





























Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2011 Vol 2 Issue 1 Page 7-12 

 

7 

 

Ethical and Policy Concerns pertaining to Rice Landraces in Asia 

 

Abhik Gupta 

Professor, Dept. of Ecology & Environmental Science, Assam University, Silchar 788011, India 

Email: abhik.eco@gmail.com 

 

Abstract: Domestication of rice (Oryza sativa L.) from the wild species O. rufipogon and O. nivara by 
Neolithic Asian farmers more than 10,000 years ago represents one of the most important events in 
human history, as this crop is the major staple food of over one-third of the world’s population, meeting 
around 20 % of the global calorie intake. The Asian rice, O. sativa, which is grown worldwide, has 
three major “variety groups” or subspecies: indica varieties of the Indian subcontinent; tropical 
japonica or javanica varieties very common in southeast Asia and southern China; and temperate 
japonica varieties predominantly cultivated in northeastern Asia. Furthermore, cultivation and farmer 
selection over a long period of time have given rise to over 120,000 varieties or farmer’s landraces of 
rice. These include glutinous and non-glutinous landraces, aromatic landraces; those taking different 
times to mature; with different levels of tolerance to abiotic stresses like cold, drought, submergence 
and salinity; and even differing in their resistance to pests and diseases. However, a few hundred 
“high-yielding” “improved” varieties have largely replaced these traditional landraces, with the latter 
finding their place of preservation in the rice germplasm banks. While it is true that various genes of 
the traditional landraces have been incorporated into many modern varieties, questions arise as to the 
ethical propriety of banishing ‘live’ and ‘flourishing’ life forms that are also integrally linked to the 
culture of many communities, to a ‘synthetic, and overtly utilitarian existence. The present paper aims 
to discuss these issues in the light of ethical principles as well as policies pertaining to traditional 
knowledge and practices.   

 

Introduction: Rice has two cultivated species of which Oryza glaberrima, the African rice is grown 
only in West Africa, while Oryza sativa, the Asian rice is grown worldwide and is the staple food for 
over one-thirds of the world population (Kush, 1997). In many eastern Indian languages such as 
‘Bangla’ or ‘Axomiya’ (the former spoken in Bangladesh and West Bengal and parts of Assam in India; 
the latter in Assam, India) the word bhat which means steamed rice, is synonymous with food or meal. 
In fact, rice is one of the oldest domesticated crops – with archaeological evidence of its domestication 
by Asian Neolithic farmers some 9000-11,000 years ago (Olsen et al., 2006). Three major “variety 
groups” or subspecies of O. sativa are recognized: (i) indica group of varieties – typically found in the 
Indian subcontinent; tropical japonica (javonica varieties) in southeast Asia and south China; and 
temperate japonica varieties in northeast Asia (Kush, 1997). In terms of rice-production ecosystem 
types and agricultural technologies, irrigated lowlands occupying c 79 m ha of land produce 75 % of 
the world rice production; followed by rainfed lowland (54 m ha and 19 % of production); upland (14 m 
ha and 4 % of production; and flood-prone deepwater rice occupying 11 m ha of land with a production 
of 1.5 t ha

-1 (Bouman et al., 2006).   

 

The Landraces of Rice: Long period of cultivation and farmer selection has resulted in the production 
of a large number of varieties or landraces of rice, of which an estimated 120,000 are known to exist. 
About 80,000 are preserved in International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Philippines, and about 
40,000 and 25,000 in Chinese and Indian gene banks, respectively. Other countries, including 
Bangladesh, also have smaller national collections. These landraces show a wide divergence of 
properties, with some glutinous, others non-glutinous, some aromatic, fine grained, some fast growing, 
with deepwater varieties like Rayada taking longer to mature  (Kush, 1997). However, the green 
revolution has resulted in the widespread introduction of around 300 high-yielding varieties in the rice 
fields all over the world, accompanied by severe erosion of the traditional landraces. Traditionally, a 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2011 Vol 2 Issue 1 Page 7-12 

