On September 10, 1997, Indonesian President Soeharto renewed a ban on the practice of burning forests to clear land. At that moment a thick haze caused by land-clearing related fires in Kalimantan and Sumatra, Indonesia, blanketed large parts of Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, the Philippines and Thailand. These fires, aggravated by the El Nino weather pattern and described as the worst in Southeast Asian history, renewed a long-term debate on slash-and-burn (S&B) as a method of land clearing. Acceptable alternatives to S&B should address both the problems and the benefits of the use of fire. In depth knowledge and a clear diagnosis of the problems that rise with S&B and its alternatives are needed. A social/economic/agronomic survey was therefore conducted among 37 small-scale rubber producers in Sepunggur, Jambi Province, Sumatra, Indonesia. Our objectives were to. (1) characterize S&B techniques; (2) characterize farmers' perspectives on land clearing methods related to agronomic/economic factors (soil fertility, plant growth, production); and (3) evaluate alternatives to S&B that would be acceptable to individual farmers at present and in the near future. Small rubber producers (average farm size approximate to 5 ha) were selected because rubber gardens are the major land use type in this area, small producers are the main contributors, and most of the forest that is presently converted for agricultural use is being planted with rubber seedings. Farmers generally start slashing in March and burn in the month of August. Burning takes place in two steps: broadcast burn followed by pile-and-burn. The five advantages of using fire as mentioned by the farmers were: (1) burning creates space (51%); (2) ash acts as a fertilizer (23%); (3) burning improves soil structure enabling faster establishment of seedlings (15%); (4) burning reduces weed/tree competition (5%); and (5) burning reduces the occurrence of pests/diseases (3%). Alternatives to S&B should be economically acceptable. Mulching does nor provide an alternative to any of the benefits of burning. Slash-and-remove-wood addresses only the first advantage and requires a tremendous effort in labor. If forced to accept either alternative, farmers expect a reduction in income due to difficulties in establishing new rubber gardens, reductions in yield, and an increase in labor costs. At present, small quantities of wood with economic value are sold on the local market. Slash-sell-and-burn is an alternative that could maintain the advantages of using fire while supplying the farmer with extra income and the initiative to remove and not burn the trees. Even though forest is rapidly being converted to rubber gardens, land clearing will remain in practice to rejuvenate the old rubber gardens or to convert them to other land use systems. By selling rubberwood, farmers could cover costs of land clearing and earn enough to cover some of the costs of buying higher-yielding clones for rubber planting. This alternative has benefits similar to using fire and could significantly reduce pollution problems, but a change in local trade regulations and taxes is required for its successful adoption. (C) 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
View source
