5. PRACTISING the COMPLEX RICE SYSTEM 5.1 Crss COMPONENTS PRACTISED This Chapter Portrays How Crss Are Practised by Farmers

WAGENINGEN – SOCIAL SCIENCES MSc Thesis Knowledge, Technology, and Innovation

Understanding Complex Rice System Practices in East Java, Indonesia

Cover page Author Wageningen, August 2019 Agung Heru Yatmo

930622007120 Study Programme Organic Agriculture Specialisation Sustainable Food Systems Supervisor dr.ir. Conny Almekinders

Thesis Code : CPT-80836

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

During conduction this thesis, I learned a lot not only about the subject and the people who I had pleasure to work with but also about myself. Perhaps, I encountered a lot of emotional experience on a range from excitement to mental exhaustion and complete confusion, enthusiasm, etc. So that why I am very thankful for all the support I got from my sides.

Firstly, I would like to thank to my supervisor Dr. Conny Almekinders who help me to get different perspective and to guide me when I lost. She has become my inspirator to learn about agricultural technology development since I took her class in my first period and luckily, she accepted me as her supervised student.

Secondly, I want to express my gratitude to the scientist, Uma Khumairoh, who allowed me to join in her project, gave me opportunity to study the project based on social-science perspective and help me a lot during my fieldwork.

Furthermore, I am so grateful for agriculture extension worker, Mb Titin, who helped a lot to conduct interview with farmers in Lamongan. To all of farmers in Lamongan and Malang, I do appreciate for all of openness, happiness and dedication during my fieldwork. They welcomed me warmly and provided me with ongoing support. Thus, I really enjoyed the fieldwork.

Then, I would say thank you so much for LPDP (Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education) for giving me valuable opportunity to purse my MSc degree in Wageningen University and Research. Without, their financial support, I would not have reached this point.

Finally, I would express my deepest gratitude to my family who always support me to reach my life goals. Last but not least, for my lovely friends in Netherland who always support me in ups and downs during my study.

Thank you all!

Wageningen, 14 August 2019

Table of Contents

COVER PAGE ...... I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... II

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... III

TABLE OF TABLE ...... V

SUMMARY ...... VI

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 COMPLEX RICE SYSTEMS IN INDONESIA ...... 1 1.2 COMPLEX RICE SYSTEM PRACTICES AND THE INTRODUCTION OF COMPLEX RICE SYSTEMS IN THIS STUDY ...... 2 1.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 3 1.5 RESEARCH QUESTION ...... 4

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 5

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 6

3.1 CASE STUDY AREA ...... 6 3.2 DATA COLLECTION ...... 6 3.2.1 LITERATURE STUDY ...... 6 3.2.2 IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS ...... 7 3.2.3 OBSERVATION ...... 7 3.3 DATA ANALYSIS ...... 7 3.4 METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS ...... 7

4. LOCAL CONTEXT ...... 9

4.1 GENERAL PROFILE ...... 9 4.2 LAMONGAN ...... 11 4.3 MALANG ...... 12

5 PRACTISING THE COMPLEX RICE SYSTEM ...... 15

5.1 CRS COMPONENTS PRACTISED ...... 15 5.2 PREPARATION ...... 15 LAND PREPARATION ...... 16 CONSTRUCTION OF FARM INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 17 iii

CONSTRUCTION FOR DUCKS ...... 18 CONSTRUCTION FOR FISH ...... 18 CONSTRUCTION FOR BORDER CROPS ...... 19 TIMING AND LABOUR FOR PREPARATION ...... 19 5.3 PRACTISING THE COMPONENTS OF CRS ...... 21 RICE CULTIVATION ...... 21 DUCKS ...... 21 FISH ...... 22 BORDER CROPS ...... 23 AZOLLA ...... 24 TIMING AND LABOUR FOR PRACTICING THE INVOLVED COMPONENTS ...... 24 5.4 WATER MANAGEMENT ...... 25 PRACTICE ...... 25 TIMING AND LABOUR ...... 26 5.5 WEED CONTROL ...... 26 PRACTICE ...... 26 TIMING AND LABOUR ...... 27 5.6 FERTILISER ...... 28 PRACTICE ...... 28 TIMING AND LABOUR ...... 29 5.7 HARVESTING ...... 29 PRACTICE ...... 29 TIMING AND LABOUR ...... 30

6. REASONS FOR PRACTICING COMPLEX RICE SYSTEMS ...... 31

6.1 KNOWLEDGE – PERCEPTION OF REALITY ...... 31 6.2 BELIEF IN THEIR OWN ABILITIES ...... 34 RESOURCES AND MATERIAL SUPPORT ...... 34 SKILLS ...... 35 CAPITAL ...... 36 6.3 RISK PERCEPTIONS ...... 38 MARKET ...... 38 PESTS ...... 39 WATER AVAILABILITY ...... 40 CONTROL ...... 41 LAND TENURE ...... 41 6.4 ASPIRATIONS ...... 42 6.7 TRUST IN THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 43 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION ...... 43 INTERVENTION ...... 45

7. SYNTHESIS ...... 47

7.1 THE LOCAL CONTEXT OF EAST JAVA ...... 47 WATER ...... 47 ACCESS TO RESOURCES ...... 47 THE ROLE OF FARMERS’ GROUPS ...... 48 7.2 REASONS FOR FARMER’S ACTIONS ...... 49 FARMER’S DOUBTS ABOUT CRSS ...... 49

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 51 7.3 UNDERSTANDING THE PRACTICE OF CRSS ...... 52

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 54

REFERENCES: ...... 55

APPENDIX I : THE PATTERN OF CROP BORDER PRACTICE ...... 57

APPENDIX II: OBSERVATION OF THE FARMER’S PRACTICE ...... 60

APPENDIX III: THE REASON OF FARMERS: ...... 63

Table of Table

Table 1. Potential benefits of Complex Rice Systems (CRSs) ...... 1 Table 2. Differences between conventional farming and CRS practices ...... 2 Table 3. Agroecological and socio-economic profile of Lamongan and Malang Sub-districts .. 9 Table 4. Annual cropping calendar of farmers’ activities in Lamongan ...... 11 Table 5. Annual cropping calendar of farmers’ activities in Malang ...... 13 Table 6. Components of CRSs practised by the surveyed farmers ...... 15

SUMMARY

Complex Rice Systems (CRSs) are an integrated rice production system that was introduced to Indonesia in 2014. CRSs are described as the combination of rice, ducks, fish, azolla, and crop border plants. Moreover, CRSs include larger than conventional distances between rice plants, rice cultivation methods recommend in the System of Rice Intensification and the use of organic fertilizer. The system has been introduced to farmers with participatory approaches but, because of the complexity of CRSs, it has been difficult for farmers’, in the context of their day-to-day practices and environment, to understand and quickly adopt the system. Moreover, economic benefits resulting from the system has not been enough to motivate farmers to adapt their local practice to a CRS.

The objective of this study was to gain understanding in how CRSs are practised in East Java. The approach was to describe the system practiced by farmers within their local context as well as to analyse farmers’ motivations to change their practices to the promoted system. A model from Leeuwis and van de Ban was used to identify farmers’ reasons for their practice. The study was conducted in two areas: Lamongan and Malang, East Java. Data was obtained from a literature study, in-depth interviews with 32 informants, and field observations

The study resulted in several findings. First, in terms of local context, Lamongan and Malang have contrasting agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions. Second, the decision of the farmers to practise CRSs is based on their knowledge, belief in their own abilities, perception of risk, aspirations and trust in social institutions. It was found that CRSs are not fully practised by the interviewed farmers. The differences can be explained by looking at local circumstance and reasons for farmers’ choices. It was found that water availability, land, capital and farmer group dynamics need to be considered when examining practices of CRSs in the local farmers. These factors can be supportive as well as pose challenges for the practice of CRSs. The decision-making process of farmers to practise CRSs is multidimensional. They consider not only technical and economic aspects but also aspects related to trust in social institutions. Therefore, to make the adoption of CRSs more attractive to farmers, understanding the local context and farmers’ motivations to change need to be considered. For example, one potentially useful option could be the provision of local resources to farmers. Finally, an exchange program between farmers that enables farmers to witness CRSs and its benefits, in practice, seems needed.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 COMPLEX RICE SYSTEMS (CRSs) IN INDONESIA Rice is one of the most important food crops for people in Indonesia. “No day without rice” is an Indonesian expression to show how important rice is for Indonesian people. They eat rice for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Rice is not only a compulsory meal, it also has many socio-cultural functions in Indonesia (Nan, 2016). The food is an essential part of numerous traditional events and ceremonies, such as weddings, funerals and religious activities. Also, rice is a source of livelihood for a large number of rural families in Indonesia. The Green Revolution changed agricultural practices and, the associated increase in chemical has had several negative impacts. Chemical use in farming can trigger pest resistance to pesticides and herbicides, pest resurgence, human health problems and environmental contamination (Liu et al., 2015). Understanding the disadvantages of the Green Revolution, the government of Indonesia shifted the programme from promoting intensive use of agro-chemicals to integrated pest management (IPM) (Mariyono et al., 2010). Complex rice systems (CRSs) are a valuable innovation used in rice farming, which is being promoted through Farmers Field Schools (FFSs) in four Indonesian cities, Blitar, Malang, Pasuruan and Lamongan (Khumairoh personal interview, 2018). CRSs promote the utilisation of biodiversity in rice cultivation systems by integrating azolla, fish, ducks and border plants into rice fields (Khumairoh et al., 2012; Khumairoh et al., 2018). These additional elements can suppress weeds and pests and provide sufficient nutrients for rice plants, thus improving rice yields without additional agro-chemicals. The system is described as one that improves rice yields through the utilisation of local natural resources and indigenous knowledge practices (Khumairoh et al., 2012). The CRSs promoted through the FFSs are based on organic farming practices and chemicals are replaced by plant and animal species that are selected to buffer the adverse effects of weeds, pests and nutrient shortages. For example, integration of ducks and fish can suppress weeds and pests through their feeding and movement behaviour, combining azolla can fix nitrogen to supply nutrients for rice and feed for fish and ducks and adding border plants can invite and safeguard natural enemies as additional plant protection strategies in CRSs (Khumairoh et al., 2012). Moreover, alternative products from duck meat, eggs, fish and vegetables can increase food and income diversity, which in turn, provides farmers with greater benefits (Khumairoh, 2012). The potential benefits offered by CRSs are summarised in Table 1. Table 1. Potential benefits of Complex Rice Systems (CRSs)

Indicator Potential benefits

Pest Management Effective for natural suppression of pests weeds and disease (Jian et al., 2009; Khumairoh et al., 2012)

Production and Economic Increasing yield (Khumairoh et al., 2012); contributing to increased income for farmers (Khumairoh et al., 2012); increasing food diversity (Zona, 2016); contributing to food security in a changing climate

(Khumairoh et al., 2012)

Health Enhancing farmers household nutrition (Zona, 2016)

Environment Increasing biodiversity in fields (Khumairoh et al., 2012); minimising environmental pollution (Khumairoh et al., 2012)

1.2 COMPLEX RICE SYSTEM PRACTICES AND THE INTRODUCTION OF COMPLEX RICE SYSTEMS IN THIS STUDY

Table 2 presents the differences between current conventional monoculture rice systems and CRS practices.

Table 2. Differences between conventional farming and CRS practices

Conventional monoculture practices CRS practices

Components: Components: • Rice • Rice • Azolla • Ducks • Fish • Border plants

Reconstruction of farm infrastructures: • Reconstruction of farm • None infrastructures: Widening rice bunds • Building ponds • Building duck houses • Fence installations

Water levels: Water levels: Flooded field up to 10 cm from soil surface Create flooded conditions for rice, fish and duck integration

Cultivation methods: Either using or not Cultivation methods: using SRI principles SRI principles are recommended to facilitate the integration of different components and to support better rice growth

Planting distance: Planting distance: 25 cm * 25 cm 30 cm * 30 cm

Inputs: Inputs: Artificial fertilisers, herbicides and Organic fertilisers, azolla, fish, ducklings, pesticides vegetables and other plant seeds

Weed management: Weeding: Herbicides, hand weeding and rotating Done by ducks through their feeding and weeding movement behaviour

Labour: Labour: High labour requirements for hand weeding High labour requirements for initial establishment of CRSs

Investment: Investment: From current condition will not need Training to manage diverse species and initial additional investment capital are required to transform conventional monoculture to CRSs

Product outputs: Product outputs: Rice Rice, fish, ducks, vegetables, fruit

The CRS design process requires an integrated method that considers the existing local natural resources, indigenous knowledge and allows step-by-step adaptations (Khumairoh et al., 2012). Researchers initially introduced CRSs in East Java, Indonesia, between 2014 and 2016 (Khumairoh et al., 2015). Due to the complex and considerable variations in biophysical and socioeconomic conditions of farmers, the researchers developed a participatory prototyping approach for the introduction of CRSs. Subsequently, scientists complemented existing prototype design methods with FFS activities to attain a system that can easily be adapted to specific conditions. The prototyping and setting up of FFSs involved three distinct steps (Figure 1). In the first step, scientists selected 99 households to participate in a survey, transect walks and interviews to develop a farm typology. Afterwards, they set up four FFSs with 80 participants in total and conducted seven meetings. Finally, they reviewed the FFSs with an evaluation and focus group discussions (FGDs) to ascertain suggestions and adjust the design of the CRSs (Khumairoh et al., 2015).

Picture 1. Steps used to design, test and evaluate Complex Rice Systems. FFS: farmer field school; FGD: focus group discussion (Khumairoh et al., 2015)

1.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT CRSs have been developed as an integrated solution to enhance rice production in Indonesia using ecological approaches. Participatory approaches to study CRSs have been conducted to increase the relevance of the research for farmers with the expectation that

3 results could be scaled up. However, translating the concept of CRSs into practice is difficult due to the complexity of integrated elements and the wide range of agricultural practices. Also, Khumairoh (2018) points out that implementing CRSs is challenging because of the large variation in biophysical, social and cultural conditions. The five main components integrated in CRSs are rice, fish, duck, Azolla and border plants (Khumairoh, 2012). However, implementation of CRSs in farmers’ real fields is not a simple process. It implies that farmers change a series of practices, including the use of inputs. Hence, there is a need to understand how local farmers, particularly those participating in the FFSs, have been incorporating CRSs with their local practices. The researchers involved with the introduction of CRSs in the FFSs expect that CRSs can influence agricultural practices and farmers can benefit from the implementation of CRSs in their fields. Conversely, based on a personal interview with one of the researchers, Uma Khumairoh, the benefits shown did not sufficiently motivate the farmers to accept the new practices, and they could return to old practices. Generally speaking, agricultural practice is not dependent on individuals and grounded primarily in rational technical and economic considerations. Leeuwis (2004a) indicates that in agriculture many aspects can contribute to a farmer’s decision concerning their practice and the aspects can be beyond individual conditions. Furthermore, Khumairoh (2017) underlined that certain aspects can influence the farmer’s decision regarding agricultural practices, such as the farmers’ resource base, local biophysical and socio-cultural-economic aspects, besides training and knowledge. Therefore, it will be useful to comprehend the agro-ecological and socio-cultural-economic context at a local scale. It will provide a better comprehension of the local potential or challenges that may possibly influence the farmer’s decision to accept or reject the promoted CRS practices on their fields. The principal objective of this study was to gain more understanding of how CRSs are practised. This was done by describing farmers’ practices and analysing their reasons for incorporating (or not) CRSs in their fields. More specifically, this study focused on the specific circumstances of local farmers in East Java and how these circumstances can affect farmers’ decisions in terms of changing from conventional to innovative practices. This result may be beneficial as a conceptual framework for structuring subsequent CRS promotion activities based on the local context in East Java.

1.5 RESEARCH QUESTION The main research question is: How are Complex Rice Systems practised in East Java, Indonesia?

The sub-research questions are: 1. How does the agro-ecological and socio-cultural-economic context of farmers in East Java, particularly Malang and Lamongan, challenge or support CRS practices? 2. How do farmers practise CRSs in their fields? And what are the similarities and differences in CRS practice across the cities? 3. What are the motivations for farmers to change completely, partially or not at all from “old practices” to “CRS practices”?

