Custodians of Agrobiodiversity in Guinayangan, Quezon, Philippines Duma, J.C., Caringal, M.I.V., del Rio, S.P., Anunciado, M. S., Gonsalves, J., Monville-Oro, E., Borelli, T. December 2024 Working Paper P h o to c re d it : IIR R 2 Custodians of Agrobiodiversity in Guinayangan, Quezon, Philippines Authors Jesus C. Duma1 Ma. Isabel V. Caringal1 Susan P. del Rio2 Ma. Shiela S. Anunciado2 Julian F. Gonsalves2 Emilita Monville Oro2 Teresa Borelli3 Organizations 1Southern Luzon State University 2International Institute of Rural Reconstruction 3Bioversity International 3 Acknowledgements We would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to all those who contributed to the successful completion of this study on the custodians of agrobiodiversity in Guinayangan municipality, Quezon, Philippines. Our appreciation is extended to the residents of the “barangays” where this study was conducted. Their willingness to participate, share their knowledge, and provide valuable information has been indispensable to this research. Our thanks are extended to the enumerators—graduates from Southern Luzon State University, Tiaong Campus—Allyssa Nicole M. Lindo, Jomer Magnaye, John Carlo Q. Manievo, Aldrin Charles C. Panganiban, Glaisa Mae T. Olano, and Matthew Ivan B. Venerable. Their diligence and attention to detail in gathering and recording data have been invaluable to the accuracy and efficiency of this study. Your dedication and commitment are truly appreciated. We sincerely thank our field staff from the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR)—Jonalyn Laco, Acer Arana, and Rico Locaba—for their invaluable expertise, unwavering support, and collaborative efforts throughout the research process. Your guidance has played a pivotal role in shaping the study's direction and ensuring its quality. To all who have contributed to this work, your support is deeply appreciated, and this study would not have been possible without each of you. 4 Summary Agricultural intensification has led to a significant loss of biodiversity on a global scale. To address this, the adoption of strategies that conserve and promote biodiversity in agricultural landscapes is essential, supported by robust assessment methods that raise awareness among decision-makers. Local farmers and indigenous communities play a vital role as biodiversity custodians, having long safeguarded agrobiodiversity. However, this precious biodiversity now faces heightened threats from global warming and unsustainable agricultural practices, making their role more critical than ever. This study focused on assessing the diversity of crops, trees, and livestock managed by households in Guinayangan municipality, Quezon, Philippines. Over time, these households have acted as de facto custodians of biodiversity, even without explicitly aiming for conservation. Since the study began, households now appreciate the crops’ specific uses and their role in food security and local economies. Understanding the diversity of local varieties, breeds, and wild plants, along with their management and uses, is a vital first step toward ensuring their effective conservation and sustainable utilization. This research, conducted in Oct 2024 in three barangays within Guinayangan municipality, Quezon, employed participatory approaches such as Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) to actively involve biodiversity custodians in data collection. The study identified a diverse range of plant and animal species critical for food security and provided a subjective assessment of their abundance, market availability, and purchasing patterns. These species included fruits, vegetables, root crops, domesticated animals, wild animals, and aquatic species. The most significant species were identified as those abundant, widely sold, and frequently purchased. Findings indicate a continuous supply of various crops (fruits and vegetables) in the three barangays, despite the seasonal nature of most food sources. The community benefits from high species richness, which supports food sufficiency and dietary diversity year-round. Food scarcity for specific items, often due to seasonality, low production, excessive rainfall or heat, and pest infestations, is mitigated by the availability of alternative food sources within homesteads or the locality. The homesteads of custodian farmers play a crucial role as repositories of genetic resources and biodiversity, contributing to both dietary diversity and supplementary incomes. 5 It is recommended to expand the study to include other communities would enable a comparative analysis of agrobiodiversity levels and farming practices across men and women farmers in various locations. Keywords Agrobiodiversity, custodian farmers, fruits, vegetables 6 1. Introduction 1.1 Background and Context Agriculture, as one of the primary human activities, has profound direct and indirect impacts on the environment. The decline of many traditional agricultural practices—largely due to their inability to meet the demands of modern industrial agriculture—has contributed to the rise of unsustainable farming systems. These systems rely heavily on external energy inputs and are highly vulnerable to environmental and political disruptions. As a result, sustainable agriculture has become crucial for preserving the environment as has the need to implement strategies that conserve and promote biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Effective assessment methods are needed to raise awareness among decision-makers about the environmental impacts of management practices and guide more sustainable approaches. Agricultural intensification has been a major driver of global biodiversity loss representing the most immediate threat to species and ecosystems. Unsustainable agricultural practices, including forestry, fisheries, and livestock rearing, lead to land-use changes, habitat loss, water inefficiency, soil erosion, pollution, and genetic erosion, among many other detrimental effects on both wildlife and human life (Robertson et al. 2000; Bindi and Olesen 2011). Additionally, agriculture itself is increasingly affected by climate change and the depletion of natural resources, being directly dependent on soil, water, and biodiversity. However, when practiced sustainably, agriculture has the potential to contribute to habitat restoration, watershed protection, and the enhancement of soil and water quality (Howden et al. 2007). Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) are gaining prominence. NBS leverage natural processes and ecosystems to address pressing societal issues like climate change, biodiversity loss, and sustainable development. These strategies include ecosystem restoration, afforestation, sustainable agriculture, and the protection of wetlands and mangroves. NBS are valued for their ability to provide co-benefits, such as improving biodiversity, enhancing human well- being, and supporting climate resilience, often at a lower cost than traditional engineered solutions. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines NBS as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits.” NBS are instrumental in achieving global goals like the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In this context, agrobiodiversity conservation has become a key element of nature-based solutions, regenerative agriculture, agroecology, and sustainable development. Defined as the variety of living organisms—plants, animals, microorganisms, and more—that support agricultural systems, agrobiodiversity is influenced by factors such as climate, soil conditions, cropping systems, and management practices. Agrobiodiversity is crucial for maintaining food security, nutrition, and livelihoods, and it plays a central role in the productivity and stability of agricultural systems. Despite the pressures from climate 7 change and soil degradation, agrobiodiversity provides the genetic resources needed to help farmers and plant breeders adapt crops to changing environmental conditions. Agrobiodiversity constitutes the biodiversity components that contribute to food and agriculture, which includes genetic resources of crops and livestock as well as of other plants, animals, and microorganisms sustaining the structure and functions of the agroecosystems. Agrobiodiversity has been reported to contribute to agricultural productivity and food security, stability of farming systems and reduce pressure of agriculture on fragile areas, forests, and endangered species (Thrupp, 2000) and can enhance human food diversity and nutrition (Remans et al., 2014). Recent works reported that food crops obtained from traditional cultivars and non-cultivated plants gathered from diverse ecosystems which compose many local diets globally, contain higher nutrient content (FAO, 2010). In addition to providing food and livelihood, agrobiodiversity is also a source of other material requirements such as clothing, shelter, medicines, new breeding varieties, and ecosystem services including maintenance of soil fertility and biota, soil, and water conservation (CBD, 2018). The overdependence on a handful of species, varieties and breeds, and the disappearance of pollinators and other organisms that support food and agriculture threaten the sustainability of our food system and affect human and environmental health. Diets low in diversity are often inadequate in micronutrients, increasing the risk of malnutrition. Monocultures and other simplified production systems are more prone to pest and disease outbreaks, lower soil quality, and unstable yields and thus, at risk for more frequent harvest losses. Crises such as the Irish famine triggered by potato blight in 1845 or the outbreak of the Panama banana disease in 1950s show that overreliance on a single crop species (and one or a few varieties thereof) can pose serious risks to food security and economic stability, undermining the resilience of the food system. The Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO’s) State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture 2019 report represents a major milestone in highlighting agrobiodiversity’s importance and decline, as well as the need for better agrobiodiversity monitoring to make the transition towards more sustainable and resilient food systems. Most global analyses of the state of agrobiodiversity to date focus on single components of agrobiodiversity (such as neglected species, crop diversity, or fish richness) and do not integrate information on agrobiodiversity across the food system. (FAO, 2019) The recognition of the contribution of relevant traditional and indigenous knowledge in relation to actions in support of biodiversity conservation and its sustainable and equitable use goes beyond its simple validation in the context of conventional science-based approaches to the study of biodiversity. Traditional and indigenous knowledge related to biodiversity is central to elucidating its status and trends and for developing plausible scenarios based on community participation with regard to the way biodiversity is conserved and used. (Innovation in Local and Global Learning Systems for Sustainability: Traditional Knowledge and Biodiversity – Learning Contributions of the Regional Centres of Expertise on Education for Sustainable Development). 