (1.6) primary products
62.6% 37.4% 100% 100% 100% 100% 294.7 176.2 34.8 122.4 20.3 340.7 Demand for end- Moulding & Furniture mills Building Steel mills use products joinery mills inudstry Rubber processing mills Tobacco manufacturers Brick manufacturers
All figures are in ‘000 m3. Source: Kollert & Zana, 1994; source of figures: Malaysia Timber Industry Board (1993) and calculations by Kollert & Zana.
Since the 1980’s, however, rubberwood has gradually established itself as a major wood product in several countries, particularly for the production of furniture, furniture components and wood panels. Rubberwood plywood is used for both construction and decorative end uses. More recently, medium density fibreboard (MDF), particleboard and oriented strand board (OSB) have also joined the list of products derived from rubberwood and sawmill waste.
Figure 8 illustrates the flow of rubberwood logs and primary products in Malaysia in 1992 (Kollert & Zana, 1994). It illustrates that of the total log supply, sawmills took up almost 60 percent of the volume, followed by 40 percent consumed in the market for small diameter logs. The authors add a word of caution concerning the high recovery rate (47 percent) in the production of sawnwood from sawlogs. In an earlier study, Sim (1989) had found recovery rates ranging from 21 to 32 percent.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 28 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
In a 1987 study on rubberwood utilization in Thailand, the authors found that 40.04 percent of total rubberwood utilization was for wood products (furniture and furniture parts, cable reels, pallets, wooden boxes, picture frames, tooth picks, ice cream sticks, household utensils, wooden toys and some miscellaneous products); 30.43 percent for fuelwood; 16.68 percent for particle board; 11.02 percent for charcoal; and 1.83 percent for poles and piles (mostly for construction purposes).
4.1 Industrial processing of rubberwood
4.1.1 Primary industrial processing
Rubberwood logs are mostly used in the sawmilling sector. Out of a total of 4.6 million m3 sawlogs produced in 1991, sawmills took around 80% of total log production (3.5 million m3) and the wood based panel industry took the remainder. However, use in the wood based panel sector is rapidly expanding, although chipboard, cement board, MDF and OSB rely primarily on small diameter logs. Some statistics showing are given in Table 18 that show the scale of rubberwood sawnwood exports from Malaysia.
Table 18 Malaysian export of rubberwood sawnwood to major countries*
1984 1991 1992 1993 1994 Country of Value Value Value Value Value Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Destination (RM (RM (RM (RM (RM (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) million) million) million) million) million) Taiwan 19,735 6.0 45,463 29.4 20,332 11.8 17,735 11.4 32,059 24.7 Japan 13,137 4.0 7,689 5.9 6,936 5.1 4,552 3.5 3,667 3.6 USA 167 0.1 226 0.2 606 0.4 1,533 1.2 1,305 1.3 Belgium - - 619 0.5 405 0.3 1,128 0.9 463 0.4 Singapore 61,994 18.8 14,904 5.5 9,284 4.6 1,195 0.8 2,381 1.5 Netherlands 239 0.1 0 0.0 461 0.4 128 0.1 442 0.4 China 254 0.1 0 0.0 - - 35 ** - - S. Korea 98 ** 1,542 0.6 161 0.1 - - - - Others 140 ** 818 0.6 648 0.4 1,314 0.8 4,980 4.0 Total 95,764 29.1 71,261 42.7 38,833 23.1 27,620 18.7 45,297 35.9 * In order to encourage downstream processing, an export quota was introduced in 1990 and the export of sawnwood was completely banned in January 1994; the year before the introduction of the export restrictions in 1990, the export volume was 221,367 m3 (anonymous quoted in Kollert & Zana, 1994) ** Less than 0.1 million m3 Source: Malaysian Rubber Board.
When logs are delivered to the sawmill, long transport distances have to be avoided because of the high possibility of insect and fungal attacks. For this reason, Indufor in 1993 estimated that only 80 percent of total rubberwood are economically available in Thailand in Malaysia, 45 percent in Indonesia and 90 percent in India and Sri Lanka, the latter due to the general scarcity of wood raw material, well-functioning smallholder organizations and effective replanting systems.
Sawing and chemical treatment is often carried out immediately after harvesting. A typical rubberwood sawmill is small, with a sawnwood recovery rate of 15-35 percent; it is estimated that the average recovery rate is around 25 percent. In general these low recovery rates are the result of
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 29 the use of inappropriate technology to process small dimension logs such as those produced by the rubber tree. Portable sawmills are common, especially in Malaysia, but are less common in Thailand where their use is restricted to deter illegal harvesting. Rubberwood mills are labor intensive and logs are often loaded manually and fed through saws by hand. Sawmills integrated with drying facilities are more capital intensive and produce most of the sawnwood used for export or by the mills producing export products such as furniture, parquet flooring and other wooden articles.
In the wood based panel industry, rubberwood plywood has proved to be a potential high value end use, provided that appropriate technology is used. The rubber tree is also extremely well suited as a raw material for the production of particleboard and MDF. In 1998, the Forest Research Institute of Malaysia successfully carried out laboratory scale trials to produce Heveawood OSB.1 Strands were sliced from small diameter rubberwood logs and bonded together under heat and pressure using phenol formaldehyde and isocyanate as exterior grade adhesives. The amount of adhesives was found to be about half of what is necessary for particleboard.
Rubberwood in the form of small logs, off-cuts, edges, slabs and branches is used for particleboard manufacture. Some particleboards are laminated with overlays of a wide range of colors and patterns. This product is sought after by the furniture manufacturers for making wardrobes, cabinets, tables, chairs, partitions and kitchen cabinets. The properties of a series of particleboard samples from rubberwood are given in Table 19. The results indicate that particleboards of 19 mm thickness using 8 percent resin and 1 percent wax possess properties exceeding the specifications of the British Standard (Yusoff, 1994).
Table 19 Properties of single-layer particleboards made from rubberwood flakes Sample Density MOR Internal bond Screw withdrawal Thickness swelling (kg/m3) (MPa) (MPa) (N) (%) A 552 14.2 0.38 853 6.0 B 626 19.8 0.65 960 4.8 C 682 25.8 0.68 1303 3.3 BS Type 1 - 13.8 0.34 360 12.0 (min.) (min.) (min.) (max.) Note: MOR: modulus of rupture or bending strength; pressing temperature: 140°C; pressing time: 10 minutes. Source: Wong & Ong, 1979.
Since rubberwood is readily attacked by fungi and insects, wood chips are easily discolored during storage. The manufacture of MDF with urea formaldehyde resin requires that chips be used within four weeks, preferably fresh, in order to maintain the expected strength properties of MDF (Razali & Diong, 1992). Boards made from fresh chips and urea formaldehyde have been found to attain the minimum bending strength (MOR) requirement of JIS A-5906-1983 type 200. However, the internal bond in MDF tests was exceptionally high at about 16 kg/cm2.
1 Since its development and rapid expansion, OSB in general has threatened to replace the more traditional plywood in many applications including uses where structural strength is required. While it can be produced with strength properties comparable to plywood, OSB is significantly cheaper to produce as small diameter and low quality logs can be used. Until 1998, OSB was largely a North-American phenomenon, with production reaching almost 12 million m3. OSB has also spread to Europe and is gaining popularity in Japan, but as of 1998 remained to be introduced to Southeast Asia. Mills in Indonesia were at the planning stage and some OSB imports for packaging was reported.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 30 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
The color of the boards varied from yellowish-cream to dark gray depending on the age of the raw material. MDF of acceptable quality could be made from rubberwood that has been stored up to three months with different treatments of fungicide and insecticide (Khoo et al., 1991). Past concerns about the rubber tree’s latex content, which is an undesirable substance when producing MDF board, have been alleviated with the fine-tuning of processing technology that allows the separation of latex clumps from wood fibers before pressing. The results of some tests on rubberwood MDF are given in Table 20.
Table 20 Properties of rubberwood MDF Cook number Density MOR MOE x 1000 IB TS (%) (g/cm3) (kg/cm2) (kg /cm2) (kg/cm 2) 1 0.513 88 9.6 4.1 13.2 0.602 148 17.1 5.7 14.7 0.703 216 20.7 10.9 14.3 2 0.501 95 9.4 5.1 10.5 0.608 189 17.6 5.8 10.9 0.707 276 23.2 10.2 11.1 3 0.506 103 10.7 5.1 9.3 0.598 180 17.7 6.6 10.4 0.710 274 24.8 11.2 10.3 JIS A-5906-1983 150-type 0.4-0.8 150 - 3.0 12.0 (max.) 200-type 200 - 4.0 " Note: MOR = modulus of rupture, MOE = modulus of elasticity, IB= internal bond, TS = thickness swelling after 24 h water soak. Source: Tomimura et al (1990).
The particleboard industry in Southeast Asia, which comprised 16 mills in 1995, uses off-cuts, trimmings, slabs and small logs of rubberwood and therefore provides an outlet for the less marketable part of the tree. Rubberwood particleboard is usually overlaid with a laminate and is used extensively by the furniture industry.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 31
The number of MDF plants using rubberwood has increased rapidly since 1992 (see Table 21). MDF plants in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia consumed some 0.7 million m3 of rubberwood logs in 1994, but it is expected that this demand will rise to 1.5 million m3 in 1997. This rapid increase in demand may result in greater competition for rubberwood trees and upward pressure on prices. Some statistics for rubberwood processing in China are given in Table 22.
