Los benedictinos señalados.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2003) has observed an increasing trend in agricultural productivity for the last three decades. The world agricultural production has grown at a faster rate relative to the world population. Technology advancement, particularly in developed countries, is assumed to be the

main factor that has contributed to this achievement. As a result, the prices of agricultural products, in general, are decreasing.

However, FAO (2003) also finds that more people are unable to access basic foods. This is caused by the widening income gap between poor and wealthier households, particularly in developing countries. In addition, world agricultural production is facing more uncertainties due to the decreasing availability of farmland and the declining quality of the agro-ecosystem. At the same time, socioeconomic conditions have not been helping farmers, particularly the poor ones in developing countries, to access productive resources, such as land, capital and technology. Therefore, although FAO suggests addressing the above issues through promoting technology and advanced farming practices, many challenges must first be overcome.

Figure 3.4. Productivity of selected food crops (1985)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Cassava Groundnut (in

shell)

Maize Rice, Paddy Soybeans

(t

o

n/

ha

)

World Developed Countries Developing Countries Asia Developing Indonesia

Source: FAO (2004)

This is also evident in the case of Indonesian agriculture. The production of food crops, mainly rice, maize, soybean, groundnuts and cassava, has been increasing since the introduction of BIMAS, INMAS and other technology related programs. Figures

3.4 and 3.5 show the comparison of food crop production between Indonesia and the rest of the world. The five commodities represent the main food crops produced in Indonesia. Groundnut and rice productivities in Indonesia, in particular, have been higher than that of the developing world for the last two decades. Maize productivity in Indonesia also continues to increase. This may suggest the success of technology application in the agricultural production in Indonesia.

Figure 3.5. Productivity of selected food crops (2003)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Cassava Groundnut (in

shell)

Maize Rice, Paddy Soybeans

(to

n

/h

a)

World Developed Countries Developing Countries Asia Developing Indonesia

Source: FAO (2004)

However, food crop productivity in Indonesia is still lower than developed countries. This may mean a high import burden for Indonesia, particularly during unfavourable seasons such as the ones in 1997-1998 (with El Nino and La Nina), and considering that the population growth rate in Indonesia is still higher than developed countries. The difference in productivity also indicates the difference in the level of technology application.

The prospect of increasing agricultural production in Indonesia also faces more uncertainties, as agricultural resources are now approaching their limit. Agus (2004),

for example, observed an increasing trend of agricultural land conversion. He found that around 1.6 million hectares of rice fields have been converted into plantations, industrial sites, public facilities and residential areas between 1981 and 1999. The inheritance customs (Statistics Indonesia, 2004b) and the entry of laid-off industrial workers to the agricultural sector (Siregar, 2003, cited in Sajogyo, 2003) has also resulted in a decrease of the average farm land holding from 1.3 hectares to 0.7

hectares during 1983-2003 ("Presidential regulation no. 7: Medium-term development plan 2004-2009," 2005). The proportion of smallholder farms3 to total farm

households has also increased from 52.1 percent to 56.2 percent during the period from 1993 to 2003 (Statistics Indonesia, 2004b). As farming income is positively correlated with the area of the cultivated land (Sumaryanto, Adnyana, Kustiari, & Djojopoespito, 2002), the figure may imply an increasing proportion of poor farmers.

The scarcity of farmland has also changed the structure of rural labour. The availability of rural labour continues to decrease as younger and more educated generations now prefer to migrate to, and work in, urban areas (Pranaji et al., 2001). Furthermore, Sajogyo (2002) and Sulaiman (2002) observed that many male members of the landless farm households work seasonally, or permanently, in urban areas in order to obtain additional income and fulfil their household needs. This has changed the division of work that was previously gender based.

Many farm households also gave up farming and became urban migrants. However, some have chosen mechanization as a solution. This is particularly evident in fringe areas surrounding an urban industrial area where the supply of rural labour is limited (Sodiq et al., 1999, cited in "Perempuan "hilang" di dalam produksi pangan (Women "lost" in food production)," 2004; Tastra, 2003). The degree of mechanization, however, is quite limited because most of these farmers have a limited human capacity and access to markets, capital and inputs.

3 _{A smallholder farm household is defined as a farm household cultivating less than 0.5 hectares of}

Data collected by Munandar (2001, cited in Rivai, 2003) indicate that most farm labourers (83%) have only completed primary school education, or even less. Sulaiman (2002) also confirms a similar situation in the case of farmers in four different agro-ecosystems in South Sumatra. In addition, Feder et al. (2003) noticed a low level of information processing skills among farmers who participated in the Farmer Field School (FFS) for IPM in East Java, Indonesia. These farmers appeared to struggle to adjust their learning method and, thus, they did not fully grasp the training material.

Some other studies (e.g. Ekalindo et al., 2000; Pranaji et al., 2001; Priyono et al., 2003) indicated that the farmers’ low motivation to learn, work and pursue advancement are the main causes for a low level of technology uptake. Such conclusions, however, may be misleading since none of the above studies conducted an in-depth analysis of the farmers’ motivation concerning technology adoption. Farmers may have their own rationale which cannot be directly identified from a simple analysis. For example, Sejati et al. (2002) discovered that the head of the farm household does not always have the right to make the final decision as other family members, peer farmers and/or the head of a farmer group may have a say in the final decision. This shows that the socio-cultural norms have an important role in the Indonesian farm household’s decision making process.

