Natural hazards and genetic diversity in rice - Springer Link

Agriculture and Human Values 19: 133–149, 2002. © 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Natural hazards and genetic diversity in rice Stephen R. Morin,1 Marlon Calibo,2 Marilyn Garcia-Belen,2 Jean-Louis Pham3 and Florencia Palis1

1 Social Sciences Division, International Rice Research Institute, Metro Manila, Philippines; 2 Genetic Resources Center, International Rice Research Institute, Metro Manila, Philippines; 3 Institut de recherche pour le d´eveloppement, Rue La Fayette, Paris,

France

Accepted in revised form November 5, 2001

Abstract. Rice crop diversity has decreased dramatically in the recent past. Understanding the causes that underlie the evident genetic erosion is critical for the food security of subsistence rice farmers and biodiversity. Our study shows that farmers in the northeastern Philippines had a marked reduction in rice diversity from 1996 to 1998. The ultimate causes were a drought resulting from the El Niño phenomenon in 1997 and flooding due to two successive typhoons in 1998. The proximate causes, however, included local water control factors, limitations in the household and village-level seed infrastructure, farm location in relation to the goods and services necessary to obtain seeds, policies and programs of the Department of Agriculture, and the characteristics of the rice varieties themselves. The implications of our study are that genetic erosion is not always the result of purposeful acts by farmers nor is it necessarily gradual. Improving on-farm seed technology will stabilize the seed production, distribution, and use system and thereby enhance household food security. Ultimately, rice diversity will be improved only if diversity is a safe and viable option for farmers. Therefore, public policy that supports farmers who maintain a diverse set of cultivars is critical for any on-farm conservation strategy. Key words: Biodiversity, Crop diversity, El Niño, Genetic erosion, Natural hazard, On-farm conservation, Rice, Seeds, Typhoon Abbreviations: DA – Department of Agriculture of the Philippine government; ENSO – El Niño/Southern Oscillation; GLUT – glutinous rice variety; GRC – Genetic Resources Center (IRRI); Ha – hectares; IPM – integrated pest management; IR – international rice; IRG – International Rice Genebank; IR8 – international rice variety; IRRI – International Rice Research Institute; MAO – municipal agriculture officer; MV – modern rice variety; – Philippine Rice Research Institute; PSBRC – Philippine Seed Board rice variety; t ha−1 – tons per hectare; TV – traditional rice variety; WARDA – West Africa Rice Development Association Stephen R. Morin is an anthropologist working at the International Rice Research Institute. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Kentucky in applied cultural anthropology in 1997. His research interests include crop biodiversity, technological change, technology adaptation, and common property resource management. A recent publication of his is a piece in IIED’s Gatekeeper series on the institutional dynamics of technological change in integrated pest management (Gatekeeper Series, 2001). Marlon Calibo is an agronomist working for the Genetic Resources Center (GRC) at IRRI. He specializes in seed production and conservation in traditional rice systems in the Philippines. Marilyn Garcia-Belen is a database manager working for the International Network for the Genetic Evaluation of Rice (INGER) at IRRI. Jean-Louis Pham is a population geneticist specializing in in situ conservation of cereal crops. He works for the Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD) and lives in Montpellier, France. Florencia Palis is an anthropologist working on issues related to farmer networks and pest management. She works for the Social Sciences Division at IRRI and is completing her dissertation at the University of the Philippines, Dilliman.

134

S TEPHEN R. M ORIN ET AL .

Introduction The cultivation of landrace rice varieties in Asia has been declining since the beginning of the Green Revolution (Bellon et al., 1998; Harlan, 1975). In most rice-growing areas of the Philippines, landraces have been completely replaced with modern varieties, while in other places pockets of diversity remain (David et al., 1994: 51). This reduction in diversity was accompanied by a significant rise in yields per hectare (Bell et al., 2000). Various means of mitigating the loss of diversity have been suggested, recent among them is on-farm conservation (Brush, 1991; Maxted et al., 1997; Vaughan and Chang, 1992). In this paper, we analyze and describe a localized, rapid decline of diversity in the Cagayan Valley of northeastern Luzon, Philippines. Through interviews with 208 farmers in 15 villages, we document a reduction in the use of traditional rice varieties by farmers from 45% in 1996 to 25% in 1998. The ultimate causes of this shift were natural disasters, including drought and flood. The proximate causes, established through interviews with farmers and agricultural officials in the area, and a brief survey, included policies of the Department of Agriculture (DA), farmer decisionmaking, limited seed storage capacity of farmers, the economics of seeds and seed exchange, the nature of the varieties themselves, and the agroecology of the region. The fundamental implication of this work is that farmers who use traditional technology need technical and structural support from local development agencies. Currently, that support is not available. One potential measure for mitigating these problems is suggested. We begin by describing the erosion of rice genetic diversity in the Cagayan Valley. The decline in diversity is shown to be unevenly distributed among farming households and communities (barangay), and among particular rice varieties and classes of varieties. Explaining this observed variability in genetic erosion is the second goal of this paper. The ultimate causes of the changes are natural disasters, but the proximate causes are manifold and not easily isolated to one event, person, or policy. This case shows how various factors of the seed production, storage, and distribution system, along with policy and government programs, can have adverse effects on genetic diversity.

Background Farmers’ traditional agricultural knowledge is significant, although usually not very well understood by scientists (Morales and Perfecto, 2000). Understanding how and why farmers maintain genetic

diversity is a critical component for on-farm conservation (De Boef and Almekinders, 2000), otherwise known as in situ conservation or locally based crop plant conservation (Qualset et al., 1997). A multitude of factors have been recognized that encourage the use of traditional crop varieties on farms, including adaptation to particular soil types (Bellon and Brush, 1994), favorable market price (Morin et al., 1998), better resistances to pests and diseases (Clawson, 1985; Kshirsagar and Pandey, 1996), tolerance of abiotic stress (Rekasem and Rerkasem, 1984), environmental marginality (Brush, 1995), taste and consumption quality (Morin et al., 1998), or particular plant characteristics, such as plant duration (Longley and Richards, 1993) or “perceptual distinctiveness” (Boster, 1984: 311). No single rice variety can meet all the needs of farmers, but general patterns emerge about how farmers select which varieties to grow in any given year. Modern rice varieties (MV) generally have significantly higher yields than traditional varieties (TV) when grown under controlled conditions, with a relatively stable source of water and a sufficient supply of inputs1 (Khush, 1995). Traditional varieties are believed to be more locally adapted, better able to withstand vagaries in weather and pest infestations, better suited to local socio-cultural constraints (e.g., labor or capital constraints) and to have better consumption quality (Bellon et al., 1998). The use of many varieties simultaneously, “rice infraspecific diversity,” rather than consecutively, may be a hedge against an uncertain future and a way to achieve a multitude of household goals (Bellon et al., 1998: 265). The use of modern varieties in the Philippines is very high, (David et al., 1994) and is associated with a well-developed infrastructure for the distribution and support of modern technology. David et al. report that 97% and 99% of the “irrigated” and “favorable rainfed” areas respectively were planted to MVs by 1986. Among the “unfavorable rainfed” areas, including “drought” and “submergence prone,” 33% and 50% respectively were planted to MVs in 1986 (1994: 88). The Cagayan villages tend to have a mixture of all types, although Solana, one of the three survey municipalities, has about 15% rice land area under favorable conditions, and 85% under a mixture of unfavorable areas (Garrity, 1990c: 10). In all, 80% of the nation’s rice crop area is planted in MVs (David et al., 1994: 51). This illustrates that Cagayan is a generally unfavorable place to grow rice, and the region has a higher proportion of landraces, on average, than the rest of the Philippines.

NATURAL HAZARDS AND RICE DIVERSITY

Materials and methods Beginning in 1996, a three-country study began to investigate the potential of on-farm conservation of rice genetic resources. The research project, titled “Safeguarding and Preservation of the Biodiversity of the Rice Genepool: Component II: On-Farm Conservation,” dealt with farmers from the Philippines, Vietnam, and India.2 Farmers were selected for interviews regarding the reasons they cultivate (or do not cultivate) traditional rice varieties. In the Philippines, a total of 15 villages were chosen from three municipalities: Amulung, Iguig, and Solana in Cagayan Province in northeastern Luzon. Farmers were chosen based on their rice cultivation practices (e.g., irrigated vs. unirrigated), rice production ecosystem (e.g., lowland vs. upland), and gender. A total of 12 farm households were chosen randomly from each of the 15 study villages. In each household, the head male and head female were interviewed, giving a total of 360 interviews (12 × 15 × 2 = 360). A survey questionnaire was administered to sample farmers regarding their use of rice varieties in their farming system. A trained agricultural economist administered the questionnaire using the local language. Questions involved the varieties the farmers were growing in the current and previous wet and dry seasons. In November 1998, we returned to Cagayan Province to conduct a one-page interview with the same farmers interviewed in 1996. This interview was the basis for the data presented below. A total of 208 farmers were interviewed individually in 1998 by three enumerators. The results were compiled into a single database and analyzed. The farmers were chosen from the same households as those interviewed in 1996, as part of the larger research project mentioned above. This allowed us to use existing data from survey households, as well as a characterization of the genetic diversity at the farm level over three years. Additional data were collected through key informant interviewing and focus groups in 1996 and 1998. This included interviews with farmers, MAOs, and local researchers.

Environmental conditions of 1997 and 1998 The El Niño/southern oscillation (ENSO) weather phenomenon, felt throughout Southeast Asia and the western part of North and South America, caused a significant disruption in the wet season of 1997 for farmers in the Cagayan Valley.3 The most important effect felt locally was a severe drought that affected

135

Cagayan Province (including the portion of the Cagayan Valley under study) and much of the Philippines. Figure 1 illustrates the lower than usual rainfall brought on by El Niño in 1997. In addition to being low, the timing of the rainfall was also disruptive, as it came later than usual and sporadically. As Figure 1 illustrates, rainfall in the critical planting months (May–September) was well below the decadal average for both Cagayan Province and the Philippines as a whole. This had a devastating effect on the rice crop because the rice plants were in the seedling stage, when they are especially vulnerable to stress. The drought ended in October 1997, with the onset of an October typhoon, represented by a spike in the October rainfall (Figure 1). The 1998 wet season proved to be nearly as devastating as the 1997 one. Typhoons Loleng and Iliang hit the valley in September and October of 1998 and caused severe infrastructure damage and early season flooding. It is not uncommon for heavy rains to cause flooding in northern Cagayan Valley (Environmental Center of the Philippines Foundation, 1998) but the level and intensity of these floods were devastating. Severe infrastructure and crop damages were evident. Crop losses alone were valued at 1.2 billion pesos, or US$28 million, along with whole or partial destruction of 226,205 hectares of crop land (Santique, 1999). Both El Niño in 1997 and the floods of 1998 caused extensive seedling damage. The weather in 1997 and 1998 was not necessarily unique for Cagayan Province. According to one atlas of the Philippines, Cagayan Valley is a “highly” variable area for agricultural production (Environmental Center of the Philippines Foundation, 1998: 195) and is drought- and flood-prone (Garrity, 1990a–c). In one study carried out by Garrity at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), six rainfed land types, or rice-growing microenvironments, have been identified for the Cagayan Valley (Garrity, 1990a–c), including drought-prone, submergence-prone, or both droughtand submergence-prone areas (both submergence and drought in one growing season in one field). At Garrity’s (1990a–c) study site, which includes the entire area of the current research, only 9% were classified as favorable. In the municipality of Iguig, about 680 hectares of rice land were classified by Garrity as submergence-prone, while about 400 ha were drought-prone. Together, these account for more than 97% of the rice land area in Iguig. Submergenceprone rice fields suffer “short-term flooding periodically . . . [lasting] . . . 1–2 days” whereas droughtprone environments “periodically experience severe drought” (Garrity, 1990b: 11).

136


Figure 1. Rainfall in Cagayan Valley, El Niño Year (1997).

Genetic erosion and rice varieties in 1996, 1997, and 1998 As we show below, the relative proportion of traditional to modern varieties, and the total number of landraces cultivated from 1996–1998, were reduced. A central question is whether this constitutes genetic erosion. Our measure for these genetic changes is the change in the occurrence of named rice varieties, as identified by farmers. Rice varieties are known to be renamed so the degree to which variety names actually reflect genetic diversity is unclear. However, as Pham and van Hintum point out, an estimation of the number of varieties grown and the presence of functional groups of varieties, e.g., late vs. early, can be approximate measures of the diversity present in a system (2000: 9). Both are cost-effective measures as well, considering the great expense needed to do the genetic analysis necessary to establish conclusively whether genetic erosion has occurred in the short term. A central idea here is gene replacement, “. . . whereby indigenous varieties are replaced by introduced ones resulting in substitution of alternative alleles within the same species” (Qualset et al., 1997: 163). This induces a change (at least) in the allelic frequency associated with each of these varieties if the lost varieties are “not conserved elsewhere” (Qualset et al., 1997: 163). Because local varieties are grown in few areas in the Philippines, the extent to which these varieties are grown elsewhere is limited. Therefore, the potential for in-migration of the lost alleles is slight. In addition, because similar modern rice varieties tend to

be grown in many locations across many countries, the replacement of landraces by MVs narrows even further local rice genetic diversity. “True genetic erosion” occurs when no migration flows to the region of allelic loss, to replace lost alleles (Qualset et al., 1997: 164). The pro-MV policy of the Philippines’ government, and the inexorable decline in the frequency of landraces over time, suggests that it is unlikely that lost landraces, and concomitant alleles, will be transferred back to Cagayan Valley (David et al., 1994). Cagayan Valley is one of the last places in the Philippines that still has landraces, and as such represent an island of diversity. Farmers may retrieve some of these varieties from their own seed networks, as we show below, although this is done without the help of the national or local governments, or the private sector. Given these considerations, it is likely that the 50% reduction in the number of landraces in the years from 1996 to 1998 indicates genetic erosion. In 1996, there were roughly equal numbers of modern and traditional varieties planted by study farmers (actually about 55% modern and 45% traditional; see Figure 2).4 In the wet season of 1997, about 32% of the varieties planted were traditional and 68% modern; by 1998, only 25% of the rice varieties planted were traditional. This represented an overall reduction, in the course of two seasons, of about 20% (from 45% in 1996 to 25% in 1998). Concomitantly, the number of named traditional varieties in the study area decreased dramatically. In 1996, 89 unique traditional varieties were mentioned by farmers; by 1998, only 45 remained.


137

Figure 2. Percent modern and traditional varieties planted, 1996–1998.

The modern-traditional distinction is an important criterion for understanding some basic differences between varieties. However, these cover terms tend to hide important differences. By classifying varieties according to the nomenclature, we developed variety classes to supplement the MV-TV distinction. A variety class is defined here as a group of varieties that share a common ancestry, genetic basis, or history within a region. We have developed seven variety classes, four of which have significant representation in the Cagayan Valley dataset. The four significant classes are Wagwag, IR, PSBRC, and Glut. Wagwag varieties are traditional good tasting varieties and command a high market price. IR varieties are among the original of the Green Revolution varieties in the Philippines, and are ordinary in taste and market price.5 PSBRC varieties are certified by the Philippine Seed Board, meaning they are tested and released by the National Seed Board of the Philippines. PSBRC varieties are the newest of the officially released varieties in the Philippines. Glut varieties are glutinous varieties that are commonly used by women for the production and sale of sweet rice snacks. As is evident from Figure 3, changes in diversity were not uniform between variety classes from 1996 to 1998. The greatest increase was among the PSBRC class, whereas the IR varieties showed only modest increase. The greatest decrease was in the Wagwag class, which decreased from about 30% in 1996 to 18% in 1998 (Figure 3). Although there was a regional trend toward a reduc-

tion in diversity, it was not evenly distributed among locations. At the municipal level, as Figure 4 indicates, Iguig was more directly affected by these changes than was either Amulung or Solana. In fact, in 1996, Iguig had the highest total percentage of TVs and by 1998 the lowest. This is partly because Iguig started out with a higher initial percentage of TVs, i.e., they had more to lose. This also illustrates an interesting point: all the changes discussed are in terms of a decrease in TVs. In only one village in one year was an increase in TVs found. From our earlier surveys we established that Cagayano farmers consider the Wagwag group to be the most resistant to stress, especially drought, of all available varieties, but it also showed the greatest percentage decrease (Morin et al., 1998). The preference for MVs contradicts conventional wisdom because it is assumed that under conditions of environmental stress farmers opt for the hardiest varieties available, typically believed to be landraces. However, this pattern belies the central role that policy played in the renewal of seed stocks during the study years (see below). At the village level, variability between sites exists. Figures 5–7 show the relative percentage of TVs in all the study villages for 1996, 1997, and 1998 (Figures 5– 7 also show the distance from the municipal office, an issue that will be addressed later in the paper). As is evident from Figure 5, 8 of the 15 study villages had more than 50% TVs in 1996. One village (Bayo, number 21) had 100% TVs, but most ranged between 50% and 75% TVs. Only one village had 100% MVs (village 35).

138


Figure 3. Percent variety classes planted, 1996–1998.

Figure 4. Percent traditional varieties planted by municipality.


139

Figure 5. Percent traditional varieties planted per village in relation to distance from seed source, 1996.

Figure 6 shows that the number of villages with greater than 50% TVs had decreased from eight to four by the end of the wet season of 1997. Village 21, showing the greatest shift, went from 100% to 10% TVs in one season. Most villages showed reductions of between 10% and 50%. In 1997, still only one village (village 35) was 100% modern (village 35). By the end of the wet season of 1998, the percentage of TVs had again declined: only two villages remained with more than 50% TVs, and five with 100% MVs (Figure 7). Bayo (village 21) had lost its remaining 10% TVs, so, in two years’ time, it had made a complete shift. The number of villages with less than 20% TVs in 1998 was nine (up from four in 1996) and the maximum percentage of TVs for any village in 1998 was 65%. While these changes are evident at the village level they can also be expressed as individual decisions. Farmers faced a decreasing availability of seeds of all types but especially among TVs. Some farmers switched from TVs, such as Wagwag, when their seedlings died in 1996, and replaced them in 1998 with modern varieties. The reasoning for a variety switch between seasons was not particularly varied, as most indicated that the crop was lost (Table 1). Table 1 illustrates the general trend, especially from 1996 to 1997, in terms of a TV to MV switch. Two of the four Bayo farmers listed (less than a third of all the Bayo farmers) had switched from TVs to MVs that season,

while the other two did not replant. This is typical of most farmers in the study area.

The devastating effects In addition to a reduction in TVs, the disasters of 1997 and 1998 had two other effects: 1) severe reductions in yield or a complete loss of yield and 2) a dramatic reduction in the availability of seeds of all varieties. For the Philippines as a whole, the total rice area and total yield decreased, by 17.5% and 7.9% respectively, because of El Niño and the typhoons of 1997–1998 (Santique, 1999: 13). Total rice output in 1998 declined by 24%, from 11.2 to 8.55 t ha−1 (Santique, 1999). Figure 8 shows the dramatic effects of El Niño on yields for farmers in the study. In 1996, 4% of the farmers said they obtained no yield from their plots. In 1997, 27% said they had no yield, which includes those farmers who planted but lost seedlings (19%) and those who did not plant because of late rains (7%). In 1996, slightly more than 42% of the farmers said they had a yield of less than 1.5 t ha−1 , with a slight decrease in 1997. The most telling statistic, however, is in 1996: 53.3% of all farmers reported yields of more than 1.5 t ha−1 , whereas in 1997, only 20% said they obtained more than 1.5 t ha−1 .6

140





141

Table 1. Examples of household level reasons for switching between varieties between 1996 and 1998. Village farmer

1996 Variety1

1997 Variety

1998 Variety

Note

Bayo farmer 1

Benser

–

RC10

Seed of previous varieties lost, RC10 available

Bayo farmer 2

Wagwag

RC28

RC28

RC28 has short maturity

Bayo farmer 3

Wagwag

IR36

IR36

IR36 has short maturity

Bayo farmer 4

Wagwag

–

RC28

RC28 can be direct seeded

Basi farmer 1

66

R10

64

64 has a 4 t ha−1 potential

Basi farmer 2

Biniding

–

Biniding

1998 crop already lost

Basi farmer 3

R10

Biniding

Wagwag

Wagwag lodged

Annafatan farmer 1

Portok

Portok

Portok

1998 should be good

Annafatan farmer 2

C10

C10

PSBRC4

No C10 seeds available

Annafatan farmer 3

R14

RC18

C4

Good yield weather permitting

1 In 1996, these are the varieties grown or planted. In 1997 and 1998, these are the replanted varieties after an original crop

was lost, thus not showing the varieties that were lost and not replanted (except where explained in the “Note”). – No rice planted for that year.

Figure 8. Percent farmers reporting on yield levels, 1996–1997.

These yield declines put intense pressure on farmers to maintain the viability of their farming systems by saving seeds, or feed their families. The decline in seed stocks for the 1999 wet season was significant. Many of the farmers said that they were not able to use extra seeds from the 1996 harvest (if they had any) for planting in 1998 because these seeds lost their viability by the wet season of 1998 or they had been consumed or sold in the intervening lean year of 1997.7 Even if they had had seeds to plant, the

seedlings would have likely been destroyed by typhoon Loleng. By 1998, seed stocks were low for two reasons: the average yield was reduced, thereby reducing both food and seeds; and the length of storage is, at most, one year.8 The average seeding rate for most farmers in the study area is 80–120 kg per hectare of rice. This is between 5% and 10% of total yield for many farmers, not an insignificant number. When severe food stress occurs, as in 1998, seed availability

142


becomes a secondary concern. This may have been in expectation of seed programs from the MAO’s office, and/or the hope that somebody, somewhere, will have replacement seeds.9 In the past, these networks were the only source of germplasm for farmers. Today, the government’s role has largely, but not completely, supplanted these local seed networks. In the process they have encouraged the use of MVs. The seed storage problem is especially problematic when considering the long-term viability of seed stocks. By November of 1998 (just after the typhoons), the seed stocks of farmers were low. Saving a small amount of seed is a useful hedge against genetic erosion, but not necessarily against food or seed shortages, especially in the short run. If one assumes a 20 to 1 seed to grain ratio (an optimistic estimate) then 10 kg of rice seed saved would yield 200 kg of padi. This is only slighter higher than the amount needed for a single-season seeding of one hectare of rice and this is after a whole season. Ultimately, most farmers faced a critical decision after the typhoons: to plant nothing and harvest nothing or to obtain seeds from any source and hope for a harvest. The complicated and desperate response of farmers engendered the dramatic shift in the proportion of modern and traditional varieties in the study area.

between El Niño and the typhoons of 1998 and farm households.

Water control It is axiomatic that irrigated fields are less susceptible to drought than rainfed fields. Therefore, when drought hits, varieties in rainfed plots are more susceptible to drought than those in irrigated plots. In Cagayan, more than 95% of irrigated plots are planted with modern varieties (Morin et al., 1998: 146). This means that varieties in rainfed plots (nearly all TVs and some MVs) had lower yields in the wet season of 1997. This had the added effect of somewhat limiting seed stocks of MVs and severely limiting TV seed stocks. Farmers with irrigated plots had reductions in yield but were more often able to make a harvest, and would thus have had sufficient MV seeds at the end of the 1997 wet season. Therefore, the drought-reducing effect of irrigation was present only for modern varieties, making traditional varieties (in effect) more susceptible to drought, thereby reducing available seeds.

Limitations in the seed infrastructure The proximate cultural causes of genetic erosion It has been demonstrated that there was an unevenly distributed but pervasive decline in diversity in the study area. The main cause of the change was natural disasters. However, it is not clear how these disasters relate directly to the reductions in diversity at the household level. Natural disasters are indiscriminate in their destruction. However, the data clearly indicate that certain villages, varieties, and variety classes were more affected. Therefore, factors external to the individual farming system must be mediating the destructive power of the natural hazards. We will now address these systemic, cultural factors. Our view is that structural conditions of the rural sector and decision-making by actors (including farmers) were the main causes of the reduction in diversity. Five main causes have been identified: 1) water control factors, 2) limitations in the seed infrastructure, 3) farm location in relation to the goods and services necessary to obtain seeds of improved varieties (and conversely the inability to obtain TV seeds), 4) policies and programs of the local and national Department of Agriculture, and 5) the characteristics of the varieties themselves. Together these are the proximate causes of genetic erosion mediating

Seed systems, or what we are calling the seed infrastructure, are often inadequate to the task of surviving serious system perturbations (Almekinders et al., 1994), such as warfare (Richards et al., 2000). Cagayan Province is no exception. For our purposes, seed infrastructure includes system aspects such as seed production, storage, distribution, and procurement (see Table 2). It is inevitable that when harvests are low the seed supply system will be strained. Furthermore, even the most risk-averse farmer will eat seed stocks if no alternative food is available, as was the case for many farmers in 1997. This is especially problematic for farmers who rely solely on local sources, including their own stocks, for their seeds. Using data from our 1996 survey for these same farmers, 66% of MV seeds come from local, withinvillage sources, including farmers’ own stocks and neighbors’ stocks, while 34% of MV seeds come from non-local sources, including agricultural supply stores and extension services (Table 3). Alternatively, 89% of TV seeds come from local sources and 11% come from non-local sources. Therefore, when local seed supplies are stressed, as they were in 1997 and 1998, there is a greater negative effect on TVs than on MVs because a greater proportion of TV seeds comes from local sources.

143

NATURAL HAZARDS AND RICE DIVERSITY Table 2. Components of seed infrastructure. Seed infrastructure

Source/strategy

Primary constraint

Associated risk

Production Selection

On-farm Varies by location – often done in aggregate fashion in the field, making off-type selection likely Varies by location – sometimes not done at all

Low harvest Labor

Depletion of food Selection of off-types

Labor/knowledge of benefit

Selection of low-quality seed

State of seeds (e.g., moisture content) Quality

Low viability, mold growth

Sale price Cost

Insufficient cash flow Insufficient cash for immediate purchase (high interest rates) Lack of available seeds for trade

Seed cleaning Distribution/Exchange Storage

Trading

Typically household based, with traditional storage practices At home or market From DA, market, or neighbor With neighbor

Gift

With kin, neighbor

Selling Buying

Consumption Storing/planting Seeds as food

Information

Short-term seasonal storage Consumption in times of need

System knowledge Individual experience

Proportion in trade (TV/MV 2:1) Lack of available seed Timing of bottlenecks in cash and labor of planting Lack of support to avoid food shortfalls Education, linkages with information sources

Table 3. Percent TV and MV relative to location of seed source, 1996. Variety

Seed source Local Non-local

Modern variety (MV)

66

34

Traditional variety (TV)

89

11

Seed storage capacity is a critical component of seed infrastructure. Farmers in Cagayan say they can store seeds for six to nine months but no longer. Under normal conditions, this is sufficient because harvests usually occur less than 6 months before the seed soaking in the following year. The main limitation to the seed storage system is the high moisture content of stored seeds (usually around 15%) and the potential attack of molds, insects, rats, and other pests. Excessive moisture and mold growth severely reduces seed viability, leaving sterile seeds.10

–

Depletion of household seed stock and will need to obtain seeds Reduced flexibility in decision-making Reduced ability to obtain resources

It is clear that farmers’ local seed stocks and supplies were limited during the catastrophic periods of 1997 and 1998. This forced them to look outside the local area for seeds. This was most commonly accomplished by purchasing or trading seeds. For Cagayano farmers it is difficult to purchase TV seeds, since they are less likely to be sold and are more costly than MVs (TVs typically cost about 20% more than MV seeds and trade at double the rate). Seed stores generally sell MVs and often even those are in limited supply. Certified seed growers, farmers who contract with the local Department of Agriculture (DA) for seed production, grow only MVs.11 This is not necessarily a policy of the DA since seed growers are allowed to choose the variety they plant. It is very uncommon, if not unheard of, for certified seed growers to grow TVs. Because of the higher production costs and market value of certified seeds, growers are reluctant to use a lower yielding TV. Trading for seeds is also an option, although the same constraints exist when trading as when purchasing – lack of available seeds and higher price.

144


Farm location The ways in which farmers articulate with formal seed supplies is an important determinant of the impact these have on farm-level diversity (Cromwell and Almekinders, 2000). Farm location is likewise important because it determines that farmers closer to seed sources are more likely to obtain seeds at the right time. In 1997, there was a very short window of opportunity for replanting (late mid-season); thus farmers had to obtain seeds of any variety or not plant. For some farmers, especially those a long distance from local seed sources, the turnaround time (i.e., the time between loss of seedlings and replanting the replacement crop) was not long enough to allow for travel and making the necessary contacts with seed sellers, DA officials, or other sources of seeds. For those geographically close to reliable seed suppliers, it was possible to obtain seeds in time to plant them. In fact, as Figure 9 illustrates, those households closer to Tuguegarao, showed the greatest reduction in diversity. Tuguegarao is the administrative center for government services and the provincial capital, as well as the largest market for seeds. At the village level, the correlation between the distance from the village to Tuguegarao and the percent reduction in diversity is negative (r = –0.632) and significant (α = 0.01; Figure 9). This means that villages nearer to Tuguegarao showed a greater shift from percent TVs to MVs from 1996 to 1997. This shift is a one-way shift (predominantly limited to a shift from TV to MV), so the change in 1998 was less significant because most of the change had already occurred by the second planting of the 1997 wet season.

Policies and programs of the DA The role of the DA in Tuguegarao, the provincial capital, is to support area farmers. Recognizing the limited supply of seeds in 1998, the DA, in conjunction with its Municipal Agricultural Officers (MAOs), sponsored a “plant now, pay later” scheme to replenish farmers’ depleted seed stocks. In this program, farmers were given seeds at no cost, and upon harvest expected to return in kind an equivalent amount of seed. The seeds given in the scheme came from certified seed growers and were always MVs. The varieties available to farmers in 1998 were IR66 and PSBRC28, the former a popular but older MV and the latter a new and currently DA-recommended variety. Traditional varieties were not included in the scheme. The fact that the scheme emphasizes the use of recommended varieties explains, in part, the recent increase in percentage of PSBRC-type varieties relative to other

modern and traditional varieties (see Figure 3). The relative percentage change from 1996 to 1998 was greatest among the PSBRC group. Wagwag varieties were not included in the DA scheme, thus explaining part of the dramatic decline in Wagwag varieties. Variety characteristics Variety growth duration and yield played a significant role in planting decisions made by farmers. The second plantings of October and November of 1997 and 1998 required a short-duration variety so the crop would have sufficient time to mature before the onset of the hot and dry period beginning in February. Most traditional varieties grown in Cagayan have a growth duration greater than 130 days, whereas most modern varieties have a duration of less than 130 days (the mean reported duration for Wagwag varieties is 170 days).12 Planting a long-duration traditional variety would have been risky for two reasons: 1) many traditional varieties, including Wagwag, are photoperiodsensitive and thus must be of a certain age during the shortest light-day of the year (around December 22), while MVs are not photoperiod-sensitive so farmers may have been uncertain about the length of time available for plant growth; 2) under normal dry-season conditions, the latter growth stages of the plant would be severely water stressed, thus inducing lower yields. Therefore, many farmers opted for a short-duration modern variety in place of a long-duration traditional one. The shortest duration varieties available to most farmers in Cagayan are the PSBRC types, which are also the recommended types. From Figure 3 it is evident that the relative percentage of PSBRC types increased in almost direct proportion to the decrease in Wagwag types. In addition, short-duration PSBRC varieties give high yields. For farmers who have just gone through two years of low yields and bad weather, a reasonable approach would be to emphasize yield over grain and consumption quality, characteristics of the Wagwag types that are valued by farmers. Discussion The causes of genetic erosion vary between households and villages, but natural hazards are completely arbitrary. As this case shows, the extent and distribution of the negative consequences of the hazards depended on policies and practices in place before the hazards struck, and were thus partly to blame for the negative consequences. This case illustrates that we have entered what we call a “post-Green Revolution” era insofar as public


145

Figure 9. Magnitude of genetic erosion, 1996–1997.

support for traditional technology is concerned. The revolutionary aspect of the Green Revolution (the new technology and information) is now standard. When IR8 was first popularized in the Philippines, the necessary information to make the variety perform, including appropriate nutrient and pest management, was relatively unknown. Research had to be conducted to make the technology useful, farmers and extension agents had to be taught how to use it, and the necessary infrastructure had to be built to support the technological system. During that same period, there was little investment in research on the system being replaced, and the infrastructure associated with it. The goal was to replace it, not to understand or support it. Today, the IR8 technology is standard practice. Most Filipino rice farmers are aware of fertilizer responsiveness, yield differences, variability between varieties in drought and flood tolerance, and many of the other technologies, practices, and institutions that make modern varieties work. In the span of 30 years, the modern technology has supplanted the traditional system in most, but not all, farmers’ fields. This has carried with it vast investments in research, development, and irrigation works and other types of infrastructure. This has had the effect of leaving many farmers outside the research and extension benefit stream. The level of public and private investment in the modern technological system far surpasses what is invested in the traditional system. This is partly due to perceived return on investments, whereby institutions support intensive producers in research and investment because the total grain output will increase (see Cantrell, 1999). This is, to some degree, a sound

macro-level approach but it carries with it important consequences, as this case illustrates, for farmers in marginal environments with traditional technology. The dearth of research and development support for traditional technology at all levels ensures marginalized households among farmers who rely on traditional technology. These marginal farmers are left to either adopt inappropriate technology (in the short term perhaps) or rely on their own ingenuity, and their neighbors’ cooperation. Genetic erosion may be the direct result of environmental factors, such as a shortened growing season, but this is coerced adoption and does not necessarily preclude the option of returning to traditional varieties in the future. There is no reason to assume that the farmers in Bayo, Iguig, would have abandoned Wagwag in 1997 or 1998 had there not been El Niño or Loleng. However, because there are no systematic means of replacing lost seeds of traditional varieties, the result of these natural hazards may be permanent genetic erosion. This suggests that agricultural policies need to be more comprehensive to include those farmers who cultivate landraces or otherwise use traditional technology.

Policy implications This case is an important lesson for policymakers involved in national programs of biodiversity or crop diversity programs because we have shown that policy can have a direct and immediate impact on genetic erosion (Pistorius and van Wijk, 2000; Crucible II

146


Group, 2000). Good policy should be considered a first step in the conservation of biodiversity, especially if on-farm conservation is a viable or desired option. The conservation of biodiversity itself may in many cases be a fundamental component of successful development in marginal environments (Visser and Engels, 2000: 151). It must be recognized that ensuring genetic diversity on-farm is not simply a matter of getting farmers to grow preferred, or genetically diverse, varieties. The technologies of farming, including seed multiplication, seed selection practices, and seed storage, must be available for the continued cultivation of traditional varieties. As this case clearly demonstrates, for diversity to be a viable option for farmers, it is critical to make the important factors of production available. This will necessarily include making them affordable, locally available at the right times, and appropriate to the existing farming system. They must also respond to existing farmer needs and demands, recognizing that farmer preferences change according to a host of important cultural, economic, and environmental factors. The implication of this work is that unless there is a significant increase in public support for traditional technology it will disappear at an ever more rapid rate regardless of the intentions of farmers. The transfer of Green Revolution varieties leveled off after the 1980s, partly because most areas where the technology was appropriate (favorable rainfed and irrigated fields) have already been converted (David et al., 1994: 55). This implies that the adoption of modern varieties, if it is to continue, will have to be in marginal areas, such as the Cagayan Valley. However, the persistence of Wagwag and other traditional varieties – where modern alternatives presently exist – is a repudiation of the technology itself for those environments. It is therefore incumbent on DA officials, researchers, and policy-makers to recognize that traditional varieties should remain in those environments and farmers should be supported in their decision to grow those varieties. We prefer to call this making diversity a viable option. National and international agencies and research centers, especially leading research institutions such as IRRI and the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice), should develop strategies for supporting traditional technology and take a leading role in the maintenance of diversity, especially for farmers who have limited access to modern technologies. This may include funding research on the traditional technology itself or simply making the traditional technology available. It may also mean directly supporting the use of traditional technology. This will not only increase the technological options available to farmers but

also enhance household security among marginalized farmers.

Enhancing farmers’ access to seeds One important area of concern pinpointed by this research that is both important and correctable is the lack of available seeds, particularly of landraces. National and international genebanks exist that house extensive collections of diversity. These genebanks, especially the larger ones, are often disengaged from important development linkages and are thus not available to farmers and experts in the development process. Linking genebanks, where TVs are stored, with the farmers who could use them would place important varieties within reach of farmers [see Worede (1992) for an example of how this works in another case]. This would also be consistent with the growing interest in in situ conservation and the recognition that effective use of ex situ collections (genebanks) means getting germplasm to farmers.13 A starting point for modeling an on-farm conservation plan that links genebanks with farmers is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of each. The strengths of genebanks are their expertise in seed storage and existing seed stock.14 Farmers, because they actively select and multiply seeds in a variable environment, can be viewed as curators of a “dynamic” conservation program (Pham et al., 1996; Bellon et al., 1997). The weaknesses of genebanks are their isolation from dayto-day farming activities, that is, the selection process, and their institutional inability to do much beyond operating their respective genebanks. Farmers are likewise limited by labor and capital demands and, for many, by the isolation of their farmsteads. The basic model for linking genebanks with farmers outlined here is summarized in Figure 10. This model requires three groups of people: 1) genebanks and their institutes, 2) local government officials and seed growers, and 3) farmers. The basic flow of goods and resources starts with farmers, who give small amounts of preferred seeds and location-specific information (such as preferred varieties, information about agroecological conditions, and so on) to genebank staff. Farmers may also request specific varieties from genebank collections. Genebank staff multiply, clean, purify, and select the seeds obtained from farmers. Their goal is to give farmers the highest quality, most uniform seeds. The seeds are then distributed to local seed growers and DA officials who multiply and distribute the seeds to farmers.15 A corollary practice should be the enhancement of the seed storage capacity of farmers. This may begin with the adoption of a seed storage unit that is currently


147

Figure 10. Genebank to farmer model.

under construction and development at the Agricultural Engineering Center at IRRI. It is cheap and very effective, and uses locally available materials. The process of storing seeds is coordinated with information, including advice on optimum seed selection practices, annual or biennial seed rotation methods, safeguarding of vulnerable or valuable seeds, and a two-tiered storage regime, ensuring both short- and long-term storage potential. Conclusions On-farm conservation can play a role in securing genetic diversity and enhancing farmer security. The basic tenets of on-farm conservation imply renewed interest in the traditional technology currently found in farm households. Research and practice must focus on enhancing the technologies that are associated with genetic diversity. We demonstrated that natural disasters strained an inadequate seed infrastructure, which led to genetic erosion. We also showed that farmers do not always choose to abandon traditional technology. Rather, sometimes the agroecological, cultural, political, or economic conditions necessitate such a shift. The ultimate negative impact of these conditions is genetic erosion and a contravention of farmer choice. The weak seed systems create a precarious situation for farmers. An important first step to rectify this problem is recognition that farmers using traditional technology deserve the same support as those who use modern technology. This recognition may include putting traditional technology into existing DA extension

programs and making TV seeds available from seed growers and the DA. IRRI, PhilRice, and other rice research organizations can play a leading role in creating interest in bringing marginalized farmers into the existing research and extension system. This paper argues that the fundamental goal of conservation cannot be achieved without concerted effort off-farm by non-farmers. The gamut of factors that affect farmer access to seeds must be viewed in light of their genetic impact and farmer household food security. It is not enough to encourage farmers to plant traditional varieties if the basic (public and private) infrastructure of seeds and planting is not adequately managed and funded to allow farmers to conserve. The proposition of farmers as conservators is only half the story. Policymakers and members of the public must also be involved in the conservation process. Given this view, a mechanism to link genebanks, public-sector seed production institutions, and farmers is a step in the right direction.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank an anonymous reviewer who provided helpful comments.

Notes 1. We use the terms modern and traditional varieties to describe the two distinct variety types. Tripp (1996), in an extensive overview, points out that other terms, e.g., highyielding and local, are also in general use.

148


2. The project is funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. 3. The main rice-growing season (the “wet season”) lasts from approximately June to February. Planting, depending on the variety and plot location, typically runs from June through September. For convenience, the growing season, which lasts over the new year, will be designated by the planting season. So, if the growing season lasts from June 1996 to February 1997, it is designated “1996.” 4. The frequency of planting in traditional and modern varieties here is the number of plots devoted to modern or traditional varieties, not land area, although the two measures are roughly proportional. Also, according to our 1996 survey, most households cultivate from one to three varieties per season, with a small proportion planting more than three. 5. IR varieties were developed at the International Rice Research Institute from the mid-1960s to the late 1970s. The Green Revolution variety IR8 is an IR variety. 6. For comparison, yields on irrigated plots average 5 to 6 t ha−1 in other locations within the Philippines. Rainfed plots nearly always achieve less than that, but the difference is more marked than usual. Garrity (1990a–c) estimated typical yields among rainfed plots in the study area to be between 2 and 3 t ha−1 . 7. A seed, when harvested, is undifferentiated from the rest of harvest, since Cagayano farmers typically perform seed selection after harvest. However, after one year of storage (or less) all potential seeds are gone, having lost their capacity for germination. Thus, early in the storage period, all padi is seed, after a year of storage, there are no seeds left. 8. Data on seed stocks in 1998 is insufficient to say precisely how low the seed stocks were. Many farmers confessed embarrassment at their misfortune and simply said they had no seed, or they had consumed their seed. 9. One reviewer noted that in every village there is usually some farmer, often among the wealthy, that conserve local varieties. It is our experience that this is not the case among Cagayano farmers. Generally speaking, rice farmers who grow TVs are poorer than those who grow the MVs. Thus they find themselves in a double bind, lower yielding plots (due in large part to the environmental variability) with less access to capital and other resources to improve their farming condition. 10. The Genetic Resources Center at IRRI has a low-cost, offthe-shelf, seed storage system that could greatly increase the seed storage capacity of farmers. 11. Certified seed growers themselves are in short supply. According to the Municipal Agriculture Officer of Iguig, only one certified seed grower served the entire municipality in 1998. 12. Through research conducted since this fieldwork, we now know that Wagwag varieties can be planted as late as midNovember and give a similar or increased yield, generally exceeding even the yields of some MVs in rainfed areas. This work is ongoing. 13. The Global Plan of Action on biodiversity gives on-farm conservation a top priority. 14. The International Rice Genebank (IRG) has more than 100,000 accessions.

15. For an excellent view of what is possible when this type of system is linked with plant breeding and participatory variety selection, see the West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA) website at http://www.warda. cgiar.org.

References Almekinders, C. J. M., N. P. Louwaars, and G. H. Bruijn (1994). “Local seed systems and their importance for an improved seed supply in developing countries.” Euphytica 78: 207–216. Bell, M. A., J. A. Lapitan, and M. Hossain (2000). Research for Development: IRRI’s In-Country Roles. Los Baños, Philippines: IRRI Discussion Paper Series No. 41. Bellon, M. R. and S. B. Brush (1994). “Keepers of maize in Chiapas, Mexico.” Economic Botany 48(2): 196–209. Bellon, M. R., J. L. Pham, and M. T. Jackson (1997). “Genetic conservation: A role for rice farmers.” In N. Maxted, B. V. Ford-Lloyd, and J. G. Hawkes (eds.), Plant Genetic Conservation: The In Situ Approach (pp. 263–285). London: Chapman & Hall. Bellon, M. R., D. S. Brar, B. R. Lu, and J. L. Pham (1998). “Rice Genetic Resources.” In N. G. Dowling, S. M. Greenfield, and K. S. Fischer (eds.), Sustainability of Rice in the Global Food System (pp. 251–284). Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute. Boster, J. S. (1984). “Selection for perceptual distinctiveness: evidence from Aguaruna cultivars of Manihot esculenta.” Economic Botany 39(3): 310–325. Brush, S. B. (1991). “A farmer based approach to conserving crop germplasm.” Economic Botany 45(2): 153–165. Brush, S. B. (1995). “In situ conservation of landraces in centers of crop diversity.” Crop Science 35: 346–354. Cantrell, R. P. (1999). “International collaboration and future challenges in rice research.” India Grains 1: 19–25. Clawson, D. L. (1985). “Harvest security and intraspecific diversity in traditional tropical agriculture.” Economic Botany 39(1): 56–67. Cromwell, E. and C. Almekinders (2000.) “The impact of seedsupply interventions on the use of crop genetic diversity.” In W. de Boef and C. Almekinders (eds.), Encouraging Diversity: The Conservation and Development of Plant Genetic Resources (pp. 223–227). London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Crucible II Group (2000). Seeding Solutions: Volume I, Policy Options for Genetic Resources (People, Plants, and Patents Revisited). Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre. David, C., V. Cordova, and K. Otsuka (1994). “Technological change, land reform, and income distribution in the Philippines.” In C. David and K. Otsuka (eds.), Modern Rice Technology and Income Distribution in Asia (pp. 51–106). Boulder, Colorado: L. Rienner. De Boef, W. and C. Almekinders (2000). “Introduction.” In W. de Boef and C. Almekinders (eds.), Encouraging Diversity: The Conservation and Development of Plant Genetic Resources (pp. xxix–xxxiii). London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