Table 21 Existing and projected capacity of MDF plants in 1996 Current Projected until 1997 Country Number Volume of wood Number Volume of wood of mills fibre used (m3) of mills fibre used (m3) Thailand All MDF mills 6 531,200 9 1,261,600 Rubberwood MDF mills 1 83,000 3 538,000 Malaysia All MDF mills* 5 597,600 6 913,000 Rubberwood MDF mills 5 597,600 2 182,600 Indonesia All MDF mills 1 162,000 7 1,131,000 Rubberwood MDF mills 0 0 1 185,000 * As of 1999, Malaysia had added a seventh MDF plant. Source: M.M.F.
Table 22 Secondary rubberwood processing and utilization in China in 1994 Item Hainan Yunnan Guangdong Log production (m3) 180,000 20,000-30,000 / Sawnwood production (m3) 62,185 7,000 / No. of sawnwood plants 15 3 / Plywood production (m3) 23,151 5,000 3,000 No. of plywood plants 10 1 1 Particle board production (m3) 28,000 0 0 No. of particle board plants 1 0 0 No. of model product plants 1 0 1 Source: ITTO (1995).
4.1.2 Secondary industrial processing
Rubberwood's good working qualities for machining, acceptable durability, light natural color and adaptability in accepting paints and other finishes, makes it an ideal wood for furniture. The advantages of rubberwood in furniture making are believed to compensate for the recognized problems of variations in color and density but the need remains for preservation and drying treatment in order to avoid problems of discoloration or bowing and twisting of the wood when the moisture content of the wood rises above 10-12 percent.
The rubberwood processing industry of Malaysia is recognized to be a world leader because of the strength of its secondary-processing sector. Rubberwood in Malaysia is the main wood used by the furniture industry. It is estimated that exports of rubberwood furniture from Peninsular Malaysia accounted for 70 percent of all wooden furniture exported in 1994. Malaysia’s exports of wooden
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 32 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman and rattan furniture have increased from RM45.6 million in 1986 to RM2.61 billion in 1997 and RM4.36 billion in 1998 (Bani, 1999). (See Figure 9 for more details of Malaysia’s furniture exports over the period 1988 to 1995).
Figure 9 Malaysian exports of furniture in 1988-1995
1800
1500
1200
Wooden 900 Rattan Metal
600
300
0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Source: Malaysian Furniture Industry Council
The percentage of rubberwood entering secondary processing has also been rising in Thailand, where some 200 out of a total of 1,400 furniture manufacturers using rubberwood as a raw material. The quality of rubberwood furniture is high enough to be accepted in world markets and compares favorably with rubberwood furniture produced in Malaysia.
Thai Rubberwood furniture accounts for 60 percent of total production of wooden furniture. In 1999, production of rubberwood furniture for 2000-01 was predicted to increase as a result of more liquidity and demand from foreign markets. A short-term problem was low supply of rubberwood because wood traders chose to export processed wood to China and Taiwan, where they could fetch higher prices. However, production capacity utilization was expected to increase to over 50 percent, because the local wood supply could last at least 10 years if the resource is managed efficiently. Domestic market value for 1997-99 decreased 30-40 percent to Baht 4-5 billion (Bangkok Bank, 1999). Approximately 70 percent of rubberwood furniture is exported to foreign countries (mainly Japan and U.S.A., accounting for 80 percent of the total) and in the form of knockdown furniture. Exports during 1997-99 were Baht 10 billion.
Other minor producers of rubberwood furniture are India, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. The state of development of the furniture industry in India is still behind that of Malaysia and Thailand and production is mainly geared toward the domestic market. It is estimated that only 5 to 8 percent of rubberwood is utilized in downstream processing in India. In Indonesia, despite the large area of
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 33 rubber plantations, the use of rubberwood in furniture is still limited to some 20 plants. The level of quality in the industry is also considered to be lower than in the main producing countries. The rubberwood processing industry in Sri Lanka is probably the oldest of all the countries. However, this industry has not developed significantly either in volume production or in the level of technology used in processing plants.
4.1.3 4.1.3. Other uses
Some tests have been carried out to evaluate the potential of rubberwood for pulping. These tests have shown that rubberwood could be used for the production of semi-chemical pulp. One Malaysian company is exporting rubberwood chips to Japan for the production of corrugated paper medium. However, apart from this small amount of trade, there is no other recorded use of rubberwood for pulping.
Good quality rubberwood charcoal and briquettes can be produced from rubberwood waste. Rubberwood charcoal has been commercially produced in Malaysia for many years. In addition to fixed charcoal kilns, transportable metal kilns have been introduced in the last decade which produce a quality of charcoal that is comparable to the quality produced by fixed kilns. Another market for rubberwood is fuelwood and charcoal.
Unprocessed rubberwood is also sold in local markets for household use.
4.2 Rubberwood cost and prices
As already noted, the physical characteristics of rubberwood enable it to be used extensively in the manufacture of chairs, stools, benches, tables and bed legs. It is also suitable for flooring and tableware. The greatest potential for substitution lies in the replacement of Asian timber species, such as Lauan, Meranti, Nyatoh, mixed light hardwoods and especially Ramin. Its potential to substitute for temperate species is more limited. Rubberwood has the potential to compete with beech, which is used for chairs and table legs. Because the light color of rubberwood allows it to be stained, it has begun to make inroads in traditional domains, including oak and cherry in cheap furniture ranges in the United States of America and Japan. However, a major factor which will influence the extent to which rubberwood utilization becomes a success will be the price of the raw material itself.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 34 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
4.2.1 Stumpage prices
Little information on rubberwood stumpage prices can be found. The latest data available were collected by ITC in the third quarter of 1992 and are shown in Table 23.
Table 23 Rubberwood stumpage prices in selected countries in the third quarter of 1992 Country US$ per ha US$ per m3 All wood Logs Average Range Average Range Average Range China 2,267 13 27 India 400 8 Indonesia 299 50- 400 8 Malaysia 459 0-1,200 9 0-34 Sri Lanka 1,417 675-1,710 20 12-30 Thailand 2,312 770-7,600 13 4-40 34 Vietnam 1,593 9 Source : ITC (1993).
As Table 23 shows, there was a very wide range of stumpage prices, which is likely to still exist. The highest prices were found in the Thai Province of Chantaburi where there is extensive rubberwood utilization. By contrast, the price in Southern Thailand, where there is much less rubberwood utilization, was lowest (US$770/ha).
The situation in Malaysia was similar. The highest prices were paid in Peninsular Malaysia (US$1,200/ha or US$34/m3), where most wood industries are located. In regions where rubberwood supply was decreasing (e.g. Peninsular Malaysia), stumpage prices were also reported to have been rising. In other parts of Malaysia, where rubberwood had not yet been commercialized on large scales, stumpage rates were still low or even negative (i.e. plantation owners have to pay for felling and clearing). Stumpage prices were low in India (US$400/ha or US$8/m3) and in Indonesia, which has the largest plantation area but a low utilization rate. The other main reason for these differences in stumpage prices is that some of those countries still have large supplies of other types of timber.
Various reasons explain the price differences. In Thailand. rubberwood prices at the farm gate vary from plantation to plantation depending on the following factors (Paechana and Sinthurahat, 1997):
1. Number of stands per unit area - Higher rubber tree numbers/unit area yield higher wood totals. Rubber stands are usually 375 - 400 trees per ha, in line with past recommendations, but have been found as high as 800 for LTCs. 2. Age and size of rubber trees - The size of rubber trees depends not only on age but also on clone, soil and climatic conditions. Larger-sized trees achieve higher prices. 3. Location of the plantation - Due to rubberwood’s susceptibility to mould and weevil infection, timber from rubber plantations close to factories and/or transportation routes gains higher prices than wood from more remote areas. 4. Seasonal price variation - Rubberwood supply is insufficient in the rainy season due to transportation difficulties and prices therefore higher than in the dry season.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 35
5. Middleman activities - Many farmers ignore the rubberwood price since they receive funding from ORRAF. When middlemen propose even a low price it is accepted without hesitation because it used to cost money for old rubberwood clearance in the past. Some middlemen use small trucks and local routes to travel from plantation to plantation, looking for fallen and leaning rubber trees that obstruct tapper work. They bid for such timber at a low price or even for free and subsequently fell them using chainsaws.
Rubberwood logs in Malaysia have been valued cheaply compared to logs from natural forests. It has been argued that while plantation owners do not obtain prices for the logs that are equivalent to the value of the raw material, sawmillers are able to achieve high profits (Kollert, 1994). The sales price of sawnwood is close to that of light hardwood species from natural forests. Rubberwood logs would have to cost around RM 120 per m3 (ex-sawmill) to reduce the sawmillers' profit to a level that is comparable to sawnwood production with light red Meranti. During the early 1990s, this log price was almost three times the prevailing market price.
The low market price of rubberwood logs in Malaysia - and elsewhere - may be explained by the specific circumstances under which rubberwood is produced, namely as a by-product in agricultural plantations. The business objective of a plantation owner is not to supply logs for the timber market, but to replace old rubber trees at the end of the crop rotation. This in turn produced a market failure whereby high demand of wood processing industries does not translate into high raw material prices. As long as rubber farmers continue their operations a continuous supply of undervalued rubberwood logs from obsolete plantations is ensured.
What is clear is that the 60-fold increase in Malaysia’s rubberwood log production between the mid- 1980s and mid-1990s was mainly due to the successful efforts of estates to fully utilize rubberwood. The poor quality of logs from smallholdings and the remoteness of their location limit the chances of smallholders to find buyers for their timber. On the other hand they also appear to be reluctant to sell their timber for the given low prices. Both conditions render the access of rubberwood to the timber market difficult (Kollert, 1994).
