Sustainability of the Rubberwood Sector in Malaysia

Abstract

Hevea brasiliensis (popularly known as rubber tree) was introduced to Malaya almost a century ago. The wood from the tree has been traditionally regarded as a waste, but since the 1980s' it has found widespread utilization in the wood industry. The total export value of rubberwood products had grown by 39.44% in 2009 compared to 2000 [Malaysian Ringgit (RM) 5100.4 million]. However, the Malaysian export of rubberwood sawn timber declined since 1990, after the imposition of sawn timber export levy. On the other hand, the biggest export proportion of rubberwood products is represented by furniture. Rubberwood furniture accounted for 80% of the total export value of wooden furniture. Meanwhile, the contribution of panel products, such as MDF and particleboard is also substantial. Rubberwood is referred as an environmental friendly material with a low price, but issues related to its sustainable supply are becoming a major concern nowadays. The total area of rubber plantation has been steadily declining over the years as planters claimed less profit and shifted to oil palm cultivation. In this context, unless the profitability of rubber growers is ensured by increasing the net value of the wood resource, the future sustainability of rubberwood in Malaysia will remain debatable.

Full text

Available online at www.notulaebotanicae.ro
Not Bot Horti Agrobo, 2011, 39(2):305-311
Print ISSN 0255-965X; Electronic 1842-4309
Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici
Cluj-Napoca
Sustainability of the Rubberwood Sector in Malaysia
Jegatheswaran R ATNASINGAM1 , Florin IORAŞ2 , Lu WENMING3
1University Putra Malaysia, Faculty of Forestry, 43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia; jegaratnasingam@yahoo.com
2Institute for Conservation, Sustainability and Innoation, Buckinghamshire New University, Queen
Alexandra Road, High Wycombe, HP 11 2JZ Buckinghamshire, England
3Chinese Academy of Forestry, Wanshoushan Hou, Haidian District, Beijing 100091, P.R.China
Abstract
Hevea brasiliensis (popularly known as rubber tree) was introduced to Malaya almost a century ago. e wood from the tree has
been traditionally regarded as a waste, but since the 1980s’ it has found widespread utilization in the wood industry. e total export
value of rubberwood products had grown by 39.44% in 2009 compared to 2000 [Malaysian Ringgit (RM) 5100.4 million]. However, the
Malaysian export of rubberwood sawn timber declined since 1990, aer the imposition of sawn timber export levy. On the other hand,
the biggest export proportion of rubberwood products is represented by furniture. Rubberwood furniture accounted for 80% of the total
export value of wooden furniture. Meanwhile, the contribution of panel products, such as MDF and particleboard is also substantial.
Rubberwood is referred as an environmental friendly material with a low price, but issues related to its sustainable supply are becoming
a major concern nowadays. e total area of rubber plantation has been steadily declining over the years as planters claimed less prot
and shied to oil palm cultivation. In this context, unless the protability of rubber growers is ensured by increasing the net value of the
wood resource, the future sustainability of rubberwood in Malaysia will remain debatable.
Keywords: export value, Malaysia, productions, rubber plantation, rubberwood, sustainable
Introduction to Rubberwood
Hevea brasiliensis or popularly known as rubber tree is
indigenous to the Amazon forest in Brazil. e plantation
of rubber tree in Malaya (now known as Malaysia) was in-
troduced by Sir Henry Wickham. e rubber seeds were
brought to Kew Garden, United Kingdom from Brazil in
1876. Some of the seedlings were then transported to Sin-
gapore Botanical Garden through Ceylon (now known as
Sri Lanka) in the same year but it failed to germinate. e
rubber seeds were transported again a year later to Singa-
pore Botanical Garden. Nine of rubber plants which were
successfully germinated in Botanical Garden were shipped
to Malaya and the initial plantation began in Kuala Kang-
sar in 1879 (Ratnasingam and Scholz, 2009).
A mature rubber tree is usually in the range of 20 to 30
m tall, and the diameter can reach up to 30 cm (Balsiger
et al., 2000). e trunk is generally free of branches up to
the height of 3 to 10 m (Lim et al., 2003). Rubberwood
(also known as Malaysian Oak) has a pleasant appearance
in colour, which is white to pale cream, and sometimes in-
clude a pinkish tinge. However, the colour changes to light
straw or light brown, due to weathering (Ratnasingam and
Scholz, 2009). Rubberwood is less durable, owing to no
dierences between the sapwood and heartwood and the
high starch content in the wood (Lim et al., 2003).
