Climate Information Networks for Rice Farmers in Indramayu Regency, Indonesia

Climate Information Networks for rice farmers in Indramayu regency, Indonesia:

An analysis of the Science Field Shops and

Integrated Crop Calendar

Author: Malou Heidekamp

Climate Information Networks for rice farmers in Indramayu regency, Indonesia:

An analysis of the Science Field Shops and

Integrated Crop Calendar

MSc Thesis International Development Studies

October 2014

Author: Malou Heidekamp

Supervisor: Harro Maat

Chair group: Knowledge, Technology and Innovation, Wageningen University and Research Centre

Cover picture: a farmer working in a rice field in Sukra village, Indramayu. Photo by Malou Heidekamp

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my Indonesian friends for their help and assistance in this research. The members of KPCH (Klub Pengukur Curah Hujan) who welcomed me in their homes, showed me around in their villages, organised great BBQ chicken nights and for their commitment in answering my questions. Because of them I felt really welcome in Indramayu.

Field visits would not have been possible without the help of Ubaidillah Pratama, Aria Sakti and Muki Trenggono Wicaksono, who joined me to translate all the stories told. I would like to thank them for their translation skills, help with finding informants and company in the field.

I would like to thank Yunita Winarto and Kees Stigter for welcoming me to their research project on agrometeorological learning and for all the advice that I have received. Special thanks to Yunita Winarto for the great support and the critical questions, for making me look further and challenge myself. It was a wonderful learning experience!

Next I would like to thank my supervisors, Todd Crane and Harro Maat. Todd Crane brought me in contact with Yunita Winarto and supported me in the early stages of this thesis. After he got another job Harro Maat took over the supervision. Their feedback made me look further and made the end result better.

Finally I would like to thank my parents (Harry and Sonja) and brother (Jorn) for their support, trust and encouragements. It meant a lot for me that they visited me in Indonesia and that I could show them around in this beautiful country.

Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction to Climate Information Networks in Indramayu ...... 9 The Integrated Crop Calendar ...... 10 Monthly Seasonal Scenario as part of the ‘Science Field Shops’ ...... 11 Climate modelling ...... 13 Short history of agricultural extension in Indonesia ...... 14 Structure of this report ...... 15 Chapter 2: Research Design ...... 16 Problem statement ...... 16 Research objectives ...... 16 Research questions ...... 16 Methodology: a technographic research ...... 16 Chapter 3: Theoretical framework ...... 19 Social carriers of technology and the social creation of knowledge ...... 20 How climate information is created: Government and University ...... 21 Adaptation by the individual and the community ...... 22 The three dimensions of a technographic research ...... 23 Climate information as a technique or technology? ...... 24 How the framework will be used ...... 24 Chapter 4: Institution analyse ...... 25 Indonesian National Weather Institute: Badan Meteorologi, Klimatologi, dan Geofisika (BMKG) ...... 25 Research Institute for Agro-climate and Hydrology: Balai Penelitian Agro Klimat dan Hidrologi ...... 26 Assessment Institute for Agricultural Technology: BPTP ...... 26 Agency for Food Security and Extension Work: BKP3 ...... 26 Extension Workers: BPP Office ...... 27 Agencies for pest and disease observation: PPOPT and POPT ...... 27 The Climate team ...... 28 Coordination between institutes ...... 28 Conclusion ...... 29 Chapter 5: The making of climate information and services ...... 30 The making of the seasonal scenario ...... 30 An analysis on the making the seasonal scenario ...... 31 The making of the Integrated Crop Calendar ...... 31 Conclusion ...... 34 Chapter 6: Communication ...... 35 Communication of the seasonal scenario ...... 35 An analysis on the communication of the Seasonal Scenario ...... 36 Access and dissemination of Integrated Crop Calendar ...... 37 Conclusion ...... 41 Chapter 7: Use and interpretation of Climate Information and Services ...... 42 Farmers interpretation of the Seasonal Scenario ...... 42

The Seasonal Scenario: The potential role of the government ...... 45 An analysis of the actions taken based on the implementation of the Seasonal Scenario ...... 46 Farmers and extension workers interpretation of the Integrated Crop Calendar ...... 50 Conclusion ...... 51 Chapter 8: Conclusion and recommendations ...... 53 Comparing the Integrated Crop Calendar and the Science Field Shop ...... 53 Recommendations ...... 55 Relevance of the used theories ...... 56 Reference list ...... 57 Annex 1: Integrated Crop Calendar for Sukra District in Indramayu Regency ...... 59

Table of figures Figure 1: Receiver-oriented model of communication (Leeuwis and Van den Ban 2004) ...... 19 Figure 2: Global Framework for Climate Services (World Meteorological Organization 2011) ...... 25 Figure 3: Organisational Structure of BKP3. Copied and translated from a document received at an interview with one of the employees of BPK3...... 27 Figure 4: Examples of the Seasonal Scenario ...... 30 Figure 5: Flow of the Seasonal Scenario ...... 35

Chapter 1: Introduction to Climate Information Networks in Indramayu Farmers in Indonesia experience, like many farmers all over the world that the climate is changing. Climate change has unintended and unexpected consequences for peoples livelihoods (Winarto et al. 2011). Rice farmers in Indramayu regency Indonesia are noticing a change in climate, but adapting to this change can be difficult. The main effects of climate change for rice farmers in Indramayu are related to temperature, floods, salinity and drought (Stigter and Winarto 2013b). Other issues are an increase in climate variability/disaster and changes in pest and diseases vulnerability. All these factors together make rice farming (in general) more difficult. Advances in seasonal climate predictions offer potential for assisting farmers in dealing with climate risk (Roncoli et al. 2011). There is a wide range of literature which discusses the potential positive effects of seasonal climate forecasts on agricultural productivity and livelihood at the local level (Ash et al. 2007; Hansen et al. 2011; Ensor and Berger 2009b; Winarto and Stigter 2011). However there is a potential, it is also known that predictions at this moment still lack accuracy for the local level and have a level of uncertainty in general. This uncertainty must not be confused with a lack of knowledge. Climate models are not ‘truth machines’ and the step from climate model to a predictions adds and extra layer models and thus uncertainty (Ensor and Berger 2009b). How climate models are realized will be explained in the paragraph on ‘climate modelling’ on page 13.

There is great potential in assisting farmers to adapt to climate change by providing climate information. The challenge lies in how to communicate the uses and limitations of different forms of climate information to farmers in a suitable format. This study aims to explore the development and use of 2 networks of climate information spread among rice farmers in Indramayu regency in Indonesia. The case study area, Indramayu regency, lies on the north coast of West Java, about 200km east of Jakarta. Indramayu is an important rice producing area in Indonesia, about 43% of the GDP is agricultural production (Siregar and Crane 2011). Both networks of climate information are developed to assist farmers in their adaptation to climate change but have a completely different approach. The word ‘network’ is used for two reasons, first to indicated that I will be looking into the whole process from ‘making’ till ‘using’ climate information and second to emphasize that this process involves different actors. The first case that is analysed is the ‘seasonal scenario’ as part of the Science Field Shops, a project developed by Yunita T. Winarto from the Department of Anthropology, University of Indonesia and C. J. (Kees) Stigter, Founding President of the International Society for Agricultural Meteorology (INSAM, 2013) and Agromet Vision. The second case is the ‘Integrated Crop Calendar’ developed by the ministry of agriculture in Indonesia. Both cases will be explained in the next paragraphs.

The goal of this study is to get insight into the functioning and performance of the two networks. In short, how is the content ‘made’, ‘communicated’ and ‘used’ and why or why isn’t the climate information used? The ‘why’ question is of course very important because the answer might give insight on how to improve assisting farmers in their response to climate change. To answer these questions the research approach is a ‘technographic methodology’. A technography is a method to look into how a technique or technology is influencing the social environment. This will be further explained in the methodology and the theoretical framework, but it is important to state that the climate information networks are thus seen as a ‘technology’. However the Seasonal Scenario and Integrated Crop Calendar are not something tangible like most techniques you need to know how to use and interpret them in order use it successfully. Edquist and Edqvist (1979) and Patt and Gwata (2002) came up with some basic requirements for a technology to be chosen, used and implemented. Those are related to having access, the power and knowledge to use climate information. Patt and Gwata (2002) emphasize 6 constraints that can limit the usefulness of climate information. The trust in the communicator and the knowledge of the user are very important. The analysis of the two cases will give an insight in how to improve the assistance of farmers in their response to climate change.

Before the two cases of this research will be discussed in detail some concepts need to be clarified in order to keep a clear distinction between the two networks. The terms, weather/climate information, advisories and services will be used frequently to indicate the differences between the Seasonal Scenario and the Integrated Crop Calendar. In this report ‘(climate) information’ is seen as something passive because it does not indicate how you could use or apply this information. An example of this could be ‘raw’ climate data like models without any explanations or indication on how to use or interpret it. The next step is an ‘advisory’, information containing an advice on how to use it and thus more user friendly,

9 this however does not necessarily involves a dialog. A ‘climate service’ involves interaction between scientists and users, questions can be asked and feedback given (Stigter and Winarto 2013a). In the rest of the chapter the Integrated Crop Calendar and the Seasonal Scenario will be described in detail.

One small point of explanation with regard to terminology, in this report sometimes the word ‘Pak’ or ‘Bu’ is used in front of names. This is the local form of address meaning so much as Mr. and ma’am or mother. In Indonesia I was used to call Yunita Winarto, Bu Yunita and Kees Stigter was often addressed as Pak Kees. It is a polite and common way of addressing people in Indonesia, even though usually the last name or no name at all is used. All cited farmers will be referred to as ‘pak’ and then their first name.

In the coming paragraphs a short, general description will be given of both the Integrated Crop Calendar and the Seasonal Scenario. In chapters 5 till 7 a much more detailed description and analysis will be give of the two cases.

The Integrated Crop Calendar The integrated crop calendar (ICC) is a product made and spread by the Research Institute for Agro- climate and Hydrology which is part of the Ministry of Agriculture in Indonesia. The calendar contains a wide range of information about the coming season; most importantly it states the start of the season, available crop varieties and fertilizer information. The Integrated Crop Calender is developed from 2007 onwards by researchers on agro climate from the Indonesian Agency for Agriculture Research and Development, part of the Ministry of Agriculture. Since 2011 the crop calendar is available for farmers in all districts of Indonesia.

The ministry introduced the integrated crop calender to farmers through a website, text messages for the mobile phone and extension workers. At the start in 2011 the information was only available for rice/paddy crops, but at this moment the calendar also includes information for other crops like maize and soybean. The calendar is based on rainfall predictions of the BMKG (the Indonesian National Weather Institute) and combined with historical data at the Indonesian Agency for Agriculture Research and Development. The integrated crop calendar contains information on the rainfall in the coming season, the advised start of planting time, crop pattern and area potential, drought, flood and pest area, varieties and fertilizer recommendations. The goals of the planting calendar are to interpret change in climate and translate this in a planting calendar to improve productivity and production and create food security for Indonesia. Annex 1 shows the integrated crop calendar and an explanation in English. The Indonesian Agency for Agriculture Research and Development introduces the integrated crop calendar on its website as follows: “So far, farmers in determining paddy planting season were based on signs of nature which called ‘pranatamangsa’. In the early time this kind of measurement did not find any difficulties, because extreme climate change has not happened. If farmers still stick with the old ways, usually occurred harvest failure caused by draught or flood. Therefor, it is recommended that farmers nowadays utilize the information of Integrated Cropping Calender (KATAM Terpadu) from Indonesian Agency for Agriculture Research and Development (IAARD)” (IAARD 2013).

The website has a central role in the communication of the calendar; all information related to the integrated crop calendar can be found there. The website contains information for national, provincial, district and sub-district level (6911 in total in Indonesia). By navigating through the menu on the website, farmers or other persons interested can find a calendar for each sub-district in Indonesia. The intention is that the integrated crop calendar is also socialised to farmers by extension workers during meetings at the local level. A third way of accessing the crop calendar is by requesting a simplified crop calendar by sending a text message to the call centre. The message must be sent in a precise format because it is handled by a computer, experience is that 40% of the received messages does not contain the right format and cannot be handled.

The integrated crop calendar is spread 3 times a year before the start of the 3 seasons. The months in the calendar are split up in 3 decadal. The first decadal is from the first till the tenth day of the month, the second decadal is from the 11th till 20th day and the third decade is from the 21st day till the end of the month. The calendar is available for the rainy season September III till January II, the second wet period or transition period from January III till May II and the dry season from May III till September II. The information for the coming season is spread at least two decadal before the start of the season to give farmers time to interpret the information and prepare their fields. The integrated crop calendar also includes an advice for the amount of crops to plant in relation to the availability of water in a sub-district,

10 for example to plant 80% of the available fields in a sub district with paddy. This is not something that is guided by an extension worker, farmers need to sort out among themselves if there is enough water and if they want to use this advice.

New on the website of the Research Institute for Agro-climate and Hydrology is the ‘monitoring CCTV’ of fields that is now in development. In 7 different districts, 55 cameras have been set up in the middle of paddy fields in order to keep track of the farmer’s activities. This is still in a preliminary phase but the intention is to compare the action in the field with the crop calendar and monitoring farmers work. Agro climate wants to check in this way if farmers act in accordance with the integrated crop calendar. The recordings of the cameras can be found on the website of the agro climate office.

The Integrated Crop Calendar is an important project of the Indonesian Government in response to climate change. With this project the government hopes to guide the farmers of Indonesia in their farm management and increase food security for Indonesia.

Monthly Seasonal Scenario as part of the ‘Science Field Shops’ The second climate information network or better put ‘advisory’ is part of a project on agrometeorological learning and called the Science Field Shop (SFS). The project with the seasonal scenarios started officially in January 2013 and will last for 2 years after which it is evaluated. This long running project aims at “enriching farmers knowledge and understanding of the risks and consequences of climate change” (Winarto et al. 2013:324). The SFS is initiated by Yunita T. Winarto from the Department of Anthropology, University of Indonesia together with C. J. (Kees) Stigter Founding President of the International Society for Agricultural Meteorology (INSAM, 2013) and Agromet Vision. They have a central and essential role in the Science Field Shop. The Science Field Shop is set up as an improved form of agricultural extension in which learning between farmers, scientist and extension intermediaries is central. The Science Field Shop consist on different elements all aimed at ‘assessing and carrying out response farming to climate change based on agrometeorological learning processes’ (Stigter et al. 2013). Currently Kees Stigter and Yunita Winarto work in Indramayu regency (West Java) with about 50 farmers. The most important elements of the SFS are monthly meetings in which farmers and scientist come together, the monthly seasonal scenario and farmers own rainfall measurements. Those elements will be explained in the remaining paragraphs.

As part of the SFS a ‘monthly seasonal scenario’ is developed by Kees Stigter based on the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Diagnostic Discussion from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This scenario can be considered an advisory and when discussed in the field with the farmers it becomes an agrometeorological climate field service. The monthly scenario is translated in Bahasa Indonesian by Yunita Winarto and send by text message to a group of +/- 50 farmers in Indramayu. Those farmers all participate in the science field shop and have united themselves in the ‘Rainfall Observers Club’ or in Indonesian Klub Pengukur Curah Hujan (KPCH). When referring in this thesis to the farmers participating the in Science Field Shop they will be called ‘KPCH members’ or ‘members’. The farmers that are member of KPCH live spread over the regency Indramayu in different villages and districts and commit themselves usually to the SFS and the KPCH for a long time period. In theory this project has no fixed end date but the idea is that ‘farmer facilitators’ are selected from among the members to ensure continuity after the SFS finishes. The monthly seasonal scenario indicates the probable beginning of the coming season and states if the expected rainfall will be normal, above normal or below normal. The members of KPCH are trained in interpreting and using this scenario in their farm management decisions. As an example of the text messages the members receive, the seasonal scenario of November 2013: “the season may be expected to develop normally after a probable start in the second week of November”. This is a scenario for the coming 3 months and is updated monthly with the information from latest NOAA prediction. What ‘normal’ rainfall in this scenario means can be very subjective and because there are different interpretations on the exact definition it needs to be indicated by the farmers themselves. Rainfall can be very local and can have great differences over short distances, within the science field shop farmers work on a definition for ‘normal’ by measuring the rainfall daily in their own field. Picture 1 shows the simple rain gauge that is used for making measurements, picture 2 gives an impression of a monthly meeting. When they collected ten years of data it will give a good impression of what is a normal amount of rainfall in their field in a certain month, for the time being the farmers refer to their experiences in the past years and their memories about rainfall.

Picture 1: Rain gauge in Pak Dirham's field, Pak Karwita measures the rainfall (left), Pak Dirham explains how to measure rainfall (right). (Pictures by Ubaidillah Pratama)

Next to the rainfall observation farmers also make agro-ecosystem observations in their own plots to keep track on for example pests. The seasonal scenario is brought as an advisory, which means that there is a dialog between scientist and farmers on how to use it. During the monthly meetings the rainfall data and ecosystem observations are discussed with scientists. The meeting usually take place at the first or second Sunday of the month at the house of one of the members. The meeting gives the farmers the opportunity to ask questions to other farmers and scientist on a wide range of topics from pesticide use till questions about making rainfall measurements or the interpretation of the seasonal scenario. The learning experiences of the members of KPCH are translated in an understanding of the consequences of climate change for their farming initiatives (Stigter et al. 2013).

Yunita Winarto is an anthropologist and functions as a ‘cultural translator’ between the two domains of knowledge that are present: local knowledge of farming and operational scientific knowledge of agrometeorology (Winarto and Stigter 2013). During the meetings Yunita Winarto is usually present, while Kees Stigter is visiting Indramayu twice a year, Yunita will therefor forward farmers questions to Kees Stigter and shares his answers with the farmers.

Picture 2: Monthly meeting of the KPCH, January 2014 (picture by Malou Heidekamp)

Science Field Shops (SFSs) can be seen as a new educational commitment (Stigter and Winarto 2013a). It is part of the farmers first paradigm, in which there is listened to farmers concerns first, to better understand their vulnerabilities and needs in the way they see them (Winarto et al. 2013). In those Science Field Shops, scientist and farmers discuss questions on vulnerabilities expressed by the farmers. Ideally there are two more participants needed in SFSs, ‘Farmers Facilitators’ and extension intermediaries. ‘Farmers Facilitators’ are farmers that have understood the scenario and are able to help other farmers, they have a facilitating role. At the moment some farmers are trained to have a more coordinating role in their area. Extension intermediaries need to be well trained and will eventually take over most tasks of the scientist (Stigter and Winarto 2013a). The project is running for a couple of years now and is still growing and improving. New farmers are still joining the KPCH and scaling up the project is one of the priorities for the future.

The next paragraphs will further introduce ‘climate modelling’ in general and a short ‘history of agricultural extension’ in Indonesia as background information for the rest of the thesis. Understanding the how climate modelling works (in essence) is important for understanding the complexity of climate forecasting and the factor of uncertainty that is always present in forecasts. Some knowledge of the history of extension in Indonesia will help to understand the current state of extension services.

Climate modelling Due to climate change farmers in Indonesia are facing new dynamics and uncertainties. Climate patterns are shifting and more extreme weather events are taking place (Crane et al. 2011). Climate change has become an important research topic since the realisation that it not only took place “during the Holocene or Pleistocene era but is a reality in a time scale that has affected present human civilization” (Mall et al. 2014). In a response to this change climate models have been developed to study the earth systems, it has emerged as “the key technology for visualizing and anticipating the processes and impacts of climate change and climate variability on agricultural production systems” (Crane et al. 2011). These mathematical models are based on the key climatic processes (Mall et al. 2014). The accuracy of those

13 climate predictions are however limited by fundamental, irreducible uncertainties (Dessai et al. 2009). The uncertainties in climate predictions range from limitations on knowledge to the emission of greenhouse gases. Climate models always have a factor of uncertainty, just because they are partly based on assumptions (Dessai et al. 2009). “Seasonal predictions provide estimates of seasonal-mean statistics of weather, typically up to three months ahead of the season in question. Hence, for example, a seasonal forecast can provide information on how likely it is that the coming season will be wetter, drier, warmer or colder than normal” (Weisheimer and Palmer 2014). This information is however only useful for farmers if the forecast is reliable and the uncertainty is understood. Information of low reliability can give a totally wrong perspective and cannot be used for decision making. For the seasonal scenario the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) model is used. This is an ensemble of models with all different assumptions. NOAA is indicating the amount of models predicting a certain weather event but there is always an uncertainty factor involved.