Given these dynamics of rubberwood production, it is difficult to foresee sharp price increases. Local variations may occur, due to climate-induced gluts or shortages, the refusal of farmers or estate managers to replant trees at prevailing rubber prices or if rubber tree plantations come to be managed for wood, rather than latex, as was suggested in parts of Thailand and may be the case in areas of Peninsular Malaysia. Some increases may also occur where established processing capacities that use both rubberwood and other species have to cope with the increased shortage of the latter or where the vicinity of newly established processing centers sharply increases demand beyond what rubber growers are able to supply. Where raw rubberwood prices increase sufficiently, some smallholder resources may enter the market.
4.2.2 Log and sawnwood prices
Rubberwood log and sawnwood prices are given in Table 24 and Table 25. Table 24 indicates the price of rubberwood logs and sawnwood (for domestic and export markets) in Peninsular Malaysia in the month of May 1992. Similar data for November 1996 is given in Table 25 (unfortunately data for other countries are not available, so it is difficult to ascertain whether the changes indicated in these tables have also taken place in Thailand and Indonesia).
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 36 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
Table 24 Comparative prices of logs and sawnwood in May 1992 Species Logs Sawnwood Domestic Export (export graded (green) and kiln dried) (US$/m3) (US$/m3) (US$/m3) Rubberwood 15.9 89.0 220 Nyatoh 125.9 260.0 358 Ramin n.a. n.a. 389 Jelutong 118.8 245.0 406 Light Red Meranti 150.0 277.7 406 Dark Red Meranti 152.6 322.2 482 Source : ITC.
Table 25 Comparative prices of logs and sawnwood in November 1996 Species Logs Sawnwood (US$/m3) (US$/m3) Rubberwood 32-34 280-290 Meranti 260-265 350-360 Merbau 200-205 n.a. Kempas 150-155 230-245 Keruing 190-195 n.a. Source : ITTO.
These two tables demonstrate that rubberwood is a low priced raw material in log form but its price differential narrows when processed. They also show several interesting aspects of recent rubberwood price developments, including:
• low rubberwood log prices reflect the low recovery rate of sawnwood;
• higher prices achieved when sawnwood is graded and kiln dried for export;
• a sharp increase over four years of rubberwood log prices (+107 percent) and sawnwood (+220 percent); and
• an increasing divergence between rubberwood log prices and sawnwood prices (450 percent in 1992 but 760 percent in 1996).
The historical increase in the demand for rubberwood in Malaysia and this sharp increase in price suggest that any future increase in demand might result in increased prices for rubberwood in the future. However, a further escalation of rubberwood prices could pose serious problems to the further development of the rubberwood furniture industry which, at present, is only competing in the low and medium end of the furniture market.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 37
In Thailand, the rubberwood price at the factory is not much different between factories whilst the year-round prices are more or less the same. The following prices could be obtained from each factory (Paechana & Sinthurahat, 1997):
• Timber with a diameter of more than 20 cm is used primarily in the veneer industry. The timber must be taken to the factory immediately after being felled and fetched US$50 per ton.
• Timber with a diameter of 15-20 cm is used mainly for sawnwood. It has to be sent to the factory within one week of felling. The price is US$32 per ton.
• Timber with a diameter less than 15 cm is used for particle board. It should be sent to the factory within 3 weeks. This kind of timber is bought at US$10-15 per ton. The price is more or less the same as for fuelwood.
Table 26 indicates the relative price of rubberwood sawnwood in the highly competitive market of Taiwan Province of China.
Table 26 Prices of Sawnwood in Taiwan province of China in October 1996 Product Price (US$/m3) Rubberwood 25 mm. boards 365-370 Rubberwood 50-75 mm. squares 415-420 Rubberwood 75-100 mm. squares 440-450 Sepetir GMS ( AD ) 360-370 Ramin 545-565 Oak 25 mm. boards 580-585 Maple 835-850 Cherry 1150-1200 Source: ITTO.
Rubberwood sold in this market probably comes from Thailand. In this table it appears that the price for rubberwood sawnwood (50-75 mm) is some 15 percent above Sepetir (another popular furniture species which can be substituted by rubberwood). However, it is notable that the price of rubberwood is 25 percent less than the price of Ramin, the species that has been identified as closest to rubberwood in terms of properties.
In most studies previously conducted, it appeared that many users utilized rubberwood because of its lower price. It appeared also that relative price increases would affect consumption but it was not clear to what level rubberwood prices must rise before consumers switch to other woods. The effect of price elasticity is rather dependent upon where on the demand curve rubberwood is currently perceived and the extent to which suitable alternative species and materials are available. Rubberwood is particularly successful in the low-to-middle priced wooden furniture sector, such as used in tables and shelving systems. Such low prices can only be maintained with a low-to-medium cost raw material. If rubberwood prices enter a medium-to-high range, the marketing advantage of
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 38 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman being a species from a renewable resource may not be sufficient. It is the additional processing, wastage and need to stain/finish, which determines the need for a price differential for rubberwood.
One further development, which would suggest an upward trend in rubberwood prices, is the development of new mills. Table 21 indicated that six new MDF mills based on rubberwood should start operation by the end of 1997. It is not known where these new mills will be located in Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines but it is expected that they will be located in areas where industrial processing is already advanced. The problems of transporting rubberwood over long distances limits the possibility of utilizing the resource from a less industrialized area with lower prices.
4.3 Current consumption in producing countries
4.3.1 Consumption by the primary processing industries
As indicated previously, consumption of rubberwood was estimated to be around 4.6 million m3 in 1991, out of which 3.5 m3 was used by the sawmilling industry and some 1.1 million m3 by the wood-based panel industry. Thailand and Malaysia together accounted for 65 percent of total log production and these two countries have developed the most extensive export industries based on rubberwood. Assuming growth of rubberwood processing by 8 percent/year for Thailand and Malaysia and no growth for the other countries using rubberwood, it can be estimated that around 6.0 million m3 of rubberwood logs might have been produced/consumed in 1996. This total accounts for some 5 percent of production of non-coniferous sawlogs, but this percentage varies markedly among countries. For example, it is low in timber rich countries, such as Malaysia and Indonesia, or in large countries, such as China and India, but high in others such as Thailand and Sri Lanka.
4.3.2 Consumption by the secondary processing industries
Producing countrys' secondary processing industries using rubberwood cover a large spectrum from pallet manufacturing to the most advanced export-oriented furniture and joinery manufacturers in Malaysia and Thailand. There are no recorded statistics on the amount of rubberwood logs used by the furniture industry or on the production of rubberwood furniture in the main rubberwood producing countries. However, it is estimated that in 1992 some 85 percent of rubberwood sawnwood produced in Malaysia was processed further into furniture. A tentative estimate, based on previous studies, indicates a figure of 1.6 million m3 of rubberwood logs were used for sawnwood production in Malaysia in 1995. Assuming a 33 percent average sawnwood yield, this would give 520,000 m3 of rubberwood sawnwood production (6 percent of total sawnwood production in Malaysia) and, using a yield of 50 percent for sawnwood to finished products, some 220,000 m3 of secondary products production from rubberwood.
4.4 Current world demand for rubberwood
Since the 1993 in-depth study carried out under the auspices of the International Trade Centre, no equivalent work has been done. The estimated world consumption of rubberwood in 1991 amounted to 238,000 m3 (product volume). Table 27 shows the importance of the main import markets and the
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 39 sawnwood equivalent of rubberwood product consumption for these markets. The same study indicated rubberwood consumption by main importing markets and product type (Table 28).
Table 27 Consumption of rubberwood in 1991 Importer Actual Sawnwood equivalent (‘000 m3) (percent) (‘000 m3) (percent) United States of America 92.4 39 184.6 41 Japan 75.0 31 135.4 30 Europe 30.2 13 59.2 13 Taiwan Province of China 27.4 11 46.3 10 Republic of Korea 9.2 4 16.9 4 Singapore 3.8 2 5.4 1 Total 238.0 100 447.8 100 Note: product volumes were converted to sawnwood equivalents assuming a 50% recovery rate. Source : ITC (1993).
Table 28 Use of rubberwood by country and product type in 1991 Country or region Lumber Furniture Furniture Builders’ Other Total finished parts woodwork (‘000 m3) (‘000 m3) (‘000 m3) (‘000 m3) (‘000 m3) (‘000 m3) United States of America 0.2 65.0 12.0 2.3 12.9 92.4 Japan 14.6 31.5 21.9 2.0 5.0 75.0 Europe 1.4 16.4 n.a. 8.0 4.4 30.2 Taiwan Province of China 8.5 16.0 0.9 <0.1 2.0 27.4 Republic of Korea 1.5 0.8 3.9 1.7 1.3 9.2 Singapore 2.3 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.2 3.8 Total 28.5 130.2 39.3 14.2 25.8 238.0 Percent 12 55 16 6 11 100 Source: ITC (1993).
In Table 27 and Table 28, total use is somewhat underestimated because imports from Indonesia, Vietnam and China are not included. Nevertheless, data shows that furniture accounts for the largest share of rubberwood consumption, highlighting the advanced development of these industries in Southeast Asia. By contrast, rubberwood sawnwood consumption was relatively small and declining, confined mainly to Japan and Taiwan. This reflects problems, such as the lack of suitable dimensions, twisting, staining and the lack of a standard grading system.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 40 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
Based on the above consumption tables, ITC also produced projections of rubberwood product consumption in 1996 and (Table 29).
