Intercropping boosts smallholder tree crops |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Improving land use efficiency and income generation of smallholder rubber systems by intercropping. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New intercropping systems can double returns from small rubber plantations. Smallholders in Asia - often cultivating less than two acres - produce more than three-quarters of the world's natural rubber. But, because young trees produce no rubber for the first 5-6 years, farmers plant bananas as an intercrop to tide them over. Farmers in Sri Lanka now plant a third more bananas than officially recommended and find they can make twice as much profit. Plus, the higher density of bananas stimulates growth in the young rubber trees. Intercropping has major potential for rural communities of rubber growers. And, although the system was proven on rubber and banana, it is also being applied to maize, upland rice and tea, and in India and Ghana. Project Ref: PSP32:
Research Programmes: Plant Sciences Research Programme Relevant Research Projects: R5058, R7002, R7212 Partner institutes
Research Outputs, Problems and Solutions: On-station, on-farm and farmer-led research identified suitable intercropping interventions to improve income generation and productivity of immature smallholder rubber lands. Using banana as a model crop we determined the optimal planting densities for intercropping immature rubber, tested initially on-station (Rodrigo et al., 1997, 2001a, 2005a, 2005b, Senevirathna et al., 2002a, 2002b, 2003) and later confirmed in farmers' fields under a wide range of climatic and socio-economic conditions (Rodrigo et al. 2001b, 2001c, 2003). Contrary to expectations, planting densities of up to 30% greater than those originally recommended for intercropping had a beneficial effect on growth of rubber relative to the sole crop. For smallholder, resource-poor rubber growers this: (i) increased the productivity of immature rubber lands by planting an additional crop and at a higher density, (ii) reduced the immature, unproductive period of the rubber plantation, (iii) increased yield return due to improved growth of rubber, (iv) increased girth expansion of the rubber tree which has been related to increased timber volume and (v) secured subsidy payments as a result of the improved rubber growth (Rodrigo et al., 2005a). This research resulted in changes in the official recommendations for rubber intercropping in Sri Lanka. The PSP research began in 1993 identifying limitations in the existing recommendations for rubber-based intercropping. By 1997, rubber/banana intercropping systems which increase the overall productivity and profitability by over two-fold were developed. In 1998, the market potential for these higher density rubber intercrops was identified and the importance of rubber/banana intercropping in rural communities established. By 2002, a detailed livelihoods analysis of rubber-based cropping systems (Thenakoon, 2002) and wide-scale testing of the intercropping systems (Senevirathna, 2001) were completed. Traditionally plantation crops, such as rubber, have occupied an important position in the economy of many Asian countries, as a major product for export and through provision of jobs, with natural rubber providing a major income source to over 20 million farmers world wide, most of whom are low income and land-poor. Over 80% of the world's natural rubber is produced in Asia on smallholdings, many of which are less than 2 acres. Rubber cannot be tapped during the first five or six years of growth and smallholder farmers face an initial gap in their income after replanting, which the rubber subsidy only partially fills. This problem can be alleviated by growing shorter-duration annual and perennial crops, for cash or subsistence. In the early 1990s, the choices available to smallholders for intercropping were restricted by the rules for subsidy payments that minimised the risks to rubber and latex productivity rather than increasing the efficiency of smallholder land use. For instance, the recommended planting density of banana in rubber/banana intercropping was only ca. 30% of that of sole-cropped banana. Prior to the onset of this research the RRISL undertook no participatory research, and operated a linear extension programme of transfer of technology. Consequently the needs of smallholder farmers were not fully taken into account when developing recommendations for intercropping of rubber.
Although rubber and banana were the main commodities in the process of developing intercropping systems, the model has been applied to other seasonal crops, such as maize and upland rice (Rodrigo et al., 2001c) and plantation tree crops, such as tea (Iqbal, 2003).
Other interventions could be tested not only in the context of rubber intercropping but also other tree crop systems; for example the outputs have already been adapted to tea intercropping (Iqbal, 2003). This work also indicated some benefits of intercropping on reducing pests and disease and there would be added benefits of clustering these outputs with areas of crop protection and improved crop agronomy, e.g:
How the outputs were validated: How validated: The outputs (high density rubber/banana intercropping) were validated in two steps. Benefits shown in on-station experiments of high density rubber intercropping were tested on-farm and with different degrees of farmer participation (Rodrigo et al., 2003; Senevirathna, 2001; Stirling et al., 2001). Rubber intercropping trials were evaluated under different management and socio-economic conditions and in two major climatic zones; the Wet and Intermediate Zones where rubber has been grown for more than a century or its cultivation has recently expanded (i.e. in the last 15 years), respectively.. Results confirmed the utility of high density intercropping on smallholdings as did interviews with participating farmers (Detailed information is given below). Summary of the conclusions drawn up by farmers and researchers at the end of project workshop (Rodrigo et al. 2003).
