Climate Justice in Rice Emission Reduction: The Outrage of Filipino Smallholders

by Posted on
● October 2023: Protests organised in Quezon City, Philippines, by the coalition against multinational agrochemical corporations. Image source: Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific (hereafter PANAP)
“Save our rice!” “IRRI, get out!” In October 2023, these angry chants echoed across multiple farmers’ protests in the Philippines. The protests targeted the 6th International Rice Congress, hosted by the International Rice Research Institute (hereafter IRRI).

Against the backdrop of climate change and the push for agricultural emission reductions, the congress—themed “Accelerating the Transformation of Rice Food Systems”—attracted nearly 2,000 industry representatives to discuss the future of rice. However, an entry fee as high as $800 (approximately 5,740 RMB) effectively stripped local smallholders of their right to participate in the discussion, turning the conference into little more than a business platform for agrochemical giants such as Bayer.

As one of the primary sponsors, global agrochemical giant Bayer aggressively promoted “direct-seeded rice” systems at the congress, encouraging farmers to purchase Bayer’s patented rice seeds and specialised herbicides, packaging them as a solution to climate issues. This alignment of IRRI with agrochemical capital once again infuriated Filipino smallholders.

For years, IRRI has failed to establish trust and a positive collaborative relationship with local farmers—a failure rooted in IRRI’s founding background and its close ties to agrochemical corporations.

I. How did the Green Revolution’s IRRI lose farmers’ trust?

Driven by the US Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation, the Green Revolution began to spread across Asia in the 1960s and 70s. Early projects were largely government-supported, promoting High-Yielding Varieties (HYVs) to increase output and farmer income. This encouraged farmers to opt for varieties that were more dependent on chemical fertilisers and pesticides, which in turn generated enormous profits for the corporations driving the Green Revolution.

To achieve these goals, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations successively established the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). In the 1970s, these research centres formed the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Its core strategy remained the promotion of irrigation facilities, mechanisation, and chemical inputs to grow the high-yield seeds bred by CGIAR members.

Under the wave of the Green Revolution, from Mexico to the Philippines and India, new varieties of wheat, rice, and maize rapidly replaced the traditional local landraces used by farmers. This overturned the ecological farming logic of preserving diverse varieties to adapt to varying local conditions.

● IR8, the semi-dwarf high-yielding variety heavily promoted by IRRI in the 1960s, later became known as “Miracle Rice”. Its parental lines were PETA from Indonesia and DGWG from Taiwan. Image source: IRRI

In the early stages, the Green Revolution did help some countries increase rice production, but these gains were primarily concentrated in farmland with irrigation. For instance, rice yields in Indonesia increased by 85%, tripled in India, and by 1979, the Philippines had even begun exporting rice.

As IRRI’s high-yield rice series covered vast areas of Asian paddy fields, the negative impacts of the industrial agricultural model began to surface, leading to a series of farmer movements opposing the Green Revolution.

For most farmers, the initial profits from increased yields gradually turned into crushing debt. Many were unable to repay loans taken for expensive agrochemicals and machinery, and some found it difficult to even sustain their basic livelihoods.

At the time, farmers in Thailand and the Philippines participating in the anti-Green Revolution movement remarked: “Before the Green Revolution, farmers were poor; after the Green Revolution, they are still poor. IRRI has been of no use at all.”

Furthermore, the loss of rice variety biodiversity made crops more susceptible to large-scale disease outbreaks.

Before the Green Revolution, the Philippines had approximately 4,000 rice varieties. By the mid-1980s, a vast number of these had been replaced by semi-dwarf varieties bred by IRRI. Asian farmer organisations such as MASIPAG argue that the large-scale monoculture of IRRI-promoted varieties was the root cause of the widespread outbreak of bacterial leaf blight across Southeast Asia.

● Bacterial blight is one of the primary diseases affecting rice production, typically reducing yields by 20–30%, and up to 50% in severe cases, sometimes resulting in total crop failure; the image on the left shows rice infected with bacterial blight. A recent PANAP report argues that, compounded by climate change, the extensive use of pesticides increases the frequency and intensity of pest outbreaks and reduces chemical efficacy, thereby lowering crop resistance. Left: Wikimedia Commons; Right: PANAP

MASIPAG believes that the only effective way to control bacterial blight is to rebuild farmer-led seed systems, thereby reducing reliance on agrochemical inputs like fertilisers and pesticides to restore field biodiversity and fundamentally eliminate the conditions under which bacterial blight thrives.

Rather than adjusting its strategy to respond to the needs of smallholders, IRRI further expanded agricultural research driven by corporate interests, essentially applying makeshift patches to an unsustainable agricultural production system.

