winarto and stigter 2013.pdf

Science Field Shops to Reduce Climate Vulnerabilities: An Inter-and Trans-Disciplinary Educational CommitmentYunita T. Winarto, Kees Stigter

Collaborative Anthropologies, Volume 6, 2013, pp. 419-441 (Article)

Published by University of Nebraska PressDOI: 10.1353/cla.2013.0003

For additional information about this article

Access provided by The University of Groningen (26 Mar 2014 09:30 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/cla/summary/v006/6.winarto.html

Science Field Shops to Reduce Climate VulnerabilitiesAn Inter- and Trans- Disciplinary Educational Commitment

yunita t. winarto, Universitas Indonesiakees stigter, Agromet Vision,

Netherlands and Indonesia

One day in May 2010 a serious rainstorm occurred at a time when we used to have a dry planting season. The farmers asked, Will the rains go on like this in the coming months, or will we have a normal dry sea-son? By referring to climate predictions from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Stigter replied that it appeared most likely the rains would cease but that predictions were still inherently imprecise for this part of the year. The rains then continued through-out the whole dry season, very unusual weather conditions re ecting the uncertain predictions. This uncertainty was a result of increasing climate variability due to climate change. Farmers were not the only people astonished by the unusual weather conditions. Scientists were simply wrong in their predictions for Indonesia, three months in a row (Stigter and Winarto 2011).

As Roncoli and colleagues (2003: 181) argue, the determining fac-tors that shape peoples experience of climate phenomena as well as their understanding of climate information are recollections of the past, observations of the present, and expectations of the future. Based on our experience with farmers in several places in Java, we ar-gue that farmers are facing these challenges not only due to ongoing climate change. Of additional concern is that international predictions are hardly reaching the farmers in any suitable form, while nationally selected predictions are issued without indications of their method-ological soundness or uncertainty. In this situation farmers have great

collaborative anthropologies volume 6 2013 420

dif culties in developing strategies to cope with ever more severe and uncertain climate conditions.

In this article we argue that farmers need, rst, to be collaboratively assisted by scholars and scientists, and second, to have interaction with and training from farmer facilitators or extension intermediaries. Only this way can rice farmers come to understand the implications of new weather and climate situations for local elds and crops and for the dif-fering circumstances of surface irrigation, partial surface irrigation, and no irrigation (rainfed or groundwater- fed elds). Our aim is to describe and analyze these matters in relation to farming; see Issues Evaluated later in this article for a sample listing of the kinds of matters arising.

The Science Field Shops Approach as Collaborative Work

Our earlier experiences showed that in addition to an always valuable inter- disciplinary approach in problem solving in agricultural produc-tion (e.g., Stigter 2010), a transdisciplinary collaboration between farmers on the one hand and scholars and scientists on the other is bene cial for both parties as they reach across the voids between their very different realms and idioms. We have called the arena where farm-ers are stimulated to articulate and discuss their vulnerabilities in real dialogues with scholars a Science Field Shop (e.g., Stigter and Wi-narto 2012c). The farmers also evaluate and discuss their new eld ndings and have further dialogues to enrich their understanding and interpretations. Our aim with this bottom- up form of extension is en-larging farmers knowledge. In such a context, discussions should emerge regarding whether there is room for and what would be the sense of farmer research on the possibilities, choices, and options. Through such research, acceptable solutions might be found as long as these involve a continuing dialogue with scholars and scientists, in part to see what science has to offer in relation to the empirical answers sought or found by farmers (see Winarto et al. 2010a; Winarto et al. 2010b; Stigter and Winarto 2011; Winarto and Stigter 2011; Stigter and Winarto 2012a, 2012b). Scientists may follow this up, where necessary, with supportive research and teaching at their universities, research in-stitutes, or weather and other environmental services institutions (Stig-ter and Winarto 2011). The learning of both farmers and scholars ben-e ts from such a process. In the course of time, farmer facilitators are

Winarto and Stigter: Climate Vulnerabilities 421

selected from among farmers, by themselves, to ensure continuity after the Science Field Shops conclude.

Early Attempts

The government of Indonesia, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Agency for Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysics, introduced training for farmers in what were called Climate Field Schools (cfss). The program adopted the methodology of the Integrated Pest Manage-ment Farmer Field Schools (ipm ffss) introduced in the early 1990s. The ipm ffs program was developed to empower farmers to make de-cisions based on their own observations and agro- ecosystem analyses. It was expected that by being able to make their own decisions, farm-ers would replace their prophylactic use of pesticides to control pests/diseases as recommended with a more sustainable way of growing healthy crops (see Pontius et al. 2002; Winarto 2004). The cfs training was done via a classic teaching approach, including some observations in an experimental eld, with emphasis placed on handling pests and diseases, droughts and oods, together with formal teaching on clima-tological issues such as clouds, rainfall, sun, and wind (Anantasari et al. 2011). The trained facilitators the pest/disease observers and the extension workers of the Ministry of Agriculture often had little un-derstanding of changing climate dynamics and how these affected the seasons or impacted local agriculture.

The cfs activities are organized in one planting season only usually in the late rainy season and the subsequent dry season without any follow- up action and with no continuous facilitation for farmers who have to cope with and prepare for increasing climate vari-ability and other consequences of climate change. From Winartos in-teraction with a group of cfs alumni in Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta, it appeared that none of the agricultural of cials serving as cfs facilita-tors returned to the farmers to assist them in coping with the conse-quences of climate change (Winarto and Stigter 2011). This also oc-curred in the Indramayu region, where cfss were rst introduced in 2003 (Prakarma 2009).

It was in the hamlet of Wareng in Gunungkidul that we rst insti-tuted our egalitarian collaboration on agrometeorological learning with farmers who were here alumni of a cfs held in 2007 (Winarto and


Stigter 2011). As anthropologists trained in the world of ethnography, in Wareng we stuck to the principles of learning from farmers and de-veloping our work together with the farmers ways. Collaboration is indeed an inherent part of ethnography. As Lassiter (2005a: 15) notes: Ethnography is, by de nition, collaborative. While learning about the ways in which farmers see their world and cultivate their lands, it would not be possible for us simply to carry out the conventional meth-od of participant observation. We were in a position to assist farmers with a learning process in this new educational commitment (Stigter 2011). This meant that consciously and intentionally we became agents of change in relation to farmers, changing their knowledge, under-standing, and practices.