Mall et al. (2014) stated that “forecasting future climate associates considerable uncertainties. With uncertainties in the basic science of climate and in its predictions, the understanding of possible future climatic impacts also becomes ambiguous” (Mall et al. 2014). Does this mean that climate information from models is not useful at all? Dessai et al. (2009) argues that “the epistemological limits to climate prediction should not be interpreted as a limit to adaption”. They worry that adaptation strategies in general are placing too much value on the climate predictions. The thought seems to be that without reliable climate predictions adaptation is not possible. Climate predictions will however remain uncertain, there are just too many factors in the models that are unpredictable. This does however not mean that they are not suitable to be used at the local level at all. Winarto and Stigter (2013) argue that even though the predictions have an uncertainty, they can help farmers in developing new strategies as a response to climate change. The problem in Indonesia is that “international predictions are hardly reaching the farmers in any suitable form, while nationally selected predictions are issued without indications of their methodological soundness or uncertainty” (Winarto and Stigter 2013). The question that rises from this quote is; what is a suitable form of climate prediction for farmers in Indonesia? This thesis aims to make a first step in answering this question.

At first sight the biggest difference between the seasonal scenario and in the integrated crop calendar is its main data input. For the Integrated Crop Calendar historical rainfall data are important while the seasonal scenario is based on models looking at the higher atmosphere. In general it can be said that climate models are subject to uncertainty (Dessai et al. 2009). The level of certainty in those models is defining the extent to which the outcome of those models can be used for adaptation. In the book of Sarewitz (2000) a list was made with the five conditions that are needed for predictions to be used for decision making (Dessai et al. 2009). These conditions were merely designed for policy makers but also very relevant for decision makers at the local level like rice farmers. Dessai et al. (2009) summarized the five conditions as follows:

(1) Predictive skill is known; decision makers have knowledge about the precision of the forecast. (2) Decision-makers have experience with understanding and using predictions (3) The characteristic time of the predicted event is short (no more than 3 months ahead and updated regularly) (4) There are limited alternative approaches (5) The outcomes of various courses of action are understood in terms of well-constrained uncertainties

Those factors will be one of the points of analysis, next to this access to, and understanding of climate information that is available, will be discussed. How people understand forecasts depends mainly on the knowledge people already have and how they think about climate variability, causality and predictability (Roncoli 2006). The understanding of the probability and uncertainty of a forecast or climate scenario is very important for taking farm management decisions. In climate forecasts close attention is needed for language and farmers interpretation in order to make sure that the information is understood correctly (Roncoli 2006; Roncoli et al. 2009). All the factors above will be taken into account in this research and will give a better insight in the integrated crop calendar and the seasonal scenario.

Short history of agricultural extension in Indonesia ‘Extension’ in general aims at change or changing some practice. Leeuwis and Van den Ban (2004) explained it as follows; “Agricultural extension involves forms of communication intervention that are

14 aimed at facilitating and directing change processes to deal with the complex problems that face agriculture today”. Extension exists in many forms and it is difficult to give one definition of extension or agricultural extension. Once extension was merely a semi state institution to inform farmers but with the public interest in mind, food security for example. At this moment extension is not exclusively given by government institutions, more and more private and NGO based extension is available (Leeuwis and Van den Ban 2004). The aim and goals of extension agencies, government or other actors might differ from the goals of farmers, for example national interest like export versus local traditional food crops for example.

Agricultural extension has changed agriculture in Indonesia but extension itself has also gone through a lot of changes over the past decades. “Since 1970, Indonesia has modernized its agricultural practice through introduction of modern agricultural input (high yielding varieties, chemical fertilizer and pesticides), agricultural practices (modern agricultural techniques) and services (irrigation, credit, and marketing). All these modern technologies were delivered to Indonesian farmers (more precisely, peasants) through modern and systematic agricultural extension services” (Lubis 2012).

During the Suharto era (1965-1998) a program from the Sukarno era (1945 – 1963) was continued, the BIMAS program (Bimbingan massal or Mass Guidance) program included the introduction of 5 technologies for rice production: seeds, chemical fertilizers, pest control, planting space and irrigation (Lubis 2012; Winarto 2004). Besides this, the government also provided credit and low-price agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides). This program can also been seen as the beginning of the Green Revolution in Indonesia, the time in which the use of high yielding varieties in combination with lots of chemical pesticides and fertilizers has been introduced to farmers. The high use of chemicals has however deteriorated the environment over the years (Lubis 2012). In those years over 35.000 extension workers were recruited from all over Indonesia and the government worked on building up a solid agricultural extension organisation. Criticism on this policy was that it was all aimed at increasing production, but that there was no room for educating the farmers (Lubis 2012).

In the years after the introduction of the BIMAS program the government moved from an individual approach to working with groups of farmers. After 1998 there were big changes in the organisation of agricultural extension again. The government started decentralizing the tasks and made the organisation more democratic. The regencies got more responsibility but did not all put so much emphasis on the agricultural sector and “agricultural extension became stagnant” (Lubis 2012). From 2005 onwards extension and the agricultural sector gets again a more important position in government policy. The government acknowledges the important role of the agricultural sectors and it now distinguishes three types of extension workers: government, NGO/private company and farmer supporting extension workers. In this way the government gives more room to private companies and NGO’s (non- governmental organisations) to set up their own agricultural extension institutions. Under these developments agricultural extension started to grow again in the districts.

In the light of these developments the seasonal scenario as part of the science field shops set up by University of Indonesia can be seen as a ‘new bottom-up form of extension to enlarge farmers knowledge’ (Winarto and Stigter 2013). In science field shop farmers learn about climate change, variability and the response to these changing factors. The Integrated Crop Calendar was developed under this growing acknowledgement of the important role of agriculture and is seen as a way to assist farmers and increase national food security. In the next chapter the design of this research will be discussed.

Structure of this report This chapter gave a short introduction into the research topic of this report, the rest of this report will be build up as follows: Chapter 2 contains the research design for this research, what are the research questions and what methods have been used to collect the data. Chapter 3 will explain the theories that are used for the analysis of the data. Chapter 4 introduces and analysis the different government institutions that have some role in the development and communication of climate information. Chapters 5 till 7 contain the empirical data related to the making, communicating and use of climate information and services and the analysis based on the theories. And finally in chapter 8 the research question will be answered and conclusion will be given.

Chapter 2: Research Design In the previous chapter the cases of the Seasonal Scenario and the Integrated Crop Calendar have been introduced. The goals and purposes of this research already came forward but will be further explained in this chapter.

Problem statement The advances in climate forecasting are a potential chance for farmers in their response to climate change. It is however also the case that (international) climate forecasts do not reach farmers in Indonesia at all or in a suitable form. Attempts have been made to develop climate information for farmers in Indonesia. In the research area multiple sources of climate information are available. The Indonesian government developed a nationwide Integrated Crop Calendar as a response to climate change and with the goal to keep production levels of agricultural products high. Kees Stigter and Yunita Winarto developed the Science Field Shops in Indramayu as a way to assist farmers in their response to climate change. Both sources of climate information networks are available in the same region but there does not yet exists a study on how the Science Field Shops and the Integrated Crop Calendar are used and evaluated by farmers. For the further development of climate information as a way to assist farmers in their farm management and response to climate change it is necessary to find out how the users (farmers) evaluate these climate information networks. Both the communication and development of climate networks are important factors in the analysis of its effectiveness and usability for farmers.

Research objectives This thesis research aims to understand how climate information and services are made, communicated and used as a way to get insight in how farmers use or like to use climate information networks in their response to climate change. The whole ‘process’ or ‘information network’ is taken into account to see where there are possible bottlenecks in the process and to evaluate how farmers can be reached best. The objective is to give an insight in the two different climate networks, to evaluate them and to see how the different parts are functioning. Next to looking into the processes, the role of the user (farmers in Indramayu) is an important factor to look into. How are the farmers making use of the network and why? The second objective is therefor to come forward with a clear picture of the farmer’s interpretation and use of the two approaches. The understanding of how and why farmers make use of climate information in their farm management is the most important objective because this can help in understanding how to move forward in assisting Indonesian farmers in their response to climate change.

Research questions How is climate information (Integrated Crop Calendar and the monthly Seasonal Scenario) that is available in Indramayu, constructed, communicated and evaluated?

Sub questions

• How do social processes influence the making of climate forecast/ information/advisories?

• How is climate information communicated and does this have an effect on if the information is used?

• How do farmers in Indramayu interpret, use and evaluate the climate information?

Methodology: a technographic research In general this research is build up as a technography. A technography can at is simplest be described as an ethnography of a technology (Jansen and Vellema 2011). Ethnographic research looks into human x human interaction. “Technography can be regarded as a descriptive social science of technology that examines human x machine/tool interaction” (Jansen and Vellema 2011). A technography is an interdisciplinary methodology in which in detail the use of skills, tools, knowledge and techniques in everyday life can be studied (Jansen and Vellema 2011). Technography is derived from the Actor Network Theory (ANT), it pushes beyond the traditional ANT approach in which there is much focus to see actors in the context of their environment (Kien 2008). In a technography there is more emphasis on how technology is influencing the social relations. Kien (2008) describes that what a traditional approach like the ANT can’t describe a technography can, which is: “the intimacy of technology, the relationships

16 and feelings it is bound up in, and the understanding that technology contributes dynamically and dramatically to the performance of everyday life rather than one dimensionally serving as its backdrop and container”. It is the contribution of the climate information to daily life of farmers that is very interesting and therefor this methodology will be used.

A technography is not a methodology on itself, other theories and methods will be used for this research as well. It however can give an insight into the performance of climate networks, for example the effects of the different kind of information streams. The three dimensions that are the bases of a technographic research are similar to the three main research questions of this research. The dimensions will form the basis of the theoretical framework and will be supported by other theories. The three dimensions of making, distributed cognition and the construction of rules will be further explained in the chapter on the theoretical framework.

The data collection for this research has been qualitative and a mix of semi structured interviews and observations that have taken place in the field. The three sub questions represent the three steps that are indicated in the main question. The main data collection has taken place in Indramayu (Indonesia), although some of the interviews took place somewhere else on Java. All the data has been collected between October 2013 and April 2014. In the next paragraphs the data collection and data analysis methods will be explained in more detail.

Informants and interview strategy

For this research the whole process of the two climate information networks have been analysed and therefore a wide range of informant’s have been contacted. In the research area, Indramayu Regency, farmers from different villages and different backgrounds have been interviewed. Both farmers that are members of the KPCH and farmers who are not related to the KPCH have been interviewed. At the regional level extension workers, pest and disease observers and other regional government officials have been contacted. In order to answer the first sub research question officers of the ministry of agriculture and the developers of the Science Field Shops have been contacted to get insight in the making of climate information. In total 42 interviews have taken place with 31 informants. The informants have been selected with help of the research team on agrometeorological learning of the University of Indonesia and the members of KPCH. New contacts came forward from the different interviews and in this way for each step people have been interviewed.

The interviews have been semi structured but based on a list with interview questions. The list with questions and topics was moderated when new information came available but stayed the same in essence. Sometimes interviews took place in a more formal setting, making an appointment and welcomed officially by owner of the house. Other times information came forward during informal talks after dinner. Field visits usually lasted a couple of days, then I stayed at the house of one of the KPCH members. Often friends and family of the host came visiting, sometimes resulting in interesting informal talks relevant for this study.

In the field I was always working together with one or two Indonesian students working on their bachelor thesis. They acted as my translator and guide next to their own research activities. They were very familiar with the research area and helped me with contacting farmers and government officials for interviews and arranged a place to stay the night. As I am not able to speak the local language or ‘Bahasa Indonesia’ their role has been very important for the data collection.

Observing

Observation was also an important part of my research strategy. During meetings related to the Science Field Shop (training of trainer and the monthly meeting of the rainfall observers club) I observed and took notes of the process. These observations gave a good insight of what was going on within the KPCH and the most important struggles of the farmers. When staying in the villages I observed the farm activities and the measuring of the rainfall. This gave me an insight on how the farmers measure the rainfall and till what extent they base their decisions on the seasonal scenario. The observations continued during my stay at the farmer’s houses, discussions about planting time and traditions gave me a good insight into the culture of the different villages.

Data analysis

All the interviews (42) have been recorded and transcribed. A coding system has been developed to be able to collect all relevant information per topic. A differentiation has been made between interviews with farmers and different government officials, this has been done with the program Atlas.ti. Every interview has a number and an indication like, ‘farmer’ or ‘extension worker’. The codes with each interview are built up in the same manner, for example EW_Farmers_Knowledge_ICC. The code indicates that an extension worker has said something about farmer’s knowledge about the integrated crop calendar. Codes have been set together in atlas.ti to get an overview of the responses of the interviewees about a certain topic.

Chapter 3: Theoretical framework This research can roughly be split up in 3 topics or frameworks; the making, the communication, and the use of climate information or services. Those three phases together form a network of climate information, the research into this will be supported by different theories. Those theories will be explained in this chapter.

When looking into the topic of the climate information on more general terms it comes forward that “people filter and absorb climate information in terms of their prior assumptions and attitudes” (Roncoli 2006). It is necessary to keep in mind the cultural meaning that underlies famers understanding of climate. Both social and economic factors have an important role in farmer’s decision making. There are different factors that influence and shape decision making: lack of resources, social entitlement, livelihood needs and goals and cultural values. Risk is another important factor, farmers face significant risks associated with putting (climate) information to use. When using the information to plant a different crop variety it can have great rewards but it can also be very costly (Patt and Gwata 2002). For the communicators of information, and probably to a greater extent for those who deliver a service, reputation is very important when communicating climate related information. “Reputations of trust are difficult to build and easy to destroy; if users perceive the forecast communicator as having been wrong in the past, then unless there is also an existing track record of being right, it is unlikely that the communicator will be trusted” (Patt and Gwata 2002:186). But what is communication? Communication is a process in which people exchange meanings (Leeuwis and Van den Ban 2004). In the light of the ‘prior assumptions’ of the receiver that is described above, I would like to introduce the ‘receiver- oriented model of communication’ as an example of a simple communication model, (Dervin 1981) cited in (Leeuwis and Van den Ban 2004). This model will show the basic principles of communication in an extension setting. Within this communication model there is a ‘sender’ which puts together a ‘message’ and sends it through a ‘channel’ to a ‘receiver’ (Leeuwis and Van den Ban 2004). This is in a nutshell a communication model in which information is wrapped in a message and send to the receiver. What needs to be taken into account as well is that the receiver will receive the message in its own context and will interpret it considering its own background, prior assumptions and attitude. This interpretation of the information that is send can mean that the receiver understands the information different then the sender had in mind. How information is interpreted is something the sender should consider when composing its message. When feedback is given the communication scheme is reversed but still a difference can occur between what is meant by sender and interpreted by the receiver of the message. Figure 1 shows the receiver oriented communication model in which the message is wrapped (or encoded) in a different life world then where it is interpreted (or decoded). This can cause misunderstanding between sender and receiver. A sender should anticipate on the life world or frame of reference of the receiver, this is however a difficult task. The model is chosen as an example to illustrate how communication works in essence; in later chapters it will become clear that there are a lot of difficulties in communication climate information.

Figure 1: Receiver-oriented model of communication (Leeuwis and Van den Ban 2004)

Climate information, models and predictions will always know a level of uncertainty, question is how farmers and communicators deal with this limitation with regard to reputation and trust. The analysis of the data in this research is supported by a set of different theories. To be able to answer the different research questions different theories will be introduced. Those theories together will form the theoretical framework and help to analyse the data. The concepts ‘social carriers of technology’ and ‘the social creation of knowledge’ will be described first and will help to give an insight on the reasons why techniques are chosen and what constraints there are limiting the usefulness of forecasts. These concepts will be guiding in this research and supported by other concepts.

Social carriers of technology and the social creation of knowledge Climate information is shared with farmers in Indramayu through different information channels and the information comes from different sources. To keep the concepts and definitions around climate information clear the following definitions will be used when looking into climate networks: Stigter and Winarto (2013a) explain the term ‘information’, when used in meteorology/climatology, as passive in the sense that it does not say anything about how the information can best be used. This can for example be a raw weather forecast or a climate prediction. When next to the information it is also indicated how the information can be used this can be called ‘advisories’. This does however not indicate that there is communication between sender and receiver. The monthly seasonal scenario that is spread among some farmers in Indramayu can be called an agrometeorological advisory, because it is more client/user friendly. When there is a dialog between farmers and extension, and farmers are assisted to use the advisories like it is happening in the climate field shops this is called a “climate field service” (Stigter and Winarto 2013a).

When comparing two information networks it is interesting to look into the concept of social carriers of technology. Edquist and Edquist (1979) have theorised in their article ‘social carriers of techniques’. They define social carriers as a social entity which chooses and implements a certain technique. There are different types of social carriers and conditions that need to be fulfilled.

Conditions for a technique to be chosen and implemented

1. A social entity that has an interest in choosing and implementing the technique must exist. 2. This entity must be organized to be able to make a decision. 3. It must have the necessary social, economic and political power to materialize its interest; i. e., to be able to implement the technique chosen. 4. The social entity must have information about the existence of the technique. 5. It must have access to the technique in question. 6. Finally, it must have, or be able to acquire, the needed knowledge about how to handle the technique. (Edquist and Edqvist 1979)

There is a difference in definition between a ‘technique’ and a ‘technology’: A ‘technique’ can be defined as the means to reach a goal. These are the material elements like tools and machines. A ‘technology’ can be defined as the techniques plus the knowledge that is needed to use and manage the technique (Edquist and Edqvist 1979). When using these definitions a question might be if the integrated crop calendar is a technique or a technology. That is dependent on the way in which it is communicated.

The theory on social carriers contains the basic conditions for a technology to be used. Checking if the climate information is fulfilling the six conditions is one of the steps that will help to analyse the dissemination and the use of this information. Next to these six conditions Patt and Gwata (2002) state that however the precision of predict seasonal rainfall has improved it also knows it constraints with regard to the effectiveness. According to them there is a set of six constraints limiting the usefulness of forecasts: credibility, legitimacy, scale, cognitive capacity, procedural and institutional barriers, and available choices. Those have, as explained below, not only to do with the people who receive information but also trust in the communicators plays a role.

Credibility has mainly to do with the reputation of the communicator and can have a big influence on how receivers evaluate the information. “Legitimacy constraint arises when users question the political agenda of the communicators”, for example when the advice would benefit one group disproportionally more than the other. Scale can be another limiting factor when the communicated information is on a large regional level and lacks specifics for the local level. Downscaling of climate information remains at

20 this moment difficult because precision is limited. Clear communication about the limited skill of the information is therefore very important. The cognitive ability of the receivers is another limitation, when information is not understood correctly it will be use wrongly. Simplifying information or education about the right interpretation can be part of the solution. “The procedural constraint arises when standard operating procedures stand in the way of using the new information”. This can be for example the procedures that are used before information ends up by the farmers. Due to different time schedules information that could help in deciding which variety to plant, arrives after seeds have been sown. Choice is the last limiting factor, except from the question if the information communicated contains enough new information, there are other factors that limit choice. Is the farmer able to take decisions, or would a decision other than normal be hampered by social factors? Risk is an important factor in this, self- sufficient famers might rather choose for a safe decision, planting a crop that has a low risk, instead of taking a chance of a failed yield by experimenting (Patt and Gwata 2002). These key constraints and the social carriers of technology together form the basic requirements for a climate information network or stream to be effective. These are not the only factors that play a role in the effectiveness but without these factors the network might lose its effectiveness. The making of climate information is a complicated and difficult process for which a lot of knowledge is needed. The interpretation of the produced information still requires a certain level of understanding, step 6 in the box. Therefore the communication of the information is an important step. The puzzling question is: are all steps fulfilled in the two cases of climate information?

In the case of the integrated crop calendar the government has chosen to spread certain information with the intention to help the famers with making decisions in farm and crop management. If this advice is actually used is the farmers choice. Edquist and Edqvist (1979) conclude that techniques cannot in general be assumed to be neutral in relation to society. Choice means social consequences and at this point communication, local knowledge and trust becomes important. Question is who has the power to make decisions about farm management? And what are social factors that play a role in decision making? Do cultural or hierarchical factors play a role in the use of climate information? In the next paragraphs the production of climate information and the cultural components in the decision making of receiver of information will be theorised.

