Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Farmer opinions on agricultural technologies in Lampung Province, Sumatra, Indonesia

Edi Basuno

Centre for Socio-Economic Analysis and Agricultural Studies, Bogor, Indonesia. edi_basuno@yahoo.com

Abstract

The objective of the paper is to describe farmer opinion on the role of the Agricultural Institute for Assessment Technology (AIAT) as a working unit responsible for location specific agricultural engineering technology in Lampung province. Data were derived from a study conducted among 43 cooperating farmers and 77 other farmers in the same area. Farmers’ views on technology originating from AIAT varied widely. There was discontented with AIAT’s achievement both in developing and in communicating appropriate technologies. It was revealed that ‘advanced farmers’ and extension workers performed very significant roles in communicating the new technology to communities. About 66 percent of respondents were classed as very active in seeking the new technologies, and farmer meetings were the most important medium. Published and electronic media were less popular. Some cooperating farmers stated that the suitability of AIAT’s technologies varied considerably. Some AIAT’s technologies had been encouraged successfully by farmer groups through group leaders, while the roles of extension workers and AIAT staff in spreading the idea of adopting technologies was relatively small. Most respondents could not mention specific constraints in adopting introduced technologies. However, where constraints in adoption were encountered, farmer group leaders, extension workers and pesticides distributors, would be approached by farmers for solutions.

Three Key Learnings: (1) relatively low opinion among respondents on suitability of AIAT’s technologies, (2) there is a need to enhance AIAT’s capacity in promoting its role to all stakeholders, and (3) a long-term participatory approach is crucial for AIAT in conducting its activities to fulfill farmer’s need for appropriate technologies.

Key words

Baseline study, Farmer’s perceptions, Agricultural Technologies, Lampung AIAT.

Introduction

Indonesian Agricultural Department motivated the application of agricultural technologies to realize modern, enhanced and efficient agriculture visions (AARD, 1999). Agricultural Agency for Research and Development as institute responsible in implementing agricultural research in Indonesia, in 1994 decided to establish Assessment Institute for Agricultural Technology (AIAT) as technical implementing unit of AARD (Adnyana, et. all. 1999). In further development, in order to response decentralization need, all AIATs became Province AIAT. The main tasks of AIAT is to develop guidance and to recommend appropriate technologies that locally specific that also in accordance with local natural resources to increase productivity and farmers income. Relative low rate adoption of AIAT technologies turned out to be the main AIAT motivation to always improve its technologies. Therefore, AIAT has to overcome the fact of low rate farmers adoption by developing new technologies that suitable with technologies not only needed by farmers and but also suitable with natural resources, human resource, local infrastructures and farmers conditions (FAO, 1993). All of these must be done in order to empower farmers toward innovative, prosperous and non-discriminatory farmer communities (FAO, 1998).

Lack of technological impacts and benefits can be caused by (i) lack of appropriateness of technologies toward farmers needs and conditions, (ii) limited financial resource that cause low farmers access toward production inputs, (iii) farmers reluctant to apply introduced technologies with certain considerations, even though they understand the prospect of that particular technology (Technical Team, 2000).

Lampung AIAT had to produce appropriate technologies - as the main target. Contribution rate of Lampung AIAT partly can be seen from respond and perception of end users toward introduced technologies. As technologies become more profitable, farmers’ respond and perception toward Lampung AIAT also better. It was hoped that produced technological packages in the mid and long terms will facilitate improvement of farmers prosperity through improvement in their farming systems. In general, farmers who also cooperator of AIAT will know the existence of Lampung AIAT. In the future, AIAT not only known by cooperators but also non-cooperators who reside in the same location.

Method

To select respondents, stratified random sampling was carried out based on district and main commodity as suggested by AIAT. Four districts in Lampung Province was selected, i.e. north, central, south and east Lampung with respective main commodities of pepper, rice, corn and cassava. Respondents were consist of assessment cooperators or ex cooperators and ordinary farmers in the same area. Total number of respondents was 120, or 30 respondents in each location. From the total, 36 percent cooperators and the rest non-cooperators. Descriptive analysis and cross tabulation were conducted to obtain comprehensive information about the study.

Results and discussion

1. Farmers respond toward introduced AIAT technologies

Farmers respond toward introduced AIAT technologies varied from very satisfied (12%), satisfied (47%) to less satisfied (40%). The high figure of dissatisfaction can be caused by the lack of AIAT intensity in approaching farmers before trial of any technology. In addition it also indicated the need of AIAT to improve its performance as technologies source, so that introduced technologies more suitable to farmers needs.

From all location surveyed, farmers in North Lampung mentioned more very satisfied compared to other locations, as indicated by 27 percent respondent. Farmers in South Lampung performed slightly different, from total respondents, 52 percent satisfied, 37 percent less satisfied and only 7 percent indicated very satisfied. North Lampung is dominant for pepper, while South Lampung is dry land for corn assessment (Table 1).

Table 1. Respondents satisfaction toward applied technologies in Lampung

Degree of satisfaction (%)

Lampung District

Average Lampung

South (n=27)

Central (n=36)

North (n=30)

East

(n=27)

Very satisfied

7.41

5.56

26.67

7.41

11.67

Satisfied

51.85

50.00

40.00

44.44

46.67

Less satisfied

37.04

44.44

33.33

44.44

40.00

Do not know

3.70

-

-

3.70

1.67

2. Information on agricultural technologies

Steverin and Tankard (1979) described farmers as messages receiver and technologies sources as messages provider (communicator). Communication is a process whereas communicator deliver their messages to alter someone behavior. Introduced technology is an example of message from communicator to target groups. Although human being use 70 percent of their time to communicate, however because not always made effectively, therefore, not all of their messages can be well received by the target group (Berlo,1981). In term of who deliver information on technologies, Lampung study indicated the significant role of a farmer contact (47,5%), followed by 24 percent extension agents and 11 percent of AIAT staff. The low percentage role of AIAT staff need a serious attention if Lampung AIAT targeted as center of excellence for source of technologies in the province. In East Lampung, farmer group chairman, was the most important source of information for farmers. In Central Lampung however, the role of farmers contact relatively low (31 %), while the role of extension staff was mentioned by 38 percent respondents (Table 2). The strong farmer contact can only be originated from strong farmer group, therefore, establishment of strong farmer group through participative spirit is an important strategy, in order to optimize group function. Establishment of strong and efficient farmer groups still a major constraint in Lampung as well as in other provinces in the country. In the past farmer groups were formed by the government to implement its various programs (top-down).

Table 2. Source of information on technologies in Lampung

Source of Information (%)

Lampung District

Average

Lampung

South (n=27)

Central (n=36)

North (n=30)

East

(n=27)

Extension agents

22.22

38.89

20.00

11.11

24.17

AIAT Staff

14.81

8.33

13.33

7.41

10.83

Farmer contact

48.15

30.56

46.67

70.37

47.50

Other

7.41

22.22

20.00

-

13.33

Do not know

7.41

-

-

11.11

4.17

Majority farmers had been actively searching information on technologies. For farmers who searching information, group meeting was the most effective place for the purpose. Printed material and electronic media (radio), in contrast were unpopular. The later information could be used as basis for AIAT to prepare a better extension materials, as well as a better distribution system.

3. Farmers and technologies suitability

Respondents who knew AIAT technologies mentioned further the suitability of introduced technologies. Out total respondents, 49 percent mentioned that this particular technology regarded as useful. However, the level of suitability varied from very suitable (100 % suitable), as indicated by 12,5 percent respondents, while 75 to 100 percent suitability mentioned by only 2,5 percent. Table 3 showed in detail respondents opinion on the suitability of AIAT technologies. The low respond to this question indicated limited respondents knowledge on AIAT technologies. Majority respondents (59 %) did not familiar with issue of technology suitability. Central and North Lampung were the two districts with more respondents mentioned suitability, for both 100 percent or 50 to 75 percent suitability.

Table 3. AIAT technologies and its suitability to respondents needs.

Technology suitability (%)

Lampung District

Average

Lampung

South (n=27)

Central (n=36)

North (n=30)

East

(n=27)

100

11.11

13.89

16.67

7.41

12.50

75 - < 99

-

-

10.00

-

2.50

50 -< 75

3.70

22.22

20.00

14.81

15.83

10 - < 50

11.11

5.56

10.00

14.81

10.00

Do not know

74.07

58.33

43.33

62.96

59.17

4. Encouragement of technologies application

The role of both farmer groups and farmers self initiatives as motivators for AIAT technologies was dominant as indicated by 29,0 and 27,7 percent respectively. However, the roles of both extension agents and AIAT staff in contrast were relatively low, only 10 percent. Interesting to know that the reason of majority respondents who mentioned self initiatives was simply to try or experimenting. In the future, limited role of AIAT became a serious challenge in improving its roles to support application of technologies. Table 4 indicated that in North and East Lampung districts, the role of farmer group chairman relatively more dominant than in the other two districts, however, its variation among the four districts was relatively low.