Working in Indramayu

It would not of course be possible for an anthropologist to develop farmers agrometeorological learning without collaboration with sci-entists from other disciplines. Thus it was a must to develop an in-terdisciplinary collaboration with an agrometeorologist, in which the anthropologist functioned as a cultural translator between two do-mains of knowledge: local knowledge of farming, including its agro-meteorological components (e.g., Stigter 2010), and operational sci-enti c knowledge of agrometeorology (Winarto and Stigter 2011). However, by making farmers local observers in their own elds, and assisting them with interpretations and evaluations of their data us-ing scienti c reasoning, we developed a transdisciplinary collabora-tion with farmers. Collaborative research emerged in which local ex-perts work side by side with outside researchers, with a full dialogic exchange of knowledge (Lassiter 2005b: 84, citing the American An-thropological Associations 2002 El Dorado Task Force).

One component of the larger effort in collaborative research is col-laborative ethnography, which Lassiter (2005b: 84) de nes as the collaboration of researchers and subjects in the production of ethno-graphic texts, both eldwork and writing. In this article we examine the extent to which the dialogic exchange of knowledge is in line with or moves away from collaborative ethnography as proposed by Lassit-er (2005a, 2005b, 2008; and see Marcus 2001 and Holmes and Marcus 2005 for discussion of complicit ethnographic work).


Our collaboration is unique in terms of combining collaborative ethnography with extension services in agrometeorological learning. Following Lassiter (2005a: 15), we place collaboration at center stage by deliberately and explicitly emphasizing it at every point in the eth-nography process. But we do not jeopardize the objectives of the Sci-ence Field Shops as an educational commitment. An ongoing inter- subjectivity has permeated our collaboration (Marcus 2001; Holmes and Marcus 2005; Winarto and Stigter 2011; Winarto et al. 2011a). But writing up the ethnographic product as a collaborative one has not been the main goal (see Lassiter 2005a, 2005b). By providing guidance, service, and explanations in the area of agrometeorology, and by aim-ing to enrich farmers knowledge and improve their strategies for cop-ing with climate change, we adopted a community- based collaborative action approach. As argued by Lassiter (2008: 74 75):

Collaboratively based commitments are not the nal step in practic-

ing collaborative research and practice, however. These commitments

have the potential to establish a foundation for community- based

collaborative action as well, where ethnographers and consultants

choose to work together, to make a difference in their local commu-

nities via the coproduction of ethnography.

In this regard, agreeing with the farmers to make a difference in their knowledge, understanding, preparedness, and practices and deci-sions was what mattered most. In a community- based collaborative ac-tion, the coproduction of texts is secondary to other more pressing community- based issues and concerns (Lassiter 2008: 75). Our pri-mary concern was addressing the communities own issues and con-cerns, in this case the vulnerabilities and problems affecting farmers elds and livelihoods due to the consequences of climate change.

The next section of this article describes how we improved farmers knowledge and stimulated changes in farming strategies. We realize, however, that changes in climate will continue, with more uncertain conditions and unusual risks in the future. We therefore try to scale up our collaboration with farmer facilitators, knowledgeable government staff, and other scholars in developing new and widened response farming to cope with climate change (Stigter and Winarto 2012c) among farmers in other Indonesian locations.


Organizing for an Inter- and Trans- Disciplinary Commitment

Organizing a new inter- and transdisciplinary educational commit-ment to reach an operational level of agrometeorological learning with farmers was challenging. If extension workers from the agricultural of- ce had been able to do their job in facilitating with farmers, our collab-oration might not have developed in the way that it did. In Gunungkidul the anthropologists carried out ethnographic eldwork prior to, dur-ing, and after the cfs, observing changes in farmers knowledge and farming practices. Similar to her work in the early 1990s following the effects of knowledge transfer and farmers activities after the ipm ffs in Subang (Winarto 2004), Winarto intended to observe the same process in Gunungkidul, after the cfs. Due to a lack of funds there was no con-tinuation of facilitating work with farmers after this cfs, as was the case with every cfs. Farmers rainfall measurements came to an end without adequate equipment. The main facilitator, a pest and disease observer, asked Winarto personally to assist the farmers where she could.

Some cfs alumni implemented the facilitators advice to improve soil moisture conditions with additional ridges, keeping more rain- water inside their elds, when preparing for a normal or below nor-mal rainy season. However, various questions remained at the time that Stigter was invited to visit the farmers (Stigter 2008a). He answered some of their questions near the end of 2007 (Stigter 2008b), and that was the beginning of the collaboration (Winarto et al. 2010a, 2010b; Winarto and Stigter 2011).

The Present Situation

The Gunungkidul experience motivated us to build a similar collabora-tion in Indramayu in 2009 with the ultimate goal that farmer facilita-tors and extension workers or other intermediaries should take the lead in the future. Why did we focus on developing an educational commit-ment for farmers learning process in agrometeorology? As argued by Chambers (1992), farmers know a lot that scientists do not know, and scientists know a lot that farmers do not know (see also Stigter 2010). Winartos earlier monitoring of the ipm ffs program also revealed this divergence between the two domains of knowledge, in that case as re-lated to pest and disease ecology and biology and ways to control these


problems (Winarto 2004). By adding what the scientists know, the ipm ffs had the objective to make farmers ipm experts in their own elds (for ipm ffs principles see Pontius et al. 2002; Winarto 2004). While farmers are expected to learn to see meteorological components as an integral part of their farming culture, scientists also learn about the farmers ways of knowing their elds, their learning potential, and the constraints and vulnerabilities in their areas. By improving their knowledge and experience, farmers may be able to interpret present climatic eld conditions and understand climatic information for bet-ter preparedness in the future (see also Roncoli et al. 2003).