In 2000, IRRI trialled genetically modified (GM) rice (known as BB Rice) in the Philippines to combat bacterial blight, but it was not approved for market release following fierce protests from farmers and consumer groups. As recently as June 2023, the IRRI-supported Healthy Crops Project continues with the same approach, proposing the use of gene-edited rice to control new strains of bacterial blight discovered in East Africa.

● April 2001: Filipino smallholders protest against IRRI’s GM rice (BB Rice) in Los Baños, Laguna province. Image source: Masipag

II. Rice Emission Reduction: Who Bears the Hidden Costs?

In recent years, IRRI has sought to rebuild the trust of smallholders by leveraging carbon markets developed to combat climate change. According to data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), emissions from rice cultivation account for 9–11% of total agricultural greenhouse gas emissions (primarily methane and nitrous oxide). The potential for mitigating climate change through the reduction of methane from rice is nearly three to six times that of maize or wheat. Consequently, rice emission reduction projects have naturally become a priority for IRRI in Asia, the world’s primary rice-producing region.

Compared to other staple crops such as maize, wheat, and soybeans, rice cultivation is still dominated by smallholders. As a result, the vast majority of rice methane reduction projects adopt a partnership model between corporations and small farms: participating farmers follow company standards (such as the “direct seeding” promoted by Bayer) to grow rice, which generates carbon credits and provides additional income.

The “Vietnam Sustainable Agriculture Transformation” project, supported by IRRI and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), has been hailed as one of the most successful examples of promoting methane reduction among smallholder rice farmers.

Covering 184,000 hectares, the project provides farmers with training on the use of designated water-saving rice seeds and two cultivation techniques developed by IRRI: the use of organic fertilisers and bio-pesticides, and the reduction of irrigation and chemical fertiliser inputs to lower methane emissions and make rice plants more drought-tolerant.

However, many farmers participating in the project have reported that IRRI’s methane reduction techniques demand higher technical expertise and more intensive field management than traditional methods, requiring farmers to check the condition of their plants more frequently.

Furthermore, the cost of organic fertilisers and bio-pesticides is higher than that of traditional agrochemicals, yet yields remain similar to those of traditional farming. Consequently, some farmers can only implement the changes partially—for example, by reducing irrigation water while continuing to use cheaper chemical pesticides and fertilisers. The result of this compromise is that it offsets some of the emission reduction benefits, as chemical fertilisers are a primary source of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.

More importantly, the price of carbon credits currently paid to rice farmers is relatively low and highly volatile, averaging $15–30 per acre per year (approximately 17.7–35.4 RMB per mu per year). Given that rice cultivation remains dominated by smallholders, it is difficult for farmers to afford the transition to lower-methane farming methods if carbon farming projects cannot provide sufficient additional income.

III. When Digital Agriculture Replaces Farmer Decision-Making

Building on the promotion of rice methane reduction, IRRI has further strengthened its cooperation with corporations to drive digital agriculture, such as the FarmRise big data system marketed by Bayer at this rice conference. FarmRise possesses 87.5 billion data points from 78.2 million hectares of farmland across 23 countries. It transmits information from drones, sensors, automated machinery, satellites, and data entered by farmers themselves to cloud servers for analysis, which is then used to provide farming advice to the farmers. It claims that this allows agricultural production systems to achieve emission reductions more precisely.

However, when digitalisation replaces the farmer’s judgement, leading farmers to rely more extensively on information and guidance from agrochemical companies, and planting decisions are shifted to machine-based data, what will become of the wisdom, knowledge, and cultural heritage of smallholders?

● Promotional interface of the FarmRise Google app. This example shows FarmRise diagnosing crop diseases via big data and providing farming advice. Source: Google Apps
Furthermore, agricultural data itself has become a new market. The more agrochemical companies understand the varieties farmers plant and their cultivation methods, the easier it becomes for them to use data platforms to market their products. Notably, many of the companies promoting digital technology in the food and agriculture sector are the very same agricultural giants that grew powerful during the Green Revolution. Major firms such as Bayer, Corteva, UPL, and Kubota have recently been acquiring satellite data companies, drone firms, and digital agriculture platforms for monitoring plant health, or partnering with such tech companies. This will undoubtedly lead to a further concentration of power across the food and agriculture value chain.

IV. Community- and Farmer-Centred Climate Action

Yet, beyond the industrial logic of the Green Revolution, Asia is seeing an increasing number of successful collaborations between farmers and scientists who combine agroecology and traditional varieties to tackle the climate crisis, proposing localised solutions for emission reduction and adaptation. Through more than 20 years of effort, MASIPAG—a network of scientists and farmer-led public interest organisations—has established an “alternative to the IRRI approach” in the Philippines. MASIPAG organises various forms of training, courses, workshops, and mutual visits to enhance farmers’ skills in managing biodiversity; it supports collaboration between farmers and scientists to promote farmer-led breeding and the protection of genetic resources, allowing farmers to reclaim sovereignty over their seeds.

