1

Dr Marcel Daba BENGALY

Université Ouaga I Pr Joseph KI ZERBO

Final version, February 2017

Disclaimer This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

MODULE 2

BIOTECHNOLOGY: HISTORY, STATE

OF THE ART, FUTURE.

LECTURE NOTES: UNIT 2

THE GREEN REVOLUTION:

IMPACTS, LIMITS, AND THE PATH AHEAD

2

PRESENTATION OF MODULE 2

INTRODUCTION

Achieving food security in its totality (food availability, economic and physical access to food,

food utilization and stability over time) continues to be a challenge not only for the developing

nations, but also for the developed world. The difference lies in the magnitude of the problem in

terms of its severity and proportion of the population affected. According to FAO statistics, a

total of 842 million people in 2011–13, or around one in eight people in the world, were

estimated to be suffering from chronic hunger. Despite overall progress, marked differences

across regions persist. Africa remains the region with the highest prevalence of

undernourishment, with more than one in five people estimated to be undernourished. One of the

underlying causes of food insecurity in African countries is the rapid population growth

(Africa's population is expected to reach 2.4 billion in 2050) that makes the food security

outlook worrisome. According to some projections, Africa will produce enough food for only

about a quarter of its population by 2025. How will Africa be able to cope with its food security

challenge? Is biotechnology is key to food security in Africa?

Biotechnology’s ability to eliminate malnutrition and hunger in developing countries through

production of crops resistant to pests and diseases, having longer shelf-lives, refined textures and

flavors, higher yields per units of land and time, tolerant to adverse weather and soil conditions,

etc, has been reviewed by several authors. If biotechnology per se is not a panacea for the

world’s problems of hunger and poverty, it offers outstanding potentials to increase the

efficiency of crop improvement, thus enhance global food production and availability in a

sustainable way. A common misconception being the thought that biotechnology is relatively

new and includes only DNA and genetic engineering. So, agricultural biotechnology is

especially a topic of considerable controversy worldwide and in Africa, and public debate is

This Unit 2 of Module 2 is an integral part of the six Master's level course modules (each of

20 hrs) in the field of agricultural biotechnology as elaborated by the EDULINK-FSBA project

(2013-2017) which are:

Module 1: Food security, agricultural systems and biotechnology

Module 2: Biotechnology: history, state of the art, future

Module 3: Public response to the rise of biotechnology

Module 4: Regulation on and policy approaches to biotechnology

Module 5: Ethics and world views in relation to biotechnology

Module 6: Tailoring biotechnology: towards societal responsibility and country

specific approaches

3

fraught with polarized views and opinions. Therefore, working at the sustainable introduction of

biotechnology for food security in Africa requires a strong conceptual understanding by the

learner (stakeholders and future stakeholders) of what is biotechnology.

GENERAL OBJECTIVE OF THE MODULE:

The main objective of this module is to offer a broad view of biotechnology, integrating

historical, global current (classical and modern) and future applications in such a way that its

applications in Africa and expected developments could be discussed based on sound knowledge

of processes and methods used to manipulate living organisms or the substances and products

from these organisms for medical, agricultural, and industrial purposes.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES:

On successful completion of this module, the learner should be able to:

Demonstrate knowledge of essential facts of the history of biotechnology and description

of key scientific events in the development of biotechnology

Demonstrate knowledge of the definitions and principles of ancient, classical, and

modern biotechnologies.

Describe the theory, practice and potential of current and future biotechnology.

Describe and begin to evaluate aspects of current and future research and applications in

biotechnology.

Select and properly manage information drawn from text books and article to

communicate ideas effectively by written, oral and visual means on biotechnology issues.

Demonstrate an appreciation of biotechnology in Africa especially in achieving food

security.

COURSE STRUCTURE

The content of the course is organized in five units as followed:

Unit 1: Introduction to biotechnology, history and concepts definition

Unit 2: The Green Revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead

Unit 3: Agricultural biotechnology: the state-of-the-art

Unit 4: Future trends and perspectives of agricultural biotechnology

Unit 5: Biotechnology in Africa: options and opportunities

4

UNIT 2:

THE GREEN REVOLUTION:

IMPACTS, LIMITS, AND THE PATH AHEAD

(04 HOURS)

PRESENTATION

Objective

This unit is a retrospective study of the Green Revolution (GR) considered as one of the most

ground breaking technological renovation of agricultural practices that began in Mexico in the

1940s. The broader GR impacts at socioeconomic and environmental levels are presented; and

its achievement and limits in terms of agricultural productivity improvement is analysed in term

of food security. From the lessons learned and the strategic insights in Latin America, Asia and

Africa, the sustainability of technology introduction is discussed.

Content

The unit content 4 sections:

1. History of the GR: Growth and Political aspects (approx. 01 hour)

2. The GR and Food Security (approx. 01 hour)

3. Socioeconomic and environmental impacts of GR (approx. 01 hour)

4. Lessons learned from the GR (approx. 01 hour)

Course Delivery

Lecture Slides

The slides used in lectures are summaries that have as main objective to guide the learner in his

personal work (mainly reading the selected literature).

Reading the slides is not an adequate substitute for attending lectures. The slides do

not contain anything that the instructor says, writes on the board, or demonstrates

during lectures.

Lecture Notes

The Lecture notes offer an overview of a subject (you will need to fill in the detail) and detailed

information on a subject (you will need to fill in the background). It encourages taking an active

part in the lecture by doing reference reading.

This unit includes two learner assignments that relate to reading synthesis.

