An ethnography study of farming style in Gianyar, Bali, Indonesia

i

An ethnography study of farming style in Gianyar, Bali, Indonesia

Adi Nugraha MSc. Development & Rural Innovation (MDR-27)

Thesis Code: SDC-80439

Wageningen University

June, 2015

Supervisor:

Dr. Dik Roth

Rural Development Sociology Group (RDS)

Reader:

Dr. Alberto Arce

Rural Development Sociology Group (RDS)

Master Thesis Rural Development Sociology

ii

Acknowledgement

I wish to thank my supervisor Dik Roth for his valuable guidance, academic support and

patience throughout all the times of the completion of my thesis.

I wish to extend heartfelt thanks to my family in Bandung, Indonesia. To my parents Mahfud

Arifin and Ida Damayanti, and my siblings; without their support, love, prayers and

encouragement my wish to study in Wageningen University would remain only a wishful

thinking.

My next sincere gratitude goes to my brother Abdulrahman Al-Fraih and his family in Kuwait

for the invaluable supports and encouragement, and to MDR-27 family: you guys welcomed

me warmly, became my second family and made me enjoy the time living in Wageningen.

Next, I would like to thank my study advisor Marleen van Nooij for her assistance during my

study times and I am also thankful to the second reader Alberto Arce. Warm thanks also go

to Conny Almekinders and Gerard Verschoor for helpful coaching during Thesis Path

sessions.

Last but not least, I sincerely thank Pak Sunarka, IDEP Foundation, Ibu Petra Schneider, Pak

Ketut Karyada, Ibu Kartini, and all the respondents for interesting discussion, and

complementary information during my fieldwork.

i

Abstract

This thesis aimed to describe the macro-micro linkages in agriculture sector of Gianyar, Bali,

Indonesia. This study focused on the agricultural development paths of Gianyar and

heterogeneity of perspectives, farming styles, and strategies of farmers who decided to

follow the path of agricultural modernization, and those who chose to explore alternative

ways of farming. This research was conducted as a case study which allows a flexible

response to social processes evoked by the events analysed. Ethnographic approach

provided a comprehensive understanding of community perceptions and what was

happening in the community, and it was also useful in identifying the experiences

embedded in local practices, culture and society. Data were collected through various

methods, including field observation, participant observation, in-depth interviews, and

document and artefact analysis. The results of this study shows that structural elements in

Gianyar agriculture pose hindrances and opportunities, creating rooms for manoeuvre for

farmers, and also influencing farmers’ ability in exercising their agency. However, some

farmers were able to exercise their agency in choosing which structures to be attached to,

which farming styles and strategies to practice. This condition has led to the heterogeneity

of perspective towards the current agricultural development path. Respectively it

contributed to the emergence of different farming styles and farming strategies in the micro

level. Furthermore, this thesis is not only about the differences in perspective on agricultural

modernization, but also about the liberty of generating alternative ideas of farming, and the

capability and knowledge-ability of farmers that should not be underestimated.

Keywords: macro-micro linkages, agricultural development, farming styles, farming

strategies, Indonesia

i

Table of Contents CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1

1.1. The Theme ...................................................................................................................................2

1.2. Problem Statement – disputed modernization and unheeded local knowledge .......................4

1.3. Research Questions and Objectives ............................................................................................4

1.4. Theoretical Framework ...............................................................................................................5

1.4.1. Macro-Micro Linkages Analysis .........................................................................................5

1.4.2. Farming Logics and Farmers Strategies .............................................................................7

1.5. Research Methods .................................................................................................................... 10

1.6. Country Information ................................................................................................................. 11

1.5.1. Indonesia ........................................................................................................................ 11

1.5.2. Bali .................................................................................................................................. 13

1.7. Structure of the Thesis ............................................................................................................. 14

CHAPTER II: THE TRAJECTORY OF BALINESE AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF

AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT IN BALI ................................................................................ 16

2.1. Pre Green Revolution Utopia ................................................................................................... 16

2.2. The Milestone ........................................................................................................................... 21

2.3. The Transformation .................................................................................................................. 24

2.4. Modern Complications ............................................................................................................. 26

CHAPTER III: THE STRUCTURES THAT INFLUENCE BALINESE AGRICULTURE ........................................... 29

3.1. Post-Reformation Era ............................................................................................................... 29

3.1.1. The Concept of THK (Tri Hita Karana) ............................................................................ 30

3.2. Institutions ................................................................................................................................ 33

3.2.1. Subak (Local Non-State Social Organization) ................................................................. 35

3.2.2. Dinas Pertanian (Agriculture Agenct) ............................................................................. 39

3.2.3. Balai Penyuluhan dan Teknologi Pertanian (BPTP) – bureau of agricultural extension

and technology assessment ........................................................................................... 40

3.2.4. IDEP (Indonesian Development for Education in Permaculture) Foundation and BOA

(Bali Organic Association) ............................................................................................... 43

3.3. Tourism ..................................................................................................................................... 46

3.4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 51

CHAPTER IV: AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT AT A CROSSROADS (Perspectives on Agricultural

Modernization in Bali) ......................................................................................................... 52

ii

4.1. The Pros - Agricultural modernization is the Solution! ............................................................ 53

4.2. The Cons – Modern approaches do not fit us! ......................................................................... 60

4.3. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 67

CHAPTER V: FARMING STYLES (The Heterogeneity of Farming Styles in Gianyar, Bali) .......................... 69

5.1. Farming Styles and Farmers’ Strategies ................................................................................... 70

5.1.1. Conventional farmers ..................................................................................................... 70

5.1.2. Alternative farmers ........................................................................................................ 74

5.2. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 80

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................. 83

Conclusions… ...................................................................................................................................... 83

Discussion…. ........................................................................................................................................ 86

References… ............................................................................................................................................. 88

iii

Figures

Figure 1: Macro-micro linkages in farming style (Hebinck and Ploeg 1997) .......................................... 7

Figure 2: the logic of the peasant (van der Ploeg 2008) ......................................................................... 8

Figure 3: the logic of the entrepreneur (van der Ploeg 2008) ................................................................ 8

Figure 4: the structure of rural development at farm enterprise level (Ploeg and Roep 2003) ............. 9

Figure 5: map of Indonesia ................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 6: Administrative map of Bali ..................................................................................................... 13

Figure 7: Ani-ani .................................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 8: Traditional rice storage .......................................................................................................... 19

Figure 9: Original padi bali rice, harvested in 1921 (Sunarka) .............................................................. 20

Figure 10: Permaculture Training (IDEP) ............................................................................................... 43

Figure 11: Self-bred organic seeds ........................................................................................................ 44

Figure 12: Elementary students participating in permaculture course ................................................ 45

Figure 13: Wayan's multi-functioning farm .......................................................................................... 72

Figure 14: Sunarka's cattle waste management ................................................................................... 79

Figure 15: macro-micro linkages of Gianyar’s agriculture .................................................................... 85

1

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

The world of agriculture has always triggered my curiosity. I'm interested in unravelling its

complexity with special regard to farmers who are tend to be marginalized. It was during my

involvement in research projects, that I became familiar with some of the realities of

agriculture. I started to get to know of the problems in agricultural area, from the

production level, distribution, to marketing. However, at that time, my perspective was still

limited to the knowledge of a bachelor student who was during his study and working time

being highly influenced by modernization-minded agricultural economists, who were mostly

focusing on improving the livelihood of farmers by increasing farmers’ income through the

enhancement of some dimensions of agricultural process such as increasing productivity,

improving product quality, and/or targeting a more lucrative market channel, or in short, it

is part of agricultural modernization.

That is why I thought that if I want to help the farmers, I have to keep on getting involved in

exogenous development activities which bring aid to the farmers not only in form of

materials, but also knowledge in a top-down way. I always had the thoughts that they are

too left behind, they have to be modernised! Development just has to come from those who

are ‘smarter’, ‘richer’, and more ‘developed’ than farmers, that was what I thought. Until I

learned that farmers are not objects of development; that they are social actors who also

have the capabilities to make decision and react differently toward the situations within

their room for manoeuvre.

Unfortunately, the previous thoughts represent how most of the policy makers and project

implementers think about farmers in my country. That is not to say that they are wrong, but

it would be better if I can share another (side of) point of view which is still not well known

in Indonesia. That agricultural development can occur not only by external interventions

(exogenous) but also from within the society itself (endogenous); that pushing the farmers

towards capitalistic agriculture is not the only way to improve their livelihood; there are

alternatives which emerged from farmers’ own capability of interacting with their nature,

that might work better in certain circumstances. However, unlike the adoption of external

technologies (such as chemicals, machineries, and infrastructures) and knowledge

introduced by agricultural modernization which can easily be noticed, the alternative ways

of farming that mostly emerged at the grass root level are often unnoticed, concealed, and

even in some cases in the past, were prohibited.

Through this thesis I would like to explore the heterogeneity of perspectives, farming styles,

and strategies of farmers who decided to follow the path of agricultural modernization, and

those who chose to explore alternative ways of farming in Gianyar Regency, Bali, Indonesia.

I think it is interesting to see how farmers perceive agricultural modernization, are they in

favour or against it? What settings allowed or constrained the farmers to have that certain

perspective? What farming styles emerged or are emerging? What are the farmers’

strategies in dealing with their agricultural problems? How and why? These issues are, in

2

short, the structure of this thesis. Furthermore, this thesis is not only about the differences

in perspective on agricultural modernization, but also about the liberty of generating

alternative ideas of farming, and the capability and knowledge-ability of farmers that should

not be underestimated.

1.1. The Theme

Since the late 1960s, the world of agriculture is being guided towards so called agricultural

modernization which was initiated by high yielding varieties wheat invention in Mexico. The

success story of innovation in Mexico and the pilot project in India continued to grow, so

that it provided the confidence to the pioneers in disseminating their newly founded and

successful innovation through all over the world and became the base of world’s agricultural

development. In 1971 the Ford Foundations, Rockefeller Foundations, World Bank, Food

and Agriculture Organization, and several governmental organizations agreed to found the

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, which is the capstone

organization coordinating the funding of the Green Revolution research institutions (Leaf

1998).

Indonesia is one of the Third World Countries targeted by the Green Revolution. It started

after the coup of President Soekarno along with the massacre of millions of civilians who

were considered as communists by General Soeharto who then ruled the country for 32

years. In his era of the New Order, President Soeharto included food security in his

economic development policy. “As in other developing countries, the concerns about food

security during the 1980s and early 1990s, resulted in policies aimed at achieving self-

sufficiency in food crops, especially rice” (Thomas and Orden 2004 pp. 8).

The Green Revolution certainly had an impact on Indonesian agricultural production,

increasing it by applying ‘new tech’ materials (seeds, inputs, machineries) and knowledge

which as time goes, replaced the ‘old’ practices and materials, so it also became ‘new’

fundamentals of Indonesian agriculture up until today. In the latter half of the twentieth

century Indonesia added significant amounts of land, labour and other inputs to agriculture.

Cropland expanded by an average of 1.4% per year during 1961-2006 and was still growing

by more than 1% per year in the mid-2000s (MOA 2009). Growth in manufactured inputs

used in agriculture, such as fertilizer, machinery and animal feed, was rapid but started from

an almost negligible level. Fertilizer use grew by 11% per year during 1961-1980, when high

yielding, fertilizer responsive varieties of rice were widely adopted and the government

introduced subsidies for fertilizers and pesticides (Mundlak, Larson, and Butzer 2004).

Agricultural tractor capital grew rapidly from very low initial levels. In 1961 there were only

about 1,000 tractors in service (nearly all of them two-wheel walking tractors), but by the

mid-2000s there were over 100,000 two-wheel tractors and 5,000 four-wheel tractors in use

(BPS 2009).

3

The Green Revolution packages were made affordable for farmers through subsidies and

easy credit financed by growing oil revenues was generally successful in raising production.

By the mid-1980s, national self-sufficiency was achieved, although not for long. “As a result

rice prices stabilized at affordable levels for consumer, and the combination of increased

production and subsidies resulted in comfortable incomes for farmers through the 1980s”

(Piggot et al. 1993 in MacRae 2011 pp. 72).

However, there are always two sides to the impact of innovations, including the Green

Revolution. At one side, the Green Revolution has been able to secure the Indonesian food

supply by increasing the yields of agricultural products, and improved some of Indonesian

farmers’ economy and the country’s economy in general. On the other hand, new materials

and practices which had been introduced by the Green Revolution created new problems

for the environment, health condition, and replaced many traditional and original practices

of farmers. Moreover, it also changed the way the farmers interact with their social, natural

and technological contexts. As the ‘modern’ farming requires capital to procure agricultural

inputs which means that only those who have certain amount of capital are able to continue

to grow and strive in the competition, leaving those with limited capital behind. Thus, the

Green Revolution also created a social gap which also hampers the agricultural society. “In

Indonesia, as elsewhere in Southeast Asia, the Green Revolution disproportionately

benefited wealthier rural residents, who used the new technologies to increase production

and shed traditional obligations to women and poorer neighbours, who were pushed onto

more marginal land or off the land entirely” (Welker 2012 pp. 392).

All those problems which came along with Green Revolution have generated reactions from

the agricultural and environmental societies all around the world. In Indonesia, the

environmental impact started to show up, it has attracted the government’s attention in

encouraging environmentally friendly agricultural practices “The Indonesian government

has also begun to embrace organic production, at least in theory. The Department of

Agriculture has begun researching and conducting field trials of organic methods and in

2009 the governor of Bali announced funding of Rp.8 billion to ‘raise awareness’ of organic

methods” (MacRae 2011 pp.76).

The Janus-faced modern agricultural practices brought by the Green Revolution projects

have created a contestation of ideas of the ‘ideal’ way of farming not only in the level of

experts, but also the farmers. I would like to explore more on the farmers’ perspectives of

what they consider as best way of farming and how and to what extent they exercise their

agency in coping with the current streams of agricultural development.

4

1.2. Problem Statement – disputed modernization and unheeded local knowledge

Agricultural modernization has always been seen as the solution to the problems in

agriculture, which are mostly caused by the external ‘squeeze’ which ironically emerged as a

part of the modernization itself. Since agricultural modernization projects got implemented,

the development path of agriculture has been entrusted to the ‘experts’ outside the farming

domain, fostered the adoption of a new farming style i.e. a new ‘ideal’ way of farming.

It is observable that Indonesian agriculture is still experiencing the heritage of 32 years of

iron-hand, top-down government of the New Order era where all the instructions from

above should be applied regardless of the culture and locality where the agriculture is being

practiced. However, since the fall of the regime in the late 1990s, Indonesians are more

aware of freedom. Actors from government offices, NGOs, academicians, and farmers who

are concerned about the downsides of the current path of agricultural modernization

started to use their capacities to act and looking for alternative ways of developing

agriculture in their area according to their cultures and localities which is of course also

influenced by the interactions among themselves and their socio-economic and natural

environment.

The Green Revolution package has been so dominantly embedded in Indonesian agriculture,

that today there are only a few farmers left who are practicing alternative farming methods.

Through decades of top-down dissemination methods, ‘modern’ farming practices became a

fundamental pillar of agricultural practices in Indonesia, to the extent that it is now

considered ‘old’. Nonetheless, ‘new’ alternative ways of farming have started to proliferate

at the grass root level. The notion of ‘conventional farmers’ represents those who are

practicing ‘modern’ agricultural practices, while the notion of ‘alternative farmers’

represents those who are practicing alternative/organic farming.

Currently, in Bali there are emerging initiatives of farmers in deciding their own way of

farming. These alternative ideas not only arise due to external influences, but also from the

farmers’ intuition, experiences, experiments, and even beliefs and relation with ancestors.

Nevertheless, these ideas are often being ignored, considered as practice without a theory

or even ‘crazy’, while it might be the seed of endogenous development of their agriculture.

“There is, currently, a re-emergence of deterministic views that strongly emphasize the

impacts of general, ‘external’ pressures on agriculture, whilst neglecting the importance of

responses generated at the micro-level” (Ploeg 2012 pp. 427).

1.3. Research Questions and Objectives

The overall objective of this thesis is to see the emergence of different farming styles as a

socially constructed process. To see the dynamics of Balinese agriculture through times by

seeing through historical events, analysing the structures in which farming is embedded, to

see the actor’s perspectives towards their structures, and how the farmers react to their

settings with their strategies. Together, it shows how the settings brought dynamics to

5

perspectives of farmers on agricultural modernization and how it leads to the emergence of

different farming styles and farmers’ strategies in Gianyar, Bali. In order to do this, I will

answer the general research question:

How does the contestation of agricultural modernization determine the heterogeneity of

farming styles in Balinese agricultural society?

This question will be answered by answering the following sub-research questions:

1) How was the room for manoeuvre for the contestation of agricultural modernization

created in the current Balinese settings?

2) How is agricultural modernization manifest itself in the lens of Balinese agriculture

actors?

3) What farming styles and farmer’s strategies have emerged or are emerging in this

contestation?

The first sub-question aims to explore the structure (markets, technology, and institutions)

of Balinese which creates dynamics in their agriculture, by creating opportunities and

hindrances for farmers (room for manoeuvre). The second sub-question aims to go into

actors’ lens, to see how different actors perceive agricultural modernization, and their

reasons. The third sub-question aims to explore different farming styles and strategies of

farmers who have different perspectives towards agricultural modernization. The answer of

each sub question will be described in chapter 3, 4, and 5 of this thesis.

1.4. Theoretical Framework

1.4.1. Macro-Micro Linkages Analysis

The framework of this thesis is adapted from the macro-micro-macro linkages analysis

which analyses different structural levels (micro and macro) and how they relate to certain

actors. First, it analyses the impact of the situation in the macro level (the structure) to the

micro level. Then it analyses how do actors in micro level processed and reacted to the

situation in where they conduct their farming activities. The last part, analyses how these

responses generated at micro level affected the macro situation. However, I only use macro-

micro linkages analysis to suit the objectives of the thesis. It combines two major concepts

in sociological studies: structure and agency, which also later in the thesis focuses on the

notion of styles of farming through the application of labour process analysis.

In order to characterize the exogenous and endogenous growth patterns of agriculture, van

der Ploeg (1994) emphasized on including the variable mechanisms through which farming

is linked to market and technology into the analysis. He argued that farming style research is

one of the most promising methods to be used in unravelling the complexity of agriculture,

“it allows us to conceptualize as social constructions the specific ways in which the labour

process in farming is organized (that is how the process of production is organized as well as

how the farm develops through time). It is through a detailed analysis of the heterogeneity

6

in agriculture, especially in marginal areas, that patterns of endogenous growth may be

discerned and analysed” (Ploeg and Long 1994 pp. 6).

The structural analysis of agrarian change, which focuses on processes (such as market

incorporation, commoditization, institutionalization and externalization) is applied in order

to analyse the settings in which practices of agriculture are being carried out. This structural

analysis, however, does not see farming as a practice which is fully determined by markets

and technologies. It focuses on how specific interrelations are established between farm

enterprises and communities, on the one hand, and markets, market agencies and the

processes of technology development and transfer on the other; the question of how these

relationships, once established, affect and remould the farm practices concerned (including

the underlying strategies); and finally, structural analysis studies how the relationships

involved might be changed over time (Hebinck and Ploeg 1997).

However, in order to grasp how the farmers process and exercise their agency in

determining what they think as ‘ideal’ way of farming, the structural analysis alone will not

be sufficient. As Giddens stated, structures are constituted by human agency and are the

very medium of this constitution (Giddens 1976). The actor-oriented approach, then,

develops a theory of agency based on the capacity of actors to process and act on one

another’s experiences in differentiated ways, in accordance with their competing priorities,

purposes and circumstances (Long 2001). “It aims to understand farmers, their agricultural

practices and relationships ‘within the context in which they live’” (Rhoades 1984 pp. 40-

41). In this context, “the actor-oriented methodology, as elaborated by Long, has proved

highly useful in getting to grips with the specificities of agricultural practices” (Hebinck and

Ploeg 1997 pp. 204). “An important contribution from the actor-oriented perspective

consists in the notion of markets and technology as entailing specific room for manoeuvre,

which is actively created by the actors involved through processes of negotiation and

redesigning” (Ibid 1997).

The third analysis that is used in this thesis is the labour process approach. It reveals “how

culture and economic, institutional and technological developments, as mediated by cultural

repertoires, are materializing in specific practices. Labour process analysis focuses on the

farmer as actor, on farming as a social construction and on the relationships in which

farmers’ work and life are embedded” (Hebinck and Ploeg 1997 pp.206).

These three strands of theories of agrarian change and agricultural development are

summarised in the notion of styles of farming. “A style of farming is the complex but

integrated set of notions, norms, knowledge elements, experiences, etc., held by a group of

farmers in a specific region, that describes the way farming praxis should be carried out”

(Hofstee 1985 in Ploeg and Long 1994). According to Hebinck and Ploeg (1997) a style of

farming consists of three interrelated and mutually dependent levels. These levels are:

“First, a specific cultural repertoire composed of shared experiences, knowledge, insight,

interests, prospects and interpretations of the context in which farmers operate; second, a

7

style of farming is an integrated set of practices and artefacts; third, a style of farming

comprises a specific ordering of the interrelationships between the farming unit, on the one

hand, and markets, technology and institutions on the other” (Hebinck and Ploeg 1997 pp.

206).

To study the social relation of production, the anthropological perspective is introduced. In

this phase, “the structural analysis plays a role in studying the social relations of production

moulded and reproduced by the economic and institutional environment. The labour

process approach comes in when production and reproduction at the level of the farm

enterprise are analysed”(Hebinck and Ploeg 1997 pp. 208).

1.4.2. Farming Logics and Farmers Strategies

In the literature, these two agricultural development paths are characterised by the logics of

farmers in organizing their farms into two categories based on van der Ploeg (2008). These

farming logics are: the entrepreneur (Figure 2) which covers the farmers who are in favour

of agricultural modernization, focusing their farming goal in income generation by

integrating themselves into markets. These farmers tend to have a competitive behaviour

because they see the future as scarce commodity, only the best farmers will triumph. In

order to be one, they should be the first one to adopt and apply external technologies

(expert designed). Utilizing these technologies (i.e. farm intensification) adds more costs to

the farming activity; and in order to pay the expenses, entrepreneurs mostly pursue scale

enlargement as a solution. Lastly, they perceived that they should be able to constantly

adapt to the external indicators (e.g. markets and policies).

Ecology

Culture

Policy

Regimes

Natural resources

Domain of family, community,

networks

Domain of

markets and

technology,

institutions

Farm enterprise

(on field)

Farming style

1

Farming style

2

Farming style

n

Social relations of

production

Farm labour

Farmer

strategies

Highly variable in time and place

Figure 1: Macro-micro linkages in farming style (Hebinck and Ploeg 1997)

8

On the other hand, there is the logic of peasant farmers or craftsmanship (Figure 3) which

covers the farmers who seek more than just income as their goal of farming, taking the

environmental and cultural aspects into account in their farming practices. Their solution to

increase their profit lies in the resource management in order to cut farming expenses. They

focus on developing their ability to farm sustainably by relying on local knowledge and

responding to internal indicators (e.g. their farm condition or family). In this case, this logic

represents the farmers who are not in favour of modern agricultural practices.

In reacting to the settings, farmers came up with their own strategies in order to find a style

of farming which gives most values to them; values in the sense of not only giving economic

benefits, but also justifying their practice based on their visions of how the farm state was in

the past, how it is in the present, and how it should be in the future based on their

rationalities. These visions then became the motivation of goals, the farm projects of the

farmers which filled with hopes, innovations, and networks.

In the literature, there are typologies that can help to identify these strategies based on the

multi-functionality of farm enterprise as a response to the income squeeze that is

hampering the agricultural sector, especially farmers. These rural development strategies

are: broadening, deepening, and regrounding agriculture (figure 4). The farm enterprise

entails three sides or aspects: 1) the classical agricultural face, the one related to the

production of commodities; 2) the rural side, which forms part of a local and regional

economy and culture; and 3) the mobilization and use of resources (Ploeg and Roep 2003).

Figure 3: the logic of the entrepreneur (van der Ploeg 2008)

Figure 2: the logic of the peasant (van der Ploeg 2008)

9

The relations of three aspects in rural development are then reproduced and transformed

as follow:

1) The agricultural side is deepened (transformed, expanded and/or relinked to other

players and agencies in order to deliver products that entail more value added per unit

precisely because they fit better with the demands in society at large (Marsden et al

2000; Renting et al, 2002 in Ploeg and Roep 2003 pp. 6).

2) The rural side of the farm enterprise might be reorganized through the process of

broadening. “We refer here to agrotourism, to the management of nature and landscape

(Baldock and Baeufoy 1993; Renting and Van der Ploeg 2000), to the development of

new on-farm activities and to diversification (as for example the production of energy;

Knickel 2000)” (Ploeg and Roep 2003 pp. 7).

3) The last side would be the mobilization and use of resources. The farm enterprise is

grounded in a new or different set of resources and/or involved in new patterns of

resource use. Regrounding is represented in two specific fields of activity: pluri-activity

and farming economically. “Through pluri-activity (Bryden et al 1992; Fuller and Brun

1991) the farm enterprise is partly built on off-farm income. Farming economically is a

strategy resulting in what is internationally referred to as low external input agriculture”

(Van der Ploeg 2000; Reijntjes et al 1992; Pretty 1998 in Ploeg and Roep 2003 pp. 7-8).

Mobilization of Resources

CONVENTIONAL AGRICULTURE

REGROUNDING

New forms of cost reduction Off-farm income

Figure 4: the structure of rural development at farm enterprise level (Ploeg and Roep 2003)

10

1.5. Research Methods

The research is a case study which allows a flexible response to social processes evoked by

the events analysed. I chose an ethnographic approach because this study provides a

comprehensive understanding of community perceptions and what is happening in the

community, and it also allows me to identify experiences embedded in local practices,

culture and society.

