local institutions and plant genetic conservation: exchange of plant genetic resources in rural...

World Development Vol. 35, No. 9, pp. 1564–1578, 2007� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0305-750X/$ - see front matter

www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddevdoi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.05.022

Local Institutions and Plant Genetic

Conservation: Exchange of Plant Genetic Resources

in Rural Uzbekistan and some Theoretical

Implications

EVAN DENNISIndiana University, Bloomington, USA

JARILKASIN ILYASOVInternational Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Ministry of Agriculture and Water Management of the Republic of Uzbekistan,Tashkent, Uzbekistan

ERIC VAN DUSENUniversity of California at Berkeley, USA

SERGEY TRESHKIN, MARINA LEEInternational Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

and

PABLO EYZAGUIRRE *

International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome, Italy

Summary. — This paper contributes to the study of institutional relationships mediating the ex-change and distribution of plant genetic resources (PGR) among farmers. Local systems of seedexchange often consider PGR a public good, the rights to which no one should be excluded from.Community-level institutions and local customs that facilitate the exchange of PGR are builtaround reducing transaction costs for information and of planting material. This paper draws fromcollective-action theory and empirical evidence from Uzbekistan to propose a conceptual approachfor understanding farmer seed exchange systems. The case study shows how informal and formalinstitutions and local custom structure the exchange of PGR to be collectively beneficial to farmers.
� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Key words — Uzbekistan, plant genetic diversity, institutions, collective action, plant exchange

* Final revision accepted: May 6, 2006.

1. INTRODUCTION

The ability to obtain plant genetic resources(PGR) is fundamental to the functioning andadaptive capacity of agricultural systems.Farmers value PGR as a public good, the ben-efits to which all community members have

156

rights to. In rural areas much of the plant ge-netic resource exchange and distributionamong farmers and plant breeders is mediated

4

LOCAL INSTITUTIONS AND PLANT GENETIC CONSERVATION 1565

by the same institutions that structure otheraspects of village life. These community-levelinstitutions and local customs reduce the trans-action costs associated with the exchange ofinformation and planting material. This paperproposes a conceptual approach for under-standing farmer seed exchange systems thatdraws from collective-action theory. It suggeststhat intellectual property is neither the only northe best approach for developing policies in-tended to benefit smallholder farmers.

Among those concerned with the loss ofglobally important plant genetic resources, itis generally agreed that conservation methodswhich promote the production and use of localcrop varieties are essential elements for reduc-ing genetic erosion in agricultural species(Brush, 1999, pp. 7–8). Maintaining traditionalvarieties will require policies that build uponlocal values, cultures, and traditional resourcerights. Conservation proposals should beginby identifying the shared values that structurehow community-level institutions create incen-tives to promote the exchange of local plantvarieties. The pathways farmers use to obtaininformation and planting material provideuseful information about the local capacity ofcommunities to manage rights and organizecollective action with respect of PGR. As a re-sult, it may be possible to develop policies byhigher-level, formal institutions that supportand complement local practices, rules, andcommunity-based institutions that comprisethe farmer systems for managing and usingagricultural biodiversity. 1

In this article, the theoretical insights are alsoapplied to a case study of seed exchange inUzbekistan. The case study demonstrates howinstitutional analysis helps to explain the exist-ing management of the local seed system.

2. STUDY SITE

Uzbekistan in Central Asia is a Vavilov cen-ter of genetic diversity for fruit and nut treesand grapes (Vavilov, 1997). Forty plant specieswere first domesticated in Central Asia andwild relatives of these fruit trees are still usedtoday by farmers and breeders in the region.This case study describes the local commu-nity-level institutions in Urgut district, whichlies in the foothills, 50 km from the city ofSamarkand. The Samarkand region is locatedin the central part of Southern Uzbekistan nearthe Tajikistan boarder. The district has a grow-

ing period of 200 days a year, contains sierozemsoils, and receives between 360 and 400 mm ofrain a year (FAO, 2003). The 10 villages studiedwere between 15 and 75 minutes from the mar-ket by motorized transport and their gardenswere mostly rainfed. The Samarkand region isrenowned for its diversity of apricots, apples,walnuts, and pomegranates. In addition, theUrgut district has a reputation for growing alarge variety of grapes, eaten both fresh anddried.

Uzbekistan genetic diversity is the result ofthousands of years of domestication and farmerselection. Home gardens are cultivated by everyfamily and the overwhelming majority of thegenetic diversity resides in them. These homegardens are also sources of cultural identity.They are the inspiration for traditions like Nav-rus, a Zoroastrian harvest holiday celebratedthroughout Central Asia. Historically, Uzbekshave always cultivated a garden near theirhouse where they grew fruits and vegetablesfor daily consumption. After the Soviet appro-priation of large private orchards and gardensin the 1930s and 1940s, landrace varieties wereoften replanted in home garden plots. There isstill significant agroecological and bioculturaldiversity in Uzbekistan, much of which hasnot been systematically documented or col-lected.

3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND DATACOLLECTION

We carried out surveys in 10 villages in Urgutusing a two-stage stratified sampling strategyduring the spring of 2003. First, we randomlyselected villages from the complete list of vil-lages in the district in order to represent thegeographic variation of the sample. Next, werandomly identified 18 households in eachvillage using household lists obtained fromthe village government. Because one of thepopulations that we were interested in, largelandowners, represented less than 1% of therural population, in each village, we also se-lected two large landowners who were listedon the register of the Association of Farmersand Daikhons, an association to which all largelandowners were legally required to belong.

We developed a household survey by firstconducting semi-structured qualitative inter-views with farmers. The purpose was to see ifthe social categories, units of measurementand institutions to be used in our survey were

1566 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

relevant from the community perspective. Theinterviews enabled us to identify the pathwaysthrough which plant information and saplingswere obtained and the local institutions thatstructure village life in Uzbekistan. They helpedus to develop an in-depth household survey.The household survey included the nine mostubiquitous institutions that were important invillage life (these are described later). It focusedon household plots and on home gardens,where local crop varieties are cultivated andwhere individuals’ decisions are dominant.The survey’s main focus was on institutionsand transactions with respect to plant geneticresources. We also included a portion to docu-ment the specific varieties planted, their source,and distribution.

The questions about participation in localinstitutions were part of a larger survey thatasked about agricultural biodiversity, seedsources, market integration, family demograph-ics, land tenure regimes, and agriculture.Surveys were administered by 10 local assis-tants who were trained to speak with each maleand female heads of the household (both sepa-rately and together depending on the surveysection) over the course of two months. Eachsurvey took between three and six hours tocomplete and required multiple return tripsthroughout the survey period. In addition, dataabout plant-sources were collected duringtransect walks in the home gardens. Character-istics of each fruit tree, nut tree, and grape vinein the garden were documented based on thefarmers’ perception and knowledge, includingthe local name, the source of the sapling,and the geographic proximity of the saplingsource.

4. THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT OFFARMER DECISION MAKING

Douglas North defines institutions as ‘‘thehumanly devised constraints that shape humaninteraction. . .[and] reduce uncertainty (North,1990, p. 4).’’ Uphoff generalizes the definitionof institution to cover all ‘‘complexes of normsand behaviors. . . serving a collectively valuedpurpose,’’ which, he writes, ‘‘persist over timeas the smallest units of organized social,cultural, and political development (Uphoff,1986, p. 8).’’ Farmers’ knowledge of crops, cul-tivation techniques, taste preferences, and cropchoices are shaped during interactions that aremediated by custom, tradition, and social rela-

tions. Viewed within the context of a socialframework, a farmer’s cultivation decisionsare not made independently from the commu-nity in which he lives. The individual farmer’schoices are situated in a context of social andmoral obligation; the world around him medi-ates his preferences, determines his abilities toaccess seed and information, and assign valuesto his choices.

Agreement about the meaning of things—embodied as customs, tradition, and ritual—facilitates the movement of information andmaterials among individuals (Blumer, 1969, p.539). Cultural institutions are important path-ways for conveying values and knowledge overmultiple generations. Berlin found that nameconventions are used to convey plant infor-mation within Mayan-speaking communities.Comparing two communities separated 1200years ago, he found that the common wordforms dropped from 87% for cultivated speciesto 17% for plant species that were only sporad-ically managed (Berlin, 1992, p. 205). Theamount of environmental knowledge transmit-ted over generations through naming correlatedhighly with the importance of the plant withineveryday life. The information associated withintermittently managed plant species, lessimportant than cultivated species to livelihoodsof agricultural communities, was less systemat-ically preserved. Just as names transmit infor-mation, other community institutions transmitknowledge about the uses, cultivation strate-gies, and processing of crop varieties. Thesecomponents of the seed system are equallyimportant for variety maintenance as is the ac-tual planting material.

Institutions provide frameworks that con-strain actions in ways that facilitate transac-tions between communities of farmers. Theyminimize PGR transaction costs by establishingnorms that bring together interested individu-als, by promoting an environment whereopportunism can be minimized, and by reduc-ing the costs of learning about novel plant vari-eties. North articulates the importance ofinstitutions by suggesting that ‘‘The absenceof constraints. . . can lead to exchange not tak-ing place at all because the exchange is unen-forceable. Informal constraint can take theform of agreed upon lower costs.. . . Such orga-nizations and institutions that make norms ofcooperative behavior (informal constraints)effective are . . . a major part of the story ofmore complex exchange through history(North, 1990, p. 41).’’


Obtaining access to seed and agriculturalinformation motivates farmers to interactthrough local institutions and organizations.Seed and information passed between commu-nity members through kinship or social institu-tions influence individual farmer’s planningchoices by providing access to new plantingtechniques and varieties. Organizations suchas growers associations minimize the economiccosts associated with obtaining planting mate-rial, such as the cost of purchasing retail andtransportation expenses.

Ostrom (1990) has shown that communitiescan collectively manage natural resources inresponsible and rational ways provided thatcertain institutions are in place. The most suc-cessful examples are organizations that managea resource from which users directly obtain tan-gible and soon-realized benefits. PGR, unlikeother natural resources such as forests or water,does not derive its value solely from the physi-cal artifact itself—the proteins that make up thegenes. Much of its value is determined whenengaged in a relationship with the ecosystem,farmers, and scientists. Genetic varieties arevaluable because they contain characteristicsthat are different from the characteristics ofother varieties. The value that plant genetic re-sources provide to breeders, farmers, humanity,and the ecosystem is an ability to adapt tochanging environmental, market, and socialconditions (Eyzaguirre, 2003).

Plant genetic resources refer to the informa-tion contained in seeds, which unlike othercommon-pool resources is non-rival, and pos-sess the characteristics of being ‘‘highly move-able, replicable, and protean’’ (Brush, thisissue). Moreover, the benefits of PGR are nei-ther soon realized nor particularly tangible.PGR’s combination of public and private ben-efits leads to institutional arrangement thatdiffer from the examples of natural resourcemanagement organizations described by Os-trom (1990). No formal institution developedexclusively for managing PGR at the commu-nity level was found in any of our surveyed vil-lages in Uzbekistan. Three of the six variablesOstrom identified as influencing the outcomeof collective action fluctuate or are not quan-tifiable for PGR (Ostrom, 1990, p. 186). 2

PGR are not managed in the same way as othernatural resources, and in turn, this makes orga-nization around them difficult to measure bytraditional criteria.

Although all of the farmers we interviewed inUzbekistan shared a common interest in, and

lamented the loss of, local plant diversity(common interest being one of the six variablesidentified by Ostrom (1990) as requisite forsuccessful management of common propertyresources), farmers had not developed specificorganizations to exclusively manage PGR.They are managed indirectly, via shared cul-tural values and taste preferences, and throughbroader social and economic institutions thatfacilitate the movement of information. Mostimportant, PGR can be managed through theseother institutions because of a shared under-standing among agriculturalists of PGR as apublic good.

During interviews with men and women inUrgut we realized that the local social and eco-nomic institutions in the villages were impor-tant sources of information about fruit andnut tree varieties. In every social institution(like a wedding) or economic institution (likea weekly rotating credit association) individualsshared agricultural information. These institu-tions lowered the transaction costs of convey-ing, coordinating, and measuring plant-varietyspecific information. Local institutions playeda paramount—but indirect—role in the ex-change and use of plant genetic resources.

5. INSTITUTIONAL PATHWAYS

A starting point for describing a local-levelinstitutional approach is to identify those orga-nizations and institutions through which peopleparticipate, socialize, and share information.Although not all institutions and organizationsare directly germane to plant genetic resources,most that operate in a village contribute to theinstitutional landscape that eventually influ-ences how farmers decide what to plant. Basedupon our initial semi-structured interviews inUrgut, we composed a list of the institutionsand organizations that farmers used to gainaccess to seed and agricultural information.

