Most authors who recognise the quality of agroforests refer to their ecological attributes, in particular biodiversity conservation and their long-term benefits for soil fertility and water management (Penot, 2001; Gajaseni and Gajaseni, 1999; Kaya et al., 2002), Socio-economic variables are taken into account in some studies (e.g. Mendez et al., 2001; Penot 2003; Wezel and Bender, 2003) to analyse how agroforests function, but most authors do not describe socio-economic attributes in the same way as they do ecological variables. Some studies that use bio-economic modelling (e.g. with the Beam model) are only performed at cropping system level (e.g. Purnamasari et al., 2002). Labour requirements and return to labour, investments and returns to investment in the medium and long term, product benefits, income generation, are sometimes described, but are seldom presented as arguments for adoption or even taken into account in the innovation process behind the adoption of agroforests. Global advantages as well as positive externalities of agroforests are widely recognised as a whole. The direct benefits of agroforests are recognised at farm level but not entirely valued either, on the contrary, they are widely under-assessed and sometimes not even taken into account at the community level. To put it in another way: going beyond individual farmers, the impact and use of resources as well as the generation of income and product benefits needs to be considered at the level of what French agronomists call the “territory”, i.e., as “anthropic land” and for some components - including biodiversity - at global level. We should considered 2 periods with rubber: i) the immature period (first 5 to 7 years) with mostly intercropping with annual or pluriannual and ii) the mature period (from 7 to 35 years) with combination of mostly trees (fruit, timber a,d resin…) with rubber. If intercropping during immature period is relatively well developed almost everywhere, RAS during mature