Rubber trees are now widely planted in 20 countries
around the world for the production of latex (Teoh et al.,
2011). According to Shigematsu et al. (2011), more than
80% of total rubber plantation areas are in Asia, with Ma-
laysia, Indonesia and ailand covering almost 70% of
the rubber cultivation. Malaysia was the largest producer
of rubber in the world until the late of 1980’s (Balsiger et
al., 2000). Indonesia then took over as the biggest rubber
cultivator in the world followed by ailand. To date, Ma-
laysia remains the 3rd most important country in the world
in rubber plantations (Shigematsu et al., 2011).
However, in Malaysia the rubber plantation which
was cultivated by estate owners and smallholdings has
been decreasing from 1990 to 2009 (Tab. 1). e total
rubber plantation area in 1990 was 1836.7 hectares and
become 32.24% smaller in 2009 (Tab. 1). e plantation
areas from smallholders, namely Rubber Industry Small-
holder Development Authority (RISDA), Federal Land
Development Authority (FELDA) and Federal Land
Consolidation and Rehabilitation Authority (FELCRA)
still showed better performance in rubber cultivation, al-
though it has been declining every year. It can be noticed
from this table that very few estates owners maintained
their rubber cultivations. e key problem was mainly the
low prot, so the estate owners converted their plantations
to the more protable commodities particularly oil palm
plantations (Teoh et al., 2011).

Ratnasingam J. et al. / Not Bot Horti Agrobo, 2011, 39(2):305-311
306
Production of Rubberwood
Rubberwood emerged as an alternative source of tim-
ber for the wood industry, when restriction in logging ac-
tivities was implemented by the Malaysian government.
e commercial production of rubberwood in the wood
based industry, particularly sawn timber, furniture and
wood based panel began in the 1980s. In fact, the vast
potential of rubberwood in sawn timber and other wood
products application has been evaluated since 1950s. Per-
haps, the low durability of rubberwood and the abun-
dance of tropical logs available at low cost from the natural
forests hindered rubberwood from entering into the wood
industry. erefore, commendations should go to the For-
est Research Institute of Malaysia (FRIM) for their eorts
in evaluating the potential of rubberwood for the wood
industry (Hong, 1994).
Fig. 1 depicts the production of rubberwood logs based
on the replanting rate. e production of rubberwood
logs showed a downward trend from 1990 to 2009. e
matter that should be of concern is if the supply of rub-
berwood logs can meet the high demand from the wood
based industries particularly for industries that have been
utilizing rubberwood as the main raw material. Further,
the numbers of mills consuming rubberwood have been
increasing every year. is does not include the many un-
registered rubberwood plants in Malaysia.
e overall total export value (RM million) of rub-
berwood products which consist of sawntimber, mould-
To date, there have been debates about the consistent
supply of rubberwood to the booming wood industry in
Malaysia due to the declining rubber plantations. ere-
fore, in this paper, the rst section will focus on the sus-
tainability in rubberwood productions and the utilization
of rubberwood products. e following section will be on
the challenges of rubber plantations for continuous supply
of the logs to the wood industry, and the nal section of
the paper will highlight the rubberwood market percep-
tion and certication issues.