To continue

The learner may be interested in:

Module 1 of FSBA course on “Food security, agricultural systems and biotechnology”

Module 6 of FSBA course on “Tailoring biotechnology: towards societal responsibility

and country specific approaches”

5

HISTORY OF THE GR: GROWTH AND POLITICAL ASPECTS

This section examines the rationale behind the GR from the historical and political background

that led to its development. The history is traced back to the 1940s and the technologies

developed and spread by GR (modern irrigation projects, pesticides, synthetic nitrogen fertilizer

and improved crop varieties) are presented. Through specific cases analyses (counties from Latin

America, Asia and Africa), an account is given about the precise political circumstances that

affected positively or negatively the GR adoption and success: role of state in agriculture, the

public research and extension systems, the influence of international and national institutions

and actors such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the U.S. government, etc.

What is Green Revolution ?

The term “Green Revolution” refers to a series of research, and development, and technology

transfer initiatives, occurring between the 1940s and the late 1960s, that increased agricultural

production worldwide, particularly in the developing world. The Green Revolution began as the

Mexican Agricultural Program (MAP) in 1943 under the auspice of the Rockefeller Foundation

before it was extended worldwide and the name “Green Revolution” was coined.

The term "Green Revolution" was first used in 1968 by former United States Agency for

International Development (USAID) director William Gaud, who noted the spread of the new

technologies: "These and other developments in the field of agriculture contain the makings of a

new revolution. It is not a violent Red Revolution like that of the Soviets, nor is it a White

Revolution like that of the Shah of Iran. I call it the Green Revolution."…

The initiatives, led by Norman Borlaug, the "Father of the GR" involved:

1. the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains,

2. expansion of irrigation infrastructure,

3. modernization of management techniques,

4. distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers.

Norman Ernest Borlaug (1914 – 2009) was an American humanitarian biologist (Ph.D. in

plant pathology and genetics). Credited with saving over a billion people from starvation,

he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to

world peace through increasing food supply.

6

GR in Mexico

In the 1940s, Borlaug began research in Mexico and developed new disease resistance high-yield

varieties of wheat. By combining Borlaug's wheat varieties with new mechanized agricultural

technologies. Mexico was able to produce more wheat than was needed by its own citizens,

leading to its becoming an exporter of wheat by the 1960s. Prior to the use of these varieties, the

country was importing almost half of its wheat supply.

The historical implementation of GR in Mexico throughout is provided below in from the 1930's

up to 1960's

1930s

– 1933: John A. Ferrell of the Rockefeller Foundation proposed what later became the

Green Revolution to U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Josephus Daniels

– 1936: Ferrell speaks to a former minister of agriculture about the possibility of a

cooperative venture in agriculture between the Rockefeller Foundation and the Mexican

government. With the encouragement of the former minister, he writes to Rockefeller

Foundation president Raymond B. Fosdick.

1940s

– Late 1940: U.S. Vice President-Elect Henry A. Wallace goes to Mexico for the

inauguration of Mexican President Manuel Avila Camacho. He spends a month in

Mexico, traveling the country and often talking to farmers about their crops.

1941:

– February 3: Henry A. Wallace meets with Ferrell, Fosdick, Daniels, and Nelson

Rockefeller, proposing that the Rockefeller Foundation undertake a project to increase

agricultural productivity in Mexico.

– Fosdick meets with Warren Weaver, who then meets with Albert R. Mann. They propose

sending three experts to Mexico: Paul C. Mangelsdorf, Richard Bradfield, and Elvin C.

Stakman.

– July-December: Mangelsdorf, Stakman, and Bradfield travel and research in Mexico.

Upon their return, they propose a four man team located in or near Mexico city that

includes: an agronomist/soil scientist, a plant breeder, a plant pathologist/entomologist,

and an animal husbandman.

1943:

– February: With an invitation from the Mexican government, the Rockefeller Foundation

selects J. George Harrar as the director of the Mexican Agricultural Program.

7

– February 10: The Rockefeller Foundation signs a Memorandum of Understanding with

the Mexican Government, citing the top two priorities as wheat rust and creating

improved maize varieties.

– Edwin J. Wellhausen, a maize geneticist, joins the program.

– The Office of Special Studies is established within Mexico's Ministry of Agriculture.

1944:

– October: Norman E. Borlaug, a plant pathologist and plant breeder, joins the program.

– MAP briefly attempts to improve the nutritional quality of the corn in the seed varieties it

created, but soon gave up. Joseph Cotter says, "Fighting malnutrition quickly became a

secondary objective of the MAP."

1946:

– By this point, 44 Mexicans had completed advanced agricultural studies in the U.S. and

10 others were enrolled. MAP scientists helped plan curriculum for many courses at

Mexico's National School of Agriculture, and J. George Harrar taught field plot

technique courses there.

– To improve the diet of Mexican peasants, Harrar "added vegetable cultivation and

breeding to the MAP's project list."

– The US government sends food aid to Mexico but decides not to do so in the future.

– Between 1946 and 1949, the USDA gave fellowships to 13 Mexican agricultural

students. Harrar evaluated their applications.

1947:

– MAP begins distributing corn seeds to farmers.

– MAP uses DDT and Benzine-hexachloride to control corn pests but "admitted that 'these

insecticides are too expensive for most Mexican farmers.”

– "George C. Marshall declared that the United States would devote most foreign aid to

'countries where conditions are so unstable that proper safeguards against ideological

coercion have weakened.'" The U.S. felt that Latin America was a safe region and

focused worries about Communism on Europe and then Asia. "The USDA did not

withdraw completely from Mexico but focused on prewar agendas like protecting U.S.

farmers and promoting complementary crops."

1948:

– "Wellhausen reported that farmers' demands for his new open-pollinated and hybrid

corns surpassed supply"

– MAP distributes wheat seeds resistant to stem rust to farmers.

8

– MAP publishes a pamphlet on DDT and shows Mexican farmers how to use the

herbicide 2,4-D.

– The U.S. passes Public Law 402 authorizing use of govt funds for "a world-wide

program of scientific and technical exchange."