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The research applied the model of ‘Reason of Action’ developed by by Leeuwis and Van De Ban. Leeuwis (2004a) maintains that the assumption that agriculture is an activity carried out and/or decided upon by a single individual, and grounded primarily in rational technical and economic consideration, is flawed. He emphasises that decisions relating to agriculture are not made solely by the individual “head of the household” but extend to other households and/or community members and are also influenced by other actors in, or even outside, the agricultural production chain. As well as technical and economic considerations, a range of other less tangible factors play a role in shaping farmers’ practices. These additional factors relate to issues of power, identity, culture, conflict, religion, risk and trust. In a nutshell, farming practices are shaped by, apart from agro-ecological conditions, a series of social interactions between different people at various points in time and in different locations within the context of a wider social system. Furthermore, Azjen and Fischbein (1980), mentioned in Leeuwis (2004a), suggest that what actors do and do not is not just influenced by their knowledge. The action of actors can be influenced by other perceptions regarding their own (and other agents) aspirations, capacities, opportunities, responsibilities, identities duties, etc (Leeuwis, 2004a). According to the model developed by Leeuwis and Van Den Ban, farmers may have different sorts of reasons for engaging or not engaging in specific practices, which can be mentioned under composite variables (Leeuwis, 2004a).

Picture 2. Model of basic variables which are relevant to understand individual farmers’ responses to proposed alternative practices (Leeuwis, 2004b)

Leeuwis’ model is considered suitable to understand farmers’ decisions and motivations to use particular practices. The Leeuwis model will be used in this study to determine the variables that play an essential role in shaping farmers’ practice with respect to CRSs in East Java. The variables mentioned in this model were used as a guide to creating survey questions for data collection in the field.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This section describes the case study area and the methods used to collect and analyse the data. The field work was undertaken in two cities in East Java, Malang and Lamongan. This research used three different and complementary data collection methods: a literature study, individual in-depth interviews and observation.

3.1 CASE STUDY AREA

Picture 3. Case study area

This research was conducted in September–October 2018. The fieldwork was conducted in Lamongan, focusing on Lamongan sub-district and in Malang, concentrating on the subdistricts of Kepanjen and Lawang. The cities have different natural and socio- demographical characteristics. The distance between the two cities is 145 km, approximately three hours by public or private transport.

3.2 DATA COLLECTION

3.2.1 Literature Study The literature study included experimental scientific reports and secondary data pertaining to CRS practices. Reports and secondary data were obtained from online sources as well as from contact with local government representatives and scientists. The scientific literature is valuable in terms of gaining theoretical insight into CRS practices.

3.2.2 In-Depth Interviews The primary data for this research was collected using in-depth interviews. The individual in-depth interviews consisted of semi-structured and open questions. According to Yin (2009), the individual in-depth interview allows the researcher to ask key informants about their opinions concerning events and facts. In this research, key informant sampling was based on the individual’s ability to provide comprehensive and valuable information and insights concerning the research questions. Each interview was recorded with the permission of the informants. In total 32 individual in-depth interviews were conducted, consisting of 30 local farmers, 15 from each city, one scientist (Uma Khumairoh as the main researcher of CRSs) and one agricultural extension agent (who was responsible for Lamongan sub-district). The interviewed farmers were those who had been referred to the CRS FFSs by the scientists and the extension agent. The farmers were questioned on their practices and their motivations to practice (or not) CRS. However, with respect to CRS practices within local practices, the only three farmers from each city were interviewed. These farmers were the owners of fields which were used for the CRS trial project. Furthermore, based on scientists and the extension agent’s recommendation, these farmers were the key individuals for the promotion of the CRS in their area. In Malang, the three farmers were Kaseri, Yupi and Sugiartoyo, whilst the three farmers in Lamongan were Rawi, Wari and Akhad.

3.2.3 Observation In this research, observation was used to obtain insight into farmers’ practice of CRS. Observation can help to obtain a valuable picture of practices in the field (Bernand, 2012). Farms and farmers' practices in relation to CRS were observed. During farm visits, observations were complemented with numerous questions related to the observations to assist with gathering evidence. The observations were conducted in Lamongan and Malang. However, more time was spent making observations in Lamongan than in Malang. Thus, the primary research was located in Lamongan and focused on Lamongan regency where the farmers who attended the CRS FFS were living. Focusing on this regency enabled collection of information about farmers’ social life and farming activities, etc. Observations from Malang were used to obtain further information and make comparisons with Lamongan.

3.3 DATA ANALYSIS Data analysis was initiated during the data collection phase of the research. This involved reflecting on the data collected and, whether it adequately helped to answer the research questions. This led to further considerations to refine and acquire more information to answer the research question. Data was obtained from transcriptions from recorded interviews and comprehensive field notes. To gain a clear understanding of the data obtained, the researcher did a thorough, detailed and repeated reading of the field notes and listened attentively to recordings. Consequently, this helped to see themes, common patterns, differences, unexpected phenomena and resulted in a more informed conscious reorganisation of data into themes.

3.4 METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS To acquire a comprehensive picture of CRS practices, it was essential to observe the farmers’ activities and their work in the rice fields. However, this was a challenge for several 7 reasons. First, time was a limiting factor. The rice planting process requires four months, but the researcher was not able to remain in the field for this entire period. Second, the timing of the field work did not align with the farmer’s production period. Third, the dry season lasted longer than expected and the farmer’ fields, particularly in Lamongan, were attacked by mice and as a result a number of farmers stopped working in their fields at the moment.

4. LOCAL CONTEXT 4.1 GENERAL PROFILE This chapter presents the agroecological, social and economic conditions in Lamongan and Malang. The farmers in Lamongan appear to use fewer inputs and encounter more challenges than those in Malang (e.g. water supply and organic material). With respect to the social conditions, Lamongan seems more favourable than Malang. In both Lamongan and Malang, farmers have formed farmers’ groups. According to the Departement Pertanian or Depan (Ministry of Agriculture in Indonesia) (2017), a farmers’ group is an association formed on the basis of common interests, conditions (social, economic or resource) or environment and awareness to improve and to develop the member’s business. The formation of the group aims to be a place of knowledge sharing or transfer, cooperation and production units (Mardikanto, 1993). The contrasting conditions of both locations regarding agro-ecological and socioeconomic indicators can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3. Agroecological and socio-economic profile of Lamongan and Malang Sub-districts

Context Lamongan Malang Agroecological (Source: Khumairoh, 2018) Coordinates 7o08’27,10’’S-112o23’46,79’’E 8o09’11,82’’S-112o34’33,32’’E Altitude (m) 8 325 Mean temperature 26oC 24oC Mean precipitation 1600 mm 2321 mm Soil types Vertosol Clay Incept sol silty clay Type of rice field Rainfed field Irrigated Field Water resource Mostly rain. There is reservoir, but River (Brantas River, one of the the farmers have to pay to gain biggest rivers in East Java) and rain water Rice field size 0.25 – 0.5 ha 0.5 -1 ha Main Crops Rice, corn Rice Food crops Chilli, tomato, aubergine, Maize, cassava, sweet potatoes, cucumber, peanuts and soybeans Livestock Chicken, duck Cattle, chicken, goat, duck Grazing land Farmers tend only to farm their Farmers tend only to farm their livestock in cages rather than livestock in cages rather than allowing them to graze allowing them to graze Socio-economic indicators (Source: in-depth interviews with the farmers) Transport from/to the Accessible with motorcycle Car, motorcycle, public nearest town/main transportation, online transportation market Age 40-60 years old 30-50 years old Family involved Wife Wife, daughter, son Land ownership Family/renting Farmer owned Total working hours Full-time farmers (6.00 - 17.00 with a Full-time farmers (7.00 -16.00 with break from 11.30 – 13.00) break from 11.00-12.00). Part-time farmers (work dependent on their free time)

Off Farm income - Eatery, construction worker, company worker Capital From Family, subsidies, assurance Only from Family Cost Management (currency used at the moment 1 euro = 16.000 idr ) (Source: in-depth interviews with the farmers)

Farm Operation Women’s labour 80,000 idr / 8 hours (€5 / 8 hours) 120,000 idr /8 hours (€7,5 / 8 hours) Men’s labour 100,000 idr / day (€6.25 / 8 hours) 150,000 idr / 8 hours (€9,4/ 8 hours) Land rent 25,000,000 idr / 1 ha/ year (€1,562,5 - /1 ha/ year) Land preparation 360,000 idr/ha (€ 22,5 / ha) 400,000 idr/ ha (€ 25 / ha) Seeding 1.200.000 idr /ha (€75/ ha) 2.000.000 idr/ha (€ 125 / ha) Weeding 240,000 idr / ha (€15/ ha) 240,000 idr/ha (€ 15 / ha) Harvesting 500.000 idr/ ha (€31,25/ ha) 750.000 idr/ha (€ 46 / ha) Input Hybrid seeds 10,000 - 15,000 idr / kg (€0,6 – 0,9 / 10,000 - 15,000 idr / kg (€0,6 – 0,9 / kg) kg) Fertiliser 20.000-25.000 idr/ kg (€1,25 – 1,56 / 20.000-25.000 idr/ kg (€1,25 – 1,56 / kg) kg) Pesticide 40,000-45,000 / litres (€2,25 – 3 40,000-45,000 / litres (€2,25 – 3 /litters) /litters) Fungicide 40,000-45,000 / litres (€2,25 – 3 40,000-45,000 / litres (€2,25 – 3 /litters) /litters) Transportation - - Ducks (1-month-old) 30,000 - 40,000 idr / duck (€2 – 2,25 27,000 - 35,000 idr / duck (€1,6 – 2,1 /duck) /duck) Duck DOD 10.000 – 15.000 idr/ 5 tails (€0,62 9.000-13.000 idr / 5 tails (€0,5 /duck) /duck) Fishes 25,000 -40,000 idr / kg (€0,1,5-2,5 20,000 -30,000 idr / kg (€0,1,25-1,8 /kg) /kg) Crop Border 40,000-45,000 idr / kg (€2,25-2,8/kg) 40,000-45,000 / kg (€2,25-2,8/kg) Azolla 40,000-45,000idr / kg (€2,25-2,8/kg) 40,000-45,000 / litres (€2,25-2,8/kg) Output Dry grain 4,800 idr / kg (€0,2/kg) 5000 idr / kg (€0,3/kg) Maize 35,000 - 40,000 idr / kg ( €2-2,25/kg) 40,000 - 45,000 idr / kg ( €2,5-2,8/kg) Fish 30.000-40.000 idr/ kg ( €2-2,5/tail) 50.000-60.000 idr/ kg (€3-3,5/tail) Vegetable 75,000 idr / kg ( €4,6/kg) 75,000 idr / kg ( €4,8/kg) Cucumber 7,000 idr / kg ( €0,4/kg) 8,000 idr / kg ( €0,4/kg) Chilli 10,000 - 20,000 idr / kg ( €0,625 – 10,000 - 20,000 idr / kg ( €0,625 – 1,25/kg) 1,25/kg) Tomato 1,000 - 2,000 idr / kg ( €0,06-0,10 1,000 - 2,000 idr / kg ( €0,06-0,10 /kg) /kg) Yard long beans 2,000 - 3,000 idr / kg ( €0,06-0,10 2,000 - 3,000 idr / kg ( €0,06-0,10 /kg) /kg)

It can be noted that labour is cheaper in Lamongan than in Malang. Input costs and prices for outputs vary and depend on what the farmers plant in their fields.

4.2 LAMONGAN The topography of Lamongan is predominantly area with a height of 25-100 metres above sea level. Lamongan consists of 27 regencies which are divided into three main categories, south-central, north and south. The south-central regencies are low-lying, relatively fertile and suitable for farming. This research focused on the Lamongan sub-district, located in one of the south-central regencies - the Lamongan Regency. The sub districts in the north and south of Lamongan are typically dominated by rocky limestone mountains that are moderately fertile. Lamongan sub-district contains 20 villages. The number of women in the Lamongan sub-district is slightly higher than the number of men (women 34,453, men 33,720) (BPS Kabupaten Lamongan, 2018). Farming is the most popular occupation (27% of the population) followed by unemployed, students, farm labourers and freelance workers. A small percentage of the population works as civil servants, and in private and government companies. Farmers in the Lamongan sub-district practise crop rotation. Next to rice, as border crops, they grow maize and horticultural crops (only in the wet season). Their crop rotation aims to support production even when water is unavailable. A typical farm activity calendar can be seen in Table 4. Table 4. Annual cropping calendar of farmers’ activities in Lamongan

Activities Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Preparing land Planting - rice - maize - horticultural crops Weeding Fertiliser Harvesting - rice - maize Source: In-depth interviews with the farmers in Lamongan, 2018

The interviewed farmers do not prioritise livestock as they tend to invest in improving their houses. For them, a better house relates to social status and confidence. This condition is different compare to the farmers living in other sub-district of Lamongan regency in which they prefer to invest their money in livestock. The farmers’ working hours depend on the season. In the wet season, the farmers normally start their work in the fields at 06.00, one hour earlier than in the dry season. In both seasons, they work until approximately 17.00. This research was conducted during a particularly dry year when farmers could no longer obtain water. As a result, their working hours were more flexible and on certain days, they did not work in the fields at all.

Income derived from farm activities is the main source of income for farmers in Lamongan. The regional minimum wage in Lamongan is 2.233.641 idr (€136). The farmers’ incomes are not lower than the minimum wage. Moreover, they do not have any other source of income outside the farm. Farm labourers who are primarily paid in cash are available to work on the farms. Under some conditions, it is acceptable for an individual farmer to help his/her extended family members with the cultivation of their fields and to assist with other tasks. They do not receive payment or a share of the harvest but are provided with a meal. This situation occurs particularly when the farmers are ill, or someone has died. The family member will first finish their own tasks and then help others. The relationship between men and women is close and, women are considered in decisions relating to farming. Typically, men will ask their wives’ opinion when making decisions. They listen to their wives because virtually every farming task is collaborative. Men will readily make decisions to avoid cases where their wives are unable to participate in daily farming practices. Additionally, many farmers in Lamongan live with their sons or daughters and parents. The older farmers (50-60 years old) graduated from elementary school and the younger ones (35-49 years old) graduated from senior high school. For the youngest generation, senior high school is generally the education level attained and this generation does not want to help their parents on the farm. In Lamongan, farmers still live in close harmony with each other. Social problems are overcome in the standard way. The farmers work hand-in-hand to conduct communal activities, such as funerals, coping with personal issues and maintaining public infrastructure. Farmers are able to leave their farm activities when their family asks them to participate in cultural events, such as a wedding ceremony. The farmers participate in an active farmers’ group. The group is well coordinated with respect to material support from local government and farming practices. The farmers’ group is useful for solving on-farm issues. For instance, when farmers experience crop failure, the farmers’ group can provide a loan. Likewise, the group is the centre of knowledge sharing. The relationship among group members is close and, they frequently spend time together. The group leader is active and constantly looking for innovation, insight or information to share with his members. The leader has shown willingness to be involved in trials to reduce the group members’ doubts about a promoted innovations, insights or systems. Moreover, when issues relating to farming practices arise, the leader is passionate about exploring options and problem solving.

4.3 MALANG Malang regency is located on a plateau that is surrounded by several mountains and valleys. This regency is located at an altitude of 250-500 metres above sea level. The elevation and mountainous conditions make Malang cool. The average humidity ranges from 72-91 % and, the most rainfall occurs in November and the least in September. Malang consists of 33 sub-districts, two of which are Kepanajen and Lawang, where the fieldwork for this research was conducted. The number of women is higher than that of men BPS Kabupaten Malang, 2018). Most people in both sub-districts are farmers and several hold formal jobs as teachers, government officers, and employees of companies and social services. Farmers in Malang can work on their farms every time because they can gain sufficient water easily. They focus on planting rice every planting period. Only two of the surveyed and observed farmers in this study practise crop rotation. Those practicing crop rotation do so

12 because they are aware of the fertility of their soil. In their opinion, soil needs to rest to make it better for the subsequent rice planting period. A typical farm activity calendar can be seen in Table 5.