Tab. 1. Rubber Plantation Areas (Hectares)
Year Estates Small holdings Total (‘000 ha)
1990 348.7 1488.0 1836.7
1992 314.1 1478.2 1792.3
1994 275.0 1462.1 1737.1
1996 223.9 1420.4 1644.3
1998 179.9 1363.7 1543.6
2000 123.8 1306.9 1430.7
2001 95.5 1293.8 1389.3
2002 84.4 1264.0 1348.4
2003 78.5 1247.1 1325.6
2004 64.4 1214.4 1278.8
2005 58.7 1212.6 1271.3
2006 54.2 1209.4 1263.6
2007 52.7 1194.7 1247.4
2008 50.9 1196.1 1247.0
2009 48.5 1196.1 1244.6
Source: Department of Statistics (2010a)
Tab. 2. e export value of rubberwood sub-sectors (RM million)
Products 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Sawn timber 0.0 87.3 91.6 60.3 137.1 386.2 69.8 55.2 27.1 34.3
Furniture 3535.2 3022.9 3339.4 3735.8 4350.8 4665.3 5127.4 5331.9 5536.9 4998.6
Mouldings 313.2 224.3 228.8 208.1 646.5 698.1 796.3 915.3 744.1 686.4
MDF 823.0 873.3 866.8 978.6 1020.9 1106.7 1144.9 1180.9 1156.1 1033.4
Chipboard 160.0 134.0 115.7 102.2 195.8 266.7 266.9 364.9 391.7 250.1
Builders, Carpentry and Joinery 269.0 243.4 261.0 281.3 109.5 116.1 102.7 101.8 100.5 98.8
Wooden Frames - - - - 11.6 12.7 12.2 13.2 12.4 10.5
Total 5100.4 4585.2 4903.3 5366.3 6472.2 7251.8 7520.2 7963.2 7968.8 7112.1
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
cubic meter
panel industry
790,7
771,59
747,82
707,87
664,52
615,92
598,44
580,49
570,67
550,52
547,29
543,98
537
536,83
535,8
sawn timber
1468,44
1432,94
1388,81
1314,62
1234,11
1143,84
1111,4
1078,04
1059,82
1022,4
1016,41
1010,25
997,3
996,98
995,06
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Fig. 1. e rubberwood log production based on replanting rate

Ratnasingam J. et al. / Not Bot Horti Agrobo, 2011, 39(2):305-311
307
ings, furniture, medium density breboard, chipboard,
builders, joinery and carpentry and wooden frames have
been steadily growing over the years except for 2009, when
there was slightly declining of RM 856.7 million (Tab. 2).
e high proportion of export of rubberwood products
was due to logging control on the natural forest, and rub-
berwood is still the most widespread type of forest planta-
tion in Malaysia (Shigematsu et al., 2011).
e production of rubberwood in the wood industry
began with sawn timber processing, mainly for export. In-
dia and Sri Lanka have a long history in using rubberwood
as timber sources, due to the scarcity of logs. e turning
point here was the fact that Malaysia was the rst country
to be successful in the export of rubberwood sawn tim-
ber in the late 1970s (Hong, 1994). e export of sawn
timber from Peninsular Malaysia was RM140,000 in 1979
and increased to RM98.7 million in 1989 (Hong and Sim,
1994). e export of rubberwood sawn timber declined
aer the imposition of export levy in June 1990, followed
by the export quota on sawn timber. e purpose was to
ensure adequate supply of rubberwood sawntimber in the
country, and also to encourage the upstream manufac-
turers to invest into the value added products industries
(Hong, 1995). e current export value of rubberwood
sawn timber from 2000-2009 was the lowest compared to
the other rubberwood products (Tab. 2).
e downward trend in the export of rubberwood
sawn timber marred the tremendous contribution in the
export value of rubberwood furniture (Tab. 2). It should
be emphasized that 80% of total export value of wooden
furniture to the world markets was from rubberwood fur-
niture (Fig. 2).
e success of rubberwood furniture in world market
is due to its good machining properties, acceptable dura-
bility, pleasant appearance and ease in nishing (Anony-
mous, 1993). In addition, the physical and mechanical
properties of rubberwood are almost comparable with the
other commercial timbers (Tab. 3) such as Dark Red Mer-
anti (Shorea platyclados), Sepetir (Sindora coriacea), Nya-
toh (Palaquium gutta) and Ramin (Gonystylus bancanus)
(Mohd Shukari, 1994; Balsiger et al., 2000).
In recent year, the furniture industry has been faced
with the scarcity of rubber logs. On the contrary, the
export value of rubberwood furniture was still increas-
ing throughout the year. A survey presented by the For-
est Research Institute of Malaysia (FRIM) explained that
furniture manufacturers have taken earlier steps to sustain
their productions due to the foreseen scarcity in rubber-
wood logs. Some manufacturers substituted rubberwood
to other timber with similar properties, namely Keruing,
Kapur, Meranti and Kempas. Meanwhile, some furni-
ture manufacturers opted to import rubberwood timber
mainly from ailand to secure their productions (Ahmad
Fauze et al., 2010).
