SULAWESI COCOA FARMER RESPONSE TO PARTICIPATORY APPROACH OF PILOT ROLLOUT ON COCOA ORCHARD REJUVENATION

HISWATY HAFID

DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KATHOLIEKE HOGESCHOOL SINT-LIEVEN UNIVERSIDADE CATOLICA PORTUGUESA HOCHSCHULE ANHALT 2009/2011

Thanks to :

Acknowledgement Many individuals and institutions involved and contributed during few months in conducting and completion my thesis and I would love to thank for all of the supports and encouragements. I am grateful for opportunity and valuable experiences to involve in PRO as part of ACIARSADI program, my sincerely gratitude to Elske Van de Fliert, PhD who has supported and guided me from the beginning of research until completed my writing. I am greatly appreciative of my supervisors Dr. Michael Mulvaney and Dr. Paul Mathias from Dublin Institute of Technology for their untiring effort, commitment, encouragement, guidance and support helped me greatly during my program and writing the thesis. My heartfelt gratitude also to the Innovation Team from ICATAD, AIATs South and Southeast Sulawesi, Dr. Erizal Jamal, Dr. M. Taufiq Ratule, Ir. Muhammad Hatta, M.Si., Ir. Hasnah Juddawi, Ir. Agus Salim, MP., Mr. La Ode Rajiman Ladoloha, and Ir. Suharman. They vast and useful knowledge, information, guidance, and support assisted me immensely during my field work and writing the thesis. I am honourably thankful for sincere kindness of PRO farmers in South and Southeast Sulawesi in helped me to settle and to conduct my research, Ms. Rosmawati and family, Mr. Baba, Mr. Sukardi, Mr. Naharuddin and family, Mr. Jumardin, Mr. Yakub, Mrs. Hj. Erna, Mr. H. Arifuddin, and kind-heartedly Mrs. A. Muhadira and her happy family. My thankfulness also goes to all of the farmers who had interviewed and involved in this research, may your spirit of learning and experimenting will never stop. Furthermore, I am grateful to the AMARTA team of Makassar regional office for their vast support and discussion about cocoa industries. Finally, I want to thank to my classmates, friends and my family for the cheerful companion and reinforcement during the project and process of writing.

Abbreviation and Acronyms ACDI/VOCA ACIAR-SADI AEA AIAT AMARTA BAPPEDA BSN CPB CSP DAI AEA GERNAS GOI IAARD ICATAD ICCRI IFC PNPM-MP PsPSP SE SNI SSR dryer SUCCESS USAID USDA VCD VSD : Agricultural Cooperative Development International and Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance : Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research - Smallholder Agribusiness Development Initiatives : Agriculture Extension Agency (BPP) : Assessment Institute for Agricultural Technology (BPTP) : Agriculture Market and Support Activity : Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah (Local Planning and Development Agency) : Badan Standarisasi Nasional (National Standardization Agency) : Cocoa Pod Borer : Cocoa Sustainable Partnership : Development Alternative Inc : Agriculture Extension Agency (BPP) : Gerakan Nasional Kakao (National Cocoa Program) : Government of Indonesia : Indonesian Assessment and Development, Ministry of Agriculture : Indonesian Centre for Agricultural Technology Assessment and Development (BBP2TP) : Indonesian Cocoa Coffee Research Institute : International Finance and Corporation : Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat-Mandiri Pedesaan (National Program of Community Development Rural areas) : Panen sering Pemangkasan Sanitasi Pemupukan (Frequent harvesting, Pruning, Sanitation, Fertilizing) : Somatic Embryogenesis : Standar Nasional Indonesia (Indonesian National Standard) : Solid State Relay dryer : Sustainable Cocoa Extension Services for Smallholders : United State Agency for International Development : United State Department of Agriculture : Video Compact Disc : Vascular Streak Dieback

ii

Content

Acknowledgement ................................................................................................. i Abbreviation and Acronyms .................................................................................. ii Abstract ............................................................................................................... v 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 2. Background ..................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Agriculture research and development in Indonesia ................................... 3 2.2 Cocoa industry in Sulawesi ......................................................................... 3 2.3 Participatory approach in rural development ................................................ 6 2.4 Pilot Roll-out approach in technology assessment ....................................... 7 2.5 National Cocoa Program GERNAS .............................................................. 10 3. Materials and methods .................................................................................. 12 3.1 Scope of research ...................................................................................... 12 3.2 Research sites ............................................................................................ 12 3.2.1 South Sulawesi ................................................................................ 13 3.2.2 Southeast Sulawesi ......................................................................... 14 3.3 Data collection ........................................................................................... 15 3.4 Data analysis .............................................................................................. 16 3.5 Limitations of the study .............................................................................. 17 4. Results ............................................................................................................ 18 4.1 South Sulawesi ........................................................................................... 18 4.1.1 PRO farmers and cocoa orchards characteristics ............................. 18 4.1.2 Overview of farmer assessment to PRO activities ............................ 18 4.1.3 Factors influencing cocoa farmer participations in PRO .................... 19 4.1.4 Assessment on extension provider performance .............................. 20 4.2 Southeast Sulawesi .................................................................................... 21 4.2.1 Cocoa farmer characteristics ............................................................ 21 4.2.2 About cocoa orchard ........................................................................ 21 4.2.3 Side grafting and general good practices ......................................... 22 4.2.3.1 Fertilizer usage ..................................................................... 22 4.2.3.2 Harvesting practices ............................................................. 23 4.2.3.3 Pest diseases and orchard management .............................. 23 4.2.3.4 Cocoa bean quality ............................................................... 24 4.2.4 Market, expense and debt ............................................................... 25 4.2.5 Farmer response to PRO .................................................................. 26 4.3 Observable positive changes ................................................................... 29 5. Discussions ..................................................................................................... 29 5.1 Participation and dissemination .................................................................. 30 5.2 Implementation of PRO .............................................................................. 32 5.3 Possibilities to expand ................................................................................ 33 iii

6. Conclusions and recommendations .............................................................. 35 7. References .................................................................................................... 36 8. Appendices .................................................................................................... 40

List of Tables 1. Target of the national cocoa program in Soppeng and Kolaka District ............... 2. Overview of orchard size and production year 2008 in PRO locations ............... 3. Farmer response to PRO activities with self rating (n=24) .................................. 4. Farmer assessment to local extension services performance (n=24).................. 10 13 19 20

List of Figures 1. Agriculture research for development framework ............................................ 9 2. Map of study areas per sub district in South and Southeast Sulawesi Province 13 3. Motivations to adopt side grafting .................................................................... 19 4. Type of fertilizer applied to side grafted trees ................................................... 23 5. Main problems identified by the farmer in cocoa orchard management .......... 24 6. Knowledge in cocoa bean quality ..................................................................... 25 7. Farmers plans of spending extra money ........................................................... 26 8. Response on the most useful PRO activities ..................................................... 27 9. Knowledge wishes to learn in the future ........................................................... 27

List of Appendices 8.1. A participation typology according to Pimbert and Pretty, 1995 ..................... 8.2. Characteristics of PRO farmers and the cocoa orchard in South Sulawesi ........ 8.3. Cocoa farmer characteristics in Southeast Sulawesi ........................................ 8.4. Information related to cocoa orchard of cocoa farmer in Southeast Sulawesi . 8.5. Skills and adoption of side grafting attributes in Southeast Sulawesi ............... 8.6. PRO farmers achievements and activities ....................................................... 8.7. Focus Group Discussion in South Sulawesi....................................................... 8.8. Questionnaires for PRO and Non PRO farmers in Southeast Sulawesi ............. 40 41 42 42 44 44 45 47

iv

Abstract Pest diseases infestation and old cocoa trees has contributed to yield declining and income loss to cocoa farmers in Sulawesi. In an effort to rejuvenate cocoa orchards, a Pilot Roll Out (PRO) project with a participatory approach was conducted in South and Southeast Sulawesi for almost two years since October, 2008. This participatory approach emphasized adaptive research at the farmer level on cocoa rejuvenating model with assistance from the adaptive researchers or the Innovation team. Evaluation of the relevance of the PRO activities including determination of the farmer participation, motivation, challenges and experience, and potential farmer group role was the objective of the study in South Sulawesi. The study in Southeast Sulawesi compared different achievements by the farmers who involved and who were not involved in PRO. Respondents from this study were selected randomly and interviewed between August and early October 2010, 24 PRO cocoa farmers in South Sulawesi, and 20 PRO cocoa farmers and 11 non PRO farmers in Southeast Sulawesi. Overall, all of the cocoa farmers showed better learning and adoption of technologies introduced, and have benefited from the skills gained. Eight main activities of the PRO were scored and shown to be fairly effective and the team has demonstrated good services according to nine variables for the cocoa farmers in South Sulawesi. The main motivation of adoption a side grafting technique was to improve low cocoa yield, side grafting being an applicable technology to achieve this goal, resulting in better yields, and better quality bean with a resultant higher price being achieved for the cocoa bean in South Sulawesi. PRO farmers considered field visit to successful farmers as important activities. These activities have helped the PRO farmers achieve a higher skills level, knowledge, and good practices as compared to Non PRO participatory farmers in Southeast Sulawesi. Consequently, the participatory approach is a potential tool to assess appropriate technologies for the target farmers, thus the adaptive researchers should be able to establish and to strengthen the agriculture research and development framework, and also to harmonize different activities among the farmers, the researchers, and the linked stakeholders.

1. Introduction Cocoa production in Sulawesi has grown extensively since the first time was introduced in Luwu District, South Sulawesi in the middle of 1960s. Yet, up to 2008 the cocoa farmers had received minimum attention and intervention linked to applicable technology from the Indonesian government. Although, every province has an Assessment Institute of Agriculture Technology (AIAT) who are responsible for adaptive research and conduct innovation trials at farmer level, selected sites and farmer representatives often did not represent the real situation and the difficulties to adapt technologies to suit farmers agro-ecological and socioeconomic conditions (Van de Fliert et al., 2010). A partnership between the Australian and Indonesian government arranged through ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research) introduced a project in Eastern Indonesia with a Pilot Rollout (PRO) approach to support sustainable changes in farming system including cocoa farms. The PRO concept was to conduct local adaptation of promising innovations by the cocoa farmers and to prove significant impact of local adaptation of suitable technology options according to the farmer needs (Van de Fliert et al., 2010). Thus, the purpose of the PRO was to develop an effective model for community outreach of potential innovations in South and Southeast Sulawesi. The PRO used a participatory approach to address the low production of cocoa bean in Sulawesi. The objective of this study was to understand and assess the level of participation of farmer groups in the process through which the technologies were introduced and to what extent the trained farmers were able to disseminate the knowledge and skills to other cocoa farmers. The PRO was applied in two different AIATs, AIAT of South Sulawesi and AIAT of Southeast Sulawesi with different aims and models implemented, and were expected to assist the adaptive researchers to further diagnose the basic applied research design. A propagation technique like side grafting was agreed as a suitable technical option to adapt during a workshop among the smallholders and linked stakeholders and to be used as an assessment of the cocoa rejuvenating model. Side grafting was applicable and suitable to the needs, and is a simple technique to apply with a relatively short time to harvest, and also the smallholders would not lose the whole income from cocoa orchard when it applies partially. The process of sharing information between the extension service agents and the farmers through farmer groups is considered an important aspect in diagnosing and adapting appropriate technologies or innovation to the farmer needs and condition. The innovation developed by the researchers or government often disengage with the real needs of local circumstances with high labour and inputs often recommended, and as a result the farmer could not afford and continue to adopt the innovation introduced. However, the using of a participatory approach has shown the improvement of Bali cattle production in Indonesia and this study identified the importance of investment in local
1

capacity building, both of smallholders and supporting agencies (Lisson, S. et al., 2010). Example of successful forage adoption was followed by strong emphasis placed on smallholder participation in the whole research process, from identifying the priority issues and appropriate technologies to address those issues, to on farm testing and subsequent introduction of promising options to other households in the target villages (Horne and Str, 2003). Therefore, involving farmers in design and development of an extension program may provide a better understanding of the farmers needs, anticipate overcome barriers, and harmonize information system among the grass roots, implementers or extension agents, and researchers. This study evaluated implementation of PRO in both provinces, the relevance of the technical assistance provided, how the target farmers responded and participated in the PRO, and also evaluated possible opportunities for larger scale implementation in the future. The PRO was introduced to the farmers since September 2008 as a crucial phase in agriculture research for development framework and involved researchers from the Indonesian Agency for Agriculture Research and Development (IAARD) who are responsible for adaptive research at the provincial level AIATs, extension service agents at district level from Estate department and Agriculture Extension Agency (AEA), and selected farmer groups in South and Southeast Sulawesi province.