– Rockefeller Foundation exchanges information with the Office of Foreign Agricultural

Relations (OFAR) about their MAP program.

– Nelson Rockefeller visited Mexico to study MAP.

1949:

– By this time, "MAP conducted corn research at Chapingo, Celaya, Guadalajara, and

Morelos; worked on hybrids for the tropics; and tested wheat in Chapingo, Sonora, and

La Laguna. Responding to commercial farmers and other interests, the MAP studied seed

potatoes, safflower, an African oilseed, insect pests of tomatoes, potato diseases,

soybeans, and sorghum."

– In an effort to promote aquaculture to increase protein in Mexicans' diets, MAP had

Herbert S. Jackson build several demonstration ponds.

– MAP uses Parathion, Chlordane, and other pesticides on corn, beans, and wheat.

1950s

1950:

– By this time, Mexico's Corn Commission had promoted hybrid corn varieties in 9

Mexican states, MAP had conducted experiments in 19 states, had distributed new seed

in 22 states, and had distributed over 100kg of new seed in 10 states.

1951:

– Green Revolution wheat varieties covered 70% of all land planted in wheat.

1952:

– Mexico imported significant quantities of wheat, corn, rice, and even garbanzos.

1953:

– Norman Borlaug receives semi-dwarf wheat seeds that were the key to his breakthrough

in breeding high-yielding wheat. He begins using these seeds in 1954.

1955:

– Insecticide imports reach 30,526 metric tons (compared to only 432 in 1940).

1956:

– Mexico achieves wheat self-sufficiency. Late 1950s: From this point on, with the

exception of 1963, Mexico is "virtually self-sufficient in corn and wheat.".

9

1960s

1962:

– Norman Borlaug released the first two semidwarf varieties to Mexican farmers.

1965:

– Green Revolution wheat varieties covered 80% of all land planted in wheat.

1966:

– The Office of Special Studies becomes the International Maize and Wheat Improvement

Center (CIMMYT)

1967:

– Chemical fertilizer use reaches 379,000 tons (up from 12,000 tons in 1950).

1968:

– Green Revolution wheat varieties covered 90% of all land planted in wheat.

– Green Revolution varieties are grown in 20% of Mexico's cornfields.

See more on GR in Mexico at:

a) http://rockarch.org/workshops/educators/leivarich.pdf

b) http://www.profmex.org/mexicoandtheworld/volume4/3summer99/99Boardman.pdf

c) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01557305

GR in India

The Green Revolution in India was a period when agriculture in India increased its yields due to

improved agronomic technology. Green Revolution allowed developing countries, like India, to

overcome poor agricultural productivity. It started in India in the early 1960s and led to an

increase in food grain production, especially in Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh during the

early phase. The main development was higher-yielding varieties of wheat, which were

developed by many scientists, including Indian geneticist M. S. Swaminathan,American

agronomist Dr. Norman Borlaug, and others. GR timeline in India is provided below:

1940s

– Summer 1942: The government of India began a formal Grow More Food campaign.

– 1943: The Great Bengal Famine occurs. Between 1.5 and 3 million Indians die.

– February-July 1944: The Advisory Board for the Imperial Council of Agricultural

Research (ICAR) plans India's participation in the UN FAO.

– 1946: Rockefeller Foundation president Raymond Fosdick finds the foundation under

criticism for their work on public health. With improved public health, would people in

poor countries be kept alive only to find themselves without food? Concern over

overpopulation focuses almost immediately on India.

10

– 1947: India gains its independence from Britain.

– August 1948: The new Rockefeller Foundation president Chester I. Barnard raises the

issue of overpopulation with Warren Weaver.

– 1948: A pilot community development project begins in the Etawah District of Uttar

Pradesh, India.

– 1949: India's relationship with the U.S. fundamentally changes when China goes

Communist and the Soviet Union gets the atomic bomb. The U.S. sees food aid as a way

to keep India from going Communist; India requests and accepts U.S. food aid as a

means of preventing hunger but also keeping food cheap to promote industrialization

with low wages in its cities.

1950s

– 1951-1956: First Five Year Plan

– 1951: The Ford Foundation signs an agreement of $1.2 million with the Indian

government to train personnel for the community development project. The project

director was Douglas Ensminger.

– October 1951: The Rockefeller Foundation increases its agricultural budget to $1.5

million per year and commits to funding agricultural work in India.

– 1951: Rockefeller sends a study team composed of Warren Weaver, J. George Harrar,

and Paul C. Mangelsdorf to India.

– 1952: The U.S. Technical Cooperation Administration (the precursor of USAID) pledges

$50 million (matched by about $86 million from the Indian government) to support the

Community Development Project plus work to improve rural infrastructure.

– April 1952: Harrar, Weaver, and Mangelsdorf write "Notes on Indian Agriculture." "This

report led to several follow-up visits by [Rockefeller Foundation] representatives and

ultimately to India's request for a collaborative agricultural program." With this, the

Rockefeller Foundation launches its India Agricultural Program (IAP)

– 1953: India forms its National Extension Service (NES).

– 1955-56: At the encouragement of the U.S., India creates an Indo-American team to

study Indian agricultural universities and make recommendations. The recommendations

are for India to organize its universities like U.S. land grant universities.

– 1956-1961: Second Five Year Plan. India decides to de-emphasize agriculture in its

second Five Year plan.

– 1956: After five trips to India, Rockefeller Foundation finally comes to an agreement

with the Indian government.

11

"It's possible that the Rockefeller Foundation's insistence that the most important

task at hand was basic research led to the four year delay in establishing an

operational program in India. The Government of India, the U.S. Technical

Cooperation Administration, and the Ford Foundation were more interested in

using existing knowledge for Community Development... In some ways, George

Harrar, Warren Weaver, and the other Foundation scientists... they did not

believe that the appropriate knowledge existed, so a scientific agriculture for

India had to be created almost from the beginning."