Rubberwood was also suitable for medium density -
breboard (MDF) production due to its homogenous struc-
ture, dimensional stability and uniform textures, which
can be machined and routed to high quality, similar to
solid wood nishing and overlaying (Anonymous, 1998).
e acceptable properties of medium density breboard
have contributed to economic growth, as medium density
breboard (MDF) was the second largest in export value
aer rubberwood furniture (Tab. 2).
A study conducted by Mohd Shahwahid and Abdul
Rahim (2009) claimed that the production of medium
density breboard from rubberwood is large. ere were
high competition and price war on rubberwood raw mate-
rials among mills. e situation was worse when indepen-
dent suppliers or agents did not sign any long term con-
tracts for rubberwood supply, but they sold to the highest
bidder. As there is no assurance for sucient rubberwood
supply, MDF plants utilized mixed wood materials such as
40% Acacia, 20% mixed hardwood logs and slabs and 40%
rubber logs for productions, and still, it was not protable.
e cost of mixed hardwood logs is expensive and more
adhesive was needed for production, but the price of the
nal product was almost the same as rubberwood MDF.
e consequence from this situation brought some MDF
plants to intensify research and development activities
to seek alternative agricultural residues, such as oil palm
trunk, fronds and empty fruit bunch.
e rubberwood products of chipboard, mouldings,
builders, carpentry and joinery (BCJ) and wooden frames
have also been contributing to the country’s economy. e
Tab. 3. Comparative of physical and mechanical properties of
rubberwood with selected commercial timbers
Species Rubberwood Dark Red
Meranti Sepetir Nyatoh Ramin
Moisture
content (%) 17.2 16.7 16.6 17.5 18.6
Density
(kg/m3)640 610 690 675 675
Side
hardness 4320 3650 5210 5430 4580
Shear parallel
to grain 11.0 8.7 13.6 11.0 8.5
Source: Ratnasingam and Scholz (2009)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
Wooden
883,8
755,7
834,9
934,4
n.a.
1167
1282
1333
1384
1250
Rubbe rwo o d
3535
3023
3339
3736
4351
4665
5127
5332
5537
4999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Fig. 2. e total export of rubberwood furniture and wooden
furniture. Source of total export wooden furniture: Malaysian
Timber Council (2011)

Ratnasingam J. et al. / Not Bot Horti Agrobo, 2011, 39(2):305-311
308
export value of these products, except builders, carpentry
and joinery (BCJ) to the major markets has been uctu-
ated from 2000 to 2009. Meanwhile, the export value of
builders, carpentry and joinery has been decreasing from
RM 269 million in 2000 to 63.27% in 2009 (Tab. 2). e
export of rubberwood wooden frames began in 2004. Al-
though the export value of these rubberwood products is
in a small scale, the scarcity of the logs shouldn’t be a hin-
drance in developing the new value-added industries.
Utilization of Rubberwood
e abundance of rubber trees in the country has
contributed to economic growth, due to the production
and export of latex. e rotation for rubberwood is 25-
30 years, as aer this age the latex production becomes
uneconomical. e trees which were considered waste,
were le in the eld and burnt away. Apart from that, the
felled trees were traditionally used as fuelwood in dry-
ing and smoking sheet-rubber, tobacco curing and brick
making industry (Balsiger et al., 2000). Rubberwood was
also used as charcoal in steel industry (Ratnasingam and
Scholz, 2009).
e utilization of rubberwood in the wood industry is
large. Rubberwood sawntimber and panel products basi-
cally were used in furniture industry. Medium density -
breboard as well as particleboard is extensively used in the
manufacture of end-use products, such as cabinets, mould-
ings, ooring, wall panelling, window frames and door
frames (Rajan, 2000). Cement bonded particleboard have
found applications in the construction sector, as it appear
to be highly durable, good insulating and resistant to re,
weather, insect and fungi (Anonymous, 1998). Rubber-
wood veneer for core parts is also produced (Anonymous,
1993), whilst the utilisation of rubberwood for face veneer
is only at a small extent due to its latex residues (Anony-
mous, 1998).
Rubberwood is used in the mouldings and joinery pro-
duction, such as parquet ooring, strip ooring, staircase
components and house-hold items. Small size and short
lengths of rubberwood residues are glued together, which
results in longer pieces, and better strength of joint (Rajan,
2000). Moreover, the branch and the stem of rubber trees
are also suitable for the production of writing and print-
ing paper (Anonymous, 1993). It is important to mention
here that rubberwood has other non-timber uses as well,
which is as a medium for mushroom growing (Anony-
mous, 1993) and for honey production (Ratnasingam and
Scholz, 2009).