Table 5. Annual cropping calendar of farmers’ activities in Malang

Activities Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Preparing land Planting - rice - ducks - fish Weeding Fertiliser Harvesting - rice - ducks - fish Source: In-depth interviews with the farmers in Malang, 2018

Only a few farmers have livestock, particularly draft animals, like buffalo or cows. Those farmers who work in private companies or with other off-farm employment tend to work less on their farms and rely on their wives for farm labour. Farm work is often undertaken during their free time. For instance, if they work in a company in the afternoon, they will go to the farm first thing in the morning. Moreover, the farmers encourage each other to be entrepreneurial. For instance, it is common to open small shops that sell daily requirements and food or, they provide services such as motorcycle and car washing. In general, the farmers in Malang earn more or the same as the regional minimum salary of 2.700.00 idr (163 euro). They cultivate large areas and rely on additional sources of income. The male of the household appears to be the final decision-maker concerning farming practice. Women tend to accept their husband’s decisions and work on the farm when requested. Regarding other aspects of their lives, consultation and discussion between husband and wife is common and women can make independent decisions on minor issues such as paying school fees, buying kitchen supplies and managing poultry. A number of farmers in Malang live alone with their nuclear family, although some also live with their parents. Generally, the farmers graduated from senior high school and they send their children to university. The education facilities in Malang are good, some of the best schools and a famous university are located in the city. Most farmers in Malang do not seek support from their farmers’ group, even though they are members. The farmers’ group is poorly coordinated and managed and, as a result farmer do not feel a sense of belonging to the group. Instead, farmers solve issues related to farming practice independently. They tend to perform farming activities on their own, placing their own needs before that of the group. The group does meet their administrative requirements so that they can gain any support available from their local government. Even though the local government provides some support to this group, the contribution is unclear. The group encounters unequal information sharing with reference to a new system, insight

13 or innovation because member is unwilling to share information with other members. Furthermore, the members of this group are extremely competitive with each another.

5. PRACTISING THE COMPLEX RICE SYSTEM 5.1 CRSs COMPONENTS PRACTISED This chapter portrays how CRSs are practised by farmers. Table 6 presents the different components of CRSs and reports the number of interviewed farmers practising them. The total number of the farmers is 30, 15 in Lamongan and 15 in Malang.

Table 6. Components of CRSs practised by the surveyed farmers

Lamongan Malang Before CRS was After CRS was Before CRS was After CRS was Component promoted promoted promoted promoted (persons) (persons) (persons) (persons)

Ducks 0 0 0 2 Fish 0 2 0 1 Azolla 0 0 0 0 Border crop 0 15 0 3 Organic 0 2 6 15 fertiliser Planting space 0 1 0 2 Rice cultivated 0 0 0 1 from SRI

During the field work in Lamongan, it was found that all farmers planted border crops. Two of these farmers, Rawi and Hambali, also incorporated fish into their rice fields. Rawi applied organic fertiliser as well. In Malang, it was observed that all of the farmers applied organic fertiliser. Two farmers, Yupi and Sugiartoyo, also introduced ducks and planted border crops. With the exception of introducing Azolla, Yupi practiced all CRS components. In order to gain a complete picture of how CRSs are implemented, the CRSs practised by farmers are compared to the academic perspective of CRSs. In addition, this chapter explores farmers’ techniques, tools, time and labour.

5.2 PREPARATION Regarding CRSs, when farmers decide to change from a conventional rice system to a CRS, they incorporate additional components into their rice fields, namely ducks, azolla, crop border and fishes. Changes that allow the addition of ducks and fish begin with preparation. For instance, if they want to incorporate ducks into their rice fields, they consider building duck houses on their fields. Moreover, if they consider implementing border crops, they need to think about making space on their land to fit additional crops as well as how the border crops are planted. These types of adjustments require several modifications. Therefore, understanding how farmers adapt their systems can be valuable. The scientist explained the preparation step in CRS:

“The preparation that is similar to the conventional rice planting system can be undertaken. However, the preparation can be flexible because it follows what the farmers have decided to implement” (In-depth interview with Khumairoh, Scientist).

5.2.1 Land Preparation Basically, preparation begins with land preparation in order for the rice to be planted. Preparation of the other components that are involved is undertaken afterwards. Land preparation consists of two main activities, specifically ploughing and harrowing, or termed ‘primary tillage’. Those activities aim to attain a reasonable depth (10-15 cm) of soft soil with varying clod sizes, to kill weeds by burying or cutting and exposing the roots, and to chop and to incorporate crop residue. The presence of water influences how the farmers prepare their land. Typically, water is abundant during the wet season allowing farmers in both Lamongan and Malang to gain sufficient water at this stage. Adequate water makes the soil soft and therefore easy to plough. Farmers in Lamongan use a hand tractor for their initial tillage. However, in the dry season, water can be in short supply making the soil harder than in the wet season. This is particularly the case in Lamongan where farmers struggle to secure water. When asked about his land preparation, one farmer from Lamongan responded:

“It is possible to do land preparation with a tractor in the wet season because the soil is soft. The situation is totally different in the third planting period when manual tillage is a good choice. I have a tractor which is very helpful. I am often hired by other farmers as I can prepare the land as soon as possible. Farmers here can rent the tractor not only directly from the owner but also from our farmers’ group. We have two tractors that we got from local government” (In-depth interview with Akhad, Lamongan)

People in Malang gave the same response regarding how they prepare their land and stated that a hand tractor is a common tool. It is interesting to note that in Lamongan, ploughing and harrowing with draft animals no longer exists. The farmers in Lamongan do not keep livestock and in contrast to mechanical power, animal power requires more time. When asked about the use of hand tractors, one farmer in Lamongan responded:

“We have moved to a mechanical process. The tractor is familiar to farmers here. Draft animals do not exist anymore since the farmers do not keep. For me personally, the tractor is more acceptable because it can do the job quickly.” (In-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

However, in Malang, several farmers still use draft animals for ploughing and harrowing with a mouldboard plough. The method has been maintained as it is not always possible to hire a tractor when needed during the wet season. Most farmers undertake their primary tillage activities at the same time so there is competition for the limited number of tractors available. In practice, the waiting time to hire a tractor and operator, as well as rainfall, soil moisture and available labour determine when farmers start land preparation. Those with draft animals prepare their soil as soon as possible and hire out their services to earn additional income. When one of the livestock owners was asked why he still uses animal power for land preparation, this is how he responded:

“I have livestock, two buffalo behind my house. They mean a lot to my farm, particularly for land preparation. Normally, my friends use a tractor to prepare the

land, but I tend to use buffalo. I choose this option to overcome the long waiting time to hire a tractor in the wet season, because my friends do primary tillage in the same period. I do not have to wait in line to hire a tractor. Hence, I have time to do my job and after preparing my land, I am able to be hired.” (In-depth interview with Thahir, Malang)

When the seasonal conditions in Lamongan are dry, instead of using a tractor for tillage operations, farmers use a hand hoe. Hand ploughing and harrowing are done collaboratively. One Lamongan farmer discusses land preparation with insufficient water:

“The texture of the soil is extremely hard, and it is impossible to use a tractor. Thus, using a hand hoe is the best choice, I guess. I can prepare my land while I am waiting for rain. Thus, when rain waters my soil and makes it softer, I can continue to the next activity.” (In-depth interview with Akhad, Lamongan)

On the other hand, in the dry season farmers in Malang till their land in the same way as in the wet season. They are able to access sufficient water to soften their soil by irrigating their fields. This explanation was offered by a farmer from Malang:

“Tractors are still used for ploughing in the dry season. There is no difference between what I do regarding land preparation in the wet and dry seasons. What I need to do is to make sure that I have the opportunity to rent a tractor as soon as possible because demand for a tractor and its operator increases.” (In-depth interview with Sugiartoyo, Malang)

5.2.2 Construction Of Farm Infrastructure As mentioned in Table 2, some construction of additional infrastructure is needed to support the implementation of CRS practices. During land preparation, farmers in Lamongan and Malang create channels for irrigation and drainage and rebuild dykes. This work is traditionally done with a hand hoe. The channels are about 15 cm deep. The main irrigation channels and dykes that are located outside private farms are constructed together. The farmers in Lamongan construct stronger, higher and wider dykes than those in Malang (Figure 2). The different dykes can be explained by how farmers obtain water for their farms. In Lamongan, the dykes serve to collect water on individual farms. Thus, their fields look like bowls that catch as much water as possible when it rains. A farmer in Lamongan discusses the construction of dykes:

“We realise that we rely on rain, so we want to catch as much water as possible when it rains. Large and strong dykes help us to get water. This is normal, we understand our condition and discuss this with the other farmers close to our fields.” (In-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

Because water can be collected easily in Malang the dykes are only used as field boundaries. A farmer in Malang discusses the construction of dykes:

“The dykes on the border of our farm are small and not high. I cannot build my dykes higher or larger because my neighbour will get angry with me. The dykes are symbolic

to indicate the borders of our fields and, they serve as paths for access to our fields. You could say that the dykes are a footpath, something like this.” (In-depth interview with Sugiartoyo, Malang)

Picture 4. (a) Dykes in Lamongan, (b) Dykes in Malang

5.2.3 Construction For Ducks This section refers to farmers in Malang as none of the farmers in Lamongan had introduced ducks into their rice fields. An important consideration for the location of duck houses is that they must not disrupt the irrigation channel. In terms of size, a duck house should be able to house six to ten ducklings and keep them warm at night. Individual farmers designed and built the duck houses of wood. One farmer discusses the construction of duck houses:

“Preparation for introducing ducks to the farm starts with considering where I will put the duck house. I do not want interference with other parts of the farm. Personally, I did not find planning and building a duck house difficult and, I made it on the farm. I made the duck house for the ducks to keep warm at night.” (In-depth interview with Yupi, Malang).

Moreover, farmers must prepare some support materials such as netting or plastic to encircle the field to keep the ducks on the farm. One farmer explains:

“We know that ducks are active animals and will go wherever they want. Hence, we have to make sure that they stay around our field.” (In-depth interview with Sugiartoyo, Malang)

5.2.4 Construction For Fish Preparation for the introduction of fish into the farms differed between Lamongan and Malang and this can again be explained by the difference in access to water between the sub-districts. In Lamongan, farmers created ponds inside their farms while those in Malang did not. The aim of the ponds was to collect rain water. The ponds were about 40 cm deep and their surface area depended on the size of the fields. The ponds were connected to the rice fields allowing fish to swim freely between the pond and fields. A farmer in Lamongan explains:

“When I decided to put fish in my field, I thought about the pond as well. This should be considered because I needed to prepare it before the fish were released. I needed to collect rain water for the fish as well for the rice, so for me, making a pond on the side of the rice field was most appropriate. The process of making the pond involved ploughing and harrowing.” (In-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

In contrast, one farmer from Malang explains:

“Preparation for the fish did not include making a pond. The rice field is the fish’s pond already.” (In-depth interview with Yupi, Malang)

5.2.5 Construction For Border Crops

Farmers need to prepare land on the edge of the rice fields to plant border crops. Again, there were observed differences between Lamongan and Malang. As mentioned above, the farmers in Lamongan construct larger dykes than those in Malang. Border crops can be grown on top of the larger dykes in Lamongan. A farmer in Lamongan explains:

“Space must be prepared for a border crop. When I rebuild my dykes, I prepare a space for planting border crops.” (In-depth interview with Wari, Lamongan)

However, the farmers in Malang are not concern about space for crop borders. In case, their dykes look enough to grow crop border, they will use the dykes and in vice versa. Farmers in Malang explain their approach to preparing space for border crops:

“To be honest, I am not heavily concerned by border crops since I don’t really have enough space. However, if I want to put a border crop on the edge of my field, I just rebuild my dykes a little bit larger, but not too large. I need to make sure that the dykes can be used to grow plants as well as for a footpath. My dykes are a limited size.” (In- depth interview with Sugiartoyo, Malang).

Other materials are also needed for border crops such as stakes to support plants. The materials are needed to stake the crop borders. A farmer from Lamongan discusses the materials needed:

“I collect dry twigs from around my fields to support my border crops. If I plant cucumber, then the twigs would be useful as stakes for the plants. Alternatively, the twigs can be used as plant so that we do not step on the seedlings.” (In-depth interview with Wari, Lamongan)

5.2.6 Timing And Labour For Preparation The timing and additional labour needed to incorporate CRS components into the farming systems requires consideration. One farmer from Lamongan expresses that the additional effort is minimal and in this regard farmers in Malang had a similar perspective:

“It is not really difficult to prepare for the components involved in a CRS. I guess what I have done in rice preparation is already what I need for the components involved.” (In-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

Preparing and cultivating rice is considered their main priority. They conduct the preparation for rice planting first. With respect to the timing of preparation, there were differences between the farmers in Lamongan and Malang. In Lamongan, one farmer explained that the presence of water is considered paramount:

“I have to wait for the third rain in order to start ploughing in the wet season and in the transition from the dry season to the wet season. I decide the timing of my actions based on my experience from previous planting periods.” (In-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

Those in Lamongan encounter various challenges when deciding precisely when to start preparing their land:

“I cannot predict that the timing of preparation. In the wet season, normally I will wait for the third rain to come to make sure that water will be sufficient. During the season, like now (transition from the dry season to the wet season), I do not need to wait for water because I do not do land preparation. I call the plant system gogo (it is described in the following explanation)” (In-depth interview with Akhad, Lamongan).

For the farmers in Malang with reliable access to water, they only need to wait until their fields are inundated with water before starting to prepare their land:

“Preparing land is not challenging since we get water every time. As a result, it is possible to use a tractor all year here. However, to gain enough water, sometimes I have to wait my turn for water to be distributed from the land above my field.” (In- depth interview with Kaseri, Malang)

Besides water, the availability of labour and draft or mechanical power influences when farmers in Malang and Lamongan prepare their land. For those in Lamongan, during the transition season (from the dry to the wet season) when they do not use a tractor, the farmers need only consider the availability of labour. The number of labourers needed to conduct each task is considered in a similar way by the farmers in Lamongan and Malang:

“One tractor needs two operators for 0.25 hectares. If I do it myself, I will be tired. So, I need a friend to help me and operate the tractor alternately. It is mostly men who prepare the land. My wife helps to provide food in the field. In the other season, we work manually because the soil is impossible to plough with a tractor. I guess that around six to eight people can finish one hectare.” (In-depth interview with Akhad, Lamongan)

5.3 Practising The Components Of CRSs This section describes, in detail, the different components of CRSs.

5.3.1 Rice Cultivation It has been recommended that farmers follow aspects from SRI when implementing rice. These include a wider plant spacing of 30 by 30 cm and transplanting single rice plants ten days after sowing (seedlings at the two to three leaf stage). In Lamongan, the farmers have two different rice cultivation methods that are determined by the season. In the wet season, the farmers in Lamongan use conventional methods for planting and transplanting in the transition season, the farmers in Lamongan have a method called “GOGO”. With this method, the rice seed is planted directly into the field by putting it into a hole with a depth of 5 cm by using a sharp wooden stick. Farmers in Lamongan do not adopt the SRI practice of transplanting rice ten days after sowing. One farmer explains:

“After around five days the seeds are diffused. Next, about a month later, I transplant the seedlings...... ” (In-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

In Malang, the farmers follow the SRI practise in which they transplant the rice two weeks after sowing when the seedlings are at the two to three leaf stage. One of the farmers explained:

“I could say that the land and seed preparation can be conducted together. After this, I sow the seeds in my field. do this alone, although my wife helps me occasionally. I let the seedlings grow for several days, around two weeks, and then prepare for transplanting. Normally, I transplant the when the seedlings have three leaves.” (In-depth interview with Kaseri, Malang)

In term of planting distance, the farmers in Lamongan are reluctant to change their planting distance from 25 cm within and between rows. One farmer explains:

“The planting space used is still normal (25 cm *25 cm *25 cm), I have not changed this.” (In-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan) On the other hand, the farmers in Malang follow a modified version of the CRS recommendation to plant rice at a larger distance. One farmer explains:

“For transplanting, I normally use a spacing of 25 cm * 45 cm * 25 cm.” (In-depth interview with Kaseri, Malang) 5.3.2 Ducks During fieldwork in Malang, two different ways of herding ducks was observed (Figure 3). The first approach was similar to that practiced by the researchers demonstrating CRS. With this approach the farmers allow the ducks to live freely in their field. Another approach involved the farmers herding the ducks close to their homes and bringing them to and from the rice fields in the morning and afternoon, respectively. The different approaches were chosen based on the distance between the farmers’ rice fields and their homes. The first approach was preferred by farmers living closer to their fields. The herding approach determined the maturity of the ducks selected by the farmers. The farmers who allowed ducks to live freely in their fields chose ducks that were two months old and already had

21 feathers. The farmers who herded the ducks to and from their fields chose younger ducklings as they could take care of them in their homes until the ducks were mature enough to be released into their fields. One of the farmers describes the first approach:

“I put ten ducks in my rice field. My rice field is about one hectare, but I contain the ducks on half this area. Before I introduced ducks to my field, of course, I made a house for them. I bought two-month old ducks that were ready to be released so that I didn’t need to take more care of them. “(In-depth interview with Yupi, Malang)

The second approach is described by another farmer:

“There is no duck house on my field because I never leave them overnight in my field. It is too risky. Normally, I bring them in the morning, let’s say around 9.00. If I do not work or in the afternoon, I will let them free in my field for around two to three hours. On the weekend, I leave them in the field from 8.00 to around 17.00. I keep my duck house behind my house so that they are always in my control. “ (In-depth interview with Sugiartoyo, Malang)

To control the movement of ducks, the farmers use net or plastic fencing around their fields. Wooden sticks are needed to stake the fences. One farmer explained:

“I need a net and wooden sticks for a fence. The material is used to make a border around the farm.” (In-depth interview with Sugiartoyo, Malang).