– 1956: The Rockefeller Foundation grants $1.38 million to help India develop the Indian

Agricultural Research Institute and to begin a "cereals" improvement program.

– 1957: Douglas Ensminger of the Ford Foundation spends three months traveling the

Indian countryside, writes a briefing paper for Nehru, and meets with him.

– 1959: A team put together by Ensminger, led by Sherman Johnson of the USDA

completes a report India's Food Crisis and Steps to Meet It. This shifts India from

focusing on social reform to improve agriculture to focusing instead on adoption of new

agricultural technologies.

– 1959: M.S. Swaminathan, an assistant cytogeneticist at Indian Agricultural Research

Institute in New Delhi, learns about the work of Orville Arthur Vogel with semidwarf

varieties of wheat that were able to utilize large amounts of commercial fertilizer and

produce high yields. Vogel puts him in touch with Norman Borlaug.

1960s

1963:

– March: Norman Borlaug visits India, where he is hosted by M.S. Swaminathan, spending

a month traveling to see Indian wheat varieties.

– November: A shipment of Mexican wheat varieties from Norman Borlaug arrives in

India.

1964:

– January 8: Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru suffers a stroke.

– March: Swaminathan asks Borlaug to send him 20 tons each of two Mexican varieties of

wheat for planting at 1000 acres of demonstration plots at research stations.

– May 27: Nehru dies.

– Lal Bahadur Shastri became Prime Minister and appoints C. Subramaniam as Minister of

Food and Agriculture.

– June: Shastri's "prices committee" recommends policies of government "incentive prices"

above market prices for grains and "larger investments in production inputs."

12

– July: Subramaniam announces the Food Corporation of India, which will buy grains at

"prices attractive to farmers.

1965:

– January 1: Subramaniam gives a speech to the National Development Council,

Committee on Agriculture and Irrigation in which he calls for "wider use of science in

reforming Indian agriculture, including the use of better seeds, more and better use of

fertilizer, and more efficient use of irrigation."

– March and April: India decides to release two more varieties of hybrid wheat for

commercial production on irrigated land.

– June: B.P. Pal becomes director general of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research.

– Early July: The Indian government orders 200 tons of seed for one variety (Sonora 64)

from Borlaug.

– Late July: The Indian government ordered another 50 tons of the second variety (Lerma

Rojo 64A). Together, the 250 tons would be used for testing, demonstrations, and

distribution to 5000 farmers.

– Summer: U.S. State Department informs India that future food aid will be dependent on

India's allocation of foreign exchange for fertilizer or on building fertilizer plants in

India. "In addition, in August 1965, the Johnson administration put India on a virtually

month-to-month arrangement for food aid. These explicit links between population, food

aid, and agricultural policy were stimulated by a conference of demographers, policy

makers, and others, which was held in July and organized by the Rockefeller

Foundation."

– August: Subramaniam issues the plan "Agricultural Production in the Fourth Five Year

Plan: Strategy and Programme," bringing an official end to the government policy of

community development and instead supporting "agricultural entrepreneurs." (Whereas

the government made this shift five years earlier in theory, this plan marks a shift in

practice.)

– Late September: Following a war with Pakistan, India asks the Rockefeller Foundation

for 5000 tons of Mexican wheat seed to be planted in fall 1966.

– By November, the price of wheat has increased by 33 percent since 1964.

1966:

– January 11: Prime Minister Shastri dies.

– January 19: Nehru's daughter, Indira Gandhi, becomes Prime Minister.

– March: Indira Gandhi visits the U.S. "as part of the new government's efforts to improve

relations with the United States. Gandhi was obliged to meet the demands of the Johnson

13

administration that India devalue the rupee, enhance its own ability to increase

agricultural production, and in other ways show evidence of development that were

consistent with what the world's largest capitalist country thought development should

be."

– February: India revises its request to the Rockefeller Foundation for Mexican wheat

seeds from 5000 tons to 2000 tons.

– April: India again revises its request for wheat seeds to 21,000 tons. J. George Harrar,

now President of Rockefeller Foundation, not wanting responsibility for any potential

failures of the wheat, offers India $100,000 to pay for wheat seed.

– An Indian team led by S.P. Kohli of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute goes to

Mexico to select and purchase wheat seeds for planting in 1966.

– July 18: The Indian purchase of 18,000 tons of hybrid wheat seeds is shipped from

Sonora, Mexico.

– Mid-September: The wheat seeds arrive in Gujarat, India.

– Green Revolution varieties of wheat covered 504,000 hectares in India in 1966-67.

– 1967: After this point, Indian grain production increases steadily.

1970s

– January 1972: B.P. Pal retires as director general of the Indian Council for Agricultural

Research and M.S. Swaminathan replaces him in that position.

– 1972-73: Green Revolution varieties of wheat covered 10 million hectares, a 20-fold

increase over the 1966-67 crop year.

See more on GR in India at:

a) http://www.apaari.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ss_2004_03.pdf

b) https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/10838/2/MPRA_paper_10838.pdf

c) http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/149547/1/Rada_India%20Ag%20TFP%20AAEA%20

Submission_2013.pdf

GR in Africa:

Did Africa miss the 1st GR?

Contrary to the general notion that the "first GR“ (the original Green Revolution, which started

from the 1940s and reached its plateau in the 1980s) missed Africa, or that Africa missed the

GR, the drivers of the original GR actually did target Africa in the 1970s, but did not succeed.

International agricultural research centers were established as bodies of the CGIAR to promote

the Green Revolution’s one-size-fits-all technology package in Africa.

14

All the International agricultural research centers International agricultural research centers but

failed to promote the Green Revolution in Africa. Reasons cited include widespread corruption,

insecurity, a lack of infrastructure, and a general lack of will on the part of the governments.