How climate information is created: Government and University The concepts above can be related to the complete network in which climate information is made, communicated and received. When specifically looking into the creation of knowledge or information, the ‘human aspect’ in the creation of information is interesting. To be able to unravel the process of ‘making climate information’ an analysis of the role of all the stakeholders involved need to be made. For the Seasonal Climate Forecast this will be mainly an analysis of how the information is constructed in a university/scientific environment. A university and a ministry will probably have different standards and methods. Who decides, what information is used, and why? For the Seasonal Climate Forecast this is a process which mainly concerns Kees Stigter and Yunita Winarto. However they share climate information as a service and it is discussed in the Climate Field Shops with the farmers. The making and dissemination of information are in this case very closely related.

The Actor Network Theory (ANT), developed by Bruno Latour (Latour 2005) and explained in Dankert (2011), can assist in explaining the creation of climate information. ANT focuses on the connection between human and non-human entities and can help as a method to look into connections and how these lead to the creation of new entities or change. Key is that entities (human or not) have an influence on their surrounding and that they have an influence on each other, during interaction or connections other actors change. The relevance for this research is that it can help to look into the connections of the different actors involved in the process of making climate information. What is mainly relevant for this research is what the outcomes are of those networks of actors. In other words focusing on what exactly happens in the network in which climate information is made will be very difficult, the outcome of this network is easier to see and to analyses.

The Integrated Crop Calendar is developed by research department of the Indonesian agency for agricultural research and development (part of the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture). This is a bureaucratic institute that produces climate information in an ongoing network of which the Integrated Crop Calendar is the outcome which is different each time. The information to make the calendar comes from different sources but mainly the BMKG (Indonesian national weather institute). The role of the different institutions and decision making structures within the Ministry of Agriculture has an influence on

21 the making of the planting calendar. The flow of the collection of data for the making of the planting calendar is important to understand. In order to come to a product, in this case a calendar all actors in the network have to slightly change in order to make connections with the other actors. This is called ‘translation’ and is necessary to be able to become part of a network. The climate information needs to flow to another network, in this case the network of the communicators and sometimes directly to the users. Within the network attention must be paid that the form in which the information is put can be understood by the users.

The different factors that are described in the previous paragraph might also be of help for analyzing the making of climate information. The six constrains for the effectiveness of climate information described by Patt and Gwata (2002) can also be used from the angle of the makers. Till what extend take the producers of climate information these constrains into account. What are their motivations for spreading the information (Food security? Protection of livelihood? Scientific research?) and does this influence the way information is constructed and presented.

So far the theory mainly focused on the making of information and the conditions and limitations of its use. In the next paragraph the step will be made toward action or the actual use of information, from knowing to applying the knowledge.

Adaptation by the individual and the community One of the first things that became clear during my fieldwork in Indramayu region was how much the villages differ from each other in the local traditions and practices. The members of the KPCH are spread over a large area where rice farming is the dominant form of agriculture. This diversity is an important factor to take into account when looking into the use of climate information by farmers living in Indramayu. To be able to answer the third research question which is related to the use and interpretation of the two types of climate information sources I will use two concepts. The concept of community based adaptation will help to look into how community and culture play a role in the adaptation of new technologies. The concept ‘skilling’ will put more focus on how farmers develop the ability to perform with a (new) technology under variable conditions (Stone 2007).

Community based adaptation

Ensor and Berger (2009a) look into the role that culture and community have in the life of the individual. They want to show ‘the importance of culture to individual wellbeing and second the limits that culture places on the freedom of individuals and communities to embrace change’. Both the Science Field Shops and the Indonesian government’s Integrated Crop Calendar inform farmers about climate change and changing weather patterns. With the help of the concept of community based adaptation I want to look into the use and effectiveness of both projects. Do culture and community have an influence on the use of climate information and how is this influence shaped. Stone (2007) also emphasize the social component in the adaptation of new technologies by farmers, for example looking what the neighbours are doing in their field. Adaptation of technology is not just acquiring information about it but “farmers developing the ability to perform with a technology under variable conditions; this will serve as a definition of agricultural skilling” (Stone 2007). Farmers need to learn and experience how a technology, like climate information or services work for them in their circumstances. The external factors like community rituals, availability of irrigation water and pest population are different or at different times each season and therefor the ways in which new technologies are applied differ. Farmers need to find out how something new, like the seasonal scenario, fits into their daily and seasonal routine.

Ensor and Berger (2009a) state that “culture has an important role to play in the process of adaptation”. Culture is described as ‘a total way of life’ or all the activities and products of a given social group. The group has its own functioning and values. Climate change might be one of the factors that forces a social group and individuals to change livelihoods or patterns in daily life. With taking community and culture into consideration Ensor and Berger (2009a) take a next step when looking into the use of information sources and climate adaptation. Looking into the concepts of ‘culture, community and adaptation’ the question raises how culture and community shape change at both individual as well as community level. Like the title already states Ensor and Berger (2009a) suggest that the solution for adaptation must be sought within the community itself, working with communities to identify problems and solutions instead of offering readymade packages. “Rooting the process of adaptation in communities allows important communal practices to be identified and used to facilitate change from within, rather than attempting to

22 force change from without (Ensor and Berger 2009a:231)”. In the light of what is happening in Indramayu at the moment it is interesting to take these factors into mind when looking into the functioning and use of the different climate information networks. The approach toward the communities in Indramayu differs and is therefore interesting to compare.

A person usually makes decisions and plans/goals based on existing social forms of behaviour widely practiced in his society (Ensor and Berger 2009a:229). The effects of a same activity will also have different effects on individuals depending on their social practices. Successful adaptation in one village will not necessarily work in another. The way that individuals and communities respond to (prospective) change can differ on how and why the change is happing. Important remains that farmers can develop their skill (skilling) when new opportunities in the form of technologies like climate information arise. Being part of the Science Field Shops requires often changing agricultural practices as well as daily changing schedules. For the farmers the integrated crop calendar is a looser and more informal kind of information. In chapters 5 till 7 I will put the concepts described above next the seasonal scenario and the integrated crop calendar to see if it becomes clear what factors have a part in the adaptation to climate change for farmers in Indramayu.

The three dimensions of a technographic research In the methodology technograhpic research was already introduced. In short it is the study looking into the human and tool interaction. In this paragraph the three dimensions of a technographic study will be explained shortly on the bases of the article by Jansen and Vellema (2011).

The first dimension is about making or doing, the analysis of this process is focused on the performance. It is about observing a process rather than only relying on interviews. Research within the dimension of making “may start with a description of the material and social circumstances of technological practices and their relationships” (Jansen and Vellema 2011:171). When studying the making it does not only involve the direct outcomes like economic and social outcomes, also the indirect effects are important. It makes little sense to talk about technologies out of context. “Technography is about how and why the use of technology serves human purposes and shapes everyday life” (Jansen and Vellema 2011:171). Jansen and Vellema (2011) refer in their article to the term situated action which means so much as every action taken depends on its material and social circumstances. This makes clear that both the material and social is of influence on how technology is used. A close look at the performance is needed, and therefore asking questions about how and why is not enough. Observation can help to see things that would not have become clear in an interview. Learning is for example not only done by listening, practice is a very important and careful observation of such process is therefore very important in understanding the making.

The second dimension is distributed cognition. Often no single person has all the knowledge about all the steps taken in the process of making. In the case of climate information different people and institutions are involved. Bringing different types of knowledge together, for example about climate change, can be challenging. In a technography it is the aim to see beyond the communication problems and look into the distributed cognition. How are tasks coordinated in a group and how is individual learning involved in this (Jansen and Vellema 2011). Not only the more formal learning that is indicated by individual progress is the interesting part for a technography. Question is if also unsupervised learning takes place. This will require to do research on a network, which will be a challenge.

The third dimension is the construction of rules. Sets of rules set by for example institutions can order social actions and practices. In an technographic research the focus lies not so much on how institutions impact actors but more in “how groups of actors use, construct or transforms sets of rules in the process of making” (Jansen and Vellema 2011). Within the context of this research it would be interesting to see how the rules of the rainfall observes club transform under the influence of advises of scientist, group dynamics and time.

The three dimensions together are the analysis that will give an insight into how techniques and technologies shape, use and impact social situation. The other elements that are part of the theoretical framework can all be put somehow under one of these dimensions. Therefore these dimensions are the general guidelines for this research while the other theories and concept make it possible to do a more detailed analysis.

Climate information as a technique or technology? When using technography as a starting point for analysing the Integrated Crop Calendar and the Seasonal Scenario the climate information in itself is seen a technique or technology. If a specific source of climate information can be defined as technique or technology depends on different factors. The main difference in the definitions used in this research is that a technique, the actual tools or machines, complemented with the knowledge that is needed to use it, is a technology. To define if a source of climate information is a technique or technology depends on the knowledge that is needed to use it.

To use and interpret climate information users need some basic knowledge. The sender of information cannot always expect that the user has all of this pre knowledge. When communication climate information it is important to present and communicate the information or service in such a way that it can be understood by the receivers.

Climate information in general can be seen as a technique (either with or without the knowledge on how to use it) because climate information in general can be seen as a tool to anticipate or adapt to climate events. I would rather like to see climate information as a technology because certain skills and knowledge are needed in order to interpret and use the information in the right manner. Understanding climate predictions/ models or scenarios and more importantly understanding the uncertainty is crucial if those kinds of sources are used in agriculture. The level of skill (or the ability to perform) that is needed to interpret and use climate information sources differs upon the source from very simple but limited forecast to very complex ones. There are however a few factors that need to be understood no matter the complexity of the information, the understanding of the uncertainty and limitations. ‘The precise implication of climate change remain unclear and therefore predictions of rainfall rates, the likely frequency of extreme weather events and regional changes in weather patterns cannot be made with certainty’ (Ensor and Berger 2009b).

One of the most important things that potential users of climate information/models/prediction or scenario’s should realize is that the information can be wrong. Just like the weather forecast can be wrong a climate prediction can be as well. The difference is that ‘climate’ refers to a longer time period and therefore making seasonal climate forecasts is also way more complex. Seasonal trends can be predicted up to two years ahead but shorter time scale of 3 months ahead is more reliable. Some seasonal forecast predict the expected daily rainfall and gives a percentage about the confidence of the information (Dessai et al. 2009; Ensor and Berger 2009b). Kees Stigter is against the use of expected daily rainfall in millimetres because besides the uncertainty, this again requires knowledge to interpret which many farmers in Indonesia lack. Only when farmers measure rainfall themselves they have an idea what 35mm rainfall on a day means for their fields (Stigter 2012). The observation of such measurements will give farmers the ability to interpret information containing such numbers. It is important to communicate the uncertainty in the forecast to the user. The scale of seasonal forecast is big, the more you zoom in on a map the more difficult it gets to predict with certainty besides it is easier to predict temperature than rainfall.

How the framework will be used The theories and concepts described above will form the basis for the analysis of the empirical data, together they will help to answer the research questions. The three dimension of a technographic research relate closely to the three sub questions of this research and will come back in the analysis of the making, communication and use of climate information networks. The other theories will be used to support the analysis of those three parts. The social carriers of technology of Edquist and Edqvist (1979) and the basic conditions for a technology to be used from Patt and Gwata (2002) will give a more general impression on why an information network is used or not. With the concept about skilling (Stone 2007) the actual use of the climate information networks and the learning that is involved will be analysed. Community and culture are very strong factors in Indramayu and the concept of Ensor and Berger (2009a) about community based adaptation will help to clarify the factors of influence on individual choice. Finally the Actor Network Theory (ANT) Latour (2005), will give a better insight into the making of climate information. What actors are involved and how are related to each other. The theories will be applied on either the whole network or specific parts of it, but together they will assist in the understanding of how climate information networks are made, communicated, used and what the bottlenecks are.

Chapter 4: Institution analyse Indonesia has a complex bureaucratic system composed of many different institutions. This chapter will give an overview of the institutions having some influence on climate related information in Indonesia, from the making till the end user. The working of these institutions plays a crucial role in the effective communication and use of Integrated Crop Calendar and in the possible future of the Seasonal Scenario. This chapter is an introduction for the next chapters in which the two climate networks will be described in detail. In this chapter the role of different institution and there relation to others will be explained and analysed. From each institute the English translated name as well as the Indonesian full name or abbreviation will be given.

Indonesian National Weather Institute: Badan Meteorologi, Klimatologi, dan Geofisika (BMKG) The BMKG is the Indonesian National Weather institute and is a non-ministerial agency. It has the same position as a ministry but in a non-political way. The BMKG produces climate related information for a wide range of sectors in Indonesia. Related to agriculture they produce two types of products concerning rainfall. The first is a monthly product which predicts rainfall up to 3 months ahead and second a seasonal forecast that is released twice a year, before the onset of the dry and the wet season. The monthly product indicates the probable value of the rainfall three months ahead as well as the characteristic of the rainfall. It gives an indication if the rainfall will be below normal, normal or above normal. The seasonal forecast gives a prediction of the onset of the season and the characteristic of the season and is presented twice a year on a press release meeting. The BMKG is of service for more than only the agricultural sector, other users of information from the BMKG are sectors/ministries of forestry, health, water resources, energy, fisheries, transportation and tourism. The chairman of the BMKG is reporting directly to the president of Indonesia.

The data of the BMKG comes from their own meteorological/climatological stations. The BMKG has 178 main stations throughout Indonesia. There are different categories of stations but they all at least measure the metrological parameters. Besides the stations there are about 160 automatic weather stations and 6000 automatic or manual rain gauges. The manual rain gauges are managed by volunteers, people from local government but also farmers. The current and historical data of these stations are combined together with (till a certain extent) international climate models. The international models are used to look for the big climatological driver like the El Nino and the sea surface temperature. However the own data of the BMKG forms the basis of every prediction or forecast made by the BMKG, other climate information like the NOAA is only used to look at the big climate drivers.

At this time the relation of the BMKG with other institutions is still quite strait forward, the BMKG provides either a forecast or raw climate data, but there is not much interaction with the users. There are at this moment no Figure 2: Global Framework for Climate Services (World feedback structures, only ‘serial Meteorological Organization 2011) handing’ of things. At the BMKG they try to move toward the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS), see figure 2. This framework is “an UN-led initiative spearheaded by World Metrological Organisation (WMO) to guide the development

25 and application of science-based climate information and services in support of decision-making in climate sensitive sectors. Thirteen heads of state or government, 81 ministers and 2 500 scientists unanimously agreed to develop the GFCS”. The BMKG is trying to work more accordingly to this approach by creating a user interface for each user group separately. The GFCS only exist since 2009 and the BMKG is still in an early stage of implementing this framework. In the future the BMKG wants more collaboration with the users of their products and more tailor made information solutions for the different user groups. As figure two is showing the aim is to create better access and use of climate information for users, within the BMKG this is still in a very early stage.

Research Institute for Agro-climate and Hydrology: Balai Penelitian Agro Klimat dan Hidrologi The Research Institute for Agro-climate and Hydrology or shortly agro-climate is a research institutes in Bogor is coordinated by the Centre for Research and Development of Agricultural Land Resources (BB SDLP) which fall again under the Indonesian agency for agricultural research and development (IAARD). The Indonesian name for this agency is ‘Badan Litbang Pertanian’. The IAARD is the ‘research arm’ of the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture. In total there are 11 research and development centres with each a different focus. These centres manage 15 research institutes, 3 research stations and 31 assessment institutions. One of the research institutes is the Research Institute for Agro-climate and Hydrology, this institute is among other responsible for the making and production of the Integrated Crop Calendar. The team of Mr. Aris Pramudia is responsible to make the Integrated Crop Calendar and communicate it till certain extend. The website contains all the calendars for all of Indonesia and is free accessible. The calendar can also be received by text message and the sms-centre for this is also managed by the agro climate office.

Assessment Institute for Agricultural Technology: BPTP These institutes are spread over the provinces of Indonesia and fall under the Indonesian agency for agricultural research and development (IAARD). These institutes are assigned with the task to research and assess new agricultural technologies and to disseminate the results. BPK3 (agency for food security and extension work) is for example working together and exchanging information with this institute. The BPTP is the partner of agro-climate and has a special team on working on the integrated crop calendar and climate change issues.

Agency for Food Security and Extension Work: BKP3 The Agency for Food Security and Extension Work (on district level) is an organisation working under the head of the regency. BPK3 in Indramayu has 3 departments: ‘food security’, ‘development of communication methodologies’ and ‘field staff and institutional development cooperation’. Figure 3 (on the next page) represents the organisation structure of the BPK3. One of the responsibilities is to develop methodologies for the extension workers of the BPP office (the Rural Extension Centre). BKP3 has a direct relation with extension workers and the BPP office, there is no hierarchy in the structure but the main task is to support the BPP.

Within the department of development of communication methodologies there is what they call an ‘extension worker in regency level’, this are experts that have the task to teach the extension workers in the district level. The BKP3 office is working together, or exchanging information with the BPP, the Research Institute for Agro-climate and Hydrology and BPTP (Assessment Institute for Agricultural Technology).

Head of BKP3

Secretariat

Development of Field staff and information and institutional Field of food security communication development methodologies cooperation

Sub-area of Sub-field of the Sub-field of development, availability & institutional methodology & distribution of food development extension

Sub-area of Sub-field of Sub-area of workforce information and consumption and food development and technology safety cooperation

Figure 3: Organisational Structure of BKP3. Copied and translated from a document received at an interview with one of the employees of BPK3.

Extension Workers: BPP Office Almost every sub-district in Indonesia has a BPP office, this is the Rural Extension Centre which is the office of the local extension workers. Field extension workers (PPL) are coordinated from the BPP office. A head extension worker is coordinating several extension workers, each extension worker is responsible for the guidance and assistance of several farmer groups. Extension workers are either volunteer, working for a company or working for the government.

Extension workers have the task to inform farmers about different agricultural topics and give guidance and advice. The Integrated Crop Calendar is one of the topics that the extension workers socialize to farmers.

Agencies for pest and disease observation: PPOPT and POPT PPOPT and POPT are both agencies that work on pest management. PPOPT stands for “Instalasi Pengamatan Pengendalian Organisme Pengganggu Tumbuhan (Instalasi PPOPT)” which means so much as the installation for management and observation of pests. The PPOPT is the more technical institute and the umbrella for the POPT (the agency for pest and disease observers) in about 5 regions. It is situated on the level between the regencies and province. Their task is to coordinate the POPT offices.

The POPT officers have different tasks and report to the PPOPT. The POPT officers in the field observe the pest population and make reports about it. The pest observer informs about the farmers needs and reports about it to the coordinator of the pest observers. The officers deliver pest control recommendations and warnings to the farmers and spread the Integrated Pest Management model.

The Climate team The climate team is a collaboration of different government institutions in Indramayu regency as a response to climate change, it was formed in 2013. Within the team 7 institutes (at the regency level) are working together, they include: department of agricultural, department of fisheries, department of water resources, department of forestry, agency of communication and information, department of environment, BPK3 (agency for extension workers).

Each department has a climate division working on climate change issues. In the past there were problems with coordinating all these different divisions and therefor the climate team was formed. Within the Climate team they work together on a common approach towards the effects of climate change. The coordination and the secretariat of this initiative are led by BAPPEDA (Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah), the regional planning board. BAPPEDA office was already aware of the role of each department and division and identified the 7 key institutes with the most relevant role toward climate issues. The climate team has just started and there are still improvements needed in the structure of the organisation and its effectiveness. At this point the climate team informs the BAPPEDA office. They have placed an information board which provides information about weather and climate conditions. Further the team started to identify what kind of policies should be made. The head of the climate team, Pak Budiharto explained that “to integrate the system itself it needs time. The most important things is that the climate team needs to build up, the image of the Climate Team, that everybody knows about it in Indramayu level. That is the most important thing”.

The idea is that the climate team will develop and prepare projects/ideas with regard to the response to climate change and present this to the Climate Forum. The Climate forum consists of the head of the regency and the head of each institution participating in the climate team. The climate team will give recommendations and advice with regard to climate change issues. The climate team has three parts/divisions, the technical team (working on the content), the secretariat (Management of the climate team from BAPPEDA) and the climate forum which is composed of decision makers.

