COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT OF DIVERSITY OF RICE VARIETIES IN THE COASTAL REGION OF HUE, VIETNAM
TRUONG VAN TUYEN
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BAÑOS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Community Development)
MAY 2002
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
The author was born on 4 October 1958 in Quang Binh, a province in Central
Vietnam. He is the oldest of eight children of Mr. Truong Van Lieu and Mrs. Nguyen Thi
Binh. His childhood and school life was in his homeland, Quang Binh, where his extended family lives.
He joined Vietnam’s government service as a faculty academic staff member of
Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry after he obtained his Bachelor's degree in
1986. In 1994, he finished his Master's degree in Rural Development Management in
Khon Kaen University, Thailand. His teaching and research career in the University was mainly focused in the fields of extension and rural development study.
In November 1998, he was granted on official study leave by the Ministry of
Education and Training of Vietnam to pursue the PhD degree program, major in
Community Development with cognates in Environmental Science at the University of the Philippines Los Baños in the Philippines.
TRUONG VAN TUYEN
iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to the chairperson of his
Advisory Committee, Dr. Virginia R. Cardenas, who together with the Committee members, Dr. Federico A. Cruz, Dr. Mahabub Hossain, Dr. Jean-Louis Pham, and Dr.
Nicomedes D. Briones, provided their valuable time, encouragement, and overall guidance and academic support throughout his study.
He would like to extend his special thanks to Dr. Jean-Louis Pham (Institute for
Development Research, France), Dr. Mahabub Hossain (International Rice Research
Institute), Dr. Stephen Tyler (International Development Research Center, Canada), who provided continuous support to enable him to finish the study program in the Philippines and to carry out the research in Vietnam.
He would also like to thank the professors at the University of the Philippines Los
Baños for their academic support and his colleagues at the Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry for their various assistance and valuable advice during the conduct of study and research: Prof. Dr. Tran Van Minh, Mrs. Dinh Thi Son, Mr. Le Thieu Ky, Mrs.
Nguyen Thi Lan, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thanh, and Mr. Le Dinh Huong.
He also extends his gratitude to other colleagues and friends for their valuable comments: Dr. Gary F. Newkirk and Ms. Veronika Brzesiki (Dalhousie University), Dr.
Stephen Morin (IRRI), and Dr. Mauricio Bellon (CYMMIT).
Finally, he would like to thank his family, especially his beloved wife, Mrs. Tran
Thi Thu Anh, for giving him continuous spiritual support and encouragement, without which he would have encountered extreme difficulties in finishing his study. iv
The author would like to indicate that the work described in this dissertation was carried out with the aid of a grant from International Development Research Center
(IDRC), Ottawa, Canada, and of a scholarship grant from International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI).
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION 1
The Research on Farmers’ Management of Rice Diversity in the Region of Hue, Vietnam 3
Statement of the Problem 5
The Research Objectives 7
Importance of the Study 8
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 9
Community-based Natural Resource Management and Agrosupports for Crop Biodiversity Conservation 9
Crop Biodiversity: Its Measurement and Conservation 12
On-farm Conservation of Crop Diversity 14
Conceptual Framework of the Study 20
The Research Hypotheses 22
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 23
Locale of the Study and the Research Design 23
Research Instruments and Data Collection 26
Methods of Data Analysis 27
Operational Definition of the Study Variables 28
vi
CHAPTER PAGE
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 32
The Socioeconomic and Political Context of Vietnam During the Years 1980s and 1990s 33
Changes in Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics at Household Level 36
Community Characteristics and Socioeconomic Changes 42
Farmers’ Perception on Rice Varieties and Utilization 56
Agrosupport Services and Rice Seed Systems 67
Changes in Rice Diversity at Community Landscape and Household Levels 77
A Comparison of Rice Varieties Between the Study Areas (as the Rainfed Area) and the Coastal Irrigated Area 93
Relationship Between the Independent and Dependent Variables 96
Multiple Regression Analysis of the Dependent and Independent Variables in Different Rice Seasons 102
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 115
A Summary of Research Execution and Findings 115
Conclusions and Implications for On-farm Conservation 127
Recommendations on Community Initiatives for On-farm Conservation of Rice Diversity 132
LITERATURE CITED 137
APPENDICES 142
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1 A conceptual model of the factors that influence farmer’s management of crop diversity 17
2 Conceptual framework showing the relationship among study variables 21
3 Map of Vietnam and the sites of the study 24
4 Average rainfall distribution and the unusually high precipitation in 1999 in Hue region 75
viii LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 Distribution of Respondents corresponding to different degrees of market integration and data year 25
2 Changes in demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of households between 1996 and 2001, the region of Hue, Vietnam 37
3 Community organizations and farmers’ membership in the coastal region of Hue, Vietnam 43
4 Farmers’ information networks and frequency of consultation for rice farming activities in the coastal region of Hue, Vietnam 45
5 Lead roles in decision-making on rice and other crop production at household and community levels 48
6 Qualitative assessment of changes in socioeconomic characteristics at community level 53
7 Farmer’s priority ranking of various farming objectives and strategies in rice growing 57
8 Farmer’s evaluation of importance of growing a diverse set of rice varieties and using some traditional varieties 59
9 Household distribution by rice variety characteristics, on which farmers are concerned for variety selection and maintenance 63
10 Ranking of farmer’s concern on characteristics of rice variety in the coastal region of Hue, Vietnam 65
11 Rural agrosupport service providers at community level in the coastal region of Hue, Vietnam 68
12 Farmer’s awareness of contents of agrosupport and extension provided at community 70
13 Original rice seed sources and practice of seed selection and exchanges at household level 72
ix TABLE PAGE
14 Impact of the 1999-catastrophic flood on rice seeds and varieties in coastal region of Hue, Vietnam 75
Change in number of varieties, variety distribution, and Simpson 15 Index of Variety Diversity at community landscape level in 78 different rice seasons
Change in the rice varieties and their distribution between 1996 16 and 2001 for different growing seasons in the coastal region of 82 Hue, Vietnam
17 Changes in number, type and distribution of rice varieties at household level for different growing seasons 87
18 Changes in total rice growing area at household level and share of MV and TV area in different growing seasons 92
19 A comparison of changes in rice varieties between dominantly irrigated and rainfed areas 94
20 Summary of correlation matrix between independent and dependent variables (Pearson Correlation Coefficient - R) 97
21 Summary results of Stepwise regression for “Number of MVs in winter-spring rice season” 103
22 Summary results of Stepwise regression for “Number of MVs in summer rice season” 104
23 Summary results of Stepwise regression for “Number of TVs in winter-spring season” 105
24 Summary results of Stepwise regression for “Number of TVs in summer rice season” 107
25 Summary results of Stepwise regression for “Total winter-spring rice area” 108
26 Summary results of Stepwise regression for “Total summer rice area” 110
x TABLE PAGE
27 Summary results of stepwise regression for “Percentage of TV area in winter-spring season” 111
28 Summary results of stepwise regression for “Percentage of TV area in summer rice season” 113
29 Suggested potential actors or organizations to be involved in an institutional collaboration toward a community-based conservation of rice diversity 134
xi ABSTRACT
TRUONG VAN TUYEN, University of the Philippines Los Banos, May 2002. Community Management of Diversity of Rice Varieties in the Coastal Region of Hue, Vietnam.
Major Professor: Dr. Virginia R. Cardenas
This study was conducted in coastal region of Hue, Vietnam. General objective of the study was to determine changes in rice varieties between 1996 and 2001 associated with changes in socioeconomic characteristics of farmers and communities. Two coastal areas, the isolated and the integrated area, were the sites representing different degrees of market integration. Two data sets were collected in 1996 and 2001 from the same 81 households making a total 162 observations. Group discussions with panels of core villagers were carried out prior to interviews to identify major changes, which helped refine the interview schedule and supplemented the respondents’ information. Descriptive statistics, Pearson Correlation, and Multiple Regression were employed for data analysis.
There were important improvements in living standard of farmers between 1996 and 2001. It resulted from various programs of rural infrastructure and also from changes in income activities. These included crop diversification in the isolated area and animal husbandry in the integrated one. However, rice production remained the important source of livelihood. The changes in farming activities resulted in mitigation of agronomic problems of rice plots, thereby favored farmers’ use of modern varieties (MV) over the traditional ones (TV). The farmers’ objective in rice growing, the service of formal seed system, and the provision of agrosupport services were emphasized much toward xii attaining increases in productivity, thereby favored the use of the MV since they met better the demands of productivity increase. In addition, responses to the catastrophic flood led to the adoption of MV because seeds of preferred varieties were not available.
This revealed problems on farmers' access in the rice seed system.
Between 1996 and 2001 total number of rice cultivars, especially the TVs at community landscape level decreased in both study areas. Distribution of the MV became more wide spread but the TV narrowed down. At household level, mean total number of varieties also decreased. This resulted mainly from reduction of number of TVs, though this did not change for summer rice in the isolated area. Change in total area abundance of rice growing at household was not significant. However, the share of MV area increased, but TV decreased. Exception was found in the isolated area, where in summer rice season, the farmers still maintained TV for deep-water rice fields.
Seed source from farmers remained the factor that had the most important contribution to estimation of variety richness and area abundance of TVs in both study areas and in both rice seasons of the year. During 1996 - 2001 seed exchanges increased in the two study areas, however, participation of the Seed Company increased. Therefore, recommendations were made on improvement of local seed systems and seed policy to make seeds of preferred varieties accessible for farmers. Other recommendations were made on building awareness on values of rice diversity and promotion of variety variability among farmers using community-based initiatives. Further research on community arrangement, on adding value to TVs, and on development of participatory conservation schemes for demonstration were also suggested.
xiii 1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Rice diversity refers to variety differences, which have been used and maintained as a farming strategy of rice farmers to deal with a diverse environment and meet various socioeconomic and cultural needs. This is important in the coastal region of Hue, Central
Vietnam, where the ecology is characterized by sandy land conditions with seasonal marine effects. These, in combination with a coastal-lagoon system called Tam Giang lagoon, result in a diverse and complex environment, which provides different potentials for use in agriculture, particularly for crop and rice production. However, this causes various problems from the sand area expansion and bare conditions.
The human population in the region is high, about 300,000 inhabitants around the lagoon earn livelihood from agriculture and/or by exploiting aquatic resources. The people are relatively poor compared to those in the plains and suburban areas because of declining natural resources. Rice is the traditional and staple crop. For the farmers, rice production is the main source of their livelihood. The living standard of the people is lower than that of other groups in the province. For a long time, under subsidiary management policies of the government (before 1989), insufficient food supply was a prevailing condition. At the time of the study, most of the communes (lowest level in governmental structure) around Tam Giang lagoon were classified as poor communities under the government program for hunger eradication and poverty reduction (HEPR), which started in 1992. These communities were the priorities of the government in providing socioeconomic development support.
2
Agriculture, particularly rice growing in this coastal region, is dominantly in marginal farm conditions and rainfed in terms of water management. The main constraint is lack of water during the dry season, which lasts from six to seven months per year.
Therefore, farmers maintain a diverse set of rice varieties. The traditional ones are used as a farming strategy to cope with the adverse environment and agronomic stresses in their struggle to meet the needs for food and other social cultural practices. Frequent environmental stresses in the region such as drought, salinity, floods, unfertile soils, and poverty keep rice productivity relatively low and result in difficulties for high input farming.
Recently, the local rice demand has been met as a result of national innovation in management, which is known as “Doi moi” or “renovation for a socialist-market oriented economy” (Resolution No. 10, 1988 by Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam). A transition from rice production for subsistence toward “diversification and modernization” was implemented. Efforts made by the government and farmers were to improve farming technology to increase productivity and economic returns. New cash crops and high yielding rice varieties were introduced and commercial cropping systems were promoted. This process effected changes in the socioeconomic conditions of farmers and farming communities. As a result, these changes produced impact on the resource base, such as crop diversity in general or rice diversity in particular.
3
The Research on Farmer’s Management of Rice Diversity in Hue Region, Vietnam
Farmer’s management of rice diversity refers to the use and maintenance of rice variety on-farm. This also refers to on-farm conservation, an in situ type of conservation, which maintains the diversity of genetic resources in actual habitats. As rice is a staple food crop for billions of people, great efforts have been made to conserve rice diversity by collecting germplasm and establishing the “gene bank” since the 1960s . This is the ex situ conservation. For example, the collection preserved at IRRI comprises more than
80,000 rice accessions. Owning to increased worldwide commitments to in situ conservation of crop diversity (The Convention on Biological Diversity, 1994), the on- farm conservation of genetic resources has received more attention as a complementation to gene bank strategies (Bellon, Pham and Jackson, 1997).
A research project on farmer’s management of rice diversity had been carried out since 1996 in Hue region, Central Vietnam. The research was a component of the project
"Safeguarding and Preservation of the Biodiversity of the Rice Genepool" (1995-2000)1.
The objective was to identify opportunities and strategies for on-farm conservation of rice diversity. The initial findings showed high possibilities for conservation of rice diversity since many farmers still used a diverse set of rice varieties. In the 16 rainfed lowland villages, they maintained a total of 41 varieties in winter-spring season and 38 varieties in summer, of which one third were identified as traditional varieties. The results also
1 The project was funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), coordinated by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), and implemented by Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry.
4 suggested that community-based approach might be an effective strategy for implementing on-farm conservation because rice diversity was maintained with frequent flows within and among the rice farming communities.
This research study is, in some respects, a continuation of the above research. It intended to determine the changes in the socioeconomic conditions of the farmer and communities in the coastal areas in order to draw insights on the farmers’ and community characteristics related to conservation of rice diversity. The rice diversity found in the region can be seen as an end product of farmer’s management or conservation. However conservation may not particularly be their motivation, rather, they tend to increase production and various benefits from rice farming to meet their increasing needs. The technology adoption (e.g. using a modern variety) and changes in farm strategies may accelerate genetic erosion. Therefore, this research attempted to clarify understanding on the association between the socioeconomic factors of farmer and community characteristics and diversity of rice varieties used in coastal agrosystems. The findings and knowledge gained would help: (1) the farmers to maintain and utilize rice diversity as a strategy to cope with marginal environment conditions, and (2) determine effective strategies for conservation of rice diversity.
5
Statement of the Problem
In Vietnam, rice is the single traditional and staple food crop. Culture and socioeconomic life has evolved with rice growing practices. Traditionally, the farmers used a diverse set of rice varieties as a strategy to deal with adverse environment and agronomic stresses and to meet diverse cultural needs. Until the 1970s, when the modern varieties (e.g. IR36) were not yet introduced in Vietnam, most of the rice varieties planted were believed to be of local origin. This suggests that rice genetic diversity was used and maintained very early in the areas.
Due to increasing pressure for food supply and the other needs for living, the government and farmers increased rice production by adopting intensive farming including the replacement of traditional rice varieties with the modern ones. This is highly valued in providing food sufficiency. However, it is general knowledge that this development contributed to the loss of diversity, which resulted from loosing the traditional rice varieties or landraces. In 1989, Vietnam became the third major rice exporter in the world. The modern rice varieties replaced most of the traditional ones in all “major rice bowls” of the nation (Xuan, 1995).
In some marginal and rainfed agriculture such as coastal sandy areas, farmers still practice traditional varieties as one of the farming strategies. The 1996 survey in the Hue region identified the coastal areas as having potentials for on-farm conservation of rice genetic resources since the farmers still maintained a diverse set of traditional varieties.
However, observations noted that socioeconomic changes were taking place rapidly. This led to change in the farmer’s management of rice diversity. The questions that this study
6 tried to answer were: What is the current change in socioeconomic characteristics of farmers and community? What is the associated change in farmer’s management of rice varieties with respect to rice diversity?
7
The Research Objectives
The study aimed to determine the changes in socioeconomic conditions of the farmers and the farming communities in relation to rice variety diversity. The specific objectives were:
1. To describe the current changes in socioeconomic characteristics of rice farmers
and communities in the coastal areas of Hue region, Vietnam.
2. To identify farmers’ organizations, relationships, and information networks within
the community related to rice production and rice variety management.
3. To determine farmer’s perception on rice variety characteristics in relation to
variety and seed management for rice farming
4. To assess the provision of agrosupport and rice seed services within the
community for crop production with respect to rice diversity.
5. To analyze the changes in rice diversity associated with the various
socioeconomic conditions under different rice growing seasons in the year.
6. To determine the relationship between the farmer and community related factors
and rice diversity.
8
Importance of the Study
The increasing pressure for food and other physical needs of small farmers has led to the focus on production without adequate attention to the impacts on the resource base such as crop genetic resources. This research on rice diversity conservation is a response to such practice.
It is general knowledge that the conservation of plant genetic resources (PGR), especially of rice genepool, is important for future food supply and other needs.
However, human behavior including government policies may result in genetic erosion that threatens PGR. This study is aimed at examining the community-related factors toward strengthening scientific basis for on-farm conservation of agrobiodiversity.
On-farm conservation, as an in situ type, has been defined as the continued cultivation of a diverse set of crop populations by farmers in the agroecosystems where the crop has evolved (Jackson, 1995; Bellon, Pham and Jackson, 1997). It emphasizes the roles of farmers in the human selection and maintenance. However, the farmers would not maintain the diversity unless they already perceive them as viable options for farming. This research is perceived to help farmers in improving their variety utility.
Management of a diverse set of rice varieties is desirable to sustain rice-based farming systems. However, the value of this practice is not fully understood and supported in development process. This research is an effort toward the contribution to building awareness on the value of rice diversity by involving participation of farmers and local organizations.
9
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Community-Based Natural Resource Management and Agrosuports for Crop Biodiversity Conservation
The term “community-based” natural resource management (CBNRM) distinguishes the emerging approaches from an earlier concept of community management, which refers to communities having full and generally autonomous responsibility for the protection and use of natural resources (Uphoff, 1998). The
CBNRM strategy starts with communities as a focus and foundation for assessing uses, potentials, problems, trends, and opportunities, and for taking action to deal with adverse practices and dynamics (Little, 1994). It presumes that local residents can understand and will support larger interests of conservation, factoring these into their economic, social and cultural considerations about how natural resources should best be treated (Uphoff and Langholz 1998).
In the face of rapidly increasing pressure on a finite resource base, there is a need for substantial evolution of existing resource management systems to support sustainable intensification of resources. To date, there is growing recognition in Asia of the need for a wide range of initiatives supportive of a strong community role in resource management within the context of larger national systems (David, 1998). There are two main reasons that the CBNRM is of concern to governments and related agencies, such as the World Bank. One relates to the objectives of conservation, the protection of biodiversity. It has development payoffs, possibly more in the long run than the short-
10 term. The other relates to development, the maintenance of ecosystems for multiple services functions of benefit. It has definite economic value (Uphoff, 1998).
The International Institute for Rural Reconstruction (IIRR, 1998) defined the
CBNRM as a process of involving local communities in managing the resources upon which they depend for immediate and long-term needs. As more resource users are included in management decision and the scale of responsibility becomes local, the
“ownership” of responsibility increases and likewise, compliance to community decisions. The CBNRM is also a process through which the communities are empowered so that they can assert and gain rightful management of their resources. The initiative on such a process should come from the community itself. Given their disempowered situation, however, most communities lack the capacity to initiate the process of change by themselves. This, among other factors, has led outside agencies and organizations to facilitate the process involved in CBNRM, including community-organizing work.
The community-based approach provides potential strategies for efficient utilization and effective conservation of crop genetic resources because it increases farmer participation, that the goal of conservation can be achieved. Witcome, et al.
(1999) described an application of participatory approach in plant breeding and variety selection. The results showed that participatory selected varieties rapidly spread from farmer to farmer. However, in areas of high biodiversity this had a major impact on average diversity. In high-potential production system, this resulted in an increase in number of varieties farmers wish to adopt, thus increasing average diversity.
11
For farming communities, CBNRM and extension may be linked together because the goal of the latter is generally to support the farmers to fulfill better their perceived needs. The former is a vehicle to provide basis to achieve the latter goal. Giving the direct competition between local and exotic knowledge, inputs, and crops can highlight this linkage, particularly in conservation of crop genetic diversity. Brush (1999) argued that the above competition results from increasing production required meeting expected higher population and dynamic needs. Agricultural extension and CBNRM serves as the means in the given competition. In general, extension brings in advanced technology. In contrast, community-based management employs self-reliance.
Extension is an educational process, which involves changes in the knowledge, perception, and behavior of rural people. These changes presumably result in improved agricultural production, better material and spiritual living, sound environment, and a strengthening of the rural economy. It may also have impact on crop genetic resources
(Mauder, 1972). In the case of Vietnam the extension function (Government Decree 13,
1993) consists of the following: (1) disseminating advanced technology for agriculture production; (2) strengthening farmer capability and knowledge of management; and (3) providing information on marketing. The “Doi moi” policy (1989) for a socialist market- oriented economy recognized the private sector and that farmer household was a basic economic unit in rural area. This provides environment compatibility for the application of the CBNRM and the operation of extension systems.
12
Crop Biodiversity: Its Measurement and Conservation
Biodiversity in agroecosystems is termed as agrobiodiversity, which has been defined by Qualset, et al (1995) as including all crops and livestock and their wild relatives, and all interacting species of pollinators, symbionts, pest, parasites, predators, and competitors. Biodiversity exists at several levels: ecological, organismal, genetic and cultural (Heywood and Baste, 1995). However, it is generally accepted that genetic diversity forms the foundation of biodiversity, including crop diversity in the context of agriculture (Cox and Wood, 1999). The studies focusing on crop diversity conservation are, in fact, dealing with crop genetic resources. According to Brush (1999), crop genetic resource involves more than the alleles and genotypes of crop populations. Besides the genetic raw materials of landraces, it also comprises related species, agroecological inter- relationships, and human factors. The term “diversity” in agroecosystems may be used interchangeably with agrobiodiversity, crop biodiversity, crop genetic diversity, and crop genetic resources.
Biodiversity is important for food production and for performing ecosystem function and services. Agriculture is the largest user of global biodiversity. It extracts value from biodiversity at each harvest or cull, but nurtures the productive and renewable base. Agrobiodiversity is a medium through which the agrosystems provide essential ecosystem services of food production, and can be designed to deliver a further range of ecosystem services as needs and knowledge change (Wood and Lenne, 1999). Individual farmers value biodiversity within and between crops (intra and interspecies biodiversity) because of heterogeneous soils, production conditions, risk factors, market demands,
13 family consumption, and uses of different products from an individual crop species
(Bellon, 1996)
However, the continuing adaptive change and development of agriculture has always been associated with genetic erosion. It is defined as the loss of formerly favored crop varieties or genes and alleles in the field (Engels and Wood, 1999). The diversity on individual farms and across wide regions is threatened by modern crop varieties that have been bred for broad adaptation, resistance, ability to use better water and fertilizer, and higher yield (Brush, 1999). It is general knowledge that along the adoption of modern technology, the landraces and traditional crops/varieties are replaced with exotic species and practices.
The importance of crop biodiversity and the threats to them has created conservation programs. According to Engels and Wood (1999) the conservation of agrobiodiversity, under which the crop genetic diversity lies, becomes a necessity for society: (1) to ensure the availability of diversity of genetic resources for subsequent utilization, which in the long-term implies selection between or within varieties, so the conservation is to maintain variability for evolution; (2) diversity is needed for development as it provides various values related to reducing pest and disease, meeting dietary needs, smoothing peaks of labor demand; and (3) conservation of diversity is to prevent the extinction of useful crops or varieties.
In crop-based agrosystems, crop diversity can be measured by richness and evenness at three levels: (1) diversity among crop species in space, in time, or in both is referred to as interspecies diversity; (2) diversity among cultivars within species (e.g.
14 number of different varieties of the same crop) is referred to as intraspecies diversity; and
(3) diversity among plants within cultivar refers to genetic variability within a cultivar population. Landraces tend to be the most genetically diverse group of crop cultivars
(Frankel, et al., 1995). According to Southwood and Way (1970), the degree of biodiversity in agrosystems depends on: (1) the diversity of vegetation within and around the agrosystem; (2) the permanence of the various crops within the agrosystem; (3) the intensity of management; and (4) the extent of the isolation of the agrosystems from natural vegetation.
On-farm Conservation of Crop Diversity
Biodiversity conservation can be generally considered in two ways: ex situ and in situ. Ex situ conservation involves collecting reproductive plant materials from its natural setting for maintenance in seed or tissue banks or plantations. In situ conservation is maintaining plant materials in the site in which they actually occur. For landraces or traditional farmer varieties and crops, the in situ conservation occurs in the fields in which farmers grow those varieties. This is referred to as on-farm conservation, which involves the farmers’ management of their crop genetic resources. Bellon, Pham, and
Jackson (1997) defined the on-farm conservation of crop genetic resources as “the continued cultivation and management by farmers of a diverse set of crop populations in the agroecosystems where the crop has evolved or in secondary centers of diversity.”
The two types of conservation are not mutually exclusive but are to be integral parts of a continuum of conservation (Collins and Hawtin, 1998). The in situ, especially
15 the on-farm conservation of crop genetic resources, is highly valued and promoted as complementary with ex situ because, according to Brush (1999): (1) in situ conservation maintains the elements of crop genetic resources that cannot be contained in ex situ facility; (2) in situ generates and maintains new genetic resources that the gene bank collections fail to capture after the collection has occurred; (3) in situ conservation provides a backup to gene bank collections; (4) in situ conservation is important in providing laboratories for agricultural research, such as for the understanding of crop evolution processes and of broad ecological processes in the design of technology for sustainable development; and (5) in situ conservation of crop genetic resources is a mandate the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
Regarding the scope of in situ (including on-farm) conservation of crop genetic resources, Brush (1999) argued that increasing production is required to meet the needs of an increasing population. Thus, it results in the direct competition between local and exotic knowledge, inputs, and crops. Previously, this competition has provoked genetic erosion or the loss of genetic variability in crop population. The magnitude of the forces behind genetic erosion (e.g. adopt exotic technology to increase productivity) suggests that it is not a process that can or should be reversed on a wide scale. Therefore, aim of the in situ conservation program is rather to set its purpose of conserving specific processes in specific localities so that the historic processes of crop evolution remain viable therein. In other words, in situ (or on-farm) conservation is not an alternative to agricultural modernization nor is it appropriate to all farmers.
16
For increasing values and incentives to promote maintaining crop diversity, valuation of the diversity is a key concern. Brush (1999) distinguished three types of values of crop diversity. These are: (1) direct values refer to harvest and use of crop varieties. This, for specific varieties, includes agronomic or environmental assets for production as well as consumption benefits. These have been cited as the basis for maintaining diverse local crops. (2) Indirect values refer to environmental services rendered by crop varieties and benefits that result from biological resources. For in situ conservation, the most important asset of local crop varieties is their indirect value in maintaining crop evolutionary relationships. (3) Option values derive from future use of crop genetic resources. The valuation of crop genetic resources involves three widespread perceptions (Gollin and Smale, 1999). These are: (1) modern agriculture has caused genetic erosion, which encompasses the loss of traditional varieties; (2) modern crop varieties and agroecosystems are increasingly uniform, rendering crops extremely vulnerable to pests, disease, and other pathogens; and (3) genetic resources are scarce in agriculture.