Two things motivate farmers to organize andcommunicate: access to seeds and access toagricultural information about when and howto cultivate. In Uzbekistan, we discovered thatfarmers choosing to plant new varieties of fruittrees were concerned with where they wouldgain access to seed and where they would ob-tain information about the proper cultivationof varieties that are not traditional to their vil-lage. Traditional agricultural systems are notclosed and isolated with respect to the flow ofgenetic material (Louette, 2000, p. 133; Perales,


Brush, & Qualset, 2003). The sharing of mate-rial and information is central to maintainingcrop vigor because it introduces new geneticmaterial into the system. As a form of collectivebehavior, the seed system is not formalized inthe eyes of those who participate in it. It is anemergent pattern of collective action based onlocal norms. Consequently, collective actionaround plant genetic resources adapts to chang-ing demands.

In rural Uzbekistan, agriculture is a near uni-versal occupation and it is common for menand women to talk about the topic wheneverand wherever they meet. Much sharing of agri-cultural information occurs through institu-tions of friendship or familial relations and inforums whose primary purpose is unrelated toagriculture. The pathway linking agriculturalinformation and seed to local institutions andorganizations is often indirect. Indirect path-ways refer to those institutions or groups whoseprimary or manifest function is not about agri-culture, seeds, and plant genetic resources.There is no a priori assumption that directpathways (organizations or institutions with a

Access toinformation

Access to seed

Access to information

Access to seed

O

MOTIVATING FACTORS

DIRECT PATHWAY

INDIRECT PATHWAY

Figure 1. Motivations prompting Uzbek farmers to use pa

primary purpose related to agriculture) aremore efficient than indirect pathways. The rela-tive importance of these different pathways isan empirical question. Most often, farmersuse both pathways. Organizations and institu-tions that are indirect pathways are significantto the exchange of information and materialbecause they bring people together, becauseagriculture is a common topic of conversation,and because expertise and experiences areshared.

Figure 1 shows the two different pathwayslinking motivating factors and institutions.Some of the groups listed in Figure 1, such asgovernment breeders are formal institutionsand organizations, recognized by the state aslegal entities. Other relationships throughwhich access is gained are informal and ofvariable scope and duration, and might not berecognized by the state. A common source ofboth seed and information are sons who havemigrated to a different district or region andbring back foreign seeds. The bazaar or mar-ketplace straddles both classifications; it is aformal open-access organization with clear

CROP CHOICE

Friend/Relative

Bazaar

ReciprocalGroup Labor

INSTITUTIONSAND

RGANIZATIONS

Government and Local Breeders

Bazaar

rticular institutions for access to seed and information.


rules to which everyone belongs, while at thesame time constituting an informal institutionthat operates according to culturally definednorms regulating the exchange of materialsand information. The seed bazaars operate reg-ularly during the springtime and their wares areunregulated by the state. Bazaars provide a di-rect pathway to seed, but are usually an indirectpathway for information, as information aboutplant genetic resources is not covered by anysystem of intellectual property rights. The mostwidely recognized of the formal organizationsare the government plant research institutes,part of the Vavilov network of plant industryinstitutes in Soviet times. Regulated by thestate, the plant research institutes provide guar-antees and insurance that are not availablethrough the informal seed system. 3

For farmers, trust underlies every exchangeof PGR material and information. The vigorof the seed and the accuracy of received agricul-tural information can only be measured aftersignificant costs in time and land have beensunk and are real concerns of farmers. The costto farmers of poor or inaccurate informationon plant genetic resources includes seed failureor crop losses due to disease or abiotic stress.Farmers minimize transaction costs by obtain-ing planting materials from sources andthrough pathways in which they have high lev-els of trust. This trust is based on experienceand technical expertise (in the case of the for-mal plant breeding institutes). For unofficialsources of seed, trust is based upon social cap-ital—‘‘the web of social relations that under-pins all human actions and that. . . definestheir outcomes’’ (Forni, 2000)—which facili-tates transactions. Social relationships remainthe predominant source of information aboutother’s trustworthiness and agricultural knowl-edge, and they are used to assess the trustwor-thiness of PGR material and the accuracy ofagricultural information. Trust underlies theuse of institutions like village elders, friends,and relatives as sources of agricultural informa-tion and seed. Familial relations are the stron-gest form of social capital in Uzbekistan. Atacit trust between friends and relatives attenu-ates the risk of malicious seed and informationtransactions. Understanding the movement ofseed and information at the local level requiresacknowledging the varying levels of trust thatfarmers have in the different institutions andorganizations which they use.

Our study revealed some distinctions betweenthe organizations and institutions for plant ge-

netic resource management in Urgut and thekinds of institutions identified in most studiesabout collective action of natural resources.First, farmers rely more on informal institu-tions when managing their local plant geneticresources. Secondly, these informal institutionsthat provide information and seeds are not setup exclusively nor manifestly for this purpose.As a result, they are often ignored when consid-ering the processes of in situ conservation ofagricultural biodiversity in agricultural produc-tion systems. Care should be taken to includethese informal institutions when investigatingseed systems and for assessing the impact ofeconomic changes, agricultural policies, andtechnologies on agricultural biodiversity.

We advocate a new schema for understand-ing seed system functioning. Distinguishingamong indirect and direct pathways for access-ing agricultural information and PGR materialinternalizes the dual producer and consumerroles of households in the seed system. Further-more, it recognizes the importance of farmers’trust levels in the choice of institutions andorganizations that they use as sources of seedand information.

Patterns of access explain how culture, norms,and organizations shape PGR exchanges amongdifferent actors—allowing some actors to inter-act while keeping others distant; and it can ex-plain why some institutions and organizationsare utilized more than others for seed and infor-mation access. With this new perspective we mayeventually even be able to predict the impact onthe seed system of normative and institutionalchanges caused by policy.

In sum, we are suggesting a conceptual ap-proach that may model and measure the impacton PGR access and choices in Uzbekistan de-rived from theories of social capital, transac-tion costs, collective action, and from theempirical evidence.

6. URGUT INSTITUTIONS ANDORGANIZATIONS FOR INFORMATION

AND SEED EXCHANGE

Our study identified a number of social andeconomic institutions in Urgut that have a rolein dissemination of information about seeds. Inthe household survey of 127 randomly selectedhouseholds, we asked individuals about ninecommon institutions that structured village life.Each institution is described below.


(a) Mahalla (neighborhood)

In rural Uzbekistan, neighborliness is anobligation. Villagers are obligated to partici-pate in both celebratory and memorial festivalsfor their neighbors and neighbors may sharefood goods. During our discussions with farm-ers we were often told that their neighborswould provide them agricultural informationeven without their requesting it, and thatthey were obliged to reciprocate. Some villagerscomplained that the friendly exchange ofinformation was deteriorating as communitieswere adopting a more modern understandingof the value of information and competi-tiveness.