Table 29 Estimated rubberwood consumption in 1991 and 1996 Product Consumption 1996 Change in 1991 Actual Sawnwood equivalent 1991 – 1996 (000 m3) (000 m3) (000 m3) (% per annum) Lumber 28.5 28.5 28.5 n.a. Furniture 130.2 253.5 507.0 8.3 (Furniture parts) 39.3 Builders’ woodwork 14.2 28.9 57.8 15.2 Other wooden items 25.8 38.5 71.0 8.3 Total 238.0 349.4 674.3 8.0 Source : ITC (1993).
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 41
5 OUTLOOK
This section discusses the potential of rubberwood to continue the trend exhibited during the last ten years. The speed at which it has established itself as an important wood product in international markets is indeed remarkable. Many of the factors that have contributed to this have been outlined in the foregoing sections. Because of these factors, it is safe to say that rubberwood will continue to play an important role in furniture, furniture parts and wood-based panel industries.
The present report has also highlighted some of the obstacles to increased rubberwood utilization, chief among them the difficulty to access smallholder resources. Some of these difficulties will probably be overcome in due time. In order for this to happen, however, policy environments will likely have to be streamlined to make rubberwood utilization more attractive. In order for governments (and the private sector) to pay increased attention and allocate appropriate resources, in turn, rubberwood will have to continue to capture increasingly competitive world markets.
The paucity of data, particularly on the demand side, renders the development of sound projections a difficult task. Success stories, such as that of the Malaysian rubberwood industry, can underline the importance of more concerted efforts to mitigate the prevailing information scarcity. The socio- economic difficulties encountered by the large majority of rubber smallholders, as well as the environmental benefits of rubberwood compared to timber harvested from natural forests, would certainly justify the undertaking.
5.1 Rubberwood availability
An appropriate starting point in determining the outlook on rubberwood availability is a look at current projections concerning rubber prices. After the decades-long decline of natural rubber prices to historic lows, international rubber bodies have recently made more optimistic assessments. In 1998, the Association of Natural Rubber Producing Countries (ANRPC) reported production in Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Papua New Guinea would decline, but output in India, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam was expected to expand (Koetsawang, 1998). In 1999, the International Rubber Study Group (IRSG) announced that world production of natural rubber would fall short of consumption in 2000 for the second year in a row, leading to a further reduction of stockpiles. The Secretariat of the International Natural Rubber Organization (INRO) has warned of a shortfall in natural rubber supply within ten years unless current trends are reversed.
The International Rubber Research and Development Board has also argued ahead of its 2000 annual meetings that emerging into the new millennium there should be no cause for pessimism in the global natural rubber business. Competitive pressure from other crops may force rubber cultivation to shift into other areas. The Economist Intelligence Unit expects prices to double in 2001, partly because of the current surge in crude oil prices which is leading to higher carbon black prices in the USA. Nonetheless, rubber prices may continue to hover at lower than expected levels, at least until INRO releases its stock of 140,000 tons, which is supposed to be completed by June 2001, as part of its dismantling process.
These expected world demand and price developments, at the very least, should signal to rubber growers that the crop is worth maintaining. On the other hand, the prospect of higher rubber prices, similar to the Asian financial crisis, may induce rubber growers to hold off on replanting while the higher prices last.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 42 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
The following sections review information on outlook studies that have been done, primarily for Malaysia and Thailand, the two producers with the largest stake in rubberwood supply and demand trends. For selected countries, quantitative assumptions found in the literature are used to derive rough estimates for rubberwood availability.
5.1.1 Malaysia
The Malaysian government has recently confirmed rubber’s designation as a strategic commodity. As outlined earlier, the main agencies responsible for coordinating smallholder activities have similarly drawn attention to a strong policy in support of the maintenance of rubber plantations. In spite of these declarations, replanting rates have fallen short of planned and targets, casting doubt not only on the possibility that the decline in rubber plantation areas can be reversed, but also on the long-term projections made during the early part of the 1990s, when replanting rates were considerably higher than they are now. Current replanting rates need not concern us for the moment, however, since trees felled until 2010 were planted during the 1980s.
Table 30 Projected total wood production from rubber plantations in Peninsular Malaysia from 1996-2012 Year Estates Smallholdings Total (‘000 m3) (‘000 m3) (‘000 m3) 1996 2,899 4,208 7,107 1998 1,951 6,685 8,636 2000 2,683 6,062 8,745 2002 1,847 4,961 6,808 2004 1,488 3,451 4,939 2006 1,431 5,157 6,588 2008 1,720 7,261 8,981 2010 1,334 4,748 6,082 2012 581 2,626 3,207 Source: Arshad & Othman (1996).
The replanting rates reported for 1971-87 translate into projected total rubberwood production indicated in Table 30 (Arshad & Othmar, 1996). To derive these, the authors assumed yields of 190 m3 and 180 m3 of greenwood up to 8 cm diameter for estates and smallholdings, respectively. Assuming 57 m3 of usable logs and 18.1 m3 of sawnwood from estates and 54 m3 of usable logs and 10.8 m3 of sawnwood from smallholdings, in turn, produced the outlook on rubberwood logs and sawnwood illustrated in Table 31.
A more conservative assessment was made by Ismariah & Norini (1994). In their projections, they assumed gross yields of 180 m3 and 100 m3 (branches above 5 cm) and net volumes suitable for sawnwood processing of 20 and 15 percent for estates and smallholdings, respectively. While the outlook was more sober, the declining trend in rubberwood availability was confirmed.
Table 31 Projected log and sawnwood production from rubber plantations in Peninsular Malaysia from 1996-2012
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 43
Year Estates Smallholdings Total Logs Sawnwood Logs Sawnwood Logs Sawnwood (‘000 m3) (‘000 m3) (‘000 m3) (‘000 m3) (‘000 m3) (‘000 m3) 1996 870 276 1,263 253 2,133 529 1998 585 186 2,006 401 2,591 587 2000 805 256 1,819 364 2,624 620 2002 554 176 1,488 298 2,042 474 2004 446 142 1,035 207 1,481 349 2006 429 136 1,547 309. 1,976 445 2008 516 164 2,178 436 2,694 600 2010 400 127 1,425 285 1,825 412 2012 174 55 788 158 962 213 Source: Arshad & Othman (1996).
What both of these outlooks appear to leave out is the fact that a considerable share of resources is economically unavailable, estimated to be as much as 20 percent (ITC, 1993). Subtracting this from smallholder plantation areas where trees reach 25 years of age (according to the age distribution data reported in Section 3.1.2 on page 14) and using conversion rates averaging those used by the two outlook studies quoted above generates the projections illustrated in Figure 10 and Figure 11.
The graphs in Figure 10 and Figure 11 corroborate the trends indicated by Arshad & Othmar and Ismariah & Norini. First, an increasingly larger share of total rubberwood production will be available from smallholder plantations. Second, rubberwood log and sawnwood availability will decline steadily until 2004 and bottom-out in 2010 after a short recovery around 2007. These projections may yet prove to be too conservative, in large part because smallholders may chose to postpone replanting if rubber prices increase as expected during the early part of this decade.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 44 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
Figure 10 Adjusted outlook to 2016 for rubberwood log availability in Malaysia
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Estates Smallholdings
Note: amounts are in thousand cubic metres.
Figure 11 Adjusted outlook to 2016 for rubberwood sawnwood availability in Malaysia
400
300
200
100
0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Estates Smallholdings
Note: amounts are in thousand cubic metres.
5.1.2 Thailand
The outlook for Thailand is in some ways similar to that of Malaysia. Both countries have well established, high quality rubber plantations dominated by smallholders. Both countries have made significant inroads into downstream rubberwood processing. Yet the rubber growing sectors in both
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 45 countries are beginning to show signs of saturation and moves into other crops, though more so in Malaysia than in Thailand. There are also some important differences. Most significantly, Thailand’s rubber sector has been expanding throughout the 1990s and is developing a new rubber growing stronghold in the northeast, whereas Malaysia’s sector has been contracting. In addition, rubber replanting programs have been more successful in Thailand, providing a more stable long- term outlook to potential investors.
In the projection illustrated in Table 32, the authors assumed that total rubber plantation areas would remain stable at 1.89 million ha; 90 percent of the total area can be economically accessed; sawlog yields are 55 m3 per ha after a 25-year rotation; and logs can be processed into sawnwood with a 30 percent recovery rate (Promachotikool & Doungpet, 1996).
Table 32 Outlook for rubberwood availability in Thailand Year Plantations Plantations Total Felled area Available Potential <5 years old >5 years old sawlogs sawnwood (‘000 ha) (‘000 ha) (‘000 ha) (‘000 ha) (‘000 m3) (‘000 m3) 1992 784 1,104 1,888 48.0 2,360 710 1997 864 1,024 1,888 56.0 2,800 840 2002 1,008 880 1,888 67.2 3,320 1,000 2007 1,136 752 1,888 75.2 3,890 1,170 2012 1,360 528 1,888 75.2 4,180 1,250 2017 1,552 336 1,888 75.2 4,460 1,340 Source: Promachotikool & Doungpet (1996).
Compared with data from other studies, this projection is somewhat on the optimistic side with respect to economic availability (ITC in 1993 estimated only 80 percent to be economically available) and with respect of annual felled areas (average areas felled in 1986-1990 and 1991-1995 were 38,300 ha and 33,077 ha, respectively; Paechana & Sinthurahat, 1997). Even so, potential rubberwood and sawnwood availability in Thailand compares very favorably with that of Malaysia.