The farmers’ management and farming practices are also important in understanding the crop diversity on-farm. In the process of planting, managing, harvesting, and processing their crops, farmers make decisions that affect the genetic diversity of the crop population. According to Devra Jarvis and Toby Hodgkin (1999), farmer’s decisions may link with genetic variation in five major categories: (1) agro- morphological characteristics, (2) farm management practices, (3) planting location, (4) size of population, and (5) seed sources. These decisions in turn are based on
17 environmental and socioeconomic influences. Bellon, et al. (1997) proposed a conceptual model of farmer’s management of crop diversity (Fig. 1).
Socioeconomic Cultural Government Environmental factors factors policies factors
Farmers’ decision-making
Farmer’s management of diversity Farmers’ knowledge
Crop genetic structure
Crop diversity
Crop traits/characteristics
Figure 1. A conceptual model of the factors that influence the farmer’s management of crop diversity (Bellon, et al., 1997).
For on-farm conservation program, the role of farmers is fundamental because crop populations are the results of human and natural selection. However, the farmers transform or abandon varieties to suit their own needs. Therefore, for the crop diversity to be conserved on-farm, maintaining the varieties must be advantageous to farmers (Smale and Bellon, 1999). Since farmers’ needs evolve from socioeconomic changes, the suitability for farmers to undertake role in maintaining biodiversity consists of: (1) their willingness to be custodians of the diversity, and (2) technical capability of maintaining
18 good quality seeds in terms of physical health and genetic basis (Wright and Turner,
1999).
Some studies were aimed at understanding the conservation strategies of the indigenous people. These were based on the facts that the regions with rich biodiversity exist along the margins of economic and political worlds of farmers (Rhoades and
Nazarea, 1998). Communities with a propensity to maintain diverse systems tend to be disenfranchised from the dominant order surrounding them. Thus, marginality at various scale levels is likely a key common designator of mandrake in situ conservation.
The indigenous people value their community resources and typically practice collective decision-making at a high intensity. The maintenance and exploitation of communal resources require group values, dedication, and willingness to follow village leadership faithfully. In most cases, regulation is enforced and punishment is meted out by the community itself (Rastogi and Pant, 1996). The power of communities in the social creation and maintenance of biodiversity can be seen through their role in seed exchange of cultivated crops through organized fairs or market days. For centuries, people from the native communities have congregated in spatially rotating markets on established days during the year for exchanging goods from different regions (Rhoades and Nazarea, 1998).
The pioneered studies on understanding existing diversity showed that farmers pursue various strategies in using crop diversity as a way to meet their basic physical, social, and spiritual needs (Nazarea, 1995). These studies also provided distinctions of in situ conservation by indigenous communities as an informal model, which differed from
19 the formal models of diversity management as follows: (1) traditional communities use a different set of selection and evaluation criteria for gemplasm management; (2) their methods of trial or testing are different although there are some points of common interests; and (3) the strategies which preserve biodiversity are often community action, which encourages individual households to act in such a way to foster biodiversity. In maintaining a wide range of varieties and species, farmers use multidimensional decision- making criteria, which involve ecology, food system from seed handling to consumption, and cultural aspects (Rhoades and Nazarea, 1998).
Farmers worldwide have been practicing on-farm conservation since agriculture existed (Engels and Wood, 1999). Crop diversity on-farm does not only result from individual practice but also, in certain context, from collective action of farming communities. Rhoades and Nazarea (1998) described the social context of community- based biodiversity management. In communities that have not yet been fully incorporated into markets and still manage high levels of landrace, future protection of such genetic resources requires values compatible with locally defined social and economic goals. The changes in biodiversity may depend on the degree of self-determination of local communities to attain these goals.
20
Conceptual Framework of the Study
Conservation of rice diversity becomes a societal demand to secure food supply for billions of people. Some areas where farmers still maintain a diverse set of varieties have been identified as high potential for on-farm conservation. However, due to increasing needs, farmers tend to increase crop productivity such as adoption of intensive and new farming systems. Genetic erosion is observable along the development process.
Rice diversity on-farm is a direct outcome of farmers’ utilization and maintenance of varieties to meet the farming objectives. This process is referred to as farmer’s seed and variety management (S&VM). It is as dynamic as the farming objectives evolve along the socioeconomic changes. Therefore, level of rice diversity is associated with changes in socioeconomic characteristics, which include: (1) the farmer and community characteristics, (2) rice growing objectives and farm management strategy, and (3) the agrosupport service provisions. These factors can be conceptualized as independent variables affecting the S&VM and level of rice diversity.
The S&VM is farmers’ selection, utilization, and maintenance of a set of rice varieties. It can be described by adapting Bellon, et al. model (1997), which consists of the following: (1) factors that drive variety choice and maintenance such as farmers’ perception related to variety and its utility; and (2) seed sources and seed management.
These are intervening factors in the study of relationship between socioeconomic changes and rice diversity, which is a dependent variable. It is measured by: (1) variety richness;
(2) variety distribution; and (3) area abundance.
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND POLITICAL CONTEXT (The renovation or “Doi Moi” policy for a market-oriented economy)
FARMERS’ COMMUNITY NETWORKS RICE DIVERSITY - Farmers’ organizations and membership - Varieties at - Farmers’ information FARMER HOUSEHOLD landscape and production input - Household demography - Variety RICE networks - Education distribution FARMING S&VM - Variety TECHNOLOGY - Decision-making - Farm conditions - Concerns on variety Diversity Index on crop production - Income sources - Farmers’ perception - Housing related to variety utility - Variety richness - Agrosupport - Living facility - Seed management at household service provision - Area abundance in community and - Rice growing objectives of varieties at extension focuses - Rice farming management strategy household
NATURAL RESOURCES AND AGRONOMIC STRESSES (Coastal rice-based rainfed agrosystems) Legend: S&VM = Seed and Variety Management
Figure 2. Conceptual framework showing the relationship among study variables.
22
The Research Hypotheses
The general hypothesis in this study was that farmer and community related factors have significant relationship with S&VM and level of rice diversity. Once this is proved to be true, it could serve as basis in identifying the cluster of independent variables associated with the most interesting S&VM, and in looking for alternatives, which support rice diversity. Specific hypotheses tested in this study were as follows:
1. There is significant relationship between the farmer-related factors such as
socio-demographic, physical living conditions, and farmers’ perception of
varieties and rice diversity.
2. There is significant relationship between farm agronomic conditions and rice
diversity.
3. There is significant relationship between community-related factors such as
community organizations, market integration, farmers’ information and
production-input networks and rice diversity.
4. There is significant relationship between agrosupport service providers,
extension focuses, and rice diversity.
5. There is significant relationship between seed sources and seed management and
rice diversity such as variety richness and area abundance of varieties.
23
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Locale of the Study and the Research Design
The locale of this study is the Hue region in Central Vietnam, focusing on the rainfed coastal rice-based agrosystems around Tam Giang lagoon (Fig. 3). The research was aimed at understanding the changes in rice diversity associated with changes in socioeconomic characteristics of farmers and community. The research sites and farmer respondents were selected purposely to provide data at different points of time to carry out comparison for defining the changes. The data from the 1996 study on farmers’ management of rice diversity in the region were used as basis for comparison. Two areas selected within the coastal agrosystems represent two different levels of market integration. Quang Thai is referred to as the “isolated area” representing low integration.
It is located at the northern part of the Tam Giang lagoon, about 45 km north of Hue City.
Phu Da area is the “integrated area” representing high integration because it is relatively near Hue City (20 km south of Hue). Presumably, Phu Da has more exchanges with the urban market and also has higher level of socioeconomic development. According to classification by the provincial government and general observations, the communities located at the middle to southern part of the lagoon are at a higher level of socioeconomic development than those are in the northern part.
24
Map
25
The household respondents of the previous study were selected and interviewed purposely to allow data collection and analysis from the same households at two points of time, in 1996 and in 2001. Number of household respondents, who were available to provide data in 1996 and 2001, and the research design is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Distribution of respondents corresponding to different degrees of market integration and data year.
DEGREE OF MARKET INTEGRATION TOTAL DATA YEAR LOW HIGH (Coastal Region) (Isolated area) (Integrated area)
Quang Thai Phu Da N = 81 1996 n = 41 n = 40
2001 Quang Thai Phu Da N = 81 n = 41 n = 40
TOTAL n = 82 n = 80 N = 162
26
Research Instruments and Data Collection
This research used the data available from the previous study on farmers’ management of rice diversity in the Hue region. The Hue University of Agriculture and
Forestry and IRRI jointly conducted the survey in 1996 under the component of “on-farm conservation research” of the project "Safeguarding and Preservation of the Biodiversity of the Rice Genepool." The data produced from the survey in 1996 served as basis for comparison, from which the changes in studied factors were determined and described.
In 2001, the field activities were conducted to collect data from the same households. Various instruments were employed. These included group discussion with villagers as key informants, interview of individual respondents, and field observations.
A set of semi-structured questionnaires was developed for data collection at the household level corresponding to winter-spring (WS) and summer rice seasons.
At the village level, a panel of core villagers was selected to serve as the key informants; they were facilitated to participate in the group discussion. This activity focused on participatory assessment and collection of data at community level, such as changes in village socioeconomic characteristics and rice varieties, identification of cultivars and households, and provision of supplementary information from individual respondents.
27
Methods of Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics was applied to determine the significant changes in socioeconomic characteristics of farmers and community and in rice diversity between
1996 and 2001 and also between studied areas. Pearson correlation analysis was carried out to determine the degree of relationship among study variables. Multiple regression analysis was employed to determine independent variables that provided relatively important contributions to the estimation of the dependent variables and to the explanation of variation of the rice diversity variables at the household level.
Analysis of data at community level benefited from the participatory assessment and research, in which the farmers were involved to identify and evaluate major changes of socioeconomic characteristics at community level. Qualitative measures were employed to aid in a recall process. The results were used to refine the interview schedule, validate the information from individual respondents, and provide basis for feedback and data supplementation.
28
Operational Definition of the Study Variables
Household Characteristics
Socio-demographic characteristics. These are described as: (1) age of the household head respondent, (2) education attainment, (3) family size and family labor in number of people, and (4) length of rice farming in years
Size of landholding. It is measured by total land area per household in square meter, percentage of landholding area planted to rice for different rice growing seasons, and number of rice land plots.
Farm conditions. These include percentage of rice plots, which are sorted by agronomic condition such as water management, e.g., rainfed or periodic watering or full irrigation; soil texture; and biotic or abiotic problems or stresses.
Household physical living conditions. These are represented by: (1) rice production per capita in kilogram per year; (2) housing quality, either temporary, semi- permanent, or permanent construction; (3) presence or absence of basic living facility such as electricity, water well, motorcycle, radio-cassette, and recommended latrine.
Community Characteristics
Community organizations and membership. A list of people organizations (POs) in the community was presented to the respondents. They then were asked to indicate their membership of every existing PO.
29
Farmers’ information networks and frequency of consultations. A list of potential sources/partners for farmers’ exchanges and consultations in terms of information and production inputs for rice farming activities was shown to the respondents. They then were asked to rate in a 4-point scale frequency of consultation with every partner (never, sometimes, often, very often). The highest frequency (very often) was agreed as weekly contact/meeting during the seasonal calendar of respective exchange.
Lead roles in decision-making on crop production. A list of key decisions on rice and crop production within the community was showed to the respondents. They then were asked to indicate those who took lead roles in each type of decision-making on crop production.
Farmers’ Perception on Rice Varieties and Utilization
Farmers’ objective in rice growing. The respondents were asked to rank their own priority given to family consumption or marketing. Ordinal number (1st, 2nd) was assigned to represent the rank.
Farmers’ farm management strategy. The respondents were asked to rank their own priority given to increase of productivity or to achieve production stability. Ordinal number (1st, 2nd) was assigned to represent the rank.
Farmer’s perception on value of rice diversity. The respondents were asked to rate in a 3-scale importance (none, important, very important) to the following statements: (1) Use of a diverse set of varieties; and (2) Use of some of the traditional varieties. The rating was in respect to rice production factors.
30
Farmers’ concern on characteristics of rice variety. An exercise in two steps was conducted to determine farmers’ concern on characteristics of rice variety. The respondents were shown 25 cards; each contained a sketched picture of one character of rice variety. They were first asked to select the character/card that they considered as importance for rice variety, the rest of the cards were taken. Second, the respondents ranked the selected characters/cards according to their interests. The outputs of this exercise included: (1) frequency of characters, which were considered as important for the rice variety; and (2) a ranking score given to each of the important characters.
Agrosupport Service Provision and Seed Systems
Agrosupport service providers in the community. A list of agrosupport service providers in the community was showed to the respondents. They were asked to indicate the providers for each type of agrosupport services.
Farmers’ perception on extension focuses. A list of extension focuses was showed to the respondents. They then were asked to indicate their awareness of each type of extension focuses listed, in yes/no answer. Percentage of respondents, who were aware of each type of content, was computed to reflect the farmers’ perception on the respective extension focuses.
Original seed sources of varieties planted. The respondents were asked to indicate original seed sources of every variety being used. The household distribution by original seed sources reflects participation of different seen sources in the seed systems. Variety distribution by the original seed source indicates variety supply of seed systems.
31
Seed selection practice. This is described with time and place, where and when the seed selection was carried out. The seed selection practice reflects the human selection and maintenance of the varieties being used.
Seed exchange. This is measured by percentage of households, who received or distributed their own seeds in each rice growing season studied. Frequency of seed exchange indicates level of gene flows among or within the rice communities.
Rice Diversity
Rice diversity at community landscape level. This is represented by: (1) total number of rice varieties accumulative (or the list of varieties) at each study area, and (2) variety distribution, which is measured by number of households, who planted this respective variety.
Rice diversity at household level. This is represented by: (1) variety richness, which is measured by total number of varieties being used for different growing seasons in the year; and (2) variety area abundance, which is measured by total rice growing area (in square meter) for different growing seasons in the year.
32
CHAPTER IV
Results and discussions
This chapter includes seven sections. It starts with a presentation of the socioeconomic context of Vietnam in the year 1980s and 1990s, which provides setting for the analysis of socioeconomic changes. The second section discusses the changes in the socioeconomic characteristics of household and community over the period under study. The third part describes farmers’ perception of rice varieties and utility over time, which is followed by an assessment of agrosupport services and rice seed supply in the community that are associated with socioeconomic changes. An analysis of changes in rice diversity at regional and household level in different rice growing seasons is presented in the fifth section. Additionally, a comparison of rice varieties between the study areas (as representing rainfed conditions) and an irrigated coastal area is presented.
At the end of the chapter, the results of the correlation and regression analysis of the study variables are presented to illustrate significant sources of influence on socioeconomic changes affecting rice diversity in the study areas.
33
The Socioeconomic and Political Context of Vietnam during the Years 1980s and 1990s
Vietnam had been following the development model of a socialist economy. For the entire state and collective economy (e.g., the cooperatives), the government launched the subsidiary management mechanism, in which the state prescribed and controlled prices of all goods and services. A cooperativization movement was enforced to establish cooperative ownership of all agricultural lands and key means of production. In 1960,
85.8 percent of farmer households of North Vietnam formed into agricultural cooperatives (General Statistic Office, 1995). The egalitarian regime of income distribution was applied with a view to ensure low disparity among farmer households.
The exchange of products among the cooperatives and the state followed plans, which were prescribed from higher levels. The farmer households and the cooperatives were not allowed autonomy in adjusting their plans and businesses to conform to market demands.
After ending the long war in 1975, people were filled with hopes of an optimistically rapid development in agriculture to end a critical food shortage. However, in the late 1970s, Vietnam was in a situation of stagnation and poverty. Food production per capita by the end of the 1970s was marked as the lowest level in contemporary time
(194.5 kg in rice equivalent, General Statistic Office, 1998). The cut in foreign aids exposed the weaknesses and obsoleteness of the centralized subsidized and bureaucratic management. Dealing with the situation, the Central Secretariat of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) issued Directive No. 100 (1984) allocating part of the cooperative land to individuals for production contracts. Purposely, it was tended toward partially
34 loosening the control and intervention of the state administration to production. It was noted that the agriculture and income of farmers in many locations increased. The food production per capita reached 210 kg but still far from the standardized level of food sufficiency, which was 300 kg (General Statistic Office, 1998).
By 1987, agricultural production again showed signs of decline with danger of stagnation. The positive effects of the “contract system” under Directive No. 100 faded.
Among the reasons noted was that the peasant still had no autonomy in his farming. To lay down the foundation for promotion of production, the Politburo of CPV issued
Resolution No. 10 (April 1988), a comprehensive renovation of economic management strategy, which was referred to as the “Doi Moi” policy. Then the 6th Central Committee
Plenum (Congress VI of CPV) of March 1989 continued to uphold the major directions of the “Doi Moi” for a market economy. The “Doi Moi” included the: (1) recognition of the state, the collective and the private sectors as legally equal components of the economy; (2) agricultural cooperatives were voluntary business organizations with numerous forms of ownership; and (3) farmer households were independent economic units. Due to this, the cooperative ownership on lands was abolished. The lands were reallocated to the farmer households for long-term use, which was referred to as the allocation of land use rights (Decree 64/CP, 1993). The farmers then started to gain autonomy, making decisions on their farming and management practices including planning, farming operation, and use of farm products.
The period of renovation, also referred to as “open-door policy for a market economy,” brought in among others, a steady increase in productivity and outputs in crop
35 production. According to the General Statistic Office (1998), the food production for
1989 was 21.5 million tons with per capita of 333 kg and exports amounted to 1.4 million tons of milled rice. During the five-year plan of 1991-1995, the country was able to maintain a good developmental momentum with an average production growth rate of 3-
4 percent per annum. In 1994, food production was 26 million tons in rice equivalent, with per capita of 360 kg. 2 tons of milled rice was exported.
Under the “Doi Moi” policy, the agricultural and rural economy of Vietnam was restructured through “diversification and modernization.” The percentage of farmer households engaged in non-agricultural occupation and trades increased. According to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry (Agricultural and Rural Survey, 1994), households that were engaged in a variety of non-agricultural occupation, trades, and services accounted for 20 percent of the total peasant households. The growth of production toward a market-oriented economy made changes in demands for labor and services in rural areas.
The “Doi Moi” policy, by allocating lands to farmers and removing subsidies from the consumers’ price, had defined the key actors who were to take care of the natural resources in general and rice diversity in particular. Before the “Doi Moi,” all people were the owners of the resources, such as the agricultural lands. But the identification of the ones, who took responsibility for the resources, was not clear. After the land allocation, farmers had their own rights on land use as well as on their product utility, including exchanges in the markets. The renovation process helped define the key actors, who take care of the resources associated with the tenureship systems established.
36
Changes in Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics at the Household Level
Household Socio-demography
After the “Doi Moi” policy, there were dramatic changes in the economic development of Vietnam. Average GDP growth rate during 1998-2000 was 6.7 percent per annum (FAOSTAT, 2001). The changes also took place in rural areas. The following information provides better understanding of the changes at the household level in the study areas. The information on household socio-demographic characteristics was collected from the same set of household respondents in both 1996 and 2001 surveys. In this study, a household is defined as people sharing the same sources of income and the same kitchen arrangement. In most observations, a household lived under one roof. The household head is often the husband. In 2001, the mean age of the household head respondents was 50 with an average length of rice farming of 31 years (Table 2).
There was no significant change found in household size or in people-labor ratio between 1996 and 2001 in both study areas. Though the common population growth rate was still as high as 1.7 percent (The Commune Statistics, 2000), increase in the household size (6.3 - 6.3 in isolated area and 6.6 – 6.9 in integrated area) and consumer- worker ratio (2.5 – 2.4 in isolated area and 2.7 – 3.0 in integrated area) was not significant. This was because of the trend for new couples to take up residence separate from their parents. This enabled them to get a land lot for housing of about 200 sq m, from the communal residence area. These lands are subject to availability and are
37 managed by the local government. The government family planning recommended the number of children at two for a couple. This contributed to maintaining the household size.
Table 2. Changes in demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of households from 1996 - 2001, in the coastal region of Hue, Vietnam.
ISO-AREA (n=41) INT-AREA (n=40) DESCRIPTION 1996 2001 1996 2001 Household demography Age of household head (years) -- 48 -- 53 Household size (people) 6.3 6.3ns 6.6 6.9 ns Consumer-worker ratio 2.5 2.4 ns 2.7 3.0 ns
Educational attainment Illiterate (%n) -- 7.3 -- 17.5 Primary school (%n) -- 31.7 -- 42.5 Secondary school (%n) -- 43.9 -- 25.0 High school (%n) -- 17.1 -- 15.0
Length of rice farming (years) -- 29 -- 28
Housing conditions Permanent construction (%n) 0.0 12.2 0.0 5.0 Semi-permanent construct. (%n) 26.8 70.7 62.5 87.5 Temporary materials (%n) 73.2 17.1 37.5 7.5
Living facility and assets With electricity supply (%n) 0.0 100.0 50.0 97.5 Owning a hand-pump well (%n) 0.0 75.6 0.0 65.0 Owning a tractor (%n) 0.0 4.9 0.0 5.0 Owning motorcycle (%n) 0.0 14.6 7.5 20.0 Owning television (%n) 19.5 78.0 30.0 52.5 Valuable furniture (%n) 24.4 51.2 7.5 45.0
38
Table 2. continued ...
ISO-AREA (n=41) INT-AREA (n=40) DESCRIPTION 1996 2001 1996 2001
Farming conditions Landholding (m2/household) 8630 9848 ns 5722 4847 ns Rice land area (% landholding) 90.1 77.8 * 82.7 89.8 ns Number of rice plots 5.4 5.0 ns 3.6 3.8 ns Long term rights (% rice plots) 98.4 93.9 ns 87.3 91.7 ns Rainfed condition (% rice plots) 94.3 53.5 *** 97.1 96.0 ns One-crop plots (% rice plots) 47.4 17.4 *** 83.4 86.6 ns Sandy problem (% rice plots) 49.7 8.2 *** 89.6 9.9 *** Poor soil problem (% rice plots) 14.2 21.3 ns 29.6 24.9 ns Drought problem (% rice plots) 44.6 0.9 *** 32.6 8.5 *** Water-log problem (% rice plots) 25.3 12.7 *** 5.3 0.0 *** Salinity problem (% rice plots) 31.0 3.7 *** 55.1 3.0 ***
Rice production per capita (kg/year) 449 486 ns 277 385 ns
Legend: -- refers to data not available ns = not significant statistically *, **, *** = significant at level 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively
Educational Attainment
Most of the respondents had primary (31.7% in isolated area and 42.5% in integrated area) or secondary school (43.9% in isolated area and 25% in integrated area) education. In integrated area, the percentage among illiterates (17.5%) was higher than that in isolated area (7.3%). As a whole, the respondents in the study villages had quite
39 good education, which was partly the result of the special government program for erasing illiteracy, which included adult education activities.
Farming Conditions and Rice Production
Data in Table 2 show that size of landholding in both study areas was not large
(0.86 – 0.98 ha in isolated area and 0.57 – 0.48 ha in integrated area). About 83 to 90 percent of landholding was rice fields. Change in size of landholding between 1996 and
2001 was not significant in both study areas. Area percentage of land planted to rice decreased significantly in isolated area (90% landholding in 1996 to 77.8 in 2001).
However, this was not the case in the integrated area (82.7% landholding in 1996 and
89.8 in 2001). Among the reasons for this was that farmers in the isolated area were converting the rice fields, which were susceptible to drought conditions, into cash crop farms (e.g. peanut). According to the villagers, this was also practiced in the integrated area much earlier (e.g., before 1996).
There were significant improvements in terms of farming conditions at both study areas. The reduction of percentage of rainfed plots (94.3 - 53.5%) and one-crop plots
(47.4 - 17.4%) in the isolated area was significant. Meanwhile, percentage of rice plots having problems with sandy soil (50 – 8% in isolated area and 90 – 10% in integrated area), drought (45 - 33% in 1996 and 1 – 8.5% in 2001), water-log (25% - 5 in 1996 and
12.7 – 0% in 2001), and salinity (31 - 3.7% in isolated area and 55% - 3 in integrated area) decreased significantly in both study areas. Based on field observations, these changes were the results from not only field improvements but also changes in cropping
40 patterns, for example, the conversion of drought stricken rice field into cash crop farms.
After changing the cropping patterns, the previous problems on rice were no longer effective to the new crops.
Change in rice production per capita in both study areas was not significant (449 –
486 kg in isolated area and 277 - 385 kg in integrated area). This was higher than the average figure (300 kg) reported by the commune and district government. The percentage of poor households classified by income level of VN$80,000 per person/month, was 21 percent in the isolated area and 19 percent in the integrated area
(Commune Office, 2001).
Housing and Living Facility
There were also important improvements in housing in both study areas.
Percentage of temporary material houses decreased in both study areas (73.2 – 17.1% in isolated area and 37.5 – 7.5% in integrated area). This was accounted for by the increased percentage of semi-permanent (27 – 71% in isolated area and 62.5 – 87.5% in integrated area) and permanent houses (0 – 12.2% in isolated area and 0 – 5% in integrated area).
Percentage of households, who had good living facilities, increased rapidly in both study areas. These facilities included electricity supply (0 – 100% in isolated area and 50 –
97.5% in integrated area), hand-pump well (0 – 75.6% in isolated area and 0 – 65% in integrated area), tractor (0 - 5% in both areas), motorcycle (0 – 14.6% in isolated area and
7.5 – 20% in integrated area), television (19.5 - 78% in isolated area and 30 - 52.5% in integrated area) and valuable furniture (24.4 – 51.2% in isolated area and 7.5 – 45% in the integrated area).
41
The data in Table 2 also demonstrate that while household size was almost the same, increase in rice production per capita was not significant, and the improvement in housing and other living conditions was apparently attributed to non-rice farming activities. However, this observation could not necessarily be related to any decrease in the role of rice production, since it still ranked as the most important source of livelihood among households in both study areas.
Government interventions, which included implementation of the “Doi Moi” policy to promote the production, and supports from international organizations as a priority given to the marginal communities, were also greatly appreciated. In particular, the changes partially resulted from the government program for electricity supply in rural areas that was currently being implemented. Other small-scale projects, which were supported by various international organizations such as UNCEP, and NGOs such as
Bread for the World, World Vision, and Northern Assistance to Vietnam, also contributed to the improvement of infrastructure in the study areas.
42
Community Characteristics and Socioeconomic Changes
Community Organizations and Membership
Rural community organizations in Vietnam were quite uniform until early 1990s.
This was referred to as the collectivization and cooperativization time, from 1954 to 1989 in the North and from 1975 to 1989 in the whole country. During that time, the agricultural cooperatives were set up nationwide and assigned with the rights of use on all agricultural lands. The cooperatives were responsible for carrying out the production and product distribution plan, which was prescribed from higher authorities. Most farmers were involved in the cooperatives to allow them access to the agricultural lands. Though the scale of the cooperatives varied, either equivalent to a hamlet, a village, a sub- commune, a commune, the organizational structure, management style, and membership were almost similar.