Yet environmental factors, such as the availability of water for irrigation, the high diversity in

slope and soil types in one given area are also reasons why the Green Revolution is not so

successful in Africa.

Is the one-size-fits-all technology package adapted to African farmers?

African farmers did not consume as much improved seeds, chemical pesticides and inorganic

fertilizers as their counterparts in South and Southeast Asia did…While the average fertilizer

application rate in South Asia almost tripled from 37 kg per hectare in 1980/81 to 109 kg per

hectare in 2000/01, the rate in Sub-Saharan Africa remained almost stagnant, increasing only

slightly from 8 kg per hectare to 9 kg.

The transnational corporations involved in selling hybrid seeds, chemical pesticides and

inorganic fertilizers obviously did not make much profit in Africa, mainly because African

farmers were poorer, the basic infrastructure was mostly absent, and Africa’s farming systems

and conditions were much more diverse…

Africa’s agricultural system is a mosaic of diverse farming, forestry and livestock

ecosystems where any one-size-fits-all formula appears doomed to fail.

The international geopolitical context

The international geopolitical context of the post-Cold War era is also markedly different from

that which prevailed at the time of the first Green Revolution when the Communist spectra was

part of the political motivations behind most rural development and agricultural programs of

governments in Asia and Latin America…

Examples CGIAR research centers in Africa:

– The Rockefeller-Ford duo had established the International Institute of Tropical

Agriculture (IITA) in Ibadan, Nigeria in 1967.

– The West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA), now known as the

Africa Rice Center, based in Cotonou, Benin, was set up in 1970.

– The International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)

was set up in 1977, followed by the International Council for Research in

Agroforesty (ICRAF) in 1978….

15

“The Doubly Green Revolution”: Africa’s turn

Gordon Conway: A White Man’s Dream for Africa

As was the case with the Green Revolution in Asia, the vision for Africa’s development and

food security on which the New Green Revolution agenda is based is not drawn by an African,

nor is it based on Africa’s own experience. The template for a Green Revolution for Africa is

laid out by Gordon Conway in his book The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in the 21st

Century published in 1997.

The book provided the analytical framework for the Rockefeller Foundation’s promotion of a

New Green Revolution in Africa…According to Conway the world needs a “Doubly Green

Revolution” that repeats the successes of the old one through the development of high-yield

agricultural techniques while at the same time being ecologically safe, sustainable and equitable.

The CGIAR’s silver bullet: New Rice for Africa (NERICA)

CGIAR has been investing heavily in Africa over the years. In 2003, it allocated 45 percent of its

funds, equivalent to S$180 million, to projects in Sub-Saharan Africa, up from 43 percent the

previous year60. The largest amounts being allocated to WARDA, IITA, the World Agroforestry

Center, the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and the International Crops

Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). However, a close examination of the

CGIAR’s financial reports reveals that these allocations were actually spent on personnel, which

consumed 46 percent of the CGIAR’s funds in 2003, and supplies/services, which received an

allocation of 43 percent in the same year.

The CGIAR’s silver bullet for the Green Revolution in Africa follows the same trajectory taken

by Asia, this time in the form of NERICA. The improved NERICA varieties were developed in

the 1990s by mostly African scientists at WARDA, a CGIAR centre which was renamed the

Africa Rice Center in 2003, using anther culture to cross the high-yielding Asian rice with

traditional African rice. The result is a new plant type that looks like African rice during its early

stages of growth with the capacity to shade out weeds, but becomes more like Asian rice as it

reaches maturity, thus giving higher yields with few inputs.

Scientists depended on molecular biology to speed up the breeding process and to overcome

sterility, which is a key obstacle in the breeding process.

WARDA released an initial batch of seven NERICA varieties mostly in Western Africa, where it

was projected to be cultivated on more than 200,000 hectares with a production of up to 750,000

tons per year by 2006, thus saving countries nearly US$90 million in rice imports. Beyond the

16

glossy projections, NERICA has yet to make a clear contribution to food security and poverty

alleviation in Western Africa despite the high level of publicity that it has received so far…

Success Stories in Africa

Eicher (1995) suggests that commercial farmers in what is now Zimbabwe launched a GR for

maize in 1960, five years ahead of the GR in India, and that Zimbabwe repeated this with a

second green revolution – for smallholders also – in the first half of the 1980s.

HYVs of wheat have had success in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya. It is thus not wholly

true that Africa missed out on the GR…

The successes of the technology packages, whether in Asia, Africa or Latin America,

were closely linked to the existence of favourable socio-economic and institutional

enabling environments, where active market possibilities played important roles

After a famine in 2001 and years of chronic hunger and poverty, in 2005 the small African

country of Malawi launched the "Agricultural Input Subsidy Program" by which vouchers are

given to smallholder farmers to buy subsidized nitrogen fertilizer and maize seeds. Within its

first year, the program was reported with extreme success, producing the largest maize harvest of

the country's history; enough to feed the country with tons of maize left over. The program has

advanced yearly ever since. Various sources claim that the program has been an unusual success,

hailing it as a "miracle" …

See more on GR in Africa at:

a) https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Knowledge/Africa%27s%20Misse

d%20Agricultural%20Revolution%20A%20Quantitative%20Study%20of%20the%20Policy

%20Options.pdf

b) http://repository.uneca.org/bitstream/handle/10855/3810/bib-29687_I.pdf?sequence=1

c) http://www.cosv.org/download/centrodocumentazione/greenrevolution.pdf

d) http://dspace.africaportal.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/33046/1/Waiting-for-a-Green-

Revolution-.pdf?1

GR HISTORICAL & POLITICAL BACKGROUND

THIS SECTION IS AN ASSIGNMENT FOR LEARNERS

After reading the timeline and related documents on GR in Mexico, India, and Africa,

synthesize the historical & political key points which prevailed in the implementation

of GR.