Constraints in Rubber Plantations
It is really surprising that there are constraints in the
rubber plantations in Malaysia when the export of natu-
ral rubber, rubber-based products and rubber by-products
has been extremely remarkable throughout the years and
the demand for rubberwood products in the world market
have contributed to the economic growth.
e main concern that should be highlighted here is
the current total rubber plantation area. As mentioned
earlier, the total rubber plantation area in Malaysia has
declined throughout the years. Rubber planters, especially
the estate owners converted their land to more protable
crops, mainly oil palm. Further, the large plantation groups
in Malaysia, which consist of Guthrie, Golden Hope and
KL Kepong are slowly converting the land to oil palm.
e total plantation area of oil palm has been increasing
throughout the years (Fig. 3). e planters claimed less
prot in the rubber industry, due to low latex price in
world market (Ratnasingam, 2000).
e next point that should be examined is the steadily
declining of labour in the rubber plantations. e total
number of workers in rubber plantations in 2000 was
24,193, and showed reduction of 61.40% in 2009 (Fig.
4). e possibility of lesser labourers in rubber plantations
every year could be due to the low salaries, which brought
to poverty. Chang and Ong (2000) mentioned that a rub-
ber tapper needs to tap at least 30-40kg of latex in order
to earn RM 25-RM 30 per day. Further, the annual total
salary obtained by the estate worker declined by 34% from
2000 to 2009.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
rubber
1836,7
1792,3
1737,1
1644,3
1543,6
1430,7
1389,3
1348,4
1325,6
1278,8
1271,3
1263,6
1247,4
1247
1244,6
oil p alm
2029,5
2197,7
2412
2692,3
3078,1
3376,7
3499
3670,2
3802
3875,3
4051,4
4165,2
4304,9
4488
4691,2
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Fig. 3. Total Plantation Area (hectares) of Rubber and Oil Palm from 1990-2009. Source of Oil Palm Plantations:
Malaysian Palm Oil Board (2010)

Ratnasingam J. et al. / Not Bot Horti Agrobo, 2011, 39(2):305-311
309
kg, RM 2.87/kg and RM 2.85/kg for RSS 1, RSS 3 and
SMR 20 respectively (Fig. 5). e SMR 20 latex price has
shown an upward trend each year. e delay in the replant-
ing of rubber occurred as a consequence of the high price
of latex, although the yield was lower. e curb in felling
the rubber trees has resulted in the shortage of rubber-
wood logs supply to the wood industries (Mohd Shahwa-
hid and Abdul Rahim, 2009).
Market Perceptions
Although rubberwood products particularly rubber-
wood furniture is well known and established, the percep-
tion of this products in the market among the consumers is
not well explored yet. Generally, consumers have dierent
market perceptions on dierent wood species. A survey
carried out by Ratnasingam et al. (2007) to investigate the
market perceptions of rubberwood furniture among the
customers, found that rubberwood was not categorized
as a premier furniture making material, compared to the
other wood species used in furniture industry.
It appeared from this census that the success of rub-
berwood furniture in the market is its low price, as shown
e other reason for the decrease in the workforce in
the rubber plantations was the preferences for working
in a cleaner environment and the mismatch between the
education levels and job opportunities (Aziz and Yatimah,
2007).