2. Background 2.1 Agriculture research and development in Indonesia The two different agencies responsible for agriculture technology assessment and development are the Indonesian Centre for Agriculture Technology Assessment and Development (ICATAD or BPP2TP), at central level, and the Assessment Institutes for Agriculture Research (AIAT or BPTP), at provincial level. Both of these agencies are under the Indonesian Agency of Agriculture Research and Development (IAARD or BPPP). The main function of IAARD is to establish research strategy schemes and agriculture development, to establish research programs, and to evaluate research implementation and agriculture development (IAARD, 2010). The main function of ICATAD and AIAT is to act on implementation of agricultural technology assessment and development. However apart from this key function, ICATAD also coordinate and supervise 31 AIATs in 31 provinces and one unit station in West Sulawesi province, (ICATAD, 2010). At the province level, AIATs main mission is to implement assessment activities and to assemble applicable and appropriate agriculture technology in each province. Five main functions of every AIAT in each province are, (AIAT of South and Southeast Sulawesi, 2010): 1. To establish need assessments and identification of appropriate agriculture technology in each specific location. 2. To conduct research, to assess, and to assemble appropriate agriculture technology in specific locations. 3. To conduct technology development and dissemination of assessment result and extension service practical modules. 4. To arrange collaboration, information, dissemination of research results and application of assessment results, to assemble and to develop appropriate agriculture technology. 5. To provide technical assistance in assessment activities and to assemble and develop appropriate agriculture technology. Additional tasks of AIATs include assessment on small enterprises, soil mapping and collaboration with commodity research agencies and research centres (AIAT of South Sulawesi, 2010). Therefore, the AIAT may act as a bridge to disseminate results of appropriate technologies among different research institutes or agencies. 2.2 Cocoa industry in Sulawesi Cocoa has been introduced since the early twentieth century by the Dutch in Salatiga District, Central Java Province, with cocoa cultivation in Sulawesi being introduced by
3

Bugis traders who brought the seed and information from Sabah, Malaysia to Noling, Luwu District in South Sulawesi (Ruf and Yoddang, 2004; Li, 2002). The rapid spread of cocoa in Sulawesi was due to migration of the Bugis people, they passed information of cocoa orchard prospect to different regions. High production was identified in a few districts in Southeast Sulawesi between 1990 and 1997, with average yield varying between 1,750 to 2,730 kg per hectare, (Ruf and Yoddang, 2004). Cocoa is an important crop in Sulawesi Island and is mainly distributed in four provinces, South, Southeast, Central and West Sulawesi. There was more than 1.3 million hectares of cocoa farmland in Indonesia of which about 93% is owned by the smallholder with each smallholder generally only owning about one hectare of orchards. Smallholders form Sulawesi Island produced almost 500 thousand tonnes of cocoa bean or about 73% of total smallholder production in Indonesia, (Directorate General of Estate, 2008). Recommendation on range of cocoa tree number per hectare was between 1,000 to 1,200 trees, but generally the Sulawesi farmers has less than 1,000 trees per hectare. The healthy and productive of trees may produce 1.5 to 2 tonnes per hectare, but more than 25 years old cocoa trees will reduce productivity to half of normal production (Wahyudi, et al., 2008). A healthy old cocoa tree is possible to restore good production with side grafting technique. According to Wahyudi et al. (2008), side grafting is potential to improve yield when the tree grafted with higher yield or disease resistant clones. Yet, the desired clone was not available or partially distributed at the farmer level. Combination of pest disease infection and old cocoa trees (more than 25 years old) has declined cocoa production with average cocoa yield in 2008 was 528 kg/ha, (Agriculture Department, 2008). Since the production is smallholder dominated, cocoa orchards management remains traditional. Smallholder cocoa orchards usually have limited maintenance which is likely due to partial knowledge and limited access to technologies. The knowledge and skills required include regular pruning, appropriate fertilizing and frequent harvesting practices, controlling pest and disease practices, also various propagation techniques as an effort to maintain and to improve production. Therefore the cocoa issue was not only the low production, but also the farmer capacity in maintain the orchards. Ghana and the Ivory Coast produce fermented bean, the bean is commonly fermented inside the box for 5 to 7 days before drying. But, Indonesian cocoa commonly produce unfermented bean, with the bean being removed from the pod and dry under the sunlight. Even so, the cocoa bean still has export value due to its higher fat content that leads to good quality cocoa butter, but poor quality cocoa liquor and cake. The unfermented bean is often used as a blending material reducing the cost of primary materials. The price differential in the district and provincial market between fermented and unfermented bean was not significant enough to encourage the smallholder to produce fermented bean. However, the unregulated of cocoa bean by the Government
4

of Indonesia (GOI) has benefited the farmer, due to world cocoa bean price fluctuations which changes daily, but not for regulated price on palm oil and sugar industry. Indonesias most valuable crops like palm oil and sugar industry has been subjects to government controls, such as a set domestic allocation price, export restriction and export tax with. The aim was to guarantee adequate domestic supplies, but the regulated price has led to lower price at the farmer level and suffered from high cost of maintenance and less profit, (Nielson, 2007). However, the unregulated price may provide benefit when the farmers are able to manage not only the production, but also obtain export quality prerequisites of unfermented bean like bean size, fungi and moisture content, and waste content as requested by the exporters. In addition, with relatively high global cocoa bean prices during the last few years, increased production still has a positive correlation with higher income. A decrease in cocoa production in early 2000 was identified to be mainly because of pest and disease manifestation like Cocoa Pod Borer (CPB), black pod, Vascular Streak Dieback (VSD) and stem canker. The United State (US), as a major importer of Indonesian cocoa bean, provided technical assistance in 2001 through Agricultural Cooperative Development International and Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance (ACDI/VOCA) for Sulawesi cocoa farmers. This massive extension service was introduced through two programs, SUCCESS and SUCCESS alliance funded by USDA and USAID, respectively started in 2000 and 2005. The Sustainable Cocoa Extension Services for Smallholders (SUCCESS) program focused on combating CPB through on farm good practices (Frequent harvesting, Pruning, Sanitation and Fertilizing or Panen sering Pemangkasan Sanitasi dan Pemupukan) under the popular acronym PsPSP . The PsPSP practices were introduced through farmer groups using the Farmer Field School (FFS) approach, with theory and practical works conducted in the cocoa orchards. Continuing the successful program combating CPB, the Success alliance program extended services to a larger numbers of farmers by a different approach, a film about PsPSP practices. It was a two day intervention, one day for watching the film and additional theory and another day for practical work. Over the period of intervention ACDI/VOCA used an extensive approach and claim about 100,000 Sulawesi cocoa farmers have received benefit from the extension service. The service involved government extension agents from the local estate department (district and sub district level), trainers from local Non Government Organization (NGO), and trained local cocoa farmers in order to speed up the participation and adoption. Another program of Australian and Indonesia partnership was Smallholders Agribusiness Development Initiative (SADI) program aims to improve incomes and productivity for farmers and agribusiness in response to market opportunities in four provinces, East Nusa Tenggara, West Nusa Tenggara, Southeast Sulawesi and South Sulawesi that is

supported by ACIAR, (ACIAR, 2009). SADI has three sub-programs for the first phase that was being carried out during 2009-2010: 1). Enhance smallholder production and marketing, 2). Strengthen private sector agribusiness and small-to-medium enterprises development 3). Support for Market-driven Adaptive Research (SMAR). One of the SMAR activities was to introduce a PRO approach in an effort to define promising technical options resulting from adaptive research and development activities. Using the participatory approach through the PROs innovation team was trying to change the system to assess and to exchange knowledge of the potential impact of new technologies which were introduced to the farmers in addressing the production problem (ACIAR, 2009). Another activity of SMAR was improving cocoa production through farmer involvement in demonstrating trials, using potentially superior resistant genotypes and integrated management in Southeast, South and West Sulawesi. Six trials on twelve clones have been established in the districts of Kolaka, North Kolaka, Pinrang, North Luwu, and Polewali Mamasa. The initiation and establishment of the cocoa trials were supported by the Estate department of South Sulawesi, after providing 5 hectares of field research in Soppeng District. Hybrid screening of cocoa clones was introduced through this partnership in East Java with clones being planted in Soppeng District in March 2010 (ACIAR, 2009). This activity also established Cocoa Sustainability Partnership (CSP), a forum of private and government agencies who are concerned with cocoa research and development in Sulawesi. The aims of the forum were to improve the condition of cocoa estates through maximising collaboration among stakeholders, integration and knowledge sharing to solve industry problems. Another extension cocoa program in Sulawesi supported by the United State is AMARTA, Agribusiness Market Support Activity, focus on improving market access since 2007 to 2010. This ongoing program is being implemented by American consultancy, DAI, Development Alternative Inc and provides intensive on and off farm good farm practices to almost 1000 farmer groups or about 20,000 cocoa farmers in West, Southeast, and South Sulawesi province. Re-recruitment of trained farmers from ACDI/VOCA program as farmer trainer makes this program effortlessly adjusted to the needs of farmers for better production and price, and export quality standard. 2.3 Participation in rural development Research results and policy implementation are often disengaged from the real needs of farmers due to the common top-down approach applied. This top down approach often has limited attention to local conditions and accessible technology, the innovation developed was not representing the smallholder circumstances. As an example the high input of fertilizer and labour required by farmers is often overlooked. Consequently, it is
6

important to develop effective communications between the top planning (i.e. government officials and researchers) and grassroots (i.e. farmers). The communication requires active participation of the parties involved in order to achieve the objective of the programs. Participation is an important element in understanding what is to be achieved and how that is achieved, (Lowe et al., 1998). A study on decision making in a paddy prawn system in Indonesia, Sambodo mentioned that the Indonesian farmer need to know and to confirm that the new technology is significantly beneficial to the existing system and can provide secure income. Sambodo suggested a participatory approach during the introduction of new technology in agriculture practices which allows negotiation, conflict mitigation and creating of consensus among the relevant parties, (Sambodo, 2007). The farmer generally faces complex situations due to different internal and external factors when it comes to adoption and sustaining the new technologies. Therefore, the participation should be able to facilitate the uptake and extension of new technologies by ensuring that the most feasible solutions are identified according to the problem and has become a priority to local household, (Horne and Str, 2003; Shelton and Str, 1991). At the same time, participation also strengthens the capacity of farmers and allows them to control the resources needed which enables them to manage their own livelihoods, (Friedman, 1992; Rahman, 1993). Consequently, understanding the farmer resources and supports as an input into a program through participation will allow continuing learning process, harmonizing communication system between the target group and service providers, and better objective achievement of the program. Participation is often interpreted simply as involvement in discussion and providing information, while the terms of participation need to clarify specific applications and define better ways of shifting from the more common passive, consultative and incentive-driven participation towards the interactive end of the spectrum, (Pimbert and Pretty, 1995). There were seven types of participation according to Pimbert and Pretty (see Appendix 8.1 for details). Gradual shifting of these participations to self mobilizing is possible and required an effective empowerment, thus strengthening farmers or beneficiaries capacities and increase their awareness in order to improve their situation is essential to shift forward. 2.4 Pilot Roll-out approach to technology assessment and knowledge exchange The greatest challenge now facing agricultural science is not how to increase production overall but how to enable resource-poor farmers to produce more, (Chamber and Jiggins, 1987). Challenge for the researchers and extension providers on how to develop tools which potential allow the farmer to learn and to experience how to recognize their own problems, needs, options and finally to address the issue. At the same time, these tools are expected to facilitate knowledge exchange between the researchers and the farmers
7

for greater outcomes and sustainability. In addition, most of the implementation of projects or programs usually has a fixed period to completion. Once the program finishes, the farmers is left to manage the work in orchards as they see fit or back to previous convenience practices. The Pilot Roll-out (PRO) approach emerged from a recommendation of a scoping study conducted by the ACIAR-SADI program as an effort to explore ways of improving the outcomes of adaptive research, (Van de Fliert et al., 2010). According to Connell et al., (2007), PRO is a process of further testing agronomic or management approaches with large groups of farmers and villages beyond the original adaptive trial site. This process should aim to incorporate farmers taking the lead on how they use or modify their resources, such as agricultural technology, agronomic or management approaches. This is achieved by having researchers and extension agents observing the progress and offering to assist them in making more useful decisions regarding those resources. A PRO assesses the applicability and adaptability of technologies in the farmers world that involves socioeconomic context and institutional adjustment, while the government adaptive research approach at the AIATs commonly implies technology assessment in farmer fields that primarily considers only the agro-ecological context, (Van de Fliert et al., 2010). The PRO approach was developed and tested within ICATAD and four selected AIATs by its ACIAR supported Innovation Team. The team consisted of sixteen researchers and extension specialists from ICATAD and two members of staff from AIAT South Sulawesi and AIAT Southeast Sulawesi. The Innovation team was required to critically review the institutions methodologies for technology assessment and knowledge exchange, and experiment with the concept of PRO, (Van de Fliert et al., 2010). Van de Fliert et al (2010) mentioned that the Innovation team concluded the following relating to the conventional approaches applied for technology assessment and development in the respective provinces: 1). Technology assessment activities are not planned based on the needs identified among target communities. 2). Assessment activities often consider only one technology that is complex and requires knowledge, inputs, labour, and investment funds. 3). Collaboration and coordination among stakeholders groups (researchers, technical staffs, service providers, and private sector) is weak. 4). Technology assessment tends to apply to the same communities over and over again and involves more prominent community members (village officials, farmer group or community leaders).