Coordination between institutes The climate team is a first step in the direction of more coherent way of working on climate change issues in Indramayu regency. The system however remains very complex because every ‘link’ or institute has its own responsibilities and tasks. There is to some extent a flow of information, rainfall data are for example collected by the water management department and send to the POPT, which is forwarded again to the PPOPT. On the other hand there is no real communication in the sense that feedback about this information is exchanged, it is a one way communication process. The Indonesian government is working in a very linear way without close contact and discussion between different departments. In interviews with government officials it came forward that every institution or department is only responsible for part of the process. This is what I found quite typical for the work of the Indonesian government, coordination and communication was lacking between different departments and institutions. Everyone is doing as they are told without asking why. There are no rules or regulations on how to deal with situations in which it turns out something is not correct.

Good to know as well is that there are multiple sources of climate information circulating within the government institutions. The directorate general on food crops of the ministry of agriculture is responsible to inform the governor of province and the head of provincial agricultural office about the climate. Information from the BMKG is interpreted by the directorate and sends to the provinces and the provincial agricultural office. “This office distributes this information to the governor in the province level to anticipate about the climate condition and second to anticipate about the possibility of the pest outbreaks”. So while the directorate is interpreting BMKG information and translates it into understandable language to inform the governors, agro climate office is interpreting the information to make the integrated crop calendar. In an interview at the directorate general on food crops it became very clear how hierarchical and isolate the different government institutions work. I asked what the province and agricultural office where doing with information about for example potential pest outbreaks? Are they informing the farmers about this and how? The answer was short but clear: “that is their responsibility, not our responsibility”. The lady actually has no idea how the information the office send is used every season. She though the governor would share it with the head of the regencies but did not know for sure. I believe that this lack of knowledge and interest in what other departments or institutes

28 are doing is typical for a lot of Indonesian government institutes and one of the reasons why the communication of the Integrated Crop Calendar is so difficult.

The climate team in Indramayu is trying to get the coordination in the regency more clear and smooth but it is only up and running for a year now and still lacks the (financial) means to actually accomplish something at this moment. For a starter the climate team did not have a direct meeting with the extension workers yet because there is no budget. The extension workers are the only direct link to the farmers and therefore important in the communication to and with farmers. The ideal model of the climate team is a meeting in which climate information is discussed with all stakeholders including the district level. The climate team wants more direct distribution of information to the farmers through the extension worker. The extension workers fulfil a crucial role in the contact with farmers but also a lot seems to go wrong. There are three kinds of extension workers (volunteers, working for a company or working for the government) but the common factor seems to be that they are not well enough trained/educated to fulfil their job. The integrated crop calendar is for example only explained to the head of extension workers. At the other hand farmers have lost their trust in what the extension workers are saying and extension workers are afraid to be hold responsible if something goes wrong because of their advice. The extension workers are crucial in the current set up of the ministry of agriculture for the communication to the farmers. They however seem to be trapped in a vicious circle of high expectations farmers and government while actually they lack the education and reputation to really do their job well. For me it seemed that no one of the government officials was really feeling responsible for the training of the extension workers or that farmers receive the right information. The lack of cooperation between the different government institutions is one of the main problems.

Conclusion In this chapter I have explained the structure and tasks of Indonesian (government) institutions that have something to do with the response to climate change or the integrated crop calendar in Indramayu. This information is intended as background to better understand the analysis of the climate information networks in the coming chapters.

In 6 months fieldwork I still did not manage to get a complete and clear overview of the government’s structure of institutions. This has various reasons; at the one hand informants also did not have a clear overview and could not answer my questions, sometimes I also had the impression they did not want to give more detailed information. On the other hand the informants that could tell something had difficulties with explaining the structures of communication and the relationships or hierarchy between institutions. The difficulties I had with finding out how institutions relate to each other and the large number of institutions involved also shows that the organisation structure of the Indonesian government is in fact very complex, this complexity is also acknowledged by the informants themselves. It was also the case that there sometimes is a lack of interest in the organisation structure by the employees, the thought seems to be that if everyone just sticks to their specific tasks what needs to happen, happens. There seems to be a lack of interest to keep overview of what is happening and why.

The lack of coordination between institutes and the communication with the extension workers are crucial factors to look into if the Indonesian government wants to improve its assistance to farmers. I have met very enthusiastic people working for the government, but the bureaucratic system in which they work makes communication between different departments and institutes difficult. The Climate Team initiative is a step in the direction of more collaboration between institutes and really assisting the farmers of Indramayu in their response to climate change. In the coming three chapters the integrated crop calendar and seasonal scenario will be described and analysed in detail. This chapter can be used as a reference or seen as an introduction to those chapters.

Chapter 5: The making of climate information and services Climate information (services) finds its origin in a wide range climate models and other data. This chapter will elaborate on this first step of raw data toward a product that can be used and understood by farmers and policy makers. Like described in the introduction one source of climate information and one climate service will be used as a case to illustrate the flow of climate information and the strong and weak points in the process. The coming three chapters are all build up the same, first a description of the seasonal scenario followed by the analysis and after this the same for the integrated crop calendar. In each chapter a different topic will be discussed. In this chapter the making in climate information will be discussion followed by a chapters on the communication, the use of the seasonal scenario and the integrated crop calendar.

The making of the seasonal scenario Central for the science field shop is the seasonal scenario, this scenario is aimed at helping Indramayu farmers in their anticipation on climate change. In this paragraph the steps in the ‘making’ of the seasonal scenario will be described.

The Seasonal Scenario is based on the El Nino/ November 2013: Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Diagnostic “The season may be expected to develop Discussion from the National Oceanic and normally after a probable start in the second Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This is a week of November”. monthly prediction of the climate based on multiple models which have different assumptions. December 2013: "The season will continue to be at the wetter The ENSO prediction is based on 13 dynamic side of normal for December". models and 8 statistical models. The NOAA looks at this ensemble of models with different January 2014: assumptions and analyse how many of those "Continuing normal conditions at the wet side of models are indicating the same. So for example normal, with for the time the summary of May 2014 ENSO prediction is: being also a normal but perhaps relatively late “Chance of El Niño increases during the starting dry season". remainder of the year, exceeding 65% during February 2014: summer”. The percentage is referring to the "The seasonal scenario remains one of percentage of models that is indicating that there convection induced rains from the wet side of is a chance of El Niño. This is further explained as: normal to above normal rainfall". “The model predictions of ENSO for this summer and beyond are indicating an increased likelihood March 2014: of El Niño compared with those from last month”. "The rainfall must already have reduced into closer to normal and will possibly further reduce The certainty of the prediction is also indicated. to values at the lower end of or even below “There remains uncertainty as to exactly when El normal. The dry season may start relatively Niño will develop and an even greater uncertainty early and might well be really dry (is normal). as to how strong it may become. This uncertainty The skill of these scenarios is relatively low in is related to the inherently lower forecast skill of this time of the year". the models for forecasts made in the spring” (NOAA 2014). Figure 4: Examples of the Seasonal Scenario

This prediction is written in climatological language which requires some knowledge to be understood well. Kees Stigter is looking at this prediction monthly, interpreting what is written and comes up with a text or summary to be understood by the farmers on ‘how the season will behave the remainder of the season’. He looks at what is stated about the current season and if there are already indications for what the next season will bring. The certainty of the forecast is sometimes included in the seasonal scenario as well, for example when the skill of the prediction is still very low. Some examples of the seasonal scenario can be found in figure 4.

In the seasonal scenario percentages or numbers are never used because not all farmers understand them and therefor words are used to explain the likelihood of an event or to explain the intensity of the rain. Words often used are, ‘likely’, ‘very likely’ and ‘almost certain’. These words are also used in other situations and therefore more commonly used and heard by the farmers. Probability in words is easier to understand than probability in percentages for the farmers of Indramayu.

It still remains very difficult to give reliable predictions all the time. The precision of the forecasts is low and the weather unpredictable. In 2011 it happened that the seasonal scenario was wrong three months in a row. No model or person foresaw the overturning of an El Nino by a La Nina. So instead of the predicted ‘dry’ rainy season, there was lot of rain. It was a rare event and the NOAA only looks at the data and the models. There is no feedback system from the ground, therefore it took a while (in 2011) before the prediction was changed. More recently, last January the seasonal scenario indicated that the rainy season would be at the wetter side of normal. It turned out that there was a huge amount of rainfall (up to 1300mm in that month) and houses and paddy fields were flooded. For some weather or climate events it is just not possible to predict them at the moment.

An analysis on the making the seasonal scenario In this paragraph the Actor Network Theory (ANT) as explained the chapter 3 and the dimensions of a technographic research will be used to further analyse the making of climate information form a theoretical perspective.

The Actor Network Theory focuses on the connection between humans and non-humans, how they have an influence on each other and how they form a network together. The Seasonal Scenario is developed in a clear organised network. The seasonal scenario is based on the NOAA prediction that is available each month, interpreted by Kees Stigter and translated and send to the KPCH members by Yunita Winarto. The actors in this network do all have their own clear role. Kees Stigter is depending on the NOAA prediction that becomes available online each month. His interpretation of the NOAA data will be summarized in a one sentence scenario that will be translated and send to the members of KPCH. The users, the members of the KPCH, are kept in mind very well. The format of the seasonal scenario is developed for them. The monthly meetings are taking place to assist the farmers in their understanding of the scenario, Yunita Winarto will be present at those meetings. This is of course also a good example of the second dimension of a technographic research, ‘distributed cognition’. The member of the KPCH do not have the knowledge to be able to interpret and use a prediction of the NOAA, Kees Stigter does have this knowledge and an insight in what information is useful for the farmers. His scenario is translated by Yunita Winarto and because she is in close contact with the member she will send the scenario to the KPCH. Not one of the actors involved has all the knowledge that is needed in the whole process, the cognition is distributed and due to this strict division of tasks the end goal is reached, which is farmers learning and understanding of climate change and how to use and interpret climate information.

All actors, or entities when speaking in ANT terms, have their own role but are also influencing each other. The NOAA prediction is each month different and does not have the same precisions each month. This makes Kees Stigter’s job more difficult because he needs to not only give the farmers an idea about the intensity of the rainfall in the coming three months but also needs to indicate the precisions of this scenario. That is a difficult task because the precision of the scenario is not always the same, and a difficult concept to explain. Communication between Kees Stigter and Yunita Winarto is also essential in the process, but is mostly running smoothly even though being at different continents and time zones. The member of the KPCH are not only the receivers of the seasonal scenario, they also give feedback to Kees Stigter and Yunita Winarto about the seasonal scenario and the Science Field Shops as a whole. This is also an important part and task, because by looking at the points of improvement the Science Field Shops can be further improved. Close connections between maker and user, including the opportunity to give feedback, make that the structure of the seasonal scenario is very clear. Problems and mistakes are easy to lead back to the source. The strong point of the seasonal scenarios is its simple design specifically made for the user. The close connections, strict organisation and the great involvement of the end user in the evaluation of the product make that the seasonal scenario is constantly under review. This is a solid base for the making and development of the seasonal scenario.

The making of the Integrated Crop Calendar The integrated crop calendar (ICC) is a project of the Indonesian government in response to the effects of climate change for farmers and thus agricultural production. The Indonesian government is looking for a way to keep the production of rice high since it is the most important staple food of the country. This paragraph will explain how the integrated crop calendar is made.

The ICC is produced three times a year, at the start of the rainy season, transition season and dry season. The calendar is published a few weeks ahead of the start of the season, usually in early September, January and May. ‘Balai Penelitian AgroKlimat dan Hidrologi’ or in English the Research

Institute for Agro-climate and Hydrology in Bogor is responsible for the production and publication of the calendar. The calendar is build up in two parts, the rainfall prediction/ start of the season and an advisory part with regard to crop variety and fertilizer. In annex 1 an example of the Integrated Crop Calendar for one of Indramayu’s districts can be found, including an explanation of its content.

Data Input

The Research Institute for Agro-climate and Hydrology in Bogor is doing both research and produces knowledge, technology and information systems for policy makers, planners and implementers (Balitklimat 2014). The calendar’s main information is the planting time as shown in annex 1. It shows the planting information for the upcoming season, indicating the decadal to start planting and the potential area in hectares that could be planted in this season. The calendar also indicates if maize or soybean can be planted. The calendar not only shows the planting time for the coming season but also the seasons after that. This information is later on updated but meant for the farmers and governments long term planning. Further the integrated crop calendar contains advice on fertilizers, the combination and amount to use. This is followed by an indication of different threats, their intensity and the recommended variety to use. Threats that are taken up in the calendar for paddy are for example, flood and drought, pests like brown plant hopper, rats and rice stem borer. The calendar estimates the threat and gives a variety recommendation for the different threats. It is then up to the farmers to decide how they interpret the risk for their own fields. The threat recommendation is available for the crops paddy, maize and soybean. On the last page of the calendar it is indicated how much agricultural machines are available in the area and what would be needed if planted according to the calendar.

To make these recommendations Agro-climate needs different sources of information. The task of Agro- climate is to combine and analyse the information and bundle the advice in the ICC. Agro-climate is using different information sources of which the information of the BMKG, the Indonesian National Weather institute, is most important. The BMKG releases a monthly product which predicts rainfall up to 3 months ahead and a seasonal forecast that is released twice a year. These data are used by agro- climate to determine the start of the season and the rainfall characteristics. The prediction of the duration of the season will help to determine the advised varieties to plant for the farmers. It happens that the BMKG predictions are not ready in time, in that case the BMKG delivers the raw data to Agro- climate for interpretation. The timing of the ICC and the BMKG predictions are not well integrated and therefore the information input differs from season to season. For the ICC of the dry and the wet season agro-climate uses the seasonal prediction, for the second season or the transition season the monthly rainfall prediction will be used.

However the BMKG is the most important source of information with regards to the seasonal predictions, it is not the only source agro-climate is looking at. There are different international sources that are used like IRI Columbia and POAMA which is a model of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology forecasting the El Nino.

Other government institutions\ departments provide also input for the ICC. The Directorate General of Food Crop Protection (Ministry of Agriculture) has data about pest outbreaks and other hazards. Further there are different research institutes under the Indonesian agency for agricultural research and development (IAARD) that have the responsibility to inform Agro climate about their findings with regard to different crop varieties. The Indonesian Centre for Rice Research (Balai Besar Penelitian Tanaman Padi) is responsible to inform about rice varieties. The Indonesian Cereals Research Institute (Balai Penelitian Tanaman Serealia) gives input about the maize varieties and the Indonesian Legumes and Tuber Crops Research Institute (Balai Penelitian Tanaman Kacang-Kacangan dan Umbi-Umbian) informs about soybean varieties. Each of the different institutes has knowledge about the characteristics and vulnerabilities of the different crops and varieties available. They will help Agro-Climate in identifying which varieties are suitable under varying circumstances.

The ICC is available on different policy levels, from sub district till the national scale. In Indonesia there are 6911 sub-district, 510 regency/district/cities, and 34 provinces.

Analysis of making the Integrated Crop Calendar

The Integrated Crop Calendar is made by the Research Institute for Agro-climate and Hydrology in Bogor but the information input is coming from a lot of different other research institutes. All the entities together form a network that is producing the Integrated Crop Calendar to pass on to the next network, either farmers or extension workers from an Actor Network Theory perspective. The entities that work together on the Integrated Crop Calendar form a very complex network in which the entities have an influence on each other. How the information was collected and put together was an important question in the field but it also turned out to be a very complex one to answer. The number of actors involved was large and observing the process was unfortunately not possible but the interviews gave some insight into the complexities. The BMKG (Indonesian National Weather Institute) is the most important entity in the network because it makes the climate predictions that are used in the calendar. The BMKG is closely working together with the agro-climate team. Meetings between the two institutes are taking place and if necessary agro-climate gets data on rainfall (seasonal or monthly predictions) before official release dates. This close connection also shows the influence the institutes have on each other, the BMKG is accommodating agro-climate in their need for information at that moment. The other research institutes that deliver information, for example on fertilizer use and crop varieties, have a smaller and more advising role. Unfortunately it was not possible to speak to the people working at those other institutes, therefore I only got a general impression of this network of entities. Unfortunately a detailed analysis is not possible, but there are some things that stood out. Agro-climate takes the central position in this network because all the different kinds of information are collected at this institutes and it also takes the main responsibility in the development of the Integrated Crop Calendar. Looking into the constraints of effective climate information used by Patt and Gwata (2002) and the way in which the integrated crop calendar developed we see that the government has clear goals. The calendar is developed to guide farmers in their farming practices in order to increase production and food security for Indonesia. Farmers are however not consulted about their struggles or perceived lack of information. Agro-climate does its job by making a calendar and publishing it on their website, they are however not responsible or do not feel responsible to questions if this is an effective way of assisting the farmers of Indonesia.

Chapter 1 introduced five conditions that predictions need to fulfil in order to be useful and relevant for decision makers from Dessai et al. (2009). Those conditions were:

1. Predictive skill is known 2. Decision-makers have experience with understanding and using predictions 3. The characteristic time of the predicted event is short (no more than 3 months ahead and updated regularly) 4. There are limited alternatives 5. The outcomes of various courses of actions are understood in terms of well-constrained uncertainties

It has become clear that the integrated crop calendar is missing most of these basic requirements. The integrated crop calendar is already not following the first 3 conditions and that makes the last two difficult to assess. The predictive skill of the ICC is not known to the decision makers (farmers in this case). The ICC does not communicate about information sources or how the ICC is build up, also the skill of the prediction is not mentioned. No indication is made about how reliable or precise the information is. Second the decision makers should have experience and understanding of using the prediction but in with the ICC no instruction is included about use and interpretation. There is no training or information about how to use and interpret the information. Thirdly the characteristic time of the predicted event is not short as required. The ICC is published 3 times a year and gives a prediction for the whole season and is not updated in between. This is a long time span which decreases the precision of the predicted events. With the first 3 conditions already going wrong the other conditions are not even really relevant anymore. Like already discussed, the spread of the ICC is very limited in Indramayu and the ‘decision makers’, in this case the farmers have no clue what the ICC is or conclude that it is not relevant for them. It is a pity that the makers of this calendar do not put an effort in finding effective ways of communicating their calendar. The linear working method of the government makes that there is limited communication between the different institutions within the communication chain, there is no communication at all between the targeted audience and the makers.

In general I got the impression that agro-climate finds that it makes a great effort in making sure that the calendar is transferred to the next ‘network’ in the right manner. What I have seen is that agro-

33 climate does not realize the importance of the format in which the information is communicated to users. The ‘audience’ or user is not taken well into consideration, this is already shown by the lack of interest on how the calendar should be spread. For agro-climate a website and a text message service should be enough. These are methods that ask a lot of initiative and understanding of the farmers of Indonesia. Most farmers do not have a computer or know how to use one. Mobile phones are more wide spread, but in the field I have also met a lot of farmers without one. So in order to access the integrated crop calendar you need to make an effort in learning how to access the information. The audience is not kept in mind very well and agro-climate does not feel responsible for the further communication. It is what I found at many government institutes and departments. Agro-climate is responsible to make the Integrated Crop Calendar but has no clue or interest to make sure that the farmers know about it, use it and appreciate it. This might be the way the Indonesian government is working, but it lacks the insight into the further use of the product by its targeted users. This is a constrain for the effective use of the calendar and shows that this ‘network of entities’ working on the integrated crop calendar is not enough aware about how farmers in Indonesia and Indramayu specifically need to be assisted.

Conclusion The making of the Seasonal Scenario and the Integrated Crop Calendar (ICC) differs on a lot of aspects. Not only is the data input different, also the layout and content of the information/service differs day and night.