(b) Suhbot

The suhbot boasts the highest level of partic-ipation of any organization in Uzbekistan.Groups of around a dozen acquaintances andfriends meet bi-weekly for entertainment andsocializing at a different member’s house eachtime. The suhbot is a Central Asian traditionthat regained popularity in the 1970s when itbegan to incorporate a custom of the reciprocalexchange of consumer goods. The subhot alsoprovides access to financial capital using arotating credit mechanism. At each meeting,participants contribute a small and equal sumof money to the hostess, whose role rotatesamong the members.

(c) Mahalla committee

The mahalla is a traditional local-level orga-nization serving as the judiciary of the villagewhere local norms of trust and fairness are ap-plied to solve disputes within the village. Offi-cially, the mahalla is an administrative unitdefined by a neighborhood block and some-times centered around a tea house (chayhana),where social and ritual functions are per-formed. The mahalla committee provides a for-um for male elders, farmers, and communityleaders to discuss community problems andtake voluntary collective action (hashar). Ma-halla members sometimes discuss the erosionof genetic diversity in the village, although theymore often discuss exigent threats to agricul-ture. 4 As a forum to discuss problems andshare solutions, the mahalla facilitates aware-ness about local varieties and the disseminationof information necessary for their proper culti-

vation. In its judicial role the mahalla effectivelyminimizes the risk that diseased, underper-forming, or improper genetic material or agri-cultural information will knowingly andmaliciously be sold or given away in a transac-tion. However, the mahalla is ineffective in situ-ations of crop failures caused by poor seedmaterials or information that was provided bymistake.

(d) Weddings

The wedding is the most important culturaland religious ceremony in village life. Most ofthe village community and young people fromsurrounding villages attend the two-day longfestivities of dancing, music, and food. The cel-ebrations are the primary location where youngcouples meet and they serve as places where re-ciprocal gifts are exchanged. Relatives assisteach other financially using presents as loansagainst the costs of future weddings in theirimmediate family. Men do not talk about workper se, but discuss interesting developments inagriculture. In particular, when men meet theday before the ceremony to make preparationsthey talk about farming with people whom theydo not otherwise have time to see. Most of theweddings occur during the spring, summer, andautumn.

(e) Holidays and religious rituals

Villages celebrate together a mix of Muslimrituals, Zoroastrian traditions, and nationalholidays. Holidays include Navruz (21st ofMarch), Independence Day (1st of September),and Iyd-al Fitr (after Ramadan) and Iyd-al-Adha (after the Pilgrimage). Other festivals in-clude Mustaqilik, Children’s day, New Year’sEve, Yilboshi (beginning of a year), and Dar-veshona. The most prominent Muslim customis the hudoyi, meaning thanksgivings to Allah.The hudoyi involves giving food to the commu-nity or poorer community members as a publicact of sacrifice. It is performed for a variety ofreasons including a death in the family, the suc-cess of a family member (e.g., a promotion or areturn from abroad), or the purchase of anexpensive item (e.g., a car). The hudoyi is com-monly celebrated multiple times a year and it isa common cause of hardship for families whooften accrue debt in order to celebrate hudoyion a member’s behalf.


(f) Hashar

Hashar is reciprocal self-help and can eitherbe publicly organized by authorities for theconstruction of a community good (e.g., thecleaning of drainage ditches or the building ofa communal football pitch) or can be privatelyorganized by individuals (e.g., building a house,harvesting, planting and sowing). Participantsin hashar do not receive payment for their ser-vices, but are traditionally fed for the day orreceive a share of the day’s harvest. By 2003,feeding helpers had become more expensiveand in many villages people were hiring daylaborers instead of organizing private hashers.However, hashers remain the second mostimportant source of labor after the family unit(producing about 15% of the work according togroup interviews with men). In Urgut, privatehashar was necessary for the cultivation ofgrapes, which require covering the vines withmud during the winter season and uncoveringthem during the spring.

(g) Gathering spots: guzar and chaykhana

Villagers gathered frequently at a variety oflocations to discuss the day’s events and sharegossip and agricultural information. Peoplecommonly gather at the local shops, at schoolsafter the last bell, at the mosque, around thewater pump (if one existed), at the guzar—thecenter of the village, or at the chaykhana—the traditional teahouse—where villagers drinktea and relax.

(h) Bazaar

The Uzbek bazaar culture encourages sellersand buyers to bargain, a practice that makesselling in the bazaar cost effective for small-holder peasant farmers. A small cash fee is paidto the bazaar manager to rent a small space inorder to sell products; and smallholder farmersnormally sell right beside middlemen and retailoperators in the bazaar. Smallholder farmerssometimes purchase seedlings in the district ba-zaar during the season. During the springplanting months a bazaar specializing in seedsand saplings operates where varieties from theformal seed sector (the government institutes)are sold. Local bazaars are smaller in size andprices are generally lower then in city bazaars.Every village is near a local bazaar and thetransportation costs are lower than to attendthe district bazaar can be more than 90 minutes

away. The costs of obtaining price and demandinformation from state or legal institutionsare much higher than obtaining it from thebazaar.

(i) Shirkat 5

The shirkat is the remaining institution of thecollective farm system from the Soviet period.The controlled and gradual privatization ofstate structures has become a source of incomefor governments, and a way of retaining cen-tralized control by the transfer of these assetsto friends and allies of those in government.The shirkat has been the dominant feature ofthe Uzbekistan economic transition since 1991and has allowed the government to retain cen-tralized control over the economically vitalcrops of cotton and wheat (Bloch, 2002). Theshirkat is the main producer of agriculturalproducts and the sole major employer of locallabor. During 1991–1996, shirkats became thelargest employer (Bloch, 2002). Many womenwho identified themselves as housewives wereregistered in shirkats as workers (Thurman &Lundell, 2001, p. 15). In most shirkats themajority of land is distributed under contractto family pudrats (work units) that contractwith the administration to work the land. Usu-ally shirkats provide pudrats with land, machin-ery, water, fertilizers, seeds (saplings), andchemicals to produce and take payment bothin-kind or in cash. Many pudrats feel that theydo not receive a fair portion of the harvest northat the shirkat fulfills its obligations to them.Shirkats are currently administered as share-cropping companies and rent land to familiesfor 1, 2, 3, 5 or 10 year leases to grow specifiedcrops, usually wheat and cotton.

