Besson’s dissertation gives us an idea of the importance of natural rubber in the incomes of farmers in Buké Ekung, a village in Pattani province (Besson, 2002). In this village, direct production of rubber accounts for at least 40% to 50% of the total monetary income of all types of production units surveyed, and its share can be as high as 70% for some groups. When sharetapping rents are
included, the revenue from rubber growing accounts for more than half of all monetary income for a majority of production units.13 In absolute value, rubber alone enables almost all types of production units to reach the subsistence level, or even the level required to replace the stock of trees.
Simien (2005) models the profitability of the various rubber-growing systems in the Songkhla and Phatthalung provinces. According to this study, there are farms planted solely with rubber trees, with no other crops whatsoever. These farms are profitable if they have more than 2 ha of rubber trees, since this size enables them to replant only one hectare at a time when it becomes necessary to replace their stock. This system might work for small farms using family labour and a very low level of investment, but generally it is used by large estates. In both provinces, moreover, intercropping of rubber and fruit trees seems to be on the increase, notably because of the rise in durian prices. These systems are much more labour-intensive than single-crop rubber farming, but they enable farmers to cope with fluctuations in rubber prices.
The existence of sharetapping systems, described in Simien (2005), tends to demonstrate that a substantial number of farmers make their livelihoods as rubber tappers, but are too poor to have their own stock.
Regardless of which production system is used, farmers’ heavy dependence on the income from rubber means that they do not suspend production even when prices are very low