5). Communication and knowledge exchange processes in farm based technology assessment trials are top-down (from researcher to farmer) and the media used are not effectively being used to reach the target audience. The adaptive researchers from AIATs, as member of the Innovation team have determined their own challenges in delivering an effective assistance to the farmers. The PRO approach was piloted as a way to change the AIAT researchers way of doing adaptive research and better linking with the extension system. Consequently these conclusions suggest that institutional changes need to be made and a call for reformulation of the framework into research for development is needed, (Van de Fliert et al., 2010).

Basic Applied Research

Adaptive Research

Technology Implementation

Diagnostic Research

assessment Pilot rollout

(adaptif)

Development:
- Capacity building (facilitators, farmers) - Services, inputs, credit, infrastructure

Figure. 1 Agriculture Research for Development Framework The newly proposed framework emphasises the testing of innovations within the farming system at an intermediate scale to assess the potential for large scale application and impact (Van de Fliert et al., 2010). The Diagnostic research represents the farmers needs and opportunities, where the farmers have a need for change to solve their problems and improvement their livelihoods being put in the centre of the framework, (Van de Fliert and Christiana, 2009). In this framework, technology assessment and PRO creates an adaptive research model whereas the farmers involve in identify the diagnostic research that is suitable for them and adaptive researchers are able to improve design research
9

according to the farmers circumstances. Thus, development support is a focus on capacity building where the farmers are able to identify their needs, review options and make better decision using the services and inputs available, rather than direct aid. PRO phase provides options that support sustainable change in the farming system in the research and development process, (Van de Fliert et al., 2010). In the framework, the PRO also links previous research phases to community outreach. The results are expected to be more successful on-farm implementation of innovations such as testing, adaptation and harmonize communication among the linked stakeholders (Van de Fliert et al., 2010). This approach has three main aims: 1. To assess the potential of an innovation on a larger scale and in a realistic setting 2. To encourage local adaptation of innovations 3. To involve multiple stakeholders 2.5 National Cocoa Program (GERNAS) Recent ongoing government programs implemented by Crops and Estate General Directorate, Ministry of Agriculture released Gerakan Nasional (GERNAS) or National Cocoa Program for improving productivity and quality of cocoa bean for 2009 to 2011 covers 40 districts in nine provinces (West, South, Southeast and Centre of Sulawesi, Bali, East Nusa Tenggara, Maluku, West Papua and Papua province). The target of the program is the improving of 450.000 ha of smallholder cocoa orchards through rejuvenation, rehabilitation and intensification, (Directorate General of Estate, 2008). Target of the program in the PRO regions according to different activities is described in Table 1. 1. Rejuvenation aims to improve old cocoa trees (read: more than 25 years), this involves treating damaged, non productive trees or those that are heavily diseased. 1. Rehabilitation aims to improve the condition of cocoa trees that have low productivity, are infested with pests and/or diseased through side grafting techniques. 2. Intensification aims to improve and to maintain the cocoa trees according to good onfarm practices, through direct aids like fertilizers and assistance of pesticides used. Table 1. Target of the national cocoa program in Soppeng and Kolaka District Rejuvenation Rehabilitation Intensification District (Province) (ha) (ha) (ha) Soppeng (South Sulawesi) 500 1,500 1,000 Kolaka (Southeast Sulawesi) 1,500 5,000 5,000

10

Extension services to support the target farmer with assistance and training in pests and disease control and improving the dried cocoa bean according to Indonesian National Standard (SNI) are also provided. This ambitious target is supported by various support aids at the farmer level, such as cocoa seedlings from Somatic Embryogenesis (SE) breeding, scions1 for side grafting, fertilizers, pesticides and chainsaws. Additional facilities and services available include three research sub stations/laboratories, additional new recruited extension agents and the development of a database system. Along with this implementation, the program provided SE seedlings and scions from relatively resistant cocoa clones developed by ICCRI like ICCRI03, ICCRI04, Sulawesi1, Sulawesi2, and Sca 6. These clones were relatively resistant to diseases like VSD and CPB, they were certified and have already passed the process of selection and testing in the cocoa research institute in Jember District, East Java Province, (Directorate General of Estate, 2008).

Scion is a detached shoot or twig containing buds from a woody plant which is grafted onto the stock, in side grafting the stock can be a cocoa tree

11

3. Materials and methods 3.1. Scope of research The objective of this study was evaluation of the relevance of the PRO activities as an effort to rejuvenate cocoa orchards through a participation approach and farmers response to the activities in South and Southeast Sulawesi. The study in South Sulawesi involved the determination of the farmer participation in the project, their perception and motivation, their challenges and experiences in adoption of side grafting technology in cocoa rejuvenation, and also their potential role through farmer groups. The study in Southeast Sulawesi compared different achievements by the farmers who involved and who were not involved in PRO. Because all of the PRO farmers in Southeast Sulawesi involved in the GERNAS program, this study also explored their responses and experiences to the program as important inputs to assess future service delivery. Finally, this study explored opportunities for further implementation of this participation approach project in larger scale. Hence, research questions in this study are: A. Participation and dissemination 1. What form of participation was employed in the PRO project in South Sulawesi? 2. Did the farmers understand their role in the process? 3. Were the technologies disseminated from participants farmers to other farmers and what were the methods? B. Implementation of the PRO and national cocoa program (GERNAS) 1. How the farmers responded to both activities? 2. To what extent were the technologies adapted and adopted? 3. Were both activities able to address old cocoa trees and low yield? 4. What were the challenges in adopting both activities? C. Possibilities to expand 1. Did the participatory approach build better communication with extension service providers? 2. Would this participation/collaboration continue beyond the pilot phase? 3.2. Research sites and overview of cocoa production The study was conducted in Sulawesi or Celebes Island, the island lies between Kalimantan Island and Maluku Islands. The island with size of approximately 174 thousand km2 has six provinces including South and Southeast Sulawesi, but the centre of cocoa production is located in the South, Southeast, Central and West Sulawesi provinces.
12

Figure 2. Map of study areas per sub-district (Kecamatan) in South and Southeast Sulawesi. South Sulawesi has bigger size of cocoa orchards, while Southeast Sulawesi produced 44% higher yield than South Sulawesi, see Table 2, (Agriculture Department, 2008). As a cash crop, cocoa plays an important role in the livelihood of South and Southeast Sulawesi, and the farmer most likely is well experienced in cocoa orchard maintenance. The use of a participation approach through implementation of the PRO allows the activities in each province to be adjusted and adapted to the local conditions, and the PRO activities explained separately per province. Table 2. Overview of orchard size and production year 2008 in PRO locations Provincea or Districtb Orchard size Production Yield (kg/ha) (ha) (tonnes)
South Sulawesia Soppeng Kolaka
b b a

250,856 12,962 200,040 77,919

117,118 6,877 134,755 48,512

466.9 530.6 673.6 622.6

Southeast Sulawesi

3.2.1 South Sulawesi The PRO started in October 2008 and was implemented in two farmer groups in Soppeng District. Twenty five members of the Bunga Coklat farmer group in Tinco Village, Citta
13

Subdistrict and 30 members of Samaenre farmer group in Maririlau Village, Marioriwawo Subdistrict were involved. PRO activities were: 1. Needs and opportunities identification that involved the innovation team from AIAT and linked stakeholders, official extension providers from Mariorilau and Tinco Village, Estate Department in district level, farmer group representatives and staff of ACIAR-SADI. 2. Workshops to develop and to assess the cocoa rejuvenation model. This included 18 participants from the farmer group, the innovation team and linked stakeholders. 3. Rejuvenation cocoa model was socialized with the farmer groups with agreement to rejuvenate a minimum of 50 trees/year/farmer rising to 500 trees/year/farmer. 4. Field visit to two successful cocoa farmers in Maccondong Sub-village on 18th November 2008. All of the members of both farmer groups were involved in this activity, the Innovation team, and the Estate officials participated in this activity. 5. Side grafting training was provided during the field visit and self practice, implemented in each farmer group. The training of each farmer group was assisted by the Innovation team, the Estate officials, and two successful farmers from Maccondong. 6. The adoption of side grafting technology according to the model developed. 7. A farmer group meeting used for discussion and related practices to the side grafting. 8. Monitoring and observation by the Innovation team on the effect of the technology implementation through different aspects such as technical and economic. 3.2.2 Southeast Sulawesi In this province, two villages are involved in PRO, a farmer group with 20 members from Tokai Village, Poli-polia Subdistrict and 28 different representatives of farmer groups in Penanggoosi Village, Lambandia Subdistrict, Kolaka District. There were six main steps of the PRO activities in Kolaka District: 1. Coordination among stakeholders and identification of target farmers. A coordination meeting between the AIAT staff and Estate department at district level was held in order to harmonize the ongoing GERNAS program in the same areas. A target group of farmers were identified and met the following criteria: were member of farmer group, were living within the PRO location, owned a cocoa orchard and were keen to learn and to adopt the new technology. Selected farmers are 20 member of farmer group in Tokai Village and 28 representatives of farmers from different groups in Penanggoosi Village.
14

2. A workshop development model that involved farmer representatives from the both villages, innovation team from AIAT, and the linked stakeholders. 3. Workshops on preparation of cocoa rejuvenation were conducting in each village. These activities made an assessment on the farmers cocoa orchards condition, developed scenarios of rejuvenating implementation, and preparing field visit to successful cocoa farmers. 4. Training on cocoa rejuvenating was conducted in November 2008. 5. Cocoa orchards preparation before applied side grafting. The activities included three main practices, pruning, fertilizing, and sanitation. Pruning activity focused on removal dead branches and buds growing from the roots or primary stem. Fertilizing before grafting has an important function to ensure a healthy stem, but not all of the farmers were able to apply this practice due to limited finance and fertilizer availability in both villages. Sanitation was to remove the infected pods and branches in order to minimise further infection. 6. Implementation of side grafting was conducted in December 2008. 7. An assessment of the preference of the media of communication as appropriate media will support and strengthen the technology introduced. 8. Field visit to two successful cocoa farmers in Aere Village on March 2009, this activity was given an overview to the targeted farmers of the benefits of cocoa rejuvenation. 3.3. Data Collection The field work was conducted from August to October 2010 and started with consultation with ICATAD and AIATs representatives. Overview of PRO activities was explained by both AIATs representatives through brief discussion about how the PRO was conducted in Soppeng. Discussion result confirmed that the selection of the farmer groups or farmers was not random, and rather emphasized on their willingness to participate in the PRO. The willingness represented self motivation and awareness to resolve their current cocoa problems and participate actively throughout the project. The data were collected from 9th to 13th October 2010 in Bunga Coklat farmer group, Tinco Village and Samaenre farmer group, Macoppe Village. Approximately 50% of total member of a group was selected randomly, 13 farmers were selected from farmer group Bunga Coklat and 11 farmers selected from Samaenre farmer group in two different villages. Data collection through a focus group discussion was started with explanation of the studys purpose and discussion focused on farmer responses and experiences during
15

implementation of the PRO, see Appendix 8.7. The discussion was conducted during evening time after farmers finished working in the orchard. Selected farmers were also participated in semi structure questionnaires about individual and household characteristics (gender, age, household size, education level, previous experience of training, and condition of cocoa orchards). Self and peer assessment were conducted regarding the PRO activities, based on a 3 point scale (1=not effective, 2=fairly effective, and 3=very effective), and included responses to preparation and organization and farmers assessment on the knowledge and skills of the extension providers about cocoa production. Finally, the farmer were asking to tell their opinion and perception of the PRO, what they have done in cocoa orchards, what the challenges were in adapting and adopting the side grafting techniques, and their expectation in the future. In Southeast Sulawesi, data was collected from two different villages and different characteristic were used, 20 farmers having participated in the PRO and 11 farmers have not participated in the PRO. The data collection used questionnaires and started with mentioning the purpose of this study and followed by asking the farmers opinions, motivation and challenges about PRO and GERNAS. After two hours of discussion, the farmers were interviewed individually using the questionnaire about the cocoa farmers characteristics, orchard information, general management of the cocoa orchard, side grafting and other propagation techniques, about quality and marketing , about expenses and debts, and the PRO activities, see Appendix 8.8. The data collecting in Tokai Village was conducted on 17th October, 2010 by inviting member of farmer groups (Mekar Indah and Harapan Tani farmer group) to sanggar tani (read: farmer groups meeting shelter), 14 farmers who participated in PRO and 8 farmers who were not participating. The farmers who participated from Penanggoosi Village were 9 farmers, 6 of them involved in PRO (Penggerak, Tunas Harapan and Matirowallie farmer group) and 3 of them were not involved (Tunas harapan and Penggerak farmer group). Data collection was conducted on 19th October 2010 in a farmer house. In fact, only six farmers remain participated actively in PRO from a total of 28 farmers, their resignation due to farmers expectation to receive direct aids during the project. 3.4 Data analysis Data was analysed descriptively by using SPSS 17 through two main tests, ANOVA (the analysis of variance) and Chi-Square. ANOVA through F-test was used to examine combined groups representing independent variable (i.e. female and male or PRO farmer and non PRO farmer) and the extent to which group is differ to another is analysed in terms of dependent variables (i.e. farmer age, household size, etc), (Babbie, 2007). Chisquare test was used to analyse frequency distribution of different variables including categorical variables in order to determine whether the response differed among the
16

farmers, (Lee and Friedman, 2009). Chi-square test was also used for self-peer assessment in understanding farmers response to PRO activities. The informal interview or discussion, and the farmers orchard observation were used to support descriptive information and to understand farmers experience including challenges and opportunities identified during the implantation. 3.5 Limitations of the study Data collection was focus on the PRO farmers in order to understand their perception and experience during the project. This information generally was based on memory recall which may not represent the actual quantity or number for variables like dose of fertilizer used, yield, sales, etc. In order to obtain the information close to accuracy, the data was represented 2010 activities. Observation of cocoa orchard was not conducted on all the PRO cocoa orchards due to the limited period of the study and generally a farmer has more than one cocoa orchard which varies in distance. Hence the observation was conducted only on orchards within walking distance and limited to three to four orchards per day.