Some introductive key notes on GR in Latin America & Asia are given during

lecture (See Unit 2 PPT).

17

THE GR AND FOOD SECURITY

The crops and animal production advances of the GR thanks to the new seeds, accompanied by

chemical fertilisers, pesticides, and irrigation is analyzed in Africa, Latin America and Asia

based on relevant statistics. The impact on food security (included criticisms based on the

Malthusian principle of population) is discussed to see how and where Green Revolution

actually proven itself to be a successful strategy for ending hunger.

Production increases and food security

Production increases

In general, cereal production more than doubled in developing nations between the years 1961–

1985. Yields of rice, maize, and wheat increased steadily during that period. The production

increases can be attributed roughly equally to irrigation, fertilizer, and seed development, at least

in the case of Asian rice (see Fig. 1/2 and 2/2).

Fig. 1/2: Wheat yields in Mexico, India and Pakistan, 1950 to 2004. Baseline is 500 kg/ha.

18

Fig. 2/2: Mexico's import, export and consumption of wheat and maize (1961-2006, based on

FAO data)

Effects on food security

The effects of the Green Revolution on global food security are difficult to assess because of the

complexities involved in food systems. The world population has grown by about four billion

since the beginning of the Green Revolution and many believe that, without the Revolution,

there would have been greater famine and malnutrition…

See Fig. 4/2 and 5/2 for illustrations.

Fig. 3/2: World population vs Food Production

19

Fig. 4/2: Increase in agricultural production per capita

However, there are also claims that the Green Revolution has decreased food security for a large

number of people. One claim involves the shift of subsistence-oriented cropland to cropland

oriented towards production of grain for export or animal feed.

For example, the Green Revolution replaced much of the land used for pulses that fed

Indian peasants for wheat, which did not make up a large portion of the peasant diet.

Some criticisms generally involve some variation of the Malthusian principle of population.

Such concerns often revolve around the idea that the Green Revolution is unsustainable, and

argue that humanity is now in a state of overpopulation or overshoot with regards to the

sustainable carrying capacity and ecological demands on the Earth.

Malthusian Paul R. Ehrlich, in his book “The Population Bom”, said that "India couldn't

possibly feed 2000 million more people by 1980" and "Hundreds of millions of people

will starve to death… Ehrlich's warnings failed to materialize when India became self-

sustaining in cereal production in 1974 (six years later) as a result of the introduction of

Norman Borlaug's dwarf wheat varieties

To some modern Western sociologists and writers, increasing food production is not

synonymous with increasing food security, and is only part of a larger equation. For example,

Harvard professor Amartya Sen claimed large historic famines were not caused by decreases in

food supply, but by socioeconomic dynamics and a failure of public action. Some have

challenged the value of the increased food production of GR agriculture. Miguel A. Altieri, (a

pioneer of agroecology), writes that the comparison between traditional systems of agriculture

20

and GR agriculture has been unfair, because GR produces monocultures of cereal grains, while

traditional agriculture usually incorporates polycultures.

The Green Revolution has also led to a change in dietary habits, as fewer people are affected by

hunger and die from starvation, but many are affected by malnutrition such as iron or vitamin-A

deficiencies. High-yield rice (HYR), introduced since 1964 to poverty-ridden Asian countries,

such as the Philippines, was found to have inferior flavor and be more glutinous and less savory

than their native varieties. This caused its price to be lower than the average market value.

In the Philippines the introduction of heavy pesticides to rice production, in the early part of the

Green Revolution, poisoned and killed off fish and weedy green vegetables that traditionally

coexisted in rice paddies. These were nutritious food sources for many poor Filipino farmers

prior to the introduction of pesticides, further impacting the diets of locals

See more on GR and food security:

a) http://nabc.cals.cornell.edu/Publications/Reports/nabc_16/16_2_4_Swaminathan.pdf

b) http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess_chapter3.pdf

SOCIOECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF GR

This section deals with socioeconomic and environmental dimensions of the GR. Its runs trough

the impacts on socioeconomic systems and the ecologically sustainability of GR. Specific

questions such as the reduction of diversity of agricultural crops acted by GR, the effects of

extensive use of pesticides on biodiversity, and the correlation of long term exposure to

pesticides with diseases like cancer rates are discussed.

Socioeconomic impacts

The transition from traditional agriculture, in which inputs were generated on-farm, to Green

Revolution agriculture, which required the purchase of inputs, led to the widespread

establishment of rural credit institutions. Smaller farmers often went into debt, which in many

cases results in a loss of their farmland. The increased level of mechanization on larger farms

made possible by the Green Revolution removed a large source of employment from the rural

economy…

Because wealthier farmers had better access to credit and land, the GR increased class

disparities, with the rich–poor gap widening as a result. Since some regions were able to adopt

21

GR agriculture more readily than others (for political or geographical reasons), interregional

economic disparities increased as well. Many small farmers are hurt by the dropping prices

resulting from increased production overall. The new economic difficulties of small holder

farmers and landless farm workers led to increased rural-urban migration…

Environmental impacts

Biodiversity

The spread of Green Revolution agriculture affected both agricultural biodiversity (or

agrodiversity) and wild biodiversity. There is little disagreement that the Green Revolution acted

to reduce agricultural biodiversity, as it relied on just a few high-yield varieties of each crop.

This led to concerns about the susceptibility of a food supply to pathogens that cannot be

controlled by agrochemicals, as well as the permanent loss of many valuable genetic traits bred

into traditional varieties over thousands of years.

To address these concerns, massive seed banks such as CGIAR International Plant

Genetic Resources Institute (now Bioversity International) have been established…

Two Hypothesis on wild biodiversity

1st hypothesis: By increasing production per unit of land area, agriculture will not need to

expand into new, uncultivated areas to feed a growing human population.