What is the position of anthropologists in such a learning process? Via disciplinary practice and expertise, anthropologists work closely with farmers. They are expected to understand current farmers cir-cumstances and local farming conditions better than the visiting ag-rometeorologist, whose role does not include substantial time in the eld. Part of the anthropological role is acting as cross- cultural transla-tors and communicators between agrometeorologist and farmers. For example, standardized criteria of measuring rainfall and observing the agro- ecosystem had to be agreed with the farmers, and this demanded a translation from the scienti c domain to the domain of local knowl-edge and understanding. One of the issues that emerged was how to organize and keep track of the observational guidelines among farm-ers who have not had such procedures in their world of farming. Even though some rainfall observers had previously participated in ipm ffs, this effort went a step further: making rainfall measurements on a daily basis in their plots while also observing eld conditions and taking notes of their observations became new learning experienc-es when simple cause and effect relationships of observational errors were discussed. Farmers needed some time to organize themselves to make reliable observations. The existing land tenure system regard-ing who owned elds and who cultivated elds not always the same persons complicated the learning process because the actual deci-sion maker for the eld was not the observer (see Ratri 2010; Rahayu 2010; Nurahayu 2010; Hapsari 2010).

Anthropological Roles

Under the conditions described here, the anthropologists of Universi-tas Indonesia (ui) have performed three functions. First, they became


the main organizers of the Science Field Shops as a new educational commitment.1 As organizers they had to look for nancial support to carry the program and to manage the organization of both the inter- and transdisciplinary work. Second, they had to work closely with farmers on how to manage and assist rainfall observers in various dis-tricts in Indramayu. Third, as ethnographers, the anthropologists un-dertook observations of the entire sequence of events.2 What puzzled them was how to accommodate the rather demanding organizational tasks required without neglecting the main anthropological objectives of understanding and describing the agrometeorological learning pro-cess. Being ethnographers, they were challenged by their own position while trying to engage with the farmers (the Others) in facilitating improvement of their knowledge and production practices. The Self (the ethnographers) had to merge with the Others as one team in im-plementing the collaborative work, and yet at the same time ethnog-raphers had to maintain distance to observe the Self working with the Others (Winarto et al. 2010a, 2011a). Throughout the interaction, the Self and the Others had their particular agendas and motives, and these sometimes con icted. As argued by Lassiter (2008: 76), In actuality, collaborative research struggles within and against a multitude of si-multaneous and often con icting motives. Dealing with these con- icting motives was one of the challenges the anthropologists faced. Thus throughout the entire chain of events, the two parties experienced an ongoing re ection and inter- subjectivity to negotiate and improve both the collaborative work to advance the agrometeorological learn-ing and the ethnographic observations.

Attempts to Organize the Agrometeorological Learning

Lassiter (2005a: 96) argues that each collaboration is unique. Based on experiences in both Gunungkidul and Indramayu at earlier stages, we understood that a distinctive strategy would have to be developed in In-dramayu. First, the number of rainfall stations ( fty) was much larger than the ten in Gunungkidul. Second, the area covered in Indramayu is a whole regency (kabupaten) instead of only one hamlet (dusun), as at Wareng IV in Gunungkidul. Third, our institutional collaborator in Indramayu was an association consisting of eighteen farmers groups, with members spread over diverse districts. Not all the farmers had


participated earlier in the governments cfs. In Gunungkidul we dealt with only one farmer group, the alumni of the cfs held there in 2007. Indramayu in 2009 provided a much more complex situation than Gu-nungkidul due to these three aspects. However, the farmers leaders in Indramayu representing the Indonesian Integrated Pest Management Farmers Alliance (Ikatan Petani Pengendalian Hama Terpadu Indone-sia, ipphti) were creatively responding to our invitation to build up the transdisciplinary collaborative work and were innovatively creat-ing the organizational structure on their own initiative.

Based on the agrometeorologists advice to have fty rainfall sta-tions all over Indramayu, whereas the members of ipphti were only eighteen groups, the farmers had to invite non- ipphti members to join the effort. Not all farmers had experienced a learning process as ipm farmers that gave them a stronger self- identity and enabled them to take decisions for themselves and to create various kinds of farmers experiments (sains petani, farmers science). Therefore the ipphti leader placed the non- ipphti members under the guidance of mem-bers at eighteen stations. Zone coordinators who had to coordinate and monitor the farmers work and data were selected among the expe-rienced ipphti members from each of the three zones (West, Middle, and East zones). The leader would act as the main organizer as well as the hub for receiving and distributing information from and to the farmers. The ui team (anthropologists and agrometeorologist) was the farmers counterpart in the learning process (see Winarto et al. 2010a, 2010b; Dwisatrio 2010; Stigter and Winarto 2012c).

Unfortunately, after only three months, the ipphti leader voiced his unhappiness with the way we facilitated the farmers beginning their activities according to the agreed guidelines as advised by the agrome-teorologist. The same leader also argued against our way of assisting farmers as violating the principle of ipm in empowering farmers. He stated that his strong interest to have the work done was to strength-en his association and farmers groups, with the scienti c exercise of lesser importance. Our position as the cultural translator between the two domains of knowledge was indeed being challenged by such strong statements by the leader with whom we had to sustain our rela-tionship. On the one hand, any alteration in measuring rainfall would not match the agrometeorological analysis requirements. On the oth-er hand, we had positioned ourselves as partners who would try to ac-


commodate the farmers thinking, ideas, and requests, and therefore we now were in a dif cult position. Should we continue the collabora-tion under these conditions?

As rainfall observers, meanwhile, farmers began to enjoy the sci-enti c undertaking, also improving their understanding of rainfall in numbers. They were therefore surprised by the decision of their lead-er and the ui team that the collaborative work had to be terminated (Dwisatrio 2010; also see Ratri 2010; Nurahayu 2010; Rahayu, 2010; Hapsari 2010). We just began to love this activity. Why would the pro-gram suddenly have to stop? questioned one farmer. Yet they had to accept their leaders decision. This was an unhappy moment when the anthropologists could not negotiate any longer with the farmers lead-er. The farmers voice of disappointment, however, became one refer-ence point for deciding on the next steps to take. Should we abandon the entire activity or could we develop a kind of complicit relationship to sustain the collaboration? (See Marcus 2001.)

