Introduction

As agrarian country, the largest population of Indonesia as the main search-eyed farmer. This means that the source of economic and social governance is highly dependent on the production and products. Thus, the issue of agriculture is indeed a basic problem for the people of Indonesia. Agricultural problems are important indicators to measure the level of welfare of the Indonesian people as a whole.
Ironically, talking about the fate of farmers are always not far from the poverty, backwardness, low health, quality of life from hand to mouth, and other things that show how the condition of the farmers are always in a state of the memperihatinkan. Poverty is not a new problem in the life of Indonesian society. Various kinds of business has been done by the government of Indonesia to mengentaskan problem of poverty. One effort is the reduction of poverty with a community empowerment program conducted in all regions in Indonesia that is for the people of the city and the community. However, the problem of poverty in Indonesia also have not resolved until now, even the number of poor people increasing?
According to the statement Nugroho (in Danang Arif Darmawan, 2004: 80), there are several definitions of poverty-dimensional views of some, namely:
1. Poverty berdimensi economic
• absolute poverty, a condition where the level of income a person or group of people can not bring the basic needs such as clothing, food and board.
• Poverty is relative, the condition can meet the basic needs, but income is still below the relative income residents in the surrounding areas.
2. Poverty berdimensi social culture
Poverty is shown by terlembaganya values as apathetic, apolitis, fatalistic and others.
3. Structural poverty berdimensi or Politics
Poverty caused people do not have the means to engage in the political process, have no political power, social structure so that occupied the bottom.
The three dimensions of poverty in the community down, and usually have the inherent pattern of thought, culture, and they finally occupied by people who have more of them, either by the owners of capital and local government (in the form of political poverty).

Farmers reservoir conditions Irrigated Rain Cilacap in the West Region
One of the farmers’ poverty reduction program of the government is to empower the farmers through the program KUT (farm credit). KUT entry program in the western part of Cilacap in 1999. Pogram assistance given to the farmer community in the form of fertilizer and rice seed. Farmer groups formed by rural local government areas according to their agricultural land. One group of ten people sebnayak. Each group has rules that differ.
Initial condition of the farmers rain cistern Cilacap didaerah the west, initially they do economic activities in agriculture self-help, meaning they rely on in the farm income in previous years with the land that they have average is 100 to 200 tiles (1 tile = 14 m2). itupun if successful harvest if they do not depend on the loan through the loan fund. Circumstances experienced by rice farmers community cistern rain is very far from the prosperous conditions and poverty have become a part of life that is hereditary for the farmers there.
After the KUT, the condition of the farmers have began to change. Where they have been able to escape the loan sharks, and can also put the child even if only up to the junior level.
Estimate the harvest of rice during the harvest, once a year can be seen as follows: Income rice harvest in the rice fields once the harvest reservoir hujandalam maximum is six kuintal rain cistern for the rice fields of 100 tiles. While the price of rice for one kuintalnya is Rp 270,000.00. Thus, the gross income of rice harvest: kuintal × 6 = Rp 270,000.00 Rp 1,620,000.00
For treatment:
Fertilization: (5 kg fertilizer × manure 1600/kg Rp): Rp 120,000.00
Piracy: Rp 200,000.00
Drugs Pests: Rp. 50.000,00
1 bag of rice seedling (assistance from the government): Rp 7000.00
Number of treatment: Rp 377,000.00
To bersihnya income = gross income – the cost of care
= Rp. 1,620,000.00 – Rp 377,000.00
= IDR 1,243,000.00
For the dry season, people are usually farmers or soybean planting palawija, with palawija harvest is 25 kg for the 100 area tile. So, in a year get peani income of Rp 125,000.00 Rp 1,243,000.00 + 1,368,000.00 = Rp. Income farmers to cover the cost of living for one month is Rp 1,368,000.00: 12 months = Rp 114,000.00.

KUT Program Implementation

KUT is one of the empowerment program for poverty reduction and the peasantry were grouped by village local governments according to the location of their agricultural land. One group of farmers as much as ten people. Every farmers’ groups have rules that differ. And forms of assistance provided to farmers in the form of seed rice and fertilizer. If the purchase of cash, a bag of rice seeds valued Rp 7000.00. However, if the seeds of rice through a loan, at the time refund is returned after the harvest, farmers return to double that of paddy valued. For example, if farmers take the two bags of rice seed (10 kg of rice seeds), then at the time of the return of farmers to return to 20 kg of rice. Begitupun with the borrowing of fertilizer, if fertilizer farmers borrow one kuintal, then after the harvest of rice farmers have to return with a kuintal rice. If you predict the development of the economy now, the condition of farmers in the loss. This is because, the price of fertilizer that is high Rp 160,000.00 per kuintal almost the same as the price of rice kuintal, namely Rp.270.000, 00. So there is only difference between Rp 110,000.00.
Results from the development which is managed by farmers for farmers to develop the business back. With the available funds in the treasury group of farmers, the farmers can buy the fertilizer re-lent to the farmers, to improve the roads, so that their harvest can be sold with a price that is not low.
During the implementation of the program KUT, had done counseling for 15 days, the first time the program was held KUT. With the counseling is expected that the farmers can make a good system of agriculture and agricultural products that have satisfactory. But, for the farmers assume that the counseling program is too theoretical and did not bring results if dipraktekan. Counseling on rice pest eradication is recommended not to use chemicals, but recommended to use more natural materials in order not to endanger human health. Pest eradication wereng do with the making of jengkol herb that has been destroyed, and disemprotkan the rice does not give any effect on the pest is the rice. The second experiment is the use of walangsangit put the paste on the cans so that the smoke and then burned walangsangit can dispel. This experiment was not successful. In the end, the farmers still use the long way to combat pests of rice with the chemical drugs that can quickly eradicate pests from the rice they do not harvest.
The presence of paramedics should be able to increase agricultural paradigm or concept of agricultural farmers. in reality, the presence of paramedics in the agricultural district level for farmers is less effective. This is because the mantra is in the agricultural kecematan there is only one room with a working area that is a vast district eleven villages. Monitoring or counseling mantri farmers against agricultural activities are rarely conducted. But farmers are hoping the paramedics farm could be the place for consultation or agricultural agriculture provides more information. For example, information about the planting period for rice cistern rain, because the natural environment can not be predicted well by traditional farmers. So, it is likely to fail to harvest a little more likely.
KUT this travel program, to provide the very presence of help for farmers in the running pertaniannya. Nevertheless, management does not always run KUT mulus. Some of these constraints experienced congestion, diversion of funds Management and others. Credit bottlenecks usually occur when the farmer does not harvest, so that the condition of the farmers are really in famine conditions. Famine season arrived when the farmers harvest failed, both exposed to pests or infected wereng flood or drought. Conditions, farmers will be very difficult to make repayments. Because the demand for food are not necessarily there.
Although the development fund in the treasury group KUT amount is not too large, the case of misuse of funds remain in Management. Human nature is different and easy to forget when dealing with money is also experienced by the management group KUT. Results KUT refund in the form of a two-fold seed, fertilizer or any borrowing used in the planning for the development of welfare. For example, for the purchase of the stove mice, but the realization of farmers in the community does not exist. When dikroscek back on the financial reports, answers established a fund has been exhausted for the development of the other.
Economic activities of the farmers are usually focused only on the pertaniannya. They must work in full pertaniannya, while the farmer’s wife treated their children at home. The mothers can not menyambi other jobs because their children are small and many. Except, their children are great, the women farmers can find additional work to become a laborer or laborers gardens.
Life of rice farmers from the community reservoir diCilacap the western part of the rain is very far from kesejahtaeraan. View from the economic dimensions of poverty, rice farming community cistern rain conditions, including poverty in absolute and relative poverty. The absolute poverty seen in the conditions of farmers can not meet the basic needs of both, with pertaniannya income for a month only Rp 114,000.00. Needs for food only, the rain cistern rice farmers are still very far from the standards of good nutrition, especially the needs of clothing and papannya, can be spelled out is very simple. The need for education of their children an average of only primary school or junior high school only. Their lives during this very tertolong once with free education up to primary and junior high schools as well as assistance for the costs of ill treatment of the poor. While relative poverty visible automatically with the income they earn very much from other people who do not have as main farm, such as self-employed, traders, employees either private or nation.
View from the cultural point of view of poverty, rice farming community cistern rain still very institutionalize values of their culture such as, attitude is more accept (pasrah) with which they do business, depending on the natural condition, not optimistic, do not like the things that new business in agriculture (afraid to try, and so on. And if hasi reap the benefits of the harvest, quickly satisfied and have a feeling that if you have to cut weight advantage as their credit repayments.
Structural poverty perspective tergambarkan by poor farmers. When they feel tricked with the development fund of cash that is not terealisasikan KUT, the farmers can not ask for their rights back. They do not have the right to obtain a financial report transparently. But, whatever the situation apaboleh made, small farmers will take help from KUT. Because there are no other options. If it does not take a loan from KUT, not necessarily they will be able to raise it again.
In the process of counseling, the farmers also experienced Structural poverty. When the farmers are considered people who do not know what the problems with agriculture, but in reality the practice is not necessarily a problem can be overcome. Even if viewed from the point of view of theory, the instructor is better than the farmers. Took the position that has shown superior picture Structural poverty in small groups of people.

Conclusion
In the implementation of sustainable farming community should have a place for guidance seutuhnya in community empowerment. Low education, a lack of insight caused weak mental development with maintaining the old attitudes. In addition, the experience will be minimal does not make them grow in the field of agriculture that they do. Less innovative in the sense they do not support the government program with a program of empowerment. With the institution as a special place to learn and accommodate the aspirations of the community of farmers expected more farmers to develop himself into the wall and out of poverty. Not only support the capital, but the assistance of agricultural education, assistance and monitoring of the empowerment of farmers is necessary to complete the community and the farmers can fully mendiri.

Advice
Empowerment of the community expressed by Dubois and Miley that in its implementation required an assistant who will facilitate the KUT program for farmers. Assistant role here as a facilitator, not to menggurui. Society will still decide to define themselves. Therefore, the necessary awareness of the farmers without exception. The process of empowerment will be running a dynamic, synergistic, and will change from time to time. The role of assisting in the empowerment Spergel (1975), Zastrow (1996) and Adi (2001) is as follows:
1. Pemercepatan changes (Enabler)
2. Broker (Broker)
3. Education (Edukator)
4. Experts (Expert)
5. Social planner (Social planner)
6. Advocat (Advocate)
7. Activist (activist).
According to James C Yen an assistant should be: the people came, people live together, learn from people, people plan together, work together with people. Start with what people know, build what the people, with ajarilah example, learn to work with, but not exhibit the pattern, but it ignites, but change is not a compromise, not help, but the exemption.
The need to empower the strategy are:
1. Strengthening the Organization
This is done with all the potential resources mendayagunakan ability and skills to achieve the social change in community groups. One of the modalsosial for their assistance with the management of funds that are self-KUT until they can develop the fund so that it can grow properly.
2. Need assistance in the management of the farm so that, if there are difficulties about the problems of agriculture, farmers can consult the community with farm mantri. In addition, it should be done is intensive for the group of farmers who get help to avoid misuse or abuse occurred in the fund group of farmers.
3. It is expected that the government can share the funds that go down to the pump can provide for farmers to overcome the drought in the dry season.