Agricultural Extension Planning Based on

Risk Mitigation:
The Case of Land Conversion in Indonesia
Ujang Maman Oos M. Anwas
Agribusiness Post Graduate Program Faculty of Comunication
Faculty of Science and Technology, State Islamic Bogor Agricultural University
University Jakarta, Indonesia Bogor, Indonesia
Email: ujang.maman@uinjkt.ac.id

Nindyantoro Yuni Sugiarti

Faculty of Economy and Management Faculty of Science and Technology, State Islamic
Bogor Agricultural University University Jakarta
Bogor, Indonesia Indonesia

Abstract--By the massive land conversion which threatened the farming sustainability, the agricultural extension
planning should not merely to improve the farming innovativeness and skill, but it should be focused comprehensively
on upgrading the farmer’s awareness to control the risk. Therefore, the research aims to identify the event of land
conversion risk, the agents of risk, and finally to formulate the agricultural extension planning based on risk mitigation.
Based on in-depth interview with the 60 of farmer group’s head in West Java, Indonesia, from June to October 2017,
the research pointed out four events of risk led the land conversion and seven agents of risk. In the light of HOR-2
model, the agricultural extension planning should be prioritized sequentially to four strongly urgent, four urgent, and
two less urgent actions.

Key word: land conversion risk, agent of risk, agricultural extension planning

I. INTRODUCTION
The major critical view on diffusion of innovation model of agricultural extension has yielded the interaction
and dialogue model of extension, focusses on the expanding of farmer’s awareness, in which it is widely practiced
in farmer field school (FFS). The extension planning in the first model is mainly to deliver innovations, practically
as well as ideas. Based on this model, the research of extension was mainly to measure the farmer’s
innovativeness, adoption of innovation, farmer’s social and economic characteristics, and attributes of innovations
accelerated the diffusion of new ideas and practices (Rogers, 1983).
While, for the latest model, represented in FFS, farmer’s maturity, attitude of learners, curiosity, and problem
solving ability are the main target of extension. The FFS extension has not been delivering the new practices from
sources system to recipient in one way traffic, but emphasizing to extend human capacity (Maman et al., 2015).
This model of extension has placed the farmer as the participant – who has the equal position with the facilitators
-- in which they got experience by doing, experimenting, participating and discovering (Godrick Khisa, 2004).
The basic principles of this extension model is empowering farmer with knowledge and skill; making farmer
expert in their field; sharpening the farmer’s ability to make critical and informed decision; and helping farmer
learn how to organize themselves and communities (SUSTAINET EA, (2010). The major points of this model in
Khatam perspective (2010) is: improving farmer’s knowledge; helping farmer in learning by doing; helping the
farmer in problem identification by themselves; promoting community organizations; and learning better
leadership, communication and management skill.
However, the above high farmer consciousness is mostly un-valuable due to the massive land conversion
(Apriana, 2011), high tendency of farmer to leave the agri-field, and to sell the farming land. FAO, IFAD and
WFP (2014) has criticized that Indonesia has been unsuccessful to control land conversion, and the country is
highly potential to deal with the risk of food insecure, food crisis, and even threaten the farming sustainability.
Based on the fact, the farmer’s awareness should be directed comprehensively to control the risk of land
conversion, and it needs integrated planning. Therefore, this research aims to identify the probable coming of the
land conversion, the agent induced the emergence of the risk, and the prioritized mitigation sequentially as the
integrated agricultural extension planning.

II. THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND REASONING

This Research has explored three variables of land conversion risk, the risk agent, and agricultural extension
planning. Literally, the risk is the possibility of loss, injury, or other unwelcome circumstance. Other literal
definition, the risk is an unpleasant consequence of an action; and it probably threatens a successful aim or target

