.........................Body.........................Solutions......................References

Specifically, the Green Revolution refers to techniques in agriculture requiring the use of increased pesticide input and selectively bred or genetically modified plant varieties. Selective breeding takes advantage of many principles of genetics recognized since the time of Gregor Mendel, who first recorded patterns of inheritance in the mid-1800s. Plants exhibiting desirable traits such as high yields, resistance to disease, or better taste are preferentially cross-pollinated through many generations, resulting in more profitable crops.

Genetically modified crops, on the other hand, were not developed until the latter half of the 1900s. A much more complicated and technology-intensive procedure, genetic modification involves the insertion of a gene from another source into the host plant. Scientists are able to insert genes from a wide variety of sources, including animals, into plants. The advantage of this technique is that completely new strains of crops can be designed with characteristics that never would have been attained using selective breeding. Bt transgenic crops, for example, make use of a gene from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis. The gene encodes a protein that, when ingested, degrades the intestinal lining of many crop-destroying insects.

Traditionally, the Green Revolution was successful in providing food for many starving people in the world. Green Revolution technology has provided such a remarkable short term solution to such a horribly devastating long term problem that some have come to hail it as a miracle. The consequences of applying Green Revolution technology in Africa were not as lucrative as they were in the rest of the world, and many of the procedures associated with it were not well received either by Africa's land or its people. "World agricultural output rose by 25 percent between 1972 and 1982, but in sub-Saharan Africa per capita food production declined by 14 percent during the same period. Average Africans are worse off today than they were 10 years ago" (Lal 1987). The Green Revolution was a failure in most of Africa because of overlapping environmental, economic, social and political reasons.

Environmental obstacles:

Introduction:

Despite its success in other areas of the world, one reason the Green Revolution failed in Africa was because of the difficulty of dealing with existing environmental conditions. The climate of much of Africa does not lend itself to the use of the Green Revolution's high yield crop varieties, irrigation techniques, and fertilizers (Asiema 1994). The crops of the Green Revolution did gain importance in Africa, yet it still has the least production per unit area than anywhere else in the world (Asiema 1994, Wambugu 1999). The lack of success of the Green Revolution in Africa can be attributed to Africa's soil quality, lack of water resources, the prevalence of pests and disease, and environmental degradation.

Soil considerations:

Of primary concern is soil quality. The majority of the land in Africa consists of soils that are considered infertile (Asiema 1994). This means that they have low levels of nutrients, particularly nitrogen, and little water, creating a situation where even using fertilizers and irrigation, the solutions presented by the Green Revolution, are not sufficient (Lal 1987). The low nutrient content is a result of the thin layer of organic matter of most African soils, making it necessary to let it to rest for long periods in between harvests to prevent nutrient loss (Amoako 2000). The lack of topsoil in Africa also leaves the land vulnerable to erosion by wind, and by water during the wet season (Lal 1987). Many regions in Africa experience long dry periods, during which the nutrients stored in the topsoil are easily blown away by the wind, and in the short wet periods, water washes away any remaining nutrients (Diouf 1998).

In the August, 1999 issue of Ecological Economics, co-author Jamie Morrison tells us that the consequences of erosion have now surpassed the increase in production due to the high yielding crops. The effects of this erosion are serious, and many times cannot be undone, causing a permanent decrease in crop yields (Lal 1997). The success of the Green Revolution in Asia relied heavily on high yield crop varieties combined with the irrigation of fertile land, which could not be replicated in the nutrient depleted soils of Africa (Lal 1987). Relying only on increased uses of fertilizer and irrigation is no longer possible with the growing population and demands placed on the land (Amoako 2000). The amplified use of Green Revolution cereal crops such as maize and wheat in South Africa in the 1960's and 1970's increased marginal land use and cultivation of sloped areas, leading to erosion. The increase in fertilizer use in the 1960's and 1970's intensified in South Africa in an attempt to supplement the nitrogen deficient soils, yet had the negative effect of increasing soil acidity (Morrison 2000).