This ethnographic study consists of observations, participant observations and interviews

with the actors. It is really important to get information on farmers’ motives, knowledge and

relationships but also on the socio-material settings in which new farming styles emerged or

are emerging. I also gathered information about demography, historical framework, and see

the connection with the actual condition. Thus, documents and artefacts analysis will be

used as well.

Observations

Before conducting interviews, I observed the situation in the study site. This process helped

me to get an overview which allows me to problematize the settings.

Participant Observations

To go further in the understanding of practices, I did participant observation in some of the

farmers and NGO activities. It is important to see and listen to related actors in their

context, and to experience as closely as possible their daily work reality where knowledge

and practices are generated. And also by participating in their activities can help me to

blend with them, gaining more trust and connection which will help me in collection

information.

Interviews

I also did interviews in order to get the perspectives and the story of the actors. I

interviewed not only farmers, but also government officers, NGOs, and scientists that

collaborate directly with these farmers.

Document and Artefacts analysis

As the focus of this research is the socio-material settings in which farming style are

produced, document and artefact analysis helped as well. Thus, objects and documents

related to these practices (such as personal notes, farming tools, newspapers, and articles)

are relevant sources of information to develop my thesis.

11

1.6. Country Information

1.5.1. Indonesia

Located in between two continents Asia and Australia, two major oceans of Indian and

Pacific, and right under the equatorial line, Indonesia is gifted with the richness of natural

resources. The country is 1,904,569 km2 covering 13,466 islands, which makes Indonesia the

largest archipelago country in the world. By the lands, Indonesia borders with Malaysia in

Kalimantan, Papua New Guinea in Papua, and Timor Leste. Other neighbouring countries are

Singapore, The Philippines, and Australia. Indonesia is populated by approximately 237.6

million citizens spread among 34 provinces, with more than 50% of its population

concentrated in Java and Bali (BPS, 2013).

The characteristics of Indonesia shaped it

into an agrarian country where most of its

population is highly dependent on its

agricultural sector for their livelihood,

especially in rural areas. In 2010 the

agricultural sector contributed 15.3% of the

total GNP and employed around 42 million

people all across the country. However if

we look at the trend in past years, it shows

that less and less people are willing to work

in the agricultural sector each year.

Indonesian agriculture has been through several events in the process of its development.

An important shift came with the colonial era, where Indonesian agriculture was forced to

serve the needs of the West, by planting export commodities. “The growth in arable area

which occurred in colonial Indonesia was not just for food crops cultivation. There was also

a very rapid growth in land area under production of commodities such as rubber, copra,

and coffee which were sold on international markets” (Booth 1989 pp. 1237). This process

lasted for more than three centuries, until the country claimed its independency in 1945.

However, the damage caused during the colonial time was so intense, that it left Indonesia

to start with serious crises in many sectors such as economy, politic, social, and food

security.

After its independence in 1945, under the leadership of its first president Soekarno,

Indonesia focused on rebuilding its national integrity. “Jennifer Lindsay (2011a:15) rightly

remarks that in the early 1950s the Indonesian nation was primarily a cultural project.

Moreover, she observes that ‘to be an Indonesian was to be modern’. National Identity and

modernity were therefore inextricable intertwined” (Nordholt 2011 pp. 388). Soekarno

focused on the revitalization of Indonesians nationalism to ‘nationalize’ the country by many

Figure 5: map of Indonesia

12

ways such as mobilizing the population through transmigrations, and nationalizing foreign

companies.

However, during the 1945-60s, due to its recent birth as an independent nation, Indonesia

could not make any remarkable achievements especially in its agriculture. “In spite of

government effort not just on expanding irrigation, but also on research and extension

services, there was no breakthrough in food crops yields per harvested hectare until 1960s”

(Boomgaard 1986, in Booth 1989 pp. 1237).

Then Indonesian agricultural development entered the next stage in the beginning of the

New Order era (1966). As one of the strategies in rebalancing the stability of politic and

economy, Indonesia started to be dependent on foreign countries in terms of technology,

investments, and education which indirectly affected the whole country’s policies and

developmental path. In order to solve one of the important issues at that time, famine,

Indonesia needed to increase its agriculture productivity by adopting the Green Revolution

packages.

In Indonesia, the Green Revolution is known as a program called Bimas (Bimbingan Massal –

Mass Guidance). It certainly has affected the Indonesian agriculture production, increasing it

by applying ‘new tech’ including knowledge and materials (seeds, inputs, machineries)

which as time goes, replaced the old practices and became the fundamentals of Indonesian

agriculture development up until today. During the Green Revolution, Indonesia expanded

its farm lands and also increased labour and other inputs to its agriculture. Cropland

expanded by an average of 1.4% per year during 1961-2006 and was still growing by more

than 1% per year in the mid-2000s, all of the expansion occurred outside the densely

populated island of Java, especially on Kalimantan, Sumatra and Sulawesi (van der Eng 1996;

MOA 2009).

Growth in manufactured inputs used in agriculture, such as fertilizer, machinery and animal

feed, was rapid but started from an almost negligible level. Fertilizer use grew by 11% per

year during 1961-1980, when high yielding, fertilizer responsive varieties of rice were widely

adopted and the government introduced subsidies for fertilizers and pesticides (Mundlak et.

al. 2004). Agricultural tractor capital grew rapidly from very low initial levels. In 1961 there

were only about 1,000 tractors in service (nearly all of them two-wheel walking tractors),

but by the mid-2000s there were over 100,000 two-wheel tractors and 5,000 four-wheel

tractors in use (BPS 1993-2007).

The Bimas program has succeeded in increasing Indonesia’s agriculture production. The

country achieved significant achievement in agriculture during the 1970s and 1980s through

the diffusion of high-yielding varieties of food crops (Fuglie, K.O. 2004). However, in the late

1980s where the economic climate was harsh, the government can no longer afford to

continue a policy of excessive subsidies to agriculture. “Thus, according to the pessimists,

the inevitable result of reduced subsidies will be reduced rates of agricultural growth, which

13

combined with the decline in employment opportunities in other sectors of the economy

will have a severe impact on living standards in rural areas” (Booth 1989 pp. 1242). This

situation affected agricultural sector until the present day. Farmers who are already more

dependent to markets and technology could not get full subsidies anymore and have to

start re-forming their business plan by adding inputs’ costs.

Since the fall of New Order (1998/9), Indonesians started to be more aware of freedom.

Critical farmers who had doubts about the Bimas program but were silenced during the

Soeharto regime, started to develop their own way of agriculture, and thus more actors got

involved in shaping the dynamics of agriculture in Indonesia. As the result, since the past

few years agriculture modernisation has been brought into a contestation in many ways.

Some actors in different areas of Indonesia started to emerge with new ideas on how

farming should be carried on in order to yield more, by keep applying the chemicals and

machineries, go back to nature, or a combination of both.

1.5.2. Bali

1Bali is one of the islands in Indonesia

which has unique characteristics

compared to other islands due to its

worldwide popularity as a tourist

destination. It is 5,636 km2 divided into

8 regencies, 1 capital, 55 districts and

701 villages and populated with

3,890,000 citizens. Around 85% of the

population are practicing Balinese

Hindus (a type of Hinduism which has

merged with local belief, and brought to

Bali by the Javanese) (BPS, 2013). Aside

of being a tourist spot, Bali is also

internationally famous for its agricultural practices, especially in rice farming with the

presence of Subak, a non-state institution consists of a group of people (mostly farmers)

who rules the irrigation system1. Although tourism plays a big role in the society and

development, agriculture still is the main occupation for Balinese. There are 408,233

farming households in Bali with 63.58% of them are small farmers, those who own less than

0.5 hectare of land (BPS, 2013). 218,591 households plant mainly food crops such as paddy,

cassava, maize, potato, and sweet cassava. The average income for farmers is 2.97 million

rupiah per household per month. This income includes the average off-farm labour income

(when they work in someone else’s farm) which is 1.03 million a month. The other source of

income would be remittance with the average income of 0.4 million rupiah a household a

year (BPS, 2013).

1 More about subak in the later chapter of the thesis

Source: Petatematikindo.wordpress.com

Gianyar

Figure 6: Administrative map of Bali

14

I conducted my fieldwork in Gianyar, one of the Regencies in Bali which has the second

largest agricultural areas. It has 469,777 population spread in 39,794 Km2 of agricultural

land and 9,550 Km2 of non-agricultural land (BPS, 2010). The unique characteristic of

Gianyar compared to other regencies in Bali is the balanced tourism-culture-agriculture

development which plays important roles in shaping its agriculture. Unlike its neighbouring

regency Badung which is mostly transformed into touristic places such as Kuta and

Seminyak, Gianyar still has its cultural centre such as Ubud which, though touristic, still has a

strong tradition and culture. This condition allows more dynamics in Gianyar’s agriculture,

thus I found it interesting and decided to do my study in this area.

1.7. Structure of the Thesis

The thesis consists of six chapters divided into two introductory chapters, three result

chapters, and one conclusion chapter. In first chapter, introduction to thesis development is

provided along with the construction of problem statement, research questions, theoretical

framework, research methods, and the structure of this thesis.

The second chapter provides information about the history of agriculture development in

Bali. This chapter elaborates the historical events which shaped the current settings.

Information of agricultural development affected by political events i.e. pre-GR and during

the ‘New Order’ era is described. This chapter is relevant in explaining the historical events

which gave lasting influences towards the farmers’ way of thinking and also how the

structure works in Balinese agriculture.

The third chapter describes the settings of Balinese agriculture in relation with market,

technology, and institutions in the post-reformation era. In this chapter, the agriculture

related institutions which play roles in the dynamics of Balinese agriculture are described.

This chapter is important because it explains how the roles of institutions in posing

opportunities and hindrances (room for manoeuvre) in terms of markets and technology;

that both enables and restricts farmers in practicing their farming style.

The fourth chapter provides the actors’ perspectives towards current and future plan for

agriculture development from the actors representing each group. How each actor sees the

way on how the agriculture is moving through times, what they considered as problems that

need to be solved, and what would be their next step in paving the future agriculture path.

In this chapter, the contestation of the agricultural modernization as solutions among the

actors is described. This chapter is crucial in understanding the reasons of farmers in

choosing their ‘ideal’ way of farming as reactions to the structure where farming activities

occur.

The fifth chapter provides the information about different farming styles and the strategies

of farmers that I came across during fieldwork. Different practices of different farmers who

have different perspectives and related to different network in the institutional structure

will be described. This chapter contributes the information about the manifestation of

15

farmers' ideal farming based on their reasoning; and which structures that are enabling and

restricting them to choose otherwise.

The sixth chapter covers the discussion and conclusions of the thesis. Here I would like to

reflect my findings and the answers to my research questions with the theories and insights

that I encountered in some related literatures. The conclusion also provides personal

reflection and suggestions for future research.

16

CHAPTER II: THE TRAJECTORY OF BALINESE AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT IN BALI

Bali is one of many Indonesian islands which of course, was also affected by the Green

Revolution. Agricultural modernization started in Bali (and other areas in Indonesia) through

the Bimas program in late 1960s, which has certainly affected various aspects of Balinese

rural life. As described in the introduction, agricultural modernization has its negative and

positive impacts toward Balinese agriculture. These impacts received different reactions

from the actors, especially after the decentralization in early 2000 when reactions were

starting to come into the surface.

These different perspectives, influenced by the settings, have brought farmers to a space

where they contested the agricultural modernization ideas which leads them to certain

ways of farming. Before going to their perspectives of the ‘ideal’ way of farming, first it is

important to see the background of agricultural modernization in Balinese context by going

through the history of agricultural modernization in Bali.

This chapter provides general information about agriculture development in Bali. It

elaborates the historical events which shaped the current settings. Information of the

condition of Balinese agriculture before the Green Revolution, and its agricultural

development affected by political events during the ‘New Order’ era when the Green

Revolution got disseminated is described. This information is important not only to see how

the structures of Balinese agriculture evolved through times, but also it will contribute in

understanding why actors have a certain point of view towards agricultural modernization.

2.1. Pre Green Revolution Utopia

“In the past, I felt far more secure. Money was not the goal, it was better in the past. Now

everything needs money, how can I feel peace? There is no peace, the economy now is weird,

our life pattern depends on the economy, materialistic, to follow the era, most of the people

are having difficulties, because we need to buy everything, even farming costs so much

money. In the past, it was really different, happy, secure, and peaceful.”2

The situation in Bali before the green revolution especially related to its agriculture sounds

very romantic so that some of the Balinese are longing to go back to that ‘ideal past’ world.

A time where the sense of community was still very strong and people were working

together with nature in practicing their agriculture, using their local knowledge to invent

technologies and methods that fit them best in their localities, starting from input

procurement to post-harvest handling. Here I would like to illustrate this case in their old

practice of rice farming.

Prior to the Green Revolution, the farmers used to plant padi Bali a variety of red rice

originating from the island, which has a slower growth rate (approximately 6-7 months)

2 Wayan (72, a farmer and parking man), interviews on 31-12-2013 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali.

17

compared to the new hybrid varieties (approximately 3-4 months). According to MacRae,

this practice only lasted until the 1950s with the assumption that its disappearance might be

caused by the combination of increased demand and improved irrigation “Prior to 1950

farmers grew local traditional rice during the rainy season, followed by a crop rotation (with

palawija – horticulture), usually soya beans, in the dry season. Around 1950, the rotation

crop was replaced by a second crop of rice” (MacRae 2011 pp. 72-73). While according to

one of known farmers in Gianyar, Sunarka3, field experimenting by the farmers was already

present at that time and farmers in his village managed to crossbreed the traditional rice

varieties so that it had a faster growth rate, therefore it became possible to plant it twice a

year. This means that even in their ‘traditional’ times, Balinese farmers had already realized

that there was a need to improve productivity, and they were able to do field experiments

in order to find a better variety.

In the traditional Balinese farming practice, the idea of zero waste was already present. An

example for this can be seen in the way that they utilized the by-products of paddy. From

paddy plant, farmers were used to let the stem of paddy withering on the field as the main

materials for composting; and they used the grain skin as the fuel to smoke the grain in the

rainy season in order to dry it; then they used the ashes back on the field to be mixed with

other materials such as leaves they gathered from their yards, the muds they gathered

when they cleaned the irrigation channel, house waste (since there were no plastics or any

other synthetic materials), and manure which were then turned into compost; they also

used the small parts of the grains from the milling process as ingredients to make food (e.g.

porridge) or as animal feed.

Traditional Balinese farming practices emphasized the importance of maintaining the soil

fertility in order to reach optimum production. That is why the old practices took a long time

(approximately 2 months) to prepare the land before planting. Sunarka mentioned at least 7

steps: “first we plough it; then let it until the weeds grew; then plough it again to mix the

weeds with the soil; wait until its flat; then plough it with big fork; then we let it until the

soil looks like porridge; then we flatten the land… when its full of pores, then it means that

the soil contains good aeration, and is ready.”4 The soil fertility was not only maintained by

the land preparation, but also the multi-crop planting which also affected the balance of the

ecosystem of the field; and also the rules of planting different crop in one year (e.g.

horticulture after rice), allowed the soil regenerate and not to be saturated.

After the land preparation, there were not that many activities anymore until harvesting

since there was no fertilizing during the growing period, nor pest control activities. The

farmers let the nature do its work without any human intervention for pest management.

“For pest control, in the past, we followed the planting schedule which has been created by

our ancestors, in one year there were only 2 planting seasons: December-January and July-

3 Sunarka (53, an extension agent and farmer), interviews on 19-11-2013 in Buahan Kaja village, Gianyar, Bali.

4 Ibid, 19-11-2013

18

August. This planting schedule brought balance to the ecosystem, since every time we

planted certain crops in rainy or dry season, then it attracted different animals, so there was

no overpopulation of certain animals. Moreover, we never considered the pests as pest, and

we believed that nature has its own way of control, so we didn’t do any pest control activity

at that time… there were some animals of course, like grasshopper, smelly bugs, mouse, but

they were not considered as bad things in our field… Look, grasshoppers, that’s a pest, and

there were snails, but it’s good because the snails eat bug’s eggs. Spiders, they also eat the

bugs, the snakes eat the rats and frogs, the frogs eat bugs too. You can see the food chain

was working very well and balanced, so the nature is actually has its own mechanism to

balance the population of creatures here, so we don’t consider them as pests… they are just

like us, part of the nature, they will take what they need, but that’s it, they won’t bother us

or our yield… and beside that we also have some plants that repels certain animals such as

areca nut tree.”5

The other was breeding ducks, which was allowed only in a certain period of time after the

harvesting period. This practice of feeding ducks in the rice field was not only useful as a

way to feed the animal, but also contributes to the farmer group, land preparation and pest

control. “After harvest, the ducks are allowed to be fed in the field, and also one period

before planting. Their feet act like a small tractor, they will eat some animals there, and of

course they also put manure in the rice field. The owner of the ducks has to contribute one

egg per duck to the farmer group for every season. There was a rule from the subak that

states this activity can only be done after harvest and before land preparation. If the ducks

owner breaks the rule (feeding his ducks in the field not on the time), then he will be fined

100-300 Rupiah per duck, depends on how big it is. Then 30% of the fine will be given to the

land owner, and 70% to the farmer group’s savings.”6

The other practice that has changed

was harvesting. Before the Green

Revolution, farmers used to use a

tiny harvesting tool called ani-ani, as

very small tool designed to cut only

certain part of the plant (the tip of

the stem which has grains). The

harvesting method is based on their

belief that they should not hurt the

plant while they are harvesting the

yield, otherwise it would be considered as an offence to Dewi Sri, the goddess of fertility.

According to Sunarka, this harvesting method actually has positive implications to their

farming system. Firstly, it maintains the balance of ecosystem since most insects and other

animals which use the plant as their habitat kept their natural cycle, since it allows the rest

5 Ibid, 19-11-2013

6 Ibid, 19-11-2013

Source: oiblenyon.blogspot.com Figure 7: Ani-ani

19

of the plants to wither naturally; and secondly, the withered body of the plants then

became materials of compost.

After harvesting, the grains got dried by using the sunlight

(in dry season) or smoked (mostly in rainy season) and

then got stored in the rice storage room. In order to

separate the grains from the stem, the farmers just

waited till they were fragile enough so that the grains will

fell off the stem naturally. This also has something to do

with their beliefs, because it is also considered offensive

(towards the goddess) to beat the grains before its ready.

According to Sunarka, this practice can also be related to

the food security because they had to wait until the grains

are ready to be ‘milled’ (in their traditional way) so that

they had to store the yields for some time and most of the

times they consumed the yields from the previous

harvest. “Because of this, we had to build storage and

started to store our rice. And with the elders’ suggestions

to never consume all the yields we have, we always have

rice in our storage.”7

That is why the issue of food security, which was one of the main issues that was supposed

to be tackled by agricultural modernization projects, was unexpectedly not present at that

time. According to the farmers’ story, food security has already been thought by the

ancestors through the old practices. “At that time, there were still many animals in the field:

eels, frogs, snails, grasshoppers, and many more… that’s why when people went to the field,

they weren’t just harvesting the rice, but also the animals that were edible as source of

proteins… so at that time rice field provides almost everything we need”8. Kartini, an

academician and the founder of Bali Organic Association, confirmed the situation by her

story “Even though we were poor in monetary terms, I thought we were very rich; during

my childhood we had fruit and vegetables growing, we had honey and honeycomb. If we

wanted meat we would slaughter a chicken or a pig or even a cow. That’s what we ate, and

when I started school I already had my own business breeding ducks and selling the eggs”9.

Multi crops planting method that was being practiced at that time, was also related to food

diversification “it means that our ancestors had already thought about food security by

diversification, every farmer had dry lands to plants fruits, vegetables, and other crops.

Moreover, each house also had livestock”10. Balinese food security was not only supported

by their agricultural practice but also in their consuming behaviour. “We never had food 7 Ibid, 11-19-2013

8 Nyoman (65), Kadek (69) and other farmers interview on 11-23-2013 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali

9 Ni Luh Kartini (Bali Organic Association), interview on 11-12-2013 in Udayana University, Denpasar, Bali

10 Sunarka, interview on 11-19-2013 in Buahan Kaja, Gianyar, Bali

Figure 8: Traditional rice storage

20

shortage, because in our tradition, our eating pattern, we did not eat only one source of

carbohydrate, we only ate ‘only rice’ at certain events such as religious ceremonies or other

special events. Other than those times, we always mixed the rice with other sources of

carbs, such as cassava, taro, or maize. It has been like that since our ancestors, our food was

diversified, and there were even times

where our storages were overfilled, so we

had to sell or trade the rice. However, our

fathers told us not to ever totally empty our

storage because we will never know what

will happen in the future. That is why until

now I still have stocks of rice harvested in

1921, 1930, 1940, 1950, and 1960 and they

are all still edible. After that it’s not possible

anymore to store the rice that long because

new varieties rot really fast, could not even

stored for one year”11.

Trading was already present, but the purpose was more to fulfil farmers’ necessities by

exchanging goods rather than making profits. “At that time, people were still trading not

with money, but exchanging their product, mostly rice with something else. But before they

are sure that there is enough rice for their own family, they would not dare to trade the rice.

If there is someone who’s in need, that person can just borrow the rice from his neighbour,

while he can wait for his own rice to be harvested, and pay it back later. In my village, it is

very normal to borrow rice from the neighbour, I still remember that”12.

Agriculture labour system in that period was still based on social relationships. Before the

Green Revolution, labour was more intense, especially in the harvesting period. However, at

that time people saw labour hiring as ‘sharing’ rather than ‘cost’. “People worked in other

people’s field, even if they had their own field, so the reason were more about working

together, then they share yields. Some people managed to get more lands, some don’t, and

number of people in one family is also different. I mean there were people who own small

land but have large family, so their yield sometimes were not enough to feed the whole

family, and people who have large lands but small family, or people who were having other

jobs than farmer, they need help to maintain their farm… it leads them to work together,

mutualism with yields sharing, depends on their agreement”13. By helping others to harvest

their farm, people got a share of the harvest based on how much they yield. This practice,

then, had somehow maintained the social security by providing food for everyone, so it

lessened the social gap and prevented civil unrest.

11

Sunarka, interview on 11-19-2013 in Buahan Kaja, Gianyar, Bali 12

Kadek, interview on 11-23-2013 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali 13

Nyoman, interview on 11-23-2013 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali

Figure 9: Original padi bali rice, harvested in 1921 (Sunarka)

21

From the practice of rice farming alone, it can be seen that Balinese agricultural practices

before the Green Revolution already covered a wide array of their daily life from fulfilling

basic needs through agriculture (procurement of inputs, production, and consumption), to

the creation of a harmonious society without neglecting its relationship with nature. Back

then, men did not fulfil their needs by interrupting the nature, but by enhancing the original

mechanism of nature. Balinese had been practicing their traditional agriculture practices

which intertwined with their culture and nature for ages so that it became a repertoire

which shaped their praxis. This praxis however, did not survive on its own, but being

guarded by local civic organizations (such as subak) through their sets of rules and

regulations.

2.2. The Milestone

The situation in Bali started to change significantly when Indonesia claimed its

independence and the government started to get involved in governing Bali as part of

Indonesia through its policies. The states started to get involved in the society not only for

administrative matters, but also through programs and policies which were indirectly

affecting the roles of the institutions which act as the gate to reach the society. To

understand better the agricultural development path in Bali, we cannot ignore the history of

social political situations that influenced and shaped the current settings of Balinese society

and the way they behave towards agricultural modernization.

According to the story of the old farmers, during Soekarno’s presidency, there were some

policies which triggered conflicts among the Balinese farmers, especially regarding access to

land and socio-agricultural practices.14 One of the hottest issues was the new law of land

reform, regulating the size of lands that can be owned by private, which was issued in the

early 1960s. The regulation was set in the Undang-Undang no. 56 PRP Tahun 1960 Tentang

Penetapan Luas Tanah Pertanian (Constitution No. 56 PRP 1960, regarding The

Establishment of Agricultural Land Size - 29 December 1960) The law on land redistribution

allowed a maximum of five hectares per household on wet rice land (sawah) and six

hectares on dry land in the most densely populated areas (more than 400 persons per km2),

with greater holdings allowed in less densely populated regions. Holdings in excess of these

limits were to be redistributed by the state, with priority given to the people who were

actually cultivating the plot in question (Robinson 1995).

The new laws created conflicts between land owners (elites) and landless citizens. If we see

it from the view of landless people, the land reform policy was a miracle that gave them

access to lands. However for the elites who used to have more than 20 hectares of lands, to

be cut down to just own 5 hectares of land for nothing; the laws had of course, triggered

resistances. During that period, there were two major political powers which were

struggling in defending their domination in the country; these parties are: PNI (Partai

14

This story is explained in more details by Geoffrey Robinson (1995) in his book The Dark Side of Paradise: Political Violence in Bali

22

Nasionalis Indonesia – Indonesian Nationalist Party) which in Bali (as the other regions in

Indonesia), represented the interests of the right-winged elites; and PKI (Partai Komunis

Indonesia – Indonesian Communist Party) which represented the interests of commoners.

These struggles then reached its climax in 1965, in an event known as G/30S/PKI, when the

whole communists and their ideology got completely eradicated in the whole country.

The Dark Past. When Indonesia withdrew from the World Bank and the IMF in 1965, the

barriers to world trade were growing stronger and stronger. Weeks later, six top Army

officers were killed and it was claimed that the PKI-members were behind the killings. Then

General Soeharto took over, and together with his followers in the army, he led over the

eradication of millions of peasants, activists and intellectuals, thereby wiping out the PKI.

This event resides still in the mind of the witnesses, especially families of victims as G30SPKI

or the 65 incident. In the recent documentary film ‘The Act of Killing’, the gangsters Anwar

Congo and Adi Zulkadry demonstrated in detail and full of pride how they had ‘saved the

country from communists’ by killing them with iron wire, or crushing their necks under the

table. Besides the description of the history, they also justified their actions as saving the

country from communists. “We are the winners, so we make the history.” They did this by

producing discourses about communists and by showing a movie every year in the national

television where communists were slaughtering parents of innocent children (the movie of

G/30S/PKI which is banned after the fall of Soeharto) – the opposite of what truly happened

in 1965.

