Socioeconomic Review of wet-rice farming in Munduk Gerih

Bali’s glimmering coastlines and picturesque rice terraces attract tourists from across the globe. The island’s combination of beauty and culture has made Bali a premier tourist destination, but not without extensive targeted governmental development plans that aimed at attracting foreign visitors for decades.[1] The mass tourism that now characterizes much of the small island has put an undue strain on its resources, particularly its water. Tourism accounts for 80% of the island’s economy and 65% of its water usage, so it comes as no surprise that government structures continue to prioritize the tourism industry and its resource access at all costs.[2] As the island’s population continues to grow and foreign tourism is set to increase 150% by 2025, a dangerous water crisis is threatening the local population as well as its traditional agricultural structures.[3]

Balinese wet-rice farming requires substantial amounts of water; however, its profitability is threatened by water shortages across the island.[4] Rice farming and the traditional irrigation systems that govern it are an integral part of the social, political, and religious structures of Bali.[5] As water security threatens the subak, a unique Balinese word for Bali’s irrigation system that is linked to Balinese Hinduism, the economic draw of tourism pulls many young Balinese people away from this system of traditional life.[6] Those hurdles are not the only ones facing the contemporary Balinese rice farmer. International pressures resulted in governmental agricultural planning that has “modernized” rice farming to increase production by switching rice cultivation to unwholesome hybrid white rice and environmentally damaging, expensive pesticides.[7] These factors have created a crisis for conventional Balinese wet-rice farmers struggling to make a living as well as preserve their ancient traditions.[8]

Across the world, academics from various disciplines have devoted many studies to the Balinese subak system. The efficiency and organization of this localized water distribution structure and its resilient community cooperation have served Bali’s rice farms for over a thousand years.[9] Subak Penarungan is situated in central Bali within the Badung Regency about 45 minutes outside of the popular tourism center of Ubud. There are five smaller divisions within the subak called munduks. Munduk Gerih is on the eastern side of the subak and has around 150 farmers, while the greater subak has around 750 farmers. This paper represents a sampling of opinions from 16 farmers in Munduk Gerih as well as interviews with local experts and farmers from other areas around Bali. The subak is not close enough to any tourism centers to have a homegrown tourism industry, however, a large government well, whose water is likely used for urban and tourist consumption, is located close to the sawah or rice fields.

Map of Subak Penarungan’s munduk system.

Other academic studies on the subak have warned against generalizations of the community as all subak systems vary and represent very diverse people and social climates across Bali.[10] As this paper only focuses on a small subsection of one subak, the opinions of these farmers represent a micro level study of their current problems and concerns in June and July of 2016. Stephen Lansing explains in The Perfect Order: Recognizing Complexity in Bali, that it is this tendency to generalize that has allowed many social sciences to exclude Bali’s traditional practices due to their fixation on development and progress.[11] Although Indonesia gained independence from Dutch rule in the 1940s, the impact of Eurocentric models continue to affect the country’s government planning, even making the role of Western advisors after independence more prevalent than during colonialism.[12]

During the 1960s a systematic modernization of agricultural practices spread across South East Asia. Dubbed the Green Revolution, the campaign pushed for “Western science based technology” and aimed to increase agricultural production through the introduction of pesticides, petrochemical fertilizers, and newly developed higher yielding seed varieties (HYS).[13] Before the 1950s, Balinese rice farmers grew indigenous heritage rice and only used organic fertilizers and pesticides from local materials. However, the government soon began pushing for additional rice crops during the fallow season.[14] By 1968, the government had introduced petrochemical fertilizers and urea to the land, which one older farmer in Subak Penarungan described as ineffective in conjunction with the traditional rice variety.[15] Nevertheless, new introductions continued and pesticides began to be distributed in 1975. State sanctioned campaigns of agronomic science often employ medicinal language, such as calling petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides “medicine”, to increase legitimacy.[16] This is also seen in Bali as pesticides are called obat or medicine in Indonesian. While most farmers understand that obat is indeed pesticides, one farmer was emphatic that obat was not pesticides at all, but “medicine for the leaves”. Even though the farmers generally understand that the “medicines” are pesticides, language is an important propagandist tool that reinforces the “necessity” of pesticides for the plants’ well being whether consciously or unconsciously as well as linguistically erases the impact that these chemicals have on the farmers’ health.