Picture 5. Ducks introduced into a rice field in Malang

5.3.3 Fish In term of practicing fish, Khumairoh (2018) recommend that the farmers need to know when the fishes can be released. By releasing fish in right, this component will not damage rice. Moreover, in her research, she chooses Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) as species fishes to be involved. However, the species of released fishes can be done differently. This is how Khumairoh explained about fish practice:

“Farmers need to concern on time of releasing fish. This activity needs to be in right time to make combination work perfectly. Also, the farmers can choose which species fishes will be released” (In-depth interview with Khumairoh, scientist)

The farmers in Lamongan and Malang were managing fish in a similar way. A difference between the two sub-districts was the species of fish chosen by the farmers. A farmer from Lamongan discussed his preferred species:

“I choose Bandeng (Chanos chanos), Giant gourami (Osphronemus goramy) and wader (Osteochilus vittatus) in my field.” (In-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan).

Likewise, a farmer in Malang referred to his preferred species:

“I prefer to choose tilapia (Nila), Giant gourami (Osphronemus goramy) (In-depth interview with Yupi, Malang)

5.3.4 Border Crops According to Khumairoh (personal interview 2018), the border crops has two main functions – a food source and a trap for pests. This is how she explained the function of border crops:

“Besides planting edible crops on the border of rice fields, it is recommended in CRS that farmers plant other plants to distract pests. Thus, the pest will not damage the rice crop.” (Khumairoh, the scientist)

The difference between border cropping in Lamongan and Malang related to the degree to which they prioritised this practice. In Lamongan, farmers placed equal emphasis on the border crops and on their rice crop. On the other hand, farmers in Malang saw the border crops as complementary to their rice crop. Normally, after transplanting the paddy, the farmers in Lamongan take a break for around three days, after which they continue working in the field to plant the border crop. Border crops are planted on the dykes that were prepared when preparing the rice fields. Additional preparation for the border crops involves seed and stake preparation. A farmer from Lamongan describes the process of preparing and planting a border crop:

“Everything is precisely prepared. My wife and I do it together. I use a wooden stick, 1.5 metres long, that is sharpened at the end, to make a hole. Next, my wife helps me by putting two to three seeds into each hole.” (In-depth interview with Wari, Lamongan)

Technically the farmers in Malang plant their border crops in the same way as those in Lamongan border. However, based on the latest report from a local extension agent (Agustina, 2017), there are at least six different designs of local horticulture beds (see Appendix 1). In Malang, the farmers plant in one row along their dykes, while in Lamongan the dykes are wide enough to support multiple rows of border plants. The border crops used in Lamongan and Malang are diverse. The differentiation is determined by the aim of the border crop. In Lamongan, the farmers see border crops as a

23 source of food, so they prefer to grow edible plants. However, the farmers in Malang tend to grow inedible plants to create a habitat that diverts pests from the rice crop. Plants grown in Lamongan include:

“I commonly grow vegetable such as squash, eggplant, sweet corn, chilli pepper and cucumber.” (In-depth interview with Wari, Lamongan)

Plants grown in Malang include:

“I occasionally grow peanuts and chilli. But, more often I grow flowers or other non- edible plants as my border crops.” (In-depth interview with Yupi, Malang)

5.3.5 Azolla Neither the farmers in Lamongan nor those in Malang make use of azolla.

5.3.6 Timing And Labour For Practicing The Involved Components The farmers prioritise rice over the other components of a CRS. This is confirmed by a farmer from Malang:

“Absolutely, rice is the first one. The other activities can be done afterwards.” ((In- depth interview with Yupi, Malang)

Planting and transplanting rice is the most labour intensive of the rice cultivation process. In Malang and Lamongan, the farmers still do planting and transplanting manually. In the wet season, the farmers in Malang and Lamongan, using the conventional method of rice cultivation, need 28 to 30 labour hours to transplant one hectare. Owing to the limited number of labourers, they hire four to six people and finish one hectare in three to five days. In the transition season, when the “GOGO” method is used in Lamongan, the farmers in Lamongan need approximately 48-50 labour hours for one hectare to transplant one hectare. In practice, with eight to ten people, they are able to finish transplanting one hectare of land in three to five days. Coordination is required to acquire labourers at this time of the season. Three types of coordination are undertaken to obtain labourers in Malang and Lamongan. Firstly, the farmers directly contact farmer labourer personally in search of labour till the number of needed labourers is complete. Secondly, they contact a farmer labourer who subsequently recommend other farmers to help as well. Thirdly, they contact a leader of the farmers labourer group. The farmers labourer groups can be formed during growing season. Normally, this groups consist 5-10 farmers labour and are formed based on the location where they live. In Lamongan and Malang, women participate more than men in the planting and transplanting in the wet season. However, when the “GOGO” method is used, transplanting and planting is shared by men and women with men creating the holes and women putting the seeds into the holes. According to Khumairoh (2018), ducks and fish can be released into rice fields two weeks after rice transplanting. This recommended timing was followed by the farmers:

“I prefer to release the ducks in the rice field two weeks after transplanting.” (In-depth interview with Yupi, Malang)

Both men and women work together with respect to using and taking care of the ducks and there is no need to hire additional labour for duck management. One of the farmers who allows the ducks to live freely on his field explained:

“There is no clear division of tasks between my wife and I. We will decide who takes care as the needs arise. For instance, when the I am busy maintaining the rice, my wife will take care of the ducks.” (In-depth interview with Yupi, Malang)

Another farmer, who herds his ducks between his home and field, explained how he and his wife share tasks related to the ducks:

“I take the ducks from the house to rice field and my wife helps to watch over the ducks in the field.” (In-depth interview with Sugiartoyo, Malang)

Both men and women work together with respect to taking care of the fish and there is no need to hire additional labour for this. One farmer explained:

“Normally, my wife will help me take care of the fish. I release the fish and manage them in the field. I do everything together with my wife. We help each other to release fish as well as to look after the fish” (In-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

The farmers in Lamongan and Malang also do not hire additional labour for border crop management. Both men and women work together, and other family members may also get involved. Planting border crops is undertaken together while men play a greater role in applying fertiliser and women are more active when harvesting the crops.

5.4 WATER MANAGEMENT 5.4.1 Practice As mentioned in Table 2, CRSs need flooded conditions to integrate rice, ducks and fish yet, it is not recommended that farmers flood their fields at all stages of rice cultivation, particularly in seedlings, nursery and 10 days before harvesting stages. Thus, in theory, CRSs use less water than conventional systems. Khumairoh explained water management in CRSs as follows:

“CRSs use concepts from SRI for rice cultivation but in contrast, recommends flooding of the fields to allow integration of fish and ducks. Another point to be kept in mind is that less water is required during the nursery growth period the soil should be kept moist and standing water should be avoided.” (In-depth interview with Khumairoh)

The recommendation related to periodic flooding was not followed by the farmers in Lamongan. The farmers in Lamongan allowed their fields to be flooded each of the rice growth stages. Hence, the farmers in Lamongan need more water than those in Malang do. One farmer described his preference for constant flooding:

“I require a lot water because I want my field to be constantly flooded.” (In-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

In contrast, the farmers in Malang do not flood their fields for all stages of rice growth as they follow aspects of SRI. The farmers in Malang use less water in first and the end of rice cultivation process. One farmer from Malang explained:

“I use less water for the nursery and transplanting stages. I then keep my field flooded for the next growth stages. Then, I use less water before harvesting” (In-depth interview with Yupi, Malang)

Integrating ducks and fish into rice fields adds another dimension to water management because the farmers need to concern on water required for rice, fish and ducks. The farmers in Lamongan and Malang use water needed by rice as indicator. If the water needed by rice is fulfilled, the water requirements for other components is assumed fulfilled as well. A farmer from Malang commented on this:

“Having ducks and fish in your field does not mean that you should maintain the water for these components, one by one. The components (rice, ducks and fish) are integrated in one field so I just control the water for rice. If the water is sufficient for rice, everything is good for the fish and another.” (In-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

Similarly, in Malang, when they control the water for their rice, the water supply for the ducks and fish is sufficient.

5.4.2 Timing and Labour The farmers growing border crops need to irrigate twice during a growing season. First, the irrigation system is used for the rice and second, the border crop is irrigated. Farmers usually take water from the rice field to irrigate the border crops. The farmers water their border crops in the morning while they maintain the rice. A farmer in Lamongan described his water management:

“I irrigate twice – first the rice and then the border crop. I usually take water from the rice field to irrigate the border crop with plastic buckets. I usually do this in the morning.” (In-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

A large part of the labour required for water management is undertaken in conjunction with other management activities. For instance, irrigation and drainage channels are constructed while preparing the land for planting. Additional time is invested in controlling the water supply while the crop grows. Men primarily undertake water management, although women water the border crops.

5.5 WEED CONTROL 5.5.1 Practice As mentioned in Table 2, ducks and fish in CRSs are intended to help control weeds and pests. Integration of ducks and fish can suppress weeds and pests through their feeding

26 and movement behaviour (Khumairoh et al., 2012). Moreover, farmers do not use agro- chemicals for weed and pest control in CRSs. Khumairoh explained:

“The aim of putting ducks in the rice system is to decrease the use of agro-chemicals because the ducks can help farmers to suppress weed and pest populations.” (In-depth interview with Khumairoh, Scientist)

Weeding is conducted twice during the growing season. First, during land preparation and second, after planting the rice. In Lamongan, the farmers tend to use chemicals for the first and the second time of weeding control. Moreover, most of the farmers in Lamongan did not introduce ducks and fish into their fields. One farmer in Lamongan described how he controlled weeds:

“Chemicals are still applied here... If I just find a few weeds, not really too many, I do hand-weeding. Otherwise, so far, chemicals are still a good option for me as they save time. I can control the weeds easily and do not need additional labourers. I can spray the chemicals in my field myself because the field is not too large.” (In-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

Two types of weed control are practised by the farmers in Malang. First, the farmers weed mechanically when they plough and harrow their soil during land preparation. Second, they follow the CRS recommendations of introducing ducks into their rice fields. One farmer from Malang explained how he controls weeds:

“I destroy the weeds mechanically during land preparation. Moreover, puddles in my fields not only retain water, they also contribute to weed control. Additionally, when rice is growing, weeding must be undertaken to prevent nutrient loss by the weeds.” (In-depth interview with Yupi, Malang)

Another farmer from Malang who has ducks in his field explained:

“I have ducks in my field. I understand that since I put them in my field, they help me to destroy the weeds by stepping on them.” (In-depth interview with Yupi, Malang)

5.5.2 Timing and labour In terms of the labour required for weeding, in the first time of weeding process, the number of hired labour is determined by the method selected as well as the large of field. In Lamongan, the farmers choose chemical treatment that needs less labourers than the manual method need. The farmers in Lamongan use chemical treatment for the first and the second time of weeding process. The farmer from Lamongan commented on the labour required for weeding:

“I prefer to use chemicals for weeding in whole time. I have a large area, if I do it manually, I need more labourers. By using chemicals, I just need to hire two labourers to help with spraying. With chemicals, I can save my time” (In-depth interview with Akhad, Malang)

However, those in Malang need more labourers because they choose manual weed removal rather than chemical method. The manual weeding is used in the first time. Another farmer from Malang, referred to the amount of labour required for manual weeding:

“During land preparation, the labour hours for weeding are counted already. I guess the amount of labour is the same as that for land preparation. I need around 8-10 for 0,5 ha.” (In-depth interview with Yupi, Malang) Then, in the second time, the farmers in Malang utilize ducks to help them doing weed removal. Practicing ducks is beneficial for the farmers in Malang. They can reduce the number of labourers for weeding process as well as reduce cost. A farmer from Malang responded positively about the impact of ducks on the amount of labour needed for weed control:

“My land is around 0.31 hectares. Normally, I need two people to help me do the weeding but now I have ducks in my field, so I do not hire additional labour.” (In-depth interview with Sugiartoyo, Malang)

5.6 FERTILISER 5.6.1 Practice According to Table 2, CRSs do not include the use of chemical fertiliser. Recommendations for CRSs include compost as the main source of fertiliser. Compost can serve as a source of organic matter and nutrients to improve soil structure and crop nutrient status. The system also recommends using other types of organic fertiliser. Khumairoh discussed fertiliser practice in CRSs:

“All agro-chemicals are not allowed in CRSs. We try to bring the concept of “Back to Nature” in CRSs. We can use compost to cover the soil and other organic material as fertiliser.” (In-depth interview with Khumairoh, Scientist) Farmers in Lamongan do not adhere to this recommendation. The farmers occasionally combine organic and chemical fertiliser, but chemical fertiliser is still used in large amounts. The farmers do not use compost to cover their soil. They tend to spread chemical fertiliser on the soil. The chemical fertilisers applied are Urea and Phonska. One farmer from Lamongan confirmed this practice:

“I prefer to use chemical fertiliser. I do not use compost or organic fertiliser for my soil.” (In-depth interview with Rawi, Malang)

The farmers in Lamongan use chemical fertiliser for rice and the border crop. Fertiliser is applied alternately to the border crop and rice. A farmer described the process:

“I bring fertiliser to the field. Of course, I have calculated beforehand that it will be sufficient for the rice and border crops. I spread fertiliser for the rice firsts. We fertilise the horticultural border crops twice - during planting and then 20 days after planting. The border crops are fertilised with urea.” (In-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

The farmers in Malang adopted the recommended fertiliser practice of CRSs. They use leftover straw to cover their soil. Moreover, the farmers apply manure as an organic fertiliser.

The farmers use organic fertiliser for both their rice and border crops. Manure is collected from neighbouring farms and brought to the fields for spreading. A farmer from Malang explained:

“I use straw to cover my soil, so I put it on the land instead of burning it. The straw benefits soil fertility. I avoid using chemical fertilisers. I prefer to use organic fertiliser and normally use manure.” (In-depth interview with Sugiartyo, Malang)

5.6.2 Timing and labour Initially, compost is applied when the farmers prepare their land. Then, rice is fertilised 10 and 30 days after transplanting. In terms of labour, In Lamongan and Malang, the men and women work together fertilising the rice and border crops. Thus, they do not need to hire additional labour.