Table 4. Respondents motivations in implementing introduced technologies.

Motivators (%)

Lampung Districts

Average Lampung

South (n=27)

Central (n=36)

North (n=30)

East

(n=27)

Farmer groups chairman

25.93

22.22

33.33

37.04

29.17

Farmers own initiative

29.63

25.00

26.67

29.63

27.50

AIAT Staff

11.11

11.11

6.67

7.41

9.17

Extension agents

-

-

-

3.70

0.83

Others

7.41

5.56

6.67

-

5.00

Do not know

25.93

36.11

26.67

22.22

26.33

5. Constraints in technologies application

Out of total 120 respondents, 18 percent mentioned constraints they faced. The low respond on this question indicated the problem of expression among respondents. Farmers tended to be quite or little to say when confronting with unfamiliar questions. Therefore, the 18 percent respondents can be seen as innovative respondents, that capable to respond questions. Constrains mostly in the form of technical aspect, financial aspect and on the availability of production inputs. In developing any technology, it must be based on locally available resources and in more participative ways, so that, various constraints at least can be minimized.

Generally farmers tried to overcome constraints by asking to different sources, such as farmer group chairman (20 %), extension agents (19 %), inputs shops (13 %) and AIAT staff (8 %). Here, farmer group and extension agent more dominant in giving advices to farmers. It clearly indicated that as direct effect of “distance” between AIAT and farmers, the role of AIAT staff relatively limited.

Conclusions

  • As respondents also consist of non-cooperators, who contributed to the degree of satisfaction, in general, farmers’ respond toward introduced technologies relatively low. Non-cooperators generally lack of information on introduced technologies, but willing to be cooperators, as they could see the benefit of being AIAT cooperator.
  • Majority farmers actively looking for information on agricultural technologies from various sources. Farmer contact within farmer groups was the most common in technological transfer.
  • Introduced technologies were suitable to farmers needs. The suitability varied from 100 percent to 10 – 50 percent suitable. Almost 60 percent respondents did not know about technologies suitability and can be related to the limitation of respondents’ knowledge on the existence of AIAT.
  • Some constraints in implementing introduced technologies need to be minimized by practicing principles in developing technologies i.e. based local resources and participative. Relative small role of AIAT can be increased by bringing AIAT closer to users.
  • Lack of promotion on the AIAT existence and introduced technologies that not directly respond to the need of farmers, created farmers’ poor understanding on AIAT. In the future, these kind of challenges required certain strategies .

Policy implications

With assumptions that positive impacts from AIAT to communities occur, local government would allocated fund for assessment activities. Beside that, participative approach developed by AIAT need to be continued, in order to respond farmers’ request on appropriate technologies. By doing so, assessment on technological impacts would benefited to all users.

As farmer group was the most common institution for technological transfer, so its establishment and empowerment became crucial. Therefore, attention should be given to strengthen farmer groups which can be established through participative approach. This type of farmer group will motivate farmers to implement introduced technologies.

References

Adnyana, M.O., Erwidodo, L. I. Amin, S. Partohardjono, Suwandi, E. Getarawan, dan Hermanto. 1999. Panduan umum pelaksanaan penelitian, pengkajian dan diseminasi teknologi pertanian. Jakarta: Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian.

Agency for Agricultural Research and Development. 1999. Strategic Plan: Agency for Agricultural Research and Development 1999 - 2004.

Berlo, D.K. 1981. Principles of communication. University of Chicago. Chicago.

F.A.O. 1993. Guidelines for the conduct of training course in the farming Systems development. FAO, Rome.

FAO. 1998. SEAGA Brochure. Socioeconomic and gender analysis programmed.

Steverin, W. J. and J. W. Tankard. 1979. Communication on theories. Hasthing House Publisher. New York.

Tim Asistensi. 2000. Laporan monitoring dan evaluasi pelaksanaan penelitian dan pengkajian TA 1999/2000 dan 2000 di BPTP Lembang. Pusat Penelitian Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian, Badan Litbang Pertanian.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext Page