The seasonal scenario is designed for a specific context (the science field shops) and developed in a ‘client friendly way’ (Winarto and Stigter 2013). From the beginning the cognitive abilities of the KPCH members are taken into account together with the knowledge that a meeting will take place to facilitate the farmers learning. This is very different for the integrated crop calendar. The scale of the two projects is completely different, the ICC is a national project and one office in Bogor is making the calendars for all Indonesia’s 6911 sub-districts. Indramayu is just one of the 510 regencies in which the ICC is available. The seasonal scenario is on the other hand only available in Indramayu at this moment. At the agro climate office in Bogor no real attention is paid how farmers can be instructed in using the ICC, that is not the responsibility of this office and therefore not really relevant for them. In the making of the calendar the basic conditions for effective communication of climate information are not taken into account. This will make the actual communication of the ICC more difficult as we will see in the next chapter on communication of climate information. The conditions from Dessai et al. (2009) that a climate information source need in order to be used has been a guideline for a first analysis. We have seen a big difference between the ICC and the seasonal scenario. While the seasonal scenario scores good on all the conditions the ICC seems to lack far behind, already the first 3 conditions are not fulfilled which makes the other two not even relevant anymore. The big differences between the seasonal scenario and the ICC have become clear, mainly in working method and approach in the making of climate information sources is completely different. While the seasonal scenario is designed for the farmers of Indramayu the ICC is part of a large government project with as main goal to increase food security. The ICC lacks the personal connection between user and producer, basic guidelines like those of Dessai et al. (2009) are not followed. The connections between different networks have come forward in the Actor Network Theory, it became clear that there are only a few actors involved in the making of the seasonal scenario while there are many actors in the network of the ICC. The number of actors involved and the way in which they work together are important factors of influence on the end product. While the makers of the seasonal scenario are very considered about the next step in the process and keep the end result in mind the makers of the ICC do not seem to consider how their product should be communicated. While I think the seasonal scenario can be considered as a flow of information (a service) the ICC is fragmented in separated processes. The fragmentation shows the lack of communication between involved institutions, especially the ones that are responsible for the communication, as we will see in the next chapter.

What we have seen in this chapter is that the making of climate information and the format or design in which it is put, already makes a lot of difference. The differences between the integrated crop calendar and the seasonal scenario are already in this phase very significant and will become only greater when we are going to look into its communication and use in the next chapters.

Chapter 6: Communication The communication method of ‘information’ or a ‘service’ is very different in the case of the Integrated Crop Calendar and Seasonal Scenario. This chapter will explore the difference in communication methods of the two cases. The question of this chapter is not only how communication takes place but also how the information is received. What do the farmers think about the communication methods and do they appreciate the information. How is the method of communication evaluated by the recipients?

Communication of the seasonal scenario The communication of the seasonal scenario is organised in a very structured manner (see figure 5). Kees Stigter receives the NOAA ENSO prediction at the beginning of the month and will make the seasonal scenario shortly after that. The farmers will receive the seasonal scenario mostly in the first or second week of the month. Once Kees Stigter finishes the seasonal scenario he will send the English version to Yunita Winarto. She will translate the scenario in Indonesian language and send it to the KPCH coordinators by text message (SMS).

There are agreements between the members of the KPCH and Yunita Winarto on how the Seasonal Scenario is disseminated. Yunita Winarto will send the translated seasonal scenario to the zone coordinators of KPCH. There are 6 zone coordinators within the KPCH and they are the contact point for the farmers in their region. The zone coordinators are responsible to forward the scenario to the other farmers in their region. After this it is up to the member themselves if they share the scenario further. Some of the farmers communicate the seasonal scenario to family members and friends. Not all farmers have their own field or they measure the rainfall in someone else’s field because their own fields are far away. In this case farmers will sometimes share the scenario with the owner of the field. Some farmers also forward the scenario to extension workers in their village or even the regional Climate Team. The way the KPCH member share the scenario can differ. Some simply forward the text message while others just explain face to face the content of the scenario.

Yunita Winarto KPCH members translates and Coordinators share the Kees Stigter sends scenario send scenario scenario with send English friends, family, to farmer to all KPCH version to UI neighbours, coordinators members government (KPCH) officials.

Figure 5: Flow of the Seasonal Scenario

After sending the text message the communication with the farmers does not stop. The Science Field Shop is a climate service therefore interaction with the users of the scenario is important. During monthly meetings the members of KPCH come together with the researchers of the University of Indonesia (UI) mostly existing of Yunita Winarto, sometimes Kees Stigter and a mix of bachelor/master/PHD students. They report their rainfall data but there is also lots of opportunity to ask questions, for example about the scenario. If the questions cannot be answered directly, Yunita will inform Kees Stigter and ask for clarifications. The team of UI is the intermediary between agro- meteorologist Kees Stigter and the farmers. Once or twice a year Kees Stigter will visit the field and questions can be asked directly. This is all part of the service that is given with the seasonal scenario. There is input and action required from both sides to be a successful member of the KPCH.

How is the message received?

Being a member of KPCH is not just receiving a text message once a month, it requires an active attitude, measuring rainfall and attending meetings. The members are however in general very positive about the interaction with the research team and the seasonal scenario. Pak Abas explained that “to get good interpretation you must learn”. This is related to the learning that is needed to interpret the scenario and make anticipations in their own field. The learning is very important in the SFS and the interaction during the monthly meeting makes that possible. Some farmers also compare the seasonal scenario with information they receive from extension workers in their village. Pak Karwita states that “the scenario

35 from Pak Kees is better because it is more detailed” and it is also send on a regular basis, not just once or twice a year. Pak Kanadi is still a young farmer and explained that he still has a bit difficulty with understanding the seasonal scenario, he does not use it yet to anticipate in his fields. The meeting gives him the opportunity to learn from other farmers. This is an important effect of being a member of KPCH, the farmers come from all over Indramayu, not just a small area. The farmers talk about their experiences in their village and learn from each other. A good example of this is Pak Ata who told that in ‘his own village no one would listen to him because he is low educated’, he did not finished primary school. Within the KPCH this is different he explained, everyone is learning and the farmers listen to each other. Pak Ata is eager to learn but not so confident about his own abilities, another farmer convinced him to join a workshop on digital graph making and at the end he really enjoyed it.

It is for the seasonal scenario impossible to simply look at how the scenario is received by the farmers. There is the whole context of the services which makes it much more than simple sending a piece a text with information about rainfall. Clear is that the member of KPCH are in general happy with their learning and education within the KPCH. Active member have to put time and effort in their learning, measuring rainfall daily and attending on meeting, for some farmers this is too much to combine with the rest of their activities. The next chapter will elaborate more on the learning of the farmers and their evaluation of the content of seasonal scenario.

An analysis on the communication of the Seasonal Scenario The communication of the Seasonal Scenario is more than just sending a text message with a scenario. Some factors need to be taken into account in order to effectively communicate with the people you like to assist with your information. Like the farmers of KPCH already indicated, they need to make in effort in their learning and the seasonal scenario is part of this learning process. The members of the KPCH have an open attitude towards outside information and their efforts as a member and farmer are guided by the seasonal scenario. Most farmers speak very positive about being a member of KPCH and the seasonal scenario they receive. Some of the constraints that Patt and Gwata (2002) introduce also have to do with the communication of climate information and its acceptance by the recipients, for the seasonal scenario these are, credibility, legitimacy, scale and cognitive ability. They are actually formulated negatively but if we look from a different perspective and turn it around those constraints, or the lack of them, show why the seasonal scenario is received so positively by the member of KPCH.

Communication is not just about sending information, the recipient also must be willing to listen to your advice, this has to do with the interest of the recipient and credibility issues concerning the sender. The seasonal scenario is a good example in which the communication lines between producer and user are short. The members of the KPCH know who Kees Stigter is, this close connection combined with the monthly meetings with other farmers and scientist make that there are no credibility or legitimacy issues. Those constraints can be related to a lack of trust in the source or an expected hidden agenda. Due to the open communication within the SFS the farmers indicate that they have trust in the seasonal scenario. Experience has learned the farmers that the seasonal scenario relevant and gives valuable information about the intensity of the rainfall in the coming season. However it did happen that the scenario gave the wrong information, farmers have not lost their trust because they have learned that scenarios not always have the same level of reliability. There are also no cognitive constraint issues because the language used in the scenario is chosen so that all farmers will be able to understand it and the monthly meetings give ample opportunity to ask questions. Interpretation of the scenario and the making of farm decisions based on the scenario is the subsequent step and will be discussed in the next chapter. The issue of ‘scale’ is a bit more complicated, the seasonal scenario is intended for a small group of farmers all living in Indramayu regency. The scenario is however based in climate models that are applicable on a much larger area. The precision of forecasts is not jet good enough that a specific seasonal climate model exists. The precision of the scenario is therefore something that needs to be carefully communicated to the farmers. This is going quite well but remains a difficult point. The members of KPCH do their own rainfall observations to get a better insight into what are normal rains in their field. So even though there are scale and precision issues within the SFS they are solved due to good communication about this precision to the farmers in understandable language. In general the communication of the seasonal scenario runs smoothly, scaling up to reach more farmers is the biggest issue.

Access and dissemination of Integrated Crop Calendar The Integrated Crop Calendar (ICC) is made for policy makers as well as for farmers. The idea is that the calendar is actively spread among farmers by extension workers but also that it is accessible for everyone by internet or phone. There are multiple ways in which the ICC is communicated, both passive and more active ways.

The website and sms service centre

The agro-climate office focuses in the first place on accessibility of the ICC and not so much on active communication. Agro-climate in itself is not actively communicating the information but informs about where the information can be found. The ICC can be accessed through the internet and by mobile phone. The website is the most important access point for everyone who is interested in the ICC, also extension workers and officers of BKP3. The sms-centre is set up for the people who are not able to access the ICC through internet. Like agro-climate puts it; ‘internet is a public domain and therefore everyone can access it’. The website contains an Integrated Crop Calendar for each sub-district that can be opened in a pdf file. The website enables you to navigate through the different administrative levels and look up the calendar for your own sub district. The information can be opened in a pdf file and printed out if necessary. The website is also used by extension workers and the officer of BPK3 to update them about the ICC.

The sms centre is developed for people who do not have access to internet, assuming that they do have a mobile phone. A text message, in special format, can be send to the special phone number of agro- climate. If the message contains the right format and spelling, INFO KATAM and the administrative name of the area, a message is send back with the short version of the ICC included. For this communication the calendar is split up is 3 topics that can be requested separately; calendar, fertilizer and crop variety. It is an easy system but it has its weak points. The spelling and format of the message must be correct otherwise the computer system is not able to send something back. This still goes wrong quite often according to the agro-climate office.

The website of the Integrated Crop Calendar and the sms centre are promoted through the official government websites and through advertisements, for example in the train and on television but agro- climate also puts a great responsibility on the extension workers for spreading the ICC.

The role of the Extension Worker

Agro climate is not only disseminating the ICC through the website and sms centre, BPTP (Assessment Institute for Agricultural Technology) is a direct partner. A link to the website of the ICC can be found on the website of the BPTP with a short recommendation. “Katam (ICC) is useful for planning planting time, farmers reduce losses of yield and determine the potential of the crop every season and crop rotation” (Administrator 2011). Extra information used to be placed on the webpage, however the latest version dates from 2011. BPTP has the responsibility to inform the extension workers about the integrated crop calendar. Pak Aris of the agro climate office explained: “the BPTP gives the socialization to the extension workers about Integrated Crop calendar, to the extension workers in district and sub district”. The field extension workers sometimes also attend on meetings with BPTP but otherwise the (head) extension workers need to inform the other staff members. There is no special meeting at the BPTP to inform the extension workers in the field. The Agency for Food Security and Extension Work (BPK3) has a clearer role in the dissemination of climate information in general and the Integrated Crop Calendar. The head of the Climate Team, Pak Budiharto explains clearly that “if there is climate information, they will receive that information from BMKG and send to BPK3 and BPK3 they will prepare the extension workers to disseminate that information”. The role of BPK3 is the same with regards to the ICC, extension workers have the task to disseminate this kind of information. There is no clear coordination who and how you should train and inform the local extension workers on the ICC. Again the fragmented responsibilities and lack of overall coordination becomes clear.

The extension workers have the task to help farmers by answering questions and socialize the information of the ICC to the farmers. The extension workers that I have spoken to had mixed levels of knowledge about the ICC, but all complained about the lack of instruction from their supervisors. The extension workers are the information brokers between the government and the farmers but their training on the ICC is only minimal. An extension worker in Sukra district, Indramayu explained that he

37 knows about the integrated crop calendar but that he did not get any training or decent instructions about it. On own initiative extension workers sometimes access the internet to inform themselves about the new ICC for the coming season but not all extension workers have a computer or skills to do that. Some are also reluctant to give the ICC to the farmers directly because the extension worker is afraid that he as the messenger will be held responsible if it turns out the ICC does not give good advice. It is a complex situation in which extension workers sometimes indirectly tell the farmers the content of the calendar wrapped up in another story. That is probably also why only very few farmers in Indramayu have heard about the ICC and even fewer have actually saw one. The farmers who know about the ICC that I spoke to have never applied the information because it was not suitable for their fields or the information came too late. This data from Indramayu were quite unexpected after all the good stories that I had heard at the agro climate office. In the analysis of these topics at the end of this chapter more about the division of responsibilities and the communication problems with the ICC.

Extension workers do often ask pesticide companies to sponsor a socialisation meeting. In return these companies promote their products. In the case of natural fertilizer or organic pesticides this is not so much a problem, the chemical pesticides do harm the environment because they are used on great scale. The role of the extension worker during a socialisation meeting is therefor sometimes very small. I attended on a socialisation meeting in Sumbon and during that meeting the extension workers gave a short introduction to the Legowo planting system. The rest of the meeting the representative of the fertilizer company explained about his product and sold it to the farmers. I was very surprised that some farmers bought the product right away and had the money directly with them. In this case the products were organic but when asking around I found out that it is going in the same way when chemical pesticide company are present.

Farmer and extension worker interaction

Extension workers often have quite a large area under their responsibility (2 or 3 villages) and multiple farmers groups. Complains heard of the farmers are that you need to personally know the extension workers if you want to get programs or advise for your area or farmers group. Till a certain extent it also has to do with trust and understanding between extension workers and farmers. Pak Condra gave a good explanation of this: ‘in the first place you need be member of a farmers group otherwise government programs will not reach you. Second the farmers group needs to build up a relation with the extension worker’. This is a process that is working two ways, farmers need to have trust in what the extension worker is telling them but at the other hand the extension workers feel limited in their power.

Extension worker Pak Russil wondered if being an extension worker would not have been a lot easier during the Suharto era (1967-1998)? “Then you could just tell farmers what to do, now you need to convince them”. Extension workers have an advising or recommending role on topics like paddy varieties and planting time but the decision lies with the farmers. Pak Russil finds it sometimes a challenge to manoeuvre between the expectations of his employer and the farmers choices. The extension workers can have a limited advisory role in some villages where local traditions are central in the decision making. In some villages in Indramayu, like Sumbon, the Javanese calendar (traditional calendar) and rituals like ‘sedekah bumi’ (indication of the start of the season) are still very important factors. In those cases the extension workers have limited room to manoeuvre with regards to information about the start of the season. In other villages those rituals are not or less relevant and that gives extension workers more room for dialogs about these topics with the farmers. The role of the extension worker has great potential in facilitating the farmers in their learning and understanding of climate change and adaptation to this. At this moment however the extension workers lack understanding, training and credibility to really help farmers to adapt to a changing climate.

In the end I only did find a few farmers in Indramayu who had ever heard about the Integrated Crop Calendar and not a single farmer who actually used the information from the calendar. In the next paragraphs the communication procedure of the ICC is analysed to see how it can happen that I could not find a single farmer that is using the calendar.

Communication constraints of the Integrated crop calendar

We have seen in this and previous chapters that the Indonesian government is build up from complex structures. In this chapter I would like to argue that this complexity is hampering the accessibility of the integrated crop calendar. The social carriers of technology of Edquist and Edqvist (1979) will be used to highlight the required conditions for a technology to be used.

The first condition according to Edquist and Edqvist (1979) is that ‘there must be a social entity that is interested in choosing and implementing the technique’. Looking at the integrated crop calendar we see that the interest in this technique is not clear or overwhelming. The government institutions that make the calendar are however very enthusiastic about it and see it as ‘the’ solution for food security issues in Indonesia. At this moment the country cannot produce enough rice for its own consumption. The main goal of the ministry of agriculture is to increase the rice production to a self-sufficient level and second to get more synchronised planting. One of the ways in which this is done is by providing an integrated crop calendar for rice and other crops. However this project is already running for some time in the field, it became clear that it is not well spread at all among farmers in Indramayu. The governments wish for simultaneous planting is a lot to ask and unlikely to happen (due to lack of labour and machines) but so far the ICC will not help to achieve this goal. The enthusiasm of the government officials for the calendar is great. Both the developers of the project as well as the officers at the Indramayu level are enthusiastic. The regional government and the climate team are enthusiastic about the advices the calendar is giving. Going further down the line you come across the BKP3, Agency for Extension Workers, and the extension workers at the village level. Those people fulfil an essential role in the communication of the ICC towards the farmers. It however appeared that the extension workers have their doubts about the usefulness of the ICC and some of them also do not fully understand the content.

What you see is that there is an audience, the farmers, potentially interested in such information. Some of the farmers rely on traditional information sources but others see that the climate is changing and are interested in other sources for help. The doubt that exists by the extension workers is hampering the effective communication of information. So apart from the ‘interested social entity’ in this case also the extension workers are not convinced of the usefulness of the information. Another important factor is, as described already before, the limited freedom the extension workers have in some more traditional villages. In those villages the traditional rituals still play a key role and therefor the extension worker has only limited room to manoeuvre when introducing new information sources. So looking back, yes there is a social entity interested in implementing new techniques, maybe not all farmers but there are farmers interested. The communication of the new information is however hampered by doubts and trust issues from both the extension workers and the farmers. This is where the proposed ‘six constraints to forecast effectiveness’ introduces by Patt and Gwata (2002) also become relevant. The six constraints are; credibility, legitimacy, scale, cognition, procedures and choices.

When looking into the situation in Indramayu the credibility of the both the source and communicators has to be good. There are different aspects that are important when looking into credibility; the forecast disseminated needs to be accurate and it needs to be clear what the precision of the forecast is, second the reputation of the massager is key. Those factors are not easily generalised for Indramayu. Trust in the messenger is important but in some Indramayu villages farmers have never heard about the ICC and in other villages the extension workers are very reluctant in clearly advising the farmers, afraid to give the wrong advice and being blamed for failure of harvest. So actually the problem in the communication of the ICC is coming from two sides. The extension workers do not feel confident enough about their knowledge on the ICC and are sometimes ‘limited’ in their work by local traditions. At the other hand extension workers often have a bad reputation among the farmers. This differs of course from person to person but in general people/ farmers in Indramayu are known for their suspicion towards the government. The credibility and legitimacy issues make that extension workers and the government in general are poorly trusted. The legitimacy of extension workers is point of discussion, one of the comments is for example the feeling among farmers that extension workers only help their ‘friends’ and that if your relation with an extension workers is not good you will not get any government program.

Cognition issues for both the extension workers and farmers make the understanding and the use of integrated crop calendar information difficult. How can you explain if you do not understand yourself and how to apply if you do not fully understand? Different issues have been summarized here that explain the limited effectiveness of the ICC. Apart from the communication and trust issue the usefulness of the

39 information is maybe the biggest issues. From the farmers in Indramayu that actually had heard about the ICC and understood how it could be used most said simply that it was not useful for them. The factor of ‘scale’ was very important in this case. The information did not correspond with the local situation in the farmer’s field and was therefore put aside. The procedurals constraints that Patt and Gwata (2002) use are related to the standard procedures that are taking place. The Integrated Crop Calendar is distributed through different channels. Soon after the release of the calendar, before the start of the season it is available online. This digital communication is very important according to the Indonesian government, next to text message service, however in Indramayu most farmers do not have access to a computer or even have the skills to use one. Mobile phones are more wide spread but the knowledge that a crop calendar can be accessed by sending a text message is not. The extension workers should be the third way to get information about the integrated crop calendar but as already explained this path also knows a lot of obstacles. The ‘procedure’ in which information is spread is in this case clearly a constraint, also for the use of the information. The timing of information intended for agricultural purposes needs to be planned well. Farming decisions in Indramayu are made in different ways depending on social, cultural and natural factors. Timing of ‘new’ information is therefore crucial but as it turns out also difficult to realize for the extension workers in Indramayu. The biggest problem however remains that extension workers not always communicate the ICC or warp the information from the calendar in their own story without mentioning the source. So maybe farmers indirectly know about the content of the ICC but are not aware of it. The last constraint of Patt and Gwata (2002) is ‘choice’ which can be related to the possible social factors that limit the choice in how or even if to use new information. Closely related to this are the second and third conditions for a technique to be chosen according to Edquist and Edqvist (1979). These are that ‘an entity must be organised to be able to make a decision and must be able to implement the chosen technique (social, economic and political power)’. The extent to which farmers are able to make their own decision differs. The social structures with in a community or village are an important factor in this. Strong social coherence around planting time (rituals and village meeting) makes it more difficult ‘to do your own thing’. In villages where these rituals are less determining it is for the farmers easier to follow their own thoughts or decision to follow the advice of an outside source. Relating to planting time it has advantages to do this together to spread the risk on pest attacks in your field. The advice of an ‘outsider’ to start a nursery earlier than normal can for example be based on a seasonal climate forecast. This information is in some cases difficult to put into practice for a farmer in Indramayu when other farmers do not want to start with making a nursery. Experience has learned that a single nursery is very vulnerable for pest attacks.