17

4. Results 4.1 South Sulawesi 4.1.1 PRO farmers and cocoa orchards characteristics Cocoa farmers who participated in the PRO were male dominant (83.3%) and all of them were married, see Appendix 8.2 for detail description. The average of farmers age was about 44 years and average of household size was 5 with no significant variation. There was 75% of the PRO farmers livelihood supported by the cocoa orchards and 25 % of them were supported by rice field cultivation and civil pension wages or made the orchard as additional income. Distribution of education level among the farmers were significantly different, 62.5% of farmers completed primary school, 25% and 12.5% attended secondary and high school, respectively. Knowledge gained from informal trainings before having participated in PRO did not vary significantly on technical information (66.7%), but knowledge gained from preliminary program overview and propagation technique training (side grafting and top grafting) were significantly different, only 20.8% and 12.5% respectively, (see Appendix 8.2). There was no significant variation in cocoa orchard size, but minimum size of the orchard was 0.5 ha and maximum size was 3 ha per farmer with an average of 1.39 ha per farmer, see Appendix 8.2. However, the number of cocoa orchard locations had significant variations with 79.2% of the farmer having 2-4 location of cocoa orchards, only 16.7% has one location and 4.2% has more than 5 locations. The Number of trees per hectare was significantly different among the PRO farmers, 83.3% farmers had 501-1000 trees/ha, 16.7% had less than 500 trees/ha, and none of the farmers had more than 1001 trees/ha. The age of the cocoa trees and the mean of adoption of side grafting did not vary significantly with none of the farmers has tree age below 9 years and average years side grafting adoption was 2.37 years (Appendix 8.2). Estimation of yield per hectare size was low and significantly varied, 75% of farmer had less than 300 kgs/ha of dried cocoa bean harvested annually, and only 25% farmers harvested more than 301 kgs/ha annually. 4.1.2 Overview of farmer assessment to PRO activities PRO implementation in South Sulawesi was conducted with eight main activities, and these activities were assessed due to their effectiveness according to the farmers, see Table 3. Involving the farmers in needs assessment and preliminary program overview to each farmer group were considered as important activities with significant high mean score(2.83 and 2.79, respectively), and also high percentage of farmer scored as effective activities, 83% and 79%, respectively (p<0.01). Field visiting to successful and monitoring and observation by the Innovation team scores also varied significantly (p<0.05) with a high number of farmer scoring 3 (71% and 75%, respectively). The following activities scored did not vary significantly or were almost similar in frequency with farmers scoring
18

2 and 3 on workshop of cocoa rejuvenation model (no.2), side grafting training (no.5), self practices and further adoption (no. 6) and farmer group meeting and discussion (no.7), see Table 3. Table 3. Farmer response to PRO activities with self rating (n=24)
Score by percentage (n=24) 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 38 21 29 38 46 46 25 83 63 79 71 63 54 54 75 Statistic Mean 2.83 2.63 2.79 2.71 2.63 2.54 2.54 2.75 SD .381 .495 .415 .464 .495 .509 .509 .442 Chi-Square *** NS *** ** NS NS NS **

No

PRO activities

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Needs and opportunities assessment Workshop on cocoa rejuvenation model Preliminary program overview in each farmer group Field visiting study to success farmers Side grafting training Self practices and further adoption FG meeting and discussion Monitoring and observation by Innovation team

Note on mean. Peer self assessment scoring: 1=not effective, 2=fairly effective and 3=effective Note on Statistically significant levels of Chi-Square result at p<0.10 (*), p<0.05 (**), p<0.01 (***), and p>0.10 is not significant (NS)

4.1.3 Factors influencing cocoa farmer participations in PRO Figure 3 describes the different motivation that encourages farmers to adopt side grafting technique through self assessment the respondents were allowed to agree to all of the factors or only some of the factors. The three main motivations assessed were low cocoa yield, side grafting as an applicable technology, and higher price cocoa bean. 75% of farmers agreed that old cocoa tree had encouraged them to adopt side grafting and with only 46% of farmers agreeing that pest diseases infestation as a factor to apply side grafting.

Figure 3. Motivations to adopt side grafting technique (n: 24)

19

4.1.4 Assessment on the provincial Innovation team performance Analysis from Appendix 8.2 shows 75% of farmers counting on cocoa crop as the main income, 62.5% had old cocoa trees of approximately more than 20 years in age, and 66.7% participated in technical training before PRO. This overview demonstrates that the PRO farmers were most likely familiar with cocoa garden issues. Therefore, the innovation team performance in facilitating and supporting the farmers needs during the implementation of PRO were important input to persuade and to encourage the farmer participation. Table 4 presents assessment result of the performance whereas all of the farmer agreed (mean score=3) that the team had demonstrated good knowledge on side grafting and maintenance, they were responding to the questions about side grafting and related issues (no.6), they were constantly encourage farmers to adopt and to learn new skills (no.8), and they were always encouraging farmers to disseminate and to share side grafting techniques with other farmers (no.9). The team provided fairly clear information (no.2) and used easy ways to help the farmer understand, with mean score 2.17 and 75% of farmers scored fairly. Good preparation level and well equipped during the training (no.3), and involved in solving problems actively (no.7) were scored good by high number of farmers (75% and 71%, respectively) and also high mean score (2.75 and 2.71, respectively). The assessments of capacity to create relax condition including good communication (no.4) and involving farmers in observational learning (no. 5) scores were not varied significantly, although the mean score was 2.5 and 2.29, respectively, (see Table 4). Table 4. Farmer assessment to Innovation team extension services performance (n=24)
% response (n=24) 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Demonstrated good knowledge on side grafting and maintenance Explanation was clear and easy to understand Well equipped and prepared along the training and other services Able to create relax condition and to communicate well Involved the participants during observational learning Responded to side grafting issues and related issues Involved in solving problems actively Constantly encouraged farmers to adopt and to learn new skills Encouraged dissemination and sharing skills with other farmers 0 4 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 2 0 75 25 50 38 0 29 0 0 3 100 21 75 50 46 100 71 100 100 Mean 3 2.17 2.75 2.5 2.29 3 2.71 3 3 Statistic SD N/A 0.482 0.442 0.511 0.751 N/A 0.464 N/A N/A ChiSquare N/A *** ** NS NS N/A ** N/A N/A

No

Knowledge and skills by the extension providers

Note on mean. Peer self assessment scoring: 1=not good, 2=fairly, and 3=good Note on Statistically significant levels of Chi-Square result at p<0.10 (*), p<0.05 (**), p<0.01 (***), and p>0.10 is not significant (NS)

20

4.2 Southeast Sulawesi 4.2.1 Cocoa farmer characteristics A descriptive overview of the PRO and Non PRO farmer characteristics shows in Appendix 8.3. Both groups distribution based on gender varied significantly (p<0.01), the farmer groups were dominated by male member (71%) and all of Non PRO farmers were also male. Age and family size distribution did not vary significantly, with the average about 37 years old and 5 members in one household. Although a rather high percentage of PRO farmers attended primary school (35.3%), but the distribution did not vary significantly, 32.3% and 22.6% attended secondary and high school, respectively. In addition, 54.4% of Non PRO farmers attended primary school and 45.6% had attended secondary and higher school. In the same table, cocoa production was confirmed as main income of 91% of Non PRO farmers and 80% of PRO farmers (p<0.01). The average number of farmers being involved in farmers group was four years, there was no significant different years of PRO farmers joined farmer group with average about four years, however high standard deviation or more than 50% of the mean (SD=2.60) confirmed that there was wide variation of years joining farmer group, seven farmers joined the farmer group for more than 8 years and three farmers recently joined the group for one year. Comparing different preliminary program overview and technical training attended, a higher percentage of Non PRO farmers had received training (81.1%) versus 55% of PRO farmers who had participated. However, only 15% of PRO farmers had joined training particularly about propagation techniques (side grafting, top grafting or chupon grating) and none of Non PRO farmers had participated, consequently the distribution was varied significantly (p<0.01). 4.2.2 Cocoa orchard characteristics Information of cocoa orchard describes in Appendix 8.4 which covers the size, number of sites per farmer, number of tree per hectare, trees age, estimated yield in 2010, and additional works apart from owned orchard maintenance. Mean of the orchard size did not vary significantly with an average size of 2.85 hectare per farmer, the Non PRO farmers had bigger size of orchards compared to PRO farmers. Distribution frequency of number orchard location was varied significantly (p<0.01), overall 41.9% farmer had only one location, 48.4% owned between 2-4 locations and 9.7% owned more than 5 locations. The number of cocoa trees per hectare and average age of cocoa trees also varied significantly (p<0.01), overall 96.8% farmers grew between 501-1,000 trees/ha and 77.4% of farmers owned old trees or more than 20 years, and all of them harvested less than 300 kgs/ha of dried bean in 2010. 25.8% managed rice field, 45.2% managed additional cocoa orchard owned by other farmers, and 19.4% hired other farmers to manage their orchards, see Appendix 8.4.
21

4.2.3 Side grafting and general good practices Information about side grafting and other issues related like source of scion, type of clones, fertilizing and pollarding, and other propagation techniques are described in Appendix 8.5. All of PRO farmers were confidence to apply side grafting, while only 27.3% of Non PRO farmers who able to apply side grating, consequently the result varied significantly between PRO and Non PRO farmers (p<0.01). Generally the mean time of side grafting adopted was one a half years or since early 2009 with 143 well grown grafted trees per farmers, although distribution of both variables did not vary significantly, but PRO farmer had slight higher response to both variables compared to Non PRO farmers. Average number of hectare grafted varied significantly (p<0.01) between both groups, where Non PRO have 1 hectare and PRO farmers have 0.79 hectare. 30% of PRO farmers opted to buy better scion quality and later these scions were distributed to other member of farmers in the same group. The source of scion among PRO farmers was mostly coming from the farmer in the same group (95%), but for Non PRO farmers the source of scions was mostly from extension agents (72.7%), therefore the distribution varied significantly (p<0.01). The scion used was mostly clone Sulawesi 1 and Sulawesi 2, with almost all of PRO farmers using these clones and only 27.3% of Non PRO farmers. In addition 72.7% of Non PRO farmers did not recognize the name of the clones that they had. Questions about fertilizing before side grafting, pollarding, and continuation of side grafting answers varied significantly (p<0.01), 100% of PRO applied this practices and only 27.3% of Non PRO farmer applied this practices. About other propagation techniques, overall 45.2% farmers able to apply top grafting technique, therefore ability variation was not significantly different, but chupon technique ability was different significantly (p<0.01) with only 29% of farmers able to apply this technique. 4.2.3.1 Fertilizer usage Figure 4 describes the different fertilizers applied by the farmers to their cocoa tree in period 2010 and chemical fertilizers were commonly applied. NPK-Phonska fertilizer was a combination composition type of fertilizer consisted 15% Nitrogen, 15% Phosphate (P2O5, 15% Potassium (K2O), and 10% Sulphur (S). Urea fertilizer was a source of Nitrogen and commonly recommended in the past to stimulate the growth of leaves, particularly after pruning; SP36 consisted of Phosphate, gas and Potassium; TSP, Triple Super Phosphate and KCl, Potassium Chloride, and ZA, Ammonium sulphate (NH4SO4). NPKponska and urea were common fertilizer applied by the farmers, however PRO farmers preferred NPK-Phonska (85%) and urea (75%), while Non PRO farmers preferred Urea (63.6%), NPK-Phonska (54.5%), and SP 36 (45.5%), see Figure 4. The PRO and Non PRO farmers confirmed that generally they apply 200 g of NPK-Phonska or Urea per tree annually, and other fertilizers like SP36, ZA, TSP and KCl were about 50 g per tree
22

annually. However, the fertilizer was often applied spread rather than buried, therefore the fertilizer has the possibility to flow through with the water during the rainy season, particularly in the slope orchard.