8 Custodian farmers are pivotal in conserving agrobiodiversity, especially on farm. They maintain a diverse collection of traditional crops and varieties, select crops and varieties adapted to local conditions, and promote the use and conservation of local diversity among their friends and neighbours (Kelles-Viitanen). They are often driven by personal passion, cultural significance, or community pride. These farmers play a crucial role in selecting and promoting crop varieties that are well adapted to local conditions, thereby supporting the in-situ conservation of genetic resources. These custodian farmers differ from ordinary farmers in their deep knowledge of agricultural biodiversity, commitment to conservation, and the sharing of seeds underscoring knowledge within their communities. However, their numbers are dwindling, and their conservation methods may lack scientific rigor, highlighting the need for institutional support to identify, encourage, and formalize their contributions. The International Institute for Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) and LGU of Guinayangan, Quezon has recognized that many households in Guinayangan have, over the years, conserved trees, livestock, and annual crops. Evidence of the contributions of their individuals and households is required. Given the fact that these custodian farmers are pivotal in conserving agrobiodiversity, it is indeed necessary to pay attention to their needs, the problems and challenges they encounter, and emphasize their role in ensuring food security 1.2 Objectives The objectives of the study were as follows: • To assess the various species managed by farmer custodians in the study area. • To examine the specific uses of different species of crops, trees, and animals found in homesteads, and to explore how they are utilized. • To understand the role and contribution of diverse crops, trees, and livestock within homesteads. 1.3 Study Rationale The concept of ‘agrobiodiversity’ has emerged in the past 10-15 years at the intersection of biodiversity and agriculture, in an interdisciplinary context that involves various areas of knowledge (agronomy, anthropology, ecology, botany, genetics, conservation biology, etc.). It reflects the dynamic and complex relations among human societies, cultivated plants and domestic animals and the ecosystems in which they interact. Agrobiodiversity is directly associated with food security, health, social equity, hunger alleviation, environmental sustainability, and rural sustainable development. In the same way as wild biodiversity, agrobiodiversity has been considered in danger and in great need to be safeguarded through new legal instruments, at the international and national levels. 9 In recent decades, great advances have been made in describing agrobiodiversity and understanding the cultural and biological forces that sustain and create this diversity. Substantial evidence has been generated on the important contribution of agrobiodiversity to resilience, livelihoods, health, nutrition and ecosystem services. Inspiring collaborative initiatives have emerged that have shown how research can assist or even prompt actions to maintain and increase agrobiodiversity through co-creation and sharing of knowledge. Assessing the diversity of local varieties, breeds, and wild plants, along with their management and uses, is a crucial first step in conserving and utilizing biodiversity within the homesteads of traditional biodiversity custodians. Converting this local knowledge into written records, drawings, maps, or audio and video recordings can play an essential role in preserving biodiversity. Documenting the use of wild plants, the diversity and abundance of insect pollinators, as well as the distribution and characteristics of local crops, varieties, and animal breeds, enables communities to assert, conserve, and protect their traditional knowledge. Furthermore, documenting this knowledge supports the sharing and transmission of vital information from elders to younger generations, ensuring its continuity. Both qualitative and quantitative data on species used and availability in an area is important for evaluating available resources and gaining insights into conserving agricultural biodiversity. These data can help recognize the decline in genetic diversity and provide appropriate conservation strategies to undertake. The International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) and the local government unit (LGU) of Guinayangan collaborated to strengthen agrobiodiversity conservation by designating specific households as agrobiodiversity custodians. These households, often traditional men and women farmers with extensive indigenous knowledge, are tasked with preserving and propagating diverse crop varieties and livestock breeds that are vital for local food security and ecological resilience. Through capacity-building initiatives, seed banks, and community-based conservation programs, the IIRR and LGU aim to formalize the role of these custodians in safeguarding genetic resources. By institutionalizing these efforts, custodial households serve as key players in maintaining agrobiodiversity while ensuring that traditional farming practices are integrated into modern agricultural frameworks. This initiative not only enhances the sustainability of local agricultural systems but also empowers communities to take active roles in climate adaptations and resilience. 1.4 Research Questions The study was guided by the following research questions: ● What species (crops, trees and livestock) are identified and used by traditional homestead (biodiversity) men and women custodians? ● How are these species utilized (for food, trade, etc.)? ● How does the availability of these species relate to periods of food scarcity? 10 2. Methodology 2.1 Study Design The study which was undertaken in October 2024, researchers used a participatory approach enabling the target group, specifically farmers, to actively engage in the data collection process. The approach prioritized local perspectives and emphasized mutual learning, and a collaborative relationship was established among community members, local organizations, and researchers. Every stage of the research process was discussed and agreed upon with the community to establish a shared understanding of the methods, analysis, and objectives of data collection. This collaborative approach helped manage expectations and mitigate the risks associated with extractive information-gathering practices. Separate focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with male and female groups from three barangays: Cabong Norte, Capuluan Central, and Capuluan Tulon. During these discussions, participants compiled lists of species they identified as fruits, vegetables, root crops, wild crops, domesticated animals, wild animals, and aquatic animal species used for food The target groups were chosen based on the free listing done by the assigned personnel of IIRR with the condition of having the capability to satisfy the needed information for this study, specifically, farmers involved in crop and animal production. 2.2 Data Collection Study participants were actively involved in the data collection methodology and in the classification and discussion of species relevant to their community. Through focus group discussions (FGDs) and the four-square method, the process was systematically designed to gather comprehensive information on community-managed species, their uses, and their availability during periods of food scarcity. The procedure consisted of the following steps: 1. Quadrant division: A large sheet or workspace was divided into four quadrants, each representing a specific theme or dimension of the research. This categorization allowed participants to compare different species and provided insight into trends, similarities, and differences across the categories. The quadrants were designed as follows: • Quadrant 1: Many households and a large area in the community • Quadrant 2: Few households and a large area in the community • Quadrant 3: Many households and a small area in the community • Quadrant 4: Few households and a small area in the community 11 2. Species identification: Participants were initially asked to list all relevant species they manage or encounter in their homesteads (e.g., through free listing). This inclusive approach allowed the group to capture a broad spectrum of species that are integral to their daily lives. 3. Species classification: Once the list of species was compiled, participants were asked to place each species into one of the four quadrants based on its characteristics. The decision to place each species in a quadrant was made collectively by the group. In cases where there was disagreement, facilitators encouraged discussion until a consensus was reached. If no consensus could be achieved, it was noted. 