CC BY
7
UDC 332; DOI 10.18551/rjoas.2023-09.02
STRATEGY TO STRENGTHEN ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS FOR RICE AND CITRUS COMMODITY FARMERS IN BARITO KUALA DISTRICT OF INDONESIA
Asliani*, Fauzi Muhammad, Ferrianta Yudi
Master's Study Program of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Lambung Mangkurat, Banjarbaru, South Kalimantan, Indonesia *E-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The success of agricultural development depends on technical, biological, socio-economic, and institutional factors. This study aimed to identify and analyze Farmer Economic Institutions in Barito Kuala District, analyze the existing problems in strengthening Farmer Economic Institutions, and analyze strategies of strengthen Farmer Economic Institutions in Barito Kuala District. This research is a qualitative-quantitative combined research with the object of study being the Farmer Economic Institution of rice and citrus commodities. Sampling was carried out purposively with data collection techniques by observation, interviews, and focus group discussions (FGD) then an analysis of internal and external factors were analyzed using the SWOT method. The results of the study found 119 Farmer Economic Institutions in Barito Kuala Regency, namely Cooperatives (3 institutions); UPJA (66 institutions); LKMA (11 institutions); BUMP (2 institutions); LPM (12 institutions); and others (25 institutions). The problems found in Farmer Economic Institutions include not having a good bargaining position, integrated strategy in the agribusiness system, incomplete infrastructure, and Incompetent human resources in each Farmer Economic Institutions unit of the agribusiness subsystem.
KEY WORDS
Farmer economic institutions, SWOT analysis, strengthening strategy, rice, citrus.
The success of agricultural development depends not only on technical and biological factors but also on socio-economic and institutional factors. Factors driving growth include natural resources, humans, technology, and institutions. If one or more of these factors do not exist/are not following the adequacy requirements, then the activities carried out will not produce the desired performance.
Farmer's Economic Institution is an institution that carries out farming activities formed by the farmers, from the farmers, and for the farmers in order to increase the productivity and efficiency of farming, both those who are and are not legally incorporated (Permentan 67/2016). According to Minister of Agriculture No. 18 of 2018, Farmer Corporations are Farmer Economic Institutions (in Indonesian is Kelembagaan Ekonomi Petani/KEP) with legal entities in the form of cooperatives or other legal entities with most of the capital ownership owned by farmers. Farmer corporations are Farmer Economic Institutions or BUMP in accordance with the Law on the Protection and Empowerment of Farmers. Legal entities can be cooperatives or companies.
Farmer Economic Institution leads to farmer corporations which is a strategic form of farmer economic empowerment because it is hoped that it will empower and unite all the resources owned by farmers to be managed in integrated management. The farmers will receive all the added value of agricultural business from upstream to downstream, because the farmers are the owners of corporations, which are business entities formed from the farmers, by the farmers and for the farmers.
The existence of a Farmer Economic Institution is directed to form cooperatives or other business entities following the needs, habits of farmers, and the potential of the region and adapted to the provisions of the applicable laws and regulations. As mandated in Law Number 19 of 2013 concerning the Protection and Empowerment of Farmers, states that the government and regional governments, by their authority, should encourage and provide
facilities so that farmer institutions and Farmer Economic Institutions are formed, growth activities, development, and strengthening of the Farmer Economic Institution.
Barito Kuala District has enormous potential in the agricultural sector, especially food crop agriculture. Rice production in 2020 is 412,532 tons, with an average production of 35.59 Kw/Ha from a harvested area of 115,896 Ha. This result is equivalent to 261,215 tons of rice. Almost all sub-districts in Barito Kuala Regency are rice production centers. In addition, Barito Kuala Regency is also a rice production center in South Kalimantan Province.
Apart from rice production, Barito Kuala Regency is also the region with the largest citrus producer in South Kalimantan. In 2020 Barito Kuala Regency had an area of 7,497.98 hectares of citrus trees with a harvested area of 5,616.37 hectares and a production of 95,953 tons. The data shows that the production of Citrus, which is quite large, is influenced by the suitability of land and climate factors in Barito Kuala Regency.
There are still institutional problem associate with farmers and farmers institutions in Barito Kuala District, they are: there is still a lack of insight and knowledge of farmers on issues of production management and marketing networks; Farmer Economic Institutions are still not legally incorporated; farmers are not fully involved in agribusiness activities but they remain focused on production activities (on the farm); the role and function of farmer institutions as a forum for farmer organizations has not run optimally.