Most soil in Africa is classified as "marginal uplands", which is not considered effective land for cultivation, and in particular does not lend itself to successful irrigation (Lal1987). Farm machines traditionally used in the Green Revolution only decrease the limited water that enters the soil (Morrison 2000). By compressing the soil, machines and other vehicles used in Green Revolution technology increase water runoff (Lal 1987). Without water entering the soil, the nutrients are not circulated, and water is lost to the system, leading to a decrease in production (Lal 1987).

Water issues:

Techniques that resulted in success in Asia not only failed in Africa because of infertile soils but also because the varieties of rice and wheat used require consistent water supplies such as rainfall and irrigation, which are not available in much of Africa (Diouf 1998). When the same crops planted in Asia were introduced to Africa, they produced smaller yields and lower quality crops compared those native to the region (Diouf 1998). In particular, the use of the high yielding varieties of rice was ineffective in West Africa because of the lack of water (Asiema 1994). This can be attributed to the fact that 71% of Africa consists of arid and semi-arid zones, where rainfall is infrequent and unreliable (Wambugu 1999, Lal 1987). Only 3-5% of Africa's land area under cultivation has the benefit of irrigation (Asiema 1994). This demonstrates that not only is water not being used where it could be beneficial, but it also shows how little the land lends itself to irrigation practices.

Problems with pests and disease:

Pests and disease are another major cause of the failure of the Green Revolution in Africa. The dilemma is not easily solved using the Green Revolution's technology, because the high yield varieties used by the Green Revolution are more vulnerable to pests and diseases than the traditional crops. Because there is little genetic variability, a "monoculture" results in which pests and disease can most easily spread (Asiema 1994). In traditional African agriculture, pests and disease were managed through the used of multiple species of crops in an area (Lal 1987).

Human impacts on land:

Environmental degradation has continually increased in Africa, making it more difficult for the continent to experience any benefits from the Green Revolution. Environmental problems which are not unique to agriculture, such as global climate change and deforestation, are both caused by and contribute to lower quality land for agriculture (Amoako 2000). The cultivation of poor land combined with growing population and its use of fuel wood has lead to deforestation rates of 10m acres per year (Diouf 1998). Losing the forests increases the vulnerability of the land to erosion and reduces its nutrient content, causing more deforestation as the farmers are forced to try and increase yields. It also has negatives effects on climate and water cycles, all of which hurt agriculture (Cleaver 1992).

There is little the Green Revolution can do if the soil quality does not increase, and the trend in Africa is degradation rather than improvement. The increase in population brought with it a rise in the cultivation of marginal lands (Amoako 2000). The cultivation of marginal land results in low yields and increased vulnerability to degradation (Lal 1987). The amount of cropland destroyed in Sub Saharan Africa totals 72%, contributing the lack of success of the Green Revolution, because if there is little land available there, it is less likely that technology changes will be able to make up the difference (Amoako 2000).

Social, political and economic problems:Introduction:

In addition to the environmental conditions, there were limiting social, political and economic factors which created boundaries of development-assisted crops, restricted the equal gains in communities, created only regional successes, suffocated development, and led to current proposed solutions which use elements of both past of Green Revolution system implementations and incorporation of already existing African farming practices.

Boundaries of development-assisted crops:

Among many other reasons why it did not work so well in Africa, rice, wheat and maize were the three main hybrid crops that the scientists had created- only one of which is of any substantial portion of most Africans' diets. "Although maize is not indigenous to Africa, it is the single most planted cereal on this continent," says Joy Asiema of the Biotechnology and Development Monitor. She goes on to note that, "In general, African diets are based primarily on grains such as millet and sorghum or on roots or tubers such as cassava, yams and sweet potatoes. These crops have never received much attention from scientists and were no part of the Green Revolution" (Asiema 1994).

