Climate Justice in Rice Emission Reduction: Starting with Filipino Smallholders’ Anger

by Posted on
● In October 2023, a protest rally was convened in Quezon City, Philippines, by a coalition opposing agrochemical multinationals. Image source: Pesticide Action Network Asia and Pacific (PAN APAC)
“Save our rice!” “IRRI, get out!” In October 2023, these furious chants echoed across several Filipino farmer protest rallies. The demonstrations took direct aim at the Sixth International Rice Congress, hosted by the International Rice Research Institute (hereafter IRRI).

Against the backdrop of climate change and the drive to cut agricultural emissions, the congress, themed “Accelerating the Transformation of Rice Food Systems”, attracted nearly 2,000 delegates from the rice sector to discuss the crop’s future. Yet, with registration fees reaching $800 (CNY 5,740), it effectively barred local smallholder farmers from taking part, reducing the event to a business networking platform for agrochemical giants such as Bayer.

As one of the congress’s principal sponsors, the global agrochemical giant Bayer aggressively promoted the direct-seeded rice system. The company urged farmers to purchase its patented rice seeds and specialised herbicides, framing the approach as a climate solution. This latest alignment between IRRI and agrochemical capital once again sparked the fury of Filipino smallholders.

For years, IRRI has failed to build trust or foster constructive partnerships with local farming communities. The reasons invariably trace back to the institute’s founding context and its close ties with agrochemical corporations.

I. The Green Revolution: How Did IRRI Lose Farmers’ Trust?

Spurred by the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation in the United States, the Green Revolution began to spread across Asia during the 1960s and 1970s. Early initiatives were largely state-backed, encouraging the cultivation of high-yielding varieties (HYVs) to boost output and farmers’ incomes. This approach effectively steered farmers towards seed varieties that depended more heavily on chemical fertilisers and pesticides, enabling the corporate interests behind the Green Revolution to generate substantial profits.

To realise these objectives, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations successively established the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), alongside the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). During the 1970s, these institutions came together to form the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Their overarching strategy continued to centre on promoting irrigation infrastructure, mechanisation, and chemical inputs for the cultivation of high-yielding seeds developed by CGIAR member organisations.

Swept up in the Green Revolution, new varieties of wheat, rice, and maize rapidly displaced the traditional landraces cultivated by farmers across Mexico, the Philippines, and India, fundamentally altering the ecological logic of farming that had long relied on maintaining crop diversity to adapt to varying local conditions.

● IR8, a dwarf, high-yielding variety vigorously promoted by the IRRI in the 1960s and later dubbed ‘miracle rice’, was bred from parental lines PETA (Indonesia) and DGWG (Taiwan). Image source: IRRI

Initially, the Green Revolution did help several countries boost rice yields, but these gains were largely confined to irrigated land. For example, rice production in Indonesia rose by 85%, tripled in India, and by 1979, the Philippines had even begun exporting rice.

As IRRI’s high-yielding rice varieties spread across vast areas of Asian paddy fields, the negative impacts of industrialised farming began to surface, prompting farmer movements against the Green Revolution to emerge across the region.

For most farmers, the initial profits from higher yields gradually turned into crushing debt. Many found themselves unable to repay loans taken out for costly agrochemicals and machinery, let alone make ends meet.

At the time, farmers protesting the Green Revolution in Thailand and the Philippines remarked: “Before the Green Revolution, farmers were poor. After it, they remained poor. The IRRI was of no use whatsoever.”

Furthermore, the erosion of rice diversity left crops highly susceptible to large-scale disease outbreaks.

Before the Green Revolution, the Philippines was home to roughly 4,000 distinct rice varieties. By the mid-1980s, however, most of what farmers grew had been supplanted by IRRI’s semi-dwarf lines. Asian farmer organisations such as MASIPAG maintain that the widespread monoculture of IRRI-promoted varieties was the root cause of the devastating outbreaks of bacterial leaf blight across Southeast Asia.