1
of an organization or individual. Referring to Baranoff et.al. (WY), the risk is equal with uncertainty which affects
the unexpected situation, such as a damage of asset, loose of the company, and unsuccessful target from the lower
to upper condition. The source of risk, referring to Baranoff (WY), could be probably a natural hazard such as
hurricane, flood and tornado, as well as the man-made condition disturbed the human life.
The shortage of the staple food is risk for the human life existence. The massive land use change – due to
dynamic of development which increases the need of infrastructure, housing estate, and the office – is a high risk
for staple food availability. The farmer condition and attitude toward farming land which has led the high tendency
of land selling and farming unwillingness could seriously become the event of risk. Baranoff (WY) emphasized,
the scope of the risk indirectly can be categorized into the macro and the micro level based on its coverage to the
national stage and the individual, family, and the small company. The risk event of land conversion could probably
cover the nation as the FAO’s note on Indonesia (FAO, IFAD, and WFP, 2014).
The risk of the nation is, of course, a gradual accumulation of risk on the all sides related to the life of the
nation. The Studies of Fujimoto (1996), Neef (1999), Nabangchang & Srisawalak (2008), Susilawati & Maulana
(2012), which is strengthened by NDPA’s data (2013) affirmed the fact that the Indonesian agri-food is a family
farm system, which is clearly indicated by the small size of paddy wetland farming. The family household is
responsible for staple food supply and procurement. The source of food crisis as a national risk and caused by
wetland conversion should be detected to the risk event within the farmer family.
To trace the risk affects land conversion could be detected in the supply chain approach. Tang & Musa (2011)
emphasized the coherence between risk, uncertainty, and supply chain process. The two researchers stated, “risk
is unreliable and uncertain resources creating supply chain interruption, whereas uncertainty is matching risk
between supply and demand in supply chain process.” It is true, the risk analysis, uncertainty, and supply chain
are originally the subject of risk management and logistic, but it innovatively could be applied in other related
field. Maman et al. (2018) got succeeded to apply the supply chain model to explore the halal risk. Based on the
experience, the supply chain approach would probably get excellent result to detect the farmer’s condition,
behavior and tendency have induced the land use change.
The paddy production in supply chain approach could be categorized into three stages of pre-cultivation,
cultivation & plant maintenance and post-harvest phase. Based on the risk control point in each stage – in which
the research prefers to explore the event of the risk cultivation & plant maintenance – the research sharply browse
the probable risk lead the farmer toward high tendency of land selling. Referring to Wstra and Mahbuby (2014),
the important of agribusiness risk is a high dependent upon season. In addition, the farming practice such as
breeding, tillage, cultivation, and plant maintenance could be too complicated in farmer perspective (Rogers,
1983). The pest attack and diseases is still disturb the farming process that bring the farmer to get loss; and the
effort to control the pest in farmer field school has not yet get proper success (Feder et al., 2004). The above
condition hypothetically will accumulate and bring out the farmer tendency of land selling.
The probable risk above should be blended with the rural cultural. Rahardjo (2014) outlined the change of
village from rural to urban life because of the economic development, accessibility, and extension of urban area.
The children of the farmer which inherited the farming area has a tendency to leave the farming life because of
the coming of urban pattern along with the cultural change. The complexity of farming practice will bring the
youth of village regarding that the farming is unsuitable with the emerging urban culture.

III. THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Following the logic of House of Risk (Pujawan and Geraldin, 2009), the research is methodologically divided
mainly into two stages. The first is majorly to specify the agents of risk – the condition or behavior induces the
farmer to have a strong tendency toward land conversion, in the form of Aggregate of Risk Potential (ARP) –
need to control. The second is majorly to prioritize the agricultural extension planning to restrain the agent
potentially encourages the coming of land use change.
The series steps in the first stages are: (1) identification qualitatively by literature review, and in-depth
interview the high potential of farmer tendency toward land conversion as a risk events, and its severity level (S i)
in Likert scale; (2) browsing qualitatively the potential agents encourage the coming of such farmer’s inclination
and its probable occurrence (Oi) in Likert scale; (3) determining the agent needs prioritized to restrain in the form
of ARPj presented in Pareto diagram. Referring to Pujawan and Geraldin (2009), the formula used to define the
ARPj is OjƩiSiRij in which it means:

ARPj = Aggregate of risk potential

Oj = The occurrence level of risk agent
Sj = Severity level of risk event
Rij = The correlation of risk agentj
to the risk eventi

2
 While, the sequence of research methods in second stage are: (1) in-depth identification qualitatively the
probable action to plan in preventing the emergence of risk agents, completely with its difficulty to perform (Dk)
in Likert scale; (2) specify the impact of each planned action to control the agent of risk (E j) in extended Likert
scale from 0 to 9, in which the 0 is strongly no impact, 1-2 is strongly weak impact, 3-4 is weak impact, 5-6 is
moderate impact, 7-8 is strong impact and 9 is highly strong impact; (3) determine the total effectiveness of each
planned action (TEk) by adopting Pujawan and Geraldin (2009), in which the equation is following:
TEk = Ʃj ARPj Ejk, that means:

TEk = Total effectiveness of each

action of mitigation
ARPj = Aggregate of Risk Potential
Ejk = The impact of planned action to
prevent the risk agent.