Through the agribusiness-oriented Farmer Economic Institution, it is hoped to bring in more commercial-oriented farmers, not subsistence. Helping smallholders to have managerial skills that help strengthen their institutions. The commercial farming business born from Farmer Economic Institution is expected to help increase the income of farmers in Barito Kuala Regency. For this reason, a strategy is needed to strengthen Farmer Economic Institutions so that they can increase business/economy scale and business efficiency, increase the bargaining position of farmers, increase agribusiness partnership networks in taking advantage of business opportunities, and meet broader market demands.
It is necessary to further examine what strategies should be implemented to strengthen the Farmer Economic Institutions in Barito Kuala district in rice and citrus commodities. For this reason, three things will be explained in the discussion later, namely: (1) Identification and analysis of the current condition of farmers' economic institutions; (2) Analysis of existing problems in strengthening Farmers' Economic Institutions; and (3) Analysis of the selected strategy in strengthening farmers' economic institutions in Barito Kuala District, South Kalimantan.
There are 3 objectives of this research. First, identify and analyze Farmer Economic Institution in Barito Kuala District. Second, examine the existing problems in strengthening Farmer Economic Institution in Barito Kuala District. Third, analyzing strategies to strengthen Farmer Economic Institution in Barito Kuala District.
In this study, there are five benefits. First, it can be used as knowledge and standardization to strengthen Farmer Economic Institutions for farmers as the main actor and business actors. Second, it can be used as a basis for policy in formulating Farmer Economic Institution strengthening programs which can be set forth in budget plans, both short and medium-term, for offices/agencies in Barito Kuala District. Third, for the Agricultural Extension Center, this research is as knowledge and can be a parameter in conducting guidance in terms of strengthening the Farmer Economic Institution. Fourth, for Farmer Groups and Farmer Economic Institutions as a reference in carrying out farming management towards agribusiness. Fifth, for researchers as a knowledge about the strategy for strengthening Farmer Economic Institution.
METHODS OF RESEARCH
The research was conducted in Barito Kuala District, South Kalimantan. The research time is from December 2022 to completion, starting from the preparation stage, data collection, and data processing to the set of compiling the research results.
In this study, the data used were primary data obtained directly from the respondents (farmers and extension workers) using a structured questionnaire. In addition, secondary data is needed to support preliminary data obtained from government agencies.
The methods used to answer the first and second problems are interviews, observation, documentation, and focus group discussions. Respondents in this study included Farmer Economic Institution officials, farmers, Farmer Economic Institution consumers, Agricultural Extension Centers, Department of Agriculture, Food Crops and Horticulture, Barito Kuala District. The results of interviews, observations, and FGDs from respondents will be processed and analyzed in depth. Sampling was chosen purposively using the Purposive Method by choosing Farmer Economic Institution which operates on rice and citrus commodities.
To answer the third problem, SWOT analysis is used to obtain a strategy to strengthen Farmer's Economic Institutions. The tool used in compiling strategic factors is the SWOT matrix, namely by identifying the Internal and External Environment.
Internal Environmental Analysis (ALI) includes S strengths (Strengths) and W weaknesses (Weaknesses), while External Environment Analysis (ALE) consists of O opportunities (Opportunities) and T threats (Threats) by creating a SWOT matrix, namely to identify problems and determine strategies.
To determine the amount of weight for each item, the statement is determined based on the current condition, namely on a rating scale between a score of 1 to 5. The closer it is to the statement of the current condition, the greater the rating score, with a description for each rating scale score. The ranking value scale is as follows: 1 = very inappropriate; 2 = inappropriate; 3 = quite appropriate; 4= appropriate; 5= very appropriate.
Meanwhile, to determine the rating based on the ranking of treatment priorities, a rating scale is used between a score of 1 to 5. The more urgent the treatment, the higher the rating, with the following description: 1 = not very urgent; 2 = not urgent; 3 = quite urgent; 4 = urgent; 5 = very urgent.
The determination of the score is based on multiplying the weight with the rating.