Switching from indigenous heritage rice to high yield hybrid rice was another important facet of the Green Revolution. An older farmer from the study remembered the introduction of the HYS variety, IR 5.[17] He recalled that in 1975 and 1976, when the subak first began using the variety, the harvests were wildly successful. However, across Bali, the success of the seeds and pesticides began to falter. Just a few short years later, pest outbreaks and water shortages slowed and even undid the gains of the Green Revolution.[18] According to Yayasan Konservasi Sawah Bali, an organization that helps transition farmers back to heritage rice utilizing organic systems of permaculture, the hybrid rice actually uses more water than traditional rice varieties, which reinforces how inefficient and unsuited hybrid rice is for the Balinese environment. Yet, all farmers interviewed in Munduk Gerih use a version of the hybrid rice as well as pesticides despite the fact that the rules of the subak (awig-awig) do not mandate the use of the HYS. Some farmers who expressed interest in switching to heritage rice lamented that they could not find the seeds for it in the market.

During the Green Revolution, bureaucrats did not understand or appreciate the efficacy and traditional knowledge of the subak. [19] As national, top-down directives were at odds with the localized, democratic nature of the subak, farmers and their productivity suffered.[20][21] James C. Scott’s assertions about modernized agriculture in Seeing Like A State ring true in the context of the Green Revolution: “The simple ‘production and profit’ model of agricultural extension and agricultural research has failed in important ways to represent the complex, supple, negotiated objectives of real farmers and their communities.”[22]

 In the late 1980s a struggling Indonesian economy resulted in many agricultural subsidy cuts, creating high pesticide prices that still exist today for the farmers within the subak.[23] Pesticide prices are a central problem for the majority of farmers in Munduk Gerih and result in extremely high operational costs. Pesticides are distributed by the democratically elected subak leader, or pekaseh, and can be loaned to farmers for planting as long as they pay the pekaseh back with interest after they harvest. Many farmers explained that pesticides have economically marginalized them and do not effectively ward off pests. However, the pekaseh contends that no farmers have debt or financial issues related to the pesticide prices. He adamantly negated the problems with pesticides possibly because he was talking to a foreigner or because he did not want the subak to seem problematic, but it is very hard to believe that he was ignorant of these issues as the vast majority of farmers complained of high pesticide prices.

Pesticides sold by the pekaseh

According to the farmers, predators do not come to eat the pests like they used to because of the levels of pesticides, but the pesticides are not effective enough to ward off the rats and insects. Caught in a cycle of increased pesticide usage and deteriorating environment, the farmers will conduct a ritualized subak ceremony as the first defense against insects, and if the insects continue unabated then they will spray more pesticides, but the increased chemicals often do not work according to one farmer. The subaks used to coordinate and flood their fields simultaneously to deprive pests of their habitat, however, these traditional irrigation schedules were largely abandoned during the Green Revolution.[24] The Green Revolution prioritized Eurocentric agricultural solutions, while ignoring and neglecting the centuries of traditional knowledge that reside in the subak system, ultimately marginalizing local people and their time-honored farming practices.[25]

The economic burden of Green Revolution technology contributes to high operational costs and cuts deeply into the profits of the farmers. However, the farmers do not explicitly recognize the government-sponsored agricultural practices of the Green Revolution as the origin of their issues. They do have a strong critique of other state sanctioned modernization practices. The paving of irrigation canals often draws criticism from many farmers in the munduk. The traditional irrigation canals, which normally allow seepage into the water table, have been sealed with concrete in many parts of the munduk. One farmer did praise the concrete because it stopped nocturnal crabs from burrowing small holes in the canals and diverting the water, however, in an interview with Chakra Widia, a local farming consultant, the crabs would have a negligible effect on current water shortages. For most farmers, the concrete canals represent a lack of government consultation resulting in poorly planned “modern” advances. In addition, one farmer just had his crops ruined by a small, new “government road” into the paddies. While this road was intended to ease motorbike access, the concrete had inhibited water seepage and flooded one farmer’s land resulting in the loss of 75% of his crops.