Based on the new situation, the agrometeorologist kept his prom-ise to visit the farmers once more. Around twenty- eight farmers agreed to come to a meeting organized by the ui team at a later stage, though some zone coordinators were reluctant to join. Not being in line with their leader is against a Javanese norm for decisions involving personal relationships, especially between subordinates and their superiors. Not feeling good about having a different perception or taking a different ac-tion is part of the Javanese cultural norm called rikuh or pekwuh (Mlder 1980; Dwisatrio 2010; also see Winarto et al. 2011a, 2011b). A new agree-ment was reached between some farmers and the ui team to continue their learning process, and an entirely different organizational struc-ture was set up. Following the agrometeorologists advice, the farm-ers agreed to form a club that would have a loose structure and a free membership, though they appointed representatives to lead the club. In-dramayu Rainfall Observers Club was the name they agreed upon to con-tinue their activities with the rainfall stations. With time, their identity as rainfall observers and members of the club grew stronger.

The new agreement was reached in October 2010, after eight months without any formal activities between the farmers and the ui team. De-spite that, several farmers kept up their daily rainfall measurements. This illustrates that once farmers believe in the advantages of any novel idea, they internalize it as part of their own schema and farming strat-egy. By early 2012 the number of members of the club had increased


to fty- two farmers. Each farmer brought other nearby farmers, and sometimes these were younger persons. Thus the location of newly ac-tive rainfall stations was also improved.

Farmers Becoming Trained Rainfall Observers

aspects of the agrometeorological learning

The name Science Field Shops was articulated by Stigter, the agromete-orologist, in an early stage of our collaboration in Indramayu in 2009, based on the experience of facilitating farmers in Africa and Asia, most recently in Gunungkidul. In these meetings with Gunungkidul farm-ers, we set up lively dialogues between farmers and scientists, based on farmers ndings in their daily rainfall measurements and eld obser-vations. We also used ample time to answer their queries on puzzling phenomena, among which many related to the causes, consequences, and impacts of climate change. We learned in such Science Field Shops about farmers needs to understand their changing environment bet-ter and to be better prepared for uncertain conditions due to changes in climate. Science Field Shops refer to eld meetings where farmers and scientists, in the course of time with farmer facilitators or exten-sion intermediaries present, have long and intensive dialogues. These were about their problems of increasing vulnerabilities due to increas-ing temperatures (global warming), increasing climate variability, and the occurrence of more (and possibly more severe) extreme events that make this exchange very necessary (Stigter and Winarto 2012a, 2012b, 2012c; Stigter and Ofori 2013a, 2013b, 2013c).

The cfs approach is very different from Science Field Shops. The cfs program emphasizes teaching and information transfer to farmers to change their behavior (see Stigter and Winarto 2012c), even though the government adopts the adult- discovery- learning method of the ipm ffss (Boer 2009; Direktorat Perlindungan Tanaman Pangan 2010). The Science Field Shops, on the other hand, emphasize communications that aim to improve the knowledge of rural people (Stigter and Win-arto 2012c). This is done via a learning process, among other things in discussions based on farmers measurements and observations in their own plots, not in an experimental plot, as in the cfss. While such an experimental plot lasts only for one planting season, the farmers daily observations could last a lifetime. Although Science Field Shops have


some training elements, such as in the procedures for rainfall mea-surements, they are not a training project. They create an agrometeo-rological learning process by directly discussing the effects of partic-ular rainfall distributions and microclimatic conditions for the elds, crops, and yields and how these relate to impacts and consequences of climate change. Dialogues on livelihood implications of climate change (e.g., Thornton 2012; Thornton and Cramer 2012) are part of the Science Field Shops. In one evaluation meeting an ipm farmer fa-cilitator, a rainfall observer, reminded his fellows to continue observ-ing their elds weekly, as taught in the ipm ffs, due to the increased pest population infesting their elds. The rainfall observers reacted spontaneously that they were now observing their elds daily and no longer on a weekly basis.

Farmers were asked to note rainfall data daily on data sheets pre-pared by the ui team, and they also summarized the results of their agro- ecosystem observations over ten- day periods. Farmers then wrote in their notebooks about the consequences of these observations for water management, ghting pests and diseases, fertilizer applications, improving conditions for crop yields, and other measures to be taken. Over the years this eventually becomes a great source of learning (e.g., Stigter and Winarto 2012b). In monthly evaluation meetings, held in farmers residences in rotation, they reported their last three sets of ten- day measurements and observations and discussed the problems and vulnerabilities suffered in their elds.

Issues EvaluatedExamples of issues discussed in monthly evaluation meetings in Indra-mayu, from the ui teams eld notes, October 2010 July 2012

1. The differences between El Nio and La Nia and their implica-tions for water resources in local rice farming.

2. The relation between farmers local taxonomy of rainfall in quali-tative terms and the new understanding of rainfall in numbers, including the explanation of differences or similarities in rainfall between different stations, with similar or different implications for elds and crops (depending, for example, on position of the eld and rainfall distribution patterns for each eld).

3. Outbreaks of brown plant hopper in particular months, seasons, and rainfall conditions, and how to control the pest judiciously in a more sustainable way.


4. Increased populations of white and yellow rice stem borers, their life cycles, their ights under certain weather conditions, and appropriate control strategy with reference to rainfall, planting schedule, full moon, and Javanese traditional cosmology (pranata mangsa).3

5. High populations of rats, damage to plants, and effective ways of controlling rats.

6. Reviving pranata mangsa in an adaptive way, the related agricultural calendar, and connections to recent rainfall patterns.

7. Use of organic fertilizers and pesticides, their bene ts in compari-son to chemical ones, cost- bene t analyses of organic and conven-tional farming, and learning to use herbal pesticides.