In accordance with the latter evidence, the government has promoted farmer

collaboration to overcome limitations in individual farmers’ decision making. The effort focuses on the empowerment of local socio-cultural networking (Conway, 1987; Suradisastra, Sejati, Supriatna, & Hidayat, 2002), which includes “adat”4 institutions and farmer groups. The example of “adat” institutions is the Balinese “Subak”, which is a kind of water user association that facilitates its members in

4 _{According to the Indonesian Alliance of “Adat” Communities (AMAN, Safitri & Bosko, 2002), there}

are 50 to 70 million people in Indonesia living under “adat” law and institutions. “Adat” communities are defined as:

“a community living together based on their origins intergenerationally in adat land, who have sovereignty over the land and the natural resources, sociocultural life regulated by adat law and adat institutions which manage the sustainability of the communities’ lives.” (p. 5)

dealing with technical issues—including technology adoption, as well as in

maintaining social and religious contacts within the community (Suradisastra et al., 2002). The socio-cultural networking appears in the form of informal work sharing among farm households. The empowerment of farmer groups so far has resulted in, for example, the use of farmer group meetings as the main communication means for discussing a new technology (Sulaiman, 2002). Wahyuni (2003) also observed that farmer groups’ capacity improve when the groups also collaborate with cooperatives and field extension workers (FEWs).

There are, however, few local institutions with as consistent a management style as “Subak” (Pranaji et al., 2001). Also, most farmer groups do not have sufficient competency. According to the Agricultural Extension Center (2001, cited in Wahyuni, 2003), among 254,822 farmer groups throughout the country, only 5 percent are categorized as advanced, while around 39 percent and 53 percent are still at the beginner and intermediate level, respectively. At the same time, the number of FEWs continues decreasing (see section 3.3). This may bring a negative impact on technology application among farmers, as many studies (e.g. Sulaiman, 2002) discovered that farmer groups rely on a face-to-face meeting with FEWs when they access and evaluate a new technology.

The above conditions are compounded as farmers in Indonesia, in general, still have limited access to markets, capital and inputs. The problem does not only relate to physical access, but also to affordability and timing. To overcome these problems, the government has devised many policies and programs. For example, the

government has streamlined the marketing and distribution systems for agricultural inputs, particularly seeds and fertilizers (Hasan & Ayubar, 2002; Krisnamurthi, 2003; Soepardi, 2000), established local/ regional markets (Goto & Mayrowani, 2001; Pranaji et al., 2001), provided daily agricultural price information (Simatupang et al., 2002), and improved the quality of the infrastructure (Hasan & Ayubar, 2002). The government also launched a mass land titling project (Land Administration Project or LAP) so that farmers can have formal collateral for borrowing money from banks.

This program is also supported by the provision of microfinance schemes for rural areas (Social Monitoring and Qualitative Analysis Division, 2001).

The above policies and programs, however, have not been able to boost the rate of technology application among farmers. Some inconsistencies persist, particularly due to the enactment of the Regional Autonomy Law and a strict financial regulation toward micro and small-scale lending. In addition, the programs are still limited in coverage.

The discussion implies that considerable effort is needed to improve the production capacity of the Indonesian farmers. For this reason, and considering the increasing pressures on agricultural resources and trade, the government of Indonesia continues promoting the application of advanced agricultural technology and practices

("Presidential regulation no. 7: Medium-term development plan 2004-2009," 2005, pp. 19-5 - 19-7).

To assist this process, further improvement in the methods used are needed to boost the application of technology, particularly as the capacity of agricultural support institutions, and the effect of socioeconomic reforms, are still limited. Farmer education may be one alternative. However, following Chambers’s (1989) “Farmer First” approach, understanding the farmers’ needs, challenges and knowledge, including the way farmers learn and make decisions, may provide a more tangible result. This topic will be discussed in the next chapter.

3.5 Summary

This chapter has presented a general picture of policies and programs designed to improve technology uptake among farmers in Indonesia. The discussion also covers an overview of agricultural research, development and extension. In brief, the government has encouraged farmers to adopt innovations through various social engineering programs. BIMAS was the most prominent one and it contains a

complete package of agricultural technology, technical assistance and incentives (credit, market and prices). BIMAS has resulted in a significant increase in food production, the expansion of agricultural research and innovation, the development of agricultural services, and new investments in agro-industries.

Nevertheless, many shortcomings continue to be observed, possibly due to the low attention given to the farmers’ characteristics and socioeconomic conditions.

Farmers also still face structural and complex problems, especially those related to the quality of human capital and access to markets, capital and inputs. The problems seem to be interwoven and, for technology adoption analysis, one should be fully aware of this complexity.

Despite the above problems, the government of Indonesia continues promoting the application of technology and advanced practices among farmers. The reasons for this include the decreasing availability of agricultural resources and the structural problems faced by farmers. This is expected to improve the livelihoods of the Indonesian farmers and, at the same time, prevent these farmers becoming vulnerable to severe seasons and the current changes in world agricultural production and trade. The effort, however, requires a more effective strategy considering the limitations in agricultural supporting institutions. One alternative is to explore how farmers learn and make decisions so that any technology diffusion efforts can meet the farmers’ documented needs and challenges. This leads to the next discussion on decision theories and the associated analytical methods. This is presented in Chapter Four.