Is Green Revolution Good for Africa?
- By Ravinder Rena
- Published 05/7/2008
- Economy
-
Rating:
DR. RAVINDER RENA
[Papua New Guinea University of Technology]
Green Revolution, which occurred primarily as a result of technological breakthroughs, improved water supplies and better agricultural practices. In addition, increased mechanization of agricultural operations and the use of plant protection measures also contributed to the emergence of the "Green Revolution" in many developing countries in the world, particularly in India.
The levels of agricultural production in India are found to be lower. For example, the rate of agricultural output during the first half of the century was a mere 0.8 percent per annum. Rice, which comprised 50 percent of the total grain production, declined in the same period at an average annual rate of 0.09 percent while the population grew at 0.67 percent per annum. The per capita availability food grain has been declined by 26 per cent between 1911 and 1941. Besides, cereal imports, which averaged about 5.9 million tons per year during the early 1960s, reached a record high of 10.4 million tons in 1966. India found itself in the type of situation in which Eritrea and many other African countries find themselves today.
In line with this, a battle is raging in Africa over the best ways to raise the continent's low agricultural productivity, and assure widespread and long term food security. Despite what is generally agreed to be its great agricultural potential, Africa has for long depended on food imports and particularly during times of natural or man-made crisis. According to the Economic Commission for Africa report, Africa spends $25 billion on food imports and receives food aid of $2 billion annually, with one third of its people suffering chronic hunger.
With these grim statistics, one might think any efforts to boost Africa's agricultural productivity would be welcomed. Yet that is not the case because of the conflict between the promoters of two fundamentally different approaches to agriculture.
On one side there are those who urge the widespread adoption of "green revolution" methodologies, such as those that accounted for dramatic increases in agricultural productivity in Asia and Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s. These involve the use of hybrid commercial seed rather than the farmer-saved seed that is in predominant use in Africa. Green revolution methods also involve heavy use of fertilizers and pest control chemicals. In general, they embrace any technology-based innovation to improve farming yields, including gene modification.
Some experts believe that a green revolution approach is not only inappropriate for Africa, but has the potential to do more harm than good. While their areas of disagreement with biotechnology-based farming approaches are broad, they are most vociferous in their opposition to the introduction of genetically modified (GM) seeds to Africa.
It's a known fact that most farming in Africa is carried out by small holder farmers for their own consumption. The methods used are some variation of traditional farming practiced for generations, with the incorporation of selective modern methods. The traditional practice of shifting cultivation in response to declining soil fertility is no longer practical with much higher populations of people. This has meant soils are worked with no fallow periods to restore them as before, causing rapid and steep declines in fertility.
Fertilizer is an expensive input beyond regular affordability for the vast majority of small scale farmers in the African continent. The traditional soil supplementation methods of applying animal manure, ash and compost are used inconsistently and unevenly for various reasons. Most farming is rain fed, creating additional problems as seasons seem to become less predictable and incidences of drought increase. Diseases and pests account for significant yield losses.
The efforts to address many of these issues over the years have been overwhelmed by their magnitude, the sheer size of the continent, lack of sufficient sustained funding and political will, political instability and many others. Where strictly farming issues are beginning to be addressed, broader developmental challenges still make African agriculture much less effective at alleviating poverty than it could be.
The efforts of individual governments to deal with the many related issues leading to low agricultural productivity over the decades have had mixed results. For instance, fertilizer subsidy programmes are expensive and difficult to maintain, and have come and gone in various countries. Factors that are as a result of policy or infrastructural limitations can take a long time to change and for the effects to trickle down to the level of the farmer. There therefore have been gains made in some countries, but they have not been consistent.
The latest high-profile efforts to address the many problems involve new approaches to things that have been tried before, as well as the application of new strategies. Under the auspicious of its New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), the AU held an African Fertilizer Summit in Nigeria in 2006. Its stated aim was to find ways to dramatically increase African farmers' access to fertilizer. This was the first attempt to address the issue on a continental level. But there has been little news of any follow up to that summit.