To date, MASIPAG has recovered thousands of local varieties suited to specific growing conditions that offer high yields, superior taste, and rich nutrition, while maintaining strong resistance to pests and diseases.

● Tutorials on seed selection, saving, and breeding, developed jointly by scientists and farmers through MASIPAG, enable ordinary farmers to find the varieties best suited to themselves and their local soil and climate. Image: Foodthink
● New varieties bred by farmer-breeder Marcelino have reached many farmers via MASIPAG. When Foodthink visited MASIPAG in 2018, he was conducting experiments on drought-resistant rice varieties. Image: Foodthink

In India, the Deccan Development Society (DDS), a grassroots organisation, has supported over 1,500 women in regaining control over local seed resources and knowledge. Since 1996, these women have independently planned systems for local production, storage, and sales, attempting to reverse the trend of centralisation within the food system. Women participating in DDS state that even economically poor farmers can sustain themselves and their communities.

Similarly, the Seed Network (NSN), promoted by Bangladesh’s “Nayakrishi Andolon” (New Agriculture Movement), encourages decentralised community seed management systems, helping farmers maintain crop diversity in their fields while preserving seeds at home.

● Between 2021 and 2022, Foodthink, in collaboration with the Farmer Seed Network, funded 12 grassroots food and agriculture organisations to establish community seed banks. This effort promotes the protection and living use of farm varieties, empowering local communities to better cope with climate change. Image source: Foodthink
Agriculture is a primary source of greenhouse gas emissions. In recent years, climate change has also severely impacted agricultural production, making emission reductions imperative. However, effective solutions will never be found in Bayer’s “direct-seeded rice” paired with herbicides and machinery, nor in so-called “precision emission reduction”—which in reality are merely agricultural data systems that further consolidate the power of large agribusinesses. The key lies in building the trust and collective action of farmers.

It is time to return to community-based agroecosystems, rebuild diverse planting systems, incorporate more stable local varieties, break the dependence on agrochemicals, and cut greenhouse gas emissions at their source to collectively confront this climate crisis.

References
[1] E+E Leader, “Bayer Develops Emissions Reducing Direct-Seeded Rice System”, 17 Oct 2023: https://www.environmentenergyleader.com/2023/10/bayer-develops-emissions-reducing-direct-seeded-rice-system/[2] MASIPAG, “The International Rice Congress: Further Corporate Dominance in Rice Science and Rice Industry”, 17 Oct 2023”, 17 Oct 2023: https://masipag.org/2023/10/the-international-rice-congress-further-corporate-dominance-in-rice-science-and-rice-industry/

[3] Rigg, Jonathan. “The Green Revolution and Equity: Who Adopts the New Rice Varieties and Why?” Geography, vol. 74, no. 2, 1989, pp. 144–50. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40571603. Accessed 26 Dec. 2023

[4] William G. Moseley, “Food Security & Green Revolution”: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), 2015

[5] https://www.healthycrops.org/

[6] Wolf B Frommer, Van Schepler-Luu etal. (2023), “Genome editing of an African elite rice variety confers resistance against endemic and emerging Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae strains”, eLife 12:e84864, https://doi.org/

[7] IPCC, ‘Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the 5th assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change Synthesis Report’, 2014 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

[8] Linquist et al., ‘Fertilizer management practices and greenhouse gas emissions from rice systems: A quantitative review and analysis’, 2012

[9] UNFCC, ‘AMS-III.AU. Small-scale methodology. Methane emission reduction by adjusted water management practice in rice cultivation’, https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/DB/D14KAKRJEW4OTHEA4YJICOHM26M6BM

[10] Mekong Eye, “Low carbon rice fails to take root with Vietnamese farmers”, 27 Nov 2023: https://www.mekongeye.com/2023/11/27/low-carbon-rice-fails-to-take-root-with-vietnamese-farmers/?fbclid=IwAR05yn_SGEQeUOPbLiXNVpFki2KrimyExF909ofDfr6gPtw1e8ayeIqppHo

[11] Carbon Credits, ‘Agricultural Carbon Credits and Carbon Farming Guide’, 2022, https://carboncredits.com/what-are-carbon-credits-in-agriculture/ and Indigo Ag, https://www.indigoag.com/carbon/for-farmers

[1] ETC Group, “Food Baron 2022”, Sep 2022: https://www.etcgroup.org/content/food-barons-2022

[1] http://www.ddsindia.com/www/default.asp

[1] https://ubinig.org/index.php/nayakrishidetails/showAerticle/2/46/english

Foodthink Author
Lin An
Public interest professional researching agroecology and the development of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), facilitating climate change adaptation exchanges for smallholder farmers across Asia.

 

 

 

 

Editor: Zeen

Published by Foodthink