Coping Better with Climate Change

Agrometeorological Learning

Farmers in poor countries are among the most vulnerable victims of increasing climate variability and climate change. They receive, however, little assistance from governments and scholars alike. Those working in the hard agricultural sciences often don’t know the actual needs and potentials for grassroot climate adaptation. Those working in the soft sciences supporting farmers often don’t understand vulnerabilities or opportunities of poor people created by the consequences of a changing climate. Absence of extension services well trained in the degrading environmental and social conditions of farmers worsens the situation. A rural response to climate change must bring among others applied anthropology and applied agrometeorology closer to the livelihood of farmers. Farmers must get the opportunity to learn about climate preparedness and climate adaptation potentials in a true partnership with dedicated scholars. This book reports on some attempts to bring farmers and scholars together in a few of such partnerships in Indonesia. Agrometeorological learning of farmers to better cope with climate change is shown to be difficult but possible if scholars want to listen to farmers.

Yunita T. Winarto - Kees Stigter (Eds.)


978-3-8465-0821-3


Y.T. Winarto, professor in anthropology and human ecology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indonesia. Kees Stigter, visiting professor in developing countries for Agromet Vision, the Netherlands, Indonesia, South Africa and Zambia. He is the founding president of the International Society for Agricultural Meteorology (INSAM)

Agrometeorological Learning: Coping Better with Climate Change with a Foreword by Niels Rőling

Yunita T. Winarto Kees Stigter (Eds.)

Agrometeorological Learning: Coping Better with Climate Change with a Foreword by Niels Rőling

Impressum/Imprint (nur fürDeutschland/ only for Germany) Bibliografische information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsch Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind internet über http://dnb.d-nd.de abrufbar. Alle in diesem Buch genannten Marken und Produktnamen unterliegen warenzeichen marken- oder patentrechtlichem Schutz bzw. sind warenzeichen oder eingetragen Warenzeichen der jeweiligen Inhaber. Die Widergabe von Marken, Produktnamen Gebrauchsnamen, Handelsnamen, Warenbezeichnungen u.s.w. in diesem werk berechtig auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme, dass solche Namen im Sinn der Warenzeichen- und Markenschutzgesetzgebung als frei zu betrachen wären un daher von jedermann benutzt werden dürften. Coverbild: www.ingimage.com Verlag: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing GmbH & Co. KG DudweilerLandstr. 99, 66123 Saarbrücken, Deutschland Telefon +49 681 3720-310, Telefax +49 681 3720-3109 Email: [email protected] Herstellung in Deutschland Schaltungsdienst Lange o.H.G., Berlin Books on Demand GmbH, Norderstedt Reha GmbH, Saarbrücken Amazon Distribution GmbH, Leipzig ISBN: 978-3-8465-0821-3 Imprint (only for USA, GB) Bibliographic information published by the Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsch Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutschen Nationalbibliografie, detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nd.de. Any brand names and product names mentioned in this book are subject to trademarks brand or patent protection and are trademarks or registered trademarks of their resective holders. The use of brand names, product names, common names, trade names, products descriptions etc. even wthout a particular marking in this works is in no way to be constructed to mean that such names may be regarded as unrestricted in respect of trademark and brand protection legislation and could thus be used by anyone. Cover image : www.ingimage.com Publisher: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing GmbH & Co. KG DudweilerLandstr. 99, 66123 Saarbrücken, Deutschland Phone +49 681 3720-310, Fax +49 681 3720-3109 Email: [email protected] Printed in U.S.A. Printed in U.K. by (see last page) ISBN: 978-3-8465-0821-3 Copyright © 2011 by the author and LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing GmbH & Co. KG And licensors. All right reserved. Saarbrücken 2011

Table of Contents

List of Illustrations Tables Maps Plates Boxes Graphs Diagram

iii iii iii iv iv v v

Foreword

vi Niels Röling

Preface

ix

Acknowledgments

xii

Chapter 1

How to Generate and Support a Rural Response to Climate Change PART A Considerations of Climate and Society in Asia PART B Agrometeorological Learning in Wareng, Gunungkidul, Kees Stigter and Yunita T. Winarto

1 1 13

Chapter 2

Farming in a Dry Rainfed Ecosystem Kristiyanto and Yunita T. Winarto

Chapter 3

Climate Field School: Learning and Understanding Some Scientific Knowledge of Climate Esti Anantasari, Yunita T. Winarto and Kees Stigter

44

Anticipating Drought in Multiple Cropping: Implementing Rain Harvesting Method Esti Anantasari and Yunita T. Winarto

86

Chapter 4

25

Chapter 5

Learning to be Rainfall Observers Yunita T. Winarto, Kees Stigter, Esti Anantasari, Kristiyanto and Hestu Prahara

104

Chapter 6

The Joint Production of Knowledge: Its Dynamics Hestu Prahara, Yunita T. Winarto and Kristiyanto

145

Chapter 7

Towards Agrometeorological Learning? Responding to Climate Change, Evaluating Strategy Yunita T. Winarto, Kees Stigter, Hestu Prahara, Kristiyanto and Esti Anantasari

i

181

Table of Contents

Chapter 8

Collaborating on Agrometeorological Learning in the Local Context: A Synthesis with a Proposed Extension Approach Yunita T. Winarto and Kees Stigter

216

References

226

Authors

238

Index

240

ii

Illustrations Tables 1.1 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.3

Questions from Indramayu Rainfall Observers Club members and Answers by the Agrometeorologist Field areas, soil characteristics, and crops Cropping pattern in Wareng IV in 2008/09 Group formation of CFS participants The participants’ profiles Special Topics of the Climate Field School Examples of weather & climate components Phrases related to weather and climate The relation between soil type and its ability to absorb water and sustain crops Choice of rice seedling strategy and soil characteristics The CFS alumni’s decision of seedling strategies in 2006 and 2007 rainy season planting Yields of paddy in the rainy season of 2006/07 and 2007/08 Location of raingauges and groups of farmer observers Farmers’ questions and the agrometeorologist’s answers The portrait format of the rainfall data sheet The landscape format of the rainfall data sheet One decadal observation sheet The third version of the rainfall data sheet Aming’s notes on his agroecosystem observation Rainfall data for December excel format Soil analyses in ten points of observation Agroecosytem conditions of the ten points of observation Example of the latest matrix of farmers’ agroecosytem analyses Yields of paddy in the rainy season of 2007/08 and 2008/09 Rainfall classification in lexicon and numerics Towards agroecosystem analyses?

22

98 101 122 141 149 150 151 153 159 168 171 173 175 198 204 206

The location of Wareng IV The topographical profile of Wareng village, Gunungkidul Wareng’s physiography The landscape of Wareng IV and rice field areas Ishoyet map based on 8 months rainfall data in Wareng in 2008—09

26 27 29 32 172

30 35 48 51 54 67 68 80 96

Maps 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 6.1

iii

Illustrations

Plates 2.1 and 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 and 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.2 4.3 and 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 7.1 7.2 7.3

Fields with sole rice and fields with rice cum maize Bringing fodder home Watering vegetables Agroecosystem observation Aming measuring the weight of the soil Tinem getting some soils dried under the sun Drawing the agroecosystem The simplified simulation of rain formation Making the raingauges collectively Amir’s field in Wetan Polaman divided into 2 squares Tinem’s field performance in Gondang after building ridges inside the field Meals provided in the 2007 and 2008 Rasulan rituals USA raingauge in farmers’ field The location of ten points-of-observation A good condition of placing the raingauge Not a good condition of placing the raingauge Mounting the raingauge in its new place A dialogue between farmers and scholars in the field Farmers’ evaluation of and discussion on their writings Inem’s notes Kiran’s notes on his agroecosystem observations Arni’s notes Arti’s notes Umi’s notes Rainfall measurement data sheet with the Javanese days Rainfall measurement data sheet without the Javanese days The incomplete writing The complete writing The damaged maize The damaged paddy Empty grains of hybrid variety

33 34 34 56 60 60 65 71 73 90 90 102 121 123 132 133 134 137 153 156 156 157 157 158 162 163 164 165 189 189 201

Boxes 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

iv

Farmers’ agroecosystem presentations on June 6, 2007 Understanding the concepts of weather and climate The categories of rainfall and the kinds of crops Farmers’ presentation of the program on controlling flood and drought (one group’s presentation)

62 69 75 83

Illustrations

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.1 6.2 7.1

The agrometeorologist’s brief report after visiting Wareng List of questions distributed to the farmers Individual farmer’s textualized observations Stigter’s comments on farmers’ notes Notes for the mounting and caring of the raingauges An example of the narratives of agroecosytem conditions of one point of observation Conclusions by the Agrometeorologist Three interpretations of the ‘mysterious disease’ in tobacco and chili

105 108 109 118 124

The first version of the rainfall graph The second version of the rainfall graph Rainfall data of November 2008 based on farmers’ measurements Rainfall data of December 2008 based on farmers’ measurements Rainfall data of January 2009 based on farmers’ measurements Rainfall data of February 2009 based on farmers’ measurements Rainfall data of March 2009 based on farmers’ measurements Rainfall data of April 2009 based on farmers’ measurements Rainfall data of May 2009 based on farmers’ measurements Rainfall data of June 2009 based on farmers’ measurements

169 169 187 192 194 194 207 207 211 214

Science Field Shop

222

170 177 212

Graphs 6.1 6.2 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 Diagram 8.1

v

Foreword In 1980 Peter Kenmore completed research showing that the damage in Asian rice fields caused by the Brown Planthopper was induced by pesticide use. Pesticides were not the remedy but the cause of the plague. Based on this work FAO’s Program for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Rice in Asia was launched, with Kenmore as director. In Indonesia the program had its headquarters in Jogjakarta and was directed by Russ Dilts. It was the Indonesian program that pioneered the IPM Farmer Field School (FFS) that revolutionised farmer training and extension approaches worldwide. As a professor of Communication and Innovation Studies in the agricultural university of The Netherlands I was very fortunate to have been involved in that early program as a supervisor of the doctoral work of Elske van de Fliert (who evaluated the impact of FFS in Java) and later as a consultant to and evaluator of the Indonesian program. Like most people who encountered the FFS at work, I was deeply affected by the experience of the FFS and its impact on farmers’ self-confidence, ability and organisational capacity. I was also impressed by its impact on the Planthopper. Here was an anthropogenic, i.e. human caused, phenomenon that was successfully controlled through decentralised nondirective facilitation of human learning and organisation. The world became a better place as a result, even if later evaluations showed the FFS to have little diffusion impact outside the immediate community trained, and was held to be expensive (‘fiscally unsustainable’ was the World Bank term). However, the FFS can better be considered a form of farmer education than extension. Most industrial agricultures cannot be imagined without the professional education of future farmers and the continuing education of mid-career farmers. Later on, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was the model for the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology (IAASTD) (2009). Bob Watson, who had chaired the IPCC and received a shared Nobel Prize for that work, also acted as Chairman of the IAASTD. In April 2008, the IAASTD Global Synthesis Report and the Global Summary for Decision Makers were approved by the representatives of 58 governments during an inter-governmental plenary in Johannesburg in South Africa. I was again very fortunate to be one of 400 international scientists involved in writing the reports and attending the plenary workshops. The IAASTD was a wake-up call for agricultural decision makers across the globe. One of its key conclusions concerned the vital role that smallholder farmers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America play in ensuring global food security and reducing persistent hunger and poverty. The uncertainties caused by climate change, the increased costs of agricultural inputs including fossil energy, demographic dynamics such as population growth and aging, and the skewed nature of the global economy were all shown to be amenable to mitigation and adaptive response via the actions of small farmers.

vi

Foreword

The IAASTD focused on the role of agricultural knowledge, science and technology (AKST) in mobilising the world’s smallholders’ vast land, human, genetic, and other resources in dealing with uncertainties. Central to its conclusions was the need for humanity to collectively learn its way out of the disasters it was bringing upon itself in the form among others of climate change. Such learning was seen not so much as invoking the answers of formal science to yesterday’s known problems, but as a process of mobilising the human resources of all stakeholders to deal with surprise and uncertainty. Smallholder farmers’ knowledge and their direct experience at the interface of society and natural resources were seen as key ingredients in finding and enacting solutions. The experience of working intensively with so many highly motivated scientists, and representatives of civil society, governments and private companies on the challenges confronted by the IAASTD is unforgettable. What is also unforgettable is the relatively lukewarm, if not absence of, commitment to its outcomes among many companies, universities, and governments. For example, the Dutch Government and Wageningen University, at which I have spent a good part of my professional life, explicitly refused to become involved in the process or to formally debate the findings. The then Science Council of the CGIAR rejected the preliminary outcomes because from its perspective they gave too little prominence to the role of formal agricultural science in ensuring global food security. One learns that change is very gradual and that being right is not the same thing as being taken to be right. The evidence does not compel. In the end at a given moment in time it is not truth that counts but what people take to be true. Change happens through engagement in what Norman and Ann Long (1992) called ‘the battlefields of knowledge’. These two life-changing strands in my experience come together in Yunita Winarto’s and Kees Stigter’s edited volume on Agrometeorological learning: Coping Better with Climate Change. The ingredients are all there. Java’s sawah landscape that I fell in love with as I bicycled through it; the horrendous and unfair impact of climate change especially on the small farmers who are least to blame for causing it and who as individuals can mobilise the least resources for mitigating its effects; and the FFS approach as a key strategy for mobilising human ingenuity to deal with this situation. Most of all, the awareness that anthropogenic disasters from the Brown Planthopper to climate change, even if they can be explained by scientists in terms of insect population dynamics or El Niño’s and La Niña’s, in the end can be remedied only by and through people. That means that we cannot reach out to silver bullet technological solutions but that we must take the painstaking route of trying to change human practices and the institutions that govern them, in other words we must engage on the battlefields of knowledge. In their book, Winarto and Stigter mobilise the requisite intellectual and practical weaponry. They bring together agrometereological expertise; the world’s experience with climate change and its mitigation (e.g., through agro-forestry); a thorough understanding of rice farming systems

vii

Foreword

and of the Indonesian-born experience of FFS. This multi-disciplinarian combination of knowledges has given rise to hands-on field experimentation with Climate Field Schools directed at experiential learning by farmers about how to mitigate climate change, and Science Field Shops directed at co-learning by scientists and farmers to develop the curricula for Climate Field Schools. As in the case of FFS for combating the Brown Planthopper, the results are encouraging. People can learn their way out of the mess. In sum, this volume is a formidable and pioneering attempt to move forward the agenda of the world’s most urgent business. We need not be hampered by powerlessness; we can agree to do something about the situation. La luta continua. Niels Röling Emeritus Professor Communication and Innovation Studies Wageningen University, The Netherlands

viii

Preface “Why didn’t I hear the singing of Srigunting birds in the last season?”, asked a female farmer to a Dutch agrometeorologist visiting her place, a hamlet in a dry rainfed area of Gunungkidul regency in Yogyakarta province, Indonesia. The agrometeorologist told her of the probability that the birds were migrating to somewhat cooler and/or wetter places due to a higher temperature and/or a later start of the wet season in the farmer’s habitat. Such was a dialogue between a farmer and a scholar at the time they spent together in 2008. That was an example of so many other questions the farmers had due to unusual weather conditions in their area. That the temperature was gradually rising and could be among the causal factors of the migration of birds was beyond farmers’ ability to observe. Without any explanations from external sources, they could not understand such a change. The female farmer was in fact an alumna of the so called Climate Field School (CFS, Sekolah Lapangan Iklim – SLI) introduced by the agricultural authorities in the previous season (dry season of 2007). Questions and queries on uncommon natural phenomena in their environment were indicators of their curiosity, although in the CFS they learned some new concepts and ideas on weather and climate, the changes they had to pay attention to, the skills of measuring rainfall and soil moisture, as well as observing the agroecosystem conditions of their fields. The School lasted for one planting season only. Weather and climate, on the other hand, continued to vary season to season. At the time they faced puzzling phenomena, nobody was still in their hamlet for answering questions. This was the situation we faced while carrying out our ethnographic fieldwork in their place. This was also the beginning of our collaborative work with the farmers in advancing their agrometeorological learning. This book is dedicated to the farmers in the hamlet of Wareng IV in village of Wareng, Wonosari district, Gunungkidul regency in the province of Yogyakarta, and to other farmers anywhere in the world who are struggling to adapt to a changing climate. Farmers have been working hard to improve their understanding and knowledge of changes in their habitat and to develop coping strategies to survive. The stories presented in this book reveal the phenomena a group of farmers in Wareng had been experiencing from the time they joined the CFS in the dry season of 2007 till June 2009 in the dry season planting, after cessation of the rains. We were fortunate to observe and follow the farmers’ learning and practices, even prior to the introduction of the School. Winarto was visiting the hamlet for the first time in 2005, following the suggestion of a farmer in Yogyakarta, the representative of the Indonesian Integrated Pest Management Farmers’Alliance. Winarto was invited to participate in a research project organized by a number of Japanese and Thai scholars on the “Changing Family in Asia”. Her familiarity with the (IPM FFS) alumni guided her to find prominent women alumni in two villages in Gunungkidul. One of them lived in the hamlet of Wareng IV. The female farmer was well known as a ‘leader’ (tokoh panutan, a prominent person to follow) in her hamlet. She was actively participating in various farmer activities within and outside her

ix

Preface

village. Following that first visit, Winarto focused her observations on the implications of the participation of women farmers in that school, and on the extent to which the empowerment they so gained affected power relations within the family (in particular between husband and wife) (see Winarto and Utami, in preparation). A group of women farmers, Menur, was formed following their (or their husbands’) participation in the School. Their self-help activities to advance their knowledge and improve their prosperity inspired Winarto to collaborate with them closely in producing the ethnographic film Lelakoné Menur (The Story of Menur, 2007). That was at the time Winarto was also collaborating with a group of farmer plant-breeders in Indramayu to produce a documentary film entitled Bisa Dèwèk (We Can Do it Ourselves, 2007) in 2006—2007. Lelakoné Menur was the product of our collaboration with the members of Menur and their families. Filming their own stories (with the help of young anthropologists and a film maker) was the first such experience Winarto ever had in her life as an anthropologist in working collaboratively with female farmers, comparable to her experience with the male farmer plant-breeders in Indramayu. This was the initial step towards building up a more intense collaboration with the farmers in Wareng IV following the visit of a Dutch agrometeorologist, Kees Stigter, at the end of 2007. This was after Winarto and her research team had been observing the introduction of the CFS in Wareng IV hamlet, and when they were following the aftermath of the farmers’ learning in the School. The focus of our observations prior to Stigter’s visit was on how the School participants—consisting of not only the members of the Menur women group, but also their husbands— were interpreting their new understanding and were taking actions in response to the ongoing weather conditions. Stigter got interested in agrometeorological learning by farmers in his work in Africa and on problems related to the establishment of agrometeorological services through agrometeorological extension, as part of attempts to assist farmers in their production efforts that these days also were constrained by the necessity of adapting to a changing climate (e.g. Stigter, 2011a). In early 2007 he visited a CFS in Indramayu, West Java, and later that year he advised on extending a Farmer Field School in Bali with a climate component, interacting with farmers and facilitators in both cases. Becoming aware of the work that was taking place in Wareng, he was only too eager to know about processes of agrometeorological learning there as well. It was just a coincidence that Stigter’s visit opened up a window of opportunity for both the farmers and the anthropologists to work together in understanding more of the implications of climate change for farmers’ fields, crops and livelihoods. Measuring rainfall daily while observing their fields, and taking notes of their own detailed observations, became part of the routine activities of the members of the group. Sedio Mulyo was the name of the group consisting of the alumni of the Wareng CFS, which was also chaired by the head of Menur’s women farmers group. Our work was now shifted towards collaborating with the Sedio Mulyo members, at the same time observing the gradual changes in their knowledge and actions over time. This is thus a book of both ‘agrometeorological learning and related actions in the making’ and the ‘making of a collaborative ethnography’ in our joint work as partners. Farmers were the

x

Preface

observers of local rainfall patterns and their implications for their habitat. Anthropologists (Y.T. Winarto, H. Prahara, E. Anantasari), an environmental biologist (Kristiyanto) in collaboration with an agrometeorologist (C.J. (Kees) Stigter) were the partners of these farmers in improving their agrometeorological learning as well as in understanding the changes in knowledge and practices of these farmers. Throughout the collaborative work in the period of May 2008—June 2009, an inter-subjective relationship and reflexivity between the two parties went on. Very rich lessons were learned through our experience as both an interdisciplinary research team and partners with the farmers. This book thus presents not only the sequential events in the gradual changes in farmers’ knowledge and actions over time, but also the shifts in the scholars’ work, the stories of how the partnership between the two parties went on, and the joint products of knowledge emerging from such collaborations.

Yunita T. Winarto and Kees Stigter (Editors)

xi

Acknowledgments This book would not have reached its readers without the help of many people. First of all we would like to thank the President, Vice President and board members of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), the Netherlands, and the Indonesian Academy of Sciences (AIPI) for their joint program in providing a research grant to Yunita T. Winarto. Winarto was their first appointed Academy Professor Indonesia in social sciences and humanities in the period of 2006—2011. The fieldwork in the hamlet of Wareng IV, Wareng village, Gunungkidul regency in Yogyakarta Special Province was done when Winarto was at Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta. Our sincere gratitude to the Rector and Vice-Rectors of Gadjah Mada University, and the Director, Vice-Directors and staff of the Graduate School of that University for their kind collaboration in hosting the professorship from 2006 to 2009. The final work of this book was carried out when Winarto had returned to the Universitas Indonesia to accomplish her professorship from 2009 to 2011 at this University. Our thanks to the Rector, Vice-Rectors, Dean and Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, the Head of the Department of Anthropology at Universitas Indonesia and the lecturers, our colleagues at the department and faculty, for their assistance in providing a conducive environment to complete this book. We especially want to remember the inspiration and the approach of farmers by the late Kasumbogo Untung, retired Professor of Entomology at Gadjah Mada University. For the farmers in the hamlet of Wareng IV, we do not have appropriate words to express our deep gratitude for all their hospitality, generosity, and willingness to accept us during our stay in their residence. Without their agreement to collaborate, this book would never have been published. Our thanks to the village head of Wareng, the hamlet leader of Wareng IV, and the members of Menur and Sedio Mulyo farmer groups: Sakiyo, Sukamto, Kasbi and Suparjiyem, mbah kakung and mbah putri Hadi, Rina, Supartiningsih and Miko, Sarni and Soegito, Wartinem and Rukiman, Hardi, Sagiyo and Wagini, Wagiyem and Paijo, Samirin, Sudiyo, Ngatinem, Harti, Tukiran, Juminem, Tamingan and Kemi, Sartono and Sunir , Wastori, Muryani, Samiran, and many other farmers in the hamlet. Our days with you in happiness and sorrow, at home and in the fields, will always give us sweet memories. Our gratitude also to the facilitators of Climate Field School in 2007 who were happy to accept our presence throughout the training sessions: Sujaka, the main trainer, the Pest and Disease Observer of Gunungkidul Regency, and his colleagues from the Regency Agricultural Office in Gunungkidul: Adiya, Dian, and Sumarno. All stories presented in this book were the products of hard work of many young scholars who had great motivation to learn from the farmers what their life meant. Doing ethnographic fieldwork had not always been part of the training of non-anthropologist scholars. We admire all their work and willingness to be part of our team. Our gratitude to: Sri Paramita Budi Utami, Esti Anantasari, Kristiyanto, Hestu Prahara, Tri Astuti Nuraini, and Siti Nur Hidayah. Our thanks

xii

Acknowledgments

are also due to the supporting staff of the Academy Professorship Indonesia at Gadjah Mada University, among others Endah Setyaningsih, Andi Wahyu, Ari Budyarto, Teuku Cut M. Azis, Supriyanto, Pudji Widodo, Maria Ingrid Nabubhoga, Sri Partiyani, and many other administrative staff of the Graduate School of Gadjah Mada University. We are also grafetul to those who helped us with the technical editorial works of this book: Bachtiar for producing the maps, Maximilian A. Wijoyoseno for improving the quality of the plates, Febrian and Hestu Prahara for designing and editing the lay-out. Some illustrations presented in this book have also been published in our earlier writings. Our thanks due to the editorial boards of the journals: Farming Matters, WACANA (Journal of the Humanities of Indonesia) and Anthropological Forum for their permission to reprint the illustrations in this book. Without the acceptance of Kees Stigter, as a retired agrometeorologist from the Netherlands, to travel from his temporary home town in Bondowoso (East Java, Indonesia) to Yogyakarta in the period of 2007 to 2009, and to be with the research team in Wareng, Wonosari, Yogyakarta, and Depok, the collaborative work between natural and social scientists, and the transdisciplinary research with the farmers would not have materialized. We are very lucky to have such a successful collaboration. Yunita T. Winarto and Kees Stigter

xiii

Chapter 1 How to Generate and Support a Rural Response to Climate Change Kees Stigter and Yunita T. Winarto

PART A Considerations of Climate and Society in Asia Introduction Vulnerable communities across the world are already feeling the effects of a changing climate. These communities are urgently in need of assistance aimed at building resilience and at undertaking climate change adaptation efforts as a matter of survival and in order to maintain livelihoods (e.g. Mergeai, 2010; OXFAM, 2011). They are in need of an urgent rural response to climate change. The reality of climate change calls for a need to understand how it might affect a range of natural and social systems, and to identify and evaluate options to respond to these effects (e.g. Ionescu et al., 2009). This should lead to in-depth investigation of vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, which has become central to climate science, policy and practice. The capacity, however, to conduct vulnerability and adaptation assessment is still limited (Pulhin, 2011). For example the International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI, 2011) indicates to use a science-based approach to enhance society’s capability to understand, anticipate and cope with the impacts of climate in order to improve human welfare and the environment. We want to extend this approach to the rural communities of Indonesia and elsewhere. The basis of our approach is listening to the farmers concerned, to better understand their vulnerabilities and needs the way they see them, in a ’farmers first‘ paradigm in a participatory approach (Chambers et al., 1987; Scoones and Thompson, 1994; Scoones and Thompson, 2009; Winarto, 2010), to be able to generate support with them and for them in facing the consequences of increased climate variability and climate change in their livelihoods (Stigter, 2010a). However, applied scientists cannot do that all by themselves (Stigter, 2010b). They should basically be the connection between applied science and the actual production environment. To that end they in fact would be most useful to back up well educated extension intermediaries to train, on an almost daily basis, farmers, farmer facilitators and ultimately farmer trainers and farmer communities. Unfortunately, extension services are very often virtually absent and where they still do exist they are badly trained and have received little or no upgrading regarding the fast changes that are occurring in the agricultural production environment and about the actual crises in the livelihood of farmers (Stigter, 2011a).

1

Kees Stigter and Yunita T. Winarto

For an agricultural economy, astronomical knowledge as a regulator of the agricultural calendar was of prime importance (Ronan, 1981). He who could give a calendar to the people would become their leader. More especially this was true for an agricultural economy which depended so largely upon artificial irrigation; it was necessary to be forewarned (……) of the beginning of the rainy monsoon season (Ronan, 1981). These remarks were valid for several millennia in China and also apply for example to India and Indonesia, to rainfed as well as irrigated agriculture. Farmers, supported by scientists, still use such astronomical approaches of the rainy season (e.g. Varshneya et al., 2010; Vaidya et al., 2010; Varshneya et al., 2011). However, it must be sorted out how well such approaches can still hold or can be adapted under the present conditions of a changing climate in comparison to a response farming approach (Stigter, 2008a; Winarto et al., 2008). We have indeed encouraged some mostly older farmers we work with in Indonesia, that still believe in possibilities to adapt their local cosmology (pranata mangsa) to new conditions, to try to do so. They better find out for themselves the new limits of this traditional approach and we can help, for example using simple climate predictions as these days generally available (e.g. NOAA, 2010). Traditional knowledge and indigenous technologies should always be taken seriously and they should always be tried out in a participatory approach to find their new limitations under changing conditions (e.g. Challinor, 2010; Pulhin, 2011). It is very often also a good way to become on speaking terms with local farmers, doing some local experiments together on comparing traditional and modern scientific approaches (Stigter, 2010a). As financing for climate change adaptation in developing countries begins to flow, it is essential that the governance of funding at the global and country level be shaped so that the needs of the most vulnerable can be met (OXFAM, 2011). The core issue is country-level ownership of adaptation finance. Providers of adaptation finance must put developing countries in the driver’s seat, while the countries themselves must exercise leadership and respond to the needs of those most affected by climate change. Most importantly, civil society and vulnerable communities must be able to steer and hold accountable the way in which adaptation finance is used (OXFAM, 2011). The latter issue is even more important in Indonesia as the most corrupt country of Asia at the levels of central as well as local authorities. While it is relatively easy to define technical messages that can be communicated, we have to look beyond ‘adaptation to current climate variability’ and target the basic vulnerability factors of communities. Communication also aims at improving the learning process and creates capacity to cope with climate variability (Gommes et al., 2010). Measuring rainfall and observing the agronomical consequences by farmers in their plots have been a great start for such communications (Stigter and Winarto, 2011). In this introduction we have brought up some points that guided us in our work with farmers in Indonesia. Below we will start to exemplify what the most important consequences are that Indonesian and other Asian farmers face because of increasing climate variability and climate change. We will subsequently discuss our initial approach to make them more aware of what is happening around them on a daily basis and also our initial attempts to answer their many questions related to this increasing climate variability and climate change.

2

How to Generate and Support a Rural Response to Climate Change

Climate Change, What does it Mean for Asian farmers? The discussion whether climate change exists does not need to be taken up here. The evidence is rather clear (see also below). The discussion on causes of climate change is largely irrelevant for those suffering the consequences. Even if we would be able to at least reduce apparent sources of climate change or find other geophysical ways to reduce global warming, it would continue to take place and only in the course of time at a reduced speed. The problem we have is that the experts on climate variability and climate change do not really know what information the grassroots need in the short- and medium-term (Stigter, 2008a; Rowling, 2011). And the people working with vulnerable communities do not know what science is available (Rowling, 2011). The main issue that we cannot leave out here regarding what the agricultural sector could do to mitigate climate change, in a win-win situation, is that of large scale agroforestry (Stigter and Vishwavaram, 2011; Stigter et al., 2011). Let’s first look at the main issues that we have to accept as consequences of a changing climate for Asian farmers and at some of these consequences. Global warming Many tropical regions in Africa, Asia and South America could see the permanent emergence of unprecedented heat in the next two decades. According to projections, large areas of the globe are likely to warm up so quickly that, by the middle of this century, even the coolest warmer seasons will be hotter than the hottest ones of the past 50 years (Hesterman, 2011). Historical data from weather stations around the world were also analyzed to see if the projected emergence of unprecedented heat had already begun. It turns out that when we look back in time using temperature records, we find that this extreme heat emergence is occurring already now, and that climate models represent the historical patterns remarkably well (Hesterman, 2011). This dramatic shift in seasonal temperatures could have severe consequences for human health, agricultural production and ecosystem productivity. Below we will come back to consequences of too high temperatures for rice production in Asia. We want to note here only that part of the poverty alleviation rationale for participatory rice research is that improved rice production, made possible by varieties that yield better, mature earlier, or tolerate drought and (much more difficult) heat or by the new System of Rice Intensification, SRI (Kassam et al., 2011; Uphoff et al., 2011), will give farmers greater flexibility in their use of land and labor. This in turn will allow them to more easily diversify into higher value crops, without completely losing the food security provided by rice. These economic arguments for the diversification of agricultural production in Indonesia are now joined by climatological ones (Stigter et al., 2007). Increasing climate variability Agricultural production in Indonesia is strongly influenced by the annual cycle of precipitation and the year-to-year variations in the annual cycle of precipitation caused by El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) dynamics. The combined forces of ENSO and global warming are likely

3


to have dramatic and currently unforeseen effects on agriculture production and food security in Indonesia and other tropical countries (Falcon et al., 2011). To date, climate models have been developed with little knowledge of agricultural system dynamics, and agricultural policy analysis has been conducted with little knowledge of climate dynamics. Integration proposed will permit an assessment of climate-related uncertainty associated with global warming and ENSO dynamics. It will also demonstrate how the treatment of uncertainty affects the choice and consequences of agricultural policies (Falcon et al., 2011). During El Niño events, Indonesia’s production of rice, the country’s primary food staple, is affected in two important ways: (i) delayed rainfall causes the rice crop to be planted later in the monsoon season, thus extending the ‘hungry season’ (paceklik, the season of scarcity) before the main rice harvest; and (ii) delayed planting of the main wet-season crop may not be compensated by increased planting later in the crop year, leaving Indonesia with reduced rice area and a larger than normal annual rice deficit (Naylor et al., 2007). The ENSO actually can swing beyond the ‘normal’ state to a state opposite to that of El Niño, with the trade winds amplified and the eastern Pacific colder than normal. This phenomenon is often referred to as La Niña. In a La Niña year (or better: when a La Niña period occurs), many regions inclined toward drought during an El Niño, such as Indonesia, are instead prone to more rain (and of course vice-versa). Both El Niños and La Niñas vary in intensity from weak to strong. The intervals at which El Niños return are not exactly regular, but vary from two to seven years. Sometimes an El Niño subsides into a ‘normal’ pattern. At other times it gives way to a La Niña. In many ways, the ENSO cold phase is simply the opposite of the warm phase. This often holds true also for the climate impacts of the two. El Niño (warm phase) tends to bring drought to countries like Indonesia and Australia, at the west end of the Pacific, while La Niña (cold phase) tends to bring more rain than normal there (Metcalf Institute, 2000). Now it appears that the frequency of these phenomena has changed in recent times and also the way in which they follow each other, but we are not able to simulate these actual changes with the models that summarize our understanding, that apparently is at this moment still very insufficient (ClimateWiki, 2011). More (and more severe) climate extremes Environmental catastrophes and the forces of nature they unleash are something to behold, fear and respect (ThinktoSustain, 2011). The kind of havoc they cause to the lives of mankind and the planet as a whole are nothing new. But the ferocity, frequency and magnitude of such extreme weather conditions seem to be on the rise since last few decades, and gathering speed by each passing year. These incidents seem just another environmental disaster when seen individually, having local or country-wide consequences, but when one steps back and takes in the big picture, the enormity of it all hits and they appear downright frightening (ThinktoSustain, 2011). China is a case in point that Stigter was able to partly watch by himself there in May 2011. Weather took an about-turn in China in the first week of June 2011, when only a week after facing the worst drought in the last 60 years in its northern provinces, the central and southwest

4


regions of China were hit by heavy flooding triggered by excessive and continuous torrential rains. Ironically, while the deadly flooding continues, a persistent drought is still plaguing five provinces in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River. Though floods are a regular, annual event for these areas of China, the extent to which this year’s floods have hit and affected people had not been witnessed in the last 20 years (ThinktoSustain, 2011). In such a huge country these days newspapers report on damages from severe weather and climate on a daily basis. Even covered cropping systems in China suffer from various disasters (Zheng and Stigter, 2010). In Indonesia almost daily the news papers report on landslides and their victims, these landslides always being due to heavy rainfall. Agroforestry may have a protective function, as was already used traditionally in the tropics (Stigter, 2011b). Indonesia, during the 1997-98 El Niño drought episode, was ravaged by forest fires. But that country’s officials feared that torrential La Niña rains on Indonesia’s charred and devegetated lands could produce flash floods, serious soil erosion, and an ashy brew of runoff toxic enough to kill fish and damage ecosystems (Metcalf Institute, 2000). At the beginning of a more recent El Niño period in 2009/10, severe drought indeed delayed the planting season. Farmers applied some adaptation strategies such as practicing dry-nursery instead of wet-nursery seedbeds, selecting rice varieties with more suitable lengths of their growing season and building ground-water ponds, which all proved to be beneficial (Winarto et al., 2010a; 2010b). In the meantime, since March 2010, the El Niño situation had made place for a recurring La Niña situation that overtook the prevalent El Niño with an unprecedented speed, but we were not aware of that from any existing forecasts. This situation was worsened by a climate induced Brown Planthopper (locally known as wereng coklat) attack (Stigter and Winarto, 2011). Farmers face ever increasing problems from such extreme events. Farmer organizations in Indonesia are blaming the local and central governments for being too slow in educating farmers on how to adapt to extreme weather shifts. We should generate and support a rural response to climate change. Contributions from agriculture in diminishing greenhouse gases Stigter (2010c) summarized this subject partly as follows. The total Green House Gas (GHG) emission from agriculture was estimated to increase by about 50% from 2000 to 2030. Early in this period, agricultural expansion was by far the leading cause at a global scale, whether through forest conversion for permanent cropping, cattle ranching, shifting cultivation or colonization agriculture. Most prominent underlying causes of deforestation and degradation are economic factors, weak institutions and inadequate national policies. Mitigation techniques such as improved feed quality, improved manure management, improved fertilizer use and greater applied nitrogen efficiency, as well as improved water management in rice paddies all have to be considered in order to minimize the impact of agriculture on climate in win-win situations. The agricultural sector was once a major contributor to GHG emissions, but it has been superseded by the energy and transportation sectors. However, all sectors have a role to play and all must be mobilized in the collective efforts to mitigate global climate change. Significantly, agriculture has an important role because of the large land areas involved, and because there are already many available technologies and opportunities in agriculture to

5


contribute to the global mitigation effort, many of which can be implemented with minimal or no cost. Soil carbon sequestration has a higher mitigation potential than emission reductions in agriculture, although both are important. These are best achieved under management systems with higher carbon density, as well as improved soil conservation (Stigter, 2010c). The lack of an effective carbon price is currently one of the most significant detriments to collective global action. There are some strong trends in the expansion of global carbon trading, and some initiatives to promote carbon taxes. These are positive, since ultimately they will promote a realistic price on carbon. However, some key constraints still need to be overcome, namely how to mobilize the large and highly diverse global farm populations, and how to certify sequestered carbon and GHG emission reductions, given the high variability inherent in agricultural production environments. Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) rules should encourage the participation of small farmers and community forest and agroforestry producers, and protect them against major livelihood risks, while still meeting investor needs and rigorously ensured carbon off-set goals. Agroforestry, assisted natural regeneration, forest rehabilitation, forest gardens, and improved forest fallow projects should all be eligible under CDM, because they offer low-cost approaches to carbon sequestration, while offering fewer social risks and significant community and biodiversity benefits. Short-duration tree growing activities should be permitted, with suitable discounting. Unfairly favoring large plantations should be avoided. The successful promotion of livelihood enhancing CDM sequestration projects will require investment in capacity-building and advisory services for potential investors, project designers and managers, national policy makers, and leaders of local organizations and federations (Stigter, 2010c). How did our Past Work about and with Farmers in Indonesia Fit the Above Global warming Stigter gave lectures at the Universitas Indonesia (UI), Depok, Roving Seminars at the Universitas Gadja Madah (UGM), Yogyakarta, and UI, and we had many discussions with farmers in Wareng/Gunungkidul and Indramayu. These were organized and coordinated by Prof. Yunita. T. Winarto almost everywhere, at UGM and in Wareng later on also by the late Prof. Kasumbogo Untung. We have among others used the following arguments (Stigter et al., 2007):

6

·

In an editorial in the Jakarta Post on December 15 of 2006, it was correctly explained that the rice imports were justified after all, because 75% of rice growers are net rice consumers themselves. Higher rice prices hurt the poorest the most. Indeed the editorial stated correctly that it is virtually impossible to achieve and maintain food self-sufficiency if food security in Indonesia remains based on rice alone. In the Straits Times (ST) of Singapore of 18 December 2006 a World Bank economist is quoted saying that because of this impact on the poor, “it is important to depoliticize rice trade policy”.

·

What is important in everybody’s eyes, says the ST, is for the government to devise a longterm agricultural plan, revitalizing extension programmes that have left farmers with poor seeds, with deteriorated irrigation facilities and with even poorer advice on what to


do about boosting productivity. Due to the Washington based Centre for Global Development, crop diversification and providing access to well working supply chains is a way out of the poverty trap. More farmers must move out of rice and into higher value crops as a way of pulling themselves out of poverty, says the World Bank. At least crop diversification is highly necessary, supported with fiscal and monetary incentives and technological assistance, proposed the earlier quoted Jakarta Post editorial. ·

Climate disaster issues are the second great argument for national weather services, research institutes and universities to jointly convince the Indonesian goverment of the necessity of funding the design of new cropping systems and testing them on-farm in various regions in a participatory approach.

In a recent summary study (University of San Diego, California, 2010) it was confirmed that as the daily minimum temperature increases, so as nights get hotter in general, rice yields drop. This was the first study to assess the impact of both daily maximum and minimum temperatures on irrigated rice production in farmer-managed rice fields in tropical and subtropical regions of Asia. The study was unique because it used data collected in farmers’ fields, an important addition to what was already known from controlled experiments. Around three billion people eat rice every day, and more than 60 percent of the world’s one billion poorest and undernourished people who live in Asia depend on rice as their staple food. A decline in rice production will mean more people will slip into poverty and hunger. Up to a point, higher day-time temperatures can increase rice yields, but future yield losses caused by higher night-time temperatures will outweigh any such gains because temperatures are rising faster at night. And if day-time temperatures get too high, they too start to restrict rice yields, causing an additional loss in production. If we cannot change our rice production methods or develop new rice strains that can withstand higher temperatures, there will be a loss in rice production over the next few decades as days and nights get hotter. This will get increasingly worse as temperatures rise further towards the middle of the century (University of San Diego, California, 2010). The above summarized work by researchers from the United States, the Philippines and the Rome-based Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) looked at the impact of rising daily minimum and maximum temperatures on irrigated rice production between 1994-1999, pooling 227 fields in China, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam (AFP, 2010). Global warming threatens rice production throughout the tropics and crop diversification is one of the measures that may yield early results because new more heat tolerant varieties will take a lot of time to develop, if at all possible (IRRI, 2011). Increasing climate variability One of the recommendations of a review of the successful agrometeorological pilot projects on operational meteorological assistance to rural areas in Mali, West Africa, over the past decades, was to continue the promotion of farmer raingauges to get them at the disposal of each and

7


every farmer (Diarra and Stigter, 2008). Since a few years we are establishing and running programs in Yogyakarta and West Java, Indonesia, to stimulate local farmers to measure rainfall in their own plots, following routines that we proposed earlier (Stigter et al., 2009). This has never been a goal in itself. It should serve other purposes in a rural response to climate change. Organizing measurements of rainfall by farmers in their fields may be the start of a series of processes leading to improved Climate Field Schools (CFSs). See also further below. Another reason for advocating rainfall measurements by farmers in their fields is that official data are very often not of much use, due to high differences in rainfall that exist over relatively small distances. Official data are often deficient and what exists also not made available free of charge, even for comparisons (Stigter et al., 2009). Climate change makes it even more necessary to do such measurements. Farmers all over the world are reporting that both the timing of rainy seasons and the patterns of rains within seasons are changing (Jennings and Magrath, 2009). Generally farmers have always responded to climatic variability, particularly to changes in rainfall, by adapting their practices throughout the season. This involves adapting their choices of crops, crop varieties, planting and other cultural measures, while at the same time managing and manipulating the soil, water and microclimate where possible. Climate change complicates this so-called ‘response farming’, but it does not change the principles of the approach (Stigter, 2008a; 2010a; Winarto et al., 2008). In this context, on-farm rainfall measurements also help farmers to understand (differences in) their crop growth. The exercise may assist farmers in organizing themselves better also in other matters of common interest in supporting farmer meaningful agrometeorological preparedness and learning regarding consequences of increasing climate variability and change (Stigter et al., 2009; Winarto et al., 2010a, 2010b). Overall, in Wareng/Gunungkidul the farmers had an interesting learning experience, resulting from a combination of unexpected weather conditions, precise knowledge of the rainfall numerical analysis, and the direct impacts of related events on plants and fields, while also referring to their traditional knowledge. But it made little sense in practice without any timely information officially provided to the farmers by state agencies that this part of 2008/09 was a La Niña season. Farmers indicated that with what they learned they would better anticipate similar future weather conditions, provided they would be systematically informed through reliable climate forecasting (Stigter and Winarto, 2011). More (and more severe) climate extremes Farmers in Indramayu had asked us in March 2010 what we expected to happen and whether the end of the rainy season could be any better than its disastrous very late start (in December). From the predictions ‘ensemble’ overview, a review of various forecasting models in use over the world, that we follow on the NOAA website (e.g. NOAA, 2010), we indicated this to be very unlikely, but that the present developments were quite uncertain. That was of course of little help. Moreover, as appeared in as late as June, the forecasts in these months were all wrong (Stigter and Winarto, 2011).

8


Also BMKG (the Indonesian National Weather Service) was completely wrong at the usual end of the rainy season of 2009/2010, by forecasting for some areas an early dry season, between late March and May, with most areas likely to have a normal dry season in June. Only at the end of May it started to warn for heavy rains and to blame these anomalies and unpredictabilities on global warming, while it was a La Niña causing the problems (Stigter and Winarto, 2011). We would never have been able to forecast what happened in the usually dry but now abundantly wet ’dry‘ season in Indonesia in 2010, using the NOAA or other available predictions. The farmers would remain confused, together with the scholars, in case of such fast changes from El Niño to La Niña as recently happened (Stigter and Winarto, 2011). This was even not an extreme condition by itself but an extremely fast change at the extremely odd moment of the usual beginning of the dry season. It may be expected that such capricious behavior, that may then also develop into still more serious (prolonged and intensified) droughts (EDF, 2007; Kenworthy, 2009) and floods (Stigter et al., 2003; Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009), will occur more often. From a Table in USEPA (2011) we have summarized what farmers, also in most cases our farmers in Indonesia, actually may expect from projected likely, very likely or virtually certain changes in extreme events and associated effects: · Warmer/fewer cold days/nights; warmer/more hot days/nights over most land areas: Increased yields in colder environments; decreased yields in warmer environments · Warm spells/heat waves: frequency increases over most land areas Reduced yields in warmer regions due to heat stress at key development stages; fire danger increase · Heavy precipitation events: frequency increases over most areas Damage to crops; soil erosion, landslides, inability to cultivate land, water logging of soils · Area affected by drought: increases Land degradation, lower yields/crop damage and failure; livestock deaths; land degradation · Number of intense tropical cyclones: increases Damage to crops; wind throw of trees · Incidence of extreme high sea level: increases Salinization of irrigation and well water It must be realized that farmers in Asia and elsewhere will not be able to cope with the higher numbers of climate extremes that further climate change is expected to bring, even apart from the fact that these extremes may be also more serious than before. A completely new approach is needed (e.g. Stigter et al., 2003). This part will end with discussing such a new approach in the Section “Our Trial Approach to Generate and Support Rural Response to Climate Change”.

9


Contributions from agriculture in diminishing greenhouse gases The following was derived from Stigter and Vishwavaram (2011). Yansen (2010) argued that ...our participation in nature based solutions for climate mitigation and adaptation is the right pathway to follow. (……) The development from REDD to REDD plus is a good sign of the changing paradigm on the plan itself. REDD plus does not just view natural forests as carbon stock, but far more importantly, as natural ecosystem service resources. (…..) Thus, a plan such as REDD plus not only gives us a chance to contribute to global warming mitigation, but also plays a significant role in conserving the tropical ecosystem itself.

We are convinced that another additional step has to be taken in this reasoning, making use of agroforestry. Applying agroforestry we are mimicking nature, particularly some classical traditional tropical ecosystems (e.g. Stigter, 2010a). We have to go a next step to REDD plus plus, creating and mimicking in agricultural production such tropical ecosystems that not only sequester carbon dioxide but at the same time considerably improve the agricultural environment by the massive use of trees, raising and nursing them in a participatory approach in the often degraded agricultural environment. This is at the same time an adaptation strategy to climate change (APN, 2010; Stigter, 2011b). Agroforestry helps maintain ecological balance by providing indirect benefits such as soil and water conservation and improved soil fertility (APN, 2010), as well as improved microclimate conditions (Stigter, 2010d). It may therefore play a key role in ecological restoration and poverty alleviation (Vishwavaram, 2010). We need a REDD plus plus approach in which all the forest products are developed on agricultural lands. It implies that we develop timber, fire wood & charcoal, meat &milk (goats, sheep etc.), minor forest products and medicinal plants all from the farm sector. Such a REDD plus plus system is a Tree, Crop, Livestock Joint Production System (TCLJPS) of agroforestry. TCLJPS is nothing new in the Indian context. This was in vogue over centuries prior to the green revolution and we need to bring it back in the changed context. Indeed TCLJPS agroforestry makes sense as a key instrument in fostering the REDD and REDD plus. As REDD plus plus, this helps us in recasting ‘farming as forestry by other means’ in India. A certification system will be tried where the amount of sequestrated carbon is calculated and thus can be sold to people/companies and institutions in developed countries. In this manner it is intended to attract increased and stable funding to support the programme, while also strengthening awareness of the importance of supporting developing countries in their adaptation to climate change (Vi Agroforestry, 2007). Zomer et al. (2009) investigated the correspondence and relationship of tree cover, population density and climatic conditions. Among the key results are that there are mixed relationships between tree cover and population density depending on the region. This first analysis suggested that patterns of tree cover are indeed influenced by a range of factors the authors were not able to examine at the global scale and that need follow up at local scales. A REDD plus plus approach would do so (Stigter and Vishwavaram, 2011)! Indonesia has to consider to increase tree plantings too, also in and near rice fields.

10


Our Trial Approach to Generate and Support a Rural Response to Climate Change: From Science Field Shops to improved Climate Field Schools Research on agrarian adaptation to climate change and variability needs a greater emphasis on famers’ creative adaptive capacities and socio-cultural institutions. While the modeled climate change scenarios may be useful for identifying potential stress points and vulnerabilities in biophysical agro-ecological systems, they tend to leave a very big gap in the area of farmers’ adaptive capacities and practices, ignoring a crucial factor in understanding the relationship between climate trends and agricultural outcomes: farmers as creative agents who respond to climate variability, both in the short term and the long term (Crane et al., 2011). Response farming in combating disasters does exist (Stigter, 2010e) and even more so in multiple cropping (Stigter, 2010f). For scientists the purpose remains to increase, with farmers as decision makers, the awareness on potential climate and climate (change) related hazards and their mitigation (Stigter, 2010e), with additional advantages of reduced vulnerabilities from multiple cropping and related cultural measures (Stigter, 2010f). In the above we have already paid much attention to our strategy of encouraging farmers to measure rainfall in their own plots for an array of reasons. We also noted the virtual absence of extension officers trained in what is needed under conditions of a changing climate. Given this situation we have developed what we have called Science Field Shops, meetings between scholars and farmers (Stigter and Winarto, 2011; Winarto et al., 2011). It is our experience over the past few years that the most useful and convincing preparedness sessions between farmers and scholars are those in which we are not only talking about rainfall measurements results and the related observations of crops and soil. We are also taking ample time to explain the background of climate change and its consequences in terms that lay-people can understand and we discuss questions on these and other issues of their agricultural environment. Basically, we define such ‘Science Field Shops’ as meetings in which scholars answer questions on vulnerabilities expressed by farmers and where necessary follow this up at their institutes (universities, research institutes, weather and other environmental services) with supportive research and teaching to and with their students. The idea was based on Dutch so called ‘Law Shops’, where defenceless people can consult lawyers free of charge about their rights and how to defend them. This gives lawyers and law students the opportunity to see (and discuss) where ordinary people got stuck in the process and what is needed to get them their rights. Both sides learn from this procedure. Ideally scholars and students should jointly take up to provide an initial overview of answers to vulnerability issues/questions of farmers. Such initial answers should then be discussed with the farmers as to what the possibilities/choices/options are in solving their problems and how they see them from their realities. In that type of discussions should come up whether there is room for and what would be the sense of farmer research on such possibilities/choices/ options. Through such research they may find their own solutions but a remaining dialogue with scholars is advisable because cause and effect relationships is what science has to offer to empirical answers sought or found by farmers (e.g. Stigter, 2010a). This must be considered

11


an effective way to connect scientists and students with actual problem solving in rural areas and to prepare future Climate/Farmer Field Schools on these vulnerabilities (see also Gommes et al., 2010). Exposure to climate change is such a vulnerability and mitigation of its consequences and adaptation to increasing climate variability and change must be seen as a rural response in which scholars can this way assist. We have to admit that we have only scratched the surface of this issue, because it would need much wider understanding and acceptance in the institutes concerned. We use Roving Seminars in agrometeorology to start to induce such understanding, also outside Indonesia (KNMI, 2009; Stigter, 2011a). Because we have not yet been able to convince any Indonesian Universities to institutionalize such Science Field Shops, this Chapter 1 is an attempt to create further understanding. As long as there are only the authors of this Chapter 1 that continue this kind of meetings, on behalf of UI, after the death of Prof. Kasumbogo Untung who had taken over the lead at UGM, even the wording of ’Science Field Shop‘ is too big. We should now continue with ’Climate Field Shops‘ in which only the two of us listen to farmers and try to answer their questions and discuss their vulnerabilities related to climate. Table 1.1 gives some recent examples of questions and answers from our meetings with the ’Indramayu rainfall observers club‘. We are convinced that such Climate Field Shop or Science Field Shop sessions are suitable to get material for improved curricula of Climate Field Schools. We believe that Climate Field Schools should not have pre-fixed curricula but such curricula should be created together with the farmers, discussing their vulnerabilities and other questions, noting the difficulties experienced in the ongoing and recent growing seasons, like exemplified in Table 1.1. However, this definitely asks for well trained extension intermediaries who should take over most of the tasks of the scholars. The latter should only be used to train them and for backing up. In my view there is a sincere need for two kinds of extension intermediaries (WMO, 2009; Stigter, 2010a, 2011a). I described them for agrometeorology, but the same applies to many other fields, such as agrohydrology, agroecosystems, pests and diseases etc. It all overlaps. The first type of such intermediaries should preferably be part of extension wings/ departments of the national weather services, agricultural faculties/universities and agricultural research institutes in under-industrialized countries. They should have two main tasks: · make products of their institutes more client friendly and useful for farmers. In industry, products are made useful and attractive to clients. Why not in undertakings serving agricultural production? · take care of training of trainers (TOT) for FFSs/CFSs by their institutes. They should themselves be trained ‘in service’ by their institutes. Members of NGOs could take part in this training as trainers or trainees. The second type of such intermediaries, the trainers trained above by the first type, should replace the presently failing or already disbanded extension services and they should be the

12


ones doing the FFSs/CFSs, throughout the growing season(s) with the farmers. Members of NGOs could be part of this picture if/when trained the same way. It is very important to think about the kind of training both types of extension intermediaries need. In Stigter (2010a), and already earlier taken over by WMO (2009), Stigter has proposed, for discussion and trial purposes, syllabi that could be used in such trainings. In the ultimate rural response to climate change this support from well trained extension intermediaries is crucial if we want an institutionalized attempt to face the consequences of climate change in a real rural response. This will be a long process and experimenting with Climate Field Shops and Science Field Shops and publicizing their results, like in this Chapter, are the initial phases. However, Indonesian agrometeorologists and other agricultural scientists and the institutes where they work should see the importance and necessity of this approach and be willing to work with anthropologists to give more body to these collaborative learning processes with the farmers that need our support so badly.

PART B Agrometeorological Learning in Wareng, Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta Part A showed collaboration of a Dutch agrometeorologist with an Indonesian anthropologist and her students. Why would anthropologists and Indonesian and other agrometeorologists and agricultural scientists team up to give ‘more body’ to a collaborative learning process with farmers? Anthropologists are used to work closely with their field partners in various places spread over the world in different natural and agricultural settings, ecosystems, and climate conditions. In reality, wherever anthropologists go and work, as shared by Crate and Nuttall (2009:9), they encounter people talking about the local effects of changes they noticed in the weather and climate of their territories. For them [people], climate change is not something that may happen in the near or far future but is an immediate, lived reality that they struggle to apprehend, negotiate, and respond to. The weather is increasingly unpredictable and people express concern that local landscapes, seascapes, and icescapes are irreversibly changing. We, with our field partners, are also encountering the local manifestations of this global phenomenon. And, like them, we are confronted with the challenge of comprehending and responding to it (Crate and Nuttall, 2009:9).

Questions and queries on the unusual, sometimes even unprecedented, phenomena the field partners of the anthropologists encounter day-to-day are now part of puzzling problems beyond their and our own ability to comprehend from their and our past experiences. Such is the challenge we also encountered at our field site in Wareng, Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta: When there was a heavy rain in April 2009, a farmer, Amir, said to Prahara: “My old grandmother used to say that the rain in April was usually pral-pril [very little and rare], but now it is

13


bar-ber [very heavy] as in December.” Why? While observing his flooded field, the farmer answered his own observation and question with: “The climate is changing” (see Winarto et al., 2010c; Winarto et al., 2011).

Intense rain in the first dry season planting is an example of an unusual weather condition the farmers faced. Yet, without any response from the anthropologist, this farmer was able to answer his own question. But that was not the case with many other farmers who did not have the ability to comprehend and understand such events occurring in their fields due to increasing climate variability and climate change. As other sedentary people, farmers find themselves at the mercy of changes far beyond their present control to which they have to adapt. “Yet climate change is a threat multiplier. It magnifies and exacerbates existing social, economic, political and environmental trends, problems, issues, tensions, and challenges”, argue Crate and Nuttal (2009:11). The farmers’ complex situation left us with challenging questions as voiced by Crate and Nuttall (2009:10): “What is our proper response and what is our responsibility to our research partners in these revelations? How do we translate, advocate, educate, and mediate?.... How do we link our expertise to this arena in such a way that we are not part of the problem but part of the solution?” Of course, it would not be possible for us to straightforwardly address this complex multiple threats resulting from climate change. Nevertheless, by focusing on a specific community as our field partner, in carrying out ethnographic fieldwork, we could perhaps be part of the solution and not of the problem, for the farmers we were going to work with. Yet, it is not an easy task to deal with challenges beyond our expertise. Those were the reasons for our collaboration with Stigter, an agrometeorologist living part of the year in Indonesia for the past 20 years and since 1999 also acting as a visiting professor volunteer here. He visited our field site in the hamlet of Wareng IV in late 2007. Without our collaboration with the agrometeorologist, we would not be able to be part of the ‘solution’. This book has the objective to present the development of our collaborations, among different disciplines and with our field partners, in assisting the farmers to understand and better cope with climate change. But it also reports about the learning processes the farmers went through, and the products of their agrometeorological learning. Throughout the ongoing collaboration, both the farmers and the anthropologists (and an environmental biologist) went through a continuous learning on what actually happened in the cropped fields as caused by weather and climate. We also experimented with ways to effectively develop what we have already called Science Field Shops (SFS) in Part A of this Chapter, as an approach to permanently connect farmers and scholars. However the ideas on the SFSs came on board at a later stage (2008/09) when we were thinking on how to improve CFSs. This book first follows farmers as participants of the newly state introduced response training in a Climate Field School (CFS) in 2007. The CFS was introduced mid 2007 and Stigter, the agrometeorologist, visited the hamlet for the first time at the end of 2007 after the CFS was over (Stigter, 2008b). He had at that time already visited a CFS in Indramayu, West Java (Stigter, 2007a), and advised on expansion of a Farmer Field School (FFS) into a CFS on Bali (Stigter, 2007b). We began our collaboration in agrometeorological learning in 2008. Our arguments in this chapter are based on the lessons learned throughout our observations and experiences of building up our relationship and

14


collaboration with the farmers in the period of 2007 to 2009. From their own knowledge (ilmu titèn) enriched with scientific ideas learned in the Integrated Pest Management Farmer Field Schools (IPM FFSs) to their learning in the CFS and then in the SFSs, that is the story we are presenting in this book. From Ilmu Titèn to Climate Field School and Science Field Shop At the time Winarto entered the field site in Wareng for the first time in 2005, a number of farmers were known as IPM FFS alumni, who had also received training from FFSs for paddy and maize. The scientific ideas introduced there, such as agroecosytem analysis, prey/predator relationship and appropriate control strategies improved the farmers’ local knowledge of multiple cropping practices. The scientific ideas did enrich their local knowledge known as ilmu titèn based on detailed empirical understanding of their own environment. Ilmu titèn means ‘the science of memorable careful observation’. An example of this is their local knowledge of diverse ranges of soil types in their habitat along with suitable crops that can be planted in each type of soil. The Javanese calendar system, ‘Pranata Mangsa’, originating from a combination of the Western Gregorian, solar, calendrical system and the Javanese astronomy based, agricultural time keeping (Hidayat, 2011; also see Indrowuryanto, 1999; Sriyanto, 2009), is another example. That knowledge is not only detailed, based on careful observations, but has also become memorable, transmitted from generation to generation. On the basis of that ilmu titèn, the farmers in Wareng developed their multiple cropping patterns of three times planting in a year following the weather conditions of the monsoon seasons in their dry rainfed karst ecosystem. It was just a coincidence that when Winarto and her research team were still carrying out ethnographic fieldwork in that hamlet in 2007, a number of farmers were selected to be participants of a CFS organized by the agricultural office. Gunungkidul regency is a well known dry area without irrigation and with not always sufficient, often irregular, rainfall throughout a year with normally a clear dry season in and around the southern hemisphere winter period. In Chapter 2 Kristiyanto and Winarto describe the details of the environment where the farmers live, their farming practices, and their socio-cultural life. In the eyes of the agricultural officials, the area was a ’perfect‘ site to organize a CFS. The farming strategies in that area depend very much on either wet or dry climatological conditions while cultivating associated crops (e.g. Baldy and Stigter, 1997; Stigter, 2010a; see Chapter 2). We agreed on the urgent need to assist farmers in such an ecosystem subjected to the consequences of climate change (see Chapter 1A). Climate information and understanding are indeed needed to get them better prepared for the increasing climate variability and extreme events. However, their understanding also depends on their past and present experiences. As Roncoli et al. (2003:181) say, “Recollection of the past, observation of the present, and expectations for the future shape our experience of climate phenomena and our understanding of climate information”. Farmers accumulated knowledge of multiple cropping farming in their ilmu titèn. This ‘local empirical science’ may therefore be expected to play an important role in the response strategies dealt with in the CFS. Examining the dialectics between farmers’ knowledge and scientific knowledge throughout the

15


agrometeorological learning and daily farming is one of the main issues examined in this book. Among so many hamlets spread in villages in Gunugkidul, the choice of the agricultural official for running the CFS was Wareng IV hamlet in Wareng village in the district of Wonosari. Why? Winarto’s observations of several IPM FFSs in Java and Lampung (see Winarto et al., 2000; Winarto, 2004) in the 1990s revealed that the success of a School introduced into farming communities depends very much on the active involvement of the participants in the training sessions, week by week. A cohesive group of farmers would thus be an asset to begin such a knowledge transfer and dialectics in the form of weekly training for an entire planting season. Those who designed the CFS also adopted the training method of the IPM FFS (see Pontius et al., 2002; Winarto, 2004). The curricula of the two Schools were of course different, although both has sessions on ‘agroecosytem analyses’ (see Boer et al., 2007; Boer, 2009; Direktorat Jenderal Tanaman Pangan Kementerian Pertanian, 2007, 2010). Similar to the early years of running the IPM FFS in Indonesia, the Pest/Disease Observers of the Directorate General of Plant Protection were appointed to be the main CFS facilitators, assisted by the local extension worker. The Pest/Disease Observer appointed as responsible for running the CFS in Gunungkidul knew his area of surveillance as well as the farmers in this area quite well. This included those in Wareng IV. A female farmer in Wareng IV was well known in her regency as a very active, talkative and successful local leader. Her activities involved the formation of a farmers group, initiating various collective actions, and joining formal farmers’ meetings elsewhere outside her hamlet and village (see Chapter 3). It was a rare phenomenon that a Javanese female farmer could be prominent as a leader, motivating her fellows to form a group which was known as Menur (a women farmers group) with various self-help activities (also see Winarto and Utami, in preparation; Ariefiansyah and Utami, 2007 – Lelakoné Menur ethnographic film). Organizing a new School under her leadership would thus ease the task of the Pest/Disease Observer in recruiting CFS participants and in running the entire program. That is the story of how the CFS was initiated in Wareng IV (see Chapter 3). The sequential events of agrometeorological learning among the farmers in this hamlet were opposite to the more logical approach we suggested earlier in this chapter (see Section ‘From Science Field Shop to Improved Climate Field School’ in Part A). We perceive the importance of having Science or Climate Field Shops already in the initial stages to get material for improved CFSs, instead of having a school with pre-fixed teaching and learning curricula. The Ministry of Agriculture, on the other hand, already had a design, method, and pre-fixed curriculum by adopting the method of IPM FFS (see Direktorat Perlindungan Tanaman Pangan, 2007, 2010; Boer, 2009). Indramayu in West Java was the place where the first CFS was introduced in 2003. Anantasari, Winarto and Stigter describe and analyze the implementation of the school in Chapter 3. However, similar to the way of managing the IPM FFSs elsewhere in Indonesia, the School was organized to cover one planting season only and moreover did take place outside the rainy planting season itself (see Winarto et al., 2000; Winarto, 2004; Winarto et al., 2011). Once the School ended and no further financial support was available, the facilitation by the agricultural officials was also diminished at a time when the farmers were

16


still at the early stages of internalizing the new concepts and ideas learned in the ‘School’. The aim of introducing a CFS to farmers is of course to enable them to develop their creative adaptive capacities and practices and become more resilient in response to increasing climate variability and climate change. Would farmers be able to reach that stage based on ’one planting season training’ only? Anantasari and Winarto conclude in Chapter 4 that farmers did adopt some ideas from the CFS in combination with their own local knowledge as a basis for practicing adaptive strategies towards drought. However, farmers’ questions and queries on the often puzzling phenomena in their environment did not stop once they carried out new strategies or gained some benefits from those practices. Weather and climate keep changing. Once beneficial strategies could cause hazards in situations that vary significantly from prior experience, for example in a sudden shift from El Niño to La Niña in a normally dry period (Stigter and Winarto, 2011). In Chapter 5 the authors describe various questions raised by CFS alumni to the agrometeorologist and how these farmers expressed the need to enhance their understanding following the termination of their formal ‘schooling’. Agrometeorological learning is a process that needs a longer duration than one planting season only and even more so among multiple cropping farmers who have to plant various crops in different monsoon seasons. Yet, this is the true challenge. Acquiring new ideas does not mean that the recipients will integrate them straight away in their own existing schema of crop farming. From her detailed observations of farmers’ learning following the IPM FFSs, Winarto argues that only through seeing, experiencing, and gaining benefits of practicing the new ideas, farmers adopt and firmly establish the new elements as part of their own schema. Getting convinced that the narrative teaching must be true plays an important role in their acceptance that the new ideas, integrated into their schema of farming, will improve their strategies and livelihood (Winarto, 2004; also see Winarto et al., 2000, 2011). A schema, according to D’Andrade (1992:28), is a conceptual structure or a simplified pattern of recognition that makes it possible to identify objects and events. It is also a collection of elements that work together to process information at a given time (Strauss and Quinn, 1997:49). The question is whether the new elements learned in the school became part of the collection of elements used by the farmers to process information when they faced a particular challenging situation at a certain time. To a certain extend some elements were indeed processed with their own local knowledge in preparing themselves better for drought, as presented in Chapter 4. However, the farmers’ questions in the period after the training indicate their eagerness to understand issues that had not been part of their schema. If there are some ’missing elements‘, how can the farmers use their memories to determine the new consequences of current changes in climate, and take appropriate actions accordingly? (see Strauss and Quinn, 1997; also see Winarto et al., 2011) To respond to the farmers’ needs and queries, the agrometeorologist agreed to discuss the possible answers and to give plausible explanations, also underlining the present limits of our understanding of global climate phenomena. However, such a dialogue was only part of the farmers’ learning. We proposed collaborative work where farmers themselves became the ’researchers‘ through measuring rainfall and observing their fields and crops. The

17


agrometeorologist assisted them to embark on quantifying rainfall based on some ‘standardized rules of measurement’ that would make sure that the data obtained this way could be compared and used straightforwardly in their analyses. This had to be done day-by-day without any single day of absence in carrying out the observations. The anthropologists supported the agrometeorologist and the farmers in implementing the observations based on the agreed rules, developing the writing habit, and processing the data to be compared among them and to be interpreted by the agrometeorologist. A two-way communication and knowledge exchange did prevail throughout the ongoing collaboration from early 2008 to mid 2009 (see Chapters 5, 6, and 7). Such a collaborative work did provide a new experience for the anthropologists as well as for the farmers. From Participant-observer to Collaborative Researcher: The Shifting Role of Ethnographers “Being a good ethnographer, participating in farmers’ daily life while observing their activities” was the message Winarto had for all research team members in the first couple of years the team did the ethnographic fieldwork in Wareng. Those who came from non-anthropological background, i.e. social geography, religious studies, and environmental biology, had to learn to be good field-workers.1 That was also our standpoint at the time the government introduced the CFS at our field site in mid 2007. In line with Winarto’s ongoing study and examination of the dialectics of scientific and local knowledge (Winarto, 2007, 2010, 2011), the CFS was thus a very good arena to examine where the agricultural officials transmitted the ‘scientific knowledge of climate’ to the farmers, the bearers of ‘local knowledge’, the ‘ethnoscience’. What we did during the whole dry planting season and beyond, at the time when farmers were learning about climate and weather in the School, was the conventional ethnographic fieldwork which Marcus (1981, 2001) called the mis-en-scène ethnography, a long duration of fieldwork in a particular place. It did not mean, however, that we did not play a more active role in assisting farmers whenever necessary. Producing documentary pamphlets of their activities for an exhibition was an example where our team members assisted them. Prior to the introduction of the CFS, Winarto, assisted by Ariefiansyah, Utami, and Anantasari, was also collaborating with a number of female farmers, the members of Menur, a woman farmers group led by the same leader as the CFS alumni group. We were collaboratively producing an ethnographic film about Menur self-help activities (Lelakoné Menur, The Story of Menur, Ariefiansyah and Utami, 2007).2 That was the time when Winarto From 2006 to 2009 Winarto was spending her term as the Academy Professor Indonesia in Social Science and Humanities under the auspices of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW) and the Indonesian Academy of Sciences (AIPI), at Universitas Gadjah Mada University (UGM) in Yogyakarta. During her term at UGM she was developing an interdisciplinary perspective on resource management. A number of UGM students/alumni from various disciplines (anthropology, religious studies, social geography, philosophy, linguistics, and environmental biology) joined her research in Wareng, Gunungkidul, and Nglahar, Sleman, in the Special Province of Yogyakarta. 2 Lelakoné Menur was the product of an earlier phase of Winarto’s fieldwork in Wareng IV assisted by Utami in 2006/07 as part of the international research program on “The Changing Family in Asia” organized by the Japanese scholars at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, Japan 1

18


also led a group of anthropologists producing an ethnographic film entitled Bisa Dèwèk (Ariefiansyah, 2007) with a group of farmer-plant-breeders in Indramayu (see Winarto ed., 2011). Thus, collaboration with the farmers in Wareng, as in Indramayu, had been built up prior to their learning about climate and weather. Doing ethnography itself “...has always been collaborative in nature” (Marcus 2008:7). Lassiter (2005a) also argues that ethnography is inherently collaborative. Without any willingness to patiently accept us and to tell us stories from their own livelihoods, with joy and with sorrows, it would not be possible for the ethnographers to do their work among the communities they live with. What made the difference when an agrometeorologist entered the scene at the end of 2007 and we jointly moved towards agrometeorological learning together with the farmers, the CFS alumni? The farmers had agreed in a meeting with Stigter at the end of December 2007 that they would pay more methodical and elaborate attention to their changing habitat, followed up in regular meetings on the results of the rainfall measurements and agroecosytem observations (see Chapter 5). In earlier producing both Lelakoné Menur (2007) and Bisa Dèwèk (2007), the ethnographers were not involved in introducing any new ‘scientific’ knowledge to the farmers. In this particular case, the farmers and the agrometeorologist were exchanging ideas in order to help the former to better cope with the uncertain variability and unusual changes of climate (see Part A). We made a move towards significant changes in farmers’ knowledge and practices. The ethnographers were in the middle of that move, because in practice, the ethnographers were the ones staying in the field at the time the visiting agrometeorologist was away. Language barrier between Stigter and the farmers were another constraint. So the ethnographers had a creative role as both ‘mediators’ and ‘cultural translators’ between the agrometeorologist and the farmers, while continuing the ethnographic fieldwork to carefully observe the ongoing events. Gradually, we experienced a shift from being ’the Self‘ observing ’the Others‘ towards being ’part of the Others in carrying out the work‘. Yet, we kept our role as ’the Self’ in observing the events where ’the Others, including the ethnographers and the agrometeorologist‘ were engaged in the ongoing collaboration. In our roles in such a collaboration, as ‘mediators’ as well as ‘cultural translators’ we literally translated to the farmers the bunch of ideas provided by the agrometeorologist and vice versa, and also actively assisted the farmers in understanding what they were supposed to do and in how to implement the agrometeorological observations. To the agrometeorologist, we were not only presenting and translating the farmers’ data, but, where necessary, we were also explaining farmers’ burden and problems throughout the course of our collaboration (see Chapter 5) (also see Winarto et al., 2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Stigter and Winarto, 2011; Winarto et al., 2011). What we did in the aftermath of the CFS was not merely combining ethnography with the participatory approach, as stated in Roncoli’s review of ‘Ethnography and participatory approaches to research on farmers’ responses to climate predictions’ (Roncoli, 2006:82—83). in collaboration with Thai scholars. They invited Winarto to submit a paper focusing on the changes of ‘family’ in Indonesia in the recent globalization era. Winarto decided to carry out her study in Wareng, observing the implications of women empowerment through IPM FFSs for the relationship between husband and wife in typical Javanese families (see Winarto and Utami, in preparation).

19


We did also actually participate in the efforts to bring the science (agrometeorology) to the people with their own ethnoscience. By doing so we were also gradually enriching the ethnoscience with scientific concepts, premises, and methods (see Ellen, 2004). We were in-between the two domains of knowledge and part of the two-way knowledge exchange. We were therefore not only moving across disciplinary boundaries to develop an interdisciplinary research, but, at the same time, we were developing a trans-disciplinary collaboration with the farmers (Winarto, 2010; Winarto et al., 2011). Such work is an example of how ethnographers are stepping into the domain of ‘public anthropology’ by doing ‘collaborative ethnography’, through which we engage with issues and audiences beyond our self-imposed disciplinary boundaries (Borofsky, 2002; also see collaborative ethnography in Lassiter, 2005a, 2005b; Holmes and Marcus, 2005). Yet, it is not an easy task to integrate theory and practice, research and training, and academic and applied anthropology in one and the same joint exercise (see Lassiter, 2005b:84). An ongoing reflexivity and intersubjectivity was what we experienced day-to-day till at last, we transferred our work, particularly the SFS approach together with Stigter, to the colleagues from Gadjah Mada University led by the late Prof. Kasumbogo Untung in mid-2009 (see Chapter 5).3 The Organization of the Book The chapters in this book are organized along the sequential events of farmers’ agrometeorological learning from CFS to SFS in the period of 2007 to 2009. Following this introductory chapter, in Chapter 2 Kristiyanto and Winarto first describe the landscape of Wareng IV, to enable the readers to comprehend the ecosystems, the multiple cropping farming systems, and the community. Wareng IV is only a hamlet within the administrative hierarchy of the Special Province of Yogyakarta (Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta), yet the people are moving in and out of the hamlet boundaries for their daily livelihood. The karst dry rainfed ecosystem in which the farmers live provides both the potentials and the constraints in sustaining their livelihood as farmers. Multiple cropping farming throughout the seasons has been developed for generations as farmers’ adaptive strategies for the unique nature of a karst dry rainfed ecosystem. Chapters 3 and 4 are linked to one another in presenting the learning of a group of farmers who were participating in the CFS (Sekolah Lapang[an] Iklim) in 2007 with its aftermath. In Chapter 3, Anantasari, Winarto, and Stigter describe in detail the preparatory stage of the school, including the selection of participants, the concepts and ideas introduced throughout the training, and the dialogues between the facilitators and the learners. In line with our perspectives on the need to have improved CFSs focusing on farmers’ own vulnerabilities and problems rather than a pre-cooked curriculum CFS, we also question some concepts and teaching provided by the facilitators. In Chapter Four, Anantasari and Winarto examine the aftermath of the CFS 3 In August 2009, Winarto returned to the Universitas Indonesia to continue her second term as the Academy Professor Indonesia in Social Sciences and Humanities at that university for a two years period until the end of August 2011.