Socio-economic and market studies were undertaken by both project and non-project staff in 1997, 1999 and 2000. A detailed analysis of farmer livelihoods in smallholder rubber growing districts was undertaken over a period of 18 months by spending periods of time living in selected villages. Full details of the methods used are provided in the following reports and PhD theses:
Where the Outputs were Validated: Where and when: Validation of outputs was limited to Sri Lanka and undertaken by both project and non-project staff at various stages during the lifetime of the project. Validation resulted in the Rubber Research Institute issuing new recommendations for intercropping rubber which have now been adopted by the extension services. Process: The validation of the outputs was done in farmers' fields in both the Wet and Intermediate Zones of Sri Lanka and for a range of socio-economic groups (see below). Dry regions (Intermediate zone of the country) were considered to be a potential area for further expansion of rubber due to land availability and the fact that farmers in these areas do not have a permanent source of income and so depend on seasonal rainfed crops. Also, villages used were different in infrastructure and in other livelihood assets. Livelihood capital assets of the sites used for validation of outputs are shown below (Fig. 1). Who are the Users? Outputs were published in peer reviewed journals and bulletins on rubber. Recommendations on rubber-based intercropping were revised and included in new advisory circulars and in the Handbook of the RRISL on rubber agronomy (Rodrigo, 2001). These publications are circulated in other rubber growing countries. In particular, visits made to India and Ghana enabled the findings to be disseminated more widely. Also, the new recommendations have been included in the training programmes of new extension personnel on rubber in Sri Lanka. No studies have been undertaken since 2000 in Sri Lanka nor elsewhere to assess the present level of adoption of high density intercropping. Where the outputs have been used: The areas are:
Scale of Current Use: There have been no studies conducted after the completion of the project in 2000 and so the scale of adoption in different zones of the country and at an international level remain unknown. However, the potential scale of adoption is very large as the outputs can be applied to most rubber lands and ca. 80% of the rubber growers in the world are smallholders. However as identified in this project, the major constraint to uptake is access to effective extension information and advice in the remoter rubber-growing regions of Sri Lanka. The use of participatory on-farm research provided a means of allowing farmers to experience for themselves the potential benefits of high density intercropping so the adoption level of outputs within project and surrounding villages should be high. Policy and Institutional Structures, and Key Components for Success: The Rubber Research Institute of Sri Lanka (RRISL) is responsible for issuing recommendations for rubber cultivation and for education of the extension service. By collaborating with the RRISL throughout the course of this research it has been possible to bring about changes in mindsets with regard to the value of participatory research, both in terms of its scientific value and its importance in tailoring research towards the needs of the end user - the farmer. This, together with the training of RRISL staff through the provision of short courses and PhD programmes has ensured that the participatory and scientific approaches used have become firmly embedded within the institute. Consequently, the adaptive research programme of the RRISL has become increasingly participatory in nature and is in the process of promoting the project outputs in the smallholder sector. This is done in collaboration with the Rubber Development Department (RDD) of Sri Lanka which is the body officially responsible for the technology transfer and rubber cultivation in the smallholder sector. The success of the outputs was also facilitated by the extensive collaboration between natural scientists and sociologists and between international institutions (i.e. RRISL, University of Sri Jayawardenapura Sri Lanka and Universities of Wales and Durham, UK). Inter-institutional collaboration within Sri Lanka (RRISL and RDD) and at an international level (Rubber Research Institute of India and University of Ghana) has also helped to promote the outputs. Lessons Learned and Uptake Pathways Promotion of Outputs: Currently, promotion of high density intercropping systems amongst smallholders is undertaken in Sri Lanka by the RRISL and RDD. It is not known the extent to which other countries are promoting the outputs of this research at the farmer-level. The outputs have also been published internationally and so are available for promotion by research and extension organizations in other countries. For instance, as a result of the high profile of the projects publications, Dr. Rodrigo was