Some shirkats specialize in fruit production,for example, grapes in Urgut district, while oth-ers grow cotton and wheat. Until 1998, the shir-kat also organized and administered all aspectsof village social life but now the mahalla com-mittee has taken over community affairs likethe distribution of welfare, the maintenance ofroads, and the resolution of conflicts. However,arable land remains under the purview of theshirkat and the provision of electricity andwater must still be authorized by the shirkat.Newlyweds appeal to the shirkat for land onwhich to build a home and garden, and oftenmust wait as long as 4 years before receivinga plot.

Most villagers are smallholder farmers culti-vating between .08 and .3 hectares of land.


Smallholder families may also work on pudratsor for larger farmers called firmirs, who culti-vate generally for 1–100 hectare.

(j) Government agricultural research institute

The government agricultural research insti-tutes located throughout Uzbekistan wereoriginally engaged in the production and distri-bution of local and foreign plant varieties forshirkats. They now supply large farmers, small-holders ,and middlemen (usually governmentworkers) high quality, genetically true, and dis-ease-free saplings. At one time the governmentresearch institutes were well funded by theSoviet government, but currently they operatewith drastically reduced central funding. Aginggovernment scientists dedicated to conservinglocal varieties and holding knowledge of thelocal conditions maintain a wealth of biodiver-sity in ex situ field genebanks throughout thecountry. 6 The government institute is consid-ered to be the most reliable and best sourceof seed by all strata of agricultural workers.Institute laborers who sell cuttings and sap-lings from the institute’s collection in thedistrict and regional markets maximize its im-pact.

7. AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION

Agricultural information is the knowledgeabout planting, care, yield, and other informa-tion that farmers need when they cultivate avariety that is new to them. Access to agricul-tural information is a fulcrum around whichinstitutions and organizations develop and the

Table 1. Percentage of male household heads participating

Institution name Number ofhouseholds

participatingorganization

% Talk aboutfruit rarely,n = various

% Talkfruit som

n = v

Guzar 81 1 5Suhbot 32 6 5Mahalla 83 1 5Chaykhana 8 0 6Hashar 69 1 4Wedding 119 8 5Market 85 14 4Other festivals 79 9 3Work brigade 44 4 2

need for it motivates participation in existingmultifunctional institutions and organizations.Farmers use multiple sources to acquire agri-cultural information, including oxacols (wise-men) in the village, experts at the collectivefarm, and fellow farmers in their villages oragricultural enterprises. In rural Uzbekistan,reliable agricultural information is almostexclusively conveyed through discussions. It israrely gathered from newspapers, radio, ortelevision.

We were interested in the degree to whichinstitutions and organizations that were seem-ingly unrelated to agricultural informationserved as pathways or mechanisms throughwhich information flowed. We compared thefrequency with which members spoke aboutfruit in nine institutions or organizations thatwere indirect pathways for agricultural infor-mation. Each institution or organization serveda primary purpose different from providing ac-cess to agricultural information. We found thatconversations about fruit took place in all ofthe different types of organizations and institu-tions.

We asked the male household heads to rankhow often they talked about fruit (rarely, some-times, and often). As expected, there was varia-tion between the institutions and organizations.In some institutions, 87% of participants usedthe occasion to talk about fruit while in otherinstitutions only 43% did so. Table 1 showsthe relative frequencies with which participantsspoke about fruits. Villagers spoke about fruitmost often in the guzar, suhbot, mahalla, andchayhana. The data suggest that local institu-tions are important sources for agriculturalinformation.

in local institutions and their proclivity to talk about fruit

aboutetimes,

arious

% Talk aboutfruit often,n = various

Total % talkabout fruit,n = various

% Talk aboutfruit often orsometimes,n = various

7 30 88 874 28 88 825 25 81 806 13 79 797 25 72 711 10 69 615 11 70 569 9 57 487 16 47 43


8. SEED ACCESS

Seed access describes the exchange of the ac-tual plant genetic material—both the seeds andsaplings that farmers sow. During informalinterviews with rural informants, we identifiedthe six organizations and institutions that werethe most utilized for obtaining planting mate-rial. Then, in surveys with household headswe asked farmers which of these six sourcesthey used. Three organizations were direct path-ways that were organized for the explicitpurpose of providing seed. They included thegovernment research institute, the district ba-zaar, and the plant breeder. Farmers also toldus that they received planting material fromindividuals with whom they had kinship andfriendship relations. Relatives, neighbors, andoxacols (wise-men) served as indirect pathwaysthrough which farmers gained access to seed.

In order to compare the six most commonsources of seed, we asked farmers to rank eachsource that they used to procure planting mate-rial. Respondents ranked ‘‘how effective theinstitution or organization was as a source offoreign seed’’ on a five point scale. Averageeffectiveness is presented as a standardizedvalue—0 (minimum) to 1 (maximum)—inTable 2 and it provides a measurement ofhow important a source is to the individualswho use it. Table 2 also provides informationon how many of the interviewed householdsused each source of planting material.

The survey results show a threefold variationin the number of users of different sources. Thegovernment research institute was used bymany households (33) while the district bazaarwas used by few (13). The number of users wasunrelated to the effectiveness of a source ofplanting material. Equal numbers of house-holds used ineffective sources or highly effectivesources. The difference in rankings between andusage of institutions was noteworthy. The gov-

Table 2. Male household head use of institution

Institution nameor relation type

Number ofusers

Numfinding

or ‘‘usu

Government Research Institute 33Breeder 22Relative 40Oxacol 30District Bazaar 13Neighbor 38

ernment research institute was ranked by farm-ers as 88% ‘‘always’’ or ‘‘usually’’ effective.Comparatively, oxacols and neighbors wereranked by 40% of users as ‘‘always’’ or ‘‘usu-ally’’ effective. There was an almost threefoldvariation in the number of men who used differ-ent sources for foreign seed. Overall, a greaternumber of farmers said they used indirect path-ways for accessing seed than they used directpathways.

Three of the four most used sources—rela-tives, neighbors, government research institute,and oxacols—are people to whom the individ-ual has a social relationship. Kinship relationsand responsibility to relatives is highly valuedin rural Uzbek communities, and this is re-flected in the frequency of planting material ex-changes. Norms oblige the exchange of seed torelatives and neighbors who request it. Thiscontributes to relatives, followed by neighbors,being most utilized source for seeds. The gov-ernment research institute was the only directpathway that was used frequently as a sourceof seed, probably because it is the most trustedsource of saplings, had the greatest selection,and had a very high reputation in the surveyedcommunities.