The fourth condition is that ‘the social entity must have information about the existence of the technique’, this is a clear problem in Indramayu. Most of the farmers that I spoke to in relation to this research had never heard of the ICC. This has multiple reason, not all farmers have contact with extension workers or go to socialisation meetings. The most important access point to the ICC is the internet website but since most farmers have no access to internet or have any idea how to use a computer they just don’t know about the ICC. The other point is that the extension workers do not always inform the farmers that the information they share, for example about the start of the season, is coming from the ICC. Indirect farmers are informed, but they have no idea what source the extension worker is using. The logical fifth condition from Edquist and Edqvist (1979) is the point of having access. This is clearly not always the case in Indramayu, by far the most farmers do not have access to internet and the extension worker is also not informing them always. There is of course the option to get the ICC by text message, but then you need to know about its existence and that is often the problem. Farmers just don’t know about the existence of the ICC.

The final and maybe the most important condition is that ‘the entity must have, or be able to acquire, the needed knowledge about how to handle the technique’. This is a big issue, at this moment most farmers have never heard about the ICC and therefor it is not a problem, but for people that do and want to use the information it is very important that they know how to interpret and use the information in relation to credibility issues. At this moment the sources of information that are used are not clear to the user at all, the ICC also contains limited information on how to use and interpret the information in different local situations. Because the ICC is based on historical data and not current atmospheric data it might be a good thing that it is not widely used and this will probably not happen. Due to the lack of good predictions the credibility of this calendar is low. Low credibility, no clear explanations and a source (the government) that does not have a good reputation among farmers in Indramayu will probably have as a result that the ICC will not be used a lot.

Conclusion In this chapter we have seen that the ‘distance’ between sender and receiver of information and services differs a lot between the seasonal scenario and the integrated crop calendar (ICC). The seasonal scenario is part of the Science Field Shop and is called a service, therefore it is not just a case of sending a piece of information. There is a clear communication structure in which the monthly meetings have an important role. The meeting is the moment when the actual feedback is taken place, farmers evaluate their performance but also ask questions about scenario. How to interpret the scenario is one of the most important lessons that need to be learned by the members of KPCH. This approach gives a whole different outcome compared with the integrated crop calendar. “Clearly, communicating a forecast effectively requires not only sound science to support the information, but also a great deal of thought as to how, when, and by whom that information can and will be used in the context of daily life” (Patt and Gwata 2002). The makers of the seasonal scenario seem to have put a lot more thought in developing the communication process then the makers of the integrated crop calendar. The integrated crop calendar fails to reach the target group in its original format, if it reaches the target group at all. If the simple communication model from chapter 3 (figure 1) is kept in mind we see that there are various communication channels in various styles that sometimes are a follow up of each other. First there are the website and sms service centre that require an active approach from the farmers, which turned out is difficult due to lack of access to the hardware like computers and mobile phones, but also the knowledge on how to use the internet. Second are the extension workers in the field who have the task to inform the farmers of Indramayu. They are however not properly instructed and trained in the communication of the integrated crop calendar. There are quite a few steps before the ICC reach the extension worker, who on their turn should inform the farmers. The BPK3 (the agency for food security and extension work) for example is the institution responsible to inform the field extension workers about the ICC. This however does not happen very effectively. Putting up posters and instructing the head of the extension workers are their main actions. The head of the extension workers should on his turn inform the extension workers in the field. The content of the calendar does reach the extension workers but lacking are the knowledge and skills that are needed to communicate the information in an effective way to the farmers. What misses is a clear communication structure in which not only the calendar itself, but also the knowledge and skills that are needed to inform or instruct the farmers, is communicated to the extension workers in a direct way. At this moment a lot of effort is put into the making of the ICC while at the same time so much goes wrong with the communication that the farmers, for whom the information is intended, do not receive the ICC at all.

The Actor Network Theory can give a further explanation for the success in communication of the seasonal scenario and the troubles in the communication of the ICC. The difference in the number of actors was already discussed in the previous chapter. What becomes relevant here is how the networks function and how information becomes part of another network. With the seasonal scenario the content of the scenario flows from the network of the makers to the network of the farmers, during the monthly meetings you could say the scenario comes into a network again with both the makers and the users. At that moment the interpretation and the implementation of the scenario is discussed and there is one actor network including both scientists and farmers. This single network makes that there are close connections between the makers and users of this climate service, this is a key point for the good performance of the seasonal scenario. The networks of the integrated crop calendar are organised in a completely different and more complicated manner. There is no clear communication structure and the actors responsible for the development of the ICC are different from the actors that have the task to communicate the ICC in a more personal way. The communication networks are somewhat complicated and the flow from one network to the next does not go smooth. The communication procedure is not well taken into account in by the actors who develop the ICC and the actors responsible for the communication do not work well enough together with the other actors. The biggest issue is that in the development or making process of the ICC not enough attention is paid to the communication. There is no moment, like with the seasonal scenario, where both the users as well as the makers come together. The scale of the projects is of course very different but still a better communication between networks is necessary in order to actually get the ICC at the target group, the farmers of Indonesia or in this case Indramayu.

Where the seasonal scenario effectively communicates, the integrated crop calendar can still be improved on many points. In the next chapter the final issue will be analysed, the actual use of climate information and services.

Chapter 7: Use and interpretation of Climate Information and Services Both the Integrated Crop Calendar (ICC) and Seasonal Scenario have the goal to help farmers in their response to climate change. The previous chapters have shown how, or with what methods this is tried to achieve. It became clear that there is not much overlap between the ICC and the seasonal scenario with regard to information sources and communication methods. In the end the main question is of course; does the climate network achieve its goal? In this chapter the view point of the users will have a central role. What do they think about the ICC and seasonal scenario, is it helpful and what is the impact on their farming practices?

Farmers interpretation of the Seasonal Scenario This paragraph will specifically focus on the farmer’s interpretation and use of the Seasonal Scenario. Why and in what way are the members using the scenario and what other factors play a role in their decision making. The members of KPCH differ in many ways, therefore also the way farmers use and interpret the Seasonal Scenario differs, next to this there are external factors of influence. From the interviews with the farmers I have come up with a list of the most important factors of influence on the decision making of farmers in Indramayu. The decisions of farmers are made within a social context and the most important social factors are listed. It is not a complete list nor have the factors a similar way of influence on farmers. This is a list to show what factors might influence the farmers interpretation and use of the seasonal scenario.

• Neighbours/ family • Local eco-system conditions • Extension workers / socialisation meetings • Local traditions/ rituals with regard to start of season • Village leader • Understanding of Seasonal Scenario • Land tenure: who owns the field? • Duration of membership KPCH • Local Government • Water resources/ irrigation

All the points will be discussed and analysed in the rest of the chapter, empirical examples will illustrate how farmers come to decisions with regard to their crops.

The role of neighbours and community at the start of the season

Neighbours and community have an important role on the decision making of farmers in Indramayu. When the planting time arrives in many villages it is still common practice to do a ritual before the planting can start. The ritual ‘sedekah bumi’ indicates the start of the planting season based on the local cosmology. Village leaders and farmer groups have an important role in this ritual. The extension workers also often try to influence the decision of the farmers with regard to the start of the season. They for example based there advice on the seasonal scenario or other information sources. In many places making a nursery can only start after this ritual has taken place. This is not the same everywhere, the way in which it is decided to start planting differs a lot from village to village and from farmer to farmer.

More important, and relating to this is that it is better for farmers if they are not the first and only one to start making a nursery. Many farmers explained that it is risky to be the first one to start making a nursery because of the risk on pest attacks. They explain that even though based on the seasonal scenario it would be wise to start making a nursery already they sometimes do not do this. If the other farmers in their ‘block’ (multiple neighbouring fields that form together one block) are not starting as well, their nursery will be vulnerable for pests like rats. It is common to decide together on the start of the season to spread the risk of pest attacks. How this decision is made differs, sometimes it is done within one block, farmers group or at the village level. The extension workers for example also try to steer the farmers towards a certain time to start the season. These are all factors that can make it difficult for the farmers who like to act according to their interpretation of the seasonal scenario. There

42 are stories of farmers who started by themselves to make a nursery and their field got severely attacked by pest and they had to restart because the nursery failed. This is not everywhere the case, Pak Aruna told in an interview that he will start his nursery when the seasonal scenario of Pak Kees (Kees Stigter) indicates that the season starts. He calls it “stealing the start” or an “early start” meaning, starting with making a nursery before the local government indicated the start of the season. Another factor of influence according to the farmers is the influence of the rich farmers or the farmer with a lot of fields. They have a bigger influence on the local practices around the start of the season. Pak Hartono told that many farmers in his village wait with making a nursery till the farmers with a lot of land start, “if some rich farmers start planting they will be followed by other farmers”. Pak Mashadi is one of the ‘richer’ farmers of Nunuk with 5 bahu land (about 3.5 hectares) he explained that he can be more prepared due to the seasonal scenario. “I can prepare before the planting, preparing the equipment, fix the dikes, and prepare the seeds and the plastic”.

Pak Abas explained when talking about the start of the season on the Seasonal Scenario that the local conditions are of big influence. The Seasonal Scenario is mainly useful for the rain fed areas (fields without irrigation). “Here the land is irrigated so I anticipate how I can harvest well”. Pak Abas is using the scenario mainly to anticipate along the season and at harvesting time since his fields not depend on the rain.

Pak Kanadi indicated that he does not use the Seasonal Scenario yet, “we have many stakeholders who make the decision”. He sums up that first the Extension Workers and second the water department (irrigation schedule) have an influence on the start of the season. Third is the local tradition of the ‘sedekah bumi’ ritual. Together with the (alliance of the) farmer groups and the elders of the village there will be made a decision about the start of the season and when Nunuk farmers must plant. In this village the start of the season is much more centrally organised then in Pak Abas’s village.

Pak Dirham nicely illustrated that there is a difference for him in using the seasonal scenario on the short and long run. On the question relating to the planting time and the decision about this he clearly state “the information of Pak Kees about the seasonal scenario is not influence anything, we just follow the pattern and the tradition here. And last October we had the tradition what we call sedekah bumi also. That is a kind of ritual to say thanks to the earth... and after that people here can begin to plant. Before that they can't”. Later in the interview he answered a question about the usefulness of the seasonal scenario, a negative answer could be expected because the traditions are so important of the start of the season in his village but Pak Dirham answered: “Yes, clearly it is very useful, like when the seasonal scenario says that there is a lack of rain for a few months, I will choose a short term variety as his anticipation. The most important thing in Amis village is that I must farm on half irrigated or rain fed land and we must plant twice a year, two seasons a year paddy, though there is no water”. This shows that Pak Dirham has his own interpretation of the season. For the start of the season he relies on the traditions of his village and the ritual that is performed start the season, “we must follow the pattern”. When picking the variety to plant he is looking at the seasonal scenario as his anticipation. A clear example of how local tradition and anticipation go together. The way farmers use the scenario depends a great deal on the habits and traditions in the village they are part of.

Choosing a variety

What comes forward in the interviews is that most KPCH members use the seasonal scenario to make a decision about which variety they will plant. The scenario helps the farmers to make a decision about which variety is most suitable for the coming season. The length of the season and the intensity of the rain is the most important information when picking a variety. Pak Sunariyo explained that “if the scenario says that we will have a lack of rain I will use a short time variety”. Just like Pak Dirham indicates that “he will choose a short time variety as his anticipation”. In the dry season Pak Sunariyo uses the scenario to decide “when I must plant watermelon, watermelon does not need much water, too much water and it will die”. Pak Karwita showed that farming is sometimes also about taking risks and that the timing of seasonal scenario can be very important for decision making. Pak Karwita told at the end of January 2014 that he has some fields that he left fallow. The fields are rain fed and the local cosmology indicated that there would not be enough rain. The scenario in November 2013 indicated only the start of the season and not the duration. According to professor Stigter nothing could be said of the duration of the season yet, just because it was too many months ahead and the precisions of the predictions was low. Pak Karwita would have liked to know at the start of the season that there would be

43 enough rain and the dry season would be late. He sees it as a missed chance that he did not plant rice on some of his fields. This shows that Pak Karwita is taking the seasonal scenario very serious, but it also shows the limitation of the seasonal scenario at this moment. Farmers see the potential beneficial effects of using the scenario, but also experience its limitations. Pak Sunariyo uses the scenario to choose a variety but there are other strategically factors that play a role. He plants strategically because he knows from earlier experiences that if he harvests later, his neighbour’s ducks will come to his field and damage the paddy. Therefor he makes sure that he chooses a short term variety if his neighbour uses a long term variety. The use of fertilizers also influences the maturing of the plant so he strategizes that his plants are matured sooner. Choosing a variety thus not only based on the length of the season and the intensity of the rain, also very specific experiences like duck attacks play a role in decision making.

Pest control & Pesticide Use

Spraying chemical pesticides is a big problem in Indramayu, conventional farming pollutes the environment and costs a lot of money while it is not always resulting in the desired effect. Due to this there are increasing environmental and public health concerns (Moeskops et al. 2010). During the monthly meetings an often discussed topic is this pesticide use. The farmers learn during the meetings about the harmful effects of using too much pesticide. The concepts ‘economic threshold’ and ‘natural enemies’ are thought to the farmers to let them think more careful about pesticide use. The members of KPCH have to visit their observation field every day to measure the rainfall but also to do ecosystem observations. These observations also include monitoring the pest. Pesticide company and their promoters are a quite important factor of influence.

Pak Hartono illustrated the problems with the use of chemical pesticides by telling that before he was a member of KPCH he sprayed chemical pesticides always if his neighbours were also spraying. Just copying what others are doing without actually looking what is necessary. Spraying on a weekly basis or more is common practice in Indramayu. In KPCH the farmers learn to check first how many pests there are in a field and if there are natural enemies present. If there are enough natural enemies in the field there is no need to spray. This more critical look can help the farmers to save money, less input same yield. It is not effective to always spray more and more on a field where a pest is present. KPCH member have shown that fields where they did not spray or only one time looked a lot better and had less impact of pests then fields where farmers sprayed at least once a week. This change in the use of pesticide is a cultural change, it is a habit and culture of the farmers in Indramayu to spray. ‘Farmers just love to spray’ is an often heard comment. Many farmers still call pesticides ‘medicine’, which is a very positive way of looking at a chemical product, something that still remains from the green revolution (Stigter and Winarto 2013a).

During the monthly meetings the members have learned that an increase in humidity can be followed by an increase in pest. Pak Hartono explained that because he received information from Pak Kees (the seasonal scenario) that indicated that the humidity will increase. “I know from the meeting that an increase in humidity will be followed by an increase in pest”. This will give farmers the opportunity to closely monitor their field and be prepared for a pest outbreak. They will follow the development of the pest and take action when necessary. Pak Kacleck gave a more detailed explanation of increase in humidity and its effects. When there is an incidental shower (rain) and the temperature condition is hot “it will make the Brown Plant Hopper come”. The members know the signs that can indicate on an increase of pests in their field. Pak Abas and Pak Karwita are also experimenting with homemade fertilizers and pesticides. Pak Karwita collects his own urine to use as fertilizer for the Nitrogen component or as a pesticide when he mixes it with the leaves of a local tree. The difference between farmers within the KPCH is huge, their progress in ‘learning’ differs. Pak Mashadi also told that since this year he is actually looking at his fields before he is spraying, a year ago he just ordered his workers to spray. He is experimenting with what he learned during the monthly meetings and slowly changing his farming practices. In his rain gauge plot he applied the concept of the economic threshold. I visited him just after the harvest of this field and he was not unhappy with his yield. Hopefully this will encourage him apply it in more of his fields and slowly reduce the use of chemical pesticides.

More awareness and changing behaviour

The members of KPCH noticed the changes they made in their farming since they have become a KPCH member. Pak Hartono for example said that he “realises the changes he made since that time on the individual level”. He is indicating that the KPCH is really a club, farmers help each other in their learning

44 and therefor it is not only the individual any more. The meeting gives the opportunity to ask questions to other farmers and the scientists and to learn about how to interpret the seasonal scenario.

The members of KPCH also try to convince other farmers of the use of the seasonal scenario and about other subjects discussed during the monthly meeting. This is very difficult, farmers in Indramayu want to see proof before they are willing to try something by themselves. Pak Kanadi told that he once explained to other farmers about ‘Wijen’ plants (sesame) and its usefulness. Sesame plants ‘invite’ natural enemies for Brown Plant Hoppers (BPH) to your field if you plant it on the borders of a field. It is a good natural measure to prevent damage from BPH in a paddy field. Pak Kanadi explained this to farmers who were talking about the increase of BPH in their field. He explained the principle carefully but the farmers did not believe him. According to Pak Kanadi this has to do with the principle of first seeing and then believing of the farmers but also with the fact that he is still a young farmer and therefor lacks credibility. Other farmers think he has not yet enough experience to know this. This makes it in general difficult for the members to share their knowledge and to recruit new members for the club. Pak Abas, the secretary of the club is more successful. He is a bit older and has more experience, for example in the alliance of farmer groups. He also has a lot of contacts with different governmental institution and extension workers in Indramayu. In January 2014 there have been severe floods in Indramayu and Pak Abas warned his network and the local and regional government about this. He sends the following text message:

“In some areas in Indramayu today the rainfall reaches 195mm. High potential for enormous/ big flood, be cautious!!! Many rice fields are down under water/ being flooded”.

Send by Pak Abas via mobile phone on 20-01-2014 to government officials.

Pak Abas took the initiative to send this warning after he measured an extreme amount of 195mm rainfall in his rain gauge. He sends his message to the government, a member of the climate team. She took notice of the message and forwarded the warning of Pak Abas to a colleague of her. That colleague did not want to do anything with the warning because he did not know Pak Abas and did not trust the information. Later, when there was a flood like Pak Abas announced the colleague did apologize because he did not do anything with the information. Pak Abas is maybe the KPCH member with the most connections with the government or at least he is very active in promoting his knowledge with those people. He also sends the seasonal scenario to his contacts. Other members also try to tell other farmers about KPCH, measuring rainfall and the seasonal scenario, it however remains a problem to recruit new farmers for the club. Pak Tarsono, who is working in the fields of his parents, has difficulties to convince his parents about what he learns during the meetings. His parents believe in spraying pesticides and are afraid the harvest will fail if they do not spray. They will follow the neighbours, when the neighbours spray they also want to do that. Tarsono said that at this moment it is difficult to anticipate but once he has his own land he will use the seasonal scenario and become an organic farmer.

The members of KPCH take their decision in a complex structure where different interests and habits come together. Later in this chapter an extensive analysis will be give of the actions farmers undertake.

The Seasonal Scenario: The potential role of the government The seasonal scenario differs in many ways from the integrated crop calendar like explained in earlier chapters. The seasonal scenario as part of the Science Field Shops is functioning without the government at the moment. The government however could play a role in the process. There have been attempts to involve the Indramayu government into the Science Field Shops to scale up the project. Now the number of farmers that is reached within the project is still relatively small, about 50 farmers spread over Indramayu receive the seasonal scenario directly and unknown number of farmers is reached indirectly. This is because the members forward the message or talk about is with their family and neighbors. So far the attempts to involve the Indramayu government have no result yet. In this paragraph the potential role of the government will be discussed which will be followed by a theoretical view on the Science Field Shops and the adaptation practices of the farmers in Indramayu.

The seasonal scenario is according to the current members of KPCH effective in assisting them in the response to climate change. The project is received positively by the farmers but scaling up remains a

45 problem. The local government showed in first instance an interest in the project and some meetings took place with the Indramayu climate team and the regional government. The contacts were made and a small step has been made by explaining the Science Field Shops to the government officials. It all seemed positive but unfortunately there is no contact about collaborating anymore at this moment due to the cooled down relationships and a lack of interest from the government side. In the Science Field Shops extension workers or other government officials also have a role in the ideal situation. The potential role of the government is mainly their assistance in scaling up the project, for example training more people, like extension workers, in informing and facilitating farmers about the seasonal scenario and measuring rainfall. This is not the case now but the question is if this is really a problem. The government is a very massive administrative body that is not very flexible. In this sense, the role of the government might also have a limiting factor. Keeping close contact with the farmers becomes more difficult and the whole process is more difficult to monitor. This would of course depend on many factors but involving the government in the Science Field Shops can be an advantage as well as a risk. At this moment the government’s involvement in the science field shop does not seem very likely on the short run.