One of the major problems associated with Africa and the Green Revolution is that the cereals which have been planted for many years in African soils, which farmers know how to use and benefit from, are not being used. For a country whose soils are already unfertile and where irrigation is not so easily controlled as it is elsewhere, these new crops are not the answer. "The use of a narrow genetic base variety and practices of monoculture, all characteristics of the Green Revolution, increase the risks of large areas of crops being devastated by pests, diseases and crop failure" (Asiema 1994). Even for crops built to withstand such perils, the dangers of using new HYV breeds on the continent of Africa are quite different than anywhere else in the world.

The rejection of native crops carries many implications with it: not only is this unhelpful because of the lack of information farmers have about the new crops, but when they are able to understand what needs to be done, they also must apply for loans in order to buy the new equipment. And while this may not at first seem like such a difficult task, consider the position of many African nations when they go to an international lending agency which may not welcome the opportunity for investment in cereal capital: "A lot of countries systematically discriminated against agriculture in their pricing and exchange rate policies….The policies were geared toward industrial development, and discriminated against agricultural development" (Stone 1998).

Restrictions of equal gains:

It is tough to say who benefits from these changes in the end, because when new equipment is purchased, it takes away the work of other people- mostly women- who would otherwise have no job. In an article written about how each gender is separately affected by these changes, it is written that "women laborers have clearly lost out from mechanization of post-harvest activities- a traditional area of female wage employment- which many have offset any gains made by increasing employment due to the introduction of HYV technology packages" (FAO 1986).

The division of labor between family members is not always equal, and the majority of these programs seek to make changes with the heads of house holds- read, males- rather than asking all those involved in the agricultural process what changes would be the most beneficial. In other parts of the world, even when Green Revolution techniques have been successful, "…these schemes introduced land reform and a heavy focus on cash crops which eroded female rights to land without easing their responsibility to feed the family or their need for cash income" (FAO 1986). As is the case with any major undertaking, determining whether or not the end result can be classified as victorious depends largely on who answers the question.

Not only does this system of including new HYV crops offer little assistance to those involved in agriculture who wish to keep up with changes in technology, it also is a catalyst for pushing many individuals further into debt. In cases where production has increased, the next struggle for these farmers is fighting the natural landscape, because the infrastructure of the country has not provided many funds for roads to be built. Thus, even when farmers have excess produce to sell, they may not be able to make it to the market on time because of poor transportation methods (Siema 1994). Inability to sell crops means that no payments on loans can be made, and people can often end up worse off than they began.

Regional successes:

Some people have not had to deal with the negative effects mentioned above, but it was not due to their efforts alone. Farmers in Eastern and Southern Africa have had much success with maize, particularly in Kenya, Zimbabwe and Zanya. In these places, the Green Revolution has been considered triumphant in making marked improvements. However, in Global Issues in Agricultural Research, Jeremy J. Stone tells us that, "The global agricultural revolution could not have occurred without the advent of a network of national agricultural research systems (NARS) and international agricultural research centers, along with progressive government policies in the developing world that favored agricultural development" (1998).

Reasons for arrested development:

The implications of such a statement are that not only must a country have a significant amount of money to devote to acquiring such knowledge if it is to be able to take part in the current advances, but it also must understand the rules of intellectual property that are of such a growing concern in the institutions of international research. For African nations, this translates into difficulties in both working with industries who could potentially provide high yielding varieties of crops at a low price and in dealing with the researchers who provide such information, notes Professor Dr. Maarten J. Chrispeels in a University of California, San Diego speech: "…[large corporations] are not giving away their technology to poor countries because they want to recover the costs of their investments in biotechnology" (2000). He goes on to say that "Less developed countries have very little expertise in this field and are at a serious disadvantage when they sit down at the bargaining table with the representatives of industry," (2000).