4. Identification of lean seasons: To understand the relationship between species availability and food scarcity, participants were asked to name the seasons they recognize and define the months each season includes. They were then asked to describe these seasons and identify which season(s) they considered the "off season" or lean season, explaining the reasons behind their choice. 5. Species Evaluation: For each species placed in a quadrant, facilitators asked the following questions to gather specific data about its use and availability: • (a) Is the species (or parts of it) eaten by the household? • (b) Is the species (or parts of it) sold by community members? • (c) Is the species (or parts of it) purchased by community members? • (d) Is the species available during the lean season or period of food scarcity? Facilitators recorded the answers (yes or no) and any additional relevant information or observations in the corresponding columns. 6. Repetition of the Process: This process was repeated for each species on the list, ensuring comprehensive documentation and classification. 7. Additional Information Collection: Beyond the initial listing and classification of species, facilitators sought additional information: • a) Participants were asked whether there were any other species that may not have been included, particularly in quadrants 3 and 4. If new species were identified, the same classification process was repeated. • b) Facilitators inquired about the general reasons why species were placed in a particular quadrant. The goal was to elicit collective insights on species placement rather than individual reasons for specific species. • c) Participants were asked about species that were grown in the past but are no longer cultivated. • d) Finally, facilitators inquired about species that farmers would like to grow in the future, contingent on the availability of seeds. 12 This structured, participatory process ensured a thorough understanding of the species managed by the community, their roles in food security, and their relationship with the lean seasons. The collaborative nature of the method also fostered community ownership of the data and insights gathered. Group consensus and divergence As described in the study’s methodology, each focus group was tasked with listing all relevant species (e.g., fruits, vegetables, and root crops) present in their respective barangays and categorizing each species into one of four quadrants based on subjective and qualitative assessments of their abundance. In most cases, the groups reached a consensus with little difficulty. However, disagreements occasionally arose regarding species placement. When this occurred, facilitators reminded participants that the categorization should reflect the broader barangay context rather than the perspective of a single individual or household. In some discussions, a single participant, often a prominent and recognized figure in the community, dominated the decision-making process, as group members deferred to their perceived expertise. In contrast, in groups where participants had relatively equal social status, discussions were more collaborative. When disagreements persisted, members engaged in dialogue and in-depth discussions until a consensus was reached, with one party ultimately conceding to the majority’s decision. 2.3 Data Analysis To effectively analyse agrobiodiversity and the role of custodians, researchers use a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. A. Quantitative Analysis encompasses several key dimensions that provide measurable insights into the state of agrobiodiversity and the role of custodians. These dimensions include: ⮚ Agrobiodiversity inventory • Measurement of the diversity of crops, livestock, fish and aquatic resources and plant varieties maintained by the custodians. • Frequency of species usage (food consumption, sale, or purchase) • Cross-tabulation of species availability with food scarcity periods B. Qualitative Analysis: Analysis of group consensus (by gender) during ⮚ Species placement 13 ⮚ Identification of key observations related to cultural significance, local knowledge, and species conservation. 3. RESULTS 3.1 Species Inventory The findings are presented in Tables 1 to 7, providing detailed information on the scientific and common names of the identified species, along with the number of male and female groups, and their combined totals, that recognized each species. These tables were adapted from the methodology outlined in the study by Bellon, Atieno, and Kotu (2018). Additionally, each table includes: • Subjective assessments of species abundance. • The percentage of groups that reported using the species for their own consumption. • An evaluation of how widely the species was used for sale. • An assessment of how commonly the species was purchased within the community. This structured approach allowed for a comprehensive understanding of species utilization, abundance, and their role in local food systems. 3.1.1 Fruit species A total of 40 fruit species were identified by the combined male and female FGDs (Table 1). The male groups listed 35 species, five more than the female groups, who identified 30 species. This difference may be attributed to men’s greater exposure to farm or field activities, as they are more actively involved in farming practices. All six focus groups identified five regularly consumed fruit species: mango (Mangifera indica), jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus), banana (Musa spp.), soursop (Annona muricata), and avocado (Persea americana). Notably, the male groups identified 10 species not mentioned by the women, while the women identified five species that the men did not mention. The weighted scores from the male groups, identified six species—banana, papaya, coconut, Indian mango, sugar apple, and jackfruit—as the most abundant fruits. Meanwhile, the female FGDs identified seven species—banana, coconut, Indian mango, mango, soursop, calamansi, and jackfruit—as the most abundant. Of the 40 species listed, almost all (38) were reportedly commonly consumed by households, except for apples and pears, which were not yet bearing fruits. Out of the 40 fruit species identified during the FGDs, 30 are commonly sold. According to the male respondents, 24 species are regularly sold, while the women’s group identified 25 species. Men highlighted banana (locally known as saging), papaya, and coconut (niyog) as the most widely sold species, whereas women identified banana, coconut, and cotton fruit as the most frequently sold fruits. 14 In terms of purchasing, 27 fruit species are regularly bought by the community. Male respondents noted banana, coconut, and langsat (Lansium domesticum) as the most widely purchased fruits. Women, on the other hand, identified mango, banana, soursop, rambutan, and coconut as the most purchased fruits. The data suggest that there are more fruit species being sold than purchased, indicating that the community is largely able to meet its fruit demand. Additionally, the surplus of most fruit species after home consumption allows farmers to sell the excess, contributing to household incomes and local market supplies. 15 Table 1. Results of the gender-differentiated FGDs on fruit species Local name Common name Scientific name All Men Men Men Men Men Women Women Women Women Women No. of groups No. of groups Abundan ce * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase** * No. of groups Abundan ce * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase** * Mangga Mango Mangifera indica 6 3 3 100 2.33 2 3 4 100 2.5 4 Langka Jackfruit Artocarpus heterophyllus 6 3 3.33 100 1 1.5 3 3.33 100 1.5 1 Saging Banana Musa spp. 6 3 4 100 4 4 3 4 100 4 4 Guyabano Soursop Annona muricata 6 3 2.67 100 1.5 1 3 4 100 2 4 Avocado Avocado Persea Americana 6 3 2 100 1.33 2.5 3 1.67 100 1 2 Lucban Pomelo Citrus maxima 5 2 3 100 2 1 3 1.33 100 1.67 2.5 Rambutan Hairy lychee Nephelium lappaceum 5 3 1.67 100 1.5 2.5 2 1 100 1 4 Daranghita Tangerine orange Citrus aurantium var. tachibana makino 5 3 2 100 2 1.5 2 1 100 2.5 3 Caimito Star apple Chrysophyllum cainito 5 2 1 100 1 2 3 2.67 100 1 1 Papaya Papaya Carica papaya 5 2 4 100 4 2.5 3 1.33 100 2 1.5 Bayabas Guava Psidium guajava 4 2 2.5 50 1 1 2 1 100 Niyog Coconut Cocos nucifera 5 2 4 100 4 4 3 4 100 4 4 16 Local name Common name Scientific name All Men Men Men Men Men Women Women Women Women Women No. of groups No. of groups Abundan ce * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase** * No. of groups Abundan ce * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase** * Calamansi Calamansi Citrofotunella microcarpa 4 1 3 100 3 3.67 100 1.67 1 Atis Sugar apple Annona squamosal 4 2 3.5 100 2 2 2 3 100 2.5 1 Santol Cotton fruit Sandoricum koetjape 4 2 2.5 100 2 2 2 3 100 4 Kasoy Cashew Anacardium occidentale 4 2 1 100 2 2 1 100 1 1 Dragon fruit Pitaya fruit Selenicereus undatus 4 2 1 100 2 1 100 1 1 Lansones Langsat or lanzon Lansium domesticum 4 1 1 100 2 4 3 1 100 1 2 Duhat Java plum Syzgium cumini 3 3 1.67 100 1 1 0 0 Cacao Cocoa Theobroma cacao 3 1 3 100 1 2 2.5 100 1 Kalumpit Damson plum Terminalia microcarpa 3 2 2 100 1 1 100 1 Indian Mango Mango Mangifera indica 3 1 4 100 3 2 4 100 1 Sampaloc Tamarind Tamarindus indica 2 1 2 100 1 1 1 2 100 2 Siniguelas Spanish plum Spondias purpurea 2 1 2 100 1 2 1 1 100 1 1 Pinya Pineapple Ananas comosus 2 1 1 100 1 2 1 2 100 1 1 17 Local name Common name Scientific name All Men Men Men Men Men Women Women Women Women Women No. of groups No. of groups Abundan ce * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase** * No. of groups Abundan ce * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase** * Chico Sapodilla Manilkara zapota 2 1 1 100 1 1 1 1 100 Dalandan Sour orange Citrus aurantium 1 1 3 100 0 0 Lipote Lipote Syzgium curranii 1 1 3 100 0 