Another effort with a heavy emphasis on biotechnology is the recently formed Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). AGRA ambitiously intends to tackle issues of wider hybrid seed distribution, farmer access to fertilizer and other inputs, the training of more African crop scientists and extension workers, and various others. This is also the first effort to deal with so many agriculture-related issues together across Africa.
Both these initiatives, and many scattered smaller ones based on the same general principles, are strongly opposed by a network of African farmer groups, environmental and related NGOs for a variety of reasons. Among them are that fertilizers and other agrochemicals pollute the environment and are too expensive to be used sustainably, and that green revolution thinking makes farmers too dependent on agri-business suppliers of inputs.
They argue that commercial hybrid seeds may produce better yields than farm-saved seeds in certain ideal conditions, but that these ideal conditions are rarely obtained in Africa, leading to yields that are no higher, but doing so more expensively than the farm-saved "open-pollinated" varieties that farmers can pass on from generation to generation. Green revolution critics are also opposed to the vast fields of one-crop "monocultures" of modern commercial agriculture. Their grounds are that this leads to biodiversity loss by the sidelining of traditional seed varieties that may have a lot to offer the farmer and humanity, now and in the future, even if their yield potential is less impressive than hybrid varieties.
This long-running ideological conflict is not going to go away and is likely to become more heated. It is not a zero-sum game in which either side can expect to out-argue the other, although which side gets the upper hand depends a lot on their respective lobbying abilities.
India and many other developing economies in the world successfully achieved food security, after adapting the Green Revolution (Scientific agricultural strategy). Hence, despite its negative impact, Green revolution can be a panacea for African food insecurity problem.
* * * * *
Ravinder Rena is currently working as Head of Economics, Department of Business Studies at the Papua New Guinea University of Technology. Earlier he served in Eritrea for more than a decade. Author can be contacted for feedback comments via: ravieritrea2007@gmail.com
[Papua New Guinea University of Technology]
Green Revolution, which occurred primarily as a result of technological breakthroughs, improved water supplies and better agricultural practices. In addition, increased mechanization of agricultural operations and the use of plant protection measures also contributed to the emergence of the "Green Revolution" in many developing countries in the world, particularly in India.
The levels of agricultural production in India are found to be lower. For example, the rate of agricultural output during the first half of the century was a mere 0.8 percent per annum. Rice, which comprised 50 percent of the total grain production, declined in the same period at an average annual rate of 0.09 percent while the population grew at 0.67 percent per annum. The per capita availability food grain has been declined by 26 per cent between 1911 and 1941. Besides, cereal imports, which averaged about 5.9 million tons per year during the early 1960s, reached a record high of 10.4 million tons in 1966. India found itself in the type of situation in which Eritrea and many other African countries find themselves today.
In line with this, a battle is raging in Africa over the best ways to raise the continent's low agricultural productivity, and assure widespread and long term food security. Despite what is generally agreed to be its great agricultural potential, Africa has for long depended on food imports and particularly during times of natural or man-made crisis. According to the Economic Commission for Africa report, Africa spends $25 billion on food imports and receives food aid of $2 billion annually, with one third of its people suffering chronic hunger.
With these grim statistics, one might think any efforts to boost Africa's agricultural productivity would be welcomed. Yet that is not the case because of the conflict between the promoters of two fundamentally different approaches to agriculture.
On one side there are those who urge the widespread adoption of "green revolution" methodologies, such as those that accounted for dramatic increases in agricultural productivity in Asia and Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s. These involve the use of hybrid commercial seed rather than the farmer-saved seed that is in predominant use in Africa. Green revolution methods also involve heavy use of fertilizers and pest control chemicals. In general, they embrace any technology-based innovation to improve farming yields, including gene modification.
Some experts believe that a green revolution approach is not only inappropriate for Africa, but has the potential to do more harm than good. While their areas of disagreement with biotechnology-based farming approaches are broad, they are most vociferous in their opposition to the introduction of genetically modified (GM) seeds to Africa.
