 |
The Controversy over the African Green Revolution
What is the idea behind an African Green Revolution? Where will it take Africa and who stands to benefit or lose from it? What are the forces behind it? Is the revolution African-led or brought to Africa from abroad? Can Africa do without the Green Revolution, or is it essential for coping with the continents poverty and population growth challenges? Is intensive agriculture as prescribed by the Green Revolution harming or helping the environment? Is it green? Is it revolutionary? Is it African?
An African Green Revolution (AGR) is not a novel concept. The idea has been around for decades; it has been attempted, but not fully implemented – and it has not succeeded. However, in recent years it has come back into fashion, being embraced in several camps, inside and outside the African continent, not least due to repeated calls from the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. An African himself, Annan is probably the most notable champion of the revolution, which he continues to promote in his capacity as Chairman of the Board of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), headquartered in Nairobi.
Attacking AGR The British agricultural ecologist Gordon Conway is often credited – and criticized – for being the main proponent of the new green revolution, prior to Kofi Annan’s call for an African Green Revolution. Conway’s book “The Doubly Green Revolution” is seen as a platform for his subsequent work as President of the Rockefeller Foundation, 1998–2005. The Foundation is commonly considered the main driving force behind the Green Revolution. It was instrumental in creating the original Green Revolution, backing the work of American scientist Dr. Norman E. Borlaug, and later joined hands with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to set up AGRA in 2006.
Critical voices argue that the AGR is designed and driven by institutions and individuals from outside Africa; by large (and largely US) philanthropic organizations as well as multinational corporations – to open the gates to the African market for international agribusiness, and for the introduction of biotechnology in general and genetically-modified crops (GMOs) in particular.
One of the most vocal critics of the AGR is the (US-based) non-profit organization Food First, which argues that “The Green Revolution is an industrial modernization paradigm, as well as a campaign for penetrating agricultural markets in the Global South. But above all, the Green Revolution is a political strategy designed to gain and keep control over the Global South’s food systems firmly in the hands of northern corporations and institutions.” Food First is one of the many opponents of AGRA, another being the editor of the Pambazuka News, the Kenyan writer Mukoma wa Ngugi, who warns that “What is at stake here is the very future of the continent’s agricultural practices – what is grown, how it is grown, who gets to grow it, who processes it, who sells it and where and how much the African consumer will pay. Simply put […] the very sustenance of the continent.” Nnimmo Bassey from Environmental Rights Action of Nigeria argues that the “biotech trust” of AGRA is “wrong-headed”. “Rather than solving problems of hunger and poverty in Africa,” he reasons, “it will deepen them”.Mamadou Goïta of the Institute de Recherche et de Promotion des Alternatives en Développment (IRPAD) of Mali, is another strong voice against the AGR, claiming (AGRA) is “looking for problems for their solutions”, whereas home-grown solutions are abundant and frequently successful”. The renowned geneticist and conservationist Melaku Woredu from Ethiopia is one of several African scientists fearing that an AGR will destroy indigenous crops and create a loss of livelihood for peasant farmers, pointing to the lack of water as a major impediment to the success of a green revolution in Africa.
Delegates from 80 countries convened in Sélingué, Mali in February 2007, adopted the “Declaration of the Forum for Food Security”, which outlined their determination to fight against “The domination of our food and food producing systems by corporations that place profits before people, health and the environment”. A statement from 70 African civil society organizations at the World Social Forum held in Nairobi in January 2007 claims that the “green revolution” is rather a “gene revolution”. The assembly voiced its opposition against “new external initiatives” putting pressure on existing African agricultural systems.
In the booklet “Unmasking the New Green Revolution in Africa”, published by the Third World Network (TWN) in 2007, the author Elenita Daño attempts to identify the major players engaged in the struggle for an AGR, and seeks to reveal a plot designed to open up African markets – finding “the same players that pioneered the original concept in Asia”, led by the Rockefeller Foundation and the African arms of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). In her introduction, Daño writes that “Duplicating the example set in Asia, the Rockefeller Foundation’s admission into Africa is akin to that of a “Trojan horse” paving the way for entry by transnational agrochemical, fertilizer and agricultural biotechnology companies to peddle their wares,” adding that “It is striking that none of those in the forefront of the revolution are African” – albeit in subsequent texts she identifies several Africans, including Kofi Annan of Ghana, Akin Adesina of Nigeria and Monty Jones of Sierra Leone, as being among the key players.