0 Aratilis Jamaican berry Muntingia calabura 1 1 1 100 0 0 Tiesa Chesa Pouteria lucuma 1 1 1 100 1 1 0 0 Mansanas Apple Malus spp. 1 1 1 0 0 Peras Pear Pyrus spp. 1 1 1 0 0 Kastanas Chestnuts Castanea mollissima 1 1 1 100 0 0 Makopa Wax apple Syzygium samarangense 1 1 1 100 1 1 0 0 Kamachili Tamarind Pithecellobium dulce 1 1 2 100 0 0 Miracle fruit Miracle berry Synsepalum dulcificum 1 0 0 1 3 100 Mangoste en Mangosteen Garcinia mangostana 1 0 0 1 1 100 Pipino Cucumber Cucumis sativus 1 0 0 1 1 100 18 Local name Common name Scientific name All Men Men Men Men Men Women Women Women Women Women No. of groups No. of groups Abundan ce * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase** * No. of groups Abundan ce * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase** * Sentoris Mandarin Citrus nobilis 1 0 0 1 1 100 1 1 Mais Maize Zea mays 1 0 0 1 2 100 1 1 *The "abundance" column represents the weighted score of a species' subjective abundance, with a maximum score of 4 and a minimum of 1. A score of 0 indicates that the species was not mentioned by any group of a particular gender but was mentioned by at least one group of the opposite gender. The weighted score is calculated by summing the scores assigned by each group for a species and dividing by the number of groups that provided a score. The scoring system is as follows: 4 = many households, large area; 3 = few households, large area; 2 = many households, small area; 1 = few households, small area. These scores do not provide a quantitative measure but rather an ordinal ranking. Species with scores between 3.26–4.0 are considered most abundant, 2.51–3.25 as more abundant, 1.76–2.5 as less abundant, and 1.0–1.75 as least abundant. **The "sale" column refers to the weighted score of the subjective assessment of how widely a species is sold. Scores are assigned as follows: 4 = many households sell frequently; 3 = few households sell frequently; 2 = many households sell rarely; 1 = few households sell rarely. Similar to the abundance scores, these scores provide a relative ranking rather than precise quantitative data. Species with scores of 3.26–4.0 are categorized as most widely sold, 2.51–3.25 as more widely sold, 1.76–2.5 as less widely sold, and 1.0–1.75 as least widely sold. ***The "purchased" column reflects the weighted score of the subjective assessment of how widely a species is purchased. The scoring system is as follows: 4 = many households purchase frequently; 3 = few households purchase frequently; 2 = many households purchase rarely; 1 = few households purchase rarely. As with the other columns, these scores are used to establish a ranking. Species with scores of 3.26–4.0 are considered most widely purchased, 2.51– 3.25 as more widely purchased, 1.76–2.5 as less widely purchased, and 1.0–1.75 as least widely purchased. 19 Table 1.1 Gender differences in perceived relative fruit abundance, sale and purchase Parameter Male Female Abundance Most abundant 6 7 More abundant 7 4 Less abundant 8 4 Least abundant 14 15 Sale Most widely sold 3 3 More widely sold 1 0 Less widely sold 6 6 Least widely sold 14 16 Purchase Most widely purchased 3 5 More widely purchased 0 1 Less widely purchased 10 3 Least widely purchased 10 11 3.1.2 Vegetable species As summarized in Table 2, the focus groups collectively identified 39 vegetable species. The male group listed 34 species, while the female group identified 30 species (Table 2.1). Among these, men mentioned nine species that were not identified by women, while women identified five species not listed by men. This difference could be attributed to men being more exposed to the farm or field, as they typically handle most farming activities. Nine vegetable species were consistently mentioned by all six focus groups: namely eggplant (known locally as talong), squash (or kalabasa), bottle gourd (or upo), sponge gourd (or patola), bitter gourd (or ampalaya), moringa (or malunggay), okra, tomato (kamatis), and pigeon pea (or kadyos). The male focus groups classified 12 vegetable species as the most abundant, including these are Lima beans (locally known as patani), hyacinth bean (or bataw), banana flower (puso ng Saging), coconut (niyog), eggplant (talong), squash (kalabasa), bottle gourd (or upo), sponge gourd (or patola), moringa (malunggay), okra, mung bean (munggo), and papaya. In contrast, the female focus groups identified only three species— banana inflorescence (puso ng 20 saging), moringa (malunggay), and okra—as the most abundant. Some species like coconut and papaya are counted by the respondents as fruits when eaten directly but are also counted as vegetables when their fruits or other parts are used as ingredients in their dish. All 39 vegetable species listed were reportedly used for household consumption. Tables 2.1 present the subjective levels of vegetable species abundance (by gender) and the extent to which they are sold and purchased. The focus groups also identified 30 vegetable species that are sold in the market. Among these, the male focus groups categorized six species— namely string beans (or sitao), taro (known as gabi or dahon), cassava (or balinghoy), winged beans (or sigarilyas), banana flower (puso ng saging), and eggplant (talong)—as the most widely sold. The female groups, however, listed only banana flower as the most widely sold vegetable, likely due to its year-round availability compared to the seasonal cultivation of other species. In terms of vegetable species purchased, the focus groups listed 33 species in total. The male focus groups identified four species— eggplant, (or talong), squash (or kalabasa), string beans (or sitao), and banana flower—as the most widely purchased. The female groups, on the other hand, listed 17 species as the most widely purchased, including bottle gourd (or upo), sponge gourd (or patola), okra, tomato (kamatis), snow cabbage (pechay), mustard greens (or mustasa), winged beans (or sigarilyas), banana flower, red pepper (or lara), black pepper (paminta), eggplant (talong), squash (kalabasa), bitter gourd (ampalaya), mung beans (munggo), chilli (sili), string beans (sitao), and maize. The women’s group identified an additional 13 vegetable species compared to the men, likely because women are primarily responsible for purchasing food for their households. 21 Table 2. Results of gender-differentiated FGDs on vegetable species Local name English name Scientific name All Male Male Male Male Male Female Female Female Female Female No. of groups No. of groups Abundance * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase *** No. of Groups Abundance * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase* ** Talong Eggplant Solanum melongena 6 3 3.33 100 3.67 4 3 2.67 100 1.67 3.67 Kalabasa Squash Cucurbita maxima 6 3 3.67 100 2.5 4 3 2.67 100 1.67 3.67 Upo Bottle gourd Lagenaria siceraria 6 3 3.33 100 1 2.5 3 1.67 100 1 4 Patola Sponge gourd Luffa aegyptiaca 6 3 3.33 100 1 2.5 3 2.33 100 1 4 Ampalaya Bitter gourd Momordica charantia 6 3 2.22 100 2.67 2.5 3 2 100 2 3.67 Malunggay Moringa Moringa oleifera 6 3 3.33 100 1 3 3.33 100 Okra Lady's fingers Abelmoschus esculentus 6 3 3.33 100 1.5 3 3 3.67 100 2.5 4 Kamatis Tomato Solanum lycopersicum 6 3 2.33 100 1.5 3 3 2 100 2 4 Kadyos Pigeon pea Cajanus cajan 6 3 3 100 1 1 3 1.67 100 1 Pechay Snow cabbage Brassica rapa subsp. Chinensis 5 3 3 100 3 1.67 2 1.5 100 1 4 Munggo Mung bean Vigna radiate 5 2 3.5 100 2.5 2.5 3 1.67 100 1.67 3.67 Sili Chili Capsicum annuum 5 2 2.5 100 1 1 3 2.67 100 2 3.5 Mustasa Mustard greens Brassica juncea 5 3 3 100 2.67 1.33 2 1.5 100 1 4 Sitao String beans Phaseolus vulgaris 5 2 2.5 100 4 4 3 2.33 100 1.67 3.67 Gabi (Dahon) Taro Colocasia esculenta 4 2 3 100 4 1 2 2.5 100 1 Balinghoy (Dahon) Cassava Tops Manihot esculenta 4 2 3 100 4 1 2 2.5 100 Kangkong Water spinach Ipomoea aquatica 4 1 2 100 1 1 3 1.67 100 1 1 Labong Bamboo shoot Bambusa vulgaris 3 2 2 100 1 1 1 1 100 1 Patani Lima beans Phaseolus lunatus 3 1 4 100 2 2 100 1 1 22 Local name English name Scientific name All Male Male Male Male Male Female Female Female Female Female No. of groups No. of groups Abundance * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase *** No. of Groups Abundance * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase* ** Kamote Sweet potato Ipomoea batatas 3 1 2 100 1 1 2 2.5 100 Sigarilyas Winged Beans Psophocarpus tetragonolobus 3 1 3 100 4 1 2 1 100 1 4 Papaya Papaya Carica papaya 2 2 3.5 100 1 1 0 Bataw Hyacinth bean Lablab purpureus 2 1 4 100 1 1 100 1 1 Puso ng saging Banana flower Musa acuminata 2 1 4 100 4 4 1 4 100 4 4 Calamansi Calamansi Citrus microcarpa 2 2 2 100 1.5 1 0 Niyog Coconut Cocos nucifera 2 1 4 100 1 3 100 Langka Jack fruit Artocarpus heterophyllus 2 1 2 100 2 1 1 2 100 2 Mais Corn Zea mays 2 2 2.5 100 3 3.5 Lubi-lubi Palm leaf fig Ficus pseudopalma 1 1 1 100 0 Dalungyan Breadfruit Artocarpus altilis 1 1 3 100 0 Labanos Radish Raphanus sativus 1 1 2 100 1 1 0 Paayap Cowpea Vigna unguiculata 1 1 1 100 1 1 0 Saluyot Jute Mallow Corchorus olitorius 1 1 3 100 0 Talimum Ceylon spinach Talinum fruticosum 1 1 1 100 1 1 0 Sibatsi Hyacinth bean Lablab purpureus 1 1 1 100 1 0 Kundol Wax gourd Benincasa hispida 1 0 1 1 100 Beans Common bean Phaseolus 1 0 1 1 100 Lara Red pepper Capsicum annuum 1 0 1 1 100 1 4 Paminta Black Pepper Piper nigrum 1 0 1 2 100 2 4 23 *The "abundance" column represents the weighted score of a species' subjective abundance, with a maximum score of 4 and a minimum of 1. A score of 0 indicates that the species was not mentioned by any group of a particular gender but was mentioned by at least one group of the opposite gender. The weighted score is calculated by summing the scores assigned by each group for a species and dividing by the number of groups that provided a score. The scoring system is as follows: 4 = many households, large area; 3 = few households, large area; 2 = many households, small area; 1 = few households, small area. These scores do not provide a quantitative measure but rather an ordinal ranking. Species with scores between 3.26–4.0 are considered most abundant, 2.51–3.25 as more abundant, 1.76–2.5 as less abundant, and 1.0–1.75 as least abundant. **The "sale" column refers to the weighted score of the subjective assessment of how widely a species is sold. Scores are assigned as follows: 4 = many households sell frequently; 3 = few households sell frequently; 2 = many households sell rarely; 1 = few households sell rarely. Similar to the abundance scores, these scores provide a relative ranking rather than precise quantitative data. Species with scores of 3.26–4.0 are categorized as most widely sold, 2.51–3.25 as more widely sold, 1.76–2.5 as less widely sold, and 1.0–1.75 as least widely sold. ***The "purchased" column reflects the weighted score of the subjective assessment of how widely a species is purchased. The scoring system is as follows: 4 = many households purchase frequently; 3 = few households purchase frequently; 2 = many households purchase rarely; 1 = few households purchase rarely. As with the other columns, these scores are used to establish a ranking. Species with scores of 3.26–4.0 are considered most widely purchased, 2.51– 3.25 as more widely purchased, 1.76–2.5 as less widely purchased, and 1.0–1.75 as least widely purchased. 