5.1.3 Indonesia
Indonesia is at present the world's second largest producer of natural rubber after Thailand. Despite acute price fluctuations in the past several years, Indonesia's production volume and exports of rubber have not been significantly affected. From 1993 to 1997, Indonesia's rubber production rose by 1.3 percent on average, from 1.48 million to 1.55 million tons. In 1997, Indonesia exported 1.43 million tons of processed natural rubber, but exports declined by 19.2 percent in 1998, as importers were reluctant to purchase this commodity from Indonesia due to its uncertain political situation. Rubber experts predict that this decline is only temporary and that the annual global demand growth of 2.1%, mainly from the tire industry and other downstream industries, will cause Indonesia's future production and exports to rise again. Rubber estates have gradually been converted to oil palm plantations as the obtained revenue from palm oil has been shown to be at least double to rubber.
The implications of these developments for rubberwood availability are threefold. First, since estates in Indonesia are most likely the main source of rubberwood, availability will gradually
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 46 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman decline as larger plantations switch to crops that are more profitable. Economically available plantations have been estimated as low as 45 percent (ITC, 1993).
The lack of information on rubber tree age distributions makes projections difficult. At best, the following rough calculations can provide a point of departure using 1998 as a base year. Assumptions include that rotations are 25 years for estates and 35 years for smallholdings; that all estates qualify as economically available areas; sawlog yields are 36 m3/ha for estates and 15 m3/ha for smallholdings (using the estimates of Ismariah & Norini for Malaysia); recovery rates for sawnwood are 20 percent. These assumptions give the estimates of potential production shown in Table 33.
Table 33 Potentially available rubberwood logs and sawnwood in Indonesia in 1998 Production stage Estates Smallholdings Total Rubberwood area (‘000 ha) 551 2,848 3,399 Estimated replanting areas (‘000 ha) 22 81 103 Total economically available (45 percent of total area) 248 1,282 1,530 Potentially available logs (‘000 m3) 793 367 1,161 Potentially available sawnwood (‘000 m3) 159 105 303
This very rough estimation would indicate a level of potential sawnwood production in 1998 that is about 10 percent higher than the conservative estimate for the same year by Ismariah and Norini (1994) for Malaysia.
5.2 Rubberwood demand by processing industries
Potentially available rubberwood need not find an outlet concerned with producing finished rubberwood products. As has historically been the case, a substantial share of harvested rubberwood is either burned at the site or used for fuelwood or charcoal. The increasing use of rubberwood in furniture, furniture parts and panel products suggests, however, that a growing share of available rubberwood finds its way to primary and secondary processing industries.
The momentum that has been created by Malaysia and Thailand will likely encourage other rubber producing countries, particularly Indonesia, to promote more rubberwood utilization. Information on future developments in processing capacity is typically scarce, with the exception of information for Malaysia and Thailand. Table 34 to Table 36 present some forecasts for these two countries.
A number of points are of particular interest in the information provided in these tables. First, the data for Malaysia reveals that significant supply shortfalls are expected for rubberwood sawlogs during the years 2002-06 and again from 2010 and for rubberwood chip logs during the years 2004- 06 and again from 2010. These expectations will likely translate into higher prices paid to rubber farmers in close proximity to processing centers.
The second point to note is that, in contrast to Malaysia, Thailand is not expected to face a similar shortage (compare Table 32 with Table 36). For each of the years reported, potential sawnwood supply is at least 300,000 m3 greater than projected demand.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 47
Table 34 Supply and demand of rubberwood sawlogs in Malaysia in 1996-2012 Year Supply and demand of sawlogs ('000 m') Available supply Projected demand Difference 2000 1,837 1,569 269 2002 1,429 1,600 -171 2004 1,037 1,632 -595 2006 1,383 1,665 -282 2008 1,886 1,698 188 2010 1,278 1,732 -454 2012 673 1,767 -1,094 Source: Arshad & Othman (1996).
Table 35 Supply and demand of rubberwood chip logs in Malaysia in 1996-2012 Year Supply and demand of chip logs ('000 m3) Available supply Projected demand Difference 2000 4,285 2,880 1,405 2002 3,336 3,168 168 2004 2,421 3,485 -1,064 2006 3,228 3,834 -606 2008 4,401 4,217 184 2010 2,980 4,639 -1,659 2012 1,572 5,103 -3,531 Note: chiplogs have diameters below 8 cm. Source: Arshad & Othman (1996).
Table 36 Outlook for demand for various wood products in Thailand Product 2002 2007 2012 2017 Sawn hardwood 5.59 6.69 7.90 9.28 Sawn rubberwood 0.70 0.78 0.86 0.96 Plywood and veneer 0.76 0.92 1.08 1.28 Fibreboard 0.31 0.39 0.48 0.57 Particleboard 0.55 0.75 0.99 1.29 Poles 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 Note: all amounts are in thousand cubic metres. Source: Promachotikool & Doungpet (1996).
5.3 Export potential of rubberwood furniture
This section addresses the export potential of rubberwood in its two most important forms: furniture and sawnwood. The export potential of rubberwood-based plywood, particleboard and particularly
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 48 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
MDF is not assessed in this study because it would be necessary to undertake a more in-depth analysis. It should be noted, however, that if rubberwood processing into panels was to increase dramatically this could limit the availability of rubberwood for the two uses examined here.
To ascertain the likely future demand for rubberwood furniture it is necessary to place trade and consumption of rubberwood furniture in the context of overall furniture trade and consumption. Table 37 shows the relative importance of rubberwood furniture and wooden furniture imports in the main import markets.
Table 37 Relative importance of rubberwood in imports of wooden furniture in 1991 Country/Region Total wooden Total wooden Rubberwood Total imports Rubberwood furniture furniture furniture as a imports as a consumption imports imports percentage of percentage of consumption total imports United States 16,896 1,910 657.5 11.3 34.4 Japan 15,670 585 248.8 3.7 48.6 Europe 43,177 8,058 190.7 18.7 2.4 Taiwan Province 386 41 10.3(1) 10.6 25.1 of China Republic of Korea 1,820 33 8.9 1.8 26.7 Singapore 110 212(2) 25.3(2) N.A. 11.9 Total 78,059 10,839 1,177.5 13.8 10.8 Note: this table includes imports of parts (1) and imports that are subsequently re-exported (2). Imports are measured in US$ million. Source: ITC.
The share of the wooden furniture market held by imports is increasing in the United States of America and Japan. In particular, imports to Japan are increasing rapidly. The recent trend in Japanese imports of wooden furniture is shown in Table 38.
Table 38 shows that Japanese imports from Asian countries increased by 48 percent from 1989 to 1993, while the overall increase was only 17 percent. The formidable growth of Japanese imports of wooden furniture from the main rubberwood producers Thailand (170 percent), Indonesia (241 percent) and Malaysia (671 percent) is evident.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 49
Table 38 Japanese imports of wooden furniture by source (Million yen) Country/Region 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Asia 38,251 41,108 46,693 51,346 56,518 Republic of Korea 5,052 5,187 4,463 3,699 3,547 China 1,731 1,721 2,232 3,225 4,991 Taiwan Province of China 17,049 14,467 14,353 13,945 12,562 Hong Kong SAR, China 708 820 1,015 1,152 1,103 Thailand 6,342 9,055 12,199 15,094 17,128 Singapore 4,108 4,358 4,968 4,537 3,636 Malaysia 634 1,359 2,397 3,403 4,886 Philippines 177 269 329 403 496 Indonesia 2,302 3,371 4,502 5,643 7,850 India 73 109 89 98 35 Others 75 93 115 147 286 Europe 22,588 33,518 26,982 21,509 14,766 North America 3,917 5,416 5,251 4,867 4,465 Others 254 245 167 194 163 Total 65,010 80,288 79,093 77,915 75,912 Note: all amounts are in million Yen. Source: MOF.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 50 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
It is estimated that two thirds of the world market for furniture is made up of industrialized countries (Europe, the United States of America and Japan). There are several factors that explain the growth of wooden furniture imports by the main consuming areas. This trend is likely to continue and probably accelerate in the short and medium term. The factors in favor of wooden furniture imports include:
• increasing production costs in the furniture industries of the main consuming countries;
• low cost of imported furniture parts, which furniture producers can use in the manufacturing of their products;
• increased demand for low to medium priced wooden furniture;
• demographic changes (younger buyers no longer see furniture as once-in-a-lifetime purchases and tend to buy cheaper furniture); and
• increasing demand for fitted furniture, which can be produced on an industrial scale and is easily transported in knockdown form.
Global furniture imports and exports are shown in Table 39 and Table 40. The percentage of total furniture imports accounted for by wooden furniture is not available for all countries, but it is estimated to be between 40-60 percent. Table 39 shows the recent strong growth of furniture imports to the United States of America and Japan (the main markets for rubberwood furniture) and Table 40 shows that in recent years, exports of furniture from the main rubberwood producing countries have grown strongly (61 percent in Malaysia, 56 percent in Thailand and 76 percent in Indonesia).