“Fertiliser practices can be solved by working together with my wife. We work together to spread the fertiliser. We can finish easily by working together either for the rice or border crops.” (In-depth interview with Akad, Lamongan)

5.7 HARVESTING 5.7.1 Practice Outputs from CRSs include rice, ducks, fish, and additional crops, depending on the which components are implemented by the farmers. To harvest rice, the water level of the rice field is reduced to dry the paddy before it is harvested. Also, this makes it easier to harvest the ducks and fish, Khumairoh explained harvesting in a CRS:

“Harvesting rice in CRSs is similar to what farmers normally do in conventional systems. However, in CRSs, farmers first harvest ducks and fish and dry the rice field.” (in-depth interview with Khumairoh, scientist)

In Lamongan, farmers harvest fish, rice and border crops. The border crops grow faster than rice and are harvested three times during the rice growing period. Thus, crop border can be harvested earlier than other components in Lamongan. A farmer from Lamongan explained:

“Normally, the border crops are ready to be harvested before the rice. I can harvest vegetables two or three times in one rice growing period and then I harvest rice afterwards.” (In-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

In term of harvesting rice, the farmers adopted the recommendation to decrease the water level in their fields to dry paddy before harvest as well as harvest fish. They catch the fish with hand nets (also called a scoop net or dip). These net or mesh baskets are held open by hoops with a diameter of 0.5 m and have handles of about 1 m in length. The farmers harvest rice mechanically by using a “Combi” harvesting machine. Hence, the farmers need to make sure that the fishes are harvested well beforehand. Normally, the farmers harvest fishes before the harvesting time. They catch the fishes when they want special dishes to be consumed together with rice. Fishes can be categorized as delicious food and perhaps is

29 difficult to be consumed every day because the food is not affordable for the farmers. A farmer from Lamongan explained about the harvesting process:

“I need to decrease the water volume in my field so that catching fish is easier. And for rice, I rent a machine for harvesting rice. ...about fishes, sometimes I chat the fishe when I do not have something to be dishes. For instance, when my family want to consume something special for dinner, fishes can be good choice for us...” (In-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

In Malang, the farmers harvest ducks, fish, rice and border crops. The farmers start with ducks and fish. The method used to harvest the fish in Malang is similar to that carried out in Lamongan. In contrast to the farmers in Lamongan, the farmers in Malang catch fishes only in harvesting time. Also, the farmers in Malang harvest their rice traditionally, with sickles, then the rice is processed by using manual or mechanical thrasher machine to remove the seeds from the stalks and husks. The thrasher works by pedalling and the mechanical one operates on diesel. Also, the farmers avoid the scattering of grain by using plastic, sackcloth or a tarpaulin. The farmer explained how he harvests the components:

“I reduce the water level in my field and then, ducks are harvested first. I catch the ducks one by one and sell them live. Afterwards, I catch the fish. I cut the lower steam of the paddy using a sickle then shed the rice seeds by using a thrasher machine and I use plastic or sackcloth for the seeds.” (In-depth interview with Yupi, Malang)

5.7.2 Timing and labour Farmers in Lamongan require less labour than those in Malang for harvesting rice. Manual harvesting needs around eight people to harvest 0.25 hectares of rice. Tasks are separated into cutting and thrashing paddy. Mechanical harvesting requires two people to take turns operating the “Combi” machine. Mechanical harvesting is undertaken by men. Manual harvesting is a collaborative task in which men and women work hand-in-hand. Normally, the women cut the paddy and the men operate the machine. According to Khumairoh (2018), ducks and fish are caught two months after they are released or two or three days before harvesting the rice. This step is followed by both the farmers in Lamongan and Malang. However, the farmers in Lamongan, sometimes harvest fish earlier. This was revealed by a farmer in Lamongan:

“Fish are caught two months after they are released. However, I do it earlier because I want to consume them.” (In-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

Harvesting fish and ducks does not need hired labour as men and women normally work together. The farmers believe in their ability to do this and the activity is mostly completed by the men. For those who herd the ducks to and from their homes, harvesting is particularly straightforward. The farmers harvest the border crops up to three times during a rice planting period, typically, every four months. Border crops are usually harvested without hired additional labor. The farmers work together with their spouse to harvest the crops.

6. REASONS FOR PRACTICING COMPLEX RICE SYSTEMS

The following chapter presents the empirical findings regarding the reasons why farmers practice CRSs: it links these reasons to the model of Leeuwis.

6.1 KNOWLEDGE – PERCEPTION OF REALITY It seems important to ascertain what the farmers believe to be the benefits CRSs. In order to do this, the in-depth interviews with the farmers focused on the farmers’ perceptions of CRSs as a whole, of the individual components (ducks, fish, azolla and border crops) and of organic agricultural practices. Farmers in Lamongan and Malang have a different understanding of CRSs. When asked what a CRS is, the farmers in Lamongan did not clearly recall what the system actually comprises. A common understanding expressed by the farmers was a combination of growing plants and breeding livestock. One farmer in Lamongan described the CRS in the following way:

“I learnt about the CRS system when Uma came here, and we practiced it together with other farmers as well. I could say that the practice is a system that includes planting rice and breeding ducks and fish in one place.” (Individual in-depth interview with Wari, Lamongan)

Moreover, some the farmers in Lamongan were confused about the CRS. Before the CRS was introduced, the farmers in Lamongan had been exposed to other practices that combined rice with other components such as fish (known as “Mina Padi”) and another crop (known as “Tumpang Sari”). When the CRS was introduced some of the farmers understood it to be the same as “Mina Padi” or “Tumpang Sari” but with more components. The combination of planting rice with other components is not something new for the farmers in Lamongan. Hence, Lamongan farmers still have an assumption that CRS is similar to those previously introduced practices and they experience confusion and overlap in understanding of CRSs, “Mina Padi” and “Tumpang Sari”. Practice called Mina Padi is a practice that combine rice and fishes in a farm while practice called Tumpang Sari is a practice that combine rice and other crop in a farm. The expression of confusion among CRSs, Mida Padi and Tumpang sari was showed by several farmers, first the expression was showed by a farmer called Sakin :

“What is CRS? What is that? Do you mean planting rice with ducks and fish?” (Individual in-depth interview with Sakin, Lamongan)

An example of a farmers’ confusion relating to the other practices that they had previously learned:

“I do not know what to call the practices, but for me it is called “Tumpang Sari”. Is that what you mean?” (Individual in-depth interview with Kaseri, Lamongan).

Another response from a farmer also demonstrated some confusion:

“I do know what the CRS is. But for me, the practice that Uma (the scientist) promoted to me is “Mina Padi”, because what I see there is a combination of rice and fish.” (Individual in-depth interview with Hambali, Lamongan)

The farmers in Lamongan maintained several concerns about the CRS practices, even after joining the FFS. Theoretically they understand the purpose of integrating ducks and fish into the rice fields, but they do not believe that ducks and fish can be good support for pest and weed control. Also, they were not sure that it was possible to integrate ducks and fish on their farms. In their opinion, if the livestock and rice are combined, issue related to pesticides and fertiliser management would arise. For instance, when they use chemical fertiliser or pesticide for rice, these can poison the livestock. They also wrongly assumed that fish and ducks can damage rice. One farmer stated the following:

“I do not see the point of putting ducks in my field. I do not believe in the combination.” (Individual in-depth interview with Sikin, Lamongan)

Another expression of doubt from another farmer:

“I doubt that they will damage my rice, but to be honest, I still have a lot of worries about it. The ducks will damage my rice and will not support the fish to live.” (Individual in-depth interview with Akhad, Lamongan)

In addition, the farmers in Lamongan showed little awareness of organic practices. While they understood that CRSs do not allow the use of agro-chemicals, however, they were not able to explain the dangers related to agro-chemicals. They were not aware of environment and health issue related to agro-chemicals. It was clear that they did not want to change their practices. As long as they do not encounter crop failure everything is running well. Some farmers argue that organic practices will cost more time. This is what a farmer in Lamongan said about the organic agricultural system:

“ I know that chemical fertiliser is dangerous. However, so far, I just put it out of my mind, and I do not want to transform my practices. I cannot understand issues about the environment and health so far. As long as I do not encounter crop failure, everything is running well.” (Individual in-depth interview with Asikin, Lamongan)

Likewise, another farmer commented on organic systems:

“I see that organic practices need more time than conventional practices. Can you imagine if I need more time for my crop? Where can I get income or food then?” (Individual in-depth interview with Salim, Lamongan)

Moreover, another farmers’ response confirmed the perception that organic practices cost more time than conventional practices:

“In my opinion, organic will require more time for rice production and I will need extra time for additional processes such as preparing manure.” Individual in-depth interview with Salim, Lamongan)

Conversely, the farmers in Malang had a clear understanding of the CRS beyond ‘Mina Padi” or “Tumpang Sari”. The farmers argued that CRSs can be described as a rice system with complex elements. The more elements involved, the more complex the system will become. They added that CRSs combine more than two components with the rice planting system. For instance, planting rice together with border crops and fish or planting rice with organic practices and principles from SRI. A farmer in Malang described CRSs in the following way:

“The CRS is a good system. The system is not only complex but also integrated. The CRS is a combination of more than two systems in the rice planting system.” (Individual in-depth interview with Yupi, Malang)

Additionally, the farmers in Malang had different perceptions of the integrated system compared to those in Lamongan. They could acknowledge that every element involved has a function to support rice production. The farmers in Malang recognised that the integration between rice, ducks, and fish is helpful to achieve some goals. A farmer in Malang discussed the integrated aspects of the CRS:

“The ducks help with weed and pest control by stepping on and suppressing the weeds and pests. Moreover, fish are also a good support as they eat pests. In general, the animals are beneficial to the rice plants. Hence, they can be integrated.” (Individual in- depth interview with Yupi, Malang)

Furthermore, a farmer revealed another fact relating to CRSs:

“It is a good practice. Ducks can help with the pests and the fish can eat the pests that fall down into the water.” (Individual in-depth interview with Sugiartoyo, Malang)

Interestingly, the farmers in Lamongan and Malang had similar perceptions in relation to the border crops. Farmers in both sub-districts argued that the border crop is a useful element included in the rice production system. Moreover, the border crops deter pests from attacking the rice, which is the main crop, as they attack the border instead. They did not doubt the reason for this specific element. The implementation of organic practices was adopted by farmers in Malang. The farmers understand that organic practice in CRSs can be supported by the integrated components in the system. For instance, the ducks contribute to weed and pest control by stepping on the weeds and suppressing the pests, so they do not need to apply chemical pesticides. Moreover, they have followed the CRS principle and substituted chemicals with organic products such as manure, organic pesticides, etc. The farmers also discovered that rice produced in an organic system has better quality in terms of taste and aroma.

“The opinion of organic practices has changed since following the CRS. I see that my rice is good quality.” (Individual in-depth interview with Yupi, Malang)

The farmers in Malang had a positive reaction to organic practices because they are aware of environmental issues, particularly the long-term effects of fertilizer. Their awareness is based on experience. A farmer in Malang reacted:

“I do agree with the CRS since it promotes an organic system. I do realise that chemicals can help me to obtain more yield, but I am just thinking about my soil. I am afraid that the chemicals can decrease the soil quality. In my opinion, the more chemicals I put in, the more my soil loses its quality.” (Individual in-depth interview with Samsul Arifin, Malang)

Similarly, a farmer has thought about the health reasons for converting to organic:

“I am happy to support the CRS practices because it implements organic practices as well. For me personally, organic is better because I am thinking about my health. I used to apply chemicals on my field, but at the moment, I am asking myself, is it safe to consume crops that have had chemicals applied on them?” (Individual in-depth interview with Kasih, Malang)

Furthermore, based on his experience, another farmer said the following:

“Based on my personal experience, I argue that changing to organic is a good choice for me. I feel better after consuming organic, my body particularly. I cannot explain it in a scientific way, but I can feel it directly.” (Individual in-depth interview with Sugiartoyo)

To conclude, in terms of knowledge and perception of CRSs, the farmers in Lamongan have less knowledge and awareness than the farmers in Malang. Moreover, the farmers living in Lamongan do not believe in the benefits guaranteed by practising CRSs.

6.2 BELIEF IN THEIR OWN ABILITIES There are five reasons pertaining to the farmers ability to decide whether or not they use the promoted system in their fields. The reasons relate to the resources and material, support needed, skills, capital and farm conditions. The resources and material support needed is about farmer’ ability to acquire the farming inputs and additional materials included in the CRS practices. Skill is about their capability to manage the new components and relates to previous experience. Capital is about the economic reason for the farmers to invest in CRSs. Finally, the farm condition is about their physical attributes and the location of their field, which can be supportive or challenging for this practice.

6.2.1 Resources and Material Support The farmers in Malang and Lamongan both acknowledge that CRSs are complex and require more input than conventional systems. It is more difficult for the farmers in Lamongan to gain inputs and material support than those in Malang. They cannot access certain elements for free. For instance, they have to buy manure from farmers outside of Lamongan because the farmers in the region generally do not have livestock. Other components such as the ducks and fish also need to be purchased. Moreover, the farmers encountered difficulties finding ducklings as they are not commonly found in the local market. Instead, they have to buy ducks directly from the supplier outside of Lamongan. A farmer said:

“For me personally, I face challenges in acquiring the ducks and fish needed to practice a CRS. I need to make more effort. Besides, I need more money to buy the

components. Also, I have to pay for transportation as well” (Individual in-depth interview with Wari, Lamongan)

In contrast to Lamongan, the farmers in Malang believed in their ability to easily attain the resources and material support needed for CRSs. Some of the required inputs such as ducks and fish are affordable in Malang. Moreover, they can obtain some inputs for free as said by one of the farmers:

“I never buy those materials (plastic and manure) because I can get them for free. For supporting material, I just need to buy this (net), which is cheap for me. I spend money on buying ducks only.” (Individual in-depth interview with Sugiartoyo, Malang)

It is relatively easy for farmers in Malang to obtain certain components as they have a strategic location. Most of the input supplies will deliver the inputs to their home. In the case that the suppliers have a lot demand, they can make an appointment to meet and pick up the inputs.

“I have friends who give me some inputs and material needed for free, such as manure, compost, net, wooden sticks, etc. For other components like fish and ducks, I have to spend my money, but sometimes my colleagues sell the animal in affordable price to me.” (Individual in-depth interview with Samsul Arifin, Malang)

6.2.2 Skills The fact that multiple components are involved in CRSs implies that CRSs require more skill then conventional rice systems. As well as skills in rice planting, the farmers require skills that enable them to grow border crops and to farm fish and ducks. Thus, the farmers need to believe that they are skilful enough to practise a CRS. The farmers in Lamongan were pessimistic about their skills needed for CRSs as they did not have experience with all of the new components. And, the fact that the farmers are relatively old also contributed to their lack of confidence in managing a new system. One farmer described his pessimism related to CRSs:

“For me, I am not confident about keeping ducks and fish. I do not have experience with ducks I am afraid that I cannot manage them well. Talking about fish, yes, I have experience with fish but it was not successful and I do not want to deal with fish again. Moreover, CRSs need all components practised together. And, I am not sure that I can do that.” (Individual in-depth interview with Asikin, Malang)

The pessimism of the farmers in Lamongan was also caused by a previous bad experience. A few years ago, farmers in Lamongan bred fish. They transformed their main field where they planted rice to farm fish. The transformation had been influenced by the rapid decrease in the market price for the rice. The farmers saw breeding fish as a good opportunity in terms of price and market. Moreover, they had seen relatives and colleagues in other villages breeding fish successfully. In practice, the transformation was not successful, as the farmers’ knowledge of fish management was poor. Also, they did not earn income from fish as high as they expected. When all of the farmers changed from planting rice to breeding fish at the

35 same time, it meant that they bred, harvested and marketed the fish at the same time. As a result, the market price for fish in the village decreased rapidly and the farmers did not get as good a price as they had imagined. This was compounded by the fact that farmers in other villages had also converted to fish farming. In the end, many of the farmers went bankrupt. Based on this experience, the farmers believe that breeding fish is a big risk that, generally, they do want to repeat. One farmer reported the experience:

For me, personally, I do not like to farm fish, particularly not in my field. I do not want to repeat what happened in the past. It was so bad. At the time, I was a leader of the farmers’ group here. I am so sad about what happened to me and my friends at the time.” (Individual in-depth interview with Asikin, Lamongan)

The farmers living in Malang were optimistic and confident about their skills to practise CRSs. This is partly because some farmers have had a positive experience and are familiar with farming livestock (not integrated with rice), organic practices, and planting border crops. A number of farmers responded positively when talking about their ability to introduce the different components of CRSs:

“I had farmed ducks behind my home before, so I know how to farm them. It is possible for me to farm ducks using the same method in the CRS. I have the ability to do it.” (Individual in-depth interview with Yupi, Malang)