24 Table 2.1. Number of vegetable species categorized by gender Male Female Most abundant 12 3 More abundant 8 4 Less abundant 10 11 Least abundant 4 12 Most widely sold 6 1 More widely sold 3 1 Less widely sold 3 6 Least widely sold 14 16 Most widely purchased 4 8 More widely purchased 2 0 Less widely purchased 4 0 Least widely purchased 18 3 3.1.3 Root crops Table 3 illustrates the results of focus group discussions on the root crops cultivated in the three target barangays, where respondents identified a total of nine species. The male group recognized eight species, while the female group identified seven (Table 3). Men mentioned two species not identified by women, whereas women noted one species not mentioned by men. Cassava (locally known as balinghoy), sweet potato (kamoteng baging), purple yam (ube), ginger (luya), taro (Gabi-San Fernando), and groundnut (mani) were consistently identified across all six focus groups. Among these, cassava and sweet potato were highlighted by men as the most abundant root crops. However, according to the pre-defined abundance categories, none of the root crops were classified as “most abundant” based on female responses. All nine species identified are reportedly used as food by households. All eight species identified were reportedly sold in markets, yet none were classified as "most widely sold" or "more widely sold" by either male or female groups. The male group categorized cassava, sweet potato, and ginger as "less widely sold," whereas no root crop identified by the female group fell into this category. Six of the seven species identified by women—cassava, sweet potato, purple yam, ginger, taro, and groundnut—were classified as "least widely sold." 25 Regarding purchases, nine root crops were bought by participants across both male and female groups. The male group identified eight species as being purchased, while the female group recognized six. No root crop identified by men was classified as "most widely purchased," but women categorized sweet potato and purple yam under this category. Among men, ginger was considered "more widely purchased," whereas cassava held this designation among women. The remaining root crops were categorized under "less widely purchased" and "least widely purchased." 26 Table 3. Results of the gender-differentiated FGDs on root crop species Local name English name Scientific name All Males Males Males Males Males Females Females Fem ales Fem ales Females No. of groups No. of groups Abundance * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase* ** No. of groups Abundance * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase *** Balinghoy (Laman) Cassava Manihot esculenta 6 3 3.33 100 2 2.33 3 2 100 1 3 Kamoteng baging Sweet potato Ipomoea batatas 6 3 3.33 100 2 2.5 3 2 100 1 4 Ube Purple yam Dioscorea alata 5 2 2 100 1.5 2 3 1.5 100 1.33 4 Luya Ginger Zingiber officinale 5 3 2 100 2 3 2 1 100 1 1 Gabi-San Fernando Taro Colocasia esculenta 5 2 2 100 1.5 1.5 3 1 100 1 2.5 Mani Groundnut/ Peanut Arachis hypogaea 4 2 2 100 1.5 2 2 1 100 1 1 Paket 1 1 1 100 1 1 Tugi Asiatic yam Dioscorea esculenta 1 1 1 100 1 1 Potato Potato Solanum tuberosum 1 1 1 100 *The "abundance" column represents the weighted score of a species' subjective abundance, with a maximum score of 4 and a minimum of 1. A score of 0 indicates that the species was not mentioned by any group of a particular gender but was mentioned by at least one group of the opposite gender. The weighted score is calculated by summing the scores assigned by each group for a species and dividing by the number of groups that provided a score. The scoring system is as follows: 4 = many households, large area; 3 = few households, large area; 2 = many households, small area; 1 = few households, small area. These scores do not provide a quantitative measure but rather an ordinal ranking. Species with scores between 3.26–4.0 are considered most abundant, 2.51–3.25 as more abundant, 1.76–2.5 as less abundant, and 1.0–1.75 as least abundant. **The "sale" column refers to the weighted score of the subjective assessment of how widely a species is sold. Scores are assigned as follows: 4 = many households sell frequently; 3 = few households sell frequently; 2 = many households sell rarely; 1 = few households sell rarely. Like the abundance scores, these scores provide a relative ranking rather than precise quantitative data. Species with scores of 3.26–4.0 are categorized as most widely sold, 2.51–3.25 as more widely sold, 1.76–2.5 as less widely sold, and 1.0–1.75 as least widely sold. ***The "purchased" column reflects the weighted score of the subjective assessment of how widely a species is purchased. The scoring system is as follows: 4 = many households purchase frequently; 3 = few households purchase frequently; 2 = many households purchase rarely; 1 = few households purchase rarely. As with the other columns, these scores are used to establish a ranking. Species with scores of 3.26–4.0 are considered most widely purchased, 2.51– 3.25 as more widely purchased, 1.76–2.5 as less widely purchased, and 1.0–1.75 as least widely purchased 27 Table 3.1. Number of root crop species categorized by gender Male Female Most abundant 2 0 More abundant 0 0 Less abundant 4 2 Least abundant 2 5 Most widely sold 0 0 More widely sold 0 0 Less widely sold 3 0 Least widely sold 5 6 Most widely purchased 0 2 More widely purchased 1 1 Less widely purchased 4 1 Least widely purchased 3 2 3.1.4 Wild edibles From the focus group discussions and the data presented in Tables 4 and 4.1, a total of 22 wild food plants were identified. The female group recognized 18 species, while the male group identified 15. Men noted five species not mentioned by women, whereas women identified eight species absent from the men's responses. Among the species categorized as “most abundant,” guava (known locally as bayabas) and Jamaican berry (aratilis) were highlighted by the male group. In contrast, the female group identified tamarind (sampalok), bamboo shoots (labong), Indian almond (talisay), and cucumber tree (kamias) as the most abundant food plants in the Guinayangan. These species are widely distributed in the local environment, representing a diverse range of edible plants that are easily accessible to the community. Their prevalence suggests they are well-adapted to the region’s climate and ecosystem, providing a reliable source of nutrition. All these wild foods are regularly harvested by community members, primarily for home consumption. They serve as valuable dietary supplements, offering fruits, seeds, and other edible parts that are either consumed fresh or incorporated into traditional recipes. 28 While wild edibles play a crucial role in subsistence, their contribution to the local economy appears limited in terms of commercial trade. Among the identified species, wild mushrooms, Agacaricus spp. (known locally as kabuti) were reported as being sold in local markets, yet they were classified as “least widely sold.” This suggests that while wild mushrooms are harvested for sale, they do not hold a significant market presence compared to more commonly traded crops. Similarly, mushrooms were the only wi ld food species mentioned as being purchased by community members, but they remained among the “least commonly purchased” items. This indicates that while some individuals acquire wild mushrooms from other community members, demand for them within the local market remains low. The minimal commercial trade of wild edibles underscores their primary role as subsistence resources rather than market commodities. Their widespread use for household consumption highlights their importance in local food security, yet it also suggests that wild edibles are not deeply integrated into the broader market system. 