RESULTS OF STUDY
Farmer Institutions are not the same as Farmer Economic Institutions. Farmer Economic Institution has a profit orientation and encourages an agribusiness system in running its organization. At the same time, Farmer Institution is a social organization where the exposure is to establish cooperation, a place for learning processes, and one of the production units. Farmer Economic Institution is part of the Farmer Institution transformation. Barito Kuala Regency itself has several Farmer Institutions spread over 17 regions based on sources obtained from the Barito Kuala Regency Agricultural Extension Management Information System, which consists of Poktan, Gapoktan, Farmer Economic Institution, KWT, Posluhdes, and P4S.
From the data obtained, it can be analyzed to identify the condition of Farmer Economic Institution in Barito Kuala Regency as follows:
• The total number of Farmer Economic Institutions from data collected through the Food Crops and Horticulture Service of the Barito Kuala Regency is 119 units;
• The most extensive distribution of Barito Kuala Economic Institutions is in UPJA with 66 units, then other institutions with 25 units consisting of Breeding Groups, Joint Business Groups, Karang Taruna, and UPPB (Bokar Processing and Marketing Unit) business units or business units formed by two or more groups of growers as a place for organizing technical guidance for growers, processing, temporary storage and marketing of bokar. Bokar is the People's Rubber Processing Material. There are 12 LPM units (Independent Food Barns), 11 LKMA units (Agribusiness Microfinance Institutions), 2 BUMP units, and 3 Cooperative units;
• Still fragmented into several subsystems, not integrated with one complete agribusiness system. For example, UPJA, Organic Fertilizer Processing, as a
separate upstream agribusiness subsystem, separate cultivation subsystem, and other supporting service subsystems separately;
• In the cultivation subsystem, the main actors do not yet have associations yet, so they have a weak bargaining position;
• A large business scale is in cultivation, but in the downstream sector, the business scale is still small;
• The sampling of Farmer Economic Institutions for rice and citrus commodities was not based on large, medium, and small-scale Farmer Economic Institution categorization but based on institutions that became agribusiness units in one area for rice and citrus commodities;
• Farmer institutions, in this case, Farmer Groups which are a cultivation subsystem in an agribusiness activity chain, have not been able to contribute optimally to strengthening Farmer Economic Institutions in terms of providing information regarding Plant Destruction Organisms and uniformity of pest and disease prevention measures but functioning well in seeking the availability of inputs for fertilizer production for its members;
• There is no uniformity of perception at the Barito Kuala District Agricultural Extension Center as the spearhead of Agricultural development at the District and Village levels regarding Farmer Economic Institutions;
• There has not been synergy between Farmer Economic Institutions for Food Crops, Horticultural Crops, Animal Husbandry, and Plantations, so Farmer Economic Institutions support each other in Agricultural Development;
• Farmer Economic Institutions which are not cooperatives organization have not yet been legally incorporated.
Table 1 - Farmer Institutions in Batola 2022
BPP POKTAN GAPOKTAN KEP KWT POSLUHDES P4S
Anjir Muara 142 15 0 3 0 0
Anjir Pasar 121 15 17 4 0 0
Bakumpai 72 10 3 6 0 0
Belawang 99 13 7 4 5 0
Jejangkit 61 7 17 5 0 0
Mandastana 107 14 42 0 0 1
Marabahan 114 10 3 3 1 0
Rantau Badauh 129 12 5 4 1 0
Wanaraya 120 13 9 5 0 2
Alalak 151 18 5 8 0 0
Tamban 174 16 0 3 0 0
Barambai 130 16 2 7 0 0
Cerbon 78 8 0 4 0 0
Kuripan 40 11 0 1 0 0
Mekar Sari 111 9 7 2 0 1
Tabukan 92 11 2 1 0 0
Tabunganen 145 14 0 3 0 0
Total 1886 212 119 63 7 4
For rice commodities, the sample of Farmer Economic Institution respondents was taken purposively consisting of Farmer Economic Institution of the seed breeder group as the upstream and cultivation subsystem, UPJA as the upstream subsystem of the agricultural machinery service provider, Farmer Economic Institution of organic fertilizer providers, LPM which functions as the downstream subsystem in this case of rice milling, Farmer Economic Institution of producers packaged rice, Gapoktan and KUD as subsystems of supporting facilities, in this case, financial institutions.