8. Understanding of natural enemies (distinguishing predators and prey) and their role in rice ecosystems.

9. Farmers decisions following the dissemination of seasonal sce-narios designed from simple monthly to three- monthly climate predictions sent by the agrometeorologist and translated into In-donesian by the anthropologist. Discussing cases of farmers deci-sions in dry rainfed rice ecosystems: (a) failed decisions in plant-ing in the normal dry season of 2012; (b) successful strategies in making early nurseries at the end of the rainy season to start the 2012 dry season planting earlier.

10. Evaluation of 2011 and 2012 yield differences between elds rep-resented by the rainfall stations, and between those two years with respect to farmers strategies in growing paddy with wet season planting, with assessment of related pest and disease infestations.

As part of our Science Field Shops approach, we answered in detail questions posed by farmers, as sampled in the preceding list (see also Winarto and Stigter 2011; Winarto et al. 2011a). We believe that several issues should get much more attention from extension of cers and ag-ricultural policy makers than they actually get (Stigter and Ofori 2013a, 2013b, 2013c): water management, including improvement or mainte-nance of the irrigation infrastructure; climate change in the form of ris-ing temperatures and their consequences for rice yields in tropical low-lands; and how increasing climate variability and severity affect yields

When the agrometeorologist visited Indramayu and was present in the meetings, the discussions focused on (1) the meaning of any


similarity or variation of rainfall data between different elds or sta-tions and their relation to the agro- ecosystem data in and near those stations; (2) the issues raised by farmers in their questions sent ear-lier through the anthropologist; (3) yield differences among different elds or stations and years (e.g., between 2012 and 2011 rainy season harvests) and their possibly determining factors in relation to farmers elds and practices; and (4) other emerging issues raised by the farm-ers. However, the ongoing dialogue was such that farmers could also articulate their own analyses or were encouraged to draw their own conclusions. They were not just listening to the scientists interpreta-tions and explanations. They were sharing their experience, problems, and knowledge with one another, whether the agrometeorologist was present or not.

Stigter argues that providing opportunities for farmers to come up with their own answers is an important road of learning. As an example of this, in the evaluation meeting in July 2012 Stigter informed farmers of his ndings, based on farmers own data, that the 2012 rainy season harvests were lower than in the 2011 rainy season and that yield varia-tions among farmers were not negligible. He then asked the farmers how they could explain 2012 yields being lower than the 2011 yields. One farmer responded by assessing the susceptibility of local varieties planted by farmers as one in uential factor. Those varieties were dam-aged by a kind of disease infesting the lower part of panicle stems that affected the grain formation. Farmers also agreed that too much wa-ter could have reduced yields. Two farmers managed the water by al-ternation of lling and drying the eld, and they had relatively higher yields. Farmers also acknowledged a reduction of nitrogen fertilizer as a factor sometimes increasing yields. Where and when necessary, Stigter provided possible additional explanations to improve farmers understanding.

Stigter also explained to the farmers that their observations indicat-ed that in the last rainy season of 2012, pests were many but never very intense. The number of pests was up to ve or six kinds of pests in the same eld over the season. Yet the infestation of each kind of pest was low. Though in the wet eld conditions the infestations were not se-vere, they could reduce yields somewhat; but not in an epidemic way. Spraying such infestations would not improve the yields very much. While for 2011 we had jointly come to the conclusion that most harm


was done by rats, and that they were a serious problem for some farm-ers, for 2012 damage by rats, with few exceptions, was not reducing yields too seriously. We also discussed other reasons possibly causing lower yields in some elds. If farmers can thoroughly understand yield differences, not only between their elds and those of the other farm-ers but also in their own elds between different seasons and years, we have reached one of the most important goals of the learning process.

Appreciation of the Agrometeorological Learning

How did the farmers themselves view the advantages they gained from such learning? The clubs leader provides an indication:

We are grateful to ui in disciplining us to write down our daily rain-

fall measurements and other observations. When Bu Yunita asked

me for the rst time to write down my observations, it was hard to

do that. But, now I realize the advantages of making my own docu-

ments. I have the rainfall data for the last three years. (Jalalen 2012)

Because a writing habit was not part of farmers tradition, writing down their own observations was a new way of learning for the farm-ers. Some farmers made rainfall graphs on their own initiative. Two farmers from different rice ecosystems, an irrigated eld and a dry rainfed rice eld, produced and compared their rainfall graphs. Rain-fall data were not the only content of the diagrams, which also included detail about a pest population (brown plant hopper) and oods. Those who still have knowledge of the pranata mangsa Javanese calendar were encouraged to make a comparison with explanations from the rainfall data they were collecting.

As already noted, farmers were not provided with climate predic-tion data, advice, or eld services from the government. This meant that they were grateful for the monthly seasonal scenario (based on al-ready simpli ed climate predictions) sent by Stigter and translated by Winarto. Via mobile phone, the club leaders disseminate the scenarios (brought in short and simple messages) to all club members. Such a process enabling information to reach farmers on time bene ted de-cision making in a particular climate situation (Stigter and Winarto 2012d). An example of this was the scenario of a gradual decline of rainfall toward the end of May 2012, followed by a normal dry season


and a probability of a weak to medium El Nio in the remainder of 2012 (and possibly beyond), which meant somewhat drier conditions than normal. For farmers cultivating paddy in a dry rainfed ecosystem, that scenario prediction helped them to think of how to plant paddy in the dry season for a successful harvest. In the course of 2012 the El Nio buildup collapsed, and the predicted seasonal scenario for the 2012 13 rainy season started with normal rainfall at the wetter end of the nor-mal range. This was again superseded in March 2013, with a seasonal scenario of still a further normal rainy season, with indications that the rains could be at the drier end of normal, including a slightly early end of the rainy season. Although farmers acknowledge the helpfulness of such scenarios, we will wait until at least two years after the start of this experiment to assess via questionnaires the use and usefulness of these predictions.