The trends in furniture imports and exports support the conclusion that rubberwood furniture has become increasingly accepted in recent years. The upward trend in international demand for rubberwood furniture is likely to continue in the future in view of the high level of imports and preference for low and medium priced wooden furniture in large consuming countries such as the United States of America and Japan.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 51
Table 39 World furniture imports in 1992-1995 Country 1992 1993 1994 1995 United States of America 6,086 6,905 8,290 9,128 Germany 6,333 5,007 5,580 6,584 France 3,262 2,474 2,737 3,206 Japan 1,741 1,933 2,677 3,155 Canada 1,546 1,740 1,908 1,985 United Kingdom 1,917 1,614 1,727 1,915 Netherlands 2,148 1,458 1,611 1,857 Belgium 1,794 1,340 1,546 1,776 Switzerland 1,561 1,386 1,544 1,738 Austria 1,135 1,100 1,245 1,455 Hong Kong SAR, China 678 791 967 997 Russian Federation 287 451 795 1,157 Sweden 817 617 764 850 Mexico 399 446 613 449 Italy 706 537 582 699 First 15 countries Total 30,410 27,799 32,586 36,951 World Total 37,471 33,066 38,476 43,089 Note: all amounts are in million US$. Source: CSIL processing of UN data.
Table 40 World furniture exports in 1992-1995 Country 1992 1993 1994 1995 Italy 5,947 5,797 6,735 8,366 Germany 4,878 4,090 4,356 4,882 USA 2,983 3,309 3,729 3,806 Canada 1,389 1,693 2,180 2,620 France 1,935 1,649 1,808 2,080 Taiwan Province of China 1,840 1,840 1,800 1,764 Denmark 1,723 1,599 1,786 2,160 Belgium 1,566 1,409 1,499 1,622 China 825 1,083 1,496 1,765 United Kingdom 1,153 916 1,109 1,338 Sweden 997 850 1,014 1,391 Poland 404 581 895 1,338 Netherlands 1,124 877 878 959 Mexico 481 659 851 897 Indonesia 491 676 784 866 Malaysia 394 566 769 916 Spain 614 553 729 1,036 Hong Kong SAR, China 432 569 709 770 Thailand 486 594 708 757 Austria 709 651 715 817 Total ( 20 countries ) 30,371 29,961 34,550 40,150 World Total 34,459 34,707 39,973 46,645 Note: all amounts are in million US$. Source: CSIL processing of UN data.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 52 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
The prospect for rubberwood furniture demand is less favorable in Europe because of competition from low-priced furniture from Eastern Europe. In this area, rubberwood imports are mainly confined to rubberwood flooring (Netherlands and Germany). In addition, European imports of furniture, although the largest in terms of percentage of consumption, tend to be mainly from other European countries.
In Table 41, strong growth of imports from Eastern Europe can be observed. Imports from Asia grew strongly at the beginning of the 1990s following the dislocation of industries in Eastern Europe but has since slowed down considerably.
Table 41 The sources of European Union furniture imports 1990-1995
Country/Region Imports (in million ECU) Share % % change 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1990 1995 1990-95 Europe 9183.7 9944.5 10324.8 8272.2 9265.9 9340.2 93.4 86.9 1.7 European Union* 8112.4 8746.2 8987.2 6786.2 7546.7 7276.7 82.5 67.7 -10.3 West. Europe others 220.4 271.4 275.1 269.0 278.2 339.8 2.2 3.2 54.2 Eastern Europe 850.9 926.9 1062.5 1217.0 1441.0 1723.8 8.7 16.0 102.6 Africa 58.4 96.5 113.7 154.9 194.0 232.3 0.6 2.2 297.8 America 147.7 185.1 238.4 305.2 321.9 316.8 1.5 2.9 114.5 North America 128.1 151.1 170.5 184.2 191.8 178.0 1.3 1.7 39 Central & South America 19.6 34.0 67.9 121.0 130.1 138.8 0.2 1.3 608.2 Asia 379.7 562.2 645.5 781.0 823.0 857.0 3.9 8.0 125.7 Middle East 43.5 48.2 59.2 58.3 64.6 79.3 0.4 0.7 82.3 Central Asia 42.1 60.5 74.4 99.8 104.0 101.3 0.4 0.9 140.6 Far East 294.1 435.5 511.9 622.9 654.4 676.5 3.0 6.3 130 Oceania 1.4 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.5 2.1 0.0 0.0 50 Unspecified 64.3 1.7 1.0 1.8 5.5 2.1 0.7 0.0 -96.7 World 9835.3 10792.5 11326.2 9517.3 10612.7 10750.6 100.0 100.0 9.3 * All major producers/exporters. Denmark not included because data not available. Source: CSIL
The Chinese furniture industry produced US$ 8.8 billion worth of products in 1997, competition is increasing and supplies of some varieties are outstripping demand. Domestic producers are facing increased competition from imported products for which tariffs have been cut. Imported furniture in 1997 was worth about US$1 billion. Domestic demand has increased at about 10 percent a year. While preferences in the North are for darker woods, southern China’s trend is towards the use of lighter species such as beech, birch, maple and pine. Many of these are imported from the U.S. and Europe. (FDM Asia, 1998)
At the global level, markets will not be an obstacle to growth for rubberwood furniture and furniture parts. Wooden furniture markets are receptive to new products and new designs using rubberwood. In addition, there is a current positive perception about rubberwood. The positive perception among many buyers in Europe, Japan and the United States is the fact that rubberwood is obtained from a renewable resource. Furniture retailers may use this argument to point out the advantage of utilizing a hardwood that is not endangered and is being replanted. Furthermore, its extraction causes little threat to wildlife and, combined with latex production, it represents an efficient type of land use. This has become a distinct advantage for the marketing and acceptance of rubberwood products, especially in countries where environmental lobbies are strong.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 53
5.4 Export potential of rubberwood sawnwood
Malaysia was the first countries to utilize rubberwood at an industrial scale, starting with the production of sawnwood (mainly for export), which stimulated the development of the larger rubberwood industry. Some technological adjustments were needed in order to process rubberwood sawlogs, which tend to come in smaller sizes and shorter lengths. The peak of rubberwood sawnwood exports from Malaysia was reached in 1989 with 221,000 m3 exported, as previously discussed in the footnotes to Table 18.
After the imposition of an export levy and quota in 1990, exports of rubberwood sawnwood from Malaysia decreased rapidly. Rubberwood sawnwood exports were completely banned in 1994. The levy and subsequent ban were certainly successful in encouraging the further processing of rubberwood. An analysis of export statistics, post levy and quota imposition, revealed that export earnings from value added activities, particularly furniture exports, increased significantly. More recently, sawmillers and rubberwood suppliers have lobbied for the reinstitution of an export quota, claiming that stocks in excess of 140,000 m3 were a heavy burden on cost structures. In 1999, customs seizures of sawn rubberwood bound for Hong Kong and Taiwan were frequently reported in the news.
The potential of sawnwood exports to Europe and the United States of America is relatively low, since further processing is relatively intensive-intensive, requiring a high degree of visual grading, collection of off-cuts and residues and sorting them for further processing in order to maximize the yields. This makes it very expensive to process rubberwood in these countries. Rubber producing countries with nascent rubberwood industries, however, may be expected to make inroads into international sawnwood markets in the short to medium term. As the example of Malaysia shows, however, government policies to encourage domestic processing may well curtail such trade.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 54 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 55
6 CONCLUSION
The rapid establishment of rubberwood as an important wood product in furniture and furniture manufacturing, as well as its increasing use in the wood-based panel industry has justifiably been called a ‘success story.’ While Malaysia has been at the forefront of this development, other rubber producing countries in the Asia-Pacific countries have yet to make full use of their potential. What follows below is a list of aspects that will impact on the development of rubberwood’s role to the year 2010.
Factors contributing to a positive outlook for rubberwood include:
• Rubberwood’s properties, particularly its light color and easy machining will continue to make it a popular substitute for wood from increasingly scarce natural forest trees. Modern heat/steam/vacuum systems have largely mitigated the problems associated with the wood’ latex content.
• Environmental concerns in consumer markets will increasingly shift preferences to wood products obtained from plantations. This will give rubberwood an advantage over some of the more traditional tropical woods used in furniture and wood-based panel manufacturing. Recent strides in rubberwood plantation certification confirm this development. On the other hand, rubberwood has to be able to compete with increasingly abundant softwood plantation species, particularly New Zealand pine.
• Where rubber tree planting programs are effective and economically accessible, rubber plantation areas can be maintained, as in Thailand, secure rubberwood supplies can provide the investment security necessary for expanded rubberwood utilization. In Thailand, for instance, potential sawlog and sawnwood availability is projected to increase from 2.8 million m3 to 4.18 million m3 and 0.84 million m3 to 1.25 million m3 from 1997 to 2012, respectively.
Obstacles to increased rubberwood utilization comprise:
• Rubberwood’s susceptibility to insect and fungal attacks will continue to make it economically unviable for the majority of rubber producers. Increased accessibility will only come with general socio-economic development, particularly in the transportation sector.
• Trends in the ownership structure indicate that an increasing share of rubber will be produced by smallholders. Their difficulties in profitably utilizing rubberwood will likely bring about shortages where demand outstrips what estates can supply. In Malaysia, for instance, where both estate and smallholding areas have been declining since the 1980s, sawlog availability is expected to decrease from more than 1.3 million m3 in 2000 to less than 0.5 million m3 in 2010 and sawnwood availability from more than 300,000 m3 to just over 100,000 m3. In Indonesia, estate areas have declining as well, but improving current underutilization may compensate for the smaller volume of mature trees available to 2010.
• Localized supply shortages and associated price developments may end rubberwood’s comparative advantage over other wood species. Since rubberwood comes in small sizes, it is suitable for the wood-based panel industry. If Malaysia’s OSB trials become
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 56 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
applied at larger scales, for instance, competition for rubberwood between furniture and panel manufacturers may lead to further price hikes.