20


at the time the alumni of the School were preparing for the following rainy season planting (2007/08). This was the period where the farmers were processing the new ideas received in the School to come up with their decisions on which ideas were valuable to be put into action in combination with their local knowledge. The authors also present the farmers’ assessments of their new strategies after they harvested the 2008 yields and of what they learned throughout that season. The next stages of farmers’ agrometeorological learning through their collaboration with the scholars (agrometeorologist and anthropologists) are presented in Chapter 5, 6, and 7. Winarto, Stigter, Anantasari, Kristyanto and Prahara describe in Chapter 5 the steps of initiating the collaboration from the time the agrometeorologist visited the farmers at the end of 2007 up to the stage where the two parties, farmers and scholars, terminated the collaboration in mid 2009. The details of the dialogue between the farmers and the agrometeorologist, the setting up of raingauges and rainfall measurements, the collection of data by farmers assisted by the anthropologists, and the interpretation by the agrometeorologist of the rainfall and agroecosytem data are described by the authors in their sequential stages. Prahara, Winarto and Kristiyanto present in Chapter 6 the gradual improvement of farmers’ inscription of their daily observations and notes, and the transformation of farmers’ data into scientific inscriptions so as to enable the scientists to read and interpret the data. The authors examine in detail the ongoing joint production of knowledge between the two parties and the results of that process. In Chapter 7, Winarto, Stigter, Prahara, Kristiyanto and Anantasari describe the farmers’ actions in responding to the unexpected 2008/09 weather and climate variability by activating the memories of their experience and knowledge, the new ideas learned in the School, and the agrometeorological learning they obtained from the ongoing observations of rainfall, fields, and crops and the many related discussions. We present the gradual responses of the farmers to the weather conditions, the evaluation of their practices and of their crop performances at particular stages of plant growth, together with the daily rainfall graphs for a period of eight months. In the concluding part of this book, in Chapter 8, Winarto and Stigter present as synthesis the dialectics between the scientific and the local knowledge, and the organization of the ongoing dialogues between the scholars and the farmers in their local community and environment. They do so in two sequential arenas of agrometeorological learning, namely: the Climate Field School and the Science Field Shop. However in the ultimate proposal for an extension approach supported by our findings, in Chapter 8 they do that for a reverse sequence, the Science Field Shop preceding the new type of Climate Field School (Stigter and Winarto, 2011), that will have no pre-fixed curriculum. Based on the lessons learned in Wareng, Gunungkidul and Stigter’s experience in assisting farmers in Africa and Asia, Winarto and Stigter argue strongly that an improvement in the extension approach, using well trained extension intermediaries between farmers and scholars, is indeed necessary to help farmers to cope better with the increasing climate variability and climate change. In this proposed extension model, in the end Universities, Research Institutes and National Weather and other Environmental Services will educate and train these intermediaries and the latter will train and facilitate the farmers.

21


Table 1.1 Questions by Indramayu Rainfall Observers Club and Answers by the Agrometeorologist4 Q: If we do not measure the rainfall, how could we know which rains are good for planting crops? A: Only qualitatively. In Wareng the farmers had their own terminology for rains and the consequences for the soil and plants. Measuring helps to do this more systematically on a daily and a cumulative basis and also for comparisons between different parts of the same season and between the same parts of the season for different years. Once you have a ten years average, you may call that ‘normal’ and you can day by day take track of whether the cumulative rainfall is above or below that ‘normal’. Q: Which rains could lead to drought and flood? A: Below ‘normal’ rains will lead to drought if they continue. Again one must learn to keep track of such conditions quantitatively/numerically. Above ‘normal’ rains can lead to floods. Again this must be ‘learned’. Q: My areas belong to dry rainfed ecosystem, so to enable us to plant in the dry season, we have to ‘catch-up with the time’. However, if we plant early, we will face the risks of pests/disease outbreaks. How to know in advance the weather condition prior to dry season planting? Are there any condition of rain that could drive away or constrain the growth of pests/diseases? A: Basically not possible. Climate forecasting can say something on possibilities for ‘above’ normal, normal, or ‘below’ normal rainfall, also prior to dry season planting, but these forecasts are general and not location specific. Moreover the forecast gives probabilities and not what will actually happen. Yes, for each pest and disease, research can be carried out to indicate conditions conducive to their outbreak, but this has to be done at research institutes and preferably in farmers’ fields. In India and China some of that work has been successful, in Europe some work is done commercially on such issues. One has to choose the most serious diseases/pests for each crop first! Q: What responses would researchers carry out when the rain is very high so as to cause flood while the drainage canals are not being managed well? A: Growing crops on ridges might help, or growing crops on raised beds. Some soils may drain better with another top layer or by making holes. Managing the drainage canals well is the best advice to begin with. Making facilities for drainage to non-agricultural land or even better into ponds, for later use, is very helpful. Q: The soil in my field has white color and can’t absorb rain-water. The plants could not grow well and it remains short. Why is it like that? A: It sounds like ‘crusted’ soil and moreover the crust can be salty (white). This is due to water not leaching to deeper layer but only evaporating near the suface, leaving fertilizers unused near the surface. Q: In this situation of global warming, what are its effects on food crops? If there are some effects/implications on food crops, what are the rules for planting: should we move ahead or delay planting in relation to pranata mangsa (the Javanese cosmology)? A: In Java and on Bali, one of the issues is a later start of the rainy seasons. Ideally Farmer or Climate Field Schools should be established with collaboration of Universities/Research Institutes/Weather Services in which well trained facilitators (farmers or extension intermediaries) can discuss with farmers what is the best approach just before, during and just

Questions from the members of Indramayu Rainfall Observers Club were sent to Stigter in April 2011. Stigter provided his answers in June 2011 after being translated into Bahasa Indonesia by Winarto. 4

22


after the rainy season or seasons, making use of available information from the past or the present, if any. But measuring the rainfall on-farm and observing the consequences should be part of that School approach, as well as water management by various means: dykes, ridges, ponds, drainage, staggered planting, changing varieties, changing crops etc.. As to pranata mangsa (the Javanese cosmology), it is likely that new rules would have to be derived but that these rules would not be valid for a long time. Creating a higher flexibility into the farming/cropping sytems, more diversification, may be expected to be more successful. Q: How many years are needed to measure rainfall so that we can define the real problems of rainfall in relation to planting? Can we define the rains for the next 3 months? How could we do that? A: Measuring rainfall must become a habit, like eating, drinking and sleeping. Only then you get to know the real problems, together with the schooling approach, in a permanent learning process. Only specialized agencies can forecast with a certain probability rainfall chances some three months in advance. But farmers must be prepared for what actually happens by having the techniques mentioned ready, flexibility/resilience in place, co-ordination with neighbours in the Schools. Whether this will be sufficiently helpful, we have to find out. Perhaps we have to do different things, like growing more than one crop in the same field or having alternative crops on some fields in parts of the year. We have to change our approaches because the climate is changing, otherwise we will lose, but we may expect the government and its institutions/civil servants and NGOs to help. Q: Would the farmers be able to plant rice 40 years from now referring to the changing climate like now? How would the changes in climate be in the future (40 years from now)? A: As to Indonesia, 40 years from now the temperatures will be too high in certain parts of the year (particularly the minimum night temperatures) to grow rice with the same yields as possible today, even when we find heat tolerant varieties. Other crops will have to be tried, soya is one of them, agroforestry systems will have to be developed that lower temperatures for certain crops that can grow with less solar radiation, and the trees will have to produce food as well. So food patterns will have to change, other (preferably higher value) crops will have to be tried out, rice will have to be imported (and other food products exported). And the population increase will have to become a lot lower if we want people to live on these new food conditions. Q: If there are continuous rains for 1 week above 75 mm on black-clayish soil, would it disturb the growth of paddy? What would the effects be on the plants? A: You can’t answer such questions because it depends on available drainage. Are we talking about rainfed rice or irrigated rice? And it also depends on the ditribution of those 75 mm over that week. Continuous rain is indeed very different from heavy showers. Q: How to control cutworms (ulat grayak) and what are the appropriate pesticides to control that pest? A: Not my actual field of knowledge. It is advised to plant corn, alfalfa, or beans after rice. This will provide rich fauna for beneficial insect species which will control cutworm build-up. It is a larger problem in upland rice because it needs a dry soil for pupation and for completion of its life cycle. Keeping fields flooded may keep population of this pest at low levels. Insecticides like pyrethroids may be needed when larval populations are extremely high. Spot spraying, only at high population densities, is advised.

Table 1.1 (Continued)

23


Q: Every year there are changes in soil pH. High soil pH would have bad effects on plants. What are the effects of climate to soil condition and soil pH? A: pH is more dependent on soil type and fertilizer use than on climate; climate may influence soil conditions mainly through leaching of fertilizers under flood conditions or accumulation of fertilizers through drought conditions and evaporation of water from the top soil. Q: In my areas (South-west zone), there are rice plants having dark-green leaves at the early generative stage. What kinds of rain cause that phenomenon, or are there any problems with the soil? What is the pH level of that soil? A: The young rice plant before the tillering stage grows slowly and does not need high doses of fertilizer. Dark green leaves indicate enough N, whereas yellowish leaves indicate N deficiency. It is unlikely to have to do with pH level other than that of a healthy soil. Q: What are the effects of climate change on annual crops like manggo? Recently, manggoes have been flowering quite frequently. Is it caused by humidity, or are there some excesses of nutrients? A: Mangoes do need a long dry season, so when there was no dry season or a dry season that is not long enough, mangoes do suffer a lot. Wet, humid weather favors anthracnose and poor fruit setting. Mango trees require regular applications of nitrogen fertilizer to promote healthy growth flushes and flower production. Micronutrients, especially iron, are also often necessary. Organic fertilizers perform best, since the trees are subject to fertilizer burn. Young trees are particularly sensitive to over-fertilizing. Sandy soils require more fertilizer than loam or clay.


24

Chapter 2 Farming in a Dry Rainfed Ecosystem Kristiyanto and Yunita T. Winarto Wareng IV in Wonosari District: A Hilly Landscape Traveling from Yogyakarta to the southeast, heading to the Indian Ocean (Samudera Indonesia), brings us to a hilly and mountainous landscape, with teak as the dominant perennial tree and various kinds of crops planted most often in multiple cropping systems (for such multiple cropping systems see for example Baldy and Stigter, 1997). Throughout the season we can see maize, cassava, and sorghum in farmers’ fields along the road, whereas rice as the main staple is planted in the rainy season only. Other crops are tobacco and vegetables in the season following rice cultivation. Those trees and annual crops make the landscape look green. In reality, the area is a karst ecosystem which is prone to drought during the dry season (dry phase of the monsoon) from April to October. Wareng IV, a hamlet in the district of Wonosari, the regency of Gunungkidul, is located in such a dry rainfed karst ecosystem. Gunungkidul means ‘the southern mountain’. This is one among five regencies (kabupaten) in the Special Province of Yogyakarta (Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta). Only one hour driving by car from Yogyakarta to the southeast, around 42 km away, we can reach Wareng IV. Various means of transportation can bring us easily to the hamlet via a main road connecting Wonosari and the villages towards the Indian Ocean. Administratively, Wareng IV is a hamlet (dusun) among a total of six hamlets in the village (desa or kelurahan) of Wareng in the district (kecamatan) of Wonosari. The district seat, also named as Wonosari, is located around 6 km from Wareng IV. Before entering the hamlet, we will pass the village office, around 0.5 km from Wareng IV, and three other hamlets: Wareng I, II, and III. The hamlet of Wareng IV is located in the most western part of Wareng village, adjacent to Suko hamlet in another village in the south, Wunung. Two more hamlets in Wareng village are: Singkar I and Singkar II (See Map 2.1 of the location of Wareng IV). Even though Wareng is located in the hilly mountainous area, at 350m asl, topographically it belongs to the zone called Ledhok Wonosari formed as a result of long processes of geological activities (Djauhari, 2005:40). Literally, ledhok means ‘bowl’. Ledhok Wonosari is thus a ‘valley’, having ‘relatively flat’ topography in between two mountainous areas, namely Batur Agung in the north and the karst ‘critical’ hilly areas in the south, Pegunungan Sewu or the ‘Thousand Mountains’ (Martopo, 1988:24). Batur Agung has steep slopes and so have the karst hilly areas in the south, with ‘cone’ features of various hills that are susceptible to erosion. The topography, the karst ecosystem, the lime type of soil and its permeability lead to easy and fast water leaching. As a result, we can find many streams and ponds of underground water in the deeper layers of soil (Martopo, 1988). In this kind of ecosystem, lime stones are prominently found in the fields. Map 2.2 of Wareng IV’s profile reveals its diverse soil types and land-uses.

25

Kristiyanto and Yunita T. Winarto

Map 2.1 The location of Wareng IV

Source: Map produced by API-UGM research team, 2009 Original sources: Administrative Map of Gunungkidul Regency & Physiography Map of Indonesia

26

Farming in a Dry Rainfed Ecosystem

Map 2.2 The topographical profile of Wareng village, Gunungkidul

Source: API-UGM research team, 2009 Original source: Administrative Map of Gunungkidul Regency & ERTM Satellite Image Notes: A: Indian ocean. B: Karst region with lithosol type of soil, dominantly in dry land (tegalan), residential areas and some rice fields. C: Flat up to moderately sloping with mediteran type of soil. Dominantly for residential areas, some dry land, forests, and rice fields. D: From moderately sloping to undulating topography with grumosol type of soil, in residential areas and dry land.

27


Zone C as shown in the map is located behind the mountainous area called daerah bayangan hujan (rain shadow areas following the orographic rains on the other side of the mountain). Accordingly, even though the cloud formation above Wareng shows indications of heavy clouds, a type of cumuliform that brings heavy and intense local rains, it does not mean that rain would always follow (Tjasyono, 2008:111). Wind can play a role here besides its location in the rain shadow area. In farmers’ experience, winds could bring rains from other places (hujan kiriman), but winds could also take the rains away. Only under conditions of no wind, heavy clouds, and warm air, heavy rains can fall in Wareng. Pointing to hilly areas far away, an elderly farmer identified it as a place where rains would always fall, but not in his own area. Though the farmer had a detailed understanding of the characteristics of cloud, rain, and wind in his habitat, he could not verbally identify his place as part of the rain shadow areas. In such conditions, farmers experience heavy rainfall for around four months only in a year. Rains in the next four months of the second season, or the first dry season, are much less than in the first rainy season. The last four months of the second dry season, or the third season, have very dry weather. In this driest season, groundwater wells could soon dry up though fully loaded with water in the rainy season. Farmers, therefore, store rain in a pond built in their house yard as a way to prepare for drought for both domestic and farming usages, in addition to making a ground-water well for the latter purposes. The hilly landscape, the undulating topography, and the diverse texture, color and structure of the grumosol type of soil, lay a foundation for a diverse dry rainfed farming in Wareng. How diverse is it and what are its implications for the multiplecropping patterns developed by farmers? Dry Rainfed Farming in Diversity: Multiple Cropping and Responses to Drought Ecosystem diversity The diverse topography of this region—from flat to moderately sloping to undulating—and the distribution of farmers’ fields in such topography also lead to variability in the fields’ elevations. Among the lower ones, some fields receive drained water from higher up, and thus are easily flooded. See Map 2.3 for Wareng’s physiography. Not only the physiography varies, but also the soil structure. In general, the soil structure in Wareng has a low capacity to retain water, and thus can easily be cracked and get hard in the dry season. This applies in particular to light red lime soils and light black sandy soils. The heavy black clay soils can hold more water and have higher soil moisture content than the light red lime soils and the light black sandy ones. The fields in Wareng IV, which are spread in the western part of the residential area, of around 6 ha (see Monografi Desa Wareng, 2008), have such diverse soil structure and color. With differing capability of soils in holding water, groundwater wells can only be found in fields with heavy black clay soils, and not in the light red lime soils. On the basis of their understanding of such varying soil texture, color, and structure, the farmers developed their local soil taxonomy as follows:

28


1. Lemah Ireng Abot ([Ind.]: tanah hitam berat; [Eng.]: heavy black clay), of black color with clayish soil, which can retain water so that water in the fields can stand long enough.Fields of this soil type are used to cultivate rice in the rainy season. In local terms, these fields are known as alas, wana ([Ind.: hutan]) or sawah. 2. Lemah Ireng Sedeng ([Ind.]: tanah hitam sedang; [Eng.]: light black sandy soil) of black and reddish color consisting of clayish soil mixed with sand originating from water run-off from higher fields. Sand is dominant. Similar to lemah abot (heavy black clay soil), this kind of soil can retain water and is therefore suitable enough to plant paddy in the rainy season. 3. Lemah Ènthèng ([Ind.: tanah ringan; [Eng.]: light red lime soil) of whitish color with a texture of lime and gravel. This soil does not have good water holding capacity and water therefore easily leaches into deeper soil layers below the reach of crop roots. Farmers plant maize, sorghum, and secondary crops in such fields, which are called tegalan.

Map 2.3 Wareng’s physiography

Source: API-UGM research team, 2009 Original sources: Administrative Map of Gunungkidul Regency & Physiography Map of Indonesia

Another type of dry land is known by farmers as pekarangan. Teak, as the most valuable tree for savings, is planted in these fields surrounding their houses. Fruit trees and vegetables are also planted here. One important part of the farm near the house is allocated for stables for their cattle: cows, goats, and/or chicken. The spread of fields with such diverse soil texture, color, and structure is uneven. We can find patches with different soils close to one another. Farmers, however, differentiate the location of fields according to a peculiar natural condition. For examples: a river flowing through the

29


fields, a kind of tree that is normally planted there, or a kind of soil dominantly found in the area. Farmers use the term bulak to label a certain agricultural field in a particular location. Giving the field areas a name is just to help them identifying where their fields are located. See Table 2.1 for field areas in relation to soil characteristics and crops planted in each area. More than one soil type is found in a bulak, and so also various crops cultivated in a multiple cropping pattern. Table 2.1 Field areas, soil characteristics, and crops

No Name of Field Areas Soil characteristics 1

Gondhang

Lemah ènthèng: light red lime Paddy, secondary crops, ground nuts, sorghum, soil cassava, tobacco, Sesbania

2

Karang

Paddy, maize, cassava, Lemah ènthèng and lemah sedeng: light red lime and light tobacco, Sesbania black sandy soil

3

Saratan

Lemah ènthèng, lemah sedeng, Paddy, secondary crops, Koro and lemah abot: light red lime, (Phaseolus sp), soy bean, maize, sorghum, light black sandy soil, and cassava, tobacco, Sesbania heavy black clay soil

4

Kepuh

Paddy, maize, sorghum, Lemah ènthèng and lemah sedeng: light red lime and light cassava, tobacco, Sesbania black sandy soil

5

Kranggan

Lemah ènthèng, lemah sedeng, Paddy, maize, sorghum, and lemah abot: light red lime, cassava, tobacco, chili, Sesbania light black sandy soil, and heavy black clay soil

6

Wetan Ratan

Lemah ènthèng: light red lime Secondary crops, maize, cassava, soybean, Sesbania soil

7

Sidowayah

Lemah abot: heavy black clay Paddy, maize, tobacco, Sesbania soil

8

Sambisongo

Lemah abot: heavy black clay Paddy, maize, soybean, tobacco soil

9

Balong

Lemah abot: heavy black clay Paddy, maize, chili, vegetable soil

10 Wetan Polaman

Lemah abot: heavy black clay Paddy, maize, sorghum, Sesbania soil

Source: Fieldnotes of Anantasari and Kristiyanto, 2009.

30

Crop diversity


11 Tileng

Lemah ènthèng, lemah sedeng, Paddy, maize, sorghum, and lemah abot: light red lime, light black sandy soil, and heavy black clay soil

12 Kudi

Lemah ènthèng, lemah sedeng, Paddy, maize, soybean, and and lemah abot: light red lime, some parts are tobacco. light black sandy soil, and heavy black clay soil

13 Lor Polaman Wetan

Lemah abot: heavy black clay Paddy, maize, sorghum, chili and some parts are soil tobacco

14 Lor Polaman Kulon

Lemah abot: heavy black clay Paddy, maize, sorghum, and some parts are tobacco soil

Table 2.1 (Continued) From the 14 field areas, only 10 were selected to be the points-of-observation for rainfall measurements based on the location of farmers’ own or the neighbors’ closest fields (see Chapter 5). Map 2.4 presents the location of those 10 field areas in the surrounding of Wareng IV’s homes. Farming Patterns and Schedules “Milih tanduran sing cocok (selecting suitable crops)” is the farmers’ phrase in representing their strategies to survive in a dry rainfed ecosystem. Selecting the most suitable crops in a particular season with rains or drought, for certain soil characteristics and elevations, is the main thing each farmer has to do, season after season. As a result of their learning and experiences so far, multiple cropping with suitable crops is the prominent feature of farming practices in this area. Farmers differentiate three planting seasons in a year, namely: first planting season, musim rendeng or rainy season; second planting season, musim gadu or dry season; and third planting season, musim ketiga, third season or second dry season. Rice is the dominant subsistence crop in the rainy season (these days from November—February). Farmers in Wareng seldom sell rice for cash. In some fields with light black sandy soil or light red lime soil, farmers plant rice in a mixture with maize, sorghum or cassava. Grasses for fodder (kolonjono, Pennisetum purpureum) and Sesbania trees are planted on the dikes surrounding the fields. See plates 2.1 and 2.2 for fields planted with rice only and fields planted in a mixture of rice and maize.

31


Map 2.4 The landscape of Wareng IV and rice field areas

Source: API-UGM team, 2009 Original sources: Physiography Map of Indonesia; GPS survey, Administrative Map of Gunungkidul Regency

Maize, sorghum, grasses and turi (Sesbania grandiflora) are grown for fodder. Collecting kolonjono grasses, turi leaves, maize, and sorghum twice a day, in the morning and afternoon, by both male and female farmers, is a common practice. Every household in Wareng IV has cattle (cows and goats) to rear as their savings. Therefore, collecting fodder daily is a must for each household. Only few farmers plant maize for the market. See Plate 2.3 for farmers’ daily activities in collecting fodder. In the second season (first dry season, the four months from March—June), mainly maize and sorghum are planted besides cassava (Manihot utilisima), soybeans (Glycine soja), groundnuts (Arachis hypogasa), tobacco, and vegetables. Maize (Zea mays), cassava, groundnut, soybean, chili (Capsicum annum), and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) are cultivated in fields with light black sandy soil. Various kinds of vegetables (spinach (Amaranthus sp), cucumber (Cucumis sativus), eggplant (Solanum melangenae), chili, and kangkung (Ipomoea aquatica)) are mainly grown in the fields with heavy black clay soil, where farmers can water the plants in this second season by using groundwater (wells). Selling vegetables in the market is one source of income generation besides tobacco. For fields with red soil, without any water resources, farmers leave them fallow or plant dikes with Sesbania trees for fodder. Recently, in the 2008/09 dry season, farmers adopted a kind of bean originating from other places, koro (Phaseolus sp). In farmers’view, this kind of bean is well suited to this dry land. Yet, the

32


continuous rain damaged this crop (La Niña condition which resurfaced in 2010 and continued into 2011; Haryono, 2010; see also Chapter IA). Plates 2.1 and 2.2 Fields with sole rice, and with rice cum maize

Photos by Winarto and Anantasari, 2008

33


Plate 2.3 Bringing fodder home

Photo by Winarto, 2007

Plate 2.4 Watering vegetables


34


Growing tobacco and vegetables (spinach, cucumber, eggplant, kangkung and chili) in the first dry season is only made possible by watering the plants (nyetrèn). See Plate 2.4 of a farmer watering the vegetables using the groundwater well. Farmers also practice this strategy in the case of benthatan (a long drought) or senggangan (a short drought) in the beginning of a rainy season, when their rice plants are still small. Farmers who do not have a well in their fields, have an agreement with their neighbors to get water from their well or, if necessary, purchase water from a mobile car which keeps the water in a tank. In the third season (July—October), only maize, sorghum, and cassava can be planted for fodder where water is getting scarce, also in the fields with wells. Some fields are being fallowed in this second dry season, and only Sesbania trees are left on the dikes. These trees and cassava are the most drought resistant crops that can survive even a long drought. Since fodder is needed throughout the season, farmers store dry paddy stems at home after harvesting, as a saving for the third growing season. The dry rainfed farming in this region constrains the production of green fodder in a prolonged drought. Therefore, if dry stems of paddy are in short supply, farmers have to rely on purchasing green fodder from various other places in Central Java. Table 2.2 presents the mixed cropping pattern in 2008/09 in the 10 fields selected to be the rainfall points-of-observation. The kinds of crops planted in such a mixed cropping pattern do vary. Table 2.2 Cropping pattern in Wareng IV in 2008/09 Field location

First season planting (rainy season)

Second season planting (first dry season)

Dry third season planting

Nov- Des-Jan-Feb

March-Apr-May-June

July onwards

Wetan Polaman

Paddy, Maize, sorghum , Maize, sorghum, tobacco, Sesbania chili (Capsicum annum), Sesbania, cassava

Sesbania, cassava, sorghum and maize

Balong

Paddy, glutinous rice, vegetables (spinach, eggplant, cucumber), chili, Sesbania

Maize, sorghum, tobacco, Sesbania, vegetables (if ground water is available), chili.


Gondhang

Paddy, maize, sorghum, soybeans, groundnuts, chili, Sesbania.

maize, sorghum, soybeans, groundnuts, tobacco, chili, cassava, Sesbania

Sesbania, cassava, chili, sorghum and maize

Lor Polaman Wetan

Paddy, glutinous rice, chili, maize, sorghum, Sesbania

Maize, sorghum, tobacco, chili, Sesbania, groundnuts (Arachi shypogea), cassava

Sesbania, cassava, sorghumand maize

Source: Fieldnotes by Anantasari and Kristiyanto, 2008/09. Note : Data in Table 2.2 are based on the crops cultivated in the fields selected as the rainfall point-ofobservation and do not represent all fields in the same area.

35


Sambi Songo

Paddy, glutinous rice, Tobacco, cassava, maize, sorghum, soybean sorghum, Sesbania (Glyhcine soja), chili, Sesbania

Sesbania, sorghum and maize

Wetan Ratan

Paddy, maize, sorghum, soybean, chili, Sesbania

Maize, sorghum, chili, tobacco, cassava, Sesbania

Sesbania, cassava, chili, sorghum and maize

Lor Polaman Kulon

Paddy, glutinous rice, Sesbania

Maize, sorghum, chili, Sesbania

Sesbania, chili, maize, sorghum

Saratan

Paddy, maize, sorghum, Sesbania, cassava,

Koro (Phaseolus sp), maize, Sesbania, cassava, sorghum, tobacco, soybean, sorghum and maize cassava

Kranggan

Paddy, glutinous rice, Tobacco, maize, sorghum, maize, sorghum, ground- Sesbania, cassava nuts, soybean, Sesbania


Sidowayah

Paddy, glutinous rice, chili, maize, sorghum, Sesbania


Tobacco, maize, sorghum, cassava, Sesbania

Table 2.2 (Continued) Though farmers have to survive in such a harsh and limiting environment, their world is not closely bounded by administrative boundaries, or by any geographical limitations. Their ‘niche’ is stretched widely into the wider world (see Winarto and Utami, in preparation). Wareng IV, an unbounded environment Administrative unit and hierarchy Dukuh, is the farmers’ term for a hamlet, the smallest and lowest unit in the administrative hierarchy of Yogyakarta province. Each hamlet has an elected head, Kepala Dukuh, who can stay in office as long as he/she is able to do the job and is supported by the villagers1. He/She has the responsibility not only as the leader of his/her hamlet to deal with community affairs, and to organize any community development programs, but he/she also acts as the representative of the community to the higher administrative authorities in the village and explains to them the policies of the latter. He/She is representing his hamlet and linking its villagers to the administrative world beyond the hamlet’s boundaries. Any information, instruction, or programs from the central or provincial government for the village officials and hamlet residents will be passed on through him/her. In such a position and through regular meetings in the village office, all hamlet leaders in the village of Wareng (from six hamlets) know one another quite well. All residents of Wareng village in the six hamlets, who live in adjacent neighborhoods of which rice fields are crossing the hamlet boundaries, identify themselves as the people of Wareng. They are able to recognize each other’s hamlet. At the time the research was carried out in 2007—2009, kepala dukuh of Wareng IV was held by a male farmer. 1

36


Officially, the hamlet has a place, Balai Dusun, where people can meet one another in every communal event. However, various activities are seldom held there. Instead, the house of Jiyem, the leader of Menur (women farmer group) and Sedio Mulyo (Climate Field School [CFS] alumni group), have been the place of people’s get together in various activities, such as Menur’s regular meetings rotating credit (arisan) among women, HIV-Aids meetings, family planning meetings, family’s welfare programs, and the training of the CFS. Jiyem’s house is not too far from the main road from the district’s centre, Wonosari, towards the southern region, and thus is easy to reach. For meetings at the village level or for events organized by the village officials, the village office called Balai Desa is the place where people meet. The village leader, one of Wareng’s residents, was elected for five years in office. He is assisted by the village secretary who—according to a new law—is appointed as a government civil servant after five years in service. He is also assisted by several other village officials responsible for different community matters. One among them—who is called Reksabumi—is the village staff responsible for any agricultural problems and development in the village, including agricultural infrastructures and facilities. Examples are the introduction of various government agricultural development programs, provision of groundwater wells, new crop varieties, and others. Similar to the hamlet leader, the village leader and his staff are responsible for all matters of communal life, problems, and developments in their village comprising six hamlets, while also representing them to the higher stages of administrative bureaucracy at the district level, and explaining to them what comes from these authorities. Throughout our fieldwork we observed that the villagers do respect their leaders at both hamlet and village level. Pay respect to the leader and those who have power from the higher level authorities is one important value in Javanese culture (see Mulder, 1980; Koentjaraningrat, 1985; Magnis-Suseno, 1997). Leaders should be consulted for any programs and activities introduced from external sources, as well as for internal community initiatives and actions. They also are called upon for any disputes among their villagers and between their people and outsiders. We experienced that once a dispute occurred that could not be resolved among them by both the farmers and the outsiders, the problem was brought to the hamlet leader in the first place. It could be brought to the village leader if necessary. At the time Winarto had to return to Universitas Indonesia after completing her first three terms as the Academy Professor Indonesia in Social Sciences and Humanities at Gadjah Mada University (in August 2009), together with a dispute over the ill-behavior of one research team member as perceived by the farmers in Wareng IV, the farmers brought the issues to the hamlet and the village leaders (see Chapter 5). Based on their assessment that the collaborative work in rainfall measurement and agrometeorological analyses was beneficial for the farmers, the leaders expressed their thought of carrying on with the collaboration, yet with a replacement of that research team member. Since Winarto would be spending most of her time at Universitas Indonesia from 2009 onwards, while it was not easy to find a replacement without her intensive supervision, she decided to invite Gadjah Mada University lecturers to continue her work in Wareng. Simultaneously the village leader had the idea of widening the collaborative work by involving farmers in the other hamlets, in addition to those in Wareng IV. Understanding the probability of future disputes if such collaboration was managed by the leader of the farmers in the hamlet, the village leader decided to take direct responsibility for managing the work. From then on, every step was taken directly in consultation with the village leader.

37


This is an example of how the hierarchy of power in Javanese culture and society plays a role in any communal disputes. The hierarchical network of authorities is not the only source of incoming and progressing messages, ideas, information, technologies, and programs to and from the hamlet. Farmers have a very high degree of mobility in interacting within and outside the hamlet through various kinds of networks: kinship, friendship, farmer groups and networks, education, trading, and work (see Winarto and Utami, in preparation). People’s mobility: going to the world In 2008, the total number of persons living in Wareng IV was 300, consisting of 80 households (Monografi Dusun Wareng IV, 2008). Though all households rely on farming as their main living, the harsh environment for earning cash from farming throughout the year led a number of household heads and youth to generate income from off-farm employment inside or outside the hamlet. We found that household members in Wareng IV have always had the experience of living outside the hamlet. Towns and cities, such as Wonosari, Yogyakarta, Jakarta and others in Java, the same outside Java and even abroad were places where Wareng people were seeking jobs. Various kinds of off-farm activities became their choice, such as being handicraftsmen, producers of Javanese traditional small drums (kendang) and leather puppets (wayang), wage laborers in shops, traders, food vendors, or government civil servants. Presently job opportunities in Indonesia and abroad provide choices for villagers in Java, including those of Gunungkidul. For those working not too far from Wareng, returning home daily or only during holidays or special events of the Islamic calendar and domestic cycle rituals, is common (see Winarto and Utami, in preparation). Children from primary up to senior high schools are also going in and out of the hamlet every day. Farmers go to the market in Wonosari, either to sell their vegetable crops and other farming products, or to purchase commodities for agricultural inputs, petty-trading or stalls and their households. A number of stalls selling daily household needs and food are run by women farmers to earn additional income. Traders from various places in Wonosari, Yogyakarta and Central Java are visiting the hamlet daily and seasonally, among others to sell green fodder in the dry season. Farmers from this hamlet are also traveling far, to Jakarta for example, not only to work as labor force in the formal or informal sectors, but also to sell cattle during the Islamic event of Idul Adha where people give to the poor. There are many more activities in cities as Yogyakarta in the form of seminars, workshops, meetings, providing opportunities for some farmers to engage with the wider world. These days, farmers can indeed be part of a larger world. As a consequence of this temporary out-migration flux, women play an important role in both cultivating land and feeding cattle in addition to household work. Another consequence is the dispersion of family members in Indonesia and abroad. Hence, the world of the whole family is extended, when meeting the ‘others’ world’ outside the hamlet’s boundaries (see Winarto and Utami, in preparation). However, returning home and living in Wareng IV for good remains the aim of those seeking temporary jobs elsewhere.

38


Individuality and Collectivity in Farming Taking care of the fields is the responsibility of each household in Wareng IV. In comparison to other places, such as on the north coast of West Java, where hiring wage-laborers for each stage of cultivation is a common practice (see Winarto, 2004), this is not the case in Wareng. Helping one another in a reciprocal way in tasks that need extra labor beyond household members, e.g. in (trans)planting and harvesting, has been a dominant labor exchange. People call this kind of practice sambatan (reciprocal work in farming). However, in case the household members are not able to do daily practices, hiring wage labor is the only solution. Another kind of collective work, outside farming, is known as: gugur gunung (doing communal work together voluntarily), or gotong royong and kerja bakti in Indonesian (Koentjaraningrat, 1985). Farming in Wareng thus demands both individual (household) and collective work. How do farmers manage such labor arrangements in their multiple cropping patterns? Land ownership and land tenure A nuclear family—keluarga, consisting of husband, wife, and children living under one roof— is the smallest kinship unit among the Javanese people (Jay, 1969; Koentjaraningrat, 1985), also in Wareng IV. This is an independent unit or kin group whose properties belong to the household head and members, including land for their residence, home garden and farming. Following Sen (1981), of the bundle of entitlements each person has, those properties can be derived from inheritance, from either the husband’s or the wife’s parents, or from their own efforts of purchasing land. Temporary holdings can also be derived from share-cropping or renting. Once a piece of land is being acknowledged as ‘owned’ by somebody or a household, either permanently or temporarily, the person/s has/have the rights to work on that land the way he/she/they like. The size of fields (alas, wana or tegalan) of individual property varies from 2 to 9 squares, with an average of around 4 squares/household, which is nearly two thirds of a ha/household.2 Another type of entitlement is the temporary right to own bèngkok or lungguh, namely lands provided to the person(s) having (an) official position(s) at either the hamlet’s or the village’s level of authority, as a remuneration for their position and work. According to its ‘de jure’ status, bèngkok is owned by the state (at the village level), and the ownership right cannot be transferred to the individual person(s) holding the official position(s). Once they are no longer in office, the lands have to be returned to the ‘state’. In reality, the ‘temporary owners’ can transfer the cultivation right—through a renting system—to other farmers. The size of each bèngkok for each official varies according to their status. The hamlet leader of Wareng has the access to 4 squares of bèngkok. Share-cropping is also a common practice for farmers who do not have any land as part of their properties, or who want to have a larger area of land holdings and do not have the opportunity to purchase a piece of land in the village. In the share-cropping system, the owner 1 square (kotak) has varied size, for example 1 kotak equals to 20m x 80m = 1,600m2. For the smaller size, farmers call it cluwik. 1 cluwik equals to 7m x 50 m = 350 m2.

2

39


and the tenant make an agreement of how they are going to share their costs and profits. Usually, after calculating all the costs, they share the profits equally (also see Winarto, 2004). Renting a piece of land is another option to have access to additional land. In this transaction, the renter of the land should pay the amount of rent in advance for two—four planting seasons, or up to two years time. In some cases where the holders of land cannot mobilize his/her own labor nor that of his/her household members, who may be extended to their kindred (parents/parents-in-law or siblings/siblings-in-law), giving paid cultivation rights to other people (borongan) is an option to solve labor scarcity, though it is not common. A more common practice than borongan is known as sambatan, a labor exchange system. Sambatan: labor exchange system When Winarto returned to Wareng in March 2009 at the time of rice harvesting, the landlady, Jiyem, told her that her neighbor, Tinem, was going to harvest her paddy field the next day. Jiyem said that Tinem was supposed to have done it earlier, on the ‘Javanese good day’ for harvesting. However, due to ‘labor scarcity’, she could not do that. Tinem had to wait till her sambatan group members were free to help her harvesting. Jiyem and Tinem are members of the same sambatan group.

Labor scarcity in this particular period is common, since each household has a duty to share their labor with its ‘sambatan members’ or those belonging to the same ‘sambatan circle/ network’. Therefore, sharing their labor to do sambatan in rotation is a way out if some members of the same sambatan network would like to harvest on the same day. Not only harvesting but also threshing the paddy stems at the farmers’ house is part of their duties to one another in turn, without any payment in cash. Household members only have the duty to provide meals and snacks during and after the work. In turn, the others will also receive help from their neighbors/kin in the same sambatan network. As Koentjaraningrat (1974:60—61) says, sambatan has the meaning of ‘asking for help’ and is practiced in agricultural activities. Since sambatan is the common way to have a source of ‘free labor’ during the peak season of harvesting, is there a possibility that some farmers do not get any help from his/her kin or neighbors in harvesting paddy? If a farmer joins a sambatan network, he/she will get help in return for his/her labor for the other members. However, there are some farmers who decided not to be part of any sambatan network in their hamlet. As a result, nobody in the hamlet will allocate his/her time and labor to help that farmer. Even though he/she does not get help in harvesting, he/she might prefer that when there is not enough money to provide meals and snacks to those helping him/her in sambatan. Carrying out all the farming work individually is an option, sacrificing the advantages of being close to his/her kin, neighbors, or friends doing the sambatan. Where sambatan is a kind of labor exchange for a particular job in rice farming carried out by farmers as an independent unit, farming a piece of land together as a group was found among a number of women farmers as the members of Menur. How do they do that collective farming?

40


Collective farming: Menur’s strategy of earning cash Menur, a group of women-farmers in Wareng IV, was formed in 1998 by alumni of IPM FFS, consisting of both male and female farmers. Gradually, over time, the male farmers asked their wives to replace them attending the regular meetings of the group. In the end, only women were left as members. Their routine activities are monthly meetings to have a rotating credit system as well as to enrich their knowledge of farming etc. by inviting people and/or sharing knowledge. Other activities are borrowing and lending money, forming a rice bank, and renting a piece of land to do collective farming. All activities are created to help improve members’ prosperity and advance their knowledge. The leader of this group is well-known as a very active womanfarmer in her community but also as the one who represents her group of farmers in her hamlet in various activities in and out of her village. Her wide network with various other farming associations, government officials, and non-government organizations make her the sole person in her hamlet with such a variety of activities and programs. She spends lots of her time outside her hamlet participating in farmers’ meetings elsewhere in Indonesia (see Winarto and Utami, in preparation; Ariefiansyah and Utami, 2007). Collective farming is one of the most recent programs of Menur. Based on the members’ own savings, they were able to rent a piece of land. They decided to cultivate the land with the crop(s) they selected together for each season, either rice, maize, or sorghum. Preparing the land, planting the crops, weeding, fertilizing and harvesting were all carried out together. In monthly meetings they decided on when to do the activities, what to do to solve the problems found in the field, and how to make benefits from the yields. Since all the work is carried out in a group, it is a must for each member to participate. How if a member cannot make it? A rule was taken to sanction those who could not participate (see Ariefiansyah and Utami, 2007). By earning cash from selling the yields, the members can improve their group’s savings. Sometimes they use auctions to get the best bid among their members or other farmers in harvesting the crops. Menur’s collective farming is thus a good example of farmers’ creativity and inventive decisions in their efforts of reaching prosperity, which is not common in crop farming in Wareng IV. Farming Unit, Decision Making, and Division of Labor Each household in Wareng IV may consist of a nuclear family (husband, wife, and children); with also parents, parents-in-law, siblings, or siblings-in-law with their families, if the circumstances are such that the nuclear family has to stay with the other close kindred under one roof. The Javanese term referring to such a unit is somah (sa-omah, one house) (see Jay, 1969; Winarto and Utami, in preparation). Since land properties belong to a nuclear family (in the name of either the husband or wife), though they live under one roof with the other kindred members, the head of a nuclear family is the decision maker for every step of crop farming on the land belonging to the husband/wife in a nuclear family. If the parents or parents-in-law live in the same somah, they are the decision makers, and not their son/daughter.

41


In a Javanese society, males (husbands) are acknowledged as heads of the family and not females/wives. This is strengthened by the Indonesian state’s official recognition of husbands as heads of the family (see Winarto and Utami, in preparation). Accordingly, the one who is responsible in taking decisions in crop farming is the husband. However, women are often quite intensively engaged in farming because of the absence of men in the village due to off-farm jobs. The involvement of women labor in preparing land, seedling, (trans)planting, weeding, fertilizing, controlling pests/diseases, and harvesting is extensive. If this is the case, do women have a greater role in making decisions? Winarto and Utami (in preparation) discovered—supported by our observations—that among the nuclear families where husbands as the heads of the household are absent or allocating their time more to off-farm activities, women (wives) play a greater role in deciding what crops and varieties to plant, when to start planting and other activities, and on what to do in case their crops do not grow well. It does not mean, however, that men are being left out of the decision making process. Women do consult their husbands whenever possible, and the latter usually agree with their wives’ proposals (see Winarto and Utami, in preparation). By having women’s involvement in farming, it is hard to observe a sharp and distinctive boundary between men and women in their particular work throughout the cultivation stages. Preparing land is mainly a man’s job. Both men and women are involved in seedling, planting, fertilizing, and harvesting, whereas weeding is in the hand of women. However, we also observed women ploughing their fields, for seedling and planting, if they can’t afford any extra labor. This applied also to fertilizing. In such conditions, women participante equally in growing crops, in observing the performance of their crops, as well as in evaluating and discussing their growth and the problems they face. Collecting fodder for their cattle every morning and afternoon is also carried out by both male and female farmers. Therefore, we did not experience any differences in having discussion with men or women of anything related to their cropping strategies. This is different from the situation Winarto found among the farmers on the north coast of West Java, where men instead of women were the decision makers and had greater involvement in their ongoing strategies of crop farming based on their day to day observations and evaluations (see Winarto, 2004). The involvement of both men and women in equal numbers in any introduced program by the government, including CFSs, was common in Wareng. Accordingly, they also have equal access to knowledge advancement in all aspects of farming. Farmer Groups Officially, Kelompok Tani Nelayan Andalan (KTNA) is the group acknowledged by the government as representing farmers in the village. Several KTNAs are associated under the network of GAPOKTAN (Gabungan Kelompok Tani). The two existing farmer groups in Wareng, Menur for women farmers and Sedio Mulyo for the alumni of the CFS, are both unofficial farmer groups. At present, they did not yet register their groups with the government. The rotating credit system and borrowing/lending money are two common activities between group members to keep their group going. Another group was a husbandry farmers group, officially registered in the agricultural office, with their main activities in cattle vaccination, getting

42


government subsidy for fertilizers, borrowing/lending money. The latest farmer group formed was a ’tobacco farmers group‘ consisting of those planting tobacco in their working alliance with a cigarette company, assisted by the company’s extension worker. In comparison to the first two groups (Menur and Sedio Mulyo) led by the same female leader, the latter two groups (the husbandry farmers’ group and the tobacco one) have male farmers as their leaders with only male farmers as their members. In our continued collaboration with the farmers—from producing Lelakoné Menur film to measuring rainfall—we were building up our partnerships with the same women farmers, as the members of both farmer groups, and the male farmers, as the relatives (husbands) of the Menur’s group members. Therefore, we did not experience any hardship in shifting our focus of observation from Menur to Sedio Mulyo. ۞ The farmers in Wareng IV hamlet in Gunungkidul regency are typical Javanese farmers who have been struggling to survive in their harsh dry rainfed ecosystem on a multiple cropping strategy and off-farm activities within and beyond their hamlet boundaries. The flux of ideas from the external world into their hamlet, and the outgoing labor and high mobility of the people from this hamlet, creates an unbounded niche for farmers’ life. In such a condition, female farmers play a significant role in both farming and household activities, but to some extend also in farmer group activities and communal life in hamlet and village matters. Equal access to sources of information, knowledge, and technology provide a good opportunity for both male and female farmers to enrich their knowledge, strengthen their decision powers, and provide ways to improve their prosperity. Under such a conducive situation and while having active women farmers in the hamlet, various kinds of government and external intervention programs were introduced to the farmers, including the CFS in 2007. How did the farmers learn about these new ideas of climate, its components, and the implications of its changes for their habitat? How did they interpret these new ideas within their local ways of knowing and their ecosystem? We will examine these matters in the following chapter.

43

Chapter 3 Climate Field School: Learning and Understanding some Scientific Knowledge of Climate Esti Anantasari, Yunita T. Winarto and Kees Stigter1 On one morning in June 2007, a group of Sedio Mulyo (SM) farmers were sitting around a kerosene stove with a pan filled with water put on the stove. A piece of aluminium (metal) with some ice cubes on top of the metal was put above the fire. They were observing the changes of the water in the pan and the gradually melting icecubes. The facilitator was explaining changes the farmers were observing in relation to the formation of rain. Individual farmers were commenting on what they were observing. Some of them said that they learned that once, when they were in primary school. Some farmers were just observing without any words to say.

That was a learning event that some farmers experienced in the Climate Field School (CFS) introduced by mid 2007 in the hamlet of Wareng IV. For a period of five months, the farmers learned various kinds of subjects related to climate, weather, and its implications for their fields and crops. Learning in a School was not entirely a new experience for some farmers. Integrated Pest Management Farmer Field Schools (IPM FFSs) on rice, maize, and soybean were introduced earlier (see Winarto and Utami, in preparation). Some farmers had become accustomed to learn novel ideas originating from the ‘scientific domain’ of pest/disease management and agroecosystem analysis. New ideas of the CFS they had never learned before were those related to the understanding of climate and weather; the climatologicalmeteorological components and their implications on crop farming; the formation of rain and the categories of rainfall; and some practices on measuring rainfall and soil moisture (see Boer, 2009; Direktorat Perlindungan Tanaman Pangan, 2007, 2010). Gradually, throughout thirteen meetings, one every decade (ten-day period), the farmers were listening to new ideas and trying to master new skills. Their schemas of crop farming were enriched again with a set of new scientific knowledge as in previous FFSs (see Pontius et al., 2002; Winarto, 2004). The question is: what differentiated their learning in the CFS from the earlier ones? Both Schools were settings where facilitators—equipped with new concepts based on the scientific domain—were interacting with farmers who had their own knowledge and experience based on every day practices and learning, often over a long time. Different horizons of the two parties were interacting and encountering one another in the School. The School was thus a place where a joint creation of knowledge—originated from those two horizons—was expected Two other field researchers were in the field assisting Esti Anantasari and Yunita T. Winarto in 2007/08, namely: Tri Astuti Nuraini who was observing the Climate Field School (CFS) in 2007, and Siti Nur Hidayah who was following farmers’ activities post CFS in 2008. 1

44

Climate Field School

to take place (see Long and Villareal, 1994:42). In such encounters, however, farmers play an active role in finding their own discoveries and learning through ‘an experiential discovery learning method’ (see Pontius et al., 2002; Gallagher, 2003). That is the similar nature of the two Schools, since IPM FFS has become the ‘model’ for various other field schools for farmers, including CFSs. It may thus be expected that the farmers were not passive learners in a context where teaching is perceived as transmitting knowledge and metaphors and learning is seen as only ‘receiving’ them. Instead, farmers were actively interpreting and constructing their new understanding. Ortony (1993) calls the latter: ‘learning-as-construction metaphor’ which is different from the first as ‘learning-as-reception metaphor’, or ‘teaching-as-transmission metaphor’. What makes it different is the emphasis of relating farmers’ understanding of their habitat to the climatological-meteorological components in the CFS (see Boer, 2009; Direktorat Perlindungan Tanaman Pangan, 2007, 2010). In her book Seeds of Knowledge, Winarto (2004) discovers the farmers’ diverse understanding and interpretation of the introduced knowledge of integrated pest management in a FFS in Subang, West Java. Its diversity does not only relate to the degree of difficulties in understanding different new concepts, but also to the manner the concepts were introduced by the facilitators and the way the facilitators and the farmers interacted throughout the course of learning. We will examine these in the second part of this chapter by presenting the ideas introduced by the facilitators in the CFS, the way they transferred the new understanding to the farmers, and the farmers’ interpretation of the ideas. The latter would relate to their existing understanding of weather conditions and its variability based on their day-to-day experience of multiple cropping farming in a dry rainfed ecosystem (see Chapter 2). Thus, farmers are not at all ignorant of the relation between weather, planting schedule, and the kind of crop to plant in a particular season. Some older farmers also have a certain degree of cosmological knowledge which they call pranata mangsa (the local Javanese calendar for cultivation, see Indrowuryanto, 1999, Sriyanto, 2009, Hidayat, 2011). That is part of their ilmu titèn (observable and memorable knowledge; see Winarto et al., 2011). ‘When to plant’ is determined by integrated weather indicators found in their environment, e.g. particular conditions of important trees, plants or animals that lead them further to ‘what to plant’. Ignoring these indicators as the guidance of their crop farming activities would cause further unexpected risks and negative consequences for the growth of crops. Recently they learned, however, that they could not follow those weather indicators the way they used to do that. ‘Climate change’ (perubahan iklim) was a new idea they learned from media and other sources as a phenomenon affecting their immediate environment. It is interesting, therefore, to examine the extent to which the new formal learning in the School was being incorporated into their existing schema of cultivation based on weather-lore, cosmology, and their intimate knowledge and experience of their ecosystem. How did the farmers combine their old and new elements of knowledge while interpreting the latter? The continuous process of combining various elements in particular situations keep the farmers’ schema of crop farming lively. Varied situations at different times throughout the monsoon seasons stimulate their minds to always activate a collection of elements together in processing various kinds of information (see D’Andrade, 1992:28; Strauss and Quinn, 1997:49).

45

Esti Anantasari, Yunita T. Winarto and Kees Stigter

We observed that gradually, by receiving new elements over time, and interpreting those in relation to their existing ilmu titèn, the farmers’ collection of elements was being enriched. In this chapter we examine how—by learning new elements—the farmers were dynamically advancing their schema. What kinds of a collection and combination of elements were being constructed in the minds of the School’s participants? By considering the different experience and learning background of each participant, it is thus interesting to discover how diversely the combination of elements is created by the farmers at a given time. To what extent was a similar kind of collection and combination of elements formed among the participants? Before exploring those questions further, it is necessary to understand who the CFS participants are and how they were recruited as participants. There should also be a reason of why Wareng IV was selected as the place to introduce the School. We discuss these issues in the next section of this chapter. Introducing the Climate Field School in Wareng IV In Yogyakarta Special Province, the first CFS was introduced in mid 2007. A group of farmers in the hamlet of Wareng IV, the village of Wareng in the district of Wonosari, Gunungkidul regency, was selected to be the participants in one of the early pilot projects for this School. What was the reason for this selection? The pest/disease observer, whose area of responsibility in pest/disease surveillance is in this region, preferred to have the School in a dry rainfed ecosystem. In his mind, such an ecosystem was suitable for the farmers’ learning process. The dry rainfed ecosystem relies on rainfall as the main source of water for cultivation and, thus, very much depends on climatological conditions of either dry or wet when cultivating associated crops (e.g. Baldy and Stigter, 1997; Stigter, 2010a). Experiencing harvest failures due to a long drought or severe rains is common. However, the pest/disease observer learned from his previous activities that the farmers in that hamlet—under the leadership of a very active female farmer—performed well in their eagerness and spirit to move forward in their learning activities (see Chapter 1). In the past decade, a number of farmers in that hamlet joined several IPM FFSs, i.e. for paddy, soybean, maize, and melon. It was therefore to be expected that the CFS could be successfully held there and achieve its objectives. This very active female farmer who had a position as the leader of a women-farmer’s group, Menur (see Chapters 1 and 2), was approached by the pest/disease observer to help him organizing a CFS in her hamlet. Jiyem, this leader of Menur, agreed to have the School in her hamlet, considering her fellows’ needs to gain knowledge, so as to help them solving the constraints of farming in a dry rainfed ecosystem. As many as 20 farmers were needed as participants. How did she select these 20 farmers? Selecting participants On her own initiative, Jiyem defined several criteria for selecting the participants. First was the gender criterion. Based on her interest to have a gender-balanced participation, she decided to have 10 male and 10 female participants. The female farmers were also members of Menur.

46


To allow wider dissemination of knowledge, Jiyem decided not to allow man and wife to join both. However, since farmers in the hamlet are related to one another as kin, it is inevitable that some having a close kinship were selected as participants, for example mother-daughter, siblings, and in-laws. Jiyem considered them for selection due to their capability and motivation to learn new things. Related to the latter is the ability to read and write independent from their formal education background. Nevertheless, those who had less educational background faced constraints in reading and writing new words and complex sentences in comparison to those having more education (see the participants’ educational background in Table 3.2). The individual motivation and industriousness in farming was also considered by Jiyem in her decisions, to ensure the implementation of what they learned in daily farming practices. Jiyem wanted also to consider whether participants’ partners joined a formal training in FFS. She learned from the stories of Menur’s members about the difficulties in convincing their husbands to adopt their new experiences obtained in the School(s). Jiyem’s considerations in selecting the CFS participants revealed her experience with farmers’ learning and constraints in absorbing and disseminating new ideas taught in previous Schools (also see Winarto, 2004 for the problems and constraints the IPM farmers experienced in internalizing and spreading their new knowledge of IPM). Jiyem also learned from previous Schools that farmers’ regular attendance played a significant role in the continuation of the training for the whole planting season. Thus, to ensure their active participation, Jiyem decided to meet each farmer and to explain the objectives of the training and its significance for their farming practices. Even though not all of them felt confident, they were proud of being selected as a CFS participant. Preparing the School Learning from earlier IPM FFSs held in Subang (Winarto, 2004) and Central Lampung (Winarto et al., 2000), a preparatory phase prior to the training was important in improving the preparedness of the farmers to participate actively in the School. Without a comprehensive preparation by introducing the objectives of the School and the participants’ selection, the programme would not be successfully carried out till the end of the season. How was the facilitator preparing the CFS and the participants in Wareng IV? The facilitator did provide his time for an introductory meeting where he talked about the material to be discussed in the School; its time-line; constructing the raingauge and observing agroecosytem conditions. He also discussed the funds for farmers’ compensation and meals. Without any arguments, farmers cooperatively followed the facilitator’s invitation to make the raingauge and the bamboo to mount the raingauge. In that first meeting prior to the formal opening of the School, the facilitator explained the importance of farmers’ participation in each activity: observation, experimentation, discussion, and presentation. The facilitator—a pest/disease observer—asked the farmers to form small groups to have an effective discussion. Jiyem took the initiative to divide the 20 farmers into four groups of five participants (See Table 3.1). Based on her experience in earlier Schools and her knowledge of each farmer’s ability in writing, articulating ideas orally, and farming, she put farmers with diverse capabilities in one group. Such considerations and

47


decisions revealed the learning process Jiyem had gone through at the time she had to prepare the School. No objections were voiced by the farmers. Some farmers said that this was the first experience for them to formally work in a group with their fellows although they already knew one another. At first, they did not feel good to argue with their own fellows, neighbors, or kin, especially with those who were older and more knowledgeable. To have respect for the elderly, and ‘not feeling good’ or sungkan to say something against elder people or those in higher position/social status are part of the Javanese norms (see Geerts, 1985; also see Koentjaraningrat, 1985). We observed that such a norm was gradually slackened with the farmer’s eagerness to talk and voice opinions throughout the Schools training and discussion. See Table 3.1 for group formation and the members in each group. Table 3.1 Group formation of CFS participants No. Group

Name

Gender

1.

Group I

2.

Group II

3.

Group III

Arni Tinem Ina Diyo Ardi Arti Giyem Amto Aming Tori Jiyem Yani Amir Tono Mingun (replaced by Kar)

Female Female Female Male Male Female Female Male Male Male Female Female Male Male Male

4.

Group IV

Sih Umi Inem Kiran Giyo

Female Female Female Male Male

Source: Anantasari fieldnotes, 2007

In such a well-prepared School, how did the learning process go on? Learning about Climate: Understanding some Scientific Ideas in a Local Environment Winarto et al. (2008) present briefly the new ideas the farmers in Wareng IV learned from the CFS introduced in mid-2007; the benefits the farmers gained from the School; and their

48


continuing queries on the changing climate and its variability beyond their understanding. Prakarma (2009) reports his findings of what the farmers did after completing their ‘schooling’. Both writings, however, do not examine in details what the farmers learned and how the learning went on throughout the season. Boer (2009), an agrometeorologist from Bogor Agricultural Institute, described in general the main issues of the CFS curriculum based on his own work in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture. How did the facilitators (the pest/disease observer and the extension worker) put the curriculum in action at the time they were facilitating the farmers? As experienced in the IPM FFS developed in the early 1990s, in which the learning was based heavily on practice and farmers’ own experiential discovery process (see Dilts and Hate, 1996; Winarto et al., 2000; Pontius et al., 2002; Gallagher, 2003; Winarto, 2004), the facilitators in the CFS also had to transfer new ideas in ways that would stimulate the farmers to actively discover the empirical reality based on their own experience. Were they able to do that? That is the challenge the facilitators had to face in communicating the ‘scientific ideas’ to the farmers. Since the IPM FFS learning methodology was referred to as the basis of developing various kinds of FFSs in the last decade in Indonesia, including the CFS, there was no significant difference in the ways the facilitators in the IPM FFS and the CFS assisted farmers to learn new ideas and practices. We discovered that the main facilitator appointed to facilitate farmers in the CFS was recruited from the Directorate General of Plant Protection at the regency level, the pest/diseases observer. This pest/disease observer was also the main facilitator in the IPM FFS in line with his/her responsibility in ‘plant protection’. The extension worker was appointed as the pest/disease observer’s assistant. The pest/disease observer therefore already had prior learning and experience in facilitating various kinds of IPM FFSs. We found similar ways of how the facilitator used new lexicons originating from the scientific domain in his verbal explanations referring to the novel concepts and ideas and in how he assisted the farmers in carrying out their empirical observations of the fields’ agroecosystem conditions. The same applies to their active participation in field data collections, discussions and analyses, to presenting their drawings and analyses (see Pontius et al., 2002; Winarto, 2004) as well as to their mastering new practices related to climatological-meteorological components and understandings. An example of the latter was the formation of rain as presented in the beginning of this chapter. The others were the measurement of rainfall and soil moisture, and the playing of games to master the categories of rainfall. Those practices and the introduction of new terms and concepts of climatological-meteorological elements were the ones differentiating the CFS from the earlier IPM FFS for various kinds of food crops (see Direktorat Perlindungan Tanaman, 2007, 2010; Boer, 2009; Prakarma, 2009). Those were the new understandings the facilitator and the extension worker had to learn to get to enable them to facilitate the farmers in the CFS.2 In general, the main issues in the CFS curriculum were categorized into sessions similar to IPM FFS as follows: 1) the first meeting; 2) the agroecosystem analysis; 3) group dynamics (ice breaking sessions); 4) special topics; 5) discussion of special topics in each group; 6) presentation of the group-discussions’ result; and 7) the closing of the School (see Pontius et al., 2002; Gallagher, 2003; the appendices in Winarto, 2004; the CFS guidance published by Direktorat Perlindungan Tanaman, 2007, 2010). 2

49


The regular meeting every decade (a ten-day rainfall measurement and field observation period) was thus an arena where the two parties—the agricultural facilitators and the farmers— were intensively communicating and exchanging knowledge and experience. Even though farmers became the subjects of knowledge transfer, in such a communicative event, they were not people approaching the world as, ...naive, blank-slate receptacles who take in stimuli as they exist in some independent and objective way, but rather as experienced and sophisticated veterans of perception who have stored their prior experiences as “an organized mass,” and who see events and objects in the world in relation to each other and in relation to their prior experience (Tannen 1979b:144 cited in Saville-Troike, 2003:127).

It is thus evident that the communicative event of CFS training throughout the season was the place of a lively dialogic knowledge exchange between the two parties. Farmers do have their existing knowledge based on their prior experience and learning in daily crop farming (from their ilmu titèn), as well as on their formal training in various official communicative events with external agents from within and outside the agricultural world. Individual accumulative experience and learning, however, do vary. To understand the dynamics in the course of training, it is good to know how diverse or similar their previous learning was in relation to their farming practices and the introduced agricultural ideas. Farmers’ learning experience prior to CFS Unlike farmers in a mono cropping farming system such as rice cultivation, farmers in Wareng IV have built up their farming experience as multiple cropping farmers. A detailed understanding of growing crops in rainfed mixed cropping systems with diverse types of soil, land-elevation, slope, water availability and drought, did enrich their cultivation schemas. Their multiple cropping farming activities provide a good opportunity for them to develop the ‘multicultures of the mind’ instead of the ‘monoculture of the mind’ experienced by the Green Revolution farmers cultivating a single crop throughout the whole planting seasons (see Shiva, 1993, 1997; Stigter and Vishwavaram, 2011). Since each farmer has his/her fields spread over several localities with diverse conditions of soil, elevation, slope and water resources, each of them has both similarities and differences with their fellows in their experience of cultivating paddy and secondary crops in multiple cropping. Their rich empirical knowledge and memorable observations (ilmu titèn) do not only provide opportunities to learn from one another, but also to sharpen their analytical thought at the time they have to face constraints, problems and risks in their habitat, including changes and variability in climate with diverse implications to their fields (see Chapter 4, 5, and 7; also see Winarto et al., 2011). As individual farmers had different access to formal training and/or Schools (IPM FFS on various crops), and to local/regional organizations encompassing their farming and socialcultural-economic dimensions, their schemas of multiple cropping and life experience also vary. There are a number of farmers who always get the opportunities to join various kinds of training, meetings, and Schools, but the others do not. In line with the external agents’ request of gender balance in each formal training/learning/school provided to them, comparable with women

50


activities in farming, there has been a mixed lot of male and female farmers as participants in those ‘schoolings’. It is interesting to know that husband and wife had both one or several opportunities to participate in those formal events of learning which supports the farmer-tofarmer’s knowledge transmission among couples and close kin. A varied nature of knowledgeweaving in each individual farmer’s schema is thus a reality despite some degrees of similarities (see Barth, 1994; Borofsky, 1994; Vayda, 1994; Winarto 2010). From her observation of FFS participants’ reception of the introduced scientific concepts, Winarto (2004) found that understanding abstract concepts introduced in the Schools without direct empirical entities, proof, and evidence could constrain those who did not have advanced formal education. In this case, formal schooling of each participant could play a role in explaining the variation in farmers’ understanding. Both, similarities and differences, are thus a feature of farmers’ learning, experience, and knowledge of farming and other aspects in their life. By considering such realities and the leader’s choices in selecting the CFS participants, it is thus interesting to know who the participants were as to their learning experience (Table 3.2 of the participants’ diverse background in formal schooling and training experience). The participants’ background as presented in Table 3.2 reveals the wide range of differences in their formal education, namely from primary school up to university. Despite such a gap, almost all participants had experience in joining some Schools or their partners had. They were thus familiar with some introduced concepts such as: integrated pest management, ecosystem, natural enemies as ‘farmers’ friends’ in preying upon pests, fertilizing, and others. To what extent being familiar with those concepts would help them in understanding and interpreting the facilitators’ narrative explanation in the School? Some of them, however, did not have any experience of joining a School and their participation would be a novel learning for them. A diverse learning experience among the 20 farmers was the situation when they began their training. How would such diversity affect their reception and understanding? The results of the ‘pre ballot box’ test held in the beginning of the ‘schooling’ were an indicator of how diverse the participants’ knowledge actually was prior to their learning in the CFS. Table 3.2 The participants’ profiles No Name

Age

Formal education

Daily activities

Training

Organization

1

Tori (m)

35

Senior high school

Farming, trader

None

Head of Neighborhood cluster

2

Jiyem (f)

50

Senior high Farming school

Soybean FFS, Maize FFS,

Menur Farmers’ leader, active in several organizations

3

Sih (f)

45

Senior high school

Farming

Soybean FFS, Maize FFS

Menur member

4

Ina (f)

30

University (S1)

Household works

None

Menur member

Source : Anantasari fieldnotes, 2007. Note : (f) = female; (m) = male; No. 9 Kar replaced the earlier selected participant in 2008

51


5

Amto (m)

38

Senior high school

Farming, None hamlet leader

Member of farmers group; Javanese traditional music (gamelan) group

6

Yani (f)

35

Junior high school

Farming

Maize FFS

Menur member

7

Arti (f)

40

Junior high school

Farming

Maize FFS

Menur member

8

Umi (f)

50

Primary school

Farming

Maize FFS

Menur member

9

Kar (f)

45

Primary school

Farming

None

Menur member

10 Aming (m)

53

Primary school

Farming

None (wife joined Maize FFS)

Member of farmers group

11 Tono (m)

55

Primary school

Farming



12 Arni (f)

45

Junior high school

Farming

Maize FFS

Menur member

13 Amir (m)

36

Junior high school

Farming

None


14 Ardi (m)

33

Junior high school

Farming, private employee

Maize FFS

None

15 Giyo (m)

40

Junior high school

Farming



16 Kiran (m)

45

Primary school

Farming

Maize FFS

17 Inem (f)

50

Farming

Maize FFS

18 Giyem (f)

55

Primary school Primary school

Member of Javanese traditional music (gamelan) group Menur member

Farming

None (husband Menur member joined Maize FFS)

19 Tinem (f)

55

Farming

Maize FFS

20 Diyo (m)

40

Primary school Junior high school


52

Farming, traditional puppet’s craftsman.

Menur member Member of Javanese traditional music (gamelan) group


To what extent would farmers’ varied degree of participation within the local community’s organizations or beyond community and hamlet boundaries also play a role in their reception of new ideas, responses, and capabilities in presenting and articulating their thoughts and discoveries? We will examine in part two of this chapter the extent to which those diverse backgrounds of participants play a role in their learning and interaction with the facilitator and among themselves. What kinds of dialogic knowledge exchange were emerging at the time the facilitator introduced new ideas and concepts, and facilitated the farmers to carry out observations, hold discussions and conduct practices? How did the farmers learn from this knowledge exchange? CFS curriculum: adaptation and modification Similar to the IPM FFS for various food crops, the curriculum for the School was designed in advance by the agricultural officials in collaboration with a university scholar (see Boer, 2009). In total, there were ten points of particular subjects stated in the facilitators’ handbook as presented in Table 3.3. Besides those particular subjects, the agroecosystem observations and analyses as designed in the IPM FFS constituted part of the main learning for the CFS participants (see agroecosystem observations in Pontius et al., 2002; Gallagher, 2003; Winarto, 2004). To master all new knowledge related to climate and weather which had not been part of the facilitators’ schema, the main facilitator (the pest/disease observer) and the extension worker had to join a whole month of training in a Training of Trainers (ToT) for CFSs in Soropadan, Central Java, prior to facilitating farmers in Wareng IV. Unfortunately, they did not receive the expected adequate in-depth training, due to time constraints in relation to late disbursement of funds in organizing the training. Not only were they suffering from constraints in their own learning throughout the ToT, they had also to cope with difficulties in implementing the whole programme of the CFS in a School for farmers. The main facilitator then decided to adjust the curriculum to local conditions by also considering his own level of knowledge and understanding and that of his fellow facilitator in assisting farmers grasping new ideas originating from the scientific domain. In a discussion evaluating the implementation of the CFS organized by the Indonesian Integrated Pest Management Farmers’ Alliance in Yogyakarta, the pest/disease observer of Wareng shared his experience of modifying the CFS curriculum. He decided to discard three topics as follows: “If we refer to the Guidelines of the CFS, yes, there are two subjects that I did not incorporate in the training. First the subject of ‘Water Balance in the Field’ to define the need for irrigation and evaluate flood potential. Honestly speaking, I am not mastering these subjects well enough. I also thought that the farmers in Wareng IV did not need that material. I asked the other facilitator to take over my job of discussing that subject, but she also refused for the same reason. The second topic is ‘Soil Ecology’ which I thought had been mastered by farmers from their previous FFS learning. I knew that Bu Jiyem had mastered that subject well and thus could transmit her knowledge of that topic to her fellow farmers. Another topic left out was the field trip to a BMKG station, due to the high costs to organize the trip. At that time not all funds to organize the CFS had been disbursed. The farmers then agreed to use the funds for the other purposes.”

53


The facilitator’s decision to modify the curriculum reveals his own perception of the degree of difficulty of the subjects he had to master in addition to his understanding of farmers’ previous learning and the administrative burden of carrying out the training without timely financial disbursement. His awareness also presents the real situation of farmers’ reception and perception of the ‘schooling’. On the one hand, parts of the subjects introduced in the CFS were entirely novel for the farmers. On the other hand, farmers had already gained some understanding of the introduced ideas and practices. The interaction and dialectics between the farmers’ existing knowledge and the new elements transmitted by the facilitators were ongoing events the farmers experienced throughout the training. Agroecosystem observations and analyses were an example of the learning practice that had been introduced in the earlier IPM FFSs. Table 3.3 Special Topics of the Climate Field School Meeting

Schedule

Special Topic

1

27 May 2007

Pre ballot-box test

2

6 June 2007

Understanding weather and climate

3

15 June 2007

Similar topic (point 2)

4

26 June 2007

The formation of rainfall

5

3 July 2007

Rainfall categories and other terms

6

14 July 2007

BMKG prediction and Pranata mangsa

7

25 July 2007

Similar topic (point 6)

8

4 August 2007

Knowing how to measure rainfall and its benefits

9

13 August 2007

Controlling flood and drought

10

23 August 2007

Controlling drought

11

4 September 2007

Knowing the typology of clouds and its relation to rainfall

12

11 September 2007

Identifying and anticipating the risks of drought

13

25 September 2007

Identifying soil types and anticipating drought

Source : Anantasari fieldnotes, 2007. Also see Pedoman Umum Sekolah Lapang Iklim (Direktorat Perlindungan Tanaman Pangan, 2007, 2010) and Prakarma (2009) for the complete 13 sessions.

Agroecosytem observation: From seeing to analyzing phenomena “What is this?” This became the hallmark of IPM FFS methodology in facilitating farmers. By raising that question instead of providing direct answers to farmers’ queries, it is expected that farmers themselves will find the answers. That is the main underlying philosophy of the IPM FFS introduced in Indonesia in the 1990s in contrast to the training and visit system of extension services which relies heavily on technology transfer (see Dilts and Hate, 1996; Pontius et al., 2002; Gallagher, 2003; Winarto, 2004; Anderson et al., 2006). We observed that such an FFS

54


method was repeated in the regular meetings of the CFS in Wareng IV. The facilitator, Koko, referred to the same premise in leading the farmers to carry out detailed observations of their fields. “Though they are observing their fields every day, it does not mean that they are seeing in detail everything happening in their fields, and are able to answer all problems of their plants’ growth, in particular those related to weather and climate”, explained Koko to Anantasari.

‘Being able to be observer’ within the context of farmers’ ways of learning is one explanation for the constraint mentioned by the facilitator. Another one is the extent to which a phenomenon in their habitat constitutes part of their perceived ‘cultural importance’ (see Bentley, 1989, 1992; Winarto, 2004). For example, an insect preying upon another insect is not always part of farmers’ ability to observe accidentally. The role and function of natural enemies in their fields which are important to help the farmers controlling pests have become part of IPM FFS-alumni’s schema, but not for those who have never joined the training. The relation of those realities with the ongoing conditions of weather and climate is another new idea which has not been part of the farmers’ established schema of crop farming (see also Winarto et al., 2011). How different was the role of weather and climate in farmers’ observations as part of the CFS’ agroecosystem analyses in comparison to that in the IPM FFS? In the IPM FFS, observing and drawing the sun, clouds (if any), weather and water conditions besides plants, pests, and predators found in the field are parts of farmers’ tasks in their agroecosystem analyses (see Pontius et al., 2002; Gallagher, 2003; Winarto, 2004). We also discovered such work in farmer observations, discussions and presentations. However, in the regular CFS agroecosystem sessions, the facilitator led the farmers to also measure rainfall and soil moisture in addition to observing the weather, plants, pests, natural enemies, and soil conditions. The first two practices were the ones differentiating the CFS agroecosystem sessions from the IPM FFS ones, and they became the new elements in all participants’ existing knowledge. How was the learning of those new and other ideas going on throughout the training? Defining fields for observation In the IPM FFS, a permanent field for agroecosystem observations for the whole planting season throughout the ‘schooling’ enabled the participants to follow the growth of the plants week by week (see Gallagher, 2003). This was not the case with the CFS in Wareng IV. The facilitator innovatively made his decision to shift the observations from one field to another one every decade. Why? In his thought, different fields would provide a diversity of conditions for the farmers to learn from their observations. This could further enrich their knowledge. In which fields would they actually carry out their observations then? The facilitator used to discuss this with his fellow trainer, an extension worker, based on his own observations prior to the session. Not only varying field conditions determined his reasoning, but also the significance of the ecosystem situation for a particular issue he was going to discuss in a particular decade. Accordingly, the agroecosystem observations would not always be done in the field where the participants mounted the raingauge for rainfall measurement.