Effectiveness seemed related to direct path-ways. The two most effective institutions werethe government agricultural research instituteand the village breeder. Less effective institu-tions for access to seed tended to be indirectpathways. Relatives ranked third on effective-ness, followed by oxacols and neighbors. Thelow ranking of the district bazaar should beunderstood in terms of missing trust in theveracity of market sellers. Given the sporadicuse of the bazaar to obtain inputs or seeds bypoor rural households there is little social cap-ital built between buyers and sellers of seed inthe bazaar. As a result, farmers face a risk thatthe material they obtain there is not the statedvariety, is diseased, or may not produce well

s and organizations for obtaining foreign seed

ber of usersit ‘‘always’’

ally’’ effective

% Of usersfinding it ‘‘always’’

or ‘‘usually’’ effective

Effectiveness

29 88 0.6318 82 0.5028 70 0.4512 40 0.418 62 0.4120 53 0.39


in their micro-environment. The bazaar has nosocial infrastructure that can enforce expecta-tions about purchased planting material. Thebazaar was the least used source of seed inaddition to having the lowest effectivenessranking, suggesting that trust plays an impor-tant role in determining where people go forseed.

The survey results show the importance ofthe government research institute in the localseed system of Uzbekistan. The rural popula-tion has a history of interaction with agrono-mists and horticulturists on state farms andthey maintain a deep respect for trained scien-tists. The institute guarantees that its saplingsare disease free and truly are the advertisedvarieties. Consequently, throughout Uzbeki-stan the government research institutes func-tions as a decentralized plant productionfacility. The institute’s plant breeders typicallyrecommend around five varieties in each villagewhich are best suited to the local conditionsand they offer planting materials at prices notgreatly different from bazaar prices, albeit moreexpensive than locally bred saplings. Bazaarmiddlemen and institute workers who unoffi-cially acquire breeding material also routinelysell tree stock at the bazaar. Local plant breed-ers are also an important source of plantingmaterial, as demonstrated by their high effec-tiveness rating. Local plant breeders haveproliferated since the population has been al-lowed to publicly participate in markets.Now, nearly every large village has a residentplant breeder.

Different households used a different numberof sources for obtaining planting material. Thenumber of places to which male heads of house-holds went for foreign seeds varied sixfold be-tween households. Table 3 shows that 42% ofmen went to only one source for their seed.Only 9% of households used all six sources.

Table 3. Number of sources used for obtaining foreignvarieties

# Of sourcesused

Number people Percent of people

1 28 422 11 163 7 104 6 105 9 136 6 9

Total 67 100

Households generally used multiple sourcesfor accessing planting material, mixing directpathways with indirect pathways. Using multi-ple sources gives household access to a greaterselection of plant species and varieties.

9. DISCUSSION

The analysis of the data we present in thethree tables above highlights a number ofissues. We inquired about how often peoplespoke about fruit trees in all institutions andorganizations to which they belonged andfound that in the guzar, chayhana, suhbot,and mahalla between 79% and 87% of farmersdiscussed fruit ‘‘often’’ or ‘‘sometimes.’’ Thepattern shows that multipurpose organizationsand informal institutions occupy a highlyimportant role in the movement of agriculturalinformation in the seed system, contrary to theassumption introduced by Hardin (1968)regarding the need for and prevalence of insti-tutions created specifically for the private man-agement of natural resources. Data collectedfrom group interviews with men in villagescorroborate the findings from the householdsurvey data demonstrating that the greatestnumber of people exchanges agricultural infor-mation at events whose primary purpose isunrelated to agriculture, such as weddings andother festivals (Table 1). The importance of vil-lage celebrated rituals as spaces for informationexchange cannot be overemphasized. The pastallows people to talk about the present (Bosch,1977) and indirect pathways of rituals, tradi-tions, and norms are the conduits for informa-tion exchange about agriculture in ruralUzbekistan.

Indirect pathways are also among the mostimportant ways in which farmers gain accessto seed and saplings. Relatives and oxacols(wise-men) ranked fourth and third, respect-fully, as the most effective sources of new seed(Table 2). In Uzbekistan, duty and responsibil-ity to one’s relatives and extended family mem-bers is considered paramount. Cultural normsrevere familial relationships with the extendedfamily and oblige to the exchange of agricul-tural information and seed to relatives. Theseinstitutions contribute to relatives as being themost utilized source for seeds.

The patterns that emerged from our analysissuggest that trust plays a prominent role infarmers’ decisions about from whom to receiveseeds. All planting material obtained through


the informal seed system had a risk of diseaseor non-performance and farmers confided inus concerns about the varieties purchased fromthe bazaar which were not guaranteed to be theadvertised variety or were not fit to surviveunder local conditions. In Uzbekistan farmerscontinue to trust the formal system of seed sup-ply established during the Soviet era and todayembodied in the government plant breedingresearch institutes. According to farmers, themost effective source of new germplasm (inthe form of saplings) was the government re-search institute, which in group-surveys wasconsistently identified by villagers as the mostimportant organization for obtaining foreignand modern seeds and for consultation aboutproper cultivation. This was because the gov-ernment research institute was generally consid-ered the most reliable source of seed. 7 Thehousehold survey corroborated these findings,ranking the government research institute thehighest in effectiveness as a source of foreignseed (Table 2).

Association with the government institutesgained local breeders the trust of farmers.All breeders have specialized knowledge andinterest in producing quality plant varieties.The semi-formal status coupled with theaccountability that accompanied supplyingown friends, neighbors, and fellow communitymembers, built trust among local farmers andlocal breeders, and made them the second mosteffective source of foreign seed (Table 2).Although the government institutes and breed-ers were the most effective and trusted sources,informal relationships with relatives and neigh-bors were the most utilized for sources of mod-ern and foreign varieties. This reflected the trustin informal relationships and the reliance onindirect institutions of friendship and familialbonds that remain the highways for the ex-change of modern seed varieties. It suggeststhat Louette’s conclusions regarding Mexicanmaize—that the impact of informal seed ex-change on the genetic diversity is massive—isequally true about fruit tree diversity in Uzbe-kistan (Louette, 2000, p. 133).

Trust, based on social capital and personalrelationships with providers, is an importantcriteria used by farmers to assess the vigor ofa seed and the accuracy of agricultural informa-tion about traditional varieties for which infor-mation is esoteric. Rural Uzbekistan is noexception from the pattern identified by Berlin(1992, p. 199) that agricultural knowledge isincorporated into the cultural behaviors of

communities. In Uzbekistan, oxacols areconsidered the best sources of ancient andtraditional varieties of seed and techniquesaccording to group interviews with men. Tradi-tional plant varieties are adapted to uniquemicro-niches in individual villages. Outside ofthe village, in other soils and ecological con-ditions, these local landraces and traditionalcultivation techniques may not yield similar re-sults. Geographically distant seed and informa-tion loses its relevance and value to the localfarmer. For these relatives are often less impor-tant as sources of traditional landraces com-pared to village oxacols and neighbors.