● Bacterial blight is one of the major diseases threatening rice production, capable of reducing yields by 20–30%, up to 50% in severe cases, and even leading to total crop failure. The image on the left shows rice affected by bacterial blight. PANAP’s recent report demonstrates that, under the compounding effects of climate change, large-scale pesticide application leads to more frequent and severe pest outbreaks, reduced chemical effectiveness, and a subsequent decline in crop resilience. Left image: Wikimedia Commons; Right image: PANAP

MASIPAG maintains that the only effective way to control bacterial blight is to rebuild farmer-led seed systems. This would reduce reliance on agrochemicals such as fertilisers and pesticides, restore field biodiversity, and fundamentally eliminate the conditions that allow bacterial blight to thrive.

Rather than adapting its approach to address the needs of smallholder farmers, IRRI has instead broadened its corporate-driven agricultural research, merely applying piecemeal fixes to an unsustainable farming system.

In 2000, IRRI trialled genetically modified rice (known as BB Rice) in the Philippines to combat bacterial blight, but it was never approved for commercial release following fierce protests from farmer and consumer groups. By June 2023, the Healthy Crops Project, backed by IRRI, continued down this same path, proposing gene-edited rice to tackle newly identified strains of bacterial blight in East Africa.

● In April 2001, Filipino smallholders protested against IRRI-developed BB Rice in Los Baños, Laguna Province. Image source: Masipag

II. Reducing Emissions from Rice: Who Bears the Hidden Costs?

In recent years, IRRI has sought to rebuild trust with smallholder farmers by tapping into carbon markets developed to address climate change. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), emissions from rice cultivation account for 9–11% of total agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, which come primarily from methane and nitrous oxide. The potential for climate mitigation through reducing methane from rice paddies is nearly three to six times greater than that of maize and wheat. Given that Asia is the primary region for rice production, it is hardly surprising that emission reduction projects have become a central priority for IRRI.

Compared with other staple crops such as maize, wheat, and soybeans, rice cultivation remains predominantly the domain of smallholder farmers. As a result, most rice paddy methane reduction initiatives operate on a partnership model between corporations and small farms. Under this arrangement, participating farmers who adopt corporate standards—such as the direct-seeded rice method promoted by Bayer—generate carbon credits, thereby securing additional income.

Backed by IRRI and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Vietnam Sustainable Agriculture Transformation project is widely regarded as one of the most successful initiatives in driving methane reduction among smallholder rice farmers.

Spanning 184,000 hectares (approximately 455,000 mu) of rice paddies, the programme trains farmers in the use of designated low-emission rice seeds and introduces two cultivation techniques developed by IRRI: the application of organic fertilisers and pesticides, alongside practices to reduce methane emissions by minimising irrigation and chemical fertiliser inputs, thereby enhancing the crops’ drought tolerance.

However, numerous participating farmers have noted that IRRI’s methane reduction techniques demand a greater degree of technical skill and field management than conventional methods. Growers find themselves having to make frequent visits to the fields to monitor the condition of their crops.

Moreover, organic fertilisers and pesticides carry a higher price tag than conventional alternatives, yet the harvests remain largely comparable to those achieved through traditional methods. As a result, many farmers resort to partial implementation—for instance, scaling back irrigation while continuing to rely on cheaper chemical pesticides and fertilisers. This compromise inevitably dilutes the emission reduction benefits, given that synthetic fertilisers remain a significant source of agricultural greenhouse gases.

Crucially, the carbon credit rates currently offered to rice growers remain relatively low and subject to significant volatility, averaging between US$15 and $30 per acre annually (roughly RMB 17.7–35.4 per mu per year). As long as rice cultivation remains dominated by smallholders, farmers will struggle to afford the transition to lower-emission practices unless carbon farming schemes can guarantee a substantial supplementary income.

III. When Digital Agriculture Replaces Farmer Decision-Making

Building on its initiatives to cut methane emissions from rice paddies, IRRI has once again tightened its corporate ties to push digital agriculture. A case in point is the FarmRise big data system, pitched by Bayer at this rice congress. FarmRise taps into 87.5 billion data points gathered from 78.2 million hectares of farmland across 23 countries. It funnels data from drones, sensors, automated machinery, satellites, and manual farmer entries into cloud servers for analysis, then feeds agronomic recommendations back to growers, claiming this will enable farming systems to achieve emission reductions with greater precision.