55


Having four groups of farmers with only two facilitators also became part of the facilitators’ concern. The solution was to have two adjacent fields for observations, or to invite other agricultural staff to help in facilitating the groups. The alteration of fields for observations is an example of the facilitator’s creativity in adjusting the rules as defined in the School’s guidance to his own ideas and training conditions. Such flexibility in making decisions particularly occurs in a situation where the main facilitator is the sole decision maker in implementing the training, without any rigid supervision from the facilitator’s superior. Observing agroecosystem components Even though there was a diverse degree of participants’ existing knowledge due to varying experiences in farming and formal ‘schooling’ in an IPM FFS, their understanding of what and how to observe was gradually shared and becoming similar. We observed that without any great difficulties and constraints, and without detailed verbal instructions from the facilitators each decade, the group members went into the field and did the observations, evaluations, counting and writings straight away. Each group decided on who should do the observations and who should take notes (See Plates 3.1 and 3.2: Agroecosystem observations by a group of CFS participants). While observing, they were activating their schemas of assessing the growth of plants, evaluating the soil and weather conditions, and identifying the insects they found. Sometimes, discussions and arguments were raised by the group members in identifying particular insects. In this case, differences in understanding of which insects belong to pests and which to natural enemies—related to each farmer’s learning in IPM FFS or no experience of that—were apparent in the early stages of the training. Yet, these sharp differences diminished over time through repeated observations, arguments and group presentations (see also Winarto, 1999). Plate 3.1 and 3.2 Agroecosystem observation

Photos by Winarto, 2007

At first, each group member focused his/her observations on the growth of plants, whether they found anything unusual. For example, whether there were changes in the occurrences of leave color, crop stems, crop hills, and ears or that everything went normal. “The plant condition is short, healthy, having wide leaves…”, is an example of their descriptions without any

56


difficulties to observe and articulate what they did every day. The other components they had to observe were pests and diseases, the ‘organisms disturbing plants’ (organisma pengganggu tumbuhan), and natural enemies or predators. As practiced in the IPM FFS, the participants were also asked to collect insects—either pests or natural enemies—and parts of the plants infested by diseases, in small plastic bags. Counting the populations of both pests and natural enemies was part of their tasks. Although some participants were already familiar with the concepts of differentiating pests from diseases and pests from natural enemies, not all of the IPM FFS’ alumni were able to properly use their memories. They were no longer able to explain what the differences were, and so were those who did not follow the learning prior to joining the CFS. The facilitators, thus, had to explain again the meanings of those terms. Using analogies and metaphors was the facilitator’s way to transfer new ideas as what the IPM FFS trainers used to do (see Winarto, 1998, 2004). The use of metaphors in science is one way to ease the learners’ reception of abstract scientific ideas introduced by the instructors (see Kuhn, 1993). Such a learning mechanism proved to be useful in gaining farmers’ understanding of things beyond their empirical reach. The CFS trainer who was also IPM FFS facilitator had already got that experience in transmitting the ideas of pests, diseases and natural enemies, and thus repeated the same knowledge transfer in the CFS held in Wareng IV. Both pests and diseases were categorized by Koko as musuhé petani or farmers’ enemies, disturbing crops. In fact, farmers already understood that those were organisms causing damages to their plants. The question is whether they could distinguish between pest and disease. As found by Winarto (2004), rice farmers in Subang, West Java, used to call any damages to their plants as caused by ‘illnesses’ (penyakit). What caused those ‘illnesses’? Then, the farmers would refer to the causal agents as something could be seen by their own eyes, and those which are unseen. Pests or hama are ‘animals you can see’ causing damages of plants; whereas diseases or penyakit are ‘animals you can’t see’ (Winarto, 2004:100). Similar to that definition, the CFS facilitator explained to the farmers that being ‘visible’ and ‘not visible’ was the criterion to distinguish pests (the ‘visible’ animals) from diseases (the ‘not visible’ organisms) that caused damages to their crops. The alumni of IPM FFS could grasp the meanings faster than the others. Gradually, the latter improved their understanding after repeating the same exercises each 10 days throughout the season. Nevertheless, it was not easy for both of them to identify which symptoms of damages on plants were caused by pests and which were caused by diseases (also see Winarto 2004). We observed that arguments about this sometimes occurred at the times of observing, discussing and drawing their findings for presentation. The following is a dialogue between the extension worker, Diya, and a group of farmers while observing crops. While observing fields, Tono, Amir and Yani were carefully examining maize crops which leaves looked red. One of the researchers asked Tono: “Niki dauné kok warnané ngoten niki amargi nopo?” (Why is the color of these leaves red? What causes this?). Tono replied: ”Jamur, jamur kirangan gih?” (Fungi [Corticium salmonicolor] but what kind of fungi ya?). Yani spontaneously answered: “Inggih, nèk ketoké nganu niki tekan pucuké garing...” (Ya, it looks as if it causes the leaves to dry up to the top). Amir added: “Flèk...” (Get spots). Diya, the

57

Esti Anantasari, Yunita T. Winarto, and Kees Stigter

facilitator, came closer to the farmers and examined the leaves discussed by the farmers. She then asked the three farmers: “Nopo mboten amergi Aphis?” (Is it not because of Aphids?). Listening to Diya’s response, Amir asked: “Mboten wonten Aphisé?” (There are no Aphids, where are they?). Diya replied: “Now the Aphids disappeared because the leaves began to dry. The Aphids have moved to other plants which can still be infested, which still have nutrients”. The farmers could now accept Diya’s explanation and continued their work (Anantasari’s field notes, July 2007).

Identifying plant symptoms is not easy if the farmers are not able to observe the ‘animals’ straight away and relate the presence of the ‘animals’ with the damages of plants. Only with additional explanation which fills the gap in their minds (see schema in Strauss and Quinn 1997), would they be able to imagine the causes of a particular phenomenon. Another kind of relations between several elements that falls beyond farmers’ empirical observations is the prey/ predator relationship. Therefore, introducing the term and its meaning should be in such a way that it eases the farmers’ reception. As also introduced in the IPM FFS, the predators or natural enemies were mentioned by the CFS facilitator as ‘farmers’ friends’ (konconé wong tani) (see Winarto, 2004). In Koko’s mind, contrasting the predators or natural enemies of the pests from these pests would be easier for the farmers to understand and to remember. Konconé wong tani (farmers’ friends) has a contradictory meaning from musuhé petani (farmers’ enemies). For those who have never joined a School before, this was a novel term and meaning for them. Koko explained further that if farmers find a large number of natural enemies in the field, they do not need to take action immediately to control pests by spraying pesticides or in farmers’ term: medicines (menyemprot obat). This is a very significant message received by farmers through the Schools, also in the CFS, which is totally different from the Green Revolution’s recommendation. This message could bring about changes in farmers’ schema and actions to protect crops from any pests/ diseases infestation and to prevent regular spraying of ‘medicines’ (see van de Fliert and Winarto, 1993; Winarto, 1995, 1998, 2004). Besides paying attention to the growth of crops, the population of pests and natural enemies, and any damage symptoms on plants, farmers were also asked to consider the field conditions, namely soils, water, and, in particular weather. General weather conditions such as sun, cloudiness, rain and wind were part of the IPM FFS agroecosystem observations and analyses. Since CFSs have an emphasis on improving farmers’ agrometeorological knowledge and analytical capability, it is interesting to know what makes the difference of learning those elements between CFSs and IPM FFSs, and what are the contributions of farmers’ own knowledge? Measuring soil moisture and rainfall Preparing and nurturing soils before and throughout a growing season is part of farmers’ daily concern and practices. In Wareng IV, farmers have the advantage of learning from the diverse field conditions, especially soils, to be able to grow crops suitable to particular soil types. Having soil taxonomy in terms of its color, texture and weight is a result of a continuous learning as a farmer based on his/her ilmu titèn. Relating that knowledge to the kinds of crop to grow in a

58


multiple cropping system in a specific planting season is indeed a significant part of their entire schema of farming in a dry rainfed ecosystem. Farmers also know what type of soil is getting dry quite fast following watering or receiving certain amounts of rainfall, or is sustaining its wetness for quite a long period of time. Nevertheless, knowing exactly the extent to which a particular type of soil could retain its moisture or not is a new learning the farmers obtained from the CFS training. How did they learn about that soil moisture? At first, Koko, the main facilitator, asked the farmers to get a soil sample from the observed field and put it in a glass of 250ml. Returning from the field, each group member had to measure the weight of the soil before placing it under the sun. (See Plate 3.3 Aming is measuring the soil he took from the observed field). Carefully, Aming poured the soil into the scale and looked at the weight measurement. After taking a note of the soil’s weight, Aming brought the cup of soil outside the house and put the soil on the ground. Plate 3.4 shows Tinem, another participant, getting some soil samples dried under the sun. What are the reasons for doing this? They had to master it in order to know the weight difference before and after drying the soil under the sun. Therefore, the participants have to measure the weight once more after placing the soil under the sun for a couple of hours. By finding the difference it is expected that they would understand the implication of sunlight for soil moisture. By observing carefully how moist the soil is before measuring and how dry it is after drying under the sun, the farmers also learn the degree of soil moisture, though in terms of weight measurement and careful feeling of the soil wetness. Such an understanding is enough for farmers’ knowledge advancement, without the need to measure the soil moisture as a scientist does, with special equipment. Another new element related to climatology/meteorology components introduced in the School was rainfall. Measuring rainfall was indeed a new practice for farmers. There were five raingauges used by farmers consisting of one ombrometer owned by the Regency Agricultural Office of Gunungkidul, and four raingauges made by farmers themselves from used oil cans. As recommended by the facilitators, each raingauge should be placed in a field that will be observed by each group for farmers’ agroecosystem analyses every decade. The ombrometer was placed in the yard besides Jiyem’s house. Jiyem had the responsibility to measure the rainfall trapped in that raingauge. Each group member did the measurement every morning and wrote down the results of the observation at Jiyem’s house where the facilitator placed the data sheet on the wall. This was the beginning of farmers’ learning to measure rainfall and to know precisely the amount of rain in a particular day. Following farmers’ activities in measuring rainfall outside the CFS setting, Anantasari discovered their enthusiasm for knowing the amount of rain they observed. One day Anantasari joined Tinem going to her field to observe the rainfall. On the way Anantasari met Kiran who just returned from his field where he had measured rainfall. In a happy mood Kiran told her that the total amount of rain trapped in the raingauge mounted in his field was 20mm from the rains that fell last night.

The remaining question, however, is how the farmers incorporated their measurements into the decadal agroecosystem analyses of each group by also considering the facilitator’s decision to shift the place of observation each decade (see Defining fields for observation). Incorporating

59


soil moisture and rainfall data in addition to the general weather conditions into their analyses was not being practiced in the earlier IPM FFS. It is interesting therefore to know how the farmers did the analyses and how did the facilitators guide the farmers towards enriching their analyses. Plate 3.3 Aming measuring the weight of the soil


Plate 3.4 Tinem getting some soil samples dried under the sun


60


Analyzing, drawing and presenting agroecosystem observations Observing the agroecosystem only is not the main objective to achieve. Observation has to be followed by analysis of what the group members discovered in the field and what their thoughts were about the field’s ecosystem conditions and the growth of crops. Following the IPM FFS method, the CFS participants were asked to draw their findings with the plant and its performance in the middle, surrounded by the pests and natural enemies they found, and the weather conditions (sun, cloudy or not, raining or not, soil and water conditions in the field) (see Dilts and Hate, 1996; Pontius et al., 2002; Gallagher, 2003; Winarto, 2004). Arriving at Jiyem’s house, the members of each group soon gathered to begin their drawings and discussions. How would they draw the results of their observations? What were their discussions of the relations between the conditions of weather components and the ecosystem? To what extent were farmers able to draw the results of their own analyses and represent them in front of the other farmers and agricultural officials? Since those who had the experience of participating in the IPM FFS were spread over each group, those who just gained their first experiences observed their fellows drawing and writing up their observation. The new practice for them to master was considering the condition of weather such as temperature, sun, rainfall and soil moisture in relation to the growth of crops and, in particular, to pest and disease populations. We observed that in group discussions, in dialogues between farmers and facilitators, and in farmer presentations, weather conditions were only described very briefly such as: hot, bright, cloudy, or rainy. However, in describing soil conditions, the farmers were facilitated to also pay attention to the amounts and conditions of rainfall, and to weather conditions in general, so as to have an overview of how wet the soil was. Where there were some rains the day before, the farmers also incorporated the amount of rainfall trapped in their group’s raingauge in their analyses and presentations. It is interesting to know that the pest/disease observer asked the farmers not to worry about the wind conditions and cloud forms. He said to the farmers that the most important thing was the rainfall, due to its direct implications for the growth of crops and the population of pests/diseases. The emphasis on weather conditions and their effects on plants, pests and diseases were argued strongly by the facilitators. Why? There were after all four facilitators in total, with each of them being responsible for particular sessions. Two of them were pest/disease observers. It is inevitable therefore that their emphasis was on the relations between weather and pest/disease conditions while assisting farmers in the field and in the class. For example, in his explanation of the emergence of Aphids in maize, Koko advised the farmers not to spray the pest with insecticides. Aphids would only infest maize when the weather is hot, because of a few days of drought, and then the taste of maize became sweeter than under rainy conditions. Aphids like to infest crops which are sweet. Therefore, to control this pest, farmers only need to water the plants to let this pest fly away instead of using pesticides. See Box 3.1 for farmer presentations on June 6, 2007 when there were still some rains. In the past decade, farmers experienced four days of rain. In the presentations the farmers reported on the total amount of rainfall in the past decade.

61


In Arni’s oral presentation, there was a contradiction in citing the category of Aphids as natural enemy, whereas in her previous statement she stated that Aphids were preyed on by lady-bugs. Some farmers from the other groups also grasped those inconsistencies, as argued by Sih and Ina that Aphids were not a natural enemy. It is likely that Arni was still learning about which insects belong to the category of pests and which ones belong to the predators (natural enemies). Of course the Aphids had been called the enemies of the farmers. Though listening to that argumentation, the facilitator decided to keep silent until all groups presented their analyses, so as to enable him to fully understand the farmers’ knowledge of categorizing insects. None of the farmers, however, questioned the decision of their fellows of not analyzing the weather conditions and their impacts on the growth of plants, which the facilitator had emphasized to handle. At that period of time (early June 2007), farmers were just in the early stage of learning about the components of weather and how to analyze their ecosystem in relation to weather conditions. Again, the facilitator did not evaluate those missing parts of the presentations. The question is: was it due to his background in entomology rather than in climatology or agrometeorology? Box 3.1 Farmers’ agroecosystem presentations on June 6, 2007 Oral presentation of Group 1, based on the observations in Wetan Ratan’s field planted with maize and cassava, presented by Arni: ... First, the pest condition: we found Aphids, leaf worms (ulat daun, Cnaphalocrosis medinalis), black-bugs (lembing, Henosepilachna sparsa), and natural enemies such as lady-bugs (kumbang helm, Leucopholis rorida), and spiders (laba-laba, Selenocosmia javanensis). The number of Aphids 2/10, leaf worm: 2/10, black-bug: 2/10. Natural enemies: lady-bug: 4/10, spider 1/10. (The numbers refer to the total number of each insect found in every 10 plants). The weeds were krokot (Portulaca oleracea). Soil conditions: wet. Then, the crops are short, fertile, upright, with wide leaves. Discussion: infested by Aphids, due to lack of water. Plenty of lady-bugs due to the high population of Aphids. Lady-bugs prey on.the Aphids that belong to the natural enemies. There are many worms because the planting distance of crops (maize) is too close. There are spiders which can drive away pests from the crops. The soil is still wet due to shading by the crops, which have a high planting density. Conclusion: according to group 1, because of rains, the plants show fertility, have enough water. For the rainfall: there were 4 days with rain, and the rainfall was 17.9 mm.

Though there was no contradiction between the oral and the written presentation, there were questions from the farmers and the facilitator on the total number of Aphids (the pest) that was first referred to as ’kinds’ of Aphids and then its total number was indicated to be up to more than 300. His fellow, Tuti, asked about the counting method. Sih teased him: ”Did you use a microscope?” Amto just pointed to the leave full with Aphids: ”Just saw it”. His fellows laughed. Aphids are a kind of pest infesting maize which is familiar to the farmers. It is not an uncommon phenomenon for farmers that the population of Aphids increases when water is lacking. However, farmers were questioning the conclusion of Group 2 to spray Aphids since

62


it would be costly but not effective. The facilitator then gave his explanation that controlling Aphids could be done without using pesticides, by demanding the farmers to think of their natural enemies and the latter’s population. In that discussion one farmer argued for the need of using pesticides to protect the leaves. Responding to the farmer’s argument, the facilitator raised the issue of the sales-price of the maize-leaves if farmers were spraying pesticides while the natural enemies were present. The discussion between the farmers and the facilitator went on focusing on the efficacy of spraying pesticides by thinking of the factor leading to the increase of Aphids population, namely lack of water. After a lengthy discussion, at last the farmers understood that the pest infested the leaves to get some liquids from the leaves under dry condition. So why not spraying water instead of pesticides so as to get the pest away? Box 3.1(Contnued) Oral presentation of Group 2 based on the observations at Bulak Sawah/Lor Ratan/Lor Lapangan owned by Giyem and planted with maize. Amto presented the results of Group 2: … We observed the crop, maize. The soil is wet... There are several kinds of pests, especially hopper (grasshopper, Leucopholis rorida), worm, and lots of Aphids, and oteng-oteng (Aulachopora). There are also predators:…lady-beetles (Micraspis, sp.) which have an orange color. There are 300 [kinds of] Aphids… the total number of Aphids is more than 300…though we only observed 10 maize plants… We could see it (pointing to the leaves with lots of Aphids). ..Then, from our discussion, the plants did not have the same height, we call it ’stunt’, not in line with the owner’s intention. The field was clean of weeds. ...The total rainfall was 12.2 mm in seven days with four times rain. Conclusion: * Due to the high number of pests and the abnormal water condition, the plants are not healthy, though the supporting factors are good such as the weather. Some fertilizers are still there. * Need to spray the pest and if possible to water the field.

Farmers do understand that Aphids would infest their crop in the dry season rather than in the rainy season. However, without detailed understanding of the causal factors affecting the growth of the Aphids population, the farmers have the tendency to use pesticides rather than looking for alternatives. The facilitator’s leading questions helped the farmers think of other ideas which were not emphasized strongly by the farmers, namely the presence of natural enemies, the pest’s feeding habit, and the more reasonable and effective way of controlling this pest by using water instead of pesticides. Spraying pesticides was again mentioned by the other group (Group 3) as their conclusion after finding quite a number of pests. The arguments following that presentation focused on the categorization of pests and natural enemies of the insects found in the field. Some farmers argued against the categorization as pests of some insects such as lady-beetles, ants and larvae. The latter, according to Jiyem, were the lady-beetle’s larvae. In farmers’ understanding those insects should be classified as natural enemies. Sih raised a question of why moths were classified as natural enemies. After explaining the benefits of the insect in pollination and the disadvantages of the insect as pest,

63


the facilitator led the farmers to think of moth as a pest rather than a natural enemy. Sih raised a question of why moths were classified as natural enemies. The following argument, again, focused on the need of spraying the grasshopper. At last the facilitator reminded the farmers again to think of the ineffectiveness of spraying pesticides against hoppers since the insects could fly and are hairy, while the plants were healthy enough. Besides asking the farmers to think of alternatives in controlling pests, he also mentioned the need to refer to weather conditions, which had not been handled yet by the farmers in their analyses. Box 3.1 (Continued) Oral presentation by Jiyem of Group 3, based on the observations at Bulak Sawah/Lor Ratan/Lor Lapangan owned by a non-CFS member cultivated with maize: …First, about pests: belalang (grasshopper) 9/10, lady-beetles (Micraspis, sp.): 4/10, leaf worm 4/10, ants 10/10, larvae: 5/10. Predator: insects 5/10 and moths: 1/10 [number of pests/number of plants]. No weeds, just weeded yesterday. The fourth is the soil condition, still wet. The plants show fertility. Due to lack of rain, the hoppers are free to grow. Many leaves are torn, eaten by worms…due to many larvae. Conclusion: need to spray the plant because of a high number of pests. Rain fell 4 times in a week…

It is interesting to know that though some farmers did learn of prey/predator relationships in the IPM FFS, such as Jiyem herself, it has not been quite clear yet for the farmers which insects belong to pests, and which ones belong to natural enemies. Spraying pesticides has also been the sole option, believed by the farmers to be the ‘fast way’ to get rid of the pests. Weather components were so far also absent in farmers’ analyses. Group 4 was an exception. Some components of weather such as lack of rain, rainfall in numerical amounts, and clouds were mentioned by the group. Amounts of rain had also been given by two of the other groups, numbers of rain days by all groups so far but not by this last group. Box 3.1 (Continued) Oral presentation of Group 4 by Sih based on their observations at Wetan Ratan, owned by Sih and planted with maize. Pests conditions: grasshoppers: 4/10 [number of pests/number of plants], banci or Aphids: 3/10 or 30 %. Predators: ant (semut): 20%, 2/10, tiger-bee (Menachilus sexmaculatus): 6/10, spider: 3/10. Soil condition: medium wet or wet. Plant condition: being damaged due to lack of rain, so that pests infested the crop. The rainfall was only 5,2 mm. Weather condition: cloudy, so that the pests infested the crop because the predators can’t prey on the pests. No weeds.

Since there was no further explanation by Group 4 of their findings, the other farmers raised questions about the conditions of plants, and the follow up actions on the presence of pests. Sih replied that no action was needed though she also questioned which action she should take after observing that the natural enemies at the top of the plants did not prey on the pests at the bottom of the crop. However, after further discussion Sih came up with her thought that there was no need to spray pesticides since the crops were mature enough. The facilitator strengthened this

64


argument by referring to the age of the plants and the time to harvest. However, he also pointed to the performance of plants which was not quite good due to the lack of rains, whereas the dominant pests were again Aphids which could be plenty due to low humidity. He also reminded the farmers to spray water. Such arguments and discussions did enrich farmers’ understanding. Unfortunately, by having the CFS in the dry season, the rainy days fell short, and ceased in the first week of July 2007. Accordingly, farmers’ agroecosystem analyses and presentations in the following weeks did not mention any rain at all. However, farmers did mention the weather conditions, though the analyses not quite strongly revealed the relation between weather components and the plants, pests and diseases. How did the farmers learn about weather and climate? In general, the groups’ presentations in drawings and narratives revealed their abilities to connect various components in their fields, though in some parts they only described the conditions of each particular component, and some were even contradicting and/or confusing. See the colors of the soil, leaves and suns in their drawings which show their ability to visualize the conditions of these components (See Plate 3.5). We observed that the facilitator’s guidance in their drawing played a role in leading the farmers to describe their observations into simple features of what was happening in their fields. Koko reminded the farmers, “...This picture… The order: please describe the condition of the soil, if it is wet, draw it a bit dark, if the condition is dry, color it brown…. If you draw the plant, how if there are worms or hoppers? And if you found diseases? …For the sun, if the weather is not cloudy, draw it… if it is bright. If not bright, then draw it in a cloudy condition. How if there are rains? Are there some clouds or not? If it is not overcast but there are clouds, draw the clouds, but with white color… There are clouds but it is not overcast…

Plate 3.5 Drawing the agroecosystem


65


Koko did refer to the components of weather to the farmers while they were drawing their agroecosystem analyses. However, there was a tendency to just present the rainfall conditions in numerical amounts without relating that amount to the general agroecosystem conditions found in their field. Why? Weather components in analyzing their fields were part of their local daily observations. However, to articulate it in drawing and writing was not part of farmers’ habit. Therefore, in the first weeks of training, the farmers had not been able to strongly make a connection between those components and their impacts on fields and plants. In some dialogues between the farmers and the facilitators, evaluating the farmers’ analyses and presentations, the facilitator put more emphasis on pests and diseases rather than on the relationship between various components such as soil, plant growth, soil moisture and others. Gradually, farmers improved their understanding after learning about the classification of rains into ‘above normal (AN)’, ‘normal (N)’, and ‘below normal (BN)’. It is likely that those simple rainfall categories help the farmers to relate rainfall to the presence of pests/diseases and natural enemies. Understanding Weather and Climate Following the introduction of concepts such as pests, diseases and natural enemies, Koko introduced the different meanings of two important concepts in the CFS, namely weather (cuaca) and climate (iklim). Koko first raised questions to the farmers to stimulate their thoughts. “Is weather the same as climate”? Koko asked again: “If yes, what belongs to weather and climate? If different, what are the differences”? “It is likely the same, Sir”, replied some farmers while smiling and moving their heads. In farmers’ schema, there was no sharp distinction between the two concepts. They had never thought that any condition related to wind, rain, temperature or humidity as they experienced day-to-day and season-to-season could be distinguished between those belonging to ‘climate’ and the ones belong to ‘weather’. Though Jiyem, Sih, Arni and Kiran expressed their understanding about the two concepts, none of them could explain what the differences were. The following was Koko’s explanation: “Weather is the condition of air, temperature, wind, humidity within a particular period of time, or in a short period of time. Climate is the condition of air, temperature, wind, humidity within a long period of time. The easiest way to understand the differences between those two terms is to know that ‘weather’ can change fast, whereas climate can’t. ...Weather and climate are very influential for the growth of crops. …By knowing the conditions of weather and climate it is expected that farmers can define the kinds of crops that should be planted in the next planting season”.

Koko’s narratives were emphasizing the time dimension of the two terms. However, he did not stop there. He would like to ensure farmers’ understanding of what is part of weather and climate, and what is not. He placed several pieces of paper on the board. On the papers, he wrote words such as air temperature, air pressure, wind, humidity, flood, ash-rain, dew, rainbow, etc. He then asked each farmer—in turn—to place the paper into one of two categories: belonging to weather and climate, and not belonging to either one. One by one the participants went to the front, choosing one word and then placing the piece of paper in either column. Some

66


of them were not quite confident in their choices, but some made their selection without any doubt. Referring to farmers’ choices, Koko then corrected the wrong selections and provided his explanations of why a certain term was associated with either one. See Table 3.4 for the categories of the terms as part of the components of weather and climate, and those that are not. Table 3.4 Examples of weather & climate components Components of weather & climate Air temperature Air pressure Rain Wind Air humidity Fogue Cloud

Not-compoments of weather & climate Flood Ash-rain Rainbow Dew Ocean waves Room with air condition Thunderstorm

Source : Anantasari fieldnotes, 2007.

We were now getting clearly into the problematic situation that Koko is not a climatologist, because this is a nonsensical Table. Floods, Rainbows, Dew, Ocean waves and Thunderstorms are components of weather and climate as well. And, he could have added Droughts, Typhoons, Heat waves and Cold waves, Gusts of strong wind and some more. In the left hand column are weather and climate ’elements’ or ‘parameters’, in the right hand column are mainly weather and climate ’phenomena’, events that are caused by interactions of weather and climate elements with each other (rainbows) or with various components of the earth surface (floods, dew, ocean waves) or both (air conditioning, thunderstorms). With the exception of ash-rain as produced by volcanic activities (but influenced by weather parameters as wind and rain), all others are weather and climate phenomena, even a room with air conditioning as a ’climatized‘ room, in agriculture becoming a sophisticated greenhouse. Here is the basic problem of “farmers being taught by insufficiently knowledgeable facilitators” that in this case spoil the idea that farmers should actually get from weather and climate. The facilitators should have distinguished ‘elements’ and ‘phenomena’. In fact these phenomena are more weather and climate events that matter to farmers than are the basic elements. This would have become clear immediately when this part of the curriculum would simply not have been written prior to the CFS but would have been created in interaction with the farmers, dealing with their weather and climate vulnerabilities. If the facilitator does not begin with basic scientific issues but with the problems that climate and weather cause to farmers and asks them to think about causes and effects involved, there will be a much better entry into the world of weather and climate. From the phenomena as floods and droughts to what causes them, one can only go through the interaction of weather and climate elements with the immediate living environment of the farmers. This then also opens the door to mitigation possibilities and mitigation problems in their livelihood, to things governments and the farmers themselves can do to prepare farmers and farming systems better to face weather and climate calamities. And from here it is only one step to the changes occurring

67


in these calamities, the phenomena behind these changes, and the consequences of climate change that farmers face. In Chapter 1A there is a plea for well trained extension intermediaries who are able to do just this and who receive training and permanent backing from scientists and students. Such intermediaries include special extension officers at Universities, Research Institutes, Weather Services and other Environmental Organizations. The idea to teach basic weather and climate issues to farmers in CFSs should be replaced in the training of these extension intermediaries by the idea to discuss in such CFSs basic vulnerabilities of the prevailing farming systems and all weather and climate issues involved in these vulnerabilities. This will give a much better impression of what weather and climate encompass than the abstract and wrong subdivision that was now applied in this CFS. Answers to questions as illustrated in Table 1.1 of Chapter 1 cannot be understood as easily without such discussions on weather and climate issues in the livelihood of farmers. It will be even less easy to ask such questions without such discussions as main parts of the CFS curricula. Following the practice of differentiating the components of weather-climate and not which was in fact wrong, Koko invited the participants to join a game in which each group had to formulate two phrases: one related to weather and the other one to climate. It was a surprise that all of their phrases were evaluated by Koko as correct. He asked the farmers to give applause to themselves. This went OK because the basic differentiation Koko made between momentary weather and climate as time integrated weather was correct. See Table 3.5 Table 3.5 Phrases related to weather and climate Weather-phrase

Climate-phrase

Wareng is now bright

East Nusatenggara is dry

Today it is raining

Bogor is a rainy town

Small children are playing in the rains

Tepus is a dry zone

While planting the soil is wet

Kopeng is a rainy place

Source: Anantasari fieldnotes, 2007.

Again, in a group Koko asked them to answer some questions as to: why do we need to learn about weather/climate? What are the meanings of weather and climate? What is the significance of weather/climate for the growth of plants? See Box 3.2 for the farmers’ replies. Of course the same problems noted with the two columns of the Table 3.4 of “Examples of weather & climate components” are found in this Box (Box 3.2) on “Understanding the concepts of weather and climate”. The answer to the first question is very incomplete because there are very many more, and more important, reasons for learning about weather and climate, given the farmer’s weather and climate vulnerabilities. The answer to the second question is again fully incomplete because the phenomena are not considered but only the parameters. In the third answer something of understanding comes through, but it is still much too limited. There is nothing on preparedness for the calamities that are the main phenomena of weather and climate that have the farmers

68


suffer. We must train new classes of extension intermediaries that are familiar with the suffering from changing weather and climate, their increasing variabilities and extreme events in interaction with their farming systems (Stigter, 2011a). Box 3.2 Understanding the concepts of weather and climate Why do we need to learn about weather/climate? To be able to define the kind of crops suitable to particular weather/climatic conditions. What are the meanings of weather/climate? Weather: The condition of air/temperature/wind/humidity in a short period of time. Climate: The condition of air/temperature/wind/humitiy in a relatively long period of time. What is the significance of weather/climate to the growth of crops? There were two variants of answers: a. Climate/weather affects the cause and effect interaction between the biotic and non-biotic components, so as to also affect the plants, the kinds of crops and the time to plant. b. Plants depend on weather/climate. Weather and climate are the determinant factors for the growth of crops. Source: Anantasari fieldnotes, 2007

Examining farmers’ responses to both the games and the questions, Koko assumed that the farmers had already had the experience of weather/climate conditions and their effects on plants as part of their farming activities. Nevertheless, they had not reached the understanding of how to articulate that experience conceptually in a narrative way, as what the farmers themselves thought. Aming expressed his experience as follows: “Yesterday I was confused when we were posed a question of what the differences are between weather and climate. It looks like the same. Now, after being explained by Pak Koko, I understand now what weather and climate are. For us, farmers, who depend on rain, we already understood that the crops will grow well if the rains are enough. If all of a sudden the rains are ‘gone’..ya, it is difficult, since the rice will die due to the lack of water. But, I did not know that rainy conditions belong to weather”.

Farmers indeed learned two new categories of occurrences they have been experiencing every day, namely weather and climate, and also the distinction between the two by referring to the time dimension. They did not learn the difference between weather and climate elements and weather and climate phenomena relevant to their production. If in their existing schema, they do not have names for what they already knew, now they could cite those two terms by also categorizing them as separate elements that are yet related to one another by referring to the components of those terms. This must, however, be considered insufficient for understanding their climate and weather vulnerabilities the way they experience them in their livelihoods. The following lessons did sharpen somewhat their new categories of elements by learning in details of what kinds of environmental things are producing weather and climate, and the extent to which particular conditions of weather and climate affect the growth of crops.

69

Esti Anantasari, Yunita T. Winarto, and Kees Stigter

Rain and cloud: understanding the formation of rain and the types of cloud Rain is the most important element of climate which affects the growth of crops significantly. Its diversity is great in terms of time and place. For example, if it rains in one place, it may not rain in another place at a close distance from the first… (Boer et al., 2007:22, translation by coauthors).

That is the statement on rain as written in the CFS guidebook. The question is how could the farmers understand in detail of how the rains are formed? Farmers knew vaguely of how the rains are formed as learned in primary school, yet they could not remember this anymore. As an introduction, Koko explained the process verbally as follows: “Rain emerges due to the effects of topography, or the supports of humidity from the biomass (e.g. forest), or through the evaporation of seawater due to the heat of the sun. This creates clouds. The clouds reach their saturation supported by certain air pressure so as to form rain drops”.

Koko’s words are following a badly understood and therefore badly formulated formal ‘scientific’ explanation of how rains are created. The processes of cloud forming and rain formation are, however, much more complicated, involving decreasing temperatures higher up in the atmosphere, essential condensation nuclei, vertical turbulence and complicated drop formation, that is even different in the tropics compared to temperate areas, where all rain has first been ice particles. The question is: how could the farmers understand those words and explanations, even when much simplified. Fortunately, the session on rain formation was followed by a simplified direct simulation and observation using the following equipments. Kerosene stove, a pan of 1 liter water, 3 pieces of metal (aluminium) of 50x60cm. One piece was pierced with holes by using a nail with 1 cm distance between holes. There were also bricks, a foot-mat made of coconut fiber, measurement cup, ice-cubes, plastic combs, and a watch.

What would the facilitator do with those equipments? First, Koko lit the stove, and put the pan with 1 liter water on top of the stove. Then, he placed a piece of aluminium with holes and ice cubes on top of the pan, so that the evaporated water would be held by the aluminium and turned into drops of water because of condensation. The water on top of the aluminium, also due to condensation, was poured into a bowl placed underneath the stove. The water then was measured with a measuring cup. It should be realized, however, that there is water condensed at both sides of the aluminium. At the lower side this is water evaporated from the pan water surface, at the upper side this is water coming from the air in the room. This will mix with water coming from the ice cubes unless the latter are packed. The mat which was placed somewhere on the ground was used as symbol of ‘forest’ in order to explain water preservation. Koko poured water through the holes of the aluminium hold on top of the mat. He explained that practice as an example of how the forest would hold the rainwater. In comparison, he poured water through the same aluminium to the ground without any mat underneath, as an example of the barren ground without any vegetation on top of it. It is expected that the participants would observe the difference of water preservation with the ’forest‘ and without ’forest‘ (See Plate 3.6).

70


Plate 3.6 The simplified simulation of rain formation

Photo by Anantasari, 2007 (Also see Direktorat Perlindungan Tanaman Pangan, 2010:15—16)

The farmers were observing Koko’s work enthusiastically, to know more of how the rains came about. Some were helping Koko with the equipment so as to allow him explaining a basic process of rain formation. One farmer, Kiran, expressed his memory of the learning he got at school. “Before, when I learned that at school, it was difficult to visualize it. Now, I understand how the rain comes about. Wah, now I am becoming cleverer”, said Kiran. Learning from visualizing the simplified reality eases the learners’ understanding. Not only using metaphors would help the learners, but also the simplified simulation. The farmers’ improved understanding helped them in their next work, namely the group’s presentations and answers about the ways the rain was formed and the components affecting that formation such as the presence or absence of any forest vegetation. In several sessions later, the facilitator refreshed the farmers’ memories of rain formation while adding another theme: various types of clouds. In meteorology/climatology, each position and performance of clouds has its particular meaning and implication in the formation of rain. Though Koko did not bring any pictures of clouds, he did his best to describe the forms of clouds he was talking about, again, in narratives. Besides explaining the mechanism of cloud formation in a simplified way, he differentiated the types of clouds in terms of their heights above the ground and their forms. When referring to their names, Koko used the ‘scientific’ names for different kinds of cloud such as: Cumulus, Stratus, Cirrus and Cumulonimbus (Cb). While mentioning the latter he reminded the farmers of typhoons and how they worked out in relation to the archipelagic type of Indonesia and the abrasion along the coastal areas which removed the ‘wind-breaks’. It should, however, be realized that typhoons and strong wind storms are relatively rare in Indonesia and seldom endanger shipping or navigation (Wikipedia, 2011). But coastal areas are indeed always suffering from strong surface winds more than inland areas.

71


After explaining those various types of clouds, he asked the farmers which cloud they liked best. Many farmers preferred Cumulonimbus since it brings rain. Responding to the ways the facilitator discussed the types of cloud, Sih expressed her feeling that it would be much better if Koko also showed the pictures of those different types of cloud. However, she admitted that by imagining while listening to Koko’s verbal story, she could gain a feeling of which types of cloud Koko was referring to. The latter is possible for the farmers who observe their habitat every moment of their life. Making a reference to the observable thing is one way to learn new words (see Wittgenstein, 1958; Winarto, 2004). The reference is made easier if they have similar elements in their memories, which are then being activated. Once they integrate the new elements into their old ones, a combination of those elements is created which could then be referred to when they face a particular situation in the future (see Strauss and Quinn, 1997). Anantasari discovered such a process in farmers’ minds when she was sitting among several farmers talking about the form of clouds. One day in December 2007, Anantasari heard Sih saying: “If the form of cloud is like that (while pointing the cloud above them), that is cumulonimbus. Rain will come soon”. Another CFS farmer, Tinem, responded: “If there are winds like this, even when it is very cloudy like that, usually it won’t rain”. Mbah Adi¸Sih’s 60 years old father, agreed with Tinem by referring to the old ancestors’ saying: “Rains will come when there is no sun-shine, the clouds are thick, and no winds, so that the air is humid”.

The arguments raised by Tinem and Mbah Adi reveal their existing schema of rainfall that combines clouds and air movements in affecting rain formation, not merely the form of cloud as cited by Sih, referring to the lesson she gained from the School. Actually, under certain conditions, strong horizontal winds may prevent vertical cloud build up, but not in cumulonimbus conditions (e.g. Wood, 2011). The limited idea learned in the CFS session is improved in Mbah Adi’s schema. It is interesting to note Tinem’s reference to the combination of two elements that have been part of their schema without mentioning the form of cloud as Sih did, though Tinem is also a CFS participant. This argument is an example of how different persons receiving the same (in this case partially wrong) idea refer to various combinations of elements stored in their minds, while responding to a particular situation in their habitat. Learning to measure rainfall “If the rain is heavy (‘bres’), usually such heavy rain is of short duration”, said Jiyem when she experienced a sudden change in weather, turned into heavy rains, yet the rains stopped not long afterwards.

Farmers in Java, and in Wareng in particular, are already familiar with various types of rain. They learn it not only from their parents’ sayings but also from their daily experience. They have special terms for each condition of rain. On the basis of various interviews and conversations with the farmers of how they categorized and described rain, Anantasari was able to draw a list of local rainfall types as presented in Table 7.2 (for the first three columns, see Chapter 7). In order to improve farmers’ familiarity with various types of rain in terms of amounts, the facilitator introduced a special topic of measuring rainfall and categorizing rain as developed in the scientific domain.

72


The participants were then asked by Koko, the facilitator, to mount the raingauge in the field under the responsibility of each group. The following was the facilitator’s guidance on how to prepare the raingauge: 1. Make a raingauge from a used oil can with a capacity of 1 kg and a diameter of 11 cm. 2. Prepare a bamboo pole with its height as 120 cm from the ground. 3. The can should be easily taken off to measure the water trapped in it. 4. The raingauge should be mounted in the field free from any shading from big trees or branches which can cover the raingauge.

Plate 3.7 Making the raingauges collectively

Photo by Anantasari, 2007

Koko also told the farmers of how to measure the rainfall, write down the measurement on a piece of paper, and do the measurement every day in rotation before 8am. At first, the participants agreed to place the raingauge in Wetan Ratan owned by Jiyem for group 1; Bulak Sawah owned by Giyem for group 2; in a non-participant’s field in Bulak Sawah (Wareng III) for group 3; and in Wetan Ratan owned by Sih for group 4 (see Map 2.4, Chapter 2). To ease the participants’ job, Koko advised them to select fields not too far from the village road. Observing agroecosystems of the field every decade was also the farmers’ task. In reality, each farmer adjusted the time for measuring rainfall according to his/her job in the morning. Anantasari observed some farmers who chose to measure the rainfall after doing some work in his/her own field, prior to 8am. However, she also found some farmers who preferred to measure the rainfall first. They went to their fields after submitting the data to Jiyem’s place. We found that farmer interests and curiosities grew after getting the concrete numerical amounts of rain that fell the day and night before. This experience did produce a new idea in the farmers’ existing schema of dry rainfed farming in which numerical analysis of rainfall was absent. Unfortunately, such an exercise did not last long due to the rain’s cessation in July in the dry season period of May—October 2007. As Winarto et al. (2011:176) argue, organizing 73


a CFS in the dry season with less rainfall “…failed to do what ‘in season’ CFSs can and are supposed to do, through providing opportunities for farmers to discuss problems of the current season.” The farmers, thus, only had few times of measuring rainfall and could not relate the data to their agroecosystem analyses in the remainder of the training period. Classifying rainfall data Not only knowing the numerical amounts, but also being able to classify the rainfall into the standardized categories of rainfall became the training’s objectives. The latter is normally used by the BMKG office in delivering their climate forecast. It is expected that farmers’ knowledge of that classification would help them understand the conditions of rains in their area. Koko explained in narratives, that “BMKG uses several terms in delivering the weather (particularly temperature [present authors]) and climate (particularly rainfall [present authors]) forecasts, among others Below Normal (Bawah Normal, BN), Normal (N), and Above Normal (Atas Normal, AN). A climate condition is classified as normal if the rainfall measurement is between 85% up to 115% of the long term average rainfall in a location. …Below Normal is when the climate condition is less than 85% of the long term average amount of rainfall. Above Normal is a situation where the rainfall condition is more than 115% of the average rainfall. Thus, if in Wareng, for example in January, the rainfall as a long term average is 200 mm, the rainfall is Normal when between 170—230 mm. If the condition is Below Normal, the rainfall is less than 170 mm, and above 230 mm means Above Normal. Every region in Indonesia has its unique rainfall due to differences in altitude and the components of climate & weather formation.”

In this verbal explanation, Koko did not use any visual media to support his narratives. He did refer, however, to some cases of farmers’ daily experience in cultivation. For example, he related a particular amount of rainfall, more than 230 mm, with heavy and long duration of rain, which could flood the field and rotten the root crops without indicating the particular months which were Above Normal. By having such an example, the participants began to imagine how a certain condition of rain could affect the growth of their plants. Nevertheless, farmers were asked to also memorize which rainfall condition (in millimeter) could be categorized as ‘Above Normal’, ‘Normal’ or ‘Below Normal’. To enable them to do so, the extension worker, Diya, held a game in one training session. She made different columns for each category on a piece of paper hung on the wall. She then cited a number and asked each farmer to place the number into the appropriate column (Above Normal, Normal, and Below Normal). Farmers, thus, had to activate their memories of which number was above the border line in each category, while also using their feelings or intuition. Then, using their memories and feelings, each participant made his/her decision to which category of rainfall the number he/she had belonged to. We observed that some participants were not quite confident of his/her decisions since memorizing numbers was not easy. At last Diya, the extension worker, corrected farmers’ mistakes while identifying the correct ones. Though farmers had to struggle in memorizing numbers, once they grasped the ideas of the different categories of rain, it was not quite difficult for them to find the suitable crops

74


associated to a particular condition of rain as requested by the facilitators. See Box 3.3 for an example of a group’s presentation about the relationship between crops and the categories of rainfall. Box 3.3 The categories of rainfall and the kinds of crops Presentation of Group 4, 3rd July 2007 Background: Prediction of weather and its categories : Below normal < 85% à < 170 mm Normal 85%—115% à 170 mm—230 mm Above normal > 115% à > 230 mm Objectives: 1.To develop the learners’ capability in translating the BMKG climate prediction for anticipating rain in a location/field. 2.To develop the learners’ capability in understanding the categories of rainfall: Above Normal (AN), Normal (N), and Below Normal (BN) Results of Group discussion: 1. What are the meanings of Normal, Above Normal, Below Normal? - Normal, average rainfall 170 mm, maximum 230 mm, Rains are once in two days. - Below Normal, average rainfall: less than 170 mm, Rains: once in a week - Above Normal, average rainfall more than 230mm, Rain every day, or heavy rainfall 2. What is the relationship between the condition of crops and the categories of rainfall into (AN, N, BN)? Examples of crops: 1. Paddy: AN : Good N : Good BN : Not quite good 2. Maize AN : Bad N : Good BN : Not quite good 3. Soybean AN : Not quite good N : Good BN : Not quite good 3. What is the relationship between pests/diseases and the condition of rains of AN, N, BN? Examples of pests: A. Worm (earth worm, Leucania unipuncta) N : Pests are controlled BN : Infesting the plants AN : No pests’ infestation Source : Anantasari fieldnotes, 2007.

75


B. Brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) N : Pests are not infesting paddy BN : More severe if the pests infested paddy AN : Infesting paddy but under control C. Leave-worm (Cnaphalocrosis medinalis) N : Infesting crops but under control BN : Infesting crops AN : Not quite severely infesting crops 4. What are you going to do if the condition of rains are AN, N, BN for your crop-farming activities? 1.Selecting the most suitable crops 2.Tilling the soil according to the condition of rain Examples : NORMAL RAINFALL: Whatever plants can be cultivated with whatever or minimal soil tillage. ABOVE NORMAL RAINFALL: The suitable crops: maize, paddy, secondary crops We are going to make drainage to drain the water out of the field BELOW NORMAL RAINFALL: The suitable crops: secondary crops and cassava Soil management: building ridges to prevent water to run off CONCLUSION: Rainfall in the rainy season is very influential for the growth of crops so that it affects the yields/products.

Box 3.3 (Continued) Such training reveals the ways the learners receive new ideas in narratives. The first facilitator did his best to make a referral to the problems familiar to the learners’ practices so as to ease the latter to grasp the meaning of the new categories. The following ‘game’ rests heavily on the learners’ memories and to some extent, to their feelings, experience, and understanding after learning some new ideas and concepts of climate, weather, its components and its implications for the growth of crops. The exercise, however, provides an opportunity to the learners to relate the new ideas to their own experience, and on the basis of that dialectics of knowledge, they were able, at last, to answer the questions. Through such an exercise, we argue that the learners had the opportunity to activate their memories in processing the new ideas in the form of lexicons and written questions. Again, we observed the practice of a paralleldistributed-processing (PDP) in the learners’ minds throughout their works in formulating the answers (see D’Andrade. 1992; Strauss and Quinn, 1997). A question remains as to what extent would the learners keep their memories of which amounts belong to each category? The boundaries between BN, N, AN, are different for each measuring place and presently also change with time. At a later stage we discovered that the farmers did refer to those three categories of rainfall (BN, N, AN) while experiencing rains in various degrees of duration and

76


intensity (see Chapter 7). It is an early indicator that those new elements were gradually being incorporated into their existing schema. However, to what extent could those new elements— in combination with the other elements of crop farming—become the basis for action that is for better preparedness to reduce vulnerabilities? We will examine this in Chapters 4 and 7. Referring to weather forecast and climate prediction or pranata mangsa: either one or both of them? Another new element to be referred to by the farmers as the basis for action is the probability of weather forecast and climate prediction provided by the state. Understanding ‘probability’ has the aim of making farmers understand that any forecast/prediction could be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. That is what these words means. The opportunities to be ‘true’ can be large or small. Related to this understanding is the need to realize the fact that climate and weather conditions are fluctuating over time, per season. To enable the participants grasping the meaning easily, the facilitator, a visiting one, made a game with marbles. The visiting facilitator prepared two kinds of marbles in different quantities: white ones that were larger in number and green ones. Metaphorically the two different colors of marbles represented the differences in ‘probability’: the white one had a larger probability of being ‘true’ and the green one the contrary. The facilitator then asked each participant to take a marble of their own choice. At the end it was counted which color of marble would have been chosen most. Each participant had the choice to take a marble ten times.

By following this game, it is expected that the participants would grasp the idea of ‘probability’ by knowing that the ‘white marble’ has a greater probability than the ‘green one’, and so do various climates. Which climatic condition would emerge in a particular time will be determined by various factors. Though it was likely that the participants understood the objectives of the game and the meaning of ‘probability’, it was not easy for them to believe such an ‘objective’ reality in a short period of time. In farmers’ schema of crop farming, referring to their own cosmology, pranata mangsa has been a guidance to select a particular crop to be planted at a certain time and weather condition.3 Furthermore, Arni voiced her thought that only God knows the climate condition (see also Stigter. 2011c). Aming, who has a thorough knowledge of pranata mangsa, would still use pranata mangsa in planting, since God is the One who determines the positions of our planets. “I only make a guess, the Almighty determines it“, said Aming.4 What was the facilitator’s response to the participants’ reactions following his explanation of the game? Yadi, another facilitator, replied to the farmers’ comments by saying Pranata mangsa is a Javanese calendrical system (petungan/pawukon); a combination of WesternGregorian solar calendrical system and the Javanese astronomy-based system for agricultural time keeping of when to start planting and what to plant (see Murniatmo et al., 1983; Hidayat, 2011; Rowling, 2011). 4 In one conversation in his house, Aming explained further to Anantasari his understanding that there have been some discrepancies between pranata mangsa and the actual weather conditions in a particular month. About the 1980s was the time Aming referred to as the beginning of such anomalous behavior due to the deforestation in Gunungkidul. However, God determines why the weather is changing. 3

77


that pranata mangsa could no longer be used as a guide in farming due to the changing environment nowadays. We observed the farmers’ reaction as expressed through their faces upon listening to Yadi’s reply. Jiyem and Aming then raised their questions of why they could no longer use pranata mangsa as a guide. Jiyem said: “Why can’t we use pranata mangsa any longer? Many of our fellows still use it”. Aming also voiced his doubt: “…almost all farmers still believe in pranata mangsa, and some of its calculations are still appropriate”. Both of them agreed that the environment is now changing. Yet, they argued that their own cosmology could still be a reference for their farming practices. The other farmers were discussing this among each other while the dialogue between the two farmers and the facilitator went on. Some farmers like Arni, Amto and Amir looked ‘calm’ receiving the facilitator’s further explanation that in fact, he himself did not know much about pranata mangsa. However, the facilitator said that in comparison to BMKG, which tries to predict the weather condition in a particular place immediately from satellite information, pranata mangsa is based on old generations’ detailed observations of a long time ago. Those ‘traditions’ of weather conditions in a particular month are no longer appropriate nowadays by referring to the continuous rainfall in the dry season. Knowledge of such weather condition is based on new learning and accordingly, the farmers need to be cautious of any changes in defining the kind of crops to be cultivated (see also Chapter I.A). The facilitator strengthened his arguments by explaining further that previously, climate was ‘static’ due to its supporting factors such as forest and un-cemented grounds, which have changed drastically. Deforestation, for example, is a causal factor leading to climate change. Therefore, the BMKG climate and weather forecast nowadays could no longer be based merely on the old experiences of pranata mangsa and ilmu titèn, but should use validated equipment. The facilitator explained the latter in another session. At last, the arguments ended due to lack of time, not because of reaching a consensus. The facilitator was not able to convince the farmers, and vice versa. Such a situation represents an arena in which two different domains of knowledge and belief meet one another through the actors’ knowledge exchange. The local cosmology and empirical knowledge have been the fundaments of a long period of yearly experiences in farmers’ multiple-crop farming. The farmers’ schema consisting of various elements of knowledge and belief have integrally been interweaving with one another (see Strauss and Quinn, 1997; Winarto, 2010). A new idea coming from a different domain would not be easily accepted within the existing schema if that idea is not only in contradiction with the other elements in their established schema, but also has the premise of marginalizing the institutionalized ideas. In this case, the use of a ‘metaphor’ for the idea of ‘probability in weather/climate’ does not support the learners’ acceptance quite easily, though the learners could understand the facilitator’s explanation underlying the use of that metaphor (see about the use of metaphors in science in Kuhn, 1993). Following those arguments, Anantasari asked the three farmers (Arni, Amto, and Aming) separately about their thoughts and reactions to the dialogue about ‘the probability of weather forecast/climate prediction’ and the function of their own cosmology as criticized by the facilitator. It was surprising to find that some of them (Arni and Amto) believed more in the

78


Holy Power of God and the Islamic preaching as the guidance of their daily life, including farming, rather than the Javanese cosmology of pranata mangsa. They confessed that they did not know much about pranata mangsa, which was part of their ancestor’s knowledge. It was quite different from some other farmers like Aming, who still had a strong believe in that cosmology and had a detailed knowledge of the mangsa (month) in relation to particular periods of time in the monsoon seasons and the kinds of crops to be planted (also see Murniatmo et al., 1983, Indrowuryanto, 1999; Wisnubroto, 1999, Sriyanto, 2009; Chalinor, 2010). In the following session related to this theme, the facilitator introduced equipment used to measure air pressure, wind speed, air temperature, and other weather and climate elements/ parameters. Unfortunately, the facilitator’s explanations were only supported by the use of photocopied features of such equipment used to predict weather and climate by BMKG. Some farmers complained that they could not understand thoroughly the working of such equipment without direct observations. Koko explained to Anantasari that there should be one session of a field visit to the nearest BMKG station, but there were no funds to carry out that activity. Therefore, he decided to only bring the photos of that equipment. It is likely that such an explanation without direct empirical performance of the tools the facilitator was introducing could not improve the learners’ confidence. Nevertheless, the latter said that they did not refuse any new introduced knowledge about weather/climate change based on their own experience of the changes in their habitat. A frequent prolonged drought was an example of the constraints farmers had in dry rainfed farming. The above situation is another example of wrong and inadequate pre-determined curricula in the CFSs concerned. All the equipment concerned consists of instruments using certain physical principles to quantify weather elements. An understanding of that equipment demands understanding of the physical principles behind the behavior of the weather elements, as well as of the physical principles behind the functioning of the instruments concerned and their interaction with the weather elements. For understanding of all these physical phenomena, at least secondary school level is needed. Moreover that understanding does not contribute much to better understanding of climate and weather vulnerabilities, unless the latter are the starting points of teaching about the environment in the livelihood of farmers. It is our experience that also extension officers do badly understand meteorological equipment and its proper use. But we also feel that this is not necessary at all. Indeed the mentioned example of a frequent prolonged drought illustrates this perfectly, because no instrument does exist that measures drought. Drought can only be quantified by repeated measurements over time of (lack of) rainfall, the only measurement that really makes sense to be performed by farmers, due to its high variability in time and space and the simplicity of its correct quantification (Stigter et al., 2009). No other weather parameter makes any sense to be introduced to farmers for their own quantification. In the tropics even not temperature and air pressure, that are broadly followed by some farmers in colder climates, were depressions frequently determine the occurrence of rains and where night frosts in spring and autumn may cause crop and fruit damages (Stigter, 2010a).

79


Planting seeds by using digging stick (tonjo) and rain harvesting methods: responding to drought One reason to establish CFS in Wareng IV is the frequent prolonged droughts in a dry rainfed ecosystem. To address that problem, the facilitator decided to have two specific themes that—in his thought—related significantly to drought problems, namely: 1) identifying and anticipating droughts, and 2) identifying soil types. Those two themes are related to each other. By identifying soil types, farmers are expected to know suitable ways of planting seeds in their own fields. How to manage soil is also a key factor in determining the success of farming. Why? Certain soil types have the ability to absorb water better and particular kinds of crops suit such soils better. To support his explanations, Koko used a ‘bathok kelapa’, the ‘coconut-head’ (the round hard-skin of coconut) which represents a particular status in relation to soil type as presented in Table 3.6. In this case, the facilitator again used a metaphor of a coconut to symbolize the capability of soil to absorb water and its appropriateness for being used to grow particular crops. Table 3.6 The relation between soil type and its ability to absorb water and sustain crops No. Soil type

The symbols of coconut

Capability of absorbing water

Types of crop

1

Heavy soil (lemah abot) Color: dark black

‘Bathok mlumah’ The coconut half which lays with its open end up

This soil type can hold water and the water can be standing in the field (‘megung’)

Paddy and vegetables like Ipomoea, terong (eggplant)

2

Medium soil (lemah sedeng) Color: light black

‘Bathok bolu’ Two halves of coconut that can be matched with one another into one round coconut.

This type can’t hold Paddy and vegetables much water but the water like chili, maize, and does not leach away too tobacco much, keeping the soil wet or even with standing water

3

Light soil (lemah ènthèng) Color: red/white

‘Bathok mengkurep’ The coconut half is upside down, skin upwards

This soil can’t absorb Secondary crops such water so that the water as chili, tobacco leaches away easily and there is no standing water in the field

Source: Anantasari fieldnotes, 2007.

In contrast to the arguments against the facilitator’s phrases about the Javanese cosmology’s role in the recent changes of climate, the farmers were very receptive of this new analogy, which was in line with their daily experience and observation. Those introduced ideas were perceived as congruent with the farmers’ own ilmu titèn. “Wah, berarti awaké déwé wis bener (Wah, it means that our own [ideas] are already correct)”. It is not only correct, but also in line with the facilitator’s knowledge which is “ilmuné wong sekolahan (the science of

80


educated people)”. This last phrase indicates farmers’ categories of their own knowledge, which is different from the one originating from the ‘formal school’. While responding to the introduced classification of soil type, water absorption and types of crop, the farmers found similarities between those two divergent categories. The facilitator then asked each participant to categorize his/her own field with its risks of any drought and/or flood to occur. Koko guided the farmers’ evaluation by saying that “soil which has the potentials for flooding is the heavy black soil, due to its capacity of retaining water, so as to produce water standing for quite a long time”. An argument against that phrase was again voiced by some farmers, who perceived the inaccuracy or inappropriateness of that statement. Jiyem responded strongly: “We disagree with Pak Koko’s statement, because—based on our own observation—soil which has the potentials for flood is the light soil due to its light textures so that water could easily drive away the soil”. This argument went on and on for several sessions without any consensus on which type of soil has the potential of inducing flood (see Chapter 5 for the continuing discussion about this while raising questions for the agrometeorologist). To advance farmers’ understanding, Koko introduced a special theme on the “Program of controlling drought” in the following session. In general, there were three points raised by Koko in order to anticipate drought as follows. 1. Planting seeds with a digging stick (ditonjo or ditugal). The facilitator argued that planting seeds of paddy the way the farmers do for maize and some other secondary crops would avoid the drying up of seeds. The position of roots is such that it can grow deeper into the soil, not remain shallow as when transplanting seeds. 2. Building additional high ridges or small dikes (galengan) in the field so as to divide the field into several plots. The facilitator called that practice Rain Harvesting Method (RHM, Metode Panen Hujan-MPH). This method has the objective of storing water within and on the soil, preventing it to run off into other areas and this way increasing soil moisture content. In the beginning, the facilitator told the farmers that this method should be carried out collectively by building a water reservoir (storage pond) called ‘embung’, to preserve a big volume of water. However, this strategy was too costly and therefore only building additional dikes in the field was more appropriate to farmers’ needs of preventing water to run off unused by plants. 3. Putting superficially wet soil upside down around the plants to reduce water evaporation from the wet soil surface.

Farmers’ responses to Koko’s ideas about planting seeds with a digging stick varied in line with individual learning and experience in farming. Using a digging stick in planting seeds for paddy had been practiced by some farmers. Thus, it was not a novel idea for them. Jiyem argued that she and her fellows practiced that a year earlier, though with the aim of only avoiding the risks of being eaten by ants or birds. Up to 2007, farmers used to broadcast the seeds and hence they could not measure the distance between seeds and the amount of seed they needed. Kiran expressed his understanding of that strategy’s benefits: “Now it is clear for me”, while referring to his experience that broadcasting seeds was not secure enough from any disturbances. Those who could absorb the idea learned about the benefits of saving the use of seeds; got the assurance

81


that the seeds would grow better in a dry conditions; saw the interest to gain more profits from an unfertile soil (e.g. light black soil); and considered human resource availability to carry out the job. Nevertheless, some farmers were in doubt, based on the understanding of their soil (e.g. heavy soil) that could wet and rot the seeds; based on the additional costs from the need of hiring extra wage labor; and based on their anxieties of lack of rains. As to the idea of building additional high ridges/small dikes inside the field, the participants seemed in doubt of its advantages. Responding to farmers’ doubt, Koko offered the idea of practicing that method in a field of one of the farmers. Diyo responded fast by providing his field in Wetan Polaman for the pilot project. Koko gave further explanations and divided the field into several plots by making lines on the soil. He defined the number of plots by referring to Diyo’s information on the slope of his fields, and other problems, such as the lower level of his field in comparison to neighboring fields and the related problems of draining the water. As a result, the plants could easily rot due to standing water. Based on these explanations, Koko asked the farmers to pay attention to the field conditions and the prevailing slopes before making a decision. First, he advised the farmers to move several big stones in Diyo’s field to a lower level, to flatten the plot and to reduce water flows from higher to lower levels. The next stage was making the ridges according to the lines Koko made earlier. All participants, male and female farmers, were working together building the extra ridges till noon time. On the way home, Arni, Jiyem, Sih and Tinem were expressing their interest to make such ridges/dikes in their own fields. Some other farmers, Yani and Iyem, could only smile and said that they had to discuss it first with their husbands. It is thus interesting to follow whether they were indeed going to practice that new method (see Chapter 4). Another strategy to reduce evaporation from the soil is to weed by also plowing the top soil to cut the roots of the weeds. This mulching technique is also beneficial in enabling the water to infiltrate into the deeper layers of the root zone, carrying fertilizer. Koko’s interpretations reminded some farmers of their own empirical practices, yet without knowing the significance of that particular strategy. “Wah, I already did that, but I did not know the reasons and explanations”, said Aming, as agreed by the other participants. In this case, the new information clarified and explained the farmers’ own habits, and thus enriched their schema of farming. Controlling flood and drought: learning from and preparing for extreme climate “What extreme climate means”? That was the issue underlying the session on controlling flood and drought. Very intense rains, or the other way around, lack of rain in the rainy season, or a wet dry season or a very long one were the examples cited by the facilitator in explaining what extreme climate is like and how to respond to such conditions. He explained that in more details as follows: “An extreme climate is a condition of weather/climate which over a certain period of time (days, months or years) is far from normal. …There are three efforts to prepare for [the effects

82


of that kind of climate, namely] floods and droughts, by carrying out strategic, tactic, and operational work. The strategic work focuses on collecting data to identify problems and/or benefits. The tactical work is related to the severity of the climate/weather condition that could emerge, yet well known—such as ilmu titèn—based on experience stored in the form of farming lore, not in written form. Operational work pertains to the efforts carried out through planning, programming and implementing the strategies.”

Without any concrete reference while talking, it is not at all easy for the participants to understand the meaning of Koko’s verbal explanations. Yet, Koko continued the session by instructing each group to answer the following questions/tasks as presented in Box 3.4. Box 3.4 Farmers’ presentation of the program on controlling flood and drought (one group’s presentation) Group 1: 13 August 2007 Background: Flood/drought are two types of hazards caused by extreme climate How to mitigate those hazards through activities that are a) strategic, b) tactic, and c) operational in the field? · · ·

Strategic activity is in the form of identifying the regions which are vulnerable towards hazards. Tactical activity is in the form of improving the quality of information on weather/ climate expectations, also related to economic values. Operational activity is in the form of work plans and their implementation.

Objectives: To widen farmers’ perspective in preparing for extreme climate. To identify the constraints of the program on the ground. Steps: Carrying out research to identify what happens if (a) a region experiences delayed rainy season planting and the rains are below normal; (b) a region experiences delayed rainy season planting and the rains are normal; and (c) a region has normal rainy season planting but the rains are below normal. Discussion result: a). Region with delayed rainy season planting and the rains are below normal To anticipate the rain below normal (benthatan—long drought): building ridges in the field; select short maturing varieties (Dodokan/Segreng) with a nursery and watering the seedlings if there are no rains. Following the rains, the seedlings are transplanted with the distance of 18x18cm. Fertilizing the plants in accordance with the rains. After transplanting and basal fertilizing, carrying out the observations. If there are weeds, it should be observed whether it is necessary to weed. If there are

83


pests/diseases, control actions should be considered. To prepare for rains below normal (benthatan), the soil will be hoed to reduce evaporation from an only wetted soil. b) Region with delayed rainy season planting and the rains are normal. For normal rain whatever varieties may be selected with additional ridges or without ridges. A nursery can be used or the seeds can just be broadcasted. After transplanting the seedlings, apply basic fertilizers followed by applying chemical fertilizers with 3 days in between. Then, carry out the observations whether there are weeds and/or pests/diseases. c) Region with normal rainy season and the rain is below normal. To prepare for rains below normal, build additional ridges in the field. Select short maturing varieties. Make a nursery and fertilize it. Transplant the seedlings only after some rains, with the planting distance of 18x18cm. Fertilizing after rains, then carrying out the observations whether there are some weeds and/or pests/diseases. If there is a long drought after the first rains, the soil will be hoed to reduce water evaporating from the soil.5

Box 3.4 (Continued) By placing this session towards the end of the training, it was possible for the participants to combine the lessons they learned so far with their own farming experience. Building additional ridges in the field and hoeing slightly wetted soil to reduce water evaporation are examples of newly introduced ideas the farmers were incorporating into their own schema. The other farming strategies such as selecting varieties, making a nursery, fertilizing and observations are based on their long years of farming experience, but now in combination with the element of rainfall. When to fertilize or to transplant should be related to the rainfall. Paying attention to a long drought (expressed in their local term of benthatan) by referring to a need to reduce soil evaporation is an example of how the farmers combine old and new ideas. Those elements are processed together while thinking and discussing about their answers to the three different conditions of planting and rainfall. It is a proof of how they process the elements in parallel (see the parallel distributed processing model in connectionism perspective, D’Andrade, 1992; Strauss and Quinn, 1997). These sessions on extreme climate are essential to every CFS because they are about vulnerabilities and preparedness. Other vulnerabilities to climate related calamities should be added. ۞ Throughout the training sessions, which lasted up to four months, we observed a continuous dialogic exchange between the scientific and the local domain of knowledge through the intense communication between the facilitators and the learners. Various new terms and concepts were introduced by the facilitators along with their underlying premises and logics which were not easily grasped by the farmers. Through repetitions every decadal meeting via various forms of In Stigter’s viewpoint, that strategy is not clever, because there will be self-mulching from an undisturbed drying surface.

5

84


communication: verbal explanation, games, simulation, observation, drawing, discussions, and presentations, at last the farmers could understand the main thoughts behind all those novel ideas. Such a gradual learning process was made possible by the learners’ continuous reflection in activating and referring to their own experiences and schema of multiple crop farming in their habitat. An enrichment of their schema was what we observed towards the end of the ‘schooling’. However, parts of the curriculum are very questionable as to the contents on weather and climate, and the sense of some other parts that were not immediately relevant to farmers’ vulnerabilities and preparedness must be doubted. Another question remains after the Climate Field School: what next? To what extent were there some significant changes in farmers’ minds and strategies? In the next chapter we will follow this up and examine this by looking at farmers’ responses to weather conditions in the following rainy season planting of 2007/08. Unfortunately, the School stopped once the sessions were completed in line with the curriculum. No further facilitative actions were carried out by the facilitators in the midst of ongoing climate change. Farmers were abandoned in their struggles to survive. In such a situation, by accepting the learning and incorporating those new elements into their own minds, we found that they became more aware of what happened to their fields and crops. Even though variation in each participant’s reception and interpretation is common due to the history of each farmer’s particular learning and farming experience, we found among the CFS alumni the growth of shared lexicons and ideas related to weather/climate and their implications for plants through daily communication and conversation. Agreement on the advantages of what they learned in the School was also found among some alumni. Among the lot of new lexicons, metaphors and propositions they were confronted with throughout the training, elements that were cited as the most beneficial ones were those that were related most directly to farming practices. First, the farmers received some logical explanations of some of their common practices in farming, such as ‘dangir’ (soil tillage) and ‘nonjo’ (planting seeds by using a digging stick). Second, there is a growing understanding of the need to observe carefully the population of pests and diseases and to avoid the use of pesticides if unnecessary. Additional explanations on the emergence of Aphids under dry conditions and the appropriate ways to control them also enriched their understanding. Third, farmers gained knowledge of how to prepare for drought, which was missing in their existing schema. They learned about various ways to grow crops with less rain during a long drought, such as selecting varieties resistant to drought (including those with a short time of maturing), planting seeds by using a digging-stick, and building additional ridges/dikes in the field. Fourth, they obtained new skills in measuring rainfall and learning more about soil moisture. Notwithstanding the wrong ideas given about the components of weather and climate, understanding the concepts and their implications for the growth of crops and the emergence of particular pests and diseases were significant advantages for them. It is interesting to know that by having such advancement in their knowledge through the combination of the old and new elements (see Srauss and Quinn, 1994, 1997; Winarto, 2004), the farmers were not only improving their confidence and dignity, but were also eager to put their new understandings into action. What would they do now in the following rainy season planting? The next chapter will examine this.

85

Chapter 4 Anticipating Drought in Multiple Cropping: Implementing Rain Harvesting Method Esti Anantasari and Yunita T. Winarto

The rainy season planting of 2007/08 began just at the time the farmers terminated their learning in the Climate Field School. It is thus interesting to know whether the farmers would alter their existing cultivation strategies by incorporating some novel ideas learned in the School and putting them into action. If they brought the ideas into action, what kinds of ideas among the lot of the introduced knowledge on weather, climate, and the agroecosystem analyses were selected by individual farmers? How and why did they do their selected strategies? These are questions we would like to examine in this chapter following the story of how a group of farmers learned a bunch of new ideas on weather/climate and their effects on their crops. Discovering the answers would gain insight on the extent to which learning ‘scientific ideas’ enriched their knowledge, strengthen their existing schema of crop farming, and affect their habitual practices. Earlier studies following the progress in the CFS participants’ knowledge and actions carried out by Boer (2009) and Prakarma (2009) revealed contradictory results. Whilst the first reported on farmers’ positive responses in knowledge and practices and their understanding of the need to take collective actions, the latter reported no significant changes made by CFS farmers after following the ‘schooling’ in Indramayu, West Java. In this chapter we argue that an enrichment of farmers’ knowledge and a modification of their usual strategies did occur. The question however remains as to what progress and modifications the farmers intentionally made, in what ways, and why. Detailed understanding of these issues is missing in the first two studies. Farmers in Wareng IV have their existing schema of dry rainfed multiple cropping strategies after years of experience and—for some farmers—through learning in IPM FFSs in the past (see Chapter 3). D’Andrade (1992:29) argues that a schema is “…a distinct and strongly interconnected pattern of interpretive elements [that] can be activated by minimal inputs.” Further he says that schema is “…an interpretation which is frequent, well organized, memorable, which can be made from minimal cues, contains one or more prototypic installations, is resistant to change, etc.” If a schema has a strong interconnected pattern of interpretive elements and is well established in people’s minds, how could the new elements become part of the farmers’ schema of crop cultivation? Winarto’s observations among the IPM FFS alumni’s knowledge and practices throughout 1990—2000 (see Winarto, 1993, 1999, 2002, 2004; Winarto et al., 2000) strengthen our argument that the new ideas would be related to the existing elements if the farmers had to respond to particular ecological conditions which have also been learned, discussed, and argued in the Schools. For example, there were continuous pest outbreaks in farmers’ habitats starting during the period of learning in the School and up to the following next three planting seasons that provoked farmers’ responses by activating their own and new

86

Anticipating Drought in Multiple Cropping

ideas just received in the School (see Winarto, 2004). Farmers’ direct experience and learning did enrich their knowledge. Gradually, an advanced schema of controlling pests was established over a period of two years (Winarto, 2004). We learned that the new ideas of pest control strategies in combination with the existing ones could provoke action. In relation to the learning on weather and climate, what actions were taken and what guided them to act as they did? D’Andrade (1992:31) argues that, To understand what leads them to act as they do one needs to know their goals, and to understand their goals one must understand their overall interpretive system, part of which constitutes and interrelates these goals, and to understand their interpretive system—their schemas—one must understand something about the hierarchical relations among these schemas.

The top-level schema in the hierarchical organization of schema—which is a person’s more general interpretation of what is going on—is the one which functions as a person’s most general goals (D’Andrade, 1992:30). D’Andrade (1992:31) says further that “…for something to serve as goal, the person must have some cognitive structure which is activated and which instigates action” (D’Andrade, 1992:31; also see Strauss, 1992). How the structure assimilates things such as discourses, objects, and events to which persons have been exposed, and render them a basis for meaningful action, needs to be examined (Strauss, 1992:3). By learning new ideas, the question is how well the new goals and meanings of the new schema will be incorporated in the person’s minds? Following Holland (in D’Andrade, 1992:37), the initial involvement of the new goals would depend on how those goals fit the person’s already existing own schema (also see Eshuis and Stuiver, 2005:139). While agreeing with this, we also argue that learning is complex and interacts with various other factors as Winarto proves in her study observing a number of IPM alumni in Subang, West Java (Winarto, 2004, 2011), and Lampung, South Sumatera (Winarto et al,. 2000; Winarto, 2011) during and after joining IPM FFSs. This chapter will examine both the events of putting the new ideas into action and the causal factors leading the farmers to do what they do. We do not stop there, however. How did the farmers learn from their practices and enrich their existing schema? The first part of this chapter discusses the farmers’ actions in preparing their fields in the beginning of the 2007/08 rainy season. Would the new meanings of preparing for drought as learned in the School be part of their goals in starting their cultivation? How diverse the farmers’ actions were and what were the reasons for that? The next question the farmers used to have is the most suitable time to begin planting. This will be examined in the second part of this chapter. In the final section we will discuss the other cropping practices such as soil tillage and the ways of planting seeds. ‘Rain-harvesting Method’: Building Ridges in the Field ‘Anticipation’ (antisipasi) is one term among a bunch of other related new ideas learned in the School. Even though this word was used by the facilitators quite often throughout the training, it is climatologically not the most suitable word. ‘Preparedness’ should be used as to weather and climate disasters. Nevertheless, ‘anticipation’ has been more familiar to the learners,

87

Esti Anantasari and Yunita T. Winarto

particularly in combination with another word: ‘drought’, and not flood. Droughts are a very common weather condition in the dry rainfed ecosystem in Gunungkidul region, not floods. Drought has been part of farmers’ schema and experience in having drought in both dry and rainy season plantings. A ‘dry spell’ is common following the first rainy days in the beginning of rainy season planting. Climatologists call this a false start of the rainy season. Farmers have their local words for such dry spells which is differentiated on the basis of its length, namely benthatan or pethatan which lasts up to one month, and senggangan which has a shorter duration, of around two weeks time. Both are agriculturally devastating because dry spells of between 7 and 10 days are considered causes of false starts (Ati et al., 2002). Even though they may these days experience this annually, these days of climate change in large parts of Indonesia much more frequently than before, they can not forecast when the dry spell will start and for how long it will last. As a result, the growth of their crops is disturbed if water availability is not enough. In such a situation, what does ‘anticipating (preparing for) drought’ mean to them? The CFS farmers learned that anticipation means preparing oneself in advance to deal with the hazards of either floods or droughts. ‘Anticipating drought’ thus means developing (preparing) technical practices to alleviate severe risks of suffering drought in the future. How to alleviate drought stress of their crops is, therefore, in line with their puzzling questions so far. That preparing for so diminishing hazards could be carried out in advance was a new understanding. We observed the growth of interest among the CFS alumni to know whether some technical strategies taught in the School would help provide ways to prepare for so diminish risk, producing beneficial results. These new technical strategies were not only transmitted verbally by the facilitator, but were also being put into action by guiding the CFS farmers in preparing the field, selecting the crops and seeds, improving the planting of seeds, in accordance with building extra ridges in one plot. The CFS alumni, therefore, had the chance and opportunities to directly experience the practice of preparing themselves for drought. By having memories of facing either benthatan or senggangan and their consequences, learning of anticipating (that is preparing for) drought, and facing the uncertain weather conditions of the 2007/08 rainy season, some CFS farmers had a thought/feeling of trying to bring their lessons into practice. One should realize that these preparations may after all have been unnecessary for a certain season with enough rainfall, they may even be harmful without the possibilities for drainage for another season with abundant rains but they are very helpful for a relatively dry season. When additional drainage is provided (as a preparedness for floods due to the additional dykes) such damages can be prevented. Any learned and internalized patterns of thought/feeling, as stated by Strauss (1992:3 referring to the arguments raised by D’Andrade 1981, 1984, 1987 and Quinn and Holland 1987) mediate both the interpretation of on-going experience and the reconstruction of memories. Such was the experience the farmers had at the time they were going to start their rainy season planting. Their memories of having a dry spell and drought were revived at the time they thought of adopting the learning of anticipating (preparing for) drought such as any ‘rain harvesing method’ as the strategy to respond better to the uncertainty of having appropriate rains. Storing more water in the field for a longer period of time by building ridges in the middle of the field

88


so as to increase soil moisture by preventing run off is the main objective of that method. Metode Panen Hujan (MPH, or rain harvesting method) is the term used by the CFS facilitator. ‘Dikotak-kotak’ is the term farmers used to for the new practice by looking at the result of building ridges, namely the formation of ‘kotak’ or squares in their fields. How many squares each farmer builds depends on his/her own interest by referring to the size of the field and his/her estimation of how good would the water be held on the field in the soil. A question remains as to what extent did the CFS farmers decide to put that new strategy into action? It was indeed not the same everywhere. How diverse was it? Diverse decisions, diverse field performances Only a month after the termination of the School, we found an uncommon field performance at the time the farmers began with preparing their fields. There were some fields with new ridges in the middle of the fields, cutting them into smaller squares, but in other fields they could not be found. Not all CFS alumni decided to divide their fields into smaller squares or did that for all fields they were cultivating at the same time. A farmer could also differ in his/her decision on the number of squares made in each field, for various reasons. What were they? For those who decided to make additional ridges, a similar reason was stated by each of them with only slight variation. The main reason was to prevent water to run off the field and to store it in the soil (as also mentioned by the facilitator in the School). Distributing water equally in the field was the second reason. Reducing the number of pests (earth worm) was voiced by a few farmers. It was also interesting to see the variation in the number of squares and the size of each square each farmer made, independent from the size of his/her field. The squares varied from 2 up to 15 in one field. How could it be so diverse? At the time each farmer was thinking of how to build the extra ridges, several elements stored in their minds were being activated. For example, the slopes in the fields, the roughness of the soil surface, an asymmetrical condition of the fields, soil texture, and the crops to be planted were taken into account in these decisions. Making ridges and considering the number of squares in the fields are thus examples of how farmers’ schema of anticipating (preparing for) drought is put into action. The followings are Amir’s and Tinem’s considerations and decisions: Amir decided to divide his field in Wetan Polaman into two squares to allow the distribution of water more equally over the entire field. His field had a flat surface so that water equally reaches each corner of his field. Another reason is the heavy black soil of the field that can hold water better than the light black one. Tinem, on the other hand, decided to divide her field into 15 squares due to the uneven soil surface. Therefore, she would like to even out water as much as possible to prevent the outbreaks of uret (a kind of worm, Phyllophaga sp). The soil type in her field in Gondang was whitish red soil (light-red-lime soil) called lemah ènthèng (light soil) which can’t hold water very well. It will percolate deeply during heavy rains. There are no ground water wells in that area due to the karst stones and deep ground water levels. Larvae also like to stay in the dry condition of lemah ènthèng (light soil), and thus easily infest the roots of crops, inhibiting crop growth. Tinem had the intention, therefore, to improve crop performance by practicing the ‘rain harvesting method’. “If the land has been divided into squares, the water could be held in the soil (megung) so that the worm could not stay alive. Hopefully the crops could grow well though there are low rains [since the soil is being wet everywhere]”, expressed Tinem.