The significance of trust in motivating farm-ers’ choices is reflected in attitudes toward mate-rial obtained from the bazaar. The bazaar wasthe other institution consistently mentioned asa source of modern/foreign varieties duringgroup interviews with men, but when rankedon a five point scale of importance it receivedonly 3–4 points compared to a consistently high-er award of five points obtained by the govern-ment research institute. The bazaar tied withoxacols as an effective source of modern seed(ranking fourth) although oxacols were rarelymentioned as sources of modern seed in groupinterviews. Only 13 respondents utilized bazaarsas sources of foreign seed compared to 40 whoutilized relatives (Table 2). Local responses to-ward the bazaar reflect mistrust in the institu-tion. Anecdotal evidence suggests that thosefarmers who used the bazaar as a source of fruittrees were individuals who demonstrated littleinterest or experience in tree cultivation. 8

Our research suggests that understanding theoperation of seed systems requires examinationof local, farmer-level institutions that seemunrelated to seed exchange. We proposed anapproach that can help bring together the find-ings about PGR from many disciplines. Peren-nials are not the only crops to which thisframework can be applied. Our understandingof maize seed systems could also be benefited,especially considering the excellent existingwork on the topic. For example, Smale, Bellon,and Gomez (2001) showed that local customsand traditions shape farmer’s valuation of phe-notypic traits and Louette (2000) demonstratedthat gene flow through the informal seed systemaffects genetic diversity in the general maizepopulation and contribute to the larger move-ment of alleles in Mexico.

Our framework is based on the theoreticalliterature about collective action and groundedin our field observations in Uzbekistan. We


recognized that local organizations and institu-tions affected the seed system according to twopathways. Some institutions and organizationswere direct conduits through which farmersobtained access to agricultural informationand seed. Others had a primary purpose unre-lated to agriculture or were multipurpose,yet served as indirect sources of seed and infor-mation. Indigenous farmers did not naturallydistinguish between direct and indirect path-ways, but when we inquired about where theyobtained seed and information, a patterninvolving the two different pathways emerged.

Our examination of PGR as a natural re-source tacitly internalizes the assumption thatopen-access natural resources should be man-aged by some kind of institution, first madepopular by Hardin (1968). 9 Scholars havesince identified many indigenous examples ofinstitutions involved in the direct managementof common-pool resources (Agrawal, 1999;McCay & Acheson, 1987; Ostrom, 1990). Envi-ronmental anthropologists have even shownthe importance of ritual and myth in motivat-ing the maintenance of particular plant species.In Borneo, taro and other archaic plants ‘‘fo-cused on the past and ideological concerns’’and lacking economic importance were culti-vated by the Dayak ‘‘to meet the ritual needsof ancestral spirits in the community (Dove,1999, p. 60).’’ Adding to this understanding,we have tried to show that village and local-level institutions whose manifest functions wereunrelated to the seed provisioning systemplayed an important role in the maintenanceof plant genetic diversity. An emphasis onthe identification of specific indigenous institu-tions and organizations for the managementof natural resources implicitly obfuscated thesubtler and messier contributions of other orga-nizations and institutions to the informal andindirect management of natural resources thatresult from information and culture flows with-in the community. How and to whom informa-tion flows within a geographic area shapes theadoption of new crop varieties and the direc-tion of selection pressure (Perales et al., 2003).The most utilized organizations and institu-tions for obtaining seed and information weremultipurpose institutions or organizations witha primary purpose unrelated to agriculture. Tofocus on the direct pathways—those institu-tions and organizations exclusively establishedfor seed and seed information exchange inUzbek villages—would have misdirected thestudy of the seed system and gene flow.

Institutions providing both direct and indi-rect pathway create physical spaces for commu-nity members to develop relationships outsideof the family. Norms and rituals provide alanguage of the past that is able to transcendthe immediate social present and interpretnew events in terms of the old ones (Dumont1977, p. 7 cited in Dove, 1999, p. 61). Indirectpathways are the pre-eminent sources of tradi-tional knowledge about ancient varieties andtraditional uses, and they are the most usedsource for modern varieties. Local institutionsand organizations are essential and influentialcomponents of the system of PGR exchangeand cultivation. Neither should their economicrole be overlooked. While it may be argued thatinformal pathways embody inefficiencies forseed exchange, ‘‘Informal constraints that arisein the context of exchange but are not self-enforcing are more complex because they nec-essarily entail features that make the exchangeviable by reducing measurement and enforce-ment costs (North, 1990, p. 41).’’

The institutional structure of fruit tree seed ex-change in rural Uzbekistan demonstrates a dualsystem of seed exchange. Information and PGRmaterial of traditional varieties is exchangedmostly within the microgeography of the villageand is held by oxacols who do not engage vigor-ously with the market structures. Informationflow mainly occurs between younger farmersand oxacols, both of whom participate in differ-ent sets of indirect institutions. Younger menare actively engaged with the market and obtainmodern varieties through further-reaching net-works of relatives, the government research insti-tute, the market, and friends. The disconnectbetween the holders of traditional knowledgeand those who engage in the market suggests thatutilizing market forces may be an ineffective wayto conserve traditional landraces. Supporting theexchange of agricultural information and mate-rial through local organizations and institutionsis essential for maintaining local crop varietieswhose traits and diversity value is poorly cap-tured by markets.

An approach that recognizes and reinforcesthe value of existing institutions may be amore effective way to maintain and improveinformation exchange about local seed varie-ties. Cultural institutions may also provide alocally valid way to build collective action tomake more effective use of local crop diversityin community development activities. The casestudy reveals that the intellectual property ofgermplasm is considered common property


in rural Uzbekistan. Seed and germplasmfrom the government plant breeding institutesare widely exchanged. This understandingfacilitates the exchange of information andseed through traditional institutions. The exis-tence of multiple pathways for access and ex-change of germplasm is an essential part ofthe functioning of the local-level seed system.

The institutions that are most commonlyused to exchange seed germplasm and informa-tion are those whose manifest functions are notprimarily concerned with seed and plant geneticresources. Nevertheless, in providing the spaceand the mechanism for farmers to develop ashared understanding of the value and sourcesof local germplasm, they build a diffuse formof collective action with respect to local culti-vars and affirm the common property statusof Uzbekistan’s rich yet neglected local cropdiversity. Whether these institutions that arecentral to the maintenance of local crop diver-sity can survive the current economic transi-tions and the increasing penetration ofmultinational seed companies is uncertain. Thispaper provides a preliminary assessment oflocal institutions and collective action and indi-cates that local institutions should be includedin the policy formulations about biodiversityand agriculture in Uzbekistan.