invited for a special lecture on rubber intercropping at the Rubber Planters' conference in India (Rodrigo, 2002). The fundamental knowledge generated by this research and its outputs have stimulated other research. For example, a similar approach was used to address issues in smallholder rubber/tea intercropping systems (Iqbal, 2003). Research outputs have been published in highly respectable international journals and cited by many other researchers. As quoted in the annotated bibliography on rubber based farming systems published by the Rubber Research Institute of India, project outputs have produced the highest number of publications on rubber intercropping (Sujatha et al., 2006). Potential Barriers Preventing Adoption of Outputs: Poor extension is a major constraint to uptake of the project outputs. The farmers most likely to benefit from project outputs are those in the remote regions of the Intermediate Zone that are fully dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods and for who, rubber is a relatively new to crop. These farmers are highly dependent on extension advice. The organisations involved in promoting the project outputs in Sri Lanka follow the traditional approach to technology transfer which is ineffective. There is no proper system to assess the efficiency of the extension service in the RDD which is responsible for the smallholder sector. Similarly, there is no proper incentive scheme to encourage extension workers to increase their effectiveness with no promotional avenues. This was been evident with other existing technologies of rubber (Rodrigo et al., 2004). How to Overcome Barriers to Adoption of Outputs: Improved dialogue with policy makers in all rubber growing countries in order to introduce structural changes and new policies (e.g. making intercropping an essential component of subsidy payments) is required to promote the outputs. A more rapid dissemination of outputs could be achieved through the introduction of effective extension tools. For example, development of extension manuals and site-specific handbooks in local languages for smallholders, establishment of farmer participatory demonstrations plots and conducting workshops in different parts of the country and in other rubber growing countries would greatly reduce the barriers to adoption. Moreover, publishing a book and making freely available material covering intercropping practices in different rubber growing countries and the participatory approaches used in this project would increase awareness of outputs amongst policy makers, scientists and ultimately extension workers. Lessons Learned: Using Rogers (2003) diffusion of information as a framework for the lessons learnt:
Poverty Impact Studies: These studies were confined to Sri Lanka Impact of the major outputs (i.e. interplanting high density banana with rubber) on rural poverty and market was assessed in Sri Lanka under the project R7002 (Janowski, 1997 and Gray, 1997, respectively). In addition, detailed socioeconomic studies were undertaken on the impact of the project on rural livelihoods (Thennakoon, 2002). Financial analysis showed the highest potential net profit in the application of the major outputs, i.e. high density banana/rubber intercropping, is ca. Rs. 50,000 (at 4.5% discount rate) per hectare which represents an increase of more than 350% over the previous recommendation on intercropping (Rodrigo et al. 2001b). How the Poor have Benefited (including gender and other poverty groups): The livelihood analysis (Stirling et al. 2001) showed that social assets of farmers using project outputs (i.e. rubber intercropping) were greater than those that did not (Fig. 1). The opposite was true for physical assets as those farmers who adopted intercropping were living in the most remote rural areas where farming was a full-time activity and maximum returns from the land was a priority. Financial assets of rubber farmers who adopted intercropping were as high as those of non-intercroppers suggesting that intercropping of rubber can contribute significantly to financial assets (Fig. 2), as observed in previous case studies of smallholder farmers (Rodrigo et al. 2001c).
Figure 1 Livelihood capital assets of smallholder farmers cultivating rubber either alone or as an intercrop. Data were gathered from interviews with 697 smallholder farmers in 9 administrative districts of Sri Lanka. The five main capital assets are: Physical (P), Human (H), Financial (F), Social (S) and Natural (N).
Figure 2. Cash flow depicting the source of annual income and expenditure of a smallholder farmer practising rubber-based intercropping (Rodrigo et al. 2003) Direct and Indirect Environmental Benefits: Direct and indirect benefits:
Adverse Environmental Impacts:
Coping with the Effects of Climate Change, or Risk from Natural Disasters:
References Gray, A. (1997). Report for the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (Bangor) on a Visit to Sri Lanka to Assess the Market Impact of a Potential Increase in Production of Banana Resulting from High Density Intercropping of Banana with Rubber. Natural Resources Institute, UK. pp. 33. Janowski, M. (1997). Report on an Analysis of Rural Livelihoods and Poverty in Two Villages in Sri Lanka. Natural Resource Institute, UK. pp.36. Iqbal, S.M.M. (2003). Factors limiting productivity and adoption of rubber/tea intercropping in the low country wet zone of Sri Lanka, Doctor of Philosophy, July 2003, University of Essex/Writtle College, UK. Rodrigo, V.H.L. (1997). Population density effects on rubber/banana interculture systems. PhD Thesis, University of Essex, UK. Rodrigo, V.H.L. (2001). Rubber based intercropping systems. In: 'Handbook of rubber. Volume 1, Agronomy'. Eds. L.M.K. Tillekeratne and A. Nugawela, Rubber Research Institute of Sri Lanka. pp. 139-155. Rodrigo, V.H.L. (2002). Rubber based intercrops for improved productivity: the best available today. In Global competitiveness of Indian Rubber Plantations Industry: Rubber Planters' Conference India 2002 (Ed. C. K. Jacob), Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam, India, pp. 24-25. Rodrigo, V.H.L., Wickramarathna, N.A.A.D. and Vidanapathirana, R.D. (2004). Productivity and tapper shortage in rubber plantations: how low frequency tapping can address the shortage of tappers in rubber plantations of Sri Lanka. Proceedings of the first symposium on plantation crop research, July 8-9 2004, BMICH, Colombo. pp. 32-42. Rodrigo, V.H.L., Stirling, C.M., Teklehaimanot, Z. & Nugawela, A. (1997). The effect of planting density on growth and development of component crops in rubber/banana intercropping systems. Field Crops Research, 52, 95-108. Rodrigo, V.H.L., Stirling, C.M., Teklehaimanot, Z. & Nugawela, A. (2001a). Intercropping with banana to improve fractional interception and radiation-use efficiency of immature rubber plantations. Field Crops Research, 69, 237-249. Rodrigo, V.H.L., Stirling, C.M., Naranpanawa, R.M.A.K.B. & Herath, P.H.M.U. (2001b). Intercropping of immature rubber; present status in Sri Lanka and financial analysis of rubber intercrops planted with three densities of banana. Agroforestry Systems, 51, 35-48. Rodrigo, V.H.L., Thennakoon, S. & Stirling, C.M. (2001c). Priorities and objectives of smallholder rubber growers and the contribution of intercropping to livelihood strategies: a case study from Sri Lanka. Outlook on Agriculture, 30(4), 261-266. Rodrigo, V.H.L., Stirling, C.M., Thennakoon, S., Senivirathna, A.M.W.K. & Pathirana, P.D. (2003). Technology refinement of rubber/banana intercropping using a farmer participatory approach. Tropical Agricultural Research and Extension, 6, 77-84. Rodrigo, V.H.L., Stirling, C.M., Silva, T.U.K. & Pathirana, P.D. (2005a). The growth and yield of rubber at maturity is improved by intercropping with banana during the early stage of rubber cultivation. Field Crops Research, 91, 23-33. Rodrigo, V.H.L., Stirling, C.M., Teklehaimanot, Z., Samarasekera, R.K. & Pathirana, P.A.D. (2005b). Interplanting banana at high densities with immature rubber crop for improved water use. Agron. Suntain. Dev. , 25, 45-54. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffussion of innovations. 5th Edition. New York: Free Press. Senevirathna, A.M.W.K. (2001). The influence of farmer knowledge, shade and planting density on smallholder rubber/banana intercropping in Sri Lanka. PhD thesis, University of Wales, Bangor, UK. Senevirathna, A.M.W.K., Stirling, C.M., Rodrigo, V.H.L., Karunathilake, P.K.W. & Pathirana, P.D. (2002a). Is shade important in rubber based cropping systems? Part 1. effect of shade on growth, dry matter partitioning and adaptation of rubber and banana. J. Rubb. Res. Ins. Sri Lanka, 85, 27-38. Senevirathna, A.M.W.K., Stirling, C.M., Rodrigo, V.H.L., Karunathilake, P.K.W. & Pathirana, P.D. (2002b). Is shade important in rubber based cropping systems? Part 2. photosynthetic performance of rubber and banana under natural shade. J. Rubb. Res. Ins. Sri Lanka, 85, 39-52. Senevirathna, A.M.W.K., Stirling, C.M. & Rodrigo, V.H.L. (2003). Growth, photosynthetic performance and shade adaptation of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) grown in natural shade. Tree Physiology, 23, 705-712. Stirling, C.M., Rodrigo, V.H.L., Sinclair, F.L., Thennakoon, T.M.S.P.K. and Senivirathna, A.M.W.K. (2001). Incorporating local and scientific knowledge in the adaptation of intercropping practice for smallholder rubber lands. A Final Technical Report on a Research Project Funded by the Department for International Development's Plant Science Research Programme. Sujatha, V.R., Thomas, K.K. & Jose, M. (2006). Rubber-based farming systems; an annotated bibliography. Library and documentation Centre, Rubber Research Institute of India, Kerala, India. Thennakoon, T.M.S.P.K. (2002). Influence of crop profitability, market, labour and land on smallholder cropping systems rubber growing areas of Sri Lanka, Doctor of Philosophy, July 2002, University of Wales, UK. Relevant Research Projects,
with links to the
|
For relevant research projects, with links to further information
|