89


Plate 4.1 Amir’s field in Wetan Polaman divided into 2 squares


Plate 4.2 Tinem’s field performance in Gondang after building ridges inside the field


Farmers have their detailed understanding of their field’s conditions in terms of topography, slope, soil types and textures. The cases of Amir’s and Tinem’s decisions reveal the farmers’ activation of some elements of their schema of cultivation that provoke the action by combining those elements with the new ideas of ‘anticipating (preparing for) drought’ and ‘building ridges to store water in the soil by preventing it to run off the field in what they learned as metode

90


panen hujan (rain harvesting method)’. What are the motivations for that decision? Improving crop performance and gaining yields by having more water and equal water distribution, preventing fertilizers to move out of the fileds or to neighboring fields, and avoiding pest infestation in a particular soil type. How about those who decided not to build ridges in their fields at all, or not to do that in some of their fields? Limited size of the field was one reason. The farmer’s perspective that water could already be distributed equally in their flat land was another reason. The other reasons were the low elevation of their fields, the type and textures of soil, the reduction of planting area by building ridges, the additional costs they had to incur, and the cultivation of secondary crops or teak, not rice. Sih decided to divide her fields in two locations: Wetan Ratan and Lor Polaman Kulon, but not in another place, Balong, which has a lower elevation than the neighboring fields. During heavy rains, water draining from other fields goes into her place, making a small reservoir there. Thus, Sih did think it was not necessary to build ridges which could increase standing water in some places. In addition, the soil type and texture in her field belong to heavy soil, which can retain water.

Arti, another CFS farmer, also had similar reasons to Sih, but. “I joined building ridges in the CFS and understood Koko’s explanations. Based on my talk with Jiyem and others, I decided not to build ridges in my field in Balong as Inem did. However, I did that in my field in Lor Polaman, adjacent to Tinem’s field, because of the uneven land there. I already discussed this with my father”.

Arti is a widow, and thus discusses all farming matters with her father though she plays a role in making decisions on cultivation. Discussions with fellow alumni of the School also strengthened her motivation for different actions in the two fields. Thought/feeling mediating the ongoing experience and memories is indeed playing a role in farmers’ decisions. Farmers’ ilmu titèn is a significant factor in interpreting the new idea of anticipating (preparing for) drought and in deciding whether to put it into action. Such a combination of elements, the new and the old knowledge, the scientific and the local one support Agrawal’s (1995) argument that dichotomizing the two domains of knowledge is unnecessary. However, merging of those two domains in particular situations could begin from an understanding of the elements originating from the ‘local knowledge’ and of the ones introduced from the different domain of knowledge (also see Winarto, 2004). Another new experience learned from the School was the need to also refer to weather conditions instead of only using their local cosmology such as pranata mangsa. To what extent did the farmers put that new idea into action? Pranata Mangsa and Rainfall Measurements: Planting Schedule Pranata Mangsa, the combination of Western Gregorian, solar, calendrical system and the Javanese astronomy based, agricultural time keeping (Hidayat, 2011; also see Indrowuryanto, 1999; Sriyanto, 2009), is still being used by the elder generation of farmers in Wareng. When

91


to plant and what to plant are always related to that calendrical system which connects the astronomical phenomena and the phenological developments of flora as well as the fauna’s appearance and behavior. Hidayat (2011:2) in his paper says that in that calendrical system, climatological parameters such as rainfall frequency, humidity of the air and wind directions were correlated with phenological developments of flora, and are very much the reflection of the position of the earth relative to the sun, hence the appearance of the night starry sky. The text of pranata mangsa decreed in 1855 thus accommodated the guidance on how the tropical year was divided into seasons that serve the purpose of agricultural activities (Hidayat, 2011). In Stigter’s perspective, pranata mangsa was made during ‘normal climate conditions’ in the past, unlike the recent climate change and variability (Stigter’s saying to the farmer in Sukra, Indramayu 2011). The question is, therefore, whether that calendrical system could be used by the farmers nowadays, e.g. in defining the planting schedule in the rainy season of 2007/08 under the uncertain weather conditions and in particular, after learning about the climate and weather components and their implications for the growth of plants. It is interesting to find diverse responses by the CFS alumni in their decisions on when to start planting in October 2007. First, there were some CFS alumni who decided to keep referring to their knowledge of pranata mangsa based on the ‘traditional practice’, as they and their fellows used to do. Feeling uncomfortable to receive fellows’ queries and reproaches about their uncommon practices became one reason to stick on the pranata mangsa. Because of that, they would not hastily start planting at the time heavy intense rains fell, if the rains did not match with the traditional time (cocog mongsoné). ‘False rains’ was the term they used for that rain which could not be an indicator of the beginning of the rainy season as Aming said: “Even though the rainfall is heavy nowadays, I could not see it as an indicator that the planting season could start soon. Heavy rains before the fifth month (mangsa kalima) cannot be trusted. Who knows these rains are udan kiriman (rains originating from other places)”.

However, unlike Aming, other farmers did not bother of referring to pranata mangsa, nor to weather conditions based on BMKG’s prediction received via television, or to individual initiatives of measuring rainfall following the school’s termination. A farmer, Tinem and her family, used to base their decisions on their relatives’ and/or neighbors’ actions. “I would follow the others’ decision. If they start planting, I will also do that. If not, my neighbors will talk about me behind my back”, said Tinem.

Tinem did not want to take the risk by herself. Any risk of harvest failure due to an inaccurate planting schedule would thus be shared with her fellows. Chinese research has shown that this kind of behavior is particularly found among the poorest farmers in China, which are also mainly elderly farmers there (Stigter et al., 2007). The third kind of response was the decision to also refer to what they learned in the School in addition to their local experience and knowledge. Some farmers gained the understanding that relying only on pranata mangsa in the recent uncertain weather situations is risky. Therefore, Arni for example, referred to her new understanding of rainfall categories (normal (N), above normal (AN), or below normal (BN)) and used those categories in interpreting

92


the conditions of rainfall in combination with her ilmu titèn to define her planting schedule. She explained her thought. “In CFS the facilitator explained that paddy needs lots of water to grow. If the rainfall has reached the categories of ‘normal’ or ‘above normal’ and if nature indicates the coming of the rainy season, I am more convinced (mantep) that the right time has come to prepare the planting”.

At this stage of entering the first rainy season planting following the School, we did not find any alumni who relied on the rainfall conditions only, in determining the planting date. Local knowledge of ilmu titèn and pranata mangsa was still used in assessing the natural indicators. Only a few of them made reference to the new categories of rainfall as learned in the CFS, in combination with their own interpretations of the appropriate time to begin their cultivation. Each of them was still learning to combine the new and the old ideas of defining the planting date. None of them had been able to develop their confidence yet of relying only on the rainfall data. Under conditions of a changing climate, this is in fact logical as long as BN, N and AN are based on averages over a short period of recent time or on a longer period of long ago (climatological normals) (Stigter and Al-Amin, 2006). They can not yet or no longer be trusted. Referring to their local knowledge and cosmology, the ‘true rains’ are those coming in the fifth month of the Javanese calendar (mangsa kalima).1 Prior to this month, all rains are considered as ‘udan kiriman’ (rains coming from elsewhere). One indicator of the ‘true rains’ is its ability to percolate to deeper layers of soil and to make the soil surface wet enough. To proof it, farmers used to do the plowing twice. If the soil is wet after two times plowing, it means that the water volume is enough to start planting. So when the rain fell by mid-October 2007, not all CFS alumni began preparing their fields. Some decided to wait, to see whether the rains would last long enough and were a ‘true rain’ (true start of the rainy season) as Aming did. They made observations on whether the rains wetted the soil enough to begin tilling the land. Some farmers, however, began to prepare their fields after it had been raining for several days. Waiting for the true rains to come, some farmers did not do anything until early November 2007 when, in their eyes, the true rains had come, in the fifth month of Javanese calendar. In a rush, some farmers began preparing their fields after several days of rain by also referring to their experience of a possible short or long drought (senggangan or benthatan) following the first true rains. In practice, therefore, the farmers would rely on their own experience and knowledge of the type of rain in terms of its implications for the soil, as well as to their Javanese cosmology in their decisions on when to start preparing their fields and begin planting. It should be realized that what scientifically is determining The fifth month in Javanese calendar or mangsa kalima (13 October—9 November) is known by farmers as bringing lots of rains. It is the time when tamarind (Tamarindus indica) starts to produce young leaves and when turmeric (Curcuma longa) and gadung (Dioscorea hispida atau D. Alata) start flowering. Some trees are producing fruits, such as: grape (Vitis labruscana), java plum (Eugenia cumini) gowok (Eugenia polycephala), pulasan (Nephelium mutabile), manggo (Mangifera indica), durian (Durio zibethinus), cempedak (Artocarpus champeden) and malay gooseberry (Phyllanthus acidus) (Wisnubroto, 1999:64). 1

93


between false and good starts of the rainy season are these unpredictable chances of dry spells beyond 7 to 10 days that could dry up also initially well wetted soils. This depends on their water contents after the earlier rains that should be sufficient to sustain the young seedlings. It might also be interesting to realize that young rice plants need less water (and fertilizer) than older ones and that therefore the soil water holding capacity and the prevention of water run off are more determining for survival in early dry spells in the rainy season than anything else.

Validating Local Knowledge and Practices Not all ideas introduced in the CFS were novel. Some teaching had already been part of farmers’ knowledge and practices. Examples of that are the choice of crop, weeding and tillage, and knowledge of pests and diseases. Yet, they carry out those practices empirically, without any scientific explanation. The latter is thus enriching farmers’ knowledge, as well as validating existing knowledge, and strengthening farmers’ confidence in their own traditional planting strategies. Confidence and belief are two factors playing important roles in internalizing new ideas (see Winarto, 2004), or strengthening the existing schema. Strauss and Quinn (1997; see Choesin, 2002) also argue that motivation and emotion are significant parts of a schema and its activation. That the new learning improves their confidence, belief, and motivation is something beneficial. What kind of ideas and practices were validated through the facilitators’ cause and effect explanations in the School? Selecting crops in particular seasons Farmers knew quite well of which plant needs to be cultivated in what season in what type of soil. That knowledge has been empirically developed and improved through years of planting experience. They have a concept of ‘cocog’ (appropriateness or suitability) of particular kinds of crops with the soil type and weather conditions of particular months in their calendrical system. Another concept known as ‘akur’ (congruence) explains their choice of crops in a multiple cropping system so as to avoid the competition between different crops in getting nutrients and water from the soil. In the School, the facilitator introduced an explanation that selecting crops should be adjusted to the conditions of rainfall, namely to the categories of rain as N, AN and BN, and in particular to the conditions of drought. This explanation and the facilitator’s advice to the farmers to observe the implications of rainfall for the growth of crops, the population of pests, and the infestation of diseases strengthened farmers’ own ideas of cocog and akur. Those new ideas could thus be easily incorporated in their existing knowledge of multiple cropping in a dry rainfed ecosystem. Soil tillage ‘Ndangir’ (plowing soil) is an activity farmers carry out in taking care of their plants. They practice that as part of their periodic cultivation activity to enable their plants to grow well and healthy, without competing in an early stage with the weeds in getting soil water and nutrients.

94


They also apply fertilizers following that work if weather is good. In the School, the farmers received an explanation from the facilitator that ‘ndangir’ is beneficial for the soil surrounding the plants to allow the plants to ‘breath’. Such an activity could also reduce water evaporation from the soil, and ease the way of water and nutrition to leach into the deeper soil layers. The farmers gained additional understanding on the objectives and benefits of what they practiced so far as expressed by Umi: “After following CFS, I now know the benefits of some activities I was already used to. For example, …breaking the soil surrounding the plants can reduce water evaporation from the soil… ..before I did that with the only intention to weed”.

This is an example of how the explanations received in the School enriched farmers’ understanding of the benefits of their own practices beyond their abilities to observe and to know them empirically. Pests and diseases The terms of ‘pests’ and ‘diseases’ are not quite strange for the IPM FFS alumni. Even though the farmers are familiar with those terms, and some have become part of their vocabulary, not all of them could differentiate quite sharply what pests and diseases were. Some farmers use these terms confusingly. They call insects that cause harm to plants ’diseases‘, and those that they can’t see ’pests‘ (see Winarto, 2004 for the farmers’ local categories for pests and diseases prior to their learning in IPM FFS). The further question is: how would the farmers control those pests and diseases found in their crops? Though some of them learned in IPM FFSs earlier that controlling pests and diseases using pesticides should be carried out judiciously, the farmers routinely used chemical pesticides as the way to control pests and diseases, without prior observation of the populations of pests and predators or natural enemies. They argue that measures to prevent the outbreaks of pests and diseases should be taken early rather than controlling them later if the infestation becomes severe. They also use the argument of the time constraints they have when carrying out the observations prior to the spraying of chemical pesticides, which would then be sprayed only at a later stage. Their reasons were similar to those of farmers in various other places who keep spraying pesticides (see Winarto et al., 2000; Winarto, 2004, 2006). In the School, the CFS participants learned that there are other alternative ways of controlling pests and diseases instead of relying on chemical pesticides only. For example, farmers used to control Aphids that infest crops in dry weather with chemical pesticides. In the School the facilitator taught them that Aphids would attack plants only when rains are lacking. In that condition, the plants have high contents of sugar which attracts Aphids. The facilitator told the farmers to use a simpler control: just spraying water to diminish that pest. The case of sharpening the understanding of different categories of pest and disease and the judicious ways of controlling them is an example of how the facilitator ‘corrected’ farmers’ understanding and practices of coping with pests/diseases, while also expanding their perspectives. In this case, the new ideas were introduced to replace the existing ones. It is

95


therefore different from the other two cases of selecting crops and practicing soil tillage, in which the new ideas were strengthening farmers’ existing perspectives. Another message farmers received from the facilitator was how to avoid failures in nursing rice seeds under dry conditions. How did the farmers put that advice into action? Altering the Planting Strategy: Avoiding Failures in Growing Seeds At the time the farmers joined the CFS, several farmers already practiced their own innovations in modifying the planting of rice seeds in their fields. What did they do? Instead of broadcasting the seeds directly in the field, or making a nursery bed, the farmers used a digging stick in pouring the seeds into the soil. They called the latter nonjo [active form of placing the seeds inside the holes] or ditonjo [passive form of the same action, covering the seeds with the top soil] and the first nyebar [active form of broadcasting seeds] and ngurit [active form of making a seed bed]. However, the early forms of producing rice seedlings (nyebar and ngurit) have been practiced for quite a long time throughout their experience as farmers. Therefore, in 2007, at the time a number of farmers joined the School, using a digging stick had not widely been adopted by farmers in Wareng. The learning in the School of avoiding risks in growing seeds under dry conditions contributed to the wider adoption of this strategy. How was the adoption going on? The CFS farmers told us that the way they prepared the seedlings would very much depend on the soil type, color, and texture. Each farmer could explain the reason of why they chose a particular type of seedling in relation to the soil characteristics as presented in Table 4.1 Table 4.1 Choice of rice seedling strategy and soil characteristics No Soil type

Soil color

Soil texture

1

Black

Clayish soil which can store water and produce standing water in the field. Suitable for planting rice in the rainy season.

Lemah Ireng Abot ([Ind.: tanah hitam berat; Eng.: heavy black clay)

Source: Fieldnotes of Anantasari, 2007—2009.

96

Rice Seedling method

Rice field areas

- Nursery bed and transplanting.

- Balong (western part), Sambisanga

- Broadcasting seeds without any fixed distance.

- Balong (eastern part), Lor Polaman Kulon, Lor Polaman Wetan, Wetan Polaman, Kranggan, Kepuh Kulon, Kepuh Wetan, Sawah


2

Lemah Ireng Sedeng (Ind.: tanah hitam sedang; Eng.: Light black clay)

Reddishblack

Sandy soil which can store water temporarily. Paddy can be planted in the sandy soil fields in the rainy season.

Broadcasting seeds without any fixed distance.

Kulon Suko, Saratan Kulon, Sidowayah, Kranggan

3

Lemah Ènthèng (Ind. : tanah ringan; Engl.: light red lime)

Whitishred

Gravel and chalk (karst), deep water lpercolation; not suitable for paddy under low rainfall, better for secondary crops.

Broadcasting seeds without any fixed distance

Wetan Ratan, Gondhang

Table 4.1 (Continued) In addition to developing the seedling strategies in relation to the soil characteristics, farmers could also have different strategies for the same soil type. For example, in the heavy black clay soil, some farmers used to have nursery beds in some areas (western part of Balong and Sambisongo), whereas some others preferred to broadcast the seeds in other areas (Wetan Polaman, Lor Polaman, Kranggan, and Kepuh). Understanding the characteristics of particular rice field areas—though with similar soil type—has been part of farmers’ ilmu titèn. Using a digging stick in seedling (nonjo or ditonjo) was in fact practiced by farmers in Wareng in planting maize and vegetables, but not for rice. Only a few of them initiated this practice for rice prior to CFS. Some farmers understood that using a digging stick and covering the seeds with soil would prevent the loss of seeds from birds and some insects. However, this practice was perceived as something burdensome in terms of time allocation and human resources. The CFS facilitator’s explanation and strong emphasis on the benefits of this practice of not only avoiding seed loss, but also preparing for drought, motivated the alumni’s decision to adopt the new strategy. The annual short and long droughts (dry spells) in the beginning or middle of the rainy season also stimulated the farmers to practice the use of a digging stick in seedling. See Table 4.2 It is interesting to note from the table that the dominant change of seedling strategy was from broadcasting seeds to the use of a digging stick and not the making of a nursery bed. It is likely that broadcasting seeds is more vulnerable to drought than a nursery bed. In the latter, the farmers could keep watering the seeds from the well close by. However, variation was also found among different fields cultivated by the same farmers as the examples of Jiyem, Sih, Arti, Giyo and Kiran show. It is a common practice that a farmer’s planting strategies in different fields could vary due to differences in soil types and textures, water standing in the field and water holding capacity. For example, the fields in the western part of Balong can retain water longer than the ones in the eastern part of Balong, so that the fields in the western part do not experience cracks because of drought. Those who have their fields in this area prefer to keep the nursery bed to avoid any submersion of seeds which could prevent the growth of seedlings. Due to such a soil texture, some farmers decided not to alter their

97


seedling strategy, though they understood the reasons for practicing the use of a digging stick in seedling as learned in the School. On the contrary, a dry spell of either senggangan (the shortdrought) or benthatan (the long one) in the eastern part of Balong could easily dry up the fields. This is why farmers in this area decided to try practicing the use of a digging stick for paddy to secure their harvests. Nevertheless, not all farmers who used to broadcast their seeds decided to change their practices, such as in the case of Armi (see no. 17 in the Table 4.2). Table 4.2 The CFS alumni’s decision of seedling strategies in 2006 and 2007 rainy season planting No Farmers Field location and soil type

Seedling strategy Rainy season 2006 Rainy season 2007

1, 2

Wetan Ratan/light red lime

Using digging stick

Using digging stick

Kulon Suko/heavy black clay

Using digging stick

Using digging stick

Balong/ heavy black clay

Nursery bed

Nursery bed

Lor Polaman Kulon/ heavy blackclay

Broadcasting

Using digging stick

Wetan Ratan/ light red lime

Broadcasting

Using digging stick


Nursery bed

Nursery bed

Lor Polaman Wetan 1/ heavy black clay

Broadcasting

Using digging stick

Lor Polaman Wetan 2/ heavy black clay

Broadcasting

Using digging stick

Saratan Kulon Kalen/ light black clay

Broadcasting

Using digging stick

Saratan Wetan Kalen/ heavy black clay

Broadcasting

Using digging stick

Lor Polaman Wetan/ heavy black clay

Broadcasting

Using digging stick


Nursery bed

Using digging stick

Kranggan/ heavy black clay Lor Polaman Kulon/ heavy black clay

Broadcasting Broadcasting

Using digging stick Using digging stick

Saratan Kulon/ light black clay

Broadcasting

Using digging stick

3

4

5

6

7

Jiyem & husband

Sih

Amto

Yani

Arti

Umi

Source: Fieldnotes of Anantasari, 2007—2009

98


8

Aming

Lor Polaman Kulon/ heavy black clay

Broadcasting

Using digging stick

9

Tono

Kepuh/heavy black clay

Broadcasting

Using digging stick

Gondhang/ light red lime

Broadcasting

Using digging stick

Sawah/ heavy black clay

Broadcasting

Using digging stick

Wetan Polaman/ heavy black clay

Broadcasting

Using digging stick

10

Amir

Wetan Polaman/ heavy black clay

Nursery bed

Nursery bed

11

Giyo

Kepuh Kulon/ heavy black clay

Broadcasting

Using digging stick

Kepuh Wetan/ heavy black clay

Broadcasting

Using digging stick

Sambisongo/ heavy black clay

Nursery bed

Nursery bed

Kulon Suko/ heavy black clay

Nursery bed

Nursery bed


Broadcasting

Using digging stick

Balong (owned by his elder sister)

Nursery bed

Nursery bed

12

Kiran

13

Inem


Nursery bed

Nursery bed

14

Giyem

Sawah/ heavy black clay

Broadcasting

Using digging stick

15

Tinem


Broadcasting

Using digging stick

Gondhang

Broadcasting

Using digging stick

Sawah

Broadcasting

Using digging stick

16

Diyo

Wetan Polaman/ light black clay

Broadcasting & Nursery bed

Using digging stick

17

Armi

Kranggan/light red lime

Broadcasting

Broadcasting

Saratan/ light black clay

Broadcasting

Broadcasting

Kulon Suko/ heavy black clay

Broadcasting

Broadcasting

Table 4.2 (Continued) Reflecting and Establishing Schema: Appropriate Strategy and Successful Harvests In reality, the dry-spell in the beginning of 2007/08 rainy season was quite long (up to 30 days). Benthatan, that was what the farmers were experiencing at the time some just completed the building of extra ridges in the middle of their fields, as well as planting the seeds, some with the digging stick (ditonjo). At that time, the seedlings were just one week old. The drought

99


affected the growth of those small seedlings. The diverse planting strategies, using a digging stick and making a nursery (seedbed), soon provided an opportunity for the farmers to find differences in the growth of seedlings. Those that were grown in the nursery beds could not survive well and most of the seedlings died. The soils were cracking elsewhere. A different performance of the seedlings was found in the fields with heavy black soil and additional ridges, in particular where the seeds were covered with the top soil (ditonjo). The fields were not cracked as severely as those with light black soils or gravel (light red lime) or without additional ridges. The seedlings in the first fields could grow well. They looked green. Even after some rains did fell, the seedlings in the nurseries could not grow and had to be replaced with new seeds. That was not the case with the seedlings in the nonjo practice. Such different performances did provide a good chance for the farmers to see the relationships between drought, rain harvesting method, soil type, and seedling strategies. This is a case of how diverse seedling strategies and the growth of seedlings under dry weather create an aggregate performance of varied growing conditions of the seedlings. Such a diversity becomes part of farmers’ extra-personal structure (see Strauss and Quinn ,1997), so that each farmer in Wareng and surrounding villages can see the differences and assess them. That early stage of the 2007/08 rainy season planting was thus a very good arena for the farmers, not only the CFS alumni, but also the other (non-CFS) farmers to learn which strategy showed better crop performance and had more advantages than the others. The farmers who experienced good growth of their plants, not only at the seedling stage, but also through the vegetative stage up to the generative stages, felt so gracious of their decisions. Feeling proud, relief, and happy were their expressions every time they met us. There was also joy at the time of harvesting. Harvesting is obviously the best time for the farmers to see whether their decisions and strategies produced expected yields or otherwise (see Winarto, 2004). Table 4.3 reveals the differences the farmers obtained in yields between two rainy seasons planting (2006/07 and 2007/08). It is likely that differences in yields between the 2006/07 rainy season and the 2007/08 rainy season, when the CFS farmers practiced the ‘rain harvesting method’, and without respectively with a digging stick in seedling, at least partly explain the improvements in the 2008 yields. Of course rainfall distribution differences may be also involved. Such an improvement for most of the CFS farmers was for them a proof of the efficacy of the novel strategies in a climate situation where rains were not abundant. Such learning did improve their knowledge and confidence. As the farmers obtained better yields than the previous year, their ability to contribute to the ritual of Rasulan, the annual celebration after harvesting, did increase in the form of food. In each Rasulan, every household has to contribute meals consisting of one chicken and sticky cooked rice. In 2007, the total number of chicken provided by a total of 80 households was only 24 in comparison to 40 in the 2008 ritual. See plates 4.3 and 4.4 of the 2007 and 2008 Rasulan rituals.

100


Table 4.3 Yields of paddy in the rainy season of 2006/07 and 2007/08 No. Location and soil type

Size (m2)

RS 06/07* (kg)

RS 07/08** (kg)

1a. Wetan Ratan Light red lime b. Balong Heavy black clay

1000

300

300***

3000

300

1600

c.

Kulon Suko Heavy black soil

1000

550

650

2a. Wetan Ratan Light red lime b. Balong Heavy black clay c. Lor Polaman Kulon Heavy black clay 3a. Lor Polaman Wetan 1 Heavy black clay b. Lor Polaman Wetan 2 Heavy black clay

800

200

200***

1000

400

400

1300

550

600

910

Less than 650**** Less than 650****

720****

4a. Lor Polaman Wetan 2 Heavy black clay b. Balong Heavy black clay 5. Wetan Polaman Heavy black clay 6a. Lor Polaman Wetan Heavy black clay b. Balong (owned by elder sibling)

600

240

360

780

360

480

1560

Less than 800

800

900

360

600

1500

660

780

7

Balong Heavy black clay

1400

500

550

8

Sawah Heavy black clay

700

150

275

550

Less than 250

275

9a. Lor Polaman Wetan Heavy black clay

700

720****

Source: Field notes of API-UGM research team, 2008 Notes: * 35 days after planting: benthatan (long drought) for more than 40 days, rare rains till harvesting. ** One week after planting: benthatan (long drought) for 35 days, rain till harvesting. *** Though the yields in 2007 were not significantly improved, the plants could sustain under lack of rains in the beginning of the planting season. **** Yields for the two rice fields.

101


b. c.

Gondhang Light red lime Sawah Heavy black clay

10. Wetan Polaman Light black clay

1500

Less than 350 500

480

Less than 250 330

245

180

315

Table 4.3 (Continued) Plate 4.3 and 4.4 Meals provided in the 2007 and 2008 Rasulan rituals

Photos by Anantasari 2007, 2008

While reflecting on their successful harvests, the farmers were strengthening the new ideas in their schema of planting paddy in a dry rainfed ecosystem. Such is a way of establishing the new schema of farming by incorporating the idea of ‘anticipating (preparing for) drought’ in the season where a long dry spell did indeed occur and the rainfall was not abundant. Now that such a new idea as ‘anticipating (preparing for) drought’ proved to be advantageous, it will become part of their memories at the time they are approaching the next year rainy season planting. Expecting the same results in the future, that was their dream. ۞ Preparing for drought through modifying strategies in land management and seedlings, those were the anticipations the farmers put into action at the time they were entering the 2007/08 rainy season planting following the termination of the CFS. The farmers’ decisions were motivated by their thought/feeling of having the traumatic experience of facing hazards under a long dry spell in the beginning of the rainy season and the lack of rainfall in their dry rainfed ecosystem. The learners’ local knowledge of different soil characteristics which play an important role in soil tillage, kinds of crops to be planted, and seedling methods, however, was also activated at the moment of taking decisions. Therefore, diverse decisions were the outcomes, though the CFS farmers shared an understanding of ‘anticipating (preparing for) drought’ in their ecosystem. It was just a coincidence that, like the previous year, also the

102

climatic conditions of 2007/08 rainy season planting were such that a long dry-spell following the first rains in October occurred and that the rains that followed were ‘normal’. Diversity in plant performance in combination with understanding of the causal factors of varying outcomes enable the farmers to observe, evaluate, and learn of which strategy produced beneficial results. Through mimesis, conversation, and discussion (see Borofsky, 1987; Winarto, 2004), other farmers could adopt that strategy. Evolutionary changes in farmers’ cultivation strategies are, thus, the results of individual decisions in adopting the strategy which—in their minds—is the most effective one. Nevertheless, we also have to consider the dynamics of farmers’ environmental conditions and the continuous dialectics between the farmers’ thought and learning with the existing particular weather and climate situations determining their vulnerabilities. Changes are real. In the following chapter we present the farmers’ continuing learning in a year where weather conditions were not the same, at a time they were also interacting with an expert in agrometeorology. What learning progress was there in 2008/09?

103

Chapter 5 Learning to be Rainfall Observers Yunita T. Winarto, Kees Stigter, Esti Anantasari, Kristiyanto and Hestu Prahara “...the boundaries between science, scholarly knowledge and folk knowledge, ...are constantly shifting, and the distinctions themselves are not always helpful” (Ellen, 2004:418, 420).

Ellen’s statement referring to Agrawal (1995, see Ellen, 2004:420) portrays farmers’ knowledge after receiving new ideas introduced by outsiders, the state agencies and the corporates. The Climate Field School (CFS), the recommended strategies, farmers’ responses and understanding as presented in Chapters 3 and 4 are examples of how the two domains of knowledge are mixed and become part of the ongoing formation of farmers’ schema. The folk knowledge which is termed by farmers as ilmu titèn has been enriched by various new lexicons, phrases, and ideas related to weather and climate. Such was the condition at the time an agrometeorologist, Kees Stigter, visited them at the end of 2007 accompanied by the anthropologists. The agrometeorologist’s queries and farmers’ questions at the first meeting led again to a deeper understanding that learning about changes in weather and climate and the impacts on their crops would not stop once they finished the ’schooling‘. The farmers’ ilmu titèn needs to be permanently enriched with new knowledge of the ongoing changes in their habitat. Stimulating and motivating themselves to be more alert of the changes was the most important lesson the farmers gained from the expert. Furthermore, the expert’s perspectives of improving the sustainability of farmers’ learning opened the ‘door’ for making the lessons learned in the School even more part of their daily practices. How to do that? In this chapter we examine the efforts of both the scholars and the farmers to make the scientific habits of carrying out systematic observations part of farmers’ knowledge and practices. Over time, the farmers’ existing knowledge and practices or the ’ethnoscience‘, as it was called by Ellen (2004), were gradually improved, becoming part of the ’scientific one‘. Throughout the process, their lexical knowledge of weather and climate was improved with textualization skill, so as to produce institutionalized textual scientific practices (see Ellen, 2004:438—39). In this chapter we will present the ongoing process of institutionalizing farmers’ ways of learning in ’making them agrometeorological observers‘ (see Winarto et al., 2010a, 2011). Another significant turning point from the first meeting with the agrometeorologist was the beginning of a more intense and continuous intersubjectivity relationship between the farmers and the scholars. That was the first time for the anthropologists to play a more active role in facilitating farmers, not merely observing and accompanying them. This formed a real step of anthropologists moving into the domain of ‘Public Anthropology’ and practicing the so-

104

Learning to be Rainfall Observers

called ‘Collaborative Ethnography’ (see Borofsky, 2002; Lassiter, 2005a, 2005b; Winarto, 2010; Stigter and Winarto, Chapter 1). Gradually, the role of the scholars was shifted from only being the ’observers‘ as presented in the first part of this Chapter to becoming the ‘observercollaborators’. Here we present the stories of how the collaboration developed over time while accompanying and assisting the farmers in carrying out the observations. How the two parties—the farmers and the observer-collaborators—reached consensus of carrying out the collaboration, engaged in a continuous dialogue, responded to contested ideas, negotiated with one another and, at last, decided to end the collaboration, are examined in the second part. Learning from an Agrometeorologist: Improving Farmers’ Observability A conversation between the farmers and the agrometeorologist at the end of December 2007 became the first opportunity where the two parties met, discussed, and learned from one another of the existing knowledge and conditions the farmers faced in the ongoing climate change. The discussions in the fields and at the leader’s house focused on the relationship between various components of the agroecosystem and their relation to climate and weather components. The discussions also addressed the issue of climate change and its explanatory factors; some indicators of changes in farmers’ habitat; and the need to institutionalize measuring rainfall in farmers’ own plots, by using raingauges. The agrometeorologist also explained in detail of how to make a raingauge and how to measure the rainfall. That was the beginning of collaborative research between the farmers and the scholars, following the farmers’ consensus to carry out detailed observations of the changes in their environment. “Once there are new events in the environment, such as global warming, the conditions actually change from what they were”, that was the expert’s remark. What could the farmers do otherwise in the absence of any incoming information on weather and climate than being more alert to the ongoing changes? In that first meeting, the agrometeorologist explained that by observing rainfall continuously and documenting the changes in their environment, farmers could understand better the pattern of increasing variabilities of climate and their further implications for tending fields and crops. Not only that. Based on this improved understanding the farmers could then evaluate which parts of their local knowledge—the local cosmology, pranata mangsa, and weather lore as part of their ilmu titèn—can still be relied on in cultivation, and which parts were losing their meaning or needed further re-interpretation. This way the farmers understood the need to pay more attention to their changing habitat. The following was the brief report and thought of the agrometeorologist after his first visit to Wareng: Box 5.1 The agrometeorologist’s brief report after visiting Wareng On 23 December I was able to make another visit to a group of farmers that had followed a government organized Farmer Field School (FFS) on Climatic Change in a rainfed dry land area of Indonesia. After Indramayu in West Java (Stigter, 2007a) I was now somewhat closer to my home in East Java, that is only two days of car travel, in Gunungkidul, Central Java, near Yogya(karta). This was about as far for me as Kintamani (Bali) on which FFS I reported also earlier this year (Stigter, 2007b).

105

Winarto, Stigter, Anantasari, Kristiyanto and Prahara

The Gunungkidul FFS alumni have formed another group, now consisting of both men and women alumni, but this one has not yet performed collective actions in relation to what they have learned in the school. However, some changes were happening by building ridges in the middle of individual fields to conserve water throughout this coming rainy season. We were brought by some women farmers to such fields. We thoroughly discussed the causes of the clearly better growing crops in one of these field parts, because they were not sure of the reason(s) behind the better performance. We jointly came to the conclusion that (partial) blocking of water flows caused by slightly sloping land was the main cause of better water management in those parts of these multiple cropping fields. This appeared to be a stronger effect than better infiltration in somewhat lighter soil parts, even where strong flows had been led off the land at the edges. Discussing their intercropping habits, it was argued that various crops were planted at different times but that they preferred that all farmers planted the same crops at the same time, as early as the rains allowed for the crops concerned. They recognized the positive microclimate influence of hedges apart from a slight shading effect at the edges but were not aware of any services rendered by one crop to the other. This could be a nice subject for future observations. In a lengthy group discussion with about 25 female and male farmers, with an obviously leading role for some of the female farmers, their main questions were on sources and future of climate change. Their main worries were on the present and future effects of climate change. They observed that the guidance they received from their environment through traditional knowledge in local observations built up over time was no longer of much use and this confused and frightened them. They observed much later starts of rainy seasons and unusual dry spells. Was there anything that could be done? In this discussion we concluded that not so much was to be expected from the government apart from subsidizing and organizing FFSs. For the time being not much can be expected from available scientific products, in the form of services provided, as well. This was illustrated with the available forecast products from BMG (Indonesian National Weather Services) that also here, like in Indramayu, were of little help to these farmers because of the local scale of much of the phenomena. Based on what I saw and heard, in the field stories as well as in the group discussions, there are for the time being four things that could be done to try to get a grip on the changing environmental conditions: - determine which traditional observations (birds, insects, plants, trees, winds, shades etc.) and which local “weather lore” are losing their meanings; and whether there are some that still make sense, even when occurring in different points in time or space; - determine any visible effects in later growth stages of any of the intercrops on another crop; - study rainfall records of one or two nearest weather stations over at least the past ten to twenty years, preferably daily but at least decadal (and better not monthly) rainfall, to observe trends in the start of the rainy season, in dry spells in the beginning of rainy seasons and in other properties of rainfall amounts and distributions over these years;

Box 5.1 (Continued)

106


- measure on-farm rainfall in the open throughout the year at several places in the farmed area, simply with white metal cylinders of one meter high and diameter, measuring the water height twice a day, for example at the morning and at the evening, with a wooden dip stick. Stigter (2008b) Adopted from the original source: Climate Change is confusing Indonesian farmers: a visit to another Climate Field School in Indonesia, that of Gunungkidul near Yogyakarta.

Box 5.1 (Continued) To facilitate the farmers, as well as to follow their learning and findings, the agrometeorologist agreed to regularly visit the farmers in the coming years. Yet, he would not be able to facilitate the farmers’ learning day-by-day. The questions were not only how would the farmers do their observations following the agrometeorologist’s explanations and suggestions, but also what should the anthropologists do while in the field with the farmers. Those were parts of our reflections of how to move forward. Stimulating farmers, gaining varied responses Inspired by the expert’s suggestion to observe in detail whatever changes were occurring in farmers’ habitat, Winarto had the idea of stimulating farmers to take notes of their observations. It was not an idea without any basis. The farmers attending the meeting were the alumni of the CFS who had been exposed to the practice of carrying out decadal observations. They had written up their findings, assumptions and recommendations (see Chapter 3). “Practices recorded in writing” were already part of the exercises the CFS farmers did. While observing the farmers during their learning in the CFS (in 2007), Winarto found that in one evening, around 5 farmers—the members of one group—came to Bu Jiyem’s house with the intention to do their ‘home-work’: answering a set of questions provided by the facilitator. They sat together around one table, reading slowly the questions as written in their notebooks, and then discussed their answers. One farmer wrote down the answers on a piece of paper.

On the one hand, therefore, textualizing the lexical understanding of their empirical observations was not novel (see for examples Pontius et al., 2002; Winarto, 2004). That was also an essential component of the capability of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) farmers’ alumni in pursuing their novel ways of systematic experimentation. The IPM farmers called that new skill ‘Farmers’ Science’ (Sains Petani) (see Winarto, 2004; Untung, 2007; Suprapto, 2007). On the other hand, referring to the reality that literacy is also a component of the ’ethnoscience‘, Winarto thought that textualizing the farmers’ observation would highly support their own learning. The written products could also be shared with the other farmers, including future

107


generations. Such is the intersubjective nature of what the farmers observe and note. Based on those references and thoughts, Winarto initiated the idea of distributing notebooks to each member of the group where farmers could write down their observations. Winarto asked Anantasari—the graduate student in anthropology joining the research—to develop a set of questions as a guidance for the farmers in carrying out their observations. From a conversation with the agrometeorologist following the meeting in December 2007 of what more should the farmers pay attention to in their observations, one item was considered as a good point for further thought by the farmers: what crops grow best among the others in the coming season. A list of questions was then developed as presented in Box 5.2. Box 5.2 List of questions distributed to the farmers 1. What kind of natural phenomena are changing? a. What are they? b. When are those changes occurring? c. What are the indicators for these changes? d. What were you used to do prior to these changes? e. What are you going to do after being aware of these changes? 2. What is your anticipation (preparedness) for the future planting season? 3. What kind of crops grow best in this season? 4. Why do you think that those crops are best in their growth? Source: Anantasari, fieldnotes, 2008.

Anantasari explained to the farmers that those questions were only a guide for them in their observations. Surprisingly we received various responses from the farmers. Some farmers were stimulated by the exercise and wrote down what they thought to be important based on their observations and interests. Some other farmers felt the exercise as a burden. The farmers’ leader learned of such feelings as voiced by some of her group’s members. Surprisingly, in a group’s monthly meeting in early 2008, the farmers’ leader voiced her strong argument against the practice of taking notes. In her perspective, the questions as written in the notebook were similar to ’exam-questions‘. Representing her group members, she further argued that some farmers thought that they had to present the answers at each monthly meeting, and they “could not sleep well the previous night” if they were not well prepared. The leader also voiced her opinion that the information presented in written form by the farmers would only benefit the researcher in preparing her Master Thesis. Emphasizing this, she opposed the idea of such a textualization of her group members’ observations. However, we found other farmers arguing against the leader’s opposition by articulating the importance of such an exercise for their own benefits. Those who did the writing gained a positive experience in doing that. Though we already expressed our apologies for those unexpected feelings of some farmers and explained again the objectives for those written observations that were far beyond any benefit for us, the farmers’ leader persisted with her strong and emotional objections. It was a good lesson for us to understand the conflicting perspectives among the farmers. Those who voiced their arguments against the leader’s reaction could not alter her persistent opposition. Any collective action of

108


pursuing that particular exercise could not succeed without the leader’s agreement. Nevertheless, individual farmers that were interested to do that, continued to write down their own observations. In our understanding, the leader’s objection was not only due to the complaints raised by members of her group, but it was also caused by the way she felt that she should behave as a ‘leader’, protecting her members’ needs and avoiding any unnecessary burden to her members. In her reluctance, she did not consider the benefits of such documentation for individual farmers as well as for the groups that had been formed, and to a certain extent also for third parties beyond the boundaries of her world. This exemplifies that the intersubjectivity of any ideas, so that those ideas can be transmitted to others and be part of the ‘memory externalization’ (see Ellen, 2004), was beyond her reach. Despite the leader’s disagreement, at last, six farmers decided to continue their documentations and they were able to formulate their observations in a written form as presented in Box 5.3. Box 5.3 Individual farmer’s textualized observations Name

Farmers’ writing

Yani

The elderly people said: ”If the cotton leaves have fallen, the rain will come soon. Now, the cotton leaves are still plenty and have not yet fallen, but the rains already come”. This year, the rain came in November (Syawal). The first rains lasted only one day, but the second rains up to three days. Hence, many farmers started broadcasting seeds or planting seeds with a digging stick. They planted maize, groundnuts and soybeans. But, unfortunately, therewere no rains for one full month, so that the crops did not grow well and finally died. Plenty of paddy seedlings died, except the ones planted with a digging stick. The soils became cracked.

Arni

I did not hear the birds singing this year, in 2008, in particular not in this hamlet of Wareng IV. In the ninth month of the traditional Javanese calendar (March 2008), the paddy has turned yellow, so that we can harvest it 10 days from now. To plant maize in the second season, it would be better to wait till month nine (Javanese calendar), waiting for the walang kerèk (a kind of hopper, Cyrtacanthacris nigricornis) to start ’singing‘. ....Usually this insect starts ‘singing’ at night in month nine of the Javanese calendar. In the past, thunderstorms used to occur in month nine, but this year they occurred in month six, causing people’s death. But then the thunderstorms came again in month nine. Last year, the standing water in the fields was full in month nine, but this year of 2008, the standing water was already full in month seven. Farmers have to be able to prepare for the condition by: - replanting/regreening the habitat; and - reducing the use of chemical pesticides.

Source: Anantasari and Nur Hidayah fieldnotes, 2008.

109


The use of chemical pesticides would make the soil infertile. The lack of green (organic) fertilizer could make the chemical pesticides killing all living things in the soil. That will not benefit the farmers because natural enemies (farmers’ friends) will be killed. Farmers have to be able to put nature in equilibrium by selecting varieties according to the prevailing conditions. Giyo

Daily observations of the fields and weather/climate. (written by his wife)

Arti

There are no sounds at all of the Srigunting (Dicrurus macrocercus) bird. The rains were very heavy, with strong winds, thunderstorms, lots of rains in the evening, standing water on the ground. Pests were easily gone. The most productive crops this year: Paddy (on the heavy and light black soils), maize (light black soil), kolonjono (grass for fodder), soybean and groundnuts. Enough water and fertilizers, no pests. To prepare for the changes, I need to have a seasonal calendar or documentation to compare the rains of this year with those of next year, and to compare the kind of changes occurring with those that are going to occur.

Diyo

I remembered that when I was small, in the southern part of our village, there was a dense rainforest. At that time, in the beginning of the rainy season (rendheng) the rains were always normal, arrived at the appropriate time (in line with the pranata mangsa). After the forest trees were chopped down, up to now, I have the feeling that the beginning of the rainy season is not in line any longer with the pranata mangsa. Is it because of the deforestation? Before those changes, farmers used to cultivate according to the season, but now it is different. For example: maize is planted in the rainy season, but also in the second season (marengan). Probably because it does not cost us a lot in time and money. Presently paddy is in its reproductive stage. It needs a lot of water, but the rains are not enough. Usually, at this period of time, month eight, the rains were plenty. During my grandparents’ time, people did the planting by using pèung, a kind of ritual according to the Javanese calendar. For example, before broadcasting seeds, my grandparents used to bring the seeds to the fields wearing clean and considerate clothes, and they were fasting without talking. When the rain came, we collectively broadcasted the seeds, ngawu-ngawu (arranging the fields), by using the calendar to find the best day. The seeds were the original Javanese seeds. To prepare for the changes, engineers in agriculture produced high yielding varieties, so that we can plant early maturing varieties, hybrid maize, hybrid coconuts, etc. But this does not mean that we could not use our grandparents’ rituals and traditional calendar (pètungan). For this season, the best crop is maize. The dry fields in our place are productive and appropriate for maize to grow.

Amir

The best crops this season: Paddy, kolonjono (Pennisetum purpureum, grass for fodder), sorghum (for black heavy soil), maize and vegetables (for light heavy soil).

Box 5.3 (Continued)

110


Why those crops are growing well? Because those crops can stand water even when the rains are above normal. Farmers have to be able to prepare for changes in the following ways: Farmers have to protect their environment well by practicing cultivation strategies seriously, to make the soil productive. Farmers have to understand the situation by using appropriate varieties according to the soil conditions.

Box 5.3 (Continued) Since only six farmers did their documentation, the question was: how would the farmers present their observations in front of the agrometeorologist at his next visit? Surprisingly we found the solution on the basis of farmers’ consensus to do group observations focusing on a particular theme for each group. The farmers used the groupings they had during the training in the School. Each group voiced their interest to focus on a particular issue. Finally, there were five groups with the following themes: a) rainfall measurements; b) soil conditions; c) pest and disease conditions; d) evaluating the ’rain harvesting method‘; and e) suitable crops. That was agreed upon in the monthly meeting. How could we explain such an easy consensus in comparison to the conflict on individual note taking of their observations? It is likely that this kind of group observations, discussions and presentations has been part of farmers’ practices throughout the training in the IPM FFS and the CFS. They did so regularly. Moreover, by working in a group consisting of 4 to 5 farmers, they could divide the burden and share the work. It remained a problem how to provide room for both kinds of presentation in the next meeting with the expert. Presenting the observed phenomena Farmers’ accord to carry out the observations and prepare their group presentations also eased our burden. Farmers organized themselves in groups according to the School’s grouping and decided on who should be each group’s coordinator and presenter. The question now was how to also accommodate the presentation of individual observations and documentation amidst the reluctance of the leader to do that. Since we were able to collect the documentation of these 6 farmers, we decided to send those notes directly to the agrometeorologist, prior to the meeting. To give the farmers enough time to present their observations and gaining benefits from the discussions, we decided to allocate two days to meeting the agrometeorologist. The first day focused on each group’s presentation and discussion, whereas the second day would be used for a field visit and Stigter’s comments on both the visit and the individual writings. In preparing and organizing the meeting, we positioned ourselves as the farmers’ assistants in outlining the agenda and schedule and providing some financial assistance for meals. Besides preparing the group presentations, we asked the farmers to approach the leaders of both the local government and local agricultural officials by informing and inviting them to join the meeting. We called the meeting :

111


Temu Muka Petani dan Akademisi bersama Prof. Kees Stigter (INSAM-Agromet Vision): Respons terhadap Perubahan Iklim: Strategi Budidaya Tanaman Pangan Kelompok Tani Sedio Mulyo (The Meeting of Farmer-Scientists with Prof. Kees Stigter (INSAM-Agromet Vision): Response to Climate Change: Farming Strategies of Sedio Mulyo Farmer Groups)

Without our acknowledgment, however, the farmers’ leader invited a non-profit-organization (NGO), not only to attend the meeting, but also to financially support the event. So this NGO considered itself part of the organizers of the event. It was surprising that in the opening speech by the farmers’ leader, she emphasized the farmers’ problems and weaknesses in defining the strategy to respond to drought, as well as in ’documenting‘ their knowledge and practices. She thus expressed her interest to get help from us, the scholars, and also from the NGO in improving their strategies and documentation capabilities. What she officially articulated in her speech was of course different from her strong objection to her fellows’ efforts in documenting their observations. Responding to that request, Stigter indicated that: “...the actual expert is the farmer him/herself. What we need is a combination of your expertise and our knowledge about the present phenomena. The real observer is the farmer, he knows what is going on in the field. What we bring is an understanding on the processes behind the conditions”.

These remarks underlined our perspectives of how to build up the collaboration between the two parties: farmers as the key observers and knowledgeable persons of their own world, and scholars as the assistants in advancing farmers’ understanding. Combining the knowledge of the two worlds was the expert’s emphasis. Each group presented the brief findings of their observations prepared on paper as they used to do in the School. The first group represented the rainfall data, that were in fact based on random observations on particular days, only in four decadal periods of observation, by using the oil can and a measuring cup in use for baking cakes. The following was the report presented by the leader’s daughter, Ina: “...the rainfall measurements were carried out in February and March 2008. On the first day the rain was up to 111mm, followed by 10 days of rain between February 1 and 10. Between February 11 and 20, I did not measure the rainfall, but the rains went on for 5 days. From the 21st of February till the1st of March 2008, the rainfall was 54 mm with 8 days of rain. From March 2 till 11, the rainfall was 114 mm, with 8 days of rain. [I did the measurements] only in those 4 decadal periods of rainfall. After that period, the rains were rare and could not be measured. The local people used to say: hujan kiriman (‘incoming rains‘, not the ’true rains‘, only of short duration after a period of dryness)...”

Responding to that report, Stigter first said that the rainfall measurements could only be meaningful for a longer period of time and in comparison to other places and official long term rainfall data. However, the raingauge and the cup used by the farmers were not valid tools for measuring rainfall. After a thorough discussion of why the equipment was not suitable and why the measuring activities were not carried out regularly for the whole period of time in a number

112


of points of observation, the agrometeorologist agreed to assist the farmers in getting correct raingauges. He also suggested them to measure the rainfall in different fields for comparison, to capture the variability of ecosystem and rainfall. It was interesting to note that in response to his questions and comments, the leader emphasized the farmers’ constraints in producing good documentation of their activities. She expressed her dream of having good and strong farming groups, supported with evidence of their activities in the form of documents. She dreamt not only of having a strong farming group, but also of showing off her group’s prominent activities to other farmers and external parties. This is evidence of the different responses, motivations and articulations the leader produced in various events of social interaction. In front of the Others (the experts, the NGO representatives, and the local authorities), she expressed the problems her group members had with the intention of gaining some support from the Others. Arni represented the second group’s observations of the soil conditions in her writings and presentations as follows: There are four soil types in Wareng village: 1) white chalk consisting mainly of chalk; 2) red clay soil with sand; 3) black clay soil without sand; and 4) gravel in red, white, black colors and with high porosity. There are also two kinds of soil: heavy and light. The heavy soil has deep layers, black color, high aeration and soil permeability. The light soil has thin layers, low aeration and soil permeability. Conclusion: the heavy soil is suitable for paddy and other varieties resistant to much water. In the second season it can be planted with vegetables, tobacco, maize by watering the vegetables from the well. For light soil: ... in the first season it is planted with nuts/beans, sweet potatoes, and soybean (like this season). In the second season it is planted with beans and maize by watering the plants. The paddy is not for sale, only for our annual consumption. Vegetables are for sale. Questions: How to fertilize the soil which has been contaminated by chemical fertilizers? How to cultivate light soil? What plants are suitable for light soil? Which soil is being flooded faster in the rainy season: the heavy or the light soil?

On one hand, the farmers’ presentations reveal their local soil taxonomy and its relation to water and cropping pattern. On the other hand, their questions posed represent their limited understanding of soil types in terms of improving their fertility, alleviating their damage, and developing the most suitable cropping strategy in the so called tanah ringan (light soil). Responding to those questions, Stigter raised the issue of the need to improve soil fertility and porosity by using organic fertilizers rather than the chemical ones. In his explanation, the higher the soil porosity, the easier the water is absorbed by the soil. In fertile soil, people can grow any crops and hence, improving the soil conditions is the most important thing. A discussion followed, not only from further farmer questions but also from the NGO’s representatives, focusing on soil conditions and water run-off. Stigter emphasized again that the most significant factor affecting water run-off is not the soil type, but the slope.

113


The third group presented their observations of pests and diseases, focusing only on a small number of pests. The farmer, the hamlet leader, referred to the categorization of rains as learned in the School while explaining the conditions of pests. For example, Tungul merah, undur-undur (Myrmeleon sp.), a kind of insect, infests the leaves of chili, but the insects are absent if the rainfall is above normal or normal. If below normal, then we can find lots of them on chili and vegetables like spinach. Aphids are seldomly found under the normal conditions of rain. They prefer the dry season. Uret (ground-worm, Phyllophaga helleri) will emerge when the rainfall is low or rare. Uret can’t grow if the field has standing water on the ground. Rats are plenty after harvesting paddy. In this dry season rats attack the seeds of groundnuts and soybean. Our conclusion: it is not good for all crops when the rain is above normal. If normal, all crops can grow well and healthy. The more rains, the less pests we have. Lack of rain means lots of pests. There are also some predators preying upon Aphids such as certain larvae, hopper and lady-bugs. Question: In 2005/06, there was an infestation of hama busuk leher (local term for a symptom indicating stem decays close to the panicles, due to several pests’ infestation) on the stems of paddy, making holes in the stems so that the nutrition could not easily go up. The yields were reduced by up to 30%. At that time, rain was lacking. The paddy was about to flower, when there was a long drought (bentatan). Why did it happen and how to manage it?

This farmer’s reference to the categories of rainfall reveals his capability to articulate his new understanding obtained at the School in combination with his existing knowledge of pest populations in relation to crops and seasons. Once they had to formulate the relation between pests/diseases, crops and rains, the elements of new categories of rainfall were being activated together with the other elements of local knowledge (see the connectionism perspective in Strauss and Quinn, 1997). Those categories of rainfall originated from the body of scientific knowledge of meteorology and climatology that have been part of farmers’ intersubjective meaning or memory externalization as stated by Ellen (2004), in particular among the CFS alumni. It is not clear, however, whether he could relate that categorization with a particular amount of rainfall, or remember those relationships as taught in the School as the indicators of certain categories. The farmer also used the term hama or pest when he mentioned the kind of disease (busuk leher) attacking the plants, which could also be the symptom of pest infestation. Responding to that presentation and question, Stigter asked the farmers about pest control strategies and the difference between pest and disease. The farmer honestly said: “We still don’t understand fully the difference between pest and disease (Kami masih awam untuk membedakan antara hama dan penyakit).” Their ignorance was surprising after so many years in which they learned from time to time about pests and diseases in the so-called Sekolah Lapangan Pengendalian Hama Terpadu (SLPHT or Integrated Pest Management Farmer Field School-IPM FFS). This was repeated again in the

114


agroecosystem observations during the CFS in 2007. Is this due to the inability of the farmers to empirically observe the origin of diseases? In Winarto’s earlier observations and writings, it is evident that prior to the learning in the IPM FFS, farmers only referred to indications whether they could find ’animals‘ or ’persons‘ in the plants, leading to the emergence of any symptoms of ‘illnesses‘ (see Winarto, 1998, 2004). Only noting the consequences of viruses, bacteria or fungi through empirical observations and the absence or discontinuity of any thorough learning in either an IPM FFS or extension services are likely the leading factors of such a ‘missing element of knowledge’ or an ‘ambiguous information‘ in their schema of coping with pests and diseases. A discussion followed on the relation between disease outbreaks and weather conditions. By referring to farmers’ own understanding of the correlation between weather/climate and pest populations, Stigter explained that in contrast to pest outbreaks, disease infestations were often intense when the air humidity is high, and there is plenty of water on the leaves. But he agreed, however, that the method of relating the wetness duration of the leaves and the control strategy is not easy for farmers to master. Not only that. The information/warning (if any) transmitted to the farmers by the weather or pest/disease authorities was often too late to prepare for the outbreaks. Stigter further questioned the farmers whether there had been any experience in treating the seeds as one prevention strategy among others. The discussion between the farmers, experts and NGO representatives led to a consensus on the need to enhance farmers own understanding by also receiving appropriate and timely assistance from the Others (government, NGOs and scholars). Learning from the ’rain harvesting method‘ was the theme of the fourth group presentation (also see Chapter 4) as follows: Weather and climate are directly and indirectly influential factors. Lack of rain affects the growth of crops directly. One of the problems we have: no data from BMKG. Hence, it is very important to know how to measure rainfall and have the raingauges to: 1) find the best cultivation strategy; 2) determine whether we need to use small dikes/high ridges (embung); and 3) know pest populations. The results of yield measurements by using samples (ubinan): from 2,5 m2 of Ciherang variety, [we got] 4 kg on the light lime [karst] soil. Ciherang [variety]: 6 kg on the light black soil. Ciherang [variety]: 5 kg on the heavy black soil. In reality, the use of small dikes/high ridges [embung] on the light and black soil produced good yields....[explaining what embung is]. Conclusion: Rainfall above normal is good for paddy; normal rainfall is good for paddy on the light soil; and rainfall below normal is very good for vegetables. Question: which fields are easier flooded: those with heavy soil or those with light soil?

The farmers’ learning strengthened their understanding of the benefits of making small dikes/high ridges to improve yields, as also presented in Chapter 4. Their presentation revealed as well the farmers’ ability to relate the new method, the yields of paddy and again the soil

115


conditions in terms of their local taxonomy. As also presented by Group 3, the farmers were able to relate the rainfall conditions and categories as learned in the School with the growth of plants. It is a proof that the new knowledge of rainfall taxonomy (above normal, normal, below normal) was shared by the CFS alumni and was kept alive in their memory for interpreting the conditions of their fields and crops. The same question on the rainfall and the type of soil, as to flooded fields, raised by two groups (Group 2 and 4) confirms the importance of soil type in farmers’ agroecosystem analyses and cultivation strategies. In his response, the agrometeorologist further explained the relation between small dikes/high ridges, water containment, the characteristics of crops and the depths of roots. The last subject was a newly introduced element as part of farmers’ agroecosystem analysis. Stigter introduced the idea of the need to pay attention to water distribution in relation to crop rooting systems. Farmers need to know the depth to which the roots can absorb water, fertilizers and other minerals; and whether competition exists between different crops. Answering his question whether farmers had observed the depth of the roots throughout the year, the farmers’ leader replied that her fellows did not do such observations. However, she observed that the roots of paddy can absorb nutrition well if the depth is around 5 cm, and if the lateral lengths are around 20 cm. The queries on rooting systems, the ideal depths of roots, the competition between roots of different crops were also raised in the next day of field visits. From farmers’ ignorance and the expert’s explanations, one may derive that likely ’rooting system‘ and its importance in cultivation is one of the ’missing or ambiguous elements‘ in farmers’ previous schema of crop farming. The discussion continued with further questions by the NGO representative on the relation between global warming, the growth of crops, and the use of chemicals. The following are the main points of Stigter’s explanations in front of the farmers and NGO representatives: • Global warming affects the distribution of fresh water in the world. • Rainfall depends on water evaporation into the atmosphere, including from the sea. • The vertical and horizontal movements of water vapour affect rainfall. In Indonesia and other places, there are changes in the start and the cessation of rains, as well as in the volume of rainfall and its ditribution. • The total amount of water on earth and in the atmosphere is the same. The changing variables are the amounts of evaporation and precipitation. • In relation to the use of chemicals: evaporation would be less constrained in the case of high quantities of organic matter. Larger amounts of artificial chemicals on soils with low organic matter mean lower amounts of water evaporating, and hence, less rainfall. But, this works only on a larger scale. It does not mean, however, that farmers have to avoid using fertilizers at all where it is needed. For example judicious amounts of inorganic fertilizers should be widely used in addition to organic matter. • People can affect rainfall, for example by either deforestation or reforestation and agroforestry (see Chapter IA).

116


These remarks on the need to make decisions on the basis of soil conditions and crops whether to use chemical fertilizers strengthened the leader’s voice to get help from the Others. The final group presented their observations on the kinds of crops in relation to climate. Again, the farmer emphasized the relation between the crops, the rainfall and the types of soil as follows: The kinds of crops planted in our place depend on the rainfall conditions in the rainy season. To prepare for rains with the most suitable crops to be cultivated, we classified soil into 3 types: light, heavy and medium. 1. In heavy soil and above normal rainfall: paddy and vegetables. 2. In heavy soil and normal rainfall: paddy, secondary crops and vegetables. 3. In heavy soil and below normal rainfall: secondary crops and vegetables. 4. In medium soil and above normal rainfall: early maturing paddy varieties, secondary crops and vegetables. 5. In medium soil and normal rainfall: early maturing paddy varieties, secondary crops and vegetables. 6. In medium soil and below normal rainfall: secondary crops and vegetables. 7. In light soil and above normal rainfall: paddy, secondary crops and vegetables. 8. In light soil and normal rainfall: secondary crops and vegetables. 9. In light soil and below normal rainfall: secondary crops and annual crops. In the latest rainy season, the most suitable crops were paddy and maize.

Looking at how the three groups refer to the scientific rainfall taxonomy in their presentations, we can say that through their observation, the CFS alumni kept activating the new elements learned in the School: the categorization of rainfall in their ongoing interpretations of the current conditions of farming. The more the new elements are used and strengthened through practice and observations, the more they become established in the existing schema (see Strauss and Quinn, 1997). Stigter praised the farmers’ detailed knowledge of what crops to be planted where, when, and on what kind of soil. Farmers now need to prepare for the beginning of a planting season for whether there will be rainfall above normal, normal or otherwise, a long drought (benthatan). It is important, therefore, to organize the knowledge so that farmers could gain the necessary information as timely as possible. Unfortunately, the information transmitted by BMKG offices is too general. What the farmers need is progress in the quality, relevance and reception of the ’local weather forecast‘ which will not only help them, but also the BMKG office, to be more relevant. Such remarks became the starting point of further collaboration between the scholars and the farmers in order to assist the latter in the advancement of their agrometeorological analyses. On the next day, not only the farmers, but also the previous CFS facilitator (a pest/disease observer) and the NGO’s representatives joined the expert visiting farmers’ fields for observations and discussions. Continuing the conversation of the day before, the discussions focused on the issues of:

117


• The rooting system: the depth of the roots and the needs to get enough water; the competition between crop roots and water absorption. • The planting of vegetable crops in ridges and furrows and their different effects on the growth of crops in relation to water absorption, evaporation, fertilizers and soil management. • Shading and evaporation and the effects of temperature on the growth of crops; and the need to carry out experiments of shading on different crops. • The direction of furrows and sunshine. • Distance between plants, rain, and where to better place the fertilizers. • Various factors such as soil management, soil elevation, soil characteristics and crops would all affect water run-off/drainage or flooding of the fields in heavy rain, and not the soil type only. • The diverse effects of organic fertilizers on water holding capacity, evaporation and soil porosity.

From the two days of discussion at home and in the fields, the farmers as well as the facilitators and NGO representatives, learned something new from the expert for sharpening their agroecosystem analyses, for example the relationships between rooting systems, shading, water holding capacities, evaporation, fertilizers and soil management. After visiting the field, the meeting was continued with Stigter’s comments on farmers’ individual documentation. First, Stigter emphasized again that farmers know best. Scientists’ role is providing explanations for the possible other influential factors in case of farmers’ disagreement on particular issues (see e.g. Bentley et al., 1994). It is not the function of scientists to simply provide all solutions to farmers’ problems. Box 5.4 presents Stigter’s comments on farmers’ notes as presented in Box 5.3. Box 5.4 Stigter’s comments on farmers’ notes • False starts of the rainy season, the related wrong decisions on starting the planting, these are due to global warming. One major consequence of climate change is the increase of variability of weather and climate, which further leads to inappropriate planting schedules. Since there is great possibility that such a situation will continue to occur in the future, there are no other ways for the farmers than measuring rainfall themselves to know whether such variability is becoming a pattern. The use of scientific and BMKG information is needed to improve farmers’ understanding of the late start of the rains or a false start of the rains in the beginning of the season. • In relation to the absence of singing of specific birds and farmer’s question on whether it is related to the birds’ migration, the killing of birds or the birds not singing, Stigter responded that the pattern of bird migration is now changing. There are some possible factors: the birds keep migrating due to hot weather or the loss of trees in their area. The significant question is: whether those birds have important roles in farming, such as preying upon certain insects, eating seeds, and others.

118


• The need to replant trees in farmers’ preparedness for climate change is correctly assessed. It can for example be done by planting cacao and coffee under shade trees. Deforestation can affect climate change, in particular change in local climate, which can lead to a drier condition and changes in rainfall patterns. • Although farmers are now planting high yielding or hybrid varieties, it is good to keep the Javanese rituals and calendar. It is up to the farmers to decide whether to use the traditional rituals and calendar, and/or the scientific knowledge according to the existing conditions. Doing experiments and comparisons systematically is one way to know which would be the better alternative in a particular situation. It is true that farmers themselves have to do the observations and preparations. The scientists are the farmers’ helpers only.

Box 5.4 (Continued) By saying that, Stigter appreciated the farmers’ efforts in documenting their observations and thoughts.1 He reminded the farmers again on the truth that documenting their findings is the appropriate way in observing, listening, and writing down their own thoughts and experiences of the changes and variabilities in their environment. Farmers can also decide whether to use scientific knowledge in their preparedness for future farming strategies. This was a good starting point for future collaboration between farmers and scholars. That appreciation released the emotional burden on some farmers that had decided to keep pursuing their documentation despite the strong opposition by their leader. The question remained of what kind of collaboration and farmer documentation would be developed following Stigter’s second visit? That was a question for us to think about and act. Building up Collaboration: Farmers and Scientists Observing Rainfall The scholars’ assistance to the farmers in response to the expert’s suggestion was the beginning of a more intense interdisciplinary as well as trans-disciplinary collaborative research (see Chapter 1) in comparison to what we did earlier. Though we had experienced the ’complicit intersubjectivity’ as argued by Marcus (1998, 2001) and Holmes and Marcus (2005) while facilitating the farmers to document their observations, this was the point where we began to play our role as ’liaisons‘ between the two domains of knowledge, the scientific and the local one, while pursuing our ethnographic fieldwork. This backing was gradually developed in the course of preparing farmers to carry out daily rainfall measurements, organizing the observer groups and activities, and managing the data, observations, documentation and evaluation. A continuous dialectics of farmers’ empirical observations and evaluations, as well as an intersubjective relationship between the farmers and the researchers went on. At several occasions, we were consciously thinking in advance of how to facilitate farmers in carrying out particular 1

Also see Stigter’s report of his second visit to Wareng, Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta in Table 5.1

119


tasks. In other circumstances, we only responded to unexpected and unintended farmers’ questions, comments, requests or critiques raised throughout the ongoing activities. Since the agrometeorologist could not speak in Bahasa Indonesia fluently, Winarto took the role of translator in every written correspondence and oral conversation between the scholars, the farmers and the Others. We tried to be creative and innovative while accommodating farmers’ responses. Nevertheless, as ethnographers without detailed knowledge of agrometeorology, we relied heavily on the expert’s guidance and recommendations, while learning from the emerging situations. The language-barrier was of course also a constraining factor for a direct communication between the farmers and the expert. How did we move on over time in building up our collaboration? Beginning a systematic observation Understanding farmers’ difficulties at this stage with constructing their own raingauges, in the absence of any access to official ones from state institutions, Stigter decided to order ten farmer raingauges with engraved calibrated scales from the USA for farmers’ daily rainfall measurements. This decision to order those raingauges and to visit Wareng in early November 2008 was met positively by the group members. A special meeting was organized by the farmers, inviting the village leader and the previous CFS facilitator (the pest and disease observer). Prior to the meeting, farmers already planted maize by using a digging-stick, but not paddy. Learning from last year’s success story of making small dikes/high ridges (using the ’rain harvesting method‘), the members of the group—except a few—decided to use that strategy again in the 2008/09 rainy season. Farmers did learn from the CFS of how to measure rainfall by using a raingauge provided by the facilitators. However, without practicality of how to do that properly, individual participants still needed detailed guidance in such measurements. The use of the new type of raingauges with engraved calibrated scales was also novel (See Plate 5.1). The meeting was thus focused on deciding on where to mount the raingauges and on teaching farmers how to do that, how to measure the rainfall, and what to observe in their fields related to these measurements. After once more elaborating on the effect of climate change on the variability of rainfall in a particular region, Stigter explained the following details of how to do the measurements: • Need to pay attention to the lines on the left (in millimeters), not on the right (in inches). • After observing and reading the amount of water trapped in the raingauge, farmers have to take notes of the numerical amounts (in millimeters). • Subsequently farmers have to throw the water out and return the raingauge to its place.

120


• The measurements should be carried out every morning around a particular time. Based on the given choice of between 6.00 and 9.00am, it was agreed to take the measurements around 6.00am (between 15 minutes before and 15 minutes after 6.00am).2 • Use the symbol of: 1) 0 if there is no water trapped in the raingauge; 2) 0.5 mm for unaccountable water less than 0.5 mm; 3) – if the farmers do not do the measurement for any reasons; and 4) write down the numbers/amounts as indicated by the top line of the water trapped in the raingauge.

Plate 5.1 USA raingauge in farmers’ field

Photo by Winarto, 2008 Following the meeting, there was a wrong understanding among the farmers that the measurements could be done between 6.00—9.00am. 2

121


The main message introduced by Stigter was the need to measure the top of the water trapped in the raingauge at the same height with the farmers’ eyes. To enable that, the height of the raingauge should consider the farmers’ ability to measure the water without looking up to or looking down on that top line. Stigter then asked the farmers who among them was the shortest one. Apparently, a lady, Iyem, was the shortest one. By referring to her height, Stigter came up with height for the top of the raingauge so that the eyes could observe the water top lines horizontally. The other two requirements were: 1. Placing the raingauge far from any shading or flow disturbing objects such as roofs, trees, branches etc. so as to avoid any disturbance in the catching of rain water by the raingauge. 2. The raingauge should be mounted in an open environment, but not too close to the roads to minimize any vandalism by irresponsible people (see Plate 5.2).

Since there were only ten raingauges for 20 members, every two farmers would be responsible for one raingauge. Referring to the scattered locations of farmers’ fields (see Map2.4 in Chapter 2), the question now was where to place the ten raingauges? Anantasari, based on her cognitive mapping of the fields, drew a rough map of farmers’ fields spread around the hamlet. Several criteria were considered in selecting the place: a) the variation of soil types; b) the variation and gradients of rainfall based on farmers’ earlier observations; c) the accessibility of the location for daily observations; and d) which farmers would do the observations and owned lands at or near the proposed places. Based on these criteria and looking at the map, Stigter and the farmers discussed where the locations of the ten raingauges would be. In the end the farmers agreed to mount the raingauges at the following ten sites, also identifying the farmers that were going to be responsible for carrying out the rainfall measurements and field observations (see Table 5.1). Table 5.1 Location of raingauges and groups of farmer observers No.

122

Location & owner

Farmer observers

1.

Wetan Polaman (WP) – Amir

Amir and Diyo

2.

Balong (B) – Tinem

Tinem and Arti

3.

Gondang (G) – Tono

Tono and Tori

4.

Lor Polaman Wetan (LPW) – Kiran

Kiran and Amto

5.

Sambisongo (SS) – Giyo

Giyo and Giyem

6.

Wetan Ratan (WR) – Jiyem

Inem and Ardi

7.

Lor Polaman Kulon (LPK) – Arni

Arni and Sih


8.

Saratan (S) – Yani

Yani and Kar

9.

Kranggan (K) – nonCFS/SM

Aming and Umi

10.

Sidowayah (Si) – nonCFS/SM

Jiyem and Ina

Table 5.1 (Continued) See Plate 5.2 of the map drawn by Anantasari with the location of the ten points of observation. Plate 5.2 The location of ten points-of-observation

Photo by Winarto, 2008 Also see Map 2.4 for the scattered locations for the ten points-of-observation (Chapter 2). After a lengthy discussion of those locations, the next issues were when to measure the rainfall and how to define the items to observe. While measuring rainfall, farmers should take notes on the date, the hour and the amount of rain trapped in the raingauge. See Box 5.5.

123


Box 5.5 Notes for the mounting and caring of the raingauges • Please clean the raingauge once it looks dirty. • The mounting of the raingauge: put it far from trees or leaves (including the kolonjono leaves). If possible place the raingauge in the middle of the field, which does not have shading/coverings/roofs. • If farmers can’t go to the field in the morning, please keep going to the field and write down the time of measuring the rainfall. For example: “I am in the field at 10am.” • If there are no rains, please keep doing the measurements. You can use your visit to check that there is nothing wrong with the raingauge. For example: it may suddenly be gone. If there are crops you can do the ecosystem observations for the dry conditions.

In observing their fields and crops, what items of the agroecosystem analyses should be taken into account? As a result of the discussion between the farmers and the expert, farmers agreed to pay attention to: 1. Soil management: with small dikes/high ridges or not. 2. Crops and varieties. 3. Pests and diseases. 4. Fertilizer dosages and timing. 5. Soil type. 6. Cropping patterns. 7. The crop growth conditions. 8. Water condition in the field. 9. Evaluation of the use of small dikes/high ridges. 10. The depth of roots.