“All farmers in this place, including me, know about organic practices. Our grandmothers and grandfathers did it. Organic farming existed well before we knew anything about agro-chemicals. Thus, we just need to improve our awareness.” (Individual in-depth interview with Sugiartoyo, Malang)

“Indeed, what the system promotes is almost the same as what we did in the past, such as faming ducks and fish and, using organic practices. I guess that we are familiar with these activities already. The new one integrates these activities. The first time I heard about the system, I knew that I would be able to implement it, since I had done all of them before.” Individual in-depth interview with Rawi, Malang)

6.2.3 Capital Besides claims that CRSs support higher revenue, the capital needed to implement CRSs is higher than that of conventional systems (Khumairoh, 2012). The higher capital influences the farmers’ decision regarding whether or not to change to a CRS. The farmers in Lamongan have more difficulty attaining capital than those in Malang. Farmers in Lamongan do not have other income sources next to farming. Moreover, they are smallholder farmers who have limited capital and tend to focus on household food security. Buying additional components for their farm is challenging for those as explained by a farmer:

“Capital is the biggest challenge of mine. The first time I saw the system I thought that I cannot afford the components and material needed. My budget is not suitable for that. My income is low, and I do not know where I can earn money for introducing the new practice. I know that a CRS will help me to more productive, but you can see that

the many parts in this practice demand more capital. I do not have enough money for this.” (Individual in-depth interview with Wari, Lamongan)

For the farmers in Lamongan, finance is required not only to buy ducks but also for transportation. Moreover, the nets, plastic and fencing materials needed to contain the ducks were perceived too expensive. In reality, the price that they could sell ducks at the market at the end of the season would not cover the setup costs. Thus, fish were more acceptable for the Lamongan farmers. Likewise, organic fertiliser is not free for farmers in Lamongan. They have to buy commercial organic fertiliser. There is not much livestock such that manure is a valuable resource that cannot be obtained for free. One farmer stated:

“The price of a duck is expensive for me. The animal does not exist in my village. I have to buy ducks from another location which is not close to here. Besides, spending money on ducks, I will spend money on transportation. I might be able to sell the ducks at a high price. However, demand is low and if I sell through middlemen, the price is not good.” (Individual in-depth interview with Wari, Lamongan)

Some of the farmers have a child studying at senior high school or university. The farmers argued that they prefer to use their money for their children’s’ education instead of spending it on a farming system that they are not yet convinced will work. Two farmers expressed the difficulty of investing in both their farms and their children’s’ educations:

“I know that the CRS will help me to be more productive. But you can see, if I implement multiple components, I will need more capital. To be honest, I do not have enough money for this. I still have a daughter who is studying at the health science academy, so I need more money to support her. And, of course I prefer to save my money for her rather than for this.” (Individual in-depth interview with Akhad, Lamongan)

“I prefer to use my money for my son rather than doing something that is still so questionable for me.” (Individual in-depth interview with Sabar, Lamongan)

The farmers in Lamongan tend to undertake the farming process by themselves and only hire a minimum of additional labour to keep costs low. As a result, the idea that CRSs reduce weeding costs was difficult to comprehend by those farmers who do the weeding themselves and do not factor this in as a cost. This is how the farmer in Lamongan stated about capital needed:

“I do not like the idea of the CRS because it needs greater investment. So far, I try to do everything by myself. I do not need to spend my money because I know my budget situation. In addition, I work as a farm labourer if I am needed. Besides earning money, I can use the income to cover labour costs in case I need help on my farm.” (Individual in-depth interview with Kaseri, Lamongan)

CRSs were seen as a valuable opportunity for farmers in Malang to improve the performance of their farm. The capital required to start with a CRS was not perceived as too great a challenge for them. In Malang, the farmers, or their wives have other off-farm sources

37 of income. Moreover, they are able to obtain various support materials for free, e.g. manure, and plastic. Two farmers explained:

“Ah, I never buy those material (plastic and manure) because I can get them for free. For supporting material, I just need to buy this (net) and it is cheap for me. I only spend money on ducks.” (Individual in-depth interview with Sugiartoyo, Malang)

“It’s true that I need more capital, but I do not mind investing because, for me, the amount is still affordable.” (Individual in-depth interview with Yupi, Malang)

6.3 RISK PERCEPTIONS OF OUTSIDE FACTORS Market, pests, water availability and land tenure are each sources of risk considered by the farmers.

6.3.1 Market in general market access for the farmers in Lamongan is not problematic. There are many middlemen look for farm products, not only rice and vegetable but also livestock. The middlemen will come to their homes individually or to a central point in the village. Furthermore, the farmers can easily travel with their produce to the local market a few kilometres from their homes. Normally, the middlemen in Lamongan buy vegetables and fish from the farmers. A farmer in Lamongan explained market access:

“I do not have a problem with market access. This village has become known for its horticultural produce. There are many middlemen looking for agricultural products, such as vegetable and livestock. They will pass through this village to buy the vegetables before they go to the market, normally in the morning.” (Individual in- depth interview with Wari, Lamongan)

Also, the middlemen commonly stop their mini truck to purchase the produce at a central point in the village of Lamongan. Thus, the farmers can be easier to achieve the seller. The farmers just need to go to the location. One farmer explained the process:

“...... do you know Mr Hambali’s house (one of the villagers) beside the mosque… If the middleman does not visit our homes, then we go over there, even for ducks and fish.” (Individual in-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

In Malang, the farmers did not have problems in relation to market access as well. A different from Lamongan, is that the farmers in Malang can sell directly to buyers rather than through middlemen. The supply chain of Malang is shorter than that in Lamongan because the farmers living in Malang can sell their product directly to consumers while those in Lamongan need middleman to help them selling their produce. One farmer stated:

“I can bring them (ducks) to my neighbour who sell ducks, so it is easy for me. Even the vegetables, the vegetable seller will buy my produce and then sell it at another village. I do not have a problem with market access. (Individual in-depth interview with Kasih, Malang)

Moreover, in Malang, the demand for duck and fish is high because there are a lot of people selling processed food made of duck and fish. The sellers of processed food produce the food almost every day. Hence, the seller needs the raw material. A farmer explained:

“Do you know the eatery beside the main road before you come to my house? Normally they need my livestock, so I just need to give them my phone number to contact me if they want to buy the livestock. If they need fish or ducks, they will contact me. If I have extra vegetables, my wife will take them to the market close by.” (Individual in-depth interview with Sugiartoyo, Lamongan)

However, the farmers in both Lamongan and Malang tended to be powerless in deciding the market prices of their products. There is a trade-off related to increasing their market price and ease of selling their produce. If they do not use a middleman, it is more difficult to sell produce quickly. Even though selling produce at the market directly might be a preference, it costs more time and there is a risk that they bring their produce home again. Moreover, during the rice season, the farmers are afraid that the prices for their products will be very low due to too much supply. Farmers unquestionably accept prices offered by middlemen because they do not have good market information. A farmer in Lamongan discussed market prices:

“To be honest, the market price encourages me to do better in my field. It is like encouragement even if the increase is slight. I cannot control the price even. The price is uncertain. If we (farmers) control the price, the buyers will go away, and they will buy from another village.” (Individual in-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

Similarly, a farmer in Malang stated:

“The price is not constant, and I do not know what I should do. But so far, it is fine for me, as long as I still can earn money from my product. I just control the quantity of production. If the price goes well, I will do better and on the contrary.” (Individual in- depth interview with Yupi, Malang)

6.3.2 Pests During the fieldwork, the farmers in both Lamongan and Malang, were close to experiencing crop failure. They had a lot of pests and the season was extremely dry. In Lamongan, the farmers were attacked by mice. In the previous year, the farmers in Lamongan had encountered the same situation, but had solved it with “mouse firecrackers” and, by together hunting mice at night. They noticed that the mice had become bigger and harder to control. They unsuccessfully tried to scare the mice with an owl and in the end were not able to control the mice. The mice particularly damaged the maize planted as a border crop. One farmer explained:

“We have not been lucky this time as mice came into our fields. It is bad. We have faced something like this before but now it is worse. I give up.” (Individual in-depth interview with Akhad, Lamongan)

Those in Malang struggled with Mongoose (Herpestes javanicus). The animal attacks ducks by eating their heads in the farmers’ fields. In some cases, the animal eats fish as well. The mongoose is normally active during the night. The mongooses’ natural habitat is located close to the farmers’ fields in small forests or bushland. A farmer described the problem:

“I do not know how to overcome the mongoose. I lost a lot of my ducks. I saw beavers in the night and was curious about that. But, then in the morning I saw that my ducks were dead. They had lost their heads. That’s too bad.” (Individual in-depth interview with Sugiartoyo)

The presence of mongoose, and the lack of a solution to control them, is a significant factor for farmers in Malang considering the introduction of ducks and fish in their fields. Some of the farmers decided to stop using ducks and fish while some tried again but faced the same problem. One farmer described his attempt to control the mongoose:

“I applied the components of CRSs (ducks and fishes). Indeed, I am happy about this. However, my practices do not go well since there are mongoose in my field. They are so bad, eating ducks then disappearing. I have tried to prevent them by making barriers with nets and bamboo, but it does not work, and they still come inside my field. Hence, my ducks are gone.” (Individual in-depth interview with Kasih)

6.3.3 Water Availability According to Khumairoh (2018), CRSs does not need as much water as conventional rice systems, but the fields do need to be flooded to support ducks and fish. The farmers in Lamongan argue that the occurrence of water in Lamongan is a challenge because they rely on rain. Although there is a water reservoir, they have to spend money to obtain water from this source. Therefore, they only obtain sufficient water in the wet season:

“I literally rely on the rain although there is another water source, a reservoir. However, I am not truly convinced about getting water from the reservoir since I have to pay for it.” (Individual in-depth interview with Akhad, Lamongan)

Flooding is an additional risk related to water for farmers in Lamongan. On the one hand, when the rain comes, they are grateful because they can water their land. On the other hand, the rain can be too heavy. For those farmers with their fields in the lower part of the village run the risk of being flooded to the point that their rice crop sinks. In this situation, ducks and fish can also suffer. One farmer explained the unpredictability and problems of too much rain:

“Involving ducks and fish in my field is not a good choice because I cannot predict the floods and I am afraid that the ducks and fish will be drowned or disappear. Moreover, in the typical rice field in Lamongan, the rice will be waterlogged in the rainy season and it is s quite difficult to control the water. A flooded field is not what ducks really want. To be honest, I am afraid for the fish as if a flood comes, they can get lost.” (Individual in-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

The farmers in Malang do not see the presence of water as a challenge because they can precisely control water depending on their needs. The farmers’ fields are irrigated and located close to a river.

6.3.4 Control Since CRSs comprises multiple components, the system needs more control than conventional rice systems, making access to the fields an important factor. Farmers live various distances from their fields. Certain farmers can go by foot to their fields, while some farmers take private vehicles, mostly motorbikes or bicycles. Those that cannot walk to their fields still need to walk a considerable distance once they have parked their vehicles. Under some circumstances, farmers do not have adequate time and energy to control all aspects of the system. For instance, theft is frequently a problem that farmers are not able to control. based on the amount of time and energy needed. A farmer from Lamongan discussed the issue of control:

“I am still confused about integrating ducks and fish into my field. I work in a small field, but I have three that are located in different areas. The distance between the fields worries me, mainly because of the risk of theft. I also have doubts about the extra time and energy needed to control ducks and fish in my fields.” (Individual in-depth interview with Wari, Lamongan)

The risk related to control is also felt by the farmers in Malang. Those farmers have several fields that are located separately and quite far from their homes. One of the farmers also discussed theft:

“I am concerned about theft as well. I have faced it several times. I do not know who does it. Since my field is quite far from my home, I only have time to watch over my field in the mornings and afternoons.” (Individual in-depth interview with Sugiartyo, Malang)

6.3.5 Land Tenure A number of farmers living in Lamongan said that they rent land for farming. They rent additional land to supplement production from the small fields that they inherited from their parents. The contract system for renting land is not well-defined regarding renters’ rights and obligations. The arrangement is only specific about the length of the rental period. Several farmers in Lamongan needed to share their profits from an agreed portion of the rented land with their landlord. Moreover, in some cases, the landlord is likely to intervene in the management of the rented land. This limits farmers’ freedom to manage the land as they choose. When making decisions about implementing CRSs, the farmers need to consider their landlord’s reaction. For example, the farmers are mindful that if they introduce CRS practices into their fields, and improve the appearance and productivity of the land, the landlord may change their mind about renting it. This is perceived as a risk of losing access to the land as the agreement is informal and, although it is based on trust, the farmers have less power. One farmer explained:

“I work on a small farm, so I still rent a field to enhance my productivity. There is no clear agreement about what I can and cannot do in the rented field. Furthermore, I rent the

field without paying the land owner but I have to share the profits. I know that this vague contract system does not give me freedom to practice CRSs. On the one hand, I do not spend money on rent. On the other hand, I cannot do what I want freely. In some cases, I should follow what the land owner desires. Also, for instance, last year, my land owner allowed me to grow maize and rice only.” (Individual in-depth interview with Sabar, Lamongan)

None of the surveyed farmers in Malang were renting land for farming. They worked in their own fields or on their parents’ farm. Moreover, economically, they were able to purchase land. As a result, land tenure was not perceived as a risk factor when deciding about management practices.

6.4 Aspirations CRSs are promoted as having several benefits for farmers, particularly regarding increasing income. Farmers living in both Lamongan and Malang acknowledged that the additional components involved in CRSs can enhance their incomes. They argued that they would have additional products as sources of income. The farmers from Lamongan and from Malang had different aspirations related to CRSs. Those in Lamongan were motivated by the advantage of border crops. Border crops can be another source of food and income. The farmers in Lamongan planted vegetables on the field borders. The border crops were viewed as a sort of insurance against failure of the rice crop. Typically, the farmers in Lamongan aimed to meet household food security first so, when the yield of border crops exceeded demand for household consumption, the rest would be sold. A farmer in Lamongan described his aspirations for a border crop:

“So far, I am really interested in the border crops because I see the benefit of it. I could say that the yield from the border crop is higher than that from my rice. I can harvest the crop two or three times during the season, so I do not worry about the case that the rice yield is not good enough.” (Individual in-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

The farmers in Malang were motivated by economic objectives from the duck and fish components of CRSs. The potential income earned from selling the components was attractive. A farmer in Malang explained his interest in ducks:

“In my opinion, the implementation of ducks can be beneficial. I can earn more money by selling them.” (Individual in-depth interview with Yupi, Malang)

Besides ducks, a farmer in Malang highlighted another reason why they are interested in CRSs. Those in Malang avoid using synthetic fertiliser and they understand that introducing ducks and fish into their system reduces the need for chemical fertiliser and pesticide. As an illustration, the duck and fish manure can serve as fertiliser and their behaviour can kill pests. A farmer described his inspiration to practice CRSs:

“I used to be a chemical fertiliser user. The fertiliser has never been freely available through the farmers’ group, so it costs money. The implementation of ducks, fish and

an organic system helps to reduce the use of chemical fertilizer.” (Individual in-depth interview with Yupi, Malang)

6.7 Trust In The Social Environment To decide whether or not they make use of CRSs, the farmers consider their social environment, social organisation and support from extension agents. The farmers refer to the level of trust gained from these aspects.