For citrus commodities, samples of Farmer Economic Institution respondents were taken based on Farmer Economic Institution, which is engaged in citrus nurseries as well as cultivation, Farmer Economic Institution Marketing (Collecting Traders), and Farmer Economic Institution Processing of citrus products.
Table 2 - Number of Farmer Economic Institutions in Barito Kuala District
No. Kec. Farmer Economic Institution Ket.
1. Alalak 5 LPM = 5
2. Anjir Muara 0 -
3. Anjir Pasar 17 UPJA= 13 LPM = 1 Lainnya = 3
4. Bakumpai 3 Koperasi = 1 BUMP = 1 Lainya = 1
5. Barambai 2 UPJA = 2
6. Belawang 7 Koperasi = 1 UPJA = 4 LKMA= 1 Lainnya = 1
7. Cerbon 1 Lainnya = 1
8. Jejangkit 17 Upja = 6 LKMA = 7 LPM = 2 Lainnya = 2
9. Kuripan 0 -
10. Mandastana 42 UPJA = 35 LKMA = 1 LPM = 1 Lainnya = 5
11. Marabahan 3 LKMA = 2 BUMP = 1
12. Mekar Sari 7 Upja = 1 Lainnya = 6
13. Rantau Badauh 5 Koperasi = 1 UPJA = 2 Lainnya = 1
14. Tabukan 2 Upja = 2
15. Tabunganen 0 -
16. Tamban 0 -
17. Wanaraya 9 UPJA = 1 LPM = 2 Lainnya = 6
Total 119 Koperasi = 3 UPJA = 66 LKMA = 11 BUMP=2 LPM = 12 Lainnya = 25
Problems in the Farmer Economic Institution of Barito Kuala District, based on the results of the Focus Group Discussion and interviews with several respondents, can be categorized into four categories, they are:
• Farmer Economic Institution does not yet have a good bargaining position in price setting;
• Do not yet have a strategy to be integrated into the agribusiness system;
• Incomplete infrastructure facilities;
• Incompetency Human Resource in some unit of Farmer Economic Institution;
• Many Farmer Economic Institutions are not yet legal entities and do not yet have good institutions and marketing networks.
Table 3 - The strength of the internal factors of the Rice Commodity
Strategic Factors Value Rating Score
HR Capacity 0,081 4 0,324
Natural Resources Capacity 0,124 3 0,373
Business Motivation for the common good 0,078 4 0,312
Capital capacity 0,064 3 0,191
Figures / driving actors 0,090 4 0,358
Adequate infrastructure 0,064 3 0,191
Total 1,749
Table 4 - The internal factors and weaknesses of the rice commodity
Strategic Factor Value Rating Score
Management Capacity 0,084 4 0,335
Marketing Institution 0,072 3 0,253
Accounting capacity 0,078 3 0,273
Technology 0,087 3 0,260
There is no Road Map yet 0,092 3 0,277
Regeneration system 0,087 4 0,347
Total 1,746
In Farmer Economic Institution Cultivation Subsystem, Upstream Subsystem (UPJA, Seed Growers and Organic Fertilizers) LPM Support Subsystem, KUD, Downstream Subsystem for Packaging Rice Processing. Farmer Economic Institution Rice has strengths, namely the existence of human resources who have the ability to run a business unit, with ages ranging from 30-40 years and a minimum education level of high school. Land ownership resources range from 1-2 Ha. On average, they are motivated to improve their members' welfare, have a group culture such as the Handipan tradition, planting and harvest thanksgiving, and communication technology to facilitate the delivery of information.
Table 5 - The external factors Opportunities of the rice commodity
Strategic Factor Value Rating Score
Cooperation, synergy, and partnership 0,089 3 0.267
The Role of BPP in technology dissemination 0,119 4 0.475
Source of science and technology 0,106 3 0.370
Government policy and budget support 0,102 3 0.307
Strategic Position 0,109 4 0.436
Total 1,855
Table 6 - The external factors Threats to the rice commodity
Strategic Factor Value Rating Score
The existence of other sectors outside of agriculture 0,066 3 0,198
There are cheaper competitors 0,112 4 0,449
The farm road is damaged 0,119 4 0,475
OPT 0,119 4 0,475
Land use change 0,059 3 0,208
Total 1,805
Each business unit has a driving force to run the business. Obtaining infrastructure assistance from the Regional Government, such as Gapoktan Surya Indah in the Mandastana District and LPM Tunggal Rasa in the Tabunganen District, who received assistance in the form of a Rice Milling Unit, but due to limited ability in managerial skills and business record keeping, the Rice Milling Unit business has not been able to run according to expected, besides that there are also no standards and analysis in managing a business. If there is an analyst, it has not been written, the reward and punishment system has not been applied in a running business, and there has not been regeneration business operation.
External factors, the opportunity for Farmer Economic Institution for the rice commodity to score the highest is on the role of BPP in technology dissemination. Apart from that, in some Farmer Economic Institutions, capital cooperation has been established with other parties through Bumdes and KUR from the banking sector, although not all Farmer Economic Institutions can access it. There is budget support from the government in the form of infrastructure assistance. For processed commodities, there are competitors with low prices, as was the case with UPJA and packaged rice.
From Table 3 and Table 4, it is known that the score for strength is +1.749 and the value for weakness is -1.746, so the strengths are more than the weaknesses, namely with a total score of 0.003 (strengths). In other words, the calculation of internal factor analysis is in the positive quadrant.
Meanwhile, from Table 5 and Table 6, it is known that the score for the opportunity is +1.855, and the score for the threat is -1.805. So that the chances that are owned are more
significant than the threats, namely with a total score of 0.05 (opportunity). The results of this calculation show that the opportunities and threats are in the positive quadrant.
1. Support ail aggressive strategy
Strength
Treat
Figure 1 - Combination of internal and external factors
From the analysis result, it can be seen that the condition of the rice commodity Farmer Economic Institution in Barito Kuala Regency is in quadrant 1, indicating that the Farmer Economic Institution has opportunities and strengths, to capitalize on current upportunies. The strategy that must be applied in this condition is to support an aggressive growth policy (Growth Oriented Strategy), maximizing all existing potential to strengthen existing economic institutions.
Based on the results of FGDs and interviews with Farmer Economic Institution respondents, it was obtained that Internal Factors became Strengths and Weaknesses of Citrus Commodity Economic Institutions.
Table 7 - The internal factor strength of the Citrus Commodity
Strategic Factors Value Rating Score
HR Capacity 0,094 4 0.469
Natural Resources Capacity 0,115 4 0.458
business motivation 0,089 4 0.354
Capital capacity 0,083 4 0.333
Processed Products 0,073 4 0.292
Infrastructure 0,063 3 0.219
Total 2,240
Table 8 - The internal Weaknesses factors of the Citrus Commodity
Strategic Factors Value Rating Score
Management Capacity 0,029 4 0.354
Marketing Institution 0,044 4 0.271
accounting capacity 0,059 3 0.250
Technology 0,044 3 0.266
There are no Road maps yet 0,044 3 0.234
Regeneration System 0,059 4 0.313
Total 1,688
Internal factors in citrus nurseries, namely Aspiannor farmers as well as cultivators, for nursery businesses are still constrained by standardization of infrastructure such as screen houses, few have grafting technique skills. There are no marketing constraints for fresh citrus fruit. Almost every grade has its own buyers who visit directly to the farmer's citrus orchards. Farmers' bargaining stance is still vulnerable. Then, Processed citrus goods is still limited, the company scale remains small.
The commodity citrus Farmer Economic Institutions, External Factor Analysis, shows the highest score on the role of BPP in technology dissemination as well as the role of extension workers and budget support. In the Cultivation Farmer Economic Institution, there is a segment of farmers who have accessed KUR. In Farmer Economic Institution, processing synergizes with BUMDES institutions for capital assistance, training, and
Opportunity
marketing. For Farmer Economic Institution, the marketing for fresh oranges is still in the form of offline marketing, not online.
Table 9 - The external factors Opportunities of the Citrus Commodity
Strategic Factors Value Rating Score
Teamwork, synergy, and partnership 0,091 4 0,366
The Role of BPP in technology dissemination 0,122 4 0,610
Source of science and technology 0,122 4 0,549
Government policy and budget support 0,098 3 0,341
Strategic Position 0,104 3 0,415
Total 2,280
Table 10 - The external factors Threat of Citrus commodity
Strategic Factors Value Rating Score
The existence of other sectors outside of agriculture 0,061 3 0,183
There are cheaper competitors 0,098 4 0,390
The farm road is damaged 0,122 4 0,488
OPT 0,122 3 0,366
DPI 0,061 2 0,122
Total 1,549
Opportunity 1. Support ail aggressive strategy
0,73-1
Weakness Strength
Treat
Figure 2 - Combination of internal and external factors
The score for strength is +2.240 and the value for weakness is -1.688, so the strengths are more than the weaknesses, with a total score of 0.552 (strengths). Meanwhile, from tables 13 and 14, it is known that the score for the opportunity is +2.280 and the score for the threat is -1.549. So that the opportunities that are owned are greater than the threats with a total score of 0.731 (opportunity).
Based on the S-W and O-T scores, positive values were obtained, and being in the quadrant I area was a very favorable situation. Farmer Economic Institutions have opportunities and strengths so that they can take advantage of existing opportunities. The strategy that must be implemented in this condition is to supporting an aggressive growth policy (Rangkuti, 2019).
The rice commodity strategy matrix based on internal and external factor analysis:
• The SO strategy is forming a district-scale and sub-district-scale rice farmer association to agree on a minimum selling price for grain per planting season based on an analysis of rice farming, growing business actors who act as managers who have the vision and have the ability to integrate Farmer Economic Institutions into agribusiness;
• The WO strategy standardizes each Farmer Economic Institution unit which is understood by its members, the ST strategy improves product quality, and the WT strategy increases HR competence so that they have the ability to manage finances.
The results of the Citrus Commodity Score also show that it is in quadrant I on the SWOT analysis diagram. The implemented strategy is to support aggressive growth. Based
on the results of the analysis of internal and external factors for the Citrus commodity, strategy was created to strengthen the Farmer Economic Institution for the Citrus commodity.
Table 11 - Strengthening Strategy for Rice Commodity
Internal External Strength (S): • Human Resource Capacity • Natural Resource Capacity • Business motivation for common interests • Capital Capacity • Figure • Infrastructure Facilities Weakness (W): • Management Capacity • Marketing institution • Accountant capacity • Technology • There is no road map yet • Regeneration system
Opportunity (O) SO Strategy WO Strategy
Teamwork, synergy, and partnership; The Role of BPP in technology dissemination; Source of science and technology; Government policy and budget support; Strategic position. Form a Regency-scale and District-scale Rice Farmers Association to set a minimum selling price for grain per planting season based on rice farming analysis; Increasing the capacity of Farmer Economic Institution business actors based on expertise segmentation. Creating a road map and increasing the managerial capacity of Farmer Economic Institutions so that the agribusiness subsystem is consolidated in the agribusiness system; Conducting millennial farmer entrepreneur workshops.
Threats (T) ST Strategy WT Strategy
The existence of other sectors outside of agriculture; There are cheaper competitors; The farm road is damaged OPT/DPI; Land use change. Improving product quality so that it has unique characteristics and meets market standards; The role of government in improving farm roads. Improving HR competence in financial accountability so that they can face business competition; Increasing HR capacity so that they have a marketing team with digital skills to make marketing easy.
Table 12 - Strategy for strengthening the Citrus Commodity
Internal External Strength (S): • Human Resource Capacity • Natural Resource Capacity • Business motivation for common interests • Capital Capacity • processed product • Infrastructure Facilities Weakness (W): • Management Capacity • Marketing institution • Accountant capacity • Technology • There is no road map yet • Regeneration system
Opportunity (O) Strategy (SO) Strategy (WO)
Teamwork, synergy, and partnership; The Role of BPP in technology dissemination; Source of science and technology; Government policy and budget support; Strategic position. Consolidate citrus farmers at the regency scale and the upstream and downstream sub-district scale to set a minimum selling price for oranges per garden season based on an analysis of citrus farming; Increasing the capacity of Farmer Economic Institutions business actors based on expertise segmentation. Workshop on millennial Farmer Economic Institutions management and Citrus processing; Making a road map and segmentation of business actors by BPP so that it is right on target in conducting coaching.
Threats ST Strategy WT Strategy
The existence of other sectors outside of agriculture; There are cheaper competitors; The farm road is damaged; OPT/DPI; Land use change. Improving product quality to face market competition in licensing and packaging facilitation; Carry out GHP learning classes in order to have premium class citrus with the ability to pay attention to market information. Application of standardization in each Farmer Economic Institutions unit.