The set of rules of measuring rainfall and observing farmers’ fields is originally based on scientific procedures in agrometeorology. At the time the farmers joined the CFS, they learned similar kinds of ideas and premises. The differences now were the real routine practices in carrying out the observations day by day and season by season, and the need to make comparisons of the findings by the various farmers. In addition to that, the products of their observations and comparisons would later be intersubjectively shared with a wider audience, including scholars, practitioners and policy makers. Such is the nature of ’science‘. Ellen (2004:434) argues that: “For science to work there have to be mechanisms for securing intersubjectivity, for ensuring accurate memory externalization,...”. Since the results of farmers’ observations had to be interpreted by the agrometeorologist and shared with their fellows and the Others, the set of rules introduced by Stigter can be perceived as the mechanism for securing intersubjectivity and ensuring accurate memory externalization. Nevertheless, by bringing that ‘scientific meaning’ into farmers’ ways of learning and knowing of their local habitat, the techne as used by Scott (1998) to refer to the hard-and-fast rules of scientific

124


propositions and premises is going to be implemented in the local domain of knowledge, which is based prominently on mētis. “Knowing how and when to apply the rules of thumb in a concrete situation is the essence of mētis”, argues Scott (1998:316). The implementation of rainfall measurements and field observations based on the cause and effect rules of the scientific domain in a concrete situation of farmers’ learning and practices is thus a good example of how the two domains are mixing and merging into one schema. How did this happen over time? The ongoing complicit intersubjectivity By assuming that the farmers in the Sedyo Mulyo group—consisting of CFS alumni, as well as IPM FFS alumni—have got accustomed to scientific observations and experimentation in their daily practices, we first thought that there would not be any problems in carrying out the practices as informed by the expert. Nevertheless, we soon discovered that establishing the new shared meaning among the farmers was not as simple as we perceived. Thus, an ongoing explanation, modification, adjustment, negotiation and even contestation went on from the time we began the work in early November 2008 until the cessation of the rains sometimes in June 2009. That was a rich experience we had in implementing the so-called ’collaboration and complicit intersubjectivity‘ over time (see Marcus, 1998, 2001; Holmes and Marcus, 2005; Lassiter, 2005a, 2005b). What were the issues raised and argued by the farmers and how did we respond to those arguments? Compensation and observation time From the time the alumni of the CFS in Wareng IV agreed to form a new group called Sedio Mulyo (SM), the members decided to have monthly meetings to tie up their friendship, togetherness and network, while also organizing the traditional rotating credit: arisan.3 (see Geertz, 1962; Verhezen, 2002; Winarto and Utami, in preparation). The monthly meetings continued after the mounting of the raingauges by each pair of farmers in the beginning of November 2008. That was a good event where the scholars and the farmers could meet and discuss the new collaborative work. We did our best, therefore, to attend these monthly meetings as part of our ethnographic fieldwork. At the end of November, at the time Winarto’s students from the Graduate School of Gadjah Mada University made a field visit in Wareng IV, the SM leader raised the idea of paying a ‘compensation’ for the gasoline the farmers had to spend to go to the fields of the rainfall measurements every day. It was not an unexpected request, but initially we thought of farmers’ observations as part of their daily activities for the advancement of their own knowledge and practices. We also perceived these new rainfall measurements as following up their learning in the CFS and therefore did not see this work as a kind of new ‘project’ for the farmers. We did Arisan is a form of a traditional self-help group among the rural Javanese farmers to have a revolving credit on the basis of members’ contribution. The rotating saving system would enable each member to get cash in a lump sum to fulfill various needs (see Geertz, 1962; Verhezen, 2002 on arisan; Winarto and Utami, in preparation). 3

125


not consider that in the past decades, various kinds of ‘projects’ in agricultural development were introduced by the authorities to the farmers all over Indonesia, including the FFSs. Those Schools under the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture were organized as their ‘projects’ with financial compensations for both the facilitators and the farmers for the time they spent in attending the weekly training sessions and for all expenses (equipments, meals and snacks) involved. It is likely, therefore, that the farmers also perceived the new learning activities as part of a ‘project’ introduced by us, the scholars (also see Winarto, 2010). To fulfill their request, at last Winarto agreed to provide some of the Academy Professorship Indonesia’s research grant as a compensation for farmers’ activities. The other issue raised by the group’s leader was the flexibility they would like to have in the schedule of measuring rainfall and observing field conditions. She used the argument that prior to 7am, the road she had to pass every day to go to the field would be crowded with students going to school. She asked for flexibility to go to the field after 7am. This request is related to the establishment of a new habit of going to the field every morning at a particular hour, and stick to that for the whole period of rainfall measurements. Even though farmers are used to go to their field frequently, being disciplined in measuring rainfall more or less at the same hour every day is a novel practice to master. Since we did not have any agrometeorological background, we could not verify whether any modification in the agreed rules could be accepted. What would be the consequences if the farmers collected the rainfall data at different times? After consulting the expert, we told the farmers in the next meeting that the farmers should do their level best to stick to the agreed hour to measure the rainfall. Only in a very peculiar case, where the farmers could not go to the field on time, they had to measure the rainfall as soon as possible on that same day, or if inevitable, do it the next day, and take note of the time of doing the measurements. They should write the code of [—] for missing the rainfall measurement on a particular day. Another query posed to us and the students was whether we could assist them with any improvement of their husbandry, in particular cattle. Since farmers got used to receiving assistance from the Others, this second request was also raised as part of their perception that we, as scholars, should also provide assistance for various other problems. In response to that, Winarto explained to the farmers that animal husbandry was not part of the scholars’ expertise and so they had to approach other scholars having expertise in that particular field. Such arguments and queries were, in fact, only the beginning of an ongoing negotiation process between the two parties. Coding and arguments of local knowledge From the time we agreed to be the agrometeorologist counterparts, we took the responsibility for assisting and facilitating farmers in their activities, including the documentation the farmers had to produce (see Documenting the Agrometeorological Data). We discovered various interpretations of the use of the symbols 0 for zero rainfall and [—] for missing that day’s

126


measurement. Some farmers used the code 0 for failing to do the measurement while also recognizing that there were no rains in those days. In the following monthly meeting (February 2009), the farmers’ leader, Jiyem, raised her question of which symbol was correct the 0 or [—]. Responding to that question, Winarto explained again that we had agreed on 0 for measuring an empty raingauge and on [—] for not doing a measurement. For data processing, 0 means something, namely no rain; but the [—] code would mean a more complicated data processing, explained Kristiyanto. This explanation was based on the scientific way of reading and interpreting the codes. Unexpectedly, the farmers’ leader voiced her strong argument that [—] should not be the indication of failing to go to the field, but of a measurement with dew inside the raingauge. If the farmer did the measurement, but no water was found in the raingauge, then she would write the code 0. She objected strongly to be blamed for not using the [—] code for not doing the measurement. She insisted that she remembered quite clearly the agreement that [—] referred to 0 rainfall with dew in the raingauge. However, this had never been discussed by us, but perhaps in the CFS. Blaming us that the data they produced would not be ’accurate‘ if we stuck to the use and meaning of those codes, she also argued that we were neglecting their local knowledge. She refused to be forced to use those codes with ’our meaning‘. Assessing this uncomfortable situation, Winarto promised to consult the expert about those conflicting views, while explaining again that her presence in the village was aiming at understanding the local knowledge and not at neglecting them. Stigter argued later on that there was no local knowledge of quantifying rains, that meteorological observers often use the symbol ’trace‘ for dew caught by raingauges in cloudless nights, but that we had agreed on ’0.5 mm‘ for unaccountable water less than 0.5 mm (see the table earlier in this Chapter). Such traces of water were most often due to dewfall, could be counted as water that was wetting plants and soil and was this way equivalent to very low rainfall. That controversy revealed not only the difference in interpretations between scholars and farmers of the same symbols, but also the reality that the intersubjective meaning of symbols as used in the scientific domain has not been part of farmers’ domain of local knowledge. The farmer’s acceptance of consulting the agrometeorologist, however, indicates acceptance of the expert’s knowledge. Despite this controversy, the event reveals that the ‘making of meaning‘ of symbols to indicate weather phenomena and farmers’ practices were going on. Surprisingly, however, even though the other group members remembered the agreement on the use of symbols (0,—, and amounts in millimeters) and what they referred to, nobody in that meeting dared to argue against their leader, also not the male farmers. How could we explain that? First, the farmers already knew the leader’s personality. Second, in line with the Javanese norm, they did not want to argue against their leader in a public forum, to avoid any embarrassment. On the other hand, ’silence‘ does not mean any consent in the ongoing debate (see Geertz, 1961; Mulder, 1980). Another issue revealing the different perspectives and meanings among the two parties was the unfair claim by Others of being part of the meeting between farmers and scientists and its documentation.

127


The Others’ involvement and claim The unexpected presence of an NGO in the meeting between the farmers and the expert had unintended consequences for the ways the NGO published that event.4 From the NGO-magazine with a particular issue on ’food crops cultivation strategies and the effects of climate in global warming‘ received by the farmers’ leader, Winarto soon discovered the NGO’s claim of the event as organized by themselves. There was no acknowledgment of the scholars’ and the farmers’ efforts in preparing and organizing that event. The farmers were mentioned as being present in the meeting held by the NGO and its international donor agency. The other institution referred to by the reporting journalist as part of the organizers was Gadjah Mada University, without any acknowledgement of the Academy Professorship Indonesia (API)’s research team. There were also errors in citing the educational background of Ina, the farmer presenting the results of her rainfall measurements, and in spelling the agrometeorologist’s name. Photos produced by the API research team in documenting farmers’ activities during the CFS sessions were reproduced without any permission or acknowledgment as well. Using scientific norms it is clear that the journalist’s work was a kind of ’theft‘ of what the farmers and the scholars had done, or a kind of ’plagiarism‘. Winarto therefore wrote an official letter to the director of the NGO requesting a formal apology in their future edition while also publishing the errata. The reactions of both the NGO and the farmers’ leader were interesting. While the director of the NGO accepted the ‘errors’ his staff made, apologized, and published the errata in the next edition, the NGO staff charged the farmer’s leader with what had happened. When Winarto raised that issue in the February 2008 monthly meeting, surprisingly the farmers’ leader emotionally defended the NGO’s involvement in the meeting, arguing that it was based on her invitation and that she herself was part of the NGO. She did not bother with the unfair claims nor the plagiarism, although the report was even not mentioning the role nor the name of her group (Sedio Mulyo). Her uneasiness was based on something else, accusing our team of discouraging her actions because we did not allow her to seek support from other parties. While in her arguments she was representing the group members, the members themselves did not understand any of the steps she took in building up her relationship with and endorsement of the NGO, including their financial support. Such contesting views reveal again the different perspectives and values of scholars and farmers. The scholars used the scientific premises and rules as their reference and considered the unfair claim as also harming the farmers. On the other hand, the farmers’ leader thought of the benefits she could gain from the NGO’s support without bothering about the embarrassment of any unfair claims nor about the interests of the NGO itself. Evaluating the findings: bi-decadal meeting When we set up our collaborative work, both parties never thought of the need to have regular meetings to share our findings and to discuss any emerging problems apart from the monthly See Buletin Wani Mandiri (Wahana Tani Mandiri) May—June 2008 with its special volume: Strategi Budidaya Tanaman Pangan dan Pengaruh Iklim: Dampak Pemanasan Global.

4

128


meetings. Since we tried to be present in their monthly meetings, any problems related to rainfall measurements and field observations were raised and discussed in those meetings. In the course of time, the farmers’ leader thought that it would be better to have also regular meetings to evaluate the work and the findings. She then proposed to have evaluations every other decade. The members agreed to have such evaluation meetings, though after all, not all of the members could participate, due to various other commitments. In the early stage of those meetings, the discussions were about general problems in their farming practices. Two female farmers used to lead and start these discussions, Arni and Sih, though later on they asked the UI team members to take the lead. However, the UI team members knew that the initiative in organizing these meetings came from the farmers themselves as the observers and analysts. As emphasized by Stigter, the scientists have only the responsibility of assisting and backing up the farmers by explaining issues for which they themselves could not find the answers or solutions. In line with that, we took position as stimulator, motivator, catalyst or mediator of the discussion. What to discuss was entirely up to the farmers. Nevertheless, we observed that when the farmers’ leader was absent, the group members were more relaxed in sharing their thoughts and arguments. Most of the time, the farmers’ leader dominantly led the discussions. She also often reprimanded her fellows for questions she thought not quite worthy to be raised and discussed. “Bodo kowé, disekolahné opo ora kowé. Gampang ngono kok ora ngerti..”, (“You are stupid, you were invited to join the School, weren’t you. That is easy, but why do you have so little understanding”) Jiyem said to her own fellows who in her eyes should already know the answers. Such accusations were indeed discouraging the other farmers to talk. In one meeting, Prahara and Kristiyanto were present. At that time, Jiyem, the farmers’ leader, came late. The UI team members found that the discussions prior to her presence were taking place in a relaxed atmosphere. The farmers were questioning and arguing of whether to plant paddy in the next second planting season. Planting paddy in the dry season had never been done by the farmers in Wareng IV. Everybody dared to talk. They were curious to know the answer of ’puzzling‘ things. This markedly changed after the arrival of Jiyem. We had the feeling that each farmer now felt constrained to voice their thoughts and findings, to ask questions, and to argue or comment on each other’s behavior in front of her.

Even though we felt that the discussion could be held more effectively, we found farmers’ concerns of various issues raised in the conversation very important. Examples are: • The growth of crops, pest outbreaks, the rain harvesting method strategy in relation to the unexpected heavy and continuous rains under various field conditions. • After the agrometeorologist’s suggestion to build drainage facilities collectively, the discussion focused on whether it was urgent to follow that suggestion, with all the difficulties in doing that at the community and village level, or whether this was just an individual problem due to specific field conditions. • Damages in maize and tobacco and the need to replant tobacco due to disease outbreaks. Farmers compared this with the conditions in 2007/08 which were good for tobacco to grow well.

129


• A discussion on their weather lore in relation to the rains and their months in the international calendar, in comparison to the present condition, which was not common. • Evaluation of the unfavourable conditions for plants to grow well in May (angkrem, when a particular star [lintang wuluh] emerges), and some explanations in relation to the quality of seeds, weather and humidity due to the continuous rains in the supposedly dry season.

The issues raised in the discussion were in fact similar to their day-to-day conversation, whenever they met, on the recent unexpected weather and its implications for the growth of plants. It further reflected their own feelings on what was happening in their habitat, which was enriching their understanding, yet further confusing the weather lore they have and the multiple cropping habits they developed so far. Their confusion turned into a doubt of what to do when in their vulnerability they faced an increasing risk of flooding in the absence of a drainage system. We thus observed an advancement of their agroecosystem learning even though the evaluation meetings were not quite effectively managed. We also found that, gradually, there was an increase in their attachment to the program and in their feelings of care for and ownership of the equipment, in particular the raingauge. The loss and return of a raingauge That early morning during the harvesting season in the mid of February 2009, Sih went to the field in Lor Polaman to measure the rainfall, but she discovered with a shock that the gauge was no longer attached to the pole. Her mate, Arni, knew that the raingauge was there the day before when she did the measurement. Sih and Arni both knew that prior to and on that day, many people went back and forth passing the field where they placed the raingauge, not too far from the village road. It was harvesting time and many people went to and from the fields. Soon Sih told Jiyem, the group’s leader, who then reported the missing raingauge to the hamlet leader, also a member of the group. The hamlet leader informed the village leader of the missing raingauge. The group members felt so ashamed of the loss, since they knew that they could not replace that important equipment. They understood that Stigter and the UI team purchased the raingauges specifically for their needs and that they were entrusted with using and taking care of the tool. Not only they felt ashamed but also they deeply felt they lost something very meaningful.

The missing raingauge and farmers’ reaction on that accident reveals their emotional attachment. Not only had the farmers who were responsible for the ’lost‘ gauge felt in disarray, but also the other members of the group. This unwanted event, yet not a very surprising one for the farmers in their open environment, surprisingly showed us how their ’sense of ownership‘ of the program had increased. For us, it was a good sign that our collaborative work had reached a stage where the farmers did not see the program as something belonging only to the Others, the scholars, but also to them. The farmers strongly wished that their work would be a successful and would not be jeopardized by such an unintended loss. In this situation, we found collective mixed feelings among them, as being unhappy, distressed, guilty, ashamed, and yet, not wanting to blow up this loss. It was a traumatic experience for Sih and Arni. However, they were also curious. First, how to find the lost raingauge. Second, how to continue the rainfall measurements without the equipment.

130


One farmer who felt distressed went to consult a ’paranormal‘ (orang pinter, ’clever-person‘). The ’clever-person‘ said that the raingauge was not lost, but was kept somewhere. This information was brought to the village leader who then instructed the hamlet leaders to let everybody know about the lost raingauge and to ask the person who kept it at his place to return it. One person living in Wareng IV noticed that the tool was taken by one of her kin, who lived in another village, Polaman, which was located close to the mounting place of the lost raingauge. At last, the tool was found. The thief was in fact a boy who had taken the raingauge just for fun.

Everybody felt so relieved and pleased with the return of that raingauge as if their own ‘lost property’ was found. Throughout the period of the missing raingauge, Sih and Arni used an oil can as they did in the School and measured the amount (incorrectly!) with their fellows’ raingauge, though they were not sure about the validity of this way of measuring. Learning from this unexpected event, they decided to move the raingauge further inside the field, a bit farther from the village road. Throughout the process of discovering the ‘lost’ raingauge, the farmers themselves made efforts and thought of how to find it. We did not do anything much. We observed with some surprise the full support of the local authorities, from the hamlet up to the village level, to help the Sedio Mulyo group members finding the ‘lost’ raingauge. We also found that through this accident, farmers’ activities in measuring rainfall had spread to other hamlets in the same village, Wareng, and the neighboring villages in the district of Wonosari (see Chapter 2). The raingauge became something meaningful not only for the rainfall observers, but also for the Others, including the local authorities and lay people. The latter, and also some of the local authorities, had no idea of what the function of the tool was and how important it was for the farmer activities in understanding rainfall patterns. This is an example of how the ’strange’ material— used as a playing toy by a young boy—turned into a meaningful object for an activity beyond people’s everyday use. The ’strange and meaningless‘ tool was becoming part of the people’s intersubjective or shared meaning through the ’loss‘ of the tool and people’s efforts to find it. It was the beginning of the formation, if not the extension, of shared meaning among the local communities of the importance of farmers’ learning of climate change (see Strauss and Quinn, 1997, for the cultural schema). The ’specialist’ and the ‘generalist doctor’ At the time Stigter revisited the farmers in March 2009, they had been collecting data for four months. To make his visit useful, we were thinking of how to enable him reading and interpreting the data collected by the farmers, and explaining his interpretation to them. We knew that the activity of data processing was in our hands. Therefore, we transferred the rainfall data into monthly graphs, and described the agroecosystem observations in narrative records. After consulting the agrometeorologist, the monthly rainfall graph was changed into one based on daily rainfall data from the ten points of observation presented each month (see Chapter 7). Stigter then did the reading and interpretation. However, we wanted the farmers to also actively participate in the dialogue. After so many months of carrying out daily observations of rainfall

131


and field conditions, what questions did the farmers have in their minds? As observed in the evaluation meetings, farmers did raise questions and queries about puzzling phenomena. Some farmers agreed to formulate such questions. We helped writing them up and we translated the questions into English. The dialogue between the two parties in the meeting is a good example of how the ’joint production of knowledge’ was in the making, though in its initial stages yet. The scholars presented the results and scientific interpretations of the rainfall data and the local empirical observations collected by the farmers. The farmers raised questions and arguments to be discussed with the scholars (see Chapter 7). In the first day of the meeting (March 6th, 2009), Stigter first provided his comments on the farmers’ decisions in mounting the raingauges, based on the photos we took. Two photos presenting different ways of mounting the raingauge were selected as examples of: 1) the right way of placing the raingauge in the middle of a field, far from any shading or other catch disturbances (see Plate 5.3); and 2) a wrong way of placing the raingauge due to shading by grasses for fodder, which could prevent some rain to reach the gauge but which could also produce splashing or dripping of water from their leaves into the raingauge (see Plate 5.4). Plate 5.3 Good condition of placing the raingauge


132


Plate 5.4 Not a good condition of placing the raingauge


During the field visit the following day, the farmers decided to move the raingauges which were too close to the dikes planted with tall grasses for fodder. They did this collectively regardless of who was responsible of mounting those raingauges (see Plate 5.5). We observed a sense of collectivity among the group members, and an improvement in their understanding of the best way of mounting the raingauge. The second significant explanation by Stigter was on how to read the rainfall data presented in the graphs. By referring to the November 2008 graphs, he pointed to the figures presented in the graph and the meaning of those figures (for the complete graphics from November 2008 to June 2009, see Chapter 7). He explained the meaning of the rainfall distribution, the numbers identifying the dates from November 1st to 30th, the zero number, the numbers presenting the rainfall data, the codes for each point-of-observation (in their abbreviations, and different shapes and colors), the intense rainfall on particular dates, and the peculiarities of the rainfall data from some points of observation in comparison to the others. For example, see the rainfall data of G (Gondhang) in brown color in comparison to the other ones in Graph 7.1 (see Chapter 7). Pointing to the rainfall data of G, Stigter assumed that there was something wrong with those data due to G’s position as the lowest and then the highest receiver of rainfall in two consecutive days. This was followed by the lowest position again in the following two days and further ups and downs in comparison to the other nine points of observation. How to explain those peculiarities? There were two possibilities, he explained, namely:

133


...there can be a genuine difference in how the rain is generated at those places as one possibility. ... But you remember that we had this picture in which [the rain] drips from leaves over the gauge. Here [pointing to the highest point] you can have some additional rainfall because of water dripping into the gauge. Here [pointing to the lowest point] that could have been some splashing of rains away from shading leaves. So it is also possible that there is an influence of the environment on the raingauge.

Plate 5.5 Mounting the raingauge in its new place

Photo by Prahara, 2009

This discussion takes it for granted that the measurements have been properly done. Ups and downs between consecutive days may also mean a wrong time of observation in which the measurements were taken too late one day and at the required time or again too late the next day. The distribution of water caught over the days is then different from other stations. That is why we require a time of measurement to find possible sources of such aberrations. This was the first time for the farmers to see the products of scientific exercises in processing their own data. Seeing and reading the figures presented in a graph was something new. Stigter’s explanations were also novel for them in understanding the data they collected individually but were now presented in comparison to each other. Their comparisons so far were based on observations and farmer-to-farmer conversations. Rainfall distribution among the ten places, their similarities and variations, and their plausible causal factors as mentioned by the agrometeorologist, were new ideas for them. This was also the time that farmers learned from Stigter that the 2008/09 rainy season was a La Niña period with above normal rainfall. More familiar to them were the implications of the rainfall distributions for their fields and growth of crops, as presented in the high rainfall amounts of November 2008 and the lower amounts before

134


and after the peak of intense rains. The discussion that followed was interesting in response to the farmers’ problems at a time their fields were flooded, with Stigter suggesting the need for developing response strategies of alleviating potential risks of continuing heavy rains in the coming months. Managing water effectively and building drainage facilities collectively were ideas Stigter gave to the farmers. He raised the idea of consulting a hydrologist from Gadjah Mada University, whom he met in the roving seminar Stigter gave at that university the week before. Much to our and the farmers’ surprise, the leader replied that such a suggestion was what she wanted. She argued for getting help from various other parties in order to solve other problems the farmers had in many other aspects of farming, such as in raising livestock and using organic fertilizers. Since the context of the meeting was on ideas of dealing with priority vulnerabilities the farmers faced in the prevailing weather conditions, Stigter proposed to focus first on that water problem instead of moving towards many other issues at once. By using the metaphor of getting help from a ’doctor‘, the leader responded that farmers needed ’treatment by a general doctor‘, and not by a ’specialist one‘. By saying so, she referred to Stigter’s advices as coming from a ‘specialist doctor‘ (dokter spesialis), whereas the farmers needed many other ’medicines‘ than for climate change only. In her eyes, getting help from a ’general practitioner‘ (dokter umum) was the most urgent need for the farmers. Recollecting the past, where she argued strongly against Winarto’s moves in her complaint about the NGO’s negation of the farmers’ active role in preparing and organizing the meeting held in May 2008, it was likely that the leader’s opposition was related to her accusation that the scholars did not favor her attempts to get help from the NGO. In reality, Stigter and Winarto had already stated several times that we welcomed anybody who would be willing to help the farmers as long as we could reach a consensus on who was responsible for doing what and with what commitments. This statement was seen as a constraint for the leader in her efforts to build up networks to get as much help as possible. Hence, she used this opportunity to express these feelings at the moment Stigter mentioned the need to get help from a hydrological expert to solve a particular technical problem, such as field drainage and water management. Again, a controversy emerged between the scholars and the farmer’s leader (not the other members of Sedio Mulyo) because of different perspectives and interests. Such is the nature of any complicit intersubjectivity as argued by Marcus (2001; see also Holmes and Marcus, 2005). It is interesting to note, however, that in this case, only the leader voiced her somewhat controversial ideas, and not the other members who remained again silent. Understanding the leader’s response, Stigter did not feel good in being represented as a ‘specialist doctor’. To avoid any further misinterpretations among the farmers, he decided to respond to the leader’s argument by explaining the main purpose of his visits and of working collaboratively with them. “I am coming here not to treat your problems as if I am a doctor and as if I think that you need one”, he argued. He then continued that his only aim was to help farmers in their learning process of understanding the new patterns and variability of climate, due to its observed changes, and of understanding their implications for their fields and crops. Based on their vulnerabilities, what would be the most urgent things to do?

135


The leader then apologized for using a not quite appropriate term in articulating the farmers’ needs. How were the feelings of the other members? During our field visits the next day, some of the ladies expressed their bad feelings during the discussion and controversy between their leader and the expert. They knew that Stigter felt unhappy with having been called a ‘specialist doctor‘. They were afraid that something worse could happen following that event. In fact, they disagreed with their leader’s arguments and understood quite well Stigter’s advices and explanations. Unfortunately, time and again, they preferred to keep quiet during such discussions. They understood their leader’s personality and they did not want to say something against her that could make the situation worse in such an official meeting. We understood that as part of the Javanese culture of not confronting one another publicly, to ’save their fellow’s face’, though they might disagree with his/her fellow’s sayings and behavior (see Geertz, 1961; Koentjaraningrat, 1985). Despite this controversy, the discussion on the first day was continued with the agrometeorologist’s responses to farmers’ questions prepared in advance. In the earlier meeting (in May 2008), he gave his comments on farmers’ own documentation. Now, it was a dialogue of questions and answers between the two parties. See Table 5.2 of farmers’ questions and Stigter’s answer. The questions focused not only on more appropriate ways of measuring rainfall, but also on agrometeorological analyses by considering the implications of rain, water and wind for the growth of crops. His answers were a detailed explanation of the relationships between various components the farmers mentioned and the variations of the ecosystem the farmers had to consider. Those answers of course enriched farmers’ understanding. It should be realized that Stigter worked in 20 African countries and 10 Asian ones and has ample experience with development problems in the rural areas of these mostly poor countries (e.g. Stigter, 2011d). The field visit next day again brought new ideas, for example on how dew occurs, and the dependence of dew caught on the form of the raingauge, on relations between evapotranspiration, solar radiation, wind flows and wind breaks, shading, and the direction of the furrows (see Plate 5.6). This was a very rich and intense dialogue between the scholars and the farmers. The situation portrays Stigter’s ideas of bringing science to the people who are in need (Stigter, hand-out of the roving seminar 2009). We called such a dialogue and exchange of ideas and information between farmers and scientists a ‘Science Field Shop’ (see Chapters 1 and 8; Winarto et al, 2010; Stigter and Winarto, 2011), where both parties meet in the field, discuss and evaluate problems and try to find solutions together. Unfortunately, the opinion raised by the leader made us wonder whether we could successfully go on developing the ‘Science Field Shop’ with this group. Throughout the afternoon and evening of the first day we were discussing and arguing the possibilities and constraints of pursuing our work. Winarto had the feeling that moving on with the collaborative work in the following years would not be easy. Winarto based her assessment on what the leader said; the ways the latter expressed her feelings and ideas; her discouragement of ideas and creativity of others; her high opinion of her own capability and the networks she was able to build; and her hidden agenda to get help from other parties along lines of her own interests by using our activities as part of her ’promotion‘. Only the hamlet leader was respected

136


by her and not her other fellows. Without any strong support from the rest of the group members, how could we solve any disputes or arguments with the leader? Such were Winarto’s thoughts that raised her doubt. Stigter, however, was considering the enthusiasm the group members showed, as well as the advancement and improvements they experienced so far. It would of course be a pity if the collaborative work had to be terminated due to one person’s attitude only. Should we sacrifice the other group members because of the leader’s unsupportive mood and interests? We then decided to find out from the group members themselves what they thought about continuing our collaboration into the future. Plate 5.6 Dialogue between farmers and scholars in the field

Photo by Prahara, 2009

It was coincidental that the leader had to join a meeting in Yogyakarta on the second day, when we wanted a discussion with the farmers upon our return from the field visits. As we had already observed during the bi-decadal evaluations, the group members now dared to talk and voice their opinions freely. We asked them two questions: 1) what did they think about a continuation of the collaborative research; and 2) their consent of finding a solution for the flood vulnerability of their fields collectively, if necessary. One by one the group members said that they would like to continue the work. “Terus....(go on...)”, voiced each farmer in turn. Reaching a consensus on setting up a plan to build a drainage system collectively—if necessary—went smooth without any contesting arguments. The farmers voiced their thought that approaching the village leader was necessary. Without his help, it would not be possible to move on with such a collective action. Again, we observed a different atmosphere of discussion

137


and reaching consensus without the presence of the leader. The question was: what next? We decided to continue but it appeared only possible for three months in the present composition of the team of scholars. Why? Ethics of doing fieldwork and exit strategy One day towards the end of June 2009, Anantasari informed Winarto, who was at the Universitas Indonesia organizing a series of Academic Writing Skills Workshops, that our team had a serious problem in Wareng. What kind of problem was it? An issue circulated widely in that area of an intimate relationship between one of our young male researchers with a female farmer, who had a food stall and who went to the market every day at a very early hour. Accidentally, the researcher accompanied her to the market when many traders also went there. Winarto received information that the group leader was very upset by such a relationship. She approached the hamlet leader and the village leader, and spread the issue widely to other farmers from within and outside the hamlet. It was a shock for us. How serious was the issue and what was the explanation? Winarto soon wondered whether in such a situation the collaborative work could still go on. How should we respond to such a condition? If we had to leave the arena, what kind of exit strategy should we take?

After a thorough examination on the information provided by all research team members, we came up with the following assumptions on a complex relation between a number of factors. • The researcher did not have any anthropological background (he came from biology and environmental science disciplines). Yet, he had a great interest and motivation to learn of how to do ethnographic fieldwork. Unfortunately, Winarto did not have much time to stay for quite a long time in the hamlet at each visit, and thus, there were cases beyond her reach to control. He achieved a good rapport with the farmers in a short time. Yet, whether he knew the ethics of doing fieldwork, for example of ’not going native‘, should have been part of our concern in assisting him. This was our weakness as a team. • That weakness would not have had such consequences if there had not been conflicts among the farmers themselves. Apparently, there was a bad mood between the farmers’ leader and the lady who ran the food stall. In that conflict, by being ‘native’, the researcher developed empathy towards the latter. At the same time, the food stall which had just been built, in early 2009, became the place where farmers used to stop by on the way to and from their fields. There they talked with each other, and spent their leisure time in the afternoon and evening. That was a place where farmers shared their experience, discussed, argued, and learned from one another. As part of our fieldwork, it was one of the best places to merge with the farmers, do observations, and listen to their conversations. The researcher also used to spend his time there when the rumor of his relationship with the food stall owner, a married lady, went on air. • The leader’s strong and angry reaction to that ’intimate relationship‘, preceded by another unpleasant rumor of the researcher’s complaint about the meals provided by the leader, worsened the relationship between the leader and that researcher. After a meeting between the farmers’ leader and the hamlet leader, at last the latter asked the researcher to leave the hamlet to restore the peace in his hamlet. They later on allowed our collaborative work to continue with the condition that we should find another person to replace that researcher,

138


and if possible find women researchers instead of men. It was the first time in our experience as ethnographers that our subjects proposed such a strong condition and sanction for our research to continue. • The group members’ responses did vary. Some did not believe the story of the really intimate relationship between the two and others expressed their regret of what had happened. Even though some of them were in doubt and were not happy with the hefty reaction of their leader, as we had found earlier, they did not dare to confront their leader’s decision. Again, this should be explained as part of the Javanese values and norms of not confronting the leader openly. Silence was their choice, though they might not have agreed with the leader’s responses and decisions (see Koentjaraningrat, 1985; Geertz, 1961; Mulder, 1980).

The difficulty to find a solution supported by the group members, due to the strong Javanese values and norms, and Winarto’s imminent return to the Universitas Indonesia, made it impossible to continue our collaborative work in Wareng with this group. It would not be easy as well to find a replacement for the researcher. Even though we had tried our best to keep moving forward, by always being reflective on our complicit relationship with the farmers (see Marcus, 2001; Holmes and Marcus, 2005), we came to the conclusion that it would not be possible of sustaining the complicit intersubjectivity any longer. Sunday is right (as cited by Lassiter, 2005b) that collaborative ethnographic research is not merely a research. It is a paradigm that combines both the components of learning and teaching, research and practical actions, and in our viewpoint morals and ethics as well. These were the richest learning processes we had. We learned that various dimensions of a person, such as emotional maturity and strong personality, accompanied by continuous exercise of mind and heart, are the basis of a scholars’ behavior which is, unfortunately, not learned and taught at school (see Winarto, 2010). We can’t find them in our textbooks, and that is what we have to directly learn from practical exercises. A question remains, however, of how to plan our ‘exit strategy’ gently, by keeping our good relationship with the farmers. Also, by not terminating the farmers’ observations abruptly without any further continuation. That was really a difficult situation we had. Fortunately, our good relationship with a professor of entomology from the Faculty of Agriculture at Gadjah Mada University, Prof. Kasumbogo Untung, made him agree to take over the responsibility of facilitating the farmers in collaboration with Stigter as the remaining expert in agrometeorology. What a happy solution indeed. Now, how should we tell this to all the members of the Sedio Mulyo group who felt ashamed of the unexpected and unwanted problems? Since the issue was already in the hands of the village leader, we decided to ask him to host a meeting with the farmers in his office. So, in mid August 2009, Winarto regretfully told the farmers officially in front of the village leader, other village officers, and the Gadjah Mada University professor, of her withdrawal from the collaborative work. However, it was not the end of the story. Winarto introduced the promising solution that the Gadjah Mada University professor and his team would continue our work with the Science Field Shops, by also involving farmers from other hamlets in the village of Wareng. It was fortunate that the village leader took the wise decision

139


of taking over the leadership for the future collaboration with the Gadjah Mada University’s scholars and Stigter. We all felt ashamed that such a very promising research and collaboration with the farmers should be terminated in this way. We did experience, however, very good lessons, learned from the nitty-gritty of the work, including how to develop the data sheet and documentation throughout the process. ۞ “I agree to continue our work together, but why do you constrain us of getting help from others?”, was one of the farmers’ remarks on the second day of our meeting attended by Stigter in March 2009. Even though we were not surprised by such a question, that expression reveals our different viewpoints and understanding of how to position our work within the farmers’ interests to get as much help from various parties as possible. It has of course never been our intention to constrain farmers’ initiatives in building up their network with other parties. The question is: why was such a remark made by several farmers (not all of the Sedio Mulyo members)? We understood their interests to use our collaborative work as a ’gate‘ to get help from NGOs and other scholars. A documentary promotion was thus needed as expressed by the farmers’ leader in the meeting with Stigter in 2009. It was beyond their thinking that the other parties could make use of their activities for their own needs. Using our work as means to get benefits for their own interests and not acknowledging the work by the farmers were the problems we argued against. Protecting farmers’ needs was our aims. Apparently, such (admittedly rare, see Stigter, 2011c) ethics in the scientific domain were not part of the farmers’ rules of thumb in protecting their own knowledge from being pirated by others. Farmers’ versus scholars’ interests, that was the main contested issue we experienced. Even though there was an ongoing reflexivity and we accommodated farmers’ interests, we realized that doing collaborative ethnography is indeed not simple. We had also to work within their cultural values and norms, which could be advantageous but also the opposite. Nevertheless, even within eight months of farmers’ observations, a joint product of knowledge, based on local scientific and empirical data and presented in a scientific way, could be produced. An intersubjective meaning of local data collected by a number of people, so as to become part of their external memory, was the significant product we gained as presented in the following chapter.

140


Table 5.2. Farmers’ questions and the agrometeorologist’s answers No Question 1

Clarification about the code argued by Jiyem: [—] & [0]

Answer Question: how often does dew occur in the growing seasons? Is it quite often? The dew may become important if it occurs regularly in particular places. If not, just ignore it. [0]: farmers do the measurement, but there is no water in the rain-gauge; [—]: farmers did not do the measurement.

2

When one raingauge was missing, the farmers measured the water trapped in an oil can, using a milliliter measuring cup and got 210 ml. But, when they measured the water with another raingauge, they got 55 mm. In the School they learned that 210 ml would be equivalent to 21mm. Which one is correct?

If you do not measure the water caught with equipment having the same diameter as the raingauge, on top (orifice) and at the bottom, you can’t do the comparison and can’t get the same results. We can’t make any comparison by using cans with different surface diameters, unless the measuring glass has been calibrated for the orifice of the raingauge.

3

To what extent could heavy rains with strong wind reduce the volume of water in the raingauge? Could the raingauge be emptied in such weather conditions?

If there are strong winds and the raingauge was placed on the pole of 1-2 m height, there could be such a risk. Such strong winds in the tropics are, however, rare. It won’t be much of a problem for tropical areas. In Holland, there could be an error up to 10% due to strong winds and smaller rain drops. In the tropics, rain drops may be around 6 mm in the larger showers.

4

Why does a hybrid variety (Pioneer) produce bad yields in the second time planting?

The cross-breeding of the parental seeds of hybrid varieties is not normal.

5

In this rainy season, the paddy is lodged, but we do not know the causal factors: is it due to pests, fertilizers, water, or wind?*

We can say that the causal factor of soil logging is water/rain. It happens on sodden soil, so the oxygen is lacking and the crops do not grow well. Wind can cause the lodging of plants, but it does not happen every season.

Note: * Soil with too much water (sodden with water) is called logged soil. Damage by wind is called lodging, when plants get bent towards the surface. Sometimes both damages occur together.

141


But if farmers observe the direct relation between wind and plant bending, then the causal factor is the wind. Tobacco suffers the most because the roots are not strong enough in the soil. It is unlikely that the causal factor is fertilizer. Lodging can also be due to heavy grains. All could be the causal factors of bent crops in a particular condition. 6

For paddy: how much rainfall is needed for the plant to grow in one planting season?

In maize, the more the sunshine and the better the water condition, the better the plant grow. It does not happen to paddy. Since paddy grows in water standing in the field, paddy can absorb the necessary water. In the dry rainfed fields, too much water, or on the contrary, too little water could cause problems. But, you do not need to worry of the everyday condition. Just observe the rain for 7 days and whether the soil is wet enough (some moisture in the soil). If yes, the paddy can grow. If more than 7 days without rain and the soil is dry (no moisture at all), then there will be a problem for the growth of the crops.

7

Which one is better: the roots of paddy that grows horizontal or vertical? What is the best length of roots for paddy?

It depends on the way of watering the field. If the field is irrigated, the types of roots are good for the growth of paddy since there is always some moisture in the soil. If the field is a dry rainfed one, the roots that grow horizontally close to the soil surface will absorb rain whenever the rain falls. But, the crops can suffer easily from drought. The roots that grow vertically can gain the benefits by absorbing water from the deeper soil layers. The deeper soil layers would have higher moisture than the upper soil layers.

8

Is it true that when the paddy reaches the stage of flowering and there is a strong wind, the grains will be empty?

We can say that the causal factor of soil logging is water/ rain. It happens on sodden soil, so the oxygen is lacking and the crops do not grow well. Wind can cause the lodging of plants, but it does not happen every season. But if farmers observe the direct relation between wind and plant bending, then the causal factor is the wind. Tobacco suffers the most because the roots are not strong enough in the soil. It is unlikely that the causal factor is fertilizer. Lodging can also be due to heavy grains. All could be the causal factors of bent crops in a particular condition.

Table 5.2. (Continued)

142


9

At what age of paddy the fertilizer should be applied? When should it be stopped?

10 In this rainy season (2008/09), there was a sudden outbreak of brown planthopper at the stage when the paddy was about to be harvested. Why did it happen? Usually brown planthoppers invests paddy at its vegetative stage. How to explain that? 11 When the rain is heavy, water will flood the field. It is difficult to drain the water because of the dykes surrounding the field. In the beginning of the planting season, the soil gets easily dry. But, when the field is covered by water, the water will stand in the field. What kinds of crop are the best to grow in the flooded fields?

The time for fertilizer application varies for different varieties. But, as long as the paddy grows, it needs fertilizer. When the paddy stops growing, no more need for fertilizer application. What farmers do in forecasting the yields is observing the conditions of plants at the vegetative stage. When the growth of leaves stops, you can have some estimation of the yields by observing the biomass condition of the plants, except in the condition of droughts or floods. In either condition, you can get problems because the transport of nutrients to the grains can be constrained. The growth of brown plant hopper’s population depends on the weather conditions. When that pest emerges, it means that the wet weather is conducive for the eggs of the pest to hatch.

• Paddy varieties resistant to water logging and some plants such as bamboo and lotus can grow in the flooded fields. However, please be certain to make the dykes in such a way that you can drain the water when the rainfall reaches 100 mm or so, when gradually

fallen. • You have to drain the water as soon as possible since you know that you are going to have problems. If you can collect the water in a pond, you can use it in subsequent drought. That’s good. If you can throw the water out of the field, that’s good. But, you need to collectively manage the effort to make drainage. If you do it together with your neighbors, you can drain the water. You can’t do it alone. You need a collective action in a group to drain the water together. • If you observe the rainfall already reaches 70 mm or around that quite quickly, it would be good if you take action as soon as possible to drain the water. Break the dykes in your field together!! Draining the water alone can’t be done because the draining will involve the neighboring fields.


143


• When the soil has not been compacted, then because of the standing water (the water can not easily percolate into the deeper ground), you can still partly use the water standing in the fields, because the water will still percolate slowly into the deeper soil but mainly be used for evapotranspiration. But, if the soil gets too much water you have to drain the water away. 12

When it is raining for 2—4 days, the plants will grow well. But, if the rain falls continuously for 4—8 days, the plants can’t grow well, though the farmers fertilize the different fields with the same amount of fertilizers, with the same frequencies of application. Why is it like that?

13

Why when the gareng pong (a kind of locust that used to sing loudly in the beginning of the dry season) starts singing and we begin planting soybean, the soybean will be empty? Usually, farmers know that when the gareng pong starts singing, the long dry season will begin soon. And if we plant soybean, it will produce good yields.

That occurs because of the air humidity. The absence of seeds of soybean means that there is no nutrient transportation to the seeds. Thus, the absence of soybean seeds indicates a too early dry season or a long period of drought. Soybean will not produce good yields unless the soil was very wet when the drought comes.

14

The Srigunting birds that were gone in 2007, are now returning (in 2009). Why does it happen?

The 2008 and 2009 years were La Niña periods: more water and more humidity. The government should know that La Niña periods will come, so that they could inform farmers to prepare the drainage far in advance. If farmers can drain the water, they will get the benefits. But, whether there will be La Niña periods or not, due to climate change, rain will come late [in 2009].


144

• After a continuous 4 days of rain, heavy soil will become solid (water can’t leach easily into the deeper layers of soil). The excessive water can cause a lack of oxygen. If there are no disease infestations, it is the excessive water that retards the growth of crops. If so, you have to drain the water. • In a flooded field, with not too heavy soil, water will leach into the deeper soil layers together with fertilizers. Thus, it depends on soil conditions. If you reapply the fertilizers, it can substitute the lost fertilizers. • However, standing water will always be bad to the growth of crops, unless the crops have been adapted to grow in such a condition, such as wet rice varieties.

Chapter 6 The Joint Production of Knowledge: Its Dynamics Hestu Prahara, Yunita T. Winarto and Kristiyanto

Laying the foundation for assisting farmers to improve their agrometeorological analysis is not as simple as we thought. That was the beginning of how the two domains of knowledge: the expert’s and the people’s knowledge were dialectically combined and were put into action through rainfall measurement and agroecosystem observation. Gradually, through day to day rainfall measurements, observations and evaluations, and through the meetings with the agrometeorologist, the farmers’ local ilmu titèn was enriched with novel meanings expressed in new vocabularies and lexicons. In our observation, there was an advancement in the farmers’ way of talking and expressing their understanding of the current weather conditions, not only in the form of verbal lexicons, but also in the written form. Strauss (2003:40-41) argues for two frameworks to describe the ways people talk about the weather. First is the ‘popular-expert speech continuum’ referring to two types of knowledge: the ‘folk’ or ‘indigenous’ knowledge, and the ‘scientific’ one (Strauss, 2003:40). Second is the ‘tradition-modernity spectrum’ based on “...the relationship between Foucault’s (1979) usage of Bentham’s Panopticon and the late- to post-modern notion of the Synopticon” (Strauss, 2003:41). Referring to these two frameworks we argue that both of them can be used to describe the growth of the agrometeorological schema among the Sedio Mulyo farmers in both verbal and written forms. Whilst Strauss (2003:40) argues of the two types of knowledge—the ‘folk’ and the ‘scientific’ ones—as two poles in a continuum and even in opposition, we see the growth of the farmers’ agrometeorological knowledge as the joint product of combining the elements of the two domains. Once the elements originating from both domains are intermingling in farmers’ minds, it is no longer relevant to see them as separate entities (see Agrawal, 1995; Brookfield, 1996; Strauss and Quinn, 1997; Choesin, 2002). Over the period of our collaboration, the observer-facilitators from the ‘scientific domain’ and the farmers from the ‘folk or local domain’ were communicating intensely to translate the latter’s observations into verbal and written products of knowledge. The first part of this chapter presents the researchers’ ongoing work and evaluation in preparing and providing data sheets for the farmers to enable them to write down their observations. It was indeed a novel experience for the anthropologists to produce the data sheets and several times we had to revise them. In that process, the farmers’ evaluation and comments were beneficial. Both the observer-facilitators and the farmers had the aim of producing data that can be read and interpreted by both parties. In reality, what we were undergoing together through months of data collection and processing presents what Latour and Woolgar (1989) call ‘literary inscription’. Literary inscription refers to the scientific ways of transferring the research results into the written form by using an ‘inscription device’. Latour and Woolgar (1989:51) define the inscription devise as:

145

Hestu Prahara, Yunita T. Winarto and Kristiyanto

… any item of apparatus or particular configuration of such items which can transform a material substance into a figure or diagram which is directly usable by one of the members of the office space [the scientist].

They further explain that: An important consequence of this notion of inscription device is that inscriptions are regarded as having direct relationship to the “original substance” (Latour and Woolgar, 1989:51).

Raingauges used by farmers to measure rainfall are the inscription devices to yield data of rainfall in numbers. In combination with farmers’ sensing in seeing, feeling and experiencing the daily phenomena found in their fields, the numerical data of rainfall and the agroecosystem conditions become the basis for further processes of inscription. How did the processes go on in translating the farmers’ inscription into the scientific ones in the form suitable for the agrometeorologist to read and interpret? The second part of this chapter presents the stories of how the inscription processes went on from the time the farmers translated their observations into their own writing and into further forms of inscriptions belonging to the scientific domain, namely graphs and matrices. We argue that the whole process of creating those inscriptions is not at all different from the one mentioned by Latour and Woolgar (1989) as the ‘system of literary inscription’. The end product of the collaboration between scholars and farmers in producing that literary inscription could also be seen as resulting from the ’Synopticon’ in Strauss’ second framework of the ‘tradition-modernity spectrum’ (Strauss, 2003:41). The Synopticon is contrasted to the Panopticon which is, ...a construct that allows a single individual (or collective serving as an institutional representative) to observe many others simultaneously,..., in which powerful governmental institutions have the ability to observe, monitor and control populations of citizens (Strauss, 2003:41).

In the case of weather forecasts, we could say that the work of the government institutions such as the Office of Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics (BMKG) in the center of the Indonesian governance represents such a Panopticon way of observing and monitoring weather, and then controlling its dissemination as a weather forecast all over the country. On the other hand, the second variant of the Synopticon, according to Strauss (2003:40), represents a construct in which “...many perspectives are melded into a single vision or representation,...”. Following Strauss (2003), we agree that the creation of weather surveys requires the compilation of multiple data points collected by individual actors, or in Strauss’ words: “...by individual human volunteers,...” (Strauss, 2003:41). She further explains that Synopticon …is a metaphor for joint production of image/knowledge/ideology—the cyborg that, though resolutely late-modern, still breathes through the face-to-face Gemeinschaft, or community, of individual actors engaged in their immediate environments… (Strauss, 2003:53).

The farmers in Wareng IV, Gunungkidul, are individual actors, engaged in their immediate environments of crop farming, who know one another well in their daily life as members of one hamlet. The locality of their products is strong. Yet, the farmers’ own data collection, after

146

The Joint Production of Knowledge

being processed through scientific procedures, can also be interpreted by a wider audience across spatial and time dimensions. How did the process go on in turning the individual observation of multiple data points into one single survey? Again, it is not a simple way of producing. It is indeed a dynamic process dealing with diverse interpretations and inscriptions. This chapter begins with the stories of how the scholars prepared the sheets for the farmers to inscribe their daily observations. The second part describes the stages of literary inscription by farmers up to the stage where the scholars could inscribe it in forms ready for interpretation by the expert. The final section of this chapter provides the product of such a long process of inscription: the agrometeorologist’s interpretation which was then presented to the farmers for their further evaluation and action. Documenting the Agrometeorological Data: Changing over Time At the time the agrometeorologist left the field, a question for us was of how could we help the farmers in their inscription. What kinds of data sheet could we provide to the farmers to fill in the rainfall data and the results of their observations? We realized that this was the first job we had to do. Yet, developing a data sheet was a novel experience for us. It would not be a problem if we had to develop the documentation for our own needs in our own understanding. However, for this particular purpose, we had to think twice by addressing various needs. First, how to transfer farmers’ observations into written forms by also considering the need to get it later on into another form for data processing and interpretation? How to provide spaces so that the farmers could write down their findings narratively for the agroecosystem observations? Second, how to make the data sheets so that the farmers would not have any difficulties in writing down their notes? We learned that they had previous experience of writing and drawing their agroecosystem analyses while joining Farmer Field Schools. We assumed, therefore, that they would not have any difficulties in doing the same thing this time. Yet, we discovered that the process of preparing and developing the data sheets and of facilitating and accommodating farmers’ needs and problems was not as simple as we thought. We found that understanding the farmers’ ways of thinking of how to transfer their empirical observations in the form of symbols and codes was necessary. Symbols and codes constitute parts of a writing. Writing, according to Rapport and Overing (2007:442) is: ...‘the orderly use of symbolic forms (that is, forms which carry meaning for their user) for the making of orderly worlds’; writing conceived of not as a technique of communication but as a ‘mode of cognition which makes experience meaningful’.

Jiyem’s controversy on the use of the symbol [—] to refer to missing a day in measuring rainfall, but instead using that symbol for water from dew she found inside the raingauge, is an example of how a code carries a particular meaning for her. Her interpretation of our criticism as a rejection of her ‘local knowledge’ also portrays Rapport and Overing’s saying that writing is a ‘mode of cognition which makes experience meaningful’ (Rapport and Overing, 2007:442). Further, they emphasize their argument that “...writing is the practice of symbolically reflecting on, and making sense of, experience” (Rapport and Overing, 2007:443). The entire process of

147


developing the documentation is an exercise towards making the new experience meaningful for both parties: the farmers and the scholars. Furthermore, taking notes daily is a new experience indeed for the farmers who used to rely on their memories being kept in lexical forms. As Ellen (2004:438) says, local knowledge “...is encoded in language, and is therefore lexical”. Local knowledge or ethnoscience is possible without literacy, argues Ellen (2004:438). Science, on the other hand, ...has become dependent on the ’linear-sentential mode’ (Bloch, 1991) for its forms of organisation, range of possible sustained cognition manipulation, and in the written word for storing and transmitting knowledge (Ellen, 2004:439).

The activities of storing and transmitting farmers’ daily observations in the form of written words and codes mean a shift of the lexical local knowledge into the textual mode. In Ellen’s words, the farmers are now experiencing “the textualisation of their lexical knowledge” (Ellen, 2004:438). How was this gradual process going on? The dynamics of formalizing the textualization: changes in data sheets Along with our learning of the problems the farmers had in documenting their observations, by also considering our needs in processing the data at a later stage, we kept improving, and thus, changing the format of the data sheets. After a discussion of what data should be put in the data sheets, we came up with the first form in a portrait-format for the total of 30 days (3 ten-days [decadal] periods) of daily rainfall measurements. See Table 6.1. That was the first page of the document. The second page was the sheet for filling in farmers’ agroecosystem observations. Different from the first page, the second one should be filled in by the farmers once in ten days of observation. The following is the English version of the sheet. The first version of the rainfall data sheet Names of farmers Field location The cultivated crops Soil type

. :............................ :............................ :............................ :............................

Month:.............../Year:.............. No

1. 2. 3. 30.

148

Dates

Time of rainfall measurement

The amount of rainfall (mm)

Notes (farmers’ observations of the general field condition)


Table 6.1 The portrait format of the rainfall data sheet

Source: API-UGM research team, 2008.

149


What were the problems with this type of sheet? After using that form for a couple of months, we found two problems: · ·

The fourth column (Notes on farmers’ observations of the general field condition) had a limited space for the farmers to write down their statements. Since one page was used by two farmers—responsible for one point of observation—in taking notes of their measurements in turn, there was a ‘muddled arrangement’ of who should do the observations on what days and fill in the data sheet. It could happen that the paper was not with the farmer when he/she did the observations. As a result, there were cases of blank rows for several days of missing Based on those points, we decided to evaluate and modify the sheet. Considering the two problems, Winarto came up with the idea of dividing the data-sheet into decadal periods of observation in a landscape format (see Table 6.2).

Table 6.2 The landscape format of the rainfall data sheet One Decadal Rainfall Measurement Sheet of 2009 Sedio Mulyo Farmers Group of Wareng IV, Gunungkidul Farmers’ name: ………….. Field location

: ………….. April 2009

No

Day

Date

Time

Rainfall (mm)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Source: API-UGM research team, 2008. From: Stigter et al., 2009.

150

Notes


By doing that, we provided more space for the farmers to write down what they thought was important to be considered in the last column. By allocating one full page for 10 days of observations instead of 30 days, we suggested the farmers to split their work: one farmer would do the observations for the whole one decadal period. During that period, he/she was the one who was responsible of observing the agroecosystem conditions and of writing the results of his/her observations on the second page of the data sheet. See Table 6.3 of the second page of the data sheet on agroecosystem conditions. Our suggestion to split the work between the pair of farmers, with one farmer observing one full decadal period, turned out well. It was much easier to find out later of who had been responsible of what decadal period, in case there were some data missing. The farmer could also focus on and analyze the agroecosystem conditions of the whole decade to get a full understanding of that particular period. Table 6.3 One decadal observation sheet ONE DECADAL OBSERVATION SHEET Date ….. up to …… 2009 Farmers’ name : ……. Field location : ……. Soil type : ……. No.

Items of observation

1

Soil management (with rain harvesting method or not)

2

Crop type and variety

3

Pests and diseases, and control strategies

4

Fertilizing: stage and dosage

5

Sowing strategies and plantings

6

The conditions of crop growth

7

Water conditions in the field

8

Evaluation of rain harvesting method

9

Root depths

Observation result

Source: API-UGM research team, 2009.

151


Following the consensus reached earlier of what items of their strategies and crop and field conditions should be observed, there were nine items listed in the second column: 1) soil management (with ‘rain harvesting method’ or not); 2) the kind of crop(s) and its/their varieties; 3) pests and diseases infestations and farmers’ control strategies; 4) fertilizer applications and dosages; 5) sowings and the ways of planting the seedlings); 6) the conditions of the growth of crops; 7) water conditions in the field; 8) evaluation on the use of the rain harvesting method; and 9) the depth of roots. There was no disagreement on the items to observe, but we discovered later on that not all farmers filled in all parts of the sheets. In one monthly meeting of the group, an idea was raised by the farmers’ leader commenting on the second version of the data sheet for rainfall measurements. In her perspective, it was important to also write down the day of observation (Monday, Tuesday... etc.). We understood the importance of referring to particular days in the Javanese cosmology. Farmers do believe on ‘good’ or ‘bad’ days of the Javanese calendar that could affect their farming and other daily activities. Particular days in the Javanese calendar such as Legi, Pahing, Pon, Wage, Kliwon (five days in one week) refer to their specific character related to the Javanese mythology, which in their belief could determine the blessing they could receive in carrying out a certain field activity. For example: which day is the ‘good’ day or the ‘bad’ day for planting or for harvesting (see Sriyanto, 2002). With such a reference, we agreed that writing down the day would be significant indeed for analyzing the rainfall data, and for interpreting farmers’ own cosmology, mythology and weather lore. However, we again discovered the different perspectives the farmers’ leader had. Later in the discussion, she did apparently not think of the need to write down the days of the Javanese calendar, but the international days instead, such as: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday... etc. (Senin, Selasa, Rabu etc.). Even though at first Winarto argued that the more relevant item to write down was the ‘day in the Javanese calendar system’, to enable us and the farmers to relate the rainfall data to their Javanese cosmology, we after all decided to just follow the farmers’ preference, which varied between them. See the third version of the sheet for one decadal period of rainfall observations in Table 6.4. It was good that the farmers had a regular meeting each month to have their rotating credit activity with their group, followed by bi-decadal evaluations. That was the time when the farmers had the opportunity to consult one another on their findings, and for us to evaluate, correct and query ‘missing data’ or incorrect ways of writing up their findings. See Plate 6.1 of farmers’ discussion of their data sheet during the meeting. This version became the final one of the data sheets for rainfall measurements (also see Stigter et al., 2009). The gradual modification and changes we made, throughout the process of establishing the most suitable forms for documenting farmers’ observations, is an example of how the two parties were adjusting one another with regard to their counterpart’s needs and capability. We were experiencing trial and error practices in the data sheet in finding the most valid and reliable ways of producing the data.

152


Table 6.4 The third version of the rainfall data sheet 2008/09 rainfall sheet for decadal observations Sedio Mulyo Farmers-Group, Wareng IV hamlet, Gunungkidul Farmer’s Name Location Month No.

Day

: ……………………………………… : ……………………………………… : Date

Time

Amount of rainfall (mm)

Remarks (if any)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Source: API-UGM research team, 2009. From: Stigter et al., 2009.

Plate 6.1 Farmers’ evaluation of and discussion on their writings

Photo by Winarto, 2009.

153


Our minds were focused on how to process the data later on within the domain of ‘scientific premises and procedures’, also learning of how to translate their lexical memory into a literacy practice minds. A “cultural translation” process, that was their experience over the eight months period. Translating the lexical knowledge into the text and simplifying the complex reality into simple sentences do stimulate the working of their minds. To some extent it produced the necessary information as written in the first data sheet of rainfall measurements, but was not quite successful for the agroecosystem conditions. That was the product of bringing the ‘ethnoscience’ into ‘science’. Rainfall Data Processing: From Farmers’ Observations Into Scientific Inscription Trial and error processes, in what we learned in preparing one inscription device, the data sheet, were also experienced by farmers in writing down their rainfall measurements and field observations. It was indeed not easy for the farmers to go through the inscription way of transferring their knowledge. We observed a transition from the learning process, that relied heavily on observations and memory stored in lexicons, into the requirement to write down the results of their observations. How could they adapt to such a ‘scientific way of literary inscription’? Indeed, the translation activities of the empirical realities into the narrative texts went on gradually. The first individual inscription did vary. Yet, they had also to reach a consensus on how to transfer their individual notes into the data sheets. It is interesting to discover the character of their inscription from the empirical observations into the writing in each notebook, and from the notebook into the data sheets. How did the farmers go through those stages? What kinds of inscription did they produce, and finally, what did the joint production of knowledge look like? Diversity of individual writing: the first inscription in farmers’ notebooks Every time we went to the field with the farmers, we observed the complex phenomena the farmers discovered in their fields. Among others were the growth of their crops, whether they were ‘healthy’ or not, the soil and water conditions, and the presence of pests or diseases. They also used to compare their field conditions with those of their neighbors and formulated their assumptions of what went well or wrong with their or the neighbors fields. It was not at all difficult for them to express their thoughts and ideas on what they found in their fields in our conversations. We could, thus, empathically understand the constraints they had at the time they were about to write their daily observations into the notebook. Writing down the numerical amounts of the rainfall measurements was not difficult. But formulating the results of their agroecosystem observations into ‘words’ in a written form did constrain them. The farmers did experience hardship in simplifying the complex realities of their fields into texts. What to write and how? Simplifying the complex world into our existing categories, meanings and thoughts is indeed the nature of interpretation. That is what a knowledge or schema means (see

154


D’Andrade, 1992; Strauss and Quinn, 1997). The schema—in our minds—itself is a simplified pattern of recognition of the complex world. When the farmers were about to inscribe their observations, they faced again the situation of simplifying those observations that have themselves been interpreted on the basis of a simplified pattern of recognition. Reductionism is inevitable. This is one nature of the scientific way of understanding the ‘realities’ which was also experienced by the farmers. Another characteristic is the diverse range of simplifications each farmer produced. It is thus inevitable that not all farmers write down their observations of the field conditions and the growth of crops, as found for the notebooks of Tono, Inem and Kar. Also we discovered three different ways the farmers did the first inscription in their notebooks. In the first way, their writing focused only on the result of rainfall measurements by using tabels with the information on the date, day, hour and the numerical rainfall measured, without any notes on the conditions of their field’s agroecosystem (see plate 6.2). In this case, the result of their field’s agroecosystem observations was written down straight away on the data sheet. The plate shows that Inem’s note did not mention the day of her observation. Kiran is an example of a very careful observer. His writing expresses his main thoughts and concerns of his plants at the time of observation. In such an inscription, we found a range of diverse ways of how farmers managed their writing in combining the rainfall measurements and the observations on crops and fields. See the following examples of five farmers’ notebooks (Arti, Aming, Amir, Umi and Arni): ·

·

·

Separating the rainfall data from the agroecosystem observations in different pages as done by Arni (see Plate 6.4). Unfortunately, Arni did not continue inscribing her field observation as persistently as Kiran did. The results of rainfall measurements was compiled for one decadal period in combination with the agroecosystem observations as found in Amir’s, Arti’s and Aming’s notebooks (see Plate 6.5 for Arti’s notes. Also see Amir’s writing below). The rainfall data were not consistently compiled according to each decadal period as what Umi did. In several pages she wrote down the rainfall data for one full page. In the other pages, she separated the data for each decadal period with minimal words for field observations. See Plate 6.6.

It is interesting to know Arni’s observations of the rainfall and weather conditions and her concern in relation to the stages of plant growth. We seldom found such an expression in the other farmers’ writing. It is apparent from farmers’ notes that each of them has his/her own concern and focus of observations and his/her choice of what to write in their notebooks. Even though the farmers had agreed upon the items of what to observe in the meeting with the agrometeorologist in mid 2008 (see Chapter 5), not all items were considered as necessary to observe (such as the depth of roots) and to write in their notebooks. The examples of Kiran’s, Arni’s and Inem’s writings (see the translations of Plates 6.3, 6.4, and 6.2) reveal their diverse thoughts and interests.

155


Plate 6.2 Inem’s notes

Translation of Inem’s writing: Tgl: date Jumlah curah hujan: The total amount of rainfall The heading of the second column should be: “Hour of observing the rainfall” Source: Inem’s notebook, 2008.

Plate 6.3 Kiran’s notes on his agroecosystem observations

Translation of Kiran’s writing: Date: 11—13-12-2008. Small rain (drizzles), rainfall: 4,5; 2,5. The plants are still flooded. The plants are healthy. The leaves are eaten by worms (larvae), but these are not dangerous for the paddy. The rains are enough, the field is flooded. Date: 15—25-12-2008. The plants (paddy) are healthy enough. The worms (larvae) have already become pupae. The age of paddy already reached 60 days. The plants need more fertilizer. Lack of organic and non-organic fertilizers. No diseases or pests are found. Source: Kiran’s notebook, 2008.

156


Plate 6.4 Arni’s notes

Translation of Arni’s writing: 1.The field is not getting flooded. 2.T h e p l a n t s j u s t a r e b e c o m i n g r e p r o d u ctive. The rains fall quite often in the evening. During midday the weather is very hot. There was no more rain on Friday. The field is getting dry. There have been eight days without rains.When the panicles are getting out (merkatak), there should be water [in the field]. Source: Arni’s notebook, 2009.

Plate 6.5 Arti’s notes

Translation of Arti’s notes: Since the water already recedes, the plants start to become green and are eaten by worms (larvae). After one week, the larvae have become pupae. Source: Arti’s notebook, 2008

157


Plate 6.6 Umi’s notes

Translation of Umi’s notes: • There is a moon for a while. • The soil is cracking. • The plant leaves become yellow. • Need to be fertilized. Source: Umi’s notebook, 2008.

Among all 19 farmers actively participating in rainfall measurements, Kiran and Amir are examples of those whose writings are covering their general overview of their fields and plants. The followings are examples of another of Kiran’s notes and the note of Amir: • Date: 3—4 January 2009: No rain. The paddy is still healthy. Water is still flooding the field. Pests and diseases are absent. The paddy surrounding the rain gauge is healthy enough. • From the 4th of January 2009, seven days no rain. The paddy looks a bit yellow as from lack of fertilizers (and probably the plants have reached their generative stage/early reproductive stage), or lack of water. • 8th of January 2009: The paddy is now around 75 days old, late reproductive stage. Water is enough. Kiran

In our observations, the condition of Ciherang variety is healthy enough and now the paddy has reached its generative stage (mapak/dandan in Javanese terms). The weeds are not plenty and the water is enough. Pests are few, only small lice, but they are not dangerous to the plants. Amir

Different from Kiran’s and Amir’s detailed notes on the conditions of their fields and plants, Aming’s notes are simpler. He wrote his brief observations at the end of one decadal rainfall observation, but repeatedly doing that for several decadal periods (See Table 6.5).

158


Table 6.5 Aming’s notes on his agroecosystem observations Decadal period

Aming’s notes (at the end of the page)

January 2009/ Decade I

There are some pests, but not dangerous, no need to “medicate” (tidak perlu di obat [refers to pesticides]), don’t do that (jangan).

January 2009/ Decade II

The plants reached their generative stage. The leaves are getting yellow.

Januari 2009/ Decade III

Pest: the young generation of leafhopper (walang) eating the paddy leaves.

Arni’s notes as revealed in Plate 6.4 are peculiar to the weather conditions in that particular decade where she paid attention to. Another farmer, Giyem, expanded her analyses of the weather conditions and cropping activities, with her ilmu titèn, the Javanese calendar and cosmology. It is an example of how the detailed agroecosystem observations do not only enrich farmer’s knowledge and analysis, but also reactivate the traditional cosmology stored in that farmer’s mind. See Giyem’s writing as follows. The first rain fell on 24/10/08, if calculated with ilmu titèn/pranata mangsa à fell at the end of mangsa kapat (month four) or the beginning of mangsa kalima (month five). The next rain fell on the 26th, 27th, 29th, 30th (October 2008) and so on. Farmers began to plant the seeds of paddy, maize, soybean, groundnuts and others. On 27/10/08: Monday Pon at the end of October 2008, the last day of planting seeds based on each farmer’s interests: some made nurseries, some used a digging stick, and some broadcasted the seeds. When farmers planted their seedlings, the plants grew à the rains were very good, but after the plants grew around two weeks old à the rains stopped (several days without rains). It should have been fertilized for the first time. (Giyem’s notes, transcribed by Kristiyanto)

Such was Giyem’s reflection on what had happened in the beginning of the 2008 rainy season. That is how the farmer learned from her/his observations and experiences in sharpening his/her ilmu titèn. The long list of the detailed Javanese calendar written by Kiran in the last pages of his notebook reveals his memory of that calendar, which was being reactivated by Kiran after months of carrying out daily rainfall measurements and field observations. Knowledge never gets lost. It is kept in individual memories. Once a person faces a particular situation, he/she could reactivate his/her hidden memory as part of his/her response to that particular stimuli (see Strauss and Quinn, 1997). It remains a question whether Kiran would write down such a long list if he was not being motivated by the daily practices of observing the weather conditions and their implications for his fields and plants. The next task each farmer had to do was transferring their individual notes into the provided data sheets. How could they do that? Would a diverse inscription be found despite the uniform data sheet they had to fill in?

159


The next inscription stage: transferring the individual notes into the data sheets Quantifying the qualitative rainfall conditions was a novel experience for the farmers. Yet, once they were able to inscribe their measurements into numbers, it was not difficult for them to transfer their writings into another form of data transcription. Surprisingly, all SM members did not find it very demanding to fill the blank rows and columns of the first page of the data sheets, in particular the columns of dates, hours and rainfall data in numbers. The type of data they had to transcribe was exact and precise. Only a few, however, filled in the column of additional remarks (keterangan) related to the general conditions of the rains, weather or farm fields. This was entirely different for the second type of data, based on their empirical observations stored in lexicons. Not only was the ability of inscribing their observations into texts not the same, as found in their first stage of inscription, but also the decisions on whether to fill in the blank spaces, and the ways they wrote down their notes and memories, were different. It was evident that textualizing their lexical knowledge (see Ellen, 2004) was not easy. At this stage, they had to make an effort to categorize their general overview into the categories of fields, plant growth and farming practices, while writing the narratives of the complex phenomena they observed in a limited space was also constraining. They had to decide on what lexicons they were going to write and how to formulate their narrative statements. Those who did the inscription straight away into their notebooks after their daily observations would have it easier to write down their observation results into the second page of the data sheets in comparison to those who did not write any words in their notebooks. Some farmers were simplifying their daily observations into text in two stages of inscription: 1) writing directly their daily observations into their notebooks; and followed by 2) writing their observations in the data sheets. Accordingly, these farmers were able to complete their inscription in the data sheets better than those who wrote their observations directly in the data sheets. However, we found those who did not write their observations in their notebooks incapable to complete their inscription in the data sheet. It was not surprising therefore that we received blank sheets for the second page, in particular in the last two months towards the cessation of rains (May and June 2009), though we had tried to facilitate them throughout the eight months of collaboration. In May 2009 only 5 groups of farmers from 10 points-of-observation filled in the data sheet of agroecosystem observations, and only 3 kept doing that for June 2009. This was in contrast to November 2008, the first month of our work on rainfall measurements, until April 2009, where only around 2 to 4 groups of farmers left the second data sheet blank.

Such a decline in farmers’ efforts to fill in the blank sheets was likely due to (i) the new habit of textualizing their oral-lexical knowledge, (ii) the increased complexity of farmers’ planting strategies of the dry season multiple cropping (the second and the third planting seasons) and (iii) the decreased number of days with rains. Interestingly we found continuity in that the same farmers were persistently keeping their efforts up of inscribing their empirical observations into the written forms. How diverse were the farmers’ inscription activities at this second stage of data processing?

160


Towards convergence in the inscription of the rainfall data sheet The type of data, rainfall in numbers, did not provide much latitude for the farmers to make any alteration or modification while transferring their first notes into the rainfall data sheets. The rainfall also constituted the most significant parameter the farmers had to gather over time. Hence, they were supposed not to leave any row blank, or, if they did not do the measurement, they had to write down the icon of [—], the one argued about by the SM leader. Therefore, each farmer did his/her best in filling any single row in the column of rainfall data. We did find various ways in filling in the column for ‘day(s)’ following the leader’s request to add that column. The first way was the name of the day used in the international calendar (the Gregorian); the second way was the writing of both the international day(s) and the Javanese one. In the discussion about the need to add that column, Winarto expressed the significance of filling in the Javanese day(s) instead of the international one in relation to the aims of re-interpreting their own cosmology in the ongoing climate change. The leader, on the other hand, did not see that as relevant and thus preferred to just write the international one. Among the ten points of observation, we discovered that for three of them farmers wrote down both the Javanese and the international days, whereas the others decided to write only the international days. It is likely that only those three farmers had a stronger understanding and ideas on the need to later on relate the changes and variability of weather and climate to their own calendar. See Plates 6.7 and 6.8 of the two kinds of writing: with and without the Javanese days. We found as well that a larger number of farmers did not fill in the column for remarks or general evaluation of their field conditions. Again, it is not easy for the farmers to differentiate the kind of information to be inscribed in that column with the second data sheet on agroecosystem conditions. Only a few of them did some efforts to write down their evaluation as follows1: • Kiran: land management: using dikes (rain harvesting method). Heightening the dikes in order to hold the water; crops and variety: Ciherang; pests and diseases: still under control. Only grasshopper and caterpillar found. No diseases found; fertilizing: compost fertilizer and chemical fertilizer still lacking and in a low dose; sowing strategy: the way of sowing was using a digging stick or in a nursery; the growth of crops: the growth was good and productive; water conditions: too much water but sometimes lack of water; evaluation of rain harvesting method: when paddy still in a young age, we have to reduce the water; the depth of roots: approximately 30 cm—40 cm.

That column in the first sheet was in Stigter’s set up not meant for the kind of evaluation as apparently written by some farmers, because that belongs in fact to the second data sheet. It was Stigter’s intention to have remarks on the rainfall measurements such as: ’raingauge stolen‘ or ’raingauge cleaned‘ or ’made this measurement under heavy rains‘ or ’changed the position of the rain gauge‘ or ’somebody put water in the raingauge‘ or ’I was (very) late because of …..’ or ’I was absent due to …’ Again, it is an example of how the ’message transfer‘ from an agrometeorologist to the farmers through the intermediaries could cause different interpretations among the receivers. 1

161


• Asti: land management: no need to build dikes and lobangan (hole in the dike as a canal for excessive water). Field already clear and ready to nonjo (sowing strategy using a digging stick); crops and variety: maize; pests and diseases: many grasshoppers and caterpillars found but no need for spraying (refers to pesticides); fertilizing: first fertilizer using compost, approximately 10 zak/bagor. 2 Second fertilizing using chemical fertilizers (urea) approximately 25 kg; sowing strategy: using a digging stick to make holes and then putting two seeds in every hole and covering them with compos fertilizer. Space between holes approximately 20 by 80 cm; evaluation of rain harvesting method: (empty); the depth of roots: approximately 25 cm.

Plate 6.7 Rainfall measurement data sheet with the Javanese days

Source: Farmers’ data sheet, 2009. International and Javanese Days (see column 2): 1.Minggu (Sunday), Kliwon. 6. Jumat (Friday), Kliwon. 2.Senin (Monday), Legi 7. Sabtu (Saturday), Legi. 3.Selasa (Tuesday), Pahing. 8. Minggu (Sunday), Pahing. 4.Rabu (Wednesday), Pon. 9. Senin (Monday), Pon. 5.Kamis (Thursday), Wage. 10. Selasa (Tuesday), Wage. Note: One week in Javanese calendar consists of only 5 days.

2

1 zak/bagor equals 55—60 kg

162


Plate 6.8 Rainfall measurement data sheet without the Javanese days

Source: Farmers’ data sheets, 2009 International days only (see column 2) Minggu : Sunday Kamis : Thursday Senin : Monday Jumat : Friday Selasa : Tuesday Sabtu : Saturday Rabu : Wednesday

With a slight variation in the ways of writing the dates and filling in the ‘evaluation’ column, the SM members proved their ability in transferring the quantitative data of rainfall— the novel knowledge and practice—into the first page of the data sheet. Would this also be the case with the second page of the data sheet for qualitative empirical data of farmers’ own observations? Towards divergence in the inscription of agroecosystem observations into the data sheet Whilst the farmers did their level best to fill in the rainfall data sheet completely, that was not the case with the agroecosystem observations which they were supposed to fill in on a decadal basis. That was unavoidable. What are the reasons for such an incomplete transcription? It is likely that: • Simplifying the complex observable phenomena into a text consisting of a number of words is not as easy as transferring quantitative data. We observed the different ability the farmers had in articulating their discoveries narratively from textualizing them on paper with a limited space to fill. This needs farmers’ additional efforts to think of what to write and how to do the writing.