6.7.1 Social Environment And Social Organisation The farmers social environment begins with his family, especially with his wife. In Lamongan, the farmers’ wife holds some power in terms of influencing farming practices. The farmer will listen to his wives’ opinion about a practice before they make decisions. Women’s ability to participate in new practices are a consideration. With respect to CRSs, the farmers’ wives have rejected many of the components involved. Except for the border crops, the women do not feel that they can manage the other components involved with CRSs. This influenced the farmers’ decisions not to introduce ducks and fish, particularly as they are concerned that they would not be able to work together as husband and wife. A farmer from Lamongan explained his and his wife’s perspective:

“I live together with my wife. We spend a lot time working together on our field. We are a team, so we have to listen to each other. We see that CRSs have potential. To be honest, we want to earn more income, so we discussed it. We decided to only use the border crops as with this component we can work hand-in-hand.” (Individual in- depth interview with Wari, Lamongan)

The farmers living in Malang tend to make management decisions without consulting their wives. The farmers position their knowledge that of their wives and their wives follow their husbands’ decisions. The farmers explain their decision to their wives and teach them the new practices. A farmer in Malang described his decision-making process in relation to his wife:

“My wife follows me, she did not know about the practice before. I decided on the practice and taught her afterwards. I joined more of the seminars, farming school and training related to CRSs than her, so I have more capability than my wife. Moreover, the farm is my responsibility, my wife sometimes helps me but not a lot. She tends to do everything at home. In case I need help, she will help me on the farm.” (Individual in-depth interview with Sugiartoyo, Malang)

Farmers in Lamongan have strong social bonds. They are not only neighbours, but still connected through family ties. They often spend time speaking together in a cafe, called warung kopi, for a couple of hours in the evening. They talk about everything, such as their farms, yield, information about subsidies, their wives and children, etc. Their wives watch television together or just chat in front of their homes. They also share social activities. For instance, during the fieldwork for this study, they prepared a competition for their sub-village in which the women danced and cooked together and, the men decorated their sub-village gate and made some decorations to be put in front of their homes. On other days, the men were busy helping a farmer who was renovating his home and the women cooked together 43 for the men. The extension worker explained how the strong social bond relates to their farming practice:

“The strong bond influences farmers’ practices. Their colleagues’ experience and opinion will be taken into account rather than expert explanations.” (Individual in- depth interview with Titin, the extension worker in Lamongan)

The farmers in Lamongan do not want to stand out from their friends with different farming practices. Not conforming to the same practices as others makes the farmers frightened of encountering issues alone. For example, if a farmer is the only one keeping fish in the area, he cannot ask a friend for help and must tackle problems alone. The importance of conforming was explained by one of the farmers in Lamongan:

“I guess doing something different from others will be difficult. When you face a problem, you have to solve it yourself. And, I do not want to do that. if I follow the same practices as my colleagues, it is easy for me to gain support or help when needed. Moreover, I think it will be weird, because other farmers do not do that (implement ducks, fish, etc.).” (Individual in-depth interview with Sabar, Lamongan)

The relationships among the farmers, who considered each other to be neighbours, was close. In general, the farmers created a community through the farmers’ group to achieve their vision together. The farmers in Lamongan had a very well-coordinated farmers’ group. The leader was active in assisting farmers by looking for information, cooperation and support. The influence of the group leader in Lamongan was quite strong. The farmers considered the leader’s farming practices when making decisions concerning their own. With respect to CRS practices, the leader’s main role was to help the members understand and believe in CRSs. To achieve his goals, the leader needed to be willing to be a guinea pig. To show the potential of new practices such as in CRSs, the leader needed to be first one to implement them. To this end, his field was used as a trial for research into CRSs. However, the leader did not fully agree that CRSs are appropriate in Lamongan and as a result, he did not recommend CRSs to his members. The extension worker discussed the leader’s attitude to CRSs:

“In the CRS trial, the leader did not succeed. He failed to implement some components, such as ducks, fish and azolla. The failure increased farmers uncertainty about CRSs. In contrast, for the border crops, the leader had a good outcome and this success convinced his members to grow border crops on their fields.” (Individual in-depth interview with agriculture extension worker, Lamongan)

Similarly, a farmer explained the role of their farmers’ group leader in promoting CRSs:

“I am sure that farmers here are not interested in the CRS practices because Mr Rawi (the leader) failed to implement them. Due to his failure, I have doubts about following the practices. I observed the trial on our leader’s field. I asked myself, if the leader cannot practice a CRS, I mean if he cannot be successful in this practice, then how can I be? I believe that his experience and knowledge is superior to mine.” (Individual in-depth interview with Sabar)

The farmers in Malang did not have a well-coordinated farmers’ group and as a result it was not functioning properly. A farmer in Malang explained the coordination of his group:

“There is a farmers’ group in my place, and I am a member actually. However, I cannot rely on the farmer’s group. It is too bad. The leader does not want to know about our problems or complaints. I do everything myself, but it does not worry me. And so far, we rarely have meetings. I could say that the farmers here tend to live individually.” (Individual in-depth interview with Kaseri, Malang)

Moreover, in Malang, the farmers were highly motivated to be different or to be better than their friends, so they motivated themselves to implement CRS practices. The farmers had some awareness that they had to do things by themselves to improve their practice and did not rely on their leader. One farmer explained his motivation to make changes in his practice:

“The first time I attended the meeting at Mr Yupi’s field I saw that CRSs is an interesting option. At the time, I saw that Mr Yupi had been successful at implementing it. I wanted to be better than Mr Yupi. I do believe in myself. If Mr Yupi can do it, why not me?” (Individual in-depth interview with Sugiartoyo, Malang)

6.7.2 Intervention In Lamongan, the scientists promoting CRSs attended the FFS but rarely controlled the project. After the FFS, the promotion of CRSs was continued by the extension agent who had worked in Lamongan for almost eight years. The extension agent only focused on border crops. According to the extension agent, border crops was the appropriate component of CRSs to be implemented in Lamongan because of its geographical conditions, land availability and farmers’ abilities. The extension agent developed good relationships with the farmers that can potentially benefit the continuity of the new practice. The extension agent influenced the farmers’ decisions and helped the farmers to introduce border crops. The extension agent visited the fields, worked together with the farmers and monitored their practice. If something went wrong, the extension agent was able to give theoretical and practical assistance. A farmer explained the influence of the extension agent:

“The extension agent has been a big influence for me personally to use border crops on my field. She is a very good extension agent. She takes part in the planting process, giving advice, supporting and facilitating me to try new practices.” (Individual in-depth interview with Asikin, Lamongan)

Another farmer explained what the extension worker did in Lamongan:

“She helps me a lot in this process. I am motivated by her actions in which she visited our farm and worked together with us. She monitored our practice. If something went wrong, she gave us advice, not only theoretical explanations, but also practically. Thus, we do understand what she means, because you know, here, farmers generally have a low level of education.” (Individual in-depth interview with Kaseri, Lamongan).

The farmers appreciated that the extension agent helping them to implement CRSs was particularly helpful in comparison to previous experiences with extension agents who were more theoretical and less practical. They felt that she genuinely cared about them and she respected their knowledge. In addition, The intervention of the extension agent is not only about advice and practice but also access to subsidies. The extension worker often provided the farmer with material needs for planting border crops. The farmers in Lamongan mentioned another action that has been taken by the extension agent which influenced their practice:

“As an illustration, she gave seeds to farmers who wanted to try planting specific vegetables such as onion, cabbage or ginger.” (Individual in-depth interview with Rawi, Lamongan)

Moving to Malang, the farmers in Malang had a good relationship not only with their extension worker but also with the scientists promoting CRSs. Another pilot project of the scientists followed up the FFS. Moreover, farmers keep in touch with the scientists, so that they could understand more about CRSs. A number of the farmers conducted CRS trials on their land. A f farmer explained their relationship with the scientists:

“I worked with Uma (the scientist) on my land and she taught me everything about CRSs, from preparation till the harvest. I understood the system and afterwards I transferred my knowledge to my friends who are interested in it.” (Individual in-depth interview with Said)

7. SYNTHESIS In this chapter, first, I discuss how the agroecological and socio-cultural-economic context of the farmers challenges or supports the adoption of CRSs. Next, I discuss the reasons for farmers to adopt (or not) CRSs. Finally, I address the main research question.

7.1 THE LOCAL CONTEXT OF EAST JAVA The agro-ecological and the socio-economic-cultural situation described in Chapter 4 highlights that Lamongan and Malang have contrasting conditions. Differences include the bio-physical condition of farmers’ fields, as well as the variability in access and ownership of resources and capital. Regarding agro-ecological conditions, farmers in both locations had different condition in term of water support. In terms of the economic situation, farmers ability to obtain resources differed between locations. And, with respect to socio-cultural conditions, the level of activity within farmers’ groups differed between locations.

7.1.2 Water Farmers in Malang and Lamongan were aware that water is a crucial element for their practices, influencing the quality of their soils as well as their crop. They understood that in the absence of water the fields cannot be managed appropriately and rice, their main crop, cannot be grown. Field characteristics, along with the location of the field, has a significant influence on the presence of water. Chapter 4 uncovered some differences between Malang and Lamongan. A typical field in Malang is located in the highlands, close to one of the longest rivers in Java, the Brantas River. The rice fields in Malang, including those where CRSs were introduced and practised, are mostly irrigated. In contrast, the rice fields in Lamongan are located in the lowlands. The particular fields in Lamongan where CRSs were introduced were not irrigated technically but typical of the fields are rainfed field. In general, Malang has better conditions for rice production in terms of the number of rainy days and average precipitation compared to Lamongan. Therefore, the availability of water for rice production is less problematic in Malang than in Lamongan. Challenges associated with water are dealt with by modifying farming practices (Chapter 5). The farmers in Malang create smaller dykes than those in Lamongan. The smaller dykes in Malang support the irrigation channels, while the larger dykes in Lamongan are designed to catch and hold as much water as possible when it rains. However, when unpredictable dry seasons become more frequent, the dyke management will not guarantee enough water for the farmers. The practices promoted with CRSs may play a significant role in dealing with scarce water resources as rice can be grown with less water.

7.1.3 Access To Resources In general, the farmers had relatively small landholdings. Chapter 4 identified that the smallest landholdings were mostly found in Lamongan, with only a few in Malang. The farmers in Lamongan relied on farming as their main source of income and they rarely hired additional labour on their farms. Moreover, their fields were used for cropping, without access to livestock. Farmers’ incomes in Lamongan were lower than the standard minimum regional salary. Farmers from these households were rather poor and faced capital shortages. Their focus was predominantly on food self-sufficiency rather than market orientation.

CRS practices are not easy to follow for farmers with limited access to resources. When financial capital is limited, farmers prefer conventional practices and therefore avoid almost all of the components involved with CRSs. For example, CRSs seek to replace synthetic fertiliser to maintain the sustainability of the soil and environment. However, as discussed in chapter 5, the farmers in Lamongan continued to use chemical fertiliser rather because they could not afford organic fertiliser. The price of organic fertiliser reflects the lack of is livestock in Lamongan, compared to Malang where organic fertiliser is cheaper or free. Farmers in Lamongan rely on free organic fertiliser distributed by the local government but it cannot be obtained regularly. Another example is that the farmers in Lamongan than those in found it more difficult to afford fish, ducks and azolla than those in Malang. Regardless of this challenge, the researchers promoting CRSs, believed that these farmers can be attracted to particular aspects of CRSs. The design of CRSs and the way they are introduced to farmers needs to consider the farmers’ specific circumstances. For example, the need for cheaper components and the immediate use of the components (for instance market versus food source) should be considered. Similarly, the researcher argued that there is a greater chance for successful implementation of CRSs among these farmers if their ‘local wisdom’ is respected and incorporated into the system. As mentioned in chapter 5, the farmers in Lamongan introduced border crops on their fields. In this case, those promoting CRSs can observe which varieties of suitable crops are most easily found in Lamongan and support the use of plants that are familiar to farmers there. There were also farmers who were better endowed with financial, land and water resources. These farmers were in a relatively strong financial situation and were market oriented (although they still ensured they first met household food security). These farmers were generally found in Malang (Chapter 4). These farmers engaged with year-round farming due to easy access to irrigation. As found in chapter 4, these farmers had off-farm activities for additional income. Hence, their income was be equal to or higher than the minimum standard of regular income in their region. As a result, these farmers could afford to buy or readily access some of the additional components needed to practise CRSs. For example, the farmers in Malang, used organic fertiliser that obtained from their colleagues or family at an affordable price. Moreover, access to manure was a cheap way of adding nutrients to their fields. Another example found was that the ducks and fish were acquired nearby their fields from colleagues who sold these animals in other places. Generally, these better endowed farmers wanted to adopt CRS practices. The foremost reasons for their willingness to try the promoted system were to reduce operating costs and reduce their workload. Although CRSs need more initial investment compared with conventional rice farming, these costs were achievable and the potential to reduce operational costs and increase income with CRSs was evident.

7.1.4 The Role of Farmers’ Groups There was a farmers’ group in both Lamongan and Malang. However, the dynamics of both groups was different. An active farmers’ group was found in Lamongan (Chapter 7.2). The principle characteristic of this farmers’ group was that the members maintained close relationships. Likewise, in Indonesia, farmers have a culture called “gotong royong” (work together), in which people prioritise public needs over their own. This culture brings a sense of belonging to the group. The active group consisted of members with a complementary variety of backgrounds and abilities. In theory, the active group could support adoption of CRSs in terms

48 of promotion and knowledge sharing amongst a close group. However, in the case of Lamongan, the activity and nature of the group was also challenging for adoption of CRSs. The lead farmer did not agree with all of the CRS practices and this had a strong influence on other farmers’ doubts about CRSs. An inactive farmers’ group was found in Malang, in which the group did not influence its members. Conversely, the farmers in Malang actively sought information, insight and support for themselves. The case of Malang demonstrated that the adoption of CRSs can be successful despite an inactive farmers’ group. Instead, CRSs were promoted via a more personal approach. Curiosity about CRSs could generate by giving information to individuals and supporting relationships between farmers from other areas. This approach addresses the fact that farmers in Malang were highly competitive amongst each other.

7.2 REASONS FOR FARMER’S ACTIONS In this section, the reasons why farmers undertake CRS practices is discussed.

7.2.1 Farmer’s Doubts About CRSs Farmers in this study had doubts about adopting CRSs. The farmers in Lamongan had more doubt than those in Malang. The level of doubt can be explained with reference to the Model of Leeuwis. CRSs were promoted by guaranteeing several benefits. The practices promoted have technical and economic benefits but also benefits for the environment. CRSs can lead to higher rice yields and the additional components in CRSs can influence the farmers income (Khumairoh et al., 2012). It has been reported that the rice yields in CRSs is 50% higher than that in conventional systems and that farmers can earn 50% more revenue (Khumairoh et al., 2012). It is believed that the CRSs are suitable for farmers with a range of circumstances, particularly those who have small landholdings. In term of economics, the farmers in this study acknowledged that practising the elements promoted in CRSs can help them to obtain more productivity. For example, for economic reasons, the farmers in Lamongan adopted border crops and those in Malang introduced ducks and fish as well as organic practices. However, economic goals were not enough to convince the farmers to change entirely from old practices to the promoted practices. To the farmers had several doubts. The first doubt related to “knowledge-perception” mentioned in the model. Less knowledge and awareness about CRSs lead the farmers to have a lot of concerns. This was particularly evident in Lamongan (seen in chapter 6) where the farmers were confused and distrusting of CRSs. For example, the farmers did not believe in the function of ducks and fish for weed and pest control. In addition, the farmers did not adopt organic practices and continued using agro- chemicals. The ability to work faster and spend less labour when using chemical pesticides was more important to the farmers than the promoted environmental benefits from organic practices. Therefore, with less understanding of CRSs the greater chance that farmers will be doubtful of the system. A second doubt come from the farmers’ experiences and related to the “Risk perception” point in the model. They found that several risks could not be mitigated. Farmers encountered risks related to market prices and unequal power relationships with middlemen. As well as this, the farmers found that with additional components in their systems, particularly livestock, they were more exposed to risk of theft. Moreover, the farmers encountered pest attacks – namely from mice in Lamongan and mongoose in Malang. Farmers also perceived risk related to the seasons. The dry season can last longer, and the

49 rainy season can be uncertain, and this led to doubts about introducing additional elements that rely on water into the system. When there were more doubts about the system, farmers also had less “Belief in their own abilities”, another point in the model. The farmers acknowledged that CRSs involve many components that they did not always believe that they had the resources or skills needed to maintain them. Capital needed to invest in changed practices was the first consideration of farmers in relation to adopting a new system. Many of the farmers doubted that they had enough finance for CRS practices. On one hand, particularly for those in Lamongan, farmers could not afford the initial costs related to CRSs. On the other hand, farmers prioritised other expenses such as their children’s education. The farmers doubted that their skill is qualified to practice the involved components. This was seen in Lamongan where farmers were unsure about their skills in rice planting as well as planting, managing, controlling and harvesting other components. Furthermore, farm characteristics influenced farmers confidence in practising CRSs. For example, those who had farms that were far from their homes did not believe that they were capable of managing all of the CRS components. With respect to farmers doubts, Pannel et al. (2006) point out that an innovation, in this case interpreted as the new practices, has a greater chance of being adopted when it has more advantages in contrast to the old one. Moreover, acceptance by the farmers depends on the personal goals of the potential adopters as well as their surrounding conditions, such as agro-ecology and social-economic aspects. Although in this case, CRSs seem to have more advantages than conventional rice systems, the farmers remained cautious and wanted to see more proof. To reduce the complex doubts among farmers, I argue that the scientists/ promotors of CRSs could undertake several steps. First, as mentioned above, doubts could be reduced by addressing farmers’ knowledge and perceptions of CRSs. Increasing farmers’ understanding of CRS practices can be seen as a crucial step. As the farmers have low levels of education, particularly in Lamongan, including them in a pilot project could be beneficial. As seen in this study, the farmers in Malang who had more time to engage with scientists’ pilot project had better comprehension of CRSs than those in Lamongan. Moreover, the scientists also need to help the doubtful farmers to understand that the payoff from CRS practices may not occur immediately and that it will take time. To do so, evidence of the success of CRS practices should be exhibited. Farmers who have successfully adopted multiple components of CRSs (Table 10) could serve this purpose. In short, apart from scientists and extension agents, farmers should learn from showcase farmers. Second, of the provision of agricultural inputs is required to motivate farmers, particularly resource poor farmers. Such support would increase farmers’ motivation because, in case they encounter failure, they will not think about the loss, particularly the money spent. According to findings in both places, the farmers adopted certain components of CRSs one by one. Moreover, they asked local extension agents to help them in terms of the support required. When the extension agents could give the farmers what they needed and was able to guide their practices, the farmers gained good results. Success with a first step would improve the chances of a farmer adopting another CRS component. Moreover, the farmers would share the success of the trial with their colleagues, which may encourage them to participate.