After 1989, when the central government launched the “Doi Moi” policy at the national level for a socialist-oriented market economy, the cooperative ownership on land was abolished. The lands were allocated to the farmer households for long-term use.
During the 1990s, the agricultural cooperatives went through a process of re-organization with the major role of providing agricultural services. However, many cooperatives then no longer existed. The local government (at commune and village level) took over the previous cooperative’s roles. In the study areas, the agricultural cooperatives in the isolated area had been continuously active. This was not the case in the integrated area, where they had terminated operation since 1999 (Table 3).
43
Table 3. Community organizations and farmers’ membership in the coastal region of Hue, Vietnam.
ISO-AREA INT-AREA PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATION (n= 41) (n= 40)
Agricultural Cooperative (% household) 100.0 n.a. Farmers’ Union (% husband) 100.0 50.0 Women’s Union (% wives) 100.0 65.0 Veterans’ Union (% men) 2.4 1.5 Co-sharing field groups (% household) 14.6 2.5 Interest groups (% respondents) 9.8 5.0
Similarly, between the two study areas, there were various people’s organizations at the community level. The list (Table 3) included the agricultural cooperative and farmers’, women’s, and veterans’ unions. All these organizations were formally established under the management of the local government. There were also some temporary groups, such as co-sharing field and interest groups, with organized common activities (e.g. individual services, or under the family circles). Until very recently (the
“Doi Moi”, 1989), the private sectors were not allowed to operate. Therefore, there was no private nor local NGO available. Among the people’s organizations, the farmers’ and the women’s union involved, in principle, most farmers in the community. All interested farmers including women were eligible to join the farmers’ union. However, members of
Farmers’ Union were mainly husbands, while wives participated in the Women’s Union.
The village and commune leadership have decisive roles on the organization’s activities because all people's organizations, including the cooperatives, operate under the
44 management of local government. However, key organizations or actors, who take active roles in rice farming management or resource conservation in a community (e.g. water management or variety selection) maybe different among the communities. At the isolated area, the cooperative was active in community activities. Meanwhile, in the integrated area, the village leadership took overall responsibility for rice production and community activities. Data in Table 3 show the difference between the two study areas.
In the isolated area 100 percent of the households, 100percent of the husbands, and
100percent of the wives were members of the cooperative, the farmers’ union, and the women’s union, respectively. In the integrated area, the cooperative no longer existed; percentages of husbands and wives joining the Farmers’ Union and Women’s Unions
(50% and 65%, respectively) were relatively low. In this area, the farmers, by having integrated closely to the city markets, had better access to service provisions from the individual businesses or from the city. Therefore, they had more alternatives rather than only participating in the collective style membership of the people’s organizations under the local government.
Farmers’ Information Network and Frequency of Consultation
For rice farming and management, farmers exchanged and consulted with various partners for information and inputs based on their current relation and membership. The exchanges and consultation were related to seed supply, variety orientation, and decision- making on technical adoption and practices. Study on sources of farmers’ exchange and frequency of consultation contributes to a better understanding of the farmers’ networks
45 within the community. In obtaining this information, a list of potential sources was presented to the respondents. They were then asked to indicate the frequency of exchange or consultation with each source. A 4-scale frequency test was employed for the assessment (0-never, 1-sometimes, 2-often, and 4-very often). The highest frequency
(very often) was agreed as weekly contact/meeting during the seasonal calendar. Results on farmer relations and frequency of consultation are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Farmers’ information networks and frequency of consultation for rice farming activities in the coastal region of Hue, Vietnam (percentage of respondents).
SOURCES OF FARMERS’ INFORMATION ISO-AREA INT-AREA (n= 41) (n= 40) Members of extended family: (Mode) Often Often Never 0.0 2.5 Sometimes 7.3 2.5 Often 73.2 60.0 Very often 19.5 35.0 Residential neighbor farmers: (Mode) Often Often Never 0.0 2.5 Sometimes 4.9 5.0 Often 85.4 60.0 Very often 9.8 32.5 Owners of next field plots: (Mode) Often Often Never 0.0 5.0 Sometimes 4.9 5.0 Often 53.7 47.5 Very often 41.5 42.5 Experienced farmers: (Mode) Very often Often Never 0.0 2.5 Sometimes 12.2 25.0 Often 31.7 40.0 Very often 56.1 32.5
46
Table 4. Continued...
SOURCES & FREQUENCY OF ISO-AREA INT-AREA FARMERS’ EXCHANGE (n= 41) (n= 40) Cooperative group leaders: (Mode) Very often n.a. Never 0.0 -- Sometimes 14.6 -- Often 41.5 -- Very often 43.9 -- Village leaders: (Mode) Often Often Never 0.0 10.0 Sometimes 24.4 27.5 Often 65.9 57.5 Very often 9.8 5.0 Officers of people’s organizations: (Mode) Sometimes Sometimes Never 2.4 35.0 Sometimes 75.6 37.5 Often 22.0 22.5 Very often 0.0 5.0 Owners of input shop: (Mode) Sometimes Sometimes Never 0.0 25.0 Sometimes 51.2 52.5 Often 36.6 20.0 Very often 12.2 2.5 Agricultural extension staff: (Mode) Sometimes Sometimes Never 2.4 40.0 Sometimes 63.4 47.5 Often 24.4 10.0 Very often 9.8 2.5 Mass media: (Mode) Often Often Never 0.0 5.0 Sometimes 43.9 12.5 Often 46.3 47.5 Very often 9.8 35.0
47
For the two study areas, the relatives, neighbor farmers, owners of next field plots, village leaders, and the mass media were identified as “often” sources for exchange
(Mode for “often” = 66.7%, 72.8%, 50.6%, and 46.9%, respectively). The officers of people’s organization, owners of agricultural input shops, and agricultural extension staff were for “sometimes” consulted (mode for sometimes = 56.8; 51.9; 55.6 respectively)
The difference between the two study areas was that experienced farmers were
“very often” source (mode = 56.1%) of information in the isolated area, but “often” source (mode = 40%) in the integrated area. Exchange with the cooperative production group was “very often” in the isolated area (mode = 43.9%). This was not the case in integrated area because the cooperative no longer existed. Apparently, the cooperative was important only in isolated area. Data in Table 4 also indicate that the farmers had both the individual-based exchanges and the organization partnership for input exchange and consultation for rice farming. In the isolated area, the sources within the community
(experienced farmers and group leaders) seemed to play the most important roles for farmers’ exchange and consultation. In the integrated area, individual-based exchange was more common than organization-based patterns.
48
Lead Roles in Decision-making on Crop Production
Information on people or groups, who took lead roles in making decisions on rice and other crop production in the community, was obtained through the individual household interviews. A list of important decisions on rice and crop production was formed in advance with the panel of core villagers. It was presented to the respondents.
They were then asked to indicate who took the lead role in making each type of decision.
Results are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Lead roles in decision-making on rice and other crop production at household and community levels (percentage of the respondents).
ISO-AREA INT-AREA DECISION (n= 41) (n= 40)
Allocation of land to various crop: (Mode) Husband Husband The husband in household 51.2 85.0 The wife in household 0.0 15.0 The agricultural cooperative 48.8 0.0 Allocation of rice land to varieties: (Mode) Husband Husband The husband in household 70.7 85.0 The wife in household 0.0 15.0 The agricultural cooperative 29.3 0.0 Cultivar set for the Winter-spring: (Mode) Husband Husband The husband in household 95.1 85.0 The wife in household 0.0 15.0 The agricultural cooperative 4.9 0.0 Cultivar set for Summer season: (Mode) Husband Husband The husband in household 95.1 62.5 The wife in household 0.0 12.5 The agricultural cooperative 4.9 0.0
49
Table 5. Continued...
ISO-AREA INT-AREA DESCRIPTION (n= 41) (n= 40)
Seasonal calendar for rice growing: (Mode) Cooperative Village The husband in household 31.7 35.0 The co-sharing field group 0.0 27.5 The agricultural cooperative 68.3 0.0 Village and commune leaders 0.0 37.5 Seasonal calendar for other crops: (Mode) Husband Husband The husband in household 95.1 62.5 The wife in household 0.0 15.0 The co-sharing field group 0.0 7.5 The agricultural cooperative 4.9 0.0 Village and commune leaders 0.0 15.0 Adoption of a specific variety: (Mode) Husband Husband The husband in household 97.6 77.5 The wife in household 0.0 12.5 The agricultural cooperative 2.4 0.0 Village and commune leaders 0.0 10.0 Application of farm techniques: (Mode) Husband Husband The husband in household 90.2 80.0 The wife in household 0.0 15.0 The agricultural cooperative 9.8 0.0 Village and commune leaders 0.0 5.0 Water and irrigation management: (Mode) Cooperative Husband The husband in household 41.5 32.5 The wife in household 0.0 7.5 The agricultural cooperative 58.5 0.0 Market and use of farm products: (Mode) Wife Wife The husband in household 12.2 37.5 The wife in household 87.8 62.5
50
Another similarity between the two study areas was that organization-based decision-makers (either the cooperative or the village leadership) took lead roles in decisions on some aspects of rice production. Mode of seasonal calendar for rice growing was decided by the cooperative (68.3%) in the isolated area. In the integrated area, however, village and commune leaders took over the role due to the absence of the cooperative (mode was 37.5%). Through observations, it was noted that local government directed the rice growing calendar through the cooperative or village leadership, thereby influencing the types of varieties to be planted, particularly their maturity, and farming practices required. However, individual households took lead roles in making decisions on most rice production and income activities. The husband took lead roles for decision- making on allocation of rice land to varieties (mode for husband = 77.8%), cultivar set for WS season (mode for husband = 90.1%), seasonal calendar for cash crop production
(mode for husband = 79%), adoption of a specific variety (mode for husband = 87.7%), and application of farming techniques (mode for husband = 85.2%).
Difference between the two study areas in decision-making was observed on land use planning, farm management, and farm support services. The cooperative had more roles in decision-making on allocation of land to various crops in isolated area (48.8%) and in agrosupport service provision, such as on water service delivery and management
(mode for cooperative = 58.5%). In the integrated area, households took lead decision- making roles, particularly the husband, in the provision of farm services like water management (mode = 32.5%). This indicated increasing participation of households in providing farm services and in decision-making in the integrated area.
51
Farmers’ Assessment of Socioeconomic Changes at Community Level
Group discussion with a panel of villagers was carried out before individual interviews at the household level. The group discussion was aimed at collecting data at the village level and preparing the villagers for the interviews. In the group discussions, with the researcher acting as facilitator the participants were provided with the chance to review and understand their village status and collectively determine major changes in socioeconomic and rice diversity during the study period (1996 – 2001). The results from the group discussions helped refine the interview schedule and supplemented the individual respondents’ data.
In each village selected, the panel of core villagers represented the key informants. They were also representatives from various social groups and mass organizations within the community. The village leadership, such as village headman and people’s organization officers, facilitated the selection of the core villagers. The panel at each village consisted of 12 to 15 representatives from the village leadership, production groups, people organizations, and experienced farmers. In the meeting, the researcher facilitated the assessment by presenting topics and explaining activities. For each subtopic, the village leaders provided relevant information (e.g., the statistics available).
It was then followed by the participants’ comments, validation, and supplements. Further discussions were made to determine the major socioeconomic changes by differentiating current (2001) and past (1996) status. For the participatory assessment, current status
(2001) was measured quantitatively in terms of respondent’s rate to total. The results then
52 served as basis for analyzing their conditions in 1996. In other words, the year 2001 was compared with 1996 to aid in the recall process. Qualitative measures were applied to determine the changes. Results are presented in Table 6.
The size of village, in terms of number of households and the population, was not much different, though average annual birth rate was approximately over percent. This was because of emigration for jobs and attendance to the schools in towns.
The household classification was based on local government system on programs for poverty alleviation. This was income level below VN$80,000; between $80,000 -
$100,000; and above $100,000, which corresponded to the poor, the medium, and the better off households, respectively (Commune Reports, 2001). Results in Table 6 show that the social structure by household income classification did not seem to change much between 1996 and 2001. For example, percentage of the poor households in 2001 was 15-
25 percent, similar with that in 1996. However, the income levels applied for current household classification (started in 2001) were higher than those before 2001 (below
VN$45,000; between $45,000 - $55,000; between $55,000-85,000; and above $85,000 corresponding to the hungry, poor, medium, and the rich households, respectively). All panels of core villagers noted that there was an important improvement in the living standard of most households between 1996 and 2001, especially among those who previously belonged to the hungry and the poor groups.
53
Table 6. Qualitative assessment of changes in socioeconomic characteristics at community level in the coastal region of Hue, Vietnam, between 1996 and 2001.
ISO-AREA INT-AREA DESCRIPTION 1996 2001 1996 2001 Income level indication Rice per capita equivalent (kg/person/year) (=) 300 (=) 250 Monetary equivalent (VND/person/month) (-) 75000 (-) 85000 Demography and household classification Average population of village (people) (=) 670 (=) 888 Number households/village (hh) (-) 101 (-) 158 Better-off households (%hh) (=) 13 (=) 10 Medium households (%hh) (-) 66 (-) 71 Poor households (%hh) (+) 21 (+) 19 Infrastructure condition Semi and/or permanent houses (%hh) (-) 60 (-) 70 Cleaning water supply (%hh) (--) 90 (--) 85 Electricity supply (%hh) n.a. 100 (--) 95 Number of tractors/village (--) 8 (--) 10 Ranking of importance of income sources Rice production 1 1 1 1 Pig husbandry 2 2 2 2 Other crop production 4 3 3 4 Other animal production 3 4 5 3 Non-farm activities 5 6 7 7 Tree planting 8 8 4 5 Migration jobs 7 7 6 6 Aquatic exploitation 6 5 8 8
Legend: (=),(+),(-),(--), n.a. = similar, higher, lower, much lower, not applicable respectively 1,2,3,...7,8 = Ordinal number: first, second, third,... eighth importance, respectively
54
The participants concluded that among the most important changes between 1996 and 2001 was improvement in housing conditions, clean water and electricity supply, and means of production. These improvements could be attributed partly to increases in income level, which allowed some savings being reinvested. Government interventions such as rural electricity program and other rural infrastructure development projects supported by various organizations contributed importantly to the above improvements.
It was also noted from participants’ ranking that along with the changes as above, rice production remained as the most important income source (similarly with 1996) at all study villages. The second important source of income, the pig husbandry, was also ranked the same as in 1996.
Major changes regarding the roles of other income-generating activities were collectively identified. In the isolated area, cash crops (e.g., peanut) became more important (rank number 4 in 1996 but number 3 in 2001). This was because crop diversification was being implemented, in which farmers converted the drought rice lands into cash crop field. Field observations also noted that farmers in isolated area were converting rice fields that were susceptible to drought conditions for peanut. The fields being converted were previously planted to traditional rice varieties (TV). Crop diversification favored replaces of TV because it produced low yield, thus contributing to loss of rice diversity.
Meanwhile, poultry raising (e.g., chicken and duck husbandry) became more important in the integrated area (rank number 5 in 1996, but number 3 in 2001). The farmers in the integrated area also practiced crop diversification even before 1996. They
55 had already finished the rice field conversion. Diversification in the integrated area is now focused on livestock husbandry. This finding was consistent with an increase of percentage of households that did not practice the summer rice growing (47.5 % in 1996,
70% in 2001, Table 15). It contributed to the reduction of rice area abundance in general, and to the total loss of summer TV in the integrated area, in particular.
56
Farmers’ Perception on Rice Varieties and their Utilization
Farmers’ Objectives in Rice Farming and Management
Farmers have various objectives for rice growing, such as for marketing or consumption, which influences their priorities in decision-making (e.g., choosing a variety to be planted or maintained). Such values influence the variety selection, seed management, and technical application decisions that farmers make. It is apparent that growing rice for the market requires different varietal characteristics whereas rice for local consumption requires characteristics compatible with food habits and culture. By asking the respondents to rank priorities, the differences in objectives for rice growing among the villages were identified. The results are presented in Table 7.
Similarly between isolated and integrated areas, producing for consumption was given the first priority (98%). The two areas differed in priority given to the marketing objective. It was ranked as second priority (mode = 61%) in isolated area, but was third priority in the integrated area (mode = 80%). This was because rice production per capita in the integrated area was relatively low (Table 1), thus the surplus production for marketing from the amount of family consumption was less. In this area, rice production is not the main source of cash income. In contrast, rice growing in the isolated area provided other more important sources of cash income because of lager landholding and higher rice production per capita. As shown in preceding discussions, it did not matter that rice production was as main cash income or not, it was the most important source for living of the villagers in both study areas.
57
Table 7. Farmers’ priority ranking of various farming objectives and strategies in rice growing (in percentage of the respondents).
DESCRIPTION ISO-AREA INT-AREA (n=41) (n=40)
Rice growing objective Growing rice for consumption First priority 97.6 100.0 Second priority 2.4 0.0 Third priority 0.0 0.0 Growing rice for marketing First priority 2.4 0.0 Second priority 61.0 20.0 Third priority 36.6 80.0
Rice farming strategy Increasing rice productivity First priority 91.4 65.8 Second priority 8.6 23.7 Third priority 0.0 10.5 Stabilizing rice production First priority 2.9 46.9 Second priority 57.1 18.8 Third priority 40.0 34.4
The farmers’ management strategies in rice farming also influence the variety selection and maintenance. It is common knowledge that the higher the productivity, the higher the risks from agroecological and weather fluctuations. Farmers are also more concerned of risk if their rice production is around the subsistence level. Therefore, they prioritize to gain stability in production once their productivity already increased and the
58 rice growing is for consumption. Data in Table 7 show that farmers’ priority was firstly given to increasing productivity, then to achieving stability of production. In both study areas, increase in productivity was the first priority strategy (mode = 78.1%). However, in the integrated area, first priority was also given to stability in production (mode =
46.9%), but it was not the case in isolated area. This result was consistent with the priority given to rice growing objective. In the isolated area, growing rice for marketing received higher priority (second) than that in the integrated area (third). It meant that rice growing in the isolated area was a more important source of cash income. Therefore, the farmers were concerned of increasing productivity for cash.
Farmers’ Perception on Value of Rice Diversity
It is a general practice that farmers use various rice varieties to deal with diverse agronomic conditions and fluctuations. In the study areas, it had been noted so far that this helped maintain a considerable diverse set of rice varieties, thereby conserving the rice diversity. However, the farmers may simply value the desirable characteristics, which may or may not contribute to rice diversity. For obtaining information on farmers’ perception on value of rice diversity, “growing a diverse set of rice varieties” and “using some traditional varieties” were evaluated. The respondents were asked to score them according to their importance to rice farming using a 4-scale range: not important; somewhat important; important; and very important. The results are presented in Table 8.
59
Table 8. Farmer’s evaluation of importance of growing a diverse set of rice varieties and using some traditional varieties (percentage of the respondents).
USE A DIVERSE SET OF USE TRADITIONAL DESCRIPTION VARIETIES VARIETIES Iso-area Int-area Iso-area Int-area (n=41) (n=40) (n=41) (n=40) Suitable with diverse landholding Not important 0 2.5 0 27.5 Somewhat important 9.8 5.0 4.9 2.5 Important 39.0 30.0 31.7 20.0 Very important 51.2 62.5 63.4 50.0 Dealing with weather fluctuation Not important 0 5.0 0 30.0 Somewhat important 12.2 10.0 14.6 2.5 Important 73.2 45.0 68.3 32.5 Very important 14.6 40.0 17.1 35.0 Reduce risk of insects and diseases Not important 2.4 5.0 0 30.0 Somewhat important 4.9 22.5 7.3 5.0 Important 73.2 30.0 61.0 30.0 Very important 19.5 42.5 31.7 35.0 Increasing productivity Not important 0.0 7.5 7.9 37.5 Somewhat important 7.3 30.0 52.6 52.5 Important 14.6 42.5 18.4 5.0 Very important 78.0 20.0 28.9 5.0 Stabilizing productivity Not important 0.0 5.0 0.0 30.0 Somewhat important 4.9 17.5 17.1 20.0 Important 43.9 47.5 39.0 30.0 Very important 51.2 30.0 43.9 20.0
60
Table 8. Continued ...
USE A DIVERSE SET OF USE TRADITIONAL DESCRIPTION VARIETIES VARIETIES Iso-area Int-area Iso-area Int-area (n=41) (n=40) (n=41) (n=40) Easing seasonal tenses Not important 0.0 7.5 0.0 32.5 Somewhat important 58.5 62.5 61.0 47.5 Important 31.7 30.0 34.1 20.0 Very important 9.8 0.0 4.9 0.0 Meeting diverse cultural needs Not important 0.0 12.5 0.0 35.0 Somewhat important 82.9 62.5 92.7 55.0 Important 7.3 25.0 4.9 10.0 Very important 9.8 0.0 2.4 0.0 Suitability with farming practice Not important 0.0 12.5 0.0 35.0 Somewhat important 41.5 55.0 39.0 20.0 Important 36.6 27.5 46.3 35.0 Very important 22.0 5.0 14.6 10.0
The two study areas similarly considered “growing a diverse set of rice varieties” as very important (mode = 56.8%) as it suited diverse environment for cropping in their landholding. Meanwhile, it was rated as important (mode = 59.3%) in dealing with weather fluctuations. The difference noted was that in the integrated area, “growing a diverse set of rice varieties" was scored as very important (mode = 42.5%) for reducing risks from pests and diseases, while it was rated as important (mode = 73.2%) in the isolated area. Interestingly, it was scored as “very important” for increasing and
61 stabilizing productivity in the isolated area (mode = 51.2 and 78%, respectively), and
“important” in the integrated area (mode = 47.5 and 42.5%, respectively). This finding implies that farmers in the isolated area were interested in increasing the number of varieties planted with a view that it was to increase rice productivity and achieve production stability. While replacing TVs, they also maintained high variety richness.
Regarding the “use of some TVs” in both study areas, the respondents scored it as
“very important” (mode = 56.8%) in dealing with the diverse characteristics of landholding, and rated as “important” (mode = 40.7%) in terms of suitability of farming practices. It was also rated as “somewhat important” for increasing productivity, easing the seasonal tenses, and meeting the cultural needs (mode = 50.6%, 54.3%, 74.1%, respectively). The difference between the two study areas was that it was scored as “very important” in dealing with weather fluctuation and the risks from insect and diseases
(mode =35% and 35%, respectively) in the integrated area. But in the isolated area it was scored as “important” (mode = 68.3% and 61%, respectively). This suggested a certain foregone value of rice diversity. After replacing the TVs with MVs to meet productivity increase objective, farmers experienced higher risks from using MVs. In the integrated area, rice growing was given a single objective, which was for consumption (Table 6).
Therefore, any risk of harvest leads to possible shortage of subsistence. In the isolated area, rice was also a source of cash income; the risk of harvest can be mitigated with other marketable farm products.
The use of TVs had value in terms of environmental impacts that was recognized by the farmers. In the discussions with the panels of core villagers, all participants
62 collectively agreed that the level of inputs, the chemical fertilizers and pesticides, applied for TV was much lower than that for MV. For example, average amount UREA fertilizer for MV was about 150 kg plus 2 litters pesticide/ha/crop. But fertilization rate for TV was about a half; and no pesticide was applied. They believed that the use of TV reduced chemical residuals, which polluted the community environment. The TV was also believed to be less contaminated of chemicals; hence it would be better for human physical health.
Farmers’ Concerns on Characteristics of Rice Variety
This part describes the farmers’ perception of desirable characteristics of rice varieties. These depend on objectives in rice farming and also on the performance of the variety planted. This understanding is helpful in explaining farmers’ selection of varieties for growing or maintenance. The linkage among the “farmers’ objectives in rice growing”, the “farmers’ concern on characteristics of rice varieties”, and the “farmers’ rice varieties” can be established in the way that the first determines the second, which then provides bases for practicing variety selection, orientation, and maintenance.
Together with the others, this practice results in the “farmers’ rice varieties” so as to meet their objectives in rice growing.
In obtaining information on the “farmers’ concern on characteristics of rice varieties”, the respondents were presented cards, each containing a sketched picture describing a rice variety character. A total of 25 cards were shown, corresponding to the
25 rice variety characteristics shown. First, a respondent was asked to indicate the
63 characteristics, which they considered important from their rice varieties. The non- important cards were taken out. Results are presented in Table 9.
Table 9. Household distribution by rice variety characteristics, on which farmers are concerned for variety selection and maintenance (percentage of respondents).
ISO-AREA INT-AREA VARIETY 1996 2001 1996 2001 CHARACTERISTIC (n=29) (n=41) (n=27) (n=40) Yield 100 100 100 95 Yield stability -- 95 -- 93 Duration 100 100 74 73 Drought resistance 100 54 89 88 Submersion suitability 93 85 48 35 Poor soil suitability 93 42 82 75 Salinity resistance 100 81 82 73 Insect resistance 97 59 82 75 Disease resistance 97 93 89 83 Eating quality 93 83 48 78 Milling quality 93 32 78 30
In both study areas, respondents indicated the highest concern on yield and yield stability for 1996 and 2001 (100% in isolated area and 100 to 95% in integrated area). It was then followed by concern on maturity (100% in isolated area and 74 to 73% in integrated area) and disease resistance (97 to 93% in isolated area and 89 to 83% in integrated area). There was not much change in these concerns between 1996 and 2001 in both study areas. Meanwhile, the change was found between 1996 and 2001 in isolated area regarding concerns on drought resistance (100 in 1996, 54% in 2001) and poor soil
64 suitability (93% in 1996, 42% in 2001) because of land conversion. This was not the case in the integrated area.
Change took place similarly between the two study areas regarding submersion suitability (93 to 85% in isolated area and 48 to 35% in integrated area), salinity resistance (100 to 81% in isolated area and 82 to 73% in integrated area), insect resistance (97 to 59% in isolated area and 82 - 75% in integrated area), and milling quality (93 to 32% in isolated area and 78 to 30% in integrated area). These changes indicated reductions of agronomic problems, especially in the isolated area.
A difference on farmers’ concern regarding the eating quality characteristic was found between two study areas. While more farmers in the integrated area became concerned on eating quality (48% in 1996, 78% in 2001), less of those from the isolated area did (93% in 1996, 83% in 2001). Along this line, the urban market demand for higher quality rice could have influenced the concern of farmers in the integrated area.
Because all concerns of a farmer cannot be met by a single rice variety, he, therefore, has to prioritize his choices among the important characteristics defined. To understand the priority given to every characteristic, the respondents were asked to rank the important characteristics of rice according to their own interest. The results of ranking are presented in Table 10.
Number in Table 10 represents mode of ordinal ranking, which refers to the priority given to rice varietal characteristic. For both study areas, the first rank in 2001 was the yield; maturity ranked second, resistance to diseases came in third, and yield stability ranked fourth. The rank of these characteristics in 2001 was similar with the
65 results from the 1996 study; it was also similar between the two study areas. This ranking was consistent with the findings in the preceding parts that rice was still rated as the most important source of their livelihood. Therefore the farmers’ interests in rice varietal characteristics, which were the most important to meeting the rice growing objectives, did not change.
Table 10. Ranking of farmer’s concern on characteristics of rice variety in the coastal region of Hue, Vietnam.
ISO-AREA INT-AREA VARIETY 1996 2001 1996 2001 CHARACTERISTIC (n=29) (n=41) (n=27) (n=40)
Yield 1 1 1 1 Yield stability -- 3 -- 3 Maturation 2 2 2 2 Drought resistance 2 7 1 1 Submersion suitability 2 8 2 7 Poor soil suitability 1 12 2 2 Salinity resistance 2 5 2 5 Insect resistance 3 9 2 2 Disease resistance 3 3 2 3 Eating quality 5 4 3 4
Legend: 1,2,3... = Ordinal number: the first, second, third... concern respectively
The difference between the two study areas was that in 2001, drought resistance, insect resistance, and poor soil suitability characteristics ranked as lower concerns (mode
= 8th, 9th, and 12th respectively) in the isolated area. The farmers in isolated area became less concerned on these characteristics because they were interested in farm
66 diversification (e.g., conversion of lands for cash crops). This practice helped reduce agronomic problems, which mainly effected rice growing. However, that was not the case in the integrated area. The farm diversification in this area was at a stage of concentration on livestock husbandry. The land conversion was done much earlier (e.g. before 1996) than that in the isolated area.
67
Agrosupport Services and Rice Seed Systems
Agrosupport Service Providers in Community
In Vietnam, there was no agricultural extension system established formally until the cooperative ownership was abolished in the early 1990s. Thus, the formal extension system was relatively new. At the time of the study, branch centers under this formal extension system at provincial level and stations down to district or sub-districts, were established. The agricultural extension collaborators, who were from the local communities, had carried out the major work of at the field level. They were the trained people or experienced farmers from the agricultural cooperatives, village leadership, or people's organizations.
There had been other public and private organizations and government departments operating rural services, including extension activities, in the region. The list includes the extension centers, department of agriculture and rural development, seed company, farm input company, plant protection agency, research institutions and universities, and various GOs and NGOs, who carry out rural development projects. After the “Doi Moi” policy, the farmer households also became active participants in agrosupport services in the community. To obtain the information on current agrosupport services in community, a list of service providers was worked out with the panel of core villagers and presented to the respondents. They were asked to indicate the providers for each type of service or support for rice farming. Results are presented in Table 11.
68
Table 11. Rural agrosupport service providers at the community level in the coastal region of Hue, Vietnam (percentage of the respondents).
TYPE OF SERVICE AND ISO-AREA INT-AREA AGROSUPPORT (n= 41) (n= 40)
Extension information dissemination (Mode) Cooperative Farmer Individual farmers 19.5 42.5 Agricultural cooperative 63.4 0.0 Village and commune 0.0 27.5 Agricultural extension center 14.6 10.0 Seed and variety supply: (Mode) Cooperative Farmer Individual farmers 14.6 47.5 Agricultural cooperative 46.3 0.0 Owner of input shop 31.7 30.0 Agricultural extension center 7.3 0.0 Chemical input supply: (Mode) Input shop Input shop Individual farmers 7.3 17.5 Agricultural cooperative 9.8 0.0 Owner of input shop 82.9 72.5 Water and irrigation management: (Mode) Cooperative Village Agricultural cooperative 100.0 0.0 Village and commune 0.0 10.0 Agricultural machinery service: (Mode) Farmer Farmer Individual farmers 80.5 77.5 Agricultural cooperative 19.5 0.0 Crop production protection: (Mode) Village Village Individual farmers 26.8 7.5 Agricultural cooperative 26.8 0.0 Village and commune 41.5 25.0 Loan and capital supply: (Mode) Bank Bank Individual farmers 41.5 15.0 Agricultural cooperative 14.6 0.0 Bank 42.5 35.0
69
In the two study areas, the agricultural cooperative in the isolated area was the important provider of agrosupport services, which included extension information dissemination, seed and variety supply, and water management (mode for agricultural cooperative = 63.4%, 46.3%, and 100%, respectively) while these services in the integrated area were operated by the individual farmers or the village itself. In the integrated area, individual households became active in providing the agrosupport services, which included extension of information, seed and variety supply, and machinery services (mode for farmer = 42.5%; 47.5%; and 77.5%, respectively). The implication is that the cooperative may be an appropriate partner for on-farm conservation at the isolated area because it is directly involved in seed and variety supply and other farming service. At the integrated area, the community activity for on-farm conservation may be initiated effectively by involving the farmer households in coordination with the village leadership through people’s organizations.
Farmers’ Awareness of Extension Focus
To better understand the impact of agrosupport services on rice variety management at the household level, information on contents of extension was collected.
The extension contents may target seed supply or variety management, thereby influencing rice diversity. Due to a common concern on economic returns, the focus of extension or supports have been biased on increases of socioeconomic benefits rather than dealing with the agrobiodiversity issues, an area in which the people’s awareness are relatively low. Results of analysis of the extension focus would serve as inputs for
70 analyses of local policies on rice production and resource management. Results are presented in Table 12.
Table 12. Farmers’ awareness of contents of agrosupport and extension provided at community level (percentage of the respondents)
CONTENT OF AGROSUPPORT ISO-AREA INT-AREA AND EXTENSION (n= 41) (n= 40)
Rice farming technique improvement 48.8 25.0 Natural resource management 17.1 5.0 Introducing an advanced technology 14.6 12.5 Improving a farming practice 19.5 12.5 Providing information on diversity 43.9 5.0 Introducing a modern variety 24.4 7.5 Maintaining a traditional variety 19.5 0.0 Replacing a traditional variety 24.4 0.0
There was an impression that the percentage of respondents who were aware of the extension contents was higher in the isolated area (14.6 - 48.8%) corresponding to all subjects compared to that in the integrated area (0 - 25%). The isolated communities were government priorities under the programs for poverty alleviation. These locations were provided with integrated supports to farm diversification. Therefore, more people were involved in specific extension activities. Meanwhile, farmers in the integrated area, by having more integration with the city markets, had better access to the urban sources for exchanges for their farming business. They did not depend necessarily on the formal extension supports. Since they had more options but few chance to participate in the formal extension activities, they did not recognize the extension messages.
71
Another difference between the two study areas was that the emphasis was on farming technology at the integrated area, but less on varieties and natural resource management. In the isolated area respondents indicated that the extension focuses did not only introduced modern varieties but also dealt with the maintenance of traditional ones
(19.5%) and provision of information on diversity (43.9%). Information from field observation indicated that there were several rural development projects implemented at the isolated communities as part of the poverty alleviation efforts (e.g., rural development projects supported by the British Council, the Government of Canada, and the World
Vision). Some projects concentrated on crop diversification, which included activities on building awareness of diversity and natural resource management. The research of IRRI in the region also contributed to increased awareness on rice diversity.
Original Seed Sources and Seed Management
Information on original seed sources of rice varieties currently being used is presented in Table 13. In both study areas, percentage of households, who had original seeds from farmers within the village for the winter-spring (WS) season, decreased (97.6 to 70.7% in isolated area and 90 to 62.5% in integrated area), however, participation of the seed company increased (0 to 43.9% in isolated area and 12.5 to 50% in integrated area). Percentage of households having original seeds from the cooperative was almost similar between 1996 and 2001 in both study areas. However, the percentage in isolated area (51.2% in 1996 and 2001) was higher than that in the integrated area (15% in 1996 and 12.5% in 2001). These results indicated increasing competition of seed company
72 sources over the farmers’ seed sources for WS rice season.
Table 13. Original rice seed sources and practice of seed selection and exchanges at household level (percentage of the respondents)
ISO-AREA (n=41) INT-AREA (n=40) SEED SOURCES AND SELECTION 1996 2001 1996 2001 Original seeds of WS varieties Farmers within the village 97.6 70.7 90.0 62.5 Agricultural cooperative 51.2 51.2 15.0 12.5 Seed company shops 0.0 43.9 12.5 50.0 Other sources 7.3 9.8 27.5 10.0 Original seeds of summer varieties Farmers within the village 92.7 92.5 61.9 25,0 Agricultural cooperative -- 52.5 -- 16.7 Seed company shops -- 35.0 -- 66.7 Other sources -- 7.5 -- 16.7 Seed management in WS season Seed selection before harvest 36.6 41.5 80.0 55.0 Seed selection after harvest 63.4 58.5 20.0 32.5 Receiving seeds from others 36.6 39.0 15.0 50.0 Distributing own seeds 17.1 29.3 22.5 27.5 Seed management in summer season Seed selection before harvest -- 42.5 -- 41.7 Seed selection after harvest -- 47.5 -- 16.7 Receiving seeds from others 46.3 15.0 0.0 8.3 Distributing own seeds 17.1 20.0 4.8 8.3
In summer rice season, percentage of households that had original seeds from farmers within the village did not change in the isolated area (92.7% in 1996, 92.5% in
2001). However, it decreased in the integrated area (61.9% in 1996, 25% in 2001). In
73
2001, percentage of households that had original seeds from cooperative in isolated area
(52.5%) was higher than that in the integrated area (16.7%). However, participation of seed company in the integrated area (66.7%) was higher than that in the isolated area
(35%). This result suggests that farmers in isolated area, while having increased access to varieties from the cooperative and seed company for summer rice, still maintained seeds of varieties that originated from farmers in the village. These varieties suited the local farm conditions, particularly the deep-water field, but seeds were not available in the formal seed system.
Seed management practice in WS rice season changed differently between the two study areas. Percentage of households that conducted seed selection before harvest
(e.g., selecting good rice plots) increased in the isolated area (36.6% in 1996, 41.5% in
2001), but decreased in the integrated area (80% in 1996, 55% in 2001). The seed exchanges, which included receiving additional and distributing extra seeds, seemed to increase in both study areas. Percentage of households that received supplementary seeds from other sources increased in both study areas (25.9% in 1996, 44.4% in 2001).
Percentage of households that distributed their own seeds to other farmers also increased in both study areas (19.8% in 1996, 28.4% in 2001)
Seed exchanges for summer rice in the integrated area were much lower than that in the isolated area. Percentage of households that received seeds decreased from 46.3 to
15 percent in the isolated area and increased from 0 to 8.3% in the integrated area. Those who distributed their own seeds, were 17.1 to 20 percent in the isolated area and 4.8 to
8.3 percent in the integrated area. Many farmers in the integrated area did not practice
74 summer rice due to drought conditions. In the isolated area, percentage of households that received supplementary seeds decreased (from 46.3% in 1996 to 15% in 2001). However, those who distributed their own seeds increased (17.1% in 1996 to 20% in 2001). This implies that farmers in the isolated area were still concerned on keeping their own seeds for the next rice growing season because poor infrastructure (e.g. roads) prevented them from frequently accessing seeds in markets and in the seed company.
Impact of the 1999-Catastrophic Flood on Rice Seeds and Varieties
The Hue region’s climate is monsoon with hot dry summer (April - August) and cool, cloudy, moist winter. The average temperature ranges from 21.6oC to 25.2oC. Total annual rainfall ranges between 2800 - 3300mm per year. Rain distribution is not even, about 80 – 90 percent of the rainfall concentrate within a short period, from late
September to November. This is referred to as the rainy or flooding seasons. In 1999, rainfall in November reached unusually to 2500mm (Fig. 4). This caused a catastrophic flood (also called the Century Flood), which had heavy impacts on, among others, rice seeds and varieties in the region. Analyzing the responses to the flood impact revealed problems related to sustainability of the rice seed system and issues of seed and variety access for farmers.
The 1999 catastrophic flood damaged seeds and caused loss of varieties for most farmer households in the region (Table 14). In the study areas, 68.3 percent of households in the isolated area and 33.3 percent in the integrated area experienced damage and loss of seeds due to the flood. A number of households lost their varieties. This meant that
75 they were not able to access seeds of the preferred or planned varieties for the next growing season. This was observed among 24.4 percent households in the isolated area and 23.1 percent in the integrated area. Data from a survey after the flood indicated problems with the seed system. There were 48.8 percent of households in the isolated area and 20.5 percent in the integrated area that expressed their preference in reusing some of the lost varieties. However, the seeds were not available in the seed systems.
Figure 4. Average rainfall distribution and the unusually high precipitation in 1999 in Hue region
3000
2500
2000 Average 1500 In 1999 1000 Monthly Rainfall (mm) 500
0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Table 14. Impact of the 1999 catastrophic flood on rice seeds and varieties in the coastal region of Hue, Vietnam (percentage of the respondents)
TYPE OF IMPACT ISO-AREA INT-AREA (n= 41) (n= 39)
Households experienced lost seeds 68.3 33.3 Households experienced lost varieties 24.4 23.1 Households wanted to reuse some lost varieties 48.8 20.5 Households adopted new varieties 100 100
Observations on the responses of farmers and local government to the seed damage caused by the flood revealed that the government bought seeds elsewhere and
76 provided these to farmers as a subsidy to enable them to continue growing rice. The seeds provided were of a modern variety, called “Khang Dan.” All households in the study areas (and probably in other areas) adopted it in the winter-spring rice season 1999-2000, since the farmers had no other options and also had incentives from the seed subsidy.
They used the “Khang Dan” variety to continue their rice farming. As a result, this contributed significantly to reduction of the number of traditional varieties after 1999.
Two implications could be made for the sustainability of seed system and for rice diversity conservation. One is to improve seed infrastructure of the local seed system.
This may include establishment of community "gene bank" and improvement of seed infrastructure to sustain it over the calamity events. The other is to include seed services for varieties that farmers prefer in the formal seed systems.
77
Changes in Rice Diversity at Community Landscape and Household Levels
This section presents changes in rice diversity at community landscape level, which was represented by the number of varieties accumulated, variety distribution, and the Simpson Index of Rice Diversity, in two rice seasons in the year. It is then followed by an analysis of changes in rice diversity at the household level in different rice growing seasons between 1996 and 2001. Richness of varieties, types of varieties, and area abundance of variety were employed as measures of the diversity.
Change in Rice Varieties at Community Landscape Level
Information on number of rice varieties and types of varieties being used was collected from household interviews. It was then computed by counting the number of varieties accumulated at community landscape under the study. The list of rice cultivars was validated by using information collected from the meeting with the panels of core villagers before the household interviews. Changes in number of rice varieties, variety distribution, and Simpson Variety Diversity Index (VDI) at community landscape level between 1996 and 2001 are presented in Table 15.
Number of rice varieties. The change in number of varieties in the two study areas was different in the two rice seasons. In WS season the number of modern varieties (MV) did not change in both study areas (8 in the isolated area, 12 in the integrated area).
However, the number of traditional varieties (TV) deceased in both study areas (7 - 5 in the isolated area, 11 –7 in the integrated area). In the summer rice not only the number of
78
TV but also that of MV decreased. The number of MV for summer rice was from 16 to 5 in the isolated area, and from 7 to 4 in the integrated area. The number of TV in summer rice decreased from 2 to 1 in the isolated area. It was lost completely (7 – 0) in the integrated area.
Table 15. Change in number of varieties, variety distribution, and Simpson Index of Variety Diversity at the community landscape level in different rice seasons.
ISO-AREA INT-AREA DESCRIPTION 1996 2001 1996 2001 Winter-Spring rice growing season: Number of modern varieties (MV) 8 8 12 12 Number of traditional varieties (TV) 7 5 11 7 Mean planting households per MV 5 8 2 6 Mean planting households per TV 13 6 7 2 Simpson Variety Diversity Index (VDI) 0.85 0.50 0.79 0.65 Summer rice growing season: Number of modern varieties (MV) 16 5 7 4 Number of traditional varieties (TV) 2 1 7 0 Mean planting households per MV 4 9 2 3 Mean planting households per TV 19 37 1 - Simpson Variety Diversity Index (VDI) 0.58 0.53 0.82 0.41
According to information from the group discussions with the panels of core villagers, the "Century Flood" had most significant impact that caused the changes in rice varieties in the community. The decrease in the number of varieties in both growing season was because of seeds damaged. This led to adoption of the modern varieties, seeds of which were provided by local government as a subsidy. As a result, it ended up the
79 continuation of cultivation of some varieties. Most households started with a new set of varieties in the year 2000. In addition, the fore mentioned crop diversification, especially in the isolated area, also contributed to reduction of the number of varieties because conversion of the rice field led to replaces of rice, especially TVs, with the cash crops.
Variety distribution. In this study, distribution of a rice variety was represented by number of households that planted it. In WS season, mean number of households per a
MV increased in both study areas (5 – 8 in isolated area and 2 - 6 in integrated area).
However, mean number of households per TV decreased in both study areas (13 – 6 in isolated area and 7 – 2 in integrated area). This result indicated that the use of MV became more spread than that of TV between 1996 and 2001.
In summer season, mean number of households per MV increased in both study areas (4 – 9 in isolated area and 2 – 3 in integrated area). Difference regarding TV distribution was found between the two study areas. While mean number of households per TV increased in the isolated area (19 in 1996, 37 in 2001), all it decreased to zero in the integrated area because all TVs were lost. In this area, farmers had more problems related the drought and salinity conditions in summer, many households no longer practiced summer rice (more details presented in next section) due to availability of other economic alternatives (e.g., poultry raising). This increased the possibility of loosing the
TVs along the changes in socioeconomic activities.
In the isolated area, mean number of households per MV (4 in 1996, 9 in 2001) and TV (19 in 1996, 37 in 2001) both widened in summer season. Observations noted that a MV called “Khang dan” and a TV called “Chum” were both spreading in summer
80 season. Results in Table 15 also indicated that the presence and the distribution of the
TVs was site and season-specific, but that of MV was spreading across the locations and different rice seasons in the year.
Simpson Variety Diversity Index (VDI). The Variety Diversity Index was computed. It helped consider at the time contributions of both, the number of varieties and the abundance of varieties, to the rice diversity. The higher the number of varieties the higher the diversity is. However, the lower the abundance of the variety the higher the risk of respective variety loss from environmental and socioeconomic changes. In practice, the evenness of the share among varieties was used to compute a VDI because the abundance of every variety made the sum of rice abundance. The evener the share of varieties in total abundance the higher the diversity is. The value of Simpson Variety
Diversity Index varies between 0 and 1; its formula is as follows:
n VDI = 1 - ∑ (aj/A)2 j=1
Where: aj = Area planted to jth variety A = Total area planted to rice
Information on the changes in value of VDI in the study areas is presented in
Table 15. In 1996 the VDI was quite high for both growing seasons in both study areas
(0.85 – 0.79 for WS season and 0.58 – 0.82 for summer rice). However, it decreased between 1996 and 2000 in both study areas. In the isolated area VDI decreased sharply for WS season (0.85 in 1996, 0.5 in year) and deceased slightly for summer rice (0,58 in
81
1996, 0.53 in 2001). This indicated the maintenance of rice diversity in summer in the isolated area. In the integrated area, the VDI decreased in both seasons, but more sharply in summer rice (0.79 – 0.65 in WS season and 0.82 – 0.41 in summer rice). The findings on the changes in VDI were consistent with the changes in number of varieties as well as the changes in variety abundance. The reduction of the number of varieties and the lower evenness of the share in total rice area, both contributed to the decrease in VDI. However, the change in evenness provided higher contribution because the Century Flood in 1999 damaged the seeds and led to adoption of MVs, some of which became dominant.
Change in the list of varieties. Change in the list of varieties, in local names, illustrates dynamics of the whole set of varieties for each rice season. It provides information on the varieties that are maintained on-farm. It also includes identification of the varieties, which was lost or discarded, and the ones, which was newly adopted over the study period. Information on the change in the set of varieties is important for reference in terms of genetic resource under maintenance and genetic flows. Therefore, it is helpful for assessing diversity, in general, and for identifying the targeted varieties for on-farm conservation, in particular. Results are presented in Table 16.
Change in varieties for WS season in the isolated area between 1996 and 2001 indicated that a TV, called “Nõèc m´n”- meaning salinity, was still maintained (49% in 1996 and 41% in 2001). Two MVs which had wide distribution in 1996 (HÀo chïm,
29% and De, 22%) were lost. A new MV, called “Khang dán”, was adopted and became spread in 100% households. This variety, a modern variety from China, was introduced in the region in 1997 by the Center for Agricultural Extension in a pilot
82 program. After the 1999 “Century Flood” the seeds of this variety and some other MVs were provided to farmers as a subsidy to enable farmers to continue growing rice in winter-spring season of 1999-2000.
Table 16. Change in the rice varieties and their distribution between 1996 and 2001 in different growing seasons in the coastal region of Hue, Vietnam.
PLANTING LOCAL NAME OF VARIETY STATUS IN VARIETY HOUSEHOLDS (%N) 2001 TYPE 1996 2001 For winter-spring, in Isolated area 13/2 Maintained MV 10 22 IR38 Maintained MV 7 5 NN4B Maintained MV 29 2 Nõèc m´n Maintained TV 49 41 Ngang cä Maintained TV 29 10 Chïm dµu Maintained TV 22 10 HÀo Maintained TV 61 10 NÆp ½¡ Maintained TV 5 2 NÆp tröng Lost MV 15 NÆp sao v¡ng Lost MV 12 35108 Lost MV 5 MTL61 Lost MV 2 Qu¨ng KÅ Lost MV 2 HÀo chïm Lost TV 29 De Lost TV 22 Khang dán New MV 100 Ma lám New MV 10 TH5 New MV 5 A92 New MV 2 Nãúp New MV 2
83
Table 16. Continued...
PLANTING LOCAL NAME OF VARIETY STATUS IN VARIETY HOUSEHOLDS (%N) 2001 TYPE 1996 2001 For winter-spring, Integrated area QT4 Maintained MV 8 20 13/2 Maintained MV 3 3 IR38 Maintained MV 5 3 MTL61 Maintained MV 8 3 NÆp ½¡ n³ng Maintained MV 5 3 Nõèc m´n Maintained TV 23 8 ChiÅn Thai Maintained TV 10 5 Chïm sèm Maintained TV 5 5 Chïm dµu Maintained TV 5 3 NÆp ½¡ Maintained TV 23 3 NÆp cao cµy Maintained TV 8 3 Ba tr¯ng Lost MV 13 BG Lost MV 8 C38 Lost MV 5 Hãng thnh Lost MV 5 NÆp lïn Lost MV 5 MiËn Tµy Lost MV 3 NÆp xe Lost MV 3 Chïm Lost TV 63 HŸu Lost TV 40 HÀo báng riËng Lost TV 10 De Lost TV 5 HÀo muæn Lost TV 3 Khang dán New MV 83 X21 New MV 48 D79 New MV 10 X1 New MV 5 Taïm ràòn New TV 5 Taïm thåm New MV 3 U16 New MV 3 U79 New MV 3
84
Table 16. Continued...
PLANTING LOCAL NAME OF VARIETY STATUS IN VARIETY HOUSEHOLDS (%N) 2001 TYPE 1996 2001 For summer rice, Isolated area ChiÅn Maintained TV 90 90 CN2 Maintained MV 7 2 bŸt Lost TV 5 CR203 Lost MV 46 MTL61 Lost MV 39 NÆp sao v¡ng Lost MV 15 MT61 Lost MV 12 IR66 Lost MV 7 IR86 Lost MV 7 LC8866 Lost MV 5 CL86 Lost MV 2 CR66 Lost MV 2 MT58 Lost MV 2 NÆp tröng Lost MV 2 NC66 Lost MV 2 Ngang cä Lost MV 2 NN4B Lost MV 2 VN20 Lost MV 2 Khang dán New MV 85 Ma lám New MV 12 Taïm thåm New MV 5 Nãúp New MV 2
85
Table 16. Continued...
PLANTING LOCAL NAME OF VARIETY STATUS IN VARIETY HOUSEHOLDS (%N) 2001 TYPE 1996 2001 For summer rice, Integrated area MTL61 Maintained MV 13 5 CR203 Lost MV 15 HÀo r±n Lost TV 8 Hãng hanh Lost MV 5 NÆp ‡¡ n³ng Lost MV 3 NÆp thçm Lost MV 3 NNC3 Lost MV 3 QT4 Lost MV 3 ChiÅm dµu Lost TV 3 HÀo Lost TV 3 HÀo thçm Lost TV 3 NÆp ½Ùa phõçng Lost TV 3 NÆp cao Lost TV 3 NÆp r±n Lost TV 3 Khang dán New MV 20 D79 New MV 3 Taïm thåm New MV 3
In WS season in the integrated area, most TVs became either rare varieties or lost, particularly two TVs, the “Chïm” and “HŸu”, which had wide distribution in 1996 (63% and 40%, respectively) were lost. The MVs, which were newly adopted and became spread, included the “Khang dán” and “X21” (83% and
48%, respectively)
The list of varieties for summer rice in the isolated area provided identification that a TV, named “ChiÅn” was continuously maintained. Almost 90 percent of households grew it in 1996 and in 2001. The “Khang dán” MV was also used for
86 the summer rice by most of households (85%). This variety was not only wide spread in
WS season but also in summer rice.
The varieties used for summer rice in the integrated area changed sharply. All traditional varieties were lost. The “Khang dán” MV was also adopted for summer rice in this area. However, percentage of households that planted it was low (20%) because many households no longer practiced summer rice.
Changes in Richness of Rice Varieties at Household Level
Richness of rice varieties in this study is defined as the total number of cultivars, which is comprised by the number of MVs and number of TVs being planted. To analyze change in richness of rice varieties at the household level in the two rice growing seasons in the year, “mean total number of cultivars,” “mean number of MVs,” and “mean number of TVs” for each growing season are presented. “Distribution of households by the number of varieties” corresponding to the above indicators is also employed.
Change in total number of cultivars in different seasons. The number and type of rice cultivars at households are fundamentals of rice diversity. Moreover, variation of varieties among households is very important in determining the extent of diversity at the community landscape levels. Changes in the total number of rice cultivars at the household level are presented in Table 17. The mean total number of cultivar per household for both growing seasons in the year decreased significantly in both study areas. In WS season, it decreased from 3 to 2.2 in the isolated area and from 2.6 to 2.1 in
87 the integrated area. In summer, it was 2.5 to 2 in the isolated area and 1.2 to 1 in the integrated area.
Table 17. Changes in number, type, and distribution of rice varieties at household level for different growing seasons in the coastal region of Hue, Vietnam.
ISO-AREA (n=41) INT-AREA (n=40) HH CATEGORY 1996 2001 1996 2001 Total rice varieties in WS season Mean total number of WS varieties per 3.0 2.2* 2.6 2.1* household (WS Vars/hh) HH growing 1 Variety (%) 7.3 19.5 7.5 25.0 HH growing 2 Varieties (%) 19.5 46.3 42.5 47.5 HH growing 3 Varieties (%) 48.8 26.8 32.5 20.0 HH growing 4 Varieties (%) 14.6 7.3 17.5 5.0 HH growing 5 Varieties (%) 9.8 0.0 0.0 2.5 Modern varieties in WS season Mean number of WS MV per 0.8 1.5* 0.7 1.9* household (WS MV/hh) HH not growing a MV (%) 39.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 HH growing 1 MV (%) 39.0 56.1 35.0 32.5 HH growing 2 MVs (%) 22.0 39.0 12.5 50.0 HH growing 3 MVs (%) 0.0 4.9 2.5 15.0 HH growing 4 MVs (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 Traditional varieties in WS season Mean number of WS TVs per 2.2 0.7* 1.9 0.3* household (WS TV/hh) HH not growing a TV (%) 0.0 34.1 0.0 80.0 HH growing 1 TV (%) 22.0 58.5 40.0 15.0 HH growing 2 TVs (%) 46.4 7.3 32.5 5.0 HH growing 3 TVs (%) 26.8 0.0 22.5 0.0 HH growing 4 TVs (%) 4.8 0.0 5.0 0.0
88
Table 17. Continued...
ISO-AREA (n=41) INT-AREA (n=40) HH CATEGORY 1996 2001 1996 2001 Total rice varieties in summer season Mean total number of summer 2.5 2.0* 1.2 1.0 ns rice varieties (Variety/hh) HH not growing Summer rice (%) 0.0 2.4 47.5 70.0 HH growing 1 Variety (%) 4.9 7.3 40.0 30.0 HH growing 2 Varieties (%) 48.8 80.5 12.5 0.0 HH growing 3 Varieties (%) 34.1 9.8 0.0 0.0 HH growing 4 Varieties (%) 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Modern varieties in summer season Mean number of summer MVs per 1.6 1.1* 0.8 1.0ns household (MV/hh) HH not growing Summer rice (%) 0 2.4 47.5 70.0 HH not growing MV (%) 0 0 15.0 0 HH growing 1 MV (%) 53.7 85.4 32.5 30.0 HH growing 2 MVs (%) 34.1 12.2 5.0 0.0 HH growing 3 MVs (%) 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Traditional varieties in summer season Mean number of TVs per 1.0 0.9ns 0.4 0.0* household (TV/hh) HH not growing Summer rice (%) 0.0 2.4 47.5 70.0 HH not growing TV (%) 7.4 7.4 32.5 30.0 HH growing 1 TV (%) 90.2 90.2 17.5 0.0 HH growing 2 TVs (%) 2.4 0.0 2.5 0.0
Legend: ns = not significant statistically * = significant at level 0.05
The distribution of households by the total number of varieties planted also changed. In the isolated area, the mode of household distribution in 1996 (48.8%) corresponded to three varieties, while in 2001 it (46.3%) corresponded to two varieties. In
89 the integrated area, the percentage of households growing three or four varieties decreased (32.5% and 17.5%, respectively, in 1996), while percentage of households growing one or two varieties increased (15% and 47.5%, respectively, in 2001). Overall, a household also planted up to five rice varieties in 2001, the same as that in 1996.
However, the mode of household distribution corresponding to higher number of varieties
(e.g., 3, 4, or 5) decreased accounting for distribution at lower number of varieties (e.g., 1 or 2 varieties).
During summer rice season, the change in the total number of rice cultivars at the household level had similar trend with that in the WS season. In the isolated area, the percentage of households growing two varieties in 1996 was 48.8 percent, while 34.1 percent households grew three varieties. In 2001, the percentage of households planting three varieties was much lower (9.8%). Most of them moved to categories of households growing one or two varieties.
Change in number of MV in different seasons. In the WS season, the mean number of MVs at household increased significantly in both study areas (from 0.8 to 1.5 in isolated area and 0.7 to 1.9 in integrated area). However, for the summer rice it decreased significantly in the isolated area (1.6 in 1996 to 1.1 in 2001), but not significantly in the integrated area (0.8 in 1996 to 1.0 in 2001). The change in number of
MVs in the isolated area could probably be attributed to the impact of the 1999 catastrophic flood. It damaged the dikes around Tam Giang lagoon, making the drainage system in parts of the deep-water field no longer effective. Some MVs introduced previously were discontinued.
90
Household distribution by number of MVs changed differently between the two growing seasons. In WS season, mode of household distribution moved from zero MV in
1996 (39% in isolated area and 50% in integrated area) to one and two MVs in 2001
(46.3 to 26.8% in isolated area and 32.5 to 50% in integrated area) in 2001. In summer rice, the mode of household distribution in 2001 (85.4% in isolated area and 30% in integrated area) corresponded to one MV, which was also the mode of household distribution in 1996. However, the percentage of households growing two MVs in 1996
(34% in isolated area and 5% in integrated area) was higher than that in 2001 (12.2% in isolated area and 0% in integrated area).
Change in number of TVs in different seasons. During the WS season, mean number of TVs at household decreased significantly in both study areas (2.2 to 0.7 in isolated area and 1.9 to 0.3 in integrated area). For summer rice, mean number of TVs decreased, though not significantly, in isolated area (1 in 1996 to 0.9 in 2001). However, the TVs were lost completely in the integrated area.
The distribution of TVs also narrowed down dramatically. During the WS season, all households in the integrated area grew one (40%), two (32.5%), three (22.5%), and four (5%) TVs in 1996, but 80 percent of them did not use TV in 2001. In the isolated area, the distribution of TV during WS season also diminished. The mode of household distribution in 1996 (46.4%) corresponded to two TVs, while it corresponded to only one
TV in 2001 (58.5%). In summer season, the TV was lost completely in the integrated area. However, TV was maintained in the isolated area, with 90.2 percent of households planting one TV (2001), almost the same as that in 1996 (90.2%).
91
Change in Area Abundance of Rice Varieties at Household Level
Area abundance in this study is represented by the total growing area and the share of MV area and TV area (% total rice area at household). Results are presented in
Table 18. During the WS season, change in mean total rice area of household between
1996 and 2001 was not significant in the isolated area (5,183 sq. meters in 1996 to 5,291 sq. meters in 2001), but it decreased significantly in the integrated area (4,525 sq. meters in 1996 to 3,737 sq. meters in 2001). Field observations implied that the decrease of rice area in this area was because of sands moved during the 1999 flood that occupied parts of the rice fields. Change in mean total rice area in summer rice was not significant in both study areas. However, it was much larger in the isolated area (0.56 – 0.63 ha) than that in the integrated area (0.05 – 0.04 ha).
The share of MV area in WS season increased significantly in both study areas
(23.4 to 79.6% in isolated area and 18.4 to 91.8% in integrated area). Meanwhile, the share of TV area decreased dramatically in both study areas (76.6 to 20.4% in isolated area and 81.6 to 8.2% in integrated area). This result suggested a rapid expansion in the
MV growing area that replaced the TV. In the summer rice, the MV replaced the TV completely (100% rice area was MV) in the integrated area. The change in share of MV area and that of TV in the isolated area was not significant. The share of MV area was
36.4 percent in 1996 and 46.4 percent in 2001, while that of TV was 63.6 percent in 1996 and 53.6 percent in 2001. Field observations implied that farmers in this area had deep- water fields around the Tam Giang lagoon. They mainly used TV with tall plant and
92 practice summer rice when the depth of water was reduced. This helped maintain the share of TV area.
Table 18. Changes in total rice growing area at household level and share of MV and TV area in different growing seasons in the coastal region of Hue, Vietnam.
ISO-AREA (n=41) INT-AREA (n=40) DESCRIPTION 1996 2001 1996 2001 Winter-Spring rice growing area Mean total winter-spring area 5183 5291ns 4525 3737 * per household (sq. meters/hh) Percentage of modern variety 23.4 79.6* 18.4 91.8* area (% total area) Percentage of traditional variety 76.6 20.4* 81.6 8.2* area (% total area) Summer rice growing area Mean total area of summer rice 5584 6300ns 484 432ns per household (sq. meters/hh) Percentage of modern variety 36.4 46.4ns 83.2 100.0* area (% total area) Percentage of traditional variety 63.6 53.6ns 16.8 0.0* area (% total area)
Legend: ns = not significant statistically * = significant at level 0.05
93
A Comparison of Rice Varieties Between the Study Areas (as the Rainfed Area) and the Coastal Irrigated Area
For a broader view on the changes in rice varieties associated with irrigation, a comparison between the study areas (considered as rainfed dominant) and another area with better irrigation development was conducted. The irrigation condition in this study was indicated by percentage of rice plots, on which watering was regular during rice growing season. The figure in the irrigated area (84.6 % in 1996 and expected to be higher in 2001) was much higher than that in the study/rainfed dominant areas (5.7% to
46.5% and 2.9% to 4% in the isolated and integrated areas, respectively). Results on the comparison of rice varieties are presented in Table 19.
At the area landscape level, difference in the number of MVs between the irrigated and rainfed areas was not very large. In the WS season, this number was 9 - 12 in 1996 and 8 - 12 in 2001 for the rainfed area, while it was 9 in 1996 and 10 in 2001 for the irrigated area. In summer rice, the number of MVs decreased between 1996 and 2001 in both the rainfed and the irrigated areas. In the rainfed area, it was from 16 to 7 in 1996 to 5 to 4 in 2001. In the irrigated area it was from 13 in 1996 to 7 in 2001.
Difference was found in number of TVs at area landscape level between the rainfed and the irrigated area. In rainfed areas, the number of TVs for WS season (6 to 11 in 1996 and 5 to 7 in 2001) was much higher than that in the irrigated area (4 in 1996 and
2 in 2001). Similarly between the rainfed and the irrigated areas, some TVs were still maintained. However, the TVs in the irrigated area were all the rare varieties based on the field observations.
94
Table 19. A comparison of changes in rice varieties between dominantly irrigated and rainfed areas between 1996 and 2001 in the coastal region of Hue, Vietnam.
IRRIGATED RAINFED IRRIGATED RAINFED DESCRIPTION 1996 1996 2001 2001 Iso Int Iso Int (n=42) (n=42) (n=42) (n=41) (n=41) (n=40)
Rice land area (m2/hh) 4604 7704* 4797ns ------Percentage of rice plots irrigated 84.6 5.7 2.9 -- 46.5 4.0 Winter-spring season rice varieties Number of MVs at landscape 9 9 12 10 8 12 Number of TVs at landscape 4 6 11 2 5 7 Number of MVs at household 2.5 0.8*** 0.7*** 2.3 1.5*** 1.9* Number of TVs at household 0.3 2.2*** 1.9*** 0.2 0.7*** 0.3 ns Total WS rice area (m2/hh) 4634 5183 ns 4525 ns 4290 5291* 3737 ns Percentage of TV area (% total) 13.0 76.6*** 81.6*** 2.3 20.4*** 8.2 ns Summer season rice varieties Number of MVs at landscape 13 16 7 7 5 4 Number of TVs at landscape 1 2 7 1 1 0 Number of MVs at household 1.9 1.6* 0.8*** 1.9 1.1*** 1.0*** Number of TVs at household 0.1 1.0*** 0.4 ns 0.2 0.9*** 0 ns Total summer rice area (m2/hh) 4184 5584** 484*** 4058 6300** 432*** Percentage of TV area (% total) 3.0 63.6*** 16.8* 2.5 53.6*** 0*
Legend: Iso, Int = Isolated area, Integrated area, respectively -- refers to data not available ns = not significant statistically *, **, *** = significant at level 0.05, 0.01, 0.001, respectively
At the household level, similar for both growing seasons between 1996 and 2001, the mean number of MVs in the irrigated area was higher than that in the rainfed areas. In the irrigated area, the number of MVs in WS season at the household level was 2.5 in
95
1996 and 2.3 in 2001; in the rainfed area it was 0.8 - 0.7 in 1996 and 1.5 - 1.9 in 2001.
However, there was an opposite trend in the number of TVs at the household level, it was higher in the rainfed areas than that in irrigated area for both growing seasons during
1996 and 2001. For example, in rainfed areas, the number of TVs at household for WS season was 2.2 - 1.9 in 1996 and 0.7 - 0.3 in 2001. Meanwhile, in the irrigated area, it was significantly lower with 0.3 in 1996 and 0.2 in 2001.
Area abundance of TVs, represented by percentage of share of TV area, in the rainfed areas was much higher than that in the irrigated area for both rice growing seasons. In rainfed areas, percentage of TV area in WS season at the household level was
76.6 to 81.6 percent of total rice area in 1996 and 20.4 to 8.2 percent in 2001, respectively. In the irrigated one it was 13% in 1996 and 2.3 % in 2001, respectively. The difference in area abundance of TVs for summer between the rainfed and the irrigated areas was also found similar with the WS season. The exception was that the TV for summer season was completely lost in the integrated/rainfed area. In this area, percentage of households that practiced summer rice was low, thereby contributing to the abandonment of all summer TVs.
96
Relationship between Independent and Dependent Variables
This section presents results on the relationship between variables on rice diversity and those of socioeconomic and farmers’ characteristics. The variables describing rice diversity are conceptualized as dependent variables, which corresponded to different rice growing seasons in the year, the winter-spring (WS) and the summer rice.
The dependent variables include “number of MVs in WS season” (Y1), “number of TVs in WS season” (Y2), “total WS rice area at household” (Y1), “percentage of TV rice area in WS’ (Y4), “number of summer MVs” (Y5), “number of summer TVs” (Y6), “total summer rice area at household” (Y7), and “percentage of summer TV area” (Y8). A summary of correlation matrix of the independent and dependent variables is presented in
Table 20. A full correlation matrix is also added in Annex A.
Correlation Between Independent Variables and Number of Modern Varieties
The number of MVs in WS season (Y1) had positive relationship with most of the variables on socioeconomic characteristics (e.g. electricity, R = 0.47***), concern on variety characteristics (R = 0.19 - 0.36***), objective of rice farming (R = 0.2 - 0.53***), and farmers’ exchange (R = 0.24 - 0.5***). However, it had negative relationship with farming condition (e.g. sandy plots R = -0.45***). This suggests that concurrent with the improvement in their socioeconomic conditions, farmers adopt more modern varieties.
97
Table 20. Summary of correlation matrix between independent and dependent variables (Pearson Correlation Coefficient - R)
VARIABLE WINTER-SPRING RICE SEASON SUMMER RICE SEASON Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Socioeconomic conditions of household Age of household head - -.17* - - - -.25** -.19* -.23** Landholding -.03* - .52*** - .26** .34*** .49*** .30*** Number of rice plots - .23** .43*** - .30*** .35*** .49*** .33*** Percentage of rainfed plots -.19* .21* .31*** - -.26** -.33*** -.21* Percentage of sandy plots -.45*** .48*** - .62*** - - -.21* -.16* Percentage of drought plots -.17* .28*** - .30*** .25** - - - Percentage of deep water plots - .20* - - .36*** .38*** .47*** .31*** Percentage of salinity plots -.29*** .31*** - .47*** - - - -.16* Having electricity supply .47*** -.63*** - -.68*** -.27*** -.23** - -.25** Farmers’ organizations and networks Member of agricultural cooperative .18* -.29*** - -.39*** .17* .42*** .53*** .35*** Often exchange with next plots owners .48*** -.67*** - -.78*** -.18* - - - Often exchange with expert farmers .36*** -.58*** - -.67*** -.16* - - - Often exchange with group leaders .25** -.29*** - -.38*** - - .25** .20* Often exchange with village leaders .33*** -.50*** - -.59*** - - - - Often exchange with extension staff .24** -.19* - -.20* - - - - Often consulting mass media source .50*** -.56*** - -.63*** - -.23** - -.25**
Legend: Mark (-) refers to relation non-significant statistically Y1 = Number of MVs in WS season; Y5 = Number of summer MVs; Y2 = Number of TVs in WS season; Y6 = Number of summer TVs; Y3 = WS rice area at household level; Y7 = Summer rice area at household level; Y4 = Share of TV area in WS season; Y8 = Share of summer TV area;
98
Table 20. Continued...
VARIABLE WINTER-SPRING RICE SEASON SUMMER RICE SEASON Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Farmers’ perception on variety management Growing rice for consumption .53*** -.70*** - -.82*** -.21* - - -.16* Growing rice for marketing .20* -.31*** - -.34*** - - .41*** - Concern on yield of a variety .31*** -.45*** - -.50*** -.18* - - - Concern on maturity of a variety .28*** -.37*** - -.45*** - - .22* - Concern on drought resistant variety .21* -.32*** - -.29*** -.16* - - - Concern on submersion suitability .19* -.16* - -.22* - - .35* .22* Concern on variety salinity resistance .28*** -.29*** - -.33*** - - - - Concern on rice eating quality .36*** -.33*** - -.44*** - - - - Agrosupport service provision Cooperative as extension implementers - -.20* - -.22** - .28*** .21* .26** Cooperative as rice seed supplier - -.18* - -.23** - .23** .40*** .19* Cooperative as watering servicer - -.23** - -.25** - - .50*** .16* Seed sources and seed management WS original seeds from farmer - .74*** .38*** .48*** - - - .18* WS original seeds from cooperative .25** - - - .30*** .26** .27** .17* WS original seeds from company .36*** -.27*** - -.38*** -.16* - -.16* - Summer original seeds from farmer -.19* .37*** .22* .23** .66*** .73*** .57*** .65*** Summer original seeds from coop. - -.22* - -.25** .17* .26** .43*** .18* Summer original seeds from company .18* -.20* - -.30*** - - - - Receiving additional WS seeds .27** - - -.16* - - - - Distributing extra WS seeds .16* ------Receiving additional summer seeds - - - - .42*** .30*** .24** .20* Distributing extra summer seeds - - - - .28*** .24** .30*** .19*
99
Difference from number of MVs in WS season, number of summer MVs (Y5) was positively related with the deep-water plots (R = 0.36***), total number of rice plots
(R = 0.3***), cooperative member (R = 0.17*), original seeds from farmers (R = 0.66***), and seed exchange (R = 0.43*** for receiving and 0.3*** for distributing seeds). Negative relationship was found between Y6 and electricity (R = -0.27***), concern on yield of variety (R = -0.18*), and rice farming for consumption (R = -0.21*).
Correlation Between Independent Variables and Number of Traditional Varieties
Number of TVs in WS season (Y2) had negative relationship with most variables on change in socioeconomic characteristics (e.g. electricity R = -0.63***), concern on variety (e.g. concern on yield R = -0.45***), rice farming objectives (e.g. for consumption
R = -0.7***), farmers’ exchange (e.g. experienced farmers R = -0.58***), and support service by cooperative (e.g. watering R = -0.23**). However, original seeds from farmers
(R = 0.74***), farm agronomic problems (e.g. sandy land R = 0.48***), and number of rice plots (R = 0.23**) had positive relationship with Y2. This indicates that the maintenance of TV had close relationship with the way farmers deal with farm agronomic problems.
The number of TVs in summer rice (Y6) had similar correlation results compared with that in WS season (Y2) with regards to socioeconomic and farm agronomic variables. But it also had significant positive relationship with the cooperative related variables such as cooperative membership (R = 0.42***), cooperative as extension provider (R = 0.28***), and cooperative as seed supplier (R = 0.23**). Seed exchange was
100 also found to be positively related with Y6 (R = 0.3*** for receiving seeds; and R =
0.24** for distributing seeds).
Correlation Between Independent Variables and Rice Area at Household Level
Data in Table 20 show that the total WS rice area (Y3) did not have significant relationship with most study variables except landholding (R = 0.52***), number of rice plots (R = 0.43***), and original seeds from farmers (R = 0.38***). Hence, for a long time the rice land area had been maintained for the staple food crop.
Meanwhile, the total summer rice area (Y7) had significant positive relationship not only with landholding and number of rice plots but also with deep water rice fields (R
= 0.47***). However, it was negatively related with rainfed plots (R = -0.33***) and sandy land (R = -0.21*). Concern on variety characteristics (e.g. deep-water suitability R =
0.35***) and the cooperative variables (e.g. cooperative members R = 0.53***) had positive relationship with Y7. It also had significant positive relationship with original seed from farmer and cooperative (R = 0.57*** and 0.43***, respectively), and the seed exchange (R = 0.24 and 0.3***). The results indicate the importance of variables related with deep-water rice fields, the cooperative, and landholding in the variation of total summer rice area.
Correlation Between Independent Variables
101 and the Share of TV Area
In WS season, percentage of TV rice area (Y4) had negatively significant relationship with most independent variables related to socioeconomic (e.g., electricity R
= -0.63***), community characteristics (e.g. exchange with farmers R = -0.58***), and farmers’ perception (e.g., rice farming for consumption R = -0.82***). The results suggest that the changes in socioeconomic and farmers’ characteristics were significantly associated with the lower share of TV in total rice growing area. However, in WS season,
Y4 had positively significant relationship with variables related to farm agronomic problems such as rainfed, sandy, drought, salinity land, and original seeds from farmers
(R = 0.31***; 0.62***; 0.30***; 0.47***; and 0.48***, respectively).
In summer, percentage of TV rice area (Y8) had positively significant relationship with landholding (R = 0.3***), number of rice plots (R = 0.33***), deep water rice field (R
= 0.31***), and original seeds from farmers (R = 0.56***). It also had positively significant relationship with variables related to the cooperative such as cooperative membership (R
= 0.35***), exchange with the production group (R = 0.2*), and support services provided by the cooperative (R = 0.26***; 0.19*; and 0.16*, respectively with extension, seed supply, and watering service). In the summer rice season, Y8 had negatively significant relationship with rainfed, sandy, and salinity problems (R = -0.21*; -0.16*; and -0.16*, respectively). The fact was that in summer, farmers had more problems with sandy soil moisture and salinity. Therefore, many farmers did not practice summer rice; this disfavored the maintenance of TV.
102
Multiple Regression Analysis of Dependent and Independent Variables in Different Rice Seasons
This part presents the results of stepwise regression analysis for dependent variables in both rice growing seasons. The dependent variables in winter spring season included the following: “number of MVs in WS season” (Y1), “number of TVs in WS season” (Y2), “total WS rice area at household” (Y3), and “percentage of TV rice area in
WS” (Y4). Those in summer rice included “number of summer MVs” (Y5), “number of summer TVs” (Y6), “total summer rice area at household” (Y7), and “percentage of summer TV area” (Y8). A standardized regression analysis was also conducted, the results of which are presented in the Annex A. In this regression analysis, B is the regression coefficient or estimation parameter of the dependent variables. The BETA is the standardized regression coefficient, which is obtained after standardizing all variables to a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. The BETA magnitude (between /0 - 1/) determines the relative contribution of the respective independent variable in the prediction of the dependent variable (The StatSoft, 1994).
Multiple Regression for Number of Modern Varieties
For number of MV in WS season. Results of stepwise regression analysis for number of MVs in WS season are presented in Table 21. The regression model accounts for 68.5 percent variation in number of MVs in WS season (R2 = 0.695***). Among the highest positive contribution to estimation of number of MVs at the household level in
WS season were the “original seeds from the cooperative” (BETA = 0.55, B = 0.71***),
103
“original seeds from farmers in village” (BETA = 0.42, B = 0.32***) “original seeds from seed company” (BETA = 0.41, B = 0.51***), “electricity supply” (BETA = 0.44, B =
0.79***), and “membership of women union” (BETA = 0.42, B = 0.75***).
Table 21. Summary results of Stepwise regression for “Number of MVs in winter-spring rice season”: R2 = 0.685; F value = 21.163***
VARIABLES BETA ESTIMATION PROBABILITY PARAMETER B Intercept -0.247 0.22527 Original seeds from the cooperative 0.55 0.708*** 2.6E-15 Having electricity supply 0.44 0.791*** 1.1E-07 Membership of women union 0.42 0.749*** 4.1E-05 Original seeds from farmers in village 0.42 0.316*** 1.1E-10 Original seeds from seed company 0.41 0.510*** 3.1E-08 Rice plots susceptible to drought 0.18 0.005** 0.00344 Often contact with extension staff 0.12 0.173* 0.01861 Rice plots with water logging problem 0.12 0.006* 0.02888 Educational attainment -0.13 -0.134** 0.00958 Rice plots with sandy soil texture -0.18 -0.004* 0.01969 Membership in the cooperative -0.20 -0.405* 0.04800
The highest negative contribution to estimation of the number of MVs in WS season included “membership in the cooperative” (BETA = -0.20, B = 0.41*), “rice plots with sandy soil texture” (BETA = -0.18, B = 0.004*), and "educational attainment"
(BETA = -0.13, B = 0.134**). However the absolute BETA value of all negative contribution variables (BETA = /0.12 - 0.20/) was lower than that of the positive contribution variables (BETA = 0.12 - 0.55). This means the contribution of independent variables, which provides positive estimation of number of MVs in WS season, is high.
104
For the number of MVs at the household level in summer. Summary results of stepwise regression analysis for number of summer MVs at the household level is presented in Table 22. The regression model accounted for 66.7 percent of the variation in the number of summer MVs at the household level. “Original seeds from farmers in the village” (BETA = 0.57, B = 0.499***), “original seeds from seed company” (BETA =
0.31, B = 0.699***), and “original seeds from the cooperative” (BETA = 0.29, B =
0.59***) were the variables that had the highest positive contribution to the estimation of number of MVs at the household level in summer. “Receiving additional summer seeds” was also among the variables that had positive contribution to the estimation of the number of MVs in summer (BETA = 0.22, B = 0.345***)
Table 22. Summary results of Stepwise regression for “Number of MVs in summer rice season”: R2 = 0.667; F value = 30.281 ***
VARIABLES BETA ESTIMATION PROBABILITY PARAMETER Intercept 0.653*** 0.00015 Original seeds from farmers in village 0.57 0.499*** 4.1E-18 Original seeds from seed company 0.31 0.699*** 1.6E-06 Original seeds from the cooperative 0.29 0.590*** 0.00046 Receiving additional summer seeds 0.22 0.345*** 3.9E-05 Rice plots with salinity problem 0.22 0.005** 0.00108 Concern on yield of variety -0.16 -0.254** 0.00735 Rice plots with sandy soil texture -0.19 -0.003* 0.01217 Membership in the cooperative -0.27 -0.469** 0.00261
Variables that had the highest negative contribution to estimation of number of
MVs in summer included the “membership in the cooperative” (BETA = -0.27, B = -
105
0.469**) and “concern on yield of variety” (BETA = -0.16, B = -0.254**). As shown in
Table 22, these two variables had similar contribution to the estimation of number of
MVs in WS season. “Rice plots with sandy soil texture” (BETA = -0.19, B = -0.003*) was the variable that contributed negatively to the estimation of number of summer MVs.
Multiple Regression for Number of Traditional Varieties
For the number of TVs in WS season. Results of stepwise regression are presented in Table 23. The regression model accounted for 79.9 percent of the variation in number of TV for WS season (R2 = 0.799***). “Original seeds from farmers” (BETA =
0.56, B = 0.531***), “seed selection before harvesting” (BETA = 0.29, B = 0.638*),
“contact with production group” (BETA = 0.25, B = 0.61***), and “number of rice plots”
(BETA = 0.15, B = 0.087**) were the variables that contributed positively to the estimation of the number of TVs in WS season at the household level.
Table 23. Summary results of Stepwise regression for “Number of TVs in winter-spring season”: R2 = 0.799; F value = 41.809 ***
VARIABLES BETA ESTIMATION PROBABILITY PARAMETER Intercept -0.333 0.434987 Original seeds from farmers in village 0.56 0.531*** 1.21E-23 Seed selection before harvesting 0.29 0.638* 0.015875 Frequent contact with production group 0.25 0.610*** 1.66E-05 Number of rice plots 0.15 0.087** 0.002905 Education attainment 0.09 0.121* 0.023993 Rice plots with water logging problem -0.10 -0.006* 0.030591 Membership in women's Union -0.18 -0.409* 0.019526 Electricity supply -0.19 -0.426** 0.002939 Rice growing for family consumption -0.39 -0.862*** 1.66E-05
106
The variables that had the highest negative contribution to estimation of number of TVs in WS season included “rice growing for family consumption” (BETA = -0.39, B
= -0.862***), “electricity supply” (BETA = -0.19, B = -0.426**), and “membership in
Women's Union” (BETA = -0.18, B = -0.409***). The result suggests that an increase in living standard (e.g., having electricity supply) disadvantages the maintenance of the
TVs. This is consistent with the decrease in the number of TVs between 1996 and 2001.
For family consumption, the farmers are more concerned with yield than the quality.
They, therefore, prefer the MVs, thereby disadvantaging the TVs, even though they have good eating quality.
For the number of TVs in summer. Results of the stepwise regression analysis for number of TVs among the summer season are presented in Table 24. The regression model accounted for 75.65 percent of the variation in number of summer TVs at the household level. Only three variables were statistically significant and positively contributed to the estimation of number of TVs in summer. They were the “original seeds from farmers” (BETA = 0.47, B = 0.285***), “membership in the cooperative” (BETA =
0.27, B = 0.322***), and “number of rice plots” (BETA = 0.11, B = 0.031***).
The variables, which had the highest negative contribution to the estimation of number of TVs in summer season, included “rice growing for family consumption”
(BETA = -0.41, B = -0.426***), “rice plots with sandy soil texture” (BETA = -0.34, B = -
0.004***), and “one-crop rice plots” (BETA = -0.17, B = -0.002***). These results were similar with those in WS season, where the objective of rice growing for family consumption affected the number of TVs. The fact was that farmers use the TVs to deal
107 with the marginal agronomic conditions, which were characterized with sandy and poor soil conditions.
Table 24. Summary results of Stepwise regression for “Number of TVs in summer rice season”: R2 = 0.757; F value = 59.439***
VARIABLES BETA ESTIMATION PROBABILITY PARAMETER Intercept 0.615*** 1.4E-08 Original seeds from farmers in village 0.47 0.285*** 6.7E-16 Membership of the cooperative 0.27 0.322** 0.00288 Number of rice plots 0.11 0.031* 0.01597 One-crop rice plots -0.17 -0.002* 0.01255 Rice plots with sandy soil texture -0.34 -0.004*** 1.7E-07 Rice growing for family consumption -0.41 -0.426*** 4E-05
However, due to lack of water during the summer season many farmers in the integrated area did not practice summer rice in 2001, 70 percent of farmers in this area did not grow rice. Other noted observations in the isolated area revealed that farmers were converting the drought-prone rice lands for cash crop. As a result, the “one-crop rice plots” and the “sandy rice plots” contributed negatively to the estimation of number of
TVs during the summer season. However, as shown in Table 24, it was not the case for the WS rice season.
108
Multiple Regressions for Rice Area at the Household Level
For total WS rice growing area at household. Results of stepwise regression analysis for total WS rice area are presented in Table 25. The regression coefficient R2 was 0.55, with a significant level at 0.001. This means that the regression model accounted for 55 percent of the variation in the total WS rice area. There were variables related to farm conditions, community characteristics, and agrossupport that contributed positively to estimation of total WS rice area. Landholding was the variable that had highest positive contribution (BETA = 0.42, B = 0.2***).
Table 25. Summary results of Stepwise regression for “Total winter-spring rice area”: R2 = 0.551; F value = 15.24 ***
VARIABLES BETA ESTIMATION PROBABILITY PARAMETER B Intercept -1533.73 0.09504 Size of landholding 0.42 0.20*** 5.1E-10 Original seeds from farmers in village 0.36 742.06*** 1.3E-07 Number of rice plots 0.27 337.42*** 0.0001 Often contact with cooperative officers 0.27 1574.47** 0.00327 Concern on disease resistance 0.25 1189.10* 0.01464 Membership of the farmers’ union 0.20 1001.99* 0.02079 Time of rice farming 0.15 30.28* 0.01537 Seed selection after harvesting -0.12 -578.14* 0.03941 Cooperative as extension implementers -0.18 -1326.47* 0.02254
Other variables, which contributed positively to estimation of the total WS rice area, included “original seeds from farmers in the village” (BETA = 0.36, B = 742.06***),
“number of rice plots” (BETA = 0.27, B = 337.42***), “often contact with the cooperative
109 officers” (BETA = 0.27, B = 1574.47**), concern on disease resistance of variety” (BETA
= 0.25, B = 1189*), and “membership in the Farmers’ Union” (BETA = 0.2, B = 1002*).
There were only two variables that were statistically significant and had negative contribution to estimation of the total WS rice area. These were the “cooperative as extension implementers” (BETA = -0.18, B = -1326.47*) and “seed selection after harvesting” (BETA = -0.12, B = -578.14*).
For total rice area at household in summer. Results of stepwise regression analysis are presented in Table 26. Overall regression coefficient R2 was 0.78, significant at level
0.001, explained 78.4 percent of the variation in the total summer rice area. The difference from the results on total WS rice area was that the highest positive contribution to estimation of total summer rice was not only the “size of landholding” (BETA = 0.2, B
= 0.11***) but also the “original seeds from farmers in village” (BETA = 0.25, B =
972.9***). Other variables, which contributed positively to estimation of total summer rice area, included “cooperative as water service provider, and seed supplier” (BETA = 0.2 -
0.12, and B = 2170.56** - 1308.7* respectively), “concern on deep-water suitability of variety” (BETA = 0.15, B = 1010.6**), “frequent contact with researchers” (BETA =
0.12, B = 1165**), and “size of household” (BETA = 0.09, B = 160.67*).
The highest negative contribution to estimation of total summer area included
“one-crop rice plots (BETA = -0.27, B = -25.76***), “rice plots with sandy soil texture”
(BETA = -012, B = -10.14*) and “concern of drought resistance of variety” (BETA = -
0.12, B = -785.2*). Due to water shortage problems during the summer season, the one- crop rice plots were left to fallow. Other variables, which also had negative contribution
110 to estimation of total summer rice area, were “frequent contact with the production group” (BETA = -0.16, B = -1235*) and “electricity supply” (BETA = -0.14, B = -
997.79*). As with the preceding discussions, the increase in living standard (electricity) favored livelihood diversification. In the integrated area, many farmers no longer practiced summer rice.
Table 26. Summary results of Stepwise regression for “Total summer rice area”: R2 = 0.784; F value = 32.84***
VARIABLES BETA ESTIMATION PROBABILITY PARAMETER Intercept 1860.94* 0.01413 Original seeds from farmers in village 0.25 972.92*** 1.5E-05 Cooperative as watering servicer 0.20 2170.56** 0.00203 Size of landholding 0.16 0.11*** 0.00042 Concern on deep-water suitability 0.15 1010.64** 0.00422 Often contact with researchers 0.12 1165.23** 0.00958 Cooperative as seed supplier 0.12 1308.72* 0.02879 Seed selection after harvesting 0.11 617.62* 0.02255 Size of household 0.09 160.67* 0.02396 Concern of drought resistance of variety -0.12 -785.20* 0.01706 Rice plots with sandy soil texture -0.12 -10.14* 0.01298 Electricity supply -0.14 -997.79* 0.01016 Often contact with the production group -0.16 -1235.01** 0.00705 One-crop rice plots -0.27 -25.76*** 6.7E-06
111
Multiple Regressions for the Share of TV Area
For the share of TV area in WS season. The share of TV area is measured by the percentage of TV area over the total rice area at the household level. Results of stepwise regression analysis for the share of TV area in WS season are presented in Table 27. The overall regression coefficient R2 is 0.76, significant at level 0.001, meaning that the regression model accounted for 76.47 percent of the variation in the share of TV area over the total rice area in WS season. The variable that had the highest positive contribution to estimation of the share of TV area in WS season was “frequent contact with the production group” (BETA = 0.23, B = 20.257***). The variable that had the second positive contribution was “rice plots with sandy soil texture” (BETA = 0.19, B =
0.182**). “Concern on deep-water suitability of variety” also had positively significant contribution (BETA = 0.09, B = 7.391***).
Table 27. Summary results of stepwise regression for “Percentage of TV area in winter- spring season”: R2 = 0.765; F value = 54.89 ***
VARIABLES BETA ESTIMATION PROBABILITY PARAMETER Intercept 81.296*** 2.6E-35 Frequent contact with production group 0.23 20.257*** 4.9E-05 Rice plots with sandy soil texture 0.19 0.182** 0.00418 Concern on deep-water suitability 0.09 7.391* 0.04511 Rice plots with water logging problem -0.09 -0.194* 0.03611 Membership in Women’ Union -0.23 -18.269** 0.00292 Rice plots susceptible to drought -0.29 -0.343*** 1.8E-06 Electricity supply -0.32 -25.436*** 7.4E-06 Rice growing for family consumption -0.53 -41.166*** 5.9E-07
112
The highest negative contribution to the estimation of the share of TV area in WS season was “rice growing for family consumption” (BETA = -0.53, B = -41.2***). This means that the farmers were more concerned with the increase of rice production to provide sufficient food for the family. In this regard, the modern high yielding varieties were given more chance to be adopted because it answered the farmers’ desires for food supply. Other variables, which contributed negatively to estimation of the share of TV area in WS season, were related to changes in socioeconomic characteristics. Among them were “electricity supply” indicating improvement in living standard (BETA = -0.32,
B = -25.436***) and “rice plots susceptible to drought condition” (BETA = -0.29, B = -
0.343***). The conversion of drought land for cash crop replaced TVs, thereby, decreasing the TV area. The “membership in Women’s Union” also had negative contribution. This may relate with the women’s concern on rice production for family consumption, thereby favoring the replacement of TVs by high yielding varieties.
For the share of TV area in summer rice season. Results of stepwise regression analysis for the share of TV area in summer rice season are presented in Table 28. The regression model accounted for 63.8 percent of the variation in the share of TV in summer rice at household level (R2 = 0. 64 with a significant level at 0.001). Among the variables that had the highest positive contribution to estimation of the share of TV area in summer rice, included the “original seeds from farmers in village” (BETA = 0.35, B =
14.323***), “membership in the cooperative” (BETA = 0.25, B = 20.395**), and “concern on yield of variety” (BETA = 0.18, B = 13.124**). In the isolated area, all farmers
113 practiced summer rice, a TV (named chum) was used for the deep-water fields. Increase of rice area in the summer rice in the isolated area was aimed at meeting the farmers’ concern on yield of variety that was related to the production. Therefore, in this particular agrosystem, concern on yield of variety had positive influence on the share of TV area.
Number of rice plots also had positive contribution to estimation of share of TV area in summer rice.
Table 28. Summary results of stepwise regression for “Percentage of TV area in summer rice season”: R2 = 0.63; F value = 26.66***
VARIABLES BETA ESTIMATION PROBABILITY PARAMETER Intercept 42.128*** 5.8E-06 Original seeds from farmers in village 0.35 14.323*** 2.4E-07 Membership in the cooperative 0.25 20.395** 0.00922 Concern on yield of variety 0.18 13.124** 0.00824 Number of rice plots 0.11 2.055* 0.04292 Rice plots with sandy soil texture -0.31 -0.260*** 0.00036 Rice growing for family consumption -0.65 -45.70*** 5.7E-09
The variables, which had the highest negative contribution to estimation of share of TV area in summer, included the “rice growing for family consumption” (BETA = -
0.65, B = -45.70***) and the “rice plots with sandy soil texture” (BETA = -0.31, B = -
0.260***). This was similar with the finding in WS season. The farmers were more concerned with food sufficiency for family. Therefore they favored the use of high yielding varieties, the MVs, rather than the maintenance of TV. Again, increase of percentage of farmers, who no longer practiced summer rice due to agronomic problems
114 and income-generation diversification (in the integrated area), and application of crop diversification (in the isolated area) contributed to decrease of TV area in summer rice.
115
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A Summary of Research Execution and Findings
The Research Design and Execution
This study was conducted in coastal agrosystems of Hue region, Vietnam.
General objective was to determine changes in rice varieties between 1996 and 2001 in association with changes in socioeconomic characteristics of farmer households and community. Specifically, it aimed to 1) describe the changes in socioeconomic characteristics of farmer households and community; 2) identify farmers’ organizations and networks within the community; 3) determine farmers’ perception on rice variety characteristics and utilization; 4) assess the provisions of agrosupport services and rice seed systems in community; 5) analyze the changes in rice diversity associated with various socioeconomic characteristics of farmers and community; and 6) determine relationship between the farmer and community related factors and the rice diversity.
Two coastal areas were the study sites referred to as the isolated and integrated
areas. Two sets of year data were collected in 1996 and 2001 corresponding to two rice
growing seasons in the year, the winter-spring and summer rice. In addition, a
comparison was made between the study areas and a coastal irrigated area for a broader
view on changes in rice varieties in the region.
116
Data in 2001 were collected from the same households, which provided information for the study on farmer’s management of rice diversity in the region in 1996.
Respondents for the 1996 study were selected in a random procedure. The total number of household respondents available for 1996 and 2001 studies was 81. This made a total
162 observation accounting for data years. A series of group discussions with panels of core villagers prior to individual interviews was carried out to identify major changes in socioeconomic and rice varieties at community level.
Descriptive statistics were applied to summarize the data collected. Pearson
Correlation analysis was employed to identify relationship among variables. Multiple
Regression analysis was undertaken to determine the contributions of the independent variables to the variation in richness and area abundance of rice varieties for different rice
growing seasons.
Changes in Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Households
Change in household size and in people-labor ratio between 1996 and 2001 was
not significant. As a whole, the respondents in studied areas had quite good education.
Majority of them had primary or secondary school education. In the integrated area, the
illiterate percentage was higher than that in the isolated area.
Size of landholding was not big, between 7,194 - 7,378 sq. meters, out of this.
83.7-86.4% of landholding was for rice growing. Change in landholding and land area
planted to rice was not significant. Like wise, rice production per capita. This figure was
between 363 - 435 kg per person.
117
There were significant changes in farm conditions. Percentage of rainfed plots and one-crop plots decreased, which was accounted mainly by the isolated area. Percentage of rice plots having problems with sandy, drought, waterlog, and salinity conditions also decreased significantly in both study areas.
There were important improvements in housing in both areas. Percentage of houses made of temporary materials decreased with a corresponding increase of semi- permanent and permanent houses. Percentage of households, who had good living facilities such as electricity, hand-pump well, tractor, motorcycle, television and valuable furniture, increased rapidly between 1996 and 2001.
Community Characteristics and Socioeconomic Changes
Community organizations and membership. During the 1990s the agricultural
cooperatives nationwide went through a process of re-organization, many no longer
existed at the time of the study. In the study areas, the agricultural cooperative has been
active continuously at the isolated area, however in the integrated one, it terminated the
operation in 1999.
There were various people's organizations at community level. Among those, which
were established and operated under the management of local government, the village
and commune leadership, included the cooperatives, Farmers’ Union and Women’s
Union. Other organizations like local NGO or farmer groups were not very active. In the
isolated area people's organizations involved more farmers than those in the integrated.
118
Farmers information networks and frequency of consultation. In the two study areas, farmers had both the individual-based exchanges and the organization partnership.
The family relatives, the neighbor farmers, the owners of next field plots, the village
leaders, and the mass media were identified as often sources for exchange. Frequency of
exchanges with the people organization officers, the owners of agricultural input shop
and the agricultural extension staff was described as “sometimes”.
The difference was that the experienced farmers, and the production group leaders served as the "very often" sources for exchange in the isolated area, but "often" in the integrated. In isolated area, exchange with the cooperative for inputs and consultations
was very often, especially with the experienced farmers and production group leaders. In the integrated, the cooperative no longer existed, individual-based exchanges among the
households were more important.
Lead roles in decision-making on crop production. In both study areas organizations (cooperative or village leadership) took lead roles in decisions on rice production. The village leadership and/or cooperative, which was directed from higher authority such as commune and district government, made decisions on rice growing calendar. This decision influenced types of varieties to be planted, thereby setting variety orientation regarding the maturity and some other farming practices. However, individual households took lead roles in making decisions on other crop production and income generating activities, for example cash crop production and animal husbandry.
Difference between the two study areas was found in terms of land use planning, farm management, and farm services. The decisions on land use in isolated area such as
119 allocation of land to various crops or to major rice varieties was led by the cooperative.
However in integrated area, mainly the individual household heads took these. In this
area, the farmer households also took lead roles in most decisions on provision of farm
services and management like water provision services.
Farmers’ Perception on Rice Varieties and Utilization
Farmer’s objectives in rice farming and management. Similarly between isolated and integrated area, the first priority was given to household consumption, then to market. However, farmers in the integrated area prioritized less for marketing as an objective than that in the isolated area. The first priority in farm management was given to increase of productivity in both study areas. However, the farmers in isolated area gave higher priority to the productivity than to production stability. In the integrated area, the rice yield was relatively high; farmers seemed to prioritize the production stability more than those in the isolated area.
Farmer’s perception on value of rice diversity. In both study areas, growing many varieties was scored as very important to suit diverse landholding, which is important in dealing with weather fluctuation. The difference was in degree such that in the integrated area it was scored as “very important” for reducing risks from insect, diseases and weather fluctuation, but “important” in the isolated area. Regarding value in maintaining some traditional varieties, the respondents scored “very important” in both study areas for dealing with the diverse landholding, and “important” for the suitability with farming practices, especially low investment farming.
120
Farmer’s concerns on characteristics of rice variety. As a whole, the percentage of respondents, who indicated their concerns of yield and yield stability was highest (98%), followed by concerns on disease resistance and maturity (88 and 86% respectively).
There was not much change in the above concerns between 1996 and 2001. However, changes were found on concerns related to eating quality, which was higher in 2001
(80% respondents) compared with that in 1996 (71%). It seemed that farmers were more concerned on rice eating quality and production stability in both study areas.
Agrosupport Services and Rice Seed Systems
Agrosupport service providers. Agrosupport service providers were different
between the two study areas. In the isolated area the agricultural cooperative operated
most agrosupport services except the chemical input and credit supply. In the integrated
area, private sectors seemed to be actively providing the rural services including seed
supply and agricultural machinery services.
Awareness of extension focus. Information on awareness of extension focus made
an impression that in the isolated area the percentage of respondents knowledgeable on
contents of extension was higher than that in the integrated area on all subject matter
areas. In the isolated area the extension services not only introduced modern varieties but
also provided information on crop diversity. In the integrated area the contents provided
were concentrated on farming technology, but not much with variety maintenance and
resource management.
121
Original seed sources. There was a similar change in original WS seed sources between the two study areas that the farmer sources decreased but the company sources increased. There was no change in agricultural cooperative as source between 1996 and
2001. In the isolated area, the percentage of households who obtained original seeds from the cooperative was higher than in integrated area. Original seed sources for summer rice
did not change in the isolated area, but decreased in the integrated area between 1996 and
2001. In both study areas the farmer sources of summer seeds decreased.
Seed selection and exchanges. Seed selection and exchanges for WS rice changed differently
between the two study areas. Percentage of households, who practiced seed selection before harvest cutting,
e.g. selecting good rice plots, increased in isolated area but decreased in the integrated. Percentage of
households, which received and/or distributed seeds seasonally, seemed to increase in both study areas.
Percentage of households, which exchanged seeds for summer rice, was quite low in integrated area
because many farmers did not practice summer rice crop.
Impact of catastrophic flood on rice seed system. The catastrophic flood in 1999 damaged seeds and caused loss of varieties for most households in the region. There was number of farmers who wanted reuse of some of the lost varieties, however, the seeds were not available in the seed systems. Responses of farmers and local government to the seed damage by the flood led to that all households in the study areas adopted modern variety in WS rice season 1999-2000 since the farmers had no other options and also had incentives from the seed subsidy. Implications made for sustainability of seed system and rice diversity conservation included improvement of local seed infrastructure and including seed services of TVs in the formal seed systems.
122
Changes in Diversity of Rice Varieties
Change in rice varieties at community landscape level. In both study areas, total number of rice cultivars decreased in both growing seasons. Between 1996 and 2001 the
MV distribution measured by number households planting was widening in terms of location as well as the rice growing seasons. Meanwhile, that of the TVs was narrowed down. In this process, the MVs were spreading the TVs were becoming rare.
In the isolated area, the reduction of number of rice cultivars in WS season resulted from decrease of both the number of TV and the number of MV. However, in the integrated area the result led to loss of TVs. In summer rice season, TVs were lost in the integrated area, but were maintained in isolated area. However, number of MVs decreased.
Change in richness of rice varieties at household level. Total number of rice
varieties per household, a sum of MVs and TVs, decreased in both study areas. This change happened in both rice growing seasons. However, mean number of MVs for WS season increased in both study areas. In summer rice, mean number of MVs increased significantly in isolated area, but not significantly in integrated one.
The change in mean number of TVs at household was in the opposite direction compared with that of MVs. In WS season, it decreased in both areas. In summer rice, the
TVs were lost completely in the integrated area, but change was not significant in the isolated one.
123
Change in area abundance of rice varieties at household level. As a whole the change in mean total rice area of household between 1996 and 2001 was not significant.
However, there was a significant increase in percentage of MV area and a significant decrease in percentage of TV area in both growing seasons of the year.
In isolated area, change in mean total rice area between 1996 and 2001 was not
significant for both growing seasons. Increase in percentage of MV area and decrease in
percentage of TV area was significant only for WS season, but not significant for summer
rice. This indicated that farmers here still maintained area abundance of traditional
varieties on their farm.
In the integrated area, Many farmers did not practice summer rice because problems of drought and salinity. Increase in percentage of MV area and decrease in percentage of TV area was significant for both growing seasons in the year.
A Comparison of Rice Varieties Between Irrigated and Rainfed Areas
At the regional level, there was not much difference in number of MVs planted.
However, number of TVs in the irrigated area was much lower than that in the rainfed in
1996 and also in the year 2001. Some TVs were also maintained in the coastal irrigated area with very small growing area.
At household level, mean number of MVs in the irrigated area was higher than that in the rainfed, but TVs in the irrigated area was much lower. The difference was
124 similar for the two rice growing seasons in the year. Area abundance of TVs in the rainfed areas was much higher than that in the irrigated one, in both rice growing seasons.
Relationship Between Independent and Dependent Variables
Correlation between independent variables and variety richness. In both growing seasons total number of rice varieties at household was positively related with number of rice plots, seed source from farmers and households receiving seeds. In addition, total number of summer varieties has positive relation with deep-water plots and cooperative membership. It had negative relations with most other independent variables.
Number of TVs had positive relations with variables, which indicate agronomic problems, seed sources from farmers, cooperative membership, and the exchange with the production group leaders. It is negatively related with most other studied variables.
As a sum, the number of MVs had opposite relationship with the studied variables.
Correlation between independent variables and rice area abundance. Total rice area at household had positive relation with landholding, number of rice plots, and concern on submersion suitability of variety, and seed source from farmers. While the
WS area had no significant relation with the rest of studied variables, the summer rice area did with many of them. For example, it has negatively significant relations with age and length of rice farming of the farmer, percentage of rainfed and one-crop plots, however, positively with number of deep water plots, growing rice for selling, cooperative membership and exchange with the cooperative production group leaders.
125
Area percentage of traditional rice varieties for WS has positively significant relations with agronomic problems, poor housing condition and seed sources from farmers. In an opposite direction of relationship, it was negatively related with most other independent variables. The area percentage of traditional varieties was also positively related with number of deep-water plots, the cooperative membership and exchange with the production group leaders.
Multiple Regression Analysis of Dependent and Independent Variables
Number of MVs in WS season. Positive contributions included original seed sources from farmers, seed company, from cooperative and having electricity supply. The negative contribution was percentage of sandy rice land plots
Number of MVs in summer rice. Positive contributions included original seed sources from farmers, from seed company, and from cooperative. The negative contribution was percentage of rice sandy plots.
Number of TVs in WS season. Positive contributions included original seed sources from farmers, exchange with the production group leader, number of rice plots and educational attainment. Electricity and rice production per capita had negative contribution.
Number of TVs in summer rice. Positive contributions were directed from original seed sources from farmers. Negative contribution came from rice sandy plots and concern on variety drought resistance
126
Total WS rice area of household. The variables, which have most important
contribution positively to estimation of WS rice area of households, were the original
seeds from farmers, landholding, and concern on variety disease resistance.
Total summer rice area of household. The positive contribution to estimation of total summer rice area of household were the original seeds from farmers, exchange with expert farmers and household size. The negative contributions were from exchange with the production group leader, with input shop owners, having electricity, and percentage of one-crop rice plots.
Share of TV area in WS season. The negative contributions to estimation of the
share of TV area in WS season, included having electricity and number of drought plots.
The positive contribution was exchange with the production group leader and concern on
variety salinity resistance.
Share of TV area in summer rice season. The positive contributions to estimation of share of TV area in summer rice season, were original seeds from farmers and cooperative as extension implementers. The negative contributions included percentage of sandy rice plots.
127
Conclusions and Implications for On-farm Conservation of rice Diversity
1. In the coastal rice-based farming systems, the changes in socioeconomic
characteristics of farmer households and communities had resulted in declining in
rice diversity, especially losing the traditional varieties. Farmers grew rice mainly
for household consumption but some were working towards increasing rice
productivity. Increases in living standards and in level of market integration
favored the use of modern varieties over the traditional ones because they meet
better farmers’ farming objective and management strategies. Therefore among
the main causes of the decrease of rice diversity were (1) the priority objective
focused on increase of rice productivity, (2) the income diversification,
particularly the conversion of rice fields for growing cash crops, and (3) the
impact of the 1999 catastrophic flood on seeds and variety systems. The
implication is that in order to attain sustainability of rice farming, the conservation
objective should be integrated in management of rice varieties; to achieve
balanced objective of increasing productivity and gaining production stability.
This can be carried out through provision of agrosupport services, diversification
of extension focus, analyses of seed supply policy, and environmental education.
2. In coastal rainfed agrosystems farmers maintained rice diversity, which include
the variety richness and the abundance of traditional varieties, in specific
agroecological conditions and rice growing seasons. The agroecological
128
characteristics provide major influence in determination of farmers’ rice variety
orientation rather than the socioeconomic related factors. The implication is that
the target areas for rice diversity conservation on-farm are site and season-
specific, especially for the maintenance of some traditional varieties. This means
that the site selection for on-farm conservation needs to take account of changes
in agronomic farm conditions, which result from socioeconomic development.
Particularly, the increasing investments for farm improvement, e.g. irrigation, and
changes in cropping patterns through farm diversification may result in changes in
the agronomic conditions and socioeconomic characteristics under which the rice
varieties are maintained.
3. Community organizations such as the agricultural cooperative and local
government provide influential roles in directing the provision of agrosupport
services, seed supply, and making decisions on rice growing calendar, thereby
influencing the farmers’ variety selection and maintenance. Rice diversity
concerns can very well be channeled through these community organizations.
Therefore, a community-based initiative, which is conscious of conservation
necessity for long-term community benefit, is possibly effective to help
integration of conservation objective into livelihood activities. The community-
based initiatives for on-farm conservation of rice diversity can be implemented in
various forms depending on farmers’ networks and organizations that exist in the
community, either individual-based or people organization-based relations.
129
However, to involve participation of various stakeholders at local level into the
conservation, building awareness on the values of rice diversity is crucial.
Integration of rice diversity conservation into local agriculture development can
be carried out by communicating concepts on the values of the diversity and its
utilization in farming systems. Further field research is necessary to support
farmers to improve and evaluate the variety utilization and performance. This also
requires efforts from concerned stakeholders to balance the biases against the
traditional varieties in farming research and development.
4. Original seed sources and extent of seed exchanges of farmer households played
crucial roles in determination of the rice variety richness, types of varieties, and
variety abundance in terms of growing area, thereby influence the level of rice
diversity. The original seed source from farmers is the only factor that provides
the most important contribution to estimation of the richness and area abundance
of the traditional varieties. The study shows that there are biases in the provision
of agrosupport services against the maintenance of traditional varieties by
excluding them in the formal seed system. This prevents farmers from having
access to seeds of preferred varieties including the traditional varieties. These
biases can be corrected at the policy level by including the seeds of traditional
varieties in the agrosupport systems. Another strategy is strengthening the
farmers’ seed sources at community level to sustain rice seed systems over the
catastrophic calamities. This can be carried out by applying community
130
initiatives to improve seed infrastructure at households and community with
promotion of seed exchanges among farmers through specific extension program
or on-farm conservation activities.
5. Along the changes in socioeconomic conditions, rice remains the most important
source of livelihoods of the community. So a need for sustainability of rice
farming systems is obvious. However, farmers value rice diversity only in respect
to direct or short-term benefit in rice farming. This together with the biases from
agrosupport services and rice seed policies, which result from the productivity
increase objective, contributes unintentionally to the looses of rice diversity in the
region. Therefore, in order to meet local agricultural development objectives both
in short-term and in long-term, efforts on conservation of resource base like rice
diversity are necessary. The community-based approach for the conservation is
appropriate and potentially effective because it is able to help involve farmers and
other stakeholders by building on participation of community organizations and
farmers' networks. It is clear that a community-based mechanism is effective to
handle the community arrangements in a way that the conservation objective is
integrated into agricultural development. This can be implemented by channeling
the rice diversity through current community organizations and farmers'
information and input networks. Supplementary community-based activities,
which are developed and carried out with appropriate supports, can be also
effective to increase participation of farmers, people's organizations, and other
131
stakeholders in the conservation.
6. It is observable that irrigation expansion in coastal rice-based farming systems is
common. Under this condition, number of rice varieties maintained on-farm is
enriched. A certain number of modern varieties undergo long-term adaptation with
the local agronomic and socioeconomic characteristics. Moreover, some traditional
rice varieties are still maintained continuously in both the rainfed and irrigated
conditions, though most of them are in the rare form of distributions. Regardless of
the changes in socioeconomic characteristics, the efforts on on-farm conservation
could be effective in the long run to mitigate loss of rice diversity along the
agricultural development of the coastal communities.
132
Recommendations on Community Initiatives for On-farm Conservation of Rice Diversity
Building Awareness of Conservation of Rice Diversity
The decrease in number of rice cultivars, especially loosing the traditional varieties, and strong relationship between studied variables and productivity of rice variety indicated a low awareness of rice diversity value and conservation among farmers and other concerned organizations. Therefore building awareness of conservation of rice diversity for farmers and all stakeholders is very important in dealing with losing rice diversity. This may start with working with local agricultural officers and representatives from agrosupport and service providers at local level for information exchanges. At community level the farmers may be provided with facilitation to review their variety strategies and taking into account and consideration on the long adaptation cultivars.
Improvement of Seed Systems and Seed Policy
Seed sources from farmers had the most contribution to variety richness and area abundance of rice varieties, especially the traditional ones. Strengthening seed system includes improvement of farmers’ seed infrastructure, e.g. community seed stores or bank, seed and variety selection practices and community activities to promote seed exchanges. This can be done with training and organizing community-based activities for participatory seed and variety selection.
The research results indicated that there were a number of farmers, who wanted to
133 reuse some of the lost varieties, unfortunately there were no more seed available from the seed system. In order to increase seed access and options to the farmers in decision- making on variety choices for their use, the seeds of traditional varieties should be included in the formal seed system. This can be carried out at policy level through analyzing seed policy and its implication at local level. Re-distribution of traditional or good adapted varieties could be done to meet farmers’ preference of rice varieties.
Community Initiatives for Conservation of Rice Diversity
Rice diversity on-farm is subject of the farmers' choices, however the provision of agrosupport services and farmers' network relations influence their decisions. Therefore participatory activities such as community seed and variety selection, exchanges and decision making on land use are to provide opportunities and empowerment for integration of conservation objective into livelihood activities. There are various types of community initiatives, which may need some promotion and facilitation. Among activities effective are participatory evaluation of rice cultivars, seed and variety selections, and seed exchanges among farmers and communities.
Institutional Collaboration Towards a Community-based Conservation of Rice Diversity (CBCRD)
In order to attain a community-based conservation of rice diversity, inter and intra level institutional collaboration should be undertaken in complementary ways considering the roles and activities suggested in Table 29.
134
Table 29. Suggested potential actors or organizations to be involved in an institutional collaboration for Community-based (CB) conservation of rice diversity
LEVEL POTENTIAL ACTORS/ ROLES OR FUNCTIONS SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES ORGANIZATIONS • Build awareness on rice diversity, e.g. Env. • Define conservation training; & diversity fair objectives • Village extension leadership • Involve farmers and Improve community set up community • • Agricultural seed systems, e.g. seed working mechanism Cooperative storage training & set up Community Plan and implement • Farmers’ Union • community “gene bank” CB rice variety • Women’ Union management • Evaluation of rice varieties: e.g. Farm trials • Agricultural • Undertake CB & participatory input suppliers monitoring and evaluation evaluation • Promote variety variability among farmers, e.g. seed redistribution for on- farm trials • Agricultural • Include conservation • Analysis of local seed Local Department objective in policies provisions of Government • Seed Company • Redistribution of the agrosupport service preferred varieties • Extension Center and local seed policy through extension • Formalize the CB • Develop participatory conservation in seed & variety selection • National national policy programs National Network for Government Plant Genetic • Develop national • Identify successful CB Resource strategies and conservation schemes Conservation capacity for the for extension conservation
135
International • IPGRI • Provide scientific • Demonstrate CB bases and technical conservation • IRRI facilitation • Research support to CB conservation efforts
Promotion of Variety Variability among Farmers
Variety richness at household may not be practically increased but variation
among farmers can be arranged to increase number of varieties accumulative at
community landscape level. Arrangement among community members may be effective
and feasible by involving current community organizations and farmers' networks. This
should be carried out at planning stage at community level for rice production and also
for variety strategies. The household is to make decision on their own rice farming; the
community arrangement is to increase the variety richness at community level.
Target Sites for On-farm Conservation of TVs
Because distribution of traditional rice varieties is site or ecology specific, the community-based conservation may be effective for the varieties with high area abundance. Variety selection and management can be done through community arrangement and efforts, for example, they maintain a traditional variety for their own purposes. The existing community organizations such as agricultural cooperative in the isolated area could be involved as the key actors for this type of conservation.
Farmer Networks for Conservation of Rare Varieties
136
In all studied areas, even in the irrigated ones some traditional rare varieties were maintained. These varieties should be targeted for conservation because they have high possibilities of extinction. A farmer network is good for promotion of seed exchanges and also to enlarge the agronomic conditions, where the varieties can be tested for the adaptation. Active participation of individual households and private sectors in the integrated area may be appropriate for the conservation strategies.
Recommended Areas for Further Research
It is necessary to determine the costs to farmers; especially those still maintain the traditional varieties as farming strategy and at the same time value the use of rice diversity on their farm. Research to identify effective community initiatives for the rice diversity conservation could be explored especially the possible mechanisms to strengthen institutional arrangement. This may be carried out through the development of pilot schemes of on-farm conservation demonstration. Adding value to the targeted varieties for conservation also need to be tested in order to increase competition among the varieties, especially the TVs and in the long term locally adapted ones. Above all, an analysis of agrosupport policies and seed systems to identify effective solutions in
addressing issues of seed and variety availability and seed access by farmers could be
conducted.
137
LITERATURE CITED
ALTIERI, M. A. AND C. I. NICHOLLS. 1999. Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and insect pest management in agricultural systems, pp. 69 - 84. In Biodiversity in Agroecosystems. (ed.) Wanda W. Collins and Calvin O. Qualset. CRC press. Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.
BELLON M.R. 1994. The dynamics of crop intraspecific diversity: A conceptual framework at the farmer level. Economic Botany.
BELLON M.R. 1995. On-farm conservation as a process: An Analysis of its components. Paper presented at workshop on “Using Biodiversity: Enhancing and Maintaining Genetic Resources On-farm". International Development Research Center. New Delhi, India.
BELLON M.R. AND TAYLOR J.E. 1993. "Folk" Soil Taxonomy and the partial Adoption of New Seed Varieties. University of Chicago. U.S.A.
BICH, N. V. 1997. Development and Renovation of Management of the Agricultural Cooperatives of Vietnam. The National Political Publisher, Ha Noi, Vietnam.
BOONE E.T. 1989. Philosophical foundations of extension, pp. 1 - 9. In Foundations and changing practices in extension. (ed.) D.J. Blackbum. University of Guelph. Guelph, Ontario, Canada, NIG2WI.
BROWN, A. H. D. 1999. The genetic structure of crop landraces and the challenge to conserve them in situ on farms, pp. 29 - 50. In Genes in the field: On-farm conservation of crop diversity. (ed.) Stephen B. Brush. IPGRI, Rome Italy. IDRC Ottawa, Canada. Lewis Publishers Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.
BRUSH, S. B. 1999. The issues of in situ conservation of genetic resources, pp. 3 - 28. In Genes in the field: On-farm conservation of crop diversity. (ed.) Stephen B. Brush. IPGRI, Rome Italy. IDRC Ottawa, Canada. Lewis Publishers Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.
COLLINS, W. W. AND G. C. HAWTIN. 1999. Conserving and using crop plant biodiversity in agroecosystems, pp. 267 - 282. In Biodiversity in Agroecosystems. (ed.) Wanda W. Collins and Calvin O. Qualset. CRC press. Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.
138
CORREA, C. M. 1999. In situ conservation and intellectual property rights, pp. 239 - 260. In Genes in the field: On-farm conservation of crop diversity. (ed.) Stephen B. Brush. IPGRI, Rome Italy. IDRC Ottawa, Canada. Lewis Publishers Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.
COX T.S. AND D. WOOD. 1999. The nature and role of crop biodiversity, pp. 35 - 58. In Agrobiodiversity Chracterization, Utilization and Management. (ed.) D. Wood and J.M. Lenne. Agrobiodiversity International, Milnthorpe, UK. CABI Publishing.
CROMWELL, E. AND S. VAN OOSTERHOUT. 1999. On-farm conservation of crop diversity: Policy and institutional lessons from Zimbabwe, pp. 217 - 238. In Genes in the field: On-farm conservation of crop diversity. (ed.) Stephen B. Brush. IPGRI, Rome Italy. IDRC Ottawa, Canada. Lewis Publishers Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.
DAM, D. D. 1995. Vietnam’s Economy 1986-1995. ThÕ Giíi Publishers, Ha Noi, Vietnam.
EDWARDS, P. J., J. KOLLMANN, AND D. WOOD. 1999. Determinants of agrobiodiversity in the agricultural landscape, pp. 183 - 210. In Agrobiodiversity Chracterization, Utilization and Management. (ed.) D. Wood and J.M. Lenne. Agrobiodiversity International, Milnthorpe, UK. CABI Publishing.
ENGELS J. M. M. AND D. WOOD. 1999. Conservation of agrobiodiversity, pp. 355 - 386. In Agrobiodiversity chracterization, utilization and management. (ed.) D. Wood and J.M. Lenne. Agrobiodiversity International, Milnthorpe, UK. CABI Publishing.
FELLIZAR F. P. J. 1993. Policy issues related to the organizational aspects of community-based resource management in the Philippines. In Environment and resource management project report. (ed.) Fellizar F.P.J. The university of the Philippines Los Banos.
FURZE, B., T. DE LACY, AND J. BIRCKHEAD. 1996. Culture, conservation and biodiversity: The social dimension of linking local level development and conservation through protected areas, pp. 16 - 93.
GENERAL STATISTICS OFFICE. 1999. Statistical Yearbooks. Statistical Publishing House, Ha Noi, Vietnam
GOLLIN, D. AND M. SMALE. 1999. Valuing genetic diversity: Crop plants and agroecosystems, pp. 237 - 266. In Biodiversity in Agroecosystems. (ed.) Wanda
139
W. Collins and Calvin O. Qualset. CRC press. Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.
GONZALES, T. A. 1999. The cultures of seed in the Peruvian Andes, pp. 193 - 216. In Genes in the field: On-farm conservation of crop diversity. (ed.) Stephen B. Brush. IPGRI, Rome Italy. IDRC Ottawa, Canada. Lewis Publishers Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL RECONSTRUCTION (IIRR). 1998. Participatory methods in community-based coastal resource management. Volume 1, pp. 12 - 49. International Institute of rural reconstruction, Silang, Cavite, Philippines
JARVIS, D. AND T. HODGKIN. 1999. Farmer decision making and genetic diversity: Linking multidisciplinary research to implementation on-farm, pp. 261 - 278. In Genes in the field: On-farm conservation of crop diversity. (ed.) Stephen B. Brush. IPGRI, Rome Italy. IDRC Ottawa, Canada. Lewis Publishers Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.
KAST, F. E. AND J. E. ROSENZWEIG. 1979. Organization and management: a system and contingency approach. New York. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
KORTEN, D. C. 1998. Introduction: Community-based resource management. In Reading resources for researchers. Volume 2. The Community-based natural resource management program initiative, IDRC, Canada
LAKRA, V. 1996. Farmers’ strategies to cope with marginal environment in the Plateau region of Bihar, India. Ph.D. Thesis. University of the Philippines Los Banos.
LITTLE, P. D. 1994. The Link between local participation and improved conservation: A review of issues and experience. In Natural Connection: Perspectives in Community-based conservation. (eds) David Western and R. Michael Wright. Washington, DC Island Press.
LOUETTE, D. 1999. Traditional management of seed and genetic diversity: What is a landrace?, pp. 109 - 142. In Genes in the field: On-farm conservation of crop diversity. (ed.) Stephen B. Brush. IPGRI, Rome Italy. IDRC Ottawa, Canada. Lewis Publishers Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.
MAUDER, A. H. 1972. Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manuel, p. 4. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy
RHOADES, R. E. AND V. D. NAZAREA. 1999. Local management of biodiversity in traditional agroecosystems, pp. 215 - 236. In Biodiversity in Agroecosystems.
140
(ed.) Wanda W. Collins and Calvin O. Qualset. CRC press. Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.
SCOTT, W.G. 1967. Organization theory: an overview and an appraisal, pp. 537 - 548. In Current perspectives in social psychology. (ed.) E.P. Hollander and R.G. Hunt. London. Oxford University Press.
SHRODE, E.A. AND D. J. VOICH. 1974. Organization and management: Basic systems and concepts. Richard D. Irwin Inc., Homewood, Illinois.
SMALE, M. AND M. R. BELLON. 1999. A conceptual framework for valuing on-farm genetic resources, pp. 387 - 408. In Agrobiodiversity Chracterization, Utilization and Management. (ed.) D. Wood and J.M. Lenne. Agrobiodiversity International, Milnthorpe, UK. CABI Publishing.
SWANSON, T. AND T. GOESCHL. 1999. Optimal genetic resource conservation: in situ and ex situ, pp. 165 - 192. In Genes in the field: On-farm conservation of crop diversity. (ed.) Stephen B. Brush. IPGRI, Rome Italy. IDRC Ottawa, Canada. Lewis Publishers Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.
THE CENTRAL SECRETARIAT OF COMMUNIST PARTY OF VIETNAM. 1981. The Directive No. 100 on land allocation for production contracts.
THE GOVERMENT OF VIETNAM. 1993. The Decree 64/CP on allocation of the long term rights of land use
THE GOVERMENT OF VIETNAM. 1997. The Decree 43/CP on re-organization of the agricultural cooperatives
THE POLITBURO OF COMUNIST PARTY OF VIETNAM. 1988. Resolution No 10/NQ/TW on Renovation of Economic Management (the Doi Moi policy)
THURSTON, H. D., J. SALICK., M. E. SMITH., P. TRUTMANN., J. L. PHAM. AND R. McDOWELL. 1999. Traditional management of agrobiodiversity, pp. 211 - 244. In Agrobiodiversity Chracterization, Utilization and Management. (ed.) D. Wood and J.M. Lenne. Agrobiodiversity International, Milnthorpe, UK. CABI Publishing.
TUYEN, T. V. 1994. Disparity between the rich and the poor in rural areas of Vietnam. MA. Thesis. Khon Kaen University, Thailand.
UPHOFF, N. 1998. Community-Based Natural Resource Management: Connecting Micro and Macro Processes, and People with their Environment. Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Developemnt.
141
UPHOFF, N. AND J. LANGHOLZ. 1998. Incentives for Avoiding the Tragedy of the Commons. In Environmental Conservation. Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Developemnt.
WIGHT, M. AND M. TURNER. 1999. Seed management systems and effects on diversity, pp. 331 - 354. In Agrobiodiversity Chracterization, Utilization and Management. (ed.) D. Wood and J.M. Lenne. Agrobiodiversity International, Milnthorpe, UK. CABI Publishing.
WITCOMBE, J. R. 1999. Does plant breeding lead to a loss of genetic diversity?, pp. 245 - 272. In Agrobiodiversity Chracterization, Utilization and Management. (ed.) D. Wood and J.M. Lenne. Agrobiodiversity International, Milnthorpe, UK. CABI Publishing.
WOOD D. AND J. L. LENNE. 1999. Agrobiodiversity and natural biodiversity: some parallels, pp. 425 - 446. In Agrobiodiversity Chracterization, Utilization and Management. (ed.) D. Wood and J.M. Lenne. Agrobiodiversity International, Milnthorpe, UK. CABI Publishing
WOOD D. AND J. L. LENNE. 1999. The origins of agrobiodiversity in agriculture, pp. 15 - 34. In Agrobiodiversity Chracterization, Utilization and Management. (ed.) D. Wood and J.M. Lenne. Agrobiodiversity International, Milnthorpe, UK. CABI Publishing.
WOOD D. AND J. L. LENNE. 1999. Why agrobiodiversity?, pp. 1 - 14. In Agrobiodiversity Chracterization, Utilization and Management. (ed.) D. Wood and J.M. Lenne. Agrobiodiversity International, Milnthorpe, UK. CABI Publishing.
XUAN, V. T. 1995. History of Vietnam-IRRI Cooperation. In Partnership in Rice Research. (ed) G.L. Denning and Vo Tong Xuan. IRRI Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines
ZEMEDE ASFAW. 1999. The barleys of Ethiopia, pp. 77 - 108. In Genes in the field: On-farm conservation of crop diversity. (ed.) Stephen B. Brush. IPGRI, Rome Italy. IDRC Ottawa, Canada. Lewis Publishers Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.
142
APPENDICES
1.APPENDIX A
ADDITIONAL TABLES
Apendix Table 1. Matrix of relation between independent and dependent variables (Pearson Correlation Coefficient - R)
WINTER-SPRING RICE SEASON SUMMER RICE SEASON VARIABLE Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10
1. Age of household head -.06 -.13 -.16* .04 -.17* -.19* -.23** -.20* -.11 -.25** 2. Length of rice farming -.06 -.11 -.17* .03 -.18* -.23** -.21* -.19* -.12 -.23** 3. Household size .12 -.09 .09 .11 -.01 .03 -.02 -.02 -.02 -.03 4. People-labor ratio -.14 -.09 -.10 .03 -.12 -.20* -.16* -.18* -.12 -.19* 5. Educational attainment .00 .04 .00 -.07 .06 .09 .04 .08 .07 .07 6. Landholding .52*** .02 .14 -.03 .15 .49*** .30*** .33*** .26** .34*** 7. Number of rice plots .43*** .05 .33*** .08 .23** .49*** .33*** .37*** .30*** .35*** 8. Percentage of rainfed plots -.02 .31*** .06 -.19* .21* -.33*** -.21* -.22* -.14 -.26** 9. Percentage of one crop plots -.15 .16* -.03 -.05 .01 -.67*** -.54*** -.64*** -.50*** -.64*** 10. Percentage of sandy plots -.01 .62*** .13 -.45*** .48*** -.21* -.16* -.10 -.03 -.18* 11. Percentage of drought plots .01 .30*** .16* -.17* .28*** -.05 -.03 .16* .25** -.01 12. Percentage of deep water plots .14 .18* .09 -.15 .20* .47*** .31*** .42*** .36*** .38*** 13. Percentage of salinity plots -.05 .47*** .09 -.29*** .31*** -.15 -.16* -.02 .07 -.14 14. Rice production per capita .21* -.09 .06 .09 -.02 .21* .10 .15 .11 .15 15. Housing class .00 .36*** .15 -.24** .32*** -.01 .12 .21* .21* .15 16. Having electricity supply -.11 -.68*** -.28*** .47*** -.63*** -.13 -.25** -.29*** -.27*** -.23** 17. Having own hand-pump well -.09 -.61*** -.29*** .37*** -.55*** .07 -.07 -.13 -.15 -.07 18. Having motorcycle .01 -.18* -.07 .24* -.25* -.06 -.11 -.10 -.09 -.07 19. Having television .03 -.30*** -.24* .13 -.32*** .03 -.05 -.05 -.05 -.03 20. Having radio-cassette -.08 .53*** .06 -.34*** .32*** -.13 .02 .01 .04 -.04
Apendix Table 1. Continued ...
VARIABLE WINTER-SPRING RICE SEASON SUMMER RICE SEASON
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 21. Concern on variety yield -.03 -.50*** -.23** .31*** -.45*** .07 .04 -.11 -.18* .02 22. Concern on variety duration .03 -.45*** -.16* .28*** -.37*** .22* .13 .08 .01 .15 23. Concern on variety drought -.05 -.29*** -.17* .21* -.32*** -.08 -.14 -.19* -.16* -.18* resistance 24. Concern on submersion suitability .16* -.22* -.01 .19* -.16* .35* .22* .22* .15 .26* 25. Concern on poor soil suitability .01 -.24** -.14 .21* -.29*** -.05 -.07 -.17* -.17* -.11 26. Concern on variety salinity .11 -.33*** -.08 .28*** -.29*** .09 .09 -.05 -.11 .07 resistance 27. Concern on variety disease .02 -.47*** -.19 .29*** -.40*** .12 .04 -.06 -.11 .04 resistance 28. Concern on variety eating quality .06 -.44*** -.05 .36*** -.33*** .08 .05 .00 -.05 .07 29. Growing rice for consumption -.08 -.82*** -.30*** .53*** -.70*** .02 -.16* -.21* -.21* -.14 30. Growing rice for selling .02 -.34*** -.17* .20* -.31*** .41*** .08 .17* .13 .17* 31. Member of agricultural cooperative .15 -.39*** -.16* .18* -.29*** .53*** .35*** .31*** .17* .42*** 32. Member of farmer union .10 -.59*** -.16* .44*** -.49*** .26** .07 .03 -.04 .11 33. Member of women union .05 -.70*** -.21* .48*** -.57*** .21* .01 -.01 -.05 .04 34. Relatives as exchange source -.09 -.79*** -.32*** .49*** -.67*** .01 -.16* -.21* -.21* -.14 35. Neighbors as exchange source -.10 -.79*** -.32*** .49*** -.67*** .05 -.14 -.17* -.18* -.12 36. Next plots owners as exchange -.10 -.78*** -.32*** .48*** -.67*** .07 -.12 -.17* -.18* -.10 source
2 37. Expert farmers as exchange source -.07 -.67*** -.33*** .36*** -.58*** .06 -.07 -.13 -.16* -.05 38. Group leaders as exchange source .13 -.38*** -.10 .25** -.29*** .25** .20* .14 .03 .25* 39. Village leaders as exchange source -.04 -.59*** -.27** .33*** -.50*** -.01 -.02 -.11 -.15 -.01 40. Coop. officers as exchange source .10 -.34*** -.08 .21* -.24** .20* .23** .19* .08 .28*** 41. Extension staff as exchange source .02 -.20* .00 .24** -.19* .03 -.03 -.05 -.07 -.01 42. Researchers as exchange source .10 -.32*** -.01 .31*** -.26** .19* .00 .02 .01 .01 43. Mass media as exchange source -.04 -.63*** -.18* .50*** -.56*** -.03 -.25** -.21* -.15 -.23** 44. Cooperative as extension implementer -.06 -.22** -.16* .07 -.20* .21* .26** .20* .10 .28*** 45. Cooperative as rice seed supplier .11 -.23** -.17* .03 -.18* .40*** .19* .19* .12 .23** 46. Shop owner as chemical input supplier -.11 -.70*** -.36*** .34*** -.59*** .10 -.08 -.11 -.13 -.05 47. Coop. as watering service manager .06 -.25** -.18* .09 -.23** .50*** .16* .16* .10 .21* .38* .48*** .71*** -.14 .74*** .05 .18* .18* .14 .17* 48. Winter-Spring seeds from farmer ** 49. Winter-Spring seeds from cooperative .10 -.03 .17* .25** -.05 .27** .17* .32*** .30*** .26** 50. Winter-Spring seeds from company -.05 -.38*** .02 .36*** -.27*** -.16* -.11 -.18* -.16* -.14 51. Summer original seeds from farmer .22* .23** .24** -.19* .37*** .57*** .65*** .80*** .66*** .73*** 52. Summer original seeds from coop. .11 -.25** -.14 .12 -.22* .43*** .18* .23** .17* .26** 53. Summer original seeds from company -.04 -.30*** -.06 .18* -.20* .09 .06 .12 .12 .07 54. Winter-Spring selection before cutting .04 .02 .03 -.06 .08 -.18* -.23** -.22* -.15 -.24** 55. Winter-Spring selection after cutting -.05 .05 -.02 -.02 .00 .24** .29*** .29*** .22** .30*** 56. Receiving Winter-Spring seeds .13 -.16* .21* .27** -.03 .02 .01 .06 .04 .06 57. Distributing Winter-Spring seeds .05 -.15 .08 .16* -.06 .05 -.14 .02 .09 -.08 58. Summer seed selection before cutting .05 -.33*** -.15 .15 -.25** .28*** .15 .18* .14 .19* 59. Summer seed selection after cutting .05 -.20* -.14 .06 -.17* .37*** .17* .21* .13 .26** 60. Receiving Summer seeds .02 .13 .08 -.05 .12 .24** .20* .43*** .42*** .30*** 61. Distributing Summer seeds .01 .06 .06 -.01 .07 .30*** .19* .30*** .28*** .24**
8 Apendix Table 2. Multiple regression analysis of independent variables and variety variables in Winter-Spring season
WINTER-SPRING PERCENTAGE OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF MV NUMBER OF RICE AREA TV AREA VARIETIES TV
R² = 0.6163 R² = 0.8250 R² = 0.9109 R² = 0.7355 R² = 0.8377 INDEPENDENT VARIABLE F = 3.1820 F = 9.3395 F = 20.247 F = 5.5111 F = 10.226 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Beta B Beta B Beta B Beta B Beta B coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef.