163


• Writing their thought in Bahasa Indonesia, the Indonesian national language, is indeed a constraint for those who used to talk in their local language—Javanese dialect—in daily conversation with their fellows and families. Accordingly, they have a more limited range of lexicons in Bahasa Indonesia than in their own language. • Similar conditions farmers found from day to day confused them on what to write in the data sheet: whether to write the same as in the previous one or something else, or how to simplify their daily observations into one decadal description or evaluation. • Some SM members were still questioning the advantages of writing down their empirical observations.

It is interesting therefore to see that some SM members decided to follow the ’rules‘ and did their best to transcribe their first inscription and memories of their empirical observations into the provided spaces. See Plate 6.9 for the incomplete writing and Plate 6.10 for the complete one. Plate 6.9 The incomplete writing

Source: Farmers’ data sheet, 2009.

164


Plate 6.10 The complete writing

Source: Farmers’ data sheet, 2009.

Again, Kiran was an SM member who was keen, diligent and capable of inscribing his/their knowledge and understanding in a written form. It is a reality that farmers have various ways and abilities of choosing the lexicons and formulating the sentences. Some farmers wrote a detailed description of their strategies, but some others only wrote very short sentences. For example in the column of the “strategy of sowing/planting seedlings (cara menanam benih)”, Inem only wrote one word as follows: tonjo (planting by using a digging stick)

Two words were selected by Aming to write his practice tonjo berbaris (planting by using a digging stick in line)

165


Contrary to Inem, who thought that writing one word: tonjo (using a digging stick) was enough, the second word written by Aming provided additional information on how he did the sowing by using a digging stick (tonjo), namely: in lines. A more detailed description of how a farmer did the lining, while placing the seeds into the holes by using a digging stick was provided by Yani as follows: the sowing method was using a digging stick in making holes, placing two seeds in one hole, with the distance of 20 by 80cm, and then applying the compost

In another sheet, we found Kiran’s sentence, which did not provide one kind of strategy, but three strategies at once, using ”or” (atau). Though Kiran was among those who filled in the provided spaces completely, it is likely that he misunderstood the rule by writing all kinds of possibilities in planting: by using a digging stick (ditonjo), making a nursery (semai) or broadcasting the seeds (ditabur). cara penanaman ditonjo atau semai, bisa juga ditabur (the way of planting seeds by using a digging stick or in a nursery, but can also by broadcasting them)

After gaining Kiran’s clarification, we understood that the strategy he was practicing was the first: by using a digging stick and not the other ways. The other two words were additional information on farmers’ other practices (making a nursery and broadcasting the seeds) by referring to his knowledge of various ways of seedlings. This is a case of our tasks as ethnographers to clarify the meanings and the contexts of farmers’ inscriptions. Ethnographers are the persons in the field who are expected to gain an in-depth understanding of the context of farmers’ life and practices (see the importance of context in ethnography, Blasco and Wardle, 2007). Such an understanding is necessary in order to move to the next stage of ‘literary inscription’ (Latour and Woolgar, 1986): providing the text to the expert in a form and way that would be understood without any confusion and ambiguity in their meaning. This is the importance of the ethnographers’ role as the ‘cultural translators’ between the two domains of knowledge: the local and the scientific one. Nevertheless, this was our first experience in processing farmers’ rainfall data and their narratives of agroecosystem conditions within the scientific domain, by referring to the local context of data production. Therefore, throughout the process, an intersubjective interaction between the two parties went on. Trial and error was what we did as well by consulting Stigter as the expert who would read and interpret the data later on. The first question we had in our mind was on how we would transcribe the rainfall data into a scientific form?

166


From farmers’ rainfall data to scientific inscription: Drawing the rainfall graphs Drawing rainfall graphs, that was how we planned to present the general overview of farmers’ rainfall data in a visual depiction. The use of that medium would enable the readers, including the farmers, to view the data at once. But, how would we produce the graphs from farmers’ rainfall data? First, we processed the data digitally by using Microsoft Excel. See Table 6.6 for the first excel data we processed for December 2008’s rainfall data. The next question was: what kind of graphs were we going to produce? Kristiyanto was the only team member having a background in natural sciences. Winarto thus asked him to process the excel data that we had been collecting in the past four months (November 2008 up to February 2009) in the form of graphs, so as to enable the agrometeorologist to read the rainfall data. It would be useful in Stigter’s next visit in Wareng in March 2009 to present his interpretation of the data to the farmers. On his own initiative, Kristiyanto made the graphs based on the average of monthly rainfall data for each locale for the four months period. Thus, he produced 10 graphs for the 10 points of observation of rainfall (see Graph 6.1). Kristiyanto compiled the graphs together with his writings on the narratives of farmers’ data of agroecosystem observations. In the SM monthly meeting on March 3, 2009, Kristiyanto showed the farmers the graphs he produced, together with the narratives of the brief agroecosytem conditions of each locale. That was the first time the farmers saw the results of their own data collection in the past four months. However, that was not the final form of the rainfall graphs we produced. Prior to our return visit to Wareng in early March 2009, Winarto, Prahara and Kristiyanto had a discussion with Stigter at the Graduate School of Gadjah Mada University about our findings so far. After seeing the monthly average rainfall data made by Kristiyanto, Stigter advised us to redo the graphs based on his evaluation. He argued on the weaknesses of the graphs as follows: (1) (2)

It would be difficult to compare the data between different locales of rainfall measurement; and The graphs could not present the distribution of daily rainfall in each month.

Stigter gave his guidance on how to produce daily rainfall data for each month, but for all ten-points-of-observation in one graph. We could thus produce in March four graphs for each month of daily rainfall data. The farmers could then read the daily rainfall distribution easily by also intercomparing the data. With Prahara’s help, Kristiyanto revised the graphs and produced the following graph 6.2 (see also Chapter 7). Since Stigter was happy with this type of graph and could this way interpret the distribution of daily rainfall for all ten points of observation, we then decided to stick to that form of graph for our future work in Wareng and other places. We trusted that we had found an inscription device originating from the scientific domain that would also be understood by the farmers. Could we say that the graph—developed by the scientists on the basis of farmers’ daily

167


Table 6.6 Rainfall data for December 2008 in excel format Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Amount

168

WP 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 50 4 35 5.5 3.5 0.5 0 9 16 5.5 0.5 5 4 12 5 1.5 25 7 0 0 5 25 35 5 262

B 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 47 5 42 3 4 0.5 0 6 16 5 0 0 4 16 5 2 25 7 0 0 5 26 37 5 270

G 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 3 53 3 35 4.5 2 1 0 9 16 6 0 2 4 9 2 0.5 8 20 0 0 4 35 20 6 244

LPW 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 40 3.5 34 4.5 2.5 0 0 5.5 17 8 0 0 4 3.5 5 1.5 30 6 0 0 3.5 30 32 4.5 250

SS 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 7.5 48 4 35 14 4 0.5 0 5 18 0 4 2 4 14 3 0.5 9 25 0 0.5 5 30 40 5 279

WR 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 50 5 25 22 2 4 0.5 4 10 2 0 0 3 11 5 3 24 7 0.5 0 4 26 35 6 253

LPK 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 55 5 10 32 3 1 4 10 15 7 0 0 7 0 0 2 32 7 2 0.5 7 33 40 5 281

S 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 55 4 33 8.5 3.5 0 0 5.5 35 7 2 2 4 8 4.5 4.5 16 18 0 7 33 55 57 5.5 372

K 0 0 0 0 0 4 55 5 5 30 22 9 0 0 0 3 5 9 0 0 0 0 3.5 10 6 0 5 4 0.5 50 5 231

Si 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 47 7 17 33 1.5 2 0.5 0 4 19 0 0 0.5 0 3 2 3 42 0 3 0 10 25 35.5 5 261


measurements of rainfall data in their particular habitat—represented the ‘Synopticon-chart’3 as argued by Strauss (2003)? We are inclined to confirm this, by having the graphs representing the rainfall data originating from a localized environment collected by a number of local actors. Yet, the ways of processing and producing the narrative data of farmers’ agroecosytem conditions were in fact much more complex than we first thought. Graph 6.1 The first version of the rainfall graph (Monthly average rainfall for each locale)

Graph 6. 2 The second version of the rainfall graph (daily rainfall graph for December 2008 for 10 points-of-observation)

Sources: API research team data, 2009 (Kristiyanto and Prahara) Synoptic-chart in Strauss’s (2003) term is simply a metaphor for the knowledge product as the result of the synopticon process. Or in other words, synoptic-chart refers to a single knowledge representation that is produced from different vantage points spread in different locations in the process of joint production of knowledge. 3

169


From farmers’ notes to scientific inscription: Producing the matrix of agroecosystem conditions Kristiyanto was the one who spent most of his time in the field from early November 2008 to February 2009, prior to Stigter’s visit. Based on farmers’ writings on their observations in combination with his data collected from daily observing and questioning of farmers, Kristiyanto tried to write down—by using his own words—his understanding of the agroecosystem conditions in each point of observation. The following is an example of Kristiyanto’s writings translated into English by Winarto to be submitted to Stigter together with the rainfall data of one point of observation. In fact, Stigter was able to understand our writings and made his comments on the agroecosystem conditions in that particular locale in his visit in March 2009 (see Box 6.1). Box 6.1 An example of the narratives of agroecosystem conditions of one point of observation Location: Gondhang Crop variety: Ciherang (high yielding variety) Soil type: light red lime. Field management: using build-in low field dikes. Planting system: using a digging stick. The depth of the roots: more or less 15—17 cm. Rainfall conditions and their effects on fields and crops: On November 22, 2008, the field was flooded, with rainfall up to 100 mm/day. Such a rain affected the growth of paddy, which was still young. The paddy leaves turned yellow because it was flooded. But, due to the soil type (light red lime) and low elevation, the water ran off easily. In December 2008, the field dried up and the soil cracked since there were no rains for up to 10 days. The paddy leaves turned red, ‘getting burnt’. However, the rainfall in this month was sufficient for the growth of paddy. In January 2009, the paddy growth was good due to sufficient rain. At that time, the field had already been fertilized for the third time, and had not been infested by pests. In February 2009, due to the red lime soil, the soil easily dried up. The paddy had been harvested and the yields were good in comparison to last year’s planting season, because the rain in this month was sufficient for the growth of paddy, though there were some periods of drought. After harvesting, the field was fallowed. Source: API research team data, March 2009 (prepared by Kristiyanto and Winarto)

The data-set we presented to Stigter also consisted of the data on soil types and textures based on the samples collected at each point of observation. The soil samples collected by Kristiyanto were examined in the soil laboratory of the Faculty of Geography, Gadjah Mada University, with the results as presented in Table 6.7. Another data processing was the production of

170


an isohyets map based on the 8 months of rainfall data from November 2008 up to June 2009 prepared by an alumnus of the Faculty of Geography, Gadjah Mada University. See Map 6.1. Those tables, graphs and maps are examples of the scientific products processed through scholarly work. What was the reason behind collecting and producing those scientific devices? Again, we did the “scientists’ work” in analyzing soil type and texture, and in producing a particular map related to rainfall, at the time we thought of the need to improve the ‘objectivity of farmer data’. By doing that, we first thought of complementing the presentation and understanding of the data collected by farmers themselves. It turned out that what we thought was, in fact, insignificant. Stigter perceived the results of soil analyses as not yielding any relevant information in terms of significant differences among the ten points of observation. The isohyets map of rainfall distribution was also not quite important as a source of information, since it was produced on the basis of the rainfall’s average rather than the total rainfall. The most significant question was: how could the farmers make use of those scientific products for their farming strategies? If not, why should they be bothered with those “scientific devices”? Table 6.7 Soil analyses in ten points of observation No.

Soil moisture ( %) 11,70

Soil texture

1.

Points of observation Kranggan

Heavy clay

Permeability (cm /hour) Value Class 0,03 Very slow

2.

Kudi

10,69

Heavy clay

0,58

Not too slow

3.

Balong

13,02

Heavy clay

0,08

Very slow

4.

Sambi Songo

12,86

Heavy clay

0,18

Slow

5.

Sidowayah

11,63

Heavy clay

0,52

Not too slow

6.

Wetan Radosan

10,30

Heavy clay

0,13

Slow

7.

Gondang

9,19

Heavy clay

0,14

Slow

8

Mengger

13,25

Heavy clay

2,43

Medium

Explanation: The soil analyses reveal a variation of the soil moisture between 9,19 to 13,25% for heavy clay texture. It further means that the porosity of the soil is ‘medium’ (or the micro pores are enough) as to enable the soil to hold water up to certain depth. These data need to be supported by data of “cationexchange-capacity” and “soil-water-holding capacity”. For heavy clay texture, the permeability of the soil tends to be “slow” up to “very slow”. The feature of the physical environment and soil texture reveals the classification of soil as black soil or Ordo Vertisol (heavy clay soil > 30 % of a black color) with its physical characteristics as follows: expanding in wet conditions and shrinking in dry conditions. As a result: there are cracks in the top soil. In certain conditions, the cracks are deep and wide. Source: API-UGM research team, 2009.

171


Map 6.1 Ishoyet-map based on 8 months of rainfall data in Wareng in 2008-09

Source: API research team’s data, 2009.

Stigter asked us to just focus on the daily rainfall graphs of the ten points of observation complemented with the agroecosystem observations. What did we learn from this? As scholars trained in the scientific domain, we could not easily shift our perspectives to facilitating farmers producing their own “synoptic review” and using that for their own needs and purposes. Nevertheless, we had to face the truth that translating the farmers’ narratives in describing their field conditions in a ready made product to be interpreted by the agrometeorologist was not at all easy. First, following Stigter’s advice to separate the data for each month by comparing the ten points of observation in their rainfall distribution, the question was how to present the narratives in order to support the comparison between those ten points of observation, relating them to the distribution of daily rainfall data each month? Second, what should we do in solving the problem of incomplete inscriptions of farmers’ agroecosystem observations? What we experienced was indeed a gradual learning process of finding the most appropriate way of first, completing the farmers’ data, and second, presenting the farmers’ narratives as the complementary information to the numerical data of rainfall. In addition to presenting the monthly narratives on the agroecosystems, Prahara and Kristiyanto first decided to make a summary of the farmers’ observations and their own observations into a general overview for each point of observation of the agroecosystem

172


conditions for the entire period of rainfall observations. Such a summary as presented in Table 6.8 is indeed the product of the scientists’ resume in presenting the farmers’ data by referring to farmers’ inscriptions. Their writing was, in fact, constrained by the unequal comprehensiveness of farmers’ data. Therefore, there were some inscriptions that were incomplete. Table 6.8 Agroecosystem conditions of the ten points of observation (March 2009) Location

Farmers’ Observations

WP

Dikes/high ridges were made by the farmer in the field planted with Ciherang variety by using a digging stick. Farmers observed the developments of brown plant hoppers, locusts and walang sangit. The pests were controlled with pesticides. The growth of plants was good and productive. Water was sufficient. The depths of roots were around 15—17 cm.

B

Maize and sorghum were planted in this area by using a digging stick. In the second decadal period of the month, many of the maize plants died due to excessive water.

G

The farmer made drainage to lead water out of the field. The field was planted with groundnut and sorghum by using a digging stick. The growth of plants was good and no pests or diseases were found. Water flooded the field. In the 1st decadal period, the farmer in this area experienced heavy rains as well as normal ones (not too heavy). The field was planted with maize, but it did not grow due to the drought in the 2nd decadal period. In the 3rd decade, the field got flooded due to heavy rain.

LPW

SS

In the 3rd decade, the water kept flooding the field. The farmer had a plan to plant tobacco in that field, but had to fallow the field due to the flood.

LPK

The farmer made high ridges/small dikes in the field. Maize was planted by using a digging stick. In the 1st decade, the maize had not grown yet and the field was dry. In the 2nd decade, the maize began to grow. The depth of the roots: 15 cm. In the 3rd decade, the farmer found that not all of the maize grew well. Some died due to excessive water. The depth of the roots: 20 cm.

S

Maize was planted by using a digging stick. But not all of the plants could grow due to lack of water. Only small amounts of water were left in the field and dried quickly. The farmer did not make ridges in the field. In the 2nd decade, the farmers observed the growth of worms, locusts as well as weeds. Up to the 2nd decade of the month, their field was still dry. The hybrid variety of corn (SHS-4) planted by the farmer did not grow well. The depth of the roots: 5 cm.

WR

The farmer made ridges in the field. The maize was planted by making ‘holes’ using a small hoe. In the 1st decade, there was no water in the field (dry condition).

Prepared by Prahara and Kristiyanto, 2009 Legend: WP : Wetan Polaman WR B : Balong LPK G : Gondhang S LPW : Lor Polaman Wetan K SS : Sambi Songo Si

: Wetan Radosan : Lor Polaman Kulon : Saratan : Kranggan : Sidowaya

173


K

No data available – farmers did not write down their observations.

Si

In this season, the farmer cultivated tobacco (Vike) without any soil management beforehand. The farmer applied NPK. The growth of the plants was not good due to the dryness of the soil. No pests/diseases were found. The depth of the roots: 5—10 cm.

Observation by researcher: In March 2009, many farmers harvested their paddy and made an evaluation of the yields they obtained this year (rainy season of 2008/09) in comparison to the yields of the last rainy season (2007/08). The rainfall conditions in 2008/09 were different from last year’s rainfall patterns. In the meeting held on March 3, 09, the hamlet leader made his remark that: “...last year, the rains came in the beginning of the season, then... after the paddy was flowering the rains were abundant. This year, from the planting up to the end of the season, there were always lots of rain”. After harvesting their rainy season’s yields, the rain continued into the dry season. Farmers like Pak Sam experienced a failure in cultivating maize following paddy and had to replant the maize after heavy rains up to 70 mm. His field was flooded. “...before, the rain was not like this. I planted corn in April and it did not grow because of no rain (drought)” said Sam. Because of flood, he made drainage to lead the water off his field. “Ya, at first I did not think that the rain would be as hard as this, so I did not make any drainage” said Sam, while plowing to make drainage. In relation to this intense rain, Prof. Kees suggested to build the drainage collectively. In reality, building drainages collectively was not easy due to several constraining factors: 1) the location of the group members’ fields were far away from one another; 2) the Javanese values of being “ashamed” towards farmers of neighboring fields if they would have to make drainage affecting their neighbors’ fields. Discussing such a problem and the need to “open up and close the water run off” explicitly with their neighbors was considered not “proper”. To sum up, changing the culture of not making drainage requires a great effort, energy and time almost beyond farmers’ reach (although Sam was doing it). It was easier when the drained water could be stored or run off into public ditches.

Table 6.8 (Continued) Reading that inscription, Stigter first expressed his difficulties in analyzing the data and relating them to rainfall measurements. After a second thought, he said that he might be able to do something with the data and would do his best in reading and interpreting it. His hesitation, however, made us think of what we could improve in processing and presenting the data. At last, we decided to just transfer the farmers’ data into the computer by using Microsoft excel. But, what form of inscription-device were we going to produce? To be able to present the data from ten points of observation for all items of agroecosystem components for each month of observations, we then selected a ’matrix‘ form. Why a matrix? There are some advantages of processing farmers’ inscription into a matrix format: 1. matrixes ease the researchers’ work in transferring the farmers’ writings on a pile of papers into the computer; 2. the matrix allows the researchers to compare the conditions of all ten points of observation in each month at once; and 3. it will also enable the farmers to follow the agrometeorologist’s interpretation of the rainfall and the conditions of their fields and growth of plants immediately.

174


Unfortunately we still found constraints in processing the matrix due to the emptiness of many data sheets. It did not please us to submit the incomplete matrices, again, to Stigter. So, what should we do then? Since we spent our time in the fields to follow the farmers’ activities while observing the ecological conditions and did our own field notes, we felt confident that we could complete the data sheets on the basis of our observations and notes. Nevertheless, in completing the matrices, we still kept referring to farmers’ own original writings in their notes as well as in the data sheets. At last, we were able to produce matrices that complied with Stigter’s needs in analyzing the data. See Table 6.9 for an example of one matrix. Table 6.9 Example of the latest matrix of farmers’ agroecosystem analyses Items

WP

B

G

LPW

SS

WR

LPK

S

K

Si

LM

built ridges

Built ridges

built ridges

built ridges

no ridges

built ridges

built ridges

built ridges

built ridges

built ridges

CV

paddy – paddy- paddy- paddyCiheCihe- Cihe- Ciherang rang rang rang (HYV)

maizehybrid (Kapal Terbang)

paddyCiherang

paddyCiherang

PD

worm no (leaves)

no

worm no (leaves), green grass hopper

no

no

green grasshopper

worm no (leaves)

F

3 times: Urea

3 times: Urea

3 3 times: times: Urea & Urea compost still lacking

no data

no data

3 3 2 times: times: times compost 1 sack Urea of Urea

SS

digging Nurse- digging digging stick ry stick stick

3 times: Urea

paddy- paddy- paddyCihe- hybrid Ciherang (Piorang neer)

digging digging digging digging digging digging stick stick stick stick stick stick

Source: Farmers data reviewed by researchers Note: Where ridges are mentioned these are the additional high ridges/small dykes for run off prevention. Legend: LM: Land management CV: Crop & varieties PD : Pest & disease F: Fertilizing

GC: The growth of crops SS: Sowing Strategy WC: Water Condition ERM: Evaluation of rain harvesting method DOR: The depth of roots

175


GC

not good

Good

good

not healthy

good

good

good

good

good

good

WC

too much waterstanding water

enough water, wet & humid


wet & dry inter mitently







ERM

not good

Good

good

not good, too much water

good

good

not good optimal

good

good

DOR

15 cm.

14 cm

12-16 cm

30 cm

18-20 cm

no data 13-15 cm

20 cm

3-10 cm

10 cm

Table 6.9 (Continued) What were the final results of Stigter’s interpretation of the data sets that we were going to present to the farmers? Interpreting Data: Returning the ‘Knowledge Production’ to the Farmers Stigter’s competence to scrutinize rainfall graphs for trends and events is a “skilled vision” in Gibson’s (1979) and Ingold’s (2002 in Grasseni, 2004:13) words. Stigter has spent years of his scholarly work to read and examine rainfall and other meteorological, climatological and environmental data from various places related to coping with disasters in agricultural production (see Chapter IA). In his capacity of reading and interpreting the synoptic survey/ review based on farmers’ rainfall data, we could say that Stigter has the position which Strauss (2003) calls a panopticon. He is the one who formulates the results of his analyses on the basis of the data set collected by a number of individual farmers. But without any data from the farmers and us, the researchers, it would not be possible for him to read, interpret and analyze data of rainfall and field conditions. Therefore, he always reminded us and the farmers on the importance of collecting the data appropriately. The ways of measuring rainfall should ensure the valid rainfall data collected by the farmers. The relation between data and analyses is like ’rubbish‘ in, ’rubbish‘ out, like in most (simulation) modeling. Though it was not at all easy, after an endless process of communication and negotiation with the farmers, and a continuous evaluation and reflection from both parties, Stigter was able to send his interpretations and analyses. While incorporating his analyses in our research report to the farmers, we also presented his interpretations in our meeting in October 2010. That was the time when we finally submitted the resume of our collaborative work to the farmers in a meeting held in the village

176


office. The mid-term review of farmers’ work had been presented directly by Stigter in the earlier meeting in March 2009 (see Chapter 5). Submitting the ‘final report’ to the farmers Stigter’s conclusions based on our data set in the form of graphs and matrices were sent to us in narratives. See Box 6.2. Box 6.2 Conclusions by the Agrometeorologist Comments on the 2008/2009 rainfall season in Wareng, Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta by Kees Stigter (Bloemfontein, South Africa, 19/2/’10) Much good information was reported and that made it possible to assess the situation well with the exception of reporting on yields. Even semi-quantitatively or qualitatively the data on actual yields were often missing while this are essential data. There is also some discrepancy every now and then between Tables and descriptions but these could most often be traced as comments on different crops in the same months. In general, this was of course a year with rather too much water. Differences in rainfall or even in rainfall distribution (with the exception of April and May for the latter, see at the end of my comments) therefore hardly were of influence on the growth of crops. The rather large differences in crop performances (particularly rice and maize) are almost completely due to the soil (moisture) conditions after the rains, where position of the field, drainage conditions, soil type, provision with nutrients and choice of crops/varieties were determining factors, not the rainfall differences between places. Also the presence of ridges (one place without) or the later season practices of widening ridges, rain harvesting and yes or no tillage were apparently of no or little influence compared to the other factors mentioned above, again due to the abundant rains of the season. The beginning (November) of crop growth conditions was bad everywhere except G (highest field) and WR (flat and porous). December was a lot better with the exception of WP (although recovering at the end of that month) and B (lack of fertilizer). January was generally good as to the growth of crops with the exception of WP (field conditions extremely prone to flooding) and LPW (although recovering at the end of that month). Again WP (same reason as in January), B (same reason as in December) and G (drought because of position) were exceptions in February. Then the situation changed in March, mainly because the crops change and a long dry period is interchanged with five occasions of rains above 20 mm, with few exceptions. Different crops react differently, particularly maize did not well (although the water conditions are reported from too much (B and in April both B and WP), through enough (LPW, LPK in March, the latter being flooded in April) to dry (S, but that one was flooded in April), while crops such as tobacco and koro won’t grow because their water conditions were not met (too humid for tobacco, flooded in the case of koro) in April and for tobacco also in June.

For maize other factors than water per se must play a role this year. This distribution of rainfall with too little and too much in alternation, the time of planting and eventually

177


fertilizing on which many data are lacking, must be involved. And these effects work again almost throughout, with WR as an exception that, however, is indicated as ‘not quite productive’. That is why yields would have helped. It appears that some rather late planted crops (sorghum and soybean and even maize in late April/early May) after all did better, confirming the earlier reasoning of problems caused by alternating drought/flood conditions in March. May had nicely distributed rains of between 5 and 25 mm, after the fields dried up in the last decade of April!

Box 6.2 (Continued) The question now was how to present those narratives to the farmers? We knew our position as the ’cultural translator‘ between the two domains of knowledge: the scientific and the local. Presenting the complete narratives of Stigter’s analyses was important, so as not to reduce in any way the significant discoveries of farmers’ work. In line with our responsibility to the farmers, and based on the requests by the local leader, Stigter himself and our colleagues from Gadjah Mada University, we prepared our final research report to the farmers in Bahasa Indonesia. We thus decided to incorporate the complete version of Stigter’s analyses in that report in Bahasa Indonesia with the expectation that the farmers would be able to read, understand and interpret the narratives (see Winarto et al., 2010d). The final research report also incorporated (i) the processes of our collaboration; (ii) the learning stages the farmers and the researchers went through in the collaborative work and the important new understandings gained from each stage; (iii) the complete rainfall graphs and the matrices of 8 months of observation from November 2008 up to June 2009; as well as (iv) the benefits and constraints of our research collaboration (see Winarto et al., 2010d). We understood very well, however, that the final research report was part of the ‘scientific way’ of presenting the product of the scientists’ inscription, and not the farmers’. We decided, therefore, to also prepare an oral presentation in front of the farmers in a meeting held in October 2010 in the village office of Wareng, Gunungkidul. The meeting was organized by the Gadjah Mada University’s lecturers facilitating several farmer groups in Wareng as part of their regular meetings with the farmers in the Science Field Shop trend that we had introduced. Our oral presentation was, thus, constituting one of the issues in the agenda they were preparing. To assist our oral presentation, we also prepared a PowerPoint file enriched with photos, graphs, matrices and narratives. Of course, we made a selection of which information we thought was necessary to get presented orally among the bundle of results and reports prepared in a written form. Our subjective selection was inevitable. However, we did our level best to present farmers’ data and the main items analyzed and concluded on by Stigter. Our research reports in the form of written and oral accounts provided to the farmers were only part of our work based on literary inscription. Though the report was prepared for the farmers, as far as we could we kept our efforts to stick to the accuracy and completeness of the conclusions as formulated by Stigter. Unfortunately, we missed one important item as pointed out in Stigter’s analyses, namely the yields of both paddy and secondary crops. Since we

178


received Stigter’s conclusions months before the submission of our final report to the farmers in October 2009, we did our best to still collect the yields for paddy in 2008 and 2009 rainy growing seasons. We failed to do the same for various secondary crops planted by farmers: tobacco, chili, maize, cassava, sorghum, soybeans and others. We decided, therefore, to honestly tell the farmers that we missed data on the yields of their secondary crops. Our honesty in these matters was in fact recognized by the farmers as also part of their weaknesses in completing the data sheets, as expressed by the leader of SM following our presentation. On the other hand, the farmers also criticized our writings on one category of local rainfall taxonomy, namely: tretak-tretik instead of kletak-kletik (see Chapter 7). These two cases are examples of how both parties, the scientists and the farmers, were correcting and complementing each other’s works. We saw this as a positive signal in our efforts to deliver a joint production of knowledge. ۞ Throughout our collaborative works with SM farmers we performed reflections on and evaluations of our own work in preparing the data sheets as well as in translating farmers’ inscription in a form organized to get interpreted by the agrometeorologist. We cannot say, however, that the results of this process were entirely in our hands. Farmers played a significant role in improving the data sheets. An ongoing intersubjectivity among both parties in improving the observations and inscriptions was going on from time to time, up till the final forms of presenting the conclusions. Farmers were indeed the leading agents in data collection and inscription in their own capability of their rainfall measurements and field observations, an unusual habitus in crop farming. Observation is farmers’ way of learning. Through observations and experience they learn rich lessons throughout their life as farmers. Observing rain trapped in raingauges and taking notes in numbers was a very novel way of learning about one decisive component of climate. Surprisingly, they could master that new way of observing and inscribing faster than textualising their daily empirical observations of the growth of plants and the conditions of their fields. Capturing the complex phenomena in words was not at all easy. Even though we were present when they performed their morning activities of measuring rainfall and observing their fields, also facilitating their preparations of filling their data sheets, it was beyond our understanding that their data sheets for agroecosytem analyses could not be completed as expected. However, completed by our own field observations, we were able to produce farmer data in the form of graphs and matrices. The graphs and matrices we produced were parts of the scientific work Latour and Woolgar (1989:51) called inscription devices which have direct relations with their original contents that were collected by the farmers. Only by having those inscription devices a scientist can interpret what was happening and can return conclusions to the farmers to be used as a reference for their own decision making. Based on this, we argue that our collaborative work represented the synopticon where the farmers observed the rainfall from the ten points of observation and reported them, as well as the panopticon. The latter refers to the interpretation by the

179

agrometeorologist of the data and observations collected by the farmers. The joint production of knowledge was thus obtained from the incorporation of local knowledge into the scientific domain through an improvement in farmers’ ways of learning. The ongoing processes throughout the work thus requires and entwines local and scientific means of knowing (see Strauss, 2003). It was not only the joint production of knowledge in the form of graphs, matrices and the scholar’s interpretations and conclusions that both parties achieved, but also the enrichment of farmers’ schema and the modification of their farming strategies. In Chapter 7 we examine the extent to which farmers experienced improvement and changes in their knowledge and practices.

180

Chapter 7 Towards Agrometeorological Analysis? Responding to Climate Change, Evaluating Strategy Yunita T. Winarto, Kees Stigter, Hestu Prahara, Kristiyanto and Esti Anantasari

“Agriculture as a performance”, that was Richard’s (1989:39) argument of the product of farmers’ continuous decision making throughout the course of their crop farming. The results of farmers’ cultivation practices are not products of a blue-print program as defined in the beginning of the planting season. Instead, it is a ’performance‘ based on an ongoing decision making at every stage of farming (Richards, 1989). That was indeed what we found of farmers’ agricultural performance at the end of the rainy and dry planting seasons of 2008/09. Throughout that particular year, farmers in Wareng, Gunungkidul faced unexpected and unanticipated weather changes. There was a La Niña period with abundant rainfall for most of Indonesia (see Stigter and Winarto, 2010). Yet, the farmers did not receive any serious warning in advance from those responsible for predicting the incoming weather and climate conditions. Although they did not have any thorough information on a La Niña period and its possible implications for agriculture, knowledge and practices related to climate and weather phenomena had already enriched the Sedio Mulyo members through their learning in the Climate Field School in 2007 (see Chapter 3). Throughout 2007/08 they also had good results from implementing the facilitator’s recommendation in practicing the ’rain harvesting method‘ (see Chapter 4). Visits by the agrometeorologist in 2007/08 provided a further opportunity to have a dialogue about climate change and agrometeorological problems (see Chapter 5). Thus, a continuous dialectics had been going on in the minds of Sedio Mulyo (SM) members in the recent past (2007/08) between the scientific ideas or techne as Scott (1998) called it and farmers’ local knowledge and practices or mētis (see Scott, 1998). At the time they began their systematic measurements of rainfall and observations of their fields’ agroecosystems, as presented in Chapter 5, the farmers were therefore knowing something about climatic phenomena. As presented in Chapter 6, their efforts in collecting rainfall and agroecosystem data resulted in a joint production of knowledge of a synoptic survey of rainfall and agroecosystem observations. What remained to be seen, however, were the kind of agricultural performance they produced, as well as the progress in agrometeorological knowledge they made throughout the 2008/09 planting seasons in the absence of any warning system or weather forecast from the state. Would their advanced knowledge of climate help them in their ongoing responses? In comparison to the learning in the Climate Field School (see Chapter 3), the rainfall measurements and agroecosystem observations as presented in Chapter 5 encouraged the farmers much more to improve their detailed and systematic observations and note taking. They began to learn this kind of ‘techne or the fast-and-hard rules’ of measuring rainfall and observing

181

Winarto, Stigter, Prahara, Kristiyanto and Anantasari

their fields while responding to weather conditions in 2008/09. To what extent did the farmers’ learning contribute to their decision making process, or the ’rules of thumb‘ (mētis) (see Scott, 1998) of farming in the midst of capricious climate? In Scott’s explanation, technical knowledge or techne could be expressed precisely and comprehensively in the form of hard-and-fast rules (not rules of thumb), principles and propositions (Scott, 1998:320). Mētis, on the other hand, ...represents a wide array of practical skills and acquired intelligence in responding to a constantly changing natural and human environment” (Scott, 1998:313). He further explains that: “The skills of mētis may well involve rules of thumb, but such rules are largely acquired through practice (often in formal apprenticeship) and a developed feel or knack for strategy (Scott, 1998:316).

By incorporating both the techne of measuring rainfall and the mētis of farming practices, what kinds of strategies did the farmers develop in response to the actual climatic phenomena? Does it make a significant difference in their ’agricultural performance‘ in comparison with the past, in both farmers’ practices and schema? Roncoli et al. (2003:181) argue that: “Recollections of the past, observations of the present, and expectations for the future shape our experience of climate phenomena and our understanding of climate information”. We question the extent to which farmers were ready to respond to climate phenomena by recollecting their recent past and using their current learning of climate, their observations of present weather and climate conditions, and their expectations for the near future crop performance and yield. While going the road with Roncoli et al. (2003) we argue, however, that farmers’ experience and understanding of climate phenomena and the extent to which they put their understanding into practice are indeed complex. Though they learned about the hard-and-fast rules of measuring rainfall at that time, we wonder to what extent that new learning was integrated into the existing network of ideas in responding to weather variabilities in their habitat. If so, to what extent, and how, with what kinds of implications for their understanding and practices? If not, why not? This chapter examines this complexity by looking at farmers’ interpretations and decisions from day to day throughout three growing seasons, the similarities and variations, and their contextual factors. What kind of new schema is created on the basis of their (re)interpretation over time? McIntosh (2000:27) says that a cultural schema is: ...the socially agreed-on framework for debate about how the world works, the framework of understanding and communication that allows community decision making and mobilization. It is the framework of shared knowledge about relationships in the enviornment and human responses. A cultural schema derives from the cosmological postulates of the symbolic reservoir. Schemata are cultural maps for action: a schema determines a system’s response to new information. Schemata relating to climate change work integrally with a living community’s memory.

Schema, as stated by Strauss and Quinn (1997:50), is also a “...collection of elements of knowledge derived from human mediated experiences... Schemas are mental states but are shaped by the learner’s specific life experiences and are sensitive to activity in a particular context”. It is thus interesting to examine to what extent the farmers’ schema determines their

182

Towards Agrometeorological Analysis?

responses, and the extent to which their new experiences in response to climate change would enrich the farmers’ collection of elements of knowledge related to agrometeorology. Along with the ongoing farmers’ interpretations and responses to the 2008/09 climate conditions, this chapter is organized into two main parts. Each part examines the farmers’ strategies in each growing season: 1) the first rainy season planting of 2008/09; and 2) the second and third dry season plantings of 2009 till the cessation of rains by mid June 2009. Farmers’ Responses and Agrometeorological Learning in the 2008/09 Rainy Season “In general, this was of course a year with rather too much water”, states Stigter in his analysis of the rainfall conditions in 2008/09 (see Chapter 6). There was very heavy rain at the end of November 2008, followed by a continuous alternation of dry and wet periods throughout the rainy season of different durations and intensities. Accordingly, there were also varying moisture conditions in farmers’ fields: from dry to wet, then flooded under very heavy rain, followed by water receding, then becoming dry and wet again (see the graphs of farmers’ rainfall data from November 2008 to February 2009 in this chapter). How were the farmers’ responses throughout the rainy season starting October 2008, the month that—according to their Javanese cosmology of pranata mangsa—was the beginning of the growing season? When to Start Planting? Interpreting the Present, Learning from Experience ...what something (a word, an object, an event) means to somebody depends on exactly what they are experiencing at the moment and the interpretative framework they bring to the moment as a result of their past experiences (Strauss and Quinn, 1997:6).

Looking at the farmers’ interpretation of weather conditions in October 2008, at the time they used to prepare their fields for the rainy season planting, we argue that Strauss and Quinn’s saying applied. The interpretative framework the farmers brought to their experience of the October 2008 weather conditions was based on their past experience, and for some, on their Javanese weather lore and cosmology of pranata mangsa. Some farmers who joined the CFS, however, could also refer to their new understanding of rainfall categorization: below normal, normal, or above normal. Diyo, a CFS alumni, explained to Kris what he thought of the indicators determining the coming rainy season: To know when the rainy season comes and whether the rains are normal or not normal during the rainy season, [we have to] observe the timing and the length of the rains. If the rains fall after duhur (noon time) until ashar (afternoon), it means the rainy season will come, but not quite for 100% yet. However, if there is standing water in the field following the rains, there is a good chance that the rainy season really has started. If there are very heavy rains and then they suddenly stop (terang, being bright), it is not a normal rain (hujan tidak normal). Those are the indicators I use to determine whether the rainy season starts. Also.. whether the rains will be normal or not normal yet (belum normal) (emphasis in bold by authors).

In his perspective, referring to his past experiences, the rainy season had not yet started (by referring to those indicators in October 2008). It is interesting to know that in bringing the past experience into the recent conditions of rain, he incorporated his new understanding of the

183


categories of rain as learned in the CFS in 2007: normal or not normal, normal or not normal yet. It is an indication that the new elements of rainfall categorization (learned in 2007) had become part of farmers’ schema in defining the start of the rainy season a year later (in October 2008). In contrast, a non-participant in the CFS, Mbah Nadir, could only refer to his ilmu titèn (science based on careful examination) saying that the rain would come if it was windy and the sky was cloudy. A variation, however, did exist in bringing their local knowledge and experience to that moment. The first small rains fell on October 24th, 2008, followed by several days of small rains. Was this an indication that they could start planting? In answering this question, various interpretations and decisions were found. Yani’s father, Mbah Arjo, explained to Anantasari that such small rains in October were enough to begin planting by referring to pranata mangsa, the Javanese calendar. October is the fifth month of the Javanese calendar, the month to begin with the rainy season planting (see Sriyanto, 2009). Yani, however, decided to wait till the ’true rains‘ came. Sih referred to some natural indicators of the beginning of a rainy season as part of the Javanese weather lore: the flowering of guava trees and the growth of early leaves of teak trees, which they call kawah godhong. In her interpretation, the small rains and these biological indicators did mean that ‘true rains’ (hujan sesungguhnya) had not yet come. Since she and her husband were still living with her parents, she followed her parents’ decision to start the Javanese ritual ‘labuh’ by broadcasting a hand-full of paddy grains in their field on a particular Javanese ‘good day’ based on the Javanese calendar (pètungan), and began to prepare their fields for planting.

These biological indicators may be explained as showing the presence of water below the shallow depth reached by small rains. If the guava flowers and the first new teak leaves appear, the water is present to a sufficient depth to start planting. Other members of the SM group such as Arni, Tinem, Diyo, Giyem, Inem, Kiran, Giyo and others decided to wait for the ‘true rains’ to come. Similar to Sih, in their interpretations, the small rains did not mean that the rainy season had already started. Arni argued that small rains would not automatically be followed by ‘true rains’. Following the small rains in the third week of October, the ‘true rains’ would come in the fourth week of October. In her mind, the rainy season would start when ‘heavy rains’ (udan deres bres) would fall. Only a few of SM farmers, such as Jiyem and Arni, referred to the information from BMKG that rains would be plenty in November 2008.

Why so many of the SM farmers referred to ‘true rains’ as the time to start planting and not to ’small rains‘ or to the fifth month of the Javanese calendar as the old farmers used to do (see Mbah Arjo’s remarks)? It is likely that they recollected their past experience, in particular the 2007 heavy and intense rains for almost a week in October, which were in fact followed by a long drought they call benthatan (see Chapter 4). Based on that experience, such rains, even when heavy and not small like in 2008, are, in their eyes, not the ‘true rains’ of the rainy season, which means that such early rains do not indicate the start of the rainy season. Given that such false starts are relatively new for the Indonesian monsoon climate, it means that these farmers have already learned from changes in the recent past as well. Stigter had explained this

184


phenomenon of more frequent false starts, that is well known in Africa, as a consequence of climate change in the Science Field Shop meetings with the farmers. Referring to recent experience was also the question when the farmers were about to prepare their fields. Did they repeat their last year’s practice of building high ridges/small dikes within their fields using this ‘rain harvesting method’ (metode panen hujan) as recommended by the CFS’ facilitator (see Chapters 3 and 4) and also widely discussed by Stigter in the Science Field Shop meetings? Also did they modify their nursery method from making a nursery bed into placing the seeds inside the soil by using a digging stick (nonjo or ditonjo)? (see Chapter 4). Again, we found a variation in their decisions, though with a higher number of SM farmers repeating last year’s success in cultivating paddy with those methods. Sih, who did not wait till the ‘true-rains’ came, decided to repeat the ‘rain harvesting method’ in four places of her/her parents’ fields in combination with a nursery bed in one field only, located lower than its surrounding fields, with very wet soil. Placing the seeds in the soil by using a digging stick in such a soil type would increase the soil moisture in the hole even more and this could damage the crop roots. The rain harvesting method was practiced here to evenly spread the water over the field. Using a digging stick in placing seeds in the soil was practiced in the remainder of her field on the basis of her learning from the past as well as of her anticipation that this method would be the best in response to a long drought (benthatan) later. Similar thoughts and reasons were voiced by the other SM members who repeated the practices of building high ridges in their fields and using a digging stick in sowing. A modification was done by Arni and her husband in reducing the number of plots from 6 to 4 by also heightening these ridges up to 30cm height, to prevent water flowing into their fields from the surrounding plots. They also prepared drains to get the water out of their fields if necessary. For another reason, just to widen the size of each plot, a farmer reduced the number of plots and ridges. Several farmers and the same farmer who owned fields in different locations, decided not to build ridges in flat fields, because water would already be distributed well.

In the Science Field Shop Stigter had warned that his African experience was that even small slopes of apparently flat land could result in water run-off and he had explained that the African farmers used thinly spread dry maize stalks as a resistance against water flow over such fields. A combination of the rain harvesting method with using a digging stick in sowing was also in favour, and only a few farmers made nursery beds. The latter decision was related to the soil type similar to Sih’s field (heavy black clay soil). Two farmers, Arti and Inem, decided not to build high ridges nor to use a digging stick in sowing. This was mainly due to a lack of human resources to assist them in practicing those two strategies.

In general, there were five choices among the SM farmers in their ridge building and sowing strategies: 1) nursery beds and the rain harvesting method; 2) using a digging stick and the rain harvesting method; 3) nursery beds without the rain harvesting method; 4) using a digging stick without the rain harvesting method; and 5) nursery beds (for chili). Broadcasting as the conventional way of planting paddy was not practiced anymore by CFS farmers (SM members). Each farmer also differed in his/her strategy for different fields due to their particular

185


agroecosystem conditions. From our observations, the practice of using a digging stick in sowing was also widely followed by non-CFS farmers. The successful combination of the rain harvesting method with using a digging stick for sowing in the 2007/08 rainy season became the main point of reference for the SM members in repeating the same strategy (see the yields of 2007/08 rainy season in Chapter 4). Getting better yields was their main aim. Expecting a good harvest by recollecting the past was the thought underlying farmers’ decisions. Their memories were reinforced by recent annual experiences of lack of excessive rains with a long drought soon after the first rains came (so false starts of the rainy season). They were thus preparing for similar weather conditions to come in this 2008/09 rainy season. The recent experience had become part of their new framework of understanding their agroecosystem of a dry rainfed farming system, so new elements in the ’schema‘ were shared among the SM members. Furthermore, these recent successful performances also became part of other farmers’ extra-personal structures (see Strauss and Quinn, 1997). They were observed and then imitated by the other non SM members. Jiyem said that the other farmers followed what the CFS farmers did. Taking into account last year’s success with planting a new variety introduced by the authorities also influenced their decision in choosing a rice variety. That newly introduced variety was Ciherang. This variety was believed by the farmers to be a drought resistant one. By preparing for a possible lack of rain, as experienced in the recent past, they expected to obtain good yields with planting that variety. Other varieties planted in this season were IR64 (due to lack of Ciherang seeds) and the hybrid variety of Pioneer, that had also recently been introduced. Some farmers learned of the good performance of that variety from his/her neighbors and decided to also plant that variety. They obtained the hybrid seeds through farmer-to-farmer seed transactions without knowing that planting the 2nd generation of a hybrid variety would fail. No information at all was received by the farmers from the agricultural officials that hybrid variety could only be planted once. Other crops planted in the rainy season were maize (in some fields paddy was intercropped with maize), chili and groundnut. Their preparedness worked when there were no heavy rains—just small rains followed with days without rains—up to mid November 2008 (see Graph 7.1). With around 20 days without much rains from the fourth week of October 2008 onwards, the seedlings could still grow, though their growth was not as fast as expected. What were their reactions to that drought in the beginning of November 2008, or the sixth month (mangsa ka-enem) in the Javanese calendar (pranata mangsa)? Benthatan (a Long Drought), a Common Phenomenon: Nothing can be Done Following the first small rains (hujan gerimis) on the 24th of October 2008, there were no more rains of sufficient agricultural significance throughout the rest of October 2008, and lasting up to the start of the third week of November 2008. October 2008 was considered by the farmers as a hot and dry month and the fields were getting dry. Even though there were some rains in the first three weeks of November 2008, these rains, in farmers’ eyes, were not significant enough to stimulate any good growth of the seedlings. “There was a long drought after the first

186


rains”, that was the farmers’ assessment of the weather conditions in the beginning of the rainy season of 2008/09. See the farmers’ rainfall data of November 2008 in Graph 7.1. Farmers began to measure the rainfall on the 5th of November 2008, and there were no data in the early days of the month. Graph 7.1 Rainfall data of November 2008 based on farmers’ measurements

Source: Sedio Mulyo farmers’ rainfall measurements, 2008

Farmers’ own data reveal the number of days without rain at all, or with some rains in several points of observation. In farmers’ point of view, they experienced, again, benthatan (a long drought) after the seedlings, planted as seeds with a digging stick, grew for only 1 week. Hence, the seedlings did not get enough water to grow well. Some seedlings died and farmers had to replace them. The farmers, however, were not quite surprised by such a weather condition. Referring to the past, again, they said that this situation was these days an annual phenomenon, that also occurred again this year. As in the recent past, in particular in the 2007/08 benthatan (see Chapter 4), they could not do anything else. Wait for the ’true rains‘ to come, that was what they did. They also learned from their experience, that many seedlings could grow well again once the ’true rains’ came. What made them believe that? Referring to Strauss and Quinn (1997), we could say that their calmness in responding to this situation was an output of the activation of several elements in their minds. First was the element based on the local agroecosystem knowledge of their fields, namely the feature of heavy black clay soil of having (among others) a high water holding capacity. It could thus retain enough soil moisture from the ‘small rains’ for the crops to survive and stay alive. Second was the recently acquired new element of their 2007/08 practices: the rain harvesting method to keep water in the field and their decision to repeat that strategy this year. They understood that those two things in combination could keep the seedlings alive, although they would not grow fast. It is interesting to see the establishment of their new understanding of the function of the rain harvesting method, strengthened by the real benefits they gained the previous year in terms

187


of yields (see Chapter 4). In some farmers’ minds, this combination of elements was also supported by their new knowledge of the advantages of using a digging stick in sowing. Since the seeds were kept inside the soil and were not exposed to the top surface drying, the probability to stay alive was greater than for the sprouting of those seeds that had been broadcasted. Sih, who decided to make a wet nursery seedbed in one of her plots, also knew that the seedlings already had their roots in the soil and thus would be strong enough to sustain drought for some time. Some farmers referred to their beliefs of the Javanese calendar (pranata mangsa). By referring to the fifth month in the Javanese calendar (October) and its characteristics, Tinem stated her belief that rains would always come this month, later on, following the drought. Anantasari observed that paddy and maize grown in the fields with high ridges inside and seedlings planted by using a digging stick looked more greenish than those planted in the fields without ridges and a digging stick in sowings. Yellowish color of the paddy and maize were found more in the latter, but also in the fields with light red lime soil, though the owner built high ridges there as well.

The enriched schema after gaining the experience of advantages of practicing two strategies: using a digging stick in sowings and building high ridges in the fields (rain harvesting method) helped the farmers in interpreting the present conditions and in preparing for the future. As explained by Strauss and Quinn (1997:49), “Schemas sometimes reconstruct our memories of past events, determine the meanings we impart to ongoing experience, and give us expectations for the future”. Schemas also vary between individuals. One farmer, Jiyem, expressed her anxiety of the drought continuing for a longer period. By referring to her neighbor’s practice last year of watering his fields by hiring a truck with a water tank, she would like to do so in case the drought would be longer and damage her seedlings. As in the case of building ridges in the field and using a digging stick in sowing, one farmer’s action became the other farmers’ extra-personal structure and provided a concrete case for the others to observe, and then, to follow (see Strauss and Quinn, 1997). Another conventional solution was replacing the damaged seedlings with new ones. What they did not really expect from the past and prepare for, were the very heavy rains after three weeks of dry weather. How did the farmers interpret that unanticipated rainfall? What were their responses? Surprisingly Heavy Rains and Farmers’ Responses It was the first time as far as they could remember that farmers had such heavy and intense rains in one day and night (see Graph 7.1 of November 22), between a minimum of 100 and a (doubtful) maximum of 140 mm in one point of observation (Sambisongo). Of course it was the first time they had numerical evidence and it is likely that such heavy rains happened before, but they must be considered meteorologically as rare extreme events. Following that peak, on the next day, November 23, the rainfall was only between 0 and 12 mm in all fields in which the rain was quantified. “Jawahé deres sanget (The rain was very heavy)”, said Arni of that particular rain. The rains were not just ’heavy rains‘ or udan deres, but, in their new term: were “very heavy rains

188


(deres sanget)”. Various other similar responses were also heard by a number of farmers: “Sawahipun sami kebanjiran” (Many fields were flooded); “Toyanipun sami bludak” (The water is flowing over); ”Tanduranipun sami klelep” (Many crops were flooded); and “Kathah tanaman ingkang ngropyok amergi banjir” (Many crops were rotting because of being submerged in the water for too long). The very heavy rains and the flooded fields everywhere in the hamlet and village were the main topics of farmers’ conversation following that day. Finding water standing in their fields, following heavy rains, was common. That their fields were being actually flooded was not common. Their main concerns were the young age of their crops, paddy and maize, and the already retarded growth due to a long drought in the past three weeks. The farmers, whose fields were heavy black clay soil, were anxious of the possible damages to their crops. That became true. The roots and stems of maize of around 30 to 40 days decayed. The maize leaves turned yellow, and so did the paddy leaves. Other crops, such as chili, were also badly affected. See Plates 7.1 and 7.2. Plates 7.1 The damaged maize

Plate 7.2 The damaged paddy

Photos by Anantasari, 2008

189


The very heavy rain was a surprising fact indeed for the farmers. They could not explain it. The interesting thing we found following that particular event was the SM farmers’ ability to cite the numerical amounts that had fallen as that very heavy rain. Since each farmer went to the field the early morning after the heaviest rains, he/she could discover the volume of rain trapped in the rain gauge and give exactly the amount. “In fact, ...when the fields were flooded, on average the rainfall in the points of observation was more or less 120 mm”, said Sih. None of the numbers cited by the farmers were below 100 mm. That number was even suspiciously low, given the high amount (also 100 mm) that had been measured only in this station also two days ago. This very often points to a late measurement on a rainy day, increasing the rain observed on that day and decreasing the amount of the following day. But here there was one dry day in between, so the time of measurement could have been different all days. It was now real for them how many millimeters such a very heavy rain was. They could visualize exactly the relation between the characteristics of the rain, its effects on their fields and crops, and the numerical rainfall amount. “Next time, we have to be prepared when the rain has already reached 70 mm followed by continuous rains”, said Sih, evaluating her learning of that particular event. That was the most significant improvement in her mind as also experienced by her fellows. The numerical rainfall amount now has a special meaning for the SM members. That important finding was also shared with the other farmers, including those who did not belong to their group. The question each farmer had at that time was: what to do with the flooded fields and the damaged crops? Again, we found a range of different responses, in line with the various field conditions each farmer had to cope with and the kind of crops he/she planted. Doing nothing was the main response of the SM members. We observed a kind of ’surrender’, ’submission‘, or nothing-to-do attitude (kepasrahan) toward such a condition, which was beyond their ability to solve. There are a number of reasons for such a response. Sih, for example, could not do anything in her fields in Balong and Lor Polaman. Not only the topography and soil type (heavy black clay soil) of her field in Balong made it impossible to drain the water away, but also its location at the far end of the drainage of other fields, close to the river bank. When Winarto joined Sih, around four days after the very heavy rain, to the field in Lor Polaman Kulon where she placed the raingauge, and that was planted with paddy and maize, she explained the difficulties of draining the water out of the field. She pointed to the location of the field, surrounded by other fields at the same elevation. “It was not possible to drain the water away into this direction. The water would flood that field (while pointing to the neighboring field). I do not feel good to do that (tidak enak) to my neighbor. They might not be okay with it”, explained Sih.

Amto also did nothing in his fields in Gondhang and Lor Polaman. He was one of the SM members who did not make any additional high ridges in his fields. Diyo was one of the SM members who suffered the most from the flood in his field, which had a lower elevation than the surrounding fields. Moreover, the slope of his field from west to east caused flooding especially in the eastern parts of his field. Diyo also told Winarto and Kris, joining him to his field, that the depth of the soil was only shallow, with karst stones beneath the soil. He already took the karst stones out of the field several times. Yet, it did not help much. He also pointed to

190


the elevation of the surrounding fields, with the dikes higher than his field. In that condition, therefore, he could not do anything. Another SM farmer, Yani, did nothing in her field in Saratan because of the soil type of her field there, namely black soil with white gravel. While Sih felt desperate with her fields in Balong and Lor Polaman, but could not do anything, she found a quite different situation in her field in Wetan Ratan. Why? The soil type in the latter is light red lime, so the water could easily leach into deeper layers. She was happy to know that the very heavy rain induced better growth of Ciherang than the long drought. Tono had the same experience as Sih, having also light red lime soil in a rice field in Gondang planted with Ciherang. Not only could the plants grow well, but the standing water could also limit infestation of pests in the roots of paddy. The same condition was also experienced by Tinem in her field in Gondang. Due to the light red lime soil of her field, she felt as getting a ‘blessing’ (diberkahi) by having enough water to wet her field. She also already made a gutter around the field where she planted soybean, chili and groundnut as she had always done (see the location of the fields in Chapter 2). “Already have drainage”, was the reason of why Arni and her husband did nothing, though Arni was also afraid for the damage to her crops. Arni placed a bamboo with the diameter of 5 cm in the dikes to drain the water out to the street and neighboring fields. Drainage was a common practice for her and her husband. Some other farmers only made gutters (kalènan) at the edge of their fields as a way to reduce the flooding. The rest of the SM members such as Arti, Tinem (for her field in Balong), Amir and Kiran decided to break the dikes in some parts of their fields. The western part of Kiran’s field in Lor Polaman was adjacent to the village road. He also made holes underneath the dikes. Kiran had a prediction that there would be lots of rain this season, different from the past. His action in breaking the dikes in that part and draining the water away to the road did not produce problems, as also experienced by Arti and Tinem, who decided to break the dikes in the southern part of their fields in Balong, that also faced the village road. But when these two farmers broke the dikes adjacent to their neighboring fields, their efforts were not successful because their neighbors reacted by closing the holes. Amir experienced the same when he broke the dikes in the southern part of his field in Wetan Polaman. Calmly, however, he responded to that by breaking the dikes again. He understood that his neighbor did not want the drained water to flood his/her field. But, there was no alternative. He knew that he would not face any big conflict with his neighbor following his actions. That was the reality of how the individual farmers’ efforts to drain the water were constrained by the absence of any schema or shared ideas on drainage in dry rain fed farming system. The importance of a drainage system in a particular weather condition had not been part of farmers’ socially-agreed framework yet. This is also the reason of farmers’ great concern responding to Stigter’s advice of building drainage collectively in response to continuous heavy and intense rain (see Chapter 5). Farmers responded differently to the same condition they all faced, that is the flooded fields and (for many) the damaged crops, for some farmers even differently in various fields. Some perceived the hazard as an ‘unexpected and unwanted’ problem, and some saw it as ’an

191


unexpected condition, yet wanted‘. The contextual factors explaining such a diverse response were the differences in their field conditions in terms of elevation, slope, soil type and its water holding capacity, the fields’ location among the neighboring fields, as well as contrasts in individual recent experiences and preparedness for the near future, particularly the possibility of their crops to recover. This possibility became a reality because soon after the ‘very heavy rain’, the rains receded for eleven days (see Graphs 7.1 and 7.2). Unexpected, yet Wanted Dry Weather Following the Heavy Rain Almost all farmers in the village felt relieve when the heavy intense rains were at last followed by eleven days without rain (see Graphs 7.1. and 7.2). In farmers’ taxonomy of rain and drought, they call that kind of dry weather senggangan, a not too long drought, less than two weeks period (see Chapter 4.). After one week without rain, however, the heavy black clay soils began to ‘crack’ (nelo in farmers’ terminology), whereas the texture of the light red lime looked like sandy soil (mawur, the farmers say) due to lack of soil moisture. Such a change in soil texture was common when there were no rains for several days, due to water run-off, deeper percolation, and soil permeability of particular types of soil found in Gondhang. Graph 7.2 Rainfall data of December 2008 based on farmers’ measurements


It was like a ‘blessing’ for the farmers to have such an opportunity to have their fields passively drying following their efforts in breaking the dikes, sometimes even unsuccessfully. Farmers perceived the dry weather as very conducive for their crops to recover from earlier damages. Kiran expressed his relief that the yellowish leaves of paddy and maize turned into greenish color again, and his paddy of Ciherang type in Lor Polaman grew well again. The same feeling was also voiced by the other SM farmers such as Arni, Sih, Tinem and Arti, who have their paddy fields in Balong, avoiding their crops to rot. Not only SM members had that feeling, but also the others. A non-CFS farmer explained that his paddy could sustain the drought

192


following the heavy rain because of his strategy in using a digging stick in sowing (ditonjo). In that system, the roots of paddy grew into a deeper layer of the soil and thus had become strong enough to resist the drought. Such were the kind of reflections by all farmers in Wareng. Tono compared the three types of sowing: using nursery bed, broadcasting the seeds, and the most recent practice of nonjo (using a digging stick). In his evaluation, in this dry weather, the first two practices would make the crops grow unhealthily, and they would eventually die. He supported his evaluation by looking at the ability of the crops, sown with a digging stick in his field in Gondhang, to keep growing. From that reflection, the relationship of two elements in farmers’ minds was strengthened, namely the occurrence of a short period of drought (senggangan) following the very heavy rains and the sowing strategy. However, another element also plays a role here, namely the soil type. Tono explained that dryness of the soil will be reached faster in light red lime soil than in heavy black clay soil, due to differences in effects from water evaporation, percolation and run-off. The unexpected drought was thus fulfilling farmers’ need for recovering of their crops, as long as the other factors supported it: the nature of their fields and the choice of their sowing strategy. That was an advancement of farmers’ knowledge in unexpectedly variable weather conditions. Nevertheless, without any knowledge and ability to prepare for the length of the drought, some SM farmers voiced their concerns. Tono, for example, had the hope that the drought would not last too long. Tinem was also worried about her paddy of two months old. In her mind, the crops of that age still need enough water. Wet soil is necessary for paddy to grow. However, she felt a bit calmer from knowing that the additional high ridges she made in her field in Gondhang would help those fields to stay moist for a longer time. This is another new element in the farmers’ minds that, based on a most recent practice, was activated at the time they are interpreting the recent weather situation. Following the senggangan, the rain fell again from December 7, 2008, onwards, though with several days of low rainfall (see Graph 7.2), followed by relatively wet months of January and February 2009 (see Graph 7.3). How were the farmers’ responses to that continuously wet weather? Responses to Continuously Wet Weather and Seasonal Transition An alternation of wet and dry periods was the condition at the end of December 2008 and throughout January and February 2009. In this condition, however, the rain was enough for the crops to grow well, except in some places due to field conditions, field position, soil type, and fertilizer treatment. As stated by Stigter (see Chapter 6), January was generally good as to the growth of crops with the exception of WP [Wetan Polaman] (field conditions extremely prone to flooding) and LPW [Lor Polaman Wetan] (although recovering at the end of that month). Again WP [Wetan Polaman] (same reason as in January), B [Balong] (same reason as in December) and G [Gondhang] (drought because of position) were exceptions in February.

193


In early February 2009, there were heavy rains and winds at a time the plants already reached maturity. In some fields the paddy, with long stems and heavy panicles, suffered from lodging. Rice harvesting began at the end of February 2009. In the midst of the harvesting season, there were some rains wetting the fields, an unpleasant condition for harvesting. See Graphs 7.3 and 7.4 for daily rainfall data of January and February 2009. Graph 7.3 Rainfall data of January 2009 based on farmers’ measurements

Graph 7.4 Rainfall data of February 2009 based on farmers’ measurements

Sources: Sedio Mulyo farmers’ rainfall measurements, 2009

The rains throughout December following the senggangan were of course expected and wanted by the farmers. “Cocok (suitable)”, said Tinem. In her eyes, the rains could help the soil and plants to recover after experiencing drought for more than a week, especially for light red

194


lime soil. Sih also had the same perspective as Tinem. The light red lime soils that got cracked during the drought could thus become ’sticky‘ (lengket) again, as is good for the growth of paddy. “Paddy badly needs water”, argued Sih. Gradually, the growth of paddy went well again. The relatively continuous rain in January and February was not an uncommon weather for the farmers. That was a ’normal‘ rainfall condition for that part of the year. In this period, the paddy already reached its generative stage, became quite tall and would be strong enough to resist flood. Many farmers, therefore, did not worry about any possible problems damaging their crops. This was not the case with paddy planted at a later stage, where the age had not reached 60 days yet. Based on farmers’ detailed empirical observations, they could evaluate each other’s plant performances through comparison. That was what the farmers did in interpreting and explaining the growth of theirs and each other’s crops (see Winarto, 2004). Kiran’s observation and explanation to Kris was an example of that ability. One day when Kris joined Kiran to his field and passed another field, Kiran told Kris that: “...in the field that we just passed, the paddy has not reached maturity yet; it is already flooded, but the age is less than 60 days.../ the soil is heavy black soil, and not level, so that if there are rains, the water cannot run equally [over the field]. For paddy planted with using a digging stick in that field, the growth would not be good”.

Farmers always observed whether their paddy grew well or not, and explained the reasons for why there were some differences. In doing so, they were activating the relation between some elements of their field’s ecosystem conditions in their minds. Again, soil type is one important element in their schema of growing crops in dry rainfed karst ecosystems with diverse soil types spread over various places. The kind of crops, their ages, the rainfall conditions are the other elements. New elements learned in the recent past: planting the seeds by using a digging stick (ditonjo) and/or using the rain harvesting method were additional ideas. We observed the growing establishment of these new ideas in their schemata besides their new categorization of rains as learned in the School (normal, below normal and above normal). What happened with their new learning of measuring rainfall? Day by day, the farmers experienced various conditions of rain. At the same period, they also went to the fields to observe the rainfall caught in the raingauge every morning. The rainfall fluctuations as shown in the graphs (see Graphs 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4) throughout December 2008, January and February 2009, provided a rich experience for SM members to learn simultaneously the numerical amounts of rain and the empirical conditions of the rains (see Numeric Articulation about Weather Condition). Rainfall fluctuation became a reality when towards the end of January 2009, there were almost 10 days without rains or with only small rains, followed by a gradual increase of rainfall at the very end of the month. What new things were learned in such a condition? Unexpectedly again, the dry weather towards the end of January 2009 affected plant performance in some fields. Paddy in Tono’s field in Gondhang turned partly into a reddish color. Tono had the same experience last year (2008) and did nothing then, and he had the same response this time. In his eyes, the yields would not be seriously affected.

195


“I had the same experience before. I just cut the paddy stems which got a reddish color, and yet could still get the yields from the rest, though the color of the leaves looked as if they got burnt. So, I just do nothing this time also”, Tono explained to Kris.

Tono just recollected his past experience in interpreting the present plant performance and in making his decision. Referring to past experiences was also voiced by farmers when they found the growth of uncultivated paddy, which they call parèn. Parèn is paddy, but it is not the one cultivated by the farmers. So in their minds, the plants are a kind of weeds. The strikingly different nature of those plants from the ones they were cultivating was the easiness with which panicles drop off. It is interesting to know that those plants, in their understanding, are in fact the old ’Javanese paddy‘, planted by their ancestors. However, none of the farmers could identify the name of those parèn varieties and only an elderly farmer identified it just as the ’old Javanese paddy‘ when we asked him. The seeds were dormant, lost inside the soils at every planting season. However, the abundant growth of those various parèn varieties this season was unexpected. This was not common. They had to do extra work by pulling out those plants since there was no other solution. If not, these ’weeds‘ would still compete with the main crop for nutrients when their paddy was at the ripening stage. In their perception, the parèn equals ’weeds‘, damaging their main crop and complicating their harvests if those parèn varieties were still in the fields during harvesting time. When Kris and Winarto joined Kiran to go to his field, he went inside the field, pulled out some plants and told us that those plants were parèn, which panicles dropped off easily. It would be hard for him if he did not take out those plants now, since it would complicate his work of harvesting the main crops later, even apart from the competition for nutrients. In Winarto’s observation, the plants grew taller than the main crop, some had awns and some looked beautiful. This reminded her of the ’local traditional varieties‘ as planted by farmer breeders in Indramayu and used as parental seeds in their cross-breeding (see Ariefiansyah, Bisa Dèwèk film, 2007; Winarto [ed.], 2011). Kiran complained that the parèn was more aboundant this year than previous years. However, he could not explain why. When Winarto further asked of the events related to this abundancy, Kiran—from his memory—argued that such an abundancy emerged after their practice of using a digging stick in sowing in the last couple of years. It is likely that it is related to the minimal soil tillage practiced by the farmers after adopting that kind of sowing, whereas the seeds had always been left in the fields, as drop off from the panicles and were in the surface layer as dormant seeds.

Nothing they could do except mechanically pulling out the weeds, as the other farmers also did. A wife of an SM farmer, however, told Kris that she felt rather comfortable by practicing nonjo, since there was enough space in between rice-hills to go inside the field, to collect the parèn and other weeds. In January 2009, Tinem decided to start planting soybean in his fields in Gondhang and Wetan Ratan, whereas Yani planted maize in Kranggan. What were their reasons to start planting at this period of time? Both referred to the existing weather lore that the best and suitable time to plant soybean for Tinem and maize for Yani was the time when garèngpong or walangkerèk (a kind of locust) started singing loudly. They heard that loud voice of the locust and decided

196


to begin planting those crops. However, the Wareng farmers also know of another weather lore saying that the growth of soybean will not be good if the rains come while the locust is still singing. That was the case. Heavy rains came down on their fields again. After several days without rains, followed by heavy rains at the end of January 2009 (see Graphs 7.3 and 7.4), farmers experienced very strong winds in early February 2009. Strong wind was also a common annual phenomenon during the weeks of celebrating Tahun Baru Cina (Chinese New Year). At that time, the plants already grew tall and the grains were in the ripening stage. As soon as the farmers experienced the strong winds, they knew that their crops could get lodged, especially the glutinous rice (ketan). The serious lodging problem of the hybrid rice (Pioneer) planted by some farmers for the first time had not been expected. Some farmers were in a hurry to go to the field early the next day to know about the conditions of their crops. Knowing that the grains had not fully ripened yet, Kiran, Arni and her husband tied up the lodged rice hills with plastic string, to make them standing upright again. This is an example of traditional microclimate management after a disaster. Iran, a non SM farmer who planted Pioneer (the hybrid rice), decided to do an early harvesting. Why? His field was still full with standing water, and thus the lodged plants got also wet. He knew that by having this additional problem, he would not get good yields this year. Tinem also had that same problem with the hybrid rice she planted for the first time. Amto, an SM farmer, also decided to earlier harvest his chili crop planted in Gondhang, due to damages of leaves and fruits. The continuous rains were cited by Amto as the causal factor. Rather than experiencing more severe damages at a later stage, that would cause him an even greater loss, he had the hope that he would still have some benefits if selling the chili now, although the price would not be as good as for the riper ones. The cases of farmers’ experiences and responses in/to these late 2008 and early 2009 weather conditions are examples of the ongoing learning process. They could recall their memories in interpreting, explaining and acting on the situations, yet with additional understanding that was not among what they knew or expected. Each farmer activates new and existing elements in trying to understand uncommon phenomena. It is clear to us how detailed farmers’ knowledge of their field conditions is. Yet, they are not able to prepare for forthcoming weather and climate without any timely predictive information. In such a situation, how did they perceive the ’performance of their strategies‘ as a product of their ongoing responses? Evaluating the 2008/09 Rainy Season Planting Strategies “How many kandèk (sacks) could I get this time”? That is always the question farmers have during harvesting time. How well the growth of their crops is, that is another question they have in their minds. Harvesting time is therefore the best period for each farmer to assess his/her crops and to reflect on and evaluate their planting strategies in the recent past (see Winarto, 2004). Looking at the farmers’ responses and decisions throughout the whole season, we agree with Richards (1987) that agriculture is a ’performance‘. Harvesting together in the sambatan (collective rotating works) way of getting labor is an arena where they can chat and discuss the

197


conditions of the plants they are harvesting, also in comparison to their fellows’ crop results. Farmers always compare their crops. Was there any peculiar plant behavior they observed till the 2009 rainy season harvesting, not only in their own fields but also in that of the others? Even though the rice yields of 2008/09 were not significantly different from the previous year (see Table 7.1), some farmers complained that the quality of rice was not as good as last year. “This month is extraordinary, unusual... the rains did not stop from the beginning of planting until harvesting”, explained Kiran to Prahara and Kris. A reduction of quality and (in 33% of the cases in Table 7.1, but only seriously in less than half of these cases, all for the hybrid variety F2) also in yields, that was the assessment of farmers of their 2008/09 yields in comparison to the 2007/08 harvest. Last year, they got good harvests in terms of yields and plant growth. See Table 7.1 for the yields the farmers gained in the consecutive two years of 2007/08 and 2008/09. How to explain that? Table 7.1 Yields of paddy in the rainy season of 2007/08 and 2008/09 No. Location and soil type

Size (m2)

RS 07/08* (kg)

RS 08/09** (kg)

Yields’ evaluation

1a.

Wetan Ratan Light soil

1000

300

400

Can sustain the good growth of plants

b.

Balong Heavy black soil

3000

1600

1600

Can sustain

c.

Kulon Suko Heavy black soil

1000

650

700

Can sustain

2a.

Wetan Ratan Light soil

800

200

200

Can sustain

b.


1000

400

350

Affected by rain

c.

Lor Polaman Kulon Heavy black soil

1300

600

600

Can sustain

3a.

Lor Polaman Wetan 1 Heavy black soil

910

720***

780

Can sustain

b.


700

4a.


600

360

340

Affected by rain

Source: Fieldnotes of API-UGM research team, 2009 Notes: * One week after planting: benthatan (drought) for 35 days, rain till harvesting. ** One week after planting: benthatan (drought) for 30 days, then much rain, senggangan (short dry period), and much rain till harvesting. *** Yields for the two rice fields. 1-9: Farm owners. a-c: Field locations owned by one farmer.

198


b.

Balong Heavy black soil Wetan Polaman Heavy black soil

780

480

450

Affected by rain

1560

800

800

Can sustain

Lor Polaman Wetan Heavy black soil Balong (owned by elder sibling)

900

600

600

Can sustain

1500

780

c.

Balong (self ownership)

800

6.


1400

7a.

Sawah Heavy black soil

700

b.

Lor Polaman Wetan Heavy black soil

600

8a.

Lor Polaman Wetan Heavy black soil Gondhang Light soil

550

c. 9.

c. 5a. b.

b.

Owned by another farmer

Cultivatted by elder sister 600

Can sustain

650

550

Can sustain

275

250

Affected by rain

385

Can sustain

275

140

1500

500

Less than half of 2007/08 yields

Hybrid variety of F2. Harvest failure Hybrid variety of F2. Harvest failure

Sawah Heavy black soil

480

330

150

Hybrid variety of F2. Harvest failure

Wetan Polaman Medium black soil

245

315

500

Can sustain

Owned by another farmer

Table 7.1 (Continued) Having additional high ridges inside their fields and planting seeds by using a digging stick were cited as beneficial in the relatively dry weather of 2007/08 (see Chapter 4). In a partly different rainy season of 2008/09, with at times higher and more continuous rainfall, the rain harvesting method was less beneficial, and moreover prompted the need to drain excessive water out of their fields. That were the most significant lessons they learned. Practicing the same method derived for drier conditions in both seasons, without any preparedness for a much wetter future weather condition was, in hindsight, not a wise decision.1 Unfortunately, the agricultural official who taught them to practice that strategy forgot to advise on a collective drainage system for possible flood conditions. Yet, this was the first time the farmers learned to If all three cases of harvest failure were due to the variety F2 (Pioneer) that also suffered from wind damage, the flooding has in fact not given much lower yields and in even more cases slightly higher yields. So can we conclude that the damage by flood was kept under control in the sense that it partiularly influenced only rice quality (in the assessment of the farmers)? 1

199


observe weather conditions more precisely. They had seldom experienced such wet weather and this was also the plausible reason for why the farmers were not ready to build a drainage system in the absence of that tradition in dry rainfed farming in the karst ecosystem. Therefore, referring to Roncoli et al. (2003), we could say that without any evidence in the recent past, the farmers could not well interpret the present situation, and accordingly, were not able to better prepare for the future. However, some farmers told us that the most significant lesson learned was their understanding of the possible implications of very heavy rains for their fields and crops, now knowing precisely the numerical amounts of the rainfall concerned. This became a significant part of their recent memory, and would help them in preparing for similar weather and climate in the future. A more plausible causal factor of yield reductions in this last season were the strong winds at the time paddy was at the ripening stage. Lodging of plants was the reason of why the grains could not be fully formed. Based on farmers’ observations and comparisons, the most vulnerable varieties were sticky rice and the F2 hybrid Pioneer. Ciherang, a variety recently introduced, in 2007/08, on the other hand, was cited by the farmers as more resistant to lodging than those two varieties. Some farmers who cultivated hybrid rice of the second generation complained of the very bad performance of that variety, without any understanding that the 2nd generation seeds of hybrid rice should not be replanted. Winarto, Kris and Prahara who just joined the research team in Wareng, were participating in the harvesting activity at Tinem’s field planted with a hybrid variety. We were surprised to discover the worst performance of plants. Not only were the grains not fully formed, but also two panicles of one rice-hill had different maturity. One panicle was ripe enough, but the other one was still standing up and had a greenish color instead of yellow. That was also the first time Tinem, her husband and other farmers in the field discovered such astonishing and unexpected grain performance. Throughout the harvesting activities, the farmers were grumbling of the bad performance of that hybrid variety (See Plate 7.3). They kept harvesting the plants, but they knew exactly that the yields would be significantly reduced since not many panicles were fully formed. When Winarto asked for the source of the seeds, Tinem replied that she got the seeds from a farmer who planted them last year. At that time, the seeds performed well, very promising indeed, with many stems and good grains. She was interested to plant those seeds in this rainy season. When Winarto asked for any information from the donor farmer of the possible damages if the produced seeds were replanted, Tinem replied: “No. He did not tell me anything”. The farmers, including the first farmer who planted that hybrid variety, just learned from that harvest failure that hybrid varieties could only yield good harvests in the first time planting and not under resowing of the seeds produced.

