There has been a renewed effort by the international community to transform Africa’s agricultural practices. This campaign comes amid growing concern over widespread hunger and poverty throughout many regions of the continent. However, this call also forms part of a wider initiative to address food security at the global level. Many have called for a green revolution in Africa, one that would import successful agricultural practices and management strategies from elsewhere and increase crop production on African farmlands. Currently, Africa holds approximately 60% ⁽²⁾ of the planet’s unused arable land, with its average crop yielding substantially lower than that of other parts in the world.⁽³⁾ According to James Nyoro, the Rockefeller Foundation’s Managing Director for Africa, “Africa is the last frontier in terms of arable land,”⁽⁴⁾ and as such, “the rest of the world will have to depend upon Africa to feed it.”⁽⁵⁾

This paper explores the notion of a green revolution in Africa and draws on the historical experience of the green revolution in India in order to gain an understanding of the technology and processes involved. Further, it also examines the implications for Africa, as well as the increasing prominence of genetically modified organisms in crop production.

A green revolution

The notion of a green revolution first gained widespread significance as a result of worldwide food shortages following World War II (WW2), and has been successful in a number of states, including Mexico, the Philippines, Indonesia, and China. The most prominent case has been India. After WW2, Norman Borlaug began experimenting with plant breeding and seed engineering on test plots in Mexico, tests that ultimately resulted in an agricultural breakthrough.⁽⁶⁾  The trials resulted in ‘miracle’ wheat seeds capable of producing greater yields when effectively controlled through improved irrigation practices and the development of new agrochemicals (fertilizers) and pesticides.⁽⁷⁾ The Rockefeller and Ford Foundations hailed the successes in Mexico and sought to export this technology to different regions and other staple crops. They commissioned the International Rice Research Institute, which developed IR8 – a new modern rice variety – that was first widely used in India.⁽⁸⁾

India’s green revolution began in the early 1960s in anticipation of mass famine. It encompasses a range of technologies and farming management strategies that were adopted from experimental procedures in Mexico. The green revolution was essentially just that, a revolution. The agricultural innovations that were implemented in India during the 1970s have increased crop yields sustainably, to the extent that food security was no longer a top priority. This occurred through the efficient conversion of industrial inputs into food. For example, “by the mid-1990s, rice yields had risen to six tons a hectare … from two tons in the 1960’s,” and, “the price of rice dropped to a low of less than US$ 200 a ton in 2001 from more than US$ 550 a ton in the 1970s.”⁽⁹⁾ The green revolution therefore can be said to have stimulated economic growth by firstly providing jobs, and generating wealth for traditionally poor farmers, and secondly shifting focus to the development of other industries. Further, “by the 1990s, almost 75% of Asian rice areas were sown with these new varieties [of rice] … Overall, it was estimated that 40 percent of all farmers in the Third World were using green revolution seeds.”⁽¹⁰⁾

However, the successes of the green revolution in India and on the Asian continent have not come without failure. Hunger in these regions and beyond persists, and demand for food continues to grow with a growing population. The technology and agricultural strategies specific to the green revolution have also had a number of unintended consequences. Farmers in rural Punjab in India have been unable to pay their debts because they are unable to keep pace with rising costs of fertilizers, irrigation pumps, and regular fresh supplies of seeds.⁽¹¹⁾ There have also been environmental costs, including the influence the high input industrial style agriculture has had on water quality and quantity, soil quality and greenhouse gasses.⁽¹²⁾ The Asian Development Bank has reported that 38% of Pakistan’s irrigated land is waterlogged while 14% of the land surface is too saline for agricultural use.⁽¹³⁾

Recommended for Africa?

While some attribute the partial failures of the green revolution not to the technology but rather to the failure to implement effective policy,⁽¹⁴⁾ the experiences of India are important to consider, as “a green revolution for Africa is essentially a redux of Asia's green revolution.”⁽¹⁵⁾ As such, effective strategies and the unintended consequences and limitations of Asia’s green revolution must be understood and addressed through comprehensive measures. There has been hesitation among African farmers and governments alike to fully embrace the notion of a green revolution, and on reasonable grounds. For governments, issues of food security were often ignored and not given top priority, while for farmers, investment in the new technology was expensive and thus risky. However, the potential for growth is unquestioned, and there are clear signs of progress. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has projected that Sub-Saharan Africa could, in 2050, be responsible for as much as 8.6% of the world’s total cereal production, a substantial increase from 4.5% in 2005-2007.⁽¹⁶⁾ FAO Media Relations Officer, Christopher Matthews, also noted that “with improved management and inputs, in many places African crop yields have the potential to double or even triple.”⁽¹⁷⁾ Keeping this comment in mind, governments are beginning to recognise the link between food security and political stability and appear to be placing greater importance on investments in agriculture over those that might have potentially negative political consequences.⁽¹⁸⁾ In addition, a number of initiatives have been made by farmers to create associations and form collectives so that they can aggregate their products and open new markets and opportunities. A prime example of such is Sabena Gitau, a 59-year-old Kenyan banana farmer who began planting improved varieties and working as part of a cooperative to boost her access to markets. As a result, she is now earning nearly 60 times what she had been 10 years prior.⁽¹⁹⁾