Until today this topic is still very sensitive in Bali that I found it hard to gather information

straight from the main witnesses. I tried to slip one or two questions about the 1965

incident to old farmers that must have witnessed that national incident, and all I got most of

the times were only stares to the floor, staggering voices, and avoidances. I could see that

they are holding intensely traumatizing memories in the back of their head that they don’t

want to recall or they were too afraid to give any opinions about it. However, some of the

respondents were willing to share the story of the tragedy in their point of view.

According to pak Sunarka, who was also a second witness, in Bali people used the situation

in order to eliminate whom they considered as enemies, even for personal reasons. “That

time was really chaotic and terrifying… every day we heard from the radio ‘eliminate PKI!

Communists are anti-god!’, this is Bali, religion is our foundation… and suddenly there were

rumours that if PKI wins the election, then they will destroy every temple and wipe out our

religion, we will not be allowed to pray, etc… of course, Balinese were angry… they didn’t

even need that many soldiers, just by spreading rumours then they already let Balinese

killed each other… It was so easy to get rid of a person at that time, in the neighbouring

village I heard that someone got killed by villagers because he was a PKI member, and later

they found out that someone else just accused him without proof, just because that guy

23

wanted the victim’s wife… not to mention the military, some people got taken during the

night, and I never see them again up until now…things were really crazy back then”15.

Termana, a member of Taman 65 (a group of family members of the victims who are doing

research to uncover the truth behind the 1965 incident) who is also a grandson of one of

the victims stated that according to their research, in Bali alone, between 80.000 and

200.000 people were killed (which is between 5% and 12.5% of the total Balinese population

at that time). Termana is the nephew of Agung Alit, a key-witness who has been brave

enough to talk in public as key informant in many related books and documentaries such as

40 Years of Silence and The Act of Killing. He told me that in the family, it was forbidden to

ask of their grandfather’s whereabouts, especially by the grandmother “because she was

traumatized, she always told us not to talk about grandpa, she always told our uncles that

grandpa died due to accident… but then they grew up and of course she could no longer

hide the truth that even she, doesn’t know where grandpa is, all she knows is that he got

taken during a night and that was the last time she saw him… she told us to never question

the government, and by looking what happened before, then its normal for her to cover

things from us, because of course she wants to protect the family… even now, she found out

that we built Taman 65 and my uncle Agung Alit started to show up and talk in public, she

becomes really sad, she’s still scared that it might happen to us”16.

According to him, his uncle witnessed when the people were literally slaughtered at the

beach so that the waves took care of the bodies right away, when the rivers were clogged

by corpses and the water turned red, when the market near their house used to be a mass

grave. I personally cannot imagine seeing such horrifying scenes in my surroundings, no

wonder most of my respondents were shaking and preferred to avoid the topic once I asked

them about the 1965 incident. The incident traumatized those who seen it, so it silenced

their freedom, their creativity, and made them submissive towards the government, which

is in this case, restraining their room for manoeuvre in any way that they consider as against

the government.

The impact of the incident to Balinese agriculture is not only in the mental state of farmers,

but also related to land grabbing. Sunarka explained to me what happened in his

neighbouring village, “the inheritance system in Bali is patrilineal, which means that if my

dad died, then the land will be divided to his sons once they reach certain age… at that time,

so many people gone missing, mostly fathers of young children… when it happened, the

ideal thing is that the closest male relatives of the fathers took care of the lands until the

children come to age… but what happened in the neighbouring village for example, some of

the people moved away since they are landless because their relatives were too greedy, and

at that time, the land certification was still unclear, so it was easy to just grab a plot of land

15

Sunarka, Interview on 11-26-2013 in Buahan Kaja, Gianyar, Bali. 16

Termana, Interview on 12-04-2013 in Denpasar, Bali.

24

from the victims and claim it”17. This story got confirmed by Termana and his brother, who

shared the same story from their uncle who had to go through internal family conflict in

order to reclaim his lands.

The incident of 1965 had left the society in turmoil, vulnerable and in need of a leader to

whom they can cling on to. Then Soeharto rose to power and governed the country and the

era of the New Order began. During his time, as one of the strategies in rebalancing the

stability of politic and economy, Indonesia started to be dependent on foreign countries in

terms of technology, investments, and education which indirectly affected the whole

country’s policies and developmental path. In order to solve one of the important issues at

that time, famine, Indonesia needed to increase its agriculture productivity by adopting the

Green Revolution packages.

2.3. The Transformation

Transformation of Balinese agriculture was started by the introduction of new technology in

1967 through the Bimas (Bimbingan Massal – Mass Guidance) programs which were

disseminated all over the country. The Bimas program was mainly being conducted through

extension agents, with the objective to improve the productivity of farms and the livelihood

of farmers through agricultural modernization. “The Bimas program aimed to develop the

conventional agriculture practices (intensification), the objectives and intentions of the

program were actually good. The government wanted to help the farmers to be able to run

their agri-business, so that farmers could start up their farming as a business and be

autonomous”18.

The first introduced technology was the chemical fertilizer (urea) with some trials which

lasted for about 4 planting seasons, started with low dosage to normal. At the first time the

dissemination of fertilizer was not going so well due to the farmers’ ‘fundamentalism’ which

made them reluctant towards it. “When it was introduced, the farmers were reluctant even

though the government was giving the chemicals for free. The farmers didn’t want to use it.

They just threw it away or put it under the banana and coconut trees, because they thought

that it is bad for the soil. No, they didn’t even dare to try it.”19 However, the reluctance got

diminished once they saw what the fertilizers did to the surrounding plants in the area

where they threw the fertilizer. “It was because in every place where they threw the

fertilizer, the plants have better growth and more yields, so people started to believe that

the fertilizer is actually good for the plant”20.

Nevertheless, the traditional variety of rice did not react that well to the newly applied

fertilizer “the plants were greener and have more leaves, but it did not affect the

17

Sunarka, Interview on 11-26-2013 in Buahan Kaja, Gianyar, Bali 18

Sunarka, interview on 11-19-2013 in Buahan Kaja, Gianyar, Bali 19

Ketut, Interview on 11-24-2013 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali 20

Ibid, 11-24-2013

25

productivity.”21 That was the time when the government introduced new varieties which are

more responsive to chemicals, and padi bali started to slowly got replaced by the new

variety called PB5. This dissemination was also not easy and caused controversy among the

farmers “When it started, it was so difficult, because they were still sticking to their beliefs

and traditions. Farmers were still cautious and they still didn’t trust the PB5... they always

thought that the PB5 is not good, because in their mind at that time, it doesn’t make any

sense to them... they think that the PB5 has a short growth cycle, produces more yield, so it

must be very bad for the soil… but then their perception changed when they saw the others

who planted PB5 got more yields and easier to harvest, they started to follow. It took 3

years before the new varieties were widely accepted in Bali. It was because the new

varieties have higher yields, highly responsive to the fertilizer”22.

The new variety had successfully boosted productivity, but the benefits did not last that long

as problems started to show up. “The new varieties somehow attract pests like we never

had before. Then they introduced the pesticides. From that on, our whole farming activities

changed”23. Since then, the farmers were introduced to pesticides which had hazardous

impacts towards the health and environment especially in the early years. However, even

though the farmers at that time realised and experienced these impacts on their health,

they could not do anything but getting medical treatments and continue using pesticides

because it was the only suggested solution to deal with pests.

The Bimas program also introduced agricultural machineries such as tractors and Rice

Milling Unit (RMU) which replaced human labour in Balinese agriculture. “Before the

introduction of new technologies, peak labor requirements during soil preparation,

weeding, transplanting and harvesting, were met by the use of hamlet-based communal

labor-sharing arrangements. Nowadays, many Balinese farming households resort to

outsourcing such work to paid labor depending on their financial capacities and household

labor availability”(Lorenzen & Lorenzen 2010 pp. 32).

To make the dissemination more efficient, the government created the farmers group. The

extension agents then mainly had contact with the group leaders who are then

disseminated new technologies to the farmers. The program also used mass media such as

radio television (siaran pedesaan – discussion session that was broadcasted live), television

(short films, kelompencapir – discussion and quiz show, and even traditional art show such

as puppet show – wayang) to spread the ideas that modern farming is a better way of

farming than the traditional one. Additionally, in the dissemination of the Green Revolution

package, the farmers were directly and indirectly forced to do what the government told

them to do. Ketut told me that in his area (Ubud) the extension agents came every week

21

Ibid, 11-24-2013 22

Ibid, 11-24-2013 23

Ibid, 11-24-2013

26

and did not stop until the farmers agreed to adopt the technology, and after what happened

in 1965, the farmers are mostly obedient towards the government.

Through its top-down dissemination process of the Bimas programs that lasted for 3

decades, the New Order regime transformed almost all elements in Balinese agricultural

practices and society. However, there are two sides in the impact of the Bimas programs. At

one side, the Bimas had been able to increase the yields of agricultural products and

brought efficiencies in agricultural practices through mechanizations. In the other hand,

new materials and practices which been brought by Green Revolution created new

problems in environment, health condition, and replaced many traditional and original

practices of farmers, and moreover, it also changed the way the farmers interact with their

social, natural and technological context.

2.4. Modern Complications

Unfortunately, the problems created by agricultural modernization can also be seen in the

current Balinese agriculture and its society. These symptoms were never been expected by

the farmers at the beginning of agricultural modernization “At first, farmers were happy

because everything went well. The government provided subsidies for the inputs (seeds,

fertilisers, pesticides), they even provided loans to those who weren’t able to buy the

inputs, our production increased. We started having more than we needed for our

consumption, so we started selling to other regions and make money. But then as time went

by, problems started showing up one by one, and it still keeps going on up till now. Look at

our soil, our water, our environment, we are losing our traditions, our old varieties and our

harmony with nature, look at our farmers who are busy competing, monopolizing and

‘killing’ each other, land grabbing, our war with nature which now we consider as our

enemy (pests), many of the farmers complained about their health because of their long-

term exposure to the chemicals… not to mention the occurrence of another actors

especially corporations in the chain, which always exploiting small farmers… and many other

problems”24.

One of the problems brought by agricultural modernization is the externalization of inputs

which made the farmers dependent on the market for inputs. “The problem is that in Bali,

maybe in all across Indonesia, the government provided subsidies for the inputs when they

introduced it up to some years after that. They distributed and said that ‘this is a program’

and the people say ‘if we don’t take this, we lose it’ (because they could get it for free or

very cheap). But as time goes, the subsidy got lower and lower so the price of the chemicals

keeps increasing”25. Farming which once was a self-sufficient and sustainable activity started

to be a profit generating activity since farmers need capitals to buy inputs. This situation

was worsened by the stagnation of productivity due to the soil saturation; and the reduced

24

Ni Luh Kartini (Bali Organic Association), interview on 11-12-2013 in Udayana University, Denpasar, Bali 25

Ibid, 11-12-2013

27

subsidy due to monetary crisis in the end of 1980s, which means that farmers had to spend

more money as input costs, while they could not improve their productivity.

Health related problems were also present in the beginning of chemicals introduction.

Sunarka who is also a government extension agent, told me that he remembers that, when

he had to introduce the pesticides in his village, many suffered health problems due to

improper practice. “Because at that time, people were not even able to read Bahasa

Indonesia, and the chemicals came with instructions written in English, even sometimes in

Japanese. How could we understand that?”26 During those years (1974-1979) he used to do

regular medical check-ups for farmers in his village due to the health complaints by farmers

such as fatigue, throwing up, headaches, etc. According to what he experienced, improper

usage of pesticides was the main cause of health issues experienced by farmers at that time.

Aside of that, in Buahan Kaja village according to their beliefs, they were not allowed to kill

living beings unless for consumption “So when the first time we applied pesticides, we saw

dead grasshoppers, frogs, and other animals which used to be edible at that time, and some

of us ate them and got poisoned”27.

According to the farmers, at that time the pesticides contained highly toxic substances

which are then banned in the early 1980s, and also the government suggested the farmers

to do spraying once every two weeks. This practice was not only causing health problem,

but also disturbing the balance of farms ecosystem since the pesticides killed not only one

specific pest, but also other animals. The hazardous impacts of pesticides were witnessed by

most of the farmers in Buahan Kaja village and they decided to stop using pesticides by the

end of 1980s. However, the farmers in other areas such as Ubud could not make the same

decision and are still applying pesticides until today, since at that time there were not that

many people who were dare enough to say no to government’s programs. Because, as

mentioned in the later section, Soeharto’s authoritarian government did not give any room

for Indonesian who has different ideas than the government. This top-down iron handed

way of governing and developing the country also of course happened in Bali for decades,

supressing the freedom and creativity of the farmers in managing their farms.

The other problem is the degradation of valuing local wisdom and ancestral knowledge

which has been effective in maintaining the balance between the society and nature for

ages. Slowly but sure, people are starting to be careless about environmental sustainability,

their main goal shifted to survive and develop by generating more profits through

agriculture and other activities, turning them into entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurial

behaviour made materials more valuable (commoditization) and created competitions

between farmers. This condition had also somehow influenced the room for manoeuvre of

farmers in a way that “if I don’t apply the same practices (e.g. plant the same varieties,

applying chemical fertilisers and pesticides) to my farm, then I will be left behind by others, I

26

Sunarka, Interview on 11-26-2013 in Buahan Kaja, Gianyar, Bali 27

Ibid, 11-26-2013

28

will not be able to produce enough to enter the market”28. The commoditization also applies

to labour by replacing the communal labour system, which was based on sharing with paid

labour, hence, widening the gap and creating barriers within the society.

At the same time when the Bimas program was implemented, tourism also started to be

prioritized in Bali development projects. This had, of course, also caused problems for

Balinese agriculture, starting from land transformation, labour shift and water scarcity

(further details in the next chapter of the thesis). Altogether, these modern complications

pose an external squeeze to Balinese agriculture and its society, in which most of the

farmers are still consciously or unconsciously applying the Green Revolution packages and

the others started to realise the not so benign side of it and started to look for some

alternatives. However, some critical farmers and activists realised these negative impacts,

during that time it was almost impossible to actively go against or questions the

government’s policies. Until the regime fall in 1998, when people got more aware of

freedom and starting to surface with their ideas, creating difference of perspectives of the

solution to the squeeze. The next chapter describes the settings and structure of Balinese

agriculture in the post-reformation era.

28

Nyoman, interview on 11-23-2013 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali

29

CHAPTER III: THE STRUCTURES THAT INFLUENCE BALINESE AGRICULTURE

This chapter provides general information about the settings in which Balinese practice their

agriculture in the post-reformation era. Agriculture practices are always influenced by its

surrounding settings, and this also applies in Bali. These settings include the culture of

Balinese, the state and non-state institutions, and tourism which together pose hindrances

and opportunities that shape the room for manoeuvre for farmers in pursuing their

agriculture practices. The settings have been determining Indonesian agriculture, including

the Balinese, in a top-down way, especially since the beginning of the New Order era.

This chapter aims to describe the dynamics of the structures from time to time and how

these structures create opportunities and hindrances that allow different styles of farming

to emerge. Firstly, this chapter describes historical perspective of Balinese culture which is

the foundation of Balinese society. Understanding Balinese culture is important due to its

strong influence to Balinese’s aspects of life. Secondly, this chapter then describes the

institutions that contribute to the forming of room for manoeuvre for the farmers. Lastly,

this chapter provides information about the impact of tourism on Balinese society. It is

important to see the interaction between these three settings in order to get an overview of

Balinese agricultural settings.

3.1. Post-Reformation Era

Through its top-down dissemination process of the Bimas programs that lasted for 3

decades, the New Order regime transformed almost all elements in Balinese agricultural

practices and society. “Indonesian farmers, including Balinese, are mostly over fifty years of

age and have spent most of their working lives under the top-down command regime of

Soeharto’s New Order” (MacRae 2011 pp. 71). By the end of the 1990s, most Indonesians

could no longer hold their disappointment of being mentally and physically suppressed or

sitting idly watching the corrupt government ruling over the country for 32 years. In 1998,

college students from all over Indonesia gathered in the heart of Indonesian government,

Jakarta. They led the largest demonstration (against the government) in the history of

Indonesia and brought down the New Order regime, and the reformation era began.

Being freed from the chains of dictatorship of the New Order government which ruled for

three decades, many representatives of local regions came up with their own ideas and

power agendas. The sudden emergence of various interests and ideas triggered conflicts

between the regions in Indonesia. Thus, the government decided to decentralise political

power, giving authority to local governments in managing their own area through their own

local policies, through the Constitution No. 22/1999 regarding the local government

(Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah). “Decentralisation in

Indonesia had radical implications (Hull 1999), introducing considerable autonomy to very

small district-level units” (Pedersen 2007 pp. 197). “A policy of decentralisation and regional

autonomy further stimulated such local and regional political agendas” (Roth 2014 pp. 4).

30

This event was then, seen as an opportunity for local government to claim authority by

implementing rules and policies in managing their own resources and society based on their

interests, which were mostly concealed by discourses of local wisdom/tradition (adat).

“After decades of marginalization and dispossession by a predatory central state that did

not recognize customary claims to resources like land, water and forest, the political

changes of the late 1990s provided an opportunity for local political actors to reaffirm

customary claims, often related to regional or ‘indigenous’ identities” (Roth 2014 pp. 4).

This situation also happened in Bali, where the local government focused on the

revitalisation of Balinese identity. This defensive political gesture escalated especially after

the deadly incident of Bali bombing in 2002, which impacted not only the social aspects but

also economic aspects of Balinese life. “In Bali the issues of fundamentalist Islam, tourism,

land, resources and self-determination were areas of concern, brought to a dramatic head

by the Bali bombing and its aftermath” (Pedersen 2007 pp. 211). Few years after that

incident, the government of Bali initiated the revival of ‘unique’ local traditions through a

movement known as Ajeg Bali (stand firm Bali).

According to Reuter (2009) the major factors that contribute to the rise of Ajeg Bali

movement are: “a) the initial gradual and then wholesale touristification of local culture

over the last five decades; b) increasing economic dependence on a global market due to

reliance on cash crop agriculture, handicraft exports and tourism; c) massive environmental

degradation due to rapid economic development; d) the political decentralization of

Indonesia since 1998; e) the perceived security threat and economic losses after the

Jema’ah Islamiyah terrorist bomb attack on Bali in October 2002; f) fears of a possible

Islamisation of the Indonesian state; and, most prominent of all, g) concern over the

massive influx of Muslim labour migrants from the 1980s onwards” (Reuter 2009 pp. 864).

3.1.1. The Concept of THK (Tri Hita Karana)

One of the strategies in reaching the Ajeg Bali movement objectives is the revitalization of

the Tri Hita Karana (THK) concept, which originally surfaced in the beginning of New Order

era in the first Local Conference of Hindu-Bali Followers Association in Dwijendra University,

Denpasar (PHDP 1988). “It is mentioned as the basis of provincial regulations like those on

the environment, spatial planning, and tourism. It has also been mobilized to define the

Balinese irrigated landscape as ‘cultural heritage’ as well as to guide policies in the subak

domain” (Roth 2014 pp. 9). Thus, the propagation of THK has indirectly influenced the room

for manoeuvre of farmers.

The dominant religion of Balinese is Hindu-Bali (Balinese Hinduism), which is not the same

with Indian Hinduism. Balinese Hinduism is a mix between Hinduism which been brought by

Javanese during the kingdom era, with Balinese original belief which called Bali Aga which is

also known as religion of water. The contemporary Balinese Hinduism got labelled and

institutionalised in the beginning of New Order era where the government only recognised 5

31

religions (Islam, Protestant, Catholic, Buddhism, and Hinduism). Since then, the philosophy

for life in Bali is based on the concept of Tri Hita Karana, which literally means as the “three

causes of prosperity”. These three causes are:

Parhayangan, the concept of harmonious relation with God is not as simple as praying or

building a temple. Pak Nyoman, a pemangku, told me his perception about this “We see

God everywhere, some people told me that we don’t have God, we just pray to whatever

we came across, but that is not true… there is God in you, in me, in other people, in the

plants, animals, soil, air, everywhere, that is why we have to maintain good deeds towards

everything, do no harm, because if we do so, then we will harm God”29. Balinese sees God

not in the materials or the state of beings, but more in the connections between us and our

‘universe’ (anything that is not us, “I am a part of your universe, and you are a part of

mine”). Thus, parhayangan is the fundamental of the other two causes.

Pawongan, the concept of harmony among the people can be seen in how Balinese society

works. There are still scheduled voluntary works for example, to maintain public facilities,

cleaning the village, or even ceremony for the dead. This is not to say that THK concept is

the base of the voluntary works tradition, since the gotong royong (voluntary work) is

already part of Indonesian culture which was being enhanced and was increasingly used as a

national ideology during the New Order era; however, in Bali pawongan is propagated to be

the base of this customary. Pak Nyoman explained that “Balinese don’t like conflict, we

often have no complaints. If there is a problem, most of the times we just sit and discuss to

find the solution. A real Balinese will think 10 times before he intends to hurt someone,

because we have a very strong connection with our beliefs such as Karma and evil spirits”30.

Pawongan is not only for the living, but also goes beyond that, to the relation of the spirits

of the dead, the ancestors. That is why in Balinese belief there is Galungan, which is the

ceremony to welcome the spirits of heroes who visit our world for one week each year; and

Kuningan which is the ceremony to bid them farewell after they finished their visit. Pak

Sunarka explained another example “If you are not following the social rules and don’t have

good relationship with others, it will make your life harder. Who will help you when you are

dead? Who will help you with the ceremony? Nobody will help you? If your corpse can walk,

do the ceremony and burn itself, then it will be fine, but is it possible?”31 So the concept

works for multiple phases of life starting from welcoming new born babies, several events in

their process of growing up (there are some ceremonies for a person when he/she reaches

certain ages), the relationship during the lifetime, when people are dead (ngaben –

cremation ceremony), and even for spirits of ancestors. There are, of course, social

pressures anywhere (not only in Bali) as the consequences of any individual who doesn’t

maintain good relationship with the community in which (s)he lives in. However, pawongan

is propagated as fundamentals of ‘well-behaving’ so that people have a ‘label’ to justify their

29

Nyoman Rudita (67), interview on 12-03-2013 in Tampak Siring, Gianyar, Bali 30

Ibid, 12-03-2013 31

Sunarka, Interview on 11-19-2013 in Buahan Kaja, Gianyar, Bali

32

acts. In Bali, this social pressure is manifested in the presence of the banjar community

within a village which has rules that are based on THK concept.

Palemahan, the concept of harmony with nature can be seen in how Balinese sees God that

represents nature. For example in order to respect Dewi Sri, the fertility goddess, Balinese

farmers are still using the same old technique in growing and harvesting original rice variety

of Padi Bali which is considered as one of God’s creations. But not for hybrid varieties which

came along with the Green Revolution and are widely planted now, because they think the

hybrid varieties are manmade. Sunarka shared me his childhood story which is still being

told to the children in the present day “We cannot harvest Padi Bali by using big sickle to cut

the whole plants and mill the rice to separate the grains. Because God in her manifestation

as the protector, she will be angry if we damage most part of the plant while harvesting it,

and also if we ‘beat’ the plant to separate the grains… so it’s considered as disrespectful act

towards the Goddess”. This practice, similar to what Balinese used to do in pre-Green

Revolution era, is affecting the ecosystem of the farm and made farming more labour

intensive.

Balinese Hinduism seems so embedded in Balinese society that it’s not only influencing their

activities but also the way they react towards any external influences, from immigrants to

project implementations. Pak Nyoman told me his views about God “we see God

everywhere. We always want to give our best contributions as offerings to God in many

forms. We dance, paint, make sculptures, farm, anything can be presented as offerings to

God”32. These spiritual practices have been in Bali long time before the THK came to surface;

it is the source of flourishing artworks which used to be the manifestation of their

appreciation towards the Gods. However, in my opinion, this is also because of one of the

feats as Indonesians who are mostly religious, in the sense that we rarely question our

beliefs. This conservatism can be seen as a weakness and can be utilised by the government

to have more control over the citizen. In this case, the propagation of THK would be a

proper example.

Since the touristification of Bali, most of spiritual related activities such as ceremonies and

art performances have become commoditized as tourists’ attraction, and of course so have

paintings and sculptures, which are mostly valued as souvenirs. However, Pak Sunarka said

that “the original Bali religion is still present at this moment. It is called Bali Aga, the religion

of people in the area of Teganan and some other areas in North Bali. It is different from

what we are usually seeing here, because here, it has been influenced by mostly tourism

based motives, for publishing and promoting our tourism”33.

I am not trying to portray Balinese society as the society of saints, Bali is never as pure as it

sounds in any media and/or literature that came from the authors/producers who got

32

Nyoman Rudita (67), interview on 12-03-2013 in Tampak Siring, Gianyar, Bali 33

Sunarka, Interview on 11-19-2013 in Buahan Kaja, Gianyar, Bali

33

fascinated with the shining ‘uniqueness’ of Bali. However, with the emergence of the guided

discourse of THK (and Ajeg Bali movement), Balinese started to be more aware of their own

roots especially in relation with religious, social, and environmental issues; the sense of

‘being unique’ as a Balinese is being built and still growing, and enhanced by tourism-related

interests. This condition also influenced the agricultural society in Bali, for example, farmers

who are having negative perspectives towards modernization approaches often showed a

reasoning which is related to religious and environmental sustainability (more in a later

chapter of this thesis). This is, of course, also influenced by the fact that the concept of THK

has been put as the fundamental of subak’s agendas.