The Future of Agrometeorological Learning on Java

Variability and uncertainty due to climate change will continue, caus-ing us to conclude that it is highly important to focus on scaling up the collaborative work. The Ministry of Agriculture has continued to set up cfss in various places in Indonesia, particularly in the areas identi ed as prone to drought and ood. Based on our experience, observations, and learning, we are con dent that our alternative approach through Science Field Shops is more promising than the states cfss. Therefore we have now decided to scale up the collaboration by developing a Na-tional Network for a Rural Response to Climate Change (nnrrcc). The state agents we invited to participate in nnrrcc are those from the Agency of Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysics and the Min-istry of Agriculture dealing with climate change. Among the ministry of cials we are collaborating with the subdirectorate of climate change under the Directorate for Crop Protection, Directorate General of Food Crops. That subdirectorate is responsible for organizing cfss in the areas prone to ood and drought by using pest/disease observers as the main facilitators. The primary responsibility of those facilitators is monitoring pest and disease populations in farmers elds, not more generally facilitating for farmers. From the early 1990s, at the time ipm ffss were introduced throughout Indonesia, pest and disease observ-ers became the main facilitators, assisted by extension workers. The


latter became responsible for transferring any new technology to farm-ers from the time the Green Revolution was introduced in Indonesia, around four decades ago. These extension workers are less well trained than the pest and disease observers, and the two are placed under dif-ferent divisions within the Ministry of Agriculture.

However, under the regional autonomy in Indonesia, the head of the agricultural of ce in each regency has the authority to manage any emerging issues in its area by coordinating intensively and effec-tively all the agricultural of cials under different roofs. When we ap-proached the head of the agricultural of ce in Lamongan Regency in East Java to introduce Science Field Shops in his area, he promised to have both pest and disease observers and extension workers participate and collaborate in his regency. This is a supportive promise from a top leader in agriculture at the regency level.

Challenges of an Educational Commitment

Bringing scienti c guidelines and rainfall- related rice crop ecosystem observations into the farmers world is not simple or easy. Introducing scienti c terms and explanations for only a short period would not be effective in sustaining their learning process. A long- term education-al commitment is necessary to assist farmers in gaining knowledge to cope better with climate change (Winarto and Stigter 2011). We belong to a school that is of the opinion that increasing the useful operational applicability of weather science, climate science, and various elds of agricultural science in farmers elds in the participatory way we use must be assessed as knowledge improvement of farmers. This must be considered a contribution to science itself (e.g., Zuma- Netshiukhwi 2013). As our experience suggests, collaborative work between scien-tists and farmers for a longer period therefore proves bene cial for both parties.

Gradually, through an ongoing inter- subjectivity and re ection, the new practices in measuring rainfall, observing elds and crops, and writing empirical observations into notebooks before discussing them with others have become the new habitus for farmers. They also per-ceive the Science Field Shops as the place where they can share their ex-perience and problems and gain additional knowledge from answers to their questions. We emphasize, however, that such collaborative work


in an educational commitment with farmers is possible only if close-ness and trust between the two parties can be developed and sustained (see, e.g., Lassiter 2005; Zuma- Netshiukhwi 2013).

Building up a transdisciplinary collaboration with the bureaucrats is another matter, as it is complicated by bureaucratic thinking, struc-tures, and procedures and existing incompatible programs. Yet scal-ing up the educational commitment with farmers all over the country is necessary to have any real impact. In this new adventure the role of anthropologists is also crucial, now and in the future, as the weavers of the new inter- and transdisciplinary networks.

yunita t. winarto has rst and second degrees in anthropology (1980, 1984), a master of science in environmental technology (1985), and a PhD in anthropology (1997) from the Australian National University. She is professor in anthropology at Universitas Indonesia, the holder of Academy Professorship Indonesia in Social Sci-ences and Humanities (the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Indonesian Academy of Sciences), and a member of the Indonesian Academy of Sciences (aipi). She is the author of Seeds of Knowledge: The Beginning of Integrated Pest Management in Java (2004) and, with Kees (C. J.) Stigter, co- edited Agrometeoro-logical Learning: Coping Better with Climate Change (2011).

kees stigter has rst and second degrees in (experimental) physics (1962, 1966) and a doctorate of agricultural sciences (agrometeorology, 1974). He was a resi-dent professor at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (1975 85), and visiting professor (1985 2001) simultaneously in Sudan, Kenya, and Tanzania, to which Ni-geria was added in 1991. Since 2001 Kees has been visiting professor for Agromet Vision in Africa (presently Ghana, South Africa, Sudan, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) and Asia (presently Indonesia since 1999 and Iran since 2005, and having held a similar position in China, 1997 2011). He is the founding president of the Interna-tional Society for Agricultural Meteorology (insam).

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the research grant provided to Yunita T. Winarto by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (knaw) and the Indonesian Academy of Sciences (aipi); a grant for international research collaboration by the Directorate of Research and Community Services, Universitas Indonesia, in 2011; and support from the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indonesia. Kees Stigters international travel and some of his local travel were funded by Agrom-et Vision, his one- man company. We are grateful to those institutions and the young scholars and students who contributed signi cantly


to the present shape of our collaborative works. We also thank San-dy Toussaint and Greg Acciaioli, and an anonymous referee, for their valuable support and comments for improving this article. Finally, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to all Indramayu rainfall ob-servers for their great motivation to pursue our educational commit-ment through Science Field Shops.

Notes

1. Winarto was hosted at Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, from 2006 to 2009, by the School of Graduate Studies as the Academy Professor Indonesia in Social Sciences and Humanities, under the auspices of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sci-ences and the Indonesian Academy of Sciences. In 2009 she returned to the Universitas Indonesia, Depok, to resume her responsibilities as the Academy Professor Indonesia hosted by the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences.

2. Winarto, as the lead ethnographer, invited young scholars and students to join the program as part of their studies. From 2009 to 2012 ten young scholars and students carried out participant observation and prepared their theses and manuscripts based on this research.

3. Pranata mangsa is a Javanese calendrical system (petungan/pawukon), a combination of the Western- Gregorian solar calendrical system and the Javanese astronomy- based system for agricultural time keeping of when to start planting and what to plant (Murni-atmo et al. 1983; Hidayat 2011; Rowling 2011; and see Antasari et al. 2011).

References

Anantasari, E., Y. T. Winarto, and K. Stigter. 2011. Climate Field School: Learning and Understanding Some Scienti c Knowledge of Climate. In Agrometeorological Learning: Coping Better with Climate Change, ed. Y. T. Winarto and K. Stigter, 44 85. Saarbrcken: Lambert Academic Publishing.

Boer, R. 2009. Sekolah Lapang Iklim: Antisipasi Risiko Perubahan Iklim (Climate eld school: Anticipating the risks of climate change). Majalah Salam 26: 8 10.

Chambers, R. 1992. Beyond Traditional Knowledge: Enabling Them and Changing Us. Presented at sarec Workshop on Peoples Participation in the Management of Natural Resources Research Needs and Research Priorities, October 5 6, Stockholm.

Direktorat Perlindungan Tanaman Pangan (Direktur Jenderal Tanaman Pangan). 2010. Modul Pengantar Sekolah Lapangan Iklim (Introductory module for climate eld school). Jakarta: Ministry of Agriculture.

Dwisatrio, B. 2010. Dinamika Kolaborasi Ilmuwan dan Petani dalam Program Peneli-tian Pengukuran Curah Hujan (The dynamics of the collaboration of scientists and farmers in the rainfall measurement research program). Unpubl. undergraduate thesis, Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Uni-versitas Indonesia, Depok.

Hapsari, Y. 2010. Mengukur Curah Hujan dan Respons terhadap Perubahan Iklim: Ker-


agaman dan Keseragaman (Rainfall measurement and response to climate change: Unifomity and diversity). Unpubl. undergraduate thesis, Department of Anthropol-ogy, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indonesia, Depok.

Hidayat B. 2011. The Sky and the Agro- bi- climatology of Java: Need Critical Reevalua-tion due to Environmental Changes. In proceedings, Seventh International Conference on Oriental Astronomy, ed. T. Nakamura, W. Orchiston, M. Soma, and R. Strom, 43 46. Tokyo, Japan: National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.

Holmes, D. R., and G. E. Marcus. 2005. Refunctioning Ethnography: The Challenge of an Antropology of the Contemporary. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd edition, ed. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks ca: Sage.

Jalalen. 2012. Remarks, workshop on National Network for Rural Response to Climate Change, Universitas Indonesia.

Lassiter, L. E. 2005a. The Chicago Guide to Collaborative Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

. 2005b. Collaborative Ethnography and Public Anthropology. Current Anthro-pology 46: 83 106.

. 2008. Moving Past Public Anthropology and Doing Collaborative Research. NAPA Bulletin 46: 83 106.

Marcus, G. E. 2001. From Rapport under Erasure to Theaters of Complicit Re exivity. Qualitative Inquiry 7: 519 28.

Mlder, N. 1980. Kebatinan dan Kehidupan Sehari- hari Orang Jawa: Kelangsungan dan Peruba-han Kulturil (The spiritual and daily life of Javanese people: Cultural continuity and change). Jakarta: Gramedia.

Murniatmo, G., H. Sitanggang, and R. Abu. 1983. Sistem Ekonomi Tradisional sebagai Perwujudan Tanggapan Masyarakat terhadap Lingkungannya di DIY (Traditional economic system as the implementation of peoples response to their environment in DIY). Yogyakarta: Proyek Inventarisasi dan Dokumentasi Kebudayaan Daerah, Departe-men Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Nurahayu, D. 2010. Empat Puluh Tahun Kelanggengan Paradigma Revolusi Hijau: Prak-tik Petani Desa Bogor, Kecamatan Sukra, Indramayu dalam Merespon Perubahan Iklim (Forty years of continuity of the Green Revolution paradigm: The practice of farmers in Bogor village, Sukra district, Indramayu, in response to climate change). Unpubl. undergraduate thesis, Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indonesia, Depok.

Pontius, J., R. Dilts, and A. Bartlett. 2002. From Farmer Field Schools to Community IPM: Ten Years of IPM Training in Asia. Bangkok: fao Community ipm Programme, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Regional Of ce for Asia and the Paci c.

Prakama, R. S. 2009. Do Farmers Use Climate Forecast Information to Respond to Climate Variability?: Technographic Studies on Impact Climate Field School in year 2003 on Crop Management Strategy of Farmers in Indramayu District, Indo-nesia. Unpubl. M.Sc. thesis, Wageningen University of Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.

Rahayu, K. 2010. Respon Petani Menanggapi Perubahan Iklim: Variasi Interpretasi dan Praktik pada Alumni dan Non- alumni Sekolah Lapang Iklim di Desa Karangmulya, Kabupaten Indramayu (Farmers response to climate change: Variation in interpre-tation and practice among the alumni and non- alumni of Climate Field School in Karangmulya Village, Indramayu Regency). Unpubl. undergraduate thesis, Depart-


ment of Anthropology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indone-sia, Depok.

Ratri, S. D. 2010. Dinamika Belajar secara Kolektif dalam Memahami Perubahan Iklim: Kisah Petani Pengukur Curah Hujan di Desa Nunuk, Indramayu (The dynamics of collective learning in understanding climate change: The Stories of farmer- rainfall- observers in Nunuk village, Indramayu). Unpubl. undergraduate thesis, Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indonesia, Depok.

Roncoli, C., K. Ingram, C. Jost, and P. Kirshen. 2003. Meteorological Meanings: Farm-ers Interpretations of Seasonal Rainfall Forecasts in Burkina Faso. In Weather, Climate, Culture, ed. S. Strauss and B. Orlove, 181 200. Oxford: Berg.

Rowling, M. 2011. Q&A: Why Do We Need a New Global Sys-tem for Climate Services? http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/qa- why- do- we- need- a- new- global- system- for- climate- services.

Stigter, K. 2008a Climate Change Is Confusing Indonesian Farmers: A Visit to Another Climate Field School in Indonesia, That of Gunungkidul near Yogyakarta. http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/accounts- of- operational- agrometeorology/climate- change- is- confusing- indonesian- farmers- a- visit- to- another- climate- eld- school- in- indonesia- that- of- gunungkidul- near- yogyakarta.

. 2008b. Worries of Climate Field School Farmers in Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Climate Change, Water Use Ef ciency and Adaptation of Cropping Systems. http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/accounts- of- operational- agrometeorology/worries- of- climate- eld- school- farmers- in- gunung- kidul- yogyakarta- indonesia- climate- change- water- use- ef ciency- and- adaptation- of- cropping- systems.

. 2011. Agrometeorological Services: Reaching All Farmers with Operational In-formation Products in New Educational Commitments. CAgM Report 104, Geneva: wmo.

Stigter, K., ed. 2010. Applied Agrometeorology. Berlin: Springer.Stigter, K., and E. Ofori. 2013a. What Climate Change Means for Farmers in Africa.

Part 1: Introductional Matters and Consequences of Global Warming for African Farmers. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (ajfand), in print.

2013b. What Climate Change Means for Farmers in Africa. Part 2: Increasing Climate Variability and a Response Approach for African farmers. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (ajfand), in print.

. 2013c. What Climate Change Means for Farmers in Africa. Part 3: Climate Ex-tremes and Societys Responses, Including Mitigation Attempts as Part of Prepared-ness of African Farmers. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (ajfand), in print.

Stigter, K., and Y. T. Winarto. 2011. Science Field Shops may Precede Climate Field Schools but Simple Adaptation to Climate Should Be Validated as Part of Both. http://www/agrometeorology.org/topics/educational- aspects- of- agrometeorology/science- eld- shops- may- precede- climate- eld- schools- but- simple- adaptation- to- climate- should- be- validated- as- both.

. 2012a. What Climate Change Means for Farmers in Asia. Earthzine, April 4. http://www.earthzine.org/2012/2004/2004/what- climate- change- means- for- farmers- in- asia/.


. 2012b. Considerations of Climate and Society in Asia: Farmers in Indonesia. Earthzine, April 17. http://www.earthzine.org/2012/2004/2017/considerations- of- climate- and- society- in- asia- farmers- in- indonesia/.

. 2012c. Coping with Climate Change: An Active Agrometeorological Learn-ing Approach to Response Farming. Presented at The Media Day of the apec Climate Symposium 2012 Harnessing and Using Climate Information for Deci-sion Making: An In- Depth Look at the Agriculture Sector, St. Petersburg, Russia. Extended Abstract in Proceedings, 2pp at http://www.apcc21.org/eng/acts/pastsym/japcc0202_viw.jsp.

. 2012d. Asian Paci c Climate Symposium 2012 (October, St. Petersburg). Climate and Agriculture Workshop: Harnessing and Using Climate Information for Decision Making, an In- Depth Look at the Agricultural Sector. apcc guidance questions and our replies related to handling seasonal climate predictions with farmers. Available on the insam website (www.agrometeorology.org) under Ac-counts of Operational Agrometeorology of November.

Thornton, P. 2012. Recalibrating Food Production in the Developing World: Global Warming Will Change More than Just the Climate. ccafs Policy Brief no. 6. Co-penhagen, Denmark: cgiar Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (ccafs), 16 pp. http://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/2469.

Thornton, P., and L. Cramer, eds. 2012. Impacts of Climate Change on the Agricultural and Aquatic Systems and Natural Resources within the cgiars mandate. ccafs Working Paper 23. Copenhagen, Denmark: cgiar Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (ccafs), 199 pp. http://hdl.handle.net/10568/21226.

Winarto, Y. T. 2004. Seeds of Knowledge: The Beginning of Integrated Pest Management in Java. New Haven ct: Yale University Southeast Asian Studies.

Winarto, Y. T. 2010. Inaugural Lecture: Climate and Culture: Changes, Lessons, and Challenges. Wacana 12 (2): 369 85.

Winarto, Y. T., H. Prahara, E. Anantasari, Kristiyanto, and K. Stigter. 2010a. Rural Response to Climate Change: Rainfall Measurements by Farmers in Java. In Pro-ceedings of International Seminar and Workshop on: Learning from Climate Change and its Consequences: The Role of Scientists and Entrepreneurs, ed. Y. T. Winarto and D. Maeztri, 94 128. Depok: Directorate of Research and Community Services, Universitas Indonesia.

Winarto, Y. T., K. Stigter, H. Prahara, E. Anantasari, and Kristiyanto. 2010b. Well Continue with Our Observations?: Agro- meteorological Learning in Indonesia. Farming Matters (formerly leisa Magazine) 26 (4): 12 15.

Winarto, Y. T., K. Stigter, H. Prahara, E. Anantasari, and Kristiyanto. 2011a. Collabo-rating on Establishing an Agro- Meteorological Learning Situation among Farmers in Java. Anthropological Forum 21 (2): 175 95.

Winarto, Y. T., K. Stigter, E. Anantasari, Kristiyanto, and H. Prahara. 2011b. Learn-ing to Be Rainfall Observers. In Agrometeorological Learning: Coping Better with Climate Change., ed. Y. T. Winarto and K. Stigter, 104 44. Saarbrcken: Lambert Academic Publishing.

Winarto, Y. T., K. Stigter, H. Prahara, Kristiyanto, and E. Anantasari. 2011c. Towards Agrometeorological Learning? Responding to Climate Change, Evaluating Strat-egy. In Agrometeorological Learning: Coping Better with Climate Change, ed. Y. T. Winarto and K. Stigter, 181 215. Saarbrcken: Lambert Academic Publishing.


Winarto, Y. T., and K. Stigter, eds. 2011. Agrometeorological Learning: Coping Better with Climate Change. Saarbrcken: Lambert Academic Publishing.

Zuma- Netshiukhwi, G. N. C. 2013. The Use of Operational Weather and Climate Infor-mation in Farmer Decision Making, Exempli ed for the South- Western Free State, South Africa. PhD diss., Department of Soil, Crop and Climate Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.