Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Will the Green Revolution Make Africa More Food Secure?

Not a magic recipe for Asia, Nnimmo Bassey from Environmental Rights Action, and Neth Dano from Third World Network wonder if it really was such a bad idea for Africa to miss that first Green Revolution train.

Many esteemed Delegates from Africa have made repeated reference to the Green Revolution in Africa in the different sessions last week. The Ministers who will take part in the interactive discussions in the next three days are again expected to echo the promising future for Africa that goes with this new battle cry.

The Green Revolution, as we all know is a major turning point in agricultural history that took place from the 1960s to the 1980s, mainly in Asia and Latin America, involving the development and promotion of improved seeds, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and irrigation. The formula worked in those regions with massive support from governments and the international community on agricultural research and development, extension, infrastructures, credit and insurance.

It is widely believed that Africa “missed” the Green Revolution due mainly to absence of basic infrastructure, political instability and lack of government support. This is not to say, however, that the Green Revolution missed Africa since the international agricultural research centers (IARCs) invested heavily on research and development in the region and even established presence in strategic locations there.

The Asian story

No doubt, the Green Revolution transformed agriculture in large parts of Asia and Latin America. It doubled the productivity of cereals in many countries, allowing food production to match the pace of population growth. Increased productivity – particularly of rice and maize – encouraged farmers to expand cultivation areas to land that used to be planted with other food crops. In some areas, expansion of crop production meant clearing of forests and displacement of indigenous communities and forest-dwellers.

Twenty years after it was massively promoted in Asia and Latin America, the impacts of the Green Revolution on the environment were already widely felt by farmers. The use of chemical pesticides adversely affected biodiversity, especially non-target organisms, and dependence on poisonous chemicals led to the development of pest resistance and emergence of crop diseases. Pesticides also adversely affected human health and were responsible for contamination of groundwater sources and wells. Dependence on synthetic inputs also took its toll on the environment, leading to soil degradation and run-off to water sources. Finally, dependence on the new seeds resulted in genetic erosion in key crops and led to genetic uniformity in many areas of cultivation. With so much dependence on external inputs, and without government support in the latter part of the Green Revolution due to structural adjustment programs imposed by international financial institutions, many farmers have become heavily indebted and have remained poor to the present. That is Asia’s story of the Green Revolution.

Strategic philanthropy

Fast forward to the present, in Africa. Like many other “initiatives” on the continent, the idea and effort to bring the “doubly Green Revolution” to Africa was not initiated by Africans. As it was in Asia and Latin America more than 30 years ago, the Green Revolution in Africa is a brainchild of strategic philanthropy. This time, two of the world’s biggest philanthropic institutions – Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation – have teamed up to create the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) in 2006 with an initial funding of US$150 million.

A new version?

The Green Revolution in Africa mainly stands on four pillars, namely, (1) the development and dissemination of improved seeds to increase productivity; (2) promotion of chemical fertilizers to increase soil fertility; (3) putting in place the agricultural support infrastructures; and (4) integration of poor African farmers to the global market. As assured by its proponents, today’s version will not be the same as the original. Unlike the old Green Revolution, the African version omits chemical pesticides from the formula – at least, no longer explicitly part of the basic prescription. The ugly reality behind chemical pesticides can no longer be denied, and including it in the equation will give Africa’s Green Revolution a bad name. Another difference is the broader definition of “improved seeds”. While before it only referred to seeds that are conventionally bred by formal research institutions, the term now encompasses hybrid seeds and genetically engineered seeds.

Between the lines

As we all know, Mr. Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the UN is the chairman of the AGRA board. Mr. Annan had in July 2007 stated that the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) will not fund Genetically Modified seeds. In his words, "We in the alliance will not incorporate GMO's in our programmes. We shall work with farmers using traditional seeds." (Business Daily, Kenya, 17 July 2007). AGRAs board has since engaged in what we may term stealth-speak that requires reading between the lines for the meaning to emerge.

With the neo-liberal global trading system looming above Africa’s head, its Green Revolution is geared towards integrating the farmers to the market. Household food security is assumed and is not an explicit goal. This is the very strategy that has doomed Africa to be a continent that produces what others need and imports what she needs. This has been, and will continue to be, a clearly unsustainable situation.

More than the international agricultural research centers that were the center of the universe of the old Green Revolution, giant agri-business takes center stage in Africa’s version. Yara Foundation, the biggest supplier of petroleum-based fertilizers to Africa, takes the lead in giving an annual prize to Presidents, organizations and individuals in Africa who have excelled in carrying the Green Revolution torch. The giant seed/biotech companies have already positioned themselves in a host of catchy-labeled programs on the research and development of genetically modified seeds all guised behind saving Africa from hunger and malnutrition.

Learn to listen

Will all these expressions of good faith save Africa from hunger? More accurately phrased, will the Green Revolution make Africa more food secure? Will AGRA deliver food to every African family’s table?

Fixation on new technologies denotes a blind eye on so many traditional varieties that have already been developed to meet the very challenges that huge sums of money is now being invested in. Rather than waste resources, African governments should dust their files and see what their researchers have done in the past that has not been implemented. It is time for all to listen to the custodians of knowledge at the grassroots levels, hear their needs and work in true partnership.

Priority should lie on production of food for household and domestic consumption, not for the market. African staples should not be compromised. Governments should halt the tinkering with cassava and other major local crops. African farmers should be directly involved and should participate meaningfully in decision-making in agricultural development, rather than remain as recipients of programs developed by external institutions. Africa for Africans by Africans. African governments should learn to listen to the toiling farmers of Africa.

The fact that you have a technology does not mean that you must use it. Imagine if wars were always fought with weapons of mass destruction. Short-term crop productivity for animal feed or for production of fuels for machines should not sacrifice the long-term sustainability of the environment and the production of food for the hungry.