Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 42, No. 3, December 2004

The Evolutionar y Changes in Rice-crop Farming:
Integrated Pest Management in Indonesia, Cambodia, and Vietnam

Yunita T. WINARTO ＊Abstract
From the time the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Programme—initiated by the FAO—
was introduced in Indonesia in early 1990 and other Asian countries afterwards, a gradualchange in IPM farmers’ knowledge, practices, empowerment, and dignity has been occurring.
In line with the aims of the program to introduce knowledge, stimulate farmers’ own curiosity,and improve their decision making ability, the implication of this program for farmers’ knowledge and farming practices has been significantly different from the Green Revolution program and other technological interventions in crop farming. An “evolutionary” or gradualchange rather than a “revolutionary” one or sudden change is going on among the IPM farmers in several countries in Southeast Asia. Not only are their technical understandings of growing crops enriched and modified, but also their creativity, dignity, and self-confidence areenhanced. Nevertheless, knowledge enrichment, production, implementation, and transmission are not simple processes. They are embedded in the local settings and within the courseof the agricultural development and history in each locale. Some similarities and many variations are found in different countries in Southeast Asia. This paper examines these phenomena
by looking at the evolutionary changes found in IPM farmers’ knowledge and practices in ricecrop farming in Indonesia, Cambodia, and Vietnam.
Keywords : Integrated Pest Management, rice-crop farming, evolutionary changes, farmers’
knowledge and practices, comparative perspective, interpretation schemas

Producing Knowledge, Improving Dignity: An Introduction
For thousands of years farmers have been the “producers” of knowledge, the primary innovators and experimenters in food-crops farming [see Amanor et al. 1993; Conway 1998]. The
freedom to carry out experimentations and strategies in their world of crop farming has
been the basis of their dignity and self-confidence. “We were free to make our own decisionsof what to plant, when to plant, and how to plant,” said an old farmer on the north coast ofWest Java, Indonesia, referring to the time prior to the government’s intervention into his―――――――――――――――――＊ Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Indonesia,
Depok, Indonesia, e-mail: winyun@indo.net.id241

東南アジア研究 42巻３号

life as a farmer. He was one of the few farmers left in the early 1990s who was able to identify various traditional rice varieties, including the glutinous rice. A rice-field environment
consisting of a very diverse nature of crops’ growth was the result of each farmer’s decisionin planting various kinds of rice varieties. This was the very significant different feature ofrice farming from the recent condition where only several high yielding varieties are grown.
Even though he admitted that cultivating rice in his youth was not as easy as recent times
since it took longer to harvest, required the employment of more labourers, was subject tomore religious taboos, and the yields were not as high as today, his life was much in peace.
Other farmers shared the same thoughts and feelings. “Now, we are always anxious of what
are going to happen in our fields, we are restless. . . ,” argued another farmer. These were
the rice farmers’ remark after three decades experiencing the enforced adoption of “the government’s varieties,” the “short-stem ones” [also see Winarto 1996; 2004]. Such expressions
reveal that cultivating rice is not only a matter of technical skills and know-how, but alsoentails other things related to personal aspects. Unfortunately, farmers’ knowledge, emotional feeling, dignity, confidence, and belief were not taken into account when the modernhigh yielding varieties and their technological packages were introduced into their lives [seeFox 1991; Shiva 1993; 1995].
In the last two decades, a growing number of scientists and experts from various disciplines have voiced their warnings that priority and high agenda of any development program
should be put on emphasizing farmers’ needs and environmental sustainability. It is urgent
to appreciate and incorporate local knowledge in its dynamics and diverse natures, and to
consider knowledge interface between various agencies by understanding the complex
social-cultural-political settings. It is also necessary to enhance farmers’ empowerment while
preserving biodiversity and sustainable natural resource management [see Brokensha et al.
1980; Richards 1985; Chambers et al. 1989; Moock 1992; Arce and Long 1992; Amanor et al.
1993; Scoones and Thompson 1994; Sumberg and Okali 1997; Berkes 1999; Pottier 2003]. In
reality, farmers’ products are commodities to meet local-national demands, as well as global
needs of feeding an ever-growing population. Conway [1998: 41] therefore strongly argues
for the “Doubly Green Revolution,” “a revolution that is even more productive than the firstGreen Revolution and even more ‘green’ in terms of conserving natural resources and theenvironment.” However, he emphasizes that the success will rely on:. . . the application of new scientific and technological discoveries in a manner that is environmentally sensitive and above all, . . . the creation of new partnerships between scientists and farmers
that will respond to the needs of the poor. [Conway 1998: 41–42]

He does not neglect entirely the need to pay attention seriously to farmers’ dignity and selfconfidence. Referring to the story of a poor Bangladesh woman who was able to change herlife from the financial support she got, Conway [ibid.: 301–302] argues for the advantageous
improvement that, “[i]f the experience was multiplied for the poor and hungry throughout
242

Y.T.WINARTO: The Evolutionary Changes in Rice-crop Farming

the developing world it would add up to a revolution.” This statement reveals the urgent
need for collaborating with farmers to improve their dignity and self-confidence for a second“revolution” to occur.
In addition to the urgent needs to feed the increased population, a paradigm shift in
agricultural development is crucial in returning farmers’ dignity and confidence, not only as
crop growers, but also as knowledge producers. My question is how could that be achievedin the current constellation of power relations, the persisting globalization of resource management and scientific agricultural technology [see Berkes 1999], international aid policies,
and the complex nature of social-cultural-economic-political settings of various actors
involved in this process? Would evolutionary changes occur following the efforts of building
up “partnership” with farmers that may lead to an improvement in their dignity while feeding up the growing population? A thorough study is indeed necessary to answer those questions.
In this paper I will examine cases of farmers’ experience in the program that has theobjectives on “making farmers experts” and able decision makers through the so-called
Community Integrated Pest Management (CIPM) Programme in Asia. This is the programthat has the aims of not only alleviating the negative implications of the Green Revolution,
but also of shifting the paradigm: i.e. from enforcing farmers to achieve the targets of crop
intensification program to facilitating them in enhancing their knowledge, improving theirlearning ability, and thus regaining their dignity, and empowering them in their own habitat[Pontius et al. 2002]. On the basis of my observation in Indonesia in the past decade, someevolutionary changes have occurred in farmers’ knowledge and practices following the training program known as Farmer Field Schools (FFS) and its follow-up CIPM activities.

1)

In

this paper I describe the kinds of changes in farmers’ knowledge and practices that haveoccurred, and how and why such changes have emerged by comparing and contrasting thecases of rice growers’ experience in Indonesia, Cambodia, and Vietnam.

2)―――――――――――――――――
01）In this paper I concentrate on the changes experienced by the IPM farmers that would affect thegrowth of rice farming culture in the region. I argue that evolutionary instead of revolutionarychanges are now taking place. For the paradigm and strategies of Community Integrated Pest
Management in Asia that could be seen as “revolutionary” changes in putting farmers first on topof technology see Pontius et al. [2002]. In this paper, these changes would serve as the explanatory factor leading to the gradual changes in farmers’ knowledge and practices.
02）My in-depth ethnographic studies on the implication of IPM in Indonesia were held in several villages on the north coast of West Java (in the villages of Ciasem Baru and Ciasem Tengah) as partof my Ph.D program at the Australian National University in 1990–92, my return visits there from1996–2001, and in Central Lampung (in the district of Batanghari and Terbanggi Besar) in
1998–2000. I also did my observation on the activities held by the Indonesian IPM Farmers
Association in 2002. My study in Cambodia and Vietnam was begun in 2003 in a preliminary survey in several farming communities in Kampong Chhnang province in Cambodia and Thai Binhprovince in Red River Delta, Vietnam, as part of the ongoing research under the Southeast AsianStudies Regional Exchange Collaboration Program (The Toyota Foundation and the JapanFoundation Asia Center) in 2003–04. As a follow up, I carried out my in-depth ethnographic study °243

東南アジア研究 42巻３号

My field sites in the three countries are located in the major rice-growing areas with riceas the main crop. Secondary crops are grown by farmers in Central Lampung (Indonesia),
Kampong Chhnang (Cambodia), and Thai Binh (Vietnam). All villages are located in thelowland area with irrigated rice fields in West Java and Central Lampung [see Winarto et al.
2000; Winarto 2004], non-irrigated rain-fed rice fields in the vicinity of Tonle-sap lake,
Cambodia [see Nesbitt 1997], and irrigated lowland delta regions in North Vietnam [see Le
Trong Cuc and Rambo 1993]. Rice is not only the major subsistence crop for local communities, but—in Indonesia and Vietnam—contributes significantly to national rice production.
Thus, farmers in these two countries earn income in terms of cash from selling rice in themarket. The Cambodian rice farmers do that only if they can produce some surplus fromtheir harvests.
Even though my focus of observation and in-depth interview are directed to those who
were recruited as participants in the IPM program, interviewing the non-IPM farmers alsoenriched my comparative understanding of the issues in question. The qualitative paradigm
underlining my research methodology in an ethnographic field-work enabled me to discover
the mechanisms and processes leading to changes in knowledge and practices, gain an
insight understanding of the local meanings, sharpen my analysis, and improve my ability tocontextualize the findings [see Creswell 1994; Winarto 1999; Huberman and Miles 2002].

Integrated Pest Management in Southeast Asia:
A Comparative Perspective
Conway [1998: 215, 218] cites the success story of the Integrated Pest Management inIndonesia as the example of the most extensive involvement of farmers in controlling
pest/disease in a participatory program. The IPM planners, however, do not perceive theprogram as focusing on controlling pest/disease alone by involving farmers as partners.
More important than that, the basic IPM training program known as Farmer Field School(FFS) or “school without walls” provide farmers with an opportunity to learn and achieve
greater control over the conditions they face every day in their fields. Pontius et al. [2002: 1]
say that “[F]armers are thus empowered by field schools.” In the current world, farmers
have to face contending forces related to technology, politics, markets, and society.
Technologies are also developed to increase aggregate national production and profits for
those who promulgate the technologies. In such a situation, Pontius et al. [2002: 1–2] argue
that:[F]armers need to be able to make their voice heard as sustainable ecological agriculture―――――――――――――――――† in Cambodia and Thailand in 2004–05. I did my literature research during my fellowship as a
Visiting Research Fellow at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University in 2003–04.
244

Y.T.WINARTO: The Evolutionary Changes in Rice-crop Farming
approaches a critical cross roads, [and they] . . . need to be able to understand the issues affecting
their livelihood and contend in the debates these issues generate to guarantee that their interests
are served.