Furthermore, the farmers generally complain of the “broken prices” offered for rice after the harvest. The government continues to import rice from abroad, artificially lowering market prices for the farmers, which is an issue for the farmers in Subak Penarungan and across Bali.[26] Instead of supporting local production when the harvests are not sufficient, the government floods the market with cheap rice from outside of Bali.

The government does not prioritize the needs of the local farmers in Bali, and this has led to harmful resource extraction around Subak Penarungan. The area that the greater subak resides on is a protected area called the Green Belt. However, across Bali, Green Belt designations are largely ignored as new properties and roads are constructed, effectively allowing local interests to be overrun by capitalist development.[27] The government also ignores these laws themselves.[28] Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum (PDAM), the quasi public-private water supplier, constructed a government sanctioned well in the Green Belt area of Subak Penarungan. One farmer explained that when the government bought the land over 20 years ago, the farmers were not told that PDAM was going to build a well. While the well has been functioning for a number of years, the majority of farmers cite it as burden, if not the biggest problem, for the subak. Water shortages are generally attributed to its existence and the farmers believe the water it extracts is transported to Denpasar, the capital of Bali, and to the arid tourism centers in the south of Bali. While the coastal areas in the south are often associated with rampant development, the inner regions where the studied subak is located are not insulated from the strains of resource extraction for the tourist economy. Laws that prioritize subak water rights are already in place, however, this legislation is rarely enforced and the government is, in the case of Subak Penarungan, actively breaking these laws in addition to ignoring the Green Belt designations.[29] PDAM was contacted for an interview regarding the farmer’s concerns, but repeatedly denied the author access.

In Bali, the competition between tourism and agriculture for water resources is a result of longstanding development plans for both sectors.[30] Nearly 50 years before the Green Revolution, the Dutch appropriated the subak system to collect taxes.[31] According to Tessel Pollman in Margaret Mead’s Balinese: The Fitting Symbols of the American Dream, around the same time as the appropriation of the subak system, the Dutch began a systematic “Balinization” of the island essentially attempting to freeze the culture in a sort of “living museum” for visitors.[32] Anthropologists during the colonial period also relied on racist, imperial structures that fetishized and exoticized such as the traditional Balinese dance now performed for tourists, essentially constructing the Balinese as the uniform “other”.[33] The Dutch were shaping Bali for the Western tourist’s gaze at the expense of the Balinese by performing and staging authenticity for international circulation.[34]

After gaining independence from the Dutch, the Indonesian government created a top-down development plan for tourism and used the early 20th century imperial constructs of Balinese culture to extensively market the island.[35] As is the case with many traditional communities turned tourist destinations, most of the capital generated by Bali’s tourism industry does not circulate in Balinese hands.[36] Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, housed and developed the plans for Bali’s tourism industry for decades resulting in 85% of Bali’s tourism economy being owned by the non Balinese today.[37] The locals may not retain the true financial benefits, but tourism and the service sector are deeply intertwined with Balinese society employing 25% of the island and supporting an additional 55% of the population.[38] Many farmers in Munduk Gerih feel that tourism brought economic opportunity and social progress, however, one farmer expressed that tourism has no respect for the traditional lifestyle and another asserted that tourism is at odds with agriculture. Some farmers in Munduk Gerih have family members working in tourism, and this may explain their reluctance, as well as other informants’ hesitations in a subak case study of the tourist area of Sanur, to speak against the industry.[39] Tourism also allowed Bali more access to technology and advancements associated with development. Two farmers cited their motorbikes as benefits of Bali’s tourism industry and development, which allow them greater ease and access within the rice fields.