However, land degradation and soil nutrients depletion have forced farmers to clear up

formerly forested areas in order to keep up with production…

2nd

hypothesis: Biodiversity was sacrificed because traditional systems of agriculture that were

displaced sometimes incorporated practices to preserve wild biodiversity, and because the Green

Revolution expanded agricultural development into new areas where it was once unprofitable or

too arid…

Pesticides/Health

The consumption of the pesticides used to kill pests by humans in some cases may be increasing

the likelihood of cancer in some of the rural villages using them… Poor farming practices

including non-compliance to usage of masks and over-usage of the chemicals compound this

situation. In 1989, WHO and UNEP estimated that there were around 1 million human pesticide

poisonings annually. Some 20,000 (mostly in developing countries) ended in death, as a result of

poor labeling, loose safety standards etc.

22

Long term exposure to pesticides such as organochlorines, creosote, and sulfate have been

correlated with higher cancer rates and organochlorines DDT, chlordane, and lindane as tumor

promoters in animals. Contradictory epidemiologic studies in humans have linked phenoxy acid

herbicides or contaminants in them with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) and malignant lymphoma,

organochlorine insecticides with STS, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), leukemia, etc.

Punjab case

The Indian state of Punjab pioneered green revolution among the other states transforming India

into a food-surplus country. The state is witnessing serious consequences of intensive farming

using chemicals and pesticide. A comprehensive study conducted by Post Graduate Institute of

Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) has underlined the direct relationship between

indiscriminate use of these chemicals and increased incidence of cancer in this region. An

increase in the number of cancer cases has been reported in several villages including Jhariwala,

Koharwala, Puckka, Bhimawali, and Khara

See more on Socioeconomic & Environmental Impacts of GR:

a) http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=envstudtheses

b) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46444932_Some_socio-

economic_consequences_of_the_Green_Revolution

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE GR

This section sums up the GR positive and negative impacts and examines implications for future

technology transfer especially in Africa. Narratives on the underlying causes for the failure of

the GR in Africa are pointed out like: technology imported without enabling policies, institutions

and infrastructure investments; low demand and marginal production environments, “orphan”

staple food crops with little research backlog (e.g. cassava), etc.

Food Production

The green revolution was a technology package comprising material components of improved

high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of two staple cereals (rice and wheat), irrigation or controlled

Norman Borlaug's response to criticism

“Some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of

them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their

lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels... If they lived just one month

amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors

and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying

to deny them these things"

23

water supply and improved moisture utilization, fertilizers and pesticides and associated

management skills.

The utilization of this technology package on suitable land in suitable socio-economic enabling

environments resulted in greatly increased yields and incomes for many farmers in Asia, Latin

America and in some developing countries elsewhere…

Statistics indicate that yields of these two cereals, and of maize, approximately doubled

between the 1960s and the 1990s.

The GR has been a major technological achievement, and its effects are continuing… The GR

technologies were not without their problems: the need for a significant use of agrochemical-

based pest and weed control in some crops has raised environmental concerns as well as concern

about human health. As irrigation areas expanded, water management required skills that were

not always there; and there were new scientific challenges to be tackled. Although HYVs often

replaced older landraces, it is less certain that the world has actually suffered significant genetic

erosion

Food Consumption

Real food prices in Asia, indeed throughout the world, have steadily declined over the past 30

years through the application of yield-increasing, cost-reducing technologies built around

improved seed-fertilizer-weed control components.

Lower real food prices may benefit the poor relatively more than the rich, since the

poor spend a larger proportion of their available income on food.

Consumption levels may have increased for farmers, but the costs of inputs may have offset

some of the yield gains and it is not clear that the yield increases would have translated into

improvements in nutrition, due to the many factors between increases in food and resources and

food intake. Consumption levels of the urban poor and landless may not have increased due to a

decrease in real wages and reduced purchasing power; in addition, there may have been a

reduction in intake of pulses, vegetables and meat due to prices increases in these foods, which

may in some cases be linked to the Green Revolution…

Socioeconomic

The Green Revolution may have increased inequalities in communities due to increased

mechanization and decreased labor opportunities for the poor… Food-insecure people neither

consistently produce enough food for themselves nor have the purchasing power to buy food

from other producers. During times of famine, food may simply not be available at any price…

24

Alternative socioeconomic scenarios

1st Scenario assumes a significant development of the post-General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade (GATT) global economy. In this scenario, continued growth in world trade will allow

food-deficit countries in the South to produce and export industrial goods and services that

should enable them to purchase significant quantities of food from the food-surplus countries of

the North…

2nd

Scenario suggests that poor countries of the South must increase their own food production

significantly and in such a way that it specifically alleviates food insecurity. Towards this end, a

number of mechanisms may be invoked:

1. Increased agricultural research and development efforts aimed at increasing productivity

per hectare of land and unit of labour;

2. improved extension services, through governmental and non-governmental channels, that

will enable all farmers to use the results of research and reap the benefits from

technological advances;

3. improved infrastructural and socio-economic arrangements, including enabling policies

(e.g. fiscal policies, land tenure policies, good governance, popular participation, suitable

credit schemes and institution-building) that will allow all sections of the community to

sustain the increased production.

Environment

The Green Revolution has also been widely criticized for causing environmental damage.

Excessive and inappropriate use of fertilizers and pesticides has polluted waterways, poisoned

agricultural workers, and killed beneficial insects and other wildlife… Often ignored, however,

is the positive impact of higher yields in saving huge areas of forest and other environmentally

fragile lands that would otherwise have been needed for farming.

– In Asia cereal production doubled between 1970 and 1975, yet the total land area

cultivated with cereals increased by only 4 percent.