For farmers, exchanging seeds to get better performing ones was part of their tradition. They were ignorant that they could not do that for hybrid varieties. This is again an example of how, like reported from China, the poorer farmers get their information only from other farmers in their village and not from any other sources, including the agricultural authorities. If the vertical contact does not exist, even the simplest ’new‘ information is not reaching them (Stigter et al., 2007). Nobody transmitted any information on the failure the farmers would suffer if they

200


planted the second generation of a hybrid variety. This harvest failure was one tough learning mechanism in farmers’ decision process of selecting varieties, once they were informed by us about this. Plate 7.3 Empty grains of hybrid variety


Since the SM farmers had their regular monthly meetings and bi-decadal evaluations (see Chapter 5), how did they use such meetings for their assessments of and reflections on recent experiences, and in their preparedness for the forthcoming planting season? Learning from the continuous rains in March 2009, though with a break in rains in mid March (see Graph 7.5), some SM farmers began to wonder what kind of crops they were going to plant in the second dry season planting. In the bi-decadal evaluation in March 2009, Amto raised his idea of planting paddy again in this second dry season planting. That was a novel idea indeed, since they had never had an experience of planting paddy in the second dry season. Diverse responses were given. Aming was the one who agreed with that idea. However, he was in doubt about trying it himself. He did not dare to do it, since he did not have any idea whether the rains would continue or stop. Other farmers such as Tinem, Giyem and Minem disagreed with Amto’s idea. “It is too risky”, was their argument. Taking risks in the midst of uncertainty on the forthcoming weather conditions was a burden for them. Even though Stigter confirmed later in this meeting in March 2009 that this year would have a La Niña period, the farmers still hesitated to make a decision deviating from their conventional multiple cropping pattern. As Johnson (1971) and Wharton Jr. (1971) argued long ago, taking risk in an uncertain condition is a great constraint for subsistence

201


farmers in decision making that does not conform to their traditions. Arni and her husband, however, had the feeling that rains would still continue in the coming month. They were thinking of what kind of crops would be suitable under such conditions. In addition to various kinds of vegetables they used to plant in the second dry season planting, Arni and her husband thought of planting kangkung (Ipomoea aquatica, a kind of vegetable that grows in water or needs lots of water if being planted on soil). Rather than planting tobacco that takes time to harvest, Ipomoea (kangkung) and other vegetables would provide cash in a shorter time. Even though the SM farmers had an uncertain feeling about the forthcoming weather when they were moving forward towards the second dry season planting, how enriched was their knowledge after learning to measure rainfall for four months (from early November 2008 to early March 2009)? ‘Numerical Articulation’ about Weather Conditions One day in February 2009, Winarto visited Sih’s house and met her mother, Mbah putri (grandmother) Adi, who just returned from the field. Adi told her that the rain yesterday was heavy, up to 43 mm. Winarto was surprised to know that the old lady (the mother of Jiyem and Sih) who did not join the SM group nor the learning of measuring rainfall could cite precisely the amount of yesterday’s rainfall. When Winarto praised her knowledge on the rainfall, Adi told her that she did the rainfall measurement this morning instead of her daughter and thus knew exactly what the amount was. She often did the observation by herself when her daughter asked for help to do it.

This is a concrete example of how the farmer, herself not a CFS alumna, could recall precisely the amount of rainfall which she herself had observed. Moreover, she could directly relate this amount to the kind of rain the day before. We found many more cases similar to Mbah putri Adi even within less than four months of measuring rainfall. Gradually, from daily measurements, the SM members gained the ability to relate a particular condition of rain with the amounts. After becoming aware of the farmers’ new skills, Winarto was curious to know the extent to which they were able to make a guess of the amount of the present day’s rainfall. After returning from the field in early February 2009 with Kiran, Winarto and Kris spent time to relax at Kiran’s house while waiting for the rain to stop. Learning of the farmers’ ability in citing the amounts of rainfall they observed, which also was the case for Kiran, Winarto had the idea of asking Kiran his guess of today’s rainfall. She also thought of “playing a game where Kiran and Kris were betting on the precise amount of rainfall that had fallen”. Kiran said that if the rain would continue to fall like this (referring to the rain happening outside), and no heavier rain would fall tonight, he would guess that the amount would not be more than 15 mm. He was very certain of his guess. With a laugh Winarto asked Kris to bet on a higher amount than Kiran. We then agreed to go together to Kiran’s field tomorrow morning to find out who won the game. Unfortunately, we missed him the next morning since he already left his house when we came. We went to his field where he mounted the rain gauge, but could not find him there. The rain gauge was already empty. It meant that he had been here before us, but where was he? Since he did not turn up, Kris and Winarto returned to the hamlet. On the way back, we met another SM farmer. We then asked him about the quantity of rain he had measured this morning. He replied: “17 mm”. That was close enough to the guess of 15 mm. At last we met Kiran not far

202


from the hamlet, riding his bike. He apologized since he was in a hurry to go to his other field to see his paddy after noticing the strong winds yesterday afternoon and evening. He was afraid of the lodging that could have been caused. His feeling was correct. Therefore he spent his time there tying up the rice hills to make the plants stand up. How about his rainfall measurement then? Kiran had been right. The rainfall caught in his rain gauge was 16 mm. That was also the amount cited by another farmer, Giyo, when we met him later that day.

It was so exciting for us to know of such an improvement within a period of less than one planting season. Citing amounts of rainfall in farmers’ daily conversation became common. One afternoon, when Kris was among a group of farmers spending their leisure time in the food stall of Giyo, he heard farmers talking to each other and citing amounts. Giyo told one non-SM farmer who visited his food stall that the rainfall at that time was around 50 to 70 mm so that the fields were flooded. The non-SM farmer responded: “Oh... rain of that amount can flood the field tho...it means it is important ya to measure rainfall”. Esti also found farmers citing amounts of rainfall in their conversation with her. One day in November 2008, when Anantasari went to Arni’s house, she told Arni of the heavy rain in Yogyakarta for several hours the day before. She then asked Arni of the condition in the village. Arni spontaneously told Anantasari that yesterday there were also heavy rains in Wareng: “The rainfall was 117 mm, heavy with a long duration of rain”. She continued her story that “...the water was overflowing the field, so that the plants got flooded”. In February 2009, when Anantasari just dropped off the bus from Wonosari, she met Gini, the wife of an SM member. She told Anantasari that yesterday the rainfall was around 5 mm; “Only small rains, mam”. Anantasari was surprised since she had not asked any question yet on any rainfall measurements.

The farmers themselves were proud of their new skills and knowledge. They also built up strong confidence in their new understanding as revealed by a farmer who found that her rain gauge was filled with water while there was no rain at all the day before. That morning Winarto and Anantasari accompanied Tinem to her field to measure rainfall. Surprisingly, she discovered that there was some water in the rain gauge. She observed it carefully and found that the amount was 40 mm. “It is impossible”, she argued. “Yesterday there was no rain at all, so it should be 0 mm. But, why there are 40 mm of water?” She questioned herself and argued strongly that somebody must have poured the water into the rain gauge. She took the raingauge from the pole and looked inside. She showed Anantasari and Winarto that there was a small piece of leaf in the water. Hence, somebody poured in the water taken from the stream under the pole. She pointed to the stream and told us convincingly: “The water and the leaf must have come from that stream (kalèn-kalènan) and not from rain”.

Such a confidence was based on her understanding of several months of observing rainfall that no rain at all meant no water in the rain gauge. She also understood well that there would not be much difference between her field and the other points of observation in the condition that she saw no rain for the whole day. Also farmers distinguish various degrees of rainfall. They have their own taxonomy of precipitation based on their lifelong experience. With the new learning, how could they incorporate the numerical amounts of rain into their categories of rain? Measuring rainfall now in numbers,

203


they were also able to relate these numbers to their existing classification of rains. Sih compared her new learning with her knowledge prior to measuring rainfall: Ya, it (the numerical amounts) helps knowing that [the rainfall] precisely. If we do not use that equipment we only know... Ooh see my field is getting wet and slippery... Ooh the rain is small, then for example... ooh my field is flooded, it means the rain is heavy....Ya, if we use the rain gauge it becomes clear...

It is clear from her explanations that without the measurement she would only be able to describe the conditions of her fields, unlike what she knew afterwards. It is also apparent from how she describes the conditions of her fields in referring to a particular characteristic of rain [small or heavy]. Wet and slippery if the rain is small, and being flooded if the rain is heavy. Another farmer, Kiran, told Anantasari of the local term for a small rain and the difficulties of measuring such rain: “If the rain is very ‘soft’ like this, we call it udan kremun. Although normally of short duration, even when such rain would last the whole day, it won’t cause flood”, said Kiran. “If we measure this short duration rain with the tool (gauge), it is difficult, usually there are only ‘traces’ (of water) (tidak ada bekasnya) inside the raingauge”, explained Kiran when Anantasari asked about the amounts for that kind of rain.

How do farmers combine those narratives of rainfall, its characteristics and impacts on soil, and the rainfall in amounts? See Table 7.2 based on Anantasari’s extensive interviews with the farmers (see also Winarto et al., 2010). Table 7.2 Rainfall classification in lexicon and numerics No Categories of Rainfall characteristics Impacts on soil Equivalent in rain in local amounts terms 1. Udan kremun

Light rain, very soft, of short duration

No traces on the soil

Can’t be measured (0 mm)

2. Udan thletik

Fast, light rain, lasts only a minute

No traces on the soil

Can’t be measured (0 mm)

3. Udan gerimis

Soundless rain, can be felt by the hands, can be of long duration

No traces on the soil when duration is short. Drops on the crops when duration is long.

0.5—5 mm ( depends on rain duration).

4. Udan tretak-tretik:

Light rain that makes a “thik-thik” sound on the roof. Some farmers categorize this rain as similar to no. 3. a. Short duration b. Long duration

Some traces on the soil: the soil gets wet in both short and long periods of rain, but no standing water is left in the field.

a. Udan tretaktretik sedèlo b. Udan tretaktretik suwé

Source: Fieldnotes of Anantasari in Wareng, Gunungkidul, 2008/09. Also see Winarto et al. 2010a; 2010b; 2011.

204

a. 1—3 mm. b. 3—5 mm.


5. Udan pral-pril

Light rain in April that does not fall every day, only once in a while, of short or long duration. Sounds on the roof.

Similar trails as no. 4 1—5 mm or (soil becomes wet, but 5—10 mm. no standing water is left in the field)

6. Udan ora deres nanging kerep (not heavy but frequent-intense)

Not heavy, but noisy on the roof and long in duration.

On top of “red soil”: the soil gets very wet. On top of “heavy black soil”: some standing water is left on the soil.

30mm

8. Udan bar-ber (very heavy rain) and banjir in very heavy intense rain which flooded the field.

Heavy rain in September, October, November, December; high frequency and intensity, of long duration.

If the rain lasts for one >70 mm. day, there will be (in 2008/09, up to >100 mm) standing water in the field, especially on heavy black soil. In the absence of drainage, the field becomes flooded.

Table 7.2 (Continued) The introduced ways of learning, based on scientific rules, did enrich farmers’ own taxonomy by also using text and symbols in the form of numbers instead of lexical qualitative knowledge only (see Ellen, 2004). A combination of both qualitative and quantitative elements was the result of the joint production of scientific and local knowledge (see Chapter 6), which then created farmers’ own improved emic classification of rains. By developing such a taxonomy of rains, to what extent are the farmers able to also advance their agroecosystem analyses with the meteorological components? Is there any indication that a kind of emic agrometeorological analyses are being formed? We argue that gradually farmers are able to relate their new learning to the existing agroecosystem knowledge. The following are examples of farmers’ remarks in interpreting the present situation by incorporating the element of rainfall in millimeter (Table 7.3, see Winarto et al., 2010a, 2010c). Farmers’ statements reveal their enriched schema by incorporating the numerical values of rainfall in their evaluations of and reflections on the agroecosystem conditions of their fields, the growth of crops, and their planting strategies. Only after one planting season they had already been able to advance their learning and knowledge. Is it an indicator of farmers’ skills as to agrometeorological analyses? What kind of improvement were they experiencing in the second and third planting seasons of 2008/09?

205


Table 7.3 Towards agroecosystem analyses? No. Rainfall condition

Farmers’ interpretation

1.

15—25 mm

The ideal condition for paddy: good for the growth of paddy, but not too frequent. Minimal two times rain in a week. But, it would also depend on the type of soil.

25 mm

It is good for chili, but not as continuous rain (daily rain). Two or three times a week are good. There should not be too much rain.

Max.30 mm

Good for maize, but not as a very heavy rain, just medium and not continuously. Intermittent rain is good: once in 3 days, so that the soil becomes soft (tangkleng).

50 mm

Enough for maize. The crop can grow very well. But preferably only rain once a week.

3.

40mm

If there are rains up to 40 mm (in the beginning of the dry season), the plants will be damaged, because the soil is too wet. If there is sunshine for 10 days from now, the remaining water could be absorbed, so there won’t be any standing water on the ground. The Javanese used to say that “the water has not dried up yet when it is being flooded again”. No time for the soil to dry.

4.

>100mm

The field was flooded while the crops (paddy and maize) were still young, so the plants would be damaged: retarded and/or rotten.

2.

Source: Field notes of Kristiyanto and Prahara, Wareng, Gunungkidul, 2008/09 Also see Winarto et al. 2010a; 2010b.

Farmers’ Responses and Agrometeorological Learning in 2008/09 Dry Season Plantings In early March 2009, rice harvesting was basically over, though some farmers had to postpone harvesting due to the wet conditions of their fields and lack of human resources. Soon after harvesting, farmers began to prepare their fields for the first dry season planting. The rains, however, continued and some fields were flooded, again, at the end of March 2009. Unexpectedly, rains were still falling throughout April 2009. Beyond farmers’ expectation, the hard rains damaged the young crops, such as maize, sorghum, chili and tobacco. The leaves turned to yellowish. Chili and tobacco were also damaged due to an ‘unknown disease’. In that situation, the farmers did not receive any information on that disease or the ways to control it. What did the farmers do in response to the uncommon weather conditions in the first dry season planting of 2009? To what extent their learning of measuring rainfall and observing their fields helped them in understanding and analyzing the ongoing phenomena and in developing appropriate control strategies?

206


Learning from uncommon phenomena It was very uncommon for the farmers that March and April were wet with high intensity of rains at the end of March and early April. See graphics 7.5 and 7.6 for the daily rainfall data in March and April 2009 as collected by farmers themselves. Graph 7.5 Rainfall data of March 2009 based on farmers’ measurements

Graph 7.6 Rainfall data of April 2009 based on farmers’ measurements


207


Despite their inability to prepare for the continuing rains in March/April, their new understanding of rainfall in numerical amounts could help them in interpreting their recent experience. “Yes, on the 21st (of March) the rain was still 39 mm. Then around the 4th (of April) the rain in my field was up to 42 mm... The rain was still high on that day of April 4”, reported Arni to Prahara. Diyo told Prahara and Kris of his observation: “If like yesterday.. if in April the rain was up to 45 mm, if we could compare it to previous years, it was still high lho...ya, last year it was not like this...ya, there were still some rains but not as much as yesterday, up to 45 mm”.

Arni’s and Diyo’s expressions revealed their surprises as well as their skills to compare their recent experience with their past. Another farmer’s remark that this season planting was unusual, with continuous rain from the planting up to harvesting, also revealed his inability to prepare for that particular weather. Amir, who planted maize soon after harvesting paddy, had to accept the reality that heavy rains at the end of March and in early April damaged all of his plants; “...before it was not like this... Moreover, at the time I planted maize in April (2008), the plants did not grow due to the lack of rain” said Amir, referring to last year’s experience. Diyo had the same experience as Amir. Unhappily Diyo expressed his feelings: “In reality, maize can grow well if there are small rains (hujan cuma gerimis). But, now, the rains are very heavy. Soon after planting there were heavy rains, and so the plants got damaged... and died”. Facing such unusual weather conditions, a number of farmers believed that the environment had changed. They began to question their previous knowledge of the natural indicators related to particular times in the farming calendar stored in lexicons. Why were there any discrepancies? Diyo, Amir and Sih expressed their puzzling thought: “In reality, in the past, the rains in April were rare, but now we still have rains... And the rains are still intense, still heavy” (Diyo, April 2009). “Nèk according to our grandparents before, the rains in April were pral-pril [Ind.: small or rare], but why is it now bar-ber [Ind.: heavy] like in December” (Amir, April 2009). “I have not cultivated my field in Balong yet, the maize died, since there were heavy rains yesterday, up to 70 mm... wah my field became a pond... This April is truly strange mas” (Sih, April 2009).

Responding to that strange weather, farmers had various strategies in line with the heterogeneity of their fields. Several farmers decided to postpone preparing their fields and to keep them fallow until the rains would return to ‘normal’. Due to their field conditions being prone to floods, Giyo and Sih did not have any other alternative for cancelling their plans to start cultivating their fields. Caused by the most heavy rains in the 3rd week of March and by early April 2009, Giyo decided to postpone planting tobacco in his field in Sambi Songo (see Chapter 2). “If there are still plenty of rains like this, it will be useless mas, [the growth of] tobacco won’t be good later on” said Giyo, explaining his reason for postponing the field preparation for planting tobacco. Sih also made the same decision as Giyo. Sih’s field in Balong was even worse due to the location of her field at the lowest elevation, receiving water drained from higher up fields. The heavy black soil in her field did not dry. She then decided to fallow the

208


field without planting any crop after a severe damage of sorghum due to these heavy rains. “Later on, if the rains begin to recede, I will plant maize. Now, it will only waste my energy if my field is still flooded”, explained Sih. While Sih and Giyo fallowed their fields without doing anything but waiting for the water to recede, some farmers were strategically solving the flooding of their fields, among others by drainage. After receiving Stigter’s suggestion to collectively build drainage (during Stigter’s visit in May 2009), Amir was motivated to build drainage facilities in his field, which was always flooded, by making small canals (kalèn-kalènan) around his field. Following the heavy rains in March 2010, Amir’s field was flooded, which fatally damaged the very young maize. With the help of three fellows, Amir made a canal around his flooded field. Since his field was uneven, he decided to heighten the middle part. Then, he plowed it in such a way that the water could flow out. “…according to Pak Kees yesterday, we have to drain the field”, said Amir. He drained the water into the neighboring field at the southern part, which was lower than his field. He dared to do that since no crops had yet been planted in that field. “...it is okay if there are no crops. I won’t do that if there were crops in the field, because the owner might get angry”, said Amir, while continuing his work in making drainage facilities surrounding his field.

After he had carried out this drainage work, unexpectedly his field was flooded again following the heavy rains of up to 90 mm on April 4, 2009 (see Graph 7.6). Learning from that situation, Amir did an evaluation of his work on drainage. In doing that, he referred to the rainfall conditions in amounts: “I should cut the middle part in two... so that it won’t be too bad when there was rain as hard as yesterday. If I cut it in two, the water could flow out. Yesterday I did not do that... only making drainage surrounding the field. ...I did not think that the rain could be as heavy as that... before the rain was 90 mm and my field was flooded again, the rain had been up to 70 mm when water was already standing there...wah, [my field] became a lake then”, told Amir.

Even though Amir had this idea to improve on the drainage, he could not implement it due to the need for wage labor he could not afford. At last, the only way was just waiting for the water to recede so that he could replant maize. It was apparent that not all SM farmers built drainage facilities in their fields. Diyo chose to level the lower part of his field, so that it would not be flooded again under heavy rains. Diyo also decided to delay the replanting of maize until the rain turned to ‘normal’. Even though Stigter had reminded farmers on the importance of joint drainage, Diyo did not dare to do that, since it would not be possible for him to drain the water away. His field was lower than the neighboring fields, due to his earlier efforts to lower the soil level. So some parts of his field could not be drained. Heighten those parts did not help him either, when there were heavy rains in early April 2009. He grumbled about these too heavy rains that caused flood again. At last he just let his field get flooded and applied fertilizer on some maize left in the upper part of his field. Following those late heavy rains, Tinem, who owns a field in Gondhang, felt fortunate in comparison to the fields owned by Sih, Giyo, Amir and Diyo. Tinem’s field was located at a

209


higher elevation with light red soil that could easily get rid of the water through deep percolation. .The fields in Gondhang also have slopes that ease water run off under heavy rains. Whilst maize and sorghum planted in Balong and Sambi Songo, located in the lower level areas, were severely damaged due to the heavy rains, that was not the case in Gondhang. In addition to all these plausible reasons for the good growth of maize and sorghum, Tinem also had a unique strategy in planting maize which had been practiced for quite a long time. One day Prahara and Kris joined Tinem and her husband, Kiman, to their field. On that day, the couple had the intention to weed their fields planted with maize and sorghum. In that visit, they observed a way of planting maize they had not seen before in Wareng. Tinem made ridges in the form of raised beds, which were used to plant chili. Kiman explained the reason to plant maize in such ridges: “...the people here do not quite understand of how to plant maize technically... In fact, [it would be better] to plant maize in two rows on one ridged bed and make a furrow in between two such ridges. Here, [farmers] plant maize in whatever way... gambling. If we make ridges in the form of raised beds, the plants would still be strong in lack of water, as well as with plenty of water... lha yesterday the rains were so much.. and the plants are still save...because the roots are covered”.

Kiman’s explanation reveals his understanding of either preserving the water in drought conditions or draining the excessive water under heavy rains. The good growth of their plants (maize) in the midst of heavy rains, in comparison to the other fields, validated his assumption of the benefits of growing maize on ridges in the form of a raised bed. It is interesting to note that in farmers’ responses to the heavy rains, some farmers made reference to the numerical rainfall amounts while evaluating their existing planting strategies. Arti, who planted chili with maize, decided to heighten the ridges she built in her fields. When we [Prahara and Kris] visited farmers’ fields, we met Arti who was going to fertilize her plants. We had a talk with her on the heavy rains in April. Arti showed her fields with ridges (also in the form of beds) inside which she planted chili. Maize was planted at the edge of the ridges. Seeing the age of the crops, Arti planted chili earlier than maize. In previous years, she only planted chili. After experiencing the heavy rains, she dared to plant maize surrounding the chili and heightened the ridges/beds. “...yes, yesterday [the rains] were up to 70 mm. If I did not increase the height [of the ridges/beds], the chili would all die... If the ridges [as raised beds] were not high enough, automatically they would be covered with water”, explained Arti to us. By quoting the numerical amounts of rainfall in relation to the growth of plants, Arti made an assumption on the ideal rains for the crops to grow well: “For chili it is good with 25 mm of rains, and without continuous rains. Once a week or once in three days are good enough. So, it is better not to have too much rain...if 70 mm, ya.. the chili would be covered by water”, said Arti.

Arti’s decision and reference revealed the enrichment of her knowledge. The new elements of the rainfall amounts and the strange conditions of the rains activated her existing knowledge of the growth of chili and the way to avoid damages. She was then able to formulate her hypothesis on the rainfall favorable for the chili to grow by also citing the numerical amounts of rainfall and its distribution frequency. We also found such capability among the SM farmers under diverse field characteristics and growth conditions of crops.

210


In May 2009, farmers experienced conditions slightly different from March and April with lower rains, yet with a strange phenomenon of a ’mysterious disease‘, in the eyes of the farmers, in tobacco and chili for which they were not prepared. How did they respond to that kind of ’disease‘? To what extent was their learning of improved agrometeorological analyses helping them in their responses? A ’Mysterious Disease‘ in Tobacco and Chili: a Surprising yet Familiar Phenomenon After experiencing floods at the end of March till early April 2009, the weather conditions had not returned to ’normal‘. Though the rainfall in May was not as high as in the two previous months, the rains were still continuously falling. See Graph 7.7. Graph 7.7 Rainfall data of May 2009 based on farmers’ measurements


In May almost all fields in Wareng were no longer flooded, except Sih’s field in Balong that was still covered by water. “The problem is that there was still water underneath the upper layer mas, so that when the rain came the water could not get out... Moreover, it is difficult to drain water there” said Sih, explaining her field’s condition in Balong. Every farmer we met told us that the rains in May were no longer the ‘true rains’. In their own words, they call it: hujan kiriman (the incoming rains; from somewhere). In their experience, that rain used to come in the transitional period between the rainy season and the first dry season. For Adi and Aming who still use their cosmological knowledge of pranata mangsa as their reference, the weather in May 2009 was not perceived as something anomalous, but just due to the differences in the seasonal conditions. ”The month (mangsa) is not always the same... The previous mangsa and the current one are not exactly similar... There may still be rains in May, but not much. Also in June...with the incoming rains (hujan kiriman). That kind of rain does not have a long duration. It is true that

211


this month there are plenty of “incoming rains”, but only of short duration. But, later on in July, it will be “totally” bright (blas) and there will be no rains” explained Adi.

Similar to Adi, Aming still has a strong reference to pranata mangsa in defining his cultivation practices. In his thought, the month of May still is part of a rainy season (musim rendeng). ”According to the Javanese calendar, the end of the rainy growing season is in May. There are still rains in May, but after May the rains will be very rare. Last year, there were few rains in April and no rains at all in May. But now, there are still rains in June, though very small ones... In reality, [the rains] will almost end... the pranata mangsa is still the same, does not change. What is happening is that the condition is not precisely the same every year... that’s it”, said Aming.

The farmers’ understanding of the present weather condition was based on the combination of their cosmological knowledge of pranata mangsa, their experience of the characteristics of rains in recent months (April-May-June-July), and the comparison between last year’s and this year’s rainfall. Though they still stick to the Javanese calendar, they both agreed that in the last two years, the conditions were not the same. Though the weather in May and June 2009 were different from the past, they did not see it as an indicator of changes in their pranata mangsa. As to the growing conditions of crops in May 2009, there was a ’rumour‘ spreading among the farmers that the crops would not grow well this month. As expressed by an SM farmer, ...from the beginning till the end of May, whatever crops growing in the field would not do well. Though we planted the crops from March or April, now in May, those crops would soon be water logged or otherwise damaged.

That expectation became true. Tobacco Vike and chili were severely damaged. Both crops were infested by a kind of ’disease‘ that turned the leaves yellow and curly (keriting). Based on farmers’ experience, it was not the first time they found such curly leaves of chili and tobacco. In the dry season of 2008, some crops were infested by the same ’disease‘, but not as severely as this year. Farmers did not receive any information about that ’disease‘ from any sources. The extension worker for Vike tobacco also did not know what caused that kind of ’disease‘ and how to control it. In the absence of any information, some farmers had their own interpretations in explaining the causes of that disease in tobacco and chili. There were three kinds of interpretations: (1) based on their present agroecosystem observations; (2) based on the Javanese cosmology and (3) based on their past experience and knowledge. See Box 7.1. Box 7.1 Three interpretations of the ’mysterious disease‘ in tobacco and chili (1) Interpretation based on agroecosystem observations Some farmers explained the disease infestation by referring to the conditions of rainfall and soil and the growth of crops. We found various interpretations among some farmers, as expressed in the bi-decadal evaluation meeting on the 20th of May 2009:

212


The origin of the disease is a kind of fungus infesting tobacco in the nursery, so that already the seedlings have been infested by the disease and thus would not grow well. (Jiyem) The heavy rains caused the tobacco roots to decay, so that the leaves could not grow well. The roots were infested, so that the tobacco could not grow well and the leaves became curly (keriting). (Giyo) The soil is sticky due to wet weather and the sunlight is not enough, so that the growth of crops is disturbed. (Diyo) (2) Interpretation according to the Javanese cosmology One explanation often cited by farmers was the “lintang wuluh anggrem” phenomenon. In the Javanese calendar, pranata mangsa is related to the appearance of astronomical phenomena to determine the monsoon (Hidayat, 2011). Lintang wuluh is a kind of stars configuration used by farmers to decide on planting secondary crops (see Indrowuryanto, 1999). According to farmers, Lintang wuluh used to appear in month twelve (mangsa sadha), between 12th of May and 21st of June. “If in the evening (Nèk bengi) we see lintang wuluh, it means that the secondary crops will grow well (apik)”, explained one elderly farmer in Wareng. In the dry season of 2009, unexpectedly the stars were covered by clouds and thus farmers could not see it. Some farmers related the damage of chili and tobacco in May 2009 to the cloudy sky covering the lintang wuluh. They see the hidden lintang wuluh as a hen sitting on her eggs (anggrem). From our inquiries on what caused the disease infesting chili and tobacco, a farmer explained it as follows: “Ya…. I do not know it quite well, but according to my grandparents, when the stars are covered, it is like a hen sitting on her eggs, so that all crops we planted would not grow well. Believe it or not, but in reality it is true, many crops are not growing well” (Amto). (3) Interpretation according to past knowledge and experience Based on his past experience, a farmer called that disease ’bayongen’: “...in the past the term [for that disease] was bayongen. The plants do not die all at once, but they die one by one. Not at the same time, but in turn. However, if the field is infested by bayongen, only a few plants will still be alive in my field. During that previous rain, there were some plants still alive. Nah, the stems of those plants—like in Gino’s case— were slowly dying and at last perished. When we pulled the plants, the roots were dried, because of fungi.. ya.. that is bayongen as before. It happens quite frequently and the plants need to be replaced several times. The plants always get sick (layu). It can happen when the plants are still small, but also when already maturing, near the time of harvesting...” (Sos). As indicated by Sos, the curly leaves were widely occurring in Wareng in the lifetime of the previous generation and the story has been transmitted to the present generation, hence the disease was not completely new for the farmers. Though he did not perceive it as a “new kind of disease”, Sos confessed that he could not do anything to control the disease. ”It is difficult to control it... may be our ancestors knew how to control it, but unlike me.. difficult. My science has not reached it ...(Ilmunya belum sampai)”, explained Sos.

Box 7.1(Continued)

213


Nothing the farmers could do to control the disease. They only pulled out the plants with curly leaves and replaced them with new ones in a different place. Replanting in a different location was based on their understanding that replanting at the same place would result in the disease to be caught by the new plants too. Arni said: Ya, that is according to what old people say, that after [three times] replanting it won’t do well. Previously, the plants died, so the “smell (bau)“ is still there in the soil, so it would not do well in replanting. The soil is not healthy as well. The non-growing plants were rotting...

Other farmers argued that pulling out the infested plants and replace them with new ones in another place was also useless since the new plants would still get infested by the same disease. Others did not do anything to prevent the spread of the disease. It is interesting to note the various interpretations and explanations of farmers of the same disease which emerged in the 2009 dry season planting. Some farmers referred to their recent agroecosystem observations of their fields; some activated their cosmological knowledge; and some recalled their memories. Since they did not suffer from it in the past as severely as that year, and because their learning of agrometeorological analyses just began in the rainy season of 2008/09, the SM farmers could not do much in controlling the disease. In such a situation, how did the SM farmers reflect on their strategies in the dry season planting of 2009? Gaining Benefits from the 2009 La Niña: Unexpected yet Wanted Entering June 2009, the fields were still wet. Once in a while there were rains which benefitted those who were planting maize and sorghum. Other plants were grass for fodder (kolonjono, Pennisetum purpureum) and trees (turi/Sesbania grandiflora) See Graph 7.8. Graph 7.8 Rainfall data of June 2009 based on farmers’ measurements


214


Throughout June, some fields were fallowed. The crops left were mainly for fodder, a particular situation for that season. Usually farmers already have to purchase fodder from outside the village for Rp 5,000/bundle twice a day, due to the scarcity of fodder in Wareng. Nevertheless, in June 2009 green fodder was still plenty and farmers did not need to purchase it. Arni said: “Lha that’s it, we also gained something. With the La Niña, up to now... still raining, so we do not need to purchase fodder. Usually in May, June and July we have to buy fodder, nah, up to now we have not bought it yet... lha kan that is really a blessing. ”

Thus, the La Niña of that dry season planting of 2009 was also bringing advantages. The farmers did not need to water their plants (nyetrèn), which reduced their burdens. Those were surprising phenomena which were wanted and provided benefits and reduced costs. Whilst June was beneficial for the farmers, in providing green fodder to their cattle, that was not the case for those who earned income from trading green fodder, as well as for those who were planting tobacco. The cloudy weather prevented the drying of tobacco leaves after harvesting. Accordingly, farmers could not keep the quality of their tobacco leaves high. Besides tobacco, the yields of chili were also not satisfying. Some farmers could not sell their chili due to disease infestation and decay of the pods. The price of chili dropped drastically in comparison to the price in 2007/08. Arni told us: “... this year, the price of chili dropped sharply from Rp8,000/kg to only Rp2,800—Rp3,000/kg, that was already the ceiling”. We thus found mixed feelings among the farmers who faced surprises throughout the planting seasons of 2008/09 with the ups and downs of both joy and sadness, relieve and hardship. ۞ Despite all the good and bad surprises and feelings the SM farmers had throughout the year, they did have rich experiences in their struggle to survive in the ongoing changes of weather and climate. Though the farmers did not receive official information on the La Niña period in the beginning of the 2008/09 rainy season, gaining that understanding only at a later stage (through Stigter’s visit in May 2009), they could call the continuous heavy rains a La Niña phenomenon and increase their familiarity with that climatological situation and its implications for their fields and crops. Their new skills in numbering the rainfall helped them to relate a particular condition of their fields and crops with such numbers. They themselves voiced the advantages of acquiring such skills and knowledge as enhancing their understanding and preparedness for similar situations in the future. That is the most valuable lesson from the agrometeorological learning for both parties, the farmers and the scholars.

215

Chapter 8 Collaborating on Agrometeorological Learning in the Local Context: A Synthesis with a Proposed Extension Approach Yunita T. Winarto and Kees Stigter

The reality is that climate change challenges researchers in both the natural and social sciences to forge strong working partnerships across disciplines, as well as with various stakeholders (Crate and Nuttal, 2009:397)

Forging strong working partnerships across disciplines and stakeholders is indeed a real challenge for researchers. This book presents not only the arguments for such partnerships, but also the stories of how the collaboration between scholars from different disciplines and between scholars and farmers developed over time, and yet, had to be terminated at the end. Our work proves that building up such collaboration may not be taken lightly. Climate change and variability are not only about natural phenomena. Its implications have a very wide range of effects, affecting people’s environment and livelihood all over the world, creating both risks and opportunities. People’s responses towards environmental vulnerabilities are integral parts of their social-cultural life developed through generations from an intimate relationship with their habitat (see for example Chapter 2). “Climate change is ultimately about culture”, argue Crate and Nuttal (2009:12), …for in its wake, more and more of the intimate human-environmental relations, integral to the world’s cultural diversity lose place. For indigenous peoples around the world, climate change brings different kinds of risks and opportunities, threatens cultural survival and undermines indigenous human rights (Crate and Nuttal, 2009:12).

A recent Policy Brief on climate change and poverty reduction from the Climate & Development Knowledge Network (CDKN, 2011) bears the following key messages: • More variable climates are making it harder for the poor to climb out and stay out of poverty. • Stronger evidence is required on how climate makes poverty harder to eradicate. • For development to be climate-resilient, policy instruments to reduce poverty and enable adaptation must be integrated, and designed in a way that includes the climate-vulnerable poor. • Identifying how mitigation strategies can also reduce poverty and support adaptation is an important part of climate-resilient development.

216

Collaborating on Agrometeorological Learning in the Local Context

Such is the challenging reality. As scholars dealing with climate phenomena and human life, we need to do something to improve peoples’ capability to better cope with their changing environment. As anthropologist/social scientist, without any expertise in climatology/ meteorology, it would not be possible to do something useful for climate vulnerable people. In the same vein, agrometeorologists cannot assist farmers in protecting their local environment and community without intermediaries (e.g. Stigter, 2010a). An interdisciplinary collaboration is a must. However, not only the interdisciplinary approach makes it work, but also the transdisciplinary collaboration between scholars and farmers in ongoing dialogues. This book presents the beginning of our journey together in materializing such approaches to a rural response to climate change by supporting farmers in developing response farming to increasing climate variability and to changes of climate (see for example Chapter 1). This book also tells stories of farmers’ experience in improving their knowledge in dealing with phenomena beyond their empirical capabilities to explain (see for example Chapter 3). Many unusual climate and weather phenomena are different from the past in time and space. How can they respond to such changes? Farmers became accustomed to seasonal variabilities and also to interannual variability of climate in the past. Their responses to the monsoon seasons in the tropics and their accumulated experience have been well established in their ‘folk’ model of knowledge or cultural schema of crop farming (see D’Andrade, 1987, 1992; Strauss, 1992; Strauss and Quinn, 1997). Ilmu titèn, including the Javanese cosmology of pranata mangsa, is a significant part of their ‘folk’ model of multiple cropping in a dry rainfed karst ecosystem (Indrowuryanto, 1999; Wisnubroto, 1999; Sriyanto, 2009; Hidayat, 2011), though the degree of internalizing that local knowledge and cosmology does vary among generations and individuals. Those are the schema that instigate their actions of when, where and what to plant within a diverse landscape (see for example Chapter 5). The multiple cropping farming strategies represent various adaptive responses to the unique nature of the dry rainfed karst ecosystem located in a mountainous area (see for example Chapter 4). Lack of good rains and even prolonged drought throughout the seasons are some of the risks they used to suffer in this environment. Increasing climate variability and climate change complicate this situation and bring additional vulnerabilities to the already existing challenges. Farmers started to question unusual phenomena that were not in line with their established agro-bio-climatology calendar which connected the meteorological and ecological elements with agricultural activities and biorhythms (Hidayat, 2011). Now that meteorological conditions are changing, one of the questions becomes whether the farmers can still rely on their pranata mangsa in its original versions developed by their ancestors in something as a hundred years. How well can such an approach still hold or be adapted under the present conditions of a changing climate? The answer on the reliability question could not be straight and clear either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. It should be understood that fundamentally it would not at all be possible for the farmers to just disregard that calendar. The Javanese calendar, enriched with the farmers’ detailed empirical knowledge of the elements in their ecosystems, has become their cultural model of farming for generations. It was therefore understandable that several farmers participating in the ‘Climate

217

Yunita T. Winarto and Kees Stigter

Field School’ (CFS) organized by the government argued strongly against the facilitator’s idea that their traditional calendar could no longer be referred to as guidance in their farming decisions. Relying only on the wet or dry conditions based on their rainfall measurement and/or climate predictions by the central government would in their mind not work well without also using their own ilmu titèn (see for example Chapter 3). Weather and climate conditions are only parts of their complex schema of multiple cropping farming. Thus, it is beyond any doubt that just simply telling the farmers of a better alternative to their own strategy to survive would not work effectively. In reality, farmers are continuously enriching their schema with various incoming ideas and elements (see for example Chapters 4, 6). Making a new combination of elements to obtain a better understanding of the unusual phenomena is a prominent and dynamic part of farmers’ creative thinking (see Winarto, 2011a). So the suggestion that the agrometeorologist made to the farmers in his first visit was to try to re-interpret their planting calendar to the changing conditions. By making suggestions to find out for themselves what was possible rather than providing definite recommendations, the farmers were guided to find solutions that accommodated old and new elements as fittingly as these new conditions allowed. Understanding the need to develop their own knowledge and adaptive capability to the problems emerging from the new conditions of climate was the key to enter into a more intense dialogue between the scholars—the agrometeorologist, natural scientist, and anthropologists—and the farmers (see for example Chapter 7). By first listening to the farmers and understanding their vulnerabilities and needs the way they see them, we attempted in our dialogues to widen their perspectives to better respond to the changing conditions. This portrays the ‘Farmer First’ paradigm as argued earlier by Chambers, Scoones and Thompson (see Chambers et al. 1989; Scoones and Thompson, 1994; 2009). It was inevitable though, that the learning of the farmers was in different sequential order, as we argued in the first Chapter. At the time we jointly initiated more intense dialogues, discussions and collaborative working between scholars and farmers, around 20 farmers had already obtained some understandings of climate and weather through short formal ‘schooling’ (see for example Chapter 3). This situation provided some advantages in further developing their knowledge and practical skills. Our presence in the field when the agricultural authorities introduced the ‘School’ also provided a good opportunity for us to observe and understand how the learning went on throughout the season. Adopting the approach of the IPM FFS designed in 1989 (Pontius et al., 2002; Gallagher, 2003; Winarto, 2004), the method of transferring knowledge from the scientific domain to the local one, was not entirely new, that is through teaching, practice, observation, discussion, presentation, physical simulation and carrying out some experiments. What was different from the previous FFSs was the introduction of some elements of climatology and meteorology, and related phenomena of climate and weather that affect farmers’ cultivation practices. Unfortunately, some weaknesses were found in the pre-fixed curriculum in defining what belongs to weather and climate respectively; in simplifications; in correctness of provided explanations; in comprehensiveness of addressing farmers’ vulnerabilities and preparedness towards calamities; and in the introduction of

218


cultivation strategies that cannot be applied under various seasonal and weather conditions (See Chapter 3). This happened because the trainers were not sufficiently familiar with the fields of meteorology/climatology through adequate training. The main trainers were Pest/Disease Observers who used to be trained in practices for IPM FFS facilitators. They were assisted by a local extension worker who also did not have much knowledge of meteorology or climatology. As Winarto (2004) observed during and after the introduction of the IPM FFS in West Java as well as in Central Lampung (Winarto et al., 2000; Winarto, 2011b), learning in a ‘formal schooling’, even when enriched with observations and practices, still leaves us with the question whether the participants gain any skill and confidence regarding the new ideas and concepts. Can they implement what was taught? It is not as simple as expected by the planners and facilitators, that once the farmers have been introduced to new ideas, their knowledge will be enriched, and this will be the basis for action. Stigter (2010a) indicated the need for well trained extension intermediaries that establish agrometeorological services with the farmers. The latter take part in the field applications of these services in their fields and this way directly see and understand that a certain service solves one of their earlier selected priority problems. The training of such extension intermediaries should take place at Universities, Research Institutes and National Weather and other Environmental Services that should have an Extension Wing themselves to make their products more suitable for use by farmers (Stigter, 2010a). What applies in the fields of agrometeorology and agroclimatology also applies in fields like water management, pests and diseases, agronomy, breeding etc. etc. Farmers need to be trained on an almost daily basis throughout the growing seasons in direct relation to the season’s actual happenings and performance. The introduced ideas did advance farmers’ understanding (see for example Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 7). However, individual acceptance of the new ideas varied from person to person and from situation to situation. Indeed only through actually suffering phenomena as learned in the ‘School’, and gaining confidence of the efficacy of some novel practices taught by the trainers to counter these phenomena, farmers did strengthen the establishment of the new elements in their existing schema, be it often to a varying degree. This was also the case in the aftermath of the CFS introduced in Wareng. Farmers kept retaining their own ilmu titèn to a varying degree also. With this knowledge they adapted reasonably well to many problems in their particular environment. Such is the nature of a cultural model which has been established for generations. That is the centripetal characteristic of culture. The other force is the centrifugal nature of culture in which variation exists between generations and individuals and change disperses them (see Strauss and Quinn, 1997). People are different in creativity and innovation, and some are producing inventive practices and are receptive to ideas coming from various sources (see also Stigter et al.., 2007). The spread of scientific knowledge in the form of technological packages in agriculture, various promotions of agricultural products by companies and state agencies, or knowledge transfer as introduced in various Farmer Field Schools from the beginning of 1990s have been common. Farmers’ knowledge has been enriched from time to time. Knowledge is dynamic and should

219


be seen as always in flux (Barth, 1994, 2002; Borofsky, 1994; Winarto, 2004). The chapters in this book are therefore organized in such a way as to give a vivid portrayal of how farmers’ agrometeorological knowledge was gradually advancing in general but often to a varying degree individually. We need to pay attention, however, to details of the gradual changes in farmers’ minds and eventually in their actions. Not all new ideas were taken in by farmers and only those closely related to their existing schema, their experience of calamities in the past, and their needs to improve their resilience in the forthcoming seasons, became the basis for action. An understanding of quantitative amounts of rainfall; the need to categorize rainfall into new categories such as BN (Below Normal), N (Normal) and AN (Above Normal); the relation between rainfall/dryness and some pest/disease populations; and preparedness strategies in response to the occurrence of ‘dry spells’ are examples of farmers’ knowledge advancement. As presented in Chapter Four, the latter was put into practice through farmers’ adoption of building additional high ridges (dikes) in their fields and to plant seeds by using a digging stick. Their actions, which were suitable to the 2007/08 rainy season planting without excessive rainfalls, proved beneficial in terms of good crop performance and yields. This was an example of how the new practices became parts of their fellows’ extra-personal-structure (see Strauss and Quinn, 1997). The proof their fellows saw in terms of crop performance and yields stimulated them to first imitate and then adopt this strategy. In such a way an evolutionary change in farming practices becomes a reality. It worked well in a relatively ‘normal’ weather conditions in a dry rainfed ecosystem, but what would happen when the climate phenomena became contrary to their experience in 2007/08? That is another facet of the weaknesses of temporary ‘teaching-based learning’, which stops once the project terminates and does not cover a sufficient range of diverse phenomena of increasing variability and climate change over time, including unusual climate extremes. To what extent does the teaching give latitude for the farmers to prepare flexibly for different weather and climate situations? Though the CFS alumni had accomplished their training at the end of the dry season planting of the absence of any simple climate prediction received in time and in an appropriate form for farmers to interpret, some CFS alumni followed the trainer’s recommendation to prepare for drought. However, it appeared to be just a coincidence that there were no abundant rains in the 2007/08 rainy growing season. The new strategy to prepare for drought proved beneficial for the yields. But soon a La Niña condition with more than abundant rainfall was going to prevail in 2008/09 without any prior information coming from the government agencies. Continuous long-term agrometeorological learning, growing season by season, is thus necessary in which farmers gain resilience to droughts and floods and their direct and indirect consequences by joint establishment of agrometeorological services by farmers and extension intermediaries. As proposed in this book, the way in which knowledge exchange and research collaboration between scholars and farmers is organized we call ‘Science Field Shops’ or ‘Climate Field

220


Shops’. In the Climate Field Shops only weather and climate scientists interact with farmers in their fields on weather and climate related issues. In the Science Field Shops there are also other scientists involved and a much broader range of production related subjects is covered in the field interactions. Our stories presented in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 provide an in-depth overview of how the agrometeorological learning was carried out and what the results were in the form of famers’ knowledge and practices. Reflecting to what we did in Wareng, Yogyakarta, and later on in Indramayu, West Java (see Table Chapter 1), we developed a diagram for the ideal agrometeorological learning as a way to develop ‘response farming to climate change’. See Diagram 8.1 for the ideal collaboration and research interaction that we propose. The diagram shows an equal position of the two parties, the farmers and the scholars, in a continuous dialogue throughout the collaborative research and analyses up to the stage where both of them reach a consensus on problem solving for the most vulnerable issues to be dealt with. First the scholars must get enough understanding on the ad hoc and wider local vulnerabilities the farmers are exposed to and on the needs the farmers have for solutions of their production problems. The farmers must get a better idea on what solutions might exist. When such possible solutions have been jointly agreed on, a CFS could be created with the objectives of actually solving the farmers’ immediate local and wider problems by trial and error in the fields. Both sides may decide to do on-farm field research on certain problems to improve such solutions, while scientists may also do other supportive research related to these solutions. A continuous learning at both sides on preparedness for climate and weather issues affecting the growth of the selected crops is still necessary, while discovering ways to alleviate the burdens and hazards the farmers suffer in particular weather and climate conditions faced or predicted. This means that there should be no pre-fixed CFS curricula. The farmers carry out their observations, practices and experiments in their own fields and/or in plots designated as the ‘experimental or demonstration plots’ for CFS participants. Nanja (2011), for his work in community agrometeorological extension in Mujika, Zambia (see also Stigter, 2011c), worked with ’mother/baby‘ trials, where the ’mother‘ fields were farmer fields jointly managed by scientists and farmers and the ’baby‘ fields were experimental plots handled by the farmers only, to try out possible solutions yet too risky for the fields they earned their food and living on. In Science Field Shops, the farmers do their daily observations in their own ’mother‘ fields and do ’baby‘ trials in experimental plots. As soon as enough understanding has been reached in the CFS to be organized, the daily observations are continued, but agrometeorological and other developed services (‘solutions proved to work‘) are established in the farmers’ fields. By doing so, the partners, that are farmers and scholars, learn all lessons directly through their own or joint observations, practices and ongoing assessments as they used to do. But this can only be a temporary situation. As soon as possible, the scholars should be replaced by extension intermediaries trained by the scholars in the above pictured processes, using the experience these scholars gained in farmer fields.

221


Diagram 8.1 Science Field Shop

Source: Winarto et al. 2010c, 2011. Reprinted from Winarto et al.¸2011:179.

To the above learning diagram of farmers’ research, belong farmers’ new daily measurements of rainfall and observations on the agroecosystem conditions of soils and crops in a more standardized and systematic way than before, as described in Chapters 5 and 7. Gradually, the farmers in Wareng, Gunungkidul were able to integrate the new ideas gained from such exercises in their existing schema. By combining the numerical analyses of rainfall with its implications for the growth of crops, the farmers were already now able to gain new

222


experience on the current farming conditions within the context of a particular weather situation. By activating that combination of elements in their minds everyday and developing an additional taxonomy of rainfall in numbers as used by scholars and government agencies, farmers could gradually grasp the meaning of a particular amount of rain in terms of their earlier traditional taxonomy (see Chapter 7). They could also understand the meaning of novel terms such as El Niño and La Niña with their implications for rainfall patterns and therefore for farmers’ fields and crops. This was already the most significant learning they ever had related to weather and climate. Recalling their memories based on such experiences when they receive weather forecasts and climate predictions in ‘scientific language’ in the future will help them already significantly in better preparing themselves for consequences of increasing climate variability and climate change. Only through such agrometeorological learning will the farmers be able to improve ‘response farming in a rural response to climate change’. “If there are rains up to 70mm or above for days, making a drainage is a must”, said one farmer after seeing floods covering her field with the rotten roots of her crops (paddy and maize). Therefore, a short learning is not enough. Farmers in Wareng, Yogyakarta, expressed their interest to carry out the exercise for a period of at least three years. We hope that as many farmers as possible will by that time see the sense of such measurements and observations as a daily routine in the future. It may be expected that these standardized measurements and systematic observations and documentation as introduced can be gradually internalized as part of their habits, and not remain alien to their own ways of learning. Nevertheless, this is the most challenging issue we experienced in our work with the farmers in Wareng, as presented in Chapter 6: establishing a new ‘habit’ to discipline themselves in measuring rainfall every day at the same period of time, observing their fields thoroughly and in detail, and writing up their findings were the ‘novel’ practices they learned to perform. It was fortunate that by living with the farmers, we had the opportunity to communicate directly in the field and to assist them in their learning, while also improving our understanding and capabilities. A continuous reflexivity and intersubjectivity between the two parties—scholars and farmers—in establishing the new habit was going on, a most significant change both parties experienced. Our collaboration with the farmers in Wareng did not yet reach the later stages as presented in the diagram, namely a more than exemplarious problem solving and the development of a new type of CFS as described above. Besides the unexpected problems emerging in the field, the time period of our research and its funding was much too short for that. In fact we just showed the way to go in a better organized future for agrometeorological extension. An example of this was the need to build a drainage system collectively, in case of heavy rains, in addition to the recently introduced dikes/high ridges constructed to improve water management under drought conditions. Again, this is a case where farmers had to do additional efforts to create something new. Individual adjustments, modifications and changes in each plot are everyday business. Water management is crucial. Working out something together, covering a wider area of rice fields and crossing the administrative borders, is something beyond reach of individual farmers or of one farmer group in a hamlet. Without any social or educational institution as guide in developing a collective action and without any support from authorities across

223


administrative boundaries, it would not be easy to organize a collective action in alleviating calamities affecting a wider area of crop farming. Without any power to invite and encourage a larger number of farmers to join the work this is indeed difficult. But, as part of an official new type of CFS extension approach that we developed in this Chapter, that would be a lot easier. Local leaders play an important role in this context, in whether to support or on the contrary to constrain any creative joint activities of farmers. They can decide whether to stimulate socioeducational institution building by allowing the new CFSs to actually develop. Scholars must initiate such developments by organizing Science Field Shops. This is the socio-cultural dimension of our collaborative work. Socio-cultural ‘engineering’ is indeed necessary for these new educational commitments. Winarto (2010) argues that carrying out such a collaborative work should be adjusted to a local cultural-environmental context. Stigter (2010a) developed curricula for the agrometeorological and cultural-environmental training of the extension intermediaries that should train and facilitate the farmers in these new CFSs. He argued that only this way agrometeorological services can actually be established with the farmers (Stigter, 2010b; 2011d). Such a development is in fact part of the challenges social scientists should also respond to. That is the applied dimension of also their scientific domain which requires serious efforts. As Lassiter (2005b:84) argues, anthropologists need to integrate theory and practice, and equally combine academic and applied anthropology in executing shared projects. Referring to Peggy Sunday ( Lassiter, 2005b:84), Lassiter further says that: “…merging public anthropology with public currents is more than a focus for research; it is a paradigm for learning, teaching, research, action and practice within the field of anthropology”. Those are the practicalities and the problems of the anthropological world nowadays, if they want their work to contribute significantly to improvements in the livelihood of the people they encounter in their research (see also Winarto et al., 2011). Crossing the disciplinary borders as well as crossing the scientific boundaries is also demanded from natural scientists, as the agrometeorologist argued strongly in this book and elsewhere (e.g. Stigter, 2010a). The question is that this dimension must somewhere become an integral part of teaching and research agendas among the academia in various institutions (see Winarto, 2010). It is now the appropriate time to reflect on the limitations and to evaluate the problems the academic institutions have in actually serving farmers and agricultural education in poor countries (e.g. Stigter, 2011d). Alleviating the constraints their members face to respond swiftly, flexibly and adequately to the needs of those in increasingly vulnerable environments in the midst of the presently ongoing climate upheavals is indeed most necessary.

224

References AFP, 2010. Climate change causes lower rice production. Copenhagen Carbon. http://www.copenhagencarbon.com/news/66/ Agrawal, A., 1995. Indigenous and scientific knowledge: Some critical comments. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 3(3): 3—6. Amin, 1991. Pengelolaan air irigasi di petak sawah daerah irigasi pompa air tanah di Siraman, Wonosari Gunungkidul. Unpublised undergraduate thesis. Yogyakarta: Faculty of Geography, Gadjah Mada University. Anderson, J.R., G. Feder and S. Ganguly, 2006. The rise and fall of training and visit extension: an Asian mini-drama with an African epilogue. http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/3928.html Anderson, S., 2011. Climate change and poverty reduction. CDKN Policy Brief. http://cdkn.org/resource/climate-change-and-poverty-reduction/ APN, 2010. Recognizing the potentials of Agroforestry in climate change mitigation and adaptation. APN Brochure, Kobe, Japan. Ati, O.F., C.J. Stigter and E.O. Oladipo, 2002. A comparison of methods to detect the onset of the growing season for some stations in the Sudan Savanna of Northern Nigeria. Intern. J. Climat. 22: 731–742. Badan Meteorologi, Klimatologi, dan Geofisika, 2008. Prakiraan Musim Hujan 2008/2009 di Indonesia. Jakarta Baldy, C. and C.J. Stigter, 1997. Agrometeorology of multiple cropping in warm climates. Translated from the French (with an Epilogue for the English version). INRA, Paris, France + Oxford & IBH Publ. Co., New Delhi, India + Science Publ. Inc., Enfield, USA, 237 pp. Barth, F., 1994. A personal view of present tasks and priorities in cultural and social anthropology. Pp.349—61 In R. Borofsky (Ed.), Assessing cultural anthropology, McGraw Hill, New York. Bentley, J.W., 1989. What farmers don’t know can’t help them: The strengths and weaknesses of indigenous technical knowledge in Honduras. Agriculture and Human Values 6(3): 25— 31. Bentley, J.W., 1992. Alternatives to pesticides in Central America: Applied studies of local knowledge. Culture and agriculture 44: 10—13. Bentley, J.W., G. Rodriguez and A. Gonzales, 1994. Science and people: Honduran campesinos and natural pest control inventions. Agriculture and Human Values 11(2/3): 178—82. Blasco, P.G.Y. and H., Wardle, 2007. How to read ethnography. Routledge: London and New York. Boer, R., Srimulya, E. Kirno, Suparmo, Widjatmiko and E.T. Purwani. Lampiran: Modul Pengantar Sekolah Lapangan Iklim: Materi Iklim dan Aplikasinya, 2007. Pp.1—73. In Direktorat Perlindungan Tanaman Pangan, Direktorat Jenderal Tanaman Pangan, Kementerian Pertanian. Pedoman Umum Sekolah Lapang Iklim, Jakarta. Boer, R., 2009. Sekolah lapang iklim antisipasi risiko perubahan iklim Majalah Salam 26: 8—10. Borofsky, R., 1987. Making history: Pukapukan and anthropological construction of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

226

References

Borofsky, R., 1994. The cultural in motion. Pp.313—319 In R. Borofsky (Ed.), Assessing cultural anthropology, McGraw Hill, New York. Borofsky, R., 2002. Public Anthropology (A personal perspective). http://www.publicanthropology.org/Defining/publicanth-07Oct10.htm (accessed 16/1/11). Brookfield, M., 1996. Indigenous knowledge: A long history and an uncertain future. PLEC Nes and Views 6: 23—29. Buletin Wani Mandiri (Wahana Tani Mandiri). Strategi Budidaya Tanaman Pangan dan Pengaruh Iklim: Dampak Pemanasan Global. May—June 2008 Buckman-Nyle, H.O.C.B., 1982. Ilmu tanah, Bhratara Karya Aksara, Jakarta. Challinor, A., 2010. Section IV.4, Expert systems. Pp. 885-891 in Stigter, Kees (Ed.), Applied Agrometeorology, Springer, Berlin etc. Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L.A. Thrupp, 1989. Farmer first: Farmer innovation and agricultural research. Intermediary Technology Publications, London. Choesin, E. M., 2002. Connectionism: Alternatif dalam memahami dinamika pengetahuan lokal dalam globalisasi. Antropologi Indonesia: 21(59), 1−9. ClimateWiki, 2011. El Niño-Southern Oscillation. http://www.climatewiki.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation Crane, T.A., C. Roncoli and G. Hoogenboom, 2011. Adaptation to climate change and climate variability: The importance of understanding agriculture as performance. NJAS – Wageningen, J Life Sciences 57: 179-185. Crate, S.A. and M. Nuttal, 2009. Introduction: Anthropology and climate change. Pp.9—36 in S.A. Crate and M. Nuttal (Eds.), Anthropology and climate change: From encounters to actions. Walnut Creek, California. D’Andrade, R., 1987. A folk model of the mind. Pp.112—148 In D. Holland and N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. D’Andrade, R., 1992. Schemas and motivation. Pp.23—44 in R. D’Andrade and C. Strauss (Eds.), Human motives and cultural models. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Diarra, D. and Kees Stigter, 2008. Operational meteorological assistance to rural areas in Mali. Development-Results-Perspectives: Conclusions and Recommendations. Translated from the French. http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/accounts-of-operational-agrometeorology/operational-meteorological-assitance-to-rural-areas-in-mali Dilts, R. and S. Hate, 1996. IPM Farmers’ Field Schools: Changing paradigm and scaling up. Agriculture Research & Extension Network 59b: 1—4. Direktorat Perlindungan Tanaman Pangan, Direktorat Jenderal Tanaman Pangan, Kementerian Pertanian, 2007. Pedoman Umum Sekolah Lapang Iklim. Jakarta. Direktorat Perlindungan Tanaman Pangan, Direktorat Jenderal Tanaman Pangan, Kementerian Pertanian, 2010. Modul Pengantar Sekolah Lapangan Iklim. Jakarta. Djauhari, 2005. Geologi lingkungan. Penerbit Graha Ilmu, Yogyakarta. EDF, 2007. More droughts expected in warmer world. http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=6580 Ellen, R, 2004. From ethnoscience to science, or ‘what the indigenous knowledge debate tells us about how scientists define their project’. Journal of Cognition and Culture 4(3): 409—450.

227

References

Eshuis, J. and M. Stuiver, 2005. Learning in context through conflict and alignment: Farmers and scientists in search of sustainable agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 22: 137—148. Falcon, W.P., R.L. Naylor, M.D. Mastrandrea, D.S. Batisti, D. Vimont and M. Burke, 2011. Agricultural decision-making in Indonesia with ENSO variability: Integrating climate science, risk assessment, and policy analysis. Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. http://cddrl.stanford.edu/research/agricultural_decisionmaking_in_indonesia_with_enso_vari ability_integrating_climate_science_risk_assessment_and_policy_analysis/ Fliert, E., van de and Y.T. Winarto, 1993. From technological packages to ecological principles. ILEIA 2:16—18. Gallagher, K., 2003. Fundamental elements of a Farmer Field School. Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) Magazine 19: 5—6. Geertz, H., 1961. The Javanese Family: A Study of Kinship and Socialization. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc, New York. Geertz, C., 1962. The Rotating Credit Association: A ‘Middle-rung’ in Development. Economic Development and Cultural Change 10(3): 241—63. Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009. The anatomy of a silent crisis. Human Impact Report: Climate Change. http://www.eird.org/publicaciones/humanimpactreport.pdf Gommes, R., M. Acunzo, S. Baas, M. Bernardi, S. Jost, E. Mukhala and S. Ramasamy, 2010. Section II.D, Communication approaches in applied agrometeorology. Pp. 263-286 in Stigter, Kees (Ed), Applied agrometeorology, Springer, Berlin etc. Grasseni, C., 2004. Video and ethnographic knowledge: Skilled vision in the practice of breeding. Pp. 12—27 in S. Pink, L. Kürti, and A. I. Afonso (Eds.), Working image: Visual research and representation in ethnography. Routledge, New York. Haryono, S.W.B., 2010. Duh, La Nina masih berlangsung hingga 2011. Republika, 31 Agustus,http://www.republika.co.id/berita/breaking-news/lingkungan/10/08/31/ 132620-duhla-nina-masih-berlangsung-hingga-2011. Hesterman, D., 2011. Climate study: Permanently hotter summers predicted in 20 Years. Think to sustain. http://www.thinktosustain.com/infocusdetails.aspx?id=%20194&utm_source=NL10&utm_ medium=email&utm_campaign=CL Hidayat, B., 2011. The sky and the agro-bio-climatology of Java: Need critical reevaluation due to environmental changes. Pp.43—46 In T. Nakamura, W. Orchiston, M. Soma, and R. Strom (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Oriental Astronomy. National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Tokyo. Holmes, D.R. and G.E. Marcus, 2005. Refunctioning ethnography: The challenge of an anthropology of the contemporary. Pp.1099—1113 in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd edition), SAGE Publications, Thomas Oaks, London and New Delhi. Ionescu, C., R.J.T. Klein, J. Hinkel, K.S. Kavi Kumar and R. Klein, 2009. Towards a formal framework of vulnerability to climate change. Environ. Model. Assess. 14: 1-16. IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development), 2009. Agriculture at the Crossroads. Synthesis, and Report Summary for Decision Makers. Washington: Island Press.

228

References

Indrowuryanto, 1999. Kesadaran hubungan manusia dengan alamnya. Pp.17—40 in K. Adimihardja (Ed.), Petani, merajut tradisi era globalisasi: Pendayagunaan sistem pengetahuan lokal dalam pembangunan. Hutama Utama Press, Bandung. IRI, 2011. The International Research Institute for Climate and Society. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=nl&q=cache:xMyAlVW9iMMJ:http://portal.iri.columbia.edu/+International+Institute+for+climate+and+society&ct=clnk IRRI, 2011. Better varieties. Climate change-ready rice. http://irri.org/our-science/bettervarieties/climate-change-ready-rice Jay, R.R. 1969. Javanese villagers: Social relations in rural Modjokuto. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Jennings, S. and J. Magrath, 2009. What happened to the seasons? OXFAM Research Report, October. http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/climate_change/downloads/research_what_happened_to_seasons.pdf Johnson, A.W., 1971. Security and risk-taking among poor peasants: A Brazilian case. Pp.143—150 In G. Dalton (Ed.), Studies in economic anthropology. Anthropological studies no.7. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. Kassam, A., W. Stoop and N. Uphoff, 2011. Review of SRI modifications in rice crop and water management and research issues for making further improvements in agricultural and water productivity. Paddy Water Environ 9: 163–180. Kenworthy, T., 2009. More droughts will hurt agriculture. Centre for American Progress. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/07/kenworthy_drought.html KNMI (for Netherlands Government, compiled by Kees Stigter, second update), 2009. Capacity building in the area of agrometeorological services through roving seminars. Document originally distributed and presented as CAgM-XIV/INF. 4 at the XIVth Session of the WMO CAgM, New Delhi, October/November 2006, 19pp. http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/agm/cagm/documents/CAgM_14_ActivRep_English.pdf Koentjaraningrat, 1974. Kebudayaan, mentalitet dan pembangunan. PT. Gramedia, Jakarta. Koentjaraningrat, 1985. The Javanese Culture. Singapore: Oxford University Press. Kuhn, T., 1993. Metaphor in science. Pp.533—42 In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lassiter, L.E., 2005a. The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Lassiter, L.E., 2005b. Collaborative ethnography and public anthropology. Current Anthropology 46(1): 83—106. Latour, B. and S. Woolgar, 1989. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Long, N. and A. Long (Eds.), 1992. Battlefields of Knowledge: the interlocking of theory and practice in research and development. Routledge, London. Long, N. and M. Villareal, 1994. The interweaving of knowledge and power in development interface. Pp.41—52 In I. Scoones and J. Thompson (Eds.), Beyond farmer first: Rural people’s knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice. Intermediate Technology Publication, London.

229

References

Magnis-Suseno, F.1997. Javanese ethics and world-view: The Javanese idea of the good life. PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Jakarta. Marcus, G.E., 1998. Ethnography through thick and thin. Princeton University Press Princeton, New Jersey. Marcus, G.E., 2001. From rapport under erasure to theatres of complicit reflexivity. Qualitative Inquiry 7(4): 519—528. Marcus, G.E., 2008. The end(s) of ethnography: Social/cultural anthropology’s signature form of producing knowledge in transition. Cultural Anthropology 231):1—14. Martopo, S., 1988. Potensi ketersediaan air pada ekosistem karst di Gunungkidul. Research Report, Research Center for Environmental Studies, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta. McIntosh, R.J., 2000. Social Memory in Mande. Pp.141—180 In R.J. McIntosh, J.A. Tainter and S.K. McIntosh (Eds.), The way the wind blows: Climate, history and human Action. Columbia University Press, New York. Mergeai, G., 2010. Agriculture as a motor of pro-poor growth: Potentials and constraints of conservation agriculture to fight rural poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. An Editorial. Tropicultura 28: 129—132. Metcalf Institute, 2000. Potential impacts of La Niña on climate variability and extreme weather. http://www.environmentwriter.org/resources/bg/la_nina.htm Monografi Desa Wareng, 2008. Administrasi Desa Wareng Gunungkidul. Yogyakarta Mulder, N., 1980. Kebatinan dan hidup sehari-hari orang Jawa. P.T. Gramedia, Jakarta. Murniatmo, G., H. Sitanggang and R. Abu, 1983. Sistem ekonomi tradisional sebagai perwujudan tanggapan masyarakat terhadap lingkungannya di DIY. Proyek Inventarisasi dan Dokumentasi Kebudayaan Daerah, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Yogyakarta. Nanja, D.M., 2011. Dissemination of climate information to small-holder farmers: A case study for Mujika area, Zambia. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. Naylor, R.L., D.S. Battisti, D.J. Vimont, W.P. Falcon and M.B. Burke, 2007. Assessing risks of climate variability and climate change for Indonesian rice agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (of America) (PNAS) 104: 7752-7757. NOAA, 2010. El Niño/southern oscillation (ENSO) diagnostic discussion. Issued by Climate Prediction Center/NCEP/NWS on 3 June 2010. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensodiscjun2010/ensodisc.doc OXFAM, 2011. Owning adaptation. Country-level governance of climate adaptation finance. OXFAM Briefing Paper 146. http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp146-owningadaptation-130611-en.pdf Ortony, A., 1993. Metaphor, language, and thought. Pp.1—16 In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pontius, J., R. Dilts and A. Bartlett, 2002. From Farmer Field School to Community IPM: Ten years of IPM training in Asia. FAO Community IPM Program, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. Prakarma, R., 2009. Do farmers use climate forecast information to respond to climate variability? Unpublished M.Sc. thesis. Department of Social Science, Wageningen University and Research Center.

230

References

Pulhin, J.M., 2011. Scientific capacity building for climate impact and vulnerability assessments (SCBCIA). Final Report. Capacity development on integration of science and local knowledge for climate change impacts and vulnerability assessments. http://www.apn-gcr.org/newAPN/activities/CAPaBLE/2009/CIA2009-02-Pulhin/ CIA200902-Pulhin_FinalReport.pdf Rapport, N. and J. Overing, 2007. Social and cultural anthropology: The key concepts (Second ed.). Routledge, Oxon. Richard, P., 1989. Agriculture as a performance. Pp.39—43 In R. Chambers, A. Pacey, and L.A. Thrupp (Eds.), Farmer First: Farmer innovation and agricultural research. Intermediate Technology Publications, London. Ronan, C.A., 1981. The shorter science and civilisation in China. An abridgement of Joseph Needham’s original text. Vol. 2 (Vol. III and a section of Vol. IV, Part I, of the major series). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 459 pp. Roncoli, C., 2006. Ethnographic and participatory approaches to research on farmers’ responses to climate predictions. Climate Research 33: 81—99. Roncoli, C., K. Ingram, C. Jost and P. Kirshen, 2003. Meteorological meanings: Farmers’ interpretation of seasonal rainfall forecast in Burkina Faso. Pp.181—200 in S. Strauss and B. Orlove (Eds.) Weather, climate, culture. Berg, Oxford and New York. Rowling, M., 2011. Q&A: Why do we need a new global system for climate services? http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/qa-why-do-we-need-a-new-global-system-for-climate-services Saville-Troike, M., 2003. The ethnography of communication: An introduction. Blackwell Publishing, Madden. Scoones, I. and J. Thompson, 1994. Introduction. Pp.1—12 In I. Scoones and J. Thompson (Eds.), Beyond farmer first: Rural people’s knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice. Intermediate Technology Publications, London. Scoones, I. and J. Thompson, (Eds.), 2009. Farmer first revisited: Innovation for agricultural research and development. Practical Actions Publishing, Ltd., Rugby. Scott, J.C., 1998. Seeing like states: How certain schemes to improve human condition have failed. Yale University Press, New Haven. Sen, A., 1981. Poverty and Famine. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Shiva, V., 1993. Monocultures of the mind: Perspectives on biodiversity and biotechnology. Zed Books, London and Third World Network, Penang. Shiva, V., 1997. Biopiracy: the plunder of nature and knowledge. South End Press, Boston, MA. Sriyanto, 2009. Bertahan walau iklim tak menentu. Majalah Salam 26:6—7. Stigter, Kees, 2007a. An account of visiting those involved in climate field schools in Indonesia. Available at the INSAM website (www.agrometeorology.org) under “Accounts of Operational Agrometeorology” of 7 May. Also used as Appendix II in Stigter, Kees (2007), Coping with climate risks in agriculture needs farmer oriented research and extension policies based on participation, preparedness and resilience. Paper presented at the first Venezuelan Agrometeorology Congress, San Cristobal, November. Stigter, Kees, 2007b. Between success and expansion: farmer field schools in north-east Bali. Available at the INSAM website (http://www.agrometeorology.org/) under “Needs for agrometeorological solutions to farming problems” of 2 October.