Genetically modified foods: Are they a good choice?

While the green revolution in India introduced high yielding crop varieties, this was not the product of genetic engineering, but rather traditional breeding methods. Food organisms that have been genetically modified are emerging as a controversial, yet substantial, dimension of the food industry. As some developed countries embrace this new technology, developing countries should also take advantage of an industry that has the potential to provide the ‘food of the future’. Genetically modified organisms are products that contain genes from one or more organisms and have been genetically combined. In essence, the desirable traits are taken from one organism and combined with another to make a ‘super gene’.⁽²⁰⁾ The technology of genetically modified food is viewed with promise for meeting future obstacles such as poverty, crop efficiency, malnutrition and environmental problems. Transgenic crops, as they are known, have the capabilities to improve quality of life and have proved to be important to a state’s agricultural development.⁽²¹⁾ The market for transgenic crops is therefore expected to increase in developing countries, but this notion is increasingly met with controversy.

Transgenic crops were introduced globally in 1996,⁽²²⁾ and following their introduction, the areas commercially planted with transgenic crops increased exponentially, making the diffusion of genetically engineered crops one of the most rapid in agricultural history.⁽²³⁾ In 2006, 10.3 million farmers spanning over 22 countries planted more than 252 million acres of transgenic crops.⁽²⁴⁾ The industry is growing rapidly, with many supporters boasting the benefits of this new and improved technology. With a looming future of death rates, birth rates and an uncontrollable population, developing countries are in need of advancement. Often, optimism lies in new technologies that hold great promise for rapid development and a way to sustain the expansion of the citizenry. However, genetic modification will not present an automatic fix for African agriculture and its controversy should be examined.⁽²⁵⁾

Is it right for Africa?

One of the greatest concerns to food security for developing countries is the dangers associated with a worldwide crop monopoly, whereby developing countries become reliant on developed countries for modified crops. If developing countries were to readily adopt these products, poor farmers could become completely dependent on the commercial seed market every year.⁽²⁶⁾ Rural farmers in least developed countries may not have the capital to continually purchase new seeds, regardless of their large yield or insect-resistant potential.⁽²⁷⁾ In addition, relying on Western industrialised countries for their crops is growing ever more dangerous for already fragmented economies. In Africa, some critics have noted that “The US does not need to grow nor donate genetically modified crops. To donate untested food and seed to Africa is not an act of kindness, but an attempt to lure Africa into further dependence on foreign aid.”⁽²⁸⁾

Another hazard concerning genetically modifies foods is the potential negative health effects. Monsanto, one of the world’s largest agrochemical corporations, is quickly becoming a household name as its genetically modified products become multinational, especially the company’s ‘Round-Up Ready’ soybean, which is said to hold a tolerance to pesticides. This means that the farmers can make use of pesticides, ultimately resulting in a greater profit for the company.⁽²⁹⁾  However, this corporate creation contains glyphosate, which is toxic to both animals and humans.⁽³⁰⁾ Despite Monsanto’s promises, Round-Up was proven to cause symptoms of eye and skin irritation, numbness, elevated blood pressure and heart palpitations.⁽³¹⁾ Dr. Tewolde Gebre Egziabher of Ethiopia worded it perfectly when he commented that “countries in the grip of a crisis are unlikely to have leverage to say, ‘This crop is contaminated; we’re not taking’.”⁽³²⁾

A final concern is that a lack of research and knowledge inhibits the abilities of developing countries to access genetically modified foods. In addition to this, developing countries may not be capable of implementing the new technology these bioengineered products require.  Some scholars argue that although the developing world could benefit from some highlighted aspects of transgenic products, they are not in a position to acquire and utilise this biotechnology properly.⁽³³⁾ Despite these risks, developing countries, and Africa in particular, are in need of a solution to the seemingly endless cycle of poverty, because the alarming magnitude of deprivation and malnutrition in Africa cannot be ignored.⁽³⁴⁾ In order to battle poverty, these countries need healthier, more productive workers, and successful agricultural sectors. Increasing food production and productivity is essential to achieving both food security and economic development in Africa and beyond.⁽³⁵⁾ Securing policies and public sector-research is just one way in which these goals could be achieved, while simultaneously promoting genetic engineering for the benefit of the poor.⁽³⁶⁾ The vice chancellor of the University of Agriculture in Nigeria echoed this issue when he said: “Africans cannot afford to be left behind in the area of biotechnology.”⁽³⁷⁾