It's a known fact that most farming in Africa is carried out by small holder farmers for their own consumption. The methods used are some variation of traditional farming practiced for generations, with the incorporation of selective modern methods. The traditional practice of shifting cultivation in response to declining soil fertility is no longer practical with much higher populations of people. This has meant soils are worked with no fallow periods to restore them as before, causing rapid and steep declines in fertility.
Fertilizer is an expensive input beyond regular affordability for the vast majority of small scale farmers in the African continent. The traditional soil supplementation methods of applying animal manure, ash and compost are used inconsistently and unevenly for various reasons. Most farming is rain fed, creating additional problems as seasons seem to become less predictable and incidences of drought increase. Diseases and pests account for significant yield losses.
The efforts to address many of these issues over the years have been overwhelmed by their magnitude, the sheer size of the continent, lack of sufficient sustained funding and political will, political instability and many others. Where strictly farming issues are beginning to be addressed, broader developmental challenges still make African agriculture much less effective at alleviating poverty than it could be.
The efforts of individual governments to deal with the many related issues leading to low agricultural productivity over the decades have had mixed results. For instance, fertilizer subsidy programmes are expensive and difficult to maintain, and have come and gone in various countries. Factors that are as a result of policy or infrastructural limitations can take a long time to change and for the effects to trickle down to the level of the farmer. There therefore have been gains made in some countries, but they have not been consistent.
The latest high-profile efforts to address the many problems involve new approaches to things that have been tried before, as well as the application of new strategies. Under the auspicious of its New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), the AU held an African Fertilizer Summit in Nigeria in 2006. Its stated aim was to find ways to dramatically increase African farmers' access to fertilizer. This was the first attempt to address the issue on a continental level. But there has been little news of any follow up to that summit.
Another effort with a heavy emphasis on biotechnology is the recently formed Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). AGRA ambitiously intends to tackle issues of wider hybrid seed distribution, farmer access to fertilizer and other inputs, the training of more African crop scientists and extension workers, and various others. This is also the first effort to deal with so many agriculture-related issues together across Africa.
Both these initiatives, and many scattered smaller ones based on the same general principles, are strongly opposed by a network of African farmer groups, environmental and related NGOs for a variety of reasons. Among them are that fertilizers and other agrochemicals pollute the environment and are too expensive to be used sustainably, and that green revolution thinking makes farmers too dependent on agri-business suppliers of inputs.
They argue that commercial hybrid seeds may produce better yields than farm-saved seeds in certain ideal conditions, but that these ideal conditions are rarely obtained in Africa, leading to yields that are no higher, but doing so more expensively than the farm-saved "open-pollinated" varieties that farmers can pass on from generation to generation. Green revolution critics are also opposed to the vast fields of one-crop "monocultures" of modern commercial agriculture. Their grounds are that this leads to biodiversity loss by the sidelining of traditional seed varieties that may have a lot to offer the farmer and humanity, now and in the future, even if their yield potential is less impressive than hybrid varieties.
This long-running ideological conflict is not going to go away and is likely to become more heated. It is not a zero-sum game in which either side can expect to out-argue the other, although which side gets the upper hand depends a lot on their respective lobbying abilities.
India and many other developing economies in the world successfully achieved food security, after adapting the Green Revolution (Scientific agricultural strategy). Hence, despite its negative impact, Green revolution can be a panacea for African food insecurity problem.
* * * * *
Ravinder Rena is currently working as Head of Economics, Department of Business Studies at the Papua New Guinea University of Technology. Earlier he served in Eritrea for more than a decade. Author can be contacted for feedback comments via: ravieritrea2007@gmail.com
Spread The Word
1 Response to "Is Green Revolution Good for Africa?" 
|
said this on 02 Jul 2008 9:49:49 AM EDT
I hope the African governments can reconsider allocations of large somes of money to other sectors and boost the agricultural sector and specifically adapt the Green revolution which will help in fighting femine and hunger in most African countries. We all know what is happenin in Ethiopia, Africa needs a Scientific Agricultural Strategy._
|
Author/Admin)