However, Subak Penarungan has very different views on inheritance compared to the more developed, tourist area of Canggu. While villagers in Canggu reported that they would eventually sell their wet-rice fields and that their children would work in tourism, farmers in Munduk Gerih are working hard to ensure that their next generation understands the value of rice farming and the economic stability that comes from owning land.[40] Farmer informants assert that tourism and tourism related industry are taking the younger generation away from farming and the majority of respondents are worried about the future of the rice field or sawah. Uncertainty about who will take over the farm and inherit the land is a common concern. While the economic reality of farming is a deterrent for the younger generation, most of the farmers want their children to join them in the sawah and traditional community ties are valued over engagement in the tourism industry. This sentiment is not shared by all subaks as other researchers have found that farmers want their offspring to pursue employment in tourism. However, this subak continues to prioritize farming likely due to its distance from tourism centers and strong subak structure.[41]

In Stephen Lansing’s seminal book, The Perfect Order: Recognizing Complexity in Bali, 96% of all farms studied were acquired by inheritance and as the young Balinese in Subak Penarungan move away from agriculture, the strength of the farming system is threatened.[42] At the moment, this subak is not near any developed tourism areas and tourism is not considered a threat in the farmers’ opinion. The democratically elected pekaseh is generally considered very strong and trustworthy. In addition the subak itself has successfully staved off buyers and development. One farmer explained that the rice field sales in Canggu are emblematic of that subak’s weakness in the face of tourism and high land prices. He declared that while no land is for sale at the moment in Subak Penarungan, if the farmers are not strong enough the land would not be able to be preserved. Another farmer knows his children will not sell his rice farm because he taught them that land ownership is the key to income security, which is true across all of Bali.[43] Events like the global recession and the Bali bombings affected the tourism industry and therefore the financial security of the Balinese farmers who sold their land suffered greatly during those times.[44] Abandoning agricultural practices does not mean the farm will lay fallow as some landowning farmers in the subak outsource their labor to other Balinese farmers or Javanese migrant sharecroppers if they do not have the time to farm themselves. The sharecropping farmers will split the harvest 50/50 with the landowner; however, one Balinese sharecropper in Munduk Gerih reported that migrant Javanese sharecroppers have to split the harvest 40/60 with the landowner.[45] On the other hand, abandoning agricultural practices in order to pursue work elsewhere does not come without consequences as it may weaken ties to the subak and the sawah as well as Balinese Hinduism.

Balinese puppet show on the dangerous impact of subak development

The cooperative water management of the subak is inextricably linked with Balinese Hinduism.[46] The age-old institution of the subak manages water temples that facilitate irrigation as well as serve deities like the Rice Goddess, Dewi Sri.[47] The religious principles that shape the subak are vital to its ability to allocate water equitably as Dewi Sri is a part of all subak rituals and essentially ties religious ceremony to a rhythmic water distribution and rice cultivation schedule.[48] In addition, the philosophical concept of Tri Hita Karana, which espouses a balanced relationship with God, community, and nature, depicts the environmental consciousness of Balinese Hinduism.[49]

In spite of this, the use of agrochemicals has killed off eels, fish, and frogs in the sawah, which are not only a traditional source of protein, but also vital for certain ceremonial rituals.[50] Farmers in Munduk Gerih are aware of the death of these animals and as a result priests have to purchase the eel, fish, and frog because they are no longer found in the rice paddies. The younger Balinese generations that move away from farming and outsource labor to the growing Javanese migrant population depict a significant paradigm change in the nature of rice farming and the island’s agricultural practices.[51] Farmers in Munduk Gerih do not think that Balinese Hinduism has changed or will change substantially if Muslim Javanese workers farm the land or if pesticides kill the animals in the sawah despite the fact that these developments can be seen as at odds with aspects of the religion. However, declining inheritances and decreased understandings of the importance of rice farming are seen as sizeable concerns for the religion’s future.