29 Table 4. Results of gender-differentiated FGDs on wild food plants Local name English name Scientific name All Male Male Male Male Male Female Female Female Female No. of groups No. of groups Abundance * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase *** No. of groups Abundance * Own (%) Sale ** Bayabas Guava Psidium guajava 4 2 4 100 2 2.5 100 Duhat Java plum Syzygium cumini 3 1 1 100 2 2.5 100 Kalumpit Damson plum Terminalia microcarpa 3 1 2 100 2 2.5 100 Aratilis Jamaican cherry Muntingia calabura 3 1 4 100 2 2.5 100 Ampalayang ligaw Wild bitter melon Cucumis intermedius 2 1 1 100 1 1 100 Tugi Lesser yam Dioscorea bulbifera 2 1 1 100 1 1 100 Nami Indian three-leaved yam Dioscorea hispida 2 1 1 100 1 3 100 Kangkong Water spinach Ipomoea aquatica 2 1 2 100 1 1 100 Lubi Palm leaf fig Ficus pseudopalma 2 1 2 100 1 3 100 Kabuti Mushrooms Agaricus spp. 2 1 1 100 1 1 1 1 100 1 Bignay Wild cherry Antidesma bunius 2 2 2.5 100 Buli Buri Buri Corypha utan 2 2 3 100 Sampalok Tamarind Tamarindus indica 2 2 4 100 Burot 1 1 1 100 Singkamas (wild) Jicama Pachyrhizus erosus 1 1 1 100 Saluyot Jute Mallow Corchorus olitorius 1 1 2 100 Pili Pili nut Canarium ovatum 1 1 1 100 Kamatchile Manila tamarind Pithecellobium dulce 1 1 3 100 Labong Bamboo shoots Phyllostachys edulis 1 1 4 100 Talisay Indian almond Terminalia catappa 1 1 4 100 Santol Cotton fruit Sandoricum koetjape 1 1 3 100 Kamias Cucumber tree Averrhoa bilimbi 1 1 4 100 *The "abundance" column represents the weighted score of a species' subjective abundance, with a maximum score of 4 and a minimum of 1. A score of 0 indicates that the species was not mentioned by any group of a particular gender but was mentioned by at least one group of the opposite gender. The weighted score is calculated by summing the scores assigned by each group for a species and dividing by the number of groups that provided a score. The scoring system is as follows: 4 = many households, large area; 3 = few households, large area; 2 = many households, small area; 1 = few households, small area. These scores do not provide a quantitative measure but rather an ordinal ranking. Species with scores between 3.26–4.0 are considered most abundant, 2.51–3.25 as more abundant, 1.76–2.5 as less abundant, and 1.0–1.75 as least abundant. **The "sale" column refers to the weighted score of the subjective assessment of how widely a species is sold. Scores are assigned as follows: 4 = many households sell frequently; 3 = few households sell frequently; 2 = many households sell rarely; 1 = few households sell rarely. Similar to the abundance 30 scores, these scores provide a relative ranking rather than precise quantitative data. Species with scores of 3.26–4.0 are categorized as most widely sold, 2.51–3.25 as more widely sold, 1.76–2.5 as less widely sold, and 1.0–1.75 as least widely sold. ***The "purchased" column reflects the weighted score of the subjective assessment of how widely a species is purchased. The scoring system is as follows: 4 = many households purchase frequently; 3 = few households purchase frequently; 2 = many households purchase rarely; 1 = few households purchase rarely. As with the other columns, these scores are used to establish a ranking. Species with scores of 3.26–4.0 are considered most widely purchased, 2.51–3.25 as more widely purchased, 1.76–2.5 as less widely purchased, and 1.0–1.75 as least widely purchased. 31 Table 4.1. Number of wild food plants species categorized by gender Male Female Most abundant 2 4 More abundant 1 4 Less abundant 4 5 Least abundant 8 4 Most widely sold 0 0 More widely sold 0 0 Less widely sold 0 0 Least widely sold 1 1 Most widely purchased 0 0 More widely purchased 0 0 Less widely purchased 0 0 Least widely purchased 1 0 3.1.5 Domesticated/Farm Animals As shown in Table 5, the focus groups identified a total of 13 domesticated animal species. The male group recognized nine species, while the female group identified all 13 (see Table 5.1), with four species not mentioned by the male group. Among the species categorized as "most abundant," the male group identified cow (known locally as baka), carabao (kalabaw), chicken (manok), and pig (baboy), whereas the female group highlighted carabao, chicken, and pig. Except for horses (kabayo), all identified species were consumed by households. All nine species identified by the male focus group—zebu, carabao, chicken, goat, mallard, pig, Itik duck, goose, and turkey—were reported as being sold in markets. However, only chicken and pig were classified as "most widely sold." In addition to these, the female groups also mentioned pigeon (kalapati), Guinea fowl (binggala), and sheep (tupa) as marketable species. According to the female respondents, chicken, mallard, pig, and Itik duck were considered "most widely sold." Regarding purchases, the male group reported that only five species were commonly bought in the market. Among these, chicken and pig were categorized as "most widely purchased," while cow, carabao, and goat were classified as "least widely purchased." The female group identified eight species as being purchased, though none were classified as "most widely 32 purchased." Instead, chicken and pig were categorized as "more widely purchased," while zebu, carabao, goat, mallard, goose, and turkey were classified as either “less widely purchase” or least widely purchased”. 33 Table 5. Results of gender-differentiated FGDs on domesticated animal species Local name English name Scientific name All Males Males Male Male Male Female Female Fem ale Femal e Female No. of groups No. of groups Abundance * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase *** No. of groups Abundance * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase *** Baka Cow Bos indicus 6 3 3.33 100 2.67 1 3 3 66.67 2.5 2.5 Kalabaw Carabao Bubalus bubalis carabanensis 6 3 3.33 33.33 2.67 1 3 4 33.33 2 2.5 Manok Chicken Gallus gallus domesticus 6 3 3.33 100 3.33 4 3 4 100 4 2.67 Kambing Goat Capra aegagrus hircus 6 3 2.33 66.67 2 1 3 2.67 100 1.67 2 Pato Muscovy Caira moschata 6 3 1 66.67 1 3 2 100 4 1 Baboy Pig Sus scrofa domesticus 5 2 4 100 4 4 3 4 100 4 3 Itik Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 5 2 1 100 1 3 1 100 4 1 Gansa Goose Anser anser domesticus 2 1 1 100 1 1 1 100 Pabo Turkey Meleagris gallopavo 2 1 1 100 1 1 1 100 1 Kabayo Horse Equus caballus 1 1 1 Kalapati Pigeon Columba libia 1 1 1 100 Binggala Guinea fowl Numida meleagris 1 1 1 100 Tupa Sheep Ovis aries 1 1 1 100 *The "abundance" column represents the weighted score of a species' subjective abundance, with a maximum score of 4 and a minimum of 1. A score of 0 indicates that the species was not mentioned by any group of a particular gender but was mentioned by at least one group of the opposite gender. The weighted score is calculated by summing the scores assigned by each group for a species and dividing by the number of groups that provided a score. The scoring system is as follows: 4 = many households, large area; 3 = few households, large area; 2 = many households, small area; 1 = few households, small area. These scores do not provide a quantitative measure but rather an ordinal ranking. Species with scores between 3.26–4.0 are considered most abundant, 2.51–3.25 as more abundant, 1.76–2.5 as less abundant, and 1.0–1.75 as least abundant. **The "sale" column refers to the weighted score of the subjective assessment of how widely a species is sold. Scores are assigned as follows: 4 = many households sell frequently; 3 = few households sell frequently; 2 = many households sell rarely; 1 = few households sell rarely. Similar to the abundance scores, these scores provide a relative ranking rather than precise quantitative data. Species with scores of 3.26–4.0 are categorized as most widely sold, 2.51–3.25 as more widely sold, 1.76–2.5 as less widely sold, and 1.0–1.75 as least widely sold. 34 ***The "purchased" column reflects the weighted score of the subjective assessment of how widely a species is purchased. The scoring system is as follows: 4 = many households purchase frequently; 3 = few households purchase frequently; 2 = many households purchase rarely; 1 = few households purchase rarely. As with the other columns, these scores are used to establish a ranking. Species with scores of 3.26–4.0 are considered most widely purchased, 2.51–3.25 as more widely purchased, 1.76–2.5 as less widely purchased, and 1.0–1.75 as least widely purchased. 35 Table 5.1. Number of domesticated animal species categorized by gender Male Female Most abundant 4 3 More abundant 0 2 Less abundant 1 1 Least abundant 4 7 Most widely sold 2 4 More widely sold 2 0 Less widely sold 1 2 Least widely sold 4 1 Most widely purchased 2 0 More widely purchased 0 2 Less widely purchased 0 2 Least widely purchased 3 3 3.1.6 Wild animals A total of 17 wild animal species were identified as food sources by the male and female focus groups (Table 6). The female group recognized 12 species, while the male group identified 11 species. Notably, five species were mentioned exclusively by the male group, The male group did not classify any species as “most abundant.” However, 3 species were categorized as “more abundant”, 5 species as “less abundant” and 3 species as “least abundant.” The female group identified bird species as the most abundant and classified 3 species as “more abundant”, 3 species as “less abundant,” and 5 species as “least abundant.” All species reported were primarily used for household consumption rather than large-scale trade. The male group indicated that 10 species were sold, though only monitor lizard (bayawak) was classified as “most widely sold.” The remaining species were categorized as: 1 species as “less widely sold”, 8 species as “least widely sold.” The female group reported that only 3 species were sold, all of which were classified as “least widely sold.” The male group did not report purchasing any wild animal species. The female group identified three species as being purchased: bees (laywan) – “Most widely purchased”, land 36 snails (bayuko) – “less widely purchased” and monitor lizard (bayawak) “least widely purchased.” These findings indicate that wild animal species are primarily harvested for subsistence, with limited commercial trade. However, small-scale transactions occur, particularly for monitor lizards and bees. 37 Table 6. Results of gender-differentiated FGDs on wild animal species Local name English name Scientific name All Male Male Male Male Male Female Female Fema le Femal e Female No. of groups No. of group s Abundance * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase *** No. of groups Abundance * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase *** Bayawak Monitor lizard Varanus 5 2 2.5 50 4 3 2.33 66.67 1 1 Palakang tubigan Common pond frog Fejervarya vittigera 3 2 1.5 100 1 1 1 100 Uok Coconut beetle larvae Oryctes rhinoceros 3 1 3 100 1 2 3 100 Sawa 3 1 2 100 1 2 1 50 Bayuko Land snail Ryssota ovum 2 1 1 100 1 2 100 1 2 Lulumbo Wasp Vespula vulgaris 2 1 2 100 1 1 3 100 Binggala Guineafowl Tetraonini 1 1 1 100 1 Pukyutan Honeybee Apis 1 1 2 100 2 Buyaso Red mud lobster Thalassina anomala 1 1 3 100 1 Kuray True crabs Brachyura 1 1 2 100 1 Dagang bukid Yellow tail fusilier Pterocaesio chrysozona 1 1 3 100 1 Suso Snail Gastropoda 1 1 2 100 Alimos Asian palm civet Paradoxurus hermaphroditus 1 1 1 100 Pagong Turtle Testudines 1 1 1 100 Barred Rail Tikling Gallirallus torquatu s 1 1 4 100 Laywan/Bees Bee Anthophila 1 1 3 100 1 4 Cobra Cobra Naja 1 1 1 100 *The "abundance" column represents the weighted score of a species' subjective abundance, with a maximum score of 4 and a minimum of 1. A score of 0 indicates that the species was not mentioned by any group of a particular gender but was mentioned by at least one group of the opposite gender. The weighted score is calculated by summing the scores assigned by each group for a species and dividing by the number of groups that provided a score. The scoring system is as follows: 4 = many households, large area; 3 = few households, large area; 2 = many households, small area; 1 = few households, small area. These scores do not provide a quantitative measure but rather an ordinal ranking. Species with scores between 3.26–4.0 are considered most abundant, 2.51–3.25 as more abundant, 1.76–2.5 as less abundant, and 1.0–1.75 as least abundant. 