Intercept -1996.9 48.7 0.22 0.52 -0.30
Age of household head -.02 -4.9 .00 0.01 .06 0.01 -.05 -0.004 .10 0.01
0. Length of rice farming .18 37.8 .04 0.1 -.02 0.00 .01 0.001 -.02 -0.002
• Household size .02 29.4 -.06 -1.3 .02 0.01 .09 0.04 -.05 -0.03
• Educational attainment -.07 -182.6 .11 5.2* .02 0.03 -.16 -0.16* .15 0.19*
• Landholding .46 0.2*** -.04 -0.003 -.03 0.00 -.06 0.00 .02 0.001
• Number of rice plots .19 239.3 .10 2.0 .13 0.07* -.08 -0.03 .18 0.10*
• Percentage of rainfed plots .16 14.1 .11 0.2 -.06 -0.002 -.09 -0.003 .02 0.001
• Percentage of one crop plots .14 9.6 .03 0.04 .02 0.001 .11 0.003 -.07 -0.002
9 • Percentage of sandy plots -.08 -4.8 .11 0.1 -.07 -0.002 -.25 -0.01* .13 0.003
• Percentage of drought plots .02 1.4 -.25 -0.3** .07 0.002 .14 0.00 -.05 -0.002
• Percentage of deep water plots .04 5.5 -.13 -0.3* -.05 -0.002 .11 0.01 -.12 -0.01*
• Percentage of salinity plots .07 4.8 .10 0.1 -.01 -0.001 .04 0.001 -.04 -0.001
• Rice production per capita -.03 -0.2 -.14 -0.02 -.09 -0.001 .09 0.001 -.15 -0.001*
• Housing class .00 20.6 .00 -0.3 -.02 -0.03 .05 0.08 -.06 -0.11
• Having electricity supply .03 134.4 -.31 -25.2*** .14 0.28* .40 0.73*** -.20 -0.44*
• Having own hand-pump well -.04 -179.4 -.04 -3.2 -.09 -0.19 -.09 -0.16 -.01 -0.03
• Having television .10 483.2 .00 0.1 -.03 -0.06 -.04 -0.08 .01 0.01
• Having radio-cassette -.11 -595.2 .08 7.2 -.10 -0.23* .00 -0.01 -.09 -0.22
10 Apendix Table 2. continued ...
WINTER-SPRING PERCENTAGE OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF MV NUMBER OF RICE AREA TV AREA VARIETIES TV
R² = 0.6163 R² = 0.8250 R² = 0.9109 R² = 0.7355 R² = 0.8377 INDEPENDENT VARIABLE F = 3.1820 F = 9.3395 F = 20.247 F = 5.5111 F = 10.226 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Beta B Beta B Beta B Beta B Beta B coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef.
• Concern on variety yield -.22 -1108.0 .05 4.5 .12 0.25 -.07 -0.14 .17 0.38
• Concern on variety duration -.08 -377.5 .01 1.1 .03 0.06 .16 0.28 -.10 -0.22
• Concern on variety drought .12 589.7 .01 0.7 -.09 -0.17 -.13 -0.23 .03 0.06 resistance • Concern on submersion suitability -.06 -308.4 .02 1.4 .01 0.01 .00 0.001 .00 0.01
• Concern on poor soil suitability .04 172.4 -.08 -6.1 .00 -0.01 .16 0.28 -.13 -0.29
• Concern on variety salinity .00 -9.7 .20 15.9* -.04 -0.07 -.10 -0.18 .05 0.11 resistance • Concern on variety disease .32 1534.6* -.17 -13.5 -.06 -0.11 .00 -0.01 -.05 -0.10 resistance • Concern on variety eating quality .03 164.5 .04 3.1 .12 0.23* .07 0.12 .05 0.11
• Growing rice for consumption -.57 -2684.8 -.22 -17.0 -.42 -0.82* .11 0.19 -.46 -1.01
11 • Growing rice for selling .02 148.6 -.04 -4.3 .03 0.09 .12 0.28 -.06 -0.19
• Member of agricultural .36 1962.6 .23 20.4 -.17 -0.38 -.32 -0.63 .10 0.25 cooperative • Member of farmer union .22 1076.6 -.02 -1.9 -.05 -0.11 .05 0.10 -.09 -0.21
1. Member of women union .02 75.2 -.25 -19.9 .03 0.07 .31 0.54 -.21 -0.48
12 Apendix Table 2. continued ...
WINTER-SPRING PERCENTAGE OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF MV NUMBER OF RICE AREA TV AREA VARIETIES TV
R² = 0.6163 R² = 0.8250 R² = 0.9109 R² = 0.7355 R² = 0.8377 INDEPENDENT VARIABLE F = 3.1820 F = 9.3395 F = 20.247 F = 5.5111 F = 10.226 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Beta B Beta B Beta B Beta B Beta B coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef.
2. Relatives as exchange source .22 1049.3 -.20 -15.8 .26 0.50 .17 0.30 .09 0.20
3. Neighbors as exchange source .15 702.9 .00 -0.2 -.20 -0.40 -.27 -0.47 .03 0.07
4. Next plots owners as exchange -.29 -1366.2 -.11 -8.6 .15 0.30 .13 0.23 .03 0.06 source 5. Expert farmers as exchange .16 770.7 -.01 -0.8 .00 0.002 -.03 -0.05 .02 0.05 source 6. Group leaders as exchange source .06 313.1 .23 20.5* .16 0.36 -.13 -0.25 .25 0.61*
7. Village leaders as exchange .04 182.4 -.01 -0.7 -.19 -0.39* -.15 -0.27 -.05 -0.13 source 8. Extension staff as exchange -.09 -347.4 -.03 -1.6 .07 0.11 .11 0.16 -.03 -0.04 source 9. Researchers as exchange source -.06 -406.9 .07 8.2 .12 0.32* -.09 -0.21 .17 0.53*
10. Mass media as exchange source .13 630.8 .11 9.1 -.08 -0.16 .02 0.04 -.09 -0.20
11. Coop. as extension implementer -.17 -1315.3 .08 9.9 -.02 -0.06 -.05 -0.13 .02 0.07
13 12. Cooperative as rice seed supplier .11 857.4 .06 7.4 -.09 -0.28 -.21 -0.59* .09 0.32
13. Chemical shopper as input -.13 -656.0 -.11 -9.0 .02 0.04 .02 0.03 .01 0.02 supplier 14. Coop. as watering service -.15 -1118.6 .02 2.7 .06 0.18 .13 0.35 -.05 -0.17 manager 15. Original seeds from farmer in .47 959.8*** .02 0.8 .94 0.80*** .37 0.28*** .55 0.52*** village 16. Original seeds from the .13 451.2 -.11 -6.3 .49 0.70*** .54 0.69*** .01 0.01 cooperative 17. Original seeds from seed .19 644.1 -.03 -1.9 .55 0.77*** .44 0.55*** .14 0.22 company 18. Selection before harvest cutting -.13 -596.0 .15 11.8 .14 0.28 -.25 -0.44 .33 0.72
19. Selection after harvest cutting -.22 -1074.0 .19 15.0 .09 0.18 -.28 -0.49 .30 0.67
20. Receiving supplement seeds -.01 -60.2 .02 1.7 .10 0.21* .06 0.11 .04 0.10
21. Distributing supplement seeds .04 250.7 -.05 -4.4 .06 0.14 .00 0.002 .05 0.14
14 Apendix Table 3. Multiple regression analysis of independent variables and variety variables in summer rice season
SUMMER RICE AREA PERCENTAGE OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF MV NUMBER OF TV AREA VARIETIES TV
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE R² = 0.8260 R² = 0.7118 R² = 0.8835 R² = 0.7271 R² = 0.8168 F = 9.3799 F = 4.8929 F = 15.021 F = 5.2796 F = 8.8368 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Beta B Beta B Beta B Beta B Beta B coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef.
Intercept 493.5 75.47 0.89 -0.13 1.01
Age of household head .07 21.0 -.14 -0.45 .04 0.004 .18 0.01 -.16 -0.01
0. Length of rice farming -.13 -39.3 .06 0.19 -.04 -0.004 -.11 -0.01 .08 0.003
0. Household size .10 172.9* .04 0.68 .06 0.03 .05 0.02 .05 0.01
0. Educational attainment .02 69.2 -.04 -1.86 .02 0.03 .06 0.05 -.04 -0.02
0. Landholding .17 0.1 -.10 0.001 .02 0.001 .09 0.001 -.09 0.001
0. Number of rice plots .04 68.6 .13 2.47 .06 0.04 .01 0.004 .12 0.03
0. Percentage of rainfed plots .11 14.3 .08 0.11 .00 0.000 -.03 -0.001 .05 0.001
0. Percentage of one crop plots -.18 -17.2* -.15 -0.15 -.11 -0.004 -.06 -0.001 -.16 -0.002
44 0. Percentage of sandy plots -.17 -14.2 -.36 -0.30** -.36 -0.01*** -.29 -0.01** -.35 0.004***
0. Percentage of drought plots -.07 -7.0 .04 0.04 .10 0.003 .15 0.004 -.02 0.000
0. Percentage of deep water plots .06 11.5 -.02 -0.04 .01 0.001 .00 0.001 .02 0.001
0. Percentage of salinity plots .13 13.1 -.16 -0.18 .07 0.003 .12 0.003 -.02 0.001
0. Rice production per capita .04 0.4 -.12 -0.01 -.04 0.000 -.03 0.001 -.05 0.001
0. Housing class -.01 -70.5 -.07 -4.31 .02 0.03 .04 0.06 -.03 -0.03
0. Having electricity supply -.21 -1452* -.10 -7.25 .06 0.14 .11 0.17 -.03 -0.03
0. Having own hand-pump well .07 476.5 -.03 -2.48 -.01 -0.03 .03 0.04 -.06 -0.07
0. Having television -.02 -141.1 -.08 -5.61 .01 0.03 .07 0.10 -.07 -0.07
0. Having radio-cassette -.02 -134.6 .10 7.61 -.06 -0.14 -.09 -0.15 .01 0.01
45 Apendix Table 3. continued ...
SUMMER RICE AREA PERCENTAGE OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF MV NUMBER OF TV AREA VARIETIES TV
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE R² = 0.8260 R² = 0.7118 R² = 0.8835 R² = 0.7271 R² = 0.8168 F = 9.3799 F = 4.8929 F = 15.021 F = 5.2796 F = 8.8368 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Beta B Beta B Beta B Beta B Beta B coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef.
0. Concern on variety yield -.16 -1117.4 .29 21.25 -.08 -0.19 -.26 -0.42 .21 0.24
0. Concern on variety duration -.01 -37.8 -.02 -1.56 .05 0.11 .09 0.14 -.02 -0.02
0. Concern on variety drought -.08 -546.3 -.22 -15.22 -.01 -0.03 .16 0.24 -.26 -0.27* resistance 0. Concern on submersion suitability .14 938.7 -.10 -6.79 -.04 -0.10 -.02 -0.03 -.07 -0.07
0. Concern on poor soil suitability .05 364.7 .06 4.21 -.01 -0.03 -.05 -0.07 .04 0.04
0. Concern on variety salinity .01 91.1 .20 14.23 .01 0.03 -.10 -0.15 .17 0.18 resistance 0. Concern on variety disease .08 571.2 -.09 -6.13 -.02 -0.05 .01 0.02 -.06 -0.07 resistance 0. Concern on variety eating quality -.04 -289.6 -.06 -4.44 .04 0.09 .06 0.09 .00 -0.002
46 0. Growing rice for consumption .17 1146.8 -.21 -14.69 -.40 -0.89 -.46 -0.69 -.18 -0.19
0. Growing rice for selling .03 273.7 -.06 -6.18 .10 0.30 .11 0.22 .05 0.08
0. Member of agricultural .21 1603.8 .48 38.73 -.07 -0.17 -.26 -0.45 .24 0.28 cooperative 0. Member of farmer union .18 1265.8 -.03 -2.01 .01 0.03 .06 0.09 -.06 -0.06
1. Member of women union -.13 -880.5 -.02 -1.16 .02 0.05 .07 0.10 -.05 -0.05
47 Apendix Table 3. continued ...
SUMMER RICE AREA PERCENTAGE OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF MV NUMBER OF TV AREA VARIETIES TV
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE R² = 0.8260 R² = 0.7118 R² = 0.8835 R² = 0.7271 R² = 0.8168 F = 9.3799 F = 4.8929 F = 15.021 F = 5.2796 F = 8.8368 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Prob. <.00000 Beta B Beta B Beta B Beta B Beta B coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef.
2. Relatives as exchange source -.24 -1654.2 -.08 -5.86 .04 0.10 .07 0.11 -.01 -0.01
3. Neighbors as exchange source -.08 -565.3 .13 8.98 .12 0.26 .18 0.28 -.02 -0.02
4. Next plots owners as exchange .32 2198.7 -.34 -23.99 -.20 -0.45 -.20 -0.31 -.14 -0.15 source 5. Expert farmers as exchange .27 1886* -.15 -10.90 .06 0.13 .16 0.25 -.11 -0.12 source 6. Group leaders as exchange source -.32 -2450* -.01 -0.95 -.05 -0.12 -.10 -0.18 .05 0.06
7. Village leaders as exchange -.06 -448.5 .13 9.71 -.10 -0.23 -.19 -0.30 .07 0.07 source 8. Extension staff as exchange -.03 -143.4 .04 2.18 .01 0.02 -.02 -0.03 .06 0.05 source 9. Researchers as exchange source .11 1034.7 .16 15.75 .04 0.12 .01 0.02 .07 0.10
48 10. Mass media as exchange source -.04 -252.8 -.10 -7.23 -.01 -0.02 .07 0.12 -.13 -0.14
11. Coop. as extension implementer .06 616.7 .21 23.93* .04 0.14 .01 0.02 .07 0.12
12. Cooperative as rice seed supplier .18 2041* .13 14.99 .03 0.11 -.03 -0.07 .10 0.18
13. Chemical shopper as input -.24 -1700* .05 3.26 -.01 -0.02 -.03 -0.05 .03 0.03 supplier 14. Coop. as watering service .14 1530.2 -.04 -3.98 -.01 -0.05 .02 0.04 -.05 -0.09 manager 15. Original seeds from farmer in .30 1199*** .36 14.85*** .57 0.74*** .55 0.49*** .42 0.26*** village 16. Original seeds from the -.05 -443.1 -.01 -0.99 .23 0.68* .30 0.62* .05 0.07 cooperative 17. Original seeds from seed .01 144.3 .00 0.22 .25 0.82*** .35 0.80** .02 0.02 company 18. Selection before harvest cutting .04 222.7 -.15 -8.67 .00 0.01 .03 0.04 -.04 -0.03
19. Selection after harvest cutting .10 573.6 -.03 -2.02 -.04 -0.07 -.09 -0.11 .05 0.04
20. Receiving supplement seeds .07 469.8 -.07 -5.21 .15 0.35** .18 0.29* .06 0.06
21. Distributing supplement seeds .05 319.9 .04 3.03 .11 0.25* .13 0.20 .05 0.05
49 50 44 151
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE (Translated in Vietnamese)
COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT OF RICE VARIETIES IN COASTAL REGION OF HUE, VIETNAM
Note: This questionnaire will be used for purpose of the study only. We would like to solicit a honest response from all respondents. Your answer will be treated confidentially.
Name of Respondent: Household code: Address: Village: Commune Title: Name of Interviewer: Date of Interview:
I. HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
1.1 Information on demography and education attainment Please give the information according to the following:
No. Name of household Relationship Age Sex Education Occupation member (M/F) Attained
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Note: Relationship: Father; mother; children; other (specify) M- Male; F- Female Age- based on the last birthday. Education level: Highest grade attended. Occupation: Description of type of occupation/job.
152
Code: ......
1.2 Information on rice production and income of the household
No. Type of information Respondent's information
Length of living in village (in year)
Length of planting rice (in year)
Household classification ( ) Poor ( ) Medium ( ) Better-off Sources of income (Ranking ( ) Rice production according to importance to the ( ) Animal production household, assign ordinal number) ( ) Other crops ( ) Non-farm activity ( ) Emigrant jobs Rice production of household Winter-Spring 99-2000: ______Kg Summer 2000: ______Kg Housing quality ( ) Temporary materials ( ) Semi-permanent constructed ( ) Permanent constructed Means of production and facilities ( ) Agricultural machinery generator (mark for presence, leave blank if ( ) Modern Furniture absence) ( ) Motorcycle ( ) Television ( ) Electricity supply ( ) Hand-pump water well ( ) Recommended Latrine
153
Code: ...... II. LANDHOLDING AND FARM CONDITIONS
(Expanding sheet attached for more column)
No. Type of information Respondent's information
8. Local name of land plots (listing one in each column) 9 . Area (in sq. meter) 10. Plot tenureship (1-own, 2-rented, 3-open access, 4-no answer) 11. Type of agroecosystem of plot (1-Deep water field, 2-Arice@, 3-Avegetables@, 4-forestry) 12. Type of water management of plot (1-rainfed, 2-period watering, 3-full watering, 4-draining) 13. Soil texture of plot (1-sandy, 2-sandy loam, 3- loam, 4 clay loam, 5-clay) 14. Soil fertility of plot (1-good, 2-medium, 3-poor, 4-very poor) 15. Plot drought problem during growing season (0-no, 1-yes) 16. Plot flood problem during growing season (0-no, 1-yes) 17. Plot salinity problem during growing season (0-no, 1-yes) 18. Plot pest and disease problem during growing season (0-no, 1-yes) 19. Plot characteristics preferred (listing in order of st preference, 1 listed-liked most) 20. Plot characteristics disliked (listing in order of st preference, 1 listed-disliked most) 21. Crops/varieties planted in winter-spring (WS) season (list, then circle crops and varieties which were adopted during 1996-2000) 22. WS crop or variety and year was replaced with the above circled (list crops/varieties and attach year of no longer use) 23. Crops/varieties planted in Summer season (list, then circle crops and varieties which were adopted during 1996-2000) 154
24. Summer crop or variety and year was replaced with the above circled (list crops/varieties and attach year of no longer use)
Code: ...... III. RICE VARIETIES BEING USED FOR WINTER-SPRING SEASON (Expanding sheet attached for more columns)
No. Type of information Respondent's information
. Local name of rice varieties being used (list one name in one column) . Area planted to variety in WS 2000-2001 (in sq. meter) . Variety type (TV or MV) . Glutinous rice (G-glutinous, N-non glutinous) . Reasons for being used the varieties (state and rank these according to the importance, 1st stated - most important) . Month of nursery seeding (month) . Month of seeding or transplanting at paddy field (month of Solar calendar ) . Maturity (actual dates including nursery) . Yield (Kg paddy/Sao- 500 sq. meter) . Price by harvesting time (VND/Kg paddy rice) . Rice utility (1-only consumption, 2- only sale, 3- both) . Special uses (if any, specify) . Year starting use the variety (actual year) . Original seed source (1-extensive family, 2-other farmers in village, 3-cooperative, 4-seed company, 5-others) . Seed renewal for same varieties (0-never, 1- sometimes, or indicate actual years) . Liked characteristics of variety (state and rank, 1st stated-liked most)
. Disliked characteristics of variety (state and rank, 1st stated-disliked most) 155
156
Code: ...... IV. RICE VARIETIES BEING USED FOR SUMMER RICE SEASON (Expanding sheet attached for more columns)
No. Type of information Respondent's information
. Local name of rice varieties being used (list one name in one column) . Area planted to variety in Summer rice 2000 (in sq. meter) . Variety type (TV or MV) . Glutinous rice (G-glutinous, N-non glutinous) . Reasons for being used the varieties (state and rank these according to the importance, 1st stated - most important) . Month of nursery seeding (month) . Month of seeding or transplanting at paddy field (month of Solar calendar ) . Maturity (actual dates including nursery) . Yield (Kg paddy/Sao- 500 sq. meter) . Price by harvesting time (VND/Kg paddy rice) . Rice utility (1-only consumption, 2- only sale, 3- both) . Special uses (if any, specify) . Year starting use the variety (actual year) . Original seed source (1-extensive family, 2-other farmers in village, 3-cooperative, 4-seed company, 5-others) . Seed renewal for same varieties (0-never, 1- sometimes, or indicate actual years) . Liked characteristics of variety (state and rank, 1st stated-liked most)
. Disliked characteristics of variety (state and rank, 1st stated-disliked most)
157
Code: ...... V. SEED MANAGEMENT AND EXCHANGES (Expanding sheet attached for more columns)
No. Type of information Respondent's information
. Variety name (listing one name in one column)
. Practice of seed keeping (1- Kept separately, 2- with rice grains) . Quantity of seeds kept for the last season (Kg for each variety) . Quantity of seeds planted from own source (Kg planted for last season) . Quantity of seeds received from other sources (Kg received for last season) . From whom seeds were acquired (refer to question III. 14) . Reasons for receiving additional seeds (1- seed shortage; 2-start of new varieties; 3-trial; 4-seed renewal) . Total seeds planted (own seeds plus received for last season, Kg seeds of the variety) . Distribution of own seeds (0 - no; 1 - yes)
. Quantity of seeds distributed (Kg distributed in last season) . To whom seeds were distributed (refer to question III. 14) . Seed selection practice (0-no or 1-yes)
. When practice seed selection (1-before harvest, 2-right after harvest) . Who do seed selection (1-the husband, 2-the wife, 3-the husband & wife, 4-other, specify) . Criteria for seed selection (state the parts of plant in ordinal rank, 1st stated-most frequent)
. Manner of seed storage (describe actual practice in ordinal rank, 1st stated-most frequent) 158
Code: ...... VI. FARMER'S PERCEPTION ON FARMING OBJECTIVE, VARIETY CHARACTERISTICS, AND RICE DIVERSITY
6.1. Farmer's perception on rice farming objective
No. Type of information Respondent's ranking score . Rice farming objectives (assign ordinal number to each st objective according to own priority, 1 - first priority) For family consumption For marketing . Farm management objectives(assign ordinal number to each st objective according to own priority, 1 - first priority) Increasing productivity Gaining stability of production
6. 2. Farmer's perception on value of rice diversity
Respondent's score (0-non, No. Type of information 1-somewhat important, 2-important, 3-very important) Use of a diverse Use of some set of varieties rice TVs . Coping with adverse agronomic conditions . Minimizing risks from weather fluctuations . Minimizing damages by pest and diseases . Stabilizing the yield and productions . Easing labor and resource tensions due to cropping seasonality . Increasing farming productivity . Meeting needs from diverse culture . Meeting habits of diet and consumption 159
. Suiting the traditional farming practices . Increasing food security . Maintaining agroecosystem services 160
Code: ......
6. 3. Farmer's concern on characteristics of rice variety
Respondent's information State if it is Rank among the No. Characteristic of variety important important ones (marked 1) (1st most concern) . Yielding . Duration . Resistance to weeds . Suitability to drought . Suitability to deep water field . Resistance to insect . Resistance to disease . Resistance to rat . Resistance to lodging . Work requirement . Fertilizer requirement . Eating quality 0 . Market price 1 . Milled rice percentage 2 . Easiness to storage 3 . Fodder yield 4 . Suitability to poor soil 5. Resistance to salinity 161
Code: ...... VII. COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
7. 1. Community organizations, membership
Membership No. People organization within community (1-the husband, 2-the wife, 3 both) Agricultural cooperative Farmers' Union Women's Union Veteran's Union Co-sharing field group Interest group
7. 2. Farmers' information and input network
Contact frequency (0-never, No. Source of exchange and consultation 1-sometimes, 2-often, 3-very often) 6 . Extensive family members 7 . Neighbor farmers 8 . Next field plot owners 9 . Production group leaders 0 . Village and commune government officers 1 . Agricultural cooperative officers 2 . People organization officers 3 . Farm input service providers 4 . Extension workers 5 . Researchers 6. Public mass media
162
Code: ...... 7. 3. Lead roles in decision-making on crop production
No. Type of decision-making People* who take lead roles Land use e.g. land allocation to various crops Rice land use e.g. land allocation to rice varieties Set of rice varieties for both growing seasons . Set of rice varieties for WS season . Set of rice varieties for Summer season . Use or maintenance of a rice variety . Rice growing calendar . Growing calendar for cash crops . Water management practices . Farm input utility . Technical application on farming . Agricultural machinery . Involving or hiring labor . Getting a capital credits . Use and market of farm products
Note*: 1-The husband; 2-The wife; 3-Co-sharing field group; 4-The production group leaders; 5-Village and commune leaders; 6-Agricultural cooperatives; 7-People organization (specify); 8-Owners of farm input shop 163
Code: ...... VIII. AGROSUPPORT SERVICE IN COMMUNITY
8. 1. Agrosupport service providers in community
Respondent's No. Type of service information on service providers* 7 . Extension supports 8. Seed supply 9 . Farm input supply 0 . Loan and credit service 1. Water management services 2 . Land preparation services 3 . Transportation services 4 . Farming technology services 5 . Farm product protection 6. Marketing services
Note*: 1-Individual farmers; 3-Production group; 4-Agricultural cooperative; 5- Village and commune; 6-People's organization; 7-Agricultural input shop; 8-Extension center and agricultural department; 9-Research institute and university; 10- Bank
8. 2. Extension focuses
Respondent's score No. (0-never, Extension focuses 1-sometime, 3-often) 7 . Farm technology 8. Natural resource management 9 . Introduction of advanced technology 0 . Improvement of farm practices 1. Provision of information on biodiversity 2 . Introduction of new rice varieties 3 . Increase of number of varieties planted 4 . Reduction of number of varieties planted 164
5 . Maintenance of traditional varieties 6 . Discarding traditional varieties 7. Maintenance of variability of crop population