e next factor that should be considered is the latex
prices. Most rubber planters shied to oil palm cultivation
when the latex price decreased in 1990s. In 2002, the an-
nual average of natural rubber price went up to RM 2.93/
Tab. 4. e Domestic Price of Light Hardwood Logs in
Peninsular Malaysia
Species Logs (RM per m3)
Dark red meranti 1200
Red meranti 1160
Yellow meranti 1150
White meranti 1080
Nyatoh 1180
Sepetir 900
Ramin 1750
Rubberwood 135
Source: Malaysian Timber Industry Board (2011)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
number
0
20.000
40.000
60.000
80.000
100.000
120.000
140.000
160.000
RM '000
labours
24193
16491
14962
12873
12426
10571
10680
10355
9893
9338
Salaries
134.327
104.642
94.407
92.581
97.691
85.037
96.393
90.941
98.093
88.656
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Fig. 4. Number of employees in rubber estate plantations and total salaries from 2000-2009. Source: De-
partment of Statistics (2010b)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Cent/kg
SMR 20
204,64
382,6
242,52
205,56
285,98
378,97
461,93
523,07
710,92
734,06
831,37
637,36
RSS 3
220,62
388,49
252,16
218,42
287,8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
RSS 1
233,37
393,61
261,93
227,3
293,26
400,64
-
-
-
-
-
-
1990
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Fig. 5. e annual average F.O.B price of natural rubber (Cent/Kg). Source: Department of Statistics
(2011). Note: Price for RSS 3 and RSS 1 have been stopped from 2003 and 2004 respectively. RSS-
Ribbed Smoked Sheets grade 1 and 3; SMR20-Standard Malaysian Rubber-medium grade produced
from eld coagulation but may contain some RSS

Ratnasingam J. et al. / Not Bot Horti Agrobo, 2011, 39(2):305-311
310
References
Ahmad Fauzi P, Rohana AR, Ismariah A, Lim HF, Roda JM
(2010). Rubberwood timber decreasing, wither the wooden
furniture industry. EAS Strategic Options 5:1-2.
Anonymous (1993). Rubberwood: an export that conserves the
environment. Internat Trade Forum 2:4-11.
Anonymous (1998). Rubberwood products in today’s world
market. Asian Timber 40-43 p.
Anonymous (2000). Rubberwood: Malaysia takes steps to
ensure its sustainability. Malaysian Timber 6(3):40-43.
Attah A, Ioraş F, Abrudan IV, Ratnasingam J (2009). e
voluntary partnership agreement: e Ghanaian and
Malaysian experiences. e International Forestry Review
11(3):311-318.
Azharizan MN, Tariq MH, Samsudin M, Rizuwan M (2011).
Forest certication in Malaysia, 6 p. In: FRIM in focus.
Forest Research Institute of Malaysia.
Aziz FM, Yatimah S (2007). Reviewing rubber: Are we losing
our grips? J Depart Statist, Malaysia, 2:15-42.
Balsiger J, Bahdan J, Whiteman A (2000). e utilization,
processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood
supply. APFC-Working Paper No. APFSOS/WP/50. FAO,
Bangkok.
Chan WH, Ong TS (2000). Enhancing the sustainability
of rubber plantations in Penisular Malaysia. Applied
Agricultural Business.
Department of Statistics (2010a). Getah. www.statistics.gov.my/
portal/download_Economics/ les/DATASERIES/2009/
Bab9Getah.pdf
Department of Statistics (2010b). Annual rubber statistics.
www.statistics.gov.my/portal/download_Agriculture/les/
GETAH/2010/GETAH_ANNUAL2010.pdf
Department of Statistics (2011). Rubber industry’s contribution
to national exports. http://www.statistics.gov.my
Hong LT (1994). Introduction, 1-5 p. In: Hong LT, Sim HC
(Eds.). Rubberwood processing and utilisation, Kuala
Lumpur: Forest Research Institute Malaysia.
Hong LT, Sim HC (1994). Products from rubberwood:
An overview, 177-186 p. In: Hong LT, Sim HC (Eds.).
Rubberwood processing and utilisation, Kuala Lumpur:
Forest Research Institute Malaysia.
Hong LT (1995). Rubberwood: powering Malaysia’s furniture
and panel industry. Asian Timber 17:16-22.
Lim SC, Gan KS, Choo KT (2003). e characteristics,
properties and uses of plantation timbers-rubberwood and
Acacia mangium. Timber Technol Bull 26:1-10.
Malaysian Palm Oil Board (2010). Oil palm planted area:
1975-2009. http://econ.mpob.gov.my/economy/annual/
stat2009/Area1_1.pdf
in Tab. 4. e possible explanation for the low price of
rubberwood log was due to the status of rubberwood as a
residue and the low recovery rate in the sawing of the logs
(Anonymous, 2000).
However, rubberwood which is a by-product of rubber
plantations is known as environmental friendly. Rubber
is cultivated in plantations, and the wood is available in
renewable plantations at 25-30 year cycles. us, rubber-
wood products are easily acceptable both for the local and
international markets, especially in countries where the
‘green movement’ is very strong (Hong, 1994).