Figure 4. Type of fertilizer applied in side grafted trees 4.2.3.2 Harvesting practices Generally, both groups of farmers conduct harvesting twice per month during peak season and once per month outside peak season. During this activity, the farmers normally picked different type of pod like ripe, half ripe, big and not ripe including pods infected with pests or disease. The next activity was to open the pod and removed cocoa bean from the pod, and they commonly use a sharp knife or machete to open the pod. A few farmers also use a wooden stick or pressed tool to avoid the cutting the bean and this activity is normally conducted in the orchard. The remaining pods are normally simply left around the orchard with the bean being carried home for drying. 4.2.3.3 Pest diseases and orchard management Both PRO and Non PRO farmers were able to recognise at least three pests and diseases with the most recognisable ones being Vascular Streak Dieback (VSD), Black Pod and Cocoa Pod Borer (CPB). However none of the farmer recognized Anthracnose which also infects the cocoa branch during the orchard observation. All of the farmers agreed that pest and diseases, old cocoa trees, and nature problems like water blockage or heavy rainfall were the main causes of decreasing production and losses. This is followed by fertilizer availability in the local areas, capital limitation and considerably bigger size of cocoa orchard as compared to the farmer in South Sulawesi, see Figure 5. In addition, less

23

than 40% farmers who admitted that limited capital and bigger size of cocoa farm also contributed main problems in maintenance cocoa orchard.

Figure 5. Main problems identified by the farmers 4.2.3.4 Cocoa bean quality A knowledge of what is expected in a good quality cocoa bean is expected to encourage farmers to produce good quality cocoa beans. Good quality cocoa beans can be achieved through off farm good practices like drying days, media of drying, how to store, and other additional activities to obtain better quality. Period of drying is varied according to the dry or wet season, 3 to 4 days was spent to dry cocoa bean during the dry season and more than 5 days during wet season. The bean is normally dried on a drying table which is made of any kind of wood and the surface to place the bean is made from bamboo and able to fold, (see Appendix 8.6), in addition the farmers stated in 2010 there was more rain which required longer days for drying. The dried unfermented bean for export purpose is regulated by the goverment through BSN (Badan Standarisasi Nasional) or National Standard Agency in Indonesian National Standard (SNI) 01 2323 2002 that governing export cocoa bean prequisites, (BSN, 2002) : 1). Maximum bean size was 110 bean/100 g 2). Maximum moisture content was 7.5% 3). Maximum waste content like broken nibs or dried pulp was 3% 4). Maximum fungi content was 4%, and none torable for foreign matter and any pests.

24

Well known prequisites was bean size and moisture content, and less than 20% of the farmers recognized waste and fungi content as also being requisites, see Figure 6. About 25% of the farmers did not recognize any of the export cocoa bean prequisite.

Figure 6. Knowledge on cocoa bean quality 4.2.4 Market, debt, and expense Dried cocoa beans commonly are sold to local collectors because of convenience, with the bean being picked up and no transportation cost, need for quick cash, and long distance to reach the bigger exporter or exporters branch for a better price. Previous study mentioned that the more remote areas, the higher dependence of cocoa farmers to the local collectors due to limited access to actual price information and less competitors, as the result the lower price offered by the local collectors at the farmer gate, (Nielson, 2007). The local collectors were not only acting as buyer, but also as fertiliser suppliers and informal credit providers in responded to the cocoa farmers need of quick cash. As consequence, the farmers had to sell the cocoa bean to the local collector due to prior loan. The farmers state that moisture content and bean size normally is used as an indicator to pay a higher price, but the price is defined by the local collectors as the farmer has low bargaining power. Both PRO and Non PRO farmers have confirmed that they have debts with the local collector every year with this debt commonly used to cover daily needs and to buy fertilizer for cocoa or other crops. During the peak season the farmers often hire additional labour for harvesting activities in the orchard like picking up pods and removing bean from the pods, and few farmers also hire additional labour for fertilizing activity. Figure 7 outlines the response of the farmers plans of spending extra money with a higher number of farmers buying more orchard, 64% Non PRO and 40% PRO farmers. Moreover, 30% of PRO and 18% Non PRO farmers would save, extra money for capital was planned by 25% of PRO and 9% of Non
25

PRO farmers, and finally less that 10% of farmers would use the money for other purpose like buying a house and pursuing study, see Figure 7.

Figure 7. Farmers plans of spending extra money 4.2.5 Farmer response to PRO Understanding the response of PRO farmers to the project is important in providing information for different stakeholders like the extension providers, government, donor and probably private sectors. Responses from the PRO farmers about different activities of the participatory project approach may contribute tangible information for future interventions or extension services to the cocoa farmer in Sulawesi particular. The practice of side grafting was considered as a tangible activity where the farmers had an opportunity to do practical work on their own and be assisted by the innovation team in selection of scion, preparation of host plant, process of grafting scion until maintaining the grafted host plant, see Figure 8. The farmers confessed that during the practical work they were able to understand the technique easily, the officials presence was important when they have any question the officials was able to assist and to show the appropriate procedure directly. Since the practical work in their own orchard, the farmers are more confidence in adopting this technique and understanding of successful grafting of trees was dependant on good practices and regular maintenances of the orchard. Field visit to successful farmers was rated as second priority by 55% and frequent harvesting by 30% of farmers. According to interviews, the farmers confirmed that visiting successful farmers had encouraged them to own a high productive cocoa orchard and given them the opportunity to share the experience. However, 45% of farmer also rated field visit to successful farmer as third priority and frequent harvest pruning sanitation and fertilizing practices was fourth priority, see Figure 8.

26

Figure 8. Response to the most useful PRO activities An assessment of the farmers expectation of new skills or knowledge to learn in the future identified that 75% of farmer were willing to learn marketing management, like farmer groups role in managing the marketing process of the member and how to update information on the cocoa bean. The next skill was cocoa bean processing or small enterprises (60%), i.e. how to process the bean into consumption type of product like cocoa powder, and 30% wished to learn pest disease control and capital management, see Figure 9.

Figure 9. Knowledge wishes to learn in the future

27

4.3 Observable positive changes The results above have described responses of different adopted practices, however there were observable activities that have encouraged the farmers to change their activities and practices along this participatory approach project. These noteworthy changes were not occurred in all of the PRO farmers, but may enhance the potential of participatory approach implementation in the future. Practical work and adoption of side grafting per farmer on theirs own orchard had improved their skill and confidence to keep extending and adoption of this technique. During rehabilitation implementation of the GERNAS program through side grafting in Tokai village and nearby areas, the contractor of recruited grafting labour (tenaga okulator) from Mekar Indah farmer group, were involved in this activity. There were 29 grafting labours hired from the two different farmer groups and they were responsible for grafting 186 ha of cocoa orchards since 2009 in Citta and Marioriwawao Sub district of Soppeng, South Sulawesi province. Moreover, it was possible to harvest branches from the recent grafted trees in PRO orchards as scions and sell these to the national program, in this way the grafting labour earned additional wages. About half the members of Mekar Indah farmer group formerly were member of Harapan Tani farmer group. But, since the PRO encourages farmer participation rather than direct aids, members reacted differently, with about half keen to participate in the PRO and the rest was not interested in participation. Therefore, the members who were willing to participate in this project established a new farmer group with a different name, Mekar Indah. During the implementation of the PRO, the members of the new farmer grew from 16 to 22 members until the present time. During the implementation of the PRO, there was frequent meeting and discussions before the practical activity which required a shelter especially during afternoon. Hence from the member donation, they built a simple shelter to accommodate the groups activities or other social occasions.

28

5. Discussions Cocoa is an important crop in Sulawesi, and this study showed that the farmers who participated in the PRO projects including the GERNAS program were counting on the cocoa orchard as their main income. They were dominated by men with about 30% women participants with less variation of age (between mid 30 to late 40 years old) and household (between 4-5 members). Since the household size is relatively small, then the crop cultivation particularly cocoa is often supported by family members working on maintenance activities included pesticide spraying, fertilizing, and harvesting and usually male adult including husband, son, cousin, or brother in law. Female members were often responsible for harvesting, drying and marketing. They are mostly Bugis tribe who migrated from South Sulawesi to Southeast Sulawesi (Kolaka District) who brought small investment and knowledge, to buy land and to continue their livelihood by establishing cocoa plantation in this region. They migrated in early 1990 (Ruf and Yoddang, 2004; Li, 2002), consequently cocoa orchards were remaining owned and dominated by the Bugis to the recent years. More than 65% of the farmers had a basic education level (primary and secondary school) and they also had received training and technical information of on farm good practices before participated in PRO. In addition to services received from Estate officials, PRO farmers in Soppeng District also were involved in the SUCCESS alliance in 2005 and the farmers in Kolaka District participated in the AMARTA program in 2008. Hence, the average membership period in the farmers groups is a minimum of two years with some members for five years or more in AMARTA or previous groups. The farmers admitted that joining farmer groups has benefited them mainly because of opportunity to receive package of assistances and services (i.e. capacity building and direct aids). However, the farmer group often active and effective when there is an ongoing project, passive when the project is finished. Projects or programs from donor agencies including the national government usually have full resources and capacities to support the farmer group activities, the form of farmer group was likely encouraged to suit the purpose of donor agencies, rather than the strong need and understanding of the purpose to form the group, (Gebert, 2010). As the result of the disconnection engagement has creates a dependency on the program or project which when ended the member of the group are forced back to previous routine like convenience and conventional practices. Conventional practices in the management of cocoa orchards resulted in low yield mainly due to limited capacity to control infestation of pest disease and old cocoa trees. Orchard size and number of location is quite laborious, with farmers in Soppeng generally owning 1.4 ha over two to four locations, while farmers in Kolaka owned bigger size of orchard almost 3 ha over one to four orchard locations. In addition, one fourth of farmer
29

in Kolaka have additional crops to maintain and almost half of them have additional cocoa orchard to manage, and only about one fifth are able to hire other farmer to manage the orchards. Although this workload presents a challenge in maintaining the orchards, more than 40% of the farmer considered buying more orchards, if they had extra revenue. The investment in orchard probably because of the value of orchards is more likely increase in the long term, as consequence of increasing population and food supply, (Land commodities, 2009; Gloy et al., 2011). Planting of cocoa trees in Sulawesi generally was at spacing 3x4m (about 800 trees/ha) and few farmers planted at spacing 4x4m (about 600 trees/ha), (ACDI/VOCA, 2005; Vayda and Sahur, 1996). This low density of cocoa trees per hectare may also contributes to low yield, while best fit of cocoa tree numbers per hectare recommendation was at spacing 3x3m (about 1100 trees/ha) and 2x4m (about 1200 trees/ha), (Wahyudi et al., 2008). The farmers were rarely replanted new cocoa trees to replace the damage ones, as consequence the numbers often reduced. As the number of cocoa trees per hectare was generally around 800, meaning that the farmers have to manage more than 1000 trees per farmer and with less maintenance since the beginning, the cocoa trees have grown more than 2 metres in height. This situation has placed the farmers in a difficult situation, with a work overload of orchard maintenance, earning from the orchard unable to support the good agriculture practices, and at the same time the farmer often needing quick cash to cover basic expenditures. 5.1 Participation and dissemination In order to achieve better project outcomes and greater sustainability, Pimbert and Pretty (1995) described and divided participation level according to different components and characteristics of the target beneficiaries, see Appendix 8.1. Type of participation introduced through PRO was an interactive participation whereas the farmers involved in action plans like assessing adaptive technologies that suit local conditions, developed and adopted a cocoa rejuvenate model, established new farmers groups, and tried to maintain group activities. Together with the local and national extension providers, the farmers assessed their problems in maintain cocoa orchards and looked for different alternative solutions which are suitable to the local condition and able to adopt. Three main activities considered important and allocated the highest priority during the implementation of PRO were practice of side grafting, followed by field visit to successful farmers and practical work on PsPSP, see Figure 8. All of these activities were conducted in the field, involved interactive and observational learning, and required participation from the farmers. A previous experience form of a participatory approach in Indonesia was on Indonesian National Integrated Pest Management (IPM) on Rice production that was conducted after the presidential Suharto regime banned 57 pesticides and removed annual subsides of rice pesticide in 1986, (Braun and Duveskog, 2010; Fakih et al., 2003).
30