Aside of that, Balinese Hinduism also provide the market for the farmers through the

constant demands for some agricultural products that are used as offerings in many

ceremonies. However, this can also be seen as a hindrance, since farmers also have to

contribute to the ceremonies and have to use their own yields for the offerings so that it is

not economically favourable for the small farmers. Wayan, a small farmer who only has 20

acres of land explained that “It is very hard nowadays to make profit from farming with only

a small plot of land. Mostly I used some of the yields for my family consumption, and the

rest I used it as offerings, so then I have not much to sell”34.

The other important aspect of Balinese culture and religion which is related to its agriculture

are the social organizations, as in this context these can be seen as the way the society is

structured and works which influenced the decision making process in the community level,

even in individual level. The social organization of Bali is described in the following section.

3.2. Institutions

Bali has a unique societal order, governed by both state and non-state forms of

government. This phenomenon is covered in the concept of legal-institutional pluralism –

“the existence of more than one legal order or mechanism within one socio-political space,

based on different sources of ultimate validity and maintained by forms of organization

other than the state” (von Benda-Beckmann F. 2002 pp. 37-83 in Roth 2014 pp. 3). Bali was

originally formed as several kingdoms in one island. Some of these kingdoms are still

present and act as the non-official form of government for Balinese society, while the state

government also governs Bali as a part of Indonesia. Both customary and official

administrative institutions exist at several levels of the society. In the regency/district level

there are the kerajaan (kingdom) vs. kabupaten (regency) or kecamatan (district), in the

village level there are the desa adat/pakraman vs. kelurahan, and even in the field of

agriculture, the subak vs. dinas pertanian (agriculture service). I would like to make it clear

that in this context, I used the ‘vs.’ as a distinction mark, it is not to say that one side goes

against the other.

34

Wayan, Interview on 12-31-2013 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali

34

The presence of and interaction between non-state and state forms of governance has been

present since the ancient Balinese kingdom era (9th-10th century). At that time the desa

(village) acts like a ‘small republic’ with its own laws, then as the Majapahit (Kingdom from

Java) came with their Hindu-Java influence, desa started to get influenced by the power of

kingdoms (Liefrienck 1986/87 in Sudantra 2007). Since then, the desa began to have dual

functions: as local religious community, and socio-political community under the kingdom

with Perbakal as a representative which was chosen by the king. Then with the arrival of the

Dutch in the 1906/08, in order to strengthen their influence the Dutch built an

administrative government in the village level aside of the existing local village. These two

forms of village then known as desa adat (adat desa/customary village) and desa dinas

(gouvernementsdesa) which are still intact until today (Sudantra 2007).

Desa adat (customary village) was being marginalised during the New Order era under the

Constitution No. 5/1979 verse 1.a. which states that a desa should run under the law of the

Republic of Indonesia. In the beginning of the Reformation era, the constitution changed to

No. 22/1999 verse 1.o. which states that a desa is allowed to govern their population based

on their locality recognized by the Nation. In 2004, the law changed again to Constitution

No. 32/2004 which then got updated in 2005, the latest version of Constitution No. 8/2005

verse 1.12 which states that a desa is a group of ‘law-based community’ which has clear

geographical borders, and has the authority to govern their population based on their own

local tradition, which is recognized and respected in the system of Republic of Indonesia.

In Bali, this law combined with the propagation of THK led to the re-emergence of locality

based village form of desa pakraman/adat (non-state form of village) aside of the desa dinas

(state form of village). Desa pakraman runs the village based on the awig-awig (local village

norms) and has its own administrative settings which mostly based on the concept of THK.

Desa adat also acts as a space where the heads of banjar gather and discuss about matters

in the village level. Under the desa pakraman, there is banjar which consist of

approximately 100 households and have some various extra rules/norms depends on each

banjar in addition to those which came from the desa pakraman.

The most relevant social organization to the topic of this thesis is the subak, a famous part

of Balinese agriculture. “Due to Bali’s topography and the condition of its rivers, which are

generally steep, most farmers in Bali had limited access to water; sometimes they had to

build their own tunnels. To solve this problem, Balinese ancestors decided to make a

collective working group which has task to proportionally distribute the water to its

members”35. This organisation is called subak. It is important for me to provide information

about subak due to its inseparable role in Balinese agricultural and its society’s perspectives

towards agricultural modernization, as Roth stated that “In debates about these (threats to

Balinese agriculture) processes, and in attempts to make sense of and find policy solutions

for them, the subak plays a central role” (Roth 2014 pp. 5).

35

Sunarka, interview on 11-19-2013 in Buahan Kaja, Gianyar, Bali

35

3.2.1. Subak (Local Non-State Social Organization)

What is a subak? Many scholars came up with various definition of subak, such as Geertz

(1980) who sees subak as rice fields that have the same source of water with many irrigation

channels. A local scholar Sutawan (1989) states that subak is the organization of wetland

farmers who have the same water source for their irrigation, owning one or more Bedugul

temple, and have the freedom of managing their own life and relations with outsiders.

While the Balinese Local Government, through its decree No. 2/1972 defines subak as the

‘Balinese law’-based community that has socio-agrarian-religious connections which are

historically built and keep on growing as the organization of land managers in certain area.

Aside from those definitions, the Balinese scholar I Gede Pitana (1993) added some

characteristics of subak which are:

- Subak is a farmers’ organisation who manage the irrigation water for their members. As

an organisation, subak has its own board and written and unwritten laws (awig-awig);

- Subak has one water source which is being used by all the members. The water source

can be in the form of a dam/dike, natural springs, groundwater, or a main irrigation

channel;

- Subak has areas of rice fields;

- Subak has autonomy;

- Subak has one or more bedugul (agriculture related temple)

These definitions somehow have similarities, and I found it relevant with what I came across

during my fieldwork. The farmers that I interviewed understood subak as a group of farmers

who manage the water distributions (irrigation) from one water source to the members,

which the size can vary from one village to more than one district, depends on the

availability/accessibility of the water source. Subak is not only involved in irrigation matters,

it also involved in socio-religious-agriculture practices such as the collective mobility of

materials (agricultural inputs and machineries) and knowledge (transfer/exchange of

information, ideas); and ceremonies. It acts as a hub among the members, or between the

members and outsiders (government and other subaks). Subak can also be a space where

the members try to find solutions to what they perceive as problems especially in

agriculture related social and religious matters.

Subak structure. Pak Sunarka, the head of subak in Buahan Kaja village told me that the

structure of organization is basically the same with any other organization. It is led by

pekaseh (the head of subak) which is assisted by one or more petajuh (assistants) which

usually divided into petengen (treasurer) and penyarikan (secretary). If the subak has many

members (usually more than 100) then there is a division of tempekan (sub-subaks) lead by

kelian tempekan (head of sub-subak).

In managing its members, subak has its own rules and norms called awig-awig which has to

be in line with the concept of Tri Hita Karana. This Awig-awig subak is formulated based on

36

the agreements of all members in their consultative meeting which is called sangkepan.

Awig-awig subak consists of a set of rules describing acceptable and punishable acts and

behaviours of its members, along with the punishments for those who break the rules

(Windia and Sudantra 2006).

Each subak member has freedom to make decisions regarding his own rice terraces, as long

as it doesn’t go against the awig-awig. The tempekan heads have the formal authority to

represent the tempekan members at subak level and the informal authority to negotiate

water with each other. The subak heads have the formal authority to represent their subak

at inter-subak meetings and in inter-subak activities. Although subaks have formal

arrangements concerning membership, territory, and members’ rights and duties, these

arrangements are embedded into social and ritual interactions between members and

between adjacent subaks (Sutawan 2000). Informally the subak heads have the authority to

negotiate water among each other in a beneficial way for the subak members. “Water

distribution, the main concern of the subak, is negotiated on a daily basis between farmers,

sub-subak heads, and subak heads. Social relationships, informal agreements, even disputes

are seen as an integral part of the daily working of the subak as a whole” (Lorenzen and

Lorenzen 2008 pp. 78).

Subak activities. There are several routines which are being carried by subak. The most

common one is the voluntary communal labour days which is usually conducted on Sundays.

The pekaseh or kelian tempekan organised the assignments and requirements which are

calculated on the basis of the size of land a household cultivates, commonly, those who

have more land contribute more than those with the smaller land, in term of labour (might

be different, depends on the subak). Members who are not attending the communal labour

work will have to pay retribution, depends on the laws of the subak.

In order to adjust the laws or to discuss general subak administrative matters and future

work plans, they hold regular gatherings which takes place between one to four times a

year, depends on the subak. There are seven ceremonies for one cultivation cycle.

Ceremonies on the subak level, in which every farming household is obliged to participate,

are only performed in the main cultivation season (kerta masa) and consist of five

ceremonies organized by the subak head, plus one on the inter subak level.

What are their roles? Since the beginning of the New Order era (1966), the role of

traditional administrative institutions such as subak has been developing as the political

situation changes in Indonesia. Firstly, it has survived the suppression and marginalisation

during the iron-hand government of Soeharto, “Such customary-or adat-institutions were

marginalised through much of Indonesia during the Soeharto regime, but not entirely so

here, where traditional villages remain strongly identified with Balinese Hinduism and

ancestor veneration, and continue to set communal norms guiding everyday life” (Pedersen

2007 pp. 199). Secondly, since the fall of Soeharto’s regime, which was the start of

decentralization in Indonesia, the role of these customary institutions got strengthened. “In

37

March 2001, the Balinese provincial government strengthened the traditional village with a

new regulation (Perda Propinsi Bali No. 3) that, among other things, shifts the village’s

highest authority from the village head, a position articulated with the centralised power of

Soeharto regime, to the collective, the village assembly, with an elected leadership

independent from the head” (Pedersen 2007 pp. 199).

Subak also acts as the gate for innovations which come from external non-state institutions.

subak which was before more focused on the socio-technical and religious-ritual such as

managing the irrigation water, has now started to give more attention to more business

oriented activities such as value added activities and supporting agro-tourism activities.

According to Gede Sedana, the dean of the Agriculture Department of Dwijendra University

“the presence of economic motives in subak is a positive breakthrough which can lead to

improved livelihood, local economy, and also local ecosystem integration”36. In the practice,

however, as mentioned by MacRae (2011), economic motives mostly emerged and are held

by some key actors; in this case, subak also plays a role in providing a market for the

farmers.

The history of incorporation of subak. Being a traditional non-state organization in

modernized era has brought subak into a space where it has to adapt with the current

situation. Subak can be seen as a hindrance by the government because they have their own

laws which sometimes don’t go in a way with the government plans. “Informality is the

enemy of government improvement projects. Informality implies a shared understanding of

the resource users, not only on how they manage the resource, but also on how the

resource is embedded in the local environment”(Lorenzen and Lorenzen 2008 pp. 77).

Lorenzen and Lorenzen (2008) mentioned about disharmonies about subak and the

government in The government complain that Balinese farmers are strong-headed, which

leads to non-compliant behaviour and regular conflicts that in turn negatively affect optimal

irrigation management. They lament that authority structures are unclear in a subak and

that decision making lacks formal regulations” (Ibid, 2008). Non-state institutions are seen

as weak links. The government believes that to strengthen irrigation management, there

would have to be an emphasis on the formal arrangements in decision-making, focusing on

representation, regularization, and formalization. This implies that informal institutions

should be gradually replaced by modern arrangements in order to reduce the deficiencies of

the traditional (Seabright 1993).

While in the farmers’ perspective, subak is a main casing in which they manage their

agriculture activities. Subak is so embedded in their life since the ancient times, which

makes it clear if in many cases there are some confusion within the farmers when it comes

to which rules they have to oblige, the subak or the government. “For Balinese farmers, the

subak is the framework in which the informal management can take place. External

36

I Gede Sedana, personal communication via telephone

38

agencies tend to concentrate on the formal subak structure such as its law, internal

hierarchy, and irrigation infrastructure, whereas subak members use both formal and

informal subak institutions to optimize irrigation”(Lorenzen and Lorenzen 2008 pp. 78).

According to Sunarka who is an extension agent and was a subak leader, during the early

years of Bimas programs dissemination, the subak was seen as a hindrance (especially) to

agricultural modernization. He explained that in his village, he and his brother had to be the

first one who applied the Bimas packages to show the effect to other farmers. At that time

they both did not want their subak to be seen as ‘backward’ especially compared to other

farmer groups across Indonesia. In the middle of Green Revolution process (1980s) the

image of subak as the gate to reach the farmers shifted to be more positive in the

government’s and researchers perspectives “subak was rediscovered (and often idealized)

as a successful ‘community-based’ farmer-managed irrigation system (FMIS), to be learned

from and replicated in irrigation development policies” (FAO 1982; Sutawan 1987 in Roth

2014 pp. 5-6). MacRae (2011) argues that the subaks are not agents of change, but more

like the channels for change and in the interaction with other institutions, the subaks are

also continuously changing (MacRae and Arthawiguna 2011).

However, there are of course many cases in which subak cooperate well with other external

institutions. Ketut Karyada, the head of dissemination department of BPTP (bureau of

agricultural extension and technology assessment) argued that “Subak is the main gate to

reach the farmers. In order to open it, we need the key, which is the subak leader. Once we

gained their trust, there should be less problems in cooperating with them and disseminate

our programs”37. Nevertheless, he stated that the government also has to be careful in

working with the subak, because there are subak leaders who are using their connection

with the government for their own benefits.

To be the gate of external institutions in reaching the farmer, has made subak into a space

where many institutions meet and negotiate their agendas which also intersect with the

agendas of the subak itself. In some cases, the programs of government and those which

came from the NGO supported each other such as the Simantri program from the

government with the Permaculture project from IDEP. For other cases where permaculture

projects meet the farming intensification program of the government, it created

contestations of farming approaches within the farmers.

“Detailed ethnographic studies of individual subaks (Hobart 1980; Jha 2002; Lorenzen 2006),

indicate that the subaks are neither as homogeneous nor as harmonious as some other

studies have suggested. Their internal workings are complex and often contradictory and

contested” (MacRae and Arthawiguna 2011 pp. 12). The continuously changing roles and

various characteristics of subak and its interaction with other institutions created room for

manoeuvre for farmers in various and dynamic ways. Even though farmers have their own

37

Ketut Karyada, interview on 01-29-2014 in Denpasar, Bali

39

freedom in deciding what to do to their farm, their decisions are still largely influenced by

other members and especially the subak leaders (by seeing them as examples, or

competitors etc.), where they usually put their trust in.

3.2.2. Dinas Pertanian (Agriculture Agency)

Dinas pertanian (agriculture agency) is a province level government institution that covers

the making and implementation of agricultural related policies and programs such as the

socio-economic condition of the farmers, research, and technology dissemination. In Bali,

dinas pertanian had been through several changes in its structure. The latest structure was

built based on the Local Government Law No. 2/2008 which regulates the job descriptions,

the function of the structure and its relation to other institutions. Since the decentralization,

the agriculture agency has been given autonomy in creating its own framework in

developing Balinese agriculture as stated in the constitution No. 32/2004. The dinas then

decided to focus on the food security and food supply.

Although one of the dinas’s main programs is encouraging farmers to do more

environmental friendly agricultural practices, there is also the Intensifikasi Pertanian

(farming intensification) program to improve farmer’s livelihood by boosting their farm’s

productivity through conventional farming methods. This program involves introduction of

latest version of pesticides and fertilizers, along with the directions on how to use it in the

most effective and efficient way. It also provides aids in the form of free chemicals and

seeds which are given regularly. This also has impact in shaping the room for manoeuvre of

farmers by giving them ‘advantages’ if they choose to go along with the conventional

farming method.

In addition, the current focus of the dinas in developing Balinese agriculture lays in the

innovation and its disseminations. The current innovations are mainly focused on improving

and reintroducing the local knowledge in Balinese agriculture to the farmers, especially in

the terms of sustainability. One of the main programs is Simantri (Sistem Pertanian

Terintegrasi - Integrated Farming System). This program started in 2009, and has been

disseminated to 300 groups which are spread in all regencies in Bali. The main aim of this

program is to rejuvenate the agriculture sector towards more environmental friendly

practices. This program involves knowledge transfer, aid in form of funds, animals,

materials, and technology installation. “Simantri is basically integrating farming, fisheries,

and poultry/cattle in one place which is also equipped with composters, biogas installation,

and fodder processors. We hope that through this program we will be able to create self-

sufficiency in the farmers, improving their livelihood, and regenerate their damaged nature,

this program is one of many others to support the intention of government to make Bali

green and clean”38. This program certainly has its influence in shaping the room for

38

Ketut Karyada, interview on 01-29-2014 in Denpasar, Bali

40

manoeuvre of farmers in choosing their agricultural practices by providing aids and

assistances for those who are willing (but selected) to do alternative way of farming.

The other important role of dinas as the hand of the state in Balinese agriculture lies in their

policies. For example, in their coordination with the Balai Benih (official breeding centre;

seed farm) they have to monitor the seed source that are being used in the field based on

the law of Ministry Of Agriculture No. 41/Permentan/OT.140/9/2006 which regulates not

only seeds quality control and certification, but also authorization for farmers who are

allowed to produce seeds. This rules for sure restricted most of the farmers, to produce

their own seeds, thus it limits their room for manoeuvre.

The dinas does not operate by itself in the field, since the past 2 decades, dinas is

cooperating with another institution especially in the practical activities such as research

and on field implementation (extensions, action research). This institution is called BPTP

(Balai Penyuluhan dan Teknologi Pertanian - bureau of agricultural extension and

technology assessment) which is described in the next sub-section.

3.2.3. Balai Penyuluhan dan Teknologi Pertanian (BPTP) – bureau of agricultural

extension and technology assessment

Before the decentralization, the Ministry of Agriculture had already going in the direction of

giving local autonomy to local agriculture department in their research and assessment

activities. This leads to the forming of BPTP and IP2TP (Instalasi Penelitian dan Pengkajian

Teknologi Pertanian – Agricultural Technology Assessment and Research Installation) as the

hand of central Ministry of Agriculture in producing and disseminating new innovations,

under the Minister’s Law No. 798/KPTS/OT.210/12/94. The objective of these two

institutions is to accelerate the dissemination and adoption mechanisms of new

technologies and innovations produced by the Agricultural Research Centre. In the first

stage of its assembly, IP2TP was formed in Denpasar under the BPTP of Karangploso in East

Java. In June 2001, under the minister’s law No. 350/KPTS/OT.210/6/2001, IP2TP Denpasar

officially reformed to BPTP Bali, equal to other BPTPs in other areas in Indonesia.

According to Ketut, the head of dissemination department of BPTP Bali, the idea of BPTP

came from the officers themselves who faced many difficulties in disseminating new

innovations to the farmers. “In the past, we had many research institutions representing

different field of sciences, there were so many researches, but the application in the field

was rare. It means that most of the people did their research only to get degrees; the results

went to the desk... only small parts reached the farmers. Secondly, there were many of new

varieties or innovations, which were supposed to immediately get adopted by farmers, but

it didn’t. For example, in the past, to get new variety of rice, from the moment it got

invented till it reached the farmers, sometimes it took 5 years”39.

39

Ketut Karyada, interview on 01-29-2014 in Denpasar, Bali

41

Since the 1990s, there is a new paradigm among the officers who started to realize that

research has to be merged with extension. That is the beginning of REL (Research -

Extension Linkages). “People realised that research and extension should be one, so this

institution of BPTP -was built. Before that, our name was Agricultural Extension Institute,

and every province in Indonesia has one. So we act as the hand of the Agriculture Research

Institution, but we also have extension agents. And it also applied for our services, so an

extension agent can also do research, and vice versa. So as soon as we have new innovation,

we immediately apply it on field”40.

According to him, since then, the technology dissemination rate got boosted, the

relationship between farmers and officials became less formal, and farmers started to get

involved in researches and even future development plans. “For example we just got new

variety of rice, just arrived in Sukamandi (paddy centre), it just came this year, and we are

now testing it on the field, in multi-locations. We brought it to the field, we analysed and

assessed it with the farmers, we make future plans with them, and also field research with

them, so they will know, and both we and the farmers directly witnessed the process. Then

we looked for the positives, and gathered the negatives as reference for future

development. So now, if we got new innovations, it only takes a year at most to reach the

field”41.

The other function of BPTP is to assess the applicability of products of the research institute

(such as the composters, biogas processors in Simantri or new kind of chemicals), together

with the farmers, extension agents, and researchers. The involvement of farmers in many of

government programs has brought new insights for them, making them more aware of how

the government works, and the most interesting thing is that they can give input to the

government to make better plans. However, involvement is limited for farmers’ group or

subak leaders which are considered as representative of their members. This condition is

very susceptible for act of corruptions both in the government level and in farmer’s level

(subak leaders). I heard from one of the farmers that he had seen many cases that a village

which is on the list of Simantri beneficiaries, but the reality in the field they have no Simantri

equipment or activities. “It means that the aid didn’t reach them, or it reached them but

they used it for something else, or they sold the materials and animals, or other

possibilities”42. The other problem is that the subak or farmers’ group leaders might

prioritize their own agendas when they give inputs to the government for the coming

programs. This condition also indirectly affecting the room for manoeuvre for farmers since

it hinders away some opportunities that otherwise would have been available for other

farmers.

40

Ibid, 01-29-2014 41

Ibid, 01-29-2014 42

Ketut Karyada, interview on 01-29-2014 in Denpasar, Bali

42

Collaborating with many other institutions in their programs, made BPTP into a hub for

other government institutions. “Under this, many other government institutions (such as

Bappeda - local development agency, Dinas Peternakan – animal husbandry agency, Dinas

pertanian – agricultural agency, and Dinas Perikanan – fisheries agency) can merge with us.

Then we will acknowledge that each success is the success of all involved institutions,

including the farmers”. This brings synergy to government institutions which used to be

‘competing’ in claiming the success of a program, which in the end creates a better

atmosphere in the farmer’s level.

The activities of BPTP are not only focused at the farmer’s level, but they are also involved in

making strategic plans for Balinese development in general. For example in the current

Balinese development master plan, together with other government institutions, they

classified the regions in Bali for its specialization based on the environmental and socio-

economic condition of each location. In the master plan, the northern part of Bali is

specialised in agricultural production while the southern part is for the market (mostly

through tourism).

However, due to the unique characteristics of Gianyar which is located in the middle of Bali

and has both tourism and agriculture potentials, they planned to develop it as an

agricultural based tourism area where the production, processing, marketing and tourism is

present in one area. “After we discussed, we pick agro-polis as Gianyar’s main development

path. The gap between cities and villages is so wide, while in reality, cities need villages, and

vice versa, but somehow we see the gap is too wide. Then we think of some concepts to

bridge the gap between the cities and the villages, that’s how we came with agro-polis idea.

In agricultural areas, we will develop them in the path of agribusiness and agro-industry, so

all the necessities of cities are being produced and processed in the villages, for example, in

a coffee producing village, we have to build the processing factory, so they can sell the main

product directly to the retailer to cut the chain, that’s the basic idea. While for the city

areas, we will develop the infrastructures and the tourism sectors to provide the market”43.

This government strategic planning adds more dynamics to the agricultural sector, both

hindering and providing opportunities for farmers in various ways. More about this is

described in the last result chapter of this thesis which describes cases of farming styles that

I came across during the fieldwork. The other element that I found important in shaping the

room for manoeuvre is the involvement of NGOs and academicians which is described in the

following sub-section.

43

Ibid, 01-29-2014

43

3.2.4. IDEP (Indonesian Development for Education in Permaculture) Foundation and

BOA (Bali Organic Association)

IDEP is a local Indonesian NGO based in Bali - Indonesia, founded in 1999, that develops and

delivers training, community programs and media related to sustainable development

through Permaculture (permanent culture and permanent agriculture, a system designed

for environmental management within the community. Permaculture aims to fulfil needs

and to remain sustainable by utilizing local resources through environmentally sound

methods that are energy efficient and balance local wisdom with nature and the

environment), and Community-based Disaster Management. Ade, the director of IDEP

shared me the story of how IDEP was founded until it reaches the current state. It was

started as a group of people who were concerned about the situation of Indonesia,

especially Bali during the crisis after the fall of new order era (1998). The group discussed

the growing challenges being faced by Indonesian communities and conducted an

evaluation of existing natural and human resources nationwide. They decided to focus on

facilitating NGO program's in as many areas of Indonesia as possible through the 'Training of

Trainers' in Permaculture Design. This training offered organizations the understanding and

tools to assist their local communities to provide food, shelter, energy and other needs in a

sustainable and environmentally friendly way.

This Training is the forerunner of the IDEP establishment in 1999, the organization's focus

on the implementation of permaculture as an alternative solution to the financial crisis.

Over time, IDEP foundation try to provide assistance to communities related to

permaculture and sustainable living that

helps communities in recovering from a

post-disaster situation. In 2002, Bali

suffered the human tragedy that is better

known as the Bali Bombings. These events

made IDEP as an organization realize the

importance of disaster preparedness for

the community. Through times, IDEP

turned into a local organization which

develops innovations related to

permaculture or disaster risk reduction,

focuses on sustainability, transparency

and accountability of the organization.

One of IDEP’s projects is encouraging people (especially farmers) to do permaculture. Ade

stresses that the Permaculture approach is an important alternative that moves forward in

producing healthy organic plantations, home garden designs, more efficient village layouts,

healthier environments, alternative energy production methods, and sustainable economic

development. “This design method works with nature's systems, reduces pollution and

waste, and is able to produce food and productive yields with low energy. Permaculture is

Figure 10: Permaculture Training (IDEP)

44

applicable to both urban and rural contexts, and to any scale of design. It is about working

with, rather than against nature”44.

The permaculture project involves organic agriculture trainings for the farmers, providing

agro-inputs materials such as manures and seeds, and linking the farmers to the organic

market. Compared to Simantri, IDEP’s permaculture project works more efficiently in its

own way. Since it doesn’t involve large funding and it came from an NGO, farmers are less

likely to participate. Thus, this project has only limited number of participants in each area.

However, this condition acts as a filter so that the participants are mostly those who are

really interested and having their own motivation of going towards a more environmental

friendly way of farming.

The other project of IDEP is Seeds

Saving project, where they ‘hunt’

original Balinese seeds and reproduce

them in order to maintain their

existence. This involves training of

how to organically breed seeds to the

farmers, recovering seeds from the

forest, cooperating with farmers who

are willing to grow the seeds, and

marketing the seeds in some local

organic shops. “Seed is a sensitive

issue here because it has been monopolized by the big corporations from the level of local

to multi-national. They even ‘bribed’ the government so that sometimes we had difficulties

to breed and multiply our own seed, which doesn’t make any sense. But of course the

corporations will not like what we are doing now, because if farmers can grow their own

seeds then it means that the corporation will lose their market”45.

This project creates an interesting situation among the farmers by dividing them into a small

group who agrees to it and a bigger group is not. One of the farmers who were doing the

project stated that “It is hard to make the people think that it’s better to produce our own

seeds, because we have been practicing conventional farming since we were young.

Especially if we see the government rules, then of course most of us don’t want to break

government rules. That is why in our subak, we have approximately 78 members, only 5

members are in favour of adopting the ideas of seed saving project from IDEP”46. In this

project, the farmers replant some of the produced seeds, and sold most of them to IDEP

which are then being sold in 13 organic stores and also being shipped to other islands.

44

Ade, Interview on 09-24-2013 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali 45

Ibid, 09-24-2013 46

Ade, Interview on 09-24-2013 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali

Figure 11: Self-bred organic seeds

45

In doing their projects, IDEP sometimes worked together with other institutions. One of the

institutions who are working with IDEP is the BOA (Bali Organic Association) which is an

NGO under the Udayana University, led by Ni Luh Kartini who is also working as a lecturer

specialized in soil science in that university. BOA was born by Ni Luh’s empathy towards the

destruction of Balinese nature and local knowledge by the endless waves of modernization.

She grew up in a farmer’s family in pre-Green Revolution time (before 1967), Ni Luh

witnessed her parents practiced agriculture in traditional way until the Green Revolution

packages being introduced to her village. “I remember when I was a little girl, my dad used

chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and since then I noticed that the worms in the soil died

so my ducks were not able to feed on them anymore, I felt so sad. But that is why I decided

to study soil science, it might sound funny but that’s the truth”47. That simple event

triggered her empathy towards nature and has been her motivation in her efforts to restore

the damaged environment, and one of her efforts is to initiate the founding of BOA.

BOA was founded in 1990 by Ni Luh Kartini together with a group of environmentalists who

are concerned about the degradation of Balinese nature, tradition, and culture. In its official

declaration in 2000, BOA managed to gather all the representatives of Balinese farmers,

fishermen, NGOs, Local and National Government (Dinas and the Ministry of Agriculture),

which then leads to the main framework of Bali Organic Island development path.

The activities of BOA are mostly focused in socializing the

importance of going back to the environmental friendly

agricultural practices through rediscovering the ancient

practices that used to be done by the ancestors. BOA also

actively giving trainings related to the negative impacts of

conventional farming methods which are currently being

widely practiced in Bali. In the practice, BOA targets the

housewives of farmers for trainings related to health issues

that might be caused by conventional agriculture products and

practices, which motivated them to be involved in government

program LP3I, a program that aims to make the housewives to

be self-sufficient in horticulture products by growing them in

the backyard (home gardening).

One of BOA projects which interests me was the ‘go back to ancestry’ project which

encouraged farmers to go back to the old practices and beliefs by socializing the old local

knowledge. This involves training in old ceremonies, as ways to deal with pests and improve

productivity. When I confirmed the story to one of the participant, he admitted that it works

quite well “I understand for some people this will not make any sense. But we have been

practicing it ourselves. There are different ceremonies for different purpose. So far I have

47

Ni Luh Kartini (Bali Organic Association), interview on 11-12-2013 in Udayana University, Denpasar, Bali

Figure 12: Elementary students participating in permaculture

course

46

noticed that my rice field got healthier, and the pests are not as fierce as before, and if it

didn’t work, I don’t think there will be as many a participants as now”48. I already found it

interesting how this project has able to change the views of farmers, meaning that it also

influenced their room for manoeuvre in choosing their farming style.

I found one similar interest of BOA and IDEP which is encouraging the youth to be interested

in farming through conducting various projects from farming trainings for the elementary

school students to organic bazaar complete with musical performance for the teenagers.

Both IDEP and BOA is positive towards the impact of the project seeing that there are

always at least 100 participants in each event. But in my opinion, there is no guarantee that

the projects are really working in influencing the youth in deciding their future jobs, to

pursue their future as a farmer. They might be interested at some point, but then as they

grow up, getting more experiences and influences from their environment (especially their

own parents who are sending them to tourism schools), there is always a chance that they

are going to re-lose their interest in farming.

The involvement of NGOs in Balinese agriculture has certainly created more dynamics by

giving knowledge, technologies, and even market to the farmers, providing them with

alternatives in deciding on their way of farming. Nonetheless, the movement of NGOs in Bali

also cannot be separated from the presence of tourism which is supporting their activities in

many ways. For example, there are more and more tourists who are interested in

participating IDEP’s permaculture program, which cannot be done without continuous

publication in the internet and scientific articles. These publications made and written by

tourists, then, contribute to promoting IDEP, making it widely known. Tourism in Bali has

brought many advantages and disadvantages which together, create more dynamics in

Balinese agriculture.

3.3. Tourism

Bali has been famous of its ‘exoticness’ since the colonial era, when the Dutch arrived in

what they called Island Eden, where they see classical Java culture framed in a beautiful

landscape of mountains, forests, and beaches enfolded in tropical climate. After a long

struggle to ‘tame’ Bali, the Dutch then decided to conserve Bali and its culture, and shape it

as a ‘living museum’. “In the period of 1946-199, an aptly named Dutch economic official, G.

Koopman, had sought to re-establish tourism in Bali as part of the Dutch attempt to restore

their empire to its pre-war state” (Vickers 2011 pp. 459). After the independence of

Indonesia, the government decided to continue the idea which was invented by the colonial

regime, to make Bali contributes to the country as a tourist destination. “Between 1950 and

1965 Indonesians began to focus on re-establishing tourism for themselves” (Ibid 2011).

Bali’s reputation as one of top tourist destinations in the world is unquestionable. The

uniqueness of Bali in relation to its society which strongly connected with its culture and

48

Ni Luh Kartini (Bali Organic Association), interview on 11-12-2013 in Udayana University, Denpasar, Bali

47

religion has been popular since the colonial era. After the contact with European explorers

in the early sixteenth century, the island of Bali became much more known to the outside

world because of the influences of artists, dancers, and novelists in the 1920s and 1930s.

The long and continuously constructed image of the beauty of Bali’s nature and the way

Balinese interact with it had shaped an attractive display of ceremonies, temples,

architectures, offerings, dances, and crafts which is both mesmerizing and alluring to visitors

from outside Bali. The huge tourism potential then got noticed only short time after

Indonesia’s Independence Day. Thus, the development of Bali is always mostly focused on

the tourism sector up until now, which made the tourism sector grow steadily. “Tourism

developed rapidly, from 5000 foreign visitors arriving at Bali’s international airport per year

in 1968 to more than 5000 tourists per day 40 years later” (Wall 1996; BPS Bali 2010).

Tourism is a major economic resource to the island of Bali since it generates a steady source

of income from the micro to the macro level just like timber and minerals for Borneo and

Papua. It is merged with the society so that the implications of tourism can be seen in most

of Balinese daily activities. Tourism has become an extremely important sector of the

Balinese economy in its own right, and it also intersects with and has implications for most

other economic sectors. For example, the agricultural landscape, the production of

handicrafts, and the rich cultural traditions attract visitors out of the major resorts into rural

areas. Thus, the landscape, the very way of life and even the way of death (for cremations

have become a tourism attraction) constitute a major part of the resource base with attracts

visitors (Wall 1996).

The government promotes tourism to reach the objectives of economic development, and it

is working quite well in Bali. By being one of major sources of Balinese economy, tourism

has been able to add more dynamics to Balinese agricultural society. Many literatures

exposed the negative impacts of tourism in Bali such as: The proliferating construction of

tourist accommodations and facilities which poses threats to the availability and access of

land and water; the promising job opportunities and its prestige created dreams and desires

for a better future, drawing the population (especially the youths) away from agriculture;

diminishing locality; not to mention the environmental degradation caused by excessive

continuous resource usage and bad waste management. “Over the last decades awareness

of these problems has gradually been growing, also leading to a critical rethinking of the

current tourism-based development strategy, and a revaluation of the role of agriculture-

based livelihoods” (Roth 2014).

Tourism nowadays has become so embedded in Balinese culture to the point that it is

sometimes hard to differentiate if a practice (e.g. ceremony) is being performed as part of

the tradition or an attraction, and it also works the same for the society. Sometimes the

author cannot imagine how it feels to be an object of attraction while doing my daily

routines, even for something that so sacred such as ceremony or praying. The presence of

tourists has indeed its impact on many aspects of Balinese life. To see various worldwide

48

cultures got mixed in one place such as Ubud without that much tension around gave me a

false impression of how harmonious they are. However, in the later I found out that some

Balinese are ‘masking’ themselves, hiding their true feelings, or even being ignorant in order

to keep the ‘harmony’ so that tourism (and their livelihood) can live on. The contrast can

also go in a different way, for example, I saw many Balinese stripped their former identities

in order to become more ‘western’, but also there are many immigrants (non-white) or

expatriates (if they are white) who have lived long enough in Bali to consider themselves as

Balinese, stripping their former identities and trying hard to be real Balinese. In some cases,

their efforts of becoming ‘Balinese’ went really well that in the end they seem to be more

‘Balinese’ than the real Balinese.

Most of these expatriates have

more concerns towards the cultural

and environmental issues in Bali

than some of the real Balinese

themselves, as an example, Petra

Schneider a Canadian who has been

living in Bali for 27 years. She came

to Bali as a tourist when she was

young as a part of her adventure

time. In Bali, she experienced many

things that influenced her to take a

path to become a Balinese and

contribute to the society. “During

the first years I live in Bali, I had

many discussions, seen many things

happened in Bali, I got so many

insights from the locals, and then I

decided that I cannot leave Bali if I

really care that much about what is happening to Bali, there are so many changes and

disruptions to the balance here. I really feel the responsibility to help Bali with my skills,

knowledge and understandings”49.

After what she experienced, her love of Bali went beyond enjoying the life of a tourist. That

even in 1998, during the chaotic political crisis in Indonesia or in 2002 when the Bali

Bombing happened, unlike most of the foreigners who decided to leave the country at that

time, she decided to stay in Bali. “I have seen too many crazy things happened and going on

here, I was here when Soeharto went down in 1998, I saw melted bodies of the victims of

the Bali Bombing in 2002 when we volunteered in the disaster response project of IDEP, I

saw and still seeing the nature got robbed, land got transformed into hotels or villas, I have

49

Petra Schneider, interview on 01-18-2014 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali

“Some tourists are respectful towards our culture,

tradition and beliefs, some of them are ignorant.

However, most Balinese don’t really care about

those matters anymore, it’s not that we don’t

care, but it’s more like because we are so annoyed

that our feelings got numb, that’s why most of us

prefer to ignore them”. Nyoman, taxi driver

49

lived here long enough to notice that the groundwater reserves is rapidly decreasing, how

farmers crazily using chemicals in their farms… it’s too much… that’s why I decided that if I

want to help out here, it’s really the time that I had to go all out. So I brought my family

here, sold everything back in Canada, bring every single penny I had, and decided to be a

permanent citizen in Bali”50.

With all the capital that she brought, along with other expatriates she initiated the founding

of Alam Santi Foundation, which is the mother foundation of IDEP. In pursuing her dreams

to save Bali, Petra worked together with other actors ranged from local farmers,

government officers, and even famous individuals such as Robin Francis, the grandmother of

permaculture who is, based on Petra’s information, the pioneer of permaculture in Bali

along with Petra and others who were involved, or in IDEP’s latest activity which involves

Vandana Shiva giving seminars about seeds sovereignty in Bali. Thus, this is one of many

examples where tourism indirectly affected the room for manoeuvre by bringing not only

technology and knowledge, but also created a network which brings dynamics in its own

way.

The other element that was brought by tourism is the market, which can be in many forms.

From the proliferating numbers of warungs (local café), hotels, and restaurants which need

a steady flow of supply; the needs of exotic experience to play in the mud or harvest your

own vegetables and fruits which opened the opportunity of agro-tourism; to the needs of

enjoying the beautiful agricultural landscape which has brought a unique opportunity to

rent out the rice fields located nearby villas or hotels so that the farmers can gain additional

income and save their lands from the land buyers. The steadily growing tourism sector in

this case means steady waves of demands that can be fulfilled by the agriculture sector in

various ways.

Nevertheless, tourism also came with its Janus face. Aside of all the positives that it carries,

there are also some negative implications towards the agricultural sector. The first one is

the decreasing of arable lands due to the growing of tourism which needs more and more

lodging and attraction sites, which then leads to the transformation of agricultural lands to

non-agricultural lands. Pak Made, the owner of a villa in Ubud explained that “The least we

can do to keep our lands here is to control ourselves not to be tempted to sell our lands for

ridiculous offers. The normal price of land here (Ubud) used to be only 100-300 thousand

rupiahs (7.5 – 22 euros) per m2, but now I heard it reaches 1-2 million rupiahs (70-150

euros) per m2 or even more, only God knows… even last month someone from Jakarta gave

me a blank cheque and told me to fill it myself for how much I am willing to sell my 1000 m2

rice fields… can you imagine how hard it is for us to just keep our lands, especially for those

who are not thinking in a long term”51.

50

Petra Schneider, interview on 01-18-2014 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali 51

Made, interview on 01-29-2014

50

The second most influential impact of tourism is the degradation of labour regeneration in

the agriculture sector. Most of the parents in rural areas are guiding their children to get out

of the agricultural world, since in their perspectives, being a farmer is not as lucrative

and/or as prestigious as working with a neat suit in the cities, especially in Bali, where

tourism brings many opportunities of employment. “With time freed up and off-farm

employment opportunities available, contemporary farming is less important within the

total farming household economy. Agriculture as source of employment becomes only one

of man options” (OECD 2001; Baker and Molle 2004 in Lorenzen and Lorenzen 2010 pp. 30).

This condition has caused a shift of the labour force from agriculture to non-agriculture

sector “while the agricultural labour force decreased from 61% in 1976 to 36% in 2008, the

trade industry, which includes part of the tourism industry, increased its labour share from

12% in 1976 to 24% in 2008” (Bendesa and Sukarsa 1980; BPS Bali 2010a in Lorenzen and

Lorenzen 2010 pp. 30).

The implication of this phenomenon does not only stop at lack of young labour in the

agricultural sector, but it snowballed causing more complex implications as most farmers

reacted by hiring temporal labours from neighbouring islands (Java and Lombok) which is

not only adding the cost of production, but also bringing cultural clashes, which happen

occasionally (especially with those who came from Java). This phenomenon also caused a

gap in knowledge: since the young generations are moving out of the village, they did not

get the chance to learn how to farm. I came across several youths aging between 15 – 24

years old in the Buahan Kaja village, and all of them are currently studying or having a plan

to study at tourism schools. When I asked them what will happen to their farm in the future,

they told me that their father will take care of it and once they got old, they will have to go

back and replace their fathers in managing their farms. Regarding to the knowledge of

farming, they told me that they have no worries since they will learn it anyway once they

are in the field. But this means that once they started managing their farm, it will be too late

for them to be more versatile in the room for manoeuvre.

Tourism also has its influence on the government policies such as the emergence of ajeg bali

movement in a sense that Balinese can also uses their sets of ‘uniqueness’ which they are

trying hard to maintain, as attraction for the visitors; this includes programs such as Bali

Green and Clean, and Bali Organic in order to create the desired ‘paradise’. Wayan, an old

farmer who stands against the organic movement explicitly stated his sceptical perception

towards this matter “Tell me why I should shift my farming to what we used to do? In the

past, we were doing it (sustainable farming) and then the government told us to use

chemicals. And now, because tamu (tourists) like to eat healthy and live healthy, they

expect us to do their biddings. Let me tell you, I, and most of Balinese don’t eat those

organic healthy food, we don’t sleep in those villas… it is all for tourists, it is always been like

this since a long time ago… when are we, as Balinese, going to be prioritised?”52.

52

Wayan Sudira, Interview on 12-31-2013 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali

51

3.4. Conclusion

The historical events has left its marks in many aspects of Balinese farmers life by putting

memories that can trigger their motivation to construct certain foundation as a point of

departure for their way of thinking. Historical events also shaped the current state of

Balinese settings (culture, institutions, and tourism) which are continuously interacting with

each other, creating room for manoeuvre for the farmers by providing opportunities and

hindrances in form of markets and technology.

There are different sets of structures which are offering and supporting different styles of

farming. As I have shown in this chapter there is a dualism of the ‘old’ structure which

support the conventional farming, and the ‘new’ structure which support the organic

farming. Aside from market mechanisms that undoubtedly have an influence on shaping the

room for manoeuvre, both government (e.g. dinas and BPTP) and non-government

institutions (subak and NGOs) also play an important role. Additionally, above that, there is

the presence of tourism which is of great importance for Balinese structures, since it is the

most economically contributing sector to the island. In the cases that I encountered during

my fieldwork, different farmers who practice different styles of farming are embedded in

different set of structures.

Within this room for manoeuvre, farmers are exercising their agency in taking the

opportunities and facing the constraints, as a way to decide their ‘ideal’ way of farming.

Their agency is constructed through reading the situations, their surroundings, filtering the

information that came to them; and through all these processes that influenced by the

settings, they decide what they perceive as ‘squeeze’ and what they think as best solutions

to it in order to reach their goal. Different settings and experiences created heterogeneity of

perspectives on how to deal with the squeeze, leading them to practice different farming

styles. In the next chapter, these different perspectives that come from different actors are

described.

52

CHAPTER IV: AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT AT A CROSSROADS (Perspectives on Agricultural Modernization in Bali)

The fourth chapter provides the actors’ perspectives toward current and future plan for

agriculture development. In facing problems that are hampering Balinese agriculture, actors

from government to farmers have different perspectives to the proposed solutions. These

perspectives are influenced by the structure and settings in which the farmers are

organizing their farm. These perspectives are then becoming the basis for motives of

farmers in pursuing a certain farming style. After knowing the structure and settings of the

agricultural related actors in Gianyar, it is necessary to understand their perceptions and

responses toward the paths of agriculture development in order to grasp the link between

the structures which farmers are attached to, with their perspectives.

Many scholars studied the modernization of agricultural process and impacts on the

farmers, which in the process also involved different perspectives towards it. Hayami and

Ruttan (1985) illustrated agricultural modernization with the guiding technology and

institutions for agricultural transformation; while van der Ploeg (2003) defines it as the

orientation of agricultural policies toward the realisation of a modernized agriculture. “The

achievement of modernized agriculture i.e. the structural development of agriculture both

in terms of scale (objects of labour [e.g. hectares, cows] per labour unit) and in terms of

intensity (gross output per object of labour)” (Ploeg 2003).

Aside from the achievements that had been reached by agricultural modernization

processes, since the last few decades, discussion about the not so benign side of it started

to come to surface. Issues from commodification of rural life, externalization of knowledge

and agricultural inputs, to environmental degradation started to become concerns of many

actors in different levels. As Perkins (1982) stated that the Green Revolution, has been

praised and criticised over the past decades. Supporters argue that the Green Revolution

packages had been able to increase food supplies produced with the new practices, but

critics argue that the new technologies are environmentally destructive, unsustainable, and

socially inequitable. Moreover, “some social scientists argued that the Green Revolution

resulted in the displacement of marginal farmers, downgrading of the status of women

agriculturalists, and the tragic irony of increased hunger in the presence of enhanced

agricultural productivity” (Perkins 1982 pp. 6).

These issues are also airing in Balinese agricultural society. Some considered it as a

normative discourse about what the future of agriculture should look like, while others see

it as a threat to their livelihood, tradition and environmental sustainability. In Bali, the

problems that came along with agricultural modernization are worsened by the presence of

tourism, which brings threats to Balinese agriculture. However, this situation also creates

new opportunities for agriculture since tourism also brings markets, which have created

53

demands that need to be fulfilled. This combination created contestations about the ‘ideal’

way of farming, bringing questions to the future path of Balinese agriculture.

These perspectives are not only coming from policy makers and academicians but are also

thriving among the farmers. The perspectives of farmers toward agricultural modernization

are influenced by the room for manoeuvre created by the settings in which they practice

their agriculture. This chapter aims to focus on two different general opinions regarding

agricultural modernization, and on how these two main arguments created contestations of

agricultural modernization approaches in Balinese agricultural society. These opinions,

together with the structures of Balinese agriculture, will be explained as reasons that

construct the image of a certain ‘ideal’ way of farming among the farmers; which in the end

became the motivating force of different farming styles.

4.1. The Pros - Agricultural modernization is the Solution!

First let me start with the perspective of those government actors who are in favour of the

modern agricultural approaches. During my fieldwork, I have to admit that it was a bit

difficult in getting information from the government officers regarding the positive sides of

agricultural modernization in Bali, since their main programs now are running under the

shadow of THK (Tri Hita Karana) and Bali Organic, which mostly encourage farmers to shift

to a more sustainable farming methods. IMS53, a government officer who works at dinas

pertanian was willing to give me his ‘honest’ perspective towards agricultural

modernization. His first name showed that his ancestors came from one of the elite castes

in Bali, the wasya (trader) caste; aside of being a civil servant, he also runs a business in rice

trading. Being an officer since the 1980s, gave him the experiences that brought him to a

different standpoint than the current mainstream ideas of Bali Go Organic, which is in line

with the propagated THK.

He had seen the farming condition before the Bimas program as his parents owned a farm,

he worked as penyuluh (extension agent) when the Bimas programs got disseminated, and

since the late 1980s he works in the office. Since then, his works are mostly related in

designing programs for modern agriculture practices dissemination (farming intensification

programs). He told me that he knows well that agricultural modernization has its negative

impact. However, he stated that all the positives that had been achieved by agricultural

modernization should not be ignored. “Our main objective is to maintain and improve the

productivity, especially for rice. If we realised our potential, the agricultural sector can

actually become one of the strategic sectors to support the economy. This can be seen by its

durability during many crises that hampered the country, it even survived the biggest crisis

of Indonesia in 1998… and this would not be possible to reach by using the traditional

agriculture practices. Green revolution came with an amazing amount of investments, but

53

The respondent asked to be anonymous, interview on 12-27-2013 in Denpasar, Bali

54

through that, we improved our productivity from 3 to 5 tonnes per Ha, and even more in

other areas of Indonesia, up until today”54.

As an entrepreneur, he mostly based the wellbeing of farmers on their economic condition.

Thus, according to him, improving added value of farming product is one of the important

goals of development. In order to reach this, the most important sector to be improved is

the rural economy, thus, a good farming practice is that with the largest money flow. That is

why in his opinion, in order to improve the farmers’ livelihood, rural development should be

focused on factors that enhance the economy. “The economy condition of rural areas that

are built based on traditional values has a limited access to modern institutions, so the

interaction between institutions is low. That is why we also need to transform the

institution so that it can lead to structural transformation, and other abstract aspects which

shaped their behaviour such as values, norms, orientation, goals, etc.”55. This idea is covered

in the province development plans No. 13/2009/956 regarding food security, which focuses

on synergizing agriculture with the tourism sector in order to improve micro economy

through product diversification and added value improvement.

According to him, agricultural modernization is not the only thing to blame for the problems

that are threatening Balinese agriculture; there are more complex factors which created the

‘squeeze’ to the agriculture, and he perceived that agricultural modernization is the solution

to face it. “It is how the world works, and it is not as simple as the past… and thanks to

agricultural modernization, our agriculture managed to strive until now. For example,

thanks to the improvement of irrigation facilities, lands can still have access to water in this

water crisis time; thanks to hybrid seeds and chemicals, we manage to improve the

productivity”. When I confronted him with the side effects of agricultural modernization,

especially related to environmental degradation, he stated that it is inevitable, but so far he

has not seen any real effects from it and he believes someday science will find a better way.

Regarding the alternative ways of farming topic, he was rather critical towards it. His

pessimism towards organic practices is based on several reasons: first, he mentioned that

the market of organic products is growing due to tourism, but it mostly works on

horticulture products, not for rice, while most Balinese farmers grow rice. Second, the

difficulties in the process of shifting from chemical to organic agriculture practices which

have always been too hard for the small scale farmers (most of Balinese farmers) to

overcome. According to him, shifting the practices of farming to organic will pose more risks

to the farmers’ livelihoods and food security in the bigger picture. “Most farmers in Bali are

small scale farmers. There are not many farming households who have more than 0.5

hectares; even if you see the data the numbers of farmers who don’t own lands are

growing. Shifting to organic practices is not easy, in the first 2-3 years the productivity will 54

IMS, interview on 12-27-2013 in Denpasar, Bali 55

Ibid, 12-27-2013 56

Keputusan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Provinsi Bali Nomor 13 Tahun 2009 Tentang Rekomendasi Atas Laporan Keterangan Pertanggungjawaban Gubernur Bali Akhir Tahun Anggaran 2008.

55

drop to half and even to nothing. Moreover, small farmers only have that piece of land to

support their living, they cannot afford this. How can we keep the productivity in such

condition? The answer is through agricultural modernization, intensive farming”57. I should

say that he has a point in describing the difficulty of making Balinese farmers to practice

organic farming considering all the technical hindrances and administrative complexities.

However, there are some farmers who managed to shift or at least mix the modern and

organic practices without the assistance of external institutions.