Politics

Increased concentration of power and control over the food system is one outcome that can be

linked, although not causally, to the Green Revolution Increased concentration of power and

control over the food system is one outcome that can be linked, although not causally, to the

Green Revolution… The lessons from the green revolution taught that scientific advances alone

cannot solve the food security problems of developing countries. Political leaders must create

suitable socio-economic and institutional enabling environments, while access to credit and

markets should play a key role in improving productivity…

25

Sustainable progress nearly always involves broad popular participation, allowing people

themselves to select from among the new tools and to blend these with the technological, social,

cultural and economic settings which were created by their traditional systems… Those

countries that have achieved greater national and household food security, also for the poor, have

a track record of strong political emphasis on agriculture, careful consideration of economic

incentives for agricultural production, and human and economic investments in research,

extension and training…

See more on lessons learned from the GR:

a) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0734975011001212

b) http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/greenrevolution.pdf*

c) https://www.afdb.org/fr/news-and-events/what-africa-can-learn-from-chinas-green-

revolution-in-its-agro-allied-industrialization-quest-16547/

d) http://www.biotechnologynotes.com/essays/key-lessons-learned-from-green-revolution/64

e) https://fse.fsi.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/prabhu_pingali_presentation.pdf

CONCLUSION

GM Crops the New GR for Africa?

A careful review of the developments in agriculture in Africa shows that the biotechnology

agenda, specifically the push for genetically modified (GM) seeds and crops, actually preceded

the orchestrated call for a New Green Revolution for the continent (see Fig. 5/2 on the Status of

Genetically Modified (GM) Crops in Africa in 2015 for illustration).

Case study: Burkina Faso’s Bt cotton reversal: Why Africa’s largest producer of GM cotton

is phasing it out?

– Read document : “Six Years of Successful Bt Cotton Cultivation in Burkina Faso” at:

http://africenter.isaaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Burkina-Faso-Bt-cotton-progress-2013.pdf

– Read document : “Burkina Faso’s Bt cotton Reversal” at :

http://www.ensser.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Mex16.DOWD-

URIBE.Burkina.Faso.GM.Crops.FINAL.Version.2.pdf

26

Fig. 5/2: Status of Genetically Modified (GM) Crops in Africa in 2015

27

References

1. Adeyemo R. The food marketing system: Implications of the green revolution programme in nigeria.

Agricultural Systems 1984;14(3):143-57.

2. Annan K. Comment: A green revolution for africa. New Sci 2008 5/10;198(2655):20.

3. Bandara JMRS, Wijewardena HVP, Liyanege J, Upul MA, Bandara JMUA. Chronic renal failure in

sri lanka caused by elevated dietary cadmium: Trojan horse of the green revolution. Toxicol Lett

2010 9/15;198(1):33-9.

4. Bardhan P, Mookherjee D, Kumar N. State-led or market-led green revolution? role of private

irrigation investment vis-a-vis local government programs in west bengal's farm productivity growth.

J Dev Econ 2012 11;99(2):222-35.

5. Bazuin S, Azadi H, Witlox F. Application of GM crops in sub-saharan africa: Lessons learned from

green revolution. Biotechnol Adv 2011 0;29(6):908-12.

6. Beck T. The green revolution and poverty in india: A case study of west bengal. Appl Geogr 1995

4;15(2):161-81.

7. Bowonder B. Impact analysis of the green revolution in india. Technological Forecasting and Social

Change 1979 12;15(4):297-313.

8. Byerlee D, Siddiq A. Has the green revolution been sustained? the quantitative impact of the seed-

fertilizer revolution in pakistan revisited. World Dev 1994 9;22(9):1345-61.

9. Cassman KG, Grassini P. Can there be a green revolution in sub-saharan africa without large

expansion of irrigated crop production? Global Food Security 2013 9;2(3):203-9.

10. Connor DJ, Mínguez MI. Evolution not revolution of farming systems will best feed and green the

world. Global Food Security 2012 12;1(2):106-13.

11. Das RJ. The green revolution and poverty: A theoretical and empirical examination of the relation

between technology and society. Geoforum 2002 2;33(1):55-72.

12. Eicher CK. Zimbabwe's maize-based green revolution: Preconditions for replication. World Dev

1995 5;23(5):805-18.

13. Frankema E. Africa and the green revolution A global historical perspective. NJAS - Wageningen

Journal of Life Sciences(0).

14. Freebairn DK. Did the green revolution concentrate incomes? A quantitative study of research

reports. World Dev 1995 2;23(2):265-79.

15. Gómez MI, Barrett CB, Raney T, Pinstrup-Andersen P, Meerman J, Croppenstedt A, Carisma B,

Thompson B. Post-green revolution food systems and the triple burden of malnutrition. Food Policy

2013 10;42(0):129-38.

16. Herder GD, Van Isterdael G, Beeckman T, De Smet I. The roots of a new green revolution. Trends

Plant Sci 2010 11;15(11):600-7.

17. Horlings LG, Marsden TK. Towards the real green revolution? exploring the conceptual dimensions

of a new ecological modernisation of agriculture that could ‘feed the world’. Global Environ Change

2011 5;21(2):441-52.

18. Jewitt S, Baker K. The green revolution re-assessed: Insider perspectives on agrarian change in

bulandshahr district, western uttar pradesh, india. Geoforum 2007 1;38(1):73-89.

19. Murgai R. The green revolution and the productivity paradox: Evidence from the indian punjab.

Agricultural Economics 2001 9;25(2–3):199-209.

20. Singh RB. Environmental consequences of agricultural development: A case study from the green

revolution state of haryana, india. Agric , Ecosyst Environ 2000 12;82(1–3):97-103.

21. Smale M. The green revolution and wheat genetic diversity: Some unfounded assumptions. World

Dev 1997 8;25(8):1257-69.