This participatory approach was using Farmer Field Schools (FFS) as tool in provided the extension and learning activities resulted in solid adult education principles which were able to encouraged large scale implementation of IPM on rice cultivation. Moreover, Bali cattle farmers collaboration through ACIAR and local institutions showed significant impact in Eastern part of Indonesia on increased adoption of livestock improvement technologies through combination of farming system and participatory research, (Lisson et al., 2010). The involved participatory approach in extension services received a positive response and had shown beneficial effects for the cocoa farmers through the experimental learning process of adaptive technologies, empowerment and strengthened community based organisations. Involvement of the farmer groups in different programs has contributed to encourage the group activities i.e. as grafting labour of the national cocoa program and involvement in PNPM Mandiri Pedesaan (PNPM-MP)2. The grafting labour received additional income from the grafting skill and provided scions from their orchards through this temporary employment. PNPM-MP is national program that focus on development of less developed areas, with the village receiving direct cash from the Government of Indonesia (GOI) and the community has control of cash allocation dependant on the village meeting results. In the meeting the representatives of the community proposed cash allocations according to the village needs and made priorities, thus different activities resulted from the meeting such as water and sanitation facilities, build or renovate schools and road, etc. In Tokai Village, the farmer group used the cash for capital in order to support the member daily income with low interest rate and long term return. Both activities maintained the farmer group activities apart from their routine in orchards in which they had worked as a team to fulfil the GERNAS contract and managed the soft loan from the GOI. Above discussion shows that skill gained have benefited the PRO farmers. The adoption of side grafting has provided a source of scions for extensive application and potentially higher yield. Self adoption of side grafting allowed the cocoa farmers to learn and to experience with this technique, and they recognized that to have well grown grafted trees is long process of practices. These practices have encouraged and mobilised innovative practices like modified grafting technique to the local resources and condition. With experience of implementation the process will become easier as was evident from the intensive labour System of Rice Intensification in Indonesia. The evident showed that the farmers were able to modify the constraints of high labour of the intensification into less labour and practical nurseries, (Uphoff, 2006).

National program of community empowerment, particularly in rural areas

31

5.2 Implementation of PRO This study results revealed that adaptive research through a participatory approach received a positive response from farmers in South and Southeast Sulawesi provinces. Overall the farmer response to each PRO activity was more than fairly effective with average mean above 2.5, see Table 2. Through this approach all of the PRO participants had adopted and were able to apply side grafting, with 30% of them voluntarily obtaining better clones from the successful farmers. Moreover, a higher percentage of them applied good practices like fertilizing, pollarding, and had an ability to apply other propagation technique like top grafting, and they will continue to apply these techniques. Adoption of these techniques will halt the income temporarily, between two years to three years after the grafting, but side grafting will restore the income sooner as compare to top grafting, (Ruf and Siswoputranto, 1995). In fact the PRO farmers also participated in the GERNAS program through two of the three activities implemented from rehabilitation, intensification or rejuvenation. The farmers confirmed that they were pleased with free fertilizers, seedlings and grafted tree, but they also faced technical issues during the implementation. Distribution of fertilizer was a few months after grafting trees rather than before the grafting, the survival rate of the seedlings was low due to fewer inputs and probably the seeds needed adaptation to the new land, and the extension service was limited due to lack of extension staffs from the program. Three hundred sixty five extension staffs of the program was recruited and trained intensively for five days before being deployed to the program areas, each of the new staff was responsible for three sub districts, (Directorate General of Estate, 2008). Hence extension staffs issues on limited knowledge of cocoa orchards management and work overload with size and number of farmers to be serviced during the program. Farmer participation in PRO certainly has increased their skills with almost all of them able to side graft, while only one fourth of the non PRO farmers have this skill. Although, the non PRO farmers had one hectare per farmer of grafted trees but they had less well grown side grafted trees and almost three fourth did not recognize the name of the clone that was grafted. In addition, one fourth of them who applied good practices like fertilized before grafting, applied pollarding, and was willing to extent this technique in future, see Appendix 8.5. The one fourth of non PRO farmers had similar characteristics and skills with the PRO farmers due to their previous involvement in different extension services which were provided by NGO, estate officials and private sector. Evidently, farmer with good knowledge of cocoa management will response positive and potentially to sustain the technology introduced.

32

5.3 Possibilities to expand Farmer learning has become the heart of the adaptive research and participatory methods now dominate in the implementation of adaptive research, (Lynam, 2002). Through a participatory approach, the farmer is allowed to learn and to gain experience with their orchard problems and how to find the solutions, and at the same time the researchers have opportunities to improve their understanding of the farmer condition. Previous studies have shown that learning and experimentation are keys to the adoption of organic cocoa production, where the farmers realized that Brown Capsid (Sahlbergella singularis) and the Black Capsid (Distantiella theobroma) caused more real damage to cocoa production than Helopeltis spp, and the farmers proposed non-chemical control like sex pheromone traps, crude aqueous neem (Azardiracta indica) seed extracts and ant colonies (Oecophylla longinoda) as biological control, (Ayenor et al., 2004). In Cameroon, efforts to find potential cocoa breeds resistant to Phytophthora megakarya were detected by the farmers in the field and their knowledge provided a useful input and significantly contributed to obtaining Phytophthora pod rot resistant cultivars, (Efombagn et al., 2007). As an effort to develop a more effective way of delivering new technologies and innovation, Douthwaite et al. (2001) stated that adoption of new technologies and innovation was depending on the complexities to apply at the farmer level. Case study on modern varieties of rice introduced to the farmers had higher adoption rates, attributes of technology improved slightly with time, but the increase rate was small because the scope for learning and innovation was relatively little as compared to the equipment technologies. In addition, as pests and diseases evolve to by-pass the genetic resistance fitness falls off and a new varieties is needed, (Douthwaite et al., 2001). However, the equipment technologies (stripper gatherer harvester and low cost SSR dryer) were introduced by the researchers to operators through training materials and instructions, and successful of adoption stage when the operators learning their own ways of better organizing themselves and operating the machines in their conditions, (Douthwaite et al., 2001). The introduction of modern varieties to the rice farmers is similar to the national cocoa program in which the government introduced SE seedlings, developed by ICCRI, to the farmers. Coupled with appropriate extension service and assistance on seedling management this program will remain successful, but the approach is top down and the farmer has little learnt since the seedling was developed by the researchers. In PRO, new technologies introduced was assessed and applied by the farmers according to their condition with assistance from adaptive researchers, and feedbacks from the farmer are important information to enhance the technologies applied. This interactive learning allows the researchers to diagnose appropriate technologies and innovation which
33

suitable to the farmer circumstances and build better communication between the famer needs, empowerment, and better objective achievement of the program. In this study the farmers were not only adopting the grafting technologies, but they also experimented with the techniques and adjusted these to the local condition in term of procedure modification to suit the wet season and local resources availability, (see Appendix 8.6). During the side grafting practical, the PRO farmers learned how to select good scions from the trees in their own orchard, but field visit to successful farmers had broaden their knowledge on different varieties of cocoa trees and encouraged them to have these varieties in their own orchard, expecting these to have a better yield. Hence, knowledge from self learning indirectly has motivated the farmers to experiment with different varieties of cocoa in their own orchards and the other farmers in the same groups are also attracted to try these new varieties. While improvement in yield is too early to verify, the skills gained has benefited the PRO farmers and through self learning has encouraged them to adapt the technologies and to experiment, though they might not aware of that and are simply focussed on higher yields. Moreover, the farmer confirmed that they appreciated the practical works and the knowledge exchange with the adaptive researchers as problems emerged about the cocoa orchard management. The adaptive research conducted in the farmer orchards allowed the learning process and continuous feedback between the farmers and researchers to produce good diagnostic research, because the researchers (potential also for other key stakeholders) embrace the necessary local knowledge themselves instead of researchers trying to capture needed technologies through expensive surveys, (Douthwaite et al., 2001). Consequently, technology assessment and participatory approach through PRO programmes may drive better adoption and allow innovation with assistance from the researchers. Additionally these adaptive research tools may minimize the gap of inappropriate technologies introduced.

34

6. Conclusions and recommendations The results of this study shows potential of participatory approach in technologies assessment through adaptive research at farmer level as an effort to address productivity constraints of old cocoa trees in Sulawesi. Overall, all of the farmers who participated in the PRO showed better learning and adoption of technologies introduced, and also benefited from the skills gained. Although, dissemination was accommodated by the national cocoa programs, where the PRO farmers were recruited as grafting labour, and successful farmers encouraged the other farmers to replicate the technologies. Through the PRO the farmers had space to learn and to gain experience with their orchards, and having these skills the farmers were able to adjust and to adapt the knowledge into the local resources. The great challenges in Sulawesi cacao and in agricultural generally are how to enable resource-farmers to produce more and to strengthen local managerial through farmers group. As this study has shown that participatory approach is a potential tool to assess appropriate technologies or innovations to PRO farmers, then the innovation team or adaptive researchers who act as a bridge should be able to establish and to strengthen the agriculture research and development framework. Therefore, facilitating farmer group level planning of regular activities by the group member will enable them to implement, monitor and evaluate their activities. Farmer group activities planning should cover environmental friendly, low cost and time efficiency pest and management system, integrating short life span crops with grafted trees using these as shading trees, and optimising the use of orchard wastes. Hence, to sustain and to enhance these activities for longer term operation, capacity building in group management, organization and development, responsible leadership and information sharing is required. In addition, collaboration with active community based organizations and private sectors are potential to harmonize different activities or programs among the farmers, the researchers, and the linked stakeholders.

35

7. References ACDI/VOCA, 2005. Sustainable Cocoa Enterprise Solutions for Smallholders (SUCCESS) Alliance Indonesia. Final report to USAID, pp. 94 - 111. ACIAR, 2009. ACIAR Country profiles 2009-10, Indonesia. http://www.aciar.gov.au/system/files/node/11521/Indonesia%20combined%202.pdf Agriculture Department, 2008. Tree crop estate statistics of Indonesia 2007-2009, Cocoa. Secretariat of Directorate General of Estates. Agriculture Department of Indonesia. AIAT South Sulawesi, 2010. http://sulsel.litbang.deptan.go.id/ (accessed on 01.12.2010). AIAT Southeast Sulawesi, 2010. http://sultra.litbang.deptan.go.id/ (accessed on 01.12.2010). Ayenor, G., Rling, N, G., Padi, B., Van Huis, A., Obeng-Ofori, D., Atengdem, P, B., 2004. Converging farmers and scientists' perspectives on researchable constraints on organic cocoa production in Ghana: results of a diagnostic study. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 52(3-4), pp.261-284. Babbie, E., 2007. The practice of social research, 12th edition, pp 493. Wadsworth, Cengange learning, USA. Braun, A., Duveskog, D., 2010. The Farmer Field School Approach History , Global Assessment and Success Stories Background Paper for the IFAD Rural Poverty Report 2010, pp. 8-10. BSN, 2002. Standar Nasional Indonesia tentang biji kakao, SNI 01-2323-2002. Chambers, R., Jiggins, J., 1987. Agriculture research for resource-poor farmers part 1: Transfer of technology and farming system research. Agriculture Administration and Extension, volume 27 (1), pp. 35-52. Connell J., Muktasam., Coutts, J., Christiana, B., 2007. Strengthening province-based adaptive agricultural research and development capacity of the AIATs in four provinces in Eastern Indonesia, Smallholder Agribusiness Development Initiative (SADI), Support for Market Driven Adaptive Research (SMAR). Directorate General of Estate, 2008. Pedoman Teknis Daerah. Gerakan Nasioanal Peningkatan Produksi dan Mutu Kakao Nasional 2009-2011. Douthwaite, B., Keatinge, J, D, H., Park, J, R., 2001. Why promising technologies fail: the neglected role of user innovation during adoption. Research Policy, 30(5), pp.819836.