As has been indicated earlier, the relative lack of information makes more specific projections impossible. It is to be hoped that the effort displayed in this article can serve as a motivation for future in-depth work.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 57
REFERENCES
"30,000 Hectares to be planted with rubber trees annually." Malaysian Timber Bulletin, Vol. 5 No. 2 (1999). Bani, Eirmalasare. 1999. “Government may impose small levy on furniture exports.” New Straits Times, February 24, 1999. Arshad, Najib Lofty bin & Ramli bin Othman. 1996. “Rubber plantations as a timber resource.” The Planter, 72:846 (September 1996). Albalajedo, José Luis. "The Potential of Rubberwood." ITTO Newsletter 7:4. Bangkok Bank. “Thai rubberwood furniture.” Research Articles, September 1999. Budiman, A. F. S. 1996. “The Future Development of Natural Rubber Production and Quality in Indonesia.” Natuurrubber 5, November 1996. Budiman, A.F.S., Penot, E., de Foresta, H., and Tomich, T. (1994) Integrated rubber agroforestry for the future of smallholder rubber in Indonesia. Paper presented to the National Rubber Conference, IRRI, Medan, Indonesia. Chan, K. W., Lim, C. H., Leong, T. T., Justin W. Stead, and Siow, S. T. 1996. “Environmental Audit and Certification of the Sustainable Management of Hevea Wood Plantations in Kumpulan Guthrie.” The Planter, 72:840 (March 1996) "FRIM Makes Breakthrough in Heveawood OSB." Malaysian Timber Bulletin, Vol. 4 No. 7 (1998). "Germplasm project will strengthen Malaysia's Heveawood resources." Malaysian Timber Bulletin, Vol. 4 No. 7 (1998). George, O. J. Undated. "Catering for the needs of rubber growers." The Indian Express Kochi. Ghazali, Fadzil. 1999. “Scheme to strengthen rubber smallholdings.” New Straits Times, August 13, 1999. Goldthorpe, C. C. 1993. “Natural Rubber and the environment: A review.” The Planter 69:808 (July). Gouyon, Anne. 1999. Fire in the Rubber Jungle...Fire Prevention and Sustainable Tree Crop Development in South Sumatra. International Forest Fire News No. 21 (September 1999). Hashim, Ismail. 1998. Disease survey. International Rubber Research Development Board. "Healthy earning predicted for Malaysian rubberwood furniture." Asian Timber, June 1995. “Higher use of particles, fibre in furniture.” New Straits Times, September 3, 1999. Hong, L. T. 1996. Rubberwood Utilization: A Success Story. Paper presented at the XXth World Congress of the International Union of Forestry Research Organizations, 6-12 August 1995, Tampere, Finland. Hong, L. T. 1995. "Rubberwood: powering Malaysia's furniture and panel industry." Asian Timber, November 1995. “IKEA in Asia.” FDM Asia - Solid Wood & Panel Technology/Furniture Manufacturing May/June 1998. “India: Rubberwood availability position improves.” Businessline, June 24, 1998 "India to waive tax on rubberwood and all its products."
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 58 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
"Indonesia rubber trees face axe for oil palm." Reuters Wire, July 7, 2000. Indufor. 1993. World supply potential of rubberwood. “Industry group predicts shortage of natural rubber for 2000.” Fox News Online, October 18, 1999. International Rubber Research and Development Board. 2000. Hevea brasiliensis: general description. International Trade Centre UNCTAD/GATT. 1993. Proceedings: International forum on investment opportunities in the rubberwood industry, 20-22 September 1993, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. International Tropical Timber Organization. 1998. Project Proposal: Development of the Indian rubberwood industry (Phase 1). International Tropical Timber Organization. October 1995. Pre-project report: Current situation of rubberwood processing and utilization in China. International Tropical Timber Organization. 1998(?). Project Proposal: Regional Development of the rubberwood industry in Côte d'Ivoire (Phase 1). Ismariah, A. & Norini, H. 1994. Availability of rubberwood resource in Peninsular Malaysia. In L. T. Hong & H. C. Sim, "Rubberwood processing and utilization," Malayan Forest Records No. 39 (March 1994). “ISO 14000 to be applied.” Bangkok Post, 26 August 1998. Jones, K. P. Undated. Rubber and the environment. International Rubber Research and Development Board. Joseph, K. T. 1991. “Soil Conservation.” In R. Kiew, ed., The state of nature conservation in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, Malayan Nature Society. Juriprik, Saree. 1996. “Thailand case study: rubber intercropping - Rubber smallholders community development project: an ecological and self-reliant alternative. Paper presented at the Monocultures: Environmental and social effects and sustainable alternatives Conference, June 2-6, 1996, Songkhla, Thailand. Khoo, S. K., edited by Arun Kashyap. 1993. Role of Rubberwood in forestry: Malaysian experience. FORSPA Occasional Paper 7. Bangkok, FAO. Khoo, K. C., Ong, C. L. & Lee, T. W. 1991. Studies on medium density fiberboard from rubberwood. Unpublished report. Koetsawang, Anchalee. 1998. “Rubber glut likely to persist into 1999.” Nando News & Reuters News Service, August 20, 1998. Kollert W. & A. U. Zana. 1994. “Rubberwood from Agricultural Plantations: A Market Analysis for Peninsular Malaysia.” The Planter, 70:823(October 1994). Krishnakumar, A. K., T. Eappen, N. Rao, S. N. Potty and M. R. Sethuray. 1990. “Ecological impact of rubber (hevea brasiliensis) plantations in North East India: 1. Influence on soil physical properties with special reference to moisture retention.“ Indian Journal of Natural Rubber Research 3:1. "Low output a new worry in Malaysia: Plantation areas can't shrink further." Bangkok Post, March 27, 2000. "Made for MDF." 1996. Asian Timber, June 1996.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 59
Malaysian Furniture Industry Council. “Overview of the Malaysian Furniture Industry.” Mathew, K. J. 1998. Crystal Gazing into India's Rubber Industry (excerpts). Meeting‘s China’s furniture needs.” FDM Asia - Solid Wood & Panel Technology/Furniture Manufacturing May/June 1998. Mohd. Nor Mohd. Yusoff. 1994. “Panel Products from Rubberwood: Particleboard, Blockboard and Medium Density Fibreboard” in L. T. Hong & H. C. Sim (eds.), Rubberwood processing and utilization. Mohd. Lokmal Ngah, Zakaria Ibrahim and Darus Ahmad. Undated. Potential for planting rubber trees for timber production. "Minister Lim calls for private sector participation in rubber plantation development." Malaysian Timber Bulletin, Vol.4 No.9 (1998). Nair, O.K. “India: Rubber farming - call for long-term strategies.” Businessline, April 1, 1999. Nirang, Grace. 2000. "Looting, land disputes hit Indonesia plantations." Vietnam News (Reuters), Thursday July 13, 2000. Office of the Rubber Replanting Aid Fund. Agricultural Credit Project for Seasonal Lending and Rubber Planting (ALA/TH/8509): A Project in Eastern Thailand. "Overview of rubberwood industry." Asia Pacific Forest Industries, Oct/Nov 1993. Paechana, Panus & Somyot Sinthurahat. 1997. Rubberwood: A new source of income for smallholders. Paper presented at the IRRDB Meetings in Vietnam in 1997. Prasertsan, S. & P. Vanapruk. 1998. Rubber plantations: an overlooked dendropower. Promachotikool, Montree & Mayuree Doungpet. 1996. “Wood products industry of Thailand.” Asian Timber, September 1996. Promdej, Sucharit. 1997. "Thai Rubber Industry: Current Status and Future Prospects." Excerpts from a Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference: Asia Rubber Market 1997 at the Hilton International Hotel, Singapore on 1-2 December 1997. Rahman, Radzuan Abdul & Roselina Johari. 1989. “Prospects for integrating timber production into agricultural plantations and of timber trees as the next major agricultural crop.” The Planter, 65:760 (July 1989). "Rapid growth for rubberwood and MDF industries predicted for Malaysia next year." Asian Timber, June 1995. Razali, A. K. & Diong, C. L. 1992. Influences of chip-storage period on selected properties of rubberwood (Hevea brasiliensis). Paper presented at the First National Seminar on Rubberwood. Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam. "Revised rubber strategy will increase heveawood production." Malaysian Timber Bulletin, Vol. 5 No. 3 (1999). "RISDA's Strategy to boost rubberwood supplies." Malaysian Timber Bulletin, January 1997. "Rising demand predicted for rubber wood furniture." Bangkok Post, July 13, 1999. "Rubberwood: Why it is so good." Asian Timber, November 1996. "Rubberwood sawmilling gains ground in Thailand." Asian Timber, September 1996.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 60 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
"Seminar on Commercial Cultivation of Teak, Sentang, Acacia and Hevea for Timber." Malaysian Timber Bulletin, January 1997. Sim, H. C. 1989. “Yields of rubberwood sawnwood.” Journal of Tropical Forest Science 2(1). SmartWood. 2000. Forest management public summary for: PT Xylo Indah Pratama (South Sumatra, Indonesia). “Smuggling of rubberwood threatens our furniture sector” New Straits Times, August 12, 1999 “Strong showing by Philippine furniture industry.” FDM Asia - Solid Wood & Panel Technology/Furniture Manufacturing January/February 1998. Tomich, T. P., van Noordwijk, Budidarsono, S., Gillison, A., Kusumanto, T., Murdiyarso, D., Stolle, F., Fagi, A.M. (2000) Agricultural intensification, deforestation, and the environment: assessing tradeoff in Sumatra, Indonesia. In: D.R. Lee and C.B. Barrett (ed). Tradeoffs or Synergies? Agricultural Intensification, Economic Development and the Environment. CAB International. Tomimura, Y., Khoo, K. C., Ong, C. L. & Lee, T. W. 1990. “Rubberwood for medium density fibreboard.” Journal of Tropical Forest Sciences 2:3. Urapeepatanapong, Chavalit. "Production and utilization of rubber wood in Thailand: II. Wood utilization and economic aspects." Thai Journal of Forestry 8:257-268. van Noordwijk, M., Tomich, T., Winahayu, R., Murdiyarso, D., Suyanto, Partoharjono, S. and Fagi, A.M. (1995) Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn in Indonesia, Summary Report of Phase 1. ASB Indonesia Report Number 4, 1995, Bogor, Indonesia. "Vietnam's rubber plantation increase." Far Eastern Agriculture November/December 1997 "VN rubber sector needs new markets." Vietnam News, Friday July 7 2000. Webster, C.C. & Baulkwill. 1989. Rubber. Wong, W. C. & Ong, C. L. 1979. The production of particleboard from rubberwood. The Malaysian Forester 42:1. "World rubber shortage seen likely in 2-3 yrs." Reuters Wire, July 3, 2000. Yeap Teik Bu. “Furniture makers must establish their own brand name.” New Straits Times, July 24, 1999.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 61
ANNEX A: NOMENCLATURE OF RUBBER TREE CLONES
Adapted from C.C. Webster & Baulkwill, 1989.