The third reason is related to what he had seen in his working environment and the

performance of the government. He argued that it is good that the government and farmers

started to be more aware of environmental sustainability issues, but he thinks that it is just

part of promotion of tourism. He said that it might seem that the government is currently

concerned about environmental sustainability, thus, they are promoting organic practices

through their programs such as Simantri; but he doesn’t think it’s going to change the whole

Balinese way of farming, because the programs are not sincere, and mostly influenced by

tourism, to promote the ‘uniqueness’ of Bali as a healthy, spiritual rich and socio-

environmental harmonious paradise. “I don’t mean to badmouth my own boss, but if we see

the Simantri program which is being disseminated all over Bali, really ambitious… from

hundreds of Simantris, only a few which are really organic. The rest are still doing

conventional farming, not to mention the ‘shadow groups’58 and corruption, so I think it is

more money wasted”59.

He believes that if the government really cares about the environmental impact of modern

agriculture practices and wants to change it, it should be done through the same process as

the Green Revolution dissemination, massive and structured. However, he doesn’t think it’s

possible because it will require a huge amount of funding, while agriculture is not the ‘star’

of Balinese economy. It is true that within the last decades, the role of agriculture in

economic development of Bali is not that significant, it’s even relatively declining every year.

On the other hand, tourism and the industrial sector have a more significant role. This also

has its impact to the regeneration of farming labour, which then again, according to him, is a

threat to agriculture which can be dealt with through agricultural modernization. “Currently

agriculture is losing its charm; less and less people are willing to become a farmer, but the

needs are keep growing… let alone the needs that came from tourism, even our own needs

for ceremonies we have to procure the goods from outside Bali, such as coconut and

coconut leaves for offerings that we buy from Banyuwangi (East Java). This fact cannot be

ignored, and one of the rational solutions to this matter is through mechanisation”60.

57

IMS, interview on 12-27-2013 in Denpasar, Bali 58

According to IMS, because Simantri program provides free basic materials (including funds) needed for organic practice, many of farmers created farmer’s group instantly just to access the aid 59

IMS, interview on 12-27-2013 in Denpasar, Bali 60

Ibid, 12-27-2013

56

His background as an experienced government officer brought him to a more macro

oriented point of view, he often uses arguments that compare the local and national

situation to other countries, “Without modernization, how can we compete with other

countries? Our country is a resource rich country without technology and knowledge, that’s

why we are poor… for example; even now our rice productivity is even below Vietnam. It

means that we still need to improve”61. His life experiences and his background allow him to

see and analyse the phenomena in a different way, putting him in a different position than

others who seemed to be more concerned about the negative sides of agricultural

modernisation. However, he could not share this view freely even in the post-reformation

era. Somewhere in the back of his head, he is still holding the awareness that going against

the stream is too risky for his career. Even in the midst of non-authoritarian government

era, he feels that he still cannot go too far against the ideas of those who are in power.

At the farmers’ level, I interviewed several farmers including Nyoman Sudira, a 65 years old

farmer that I met in Ubud. He came from a farmer’s family; he has been a farmer for his

entire life and experienced farming through three different eras. For some reasons, he is

very supportive towards the government. I would assume that it has something to do with

the G30SPKI event, since whenever I asked him about that topic; he always avoided the

topic (and staggering). He told me that he misses the New Order era where everything was

clear and structured. “Soeharto’s era is the best era so far. The government knew what

farmers should do; they helped us with free fertilisers, pesticides, and even giving us loans

so we have capital to improve our farming. They also trained us and provided us with

knowledge so our farming became modernized”62. He thinks that the New Order era is the

era when the government knew what to do and where to go to, he feels insecure in the

current government because of lack of coordination and unclear objectives. “At that time,

extension agents came to our village twice a week, sometimes every week, just to check if

we were doing fine, so there were more controls. But now it’s more seldom, so if I have

questions about farming, I often just ask my friends”63. This condition is affirmed by Sunarka

who is also working as an extension agent. According to him, in the New Order era,

everything was programmed from the central government. There were national objectives

that had to be reached, which were dispersed to local governments. So local government

also had certain objectives to reach, and because it was authoritarian, officers were more

motivated in reaching those goals.

Nyoman is supportive agricultural modernization; his first reason was more related to the

labour issue in Balinese agriculture. The social security related to the availability of a labour

force which was intact in the past, has been swept away by the wave of tourism, which has

drawn away the young generation of farmers in his village. He told me his story that it is

impossible for him nowadays to maintain the land without either hiring farmers from Java

61

Ibid, 12-27-2013 62

Nyoman Rudita, Interview on 12-03-2013 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali 63

Ibid, 12-03-2013

57

or renting a tractor from his subak. “I have one hectare of land, it’s not that big, but I am old

and my health condition is no longer as fit as when I was young. I cannot imagine if I have to

do land preparation like I used to do before modern agriculture practices got introduced.

Back then, it was possible because we worked together, there were still a lot of people in

the village and we were helping each other. But now we don’t have that many farmers

anymore, everyone work in the cities”64.

The second reason is related to learning the practices itself; he mentioned that he is too old

to learn how to farm organically. Aside of the difficult and long process of soil regeneration,

making organic fertilizers and pesticides, and re-setting the farm ecosystem, the procedures

of marketing organic products (especially certification) are also considered as barriers for

Nyoman. He told me that agricultural modernization is very important for him and has been

helping him in living his life and coping with the ‘modern’ era. “We are living in modern era

now. I need to fulfil different needs of my family, not only primary needs. That is why I need

to maintain my production, keeping it to optimum level”. Farming, which contributes the

most of his income, is not that lucrative even with his average productivity, considering the

high input costs and small land size. In addition to farming, in order to generate more

income, he is also working as souvenirs seller in Ubud. This condition is restricting him to

practice organic farming, which is more labour intensive. “Because of modern farming, I can

farm more efficiently and have more free time. I can use that free time to make more

money by selling souvenirs in Ubud market. I don’t think it is possible if I farm organically,

because organic farming requires more work on the farm”65. He could not risk losing his

largest source of income for several years (due to production drop during soil regeneration

time) and also losing his side jobs to work fulltime at his farm if he decides to shift his

practice to organic.

The other farmer that I met is Wayan (60), a farmer who had to go back from the city life to

his family’s farm when he was young because the death of his father. He preferred the

modern agricultural practices because to him, it is easier and simpler. “I think conventional

farming methods are easier, I don’t have to do complicated things such as making the

fertilisers… I can just buy fertilisers, seeds, pesticides in the nearby store and directly use

them on the field”66. He also trusts that the government is always trying to give the best for

the wellbeing of its citizen, “The extension agents have good education in agriculture, they

know a lot. They taught us how to increase our productivity and how to deal with the

pests… in the past we were ok with our traditional practices, but it’s different, there were

less pests, almost no pests. But since the late 70s, pests are starting to attack our fields, and

then the government helped us with pesticides and even gave us money to cover the

64

Ibid, 12-03-2013 65

Ibid, 12-03-2013 66

Wayan, interview on 12-31-2013 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali

58

damage caused by the pests. I cannot imagine if I have to deal with that many pests without

pesticides, maybe my farm will not be there anymore”67.

When I raised the health issues that can be caused by the chemicals, Wayan doesn’t believe

that it is harmful, due to his trust for the government and his personal experience. He said

that there is no way that the government would let their farmers use something that can

endanger their lives, “because it would mean that the government is killing its own farmers,

no I don’t believe it, they taught us a better way of farming because they care about us and

want us to produce more, because in the end they also need us to feed the people… so I

believe that as long as I follow the instructions, I will be fine. I have been using chemicals

since the 70s, and look at me now, I am old, but no health complaints”68. Regarding religious

matters, he also doesn’t think that modern agriculture practices are harmful nor breaking

any of religion rules. “I don’t think my farming method break any rules. Yes I killed many

living being with pesticides; but that is an act of self-defence because they are attacking my

field, I am protecting my plants and my family who are depending on the yields; and of

course I never forget to do the ceremonies as suggested in our religion”69. The other

farmers that I interviewed were also in the same boat with Wayan on this matter, they

never had any thought of breaking any norms, as for them, if they break any religious rules

and norms, the subak would have warned them.

Putu Hadi (38) is another farmer who is in favour of agricultural modernization. Before

becoming a farmer, he worked in the tourism field since the age of 17. When he was 32

years old, his father’s health condition got worse, so Putu had to go back to his home village

and started farming. He started farming without any practical farming experiences; however

his working experiences gave him the network to market his products. This network

provides him with information of the market dynamics so he can always sell his product to

the restaurant or hotel that he used to work at. His perceptions towards agricultural

modernization are somewhat similar with Wayan and Nyoman, but he is more aware of the

market situation. He told me that despite the emerging trend of going organic, conventional

agriculture suits him best; not only because he is new to farming, but also because he thinks

that it is more convenient and less complicated.

These farmers did not deny that conventional farming practices have some negative impact

to the environment. However, they don’t see it as their problem, and they believe that the

government will deal with it. “Everything has negative and positive sides; maybe the

negative side of conventional farming is that it is not environmentally friendly. But I am sure

the government is aware about this, and they will give us new directions if it really is

67

Ibid, 12-31-2013 68

Wayan, interview on 12-31-2013 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali 69

Ibid, 12-31-2013

59

dangerous. But so far, the government is still supporting us with chemicals and seeds; it

means it is still safe”70.

These farmers are also in favour of conventional farming due to more friendly market

settings. “To market conventional products is not as hard as marketing organic products. I

know that organic products have a good price, but the markets are limited, and very hard to

penetrate; not to mention all the certification procedures and costs. While for conventional

products, we can basically sell them anywhere”71. Based on their story, even though the

current booming program from the government is Simantri, the support to conventional

farming practices is still widely intact “the government regularly gives subsidy and aid in

form of seeds and fertilisers, conventional farming methods are well known nowadays, it is

easier to access the information about it than to learn organic farming”. The only difference

is that this kind of program is far from the media cover, there are no banners or billboards

on the streets that show the benefits of conventional farming; not like the THK or Simantri

which are always in one of the advertised programs of government.

Subak indirectly influences their perspective; because despite the internal rules, norms, and

external factors (such as government policies and programs), subak gives freedom for

farmers in managing their own farm. However, they put their trust in the subak leader; they

see their subak leader as an example. The rules in their subak do not guide the farming

styles of farmers into a certain path; instead, the common practice is to follow the trend,

not to be left behind or to be labelled as a ‘backward’ farmer. “When the subak leader

adopts new technology and he managed to show us the results, then everybody will follow

him, not because he told us to, but just because everybody wants to be a successful

farmer… and of course, I also have no reason not to do what they do… because if I don’t,

then I will be left behind… not only mentally but also in terms of my production level, I

would not be able to compete”72. Therefore, there is a social pressure that guided the

farmers in managing their farm.

These farmers are well aware that currently in Bali there are emerging initiatives and

encouragements to engage in organic practices which are more environmentally friendly.

They are also aware that the motives behind the movements are mostly based on

environmental sustainability. However, going back to the traditions and re-learning the

ancestral knowledge of farming in their opinion, doesn’t make any sense since they think

that they are living in the present era, not in the past. They argue that the current situation

is different from the past, so it is impossible to apply what used to work in the past to the

current or future settings. This argument however, is based on a conventional view of

‘modern’, as if it is always better than traditional; and they have no idea that these

traditional practices are starting to become the new ‘modern’ farming practices.

70

Nyoman Rudita, interview on 12-03-2013 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali 71

Putu Hadi, interview on 12-23-2013 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali 72

Ibid, 12-23-2013

60

For these actors, modern agricultural practices are their new fundament of the ‘ideal’ way

of farming. However, their perspectives seem to be biased by the generalized information

and stereotypes. For instance, IMS had no idea that farmers in Buahan Kaja village decided

to stop using pesticides since the late 1980s, which shows that farmers also used their

agency in rejecting modern farming practices. There are gaps of communication between

the policy makers and the farmers. There are also actors who have different perspective

than those I described above. The following sub-section will describe the perspective of

those who are against agricultural modernization approaches.

4.2. The Cons – Modern approaches do not fit us!

All those problems which came along with Green Revolution have generated reactions from

different elements of society in Balinese agriculture. The environmental impact which

started to show up has attracted the government to put some attention in encouraging

environmental friendly agricultural practices “The Indonesian government has also begun to

embrace organic production, at least in theory. The Department of Agriculture has begun

researching and conducting field trials of organic methods and in 2009 the governor of Bali

announced funding of Rp.8 billion to ‘raise awareness’ of organic methods” (MacRae 2011

pp. 76).

Today, most of the critical perspectives towards the agricultural modernisation in Bali are

based on environmental sustainability issues. The environmental degradation caused by

conventional agricultural practices has become the focus of the government since the past

years; while for the farmers in Buahan Kaja village, this issue has been airing since the late

1980s. Not only the government and farmers, but also NGOs are starting to raise their voice

against the ‘destructive’ practices of conventional agriculture and get involved in promoting

organic methods. Here I would like to dive into the perspectives of actors who consider that

agricultural modernization is not the way to deal with current Balinese agricultural

problems.

Ketut Karyada, the head of Dissemination Department of BPTP was giving his critical point of

view towards agricultural modernization approaches in Bali. He studied Agricultural

Technology for his bachelor, and he went to James Cook University, Australia to get his

master’s degree in Farming System. He has always had critical thoughts about some of the

agricultural modernization approaches since the first couple of years of his involvement in

its dissemination process. However, until the last several years, he was forced to hold these

thoughts. In the mid-2000s, since the government of Bali started to promote organic

practices, he has more freedom in expressing his long-held thoughts and even to put them

in practice through government’s programs such as Simantri.

He started criticizing agricultural modernization’s impact on the socio-cultural aspect of

Balinese farmers: “they were used to be hard working farmers, but since the Bimas

programs got disseminated, everything is mass produced, like seeds, fertilisers, pesticides,

farmers can just get it easily on the shop now, and in every village there must be an agro-

61

input store”73. This, in his opinion has also affected the farmers’ ability to critically think and

be on their own foot “our farmers used to know what they do, and find their own way in

dealing with their agricultural problems; but now they tend to wait for instructions or aid

from the government”74. He mentioned the stagnant economic condition of farmers as an

example of their inability to be independent; “The problem is, they are not used to do

accountancy in their farm, so when they started buying farming materials, they did not

count it as production costs, all they think is production level and what they gain from

selling their products; the revenue, not profit”. According to him, since then, farming is

more related to the prestige of having an occupation aside of being the source of livelihood

“when I told some of my farmers that their farm is having negative profit, and then I asked

them why they keep doing this? They told me it’s because they are farmer, so they feel the

responsibility to farm. And most of these farmers are earning income from side jobs as

construction worker, owning a shop, and the others are dependant to their children who are

working in the cities”.

He also argued that agricultural modernization poses threats to Balinese agriculture through

its top-down mass dissemination process without taking the natural condition of the area

into account. “During the dissemination, in whole Indonesia farmers were obliged to apply

chemicals fertilisers in a same dose, same amount of the combination of N, P, and K for

example… while if we really look on the field, even in Bali, different region with different

altitudes and other natural characteristics have different soil type; which means those soils

have different needs of elements… this has of course degraded the balance of the soil”.

Aside of that, the (wetlands) irrigation system is also believed to worsen the environment

degradation caused by conventional farming methods; because the farmers are using same

irrigation channels, so those who are in the lower area will utilise water that are

contaminated by the farmers in uphill. “The chemicals are used in the upstream area where

the source of water located, then the chemicals will go with the water to other areas. So

actually, the uphill farmers are poisoning their brothers in the lower areas”75.

He mentioned that modern agriculture practices have made the soil to be in its saturation

point, where the application of chemicals will no longer improve the productivity, but it is

needed to maintain the production; and he believes that to do so farmers will need to apply

more and more dosage of chemicals. “In the 2000s, we started to realise that to improve

the productivity nowadays is very difficult… we had to multiply the amount of inputs, to

increase the production for less than a ton; so it is not feasible. Multiplying the amount of

inputs will not only increase the production costs, but also it will increase the environmental

damage”76. The environmental damage that is caused by the chemicals used in conventional

73

Ketut Karyada, interview on 01-29-2014 in Denpasar, Bali 74

Ketut Karyada, interview on 01-29-2014 in Denpasar, Bali 75

Ketut Karyada, interview on 01-29-2014 in Denpasar, Bali 76

Ibid, 01-29-2014

62

farming is, in the end, also affecting the health condition of the farmers who are exposed to

it.

Thus, he also highlighted health problems of farmers as a result of long-term constant

exposure to the chemicals they are using in their farm. “People started to notice that our

food must be contaminated, we are contaminated by chemicals… for evidence, after we

asked doctors to do general check up on farmers, even their hands contain pesticides, can

you imagine how contaminated their bodies are”77. According to him, the farmers are

actually aware of this since the 1980s, especially for those who are living in the highlands

such as in Bedugul area and Buahan Kaja Village.

This story was confirmed by Sunarka (53), an extension agent who is also an influential

farmer in Buahan Kaja. Regular medical check-up was part of the government program at

that time, so as an extension agent he had to take blood sample from farmers to be tested

at the nearest laboratory. “In my village, there were many farmers who got poisoned, it was

1985… I was the one who brought them to doctor for medical check-ups, and the doctor

said that their blood is contaminated, that is why many of them got sick”78. Since then, even

though he is working as extension agent, he ‘silently’ initiated a movement to stop the

pesticides application in his village; and since the late 1980s all the farmers in his village

stopped using pesticides. His effort in promoting non-pesticides move was not easy; but

being both the only extension agent and a subak leader at that time gave him the versatility

he needed to initiate the movement.

He argued that the massive environmental damage from the chemicals started in the 80s

when the government issued the program of pests’ extermination. “The government did not

take nature into account, at that time, we had to spray our field once in two weeks, some

even did it once a week, even if there were no pests; it lasted for several years, and that’s

when the ecosystem got destroyed”79. The environmental damage was worsened by the

mono-crop planting method, which according to him, disturbed the balance of the

ecosystem. The farm biodiversity got disturbed so that some natural predators had to leave

the farm; which then leads to the increased population of animals in the lower food chain

that are consuming the plants as their food, the pests. He also highlighted the soil condition

which is exhausted due to long term exposure to the chemical fertilisers; he argued that if

the current situations continue, farming is only going to be harder in the future. Thus, he

believes that conventional farming has to change into more environmental friendly

practices to be more sustainable.

In his experience, agricultural practices nowadays are not only making farming more costly

through the externalization of inputs, but also by the externalization of labour force; thus it

is harder to make profits. He mentioned that it used to be cheaper in the past to hire labour

77

Ibid, 01-29-2014 78

Sunarka, interview on 01-12-2014 in Buahan Kaja, Gianyar, Bali 79

Ibid, 01-12-2014

63

from Java, but now since the Javanese know that Balinese are short on labours, the

Javanese set higher standards for their salary. “In the past, we paid Rp.400 for each

harvested Kg of grains, now its Rp.600… so even if I am lucky enough to get 6.5 tonnes per

hectare (average is 5.5 tonnes), which means we can get around Rp.24 million per harvest (4

months), we have to spend around Rp.4 million only for harvesting cost; not to mention

other activities and inputs’ costs. In the end after all the calculation, I can get roughly Rp.1

million per month with conventional farming”80. This situation however, changed since he

shifted to organic practice, which according to him has been giving him more advantages

from lower inputs’ costs, higher selling price, and also several side benefits such as being

self-sufficient through e.g. biogas and side products from multi-crops farming

(horticultures)81. However, most of the farmers in Gianyar have no information about the

benefits of this practice which can give them a better income (not in term of money) and

also healthier for their own health and environment.

According to him, most of the farmers in his village were reluctant to use modern

agriculture practices due to their fundamentalist behaviour. He argues that there is always a

relation between their practices and their beliefs, and the presence of modern agricultural

practices has not only damaged the relationship between human and nature through its

negative environmental effects, but also the relationship among farmers by enhancing their

greed, and has lead them to unhealthy competitive behaviour.

According to Sunarka, the degradation of morality and culture is also enhanced by

agricultural modernization. It is noticeable in the way that most of the farmers now don’t

hesitate in practicing conventional farming methods which are harmful to the environment.

“If the farmers really think about it, what they are doing now is being disrespectful towards

the God, towards, nature, and towards other people. It means that pawongan, palemahan,

and parahyangan are being ignored, they don’t care anymore about it”82. I can see that

80

Sunarka, interview on 01-12-2014 in Buahan Kaja, Gianyar, Bali 81

More details in later chapter of the thesis 82

Sunarka, interview on 01-12-2014 in Buahan Kaja, Gianyar, Bali

“We believe that all God creations has its own function, everything. We believe that God

created living beings as brothers, the eldest brother is the plant, second brother is

animal, and we, human are the youngest one. We have to respect and love our brothers,

that is why here we have tumpak wariga ceremony which is held every 210 days, where

we thank God for creating the plants by nurturing and giving love to plants; and also

tumpak kandang, for animals, same reasons. Everything has function, has its own role in

the universe. That is why we’re not supposed to be greedy, we have to act in our

limitations, we can use our brothers and other resources, but not exploiting it, we use

them within their capacities, just like they use others.” – Sunarka

64

Sunarka is trying to apply the philosophy of Tri Hita Karana in his daily life including farming

practice. However, what I encountered in the field is that not many farmers are aware of

this propagated philosophy.

The other actors who are influential in Balinese agriculture since the early 2000s are the

NGOs; who have been conducting initiatives in order to try to solve modern problems, or at

least trying to minimize the damage. These initiatives and movements are mostly in line

with ‘going back to nature’, to find a way out of the current desperate situation. One of

their solutions is going back to self-sufficient, sustainable and environmental friendly

agricultural practices, which used to be the practices of traditional farmers. I managed to

have a small discussion with Ibu Kartini, a senior lecturer of Udayana University who is also a

farmer and the director of Bali Organic Association; and Sayu, an experienced permaculture

trainer from IDEP.

Sayu is the one of IDEP members. She is an experienced permaculture trainer who travelled

around Indonesia to conduct the permaculture methods. She was born and raised in a

farmer’s family, where she got her unpleasant experience with the chemical. She got

poisoned by pesticides in 2001, and had to be treated in the ICU of Gianyar Hospital for one

week; since then, she is devoted to sustainable agricultural practices. She started to get

involved in permaculture training in 2002 and since then, she has been experimenting to

find an ‘ideal’ method of farming according to permaculture philosophy which, according to

her, is in line with Balinese traditional agricultural philosophy.

She argues that it is very possible to apply traditional farming practices in the current era.

Regarding to pest control, she gave the example of how people in her village used to do it

before the Bimas program got disseminated “in the past, whenever we had a pests problem,

we did a ceremony and then after that the pest were gone. For example, to deal with rats

we have ‘ngaben tikus’ where we caught some rats, and then we burned the bodies in a

ceremony… In my village all the Subak members used to do that”83. This story is also

confirmed by several other farmers that I met in Bali. Apparently Balinese were so attached

to their beliefs even before the propagation of Tri Hita Karana, there were even ceremonies

to deal with agriculture related problems such as pests. This, however, contradict the

statement of several farmers who claimed that pests problem didn’t exist before the Bimas

program got disseminated.

Aside of environmental issues that have been the base of most arguments of the other

actors who are not in favour of agricultural modernization, Sayu has another opinion of how

the modern agriculture package influenced the quality of the product. She believes that

hybrid varieties that are treated with chemicals have less quality in term of nutrition and

taste. “It’s normal if organic products have better nutrition and taste compared to the highly

industrialized conventional products. Because the process goes naturally, plants take what

83

Sayu, interview on 01-29-2014 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali

65

they need and not ‘what we think’ they need, and it affects the quality of the product. Some

of the organic local variety products can even be stored for a long time. Such as my

grandparents who used to store the potatoes for 5 years or rice for 10 years and more. You

can see it’s not possible with conventional agriculture products”84.

She also mentioned the role of corporations in modernizing the farms as a way to keep their

markets. According to her, some agriculture input companies such as Syngenta and Pupuk

Kaltim (national fertilizer company) are actively making ‘requests’ to the Dinas to introduce

their products to the farmers in government’s programs so the farmers will continuously use

their products. “The request by one company that goes to Dinas, and then Dinas go to the

Subak and then they say ‘ok, you must plant these kind of seeds, you must use these kind of

fertilizers’”85. According to her, this chain is really flexible and it also works in the line of the

current Bali Organic movement of government, where a fertiliser company (pupuk kaltim)

provides the organic fertilisers. So in the end, it still is restricting the room for manoeuvre of

farmers in producing their own manure. This means that the externalisation of inputs will

still be intact and some farmers will not be able to be fully autonomous in their input

procurement.

Kartini, from BOA, is more concerned about the degradation of cultural and moral aspects of

the government and the subak, aside of the environmental threats. She argues that the

agricultural modernization projects that are conducted by external institutions have created

a ‘desire’ not only in the farmer’s level, but especially at the government and subak leaders’

level. “Farmers became more passive, waiting to be fed and governments and most NGOs

are expecting any opportunities to get profits from the projects; because they considered

the projects as sources of their side-income, where they get extra money through

corruption”86. She said that now in most areas of Gianyar, the adat (tradition) is diminishing,

and everything is controlled by the government which is again very vulnerable of corruption.

Due to this situation, the role of the subak as a ‘vanguard’ in filtering external technology is

deteriorating. Some subaks are more controlled by the government through their policies

and programs “the problem with Subak now, is that farmers have to ask permission to the

subak if they want to plant different kind of varieties other than what usually other farmers

in the subak plant. So the subak regulates that. But then subak gets donation from the

government, and that’s why they don’t want to make something bad against the

government. So then they will not give this kind of permission to farmers who are looking

suspicious, in the sense that their act would jeopardize government’s programs”. This

phenomenon is an open secret in Bali, most of the farmers are aware but will not talk about

it. Traditional institutions are not the only element that was impacted by the agricultural

modernization processes, Kartini argued that the most important aspect of cultural

84

Sayu, interview on 01-29-2014 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali 85

Ibid, 01-29-2014 86

Ni Luh Kartini (Bali Organic Association), interview on 11-12-2013 in Udayana University, Denpasar, Bali

66

degradation is how the socio-environmental aspect that used to be maintained by the

farmers through their farming philosophy is being degraded. “By the time the agricultural

modernization took place, the orientation shifted to industry and the people started to

leave their traditions, the goal is to improve the productivity, thus intensification is the

priority. Then, people started to neglect Mother Nature; people attached less respect and

values to their nature, which of course in the long term, destroyed their own cultures and

values”87.