 

8 

 

vast amount of genetic diversity was distributed among the numerous landraces in different parts of 
the rice-growing areas of the world. In Japan, for instance, more than 1000 landraces are conserved in 
the germplasm banks, but not found in their natural habitats any more. More than 100 O. japonica 
landraces once found in Taiwan are now confined to the laboratory. Similar erosion has occurred in 
the Mekong Delta of Vietnam, and in Thailand, where a high-yielding glutinous variety has replaced 
several traditional glutinous landraces. A study conducted there revealed that the 27 traditional 
varieties cultivated in a Thailand village in 1981 had dwindled to a mere 4 in 1991. The most 
pronounced erosion has occurred in China, Indonesia, India and Bangladesh, where several 
thousands of landraces conserved a high degree of genetic diversity, but are rapidly vanishing or 
drastically dwindling in the farmers’ fields. In Bangladesh, this erosion is taking place in all the three 
seasonal groups of rice - aus, aman and boro (Morishima and Chitrakon: 
http://www.aseanbiodiversity.info/Abstract/ 53000315.pdf; IRRI, 1994). In India, rice is grown as early 
kharif, medium kharif and rabi seasonal crop (MacLean et al., 2002), and genetic erosion is evident in 
all the three ecotypes. In Jeypore in Orissa, India, which is considered to be a secondary centre of the 
origin of cultivated rice, especially its aus ecotype, about 1750 landraces had existed even in the 
1950-‘60s. However, only 324 varieties were found in 1995-’96, of which only 83 varieties were in 
cultivation, as revealed by a 1998 study by the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, 
India. Introduction of high-yielding varieties along with low productivity of the traditional landraces were 
inferred to be the main reason behind this erosion (MSSRF-FAO, 2002). A study conducted in the Seti 
river valley of Nepal, which is traditionally a rice-growing area, observed that of the 75 landraces 
known to have originally existed, only 11 were widely grown, 47 were under threat, while 17 were 
totally lost from the area. Besides other factors, introduction of HYVs was important in causing decline 
of traditional landraces (Rijal et al., 1998). In Garhwal Himalayas, India, diversity declined from 65 crop 
landraces before 1970s to 39 in 1990s. The area under traditional landraces, especially of paddy, also 
declined during the same period. The government promoted a high-yielding aromatic variety along 
with fertilizer subsidies. This led to farmers replacing their traditional aromatic mukhmar landrace with 
the HYV whose initial high yields declined after the fertilizer subsidy was withdrawn. The traditional 
landrace, however, became extinct in the process (Chandra et al., 2010).  

 

Value of Agrobiodiversity: Protection of agrobiodiversity is considered important in the context of 
conservation of wild relatives of important crop plants as well as traditional and threatened landraces, 
especially those linked to traditional cultural practices (Phillips and Stolton, 2008). Erosion of the 
landraces of an important crop such as rice, therefore, assumes special significance. Besides the high 
“use value” (Pardey et al., 1998, quoted in Love and Spaner, 2007) by virtue of their contribution to the 
genetic variability of the species, the diverse landraces are also important in providing food security to 
poor and marginal farmers, and are integral components of many religious-cultural events in the life of 
the people. Farmers in India often harvest aus paddy landraces in certain months like September, 
when all rice from previous harvests get exhausted (Arunachalam et al., 2006). These landraces, 
therefore, are very important from a food security point of view, and linked to the collective-
developmental human rights of the marginal and tribal farmers in many areas. The other aspect is the 
exclusive use of certain rice landraces in various religious rites and ceremonies. For example, in the 
Jeypore area of Orissa, India, some aromatic varieties were used in a broad range of festivals, while a 
few aromatic forms and non-aromatic but delicious landraces were earmarked for specific deities or 
religious rites (Arunachalam et al., 2006). The Iban tribe of Sarawak, Malaysia, practice a special ritual 
in the centre of the rice field, where a specific rice variety is planted (Bellon et al., 1996). In the Barak 
Valley region of Assam, India, a traditionally rice-farming community cultivated over 50 landraces 
including aus, shali and boro varieties, of which several were meant for religious occasions (Guha et 
al., 1999). Thus the traditional religious-cultural importance placed by the farmers and other members 
of the community imparts a kind of intrinsic value in addition to the instrumental or extrinsic use value 
of the landraces. This cannot be substituted by any HYVs. This is somewhat synonymous with 
“existence value”, which is associated with the satisfaction derived by the people from the existence of 
biodiversity in their environment (Bellon, 1996, quoted in Love and Spaner, 2007).  

 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2011 Vol 2 Issue 1 Page 7-12 

 

9 

 

The governments and national and international scientific organizations have tried to address the 
genetic erosion in rice and other crop species by resorting to various ex-situ conservation methods 
comprising maintenance of plants in open plots and glasshouses, followed by the sophisticated cold 
preservation facility emerging in 1960-‘70s. In long-term gene banks, seeds preserved at -10

0
 to – 20

0
 

C can be stored for several decades or potentially up to 100 years, if maintained properly; in medium-
term gene banks, up to 20 years at 0

0 to 50 C; and in short-term facilities, up to a decade or less at 
ambient temperature or cold temperatures above 50 C (Plucknett et al., 1983). This was a technology-
dependent reductionist approach which only took into account the objective material aspect of rice 
landraces in terms of their genetic diversity and potentially useful characters that could be harnessed 
in future for the benefit of the consumers and society at large. Nevertheless, the gene banks are 
particularly valuable when it contains materials that have vanished from its original habitat or locality. 
For instance, a virus-resistant Oryza wild relative found in Taiwan is only available now in the IRRI 
gene bank and no longer found in its original place of occurrence; several Cambodian landraces were 
lost during the war there, and could since been reintroduced only because these had been previously 
stored in gene banks (Plucknett et al., 1983). The International Rice Genebank (IRG) at IRRI has more 
than 80,000 accessions of cultivated rice and wild species (Bellon et al., 1996).  

 

Without undermining the utility of modern gene banks, it can, however, be said that they supplement, 
but do not necessarily replace in-situ – including on-farm - conservation and perpetuation of landraces. 
Compared to ex-situ conservation, in-situ conservation of rice species and landraces has received 
very less attention. One important aspect here is the conservation of the wild species of the genus 
Oryza. Ethically speaking, human societies in a large part of the world owe to these wild species the 
very basis of their survival and flourishing. The growth and perpetuation of human civilization in large 
parts of South, Southeast and East Asia have been possible due to the occurrence of these wild rice 
species, from which the numerous cultivars had evolved due to human ingenuity to feed the millions 
over ages. Apart from the fact that we need to conserve these species from narrow anthropocentric 
considerations of human health, nutrition and welfare, we also ought to pay attention to their ‘intrinsic’ 
value. On-farm conservation of rice varieties has received the least attention from established rice 
germplasm conservation programmes, although its importance is recognized by all in principle. The 
age-old practice of planting several varieties simultaneously by the Asian farmers represent an 
adaptation, a strategy evolved over a long time. It provides them security against uncertain weather, 
pest outbreaks and food shortage. Furthermore, it allows them to have some variety in an otherwise 
monotonous and often nutrient-deficient diet by having some aromatic or otherwise good-tasting, fine-
grained rice. Some fine-grained aromatic landraces in Bengal (historically including the whole of 
present-day Bangladesh, West Bengal and parts of Assam in India), such as Gobindobhog in West 
Bengal, Kalijeera in Bangladesh and Joha in Assam, are made into payesh or paramanno after boiling 
with milk and addition of sugar, raisins, nuts, special jaggeries, etc. This is a very special food that 
brings  joy to the members of farmers’ families, especially children. At the same time, such special rice 
or the food items prepared from them are also offered to propitiate the Gods and in gratitude. These 
were also offered to the Zeminders (landlords) in Bengal to receive favours and to keep them in good 
humour. And not the least, the rice landraces find ample mention in the rich literature of Bengal, both 
in its early and modern forms. Thus rice and its numerous landraces in Bengal is more than just food, 
as it also stores the chequered history of its farmers, traders, landlords and the people in general. 
Conserving rice germplasm in refrigerated gene banks and ex-situ plots cannot respect or preserve or 
do justice to this history. The answer perhaps lies in on-farm conservation, which is a “dynamic” form 
of conservation in which the varieties that the farmers select and plant continue to evolve, thereby 
retaining their future adaptive potential (Bellon et al., 1996). The various programmes of rice landrace 
conservation cannot enjoy ethical fulfilment without vibrant on-farm conservation with full and voluntary 
farmer participation. It is essential that the ethical principle of informed choice and not the paternalistic 
imposing of rice varieties by the agricultural scientists and policy-makers should govern rice cultivation 
in Asia. To make the choice truly ‘informed’, great emphasis and effort need to be given towards 
education of farmers about the pros and cons of selecting a specific landrace. The extinction of a 
Himalayan aromatic landrace mukhmar described in the previous section, shows that while the 
scientists and policy-makers were insensitive to traditional knowledge and cultural legacy of the people 
in that area, their emphasis on production and development was also defeated in the long run, with the 
option of returning to the traditional landrace being closed due to its extinction. This is a typical case of 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2011 Vol 2 Issue 1 Page 7-12 

 

10 

 

paternalism where the ‘enthusiasm’ of agricultural scientists in introducing a new variety that combines 
high yield with aromatic property overlooked the long-range ethical and socio-cultural considerations.    

 

The issue of on-farm conservation is further complicated by the land-holding size available with the 
farmers. It has been observed that when the farmers first took to cultivating high-yielding varieties, 
they also simultaneously planted some traditional forms in spare plots of land. However, this was not 
possible for many farmers with small land-holdings, and over time they continued to plant only the 
HYVs. This is an issue that needs to be addressed in a larger socio-economic context and has 
profound ethical implications.  

 

Participatory Management: Participatory crop improvement has been proposed as an incentive for 
farmers to conserve crop diversity on farms and is a non-market or supply intervention.  Two methods 
of participatory crop improvement have been outlined: 1) participatory varietal selection, where the 
farmers evaluate the different varieties available; and 2) participatory breeding, where the farmers 
select within highly variable populations (reviewed in Love and Spaner, 2007). Exchange of seed 
materials among farmers have greatly contributed towards maintenance and distribution of a wealth of 
agrobiodiversity, a process in which women’s social networks played significant roles. This age-old 
scenario is fast changing though, and as Padmanabhan (2008) has shown, the traditional system of 
agrobiodiversity exchange and maintenance by the women of the Kurchiya tribe in Kerala, India, has 
lately been threatened by the newly introduced system of peoples’ biodiversity registers (PBRs) 
maintained by the panchayats (local self-governments). This new system also diminished reciprocity 
with an element of altruistic act of the Kurchiya women towards each other. The ecological 
theoreticians and conservationists, who were instrumental in lobbying for and introducing PBRs, did 
not take into consideration the ethical superiority of the traditional system that was more participatory 
and led to improved social bondage among the members of the community and increased 
cooperation. Participatory plant breeding have been shown to be a possible methodology to resolve 
the conflict between introduced programmes promoting HYVs and the traditional small farmer, 
especially tribal farmer, preference of locally adapted landraces that satisfied taste and other cultural 
requirements and at the same time ensured food security under uncertain weather conditions. The 
latter also becomes particularly relevant under the scenario of global climate change.       

 

Acknowledgements: I thank the Bangladesh Bioethics Society, which was kind enough to invite me 
to present a part of these thoughts at an international conference at Dhaka, and for kindly admitting 
me as an international member.  

 

References:  

1. Arunachalam, V., Chaudhury, S.S., Sarangi, S.K., Ray, T., Mohanty, B.P. and Mishra, S. 2006. 
Rising on Rice: The Story of Jeypore. M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, India.  

 

2. Bellon, M.R., Brar, D., Lu, B.R. and Pham, J.L. 1996. II. Rice genetic resources. In: Fisher, K.S. 
(Ed.):  Rice Production Systems in the Asian Region. Volume II. Caring for the Biodiversity of Tropical 
Rice Ecosystems, pp. 252-283. Electronic conference on the Sustainable Development of Rice as a 
Primary Food organized by the The Pacific Basin Study Center. http://thecity.sfsu.edu/~sustain 

 

3. Bouman, B.A.M., Humphreys, E., Tuong, T.P. and Barker, R. Rice and water. Advances in 
Agronomy 92: 187-237. 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2011 Vol 2 Issue 1 Page 7-12 

 

11 

 

Chandra, A., Kandari, L.S., Payal, K.C., Maikhuri, R.K., Rao, K.S. and Saxena, K.G. 2010. 
Conservation and sustainable management of traditional ecosystems in Garhwal Himalaya, India. New 
York Science Journal 3: 71-77. 

 

4. Guha, K., Gupta, A. and Dutta, B.K. (1999): Indigenous Conservation Initiatives in Barak Valley, 
Assam. In: Kharbuli, B., Syiem, D. and Kayang, H (Eds.): Biodiversity: North-East India Perspectives, 
pp. 42-46. North Eastern Biodiversity Research Cell, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong.  

 

5. I.R.R.I. 1994. Safeguarding and Preservation of the Biodiversity of the Rice Genepool. Report of an 
Action Plan Meeting at Los Banos, Philippines. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Manila, 
Philippines.  

 

6. Kush, G.S. 1997. Origin, dispersal, cultivation and variation of rice. Plant Molecular Biology 35: 25-
34.  

 

7. Love, B. and Spaner, D. 2007.  Agrobiodiversity: Its value, measurement, and conservation in the 
context of sustainable agriculture. Journal of  Sustainable Agriculture  31: 53-82. 

 

8. MacLean, J.L., Dawe, D.C., Hardy, B. and Hettel, G.P. (Eds.). 2002. Rice Almanac. International 
Rice Research Institute, Manila, Philippines.  

 

9. MSSRF-FAO. 2002. Rural and Tribal Women in Agrobiodiversity Conservation. RAP Publication 
2002/08. M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, India and FAO Regional Office for Asia 
and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.   

 

10. Olsen, K.M., Caicedo, A.L., Polato, N., McClung, A., McCouch, S. and Purugganan, M.D. 2006. 
Selection under domestication: Evidence for a  sweep in the rice waxy genomic region. Genetics 173: 
975-983.  

 

11. Padmanabhan, M.A. 2008. Collective action in agrobiodiversity management: gendered rules of 
reputation, trust and reciprocity in Kerala, India. Journal of International Development 20: 83-97.  

 

12. Phillips, A. and Stolton, S. 2008. Protected landscapes and biodiversity values: an overview. In: 
Amend, T., Brown, J., Kothari, A., Phillips, A. and Stolton, S. (Eds.): Protected Landscapes and 
Agrobiodiversity Values. Vol.I. Protected Landscapes and Seascapes. IUCN & GTZ, Kasparek Verlag, 
Heidelberg.   

 

13. Plucknett, D.L., Smith, N,J.H., Williams, J.T. and Anishetty, N.M. 1983. Crop germplasm 
conservation and developing countries. Science 220: 163-169. 

 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2011 Vol 2 Issue 1 Page 7-12 

 

12 

 

14. Rijal, D.K., Kadayat, K.B., Joshi, K.D. and Sthapit, B.R. 1998. Inventory of indigenous rainfed and 
aromatic rice landraces in Seti River Valley, Pokhara, Nepal. LI-BIRD Technical Paper No.2. Local 
Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD), Pokhara, Nepa 

 

 

 

 

 