Yet when digital interfaces replace a farmer’s own judgement, encouraging wider acceptance of agrochemical companies’ information and guidance, and when cropping decisions become dictated by machine-generated data, how can the wisdom, knowledge, and cultural heritage of smallholders be passed down?

● Promotional interface for the FarmRise Google app. The image illustrates how FarmRise leverages big data to diagnose crop diseases and provide farming recommendations. Source: Google Apps
Moreover, agricultural data has become a market in its own right. The more agrochemical firms understand what farmers are growing and how they work their land, the more readily they can harness data platforms to market their products. It is worth noting that many of the enterprises driving digital technology in food and agriculture are precisely the same agribusiness giants that consolidated their power during the Green Revolution. In recent years, major players such as Bayer, Corteva, UPL, and Kubota have continuously acquired satellite data firms, drone manufacturers, and digital agriculture platforms that monitor plant health, or entered into partnerships with them. This trajectory undeniably drives further concentration of power across the entire food and farming value chain.

IV. Climate Action Centred on Communities and Farmers

Yet, beyond the industrialised logic of Green Revolution agriculture, there are increasingly successful examples across Asia of farmers and scientists working together. By combining agroecology with traditional varieties to confront the climate crisis, they are developing locally grounded mitigation and adaptation strategies.

After more than two decades of effort, MASIPAG—a Philippines-based network of civil society organisations and scientists led by farmers—has established an “alternative to the IRRI model” in the country. MASIPAG organises a wide variety of training sessions, courses, workshops, and peer exchanges to enhance farmers’ skills in biodiversity management; it supports farmer-scientist collaboration, promotes farmer-led breeding, and safeguards genetic resources, allowing farmers to reclaim control over their seeds.

To date, MASIPAG has recovered thousands of local varieties suited to local growing conditions, which boast high yields, excellent flavour, rich nutrition, and strong resistance to pests and diseases.

● A seed selection, saving, and breeding curriculum co-developed by MASIPAG scientists and farmers enables ordinary growers to identify and cultivate varieties best suited to their needs and local conditions. Image: Foodthink
● New rice varieties developed by farmer-breeder Marcelino have already reached numerous growers through MASIPAG. During a Foodthink visit to MASIPAG in 2018, he was trialling drought-resistant rice varieties. Image: Foodthink

India’s grassroots organisation Deccan Development Society (DDS) has likewise enabled more than 1,500 women to reclaim control over local seed resources and indigenous knowledge. Since 1996, the women have independently designed systems for local production, storage, and marketing, aiming to counter the centralising trends of the modern food system. Participants in DDS note that even economically marginalised farmers can sustain themselves and their wider communities.

A comparable model is the Seed Network (NSN), championed by Bangladesh’s ‘New Agricultural Movement’ (Nayakrishi Andolon). It promotes decentralised, community-led seed management, collaborating with farmers to maintain on-farm crop diversity whilst preserving seed stocks within the household.

● Between 2021 and 2022, Foodthink partnered with the Farmers’ Seed Network to fund the establishment of community seed banks by twelve grassroots food and farming organisations. The initiative champions the conservation and active cultivation of landrace varieties, equipping local communities with the resilience to adapt to climate change. Image source: Foodthink
Agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. In recent years, climate change has taken a heavy toll on agricultural production, making the drive to cut farming emissions imperative.Yet effective solutions will never come from Bayer’s direct-seeded rice paired with herbicides and machinery, nor from agricultural data systems that promise “precision emission reduction” but in reality accelerate the consolidation of agribusiness giants. The key lies in restoring farmers’ trust and mobilising the power of collective action.

It is time to return to community-centred agricultural ecosystems, rebuild diverse cropping systems, integrate more resilient local varieties, break free from our reliance on agricultural chemicals, tackle greenhouse gas emissions at the source, and join forces to 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
Non-profit practitioner researching agricultural ecology and the development of Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA). Collaborates with smallholder farmers across Asia on climate change adaptation and knowledge exchange.

 

 

 

 

Editor: Ze En

Published by Foodthink