Defending AGR The Nobel Peace Prize laureates Kofi Annan and Norman Borlaug are the best-known proponents of the African Green Revolution on the international scene. They have been joined by another former top UN bureaucrat, Namanga Ngongi of the Cameroon, who postponed his farming retirement to take up the position of President of AGRA, alongside Kofi Annan as Chairman and Akin Adesina of Nigeria as Vice President. “There is no acceptable reason for Africa’s farmers to be poor. Working with their many allies, farmers can move beyond mere subsistence farming. With access to the needed tools and technologies and with responsible stewardship of our natural resources, we can bring prosperity to Africa’s farmers and their families,” Ngongi said on the announcement of his presidency.
Akin Adesina, a 2007 Yara Prize laureate, is a staunch believer in the AGR, claiming that it is not an option, “it’s a must”, adding that “Without it, poverty will remain the blight of Africa”. Prof. Douglas Southgate of Ohio State University supports Adesina: “Africa cries out for such a revolution. The adoption of modern agricultural technology would go a long way toward helping the 200 million Africans who are malnourished. Unfortunately, a coalition of environmental nongovernmental organizations, politicians and advocacy groups are conspiring to keep this nothing more than a pipe dream.” Southgate, who is the author of the book “The Global Food Economy”, also takes on another claim made by opponents of the AGR: “Nor is it true that multinational corporations are the only winners from new technologies. The reality is that the poor benefit more than anyone else, mainly because agricultural development makes food cheaper.” “The greatest myth propagated by anti-technology groups”, Southgate writes, “is that they represent the best interests of the African poor. Much of the world long ago moved away from traditional farming practices, and is significantly better off as a result. It’s high time for Africa to have its own Green Revolution.”
Prof. Andrew Dorward of Imperial College adopts an anti-poverty position when arguing the case of the AGR: “Development of African smallholder agriculture and an African Green Revolution is critical for poverty reduction, economic growth and welfare in Africa.” Akin Adesina is likewise preoccupied with the small-scale farmers, arguing that “even the poorest farmers can benefit when they are able to get the products of agricultural science”, citing recent yield increases in Malawi as an example. “The tools and technologies for our revolution are largely available. […] The crux of the matter is political. It is about political will, policies and resources”.
“Tropical Africa […] is finally ready for its own Green Revolution”, argues Prof. Pedro Sanchez, Director of the Tropical Agriculture Program of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, who claims that “Africa will experience a green revolution sooner than expected. What is required is the political will and mind change of African leaders”. Some of that will was demonstrated at the African Green Revolution Conference (AGRC) in Oslo in 2007, when government representatives of a dozen African countries adopted the Oslo Declaration. It was also evident in the greatly increased emphasis placed on agriculture by the World Bank in its World Development Report 2008 (WDR 2008), and subsequent support for the AGR by its President, Robert Zoellick.
One of the moderators at the AGRC 07 was Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, another strong proponent of the AGR. “Until recently,” Sachs pointed out in the Scientific American, “donors sent only food aid in response to Africa’s deepening agricultural crisis. Now they are waking up to the one real solution: increased agricultural production through a home-grown African Green Revolution.”
Uniquely African In his calls for an African Green Revolution as head of the UN, and subsequently as the chair of AGRA, Kofi Annan has consequently made a point of making this revolution one that is unique to Africa – adapted to African conditions, fitted to African challenges. Obvious as this may be, it is also a much needed specification, emphasizing the point that this is not a repetition of the Asian Green Revolution that made headway during the 1960s. Although it undoubtedly increased food production radically, and staved off famine, the Asian experiment has also been harshly criticized, for several reasons. Not least, the critics cite environmental damage caused by the (inappropriate) use of pesticides and fertilizers, and also argue that the solution introduced, based on hybrid seeds, has reduced biodiversity and created monocultures – weakening local food security and sovereignty.
In his message to the African Green Revolution Conference in Oslo in 2007, Kofi Annan said, “Ours is a revolution of the 21st century and a response to the specific agricultural and environmental challenges facing our continent. We Africans will own it and share its destiny”. At the May 2008 Salzburg Global Seminar Towards a “Green Revolution” in Africa? Annan stressed that “We need to learn from past mistakes, and we need to listen to all voices – voices from African governments, from researchers, from civil society, from the private sector, from donors, from regional and international organizations, and above all from African farmers themselves”. At the same seminar, Akin Adesina made the point that the AGR is focused on farmers, and that “We must deal with what farmers already know”.