Agricultural modernization has not only brought technical changes, but also changes of

practices and culture. In Bali, people used to do ceremonies and make offerings before and

during certain farming activities, and this somehow maintained farmers’ relation with their

nature. Believing in what most of us think as superstition has made Balinese to pay more

respect to their nature; thus, affecting their agricultural practice to be more

environmentally friendly. However, now most of the ceremonies are being left and ignored;

there are some ceremonies, but the essence of ceremonies itself is mostly gone. “People

already abandoned the socio-cultural values… individualism is everywhere, even subak

often having internal conflicts, subak is not just about controlling water, but also about

social relations, cultural relations. But now it is degraded… a lot of subak leaders sold their

rice fields or turned them into villas…”88

Although Kartini is mostly working as an academician, while Ade and Sayu are focusing their

work in the NGO, they shared the same concerns about the actual condition and the future

of agriculture, its society and the environment. They believe that the conventional

agriculture is going too far and, a change of path is needed to make things better. IDEP and

BOA are basically having same perspectives toward agricultural modernization; they are

concerned with the social and environmental elements that are being threatened by

agricultural modernization process. They shared the same visions that Balinese ancestral

wisdom can contribute to the knowledge of organic farming practices. That is why in most

of their arguments they often used the terms of (re)discovering ancestor’s practices which

link agriculture to religion and culture, to have a deeper connection with nature.

These local cultural values are things that should not ever be separated regardless in which

area agriculture is being practiced. “Because there is ‘culture’ in the word ‘agriculture’, that

is why most of our cultures are based on our relationship with nature; as an agrarian

country, tradition should be the key to our agriculture”89. Yet, agricultural modernization

has introduced new practices of how farmers should manage their farms without taking into

account their localities, nearly wiping out the traditional practices and cultures.

87

Ibid, 11-12-2013 88

Sayu, interview on 01-29-2014 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali 89

Ni Luh Kartini (Bali Organic Association), interview on 11-12-2013 in Udayana University, Denpasar, Bali

67

4.3. Conclusions

The contestations of agricultural modernization in the case of Gianyar surfaced from the

two sided perspectives that both come from personal experience of actors who are

connected and framed in different settings. Both of these perspectives, however, are mostly

focused on certain elements without taking other elements into account (e.g. productivity

and economy over culture, environmental and social, and vice versa). Those who are in

favour of modern agriculture practices chose the production and economic aspect; while

those who are against agricultural modernization approaches base their arguments on

culture, environmental, and social elements.

Actors who are in favour of agricultural modernization approaches have the tendency to be

pessimistic toward alternative agriculture practices by thinking that it is only another way to

fulfil the desires of tourists. This thought, however, is also influenced by the lack of trust

they have toward the government who are currently putting their efforts in promoting

sustainable agriculture practices through Simantri program. But interestingly, they also

show that their pro-behaviour toward the agricultural modernization is due to the trust that

they put in the government. These contradicting reasons show the presence of plural

images of government in their head. This dualism is presumably based on the comparison

of government under two different leaderships: the first one is the New Order era which,

although authoritarian and corrupt, managed to made real changes in the field through

more structured and clear programs; and second, the ever changing governments in the

reformation era, which are less involved in the field than the previous one, together with

the publicly transparent corrupt behaviour creating an untrustworthy image.

The pro agricultural modernization actors’ cynical perspectives toward the efforts to shift to

organic farming are based on the distrust in organic practice’s ability to fit in the current

modernized era; the perspectives are associated with its excessive shifting process both

administratively and practically, uncertainty about markets, farmers’ lack of knowledge of

organic practice, and most of all, farmers’ ‘addiction’ to the convenience of conventional

farming (e.g. easy access to inputs, govt.’s aid). This means that the structure has put them

in their ‘comfort’ zone which indirectly restricts the farmers’ ability to be autonomous.

The externalization of inputs also created new demands for knowledge (i.e. of how to

appropriately use the inputs in order to reach optimum productivity) which can only be

provided by external institutions such as the government. However, in the current situation,

shifting to organic practices also requires external knowledge since most of the farmers

have already replaced their traditional practices with conventional farming. Moreover, the

average age of farmers is dominated by the generation who have been practicing

conventional agriculture practice for decades and it is difficult for them to go through the

process of change.

As van Dijk & van der Ploeg (1995) state “locality is not considered as a resource for local-

specific practices anymore, the focus is on global parameters: market trends, newest

68

technologies, agricultural policies – rules and subsidies” (van Dijk & van der Ploeg, 1995, pp.

VII-XIII). I found this statement fits well with the perception of actors who are in favour of

agricultural modernization (esp. the dinas representative).

The approaches of those who are against agricultural modernization mostly depart from

their sense of belonging for their nature, culture, and tradition. They felt that their nature

and culture are being threatened by agricultural modernization processes; thus they leaned

towards alternative ideas of farming as their solution. The propagation of THK and the Ajeg

Bali movement might have influenced their perspective by enhancing their sense of

Balinese, but actually, most of them have been having these thoughts before THK become

as famous as today. However, they tend to forget that agricultural modernization is not only

negative, but that there are some positive sides such as mechanization which is indeed

helpful in dealing with labour problems.

Subaks as the gates of change are made part of a new control mechanism through programs

and policies which include the reward system. As a result, the subaks are competing against

each other to be the best in the eye of government; which means, those who manage to

implement government’s programs the best, get more rewards in term of funding,

programs, and also the prestige of being labelled as the best subak; restricting their ability

to be critical toward government’s programs. In the end, it depends on the mentality of the

subak leaders who can become catalysts of transformation.

The presence of tourism also has its impact to the perception of the actors in the

governments. Grounded by the promotion of Bali’s ‘uniqueness’ as a part of promoting

Bali’s sustainable tourism development, the government encourages environmentally

friendly agricultural practices especially in Ubud area which is known to be the spiritual-

health rejuvenating destination which provides healthy organic food and enhanced

connection with the spiritual through nature; this creates markets for healthy organic

products. Being a ‘unique’ touristic spot, made many of former tourists decided to move in

bringing their ideas and disseminate them through NGOs, which then influenced and

facilitated the farmers in shifting to organic practices. Most of the sustainable farmers are

related to NGOs and under the Simantri program of government. Both government and

NGO provided access to materials, knowledge, and even markets that are needed by the

farmers to support their organic practices.

In this case, both perspectives are not only raised by their own consciousness, but are also

strongly supported by the structures where they practice their farming. In the farmer’s level,

both perspectives, supported by the structures lead the farmers to practice different ways

of farming which will be described in the next chapter of this thesis.

69

CHAPTER V: FARMING STYLES (The Heterogeneity of Farming Styles in Gianyar, Bali)

After describing the structural dimensions of Balinese agriculture and actors’ perspectives

toward agricultural modernization in Gianyar, Bali, in this chapter I illustrate the farming

styles that are emerging among the respondents, who hold different opinions. This chapter

shows that different farmers’ perspectives toward agricultural modernization combined

with their structures are, in the end, leading to a variety of farming styles in the farmers’

level. This chapter, then, completes the adapted macro-micro linkage analysis which

describes the situation of the settings (macro), how it influences the farmers’ perspectives

toward the ‘ideal’ way of managing their farm which in the end lead them to choose

different styles of farming. However, this chapter not only covers the different farming

styles, but also farmers’ strategies in dealing with what they perceived as problems.

In differentiating the farming styles, I divided the two styles into those of the conventional

farmer and alternative farmer respectively. This characterization is based on the logic of

farming by van der Ploeg (2008), who distinguishes two logics. These two logics are: a) the

entrepreneurs logic, which covers those who are highly integrated with market and external

technology and knowledge (in this case, those who are pro toward agricultural

modernization and farming conventionally); and b) the peasants logic, which covers those

who are actively making efforts in distancing themselves from the agricultural inputs market

and focus on sustainability (in this case, those who are not in favour of agricultural

modernization). The interrelations of farming units vis-a-vis markets, technologies, and

institutions, and also the way that farmers value and interact with their nature are different

for conventional and alternative farmers.

As mentioned in the theoretical framework of this thesis, there are typologies that can help

to identify these strategies: broadening, deepening, and regrounding agriculture (van der

Ploeg & Roep, 2003). The authors describe broadening as developing activities that improve

the farm’s flow of income while constantly adapting to the changes of demands of goods

and services –e.g. diversifying farm production, agro-tourism related activities. Deepening

means increasing value added of farm products while responding to new societal demands

by taking up non-farm activities such as processing and marketing –e.g. developing short

food supply chains by holding weekly farmers’ market, developing products that target

certain market. Regrounding means developing farm resource patterns mostly by valuing

local resources in order to increase farm autonomy and reduce expenditures –e.g.

producing own compost and rearranging the ecosystem as part of pests control activities

which both reduce the costs of external inputs.

In Gianyar, both conventional and alternative farmers are exercising these strategies in their

agriculture. Activity-wise, however, more strategies are found with those who are against

agricultural modernization (alternative farmer). From what I encountered in the field,

regrounding strategies are not found in the entrepreneurial logic based farming style

70

(conventional farmer). The following sections describe the manifestation of these strategies

in both conventional and alternative farming styles. The sections provide cases of farmers

(alternative and conventional) who are exercising their agency in interacting with their

structural aspects of agriculture. On the conventional side, there are Wayan and Putu who

have put their faith in conventional farming methods and are applying broadening and

deepening strategies in dealing with their agricultural ‘squeeze’. On the alternative side,

there are Hartono and Sunarka who believe that farming is not only about generating profit,

but also about working with nature. Thus, they practice an alternative way of farming, which

is more environmentally friendly. By doing this, they are able to gain more profit in the form

of cost reduction (through regrounding activities), extra value from ‘healthy’ products that

they produce and also from broadening and deepening strategies.

5.1. Farming Styles and Farmers’ Strategies

5.1.1. Conventional farmers

Conventional farmers’ perceptions of farming are filled with new rationalities brought by

the ‘experts’ through agricultural modernization projects. These farmers are highly

dependent of markets, buy all their agricultural inputs from external sources, mostly from

the nearby agriculture input stores or got it for free from government’s programmes

(usually seeds and fertilizers). In terms of farming technologies and knowledge, they chose

to be highly dependent of the government (e.g. dinas, penyuluh-extension agent) reducing

their creativity and ability to cope with certain situations (i.e. if there is a scarcity in inputs,

they usually report it to the extension agent and rely on them instead of actively trying to

find a solution).

The main agricultural practices of conventional farmers in the rice cycle, although more

simple, it costs more than the alternative style. This is due to the compulsory use chemicals

inputs that famers are not able to produce. It started with land preparation, followed by

watering the land until it has enough humidity. The next step is to apply base fertilizers, and

then seeds are planted. The differences lie in the next step, when fertilizers and pesticides

(usually herbicides due to the proliferation of weeds at this stage) are being applied. This

activity is being conducted once in 2 weeks (sometimes in a week, depends on the pests

intensity) until the harvesting period (for 4 months). Some farmers rent tractors (if

available) from the subak to plough their land, and the others (mostly small farmers) do it

manually by themselves helped by paid labour (usually from Java). Farming is chemical

intensive, and farmers realised that their soil is saturated and highly dependent on the

artificial fertilisers so that the objective of applying chemicals is no longer to improve

production, but to be able to produce and maintain the production level.

They realised that conventional farming requires expenses which keep increasing with rising

input prices without being balanced by an improving selling price. The causes are ranged

from the growing agricultural inputs’ price to the declining interest in agriculture related

71

works among the young generation, which leads to labour shortage. This is one of what they

perceived as squeezes to their agriculture, and thus farmers came up with strategies for

generating more income and keep the farming feasible, and as profitable as possible. In

doing this, Wayan and Putu came up with different strategies ranging from pluri-activity

(having more than one income generating activity) to maximization of products’ value

(through post-harvest management, targeting premium market such as hotels and

supermarkets).

Wayan. The first farmer is Wayan (60), a farmer who had to go back from the city life to his

family’s farm when he was young because the death of his father. He has 0.5 Ha of lands in

total, divided into two parts: 0.25 Ha of rice fields and 0.25 Ha of dry lands where he grows

vegetables. His rice field is located quite close to the centre of Ubud, where villas and hotels

are proliferating, and replacing agricultural lands. Many investors and rich outsiders seek

possibilities to own a piece of land in this area, and some of them are even willing to pay

prices that are far above the normal price (some areas in Ubud reached ten times the

normal price), leaving most of the farmers in a dilemmatic situation of the temptation to sell

their lands and receive massive capital or to keep the most crucial inheritance of their

family.

Pak Wayan was one of these farmers in Ubud. He witnessed many cases in his region where

farmers sold their lands and ended up working in those same lands for the new owners

because they did not do very good investments with the money that they got from selling

the lands. This has made many farmers not only losing their lands, but also shifting their

social status of a farmer/land owner to a hired labourer. This condition, in the end stripped

them from the involvement in the subak. He told me that before, with the not so good

situation of his farm and economy, it was really hard not to sell his lands. The only reason

that prevented him from selling his lands was the fear of losing identity and a place that his

family can call home. “I am not interested, if we lose our land is like losing our identity, our

children and grandchildren will have no place to go back, where will they go? Or when

people asked where are they from, and then it’s hard to answer”90.

90

Wayan, interview on 31 December 2013 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali

72

However, he managed to come into a

solution when an investor from Jakarta

bought land next to his land and turned it

into villas. In order to save some lands and to

keep the attractions, some villa and hotel

owners rent the surrounding rice fields so

that the farmers don’t sell their lands, which

provide sceneries for the villas/hotels.

Through this deal, the farm is not only giving

him passive income from the rent, but also

he is able to keep his land ownership.

His strategy to maximize the profit is also applied in the input procurement and selling his

product which is being done in a collective way through his subak. For input procurement,

the subak usually bought inputs in bulk so they can get cheaper price, then the inputs got

disseminated to the members. While for collective selling, the subak collects the products

from the members and selling them in a bulk instead of per individual (some subaks made

an arrangement with hotels or supermarket to fulfil their demands). However, the subak is

not always able to facilitate this activity. This role of the subak has been stopped working

since the last couple of years due to internal conflict91. So Wayan and his friends have to

arrange the similar activity themselves. By buying and selling collectively he and other

farmers can have a better price and minimise the risk of being manipulated by input

retailers.

Putu. The other farmer with an entrepreneurial logic is Putu Hadi, a young farmer who

started his business in agriculture after he had to go back to his farm due to the loss of his

father. Putu Hadi (38) worked in the tourism field since the age of 17. When he was 32 years

old, his father’s health condition got worse, so Putu had to go back to his home village and

started farming. Unlike most of Balinese farmers, he only grows vegetables in his 0.5

hectares of land.

He started farming without any practical farming experiences; however his working

experiences gave him the network to market his products. This network provides him with

information of the market dynamics so he can always sell his product to the restaurant or

hotel that he used to work at. He utilises his land to grow vegetables in order to meet the

demands of warungs (small resto) and hotels that he used to work for; and to get fast

money flow (since some vegetables have short planting period). By planting vegetables, he

91

According to his story, the conflict in his subak was caused by the presence of more than two strong individuals who want to ‘accommodate’ the input procurements and products selling; targeting the advantages of buying and selling in bulk.

Figure 13: Wayan's multi-functioning farm

73

can also apply a multi-cropping system in order to differentiate the products which

according to him, has lower risks (especially in marketing) than planting one commodity.

During the conventional farming cycle, there are low labour input periods during cultivation

where hardly any work is required apart from monitoring crop health and water level. The

farmers mostly used these periods working in other sectors to generate side income which

is not only used to pay for the basic necessities (including ceremonies), but also the

increasing farming expenses. This pluri-activity is common among the farmers (e.g. Putu

works as an ojeg (motorcycle taxi) driver, and Wayan works as a parking guy and souvenir

seller). This is also possible due to their farming style which relies on ‘instant’ modern

technologies.

In these cases, the wider conditions including the government (through farming

intensification program), subak (collective procurement and selling, tractor renting) and

tourism (markets, land renting) play a big role in providing opportunities for the farmers to

be creative in gaining more income both from farming and non-farming activities. The

entrepreneurs rely heavily on the market and ‘external’ actors for input procurements,

technologies and knowledge. Focusing on market integration makes the entrepreneurs very

vulnerable to macro changes (e.g. price and stocks volatility for inputs). Van der Ploeg

(2008) argues that one of characteristics of the entrepreneurs is that they think that they

should be able to constantly adapt to the external indicators (e.g. markets and policies).

However, in this case, although the part of government programmes is to make Bali organic,

the entrepreneurs choose to stick with the conventional way of farming. However, this is

possible due to the presence of the structure (although not intensely promoted) which is

supporting the conventional way of farming aside of another structure which is not only

supporting but also actively promoting organic farming.

Although his farm size is small, Putu makes sure that his products can penetrate certain

market chain such as hotels which requires products with certain standards of quality.

Although he is able to do this due to his connections that he got from his previous job

experience, he doesn’t just sell his vegetables right after the harvest. Instead, he takes up

post farming activities such as grading, cleaning, and sometimes packaging if he

(although seldom) has orders from a local supermarket. Through these activities, he

managed to add more value to his products and sell it with higher price. To maximize the

profit, he mostly used family based labour in the value adding activities so that he

doesn’t have to pay for it. This strategy, however, is only possible due to his past working

experience in the tourism so that he managed to get to know insiders in the hotels.

Although the network helps him to penetrate the market, the continuity is still not

reassuring due to informal arrangements between them.

74

5.1.2. Alternative farmers

The other side of the Balinese agricultural development path highlights the alternative style

of farming, which is based on the peasant logic. Aside of generating profit, this style also

focuses on the localities, self-sufficiency (esp. in agricultural input procurement) and

sustainable farming practices. In this category, I found two different types of farmer who

have different opinions about going organic. The first one is Hartono, who is trying his best

to limit his dependency on the agricultural input market and external technologies

(including inputs and machineries); the second is Sunarka, who, although disagreeing with

modern agricultural practices, does not deny that it is required to cope with the modern

era. Although they have similar point of view in going against conventional farming, which

relies heavily on artificial inputs and external technologies, both Sunarka and Hartono came

up with different farming strategies.

Hartono. Hartono (35) is a young farmer who is fiercely against modernization. He has

approximately 2 hectares of land located only 2-3 Km away from the centre of Ubud, and

specialised in vegetables. In Hartono’s point of view, modernity has brought nothing but

misery to society especially the farming community. Dependency to external sources of

technologies and markets is considered as sign of weakness, and conventional farming is

seen as heavy ecological and farmers’ social and economic exploitation. This is to say that

conventional way of farming is not only damaging the environment, but also it treats

farmers as markets for input producers, exploiting them. His ideal way of farming is based

not only on how much income the farm can generate, but also sustainability, self-sufficiency

and socio-environmental aspects; production and reproduction of agricultural resources

processes are the key in alternative farming method.

He knows that conventional farming is not sustainable and is harmful to the environment,

the farmers, and the consumers. He is a self-taught farmer who never stops learning and

experimenting in finding his best way of farming without using any external technologies.

He is so sceptical towards dependency on external technologies and knowledge that he

even rarely agreed to be involved in any government or NGOs programs (even those which

are promoting organic practices). He really likes to be on his own in managing his farms, and

it is not easy to gain his trust in arranging cooperation or even to just work for him. That is

why he only has his brothers and best friends, who are helping him in taking care of his

farms. The reasons of his reluctance towards externalities are his disappointment with and

distrusts of the corrupt government and he even said that “government and NGOs, all they

want is money; I don’t believe that they truly want to help farmers, it is just because in

order to get money they have to create programs in the name of helping farmers. That is

why I heard a lot where they left the farmers once they’re finished with the programs, then

farmers don’t know what to do, then the programs don’t do a lot for the farmers, or even

made things worse in the end... but in their report, the program is a success, so that they

75

can get another funding”92. The other reason would be his pride of being able to be a

successful farmer by self-developing and learning; even though he only got a junior high

school degree and never attended any farming courses. I could see his pride in the way he

talked about the incompetence of the government and experts, as a proof that he does not

need any education provided by them to be this successful. However, he was able to go

through all the process of this business due to his strong capital in the beginning that

supported him in the rough times. He is astute in creating the business plan, so that he

managed to grow from small farmer to be as big as now.

His relationship with the subak is only limited to administrative matters and retribution

payment. It is an example of a farmer who can actually farm on his own way, putting less

concern on any possible social pressure. He argues that “as long as I don’t break any subak’s

rules, paying administrative fees, and participating in or contributing to obligatory subak’s

events, just for formalities, then there are no problems”93.

The mobilization of resources is formed into a cyclic pattern where the by-products of his

farm are being recycled (mostly) into compost. Pest control was being

done by several techniques: he plants pest repellent plants (e.g.

sunflowers) around the farm, he put fly traps

made from recycled water bottles, and he also

creates his own pest repellent liquid made

from locally available herbal ingredients which

is sprayed twice a week. Some of the products

are turned into seeds for the next cycle. By

doing these activities, he is manifesting the

regrounding agriculture strategy to cut his

dependency of input market which in the end

reduced the input cost significantly. However,

his farming style is very labour intensive so that he has to dedicate all his time to work in the

farm with his brothers and friends. Family based labour also cuts the expense of his farm,

although of course he has to share some of the profits with his brothers and friends.

His main consumers are expatriates and tourists around Ubud area

who are willing to pay more for his organic products. The

manifestation of the deepening strategy can be seen in the way that

he markets his products directly to the consumer, cutting down the

market chain in order to absorb all the profits only for his farm

enterprise. In doing this, he utilises the internet as promoting media

where consumers can see what kind of products he is selling with

the prices, then he provides his phone number for those who want

92

Hartono, interview on 14 December 2013 in Ubud, Gianyar, Bali 93

Ibid

76

to make an order. Consumers can also directly come to his farm and just point out which

products they want and either harvest the products by themselves or ask him to pick it up.

He also uses his farm as an educational centre where

people (mostly expatriates) can learn how to farm

organically for free. In practice, this activity turns out to be

an effective way of promoting his farm products because

those who come to his farm and see his way of farming are

mostly impressed and start talking about it to their friends.

Those people then recommend their friends who are

looking for fresh organic products to come to Hartono’s

farm. By having a direct contact with his consumers, he mostly grows products based on the

market’s demands. Consumers are allowed to pre-order certain types of vegetables in

certain quantities (as long as it doesn’t exceed his capacity).

Although he was able to make his farm enterprise running very well (sustainable, mostly

self-sufficient and profitable) with the current condition, he was still not satisfied and still

wanted to expand his farm. He then rented another 2 hectares of lands in an area

approximately 3 Km away from his owned lands. He also doesn’t stop doing experiments in

finding ways to continuously improve his farm to be more efficient. This shows that even for

an ‘extreme’ peasant farmer such as him, monetary gain is still a strong motive of farming.

Sunarka. Is a middle aged farmer-extension agent-former subak leader living in Buahan Kaja

village of Gianyar, Bali. When I entered his house, I saw a very well planned settings of the

house with a garden of spices just on his terrace, a well decorated rice storage building in

the middle yard, further in the back just behind his garage there are pig and duck poultries,

behind that there is a 40 acres of dry lands where he grows fruits, vegetables, and medicine

plants, and finally behind that lie 2 hectares of rice fields. All of these settings are mainly

made to fulfil his household necessities, except for the overproduction of rice, ducks and

pigs which are being sold on the market. Approximately 2 Km from his house, he has

another rice field of around 4 hectares in size divided into 4 parts and a couple of cows.

Sunarka came from a rich family, so that he could inherit a large amount of land. This

condition allows him to shift to organic farming gradually, starting from a small plot of land.

By doing this, he is able to minimize the risks and cover costs during the shifting period (low

production, pests attack, etc.). Aside of that, his main job as a government officer also gives

him a steady income in covering his daily needs.

He and his brother have always been pioneers in applying external technologies brought by

programs both from government and NGOs. This is possible due to his job as an extension

agent that not only made him always be the first one to know of the programs that are

planned, but also gave him a frontline position whenever there are NGOs proposing

programs. This position has also made him vulnerable to any external expectations and

agendas that usually came in the name of development. However, this position also allows

77

him to experience and observe the changes that are going not only in the level of his own

farm, his village, but also in other areas in the island and even in Java. All these experiences

made him critical towards external knowledge; he knows that not all external knowledge

brought positive impacts to the farmers and especially the environment. He then started to

stop using pesticides and chemical fertilisers gradually, started from his farm which is

located around his house. He knows well that farming conventionally can boost and

maintain the production level but that it’s not good for the environment and creates

dependency on technologies (materials and knowledge) and market which restricts the

freedom of farming.

Sunarka is a respected farmer in the village of Buahan Kaja, many of other farmers in the

village see him as an example. This public trust didn’t fall from the sky just like that; instead

he had to go through a phase where he nearly got excluded by other farmers due to his

hard-headed and ‘unusual’ behaviour of going against the conventional farming. However,

he did not share his ideas by ‘teaching’ or telling others what is right or wrong, because he

believes that by doing so, it will make things worse. Instead, he keeps doing what he thinks

is right until the other farmers see the difference.

Sunarka is a little bit different from Hartono. Although he is not in favour of agricultural

modernization, he still thinks that reaching the ideal way of farming requires modern

artefacts and technologies. He states that modernization is part of life and we should not

totally go against it, instead, we have to find the way to optimize the positives and minimize

the negative impacts of agricultural modernization. Thus, in his farming style he does not

deny his dependency on the market and modern agricultural tools such as tractors, grain

dryer and other machineries that were not present in pre-bimas era. Different from

Hartono, in his mind modernity is necessary in coping with the continuously evolving eras

which of course come with some side effects.