10. CONCLUSION

The focus on farmers’ access and exchange ofseed or planting material allowed to study the

patterns, pathways, rules, and institutions thatgovern on-farm management of plant geneticresources. It is in the seed or germplasm thatthe traits that are identified and recognized asuseful to farmers can be fixed, stored, and ex-changed. The importance of the expectationthat the desired traits will indeed be expressedwhen a seed or vine is planted, makes the roleof institutions of trust and social capital crucial.Farmers’ trust in these institutions which arepart of the customs and local practices of sociallife, culture, and agro-ecosystems is a majorfactor that determines the importance of localinstitutions.

The approach proposed in this paper contrib-utes to an existing body of work from a diversecollection of fields including institutional eco-nomics, sociology, genetics, and agriculturaleconomics. The application of an institutionalfocus to the development of household surveysprovides an example of how multiple tools anddisciplines can be coherently brought togetherunder an institutional focus and yield new in-sights about how plant genetic resources aremanaged and maintained. For developmentagencies, this approach contributes to a toolset enabling practitioners to develop more effec-tive and accepted interventions that build onlocal capacities, knowledge, and biological re-sources. At the same time it provides a clearrole whereby formal government institutionsand policies can contribute and support themanagement and help in conservation of agri-cultural biodiversity which is a key resourcefor rural development.

NOTES

1. The variety and variability of animals, plants, andmicro-organisms used directly or indirectly for food andagriculture (including, in the FAO definition, crops,livestock, forestry, and fisheries). It comprises the diver-sity of genetic resources (varieties, breeds, etc.) andspecies used for food, fodder, fibre, fuel, and pharma-ceuticals. It also includes the diversity of non-harvestedspecies that support production (e.g., soil micro-organ-isms, predators, pollinators and so on) and those in thewider environment that support agro-ecosystems (agri-cultural, pastoral, forest, and aquatic), as well as thediversity of the agro-ecosystems themselves.

2. The three fluctuating variables are (a) the totalnumber of participants minimally necessary to achieve

the collective benefit, (b) the discount rate in use, and (c)the total number of decision makers (Ostrom, 1990,p. 186).

3. Farmers may return varieties to the research insti-tutes if they are the inappropriate types.

4. Problems discussed by the mahalla committee areoften caused by the reliance on industrial farmingimplemented under the Soviets. Issues discussed includea rising water table, a spreading fungus epidemicaffecting fruit trees, a diminishing crop yield, or adrought which occurred in 2000 and 2001.


5. The shirkat was formerly known as kolhoz, sovhozes,and jamoa xujaliks.

6. Some of the centers have 600 hectares of orchardsthat serve as ex situ collections of indigenous andintroduced fruit varieties.

7. Only 67 households out of approximately 127surveyed either completed this section of the survey orobtained seeds from one of the sources about which weinquired. Other possible sources of seed were parents,self-supply, and siblings.

8. This opinion is based upon the author’s conversa-tions with farmers.

9. Hardin argued explicitly that the commons mustbe exchanged for formalized private property legalsystem. While subsequent researchers decried the dan-gers of private property regimes, they demonstratedthat common-pool resources could be effectively col-lectively managed by local institutions enforcing exclu-sion (Baland & Platteau, 1996; Ostrom, 1990; Wade,1988).

REFERENCES

Agrawal, A. (1999). Greener pastures: Politics, marketsand community among a migrant pastoral people.Durham: Duke University Press.

Baland, J.-M., & Platteau, J.-P. (1996). Halting degra-dation of natural resources: Is there a role for ruralcommunities? Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Berlin, B. (1992). Ethnobiological classification: Princi-ples of categorization of plants and animals in tradi-tional societies. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress.

Bloch, P. (2002). Agrarian reform in Uzbekistan andother Central Asian countries. Working Paper no. 49.Madison, WI: Land Tenure Center, University ofWisconsin-Madison.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspectiveand method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, NJ.

Bosch, M. (1977). The past and the present in thepresent. Man, 12(2), 278–292.

Brush, S. B. (1999). Genes in the field: On farmconservation of crop diversity IPGRI/IDRC. Ottawa:Lewis Publishers.

Dove, M. (1999). The agronomy of memory. In V.Nazarea (Ed.), Ethnoecology, situationed knowledges/located lives. Tuczon, AZ: University of ArizonaPress.

Eyzaguirre, P. (2003). Unpublished presentation atCAPRI conference, Rome, Italy September.

FAO (2003). Fertilizer use by crop in Uzbekistan. Rome,Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization.

Forni, N. (2000). Common property regimes: Originsand implications of the theoretical debate. Landreform, land settlement and cooperatives (FAO),Food and Agriculture Organization. 2000(2), 29–41.Persistent link http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X8050T/x8050t03.htm#P10_2267.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons.Science, 162, 1243–1248.

Louette, D. (2000). Traditional management of seed andgenetic diversity: What is a landrace? In S. B. Brush(Ed.), Genes in the field: On farm conservation of cropdiversity. IPGRI/IDRC. Ottawa: Lewis Publishers.

McCay, B. J., & Acheson, J. M. (1987). The questionof the commons: The culture and ecology of communalresources. Tuczon, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change andeconomic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. The evolutionof institutions for collective action. New York: Cam-bridge University Press.

Perales, H., Brush, S. B., & Qualset, C. O. (2003).Dynamic management of maize landraces in CentralMexico. Economic Botany, 57(1), 21–34.

Smale, M., Bellon, M., & Gomez, J. (2001). Maizediversity, variety attributes, and farmers’ choices inSoutheastern Guanajuato. Economic Developmentand Cultural Change, 50(1), 201–225.

Thurman, M., & Lundell, M. (2001). Agriculture inUzbekistan: private, dehqan, and shirkat farms in thepilot districts of the rural enterprise support project.Unpublished.

Uphoff, N. (1986). Local institutional development: Ananalytical sourcebook with cases. West HarfordConnecticut: Kumarian Press.

Vavilov, N. I. (1997). Five continents. Rome, Italy:International Plant Genetic Resources Institute.

Wade, R. (1988). Village republics: Economic conditionsfor collective action in South India. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X8050T/x8050t03.htm#P10_2267

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X8050T/x8050t03.htm#P10_2267

local institutions and plant genetic conservation: exchange of plant genetic resources in rural...

Documents