231

References

Stigter, Kees, 2008a. Agrometeorological services under a changing climate: old wine in new bags.WMO-Bulletin 57(2): 114-117. Stigter, Kees, 2008b. Climate change is confusing Indonesian farmers: a visit to another Climate Field School in Indonesia, that of Gunungkidul near Yogyakarta. Available on the INSAM website (http://www.agrometeorology.org/) under “Accounts of Operational Agrometeorology” of 7 January. Stigter, Kees, 2010a. Chapter I, Introductory Part. Pp. 3-51 in Stigter, Kees (Ed.), Applied Agrometeorology, Springer, Berlin etc. Stigter, Kees, 2010b. Section IV.5, Education, Training and Extension. Pp. 893-899 in Stigter, Kees (Ed.), Applied Agrometeorology, Springer, Berlin etc. Stigter, Kees, 2010c. Section IV.1, Introduction to Part IV. Pp. 857-867 in Stigter, Kees (Ed.), Applied Agrometeorology, Springer, Berlin etc. Stigter, Kees, 2010d. Section IV.5, Development of microclimate modification patterns in agroforestry. Pp. 685-687 in Stigter, Kees (Ed.), Applied Agrometeorology, Springer, Berlin etc. Stigter, Kees, 2010e. Section III.2.1.(a), Combating disasters: Monocropping. Pp. 305-308 in Stigter, Kees (Ed.), Applied Agrometeorology, Springer, Berlin etc. Stigter, Kees, 2010f. Section III.3.1.(a), Combating disasters: Multiple cropping. Pp. 419-421 in Stigter, Kees (Ed.), Applied Agrometeorology, Springer, Berlin etc. Stigter, Kees, 2010g. Section III.1. Introduction to Part III. Pp 289-301 in Stigter, Kees (Ed.), Applied Agrometeorology, Springer, Berlin etc. Stigter, Kees, 2011a. Reaching farmers in a changing climate. Roving Seminar Nr. 3. Material handed out to participants. Available form the author on request ([email protected]). Stigter, Kees, 2011b. Agroforestry in coping with meteorological and climatological risks. The Overstory 233, 17 January. http://www.overstory.org Stigter, Kees, 2011c. INSAM homepage text till October 2011. http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/insam-homepage-texts-from-2004-onwards-also-inspanish-and-some-in-farsi/insam-homepage-until-october-2011 Stigter, Kees, 2011d. Rural response to climate change in poor countries: Ethics, policies and scientific support systems in their agricultural environment. Chapter 5 in: Tom Sauer and John Norman (Eds.), Sustaining soil productivity in response to global climate change – Science, policy and ethics. Invited presentation at an OECD Policy Workshop, 29 June 2009, at the University of Madison, Wisconsin, USA, in print. Stigter, Kees and M.R. Vishwavaram, 2011. A plea for a REDD plus plus approach (with a massive participatory raising and nursing of trees in the agricultural environment). http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/environment-and-sustainability/a-plea-for-a-reddplus-plus-approach/?searchterm=Stigter,%20kEES%20AND%20VISHWAVARAM Stigter, Kees and Y.T. Winarto, 2011. Science field shops may precede climate field schools but simple adaptation to climate should be validated as part of both. http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/educational-aspects-of-agrometeorology/ sciencefield-shops-may-precede-climate-field-schools-but-simple-adaptation-to-climate-should-bevalidated-as-part-of-both

232

References

Stigter C.J., H.P. Das and V.R.K. Murthy, 2003. Beyond climate forecasting of flood disasters. Invited Lecture on the Opening Day of the Fifth Regional Training Course on Flood Risk Management (FRM-5) of the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (Bangkok) and the China Research Center on Flood and Drought Disaster Reduction (Beijing), Beijing, September. Available from ADPC (Bangkok) on CD-ROM. Also available at http://www.agrometeorology.org/fileadmin/insam/repository/ ADPC2 mp.pdf Stigter C.J. and N.K.N. Al-Amin, 2006. Zoning and mapping as agrometeorological services in developing countries: preconditions and requirements in a checklist for action. Paper presented at the COST/FAO/WMO/IBIMET Workshop on Climatic Analysis and Mapping for Agriculture, Bologna, June 2005. Stigter, C.J., Tan Ying, H.P. Das, Zheng Dawei, R.E. Rivero Vega, Nguyen van Viet, N.I. Bakheit and Y.M. Abdullahi, 2007. Complying with farmers' conditions and needs using new weather and climate information approaches and technologies. In: M.V.K. Sivakumar and R. Motha (eds.), Managing weather and climate risks in agriculture. Springer, Berlin etc., pp. 171-190. Stigter, Kees, H. Das and Nguyen Van Viet, 2007. On farm testing of designs of new cropping systems will serve Indonesian farmers. http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/needs-for-agrometeorological-solutions-to-farmingproblems/on-farm-testing-of-designs-of-new-cropping-systems-will-serve-indonesian-farmers Stigter, Kees, Y.T. Winarto and T. Stathers, 2009. Rainfall measurements by farmers in their fields. http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/accounts-of-operational-agrometeorology/rainfallmeasurements-by-farmers-in-their-fields Stigter, Kees, S.Walker, H.P. Das, S. Huda, Zheng Dawei, Liu Jing, Li Chunqiang, I.M. DominguezHurtado, A.E. Mohammed, A.T. Abdalla, N.I. Bakheit, N.K.N. Al-Amin, Wei Yurong, J.M. Kinama, D. Nanja and P.D. Haasbroek, 2011. Meeting farmers’ needs for agrometeorological services: an overview and case studies. Paper presented at the WMO/CAgM Workshop “Addressing the livelihood crisis of farmers: weather and climate services”. Belo Horizonte, Brazil, July 2010. To be published in the Workshop Proceedings. Strauss, C., 1992. Models and motives. Pp.1—20 In R. D’Andrade and C. Strauss (Eds.), Human motives and cultural models. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Strauss, C. and N. Quinn, 1997. A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Strauss, S., 2003. Weather wise: Speaking folklore to science in Leukerbad. Pp.39—60 In S. Strauss and B. Orlove (Eds.), Weather, climate, culture. Berg, Oxford and New York. Suprapto, T.O., 2007. Pemberdayaan dan sains petani: Suatu jalan alternatif menuju pertanian yang tangguh. Pp.14—19 in the Proceedings of seminar/workshop on Pemberdayaan dan sains petani: Suatu jalan alternatif menuju pertanian yang tangguh. Academy Professorship Indonesia in Social Sciences and Humanities and the Graduate School of Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta. ThinktoSustain, 2011. Major environmental disasters: Year 2011. http://thinktosustain.com/marketspace/2011/06/major-environmental-disasters-year-2011/ Tjasyono, 2008. Meteorologi Terapan. Penerbit ITB, Bandung.

233

References

University of San Diego, California, 2010. Higher temperatures to slow Asian rice production. http://www.physorg.com/news200559841.html Untung, K., 2007. Sains Petani sebagai kontribusi SLPHT untuk Pemberdayaan Petani. Pp.7—13 in the Proceedings of seminar/workshop on Pemberdayaan dan sains petani: Suatu jalan alternatif menuju pertanian yang tangguh. Academy Professorship Indonesia in Social Sciences and Humanities and the Graduate School of Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta. Uphoff, N., A. Kassim and R. Harwood, 2011. SRI as a methodology for raising crop and water productivity: productive adaptations in rice agronomy and irrigation water management. Paddy Water Environ 9: 3–11. USEPA, 2011. Extreme events. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/extreme.html Vaidya, V.B., K. Damle and V. Pandey, 2010. Validation of rainfall forecast given by AAU Monsoon Research Almanac-2010. http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/accounts-of-operationalagrometeorology/validation-of-rainfall-forecast-given-by-aau-monsoon-research-almanac2010 Varshneya, M.C., V.B. Vaidya, V. Pandey, L.D. Chimote, K.S. Damle, A.M. Shekh and B.I. Karande, 2010. Forecasting rainfall for 2010 of Gujarat based on astro-meteorology. http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/accounts-of-operational-agrometeorology/forecastingrainfall-for-2010-of-gujarat-based-on-astro-meteorology Varshneya, M.C., V.B. Vaidya, Vyas Pandey, A.M. Shekh, L.D. Chimote and K.S. Damle, 2011. Rainfall forecast of Gujarat for monsoon 2011 based on Monsoon Research Almanac. http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/accounts-of-operational-agromete-orology/rainfallforecast-of-gujarat-for-monsoon-2011-based-on-monsoon-research-almanac Vayda, A.P., 1994. Actions, variations, and change: The emerging anti-essentialist view in anthropology. Pp.320—330 In R. Borofksy (Ed.), Assessing cultural anthropology. McGrawHill, New York. Verhezen, P, 2002. Gifts and Alliances in Java. Ethical Perspectives 9(1):56—65. Vi Agroforestry, 2007. Planting the future. Vi Agroforestry’s strategy 2008–2011. Stockholm and Nairobi. http://www.sccportal.org/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=%2FFiles%2FFiler%2 FVisko en%2FVistrategy2008-2011.pdf. Vishwavaram, M.R., 2010. Desert farming: The peasant perspectives of climate change. http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/needs-for-agrometeorological-solutions-to-farmingproblems/desert-farming-the-peasant-perspectives-of-climate-change Wharton, Jr., C.R., 1971. Risk, uncertainty and the subsistence farmer: technological innovation and resistance to change in the context of survival. Pp.154—161 In G. Dalton (Ed.), Studies in economic anthropology. Anthropological Studies No.7. American Anthropological Association, Washington D.C. Wikipedia, 2011. Geography of Indonesia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Indonesia Winarto, Y.T., 1995. State intervention and farmer creativity: Integrated pest management among rice farmers in Subang, West Java. Agriculture and Human Values 12(4): 47—57. Winarto, Y.T., 1998. ‘Hama dan musuh alami, racun dan obat’: Dinamika pengetahuan petani dalam pengendalian hama. Antropologi Indonesia 22(5): 53—68. Winarto, Y.T., 1999. Creating knowledge: scientific knowledge and local adoption in rice integrated pest management in Indonesia (a case study from Subang, West Java). Pp.162—92 In

234

References

S. Toussaint and J. Taylor (Eds.), Applied anthropology in Australasia. University of Western Australia, Perth. Winarto, Y.T., 2002. From farmers to farmers, the seeds of empowerment: The farmers’ self governance in Central Lampung. Pp.270—289 In M. Sakai (Ed.), Beyond Jakarta: Regional automonoy and local society in Indonesia. Crawford House Publishing, Belair, SA. Winarto, Y.T., 2004. Seeds of knowledge: The beginning of integrated pest management in Java. Monograph series vol. 53. New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies. Winarto, Y.T., 2006. Pengendalian hama terpadu setelah limabelas tahun berlalu. Jurnal Analisis Sosial 11(1): 27—56. Winarto, Y.T., 2007. Sang petani-ilmuwan, sang ilmuwan-pro-petani: Penyangga ketangguhan dan kedaulatan pangan. A keynote paper in the seminar: Ketangguhan dan kedaulatan pangan: Peran serta petani-ilmuwan. Undergraduate program, Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indonesia in collaboration with Academy Professorship Indonesia in Social Sciences and Humanities, Gadjah Mada University, and the Institute for Social Justice, Depok. Winarto, Y.T., 2010. Inaugural lecture: Climate and culture: Changes, lessons, and challenges. Wacana 12(2): 369—385. Winarto, Y.T., 2011a. Weaving the diverse ‘seeds’ of knowledge. The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 12(3): 274—287. Winarto, Y.T., 2011b. The ecological implications of central versus local governance: The contest over integrated pest management in Indonesia. Pp.276—301 In M. Dove, P. E. Sajise, and A.A. Doolittle (Eds.) Beyond the sacred forest: Complicating conservation in Southeast Asia. Duke University Press, Durham and London. Winarto, Y.T. (Ed.), 2011. Bisa Dèwèk: Kisah Perjuangan Petani Pemulia Tanaman di Indramayu. Gramata Publishing, Depok. Winarto, Y.T., E.M. Choesin, Fadli, A.S.H. Ningsih and S. Darmono, 2000. Satu dekade pengendalian hama terpadu: Berjuang menggapai kemandirian dan kesejahteraan. Research report submitted to Indonesian FAO Inter-country Program. Jakarta. Winarto, Y.T., Kees Stigter, E. Anantasari and S.N. Hidayah, 2008. Climate Field Schools in Indonesia: coping with climate change and beyond. LEISA Magazine 24(4): 16—18. Winarto, Y.T., Kees Stigter, E. Anantasari, H. Prahara and Kristyanto, 2010a. “We’ll continue with our observations”: Agro-meteorological learning in Indonesia. Farming Matters (formerly LEISA Magazine) 26(4): 12—15. Winarto, Y.T., Kees Stigter, E. Anantasari, H. Prahara and Kristyanto, 2010b. Agrometeorological learning of farmers through measuring rainfall and observing fields and crops. http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/accounts-of-operationalagrometeorology/agrometeorological-learning-of-farmers-through-measuring-rainfall-andobserving-fields-and-crops Winarto, Y.T., H. Prahara, E. Anantasari and Kristiyanto with comments by Kees Stigter, 2010c. Rural response to climate change: Rainfall measurements by farmers in Java. Pp.94—128 In Y. T. Winarto and D. Maeztri (Eds.) Proceedings of international seminar and workshop on: Learning from climate change and its consequences: The role of scientists and entrepreneurs, Universitas Indonesia, Depok.

235

References

Winarto, Y.T., E. Anantasari, H. Prahara, Kristiyanto and Kees Stigter, 2010d. Penumbuhkembangan kemampuan tanggap petani terhadap perubahan iklim: Kelompok Tani Sedio Mulyo, Dusun Wareng IV, Desa Wareng, Wonosari, Gunungkidul. Research report submitted to Sedio Mulyo Farmers’ Group of Wareng IV. Academy Professorship Indonesia in Social Sciences and Humanities, Universitas Indonesia, Depok. Winarto, Y.T., Kees Stigter, H. Prahara, E. Anantasari and Kristiyanto, 2011. Collaborating on establishing an agro-meteorological learning situation among farmers in Java. Anthropological Forum 21(2): 175—197. Winarto, Y. T. and S.P.B. Utami, in preparation. Empowering women: The persisting and changing family in Java? Submitted to Y. Hayami and R. Boonmathya (Eds.), Changing family in Asia. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Publication. Wisnubroto, S., 1999. Meteorologi pertanian Indonesia. Mitra Gama Widya, Yogyakarta. Wittgenstein, L., 1958. Preliminary studies for the “philosophical investigations” generally known as the blue and brown books. Oxford: Basil Backwell. WMO, 2009. Guidelines for curricula in agricultural meteorology. Supplement No. 2 to “Guidelines for the education and training of personnel in meteorology and operational hydrology”, Vol. 1, WMO 258, Geneva. http://www.wmo.int/pages/ prog/dra/etrp/documents/258_vol1_Supp_2_1.pdf Wood, R., 2011. Stratocumulus clouds. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=nl&rlz=1T4ADRA_nlNL439NL439&q=c ache:1CSwSIfcwoQJ:http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~robwood/papers/reviews/sc_review_submit_single.pdf Yansen, 2010. RI’s growing climate change challenges. The Jakarta Post, Monday 20 December (Outlook 2011), p. 14. Zheng Dawei and Kees Stigter, 2010. Section III.6.B.(ii), Combating disasters in covered cropping systems. Pp. 821-824 in Stigter, Kees (Ed.), Applied Agrometeorology, Springer, Berlin etc. Zomer, R.J., A. Trabucco, R. Coe and F. Place, 2009. Trees on farm: Analysis of global extent and geographical patterns of agroforestry. ICRAF Working Paper no. 89. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre. http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/ sites/default/files/WP89_text_only.pdf

236

References

Ethnographic Films: Ariefiansyah, R., 2007. Bisa Dèwèk (We Can Do it Ourselves). Ikatan Petani Pengendalian Hama Terpadu Indonesia Kabupaten Indramayu and the Undergraduate Program, Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indonesia, Depok. Ariefiansyah, R. and S.P.B. Utami, 2007. Lelakoné Menur (The Story of Menur). Academy Professorship Indonesia in Social Sciences and Humanities, Gadjah Mada University. Yogyakarta.

237

Authors Esti Anantasari is a research staff of the Center for Asia Pacific Studies, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta and a graduate student at the Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Humanities, Gadjah Mada University. She joined the research team on ‘rural response to climate change’ of Academy Professorship Indonesia in Social Sciences and Humanities (KNAW-AIPI), Graduate School of Gadjah Mada University in 2007—2009 in Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta. Her other research projects were: SMART; Sulawesi and Maluku area Reformation and Transformation Program, and for the Biodiversity Foundation on Alas Wonosadi as a Role Model for Hutan Adat. Hestu Prahara is a research staff of the Center for Anthropological Studies and a graduate student at the Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indonesia. He joined the research team of Academy Professorship Indonesia in Social Sciences and Humanities (KNAW-AIPI), Graduate School of Gadjah Mada University and Universitas Indonesia in 2006—2007 and 2009—2010 in Indramayu, West Java, and in 2009 in Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta. He has published several articles and documentary videos in the area of visual anthropology, ‘farmer plant-breeders in Indramayu’ and ‘rural response to climate change’. Kees Stigter is a visiting professor in Africa and Asia in the Department of Physics and Meteorology. He receives his professorship in agricultural sciences from Wageningen University in 1974. He is the founding president of the International Society of Agricultural Meteorology (INSAM) since 2001. He wrote since 2003 the homepages of the INSAM website (www.agrometeorology.org); author and co-author of more than 700 publications; co-author of a book on agrometeorology of multiple cropping (1993-French; 1997-English); and leader of the CAgM Expert Team and editor-in-chief on writing the third edition of the WMO Guide to Agricultural Metorology Practices (GMAP, WMO 134), on which he works since 1994. His edited book “Applied Agrometeorology” appeared in 2010 with Springer (Heidelberg/Berlin/New York). Developed from 2000 onwards in many lectures three Roving Seminars on “Agrometeorology and sustainable development”, which he gave in Iran, India, Brazil and Venezuela, South Africa, Indonesia, Lesotho and Swaziland. Works these days particularly on connecting agricultural sciences, environmental sciences, social sciences and extension services, proposing to use new educational commitments such as Science Field Shops and Climate Field Schools for farmers to obtain a rural response to climate change through their own innovations and what these applied sciences have to offer through extension. Kristiyanto obtained his first degree in biology from Muhammadiyah University and Magister degree in environmental sciences from Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta. From 2010 he is a lecturer in biology education at Indraprasta PGRI University and environmental sciences at Syarif Hidayatullah University of Islamic Studies. He joined the research team of Academy Professorship Indonesia in Social Sciences and Humanities (KNAW-AIPI), Graduate School of Gadjah Mada University and Universitas Indonesia on ‘rural response to climate change’ in 2008—2009 in Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta, and 2009—2010 in Indramayu, West Java.

238

Authors

Yunita T. Winarto received her first and Magister degrees in anthropology from Universitas Indonesia, M.Sc. in environmental technology from Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicines, London, and Ph.D. in anthropology from the Australian National University, Canberra. She is a professor in anthropology at the Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indonesia and the holder of Academy Professorship Indonesia in Social Sciences (KNAW-AIPI) in 2006—2009 at Gadjah Mada University and in 2009—2011 at Universitas Indonesia. She has published various articles in scientific journals and edited books on the dialectics between scientific and local knowledge, farmers’ creativity and empowerment, and rural response to climate change. She is the author of Seeds of knowledge: The beginning of integrated pest management in Java (2004) published by Yale Southeast Asia Council, the author and editor of Bisa Dèwèk: Kisah Perjuangan Petani Pemulia Tanaman di Indramayu (2011) published by Gramata Publishing, and producer of several documentary videos on farmers’ self-governance.

239

Index

A Above Normal 22, 66, 74—76, 92, 93, 111, 114—117, 183, 195, 220; rain 76, 117, 134 abstract concepts 51 academic institutions 224 accumulated/ive experience 217 adaptation 1, 2, 5, 10—12, 53, 216; finance 2; adaptation strategy 10 adaptive capability 218; capacities 11, 17, 20; responses iv, 217 administrative boundaries 36, 224 adoption 96, 220 aeration 113 Africa vi, x, 3, 7, 21, 136, 117, 185 agricultural vi, vii, ix, xii, 1—6, 10—13, 15, 16, 18, 22, 30, 37, 38, 40, 42, 49, 50, 53, 56, 59, 61, 77, 88, 91, 92, 111, 126, 176, 181, 182, 186, 199, 200, 217—219, 224 calendar 2; development 37, 126; economy 2; education 224; environment 10, 11; expansion 5; facilitator 50; ideas 50; official 15, 16, 18 53, 61, 111, 186, 199; performance 181, 182; policy 4; products 219; scientist 13; sector 3, 5; significance 186; system 4; world 50; time keeping 15, 77, 91; Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology (AKST) vi, vii; as a performance 181 agro-bio-climatology calendar 217 agroecosystem ix, 12, 21, 44, 49, 53—56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 65, 66, 73, 74, 105, 115, 116, 118, 124, 130, 131, 145—148, 151, 154—156, 159, 160, 161, 163, 166, 167, 170, 172—175, 181, 186, 187, 205, 206, 212, 214, 222; analysis 44, 49, 116; conditions ix, 49, 66, 146, 151, 154, 161, 166, 170, 173, 186, 205, 222; knowledge 187, 205; learning 130; observations 53—56, 58, 61, 115, 131, 147, 148, 154—156, 159, 160, 163, 167, 172, 181, 212, 214; presentation 62 Agroforestry 3, 5, 6, 10, 23, 116 Agrohydrology 12 agrometeorologist ix—xi, xiii, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 49, 81, 104, 105, 107, 108, 111, 113, 116, 120, 124, 126—128, 129, 131, 134, 136, 141, 145—

147, 155, 161, 167, 172, 174, 177, 179, 180, 181, 217, 218, 224; interpretation 147, 174; observers 104; preparedness 8; problems 181; services x, 219, 220, 224 Agrometeorology 12, 20, 62, 103, 120, 124, 139, 183, 219; Agrometeorological ix, x, xi, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19; analysis 145, 181; extension x, 221, 223; knowledge 58, 145, 181, 220; learning ix, x, xi, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 183, 206, 215, 216, 220, 221, 223 air movement 72 akur 94 alas 29, 39 alfalfa 23 alternative crops 23 (see also crops) alumni ix, x, 15, 17—19, 21, 31, 37, 41, 42, 55, 57, 85—89, 91—93, 95, 97, 98, 100, 106, 107 analytical capability 58 ; thought 50 animal 45, 57, 58, 115, 126 annual crops 24, 25, 117 (see also crops) anthracnose 24 Anthropology xii, 18, 20, 104, 108, 224; Applied anthropology 20, 224; public anthropology 20, 104, 224 anthropologist x, xii, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 104, 107, 145, 217, 218, 224 anthropogenic iv, vii; disaster vii anticipation 87, 88, 102, 108, 185; anticipating drought 54, 80, 86 ants 92 aphids 58, 61, 62—65, 85, 95, 114; population 63 arena 14, 18, 21, 50, 78, 100, 138, 197 artificial chemicals 116 ash-rain 66, 67 asymmetrical condition 89 Asia vi, 1—3, 7, 9, 18, 21 astronomical phenomena 92, 213 awns 196 B Badan Meteorologi Klimatologi dan Geofisika (BMKG) 9, 53, 54, 74, 75, 78, 79, 92, 115, 117,

240

Index 118, 146, 184 Bahasa Indonesia 22, 120, 164, 178 baby trials 221 bacteria 115 Batur Agung 25 Below Normal 22, 66, 74—76, 83, 84, 92, 114—117, 183, 195, 220; rain 22, 76, 117 benthatan 35, 83, 84, 88, 93, 98, 99, 101, 117, 184— 198 beans 23, 113; Soybean 32, 35, 109, 179 biodiversity 6 birds ix, 81, 97, 106, 109, 118, 144 black clay soil 28—32, 97, 113, 185, 187, 189, 190, 192, 193; Black soil 81, 82, 89, 100, 101, 110, 115, 171, 191, 195, 198, 199, 205, 208 (see also soil) black-bugs 62 Bogor Agricultural Institute 49 Borongan 40 broadcasting 81, 96—98, 109, 110, 166, 184, 185, 193; seeds 81, 96, 97, 109, 110 Brown Planthopper vi—viii, 5, 143; BPH (see planthopper) bulak 30, 63, 64, 73 C calamities 67, 68, 84, 218, 220, 224 calendrical system 15, 77, 91, 92, 94 carbon 6, 10; sequestration 6; stock 10; taxes 6; trading 6 cassava 25, 30—32, 35, 36, 62, 76, 179 catch disturbances 132 categories of rain/rainfall 44, 49, 74—76, 93, 94, 114, 184, 203 cattle 5, 29, 32, 38, 42, 126, 215; ranching 5 Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) 6 cessation of rains 116, 160, 183 chemical fertilizer 84, 113, 117, 161, 162 charcoal 10 China 2, 4, 5, 7, 22, 92, 200 chili 30—32, 35, 36, 80, 114, 179, 185, 186, 189, 191, 197, 206, 210—215 Ciherang 115, 158, 161, 170, 173, 175, 186, 191, 192, 200 cirrus 71 civil servants 23, 38 ;Civil society vii, 2 climate viii, ix, x, xii, 1—24, 37, 43—55, 65—70, 7— 80, 82—88, 92, 93, 100, 103—107, 110, 112, 115,

117—119, 128, 131, 135, 144, 161, 179, 181— 184, 197, 200, 215—218, 220—224; and society 1; calamities 67; climate change vi—x, 1—3, 5, 8—15, 21, 24, 45, 68, 78, 79, 85, 88, 92, 105— 107, 112, 118—120, 131, 135, 144, 161, 181— 183, 185, 216, 217, 220, 221, 223; disaster 7, 87; elements 67, 69, 79; event 67; extreme 4, 8, 9, 220; Climate Field School viii, ix, xii, 8, 11, 12, 14—16, 21, 22, 37, 44, 46, 54, 85, 86, 104, 107, 181; Climate Field Shop 12, 13, 16, 221; forecast/ing 8, 22, 74; impact 4; information 15, 182; models 3, 4; phenomena 15, 17, 67, 69, 182, 217, 220; prediction 2, 20, 75, 77, 78, 218, 220, 223; climate-resilient development 216; science 1; trend 11; upheaval 224; variability 1—3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 21, 217, 223; vulnerabilities 67, 68; climate-vulnerable poor 216; vulnerable people 217; climatic conditions 10, 69, 103; climatic phenomena 181, 182; changing climate ix, x, 1— 3, 11, 23, 49, 93 Climate Field School (CFS) 14, 44, 104; alumni 17— 19, 37, 85, 88, 89, 92, 93, 98, 100, 114, 116, 117, 125, 183, 220; curriculum/la 49, 53; extension approach 224; facilitator 16, 57, 58, 89, 97, 117, 120, 185; participant 16, 46, 47, 48, 51, 53, 56, 61, 72, 86, 95, 221; training 50, 59 climatological conditions 15, 46; parameters 92; normals 93 Climatology 59, 62, 71, 114, 146, 217,218, 219 cloudiness 58 clouds 28, 54, 55, 64, 65, 70—72, 213; formation 28, 71 cloudy 61, 64, 65, 72, 184, 213, 215; sky 213 coconut 70, 80, 110 cocog 92, 94; mongsoné 92; (appropriateness or suitability) of particular kinds 94 cognitive 87, 122; structure 87 cold 4, 9, 67, 79 ; day 9; wave 67 collaborative ethnography x, 20, 105, 140; ethnographic research 139; research 18, 105, 119, 137, 221; work in rainfall measurement 37 collective action 16, 86, 106, 108, 137, 143, 223, 224; drainage system 199; rotating work 197 colonization agriculture 5 communication vi, 2, 18, 84, 85, 120, 147, 176, 182 communicative event 50 community vi, 6, 14, 20, 21, 36, 37, 41, 53, 129, 146,

241

Index 182, 217, 221; agrometeorological extension 221; memory 182; development programs 36 competition 94, 116, 118, 196 complexity 160, 182 complicit intersubjectivity 119, 125, 135, 139 confidence and belief 94 conflicting perspectives 108 contextual factors 182, 192 continuum 145 consensus 78, 81, 105, 111, 115, 135, 137, 138, 152, 154, 221 continuous rains 23, 129, 130, 190, 197, 201, 210 control vi, 7, 14, 15, 23, 42, 54, 55, 58, 61, 63, 64, 75, 76, 81—85, 87, 95, 114, 115, 138, 146, 151, 152, 161, 173, 199, 206, 212—214; strategy 115; controlling drought 54, 81; controlling flood 54, 82, 83 conventional solution 188 corn 23, 173, 174 cosmology 2, 22, 23, 45, 77—80, 91, 93, 105, 152, 159, 161, 183, 212, 213, 217; knowledge 45, 211, 212, 214 crop/cropping x, 3—5, 7—11, 14, 15, 17, 20—25, 28—31, 33, 35, 37—39, 41—46, 49, 50, 53, 55— 59, 61—64, 66, 69, 70, 74—81, 85—89, 91, 94— 97, 100, 102, 104—106, 108—111, 113—118, 124, 128—130, 134—136, 141—144, 146, 148, 151, 152, 154, 155, 159—162, 170, 175, 177— 179, 181, 182, 185—193, 195—198, 200—202, 204—206, 209, 210, 212, 213, 215, 217, 218, 220—224; damage 9; diversification 7; failure 9; farming 17, 41, 42, 44, 45, 50, 55, 76, 77, 78, 85, 86, 116, 146, 179, 181, 217, 224; growth 8, 89, 124, 151, 177; hill 56; performance 21, 89, 91, 100, 177, 182, 220; rooting 116; stem 56; variety 170; cultivation 86; pattern 15, 28, 30, 35, 39, 113, 124, 201; strategy 43, 113; system 5, 7, 25, 39, 50, 59, 94; associated crops 15, 46 (see also monocropping; multiple cropping) cultivation 5, 25, 39, 40, 42, 45, 46, 50, 74, 86, 87, 90, 91, 93, 94, 103, 105, 111, 115, 116, 128, 181, 212 218, 219; practices 181, 212, 218; strategy 115 cultural 8, 11, 15, 19, 50, 55, 139, 140, 154, 166, 178, 182, 216, 217, 219, 224; diversity 216; measures 8, 11; model 217, 219; model of farming 217; schema 131, 182, 217; survival 216; translator 19, 166, 178;cultural-environmental context 224;

242

cultural-environmental training 224; translation 154; importance 55 Cumulonimbus 71, 72 Cumuliform 28 Cumulus 71 curly leaves 212, 213, 214 cutworms 23 D day to day rainfall measurements 145 day in the Javanese calendar system 152 daily observations 21, 66, 110, 122, 131, 147, 148, 154, 160, 164, 221; rainfall 21, 119, 120, 131, 148, 159, 167, 169, 172, 194, 207 damage symptoms 58 data 3, 7, 8, 18, 21, 35, 49, 59, 60, 73, 74, 83, 93, 112, 115, 119, 126, 127, 131—134, 140, 145—155, 159—183, 187, 192, 194, 207, 211, 214; processing 127, 131, 147, 154, 160, 170; sheet 59, 140, 145, 147—155, 159—165, 175, 179 decay 114, 189, 213, 215; of the pods 215 decision maker/ing vi, 11, 41, 42, 56, 179, 181, 182, 202; process 201; Diverse decision 89, 102 deforestation 5, 77, 78, 110, 116, 119 (see also forest) developing countries 2, 10 dew 66, 67, 127, 136, 141, 147 dialectics 15, 16, 18, 21, 54, 76, 103, 119, 145, 181, 240; of knowledge 76 dialogue ix, 11, 17, 20, 21, 57, 61, 66, 78, 105, 131, 132, 136, 137, 181, 217, 218, 221 digging stick 80, 81, 85, 96—100, 109, 120, 159, 161, 162, 165, 166, 170, 173, 175, 185—188, 193, 195, 196, 199, 220 dike 31, 32, 35, 81, 82, 85, 115, 116, 120, 124, 133, 161, 162, 170, 173, 185, 191, 192, 220, 223 dikotak-kotak 89 Directorate General of Plant Protection 16, 49 disciplinary borders 224 disease xii, 12, 16, 22, 42, 44, 46, 47, 49, 53, 57, 58, 61, 65, 66, 75, 84, 85, 94, 95, 111, 114, 115, 117, 120, 124, 129, 144, 151, 152, 154, 156, 158, 161, 162, 173—175, 206, 211—215, 219, 220; infestation 115, 144, 212, 215; outbreak 22,115, 129; population 61, 220 discourse 87 distribution frequency 210 documentary pamphlets 18

Index documentation 109—113, 118, 119, 126, 127, 136, 140, 147, 148, 223 drainage 22, 23, 28, 82, 88, 91, 118, 129, 130, 135, 137, 143, 144, 173, 174, 177, 185, 190, 191, 199, 200, 205, 208—210, 211, 223; canals 22; facilities 129, 135, 209; system 130, 137, 191, 199, 200, 223; work 209 drought 3, 4, 5, 9, 17, 22, 24, 25, 28, 31, 35, 46, 50, 54, 61, 67, 79—91, 93, 94, 97—102, 112, 114, 117, 142—144, 170, 173, 174, 177, 178, 184— 189, 191—195, 198, 210, 217, 220, 223; conditions 24, 210, 223; resistant crops 35; long drought 35, 46, 83, 84, 85, 93, 97, 101, 114, 117, 184—187, 189, 191, 192; prolonged drought 35, 79, 80, 217 dry season ix, 9, 14, 15, 22, 24, 25, 28, 31, 32, 35, 38, 63, 65, 73, 74, 78, 82, 88, 114, 129, 130, 144, 160, 174, 183, 201, 202, 206, 211—215, 220; planting ix, 14, 22, 183, 201, 202, 206, 214, 215, 220; first dry season 14, 28, 32, 35, 206, 211; second dry season 28, 31, 35, 201, 202; third dry season 183 dry phase of the monsoon 25; land 27, 29, 32, 105; rainfed ix, 15, 20, 22, 25, 28, 31, 35, 43, 45, 46, 59, 73, 79, 80, 86, 88, 94, 102, 142, 186, 195, 200, 217, 220; dry spell 88, 94, 97, 98, 99, 102, 103, 106, 220; dryness 112, 174, 193, 220; dry-nursery 5; rainfed karst ecosystem (see also karst) E early maturing varieties 110 ecological balance 10; restoration 10; condition 86, 175 ecosystem 3, 5, 10, 13, 15, 20, 22, 25, 28, 43, 45, 46, 51, 55, 59, 61, 62, 80, 88, 94, 102, 113, 124, 136, 195, 217, 220; conditions 195; observations 124; productivity 3; diversity 28 education/educational vi, 38, 47, 51, 12l, 223, 224; background 47, 128; commitments 224; institution 223, 224 eggplant 32, 35, 80 El Niño vii, 3—5, 9, 17, 223; El Niño-southern oscillation (ENSO) 3 elevation 28, 31, 50, 91, 118, 170, 190—192, 208, 210 empirical 11, 15, 49—51, 57, 58, 78, 79, 82, 94, 95, 107, 115, 119, 132, 140, 147, 154, 160, 163, 164, 179, 195, 217; capabilities 217; observations 49, 58, 107, 115, 119, 132, 147, 154, 160, 164, 179,

195; answer 11; understanding 15; local empirical science 15; reality 49, 154; knowledge 50, 78, 217; performance 79; practice 82; data 140, 163; condition 195 Entomology xii, 62, 139 environment ix, xii, 1, 6, 9—11, 15, 17, 21, 36, 38, 45, 48, 67, 68, 78, 79, 103, 105, 106, 111, 119, 122, 130, 134, 138, 146, 169, 171, 182, 208, 216, 217, 219, 224 environmental biologist x, 14; catastrophe 4; disaster 4; science 138; services 11, 21, 219; trends 14; vulnerabilities 216 ethics 138, 139, 140 ethnographer 18—20, 120, 139, 166; role 166 ethnography/Ethnographic ix, x, xii, 14—16, 18—20, 105, 119, 120, 125, 138—140, 166; fieldwork ix, xii, 14, 15, 18, 19, 119, 125, 138; film x, 16, 18, 19; mis-en-scène ethnography 18 ethnoscience 18, 20, 104, 107, 148, 154 Europe 22 evaluation meetings 129, 130, 132 evaporation 24, 70, 81, 82, 84, 95, 116, 118, 193 evapotranspiration 136, 144 evolutionary change 103, 220 excessive water 144, 162, 173, 199, 210 excel data 167 exit strategy 138, 139 experiential discovery 45, 49 experimental plots 221 expert’s emphasis 112; perspectives 104 extension vi, x, 1, 6, 11—13, 16, 21, 22, 43, 49, 53— 55, 57, 68, 69, 74, 79, 115, 131, 212, 216, 219— 221, 223, 224; approach vi, 21, 216, 224; intermediaries 1, 12, 13, 21, 22, 68, 69, 219—221, 224; officer 11, 68, 79; programs 6; services 1, 12, 54, 115; wings 12, 219; worker 16, 43, 49, 53, 55, 57, 74, 212, 219 external memory 140 externalization 109, 114, 124 extra-personal structure 100, 186, 188, 220 extreme event 5, 9, 15, 69, 188 ;Extreme weather 4, 5 F facilitative action 85 facilitator x, xii, 1, 16, 20, 22, 44, 45, 47, 49—51, 53—67, 70—74, 76—82, 84, 85, 87—89, 93—97, 107, 117, 118, 120, 126, 145, 185, 218, 219

243

Index Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) vi, 7 fallow 6, 32, 35, 170, 173, 208, 209, 215 false start 88, 118, 184, 185, 186; rain 92 farm population 6 farmer breeders 196; communities 1; facilitator 1;Farmer Field School ( FFS) vi, x, 12, 14, 15, 44, 105, 114, 147, 219; FFS participant 51; farmer first paradigm 218; observer 122; organization 5; presentation 61; raingauge 7, 120; research 11, 222; farmer-scientists 112; trainer 1; ability ix, 55, 115, 122, 190, 202; actions 21, 87; assessment 21, 187; assistants 111; consensus 105, 111; conversation 189; creative thinking 218; data 19, 21, 162—165, 167, 172—174, 178; decision 91, 102, 132, 186, 201; decision process 201; disagreement 118; domain 127; efforts 119, 128, 160, 191; enemies 57, 58; experience 28, 182, 197, 212, 217; fields x, 7, 22, 25, 28, 117, 122, 124, 183, 210, 221, 223; friends 51, 58, 110; group x, 16, 18, 42, 43, 52, 150, 153 ; habitat 86, 105, 107; ignorance 116; inscription 21, 146, 160, 166, 173, 174, 179; interest 140; interpretation 45, 182, 183, 206; knowledge vii, xi 15, 19, 59, 62, 74, 86, 94, 104, 193, 197, 219, 220; leader 51, 108, 112, 116, 127—129, 138, 140, 152; learning ix, x, 17, 46, 47, 50, 51, 59, 104, 107, 115, 125, 131, 182; meeting 16, 41; minds 72, 85, 145, 188, 193, 220; narratives 172; needs 17, 81, 136, 140, 147; notes 118, 155, 170; observation 55, 107, 124, 125, 139, 140, 147, 148, 150, 152, 154, 172, 173, 200; participation 47; perspective 83; point of view 187; presentations 113; problems 112, 118, 135; questions 17, 104, 120, 136, 141; responses 20, 69, 81, 85, 86, 104, 120, 183, 188, 193, 197, 206, 210; rules of thumb 140; schema 45, 58, 66, 77, 78, 86, 88, 89, 104, 180, 182, 184; science (Sains Petani) 107; strategies 183; understanding 45, 51, 57, 63, 65, 66, 81, 95, 112, 118, 136, 212, 219; vulnerabilities 85, 218; extra-personal structure 100, 186, 188 farming communities 16; conditions 223; experience 50, 84, 85; groups 113; lore 83; practices 15, 31, 47, 50, 78, 85, 129, 160, 182, 220 strategies 15, 84, 112, 119, 171, 180, 217; systems vii, 20, 67, 68, 69 fauna’s appearance and behaviour 92 family’s welfare programs 37

244

feed quality 5 fertility 10, 62, 64, 113 fertilizer 5, 22, 24, 43, 63, 82, 84, 94, 95, 110, 113, 116—118, 124, 135, 141—144, 152, 156, 158, 159, 161, 162, 170, 177, 193, 209, 210; application 143, 152; treatment 193 field condition 55, 58, 82, 126, 129, 132, 148, 150, 152, 154, 155, 161, 172, 176, 177, 190, 192, 193, 197, 208; data 49; drainage 135, 177; interaction 221; observation 50, 122, 125, 129, 154, 155, 159, 179; partner 13, 14; position 193; preparation 208; visit 79, 111, 116, 125, 133, 136, 137 fieldwork ix, xii, 14, 15, 18, 19, 37, 119, 125, 138 fire danger 9; Fire wood 10 flexibility 3, 23, 56, 126 flood/flooding 5, 9, 14, 22—24, 28, 53, 54, 66, 67, 74, 81—83, 88, 113, 115, 116, 118, 130, 135, 137, 143, 144, 156—158, 170, 173, 174, 177, 178, 183, 189—191, 193, 195, 199, 203—206, 208, 209, 211, 220, 223; vulnerability 137; fields 116, 143, 189, 190, 191 flower production 24 fodder 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 42, 110, 132, 133, 214, 215 folk 104, 145, 217; knowledge 104; model of knowledge 217; model of multiple cropping 217 food conditions 23; crops 22, 49, 53, 128; patterns 23; security vi, vii, 3, 4, 6; self-sufficiency 6 forecast product 106 forest vii, 3, 5, 6, 10, 23, 27, 70, 71, 78, 110; conversion 5; fallow 6; fires 5; gardens 6; product 10; rehabilitation 6; trees 110; vegetation 71; deforestation 5, 77, 78, 110, 116, 119; reforestation 116 formal education 47, 51; schooling 51, 219; training 47, 50 formation of rain/formation of rainfall 44, 49, 54, 70, 71 fruit setting 24 fungus/fungi 57, 115, 213 furrow 118, 136, 210 G gender 46, 48, 50; criterion 46; gender-balanced participation 46 generative stage 24, 100, 158, 159, 195 Gemeinschaft 146 Green House Gas (GHG) 5 global warming 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 22, 105, 116, 118,

Index 128 glutinous rice 35, 36, 197 goat 10, 29, 32 God 77, 79 gotong royong 39 government vi, vii, 5, 6, 18, 23, 36, 37, 38, 41—43, 67, 105, 106, 111, 115, 144, 146, 218, 220, 223; agencies 220, 223; agricultural development programs 37; government and external intervention programs 43 gradual modification and changes 152 grain 142, 143, 184, 197, 200, 201; performance 200 graph 21, 131, 133, 134, 146, 167, 169, 172, 176— 180, 183, 186—188, 192—195, 197, 201, 207, 209, 211, 214 grass for fodder 110, 214 grasshopper 63, 64, 161,162, 175 gravel 29, 97, 100, 113, 191 green fodder 35, 38, 215 Green Revolution 10, 50, 58 grumosol type of soil 27, 28 groundnuts 32, 35, 36, 109, 114, 159 ground-worm 114 group discussions 49, 61, 106; dynamics 49; formation 48; observations 111; presentation 56, 111, 115 growing season 5, 12, 13, 35, 58, 141, 179, 182, 183, 212, 219, 220 growth stage 106 guava trees 184 gugur gunung 39 gutter 191 H habitat ix, x, 15, 19, 28, 43, 45, 50, 55, 72, 79, 85, 86, 104, 105, 107, 109, 124, 130, 169, 182, 216 habitual 86; practices 86 habitus 179 hamlet leader xii, 36, 37, 39, 52, 114, 130, 131, 136, 138, 174 harvest 4, 21, 35, 39—42, 46, 65, 80, 81, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92, 98, 99, 100—102, 109, 111, 114, 115, 120—130, 143, 151, 152, 161, 162, 170, 174, 175, 177, 181, 185—188, 194—202, 206, 208, 213, 215; failure 46, 92, 199—201; activities 200; season 130, 194; time 130, 196, 197 hazard 11, 17, 83, 88, 102, 191, 221

heat 3, 7, 9, 23, 67, 70; stress 9; tolerant 7, 23; wave 9, 67 heavy rains 9, 28, 72, 89, 91, 92, 135, 141, 161, 173, 174, 183, 184, 186, 188, 189, 193, 194, 197, 200, 203, 208—210, 213, 215, 223; heavy soil 80, 82, 91, 110, 113, 115, 117, 144; heavy black clay soils 28, 192 hedges 106 hidden agenda 136 high yielding varieties 110 hopper (see Brown Planthopper) hot day 9 hujan kiriman 28, 112, 211 human-environmental relations 216 human health 3 humidity 24, 65—67, 69, 70, 92, 115, 130, 144 husbandry 42, 43, 126 hybrid coconut 110; maize 110; varieties 119, 141, 200 hydrological expert 135 hydrologist 135 I ideal rains 210 ilmu titèn 15, 45, 46, 50, 58, 78, 80, 83, 91, 93, 97, 104,105,145, 159, 184, 217, 218,219 impact vi, vii, 1, 4—8, 62, 66, 104, 204 inscription 21, 145—147, 154, 155, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166, 167, 170, 172—174, 178, 179; device 145, 146, 154, 167, 174, 179; processes 146 incoming rains 112, 211, 212 in-depth understanding 166 India 2, 7, 10, 22 Indian Ocean 25, 27 indigenous human rights 216; technologies 2; knowledge 145 individual human volunteers 146; decision 103 Indonesia vi, viii, ix, xii, xiii, 1—10, 12—14, 16, 18— 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 32, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 49, 53, 54, 71, 74, 88, 105—107, 116, 120, 126, 128, 138, 139, 146, 164, 178, 181, 184 insect vii, 23, 55—57, 61—64, 95, 97, 106, 109, 114, 118; population dynamics vii insecticide 23, 61 institution building 224 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) vi, ix, 15—17, 19, 41, 44—47, 49—51, 5—58, 60, 61, 64, 86, 87, 95,

245

Index 107, 111, 114, 115, 125, 218, 219; IPM FFS ix, 15—17, 19, 41, 44—47, 49, 50, 53—58, 60, 61, 64, 86, 87, 95, 111, 114, 115, 125, 218, 219 interannual variability 217 intercrop 106, 186 interdisciplinary approach 217; research xi, 20 international calendar (the Gregorian) 161; days152, 161, 163 intermittent rain 206 interpretations v, 82, 93, 117, 126, 127, 132, 147, 161, 176, 180—184, 212, 214; misinterpretations 135 interpretative framework 183; system 87 intersubjective/ity 20, 104, 108, 109, 114, 119, 124, 125, 127, 131, 135, 139, 140, 166, 179, 223; meaning 114, 127, 140; interaction 166 intellectual vii; requisite vii inventive practices 219 Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) vi International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology (IAASTD) vi International Research Institute (IRI) 1 iron 24 irrigation 2, 6, 9, 15, 53 Islam/Islamic 38, 79 J javanese calendar 15, 45, 93, 109, 110, 152, 159, 162, 184, 186, 188, 212, 213, 217; cosmology 22, 23, 79, 80, 93, 152, 183, 212, 213, 217; culture 37, 38, 136; farmers 43, 125; norm 48, 127; paddy 196; rituals 119; seeds 110; values 139, 174; weather lore 183, 184; mythology 152; astronomy based 15, 77, 91 joint production of knowledge 21, 132, 145, 154, 169, 179, 180, 181; joint production of image/ knowledge/ideology 146

K karst 15, 20, 25, 27, 89, 97, 115, 190, 195, 200, 217; dry rainfed ecosystem 15, 25, 195, 217; ecosystem 15, 25, 195, 200, 217; stones 89, 190; critical hilly areas 25; region 27 kerja bakti 39 kinship 38, 39, 47; unit 39 Kliwon 152, 162

246

knowledge vi—xi, 2, 4, 8, 15—21, 23, 41—48, 50, 51—59, 62, 67, 74, 76—81, 84—87, 91—94, 100, 102, 104—106, 112, 114—117, 119, 120, 125— 127, 132, 140, 145—148, 154, 159, 160, 163, 165, 166, 169, 176, 178—184, 187, 188, 193, 197, 202—205, 208, 210—221; advancement 42, 59, 220; exchange 18, 20, 50, 53, 78, 220; transfer 16, 50, 57, 219; transmission 51; of pests and diseases 94; validating existing 94; the battlefields of knowledge vii; dialogic exchange 50, 53; elements of knowledge 45, 78, 182, 183 L La Niña vii, 4, 5, 8, 9, 17, 33, 134, 144, 181, 201, 214, 215, 220, 223 labor 3, 38—43, 82, 197, 209 lack of rain 64, 65, 79, 82, 101, 102, 114, 115, 186, 208 lady-beetles 63, 64; bugs 62, 114 land vii, 3, 5, 9, 10, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32, 38—42, 50, 71, 89, 91, 93, 102, 105, 106, 122, 161, 162, 175, 185; degradation 9; slide 5, 9 landscape vii, 13, 20, 25, 28, 32, 150, 217; hilly and mountainous 25; diverse 217 larvae 63, 64, 89, 114, 156, 157 larval population 23 Law Shop 11 leach 22, 24, 25, 29, 80, 95, 144, 191 leader ix, xii, 2, 6, 16, 18, 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, 46, 51, 52, 105, 108, 109, 111—114, 116, 117, 119, 120, 125—131, 135—140, 152, 161, 174, 178, 179, 224; arguments 136; personality 127, 136; response 135, 139 leaf worm 62, 64 learner 20, 45, 57, 71, 75, 76, 78, 79, 84, 85, 87, 102, 182; acceptance 78; confidence 79; memories 76; minds 76; practices 76; reception 57 learning vi—xi, 2, 8, 13—21, 23, 31, 44—51, 53— 59, 62, 66, 68, 69, 71, 72, 76, 78, 81, 82, 85—88, 92—96, 100, 103—105, 107, 115, 120, 124, 125, 126, 130, 131, 135, 139, 148, 154, 172, 178—183, 185, 190, 195, 197, 201—207, 209, 211, 214— 216, 218—224; activities 46, 126; as-construction 45; as-reception 45; background 46; diagram 222; experience 8, 50, 51; mechanism 57, 201; method 45; methodology 49; process 2, 13, 14, 23, 46, 48, 85, 135, 139, 154, 172, 197; scientific ideas 86

Index leave color 56 Ledhok 25; Wonosari 25 Legi 152, 162 lemah 29—31, 80, 89, 96, 97; ireng abot 29, 96; ireng sedeng 29, 97; ènthèng 29, 30, 31, 80, 89, 97 leisure time 138, 203 lexical knowledge 104, 148, 154, 160; understanding 107 lexicon 49, 76, 85, 104, 145, 154, 160, 164, 165, 204, 208 life cycle 23 life experience 50, 182 light soil 80, 81, 89, 113, 115, 117, 198, 199 lime 25, 28—31, 74, 89, 97—102, 115, 170, 188, 191—193, 195; type of soil 25 literacy 107, 148, 154; practice 154; inscription 145— 147, 154, 166, 178 lithosol type of soil 27 livelihood x, 1, 6, 17, 19, 20, 67—69, 79, 216, 224 livestock 9, 10, 135 living environment 67 loam 24 local authorities 2, 113, 131; community 21, 53, 131; context 166, 216; environment 48, 217; knowledge 15, 17, 18, 21, 91, 93, 94, 102, 105, 114, 126, 127, 147, 148, 180, 181, 184, 205, 217; taxonomy 116; weather forecast 117; soil taxonomy 28, 113; words 88; experience 92 locust 144, 173, 196, 197 lodged/ing 141, 142, 194,197, 200, 203; plants 197; rice hills 197; soil 141 long drought 35, 46, 83—85, 93, 97, 101, 114, 117, 184—187, 189, 191, 192 M maize 15, 25, 29, 30—33, 35, 36, 41, 44, 46, 51, 52, 57, 61—64, 75, 76, 80, 81, 97, 109, 110, 113, 117, 120, 129, 142, 159, 162, 173—175, 177—179, 185, 186, 188—190, 192, 196, 206, 208—210, 214, 223; leaves 63, 189; stalks 185 Mali 7 mango 24, 93; tree 24 mantep 93 manure 5; management 5 matrices 146, 175, 177—180 meat 10 media 45, 74

mediator 19, 129 medicines 58, 135 mediteran type of soil 27 medium soil 80, 117 megung 80, 89 melon 46 memorable observations 50 memorizing numbers 74 memory externalization 109, 114, 124 Menur x, xii, 16, 18, 19, 37, 40—43, 46, 47, 51, 52; Lelakoné Menur x, 16, 18, 19, 43; The Story of Menur x, 19 metaphor 45, 57, 71, 77, 78, 80, 85, 135, 146, 169 Meteorology 59, 71, 114, 146, 217, 218, 219 meteorological components 44, 45, 49, 205; equipment 79 metode panen hujan 81, 89, 185 mçtis 125, 181, 182 microclimate 8, 10, 106, 197; influence 106; management 197 micronutrients 24 Microsoft Excel 167, 174 milk 10 mimesis 103 mind 45, 46, 50, 58, 72, 76, 85—87, 89, 103, 132, 139, 145, 154, 155, 159, 166, 181, 184, 187, 188, 190, 193, 195—197, 218, 220, 223; learners’ mind (see learner); constructed in the mind 4 6 ; monoculture of the mind 50; farmers’ mind (see farmers) Ministry of Agriculture 16, 49, 126 mitigation vi, vii, 5, 6, 10—12, 67, 216; possibilities 67; problems 67; strategies 216 mixed cropping 35, 50 (see also cropping) modifications 86, 223 moisture conditions 177, 183 Monocropping 50 (see also cropping) monsoon 2, 4, 15, 17, 25, 45, 79, 184, 213, 217; climate 184; season 2, 4, 15, 17, 45, 79, 217 moral 139 moth 63, 64 mother fields 221; mother/baby trials 47, 202, 221 (see also baby trials) motivation xii, 47, 91, 94, 113, 138; motivation and emotion 94 mountainous area 25, 28, 217 musim 31, 212; musim rendeng 31, 212; musim gadu

247

Index 31; musim ketiga 31 (see also cropping) mulching 82, 84 multicultures 50; multicultures of the mind 50 multiple cropping 11, 15, 17, 20, 25, 28, 30, 31, 39, 43, 45, 50, 59, 86, 94, 106, 130, 160, 201, 217, 218; multiple cropping system 25, 59, 94 (see also cropping) mysterious disease 211, 212 N narratives 65, 66, 71, 74, 76, 160, 166, 167, 170, 172, 177, 178, 204; explanation 51; texts 154; of rainfall 204 natural enemies 51, 55—58, 61—64, 66, 95 110; phenomena ix, 108, 216; scientists 218 ndangir 94, 95 negotiation 125, 126, 176 Non Government Organization (NGO) 112, 128, 135; representatives 113, 115, 116 ngurit 96 nitrogen efficiency 5; fertilizer 24 National Ocenic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2, 8, 9 nonjo 85, 96, 97, 100, 162, 185, 193, 196; ditonjo 81, 96, 97, 99, 100, 166, 185, 195 normal rain 22, 183 nuclear family 39, 41, 44 numerical amounts 64, 66, 74, 120, 154, 190, 195, 2200, 203 204, 208, 210; analysis 8, 73; articulation 202; rainfall 155, 190, 210; values of rainfall 205 nursery 5, 83, 84, 100, 161, 166, 185, 188; bed 96— 100, 185 nutrient 24, 58, 94, 177, 196; transport/ation 144 nuts 30, 113 nyebar 96 O observer-collaborators 105; facilitators 145 ocean waves 67 off-farm 42; employment 38; activities 38, 42, 43 official information 215 office of Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics (BMKG) 146 ombrometer 59 ongoing intersubjectivity 179; experience 91, 188 on-farm 7, 8, 23, 107; field research 221

248

operational work 83 oral-lexical knowledge 160 organic fertilizer 110 (the) others 19, 40, 49, 50, 57, 92, 100, 18, 113, 115, 120, 124, 126, 128, 130, 133, 161, 188, 192, 198 ownership 2, 39, 130, 199 oxygen 141, 142, 144 P paddy15, 23, 29, 35, 40, 46, 50, 81, 93, 98, 101, 102, 109, 110, 113, 114, 115, 117, 120, 129, 140—142, 158, 159, 161, 170, 174, 179, 184—186, 188— 196, 200, 201, 203, 206, 208, 223; grains 184; leaves 159, 170, 189; uncultivated 196 Pahing 152, 162 panopticon 145, 146, 176, 179 Pon 152, 159, 162 panicles 114, 157, 194, 196, 200 paradigm 1, 10, 139, 218, 224 participatory approach 1, 2, 7, 10, 19 parallel Distributed Processing 84 Pegunungan Sewu 25 pekarangan 29 people’s responses 216 percolation 97, 192, 193, 210 performance 21, 42, 61, 65, 71, 79, 100, 106, 181, 186, 197, 200, 219 pest vi, ix, xii, 12, 15, 16, 22, 23, 42, 44—47, 49, 51, 53, 55—58, 62—66, 75, 76, 84—87, 91, 92, 94, 95, 107, 110, 111, 114, 115, 120, 124, 129, 141, 143, 152, 154, 156, 159, 161, 170, 173, 174, 220; control strategies 87, 114; pest/disease authorities 115; pest/disease Observer xii, 16, 46, 47, 49, 53, 61, 117, 120, 219; pest/disease management 44; pest/disease surveillance 46; outbreaks 22, 86, 95, 129; population 114, 115 pesticide 58, 61, 63, 64, 85, 95, 109, 110, 159, 162, 173 pH (see soil pH) Philippines 7 phenological developments of flora 92 pilot project 7, 46, 82 place of people’s 37 plant; x, 8, 16, 17, 19, 22—24, 29, 31, 32, 35, 42, 45, 49, 55—58, 61—66, 68, 69, 74—77, 81—83, 85, 89,92, 94, 95, 97, 100—103, 106, 109, 110, 113— 120, 127, 129, 130, 133, 141—144, 155—160,

Index 173, 174, 178, 179, 186—188, 190, 191, 194— 198, 200—202, 203, 206, 208, 209, 210, 212— 215, 217, 220; condition 56, 64; growth 21, 66, 155, 160, 198; performance 103, 195, 196; protection 16, 49; symptoms 58 planthopper; (see also Brown Planthopper) planting ix, 4, 8, 10, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 35, 39, 41— 43, 62, 68, 77, 80—88, 91—93, 94, 96—103, 109, 110, 118, 119, 129, 141, 144, 151, 152, 159, 165, 166, 170, 174, 177, 183, 184—186, 195—203, 206, 208—210, 213—215, 218, 220; density 62; distance 62, 84; schedule 45, 91—93, 118; season ix, 5, 16—18, 31, 40,, 47, 50, 55, 59, 66, 86, 92, 101, 108, 117, 129, 142, 143, 160, 170, 181, 196, 201, 203, 205, 215 plowing 82, 93, 94, 174 point-of-observation 133, 150, 170, 172, 188 policy brief 216 policy instruments 216 pond 5, 22, 23, 25, 28, 81, 143, 208 poor countries 136, 224 post-modern 145 popular-expert speech continuum 145 population density 10, 23 population increase 23 poverty vi, 3, 7, 10; alleviation 3, 10; reduction 216 practical weaponry vii pranata mangsa 2, 15, 22, 23, 25, 54, 77—79, 91— 93, 105, 110, 159, 183, 184, 186, 188, 211—213, 217 pre ballot-box test 54 predator 55, 57, 58, 62—64, 95, 114 predictive information 197 preparedness 8, 11, 47, 68, 77, 84, 85, 87, 88, 108, 119, 186, 192, 199, 201, 215, 218, 220 221; session 11; strategies 220 prey15, 51, 55, 58, 62, 64, 114, 118; prey/predator relationship 15, 58 probability ix, 22, 23, 37, 77, 78, 188 problem solving 12, 221, 223 production environment 1, 6; problems 221 prolonged drought 35, 79, 80, 217 physiography 28, 29; Wareng’s 28, 29 public Anthropology 20, 104, 224; currents 224 pupation 23 Q

R rain 1,2 5, 8, 9, 22, 23, 28, 31, 46, 59, 61, 62, 65, 66, 68—72, 74—76, 79, 82—84, 88, 89, 91—95, 100,101, 103, 106, 109, 110—112, 114, 116—118, 124, 127, 129, 130, 134, 135, 141—143, 156, 157, 159—161, 170,173, 174, 177, 178, 183—190, 192—195, 197, 198, 200—213, 215, 217, 220, 223 ; day 64; formation 70—72; harvesting method 80, 81, 86, 87, 89, 91, 100, 111 115, 120, 129, 150, 151, 152, 161, 162, 175, 181, 185—188, 195, 199 ; shadow 28; Very heavy 183, 188, 189— 193, 200, 205, 206 rainbow 66, 67 rainfall ix, x, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17—19, 21—23, 28, 31, 35, 37, 43, 44, 46, 49, 50, 54, 55, 58—64, 66, 72—76, 78, 79, 84, 85, 88, 91—94, 97, 100, 102, 104—107, 112—117, 119, 120, 122—134, 136, 142, 143, 145—150, 152—156, 158—163, 166, 167—174, 176—179, 181—184, 187, 188, 190, 192—195, 199, 200, 202—212, 214, 215, 218, 220, 222, 223; amounts 106, 134, 210; categories/rization 54, 66, 92, 183, 184; data 60, 74, 93, 112, 126, 131—133, 147—150, 152—155, 160, 161, 163, 166—172, 176, 183, 187, 192, 194, 207, 211, 214; distribution 100, 133, 134, 167, 171, 172, 177; fluctuation 195; graphs 21, 167, 172, 176, 178; measurement 8, 11, 19, 21, 31, 37, 50, 55, 74, 91, 111, 112, 119, 120, 122, 125, 126, 128—130, 145, 148, 150, 152, 154, 155, 158— 163, 167, 174, 179, 181, 187, 192, 194, 202, 203, 207, 211, 214, 218; observers 12, 22, 104, 131; patterns x, 119, 131, 174, 223; records 106; taxonomy 116, 117 179; types 72 rainfed ix, 2, 15, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 31, 35, 43, 45, 46, 50, 59, 73, 79, 80, 86, 88, 94, 102, 105, 142, 186, 195, 200, 217, 220; ecosystem 20, 22, 25, 31, 43, 45, 46, 59, 80, 88, 94, 102, 220 raingauge7, 47, 55, 59, 61, 73, 105, 112, 113, 115, 120—125, 127, 130—134, 136, 141, 146, 147, 161, 190, 195, 203, 204; Lost 130, 131 rainforest 110 rainy season 2, 8, 9, 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 31, 35, 63, 76, 82—88, 92—94, 96—103, 106, 110, 113, 117, 118, 120, 134, 141, 143, 159, 174, 183, 184, 186, 187, 197 —200, 211, 212, 214, 215, 220 raised beds 22, 210 Rasulan 100, 102

249

Index rats 114 recommended strategies 104 reconstruction of memories 88 red clay soil 113 red lime soil 28—31, 89, 170, 188, 191, 193, 195 (see also soil) Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) 10 reflexivity xi, 20, 140, 223 resilient/resilience 1, 17, 23, 216, 220 research vi, vii, ix—xiii, 1, 3, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 36, 37, 44, 57, 68, 83, 92, 105, 108, 119, 126, 128, 137—140, 145, 174, 176, 178, 200, 219, 220—224 ; agenda 224; collaboration 178, 220; Institute 1, 7, 11, 12, 21, 22, 68, 219; interaction 221; team x, xi, xiii, 15, 18, 25, 26, 29, 37, 101, 128, 138, 149—151, 153, 169—172, 198, 200 representation 146, 169 response farming 2, 8, 11, 217, 221, 223; strategies 15, 135; training 14; to drought 28 rice xi, xii, 3—7, 10, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41, 44, 50, 57, 63, 69, 91, 94, 96, 97, 100, 101, 144, 146, 175, 177—190, 186, 191, 194, 196—200, 203, 206, 223; deficit 4; consumer 6; cultivation 25, 50; farmer 57; field vi, 7, 10, 27, 32, 36, 96, 97, 101, 191, 198, 223; grower 6; harvesting 40, 194, 206; price 6; production 3, 7; research 3; strain 7; variety 186; yields 7, 198 rich experiences 125, 195, 215 ridge 22, 23, 76, 81—85, 87—91, 99, 100, 106, 115 116, 118, 120, 124, 173, 175, 177, 185, 188, 190, 193, 199, 210, 220, 223; building 185; bed 210 ripening stage 196, 197, 200 risk 6, 22, 45, 50, 54, 81, 88, 92, 96, 130, 135, 141, 201, 216, 217, 221 ritual 38, 100, 102, 110, 119, 184 roots 29, 81, 82, 89, 116, 118, 124, 142, 152, 155, 161, 162, 170,173, 174, 175, 185, 188, 189, 191, 193, 210, 213,223; zone 82; rooting system 116, 118; rotten 223 roving Seminars 6, 12, 135, 136 run off 29, 76, 81, 89, 90, 94, 113, 118, 174, 175, 185, 192, 193, 210 rural response 1, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 217, 223; rural areas 7 12, 136 S salinization 9

250

Sambatan 39, 40, 197 satellite information 78 sawah vii, 29, 63, 64, 73, 96, 99, 101, 102, 189, science vii, xii, 1,15, 18, 20, 37, 57, 78, 80, 104, 107, 124, 136, 138, 148, 154, 167, 184, 213, 216; Science Field Shop (SFS) viii, 11, 12—16, 21, 136, 139, 178, 185, 220, 221, 222, 224 scientific 18, 21, 67, 70, 71, 84, 91, 93, 104, 106, 117, 118, 119, 124, 127, 128, 134, 140, 145, 146, 147, 154, 155, 166, 171, 178, 179, 223; approach 2; domain 44, 49, 53, 72, 125, 127, 140, 145, 146, 166, 167, 172, 180, 218, 224; concepts 20, 51; ideas 15, 48, 57, 86, 181; inscription 21, 154, 167, 170; knowledge 15, 18, 19, 44, 114, 119, 219; norms 128; premises 128, 154; boundaries 224; domain 140, 145, 146, 166, 167, 172, 180, 218, 224; exercises 134; interpretation 132; language 223; meaning 124; observations 125; procedures 124, 147; rules 205; premises and procedures 154; way of literary inscription 154; devices 171; explanation 70 94; Science Council of the CGIAR vii scientist vi, vii, viii, xiii, 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 21, 59, 68, 112, 118, 119, 127, 129, 136, 146, 167, 171, 173, 178, 179, 217, 218, 221, 224 schema 17, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 66, 69, 72 73 77, 78, 82, 84—90, 84, 99, 102, 104, 114, 115, 116, 117, 125, 131, 145, 154, 155, 180, 182, 184, 186, 188, 191, 195, 205, 217—220, 222; of cultivation 45, 90; of crop cultivation 86; existing 17, 45, 69, 72, 73, 77, 78, 85, 86, 87, 94, 117, 219, 220, 222 ; establishing/ed 55, 78, 99; enriched 188, 205; of crop farming 17, 45, 55, 77, 86, 116, 217; of controlling pests 87; top-level 87; hierarchical organization of 87; of anticipating (preparing for) drought 89; reflecting and establishing 99; of planting paddy 102; establishing the new schema of farming 102 scholars ix, xi, xii, 9, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 53, 104, 105, 112, 115, 117, 119, 120, 124—128, 130, 132, 135—140, 146, 147, 148, 171,172, 176, 180, 215—218, 220, 221, 223, 22; assistance 112, 119 season ix, 2—5, 8, 9, 12—18, 20—25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 38, 40, 41, 45, 47, 49, 50, 55, 57, 58, 59, 63, 65, 66, 73, 74, 76—79,82—88, 92—103, 106, 108—111, 113, 114, 117 118, 120, 124, 129, 130, 134, 141—144, 159, 160, 170, 174, 177, 178, 181—184, 186, 187, 191, 193, 194, 196—203,

Index 205, 206, 208, 212—215, 217—220; seasonal calendar110 ; seasonal conditions 211; seasonal transition 193; seasonal variabilities 217; third 28, 31, 35; second dry 28, 31, 35, 201, 202; second dry planting 201, 202 sesbania 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 214 (see also cropping) secondary crops 29,30, 50, 76, 80, 81, 91, 97, 117, 178, 179, 213 seedbed 5, 100, 188 seedling 42, 83, 84, 94, 96—100, 102, 109, 152, 159, 165, 166, 186—188, 213; stage 100; strategies 97, 98, 100 seeds 6, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 96—100, 109, 110, 114, 115, 118, 130, 141, 144, 159, 162, 166, 185 –188, 193, 195, 196, 199, 200, 220 Sedyo Mulyo farmers’ group 125 (the) self 19 selecting varieties 84, 85, 110, 201; crops 94, 96 senggangan 35, 88, 93, 98,192 193, 194 198 sequestrated carbon 10 (see also carbon) shade/shading 62, 73, 106, 118, 119, 122, 124, 132, 134, 136 shared meaning 125, 131 sheep 10 shifting cultivation 5 short drought 35; dry period 198; maturing varieties 83, 84 slope 25, 50, 82, 89, 90, 113, 185, 190, 192, 210 small rains 184, 186, 187, 195,203, 208 social interactions 113 social scientists xiii, 217, 224 socio-cultural dimension 224; life 15; educational institution 11 soil 8, 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 25, 27, 30, 32, 50, 53, 56, 58, 59,61, 63, 65, 66, 68, 76, 80, 82, 84, 89, 90, 91, 93— 97, 100, 106, 109, 110, 111, 113, 115, 116, 127, 141—144, 170, 171, 174, 177, 185, 187— 196, 198, 202, 204, 205, 208, 209, 210, 212, 213, 214, 222; soil carbon 6; characteristics 30, 31, 96, 97, 102, 118; condition ;24, 55, 61, 62, 64, 111, 113, 117, 144, 154; conservation 6; elevation 31, 50, 118; erosion 5, 9; evaporation 84; fertility 10, 113; management 76, 118, 124, 151, 152, 174; moisture ix, 28, 44, 49, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 66, 81, 85, 89, 171, 177, 185 187, 192; permeability 113, 192; pH 24; porosity 113, 118; sample 59, 60, 170; surface 81, 89, 93, 142; taxonomy 28 58, 113;

texure 28, 29, 89, 90, 91, 96, 97, 170, 171, 192; tillage 76, 85, 87, 94, 96, 102, 196; type 15, 24,25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 50,, 54, 58, 80, 81, 89, 90, 91, 94, 96, 97, 98, 100, 113, 116, 117, 118, 122, 124, 148, 151, 170, 171, 177, 185, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 198, 206; wetness 59; structure 28; light red lime 28, 195; light black 82, 100, 110, 115; color 96; sodden 141, 142; water holding capacity 94, 171; clayish 23, 29, 96; sandy 24, 28—32, 97, 192 solar radiation 23, 136 sorghum 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35,36, 41, 110, 173, 178 179, 206, 209, 210, 214 South America 3 sowing 152, 161, 165, 166, 185, 186, 188, 193, 196, 200; strategies 151, 161, 162, 175, 185, 193 soya/soybean 23, 30 spider 62, 64 spinach 32, 35, 114 spraying 23, 58, 63, 64, 95, 162; spot 23 System of Rice Intensivication (SRI) 3 staggered planting 23 standardized measurements 223 standing water 80, 82, 91, 96, 109, 110, 114, 144, 176, 183, 191, 197, 204, 205, 206 state agencies 8, 104, 219 stem decay 114 storage pond 81 strategic activity 83Strategic work 83 stratus 71 stunt 63 sun 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 70, 72, 92; light 59, 213; shine 118, 142, 206 supportive research 11, 221 sustainability 104 sweet potatoes 113 synthesis vi, 21, 216 synopticon 145, 146, 169, 172, 176, 179, 181; review 172 skilled vision 176 semi-quantitatively or qualitatively 177 systematic observations 104, 120, 181, 223 T technology vi, vii, 43, 5; solution vii; assistance 7; packages 219 tradition-modernity spectrum 145,146 traditional 2, 5, 8, 10, 38, 52, 92, 94, 106, 109, 110,

251

Index 119, 125, 159, 196, 197, 218, 223; time 92; practice 92; planting strategies 94; approach 2; knowledge 2, 8, 106; taxonomy 223; varieties 196 trial and error processes 154 tegalan 27, 29, 39 textualising 179; textualization 104, 107, 108, 109, 148, 160, 163 texture; 28, 29, 58, 81, 89, 90, 91, 96, 97, 170, 171, 192; of lime and gravel 29 thousand mountains 25 translation activities 154 tretak-tretik 179, 204 tactic/tactical work 83; activities 83 taxonomy of rainfall/rains 192, 205, 223 teaching 11, 16, 17, 20, 45, 79, 94, 120, 139, 218, 220, 224; as-transmission; 45; based learning 220 teak trees 184 techne 12, 181, 182 temperature ix, 3, 7, 23, 61, 66, 67, 69, 70, 74, 79, 118 textualized observations 109 Thailand 7 threat 7, 14, 216 thunderstorm 67, 109, 110 tiger-bee 64 tillage 76, 85, 87, 94, 96, 102, 1177, 196 tillering stage 24 timber 10 tobacco 25, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 43, 80, 113, 129, 142, 173, 174, 177, 179, 202, 206, 208, 211, 212, 213, 215; leaves 215 top soil 24, 82, 96, 100, 171; surface 188 topography 25, 27, 28, 70, 90, 190; undulating 27, 28; topography 28 training; vi, xii, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 37, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 66, 68, 74, 76, 84, 85, 87, 111, 126, 219, 220, 224; experience 51; session xii, 16, 74, 84, 126 transdisciplinary collaboration xii, 217 transitional period 211 transplant/ing 80, 83, 84 tree 6, 9, 10, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 35, 73, 93, 106, 110, 118, 119, 122, 124, 184, 191, 214; cover 10; plantings 10 tropical cyclone 9; ecosystem 10 true rains 93, 112, 184, 185, 187, 211 typhoon 67,71

252

U udan kiriman 92, 93 Universitas Gajah Mada (UGM); 12, 18, 26, 27, 29, 32, 101, 150,151, 153, 171, 198; Gajah Mada University xii, xiii, 18, 20, 37, 125, 128, 135, 139, 140 167, 170, 171, 178 Universitas Indonesia (UI); xii, 6, 20, 37, 138, 139 uncommon phenomena 62, 197, 207 unexpected weather 8, 130 United States 7 University vi, vii, viii, xii, xiii, 7, 18, 20, 37, 51, 53, 125, 128, 135, 139, 140, 167, 170, 171, 178 unknown disease 206 upland rice 23 V variation 3, 51, 85, 89, 97, 122, 134, 136, 163, 171, 182, 184, 185, 219 verbal lexicons 145 vegetables 25, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 38, 80, 97, 110, 113,114,115,117, 118, 202 vegetative stage 100, 143 veterans of perspection 50 Vietnam 7 village ix, xii,16,25,27,36,37,38,39,41, 42, 43, 46, 73, 100, 110, 113, 120, 127, 129, 130, 131, 137, 138, 139, 176, 178, 189, 191, 192, 200, 203, 215; leader 37, 120, 130,131, 137,138,139; level 37, 39, 129, 131 virus115 vulnerable/Vulnerability 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 20, 67, 68, 69, 77, 79, 83, 84, 85, 97, 103, 130, 135, 137, 200, 216, 217, 218, 221, 224; environments 224 W wage 152,162 wana 29, 39 written form 83, 108, 109, 145, 147, 154, 160, 165, 178 wage labor 38, 39, 82, 209 Wageningen University vii,viii water 5, 8, 9, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, 44, 46, 50, 53, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, 69, 70, 73, 76, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90,91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 106, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 120, 121, 122, 124, 127, 132, 134, 135, 136, 141, 142 144, 147, 157, 158, 161, 162, 170, 171, 173, 174,

Index 176, 177, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 197, 199, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 215; conditions; 55, 61, 63, 124, 142, 151, 152, 154, 161, 175, 177; conservation 10; flow 106, 185, 189; holding capacity; 29, 94, 97, 118, 171, 192; logging/ logged 9, 143, 212; management; 5, 23, 135, 219, 223; reservoir 81; resources 32, 50; tank 35, 188; run off; 29, 94, 113, 118, 174, 185, 192, 210; evaporation from the soil 24; standing in the field 81, 97, 142, 144, 189 Wareng ix, x, xii, xiii, 6, 8, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 53, 68, 72, 73, 74, 91, 96, 97, 100, 105, 113, 119, 120, 131, 138, 139, 167, 172, 177, 178, 181, 193, 197, 200, 203, 204, 206, 210, 211, 213, 215, 219, 221, 222, 223;Wareng IV ix, x, xii, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 53, 55, 57, 58, 80, 86, 109, 125, 129, 131, 146, 150, 153 weather ix, 4, 5 9, 11, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 28, 44, 45, 53, 54, 55, 58, 61, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87 92, 95, 100, 103, 104, 106 110, 115, 117, 118, 127, 130, 143, 145, 146, 157, 160, 161, 181, 187, 188, 192, 193, 195, 197, 199, 200, 202, 208, 211, 213, 215, 217, 218, 219, 221, 223; changes 77, 181, 215; component61, 64, 65, 66, 68, 76, 85, 92, 105; condition ix, x 4, 8, 14, 15, 21, 22, 45, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65,66, 69, 77, 78, 83, 85, 88, 91, 92, 94, 103, 115, 135, 141, 143, 145, 155, 159, 181, 182, 183, 186, 187, 191, 193, 195, 197, 199, 200, 201, 206, 208, 211, 212, 218, 219, 220; elements 67, 69, 79; forecast 77, 78, 117, 146, 181; indicator 45; lore 45, 105, 106, 130, 152, 183, 184, 196, 197; parameter 67, 79; service 7, 12, 13, 22; situation 3, 103, 193, 220, 223; variabilities118, 161, 182; vulnerability 67, 68, 69, 79, 103; surveys 146; and climate disasters 87 weed/weeding 41, 42, 62, 63, 64, 82, 83, 84, 94, 95,158, 173, 196, 210 weight measurement 59 wetness 59; duration115 wet-nursery 5, 188 white chalk 113 wind; 4, 28, 58, 61, 66, 67, 69, 72, 79, 92, 106, 110, 136, 141, 142, 194, 197, 199, 200, 203; break 71,

136; flow136; throw 9; storms 71; strong 67, 71, 110, 141, 142, 197, 200, 203 working partnerships 216 worm 62, 63, 64, 65, 75, 89, 156, 157, 173, 175; cutworms 23; earth 75, 89; ground 114; leaf 62, 64, 76 Wonosari ix,xiii, 16, 25, 37, 38, 46, 131, 203 X Y yields 3, 7, 9, 21, 23, 41, 76, 91, 100, 101, 110, 114, 115, 119, 141, 143, 144,146, 170, 174, 177, 178, 179, 182, 186, 188, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 215, 220; of paddy; 101, 115,198 Yogyakarta ix, xii, xiii; Special Province of Yogyakarta (Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta) 6, 8, 13, 18 20, 25, 36, 38, 46, 53, 105,107, 119, 137, 177, 203, 221, 223 Z Zambia 221

253