NATURAL HAZARDS AND RICE DIVERSITY Environmental Center of the Philippines Foundation (1998). Environment and Natural Resources Atlas of the Philippines. Quezon City, Philippines: University of the Philippines Press. Garrity, D. P. (1990a). Rainfed Riceland Database For Amulung, Cagayan: Tool for Cropping Systems Extension. Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute and Philippine Department of Agriculture (Region 2). Garrity, D. P. (1990b). Rainfed Riceland Database For Igiug, Cagayan: Tool for Cropping Systems Extension. Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute and Philippine Department of Agriculture (Region 2). Garrity, D. P. (1990c). Rainfed Riceland Database For Solana, Cagayan: Tool for Cropping Systems Extension. Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute and Philippine Department of Agriculture (Region 2). Harlan, J. R. (1975). “Our vanishing genetic resources.” Science 188: 618–621. Khush, G. S. (1995). “Modern varieties – their real contribution to food supply and equity.” In K. Lampe (ed.), Feeding 4 Billion People: The Challenge for Rice Research in the 21st Century (pp. 275–283). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kshirsagar, K. S. and S. Pandey (1996). “Diversity of rice cultivars in a rainfed village in the Orissa state of India.” In L. Sperling and M. Loevinsohn (eds.), Using Diversity: Enhancing and Maintaining Genetic Resources On-Farm, proceedings of a workshop, June 19–21, 1995 (pp. 55–65). New Delhi, India: International Development Research Centre. Longley, C. and P. Richards (1993). “Selection strategies of rice farmers in Sierra Leone.” In W. de Boef, K. Amanor, K. Wellard, and A. Bebbington (eds.), Cultivating Knowledge: Genetic Diversity, Farmer Experimentation and Crop Research (pp. 51–63). London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Maxted, N., B. V. Ford-Lloyd, and J. G. Hawkes (eds.) (1997). Plant Genetic Conservation: The In Situ Approach. London: Chapman and Hall. Morales, H. and I. Perfecto (2000). “Traditional knowledge and pest management in the Guatemalan highlands.” Agriculture and Human Values 17: 49–63. Morin, S. R., J. L. Pham, L. S. Sebastian, G. Abrigo, D. Erasga, M. R. Bellon, M. Calibo, and P. Sanchez (1998). “The role of indigenous technical knowledge in on-farm conservation of rice genetic resources in the Cagayan Valley, Philippines.” In People, Earth and Culture. Readings in Indigenous Knowledge Systems on Biodiversity Management and Utilization (pp. 137–150). Book Series No. 165/1998. Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development, Department of Science and Technology. National Commission for Culture and the Arts. Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines. Pham, J. L. and Van Hintum Theo (2000) “Genetic diversity in agro-ecosystems.” In W. de Boef and C. Almekinders (eds.), Encouraging Diversity: The Conservation and Development of Plant Genetic Resources (pp. 8–14). London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

149

Pham, J. L., M. R. Bellon, and M. T. Jackson (1996). “A research program for on-farm conservation of rice genetic resources.” International Rice Research Notes 21: 10–11. Pistorius, R. and J. van Wijk (2000). “On-farm conservation: a matter of global concern or local survival?” In W. de Boef and C. Almekinders (eds.), Encouraging Diversity: The Conservation and Development of Plant Genetic Resources (pp. 275–278). London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Qualset, C. O., A. B. Damania, A. C. A. Zanatta, and S. B. Brush (1997). “Locally based crop plant conservation.” In N. Maxted, B. V. Ford-Lloyd, and J. G. Hawkes (eds.), Plant Genetic Conservation: The In Situ Approach (pp. 160–175). London: Chapman and Hall. Rekasem, B. and K. Rerkasem (1984). “The agroecological niche and farmer selection of rice varieties in the Chiang Mai Valley, Thailand.” In A. T. Rambo and P. E. Sajise (eds.), An Introduction to Human Ecology Research on Agricultural Systems in Southeast Asia (pp. 303–311). Los Baños, Laguna: University of the Philippines Press. Richards, P., M. Jusu, C. Longley, H. Maat, S. Mokua, and J. Vincent (2000). “Seeds and relief in war and post-war reconstruction in Sierra Leone.” In W. de Boef and C. Almekinders (eds.), Encouraging Diversity: The Conservation and Development of Plant Genetic Resources (pp. 227–232). London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Santique, R. (1999). The rice industry weathers the storm. MARID Agribusiness Digest 9(11): 13–15. Tripp, R. (1996). “Biodiversity and modern crop varieties: sharpening the debate.” Agriculture and Human Values 13(4): 48–63. Vaughan, D. A. and T. T. Chang (1992). “In situ conservation of rice genetic resources.” Economic Botany 46(4): 368–383. Visser, B. and J. Engels (2000). “Synthesis: The common goal of conservation of genetic resources.” In W. de Boef and C. Almekinders (eds.), Encouraging Diversity: The Conservation and Development of Plant Genetic Resources (pp. 145–153). London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Worede, M. (1992). “Ethiopia: a genebank working with farmers.” In D. Cooper, R. Vellve, and H. Hobbelink (eds.), Growing Diversity: Genetic Resources and Local Food Security. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Address for correspondence: Stephen R. Morin, Anthropologist, Social Science Division, International Rice Research Institute, DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines Phone: +63-2-845-0563, ext. 713; Fax: +63-2-891-1292 E-mail: [email protected]