Namely the SO Strategy to Form Citrus Farmers Associations at the Regency and District scales to agree on a minimum selling price for oranges per planting season based on farming business analysis. The association is a form of consolidation between business actors to strengthen bargaining positions. The WO strategy makes Farmer Economic Institution road maps and segmentation of Farmer Economic Institution business actors by BPP so they can focus on coaching.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There are 119 Farmer Economic Institutions in Barito Kuala Regency, consisting of Cooperatives (3 Institutions); UPJA (66 Institutions); LKMA (11 Institutions); BUMP (2 Institutions); LPM (12 Institutions); others (25 Institutions).
The problems in strengthening Farmer Economic Institutions in Barito Kuala District include: Farmer Economic Institutions do not yet have a good bargaining position, do not yet have an integration strategy into an agribusiness system, incomplete infrastructure; there is no minimum standardization of HR in each Farmer Economic Institutions agribusiness subsystem unit.
The strategy for strengthening Farmer Economic Institutions in rice and citrus commodities is to improve institutional quality by consolidating between agribusiness subsystems to become a complete agribusiness system, forming commodity Farmer Economic Institutions associations, growing driving business actors who have the ability to consolidate Farmer Economic Institutions.
Preparation of a road map for each agribusiness subsystem will lead to agribusiness-scale Farmer Economic Institutions. Recommendations:
• The local government allocates a budget for purchasing rice from farmers at prices according to the farming analysis by empowering the existing LPM;
• Need budget allocations from various parties to purchase processed products of Farmer Economic Institutions periodically as well as support for coaching, licensing, and marketing to bring up agribusiness scale managers;
• There is a need for standardization of Farmer Economic Institutions' development instruments along with the budget for their implementation.
REFERENCES
1. Ambariyanto & Herawati. (2010). Pengembangan Kelembagaan Pemasaran. JAMBSP, 7 (1). 21-45.
2. Anantanyu, S. (2011). Kelembagaan Petani: Peran and Strategi Pengembangan Kapasitasnya. Sepa Vol. 7. No. 2: 102-109.
3. Arifin, B. (2005). Ekonomi Kelembagaan Pangan. LP3ES. Jakarta.
4. Austin, James E. 1992. Agroindustrial Project Analysis, Critical Design Factors. Series in Economic Development. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
5. Hermanto & Swastika. (2011). Penguatan Kelompok Tani: Langkah Awal Peningkatan Kesejahteraan Petani. Bogor: Pusat Sosial Ekonomi and Kebijakan Pertanian.
6. Hermanto. (2007) Rancangan Kelembagaan Kelompok Tani dalam Implementasi Primatani di Sumatera Selatan. Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Pertanian 5.
7. Hermanto, F. (1996). Ilmu Usaha Tani. Penebar Swadaya. Jakarta.
8. Kahana, B. P., (2008). Strategi Pengembangan Agribisnis Cabai Merah di Kawasan Agropolitan Kabupaten Magelang. (Thesis) Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang.
9. Krisnamurthi, Bayu. 2020. Pengertian Agribisnis. Puspa Swara. Depok.
10. Randi, Wrihatnolo & R. N. Dwidjowijoto. (2007). Manajemen Pemberdayaan, Sebuah Pengantar and Panduan Untuk Pemberdayaan Masyarakat. Gramedia. Jakarta.
11. Rangkuti, Freddy. 2004. Majanemen Persediaan Aplikasi di Bidang Bisnis. PT. Raja Grafindo Persada. Jakarta.
12. Setiyono. 2004. Kejahatan Korporasi. Cetakan ke-ii. Bayumedia. Malang.
13. Sutawi (2002). Manajemen Agribisnis. UMM Press. Malang.
14. Sutejdjo, Mulmulyani. (1987). Pengantar Ilmu tanah, Terbentuknya Tanah and Tanah Pertanian. Rineka Cipta. Jakarta.
15. Syaroji,Imam. (2020). Analisis Kemiskinan Disektor Pertanian, (studi kasus komoditas padi di kabupaten Malang). Media Ekonomi Vol.28.
16. Tohir, K. A., (1991). Seutas Pengetahuan Usahatani Indonesia. Rineka Cipta. Jakarta.