At the Salzburg seminar, Annan repeated his point for this green revolution to be uniquely African, also linking it to the current food crisis: “[…] the solution to the food crisis in Africa today is to stimulate a domestic supply response to raise food production. If ever there was a time for an African Green Revolution, it is now. The time for talk is over. We must implement immediate solutions for today’s crisis, and do so in the context of a long-term concerted effort to transform smallholder agriculture, to increase productivity and sustainability, and to end poverty and hunger. To accomplish this we need a sustainable and uniquely African Green Revolution. This Green Revolution must take into consideration the diversity of Africa’s agro-ecological environments; develop improved crop varieties for the staple food crops; protect and enrich genetic diversity; improve soil fertility; improve the environment; and assure sustainable food production.” At the same seminar, Akin Adesina pointed to another aspect: “Being able to produce food in Africa is a matter of dignity. It is a matter of national security.”
“Africa is ready for a new green revolution,” argues Monty Jones of the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA); […] “Due to the positive environment, we can observe the increasing number of African entrepreneurs that could spearhead the new green revolution in Africa.” Two of these entrepreneurs were honored with the Yara Prize for an African Green Revolution in 2007: Akin Adesina of Nigeria and Josephine Okot of Uganda, both working with improving the African smallholders’ access to modern technology and knowledge, through expanding agro-dealer networks and improving seeds. The 2008 African Green Revolution Conference 2008 will also focus on entrepreneurship.
“The plane has really taken off,” Prof. Pedro Sanchez said at the 2006 annual meeting of the American Society of Agronomy (ASA); “It’s called African Green Revolution Airways. On this plane, the pilot is the African woman farmer, the co-pilot is an African president, the flight attendants are us, and the fuel is private sector philanthropy”.
Asian lessons One of the most ardent opponents of an input-based agricultural development strategy such as the Green Revolution is the acknowledged activist and author Vandana Shiva, who warns against the AGR, based on the experiences of her own country, India. At the conference Can Africa Feed Itself? (documented in the book Africa Can Feed Itself) in Oslo, 2007, she argued that the AGR is just the old Green Revolution for Asia, transferred to Africa, claiming the strategy to be “based on destroying the very foundation of sound farming”, destroying biodiversity and promoting monocultures, impoverishing the soil as well as the peasant.
Pedro Sanchez takes another position: “Unlike the Green Revolution of the 60s, an African Green Revolution doesn’t have to be based on technologies and practices that damage the environment,” he argues. A group of Swedish researchers has also looked into the Asian experiences, in view of the food crisis in Africa. Göran Djurfeldt, Hans Homén, Magnus Jirström and Rolf Larsson state that the green revolution today is commonly depicted as a narrow technological package (seed, fertilizer and irrigation), concentrating on wheat and rice. Consequently, they write “it is widely criticized for having negative social and ecological consequences and, in any case, due to different agro-ecological preconditions (e.g. limited irrigation potential), it is often deemed unsuitable for Africa. We found this critique to be largely exaggerated and beside the point. From a technological perspective, the green revolution has expanded and now includes crops (e.g. maize, sorghum, beans, cassava, bananas), which are important in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). As for its social consequences, the critique has often been based on assumptions and/or observations from the early days of the Asian Green Revolution. Most initial adversities have been overcome since then and there are reasons to be optimistic about the Green Revolution’s poverty reducing potential.”
A major part of the Asian Green Revolution story, is the fact that it averted widespread famine, and probably saved hundreds of millions of lives – which is why Dr. Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, and has since become known as “the man who fed the world”. In the 30th anniversary lecture held in Oslo in 2000, Borlaug looked back at his work and the achievements of the green revolution, reminding the audience that “Despite the successes of the Green Revolution, the battle to ensure food security for hundreds of millions of miserably poor people is far from won.” This also goes for Asia: “Poverty Still Haunts Asia,” Borlaug said; “Despite the successes of smallholder Asian farmers in applying Green Revolution technologies to triple cereal production since 1961, the battle to ensure food security for millions of miserably poor people is far from won, especially in South Asia.”
The present attempt to initiate a green revolution in Africa is not the first; several repeated efforts have been made – without success. This is largely, according to the Swedish researchers, because focus has been directed at short-lived spurts of production rather than lasting improvements in productivity. Also, they point out, the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) reduced not only state intervention, but the use of fertilizers amongst smallholders as well, thus reducing output. In a post-SAP era, they have now “found several indications that governments in SSA today are moving towards taking on a role in agricultural development comparable to the one played by Asian governments implementing the Green Revolution in the 1970s”.
In their recent book “African Agriculture and The World Bank”, Kjell Havnevik, Deborah Bryceson, Lars-Eriks Birgesgård, Prosper Matondia and Atakilte Beyene, look into the past policies of the World Bank, i.a. noting that the encouraging improvements in maize yields from the improved output and fertilizer packages that several African governments distributed on a subsidized basis in the 1970s went unacknowledged. The SAP came – and the attempts of several African governments at an African Green Revolution were nipped in the bud.
|
|
|
The Controversy over the African Green Revolution