36

Efombagn, M, I, B., Nyasse, S., Sounigo, O., Kolesnikova-Allen, M., Eskes, A, B., 2007. Participatory cocoa (Theobroma cacao) selection in Cameroon: Phytophthora pod rot resistant accessions identified in farmers fields. Crop Protection, 26(10), pp.1467-1473. Fakih, M., Raharjo, T., Pimbert, M, P., 2003. Community integrated pest and management in Indonesia: Institutionalising participation and people centred approaches. London, Brighton: IIED and IDS. Freidmann, J., 1992. Empowerment. Cambridge MA, Blackwell. In: Lowe, P., Ray, C., Ward, N., Wood, D., and Woodward, R. 1998. Participation in rural development: a review of European experience. Research report. University of Newcastle Gebert, R., 2010. Farmer Bargaining Power in the Lao PDR: Possibilities and Pitfalls. Report for the Joint Sub-working on farmers and agribusiness, Vientiane and Berlin. Gloy, B., Hurt, C., Boehlje, M., Dobbins, C. 2011. Farmland values: Current and future prospect. Department of Agriculture Economics, Purdue University. Horne, P.M., Str, W.W., 2003. Developing agricultural solutions with smallholder farmers how to get started with participatory approaches. ACIAR Monograph No. 99, 120pp. In: Lisson, S. et al., 2010. A participatory, farming systems approach to improving Bali cattle production in the smallholder crop livestock systems of Eastern Indonesia. Agricultural Systems, 103(7), pp. 486-497. IAARD, 2010. http://www.litbang.deptan.go.id/ (accessed on 01.12.2010). ICATAD, 2010. http://bbp2tp.litbang.deptan.go.id/ (accessed on 01.12.2010). Land commodities. 2009. The land commodities global agriculture and farmland investment report. A mid term outlook, Switzerland. http://www.farmlandinvestmentreport.com/Farmland_Investment_Report.pdf Lee, J., Friedman, A, M., 2009. Research in technology in social study education. A volume in research methods for educational technology. Age publishing Inc, USA. Li, T.M., 2002. Local Histories, Global Markets: Cocoa and Class in Upland Sulawesi. Development and Change, 33(3), pp. 415-437. Lisson, S. et al., 2010. A participatory , farming systems approach to improving Bali cattle production in the smallholder crop livestock systems of Eastern Indonesia. Agricultural Systems, 103(7), pp. 486-497. Lowe, P., Ray, C., Ward, N., Wood, D., and Woodward, R., 1998. Participation in rural development: a review of European experience. Research report. University of Newcastle
37

Lynam, J., 2002. A history of Farming Systems Research, edited by M Collinson. Book review. Agricultural Systems 73, pp. 227232. Neilson, J., 2007. Global markets, farmers and the state: sustaining profits in the Indonesian cocoa sector. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 43(2), pp. 227250. Pimbert, M., Pretty, J., 1995. Parks, People and Professionals: Putting Participation into Protected Area Management. Discussion Paper No. 57. Geneva, UNRISD. Rahman, A., 1993. Peoples Self Development: Perspectives on Participatory Action Research. London, Zed Books. In: Lowe, P., Ray, C., Ward, N., Wood, D., and Woodward, R. 1998. Participation in rural development: a review of European experience. Research report. University of Newcastle. Ruf, F., Siswoputranto, P, S., 1995. Cocoa cycles, the economy of cocoa supply. Woodhead publishing limited, England, pp. 91-94. Ruf, F., Yonddang., 2004. Chapter 14. Adoption of cocoa, From slash and burn to replanting - Green revolutions in the Indonesian uplands?, World Bank regional and sectoral studies, pp. 173-192. Sambodo, L., 2007. Semi-Commercial farmers: A case study of technology adoption in Indonesia. A-thesis to fulfil Doctor of Philosophy in Lincoln University, USA. Shelton, H.M., Str, W.W., (Eds), 1991. Forages for Plantation Crops. Proceedings of a Workshop, Sanur Beach, Bali, Indonesia, 2729 June 1990. ACIAR Proceedings No. 32. ACIAR, Canberra, Australia. Uphoff, N., 2006. Farmer Innovations Improving the System of Rice Intensification and gaining application internationally since 2000, pp.1-19. http://www.future-agricultures.org/farmerfirst/files/T1a_Uphoff.pdf Van de Fliert, E., Christiana, B., 2009. The DIY formula-Participation communication strategies to support rural development in Eastern Indonesia. Paper presented at the IAMCR 2009 conference, 21-24 July 2009, Mexico City, Mexico. Van de Fliert, E., Christiana, B., Hendayana, R., Murray-Prior, R. 2010. Pilot Roll-Out: adaptive research in farmers worlds. Extension Farming Systems Journal volume 6(1). http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/science/saws/afbmnetwork/efsjournal/volume6/nu mber1/research/EFS_10_Vol_6_No_1_article07.pdf Wahyudi, T., Panggabean, T, R., Pujiyanto., 2008. Kakao, Managemen agribisnis dari hulu hingga hilir. Penebar Swadaya, Jakarta, pp. 16-90.

38

Vayda, A, P., Sahur, A., 1996. Bugis settlers in East Kalimantans Kutai National Park, their past and present and some possibilities for their future. Centre for International Forestry Research, pp. 11-14.

39

8. Appendices 8.1. A participation typology according to Pimbert and Pretty, 1995

Typology 1. Passive Participation Components of Each Type People participate by being told what is going to happen or has already happened. It is unilateral announcement by an administration or project People participate by answering questions posed by extractive researchers and project managers using questionnaire surveys or similar approaches. People do not have the opportunity to influence proceedings, as the findings of the research or project design are neither shared nor checked for accuracy. People participate by being consulted, and external agents listen to views. These external agents define both problems and solutions, and may modify these in the light of people's responses. Such a consultative process does not concede any share in decision-making and professionals are under no obligation to take on board people's views. People participate by providing resources, for example labour, in return for food, cash or other material incentives. Much in-situ research and bio-prospecting falls in this category, as rural people provide the fields but are not involved in the experimentation or the process of learning. It is very common to see this called participation, yet people have no stake in prolonging activities when the incentives end. People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the project, which can involve the development or promotion of externally initiated social organization. Such involvement does not tend to be at early stages of project cycles or planning, but rather after major decisions have been made. These institutions tend to be dependent on external initiators and facilitators, but may become self-dependent. People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and the formation of new local groups or the strengthening of existing ones. It tends to involve interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple perspectives and make use of systematic and structured learning processes. These groups take control over local decisions, and so people have a stake in maintaining structures or practices. People participate by taking initiatives independent of external institutions to change systems. Such self-initiated mobilization and collective action may or may not challenge existing inequitable distributions of wealth and power.

2. Participation in Information Giving

3. Participation by Consultation

4. Participation for Material Incentives

5. Functional Participation

6. Interactive Participation

7. Self-Mobilization

40

8.2. Characteristics of PRO farmers and the cocoa orchard in South Sulawesi
Distribution by gender (%) Male Female farmers farmer All (N=24) (n=20) (n=4)
83.3 42.7 (11.63) 4.8 (2.21) 65.0 20.0 15.0 75.0 3.30 (2.18) 60.0 25.0 60.0 15.0 16.7 48 (10.46) 5.0 (3.46) 50.0 50.0 0.0 75.0 5.00 (2.58) 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100 43.6 (11.41) 4.8 (2.37) 62.5 25.0 12.5 75.0 3.58 (2.28) 66.7 20.8 66.7 12.5

Statistics F-value Chi-sq

Variables
I. Cocoa farmers' characteristics 1. Gender 2. Age of farmers in years (SD) 3. Household size 4. Education level a. Primary b. Secondary c. High school 5. Cocoa orchards as main livelihood (1=Yes) 6 Mean of years joining FG 7. Have received training before PRO (1=Yes) 8. Topics a. Preliminary program overview b. Technical information c. Others (Side grafting and top grafting) II. About cocoa orchards 9 Mean of the orchards size 10. Number of the orchards sites a. One location b.2-4 locations c. > 5 locations 11. Cocoa tree numbers per hectare a. 1-500 trees/ha b. 501-1000 trees/ha c. More than 1001 trees/ha 12. Cocoa trees' age a. 1-9 years b. 10-19 years c. More than 20 years 13. Mean of years adopted side grafting 14. Estimate cocoa yield (dried cocoa bean/ha) a. 1-300 kgs/ha b. 301-500 kgs/ha c. 501-800 kgs/ha

24 24 24 15 6 3 18 24 16 5 16 3

10.67 (***) 0.711 (NS) 0.023 (NS) 9.73 (***)

6.00 (**) 1.92 (NS) 2.67 (NS) 8.167 (***) 2.67 (NS) 13.50 (***)

24 4 19 1

1.34 (0.62) 20.0 75.0 5.0

1.63 (0.25) 0.0 100.0 0.0

1.39 (0.58) 16.7 79.2 4.2

0.82 (NS) 18.92 (***)

4 20 0 0 9 15 24

20.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 35.0 65.0 2.55 (2.19)

0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 50 50 1.50 (1.00)

16.7 83.3 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 2.37(2.06) 0.297 (NS)

10.67 (***)

0.86 (NS)

18 3 3

75.0 15.0 10.0

75.0 0.0 25.0

75.0 12.5 12.5

18.75 (***)

Note on Statistically significant levels of Chi-Square result at p<0.10 (*), p<0.05 (**), p<0.01 (***), and p>0.10 is not significant (NS)

41

8.3. Cocoa farmer characteristics in Southeast Sulawesi

Variables
1. Gender a. Male b. Female 2. Age of farmers (SD) 3. Household size (SD) 4. Percentage of education level a. Primary b. Secondary c. High school 5. Cocoa orchards as main livelihood, 1=Yes 6 Mean of years joining FG (SD) 7. Have received training before PRO, 1=Yes 8. Topics a. Preliminary program overview b. Technical information c. Others (Side grafting and top grafting) 20 17 3 55.0 50.0 15.0 81.8 63.6 0.0 64.5 54.8 9.7 NS NS *** 11 10 7 26 31 31 25.0 40.0 25.0 80.0 4.10 (2.69) 55.0 54.5 18.2 18.2 90.9 3.91 (2.55) 81.8 35.5 32.3 22.6 83.9 4.03 (2.60) 64.5 0.04 (NS) NS *** NS 22 9 31 31 55 45 37.25 (7.52) 4.75 (1.89) 100 0 35.45 (10.05) 3.91 (1.51) 71 29 36.61 (8.38) 0.32 (NS) 4.75 (1.79) 1.60 (NS) ***

Distribution of participation in PRO (%) PRO farmers Non PRO All (n=31) (n=20) farmers (n=11)

Statistics F-value Chi-sq

Note on Statistically significant levels of Chi-Square result at p<0.10 (*), p<0.05 (**), p<0.01 (***), and p>0.10 is not significant (NS)

8.4. Information related to cocoa orchard of cocoa farmer in Southeast Sulawesi

Variables
1. Mean of the orchards size (SD) 2. Number of the orchards sites a. One location b.2-4 locations c. > 5 locations 3. Cocoa tree numbers per hectare a. 1-500 trees/ha b. 501-1000 trees/ha c. More than 1001 trees/ha 4. Average of cocoa trees' age a. 1-9 years b. 10-19 years c. More than 20 years 5.Cocoa yield under 300 kgs/ha in 2010 7. Percentage of farmer did additional works a. Rice field, 1=yes (size mean in hectare) b. Additional cocoa orchard to manage, 1=yes (size mean in hectare) c. Hire to other farmer to manage the cocoa orchard, 1=yes (size mean in hectare) 8 14 6 30 (0.96) 55 (1.73) 15 (1.83) 18.2 (0.75) 27.3 (3.17) 27.3 (2.5) 25.8 (0.92 ) 45.2 (2.04) 19.4 (2.17) *** *** *** 0 7 24 31 0.0 25.0 75.0 100 0.0 18.2 81.8 100 0.0 22.6 77.4 100 NS *** 0 30 1 0.0 95.0 5.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 96.8 3.2 *** 13 15 3 40.0 50.0 10.0 45.5 45.5 9.1 41.9 48.4 9.7 ***

n
31

Distribution by participation in PRO (%) PRO farmers Non PRO All (n=31) (n=20) farmers (n=11)
2.5 (1.34) 3.5 (3.07) 2.85 (2.12)

Statistics ChiF-value sq
1.61 (NS)

Note on Statistically significant levels of Chi-Square result at p<0.10 (*), p<0.05 (**), p<0.01 (***), and p>0.10 is not significant (NS)

42

8.5. Skills and adoption of side grafting attributes in Southeast Sulawesi

Distribution by participation in PRO (%) PRO Non PRO N farmers farmers All (n=31) (n=20) (n=11)
31 31 31 100.0 1.50 (0.76) 0.79 (0.39) 154 (147.9) 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 30.0 95.0 20.0 10.0 100.0 85.0 45.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 27.3 1.27 (0.47) 1 (0.0) 122 (159.6) 0.0 27.3 72.7 0.0 27.3 0.0 27.3 72.7 27.3 27.3 27.3 74.2 1.42 (0.67) 0.87 (0.33) 143 (150.3) 19.4 71.0 38.7 6.5 74.2 54.8 38.7 25.8 74.2 74.2 74.2 0.81 (NS) 3.02 (***) 0.31 (NS) *** *** NS *** *** NS NS *** *** *** ***

Statistics F-value Chi-sq

***

Variables

1. Ability to apply side grafting(1=yes) 2. Mean of years adopted side grafting (SD). 3. Average number of hectare size has grafted (SD). 4. Average number of well grown grafted trees (SD) 5. Did you buy the scion (1=yes) 6. Source of scions a. Farmer from the same group b. Extension providers c. Other cocoa farmers 7. Type of clones a. Sulawesi 1 b. Sulawesi 2 c. Local clone from own orchard d. Dont know 8. Did you fertilize before grafting (1=yes) 9. Did you apply pollarding (1=yes) 10. Will you continue side grafting 11. Ability to apply other propagation techniques a. Top grafting b. Chupon grafting

31 31

55.0 30.0

27.3 27.3

45.2 29.0

NS ***

Note on Statistically significant levels of Chi-Square result at p<0.10 (*), p<0.05 (**), p<0.01 (***), and p>0.10 is not significant (NS)

43

8.6. PRO farmers achievements and activities 1. Side Grafting technique

2. Modification of top grafting technique

3. PRO farmer activities

44

8.7. Focus Group Discussion in South Sulawesi A. Group discussion with PRO farmers 1. Introduction about the aims and focus of this group discussion 2. Each participant introduced themselves following clockwise and fills the form of basic information related to cocoa orchards. 3. Conducted discussion according to the questions below a. PRO and Cocoa rejuvenate activities responses
1. What do you think about PRO? 2. What did you learn from the project? 3. Do you think, the project has benefited you? Why? 4. What do you think the most useful activities/practise? Why? 5. What about the least ones? Why? 6. Have you applied the technologies? 7. If no what are the reasons? 8. Will you continue to side grafted your cocoa trees? 9. If no what are the reasons? 10. What are main constraints to adopt these technologies? (Make priority) 11. Have you learned or explored the solution? 12. If you had, to whom will you share this solution?

b. Farmer group role

1. Do you know the aims of farmer group (FG)? 2. What are the activities or practices of your FG, related to PRO (a) and not related (b)? 3. Do you think be a member of FG has benefit? a. Yes, reason b. No, reason 4. What are main constraints to manage and to organize your FG? 5. Do you apply rules in manage your FG? 6. Do you know the role of FG in the PRO? 7. What do you think if your FG also involve in adaptive research? 8. Do you reckon other technologies you would like to learn?

45

Smallholder responses to the PRO with self rating (Rate: 1= Not effective, 2= fairly effective, 3=Effective) No 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. No 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. No 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. PRO phase activities Needs and opportunities assessment Workshop on cocoa rejuvenation model Preliminary program overview Field visit to success farmers Side grafting training Self practices and further adoption Farmer group meeting and discussion Monitoring and observation by the Innovation team Motivation of side grafting adoption Low cocoa yield Old cocoa trees Pest and diseases infestation Applicable technique Higher price of cocoa bean Other, _________________ Knowledge and skills demonstrated by the extension providers Demonstrated good knowledge on side grafting and maintenance Explanation was clear and easy to understand Well equipped and prepared along the training and other services Able to create relax condition and to communicate well Involved the participants during observational learning Responded to side grafting and related issues Actively involved in solving problems Constantly encouraged farmers to adopt and to learn new skills Always encouraged farmer to disseminate and to share side grafting techniques to other farmers 1 1 2 3

Response

46

8.8 Questionnaires for PRO and Non PRO farmers in Southeast Sulawesi 1.a Date 1.c Sub Village 1.e Age 1.b Farmer Groups 1.d Farmer Name 1.f Gender 1. Male 0. Female

Note : 1=Male, 0=Female

1=Yes, 0 = No

I. Cocoa smallholder characteristics

1. Number of family living together? i).Total ______, ii). Male _____, iii).Female, ________ 2. Do you getting assistance from the family member in maintenance the orchards? No / Yes, how many ______people 3. What is your tribe: i). Bali . ii) Bugis iii). Java iv. Kaili v). Makassar vi). Manado vii). Mandar viii). Tolaki ix). Toraja x). Other __________________ 4. Are you part of transmigration program? No / Yes, Year arrived in current village:_______________ 5. Is cocoa orchard as your main income? Yes / No, what is your main income ____________________ 6. What level of education have you attained? i). None ii). Primary School iii). Secondary school iv). High School v). Technical College vi). University vii). Other _______________ 7. Have you received training or services from extension providers before PRO? No / Yes 8. If yes from whom? i). Estate officials ii). Extension agents iii). NGO extension iv). Private extension (fertilizer marketing, pesticide promoters) v). Other, ____ 9. What was the training or service about? i). Preliminary program overview ii). Technical information (PsPSP) iii). Product promotion iv). Other, _____________ 10. How often was the officials visit your farmer group? i). ____ times/month ii) _______times/year 11. What did you learn from the officials? i). None ii). On farm management iii). Off farm management iv). Propagation techniques v). Other, ________________ 12. Since when you joined the farmer group? i)_____________mth, ii) ___________year 13. Since when you adopted side grafting? i)_____________mth, ii) ___________year

II. Cocoa orchards information

1. Number of cocoa orchards locations: i). A location ii). 2 locations iii). 3 locations iv). 4 locations v). More than 4 locations 2. a. Total size of cocoa orchards _____ (Ha) b. Not productive orchards __________(Ha) c. Other crops ____________ (Ha), mention ____________, _____________ d. Hired for additional cocoa orchard to manage _____ (Ha) e. Hire other farmer to manage own orchard _____ (Ha) Note: 1 Ha=100 Acre, 1 Ha= 10,000 meter 3. Number of cocoa trees per hectare? 47

i). 1 - 500 trees/ha ii). 501 1,000 trees/ha iii). more than 1,001 trees/ha 4. Average age of cocoa trees? i). 1 - 9 years ii). between 10 -19 years iii). above 20 years 5. Average cocoa production per hectare annually? i). 1 - 300 kg/ha ii). 301 - 500kg/ha iii). 501 800 kg/ha iv). more than 801 kg/ha

III. Cocoa orchards general management

1. Type of fertilizer used in 2010 a. Chemical fertilizer: i). name _____________ dose_______(gr/tree) ii). name _____________ dose______ (gr/tree) iii). name _____________ dose ________ (gr/tree) b. Organic fertilizer: i). name _____________ dose________ (gr/tree) , ii). name _____________ dose________ (gr/tree) , iii). name _____________ dose________ (gr/tree) How you apply powder fertilizers? a. Spread b. Bury c. Other, _______________ How often did you harvest? a). Peak season---i). 2x/week ii). Once/week iii). 2x/mth iv). 1/mth b). Outside peak season--- i).Never ii). 1x/week iii). 2x/mth iv). 1x/mth How did you decide to pick the pod? i). Ripe ii). half ripe iii). big, not ripe yet iv). infected pests or diseases v). Other, ______________ How did you open the pod? i). Machete ii). Knife iii). Wooden stick iv). Other, _____ How did you dispose the pod? i). Leave them around the orchard ii). Make hole and bury iii). To feed livestock iv). Other, ______ Do you recognize pests and diseases in your orchards? No / Yes Can you mention/describe the name of pests and diseases? i). Helopeltis ii). Stem canker iii). Zeuzera sp iv). CPB v). Black pod vi). Vascular Streak Dieback (VSD) vii). Antraknosa viii). Other _________ What are main problem in maintain your cocoa orchard? a. ____Pest and disease b. ____Labour c. ____Limited capital d. ____Bigger size of orchard e. ____Distance between/among orchards f. ____ Fertilizer availability g. ____ Old cocoa trees h. ____ Nature problems (water blocked, land slide, flood, etc) i. ____ Other, ___________________

2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9.

IV. Side grafting and maintenance

1. 2. 3. 4. Do you know side grafting? No / Yes, Since when ?____________ mth/year 1 Have you applied it? No / Yes i).___________ha, ii). ____________well grown trees . Will you continue to apply this skill? No / Yes Where did you get the scion? a. friends/cocoa farmers b. farmer from the same group 48

c. other cocoa farmers d. extension providers e. other, _________________ 5. What are the clone uses for side grafting? a. Dont know b. Sulawesi1 c. Sulawesi2 d. Muktar 1-8 e. Panter f. Local clone g. Others__________, ____________, 6. How many scions did you graft in one tree? __________scion 7. Did you buy these scions? No / Yes, how much per scion ___________ IDR 8. Did you fertilize the trees before side grafted? No / Yes 9. After side grafted, did apply pollarding? No / Yes, when ______________(days/months) 10. Will you fertilize recent side grafted trees? Yes / No, reasons ______________________ _ 11. Do you have shading tree for the side grafted trees? No / Yes, trees name ___________ 12. Do you think side grafting has benefits? No / Yes , what the benefit_________________

V. Other propagation techniques

1. Do you know other propagation techniques? No / Yes , _____________ . 2. Have you applied it? Yes / No, reasons _______________, _________________ 3. How did you learn the techniques? i). Friends/cocoa farmers ii). Farmer from the same group iii). Other cocoa farmers iv). Extension providers v). other, ______________ 4. Do you know other propagation techniques? No / Yes, _____________, ____________ 5. Have you applied it? Yes / No, reasons _______________, _________________ 6. Where do you learn the techniques? i) Friends/cocoa farmers ii). Farmer from the same group iii). Other cocoa farmers iv). Extension providers v). other, ______________

VI. Quality and Market

1 2 3 4 Do you know quality define the price? No / Yes Can you mention the quality prerequisites? i). Bean size ii). Moisture content iii). Waste content iv). Fungi content Do you sell dry bean? No / Yes How many days normally you dry the cocoa bean? a). Dry season : i). One day ii). 2 days iii). 3 days iv). 4 days v). 5 days vi). More than 5 days b). Wet season : i). One day ii). 2 days iii). 3 days iv). 4 days v). 5 days vi). More than 5 days Where did you dry the cocoa bean? i). drying table ii). Around the house with net iii). Around the house with plastic iv). Other _________________ Where did you sell the cocoa bean normally? i). Collector ii). Local buyer in sub-district town iii). Exporter buying station iv). Other ________________ Why you sell to him/her? ____________________, ___________________________

5 6 . 7

VII. Expense and Debt

1. If you have extra money, what is the most thing you will do? i. ____Buy more cocoa orchards ii. ____Buy inputs (fertilizer, pesticide, etc) 49

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

9.

iii. ____Saving iv. ____Use as capital for other business v. ____ Buy motorcycle vi. ____ Buy cell-phone vii. ____ Other, ______________ When was normally you paid labour? i).Peak season ii). Outside of peak season iii). Anytime iv). Other If yes, what were activities normally you hire labour? i). Fertilizing ii). Pruning iii). Harvesting iv). Side grafting v). Drying vi). Other, ____________ Did you borrow money before? No / Yes Who lend you the money? i). KUD ii). Family member iii). Friends who not collector iv). Collector v). Local buyer vi). Bank vii). Other, _____________ When you borrow the money, do you oblige to sell the cocoa bean to him/her? No / Yes How did you use the money? i. ____For daily needs ii. ____For school payments iii. ____Buy inputs/pesticides iv. ____Wedding v. ____ Funeral vi. ____ Naik Haji(going for hajj) vi. ____ Going to hospital vii. ____ Motorcycle vii. ____ Other, ___________________ How much normally you borrow the money? i. Less than 100 000 (IDR), ii. 101-500 thousand (IDR), iii. 501- 1 million (IDR), iv. More than 1 million (IDR) Do you know that you have access to the bank? No / Yes

VIII. About cocoa rejuvenating project (only for PRO farmers)

1. Do you know and aware that you are involve in cocoa rejuvenating program? No / Yes . 2. What did you learn from the project apart from side grafting? _______________________________________________________________________________ 3. This program encourage your participation, do you think you have participated? No / Yes, mention your participation ______________________________________________________ 4. Do you this think these activities benefited you? a). Yes, reasons____________________________________________________________ b). No, reasons ___________________________________________________________ 5. What are the most and least useful activities along this process? (make priority) i. _____ Socialization of program ii. _____ PsPSP iii. _____ Field visit to success cocoa farmers iv. _____ Practice of side grafting v. _____ Regular maintenance practices of the cocoa orchard 50

6. 7. 8. 9.

10.

11. 12.

13.

vi. _____ Farmer group meeting vii. _____ Other, ______________ During the implementation of the program, did the Innovation team regularly visit your group or orchards? No / Yes, __________times/week-month Do you think, visiting of the Innovation team was useful in solving your cocoa orchard problems? Yes / No, reason________________________________________________ Do you feel free to share any problem related to cocoa with the Innovation team? No / Yes What are the issues you shared? i). About project or program ii). On and off farm practices iii). Farmer group activities iv). Cocoa bean processing/small enterprise v). Price and marketing vi). Other, __________________________ What other knowledge do you wish to learn in the future? i). Controlling pest and disease ii). Other propagation techniques iii). Fermentation iv). Cocoa bean processing/small enterprise v). Marketing vi). Other, __________________________ Will you share this knowledge to others or other farmers? No / Yes, in what circumstance ____________________ Do you recognize the other farmers you shared knowledge? No / Yes, if yes who are they? i. Family member ii. Cocoa farmer from different farmer group iii. Neighbour iv. Collector v. Friends, not necessary cocoa farmers vi. Other, ____________________ Will you participate again in the future program with this model ? a). Yes, reasons____________________________________________________________ b). No, reasons ___________________________________________________________

51