38 **The "sale" column refers to the weighted score of the subjective assessment of how widely a species is sold. Scores are assigned as follows: 4 = many households sell frequently; 3 = few households sell frequently; 2 = many households sell rarely; 1 = few households sell rarely. Similar to the abundance scores, these scores provide a relative ranking rather than precise quantitative data. Species with scores of 3.26–4.0 are categorized as most widely sold, 2.51–3.25 as more widely sold, 1.76–2.5 as less widely sold, and 1.0–1.75 as least widely sold. ***The "purchased" column reflects the weighted score of the subjective assessment of how widely a species is purchased. The scoring system is as follows: 4 = many households purchase frequently; 3 = few households purchase frequently; 2 = many households purchase rarely; 1 = few households purchase rarely. As with the other columns, these scores are used to establish a ranking. Species with scores of 3.26–4.0 are considered most widely purchased, 2.51– 3.25 as more widely purchased, 1.76–2.5 as less widely purchased, and 1.0–1.75 as least widely purchased. 39 Table 6.1. Number of wild animal species categorized by gender Male Female Most abundant 0 1 More abundant 3 3 Less abundant 5 3 Least abundant 3 5 Most widely sold 1 0 More widely sold 0 0 Less widely sold 1 0 Least widely sold 8 3 Most widely purchased 0 1 More widely purchased 0 0 Less widely purchased 0 1 Least widely purchased 0 1 3.1.7 Fish and other aquatic species For fish and other aquatic species, only the male and female focus groups from Capuluan Central identified such species, as it is the only barangay situated near a coastal area. The male group recognized 12 species, including blue swimming crab (known locally as alimasag), tapalan, sea snails (sikad), shrimp (alamang), oysters (talaba), various fish species, golden apple snails (kuhol), crayfish (banagan), tiger prawns (sugpo), shrimp (hipon), mud crab (alimango), and milkfish (bangus) (see Table 7). Among these, blue crabs and fish were categorized as "most abundant," while all other species were classified as "least abundant." In contrast, the female group identified only one species—milkfish—which they categorized as "least abundant." All 12 species were reported to be consumed by households. According to the male group, all 12 species are sold in the market but are classified as "less widely sold". However, they are also considered "most widely purchased." The female focus group, on the other hand, reported that milkfish was the only aquatic species sold, classifying it as "least widely sold." Regarding purchases, the male group indicated that 11 aquatic species are bought in the market, all of which were categorized as "most widely purchased." Similarly, for the female group, milkfish was identified as the "most widely purchased" aquatic species. 40 Table 7. Results of gender- differentiated FGDs on aquatic species Local name English name Scientific name All Male Male Male Male Male Female Female Female Female Female No. of groups No. of groups Abundance * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase *** No. of groups Abundance * Own (%) Sale ** Purchase *** Alimasag Blue swimming crab Portunus pelagicus 1 1 4 100 2 4 Tapalang Hard clam1 Mercenaria mercenaria 1 1 1 100 2 4 Sikad Sea snail Canarium urceus 1 1 1 100 2 4 Alamang Shrimp Acetes sibogae 1 1 1 100 2 4 Talaba Oysters Ostreidae 1 1 1 100 2 4 Isda Fish Vertebrata (subphylum) 1 1 4 100 2 4 Kuhol Golden apple snails Pomacea canaliculata 1 1 1 100 2 4 Banagan Crayfish Order Decapoda 1 1 1 100 2 4 Sugpo Tiger Prawns Dendrobranchia ta 1 1 1 100 2 4 Hipon Shrimp Caridea 1 1 1 100 2 4 Alimango Mud crab Scylla spp. 1 1 1 100 2 4 Bangus Milk fish Chanos chanos 1 1 1 100 1 4 1 An edible marine mollusc, round hard-shell clam. *The "abundance" column represents the weighted score of a species' subjective abundance, with a maximum score of 4 and a minimum of 1. A score of 0 indicates that the species was not mentioned by any group of a particular gender but was mentioned by at least one group of the opposite gender. The weighted score is calculated by summing the scores assigned by each group for a species and dividing by the number of groups that provided a score. The scoring system is as follows: 4 = many households, large area; 3 = few households, large area; 2 = many households, small area; 1 = few households, small area. These scores do not provide a quantitative measure but rather an ordinal ranking. Species with scores between 3.26–4.0 are considered most abundant, 2.51–3.25 as more abundant, 1.76–2.5 as less abundant, and 1.0–1.75 as least abundant. **The "sale" column refers to the weighted score of the subjective assessment of how widely a species is sold. Scores are assigned as follows: 4 = many households sell frequently; 3 = few households sell frequently; 2 = many households sell rarely; 1 = few households sell rarely. Similar to the abundance 41 scores, these scores provide a relative ranking rather than precise quantitative data. Species with scores of 3.26–4.0 are categorized as most widely sold, 2.51–3.25 as more widely sold, 1.76–2.5 as less widely sold, and 1.0–1.75 as least widely sold. ***The "purchased" column reflects the weighted score of the subjective assessment of how widely a species is purchased. The scoring system is as follows: 4 = many households purchase frequently; 3 = few households purchase frequently; 2 = many households purchase rarely; 1 = few households purchase rarely. As with the other columns, these scores are used to establish a ranking. Species with scores of 3.26–4.0 are considered most widely purchased, 2.51– 3.25 as more widely purchased, 1.76–2.5 as less widely purchased, and 1.0–1.75 as least widely purchased. 42 4. Key Findings The focus groups emphasized that most food species, particularly fruits, are seasonal and not available year-round. Participants noted that these species are generally scarce during the summer months and the "ber" months (September to December). In addition to seasonality, low production was cited as a key factor contributing to scarcity, primarily due to excessive rainfall or extreme heat, both of which negatively impact fruit development and subsequent harvest yields. For vegetable species, availability is generally high between June and August, aligning with the rainy season and the planting-to-harvesting period. However, like fruits, vegetables also experience seasonal scarcity. Fluctuations in production levels are often caused by excessive rainfall or extreme heat, which can hinder growth and reduce yields. Furthermore, the focus group discussions highlighted pest infestations as another significant factor leading to decreased productivity. Despite periodic disruptions in the continuous supply and availability of fruits and vegetables, the overall high species richness of food crops supports food sufficiency within the community. While certain species may be scarce at specific times of the year, the availability of alternative food sources helps mitigate the impact of these shortages, ensuring a stable food supply for local households. The high diversity of species available and utilized by the communities in the barangays of Cabong Norte, Capuluan Central, and Capuluan Tulon plays a crucial role in meeting dietary and food security needs while also providing ecological and economic benefits. This diversity serves as a safety net, particularly during periods of food scarcity, as households can rely on alternative species when certain food sources become unavailable. The use of agrobiodiversity is not just a cultural or dietary practice; it also provides significant economic benefits. In the case of Guinayangan Quezon, women are the ones who sell or trade agricultural products, including traditional varieties of fruits, vegetables, and medicinal plants. Women farmers also possess intricate knowledge about the medicinal uses of plants, the nutritional value of various crops. Data from individual farmer interviews, conducted using the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS), indicate that respondents within the three target sites in Guinayangan experience food security and sufficiency, with no reported instances of severe hunger. Analysis using a Likert scale confirms that, across all questions, the overall weighted mean suggests that hunger or food shortages were never experienced. This stability in food access 43 is likely due to the wide range of available food sources that households can depend on, even during times of scarcity. The variety of crop species cultivated and harvested also contributes significantly to dietary diversity, providing essential nutrients such as proteins, carbohydrates, and