Further identifying farmers’ characteristics to recognise who is genuinely motivated to practice CRSs would be necessary so that incentives can be targeted, particularly to those who are constrained by finances. Site-specific support would not only help farmers to experiment with CRSs but also provide an opportunity to design CRSs based on the local context in the future. Furthermore, it would also be necessary to supervise the use of the inputs correctly, as well as to continuously guide the farmers to learn, observe and evaluate if the CRS fits with their situation and personal goals.

7.2.2 Social Environment According to Leeuwis (2004a), farmers’ practice is shaped by the social environment because farmers are not isolated actors. The social environment in the two study areas was contrasting. The farmers in Lamongan have more complex relationships compared to those in Malang. Complex relationships here refer to the fact that the farmers in Lamongan engage with many actors to consider a practice, not only themselves but also their spouse, colleagues and the leader of their farmers’ group. The farmers trust (“Trust in social environment” point mentioned in the Leeuwis Model) the actors with whom they have relationships with. As mentioned in chapter 6, particularly in Lamongan, the farmers’ spouse may reject the promoted system because, in her opinion, the system is not easy to undertake, and the consequences are not desirable (e.g. increased capital and work hours). This fact indicated that the farmers put trust in their wives who are important work partners. The opinion of farmers in Lamongan relating to CRSs was also heavily influenced by that of other farmers, particularly the leader of the farmers’ group. For example, in Lamongan border crops may be accepted by the whole community if enough influential farmers adopt the practice. This condition may be true for the introduction of other components which may require sharing to overcome barriers to adoption, e.g. overhead costs. People tend to act (translated as practice in this case) by considering common interest in their surroundings, particularly in the environment with a high sense of belonging (Koelen and Roling,1994, cited in Leeuwis ,2004a). The farmers’ trust in their wives and colleagues showed that they do not want to be alone when they entail problems in their practice. The sense of belonging helped them to be more comfortable with certain practices. Apart from their wives and colleagues, the farmers, particularly in Lamongan, put trust in their group leader. Members of the farmers’ group saw their leader as a reflection of themselves. The acceptance of a new innovation can be seen from the perspective of their leader. If the leader is willing to be involved in a trial to reduce his members’ doubts about a new practice, his success can influence the decision of group members to adopt the practice. Leeuwis (2004a) mentioned in detail that farmers’ trust can be related to their trust in the functioning of organisations and institutions; inside, outside and between communities.; on which the farmers’ perception of social-organisational risks that exist in relation to specific farming practice, can influence on the success of farming practice. In relation to CRSs, the scientists need to make the group leader believe and feel confident about the practice and support him to do it correctly and achieve a positive result. This issue relates to the level of experience or knowledge held by the leader. For instance, if the leader has never used ducks or fish before, it will require a greater effort to undertake a trial with him and his members and ensure that it fits within local practice. For instance, the farmers (including the leader) in Lamongan create large dykes around their fields. Thus, when promoting the planting of

51 border crops, it would be useful to focus on the fact that there is adequate space to successfully plant vegetables. The relationship between the farmers and those promoting CRSs had a pivotal role in the acceptance of CRSs by the farmers in both locations. As shown in Chapter 6, the good relationship between the farmers and the facilitators of CRSs supported the farmers to experiment with the new practices. In Malang, some of the components of CRSs were accepted because the farmers received useful advice to improve their farms. Similarly, in Lamongan, the farmers only adopted border cropping as this was the component emphasised by the extension agent, who provided support to the farmers. Considering the farmers doubts in relation to CRSs, the farmers can be seen as always positioning themselves as weak actors than other actors because sometimes they are not confident with their knowledge. In fact, they know well their conditions and how to farm in their fields comprehensively. They always want to be guided and because of their doubts, they have a lot of worries about doing something wrong. Thus, the farmers hope that the promoter can spend a lot with them learning to understand how they work. In addition, the good relationship between the farmers and the promoters of CRSs helps the promoter recognise what the farmers need to be able to practice CRSs. For instance, due to the numerous components involved in CRSs, the farmers need time to experiment. They may ask the promoter to support them in terms of material. When the farmers are successful in their trial, they would see the proof themselves. However, if they fail, they would learn by themselves and share what they found with the promoter. The availability of the promoter to understand the farmers’ opinions will increase the farmers’ trust because the farmers feel that they have been considered. Pannell et al. (2006) pointed out that one important issue for agricultural extension that aims to influence farmers’ decision-making is trust. Farmers’ trust plays a crucial role in the success of a promoted practice. Trust indicates that the farmers believe that the extension agent understands and respects their personal goals and conditions. In the case of farmers losing trust in extension agents, the extension agent will only function as an information provider. The knowledge of the promoted system may be gained by the farmers, but the implementation may fail to take place.

7.3 Understanding The Practice Of CRSs The scientist practiced CRSs in their experimental field with all components to assess the impact of CRSs in rice production. According to Glover et al. (2017), the effort undertaken by the scientist made the field more like a laboratory and allowed the scientist to collect the data required. As result, the scientists could more accurately measure the impact of CRSs. However, this research showed that the farmers practice CRS differently to the scientists. Additionally, CRSs were practiced differently by farmers in different places and situations. The farmers in Lamongan generally practiced two components, border crops and fish, while those in Malang used organic fertiliser, fish, ducks and border crops. The difference between the farmers’ practices in Lamongan and Malang can be explained by the farmers’ circumstances. This study demonstrates that farmers accept the components of CRSs that fit with their local circumstances. Local circumstance is made up of biophysical, economic and social aspects. According to Veen (2010), ecological characteristics such as climate, altitude, topography, soil conditions, day length, etc. have a strong influence on the suitability of

52 agricultural innovations. This was confirmed when comparing the way farmers in Lamongan and Malang practised CRSs. Those living in Lamongan avoided the combination of rice, fish and ducks because they did not have sufficient water support. However, the farmers in Malang were not limited by water and considered integrating rice, fish and ducks. Additionally, to secure more water, the farmers in Lamongan built larger and higher dykes than those in Malang. This led to the fact that farmers in Lamongan had more space for border crops. Another contrast based on the availability of water was that the farmers who introduced fish in Lamongan created ponds to collect water while the farmers with fish in Malang released the fish directly into their fields. Veen (2010) points out that when considering an innovation is not the intrinsic economic benefit of an innovation but whether the system represents a benefit in the local or personal condition. Those in Lamongan were mostly considered to be small-holder farmers whose focus was food self-sufficiency. The border crops and fish were suitable components in their farms as they provided more food that could be directly consumed These farmers did not aim to enhance output or profit in monetary terms alone. Meanwhile, the farmers in Malang, who were more market-oriented generally focused on reducing workload and operating costs that would lead to increased income. Thus, the organic fertilisers, fish, ducks and border crops were compatible. The social circumstance of the farmers played an equally important role in the farmers’ decision-making process. The ability to implement the practice and to take or to share risk was important to the farmers. The border cropping practice seemed acceptable for those in Lamongan because most of the farmers adopted this practice. Similarly, the organic fertiliser, fish and ducks were practiced by some of the farmers in Malang. Additionally, the social environment indicated how the farmers-built trust in the CRS components. As an illustration, in Lamongan, CRSs were not practiced completely by the farmers because the leader of Lamongan farmers’ group failed in the trial project. The leader did not believe in the system and, as a result neither did his members. However, when the leader succeeded with border crops, his members followed this practice. In addition, on a more individual level, the farmers also had valid reasons to decide which components of the CRS were suitable for them. As explained in the previous section, the farmers’ doubts and trust played crucial roles in the adoption of CRSs. The psychological make-up of individual farmers influences their readiness to change from their old practices to new ones (Veen, 2010). Based on the farmers’ doubts identified in this research, it is clear that farmers evaluative framework for accepting new practice is multi-dimensional. This research shows that farmers evaluate the promoted system by considering, not only its technical and economic performance, but also the opportunity costs, social payoffs and trade- offs involved. Zooming in on the farmers’ doubts, border cropping was acceptable for those in Lamongan while ducks, fish and organic fertiliser were acceptable for those in Malang. These outcomes were a result of farmers’ economic objectives, belief in their own abilities, risk perception and understanding of the practices themselves.

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In conclusion, CRSs are practised differently by different farmers in East Java, Indonesia. This research concludes that farmers decide to practise different components of CRSs depending on their circumstances. Their local context leads farmers to choose the most suitable components. The farmers were aware that water is a crucial element in their farming practices, which is why water appeared to be a major concern. This was evident by the fact that Lamongan and Malang had contrasting conditions pertaining to the availability of water. Additionally, the farmers in the two study sites had contrasting conditions in terms of access to resources. This was related to the farmers’ economic situations. In Lamongan farmers considered components that supported their goal of food self-sufficiency and those in Malang chose components that suited their market orientation. Moreover, the organisation of the farmers’ groups impacted the way in which the farmers adopted CRSs. Also, the social environment, particularly relationships between the farmers and other actors influenced the farmers’ trust in different components of CRSs. Apart from the social, economic and environmental context, the farmers also had personal reasons to consider practising CRSs. Their reasons related to knowledge, belief in their own abilities, risk perceptions and aspirations. This research supplies some recommendations for the promotion of CRSs. First, adapting CRS practices to fit local circumstance is crucial when promoting CRSs. To do this, understanding farmers’ local context from a technical, economic, and social perspective is needed. Second, locally available resources should be used to complement or substitute existing components or aspects of CRSs. Third, apart from involving farmers in the trial process, sharing knowledge, and exchanging experience among farmers would be a useful approach to promotion of CRSs. Those farmers who have already proven the benefits of CRSs could be hired as promotors to share their ‘real’ experiences with CRSs in the field to decrease other farmers’ doubts.

References:

Agustina Rohmatin. (2017). Laporan Tahun Terakhir: Ipteks Bagi Masyarakat, Penerapan Tanaman Holtikultura di Bedengan Sawah Tadah Hujan di Kelompok Tani Kabupaten Lamongan. Unpublished Manuscript, Muhammadiyah Gresik University, Gresik.

Bernand, H. R. (2012). Social Research Methods: Qualitative And Quantitative Approaches. USA: Sage.

BPS Kabupaten Malang. (2018). Malang Regency in Figures. Malang: BPS-Statistic of Malang Regency.

BPS Kabupaten Lamongan. (2018). Lamongan Regency in Figures. Malang: BPS-Statistic of Lamongan Regency.

Depan, & PETANI, P. P. K. (2007). Pedoman Penumbuhan Dan Pengembangan Kelompok Tani. Jakarta: Depten.

Glover, D., Venot, J. P., & Maat, H. (2017). On The Movement Of Agricultural Technologies. In Agronomy for Development,14(30), pp 14-30. doi: 10.9774/GLEAF.9781315284057_3

Khumairoh, U., Groot, J. C. J., & Lantinga, E. A. (2012). Complex Agro-Ecosystems For Food Security In A Changing Climate. Ecogy and Evolution, 2(7),pp1696–1704. doi: 10.1002/ece3.271

Khumairoh, U., Lantinga, E. A., Groot, J. C. J., Tittonell, P. A., & Suprayogo, D. (2015). Participatory Prototyping For Complex Rice Based Adaptive Systems Design In East Java, Indonesia. 273-274. Abstract from 5th International Symposium for Farming Systems Design, Montpellier, France.

Khumairoh, U., Lantinga, E. A., Groot, J. C., Schulte, R., & Suprayogo, D. (2017). Complex Rice Systems; Putting Ecosystem Retoration Into Practice. 24-25. In summary report and presentation abstracts satoyama initiative regional workshop, Sabah.

Khumairoh, U., Lantinga, E. A., Schulte, R. P., Suprayogo, D., & Groot, J. C. (2018). Complex Rice Systems To Improve Rice Yield And Yield Stability In The Face Of Variable Weather Conditions. Scientific reports, 8(1), 14746. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-32915-z

Leeuwis, C. (2004a). Third Edition : Communication For Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension. USA: Blackwell Publishing Company

Leeuwis, C. (2004b). Fields Of Conflict And Castles In The Air. Some Thoughts And Observations On The Role Of Communication In Public Sphere Innovation Processes. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 10(2), 63-76. doi: 10.1080/13892240485300111

Liu, Y., Pan, X., & Li, J. (2015). Current agricultural practices threaten future global food production. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(2), 203-216. doi : 10.1007/s10806-014-9527-6

Mardikanto, T. (1993). Penyuluhan Pembangunan Pertanian. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University Press.

Mariyono, J., Kompas, T., & Grafton, R. Q. (2010). Shifting From Green Revolution To Environmentally Sound Policies: Technological Change In Indonesian Rice Agriculture. Journal of the Asia Pacific economy, 15(2), 128-147. doi : 10.1080/13547861003700109

Nan, W. A. N. G., Lantinga, E., & Khumairoh, U. (2016). Effects Of Duck Density On Suppression Of Weeds And Pests In Complex Rie Systems In Indonesia. (Master’s thesis , Wageningen UR, Wageningen, Netherlands). Retrieved from : http://edepot.wur.nl/396202

Pannell, D. J., Marshall, G. R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F., & Wilkinson, R. (2006). Understanding And Promoting Adoption Of Conservation Practices By Rural Landholders. Australian Journal Of Experimental Agriculture, 46(11), 1407-1424. doi : 10.1071/EA05037

Veen Van Deer, M. (2010). Agricultural Innovation: Invention And Adoption Or Change And Adaptation? .World Archaeology, 42(1), 1-12. doi : 10.1080/00438240903429649

Yin, R.K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design And Methods (Vol 5). USA: SAGE.

Zona, R.F. (2016). Evaluating The Contribution Of Complex Rice Systems To The Improvement Of Farmer’s Household Nutrition In East Java, Indonesia. (Master’s thesis, Wageningen UR, Netherlands). Retrieved from: http://edepot.wur.nl/396236

Appendix I : The pattern of Crop Border Practice Pattern used in Malang:

Note : : Footways : Planted crop border : Rice

Pattern used in Lamongan:

Pattern 1: Note : : Peanuts : Footways : Squash : Cucumber : Rice

Pattern 2: Note : : Peanuts : Footways : Squash : Rice

: Eggplants

Pattern 3: Note : : Footways : Rice * : Chili

Pattern 4:

Note : : Footways : Rice * : Chili : Sweetcorn : Chinese cabbage

Pattern 5:

Note : : Rice : Sweetcorn : Eggplants

Pattern 6: Note : : Rice : Sweetcorn : Eggplants : Footways

Appendix II: Observation of the Farmer’s Practice

Appendix III: The reason of Farmers: