Proceedings of the UNESCO - University of Tsukuba International Seminar on Traditional Technology for Environmental Conservation and Sustainable Development in the Asian-Pacific Region, held in Tsukuba Science City, Japan, 11-14 December, 1995.
Editors: Kozo Ishizuka, D. Sc. , Shigeru Hisajima, D. Sc. , Darryl R.J. Macer, Ph.D.
During my field research in the Muda area of Malaysia from 1983 to 1987, I observed how people reacted to the introduction of modern techniques of rice cultivation. People did not simply accept the new techniques but they modified them and integrated them into their traditional way of managing paddy fields.
Since the completion of an irrigation scheme in 1970, double cropping has been implemented in this area. And a "package of innovation" was introduced to farmers. The total production of rice increased and the project was considered successful. But farmers did not accept the full package of innovation. For example, 30% of farmers did not use pesticide and herbicide. They did not accept the preventive spraying of pesticide, although it was advised by the Muda Agricultural Development Authority.
There are several reasons as follows:
1) The technique is not clearly effective for increasing rice yield, or decreasing labor input.
I compared the rice yields of two farmer groups, namely farmers who used pesticide or herbicide and those who did not use them. There was no statistically significant difference in rice yield between the two groups. In fact the average yield of farmers who did not use pesticide and herbicide was higher than that of the other. According to farmers, the weed problem was not serious, because they kept the water level in the paddy field deep which prevented the growth of weeds.
2) Multi-purpose management of paddy field provides high productivity.
As the farmers use paddy fields and canals for many purposes other than rice cultivation, for example, for fishing, cattle or water-buffalo grazing, and bathing, they do not simply manage the area only to achieve the maximum production of rice. Especially, fish is an important source of protein for farmers, if the fish production had decreased, the nutritional condition of farmers would have been affected.
3) Farmers give high priority to human health.
Farmers consider pesticide and herbicide to be poisonous and they call them "poison (racun )". According to their ethno-etiology, poison causes serious illness to living things. Farmers never handle pesticides with the right hand which they use for food processing and keep it symbolically "clean". They refuse to handle pesticide and herbicide if they feel ill when they use them. Especially after the outbreak of a fish disease in the Muda area, farmers strongly considered pesticide and herbicide to be poisonous.
4) Farmers give high priority to personal decision making.
Farmers do not have a hierarchical organization in which leaders can force farmers to use pesticide and herbicide. Personal selection and modification of new techniques are respected by other villagers. And also the instructions of the Muda Agricultural Development Authority are not unconditionally accepted.
To combine the modern and the traditional, and make them fit the local cultural-ecological setting, indigenous knowledge of farming provides a good basis. According to the case of the Muda area, as rice is a traditional staple food in the project area, farmers have their own traditional system of rice cultivation. Their self-reliance on theirsystem, and knowledge of paddy cultivation, help them to select and modify new techniques.