minerals. While most species identified by the focus groups are primarily used for home consumption, many are also sold when production exceeds household needs, contributing to family income and local livelihoods. Previous studies, such as that of Dannenberg et al. (2024), highlight the importance of species diversity in addressing "hidden hunger"—a term referring to deficiencies in essential nutrients like proteins and minerals, which are often lacking in conventional plant-based diets. Nutrient deficiencies can lead to poor health, cognitive impairment, and reduced productivity, emphasizing the critical role of agrobiodiversity in promoting overall well -being. Among the species identified, certain crops and livestock are perceived as particularly important based on subjective abundance, market presence, and purchasing patterns. For fruits, key species include banana (saging), papaya, coconut (niyog), Indian mango, jackfruit (langka), sugar apple (atis), soursop (guyabano), and calamansi. Important vegetable species include lima bean (patani), hyacinth bean (bataw), banana, coconut, eggplant (talong), squash (kalabasa), bottle gourd (upo), ridge gourd (patola), moringa (malunggay), okra, mung bean (munggo), papaya, Chinese cabbage (pechay), bitter gourd (ampalaya), mustard greens (mustasa), string beans (sitao), tomato (kamatis), winged beans (sigarilyas), chili (sili), and other spices such as black pepper (paminta). The most significant root crops identified are cassava (balinghoy) and sweet potato (kamoteng baging), while among livestock, zebu (baka), carabao (kalabaw), chicken (manok), and pig (baboy) are considered the most important. Additionally, non-conventional food sources such as wild edibles and wild animals play an essential, though less explicitly acknowledged, role in food security. While not always emphasized in discussions, these species serve as alternative or supplementary food sources during periods of scarcity. The availability of both cultivated and wild food sources strengthens the resilience of the local food system, ensuring continued food sufficiency despite seasonal fluctuations or production challenges. This highlights the vital role of agrobiodiversity in enhancing food security and promoting sustainable livelihoods. 44 5. Conclusion To build upon the findings of this study and enhance the conservation and utilization of agrobiodiversity in the Philippines, the following research and policy recommendations are proposed: 1. Assessing climate change impacts on species availability • Conduct research on the effects of climate change on food species, particularly those identified as important for food security. • Identify species most vulnerable to climate variability and extreme weather events. • Develop conservation and adaptation strategies to protect and sustain these species. 2. Comparative studies on agrobiodiversity across regions • Expand the study to other ASEAN regions or communities to compare agrobiodiversity management practices. • Identify successful strategies and promote the sharing of best practices among communities. • Examine socio-economic factors influencing biodiversity use and conservation. 3. Mapping and expanding the identification of biodiversity custodians • Extend the identification of biodiversity custodians beyond coastal areas to include upland and lowland barangays. • Develop a municipal map of biodiversity custodians to highlight key individuals or groups contributing to conservation efforts. • Conduct a more extensive survey to compile biodiversity registers for the Municipality of Guinayangan, ensuring a comprehensive documentation of genetic resources. 45 4. Training and education for biodiversity custodians • Provide capacity-building programs for traditional biodiversity custodians to encourage the propagation and reintroduction of underutilized or rare crop, tree, and livestock species. • Establish community seed banks and breeding programs to ensure the preservation and distribution of diverse genetic resources. • Facilitate knowledge-sharing sessions between custodians and younger generations to ensure the continuity of traditional agricultural and ecological knowledge. 5. Recognition and support for traditional biodiversity custodians • Formally recognize the contributions of traditional biodiversity custodians in conserving genetic resources and enhancing dietary diversity. • Develop incentive programs, such as grants or livelihood support, to encourage custodians to continue their conservation efforts. • Integrate traditional knowledge and practices into local food security and conservation policies. By implementing these recommendations, stakeholders—including local government units (LGUs), agricultural institutions, and community organizations—can strengthen agrobiodiversity conservation and ensure the long-term sustainability of food systems in Guinayangan and beyond. 46 References Agnoletti, M., Santoro, A. Agricultural heritage systems and agrobiodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 31, 2231–2241 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-022-02460-3 Food and Agriculture, 2019. The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture 2019. International Union for Conservation of Nature. (n.d.). Nature-based solutions. IUCN. https://iucn.org/our-work/nature-based-solutions Innovation in Local and Global Learning Systems for Sustainability: Traditional Knowledge and Biodiversity – Learning Contributions of the Regional Centres of Expertise on Education for Sustainable Development.https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:5773/TKB_Book_2013.pdf Jones, S. (n.d.). How Can Agrobiodiversity Help Safeguard Sustainable Food Systems? FARMINGFIRST. https://farmingfirst.org/2020/03/how-can-agrobiodiversity-help- safeguard-sustainable-food- systems/#:~:text=Agrobiodiversity%20refers%20to%20both%20domesticated,birds %2C%20and%20keeping%20soils%20healthy. Jones, S.K., Estrada-Carmona, N., Juventia, S.D. et al. Agrobiodiversity Index scores show agrobiodiversity is underutilized in national food systems. Nat Food 2, 712–723 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00344-3 Joshi BK, D Gauchan, B Bhandari and D Jarvis, eds. 2020. Good Practices for Agrobiodiversity Management. NAGRC, LI-BIRD and Bioversity International; Kathmandu, Nepal -Viitanen, A. (n.d.). Custodians of culture and biodiversity. IFAD; IFAD Innovation Mainstreaming Initiative and the Government of Finland. https://www.ifad.org/documents/d/new-ifad.org/custodians_biodiversity-pdf Marcelino SM, Gaspar PD, do Paço A, Lima TM, Monteiro A, Franco JC, Santos ES, Campos R, Lopes CM. Towards Sustainable Agriculture: A Critical Analysis of Agrobiodiversity Assessment Methods and Recommendations for Effective Implementation. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(6):2622. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14062622 PAR (2018) Assessing Agrobiodiversity: A Compendium of Methods (Platform for Agrobiodiversity Research, Rome. https://www.agrobiodiversitypar.org/new- publication-assessing-agrobiodiversity-a-compendium-of-methods Remans, R, Wood, S.A. Saha, N., Anderman, T.L., DeFries, R.S., Measuring nutritional diversity of national food supplies Global Food Security Volume 3, Issues 3–4, November 2014, Pages 174-182 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-022-02460-3 https://iucn.org/our-work/nature-based-solutions https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:5773/TKB_Book_2013.pdf https://farmingfirst.org/2020/03/how-can-agrobiodiversity-help-safeguard-sustainable-food-systems/#:~:text=Agrobiodiversity%20refers%20to%20both%20domesticated,birds%2C%20and%20keeping%20soils%20healthy https://farmingfirst.org/2020/03/how-can-agrobiodiversity-help-safeguard-sustainable-food-systems/#:~:text=Agrobiodiversity%20refers%20to%20both%20domesticated,birds%2C%20and%20keeping%20soils%20healthy https://farmingfirst.org/2020/03/how-can-agrobiodiversity-help-safeguard-sustainable-food-systems/#:~:text=Agrobiodiversity%20refers%20to%20both%20domesticated,birds%2C%20and%20keeping%20soils%20healthy https://farmingfirst.org/2020/03/how-can-agrobiodiversity-help-safeguard-sustainable-food-systems/#:~:text=Agrobiodiversity%20refers%20to%20both%20domesticated,birds%2C%20and%20keeping%20soils%20healthy https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00344-3 https://www.ifad.org/documents/d/new-ifad.org/custodians_biodiversity-pdf https://doi.org/10.3390/app14062622 https://www.agrobiodiversitypar.org/new-publication-assessing-agrobiodiversity-a-compendium-of-methods https://www.agrobiodiversitypar.org/new-publication-assessing-agrobiodiversity-a-compendium-of-methods https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/global-food-security https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/global-food-security/vol/3/issue/3 47 Thrupp, L.A. (2000) Linking Agricultural Biodiversity and Food Security: The Valuable Role of Agrobiodiversity for Sustainable Agriculture. International Affairs, 76, 283-297. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.00133 Joshi BK, D Gauchan, B Bhandari and D Jarvis, eds. 2020. Good Practices for Agrobiodiversity Management. NAGRC, LI-BIRD and Bioversity International; Kathmandu, Nepal Innovation in Local and Global Learning Systems for Sustainability: Traditional Knowledge and Biodiversity – Learning Contributions of the Regional Centres of Expertise on Education for Sustainable Development.https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:5773/TKB_Book_2013.pdf https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.00133 https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:5773/TKB_Book_2013.pdf The Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT is part of CGIAR, a global research partnership for a food -secure future. Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT Alliance Headquarters | Via di San Domenico, 1, 00153 Rome, Italy https://alliancebioversityciat.org/ https://alliancebioversityciat.org/