An analysis of the actions taken based on the implementation of the Seasonal Scenario By using the theories introduced in chapter 3, the use of climate information and services will be analysed. Next to the general theories of Edquist and Edqvist (1979) and Patt and Gwata (2002) the concepts of Ensor and Berger (2009a) on community based adaptation and Stone (2007) on skilling will have an important role in the analysis.

When looking at the social carriers of technologies of Edquist and Edqvist (1979) the first condition is that ‘there must exist a social entity that has an interest in choosing and implementing the technique’. When looking into the Science Field Shop we see that the farmers interested in this project have united themselves in the Klub Pengukur Curah Hujan (KPCH) or in English the Rainfall Observers Club. The KPCH has become very important for the farmers and it gives them identity. During meetings the members will wear their KPCH t-shirt and even though the farmers live spread over quite a large area they have become friends and pay each other visits. These factors are maybe not directly related to adapting to climate change but they form an environment in which farmers can learn from each other and an open environment to ask questions. In Indramayu there are now about 50 KPCH members who measure the rainfall in their field daily. Scaling up the project is somewhat difficult due to different reasons which are both financial and social. The second condition, ‘this social entity must be organised to be able to make a decision’ and related to this the third condition ‘It must have the necessary social, economic and political power to materialize its interest; i.e., to be able to implement the technique chosen’ (Edquist and Edqvist 1979).

In Indramayu the community has a big impact on the individual life. Some farm decisions are made for the whole village at the same time. Family also has a big impact on the decisions made by the farmer. However the KPCH is consisting of male farmers, in some cases the wife’s have a big influence. During the meetings the farmers sometimes complain about the influence of their wife’s. Discussions take place at home about decisions made on the basis of information or knowledge gathered at the meetings by the farmer. Sometimes the wife’s do not understand and therefor it would be a good development to also involve the farmer’s wife’s in the KPCH because they do the farm work as well. Next to the social pressure from within the family farmers also need to consider the community they live in. Local rituals and village leaders have at some places a big impact on decision making, like explained before the practical consideration for the communal discussion making is pest management. The pictures on the next page illustrate how farmers together hunt the rats that damage their fields at night.

There are a lot of factors of influence on the decision making of farmers so at the one hand farmers need to manoeuvre in a limited space of freedom. At the other hand the ‘new’ information, coming from the Science Field Shops, also set change in motion. Members do change their habit in for example in pesticide use and are in some cases inspiring their neighbours with the new practices. However the farmers need a certain level of determination because when you become a member of KPCH commitment is required. Farmers sometimes have to change their habits, instead of visiting a field once or twice a week farmers need to make observations daily and make notes about the observations. Adaptation of a new technology is not only to acquire information about it, farmers need to develop the ability to perform this technology (Stone 2007). The members of the KPCH develop all kinds of new skills and abilities to increase their learning on how to use and interpret the seasonal scenario.

Picture 3: Rat holes are dug out and when the rats try to run other farmers are waiting to hit them firmly on the head with a stick. Rats cause a lot of damage to paddy fields but they are difficult to fight. The farmers at the pictures took advantage of the floods troubling Indramayu in January 2014. The water forced the rats to higher grounds where they were easier to catch. The farmers worked together on each other’s field to be more effective in their hunt. Pictures by Malou Heidekamp

Most farmers, for example, do not have a habit of writing so writing skills need to be developed. These writing skills help them in making their own data base of rainfall and ecosystem observations which are necessary to make decisions based on the seasonal scenario. For the farmers the biggest incentives to change habits are economic reasons, to increase or sustain yields to provide food and income for their family.

The cultural factors and the sense of community can make it difficult for an individual to make a different decision then socially common. Ensor and Berger (2009a) describe that culture and community have an important role to play in the process of adaptation. In Indramayu not all farmers follow the same path in adapting to climate change, some still use the traditional calendar as a reference while others found that being a member of KPCH and the learning involved is the right choice. The members of KPCH change their farming practices slowly, the reactions from the community of family however vary. In general the role of the community is strong in Indramayu, as a member of KPCH you stand out by doing some things different then ‘normal’. Neighbours and family of the members ask for example for clarifications of their actions. There are big differences in the changes farmers make, from abandoning pesticide use completely too slight changes in the choice of rice variety. Change are made by the members of KPCH, their influence on the rest of the community is still small. New farmers become a member of KPCH but they are still with few.

The members of the KPCH are mainly male farmers from different villages and with different assets and social backgrounds. The Science Field Shops are not directly focused at a community as a whole but at

47 the individual farmers in different villages, still the community and culture have an important role in the individual adaptation process. The key point of Ensor and Berger (2009b) is that ‘culture has a very important role in enabling adaptation, personal well-being and can put a limit on the freedom to embrace change’. We already saw that culture or traditions as part of culture can have a limiting factor, at the other hand it is not like culture in Indramayu will never change. A good example of this might be Sumbon village. The fields around Sumbon are mostly rain fed so no irrigation schemes are possible. The ‘kuwu’ (village leader) of this village is a member or KPCH but also has a lot of knowledge about the ‘Java Calendar’ which are the traditional indicators for the start and the development of the season. This traditional cosmology usually forms in input for the decision when to start with preparing the fields and making a nursery. At the moment the kuwu puts his rainfall data next to the Java Calendar to see if this knowledge is still accurate. A kuwu has often a lot of influence in the decision making in a village about when to perform the rituals that indicate the start of the season. Therefore his participation in the Science Field Shops can also have an impact on the whole village. Traditional and new knowledge are meeting at the moment by putting the two next to each other and trust is being build up in the seasonal scenario. The Kuwu uses a mix of information sources for decision making but the most important indicator remains the rainfall itself. The soil needs to be wet for 10cm deep in order to make a dry nursery so the field condition remains the most important indicator for decision making. This is an example in which an individual with an influential position in a village is building up trust with a new kind of information source. Scaling up this learning process towards the whole village would of course be ideal but for that there is still a long way to go.

The Science Field Shops are at this moment not really part of a community if your define it as centred in one village. The SFS are part of the larger community in Indramayu spread over different villages, with in some village one member and in others five or six members. Question is if the community is of influence on the farmers that want to put into practice what they have learned at the meetings? The formation of the KPCH gave the farmers the opportunity to form a group or club and they gave it its own identity. The farmers support each other in their learning and exchange experiences. This is I think very important in the learning process because many of them are the only farmers in their village that receive the Seasonal Scenario and attend the meeting. The KPCH could in this sense be seen as a ‘community’ on which the individual farmers can rely in their learning process, which in other cases or topics would be the community or relatives in their own village. Nunuk is an example of a village where multiple farmers live that are member of KPCH. For them it is easier to rely on each other in their learning process. But even then those farmers are still part of the community in their village. There are a few ways in which community or family limits the adaptation possibilities that already came forward in earlier chapters. Farmers are dependent on each other for the start of making a nursery, experience has learned that making a nursery earlier than the rest is not beneficial due to pest. Ownership of land can be of big influence on this topic. There different land tenure systems in Indramayu and in some of those arrangements the owner decides on how and what to plant and not the person who works on the field. Younger farmers who still work on the land of their parents need to inform and explain but are not always allowed to make changes in the crop patterns. These are examples that show that the community has an influence on the adaption and is in some cases hampering individual adaptation. However the SFSs are not set up as a ‘community based adaptation’ program, it indirectly has an impact on the larger community in some cases.

The last three conditions for a technique to be implemented are related to the knowledge about the existence of the technique, the accessibility and the access to the knowledge that is needed to use the technique. This theory is working from the perspective of the social entity. Access to and communication about the seasonal scenario and the Science Field Shop in general happens mainly through the members of KPCH. It is their task to inform other farmers about the club and make them enthusiastic to also join. Usually new members will first join the monthly meeting for a couple of times and make a start with measuring rainfall in their field. The search for new members goes slow because the KPCH requires a commitment from farmers in learning. Some farmers quit with the program after some weeks or months because they don’t have the time to do all the tasks or to attend the meetings.

When looking into the conditions for a technology to be chosen or implanted the above analysis has shown that the Science Field Shops are managing in theory pretty well. Only point two and three about the decision making of the user and its social, economic and political power might be a problem in some cases. The social constraints that Patt and Gwata (2002) explain for the use of climate information will give more insight into social dimensions of the decision making. The conditions that Patt and Gwata

(2002) describe are, credibility, legitimacy, scale, cognitive ability, the procedural and choice. All are constraints limiting the usefulness of forecast both concerning the receivers as well as the procedural and institutional barriers.

The constraint of credibility might have to do with failure of forecast in the past or with the reputation of the messenger. Since the accuracy of forecast is in most cases still low, there is a chance that the forecast is not correct. This also counts for the seasonal scenario and in 2012 it happened that the scientists were wrong for 3 months in a row (Winarto and Stigter 2013). At this point there was already a trust relation between the senders and the receivers of the scenario. Due to the close contact during the monthly meetings and the fact that the farmers where well informed about the probabilistic nature of the scenario they did not lose their trust in the seasonal scenario or the Science Field Shops of which they were part. The members of KPCH know that Kees Stigter is making the scenario based on data from NOAA. NOAA maybe seems something very abstract for them but they have met Kees Stigter in person and can ask him questions on a regular basis. Those two factors are important for the successful collaboration in the Science Field Shops, communicating and explaining the probabilistic nature of the scenario and keeping close contact with the farmers. Due to the close contact and the long relation the scientist have built up a reputation, one or two wrong scenarios did not harm this relation.

Legitimacy constraints can arise when users question the political agenda of the communicators (Patt and Gwata 2002). When a hidden agenda is suspected this is of negative influence on the relationship between user and communicator. This is close related to credibility and as far as I have been able to see there are not legitimacy constraints between the KPCH and the scientists of the University of Indonesia. This has to do with the open communication about the ‘benefits’. The Science Field Shops are a way of assisting farmers in their response to climate change. For the scientist it is of course also a research project and they publish articles about it but there is open communication and benefit for both groups.

The scale constraints are taken very seriously within the science field shops and get a lot of attention. The big problem of forecasts or scenarios of any kind at this moment is that the precision is still limited. It is extremely difficult to downscale scenarios for specific area like Indramayu. Specific local details are almost impossible to predict and even if it is done the accuracy is low so the chance of a faulty prediction is high. Within one area still big difference in weather events can occur. This limitation is communicated to and discussed with the farmers. There are scale constraints, all forecasts are limited in their precision, and the difference is made in how to deal with those constraints. Members of the KPCH are measuring the daily rainfall in their own field and in this way develop their own database. Together with the seasonal scenario farmers will develop a better idea of what is below, above and normal rainfall. Their own data combined with the seasonal scenario will give the farmers a good idea of what they can expect of the rainfall in a season.

In the Science Field Shop (SFS) the scientists work with a mixed group of farmers, in many aspects. ‘Cognition constraints’ is one of the most important constraints, if farmers do not understand your product, they will use it wrongly or not at all. Capacity building has a central role in the SFS, teach the farmers how to use and interpret the seasonal scenarios is very important for various reasons. Good interpretation of the scenario is not only important for the farmers but is important for the credibility and legitimacy constraints as well. “Risk communicators learned that only when information users became experts in their own right, and where treated as such, would credibility and legitimacy not suffer” (Patt and Gwata 2002). Measuring rainfall and writing down observations is not part of farmers culture, neither is relating this to the condition of their crop but farmer are good empirical learners (Winarto et al. 2013). Learning about climate issues and improving skills like note taking are therefore taken very seriously.

‘Procedural constraints’ can be an issue when standard procedures hamper the use of new information. In Indramayu it is not so much an issue for the delivery of the scenario because that is done every month but more with applying the information. The monthly scenario and the close connection between scientists and farmers make that the NOAA based scenario is with the farmers within days after the model is released. The cultural factors that have already been described in earlier part of this chapter are the most important constraint. Social and cultural tradition forms a more influential factor on the use of the seasonal scenario.

The factor of ‘choice constraint’ is a bit more complex, relating to the content of the seasonal scenario and the matters discussed during the meetings. Do the farmers get enough new information and are the farmers able to make a decision with this information? The seasonal scenario brings the farmers new

49 information but if they change their decision making pattern because of this is depending on a lot of factors, for example the individual choice of the farmer. If choices that farmers can make are too complex and have a big risk with it, farmers will not change their habits so easily. In Indramayu the farmer’s income is often depending almost completely on the harvest. Maximizing the yield is in this case not the choice farmers will make if it also means that you can lose your whole crop. It is difficult to generalize about this for Indramayu because the individual farmers are so different. In essence this means that the changes that farmers make because of the seasonal scenario will be small ones or small steps at the time.

The seasonal scenario and the learning that takes place within the science field shops require the farmers to take action. Improvement of skills, like note taking and observations of the ecosystem, together with rainfall measurement and the seasonal scenario give the farmers opportunity to take action. The monthly meetings and the scenario together give the members the knowledge and skills that are needed to apply this ‘technology’ in their fields. However the responsibility for taking actions lies with the farmers themselves. They need to develop the ability to work with the seasonal scenario by practicing and analysing their own field conditions, this is what Stone (2007) would call ‘agricultural skilling’. The members of KPCH need to, and want to, put their new gained knowledge into action and succeed in this on different levels. Pak Kanadi for example is still learning to interpret the seasonal scenario while Pak Dirham and Pak Karwita are already using the seasonal scenario in choosing the variety to plant. Each farmer transfers the seasonal scenario into action in their own context and all have their own limitations, from parents who passionately believe in spraying pesticides till a community that does not support your plan for making a nursery early. Key is that the members of KPCH make decisions based on the seasonal scenario, the knowledge they gather from their own data and during the meetings. Small steps are made by most farmers and bigger steps by some. As the KPCH community is growing more and more farmers will skill themselves in the use of climate services as a response to climate change.

Farmers and extension workers interpretation of the Integrated Crop Calendar The integrated crop calendar (ICC) is set up as a national project and is therefore more widely available than the seasonal scenario. The idea is that through a website and text message (SMS) service the information is available for all Indonesian farmers. When talking to Indramayu farmers it however became clear that the integrated crop calendar is not so wide spread as could be expected. Only few people seem to know about it and even the extension workers do not really understand how to communicate it to the farmers. This paragraph will introduce the interpretation of the ICC by the farmers and the extension workers in Indramayu.

The Integrated Crop Calendar?

From all the farmers that were interviewed for this research only a few had ever heard of the Integrated Crop Calendar. This was unexpected after the stories at the agro climate office in Bogor responsible for the development and communication of the integrated crop calendar. The impression was given that the calendar was a widely spread and used source. The extension workers in the field level have a crucial role in the spread of the ICC in among farmers in Indonesia. Agro climate states that the most important way of communication is the website. However very soon it became clear that this is not the most effective way of communication in the rural areas of Indonesia. Only very few people know how to use a computer and have access to internet and if this is the case then they still need to know that it exists.

The farmers that had ever heard about the ICC or actually saw it were very short about its usefulness. Pak Abas explained why he and other famers he knows do not use the ICC;

“First of all we do not get this information, Katam (ICC). Second farmers will stand on their own principle. Next is, now they use.... to know when to plant it is just the environment, environment between them, among them. Social environment, like did the neighbor planted or not. Like now, it is rainy season.... We must plant now but the farmer’s community has not begun to plant.... And in here in the south, some have harvested but they did not started yet with making a nursery. But Katam said that in October they must have planted. But now they haven’t started to soil management. The first step is nursery but they haven't started yet in here”.

Pak Abas indicated that there is already a problem with the communication of ICC. He states that most farmers do not know about this information. Pak Karwita told something similar, he knows about the ICC

50 because he is a member of the farmers group but the extension worker only told them once about the ICC. The second problem Pak Abas is pointing out is that farmers have their own interpretation of the season and stick to the local traditions, like explained in the previous paragraphs. The third and maybe the most important argument of Pak Abas is that the ICC is not in line with the actual conditions in the field. The most heard commend on the ICC from both farmers and extension workers is that it is just not suitable.

Pak Hartono also heard of the ICC from an extension worker during a socialization meeting. He thinks that some big farmers use the information; “because when that socialization takes place the rich farmers which have a lot of lands come to the socialization. They hear from the extension officer so they also make a decision, so the government told me the water is enough so we can begin with planting and then mister Hartono is also following”. Later he clarified that the socialization is only taking place after the ritual and that the timing of the meeting does not depend on the availability of the ICC. The extension worker in this case told about the planting calendar at a moment that the local government already decided that there was enough water available for planting and the necessary local ritual already took place. Pak Hartono was asked how in this situation he decided on the planting time for his crops and if a socialization meeting had any influence? And Hartono said, “I know what time I can begin to plant, even if that is not in the socialization, but if there is socialization I will go there”. Other factors like the water availability and the decisions of the neighbor are a more important indicator for Pak Hartono to start with planting then the ICC.

The integrated crop calendar seems to lack connection with the local situation. The information about the start of the season is for example not useful for farmers with irrigated fields but even the recommendations for the use of fertilizer are not used because they are given in amount of fertilizer in kg/hectares and in Indramayu another metric system is used. The information is often not suitable but mostly farmers did not even hear about the integrated crop calendar

In the last chapter on the communication of the integrated crop calendar already an extensive analysis has been done on what goes wrong the in the communication of the information source. From the research data no actual use of the calendar by farmers came forward. Maybe, like Pak Hartono indicated, some big farmers follow the socialization of the extension workers and therefore indirectly act in accordance of the integrated crop calendar, this however did not come forward in other interviews. The general impression in Indramayu is that only a few farmers know about the existence of an integrated crop calendar. The communication is the big bottle neck, next to content issues relating to the precision of the information.

Conclusion This chapter has made clear that putting knowledge into skills and action is not as simple as seems at first sight. Local cultural practices and social norms can make adaptation to climate change at the individual level more difficult. Where the integrated crop calendar does not succeed at all in reaching the farmers of Indramayu the seasonal scenario is interpreted and used by members of KPCH in their decision making.

In the implementation of the seasonal scenario the role of the community and the KPCH are very important. For the farmers being a member of KPCH means that they are part of a group working on the same goals, it gives them identity. Farmers learn by investing time in undertaking activities like measuring rainfall, field observations and attending meetings, with these actions they show commitment to the project on the long run. Next to being a member of KPCH (identity) the monthly meetings are also very important to learn new skills (skilling) and ask questions about the scenario. The seasonal scenario is evaluated very positively by the farmers and also actually used and applied by many of them. This has various reasons: there is a close connection between the makers of the seasonal scenario and the farmers, the seasonal scenario is brought as a service designed for this specific target group. The makers have kept the conditions and constraints for the communication of climate information well in mind. Factors that hamper the use of the seasonal scenario are mostly external or social factors, sometimes it has to do with skills that still need to be developed, for example by new member. If approached from an actor network perspective you could say that within the network around a single farmers you find both actors that understand and support the concepts part of the science field shop and there are actors that have another point of reference, for example traditional knowledge. These are two different points of reference that are part of the same network. For the further assistance of farmers in their response to

51 climate change it is very important that the science field shop is scaled up, it will however take time before the seasonal scenario is part of the wider community in one village.

The community practices, like simultaneous planting and rituals at the start of the season, all have an influence on individual farmers. Only a small group of farmers is a member of KPCH at this moment and the other farmers do not always understand why KPCH members measure rainfall or want to start planting at another time for example. There are obstacles that still need to be overcome (involvement of government/ extension workers) and questions to be answered (how to increase the number of members) but in general the Science Field Shop and the seasonal scenario are functioning very well.

The opposite is the case with the integrated crop calendar, the people at the agro climate office do not seem to realize that in Indramayu the integrated crop calendar is not achieving its goal at all. The connection with the people in the field is missing and most Indramayu farmers do not even have heard about the existence of an integrated crop calendar let alone used one. The farmers that have heard of the calendar do not use it because the timing is wrong or the information is not relevant for their field. The main reasons for these problems are already described in the previous chapter on communication, which is where it goes wrong. In the next chapter I will answer the research questions and make recommendations for the (further) improvement of the seasonal scenario and the integrated crop calendar.