The problems facing Subak Penarungan and its farmers stem from many places including competition between agriculture and tourism for resources and labor, ill-fitting Westernized farming practices, and the government’s misplaced priorities. As the government pushes towards a type of modernity that is constructed in relation to Western standards, unbridled tourism threatens the right to water and life and capitalist globalization blindly leads the island’s economy in a way that does not serve the Balinese at large. The subak is a vital part of Balinese culture, religion, and identity. This complex traditional system survived early monarchies and invasions as well as extractive colonialism in the 1900s, depicting its resiliency, adaptability, and importance in Bali’s past, present, and future.[52] While tourism is the latest globalizing force that threatens its existence, the subak must be protected, not as an ancient artifact, but rather as an evolving, living system that is integral to Bali’s society.

This paper would not have been possible without extensive support from Phyllis Kaplan of Sawah Bali, the translating expertise of my dear friend Gika Savitri, the introductions and access supplied by Pak Nyoman Berta, and the editing and application help of Max Holleran.

The author interviewing with Gika Savitri and Pak Nyoman Berta

***

Kai Bauer is a workshop facilitator, clothing designer, and writer. She is currently a senior at NYU in the Gallatin School of Individualized Study. Her concentration explores the intersectionality of the environmental justice movement and how social oppression is exacerbated by environmental issues. As a blog manager, researcher, and workshop facilitator, her interests led her to mass incarceration. She then started a creative mentorship program at Rikers Island Correctional Facility. In tandem with this program, Kai and her best friend, Clementine, began Not From Concentrate, a sustainable clothing company with a strong triple bottom line. She has interned at Amnesty International, Urban Democracy Lab, and most recently AGW Group. By intertwining intersectional justice principles with art, visual narratives, and media, Kai seeks more holistic ways to lead our lives through our values.

All photos were taken by the author. 