According to him, one of farmers’ responsibilities is to find a way to reduce the negative

impacts while utilising the positives to their favour, optimizing the modernity. Disconnection

“At first it was hard; nobody believes that chemicals are bad, especially in the early

stages where my production level fells while the others were blooming. It lasted for

several years till they see and realised it... it started when the neighbours noticed that

whenever they passed my farms, they didn’t smell the chemicals, they saw more

animals and plants are growing... at first they thought the biodiversity as pests, but then

they saw my production is fine, my farm is more safe and beautiful with all the birds,

butterflies, and other animals that were considered as pests but actually they bring

balance to the farm ecosystem, then they started to follow, asked for advices... and the

words spread and now people are starting to reduce the chemical fertilisers... it’s a

really slow process, but I believe we will get there”.

78

from the market is impossible, because he realised that “we are also a market, we buy

things from people; where should I sell my products? Where can I get agricultural tools and

materials? And of course basic necessities, the simplest example is salt, we don’t produce

salt in the village, so we have to buy it from somewhere else”94. However, Sunarka agrees

that the dependency on the market has to be limited not only to cut farming expenses, but

also to keep having the freedom. As an example, he explained the situation when he had to

deal with market instability “when I was still buying fertiliser from the market, whenever

there was a shortage, the price rose and it is always scarce, so hard to get, I almost could

not farm… but now I produce almost everything that I need to farm, so I don’t have to be

bothered again by the market situation, at least for inputs”. That is why he is always trying

to make his farm enterprise (and also his household) self-sufficient and sustainable.

Sunarka is trying to mix the modern farming tools with the traditional farming methods that

he learned from his father. He rented a tractor from the subak so that he can efficiently

(money and time wise) prepare his land before planting period. Mixing both farming styles

does not mean that he uses chemicals, but he believes that some conventional technologies

(e.g. machineries and seeds) are still required to keep the balance. He is still using hybrid

seeds for rice because if he uses the original Bali paddy variety, it takes too long to grow and

he will not be able to fulfil market demands. Since different market channels require

different varieties of rice, it will be impossible to only produce one variety annually.

He produces his own manure from his cattle (cows and pigs), and similar with Hartono, he

also has his own methods of pest management which is mostly based on his beliefs on the

palemahan concept of THK. He believes that human should not interfere too much in

shaping nature, so that it will not disturb the balance. He told me that his goal now is to

restore the farm’s ecosystem to how it used to be, so that the nature will have its own

balance and there will be no pests anymore. “Most pests are those in the lower part of the

food chain, so if they are proliferating, it means there are not enough predators.” With this

way of thinking, he started to shape his farm ecosystem to be more balanced by building

nests for snakes and even wild cats. “I believe if I can create the balance of their population,

then everything will be natural, because animals are different from humans. They won’t

stock up food or make profits. They only take what they need to survive, and usually it’s just

less than 10-15% of what my farm can produce, so it’s nothing.” This attitude is also

important for those who are willing to practice organic farming, that farmers need to realise

that it is difficult to get 100% of their products. Sunarka sees this as part of the balance,

sharing the food with other beings because we also need them in order to be sustainable

(and seen as good deeds in their beliefs).

He produced two kinds of manure for his field: dry manure and wet manure. The wet

manure is produced by processing the cows’ waste, which is turned into compost by mixing

them with other organic wastes and processed by using worms. The dry manure is produced

94

Sunarka, interview on 1 December 2013 in Gianyar, Bali

79

from the pigs’ waste. It is one of the by-products from the biogas process. The waste from

the pigs goes into a biogas processing unit, where it gets fermented and the gas produced

by the process is used for the household’s needs. The biogas processing technologies that

he got from a government program, produced more than just biogas and dry manure, based

on his experiments, he was able to also utilise the biogas processing unit to create a pest

trap. By simply putting infected/rotten fruits in the fermentation well, it attracts flies which

are then knocked unconscious by the gas and fell into the water.

Through this mechanism, Sunarka is able to get multiple advantages from his pig-farm: the

main product are the pigs, that he sells to a butchery; the second one is a sustainable source

of dry manure; the third one is a sustainable source of renewable energy (biogas); and the

last one, is a sustainable pest management tool (the trap for fruit flies) which is although

minimal but according to him its quite effective in controlling the fruit flies population and

negating the damage done. By installing the biogas processing unit, breeding his own pigs,

and producing the fodder from his farm (rice/grain waste); this activity became sustainable

and has low production costs.

The other strategy of Sunarka in order to maximize the profit is by using his network in

gaining technologies, market access, and even aid from government and non-government

institutions. Sunarka is quite famous in the organic farming community in Bali, due to his

success stories and innovative behaviour. Combined with his occupation as government

official, this provides him with access to programs from NGOs and government, because he

is known as a credible farmer. Some programs provided him access to penetrate premium

market channels (e.g. hotels, supermarkets) which then required him to plant certain types

Pest Trap (for fruit flies)

Dry manure

Market

Figure 14: Sunarka's cattle waste management

80

of products. This means that he is also taking the market demands into account before he

decides what type of rice or vegetables to plant.

Sunarka and Hartono showed a different process practicing their alternative style of

farming. In Hartono’s case, it was started as a reaction to the failure of the regime in guiding

and fulfilling the desires of farmers; and then it was simultaneously re-emerging within the

peasant style of farming as a way to further explores sustainable methods through field

experiments and observations. On the other hand, aside of doing experiments, Sunarka is

actively looking for new ideas from external sources; and continuously making new

networks which are supporting him.

Sunarka does not close himself off from external sources of technologies and knowledge, he

is very open, even actively looks for government and NGOs programs. However, he is not

always in line with those programs either, he uses his capacity to filter any external

technologies and knowledge and only take those which suit his ideas. Negotiations before

he agreed to cooperate with any programs are common, and some can even lead to

disputes. For example, when I came to VECO (an NGO based in Belgium which has a branch

in Bali) which one of the duties is to assist farmers in organic certification; Imam who was a

vice director of VECO at that time told me that in VECO’s eyes, Sunarka is a failure to their

project due to his reluctancy in agreeing the certification terms at that time (2010/11).

However, in Sunarka’s view at that time, he thought that certification is another way for the

government to make money, and the process and terms are hard to achieve, so he thought

that it will not bring him any advantages. However, now he realises that, no matter what,

the certification process is necessary in order to penetrate some markets, thus, now some

of his products are certified.

The beauty and safety of the farms are very important both for Sunarka and Hartono, and

this can be gained by not using any chemicals. They are still trying to make their farm more

beautiful by arranging pest repelling plants and maintaining the biodiversity of the farm

ecosystem. They stressed that the feeling of ‘safe’ whenever they enter the farm without

have to smell the foul scent of chemicals or being afraid of getting poisoned through any

skin contact with the soil, is very important so that they can have the motivation in working

and showing their love to their farm.

5.2. Conclusions

The manifestation of farming strategies in dealing with the problems, although limited, are

found in the conventional farming style in Gianyar. The Broadening strategy (developing

activities that improve the farm’s flow of income while constantly adapting to the changes

of demands of goods and services) can be seen in the way Wayan rented his farm so that it

has multiple functions and he is able to generate side income from activities other than

farming; in Putu’s case, the broadening strategy involves his wits in reading and adapting to

market demands for certain products through a network that he has from his past working

experience. This activity also involves a deepening strategy (increasing value added of farm

81

products while responding to new societal demands by taking up non-farm activities) where

Putu does some value added activity such as grading, cleaning, and (sometimes) packaging

depending on the market demands. Broadening can also be seen in the case where the farm

has multiple functions as both active and passive income generator, both by renting it to a

villa owner or turning it into an agro-tourism spot in Ubud area; where the farmers

cooperate with tourist agencies and made their farm as one of the destination for touristic

adventure packages.

In the cases of the alternative farmers, all the three strategies of broadening, deepening,

and regrounding are present. The Broadening strategy can be seen in the way both farmers

are producing organic products that target certain market channel which provides premium

prices. Broadening can also be noticed in the way Hartono turned his farm into an agro-

tourism spot and also on-farm educational centre. This activity might be based on his will to

disseminate the positives of organic farming, but in the practice, this activity also acts as the

way of Hartono in advertising his farm so he that he got more consumers. A Deepening

strategy is for sure present in the alternative way of farming in the form of value added

creation and extra services (e.g. delivery service, selling products directly to consumers).

Regrounding strategy (developing farm resource patterns mostly by valuing local resources

in order to increase farm autonomy and reduce expenditures) manifests itself in their

sustainable practices, where the production and reproduction of agricultural inputs is being

done by using locally available resources.

Aside from farming strategies, both conventional and alternative farmers are attached to

different networks of institutions. However, in this case, these attachments are not being

put in a top-down way, instead, the farmers chose who to cooperate with, who to trust,

based on their own perceptions and experiences. The conventional farmers mostly chose to

be close with the government that is still supporting farming intensification. It is not that

they didn’t have any choice, but as described in the fourth chapter of this thesis, they have

their own way to perceive and process any external information that came to their farm.

The example would be when the Balinese government and NGOs are mostly focused in

promoting organic agriculture practices, conventional farmers chose to continue farming

conventionally. While for the alternative farmers in this case, there are Hartono who chose

to work on his own and closing himself from any externalities (except markets to sell his

products to); and Sunarka who is actively engaged in government and NGO programs.

However, Sunarka also uses his own insight in filtering the coming ideas.

The alternative farmers might seem to gain their knowledge from their own experiments

and personal experience. But, mostly, they are triggered and supported by the market

(especially created by tourism) and the hovering discourse of organic lifestyle, which in the

end got related and enhanced by the increasingly propagated concept of THK. Alternative

farmers value the environment more than entrepreneurs. This realisation came both from

inside their mind (e.g. personal experience and field observations) and was also affected by

82

external sources of information (e.g. the propagation of THK, or even the floating discourse

of healthy lifestyle of tourists – market demands).

While the conventional farmers are mostly receivers who are highly dependent on external

sources for technologies and knowledge, the alternative farmers are actively doing

experiments and finding their own methods of farming which suit them best. In the

alternative farmers’ cases, the source of knowledge is also different: Hartono is a self-taught

farmer who consciously chose to not get involved in any courses given by ‘experts’.

However, he doesn’t relate his ideas to any beliefs, “it is just as simple as respecting and

working with the nature”; and Sunarka is combining the knowledge of his ancestors, his

beliefs, and those which came from ‘experts’ (e.g. biogas processing method and

infrastructure which he got from HIVOS and the government).

Alternative farmers in this case are, however, limited to those who have big capital. For

example, Hartono did not start farming empty handed, but with enough capital to start

organic farming until he managed to gain profit and expand his business step by step. As for

Sunarka, he already had big capital (most of his land was gained as inheritance) before

shifting to organic farming. Furthermore, Sunarka shifted to organic farming by

experimenting in small plots of land before applying it one step at a time until it reached his

whole land. Thus, in this case, the capital aspect is very important for farmers so that they

can move more freely without being hindered by capital which most of the times got

intermingled with daily family needs.

In addition, tourism plays an important role in providing market opportunities (esp. for

alternative farmers), and also indirectly supporting alternative farmers through the

discourse of healthy living and ‘back to nature’. The structure, historical events and culture

in Balinese agriculture have not only shaped the room for manoeuvre for farmers, but are

also influencing the farmers in shaping their way of exercising their agency in reacting to

their settings. In this case, farmers who have different farming styles exercised their agency

in reacting to their structures in a different way, creating their own room for manoeuvre. It

is clear that farmers who are engaged in both farming styles had the chance to choose a

different path. However, their perspectives, which are based not only on past experiences

but also on a personal point of view toward those experiences, gave them this fundamental

way of thinking. This way of thinking became the base of their vision towards their past,

present, and future, and in the end, made them to choose a certain way of farming, which is

supported by different sets of structures.

83

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

Conclusions

The manifestations of agricultural modernization in the Balinese context are Janus-faced,

and are characterized by the existence of different (and often contradictory) perspectives

towards it. The top-down style of agricultural development had been weakened by the time

that the New Order regime fell in the late 1990s. Since the fall of Soeharto and subsequent

political-administrative reforms, many initiatives are proliferating. It means that freedom

has indeed (to some extent) become enhanced. Currently, in Bali the government is actively

promoting organic farming alongside conventional farming methods. Even though the

proposed way of farming might be different from the earlier Green Revolution packages, the

method of dissemination is more or less the same as before: farmers are expected to follow

the proposed prescriptions. However, this provides farmers with more options than before,

and they can actually decide on their own which proposed prescriptions they are willing to

follow.

One of the main factors that play an important role in determining the heterogeneity of

farming styles is, then, the different sets of structures which are propagating, offering and

supporting different styles of farming. In this study I have shown that farmers got caught

between the presence and interaction between of the ‘old’ structure, which supports the

conventional style of farming, and the ‘new’ structure, which support the alternative

(organic) style of farming. Both structures support both farming styles, thus giving farmers

more options to base their farming practices on. However, the risks in shifting to organic

farming are still too many and too big to handle for the small farmers with their limited

capital. This can be seen in the Sunarka and Hartono cases. Both started their organic

farming with enough capital so that they could survive through the difficult times of the

early shifting period. Moreover, they are both supported by advantages that most of the

farmers in Gianyar do not possess. Even though there are programmes from the

government that provide assistance for farmers in shifting to organic farming, these are

susceptible to corruption at many levels, from the level of policy implementation and

administration, to the level of farmer itself. Thus, it is not uncommon to see failed (for

example, Simantri) programs where failure was caused by the fact that forms of support did

not reach the beneficiaries.95 That is why most of the small farmers are sceptical about this

program; it would be too much risk to gamble.

The market mechanism in Balinese agriculture provides tempting opportunities for organic

products due to the presence of tourism. However, these niche markets are not easy to

penetrate. Some require proper certification which is not easy for farmers who don’t have

enough scale to cover the costs. There are markets for organic product which don’t require

95

For example: farmers often told me that there were supposed to be free cattle to support organic practices in Simantri villages, but the cattle are not present in some of the villages

84

certification, however, the markets are too small and have already been dominated by

powerful suppliers. For non-organic product, markets are widely available, especially

enhanced by the presence of tourism combined with the culture of Balinese Hinduism which

provides constant needs of agriculture products for ceremonial purpose.

Aside from market mechanisms that undoubtedly have an influence on shaping the room

for manoeuvre, both state (e.g. dinas and BPTP) and non-state institutions (e.g. subak and

NGOs) play an important role. Additionally, there is the presence of tourism, which is of

great importance for Balinese society and its structural characteristics, since it is the most

economically contributing sector to the island. Tourism provides new economic

opportunities and contributes to Balinese agriculture, not only in form of a market but also

technology. The negative side of tourism, especially those related to environmental issues,

created the need for improvement; that is, a more sustainable and environmentally friendly

way of living. Thus, it encourages the government to ‘sell’ Bali Organic as one of the ways to

enhance the tourism sector in an environmentally sustainable way; which is in the end, also

contributes to the promotion of organic farming at the farmers level. Thus, I would like to

highlight the remark of van der Ploeg & Hebinck (1997 pp. 219) who argue that

“Heterogeneity is grounded in the construction and reproduction of a highly differentiated

set of micro-macro linkages amongst other things”. This statement resonates in the cases

that I encountered during my fieldwork: different farmers who practice different styles of

farming are embedded both in different set of structures, and/or also in the same/similar

structures where farmers made different choices.

Agricultural modernization is contested at the level of policy makers, project implementers

and farmers, due to the different perspectives towards the question which path is the best

for developing agriculture. Policy makers who are in favour of agricultural modernization

tend to bring up the macro level considerations of agriculture such as feeding the

population and monetary based farmers’ livelihood improvement which are all based on

increasing farm productivity through farming intensification and modern agricultural

practices. The conventional farmers came up with their distrust toward the organic methods

and the institutions who are trying to promote it; and also the difficulties in shifting towards

it. On the other hand, those who are not in favour of agricultural modernization talk about

socio-environmental issues, sustainable practices and farmers’ autonomy. In this thesis, it

can be seen that both conventional and alternative farmers use understandable ways of

reasoning in choosing their own farming styles. Each farmer has different life experiences

and capabilities to process and perceive their past, present, and future. All these combined

create a fundament in their way of thinking that made them stick to or change into what

they believe to be their ‘ideal’ way of farming.

In the context of Balinese agriculture, institutions, market, technologies, tourism, and

cultures pose both hindrances and opportunities for the emergence of different farming

styles (Figure 15). Farmers actually have a variety of options for choosing to either practice

85

conventional farming or for going organic, since both of the proposed prescriptions are

supported and also restricted by the structural elements. However, in this case, we can see

that farmers are using their agency in creating their own room for manoeuvre by choosing

which structures they want to be attached to. This agency is not only influenced by the ideas

that came from outside (e.g. institutions and market), but also their life experience, field

observations and even their beliefs. From my observation I can argue that farmers have

different goals of and values toward their farms, thus, it also influence the ways they

interact with their nature. Conventional farmers mostly see farming only as a profit

generating activities and their passion lies in fulfilling their materialistic needs and

expanding their business. That is not to say that the conventional farmers have no spiritual

needs, but rather that they do not relate these to their farming activities. Conversely,

alternative farmers have true passions in the farming itself, in valuing their nature. They do

not only see farming as a job, but also as the way they are working together with their

nature. They are taking factors such as autonomy, environmental sustainability, health, and

even the farm’s aesthetics into account. This, however, is also a way to fulfil their desires of

loving their activities, their nature, and their freedom.

There are opportunities and hindrances that are posed by the structures; farmers with

different logics chose to be attached to different structures, preferring the one which

supports their way of farming. Farmers’ agency is also shaped by their structures and

experience. Balinese agricultural practices have become shaped by earlier imposition of

these structures. Processes of deactivation due to declining interest in farming and rapid

agricultural to non-agricultural land transformation, the declining water level, volatile

agriculture inputs supplies and prices, and the constantly increasing living costs have

created the ‘squeeze’ that is continuously hampering the farmers. However, both

conventional and alternative farmers are trying to survive and are constantly adapting

through their own strategies in facing the ‘squeeze’. Although farmers came up with their

Figure 15: macro-micro linkages of Gianyar’s agriculture

The state and institutions

Culture

Tourism

Market

Contestation

among farmers

Different

farming style

86

own strategies, these strategies are mostly influenced, inspired, supported and/or guided by

the structure that the farmers chose to (consciously or not) be attached to.

Discussion

Methodologically, I learned a lot of invaluable lessons from the beginning till the end of the

process of writing this thesis. To live and observe the dynamics ideas, covering not only

monetary desires but also those that include personal experience, observations and spiritual

matters, which are manifested through different styles of farming, was a great opportunity

for me to understand the ever important context. The first time I set my feet on the island

of paradise, I got charmed in no time, got carried away by its amazing constellation of daily

life and philosophy of the people, especially the farmers. This gave me some hindrance in

my objective to observe phenomena from a neutral perspective, and made me take things

for granted. However, as the process went on, I was pulled back to the position of a

researcher so that I can observe developments in Balinese agriculture through a broader

and clearer lens. The farmers taught me many lessons which had been learned the hard way

by them; the guidance of my supervisor took me to a different level of observing and

analysing phenomena; and finally, the articles which I used for my thesis taught me that

farmers are knowledgeable actors, and that there are approaches to development which

might work better than the usual top-down way that has become so deeply embedded in

Indonesian and Balinese agricultural policies.

The mainstream ideas that are hovering among the development actors are still that the

farmers are always seen as passive, unknowledgeable actors who always need to be helped

by the experts in order to improve their welfare. Exogenous development has always been

the focus in most experts’ projects brought by agricultural modernization processes. The

problem with exogenous development is that it has an end, a goal, it is limited by time and

external agendas, not to mention the well-known corruption as part of our culture and

socio-political system. The example would be the government effort to promote organic

farming for rice in subak Wengaya Betan which, although considered successful at the

production level but less so in marketing its produce96 (MacRae 2011), in the end met its

failure. One by one the key members of the project were resigning, causing further trusts

issues. Furthermore, farmers that I interviewed during the fieldwork have pointed out the

failures of experts’ projects in developing Balinese agriculture due to its inability to optimise

the ever complex constellation. It doesn’t mean that it has to be stopped, but exogenous

development policies and programs need to be improved and adjusted to local processes

and structures.

Thus, the last remark that I would like to make in this thesis concerns future research

opportunities. In the end, it is not only about going organic or conventional, but about

whether the development process is being carried exogenously or endogenously, and

whether the development actors have the synergy and sincere will to help the small

96

See MacRae 2011, Rice Farming in Bali: Organic Production and Marketing Challenges for further details.

87

farmers. From what I have seen during my fieldwork in Gianyar, modernizing agriculture is

not about promoting conventional agriculture anymore, but rather about promoting

sustainable farming practice. The government and NGOs in Bali are actively promoting

organic practices, even by strategically utilising (invented) Balinese beliefs in their

agricultural policies (e.g. the propagation of THK, and its ‘obligatory’ presence in the subak

agenda); and some farmers are actually reluctant and even sceptical toward it. This

heterogeneity is often only paid scant attention to, while it might be important for

researchers to identify the potentials of endogenous development process that might

contribute to formulating policies for future agriculture development.

88

References

Booth, Anne. 1989. ―Indonesian Agricultural Development in Comparative Perspective.‖

World Development 17(8):1235–54.

Giddens, Anthony. 1976. New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of

Interpretative Sociologies. London: Hutchinson.

Hebinck, PGM, and JD Van der Ploeg. 1997. ―Dynamics of Agricultural Production. An

Analysis of Micro-Macro Linkages". in: Haan, de H and N. Long (eds.), Images and

realities of rural life. Wageningen perspectives on rural transformations, Assen, Royal

van Gorcum, 1997, pp. 202-226.

Leaf, Murray J. 1998. Pragmatism and Development: The Prospect for Pluralist

Transformation in the Third World. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Long, Norman. 2001. Development Sociology: Actor Perspectives. London and New York:

Routledge.

Lorenzen, Rachel P., and Stephan Lorenzen. 2010. ―Changing Realities—Perspectives on

Balinese Rice Cultivation.‖ Human Ecology 39(1):29–42.

Lorenzen, Stephan, and Rachel P. Lorenzen. 2008. ―Institutionalizing the Informal: Irrigation

and Government Intervention in Bali.‖ Development 51(1):77–82.

MacRae, Graeme. 2011. ―Rice Farming in Bali.‖ Critical Asian Studies 43(1):69–92.

MacRae, Graeme, and I. W. a. Arthawiguna. 2011. ―Sustainable Agricultural Development in

Bali: Is the Subak an Obstacle, an Agent or Subject?‖ Human Ecology 39(1):11–20.

Mundlak, Yair, Donald Larson, and Rita Butzer. 2004. ―Agricultural Dynamics in Thailand,

Indonesia and the Philippines.‖ Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource

Economics 48(1):95–126.

Nordholt, HS. 2011. ―Indonesia in the 1950s: Nation, Modernity, and the Post-Colonial

State.‖ Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde 167(4):386–404.

Pedersen, L. 2007. ―Responding to Decentralisation in the Aftermath of the Bali Bombing.‖

The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology.

Perkins, John H. 1982. ―The Rockefeller Foundation and the Green Revolution, 1941-1956.‖

7:6–18.

PHDP. 1988. Himpunan Keputusan Seminar Kesatuan Tafsir Terhadap Aspek-Aspek Agama

Hindu, I-XIV. edited by Parisada Hindu Dharma Pusat and Seminar Kesatuan Tafsir

Terhadap Aspek-Aspek Agama Hindu. [Denpasar, Indonesia]: Parisada Hindu Dharma

Indonesia Pusat.

89

Ploeg, JD Van der. 2003. The Virtual Farmer: Past, Present and Future of the Dutch

Peasantry. Assen, The Netherlands: Royal Van Gorcum.

Ploeg, JD Van der. 2012. ―The Genesis and Further Unfolding of Farming Styles Research.‖

Pp. 427–439.

Ploeg, JD van der, and A. Long (eds.). 1994. Born from within: Practice and Perspectives of

Endogenous Rural Development. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.

Ploeg, JD Van der, and Dirk Roep. 2003. ―Multifunctionality and Rural Development: The

Actual Situation in Europe.‖ In G. van Huylenbroeck & G. Durand, Multifunctional

Agriculture; A new paradigm for European Agriculture and Rural Development (pp. 37-

53. Hampshire, England: Ashgate.

Reuter, Thomas. 2009. ―Globalisation and Local Identities: The Rise of New Ethnic and

Religious Movements in Post-Suharto Indonesia.‖ Asian Journal of Social Science

37(6):857–71.

Robinson, Geoffrey. 1995. The Dark Side of Paradise: Political Violence in Bali. Cornell

University Press.

Roth, Dik. 2014. ―Environmental Sustainability and Legal Plurality in Irrigation: The

Balinese Subak.‖ Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 11:1–9.

Seabright, Paul. 1993. ―Managing Local Commons: Theoretical Issues in Incentive Design.‖

Journal of Economic Perspectives 7:113–34.

Thomas, Marcelle, and David Orden. 2004. ―Mtid Discussion Paper No . 78 Agricultural

Policies in Indonesia : Producer Support Estimates 1985-2003 Mtid Discussion Paper

No . 78 Agricultural Policies in Indonesia : Producer Support Estimates 1985-2003.‖

(78).

Vickers, Adrian. 2011. ―Bali Rebuilds Its Tourist Industry.‖ 167(4):459–81.

Wall, Geoffrey. 1996. ―Perspectives on Tourism in Selected Balinese Villages.‖ Annals of

Tourism Research 23(1):123–37.

Welker, Marina. 2012. ―The Green Revolution’s Ghost: Unruly Subjects of Participatory

Development in Rural Indonesia.‖ American Ethnologist 39(2):389–406.