Chapter 8: Conclusion and recommendations Patt and Gwata (2002) state “effective forecast communication is not rocket science, but it should follow a few key guidelines”. Looking at the integrated crop calendar (ICC) and the seasonal scenario, it has become clear that the ICC is lacking to follow the basic guidelines of letting the user community participate and be involved as a partner in the task of interpreting and operationalizing of the information. In the first paragraph of this chapter I will compare the seasonal scenario and integrated crop calendar, after that the research questions will be answered and the theories evaluated.

Comparing the Integrated Crop Calendar and the Science Field Shop As an introduction to the conclusions I have put the main characteristics of the seasonal scenario and the integrated crop calendar that came forward in the empirical chapters next to each other in a table. The table shows the biggest differences between the seasonal scenario and the integrated crop calendar.

Seasonal Scenario Integrated Crop Calendar Timing? Once a month 3 times a year before the start of the season Updated? Monthly No Communication? SMS, meetings Website, SMS, extension workers Availability/ For KPCH members and For everyone (in theory), access through target group? their relatives and friends. internet, mobile phone or extension worker are necessary. Direct Yes, during the monthly No, the farmers can talk to extension communication meeting farmers can ask workers but they are not responsible for producer and questions to scientists and making the calendar and do not have an user? discuss the scenario. official opportunity to communicate comments to the producers. Data input NOAA (an ensemble of BMKG (Indonesian National Weather models) Institute) Atmospheric data Historical data Feedback Yes, during the monthly Not really, farmers can inform the possibilities of meeting extension worker but no official direct user structure is available.

The initiators of the two climate information networks work with what you could call a different ‘wish list’, both networks aim to help farmers in response to climate change in Indramayu but the execution is completely different. The seasonal scenario as part of the science field shops is set up as a new educational commitment in which long term learning for the farmers is involved. The farmers need to develop the skills and knowledge in order to develop their abilities to anticipate on climate change. The integrated crop calendar is also developed in the light of climate change and as a way to assist farmers but the underlying thought is completely different. The goal of the government is to create more simulations planting and increase food security. However, most villages in Indramayu already have some form of simulations planting and harvesting. Scaling this up further will be very difficult due to limited availability of machinery and labour.

The previous chapters have given a detailed answer on the 3 sub-questions: How do social processes influence the making of climate forecast/ information/advisories? How is climate information communicated and does this have an effect on if the information is used? How do farmers in Indramayu interpret, use and evaluate the climate information? In this paragraph the most important issues and bottlenecks will be highlighted.

The Integrated Crop calendar

The Indonesian government tries with the integrated crop calendar, the relating website and other promotion activities to make farmers aware of climate predictions for the coming season. Their approach in delivering the information is very individualistic in the sense that the main way of communicating is a website/ text message service which requires action from the farmers themselves. Farmers need to surf to the website or send a text message in order to receive the calendar but they do not always have the

53 skills or technology (mobile phone/ computer) to do that. The extension workers at field level also have the responsibility to inform farmers about the ICC but in practice the extension workers themselves do not feel confident about informing the farmers or they lack the knowledge or skills to do so. Fieldwork has shown that most farmers interviewed for this research are not aware of the existence of the ICC and the ones that are aware are not using the information in their decision making. The most heard argument for not using the ICC was that the farmers found the information not suitable for their field. The timing of receiving the information was an important factor in this. The ICC came too late or gave not realistic advice. An example of this was the advice to start making a nursery in a certain week while actually the farmers did not finish harvesting yet. The communication of the integrated crop calendar is the biggest issue and the largest bottle neck with as result that it is not achieving its goal at all. The lack of communication between the field/ users and the people at the agro climate office in Bogor makes that in Bogor they have no clue what is happening in the field. I did not find a situation in Indramayu anywhere close to the situation that was described to me at the agro climate office, no wide spread availability and use of the ICC by the farmers, no positive review of its content. The Indonesian government knows a complex structure with fragmented responsibilities and no feedback structures. The unawareness of the real situation in the field by the agro climate team has to do with the organisation of the Indonesian government and a lack of interest and form the largest bottleneck in the communication of the integrated crop calendar.

The seasonal scenario

The seasonal scenario is shared, as part of the science field shop, with about 50 farmers in Indramayu at the moment. The seasonal scenario, however essential, is only a part of the science field shop. Assisting the members of the KPCH in their response to climate change is the central point of attention. Monthly meetings, workshops and information, for example about pesticides and soil management, are also included. The farmers are guided in their response to climate change by the seasonal scenario and in order to uses the scenario successfully they need to gather knowledge and a skill, the next step is to put those elements into action. Farmers make a commitment to learn as a member of KPCH, the scientists are there to assist them and answer their questions.

Issues or difficulties in this case have a different scale then the bottlenecks that have been described for the integrated crop calendar. The communication of the seasonal scenario is well organised in the implementation of the scenario, however some difficulties can arise. In Indramayu the role of culture and community in individual decision making is still significant. Farmers are part of a community which is arranged around habits, rituals and norms. The village leader often decides together with the elders of the village when planting should start, this is often in accordance with traditional calendars. Such communal decision making has advantages because field are less vulnerable for pests but at the other hand is it difficult for an individual farmer to act in accordance with new information like the seasonal scenario. Despite this struggle KPCH members also are able to change on other matters then only planting time. Reduction of pesticide use and choice of rice variety are good examples of farmers anticipation based on the seasonal scenario. Scaling up the project is one of the priorities but only improves slowly. Finding farmers who are willing to participate and invest their time in learning is difficult, farmers that make the step are however enthusiastic about it. Scaling up and involving more farmers also increases the knowledge about the science field shop in villages and farmers form a certain village are not alone anymore in their learning. More understanding and people from the same community that are involved in the same learning process will have a positive impact on the learning. The role of the government is one of the bottlenecks, ideally extension workers and other government officers have a place in the science field shops but experience has also learned that working with the government is very difficult, attempts have been made but have failed so far. The complexity of the government has mainly been related to the problems with the integrated crop calendar but can also form a treat for the science field shops when cooperation is sought. The clear structure and communication lines of the seasonal scenario are its core strong point, involving a massive institute as the government with all it bureaucratic procedures might be a treat for its success.

Using climate information and services

Looking at the climate information and climate service it has become clear that ‘how’ communication takes place does have an effect on how, or maybe better said, if it is used. The integrated crop calendar is aimed at a large audience of farmers all over Indonesia. With the current used communication

54 methods the farmers in Indramayu are however often not reached at all. The seasonal scenario is only send to a group of 50 farmers who are all member of the KPCH. The monthly meetings, which are part of the communication of the scenario, ensure close connections between users and producer of this climate service. Both are not succeeding yet in reaching the majority of Indramayu farmers, one need to scale up and the other needs to scale down. The recommendations in the next paragraphs are my observations on how this scaling up and down could happen.

Recommendations The research questions for the research are all formulated as ‘how’ questions requiring more descriptive answers. Those descriptions have been given in chapter 5 about the making the seasonal scenario and the integrated crop calendar, chapter 6 about the communication and chapter 7 about the use and interpretation of those cases. In the earlier paragraphs of this chapter the most important or significant findings have been summarized. This research has given a good insight into the two climate information networks and some recommendation can be given to further improve the seasonal scenario and the integrated crop calendar.

With regard to the integrated crop calendar (ICC) I believe that there is still a lot of work to be done before the information from the calendar can be effectively communicated, even the calendar itself can be improved. The integrated calendar is at this moment only published 3 times a year and not updated in between. Firstly the content of the calendar could be improved by informing the farmers more frequently with updates of the calendar indicating changes in the expected rainfall for example. Climate predictions become more uncertain if predictions are made for longer periods of time (Dessai et al. 2009), therefore I would recommend to update the calendar regularly throughout the season and give the farmers the most recent information. Second not only the start of the season and the advised planting time should be in the calendar but also information about the precision of these predictions. How reliable and precise is the given information? With this information it is easier for the farmers to access the value of the information and to make a decision about an adaptation strategy.

Improving the ICC does only make sense if the communication of the information is improved significantly. At this moment I have not been able to find a single farmer in Indramayu who finds the information useful and only a handful of farmers who actually know what the ICC is. Improvements of the communication can start with good training and education of the extension workers about this topic. The focus should be on extension and not a website because only a very small group of farmers has access to or knowledge about how to use a computer. The mobile phone is wider spread but still farmers need to be informed about the existence of the ICC first. Extension workers should have the central role in the communication of the integrated crop calendar and be able to inform the makers of the calendar about feedback from the field, only in this way the calendar can be improved further. Clear and short communication structures should be formed in which there is a clear task division but more importantly someone who monitors the whole process. The experiences of the farmers with using the calendar should be an important information source for further improvements. How do the farmers use and evaluate the ICC and what are the problems they face. When the extension workers are better trained and have more knowledge about adapting to climate change they are also better able to assist the farmers and teach them how to use the calendar. I have only done research about the ICC in Indramayu so I have no idea what the state of the project is in other areas but to make the integrated crop calendar a success in Indramayu there is still a lot to be done. If all these improvements are implemented, which means a lot of work, the integrated crop calendar might become a success in Indramayu. It will also mean that the agro climate office in Bogor needs to make big changes and show more interest in the communication of the ICC, which should as explained be much more then maintaining a website. The ICC is still far from assisting farmers in their response to climate change in an effective way but I do hope that the urgent need for improvements will be recognized.

The seasonal scenario as part of the science field shop is already a lot more successful in assisting farmers in their response to climate change in Indramayu then the integrated crop calendar. However the scale of the project is a lot smaller, the farmers that are reached are very enthusiastic about it. One of the biggest challenges that still lie ahead of the science field shop is how to scale up properly. The project is now centred on Kees Stigter and Yunita Winarto and her students. However it is the intention to scale up the project to reach more farmers this also gives two potential treats. Firstly the close contact between farmers and scientist is one of the success factors of the project. Question is how to maintain these close connections and contacts and scale up at the same time. Second the intention has been to

55 involve the government in the up scaling. As already was explained in chapter 7 this can be both an advantage and a risk because the government is a big organisation which is working in a completely different way. The government is build up from a more hierarchical structure, while within the science field shops close connections between actors are maintained. The complicated structure and lack of communication between institutions and departments of the Indonesian government can also be a treat for the science field shops if more cooperation with the government is sought. The climate team could be a good partner but this initiative is still in an early stage and does not have a budget. Attempts to seek cooperation so far did not work out, attention need to be paid that the core values of the SFS like close contact between user and producer of climate services will not be lost.

For the up scaling of the science field shops I think it is also important that new people like Yunita Winarto and Kees Stigter stand up or should be found to work on this project with the same passion and to elevate and share the workload of the founders. For scaling up it would also be interesting to involve the communities around the current members more. It is already happening at small scale where multiple farmers from the same village are KPCH member but not everywhere. In the light of the close tied communities and rituals related to the start of the season it would of course be an ideal situation to involve a whole community and involve them in the learning about adapting to climate change, community based adaptation like Ensor and Berger (2009a) introduced it. However it is still difficult to find new participants for the science field shops the network also will become more known among the people in Indramayu. Keeping close to the core values and principles of the science fields shop, while at the same time scaling up will be the main challenge for this project in the coming years.

Relevance of the used theories In chapter 3 the theories have been introduced that I have used in the analysis of the data. In this paragraph I will shortly reflect on the relevance and usefulness of these theories.

Some theories have been used to get a general impression of one of the climate information networks, while other made it possible to get a more in-depth evaluation. The social carriers of technology (Edquist and Edqvist 1979), the theory on the social creation of knowledge (Patt and Gwata 2002) and conditions for predictions to be used for decision making (Dessai et al. 2009) turned out to be useful to assess whether the climate information networks follow some basic guidelines that are characteristic for good climate information communication. The conditions for a technique to be chosen and the constraints for effective communication of climate information gave a lot of insight in the strengths and weaknesses of the integrated crop calendar and the seasonal scenario. The Actor Network Theory (Latour 2005) made it possible to assess the functioning and especially the making of the networks in more detail. The concept ‘skilling’ (Stone 2007) was very useful for the assessment of the learning process of the farmers and how they put new knowledge into action. Together with the theory on role that culture and community play in adaptation (Ensor and Berger 2009a) it gave opportunity to assess how farmers use the seasonal scenario and what the role of the community is in this. The receiver-oriented model of communication (Leeuwis and Van den Ban 2004) was mainly used to give insight in basic communication theory and used to show what is basically needed to effectively communicate climate information. It simple helped to explain that the sender and receiver of information do not have the same framework of reference and that communicators should keep that in mind. The three dimensions of a technographic research (Jansen and Vellema 2011) did not come forward very clearly but it gave structure to this research, how and why technologies are used and what effect it has on people and communities.

Reference list

Administrator. 17-06-2014. Kabupaten Indramayu 2011 [cited 17-06-2014]. Available from http://jabar.litbang.deptan.go.id/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51:kabupaten- indramayu&catid=43:planting-calendar&Itemid=62. Ash, A., P. McIntosh, B. Cullen, P. Carberry, and M. S. Smith. 2007. Constraints and opportunities in applying seasonal climate forecasts in agriculture. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 58 (10):952-965. Balitklimat. 11-06-2014. Visi dan Misi Tahun 2014 [cited 11-06-2014]. Available from http://balitklimat.litbang.deptan.go.id/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=134&Itemid= 52. 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 Journal of Life Sciences 57 (3–4):179-185. Dankert, R. 19-09-2014. Using Actor-Network Theory (ANT) doing research 2011 [cited 19-09-2014]. Available from http://ritskedankert.nl/publicaties/2010/item/using-actor-network-theory-ant-doing-research. Dervin, B. 1981. Mass communicating: changing conceptions of the audience. In Public Communication Campaings, edited by R. E. Rice and W. J. Paisley: Sage Publications 77-88. Dessai, S., M. Hulme, R. Lempert, and R. Pielke Jr. 2009. Climate prediction: a limit to adaptation? In Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance, edited by W. N. Adger, I. Lorenzoni and K. L. O'Brien: Cambridge University Press. Edquist, C., and O. Edqvist. 1979. Social Carriers of Techniques for Development Journal of Peace Research 16 (4):313-331. Ensor, J., and R. Berger. 2009a. Community-based adaptation and culture in theory and practice. In Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance, edited by W. N. Adger, I. Lorenzoni and K. L. O'Brien: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2009b. Understanding Climate Change Adaptation: Lessons from Community-based Approaches: Practical Action Publishing. Hansen, J. W., S. J. Mason, L. Sun, and A. Tall. 2011. Review of seasonal climate forecasting for agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. Experimental Agriculture 47 (2):205-240. IAARD. 2014. KATAM Terpadu, to Anticipate Climate Change 2013 [cited 02-06-2014 2014]. Available from http://en.litbang.deptan.go.id/news/one/298/. Jansen, K., and S. Vellema. 2011. What is technography? NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 57 (3- 4):169-177. Kien, G. 2008. Technography = technology + ethnography: An introduction. Qualitative Inquiry 14 (7):1101- 1109. Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social:An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory: An Introduction to Actor- Network-Theory: OUP Oxford. Leeuwis, C., and A. Van den Ban. 2004. Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension: Wiley. Lubis, D. P. 2012. Agricultural Extension in Indonesia: Current Status and Possible Ways to Meeting Emerging Challenges. In Roundtable on Agricultural Extension in Asia. Bejing Mall, R. K., D. Bhatt, G. Sonkar, and T. Banerjee. 2014. Simulation modeling and climate change: issues and challenges.1-4. Moeskops, B., Sukristiyonubowo, D. Buchan, S. Sleutel, L. Herawaty, E. Husen, R. Saraswati, D. Setyorini, and S. De Neve. 2010. Soil microbial communities and activities under intensive organic and conventional vegetable farming in West Java, Indonesia. Applied Soil Ecology 45 (2):112-120. NOAA. 16-09-2014. El Nino/ Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Diagnostic Discussion (May 2014). National Oceanic and Athmospheric Administration 2014 [cited 16-09-2014]. Available from http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_disc_may2014/ensodisc.pdf. Patt, A., and C. Gwata. 2002. Effective seasonal climate forecast applications: examining constraints for subsistence farmers in Zimbabwe. Global Environmental Change 12 (3):185-195. Roncoli, C. 2006. Ethnographic and participatory approaches to research on farmers' responses to climate predictions. Climate Research 33 (1):81-99. Roncoli, C., C. Jost, P. Kirshen, M. Sanon, K. T. Ingram, M. Woodin, L. Somé, F. Ouattara, B. J. Sanfo, C. Sia, P. Yaka, and G. Hoogenboom. 2009. From accessing to assessing forecasts: An end-to-end study of participatory climate forecast dissemination in Burkina Faso (West Africa). Climatic Change 92 (3- 4):433-460. Roncoli, C., B. S. Orlove, M. R. Kabugo, and M. M. Waiswa. 2011. Cultural styles of participation in farmers' discussions of seasonal climate forecasts in Uganda. Agriculture and Human Values 28 (1):123-138. Sarewitz, D. R. 2000. Prediction : science, decision making, and the future of nature. Washington, D.C. [u.a.]: Island Press. Siregar, P. R., and T. A. Crane. 2011. Climate Information and Agricultural Practice in Adaptation to Climate Variability: The Case of Climate Field Schools in Indramayu, Indonesia. Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 33 (2):55-69. Stigter, K. 2012. Boeken, geschriften en voorspellingen die niet deugen. Meteorologica / Nederlandse Vereniging van Beroeps Meteorologen 21 (3):30-30. Stigter, K., Y. Winarto, E. Ofori, G. Zuma-Netshiukhwi, D. Nanja, and S. Walker. 2013. Extension Agrometeorology as the Answer to Stakeholder Realities: Response Farming and the Consequences of Climate Change. Atmosphere 4 (3):237-253.

Stigter, K., and Y. T. Winarto. 2013a. Agrometeorological Learning Increasing Farmers’ Knowledge in Coping with Climate Change and Unusual Risks. Journal of Agricultural Science ans Applications. ———. 02-06-2014. Rice and climate change: adaption or mitigation? Facts for policy designs INSAM 2013b [cited 02-06-2014]. Available from http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/climate-change/rice-and- climate-change-adaption-or-mitigation-facts-for-policy-designs. Stone, G. D. 2007. Agricultural deskilling and the spread of genetically modified cotton in Warangal. Current Anthropology 48 (1):67-103. Weisheimer, A., and T. N. Palmer. 2014. On the reliability of seasonal climate forecasts. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 11 (96). Winarto, Y. T. 2004. Seeds of Knowledge: The Beginning of Integrated Pest Management in Java: Yale University Southeast Asian Studies. Winarto, Y. T., and K. Stigter. 2011. Agrometeorological Learning: Coping Better with Climate Change: LAP Lambert Academic Publisher ———. 2013. Science Field Shops to Reduce Climate Vulnerabilities: An Inter- and Trans-Disciplinary Educational Commitment. Collaborative Anthropologies 6 (1):419-441. Winarto, Y. T., K. Stigter, B. Dwisatrio, M. Nurhaga, and A. Bowolaksono. 2013. Agrometeorological Learning Increasing Farmers’ Knowledge in Coping with Climate Change and Unusual Risks. Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University. Winarto, Y. T., K. 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.

Annex 1: Integrated Crop Calendar for Sukra District in Indramayu Regency On the next pages the complete Integrated Crop Calendar can be found for Sukra district in Indramayu. The layout of the calendar is the same for each district in Indonesia only the content is different. I will highlight and explain the most important parts of the calendar to give and impression of what kind of information the farmers receive. The numbers in the picture correspond with the explanation below.

1. Growing Season: second season of 2014 2. District: Sukra 3. City/ District: Indramayu, province West Java 4. Commodity: paddy fields and Crops 5. Standard number of fields in hectares 6. Prediction of the amount of rainfall: Above Normal 7. Commodity 8. Season 1, 2 and 3 in different columns 9. Advised area to plant rice in hectares 10. Advised planting time (Month and 10 day period) 11. Rice 12. Corn / soybean 13. Soybean

The calendar informs the farmers about the expected start of the season in the first or second 10 days of March, in this case the transition season from the rain to the dry season. The advised commodity to plant is rice. It is also already indicated that the third season will probably start in July, this information is however updated in the next calendar. On the other pages of the calendar information can be found on the advised amount of fertilizer to use and the chance that there will be a pest outbreak or flood.