[1] Stroma Cole, “A Political Ecology of Water Equity and Tourism,” in Annals of Tourism Research no 39.2 (2012): 7.
[2] Cole, “A Political Ecology of Water Equity and Tourism,” 2, 8.
[3] Cole, “A Political Ecology of Water Equity and Tourism,” 8.  
[4] Sophie Strauss, “Water Conflicts among Different User Groups in South Bali, Indonesia,” in Human Ecology 39.1 (2011): 72.
[5] Clifford Geertz, “The Wet and the Dry: Traditional Irrigation in Bali and Morocco,” in Human Ecology 1.1 (1972): 30.
[6] Wyn Alit Arthawiguna, Rachel P. Lorenzen, and Stephan Lorenzen, “Past, Present, and
Future- Perspectives of Balinese Rice Farming” in Proc. of International Rice Conference (2005), 5.
[7] Graeme Macrae, “Rice Farming In Bali,” Critical Asian Studies 43.1 (2011): 73.
[8] I. W. A. Arthawiguna and Graeme MacRae, “Sustainable Agricultural Development in Bali:
Is the Subak an Obstacle, an Agent or Subject?” Human Ecology 39.1 (2011): 11.
[9] John Stephen Lansing, Perfect Order: Recognizing Complexity in Bali (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2006), 25.
[10] Arthawiguna and MacRae, “Sustainable Agricultural Development in Bali,” 11, 18.
[11] Lansing, Perfect Order, 26.
[12] Lansing, Perfect Order, 27.
[13] Thierry Bardini, “A Translation Analysis of the Green Revolution in Bali,” Science, Technology & Human Values 19.2 (1994): 154; Macrae, “Rice Farming in Bali,” 72.
[14] MacRae, “Rice Farming in Bali,” 73.
[15] MacRae, “Rice Farming in Bali,” 73.
[16] James Scott, “”Taming Nature: An of Agriculture Legibility and Simplicity” in Seeing Like a State (New Haven: Yale University Press 1998), 284.
[17] MacRae, “Rice Farming in Bali,” 73.                                                                                      
[18] Arthawiguna, Lorenzen, and Lorenzen, “Past, Present, and Future,” 3; MacRae, 72.
[19] Bardini, “A Translation Analysis of the Green Revolution in Bali,” 163.                     
[20] Arthawiguna, Lorenzen, and Lorenzen, “Past, Present, and Future,” 4.
[21] J. Stephen Lansing and Therese A. De Vet, “The Functional Role of Balinese Water Temples: A Response to Critics,” Human Ecology 40.3 (2012): 453.
[22] Scott, Seeing Like a State, 262.
[23] Macrae, “Rice Farming in Bali,” 72.  
[24] John Stephen Lansing, Perfect Order: Recognizing Complexity in Bali (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2006), 40, 165; Arthawiguna, Lorenzen, and Lorenzen, 3.
[25] Donald Reid, “Tourism as a Function of Development Studies,” in Tourism, Globalization, and
Development: Responsible Tourism Planning (London: Pluto, 2003), 82; Scott, Seeing Like a State, 265.
[26] Strauss, “Water Conflicts,” 75.
[27] Arthawiguna, Lorenzen, and Lorenzen, “Past, Present, and Future,” 8.
[28] Cole, “A Political Ecology of Water Equity and Tourism,” 19.
[29] Nitish Jha and John Schoenfelder, “Studies of the Subak: New Directions, New
Challenges,” in Human Ecology 39.1 (2011): 8.
[30] Strauss, “Water Conflicts,” 71.
[31] Arthawiguna, Lorenzen, and Lorenzen, “Past, Present, and Future,” 3.
[32] Tessel Pollman, “Margaret Mead’s Balinese: The Fitting Symbols of the American Dream” in
Indonesia 49 (1990): 15.
[33] Pollman, “Margaret Mead’s Balinese,” 28.
[34] Pollman, “Margaret Mead’s Balinese,” 12; John Urry, “Globalising the Tourist Gaze,” Department of Sociology, Lancaster University (2001): 6.  
[35] Tanuja Barker, Darm Putra, and Agung Wiranatha, “Authenticity and Commodification of Balinese Dance Performances,” in Cultural Tourism in a Changing World: Politics, Participation and (re)presentation (Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications, 2006), 216; Cole, “A Political Ecology of Water Equity and Tourism,” 7; Adrian Vickers, “Bali Rebuilds Its Tourist Industry,” in Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia 167.4 (2011): 478.
[36] Reid, “Tourism as a Function of Development Studies,” 79.
[37] Cole, “A Political Ecology of Water Equity and Tourism,” 6; Strauss, “Water Conflicts,” 71.
[38] Cole, “A Political Ecology,” 6. 
[39] Strauss, “Water Conflicts,” 75.                   
[40] Cole, “A Political Ecology,” 20.  
[41] Cole, “A Political Ecology,” 20.
[42] Lansing, Perfect Order, 209.
[43] Jha and Schoenfelder, “Studies of the Subak,” 8.
[44] Rachel Lorenzen and Stephan Lorenzen, “Changing Realities—Perspectives on Balinese Rice Cultivation” in Hum Ecol Human Ecology 39.1 (2010): 70.
[45] MacRae, “Rice Farming in Bali,” 75.
[46] Lansing, Perfect Order, 107.
[47] Lansing, Perfect Order, 106-107.
[48] Geertz, “The Wet and the Dry: Traditional Irrigation in Bali and Morocco,” 30-31.
[49] Bruce Mitchell, “Sustainable Development at the Village Level in Bali, Indonesia,” in Human Ecology 22.2 (1994): 193.
[50] MacRae, “Rice Farming in Bali,” 73; Mitchell, “Sustainable Development at the Village Level,” 205.
[51] Arthawiguna, Lorenzen, and Lorenzen, “Past, Present, and Future,” 4.
[52] Lansing, Perfect Order.