However, there are significant benefits to the implementation of genetically modified crops, specifically related to yield size, which will have further implications on food security. According to the FAO, more than 800 million people are food insecure.⁽³⁸⁾ This means that food production will have to triple in order to feed the anticipated world population of approximately 12 billion by the year 2050.⁽³⁹) Much of the world’s arable land and freshwater resources are already strained, leaving only one viable option for increasing food production: to increase yields per crop on available land.⁽⁴⁰⁾ Increasing agricultural productivity will have far reaching benefits on the development of the continent as a whole. This is because increased crop yields would directly and indirectly generate employment, increase personal incomes and boost food security in poorer nations.⁽⁴¹⁾ Some examples of crops with increased yield potential are those with genes for insect resistance, virus resistance, fungal resistance, herbicide tolerance and agronomic properties.⁽⁴²⁾ In addition, transgenic wheat crops high in Glu dehydrogenase can yield up to 29% more with the same amount of fertilizer than a traditional crop.⁽⁴³⁾

When one considers Africa specifically, approximately 41% of the Ugandan population in 1999 was considered to be food insecure.⁽⁴⁴⁾ It was also observed that rural areas, which are home to some 89% of the people living in Africa, are especially insecure and that among the most important causes of their food insecurity were as a result of weather related problems that affected their agricultural production.⁽⁴⁵⁾ Most of the African population depends mainly on agriculture, but with declining viable cropland, one of the only options for farmers to accelerate yields is through intensification. In addition, poor populations dependent on the agricultural sector are unlikely to escape poverty unless employment grows and farms become more productive, thus creating the mass demand to permit later shifts to cash crops, rural non-farm activity, and urban work.⁽⁴⁶⁾

Concluding remarks

Biotechnology offers the hope of a greater yield, especially for poor farmers who grow basic crops like sorghum and maize.⁽⁴⁷⁾ Transgenic crops are well adapted to address the intensifying water crisis faced by many drought-stricken countries like Uganda and Ethiopia.⁽⁴⁸⁾ Many farmers opt for low-yield millets or maize, rejecting high-yielding options because of a believed risk of crop failure should there be erratic or unpredictable rain.⁽⁴⁹⁾ Transgenic technology may be necessary to introduce high-yielding maize and millet varieties which will be able to survive semi-arid conditions,⁽⁵⁰⁾ increase crop yield, improve storage ability and delay ripening, all of which would benefit those with few resources to invest in refrigeration and other equipment to increase the shelf-life of agricultural produce.⁽⁵¹⁾ Therefore, in Africa, new technologies actually can enable greater agricultural productivity and sustain growing populations. To draw on a success story, larger yields were evident with the use of genetically modified corn in South Africa.⁽⁵²⁾ The increase in agricultural productivity was possible with the improvement of the yield potential of plants and with lowering input levels, such as pesticides.⁽⁵³⁾

Transgenic crops in Sub Saharan Africa are seen to have the ability to tackle the problems that are not easily addressed through conventional breeding or pest control methods.⁽⁵⁴⁾ Overall, transgenic crops are expected to have a constructive affect on both food security and local economies. With more efficient methods of agricultural productivity, these methods will ensure that farmers are able to increase food production and their economic development. In addition, the problems experienced in many African countries as a result of weather conditions can also be solved with transgenic crops. If Africans are unable to increase crop yields, the only other viable option is to expand on already laboured land. As such, the benefits of a green revolution, together with the use of genetically modified crops, can have a substantial impact on the food security of Africa. What should be recommended however, are further studies to develop and ensure the efficient production of crops that are safe for humans to consume and are nutritionally dense.