While all of these issues are of great concern, it is useless to ponder them unless there is a system of government in place which will be able to effectively make changes. Asiema notes that "[The success of such programs in parts of Africa] can be attributed to the advanced infrastructure in Kenya and Zimbabwe, compared to other African nations with low adoption rates, as well as to incentives and inputs that favor the use of hybrid maize in all three countries" (1994), and Stone also says "The infrastructure to support agricultural research and knowledge dissemination barely exists in much of Africa" (2000).

However, addressing affairs of the state in Africa is a complicated issue, as many of its countries are constantly dealing with the social and political strife created by the existing hunger and inequality issues. In a July 2000 address in the Annual Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, speaker K.Y. Amoako notes that "…while conflicts have declined in other parts of the world, they have not in Africa. Research by the International Food Policy Research Institute shows that on average, countries in conflict produce 12.4 percent less food per capita in war tears than during peacetime." The World Bank's 2000 Annual Report of Africa also concurs, saying "A major challenge across much of the continent is the establishment of peace, a precondition for growth" [FAO.ORG].

So, as well as not being able to plant staple crops in their fields or use any of the knowledge gained from farming for decades upon decades, African natives are also forced to deal with governments who are not willing to either monatarily or structurally aid in the sustainable practices required of such an implementation. Reviewing all the presented information makes it clear that in order for a nation to become involved in the Green Revolution, it must have the money to access to the data found by international researchers, funds available to loan to farmers when new technology becomes available, the roads to support taking farmers' goods to market, and an existing influential government whose policies support continued agricultural research and development.

Although the traditional green revolution was not successful in Africa, this does not mean that changes in agricultural practices will not benefit crop production in Africa in the future. What is needed are policies and technology specifically designed for the political, social, economic, and environmental conditions of Africa. In order to determine what practices will most improve agriculture in Africa, the first step is research. This would allow the practices of the worldwide green revolution to be adapted to the conditions of Africa, and will also aid in the development of new technologies (Asiema 1994). There are a variety of soils, farm systems, and social conditions even within Africa and therefore each needs different technologies (Lal 1987). The solutions must also take into account the many aspects of life affecting agricultural productivity that the original Green Revolution did not such as environmental and social issues (Cleaver 1992). Of primary importance are the improvement of soil quality, the management of water resources, and the prevention of erosion (Lal 1987).

In looking for ways to resolve these problems, current proposals include doing more research involving grains which are native to Africa, because these crops are also a considerable part of people's diets in other parts of the world as well. "Several of Africa's now-neglected cereals could become major contributors to the welfare of nations around the world" (Stone1998). By seeking out ways in which plants are traditionally grown, rather than trying to introduce a completely new stem which is potentially cumbersome to implement, harmful to the environment and beyond the reach of most African farmers' bank accounts, the benefits will reach all those involved, not just the international investors.

When outside assistance programs come in and try to help African nations, it is important that they recognize that each case is unique, and must include in their efforts acknowledgment of workloads within a household and individual economic situations. "Agricultural research for the crops and problems of the poor has to proceed from the bottom up, not from the top down. Crops have to be created that fit not only in the agro-ecology of the poorest regions often characterized by marginal and heterogeneous environments, but the crops must also fit into the social and economic systems" (Chrispeels 2000).

It is not only the outsiders who must shift their policies, though- African governments must also change the way they support the education of farmers, the training of agricultural scientists, and the building of research institutions if they are to develop a program which truly meets the people's needs. The Green Revolution was victorious in Asia and Latin America because of the agricultural technological development they already had in place and continued to sustain (Asiema 1994).

There are many options to the Green Revolution's technologies, which hold promise for Africa in the future. Using low cost alternatives could be the answer to Africa's problems. Due to the variable climate the farmers cannot afford to take a risk with some of the more costly technologies. Practices such as " contour farming, inter cropping, and crop rotation systems" rely on labor rather than capital which is not available to most farmers (Cleaver 1992). One suggestion made by Lal is the addition of mulch to croplands. This has many effects such as adding nutrients to the soil, prevents runoff and erosion by absorbing water into the soil, and keeps the temperature of the soil low for maximum production (Lal 1987). Because mulch is not easily obtained in dry regions it takes planning to create, such as the rotation of crops, the growing of cover crops and other methods which allow for the growth of bio-mass to be used for mulch (Lal 1987). Mulch is more easily acquired in the humid regions of Africa and has the same positive effects (Lal 1987).