The next step (4) is defining the effectiveness to difficulty ratio (ETD k) used the following formula
(Pujawan and Geraldin, 2009):
ETDk =TEDk
k

Where:
ETDk = Effectiveness to difficulty ratio
TEk = Total effectiveness of each
planned action
Dk = Degree of difficulty to perform
the planned action

Based on the ETDk, the research comes to (5) determine the rank of priority of the agricultural extension
planning.
To implement the two main stages of methods, the research took the place of Cianjur farming area, West
Java, Indonesia which has had a strong potential of land conversion. Based on the assumption, the key informant
could clearly deliver the complete information (Bryman and Bell, 2007), the research took 60 people of farmer
group heads strengthened by the data from the Agricultural Service District (ASD) in local context. Data
collection was conducted during July-November 2016.

IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The Land Conversion Risk and Its Agents
The land conversion risk (LCR) in this context is the assumption, behavior, and the condition induced
the tendency of the farmer to sell and to convert the land into other usages. To browse the LCRs, the research was
assisted by the three risk control points (RCPs), in which the paddy farming is rough work, get probable pest
attack, and depend on season. Based on the first RCP, the research successfully collected five LCRs. In the light
of second RCP, in-depth interview acquired three LCRs, while the third RCP directed to identify thee LCRs. From
the eleven LCRs (Table 1), the research revealed the four major risks, indicated by the high score of severity level
(Si). In the first RCP, farmer has a tendency to sell the farming land and work outside the agricultural field. The
second RCP has encouraged the farmer to get a farming unwillingness due to the difficulty to watch the pest. The
RCP itself has motivated the farmer to sell the farming land and work outside the agricultural field due to the risk
of pest and disease attack. In the light of third RCP, the probable risk of draught has led the farmer to get farming
unwillingness (Table 1).
By in-depth interview with the farmer group heads, the research has revealed ten agents of LCRs -- in
which it is the condition, behavior, and facts have induced the coming of LCR threatened the farming sustainability
– indicated by the high score of occurrence level (Oi). Based on the data presented in Table 1, the assumption that
selling land is a problem solving for the farmer has induced strongly the land selling tendency and work outside
the farming land, and of course the existence of this agent is under pressure of other development sector. The less
skill of pest management has caused the farmer to feel farming unwillingness due to the difficulty to watch the
pest. The lack assurance of losses due to pest and plant disease attack has motivated the farmer that land selling
and work outside farming is better. Finally, the inadequate watershed infrastructure has led the farmer to have a
farming unwillingness due to the frequent of the draught. In general, the coming of LCR has been caused by
physical, socio-cultural, and socio-economic factors.

Table 1. The Land Conversion Risk in Cultivation and Plant Maintenance

3
 Risk Code Land Conversion Risk Si Code Land Conversion Risk Agent Oi
Control
Point
Rough R-1 Unwilling to farm because it needs 4 A-1 The lack of appropriate technology to reduce 7
Work physical hard work. physical work
(RCP4) R-2 Unwilling to farm due to dirty and 4 A-2 The assumption of working on the non- 7
muddy agricultural sector is more respectable
R-3 Unwilling to farm because farming is 1 A-3 The suspicion of strongly low dignity of 5
for poor and unprivileged people farmer
R-4 Unwilling to farm because it is merely 4 A-4 The presumption of inappropriate farming 7
for low educated people for the higher educated people
R-5 Better to sell the land and work outside 7 A-5 The assumption that selling land is a 7
the agricultural sector problem solving for the farmer.
Pest R-6 Unwilling to farm due to difficulty to 7 A-6 The less skill of pest management 7
attack watch the pest
(RCP-5) R-7 Unwilling to farm because of the risk of 5 A-7 The inadequate skill of healthy rice 7
pest and disease attack cultivation
R-8 Better to sell the land and work outside 7 A-8 The lack assurance of losses due to pest and 7
farming due to the risk of pest and plant disease attack
disease attack
Depend R-9 Unwilling to farm because of the risk of 7 A-9 The inadequate watershed infrastructure 7
on draught
Season R-10 Unwilling to farm and better to work 5 A-10 The inadequate infrastructure of water 7
(RCP-6) outside cultivation than the frequent of storage
draught
R-11 Better to sell the land because the land 3 A-11 The unstrict regulation to prevent the 7
has been dry, and there is no irrigation agriculture wetland draying
facilities