Written by Kyle Brown ⁽¹⁾

NOTES:

(1) Contact Kyle Brown through Consultancy Africa Intelligence’s Asia Dimension Unit ( asia.dimension@consultancyafrica.com). This CAI discussion paper was developed with the assistance of Megan Erasmus and was edited by Nicky Berg.
(2) Migiro, K., ‘Can an African “green revolution” help feed the world?’, Reuters, 2 May 2012, http://www.reuters.com.
(3) Crop yields in Africa amount to an average of one ton per hectare, in contrast to the six tons per hectare rice yields from India.
(4) Migiro, K., ‘Can an African “green revolution” help feed the world?’, Reuters, 2 May 2012, http://www.reuters.com.
(5) Ibid.
(6) Barta, P., ‘Feeding billions, a grain at a time’, Wall Street Journal, 28 July 2007, http://www.wsj.com.
(7) Ibid.
(8) Ibid.
(9) Ibid.
(10) Rosset, P., ‘Lessons from the green revolution’, Institute for Food and Development Policy, 8 April 2000, http://www.foodfirst.org.
(11) Awiti, A., ‘How to achieve a green revolution in Africa’, The Star, 16 October 2012, http://www.the-star.co.ke.
(12) Ibid.
(13) Ibid.
(14) Ibid.
(15) Ibid.
(16) Migiro, K., ‘Can an African green revolution help feed the world?’, Reuters, 2 May 2012, http://www.reuters.com.
(17) Ibid.
(18) Ibid.
(19) Ibid.
(20) Collier, P., 2008. The politics of hunger: How illusion and greed fan the food crisis. Foreign Affairs, 87(6), pp. 67-68.
(21) Cohen, J.I., 2005. Poorer nations turn to publicly developed GM crops. Nature Biotechnology, 23(1), 27-33.
(22) Collier, P., 2008. The politics of hunger: How illusion and greed fan the food crisis. Foreign Affairs, 87(6), pp. 67-68.
(23) Ibid; Borlaug, N.E., 2000. Ending world hunger: The promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry. Plant Physiology, 124(2), 487-490, http://www.plantphysiol.org.
(24) ‘Genetically modified foods and organisms’, Human Genome Project, 17 May 2012, http://www.ornl.gov.
(25) Collier, P., 2008. The politics of hunger: How illusion and greed fan the food crisis. Foreign Affairs, 87(6), pp. 67-68.
(26) Anonymous. 2003. Selling food, health, hope: The real story behind the Monsanto Corporation. Masipag Organisation: Masipag; Collier, P., 2008. The politics of hunger: How illusion and greed fan the food crisis. Foreign Affairs, 87(6), pp. 67-68.
(27) Ibid.
(28) Borlaug, N.E., 2000. Ending world hunger: The promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry. Plant Physiology, 124(2), 487-490, http://www.plantphysiol.org.
(29) Anonymous. 2003. Selling food, health, hope: The real story behind the Monsanto Corporation. Masipag Organisation: Masipag.
(30) Ibid.
(31) Ibid.
(32) Borlaug, N.E., 2000. Ending world hunger: The promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry. Plant Physiology, 124(2), 487-490, http://www.plantphysiol.org.
(33) Pinstrup-Andersen, P. and Pandya-Lorch, R. (Eds.), 2001. The unfinished agenda: Perspectives on overcoming hunger, poverty and environmental degradation. International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington DC, http://www.ifpri.org.
(34) Ibid.
(35) Ibid.
(36) Ibid.
(37) Ibid.
(38) Pinstrup-Andersen, P., 2000. Food policy research for developing countries: emerging issues and unfinished business. Food Policy, 25(2), pp. 125-141, http://econpapers.repec.org.
(39) Thies, J.E. and Devare, M.H., 2007. An ecological assessment of transgenic crops. Journal of Development Studies, 43(1), pp. 97-129.
(40) Ibid.
(41) Cohen, J.I., 2005. Poorer nations turn to publicly developed GM crops. Nature Biotechnology, 23(1), 27-33.
(42) Ibid.
(43) Borlaug, N.E., 2000. Ending world hunger: The promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry. Plant Physiology, 124(2), 487-490, http://www.plantphysiol.org.
(44) Alcaraz G.V. and Zeller M., ‘Use of household food insecurity scales for assessing poverty in Bangladesh and Uganda’, Institute for Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences, 25-27 October 2007, http://ageconsearch.umn.edu.
(45) Ibid.
(46) Lipton, M., ‘Plant breeding and poverty: Can transgenic seeds replicate the “green revolution” as a source of gains for the poor?’, Journal of Development Studies, 2007, 43(1), 31-62.
(47) Ibid.
(48) Ibid.
(49) Ibid.
(50) Ibid.
(51) Thies, J.E. and Devare, M.H., 2007. An ecological assessment of transgenic crops. Journal of Development Studies, 43(1), pp. 97-129.
(52) Ibid.
(53) Ibid.
(54) Ibid.