Some of the ways that research will benefit Africa is in the development of ways to control the pests and disease, which were not prevented through the use of traditional pesticides. Biotechnology is one option, specifically in the creation of plant varieties that have short growing seasons so that they will be less vulnerable to disease (Diouf 1998). "Transgenic" technology can also be used to create varieties that are resistant to disease and have the possibility of double the current agricultural production in Africa (Wambugu 1999).

A short growing season would also reduce the crop's chance of failure due to drought (Diouf 1998). Diouf also states that irrigation is a necessity for a successful increase in production in Africa. Perhaps crops that could withstand the frequent droughts of the arid and semi arid regions of Africa could provide a supplement to costly irrigation (Wambugu 1999). Disease is such a problem in Africa that it is estimated that if "viral diseases" are kept from spreading that production in Africa could double (Wambugu 1999).

A possible solution to the problem of environmental degradation is the establishment of nature preserves. By protecting areas, particularly forests not only will prevent encroachment on valuable natural areas but will also help by maintaining the natural climate and water cycles (Cleaver 1992).

Conclusion:

Positioned among the other countries who have received assistance in combating hunger, Africa seems like the place where the Green Revolution could have done the most good. Most available Arcview data shows us that the country has the highest IMR and MMR rates, and it has millions of starving people- definitely a place where nutritional, high-yielding foods would have been beneficial. However, due to a number of existing environmental, political, social and economic conditions, most of the Green Revolution's application in Africa was considered a failure. Despite its world-renowned fame, it remains to be seen whether or not the traditional "formula" of Green Revolution agriculture is truly applicable to all parts of the world, or if some shifting will be required in order for it to really assist major populations other than those of Asia and Latin America.

Amoako, K.Y. "African Food Security in the Knowledge and Information Era." Address: Annual Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association. 31 July, 2000.

Asiema, J. "Africa's Green Revolution." Biotechnology and Development Monitor. 19: 17-18. 1994.

Chrispeels, M.J. "Biotechnology and the Poor." Plant Physiol. 124: 3-6. 2000.

Cleaver, Kevin and Gotz Schreiber. 1992. Population, Agriculture, and the Environment in Africa. Finance and Development 29: 34-40.

Diouf, Jacques. 1998. Sustainable Harvests. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy. Knoxville. 13: 62-25

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. "Women and the Green Revolution." FAO Focus. <http://www.fao-org/FOCUS/E/Women/green-e.html> (29 March 2001)

<http://www.pscw.uva.nl/monitor.1907.html> (29 March 2001)

<http://www.uneca.org/eca-es00/082100speech_es_florida_usa.html> (23 March 2001) Lal, Rattan. 1987. Managing the Soils of Sub-Saharan Africa. Science. 236: 1069-1076.

<http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb19/genetics/genetech//artikel2.html> (29 March 2001)

Mann, C. Reseeding the green revolution. Science 277: 1038-1043.1997.

Morrision, Jamie and Richard Pearce. 2000. Interrelationships between economic policy and agri-environmental indicator: an investigative framework with examples from South Africa. Ecological Economics. 34: 363-377

Stone, J.J. "The Green Revolution Today- Agriculture Still Faces Big Challenges." Global Issues in Agricultural Research. 1:1. 1998. <http://www.fas.org/ag/newsletters/10-1-98/G110-1-98.html> (29 March 2001)

Wambugu, Florence. 1999. Why Africa needs agricultural biotech. Nature. 400: 15-16

World Bank Group. "Africa- Regional Context." Annual Report 2000. <http://www.worldbank.org/html/extpb/annrep/afr.html> (17 February 2001)