Certication of Rubberwood
e certication of timber from natural forest is es-
sential to ensure the sustainable supply of forest resources,
preserve the nature and to enhance the economy. e two
international organizations which actively involved in the
certication process consist of Program for the Endorse-
ment of Forest Certication (PEFC) and Forest Stewards
Council (FSC). Malaysia has also established Malaysian
Timber Certication Council (MTCC) in 2001 to be in
charge of forest certication. Forest Management Certi-
cation (FMC) and Chain of Custody (CoC) certication
have also been managed by the MTCC (Attah et al., 2009;
Azharizan et al., 2011).
e awareness of certication of logs from forest plan-
tations, such as rubberwood, among the wood products
manufacturers is limited. A survey carried out by Ratnas-
ingam et al. (2008) showed that there is a lack of under-
standing in the application of CoC in rubberwood plan-
tations. e manufacturers presumed certication is only
required for timber from natural forest. Further, manu-
facturers assumed that certication of rubberwood are no
longer important, aer the adoption of ISO 9001 quality
system.
Conclusions
Rubberwood, a sustainable resource has been one of the
driving forces for the success of the wood industry in Ma-
laysia. e easy availability of rubberwood logs has been
an advantage to the wood industry, particularly aer the
restriction of logging in the natural forest was enforced.
However, in recent years, issues regarding the scarcity of
rubberwood supply have been a growing concern due to
the declining rubber plantation area. Further, the conver-
sion of rubber areas to oil palm plantations is also adding
further pressure to the supply of the material in the future.
Although rubberwood is regarded a green, renewable
wood material, the lack of certication and its apparent
lower value in the market may emerge as major constraints
to the sustainable supply of rubberwood in the future.

Ratnasingam J. et al. / Not Bot Horti Agrobo, 2011, 39(2):305-311
311
Ratnasingam J, Ioraş F, Macpherson TH (2007). Inuence of
wood species on the perceived value of wooden furniture:
the case of rubberwood. Holz Roh Werkst 65(6):487-489.
Ratnasingam J, Macpherson TH, Ioraş F (2008). An assessment
of Malaysian wooden furniture manufacturers’ readiness to
embrace Chain of Custody (COC) Certication. Europ J
Wood and Wood Prod 66(5):339-343.
Ratnasingam J, Macpherson TH, Ioraş F, Abrudan IV (2008).
Chain of Custody Certication among Malaysian wooden
furniture manufacturers: status and challenges. International
Forestry Review 10(1):23-28.
Ratnasingam, J Scholz F (2009). Rubberwood an industrial
perspective. World Resource Institute.
Shigematsu A, Mizoue N, Kajisa T, Yoshida S (2011). Importance
of rubberwood in wood export of Malaysia and ailand.
New Forests 41(2):179-189.
Teoh YP, Don MM, Ujang S (2011). Assessment of the
properties, utilization and preservation of rubberwood
(Hevea brasiliensis): a case study in Malaysia. J Wood Sci
57(4):255-266.
Malaysian Timber Industry Board (2010). Export value
contribution of the Malaysian rubberwood sub-sector.
http://www.mtib.gov.my/
Malaysian Timber Council (2011). Total export of wooden
furniture. http://www.mtc.gov.my
Malaysian Timber Industry Board (2011). Timber prices.
http://www.mtib.gov.my/index.php?option=com_content
&view=article&id=87&Itemid=88&lang=en
Mohd Shahwahid HO, Abdul Rahim AS (2009). A preliminary
study of strategic competitiveness of MDF industry in
Peninsular Malaysia by using SWOT analysis. Internat J
Business Manage 4(8):205-214.
Mohd Shukari M (1994). Physical and mechanical properties
of rubberwood, 33-42 p. In: Hong LT, Sim HC (Eds.).
Rubberwood processing and utilisation, Kuala Lumpur:
Forest Research Institute Malaysia.
Rajan S (2000). Rubberwood Industry-Challenges and
Prospects, 1-8 p. In: Ahmad Shakri MS, Ho KS, Mohd
Dahlan J (Eds.). Proceedings of the national seminar on
alternatives to rubberwood. Forest Research Institute of
Malaysia, 26 September 2000.
Ratnasingam J (2000). Rubberwood supply in Malaysia. Asian
Timber 19(9):16-19.