The Land Conversion Risk Level

The agricultural extension should strongly be focused on the agents of risk to control, to change and to
reduce the probable coming of LCR. The research -- for such purpose based on the severity level of risk (Si), the
occurrence level of the agents (Oi), and the impact level of agent to the emergence of risk event (Ri) -- has
identified seven agent, in which it has accumulated 77% of LCR in the form of aggregate of risk potential (ARP)
(Figure 1). The top rank of the agent by its 16% contribution to the LCR is the less skill of pest management (A6).
The second rank is the lack of assurance for the farmer’s losses because of the pest and plant disease attack (A8),
contributed 13% to the LCR. The third and fourth agent which each contributed 11% for the LCR is the unstrict
regulation to prevent the agriculture wetland draying (A11); and the assumption that working on the non-
agricultural sector is more respectable (A2). In addition, the research also pointed out three agents in which each
contributed 9% to the emergence of LCR. The three agents are: the inadequate of appropriate technology to reduce
the physical work (A7); the inadequate of healthy rice cultivation skill (A14); and the assumption that land selling
is a problem solving for the farmer (A15). The agricultural extension should sequentially be on prioritized to the
seven agents LCR.

750 120%

100%

500 80%

60%

250 40%

20%

0 0%
A6 A8 A11 A2 A1 A7 A5 A10 A3 A9 A4

ARPj % Kumulatif ARPj

Figure 3. The Aggregate of Risk Potential in Cultivation Process

The Priority of Agricultural Extension Planning

4
 The literature study, FGD, and in-depth interview acquired ten probable action plans to perform (Figure
2). But, it is impossible to implement all the proposed actions. In this context, by the House of Risk Model (HOR),
the research formulated the prioritized actions. Considering the ARP and the impact of the action to control the
agent of LCR (Ejk) – and based on above formula (See the research method) – the research has defined the total
effectiveness of the action (TEk). For further step, the research considered the degree of difficulty to perform the
action (Dk) and TEk to acquire the Effectiveness to difficulty ratio (ETD k), in which it was operationalized in the
previous equation (See the research method) and visualized in HOR-2 (Figure 2).
In the light of ETD, the research has decisively determined the four priorities of the strongly urgent
actions of agricultural extension, which consist of: (1) Optimizing the loss assurance due to pest and plant disease
attack; (2) Developing the skillful volunteer to work proudly in paddy-farming; (3) Extending the pest
management skill; and (4) Optimizing the use of appropriate technology to reduce the physical work. In addition,
the research has also presented the fours urgent priority of action, which included: (1) Developing high
cooperation with many sides to form the opinion that rice farming is respectable; (2) Extending the healthy paddy
farming management skill; (3) Government buying the fertile food farmland that sold by the owners; (4)
Government providing water storage facilities in rainy session. The both urgent and strongly urgent actions should
be completed by the two less urgent agricultural planed actions, which included: (1) repairing and improving the
watershed facilities, and (2) prohibiting of drying out the technical irrigation farming land. By the fact, the
extension planning should be integrated with many other sectors to maintain farming sustainability.
.
Code of Proposed & Identified Agricultural Extension Planning
ARPj
Treated Agent M-1 M-2 M-3 M-4 M-5 M-6 M-7 M-8 M-9 M-10
A1 9 1 1 1 1 1 301
A2 1 9 9 1 287
A5 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 276
A6 1 3 1 1 3 3 9 1 1 251
A7 1 3 1 1 9 3 3 1 1 220
A8 1 1 1 9 3 9 1 1 1 193
A11 1 1 9 3 9 95
TEk 3 660 4,766 3631 1793 4,746 2 856 5,233 664 940 193
Dk 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5
ETDk 732 953 726 359 949 571 1,047 166 235 39
Rank of Priority IV II V VII III VI I IX VIII X
Note:

A1 = The lack of appropriate technology to reduce physical work A6= The less skill of pest management
A2 = The assumption of working on the non-agricultural sector is more respectable A7= The inadequate skill of healthy rice cultivation
A5 = The assumption that selling land is a problem solving for the farmer. A8= The lack assurance of losses due to pest and plant disease attack

M1= Optimizing the loss assurance due to pest and plant disease attack M6= Extending the healthy paddy farming management skill
M2= Developing the skillful volunteer to work proudly in paddy-farming; M7= Government buying the fertile food farmland that sold by the owners
M3= Extending the pest management skill; M8= Government providing water storage facilities in rainy session
M4= Optimizing the use of appropriate technology to reduce the physical work. M9= repairing and improving the watershed facilities
M5= Developing high cooperation with many sides to form the opinion that rice M10= prohibiting of drying out the technical irrigation farming land
farming is respectable
Figure 2. The House of Risk to Plan The Agricultural Extension

V. CONCLUSION

Reference
[1] Apriyana, Nana. 2011, “The Policy of Land Conversion Control to Maintain the Food Security,“ (Jakarta:
The Ministry of National Development Planning);
[2] Baranoff, Eti et al., WY, Enterprise and Individual Risk Management (Unnamed Publisher)
[3] FAO, IFAD and WFP. 2014, The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Strengthening the Enabling
Environment for Food Security and Nutrition (Rome: FAO);
[4] Feder, Gershon et.al., 2004, “Sending Farmers Back to School: The Impact of Farmer Field School in
Indonesia,” ” Review of Agricultural Economics, 26 (1): 45-62.
[5] Fujimoto, Akmi, 1996,“Rice Land Ownership And Tenacy System in South East Asia: Facts and Issues
Based on The Village Studies,” The Developing Economies, XXXIV-3;
[6] Neef, Andreas, 1999, “Land Tenure and Soil Conservation Practices: Evidence from South Africa and
South East Asia,” in D.E. Stott, R.H. Mohtardan G.C. Steindhardt (eds.), Sustaining the Global Farm
(Purdue University and USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory)
[7] Maman, Ujang et al., 2015, “The Effectiveness of Farmer Field School in Dissemination of Innovation: The
Case of Orchids Farmers in Tangerang Banten and the Onion Farmers in Brebes Central Java,” Middle-East
Journal of Scientific Research 23 (12): 2927-2936, ISSN 1990-9233, DOI:
10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2015.23.12.22874

5
[8] Maman, Ujang and Akhmad Mahbubi, 2015, “Halal Risk Mitigation Strategy in the Australia-Indonesia
Beef Supply Chain,” The ICRReport (Jakarta: UIN);
[9] Nabangchang, Orapan and Eathipol Srisawalak, 2008 Good Governance And Natural Resources Tenure In
South East Asia Region (Rome: FAO);
[10] National Development Planning Agency, 2014, Analysis of Household, Land and Agribusiness in Indonesia:
The 2013 Agricultural Census (Jakarta: NDPA);
[11] Rahardjo, The Introduction for Rural and Agricultural Sociology (Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University
Press, 1999)
[12] Rogers, Everett M., 1983, Diffusion of Innovation, Third Edition, New York: The Free Press
[13] Susilowati, Sri Hery and Mohamad Maulana, “The land Size of Agricultural Business and The Welfare of
The Farmer: The Existence of Small Farmer and The Urgency of Agrarian Reform, “ Agricultural Policy
Analysis (Vol. 10, No.1, 2012);
[14] Pujawan, I. N and Geraldin, H. G. 2009. “House Of Risk : A Model For Proactive Supply Chain Risk
Management”. Business Process Management Journal 15 (6) : 953 – 967;
[15] Tang, O and Nurmaya Musa S., 2011, Identifying Risk Issues and Research Advancement in Supply Chain
Risk Management,” International Journal of Production Economic 133 (1): 25-34;
[16] Wastra, Akhmad Riyadi and Akhmad Mahbubi, 2013, Agribusiness Risk: Identification, Measurement,
Mapping, and Mitigation Strategy (Jakarta: Referensi);