The Environmental and Social Costs of Improvement 35fallen only to 19, but just two were traditional (Cordova et al, 1981). Some 95 per
cent of the rice area is now planted to modern varieties. In the US, mixtures of
wheat and oats, oats and barley, sorghum and alfalfa, maize and soybean were com-
mon in the early part of this century (Thatcher, 1925; Bussell, 1937; Bailey, 1914).
All these are now mainly grown as monocrops. Mostly it has been the incentive
structures provided by cheap and available inputs that has encouraged farmers to
specialize. But in some countries, farmers have been prevented by law from grow-
ing traditional varieties and there have been reports of traditional crops being
burned or destroyed (Soetrisno, 1982).
With these losses of genetic diversity could go future opportunities. Locally
adapted crops or livestock can be critical for helping to deal with particular challenges
brought by pests or diseases. One rice variety from India, for example, has been
central to efforts to cope with a devastating virus. During the 1970s, the grassy-
stunt virus devastated rice from India to Indonesia. After a four-year search, in
which over 17,000 cultivated and wild rice samples were screened, disease resist-
ance was found. One population of the wild species, Oryza nivara, growing near
Gonda in Uttar Pradesh, was found to have a single gene for resistance to grassy-
stunt virus strain 1. Today, resistant rice hybrids containing the wild Indian gene
are grown across some 110,000km^2 of Asian rice fields (FAO, 1993). Genetic ero-
sion, the reduction of diversity within a species, is a global threat to agriculture.
The value of wild diversity
The value of wild biodiversity to farming households has seldom been recognized by
agriculturalists (Jodha, 1990; Bromley and Cernea, 1989; Scoones et al, 1992). Wild
resources are often called wastes or wastelands, and represent a symbol of backward-
ness and underdevelopment. During the British agricultural revolution of the 17th to
19th centuries, common resources were seen by many officials as the ‘trifling fruits of
overstocked and ill-kept lands’ (in Humphries, 1990), and ‘mere sand ... and fit for
nothing but rabbits’ (Burrell, 1960); and to large landowners, commons ‘burdened a
village with beggarly cottages and idle people. They were better enclosed [for agricul-
ture]’ (in Thirsk, 1985). In India, common resources are still called wastelands.
It is well recognized that hunter–gathering communities, such as the !Kung
San in Botswana or Indian groups in the Amazon, depend on wild resources for
their complete livelihoods. What is less widely recognized is that farming house-
holds also rely heavily on wild resources (Table 1.7). If wild habitats are lost, these
resources will no longer be available to rural households. And those who will suffer
most are the poorest, who most often rely on wild resources as key sources of food,
fuel, medicines and fodder.
Many agricultural institutions were indicating during the 1980s that agricul-
tural area would have to expand substantially if growing world populations would
be fed (TAC, 1988). More recently, these calls have been toned down, as it is being
increasingly recognized that expansion on this scale will incur significant costs to
rural households and national economies alike.