Making farmers “experts” by mastering the ecological principles of their own fields, andempowering them through improving their own learning ability are the most important
objectives of the program. Farmers’ own discovery-learning process becomes the basic educational method of the “school” that serves as the starting point for institutionalizing IPM at
the community level [ibid.].
On the basis of Indonesia’s experience of implementing such a program, the FAO introduced the IPM Farmer Field School in other Asian countries from 1992–98, followed by theCommunity IPM Programme from 1998 onwards (see Map 1). The same educational method
and curriculum of the Farmer Field School has been implemented in those various countries.

3)

Not all of them, however, carried out the various follow-up activities within the4)5)Community IPM Programme. Examples are Thailand and Laos. Cambodia and Vietnam,

on the other hand, have institutionalized a National IPM Programme within the body of the
Ministry of Agriculture in their own countries,

6)

and implemented both the Farmer Field

School and the Community IPM Programme in some provinces.
In Cambodia, the government and agricultural officials prefer to name the program as
the Integrated Crop Management on the basis of the need to improve farming practices forthe entire stages of cultivating crops. Food security still constitutes a particular concern,even though there has been a progress in the Cambodian economics after long years of vio―――――――――――――――――
03）The basic IPM Farmer Field School is a field based training lasts for a full cropping season withrice field as the primary learning material. As many as 25–30 participants are facilitated by facilitators (either the agricultural officials or farmer trainers) to meet once a week from 10–16 weeks.
They learn to carry out agro-ecosystem analysis on the basis of experiential, participatory andlearner-centred approach by comparing IPM with non-IPM treated plots. They also learn special
topics related to local ecological conditions and problems emerging in their rice environment, or
current needs of improving their cultivation practices, besides conducting a group-dynamics
activity [see Pontius et al. 2002; Gallagher 2003].
04）Community IPM is intended to lay a foundation upon which FFSs alumni can establish a farmerled IPM programs in a given village through: building a cadre of experienced farmer IPM trainers, implementing several FFSs plus other follow-up activities, and creating opportunities for IPM
alumni/farmer IPM trainers to interact. For details of the objectives and activities of CIPM see
Pontius et al. [2002: 30–31]; Ngin Chhay [2002] for CIPM program in Cambodia; and Vietnam
National IPM Programme [2000; 2003].
05）Thailand incorporates Farmer Field School within the program of Pest Management Division of
the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, without carrying out the Community IPM
Programme in a special national program (Patcharee, personal communication 2003).
06）The Cambodian National IPM Programme is co-ordinated by the Department of Agronomy of the
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), while the Vietnam National IPM
Programme is co-ordinated by the Plant Protection Department of the Ministry of Agriculture andRural Development.
245

東南アジア研究 42巻３号

Map 1 FAO Community IPM Programme Member Countries
Source: [Pontius et al. 2002]

lence, genocide and large-scale destruction of people’s life [Murshid 1998]. Crop farming is
still at a subsistence level, and average productivity of crops among the Southeast Asian
countries is the lowest [see Mabbet and Chandler 1995; Ngin Chhay 2002; Sophal and
Acharya 2002; DANIDA IPM Training Project in Cambodia n.d.]. Addressing the need toincrease rice production to obtain food security, the leading agricultural officials in
Cambodia perceived the FAO CIPM Programme as a promising means to improve farmers’
agro-ecological knowledge and cultivation practices. However, they also learned of the unintended problems of pesticides and fertilizers use in “modern” rice productions as occurredin Indonesia and the Philippines. The IPM programme was thus adopted to increase riceproduction in an environmentally sound and sustainable manner [National IPM Coordinatorand FAO of the United Nations IPM 1998; Ngin Chhay 2002]. By the end of 2000, there werelarge, diverse and dynamic programs in place spread in 14 provinces [Röling et al. 2000; see
Map 2]. DANIDA and Srer Khmer Organization—an independent non-profit organization—246

Y.T.WINARTO: The Evolutionary Changes in Rice-crop Farming

are now facilitating CIPM in several provinces with its various activities [see Ngin Chhay
2002; FAO 2002].
After the improvement of agriculture under the doi moi program, Vietnam has been able
to increase the rice output and has become the third largest rice exporter in the world mar7)
ket [Do Kim Chung and Kim Thi Dung 2002]. Nevertheless, the level of pesticide use also

increased in conjunction with the use of chemical fertilizers. Despite this, Vietnam is stillencountering poverty issue and rural development problems [Tran Thi Que 1998; Vietnam
Development Report 2000; Yanagisawa and Kono 2001]. In line with the objectives of achieving higher yields and minimizing negative impacts on environment, Vietnam’s governmenthas been very serious in implementing IPM by conducting the FFS in all 61 provinces.
Various CIPM activities have also been implemented in a number of provinces (see Map 3)

Map 2 IPM in 14 Provinces in Cambodia
Source: [Ngin Chhay 2002]―――――――――――――――――
07）In Vietnam, the doi moi program led to a redefinition of the role of agricultural cooperatives, a
return of the decision-making to individual household, and a renovation of the agricultural system. Farming was directed to meet the national and international markets [see Vo-Tong Xuan
1995; Tran Thi Que 1998; Yanagisawa and Kono 2001].
247

東南アジア研究 42巻３号[Vietnam National IPM Programme 1999; 2003; FAO 2002]. The IPM Vietnam National IPM
Programme is currently the largest one in Asia in terms of financial support for the current
phase [Röling et al. 2000].
Indonesia, on the other hand, ceased its large-scale national IPM program under the
responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture after the termination of the World Bank/USAID
support in 1999. In spite of the termination, CIPM was developed on the basis of the verylarge farmer-to-farmer IPM movement. IPM farmers’ alliance has been established to organize and support farmer-to-farmer training, action research, farmers’ studies, farmers’ organization, and advocacy [Hidayat and Adinata 2001; also see FAO 2002]. The Mid Term
reviewers’ team for the FAO Inter-Country Programme for Community IPM in Asia [Röling
et al. 2000: 14–15] concludes that the Indonesian programme:. . . continues to be the “kitchen” for the development of CIPM approaches, programmes andmethods, serving as a source of ideas, experiences and expertise for other programmes in theregion. . . . More importantly, the Indonesia CIPM has now become the largest scale farmer-tofarmer education and action programme in existence.

Map 3 IPM FFS and CIPM in the Provinces in Vietnam
Source: [Vietnam National IPM Programme 1999; 2000]
248

Y.T.WINARTO: The Evolutionary Changes in Rice-crop Farming

Such farmers’ movement in Indonesia has occurred after more than three decades experiencing the cultivation of modern rice varieties and technological packages through the topdown extension system [Hansen 1978; Hardjono 1983; Fox 1991; 1993]. On the contrary,
farmers in Cambodia have begun adopting modern rice varieties for dry season planting
only. They keep planting their own traditional varieties for the long wet season planting
which help preserving their knowledge of those varieties. No extension system has been
well developed. In comparison to Vietnam with its doi moi program, Indonesia has a longer
history of adopting the Green Revolution technology.
Despite a varied degree of farmers’ acquaintance with the Green Revolution technology,
their knowledge was not significantly different from one another. Knowledge was gained
through everyday practices, trial-and-error, observation, comparison, farmer-to-farmer
knowledge transmission, and receiving information from various external sources.

8)

In

Indonesia, the emphasis of technological transfer through a top-down extension services
along with farmers’ empirical observation and subjective interpretation constrained theadvancement of farmers’ understanding. Their ignorance grew as the unintended and unexpected phenomena emerged daily and seasonally.

9)

Farmers in Cambodia and Vietnam

describe their previous practices as only doing the works, directly participating in the works
by following their parents’ cultivation activities, or through “mimesis” (imitation) in
Bourdieu’s term [Bourdieu 1977]. In addition, the Vietnamese have been used to receive
announcement, information, and instruction from the upper-level government down to local
level through various means of mass media [see Diep Dinh Hoa et al. 1993]; and “speeches”(dion thuyot) in farmers meeting.
Into such a situation, farmers in the three countries similarly appreciate the IPM“schooling” as enhancing their knowledge. “Now we have the period of enlightenment, ofimproving our knowledge,” compared the IPM farmer in Central Lampung to that of theGreen Revolution era [Winarto et al. 1999; Winarto 2001]. The Vietnamese perceived theIPM learning as provided detailed, in-depth, systematic knowledge and enabled them toexplain things that were previously “vague.”“Before, we did the practice, but we can’t say it, so we can’t describe it,” expressed a female IPM
farmer in Thai Binh, Vietnam. Another male IPM farmer said: “There are some resemblances withwhat I had known before, but without good knowledge in-depth, not so clear. Some practices that
we did, we did not understand. After the learning we understand more, in-depth.” Others said: “My
mind is now open,” “I understand more the condition of each stage of the growth of plants.” “Itprovides me with systematic knowledge, a complete knowledge from the beginning until the endof cultivation.” (author’s field notes 2003)―――――――――――――――――
08）Farmers also learned from modifying control strategies as a response to pest/disease outbreaks;
evaluating mistakes and unforeseen phenomena; gaining new understandings from field-experimentation, and sharing through daily conversation [see Winarto 1999].
09）Also, see Shiva [1993; 1995] for the consequences of the Green Revolution.
249

東南アジア研究 42巻３号

For the Vietnamese, IPM is a new kind of “science and technique transfer.” Similar to thiswas the Cambodians’ voice that the new learning improved their practices at each stage ofrice growth that enabled them to increase their yields [also see van Duuren et al. 2002; vanDuuren 2003].
In such a situation, analyzing the processes leading to those changes and not only thekinds of changes is significant. At this stage, it is still too early to say whether a new kind of
farming culture replacing the Green Revolution technology has developed sequentially following the introduction of IPM. My analysis is focused on the first decade post to IPM.
Thus, my study inclines towards the second meaning of evolution as stated by Rambo[1991],

10)

i.e. to the “process” that has caused any different forms of farmers’ knowledge andpractices to exist. Along with the nature of IPM intervention in transmitting knowledge—not
the technology per se—my account on the evolutionary changes in rice-crop farming will
first focus on farmers’ knowledge. Knowledge, as Barth [2002: 1] says, is: “what a person
employs to interpret and act on the world.” Examining the extent to which knowledge is
employed to act on the world, how, in what situation, and how does it affect the existingknowledge is still in need. An evolutionary perspective on these issues will enable us tounderstand how knowledge within individual minds expand over time, and how such an
accumulation of knowledge become the basis for ongoing changes in actions. To understandthese phenomena, the connectionism approach in cognitive anthropology is beneficial.

11)

Learning and Creating New Schemas
Farmers’ remarks of the advantages of IPM led my inquiries of how the formation of new
interpretation schemas has improved their ways of thinking. Schemas, according to Strauss
and Quinn [1997: 49], are:. . . collections of elements that work together to process information at a given time. [Furthermore,
schemas] . . . reconstruct our memories of past events, determine the meanings we impart toongoing experience, and give us expectation for the future. Schemas also fill in missing or ambiguous information. . . [Strauss and Quinn 1997: 49].12)―――――――――――――――――
10）See Rambo [1991: 24] for the two different meanings of evolution: (1) the sequence of life forms
that evolved over time, and (2) the process that has caused these different forms to evolve.
11）The connectionism approach in anthropology is moving away from analyzing knowledge througha serial process of analysis to a multiple parallel processing of external stimuli simultaneously
through the existing networks connecting the processors [see Bloch 1991; D’Andrade 1995;
Shore 1996; Strauss and Quinn 1997; and Ross 2004]. In such an approach, the elements of knowledge are seen as being active within certain combinations because of the reception of certain
stimuli. The more frequent the stimuli are received, the more established the combinations of
those stimuli are within individuals. By doing this, the individuals have learned something fromthe environment [see Strauss and Quinn 1997].
250

Y.T.WINARTO: The Evolutionary Changes in Rice-crop Farming

What kinds of new elements did the farmers learn, and how do those elements contribute to
the advancement of their knowledge?
Natural Enemies, Farmers’ Friends and Helpers
Despite differences in agricultural development in the three countries, the striking similarity
in the learning of the IPM farmers in all places is their new understanding of the category of
predator/natural enemy. This was the “missing” idea in their previous knowledge.
Accordingly, they did not understand the function of natural enemies as “farmers’ friends,”
or “farmers’ helpers” in preying upon pests as introduced by the IPM facilitators [seeWinarto 1995; 1996; 1998].

13)

They just realize that the new category also covers insects thatin previous classification belonged to pests, and thus, not all insects were in fact: pests.
Following this understanding, the Cambodian and Vietnamese distinguish “good insects” or“helpful insects” (i.e. predators) from “bad insects” or “harmful insects” (i.e. pests). In
Indonesia, the helpful insects were equated with their own for “animals that are not harmful
to paddy” as different from those that are harmful [see Winarto 1996; 1998; 2004]. This term
and category was also the most shared new element among the IPM farmers, including themetaphors they used. It was the most understandable term introduced throughout the training period, and had gradually become part of IPM farmers’ vocabularies, memories, and—incombination with the other new stimuli—constituted the new schema of interpreting therole of insects in their fields [Winarto 1999; 2004]. The same curriculum of the training forboth the trainers and the farmers led to the introduction and reception of the same terms,
metaphors, and meanings of that new element in the three countries. Learning the role andfunction of natural enemies, identifying the insects belonging to this category, and basing
farmers’ pest control decisions on the population of both natural enemies and pests were theprimary focus of the training. These were repeated weekly in the session of agro-ecosystemanalysis.
This new element also reactivated their knowledge of the preying of animals (i.e. rats,
grasshoppers) by other animals (i.e. frogs, snakes, cats, or birds) that are easily observable.
The new stimuli reactivated the one that was already stored in the other layer of their minds,
and for Indonesia’s farmers, reconstructed their memories. “The only enemies left for rats―――――――――――――――――
12）Also, see D’Andrade’s [1995: 179] definition of schemas as the organization of cognitive elements
into an abstract mental object capable of being held in working memory with default values oropen slots which can be variously filled in with appropriate specifics. Schemas can assist the individuals to face a particular situation or solve a certain problem. Furthermore, those actions canbecome stimuli for the same individuals in the future, or for other individuals, forming new extrapersonal structures or reinforcing existing ones. To what extent certain interpretation schemas
can be operational, motivating individuals to form particular actions can also diverse among individuals, across time and situations. Individual schemas become cultural schemas when they
become firmly established in a number of individuals [Strauss and Quinn 1997].
13）Examples of the other new elements are: parasitoid, ecosystem, agro-ecosystem analysis, economic threshold level, pest resistance and resurgence, population, and pest’s life cycle.
251東南アジア研究 42巻３号

nowadays are farmers and rat-poison,” said an old farmer in West Java when he recited thepast abundant of rats’ natural enemies in the old days of cultivating rice. After gaining suchnew understanding, the IPM farmers in both countries acknowledged their previous ignorance of such a role for insects. Why?
Both Bentley [1992] and Richards [1980] say that farmers know more of the bigger sizeof animals/plants than the smaller ones and those beyond farmers’ ease of observation[Bentley 1992]. Small size insects and the preying upon those insects by other small insects
are not easily observable through daily practices and observation. With their earlier
schemas of using pesticides for killing pests—referring to insects—and the absence of therole of insect-predators, the actions they took were spraying whatever insects found in theirfields with pesticides. It is interesting to note that farmers in the three countries mentioned
such ignorance despite some differences in pesticides use. The new element, thus, filled in
the missing slot of information in their minds.
Pesticides, the Poison
The other missing information filled in by new ideas was the poisonous and damaging
nature of pesticides for insect-pests and predators, and for their own field environment andhealth. Due to farmers’ ignorance of the nature and works of chemical substance, and theunintended consequences of injudicious use of chemical pesticides, they could not explain:“Why is it that the more medicines we have, the more ‘illnesses’ attack our plants.” A number of farmers in Indonesia raised this rhetoric question when remembering the condition
prior to the introduction of various brands of pesticides. At that time, “illnesses” on plants
were not as much and as frequent as today, despite the increased number of types andbrands of pesticides available. In Indonesia, farmers have been used to name pesticides as“medicines” (obat). The term “medicine” refers to the meaning of “curing” plants while“killing” pests. As a result, farmers often explain their actions of spraying “medicines” forboth curative and protective treatments of their plants. The immediate observable resultsthat the pests fell on the ground/water after spraying, and that their plants grew “healthy”
again afterwards constituted a proof for the efficacy of the particular “medicines” they used.
In Vietnam, farmers also refer to pesticides as medicines against pest (thuoc sao—insect
medicines). This is an example of how the introduction of a metaphor by the extension
workers and outsiders in combination with observable phenomena had a significant impact
in constituting farmers’ interpretation schema for pest management.
Looking at how farmers in Indonesia perceive each stage of the growth of paddy as thegrowth of their own physical body, and take care of their plants if they get “sick” [Winarto
1996; 1998; 2004],

14)

the use of the metaphor (medicines for poisons) proved to be fit in wellwith their cultural understanding of growing rice.

15)

Quinn [1991: 65] in her arguments for―――――――――――――――――
14）Also, see Tanaka [2002] for the individual oriented farming techniques in rice farming.
15）See Kuhn [1993], and Petrie and Oshlag [1993] for the essential role of metaphors in transmitting
knowledge from a scientific domain to the real world.
252

Y.T.WINARTO: The Evolutionary Changes in Rice-crop Farming

the cultural basis of metaphor states that:. . . particular metaphors are selected by speakers, and are favored by these speakers, just because
they provide satisfying mappings onto already existing cultural understandings—that is, because
elements and relations between elements in the source domain make a good match with elements
and relations among them in the cultural model.

The selection of the metaphor by the outsiders and the reception by the farmers illustrate
Quinn’s remark of such a good match. The sick-human body and the medicines to cure thebody matched with the sick-plants and the “medicines” (poisons) to cure the plants (bykilling pests). Those pesticides do not have curative function on plants, and that this substance kills “helpful insects” were thus new ideas for IPM farmers in the three countries. It
provides an entirely different relation between the sick-plants and the poisonous substance.
These new understandings then assist them to explain the puzzle of why there have been
unprecedented pest and disease outbreaks despite the intensive use of “medicines” they
were practicing.
Population Density of Pests and Natural Enemies
Another closely related element is the need to take into account the population density ofboth pests and predators as part of decision-making in pest management. The census taking
requires them to learn how to carry out a detailed observation of the agro-ecosystem condition of their fields. Identifying and classifying the insects as either predators or pests areparts of the new elements they learned throughout the training sessions. Hence, naming
which insects are pests and which ones are predators was part of the stories the farmers inboth countries told me of their new knowledge. How did they learn that? Going into thefields, counting the stems of the rice hills, collecting the insects with plastic bags, identifying and classifying them, counting the number of each insects, drawing the results of theirobservations, calculating the balance between the two categories of insects, analyzing theirfields’ ecological condition, and deciding what to do next were the steps they had to do
weekly (see Plate 1). For farmers, it was a
direct practice in the field, encountered themwith reality:“We discussed and talked and went out to thefield. It was a reality. They said about stem
borer, and you got the stem borer in the field.
It was very close to reality, so I believe in it,”said an IPM farmer in Thai Binh, Vietnam.
(author’s field notes 2003)

Plate 1 Agro-ecosystem Analysis(West Java, Indonesia)

253

東南アジア研究 42巻３号

Farmers did not only learn of how to acquire knowledge in a more systematic and detailed
way, but also to gain beliefs and confidence through the “reality” they found. This is thereality as perceived from their own ways of learning: i.e. through direct observation andfindings. Confidence and belief are significant parts of strengthening farmers’ knowledge
and understanding [Winarto 2004].
The experiment-session to show that insecticides, the poison, did killing the predators,
accompanied by another session of “making insect-zoo”—into which farmers placed bothpests and predators so as to enable them observe the preying—also provide a way tostrengthening the creation of the new relation between elements (plants, pests, predators,
pesticides). Even though the relation of those elements is a novel one, the basic understanding of protecting plants has been part of their culture of growing rice. Thus, the introduced
metaphor of predator as “farmers, friends and helpers” also fit in to the existing culturalmodel by replacing the role of pesticides to predators. It proved to work well in stimulating
farmers’ motivation and emotional feeling to being care to predators and not harming them.
The poems and songs composed by the Vietnam IPM farmers illustrate how strong theirunderstanding and feelings are towards the function of this new category of insects and theirsupposed-attitudes towards the helpful insects (see Box 1). As argued by Strauss and Quinn[1997], motivation and emotion play a role in strengthening the establishment of theschemas and in motivating or discouraging action.
Be More “Caring” to the Plants
Another significant learning as told by the Cambodian and Vietnamese was the need to be
more “caring” towards their plants. They relate this caring attitude with the more careful
practices—and some changes—they need to do at each stage of the plants’ growth. Besides
the novel way of pest/disease control, the Cambodian learned the need to reduce theamount of seeds, as well as the amount of seedlings in one rice-hill while transplanting. The
other new practices were smoothing the land after plowing and harrowing, applying basal
fertilizers and top dressing, reducing the inorganic fertilizers and increasing the composted
manure. Looking at these “new improved practices,” it is likely that through IPM FFS, theCambodian also learned the intensified Green Revolution strategies, except those practices
leading them to avoid the excessive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Stories told by
the Vietnamese of the need to be more caring also refers to the improvement in seedlings,
transplanting, fertilizing, and pest/disease control. However, the Vietnamese learned toreplace the excessive use of nitrogen into more balanced N-P-K fertilizers in a more appropriate amount. The latter again reveals that through IPM FFS some “Green Revolution technological packages” were also introduced to the participants. To be more caring to theplants were also part of the instruction by the authority down to the farmers in the Green
Revolution package. Now, the caring has different connotation in relation to farmers’ own
initiatives to pay attention more to the healthy growth of their plants.
In Indonesia, the IPM farmers did acknowledge the changes of their attitude in cultivat254

Y.T.WINARTO: The Evolutionary Changes in Rice-crop Farming

Enjoying the look over the rural field scenery
I am a girl of water nymph
Flying on the field to search for pests
Micosa where are you going
Oh you turn out to be catching the brown plant hopper on the field
The green frog is standing to see
To catch the guy proboscis
To relieve his hunger
The ladybug is slowly walking aroundTo ask for the aphid which leaf he is hiding behind

As farmers what should we think
How to optimize the use of pesticide
To preserve the natural enemies
To kill the pests on the rice field
Hey sister and brother, hurry on
To bring the knowledge to make ourselves rich
IPM a class in our homeland
When it is coming back to the field
It must be successful

by Mr. Mong, IPM Farmer in Tan Hoa, Vu Thu, Thai Binh.
Translated by Mr. Do Trong Tan, June 23, 2003.

Box 1 A Poem Composed by an IPM Farmer in Vietnam (Thai Binh)

ing rice, i.e. to be more alert, and to pay more attention to and carry out a detailed observation of the plants’ and the fields’ conditions. “Now, farmers have to also carry out research
while farming,” said a diligent IPM farmer in West Java. However, at the early stage of learning IPM, the farmers in Indonesia did not experience significant changes in their knowledgeof how to treat their plants and fields at each stage of rice cultivation. No major alteration of
their “conventional Green Revolution technological packages” was enforced to happen
through the FFS learning. Accordingly, the IPM “school for rice” was not perceived as difficult as the other ones for secondary crops [Winarto et al. 2000]. Hence, the novel ideas aslearned by farmers in Cambodia and Vietnam—outside the learning for pest and disease
control—were not part of the new elements the Indonesian learned from the “schooling.”
In the early introductory years of IPM, the IPM farmers in West Java complained that
only basic concepts and understandings and emphasis on pest/disease management rather
than a comprehensive knowledge of rice cultivation were taught in the “school.” Learningfrom this constraint, in the latter years, farmers in Central Lampung also decided to conduct255

東南アジア研究 42巻３号

the Advanced FFS for rice, and FFS for secondary crops (soybean, advanced soybean, andchili) as the follow-up stage of the FFS for rice. They decided to consider the farmer-participants as IPM alumni only after accomplishing the training up to Advanced FFS for soybean[ibid.]. Despite the “primary” level of the FFS for rice as perceived by farmers, some IPM
groups in West Java had been able to advance their knowledge of pests’ life cycle, e.g. white
rice stem borer. They also acquired detailed understanding of the pest’s nature of infestation, and the appropriate control strategy for each stage of pest’s life cycle [Busyairi 1999;
Winarto 2004]. Such an understanding was absent among the Cambodian and Vietnamese
farmers. Why are there such differences?
The standard method of the FFS with its discovery experiential learning approach was
designed to be adapted to local ecological situation through the agro-ecosystem analysis,
supplemented by special topics [see Pontius et al. 2002; Gallagher 2003]. The variation of
the agro-ecological condition in each locale would therefore affect the focus and substanceof observation and analysis, even within each country. In West Java in 1990–92, and again in
1996–97, the white rice stem borer outbreaks along the north coast region were continuously infesting rice for several seasons in a row. This stimulated the discussion of how to control them appropriately and effectively by understanding the pest’s life cycle and its natureof infestation. In other places, controlling rats, brown plant hoppers, rice seed bugs or rice
blast (a disease) became the major discussion and learning. Very severe pests/disease outbreaks were not reported in Cambodia and Vietnam, in particular in the central provinces of
Cambodia where the use of insecticides was low during the wet season planting for traditional rice varieties. However, the state in each country has also its underlying agenda in
implementing the program.
The launch of the IPM program in Indonesia was initially based on the central government and leading national scientists’ main objectives to alleviate the recurrent outbreaks ofbrown plant hopper, improve the declining rice yields, and reduce the government’s subsidies on pesticides and fertilizers [see FAO 1990; Fox 1991; Kenmore 1992; Pontius et al.
2002]. On the other hand, the objectives of IPM in Cambodia and Vietnam were to improve
farming practices in a sustainable manner, by avoiding the unintended consequences andproblems of the Green Revolution [Vietnam National IPM Programme 1999; Ngin Chhay
2002; Ngin Chhay, personal communication 2003]. The IPM programs are therefore an
appropriate means to improve farmers’ cultivation strategies through the weekly FFS training. The experimental plots in which farmers did a comparison of the IPM treatment andfarmers’ practices were used to introduce the new ideas as learned by the Cambodian and
Vietnam IPM farmers.

Accumulating Knowledge and Changing Practices
Once farmers acquire new schema of interpretation, they are able to use that schema to256

Y.T.WINARTO: The Evolutionary Changes in Rice-crop Farminginterpret plants’ performance and fields’ condition. New ideas and combinations of ideas ofboth the old and the new ones are continuously formed on the basis of daily, weekly, or seasonal observation and experience. The kinds of new ideas and propositions that aregradually formed, and the extent to which the new schema becomes the basis for action inrice cultivation reveal some similarities and differences in the three countries.
Evaluating Plants’ Performance
While following farmers in Indonesia going back and forth to their rice fields, they used totell me their interpretation of how healthy, or how bad and “sick” the plants in the fields
were, either of their own or fellows’ crops. They pointed to either the colour of leaves, thenumber of stems, the straight form of stems, the similar height of plants; and during grain
formation stage, condition of panicles. Such an interpretation constitutes a significant part inevaluating their own or fellows’ strategies, and in taking up decision of what they have to do
next. Evaluating the growth of plants is a schema in which a set of elements (e.g. colour,
height, stems, and panicles) is processed together at once while observing the crops.
Understanding this, I was curious to know how the new interpretation schemas learned from
IPM affected their indicator in evaluating the condition of their plants. I discovered that
there was a similar change among the IPM farmers in the three countries, i.e. different interpretation they had after acquiring the novel ideas. However, I found a variation of their interpretation that is likely related to the differences of their learning. If the Indonesian farmers
interpret the indicator by activating the elements of “sickness” and “medicines,” theVietnamese relate it to “hunger” and “fertilizers” besides “sickness” and “medicines forpests.”
Prior to IPM learning, the Indonesian farmers perceived the change in colours at thevegetative stage as the indicator of “getting ill.” As a response, they would do their best topurchase “medicines” to cure the plants. Even though their perspectives of treating plants asof treating human body have been kept in their memory, after learning IPM, the farmers inIndonesia would not be anxious when they found the change of colours of their plants. They
did the observation first to decide what they have to do instead of going straight to purchasepesticides. In Vietnam, prior to IPM learning, farmers interpreted the changes from darkgreen to yellow or yellowish-red as an indicator of lack of fertilizers. “If the plants look yellowish-red, they are ‘hungry’, so I apply more fertilizers (nitrogen),” explained an IPM
farmer in Vietnam. As the Cambodian IPM farmers also said, deep dark-green was the bestindicator of the plants growth at the vegetative stage that was then altered significantly after
learning IPM.
“If the plants look too green (dark-green) during vegetative stage, it is too much nitrogen. I do notneed to apply some more nitrogen; or, there is a redundancy of nitrogen that provides more attraction to pests,” explained an IPM farmer in Vietnam. (author’s field notes 2003)

257

東南アジア研究 42巻３号

Since those understandings were not directly acquired from the IPM “schooling,” I
argue that farmers’ own interpretation by activating the new schemas led to the formation of
those novel indicators. It further reveals their ability to reinterpret the established schemas
for assessing the growth of plants by using the new collection of elements. An enrichment of
their schemas did occur.
Yields and Costs
It was not part of the main objectives of Farmer Field School’s training in Indonesia toimprove yields per se [see Pontius et al. 2002 for the objectives of IPM program]. Therefore,
the IPM farmers in Indonesia made their own assessment of the novel practice, i.e. “planting
rice without pesticides” by referring to the “conventional” value of evaluating the effectiveness of a particular cultivation strategy, i.e. on the best yields a farmer can produce.
However, it is not possible to measure yields increase as the direct result of this strategy.
Such a difficulty led to a skeptical attitude among some IPM farmers who had been able toproduce high yields. On the other hand, those who understand the main aims of their learning would appreciate the benefits they experienced: saving costs from reducing pesticides
use and thus improving profits, even though they would earn similar yields as before, oreven less.
As intended by the IPM planners in Cambodia and Vietnam, yields increase was alsopart of the main objectives to gain. In reality, IPM farmers in Cambodia and Vietnam wereable to relate the changes in yields with their modified practices in transplanting or fertilizing.
“Before I got 30 taings [1 taing = 2 taos = 30 kg], but now when I follow IPM practice I can get up
to 40 taings per hectare,” explained a Cambodian IPM farmer. “Now I earn more than 200 kg/sao
from using the balanced fertilizer of N-P-K. Before I earned 150–160 kg/sao,” assessed a Vietnam
IPM farmer. (author’s field notes 2003)

Since the yields of rice in Cambodia are relatively low, an addition of only very few amountof fertilizers input could have significant impacts on yields. Changes in fertilizers component
by the Vietnamese also led to changes of plants’ growth. This is a tangible result supporting
farmers’ ability to assess the changes in yields or conditions of plants with changes in fertilizers use.
The reduction of costs was mentioned by the IPM farmers in the three countries as themain benefit they obtained. This was related to the reduction of pesticides use for theIndonesian and Vietnamese, inorganic fertilizers for the Cambodian, and the amount ofseeds for both Cambodian and Vietnamese. In Indonesia, the IPM farmers became awarethat for decades they spent their money for the benefits of those who made profits out of
their practices. Besides cost saving, making their environments more greenish and healthy
were other new understanding farmers in the three countries learned. “The cleaner the vil258

Y.T.WINARTO: The Evolutionary Changes in Rice-crop Farminglage is, the better the rice fields are,” claimed some IPM farmers in Cambodia. This phrase
refers to their efforts of cleaning up house wastes and dung in their own house yard to be
used as composted manure in their fields.
From “Top-down” to “Bottom-up”
Learning from the history of the prior prominent role of agricultural cooperatives in Vietnam[Vo-Tong Xuan 1995; Tran Thi Que 1998] and the top-down instruction by using local mass
media system, what changes happened when farmers learned to make their own decisions
based on observation? Before the introduction of IPM into farmers’ life, individual households had been given right to manage their own plots, but with services provided by the
agricultural cooperatives. The IPM farmers in my field sites in Thai Binh told me that theway the information was provided was not being altered. However, the message was now
changed into a “warning” of the need to be cautious of pest/disease outbreaks, and that
farmers were expected to observe their fields and make their own decisions. If they needpesticides, they can purchase it at the agricultural cooperatives or at the thuoc sao shop.
Another significant change was the recruitment of IPM farmer trainers to be head and members of the “Plant Protection Team” of the agricultural cooperative [see Diep Dinh Hoa et al.
1993]. They now have the responsibility to monitor the field and pest/disease populationand make the recommendation on the basis of IPM principles. The IPM farmer trainer in
Nguyen Xa, Thai Binh also mentioned his unique experience when he and his fellow IPM
farmers decided to accept an offer by a rice company to multiply new seeds from China intheir fields.
While trying to follow the rules of preparing the plots and treating the seeds as determined by theseed-company, they argued against the obligation to spray the seeds nine times/season. They
asked to reduce the pesticide spray, but their request was refused by the seed-company. Then,they went to the Plant Protection Sub-department in the province and asked the agricultural officials to provide IPM training to the seed-company officials to let them understand the IPM principles. The PPSD staff agreed to provide the IPM training to the seed-company officials. At last, theseed-company allowed the IPM farmers to reduce the pesticide sprayings on the experimental
plots. (author’s field notes 2003)

I found many similar stories of how the IPM farmers did a change and had to struggle, notonly to change their own and fellows’ practices, but also of the ill-wise recommendation or
regulation by the outsiders (agricultural staff, government officials, pesticides-company anddealers, etc.). Their struggles have gradually become part of their life as experienced by
farmers in Indonesia.

16)―――――――――――――――――
16）See Winarto et al. [2000]; Winarto [2002]; Hidayat and Adinata [2001]; Media Jaringan Petani
Indonesia [2000–2002] for various stories of farmers’ voices, strategies, and struggles to protect
their right and to negotiate for a better treatment by those in the authority.
259

東南アジア研究 42巻３号

Response to Pest Outbreaks
Along with everyday experiences and observation, the individual efforts enriched the newcreated schemas, so as to provide new meanings to their world of rice farming. These newsets of meanings were processed at once while encountering the reality and changes in thefields. Knowledge enrichment was thus going on through the interaction between the intraand extra-personal structures during and outside the “schooling,” as well as through a continuous dialectic between their experiences and the new scientific concepts, terms, andpropositions. This was the case when the IPM farmers encountered unprecedented phenomena in their fields, sometimes in the direction not as expected or as intentionally planned by
the IPM facilitators, nor by farmers themselves.
The case of farmers’ responses towards white rice stem borer continuous outbreaks on
the north coast of West Java, Indonesia in early 1990s and in the mid-90s, was a good example to illustrate how the ecological condition provided an opportunity for farmers to reinterpret the existing phenomena, enrich their established schemas, or modify them throughobservation, actions, and evaluation. Farmers’ knowledge of the white rice stem borer’s life
cycle and its nature of infestation provide a basis to develop diverse ways of pest control
strategy. From a dependency on spraying or broadcasting granule pesticides as the sole control strategy, they developed a various kind of innovative practices [See Winarto 1996; 2004;
Busyairi 1999]. See Plates 2 and 3 for examples of farmers’ invention in controlling white
rice stem borer.
The Development of Farmers’ Science
Despite innovative practices, farmers also learned from experimental studies that haverecently been acknowledged as “Farmers’ Studies or Farmers’ Science” (Studi-studi Petani,
Sains Petani). This is a significant means to define, analyze, and solve their own problems
according to local needs, resources, and ecological conditions. Conducting a systematic
experimentation through comparison and repeated treatments have been common [see Berget al. 2001]. The term Studi-studi Petani or Sains Petani have become part of Indonesian

Plate 2 Slapping White Rice Stem Borer
Moths with Rubber-slipper-bamboo
Sticks [Indonesia]
260

Plate 3 Handpicking White Rice Stem Borer
Egg-clusters [Indonesia]

Y.T.WINARTO: The Evolutionary Changes in Rice-crop Farming

farmers’ vocabulary [Busyairi 1999; Winarto et al. 2000; Hidayat and Adinata 2001]. In theformal newsletter named as Media Jaringan Petani Indonesia, a special rubric called “Sains
Petani” was allocated for publishing the news of farmers’ own discoveries [see Media
Jaringan Petani Indonesia]. In various farmers’ meetings such as workshops, seminars, andconferences from the village up to the national level, the organizing committee used to allocate a special session of “Sains Petani” where farmers can exchange the ways and results of
their own discoveries.
In the recent years, two special Farmer Field Schools were developed, i.e. FFS for Sains
Petani and FFS for Ekologi Tanah (soil ecology) [See Koordinator Umum IPPHTI
Kabupaten Boyolali 2001 for FFS Sains Petani and Team MDL IPPHTI Kabupaten Sukabumi
2001 for FFS Ekologi Tanah]. Following the FFS for soil ecology, I noticed a very significant
change in the ability of farmers to discover and explain puzzling things beyond their empirical observation, e.g. the soil physical nature, by using equipments, though simple. For
examples, farmers used balloons to measure soil aeration, and electric light to know the ioncapacity-exchange in the soil. To know soil capability in retaining or absorbing water, farmers made experiments by pouring water into different types of soil found in their environment. Such experimentations were not the case in the beginning of IPM in early 1990s.
Accordingly, how the condition of their soils was, was a question without an answer.
The interaction between the intra- and extra-personal structures in schema formation,
however, is not simple. Even though my study in Cambodia and Vietnam needs to beenriched with a longer period of observation, my longitudinal study in Indonesia strengthens my argument that the extent to which knowledge becomes a basis for action is not only
situational, but is also affected by a set of other factors. For examples, farmers’ experienceand resources, ecological conditions, ongoing pressures and/or enforced recommendations,agricultural policy and local community structure, farmers’ social statuses, as well as belief,
confidence, motivation, and emotional feeling [Strauss and Quinn 1997; Winarto 2004]. A
clear example of this is the practice of spraying pesticides among the Indonesian in West
Java.
The Struggle: “Conventional Practice” versus “IPM Practice”
Referring to their long history of adopting rice intensification packages and the internalization of using “medicines” as an integral part of their culture of growing rice, not all IPM
farmers—at the early stage of learning IPM—would directly abandon this practice after having the new schema of pest-disease control. Some of them questioned the efficacy of such a
strategy in protecting their harvests from any pest-disease outbreaks; or the benefits ofreducing expenses for purchasing pesticides if they had to take risks of harvest failures.
Others did not gain a strong belief of the “killing” of natural enemies in the fields at the timeof pesticides spray, or questioned the congruency of the population growth of pests andpredators at the same period of time [see Winarto 1996; 2004]. These are examples of how
knowledge is stored in the minds even though it is not being activated, and how the activa261

東南アジア研究 42巻３号

tion of ideas is strengthened by confidence and belief. Moreover, these farmers were only
part of those who had to struggle to survive towards the continuous pest/disease outbreaks
in the situation where diverse new brands of pesticides were also introduced to themthrough various means supported by the authority’s recommendations.
On the other hand, there were some IPM farmers in my field sites who were very consistent and persistent with their new schemas. They would try whatever they could to growpaddy without “poisons,” even though with a risk of not producing the best harvests. Some
IPM farmers in Central Lampung consciously used the word “poison” to replace the word
“medicine” and criticized their fellows of using the incorrect term. Hence, there is a great
variation in the extent to which the new schemas are turned into practice. There are also
some diverse combinations of elements within farmers’ minds at the time they are going totake decisions in pest-disease management practices resulting on different outputs leading
to inaction, or action in diverse ways.
Despite the insignificant use of pesticides in Cambodia as compared to Indonesia, I also
discovered farmers remarks that not all IPM farmers were able to get better yields, since not
all of them followed IPM practices (by referring to the changes in transplanting and fertilizing they perceived as IPM practices). Hence, in spite of the variation in the ideas referred towhile discussing the learning from IPM, a similar thing happened that the enrichment ofknowledge could not automatically be an indicator of changes in practices. I also discovered
in Vietnam, that a thorough understanding of the objectives and advantages of the newknowledge does not mean that a change from a prophylactic use of pesticides to decisions
on the basis of observation would automatically occur. A leader of a local commune massorganization in Vietnam who could identify in detail the new learning she gained, but had
many other tasks to do, asked her wage labourer to spray according to the “schedule,”
though the number of sprayings declined. For her, money to pay wages is not a problem.
This is also a case where actors with a set of their social responsibilities play a role in knowledge formation and transformation. I discovered that those who define the strategies andevaluate directly the results of their own practices are those who are creatively find alternative ways to improve their farming practices and solve the puzzling phenomena theyencounter.

Creativity and Diversity: The Evolutionary Path
Whilst the Green Revolution has been criticized for reducing heterogeneity in terms of biodiversity and farmers’ practices [Shiva 1993; 1995], the phenomena I discovered following
the introduction of the IPM was the increase of diversity, and the growth of farmers’ creativity. Whereas diversity in ecological point of view leads to a greater stability and sustainability
in an ecosystem, variability in anthropological point of view enables a culture to evolve [seeJohnson 1972; Winarto 2001]. Johnson [1972] argues that in an environment where farmers
262

Y.T.WINARTO: The Evolutionary Changes in Rice-crop Farming

had to face dilemmas, risks and unexpected phenomena, their adaptation to local factors andproblems is a creative one. Through creativity, farmers transform the environment while
they are adapting to it [ibid.: 153–154]. Diversity and creativity are two closely related paths
for an evolutionary change to occur.
IPM and Non-IPM Farmers
Diversity was an apparent phenomenon when—from the time the IPM FFS was introduced
into a farming community in both countries—only a number of IPM farmers were recruited
to participate. IPM “schooling” is an education means and not a mass-technological transfer.
Only those who voluntarily expressed their willingness to join the “school” as in Cambodia,
or those who were fortunately selected by the local authority as in Indonesia and Vietnam,
were experiencing the enrichment of their knowledge. Such a selection and training method
create a situation where only a number of farmers among hundreds of other farmers in one
community had the opportunity to learn and exercise the new schemas through actions. In
Indonesia, the IPM farmers’ decisions for not spraying pesticides if unnecessary raisedquestions by their fields’ neighbours of their inaction at the time of spraying. In a situation
where farmers were not able to relate such a “strange” action to significant differences inyields, or pest/disease outbreaks, the means to transfer the new IPM ideas was only
through verbal explanation. This is not quite a convincing way to having appreciation fromthose who did not experience changes in their schemas of growing rice.
I found similar stories of how the Cambodian and Vietnamese farmers observed theemergence of variation in the growing condition of plants and yields between the crops
grown by the IPM and non-IPM farmers. In contrast to the Indonesian case, the more tangible results of yields in Cambodia and Vietnam due to some changes in fertilizers use provided a stimulating factor for the non-IPM farmers to know more, and to follow the changes
after gaining some belief. Improving yields has been the main aim of farmers to achieve. In
Vietnam, some non-IPM farmers were felt to be left behind in increasing rice production by
being not selected as the participants of the “school.” However, they had to admit the reality
if the local authority did not select them to participate.
It is interesting to note that there are differences among the three countries in selecting
participants, determining the location of FFS, and how many FFS will be conducted every
year at the same or different places. In Cambodia, it is the National IPM Programme’s decision that only one FFS would be held in one village, but the decision of who would be theparticipants is in the hand of the village leader. However, his decision depends on individual
choice to join. The decision of where to run the FFS by the agricultural officials in Indonesia
is no longer the case. With the withdrawal of foreign financial grants and the termination of
the National IPM Programme in late 1990s, along with the increased number of IPM farmer
trainers, the decision is now in the hands of the IPM farmers themselves. There is a great
range of variation among diverse farming communities of how the local IPM farmers—who
have institutionally formed an IPM farmers association (Ikatan Petani Pengendalian Hama263

東南アジア研究 42巻３号

Terpadu Indonesia)—manage the dissemination of the new knowledge and strategies. In
Central Lampung, the leaders of the local IPM farmers’ organization called as Wakak Jukok(grass-root) decided to expand the number of FFS each season by also developing theadvanced trainings, so that more farmers can have the opportunity to experience the learning process. The freedom experienced by both Cambodia and Indonesia who are now experiencing decentralization process in each own way, is not the case with the Vietnamese interms of recruitment for joining that national program.
In Vietnam, the provincial agricultural officials in collaboration with the local agricultural
cooperative determine the number and places of FFS in each season. The local leaders makethe decision of who would be the participants in the next FFS. By referring to the written criteria of IPM participants and their knowledge of each member’s talents and performance,
the local mass organizations selected the registered farmers and provided the list to hamlet
and village leaders. The latter submitted the list to the agricultural cooperative managing
boards, the final decision makers. In one commune, the chief of the people’s commune had
to also prove the list. Such a selection process does not only reveal the existing community
structure, but also the importance of the training as perceived by the local leaders. Even
though some changes have occurred in the structures and relations of the community andmass organizations in Vietnam [Tran Thi Van Anh and Nguyen Man Huan 1995; Tran Thi
Que 1998], decision-making on the community’s affairs and needs has still been in the handsof local leaders. Yanagisawa and Kono [2001: 21] also conclude that the agricultural cooperative still play its role as in-between position (between the commune and farmers) in dealing
with farmers’ needs. This enables the cooperative to continue to play key roles in agricultural matters. Cambodia, on the other hand, is known for the lack of a rigid social structure inrural areas. Marston [1997: 79] says that hierarchy had very little stable institutional grounding in Cambodia. Ebihara [1966: 188] also argues that there is some truth in the assertion
that independence and individualism are important to the Cambodian [see Steinberg 1959;
Ebihara 1971]. In comparing Cambodia and Vietnam, Thion [1993: 25] says: “The
Cambodian communal institution was far from having the same strong internal cohesion thatwas so noticeable in neighbouring Vietnam.” To some extent, these variations affect thenature of how the new schemas are distributed in one community.
“Overheard Piecemeal Learning” and Farmers’ Creativity
Another contributing factor for diversity to exist is the reality that the combination and collection of new elements as gained by the IPM farmers could not be transferred to non-IPM
farmers as comprehensively as they learned from the “school.” What becomes the topic ofobservation or conversation is very situational. Some non-IPM farmers in Vietnam could elicit
the new ideas they learned from the IPM farmers in details—including the names of the
predators and which insects prey upon which ones. Some farmers said that they only knew
some new ideas through “overheard piecemeal learning.” Thus, variation does prevail in theextent to which the new schemas were transmitted by the IPM farmers, and were reinter264

Y.T.WINARTO: The Evolutionary Changes in Rice-crop Farming

preted, and misinterpreted by non-IPM farmers through observation and conversation.
Even though there is a growing understanding of IPM knowledge and strategies among
the farmers in both countries, heterogeneity does prevail, in particular with the Indonesiancase. It is related to the improved farmers’ creativity. Their curiosity and motivation to carryout their own studies and experiments increased as found in a diverse range of farmers’studies in Indonesia.

17)

Furthermore, the very diverse kinds of studies provide very rich find-ings that contribute to farmers’ knowledge enrichment. For their peers, the more varied
practices provide an external circumstance to observe, examine, and further decide whether
to follow those practices and discoveries. As a further consequence, a more effective andefficient practice could replace the old ones.
Following their own ability to discover new things, explain, and solve their own problems, farmers’ dignity and self-confidence have been improved. “Give me a book, and incombination with my empirical observation and findings, I can take the role as a ‘specialist
extension worker’,” convinced a young IPM farmer in West Java. “I know more than theextension worker about the details of white rice stem borer’s life cycle and how to control it
effectively,” claimed an IPM farmer in West Java proudly. Confidently IPM farmers inIndonesia were presenting their own discoveries in various meetings among farmers themselves, and even among the scholars, and bureaucrats in workshops, seminar, and conferences. The development of various studies in the so-called Farmers’ Science is a proof of
farmers’ own dignity and self-confidence as knowledge producers. Even though in Cambodia
and Vietnam the term and activities of “Farmers’ Science” as developed in Indonesia havenot been well institutionalized yet among the IPM farmers, my informants in both countries
did tell me of the experiments they did following their training, in their own plots or in agroup (under the CIPM) [see Plates 4 and 5]. “In this season I make an experiment of transplanting young-age of seedlings, and one seedling only in one rice-hill. If the results aregood I have the evidence to tell my fellows,” voiced an IPM farmer-trainer in Cambodia. A
further result I found is the development of new roles among some IPM farmers.
New Roles: Teacher, Facilitator, and Researcher
The IPM farmer-trainers in the three countries have indeed experienced changes in theirpositions as not only ordinary farmers, but also as knowledgeable ones. Since they wereappointed to facilitate farmers in the IPM “school,” farmers in Cambodia called them kru(teacher), the same meaning as used by farmers in Vietnam to call the IPM facilitators as
giáo vien. The IPM farmer-trainers became the resource persons to whom farmers ask questions. In Indonesia, the term for the same status is petani pemandu (farmer facilitators), not
as a teacher. On the other hand, there are new identifications for those who are diligently
and industriously carrying out observation, studies, and experiments as farmer-researchers―――――――――――――――――
17）See the examples of various kinds of Farmers’ Studies in Media Jaringan Petani Indonesia[2000a; 2000b; 2000c; 2001a; 2001b; 2002a; 2002b]; Busyairi [1999]; Winarto et al.[2000].
265

東南アジア研究 42巻３号

Plate 4 The “Composted-manure” Hut[Cambodia]

Plate 5 Leaving the Straw in the Field[Vietnam](petani peneliti), farmer-experts (pakar petani), and also as farmer-professors (petani professor) for the “very diligent and expert” ones [see Winarto 2004; Winarto et al. 2000].
In spite of such a variation, I argue for a significant change in the probability of individual farmers—characterized by those new capabilities—to survive and become effective models in their communities. If these farmers replace the old “model farmers” of the Green
Revolution era (i.e. who were successfully producing high yields) as the leading models inrice farming, then a “natural selection” in rice crop farming culture is expected to occur. As
argued by Boyd and Richerson [1985: 173],
To demonstrate that natural selection is a force in cultural evolution, we must still show that individuals characterized by alternative cultural variants differ in their probability of surviving andbecoming effective models.

A longitudinal study is necessary to discover whether such a natural selection will occur inthe three countries. The IPM farmers’ creativities in their responses to white rice stem
borer outbreaks in West Java reveal that such a tendency occurs. Those who previously
were not considered as “model farmers” were then perceived as “farmer-professors” due totheir industriousness in observing, questioning, and carrying out experimentation throughout the course of the outbreaks. The farmers’ creativity in modifying and developing new
kinds of pest control strategies provide an opportunity for other farmers to question those“strange practices,” learn the reasons behind those actions, discover the results throughobservation and comparison, and assess the impacts on pest’s population and plants growth.
Farmers were then able to decide which control strategies were more effective and which
ones were no longer appropriate and then, should be abandoned. The case of white ricestem borer control strategies in West Java proves such a gradual change, i.e. from an ignorance of the pest’s life cycle, its nature of infestation on plants, and a uniform practice of controlling pests, to a rich understanding of the pest’s behavior and diverse control strategies
according to the pest’s life cycle [see Winarto 1996; 2004; Busyairi et al. 2000]. However, a266

Y.T.WINARTO: The Evolutionary Changes in Rice-crop Farming

varied degree of understanding and actions prevail which again enriched farmers’ evaluation, thoughts, analysis, and actions. This is an ever-expanding experience.

Evolution in Rice-crop Farming: Is It a Reality?
It is a reality that gradual changes—rather than sudden ones—did occur following the IPM
programs in Indonesia, Cambodia, and Vietnam. In different settings and locales with different history of agricultural development, the similar educational methods of introducing
knowledge and technology while improving farmers’ curiosity and creativity did produce anenrichment of schemas in growing rice. This is the significant difference of learning fromthe Green Revolution technological packages in a uniform-mass-top-down recommendation.
It is not to dismiss the reality though that some new cultivation techniques introduced
through the IPM FFS are also based on the “scientific agricultural domain.” The gradualchanges that follow reveal that once the farmers learn new elements—that fill in the missing
slots in farmers’ understandings of their rice ecology—together with adopting new ways oflearning, an enhancement of various combinations of elements lead to an ongoing process ofknowledge accumulation. The return of farmers’ dignity and the enhancement of their creativity play a significant part in this process. However, this is only one contributing path fora gradual change in individuals’ knowledge to occur. The extent to which knowledge is put
into action—that is affected by various intra- and extra-personal structures that are locality
based—together with diverse ways of recruiting participants and knowledge transmission
contribute to a heterogeneous nature of crop farming to develop. Only with the provision ofdiverse features of growing crops does a natural selection occur, not only on the “best” practices in its new meaning, but also on the nature of farmers’ expertise. These are the significant paths for evolutionary processes in rice-crop farming.
A comparative perspective in examining those phenomena in different countries proves
useful in understanding and elucidating processes that lead to the formation of new meaning
and interpretation in its similar or diverse ways. How the “culturally specific meanings” of
the reality within its social and cultural context are formed, as well as how the processes of
those meanings construction occur [see Holy 1987: 10–11], help us to understand how a certain feature of knowledge and practices evolve. Further queries can be carried out to discover
why the processes that articulate or generate the observable diversity and similarity exist.
These are the advantages in carrying out a comparative approach in examining the consequences of “IPM schooling” on several farming communities in Indonesia, Cambodia, andVietnam.
A detailed ethnographic study is also beneficial in examining the formation and development of new schemas, and how the individual schemas—that were put into practices—
became the extra-personal structures for other individuals. To what extent have the “shared
IPM schemas” among the IPM participants become the “cultural schemas” of all farmers in267

東南アジア研究 42巻３号

one locale? Have the gradual changes in knowledge and practices occurred among all farmers in a farming community? It has not always been the case for an “IPM cultural schema” tooccur. Various programs of CIPM to disseminate the knowledge do not mean automaticallythat all farmers would understand what the IPM knowledge is. Thus, it is still a question ofwhat the accumulative consequences of the current evolutionary changes are on their culture of growing rice in the future, in particular within the increased demands of high productivity and global international market. A further detailed longitudinal study is necessary.

Acknowledgment
I am grateful for those who support my research financially and substantially in Indonesia, Cambodia,
and Vietnam, i.e. to the FAO Inter-country Program in Indonesia, FIELD Indonesia, the FAO Global
IPM Facility, The Ford Foundation, The Toyota Foundation and The Japan Foundation Asia Program(SEASREP Council), the CSEAS Kyoto University, and the IPM program coordinators, planners, andstaff in Indonesia, Cambodia, and Vietnam.
My sincere thanks due to Russel Dilts, Nugroho Wienarto, and Alifah from FIELD Indonesia who
provided significant information and thoughts of the most current development and problems of IPM in
Indonesia and Asia; to Ngin Chhay and Ngo Tien Dung as the National IPM Programme coordinators in
Cambodia and Vietnam; Alida Laurence and Jorgen Karlsen as the representatives of DANIDA in bothcountries; Yech Polo from Srer Khmer Organization, and Tran Chi Hieu, the provincial director of Plant
Protection Sub-Division in Thai Binh, who welcome and assist my visits. My research assistants andinterpreters: Kong Kea and Nin Charya in Cambodia; Do Trong Tan, Bui Van Huyen, and local farmer
trainers in Thai Binh, Vietnam made my research possible. Ezra M. Choesin and my research assistants
in both West Java and Central Lampung were of great help for me in carrying out my research inIndonesia. I owe all of them for their generosity and support during my studies in Cambodia, Vietnam,
and Indonesia.
I would especially like to thank Koji Tanaka, Chris A. Gregory, and Masayuki Yanagisawa for theiruseful comments on the earlier draft of this paper. My research at CSEAS Kyoto University was madepossible and fruitful through the kind collaboration of Koji Tanaka, my counterpart and Director of the
CSEAS Kyoto University, along with the supporting assistance of all CSEAS staff, and the enlightened
discussions with A. Terry Rambo, Yasuyuki Kono, and Masayuki Yanagisawa.

References
Amanor, K. J.; Wellard, K.; de Boef, W.; and Bebbington, A. 1993. Introduction. In Cultivating
Knowledge: Genetic Diversity, Farmer Experimentation and Crop Research, edited by Walter de Boef,
Kojo Amanor and Kate Wellard, with Anthony Bebbington, pp.1–13. London: Intermediate
Technology Publications.
Arce, A.; and Long, N. 1992. The Dynamics of Knowledge: Interfaces between Bureaucrats andPeasants. In Battlefields of Knowledge: The Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Researchand Development, edited by N. Long and A. Long, pp. 211–246. London: Routledge.
Barth, F. 2002. An Anthropology of Knowledge. Sidney W. Mintz Lecture for 2000. Current Anthropology
43(1): 1–18.
Bentley, J. W. 1992. Alternatives to Pesticides in Central America: Applied Studies of Local Knowledge.
Culture and Agriculture 44: 10–13.
Berg, H. van den; P.A.C. Ooi; A.L. Hakim; H. Ariawan; and W. Cahyana. 2001. Farmer Field Research:
An Analysis of Experience from Indonesia. Manuscript (draft). The FAO Programme for268

Y.T.WINARTO: The Evolutionary Changes in Rice-crop Farming
Community IPM in Asia. Jakarta.
Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management.
Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.
Bloch, M. 1991. Language, Anthropology and Cognitive Science. Man, New Series 26(2): 183–198.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. New York: Cambridge University.
Boyd, R.; and P. J. Richerson. 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Brokensha, D.; Warren, D. M.; and Werner, O., eds. 1980. Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development.
Lanham: University Press of America.
Busyairi, M. A., ed 1999. Membangun Pengetahuan Emansipatoris: Kasus Riset Aksi di Indramayu, Studi
Kehidupan dan Gerakan Pengendalian Hama Penggerek Batang Padi Putih. Jakarta: Lapesdam,
Nahdlatul Ulama, The FAO Programme for Community IPM in Asia ICP Indonesia and Kelompok
Tani Bumi Tani Kalensari, Indramayu.
Chambers, R.; Pacey, A.; and Thrupp, L. A., eds. 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural
Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Conway, G. 1998. The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in the 21st Century. Ithaca, New York:
Cornell University Press.
Creswell, J. W. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks,
London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
D’Andrade, R. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
DANIDA IPM Training Project in Cambodia. n.d. Executive Summary DANIDA IPM Project II.
Manuscript. Phnom Penh.
Diep Dinh Hoa; Gillogly, K.; Le Thi Van Hue; Nguyen Quang Minh; and Nguyen Hung Long. 1993.
Autonomy and Solidarity. In Too Many People, Too Little Land: The Human Ecology of a Wet RiceGrowing Village in the Red River Delta of Vietnam, edited by Le Trong Cuc and A. Terry Rambo, pp.
53–82. Honolulu: East-West Center Program on Environment.
Do Kim Chung; and Kim Thi Dung. 2002. Pest Management in Rice Production in Vietnam: A Socioeconomic Assessment. Hanoi: Nha Xuat Ban Nong Nghiep.
Duuren, B van. 2003. Report of Consultancy on the Assessment of the Impact of the IPM Programme at
Field Level. Integrated Pest Management Farmer Training Project Cambodia. Manuscript. Phnom
Penh: Royal Government of Denmark, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Danida and Royal Government of
Cambodia, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, National IPM Programme DAALI.
Duuren, B. van; Sodavy, P.; and Reasa, I. 2002. Report of Consultancy on the Assessment of IPM/FFS
Training Activities on District Trainers and Farmer Trainers. Integrated Pest Management Farmer
Training Project Cambodia. Manuscript. Phnom Penh: Royal Government of Denmark, Ministry ofForeign Affairs, Danida and Royal Government of Cambodia, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries, National IPM Programme DAALI.
Ebihara, M. M. 1966. Interrelations between Buddhism and Social System in Cambodian PeasantCulture. In Anthropological Studies in Theravada Buddhism, edited by M. Nash, pp.175–196. Yale:
Yale University Southeast Asia Studies.
――――. 1971. Svay, a Khmer Village in Cambodia. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 1990. Mid-term Review of FAO Inter-country Program forthe Development and Application of Integrated Pest Control in South and South East Asia. Mission
Report phase II. Manuscript. Jakarta.
――――. 2002. The FAO Programme for Community IPM in Asia: Phase IV of Inter-Country
Programme for the Development and Application of Integrated Pest Management in Rice in Southand South-East Asia. Progress Report for the period 1 September 2001–28 February 2002. Jakarta.
Fox, J. J. 1991. Managing the Ecology of Rice Production in Indonesia. In Indonesia: Resources, Ecology,
and Environment, edited by J. Hardjono, pp. 61–84. Singapore: Oxford University Press.
――――. 1993. Ecological Policies for Sustaining High Production in Rice: Observations on Rice269

東南アジア研究 42巻３号
Intensification in Indonesia. In South-East Asia’s Environmental Future: The Search for Sustainability,
edited by H. Brookfield and Y. Byron, pp. 211–224. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Gallagher, K. 2003. Fundamental Elements of a Farmer Field School. Learning with Farmer Field
Schools. (LEISA) (Magazine on Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture) 19(1): 5–6.
Hansen, G. E. 1978. Bureaucratic Linkages and Policy-making in Indonesia: BIMAS Revisited. In
Political Power and Communications in Indonesia, edited by K. W. Jackson and L. W. Pye, pp.
322–342. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hardjono, J. 1983. Rural Development in Indonesia: The “Top-down” Approach. In Rural Development
and the State, edited by D. A. M. Leam and D. P. Chaudhri, pp. 38–65. London: Methuen.
Hidayat, R.; and Adinata, K. 2001. Farmers in Indonesia: Escaping the Trap of Injustice. Paper presented
at the meeting of Programme Advisory Committee (PAC), The FAO Programme for Community
IPM in Asia, 26–28 November. Ayuthaya, Thailand.
Holy, L. 1987. Introduction. Description, Generalization and Comparison: Two Paradigms. In
Comparative Anthropology, edited by L. Holy, pp. 1–21. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Huberman, A. M.; and Miles, M. B. 2002. The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion. Thousand Oaks,
London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Johnson, A. W. 1972. Individuality and Experimentation in Traditional Agriculture. Human Ecology 1(2):149–159.
Kenmore, P. E. 1992. Indonesia’s IPM-A Model for Asia. In FAO: Intercountry Programme for theDevelopment of Integrated Pest Control in Rice in South and Southeast Asia: Supplementary
Documents for Project Document. Phase III.
Koordinator Umum IPPHTI Kabupaten Boyolali. 2001. Hasil Pelatihan Sains Petani Ideal di Kabupaten
Boyolali, 10–15 November 2001. Boyolali.
Kuhn, T. S. 1993. Metaphor in Science. In Metaphor and Thought, edited by A. Ortony, pp. 533-542.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Le Trong Cuc; and Rambo, A. T., eds. 1993. Too Many People, Too Little Land: The Human Ecology of a
Wet Rice-Growing Village in the Red River Delta of Vietnam. Honolulu: East-West Center Programon Environment.
Mabbet, I.; and Chandler, D. 1995. The Khmers. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.
Marston, J. 1997. Cambodia 1991–94: Hierarchy, Neutrality and Etiquettes of Discourse. Unpublished
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Washington.
Media Jaringan Petani Indonesia. 2000a. Profil: Gatot Surono: Dengan Pertanian Organik Ekosistem
Lebih Sehat, October (001): 8.
――――. 2000b. Sains Petani: Beras Organik Lebih Tahan Lama, Rasanya Enak, October (001): 10.
――――. 2000c. Pestisida Nabati: Alternatif Pengendalian Hama yang Ramah Lingkungan, December(003): 11.
――――. 2001a. Dengan Penambahan Urea Tablet: Karya Tani Desa Menuran Kecamatan Baki,
Sukoharjo Lakukan Uji Coba Pemupukan Bokashi, February (005): 11.
――――. 2001b. Oncor Sewu Efektif untuk Kendalikan Hama Sundep, March (006): 10.
――――. 2002a. Alat Ukur Mineral Tanah “Jamali”, April (13): 12.
――――. 2002b. Kecamatan PHT Bayongbong, Kaya Prestasi Jago Strategi, December (18): 7.
Moock, J. L. 1992. Introduction. In Diversity, Farmer Knowledge, and Sustainability, edited by J. L.
Moock and R. Rhoades, pp. 1–10. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Murshid, K. A. S. 1998. Food Security in an Asian Transitional Economy: The Cambodian Experience.
Working Paper 6. Phnom Penh: Cambodia Development Resource Institute and United Nations
Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva.
National IPM Coordinator; and FAO of the United Nations IPM.1998. Integrated Pest Management in
Cambodia. Manuscript. Phnom Penh.
Nesbitt, H. J., ed. 1997. Rice Production in Cambodia. Manila: Cambodia-IRRI-Australia Project.
Ngin Chhay. 2002. Report on the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Activities in Cambodia(1993–2002). Manuscript. Phnom Penh: Department of Agronomy and Agricultural Land270

Y.T.WINARTO: The Evolutionary Changes in Rice-crop Farming
Improvement National IPM Programme.
Petrie, H. G.; and Oshlag, R. S. 1993. Metaphor and Learning. In Metaphor and Thought, edited by A.
Ortony, pp. 579–609. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pontius, J.; Dilts, R.; and Bartlett, A. 2002. From Farmer Field School to Community IPM: Ten Years of
IPM Training in Asia. Bangkok: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Regional
Office for Asia and the Pacific.
Pottier, J. 2003. Negotiating Local Knowledge: An Introduction. In Negotiating Local Knowledge: Powerand Identity in Development, edited by J. Pottier, A. Bicker and P. Sillitoe, pp.1–29. London: Pluto
Press.
Quinn, N. 1991. The Cultural Basis of Metaphor. In Beyond Metaphor: The Theory of Tropes in
Anthropology, edited by J. W. Fernandez, pp.56–93. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Rambo, A. T. 1991. The Study of Cultural Evolution. In Profiles in Cultural Evolution: Papers from a
Conference in Honor of Elman R. Service, edited by A. T. Rambo and K. Gillogly, pp.23–109.
Michigan: Ann Arbor.
Richards, P. 1980. Community Environmental Knowledge in African Rural Development. In Indigenous
Knowledge Systems and Development, edited by D. Brokensha, D. M. Warren and O. Werner, pp. 181–
194. Lanham: University Press of America.
――――. 1985. Indigenous Agricultural Revolution: Ecology and Food Production in West Africa. London:
Hutchinson and Boulder: Westview Press.
Röling, N.; Foley, S.; Markie, J.; Pimbert, M.; Salazar, R.; and Yongfan, P. 2000. Phase IV Mid Term
Review 2000. Main Report. FAO Inter-country Progamme for Community IPM in Asia.
Ross, N. 2004. Culture and Cognition: Implications for Theory and Method. California et al.: Sage
Publications.
Scoones, I.; and Thompson, J. 1994. Introduction. In Beyond Farmer First: Rural People’s Knowledge,
Agricultural Research and Extension Practice, edited by I. Scoones and J. Thompson, pp. 1–12.
London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Shiva, V. 1993. Monocultures of the Mind: Perspectives on Biodiversity and Biotechnology. London: Zed
Books and Penang: Third World Network.
――――. 1995. Biospiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge. Boston, Massachussetts: South End
Press.
Shore, B. 1996. Culture in Mind: Cognition, Culture, and the Problem of Meaning. New York and Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sophal, C.; and Acharya, S. 2002. Facing the Challenge of Rural Livelihoods: A Perspective from Nine
Villages in Cambodia. Working Paper 25. Phnom Penh: Cambodia Development Resource Institute.
Steinberg, D. J. in collaboration with Bain, C. A.; Burlingham, L.; Duff, R. G.; Fall, B. B.; Greenhouse, R.;
Kramer, R.; and McLellan, R. S. 1959. Cambodia: Its People, Its Society, Its Culture. New Haven:
HRAF Press.
Strauss, C.; and Quinn, N. 1997. A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sumberg, J.; and Okali, C. 1997. Farmers’ Experiment: Creating Local Knowledge. Boulder, Colorado:
Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.
Tanaka, K. 2002. Crop Raising Techniques in Asian Rice Culture: Resemblances to Root and Tuber Crop
Cultivation. In Vegeculture in Eastern Asia and Oceania, edited by S. Yoshida and P. J. Matthews,
pp. 45–58. JCAS Symposium Series 16. Osaka: The Japan Center for Area Studies (JCAS) andNational Museum of Ethnology.
Team MDL IPPHTI Kabupaten Sukabumi. 2001. Laporan Kegiatan Pelatihan Sain Petani dalam Proses
Pembelajaran Ekologi Tanah, 31 October–5 November 2001. Manuscript. Sukabumi.
Thion, S. 1993. Watching Cambodia: Ten Paths to Enter the Cambodian Tangle. Bangkok: White Lotus.
Tran Thi Que. 1998. Vietnam’s Agriculture: The Challenges and Achievements. Singapore: Institute ofSoutheast Asian Studies.
Tran Thi Van Anh; and Nguyen Man Huan. 1995. Changing Rural Institutions and Social Relations. In
271

東南アジア研究 42巻３号
Vietnam’s Rural Transformation, edited by B. J. Tria Kerkvliet and D. J. Porter, pp. 201–214.
Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press; Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Vietnam Development Report. 2000. Vietnam Attacking Poverty. Joint Report of the Government ofVietnam-Donor-NGO Poverty Working Group. Consultative Group Meeting for Vietnam. December
14–15, 1999. Hanoi.
Vietnam National IPM Programme. 1999. Vietnam National IPM Programme August 1992 to June 1999.
Manuscript. Hanoi.
――――. 2000. Community IPM Information Sheets. Manuscript prepared as parts of the briefing kit for
the Community IPM Midterm Review Mission to Vietnam, November 5–11, 2000. Hanoi.
――――. 2003. The Summarized Table of CIPM Activities. Manuscript. Hanoi.
Vo-Tong Xuan.1995. Rice Production, Agricultural Research, and the Environment. In Vietnam’s Rural
Transformation, edited by B. J. Tria Kerkvliet and D. J. Porter, pp. 185–200. Boulder, Colorado:
Westview Press; and Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Winarto, Y. T. 1995. State Intervention and Farmer Creativity: Integrated Pest Management among Rice
Farmers in Subang, West Java. Agriculture and Human Values 12(4): 47–57.
――――. 1996. Seeds of Knowledge: The Consequences of IPM Schooling on a Farming Community inWest Java. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The Australian National University, Canberra.
――――. 1998. ‘Hama dan Musuh Alami’, ‘Obat dan Racun’: Dinamika Pengetahuan Petani Padi dalam
Pengendalian Hama. Antropologi Indonesia 22(55): 53–68.
――――. 1999. Creating Knowledge: Scientific Knowledge and Local Adoption in Rice Integrated Pest
Management in Indonesia (a Case Study from Subang, West Java). In Applied Anthropology inAustralasia, edited by S. Toussaint and J Taylor, pp. 162–192. Perth: University of Western
Australia.
――――. 2001. Managing Soybean Varieties in Java and Lampung: Two Cases of Farmers’ Creativity. In
Managing Biodiversity in Agricultural Ecosystems (Proceedings of an International Conference organized by the United Nations University, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, andInternational Plant Genetics Resources). Paper 19.
――――. 2002. Self-governance and Conflicting Interest in Natural Resource Management: The Case of
Crop Farming Management. Paper presented in the International Workshop on Perspectives on
Regional Autonomy in a Multicultural Indonesia. The Indonesian Study Group (Asia ResearchInstitute), The Department of Sociology, and the Southeast Asian Studies Programme, National
University of Singapore, 13–15 May.
――――. 2004. Seeds of Knowledge: The Beginning of Integrated Pest Management in Java. Monograph
53. New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies.
Winarto, Y. T.; Choesin, E. M.; Fadli, Ningsih, A. S. H.; and Darmono, S. 2000. Satu Dasa Warsa
Pengendalian Hama Terpadu; Berjuang Menggapai Kemandirian dan Kesejahteraan. Research
report submitted to the Indonesian FAO Inter Country Program. Jakarta.
Winarto, Y. T.; Maidi; and Darmowiyoto. 1999. Pembangunan Pertanian dan Pemasungan Kebebasan
Petani. Antropologi Indonesia 23(59): 66–79.
Yanagisawa, M.; and Kono, Y. 2001. Changing Roles of Cooperatives in Agricultural Production in the
Red River Delta. In Vietnamese Society in Transition, edited by J. Kleinen, pp. 3–22. Amsterdam:
Het Spinhuis.

272