There is no official international registration authority for Hevea cultivars, but cooperation between breeders and others in various countries has led to the general adoption of a system whereby a clone is designated by letters indicating its place of origin and a serial number assigned to it by workers at that place. Names of more than one word are abbreviated to the initial letters of each word in capitals without full-stop points between them, e.g. RRIM for Rubber Research Institute of Malaysia. Single word names are abbreviated by giving the initial capital letter only, by two letters if both are consonants, e.g. Ch for Chemara, or occasionally by three or more letters, e.g. Pil for Pilmoor. Some exceptions to these conventions are in use, either because they are long established, or to avoid confusion between similar names such as Tjiomas and Tjirandji. A space is left between the abbreviation of the name and the serial number. If the latter is prefixed or suffixed with a serial letter, this is run on with the number, e.g. Pil A44. Where a subdivision of a series is indicated by a number, this is shown by an oblique stroke, e.g. PB 5/63. The following list gives the names and abbreviations of the places of origin of the better known clone series.
AVROS Algemene Vereniging Rubberplanters Oostkust Sumatra BD Bodjong Datar Ch Cliemara Ct Cultuurtuin Ford Ford FA Ford Acre FB Ford Belem FX Ford Cross GI Glenshiel GT Godang Tapen GyT Goodyear T series GyX Goodyear Cross Har Harbel HAPM Hollandsh Amerikaansche Plantage Maatschappij IRCI Institut des Recherches sur le Caoutchouc en Indochine IAN Instituto Agronomico do Norte LCB Lands Caoutchouc Bedrijven Lun Lunderston MDF Madre de Dios Firestone MDX Madre de Dios Cross MAP Malayan American Plantations Nab Nabutemme PPN Perusaha'an Perkebunan Negara Pil Pilmoor PB Prang Besar PR Proefstation voor Rubber RRIC Rubber Research Institute of Ceylon (Sri Lanka) RRII Rubber Research Institute of India RRIM Rubber Research Institute of Malaysia TR Terres Rouges Tjiomas Tjiomas Tjir Tjirandji
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 62 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
WR Wanggo Redjo
Clonal seedling families
Most plantations of clonal seedlings are established with seed resulting from self or cross- pollination in isolated seed gardens which have been planted with clones of buddings selected for their ability to give high-yielding seedling families when crossed in all combinations. Seed collected from a mixture of clones in such a garden is designated by letters indicating the name of the garden, e.g. PBIG/GG 1 for Prang Besar Isolated Seed Garden, Gough Garden 1. Seed collected from budded trees of one clone in a polyclone planting is denoted by the abbreviation for that clone, e.g. PB 5/51 seed. Seed obtained from an isolated monoclone planting, i.e. resulting from selfing of, or crossing between, budded trees of one clone, is designated by the abbreviation appropriate to the clone, with the suffix M for monoclonal, e.g. PB 5/51 M seed. Such seed may be useful for raising rootstocks for budding.
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No: 50 63
List of Working Papers already released
APFSOS/WP/01 Regional Study - The South Pacific APFSOS/WP/02 Pacific Rim Demand and Supply Situation, Trends and Prospects: Implications for Forest Products Trade in the Asia-Pacific Region APFSOS/WP/03 The Implications of the GATT Uruguay Round and other Trade Arrangements for the Asia-Pacific Forest Products Trade APFSOS/WP/04 Status, Trends and Future Scenarios for Forest Conservation including Protected Areas in the Asia-Pacific Region APFSOS/WP/05 In-Depth Country Study - New Zealand APFSOS/WP/06 In-Depth Country Study - Republic of Korea APFSOS/WP/07 Country Report - Malaysia APFSOS/WP/08 Country Report - Union of Myanmar APFSOS/WP/09 Challenges and Opportunities: Policy options for the forestry sector in the Asia-Pacific Region APFSOS/WP/10 Sources of Non-wood Fibre for Paper, Board and Panels Production: Status, Trends and Prospects for India APFSOS/WP/11 Country Report - Pakistan APFSOS/WP/12 Trends and Outlook for Forest Products Consumption, Production and Trade in the Asia-Pacific Region APFSOS/WP/13 Country Report - Australia APFSOS/WP/14 Country Report - China APFSOS/WP/15 Japan - In-depth country study APFSOS/WP/16 Country Report - Sri Lanka APFSOS/WP/17 Forest Resources and Roundwood Supply in the Asia Pacific Countries: Situation and Outlook to Year 2010 APFSOS/WP/18 Country Report - Cambodia APFSOS/WP/19 Wood Materials from Non-Forest Areas APFSOS/WP/20 Forest Industry Structure and the Evolution of Trade Flows in the Asia- Pacific Region - Scenarios to 2010 APFSOS/WP/21 Decentralization and Devolution of Forest Management in Asia and the Pacific APFSOS/WP/22 Commentary on Forest Policy in the Asia-Pacific Region (A Review for Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua-New Guinea, Philippines, Thailand, And Western Samoa APFSOS/WP/23 Asia Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook: Focus On Coconut Wood APFSOS/WP/24 Ecotourism And Other Services Derived From Forests In The Asia- Pacific Region: Outlook To 2010 APFSOS/WP/25 Technology Scenarios in the Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector APFSOS/WP/26 In-depth Country Report - India APFSOS/WP/27 People and Forests: Situation and Prospects APFSOS/WP/28 Non-Wood Forest Products Outlook Study for Asia and The Pacific: Towards 2010 APFSOS/WP/29 Opportunities for Forestry Investment in Asia and the Pacific Through Carbon Offset Initiatives APFSOS/WP/30 Country Report - The Maldives APFSOS/WP/31 Country Report - Vietnam
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply 64 Balsiger, Bahdon and Whiteman
APFSOS/WP/32 Country Report - Nepal APFSOS/WP/33 Country Report - The Philippines APFSOS/WP/34 Regional Study on Wood Energy Today and Tomorrow in Asia APFSOS/WP/35 The Status, Trends and Prospects for Non-Wood and Recycled Fibre Sources in China APFSOS/WP/36 Outlook, Trends and Options with Special Reference to Legislation, Institutions and Capacity Building (A Review for Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Myanmar, Japan and Vietnam) (Draft) APFSOS/WP/37 Perspectives of Environmental Civil Society Organizations on Forestry in the Asia-Pacific Region: Outlook To 2010 APFSOS/WP/38 Summary Of The Country Outlook: Lao PDR APFSOS/WP/39 Forestry and Key Asian Watersheds (Issued by ICIMOD as ISBN 92 9115 760 0) APFSOS/WP/40(a) FAO Outlook Study On Wood Based Panels Production, Consumption And Trade In The Asia Pacific Region 1996 to 2010 APFSOS/WP/40(b) FAO Outlook Study On Wood Based Panels Production, Consumption And Trade In The Asia Pacific Region - 1996 To 2010 - China Section Study On China’s Wood-Based Panel Market Outlook For The Years 2000-2010 APFSOS/WP/41 Scenarios For Extra- And Inter-Sectoral Developments Of Forestry Outlook Study For Asia And The Pacific APFSOS/WP/42 Country Report - Forestry Of Mongolia APFSOS/WP/43 Asia-Pacific Forestry Statistics Compendium (Draft): Volume I - Socio-Economic, Resources and Non-wood Products Statistics Volume II - Wood Products Statistics APFSOS/WP/44 Urban Forestry in the Asia-Pacific Region - Situation and Prospects APFSOS/WP/45 Country report - Indonesia APFSOS/WP/46 In-depth country report - Thailand APFSOS/WP/47 Review of Economic and Social Developments in the Asia-Pacific Region with Projections to 2010 APFSOS/WP/48 Country Report – Bangladesh APFSOS/WP/49 Review of Social and Economic Developments in the Asia-Pacific Region with Projections to 2010 APFSOS/WP/50 The Utilization, processing and demand for Rubberwood as a source of wood supply
The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply