To most people in the developed world, agricultural science is a bit of an afterthought. We go to the grocery store and decide between small, vibrantly red cherry tomatoes and charmingly misshapen heirloom tomatoes. We buy big, juicy oranges and know that when we peel them the juice will run over our fingers and the sticky scent will linger. We can choose between 10 different kinds of apples, no matter the season. At no point during our shopping do most of us stop to think about the technology used to produce this bounty.
Despite the nostalgia many Americans feel for the image of a farm in the country with a red barn, only 2% of Americans are still classified as farmers by the government
Your article left out any mention of what may be the most important change that needs to happen if African farmers are to prosper: America, Europe and Japan must stop their predatory agricultural subsidies.
ResponderEliminarOkay, here's the plan Bill Gates (etc.):
ResponderEliminarThe Romans had a policy of planting their culture forcefully in other countries. This was done by building towns and inter-marriage, as well as forcefully sending locals to Rome for schooling and acculturation.
How about if we (Americans for example) just buy a few square Roman kilometers in an African country. Within the boundaries of this place, WE grow things and run things like WE would do it, just to see (and demonstrate) how it could work. We wold have open house days where we could show off (if merited).
We could invite other countries to do the same in the US.
We could also use the property to vaccinate, provide medical help and teach.
This looking at a problem from far off seems impossible.
How is that an article on a "Green Revolution" in Africa failed to mention the Green Belt movement in Kenya, which started in 1977?
ResponderEliminargreenbeltmovement.org/
agree with Joe Smith- the market is tilted towards agribusiness- the result would be export-driven land use which is of no use to the poor- in fact, there's no need to speculate- if Africa opened their markets to agribusiness, the result would be the South American model- both systems need democratic reform for community sustainability
ResponderEliminarGood insights, though would be richer still with overlay of climate change impacts to regions where droughts are expected to become ever more common and severe. thanks.
ResponderEliminar@2: Demonstrating too much success will inspire a Robert Mugabe wannabe to send his cronies in to take over the land. As always, the Atillas of the world view production as a natural resource that can be exploited like a forest, never acknowledging that it is the rule of law and property rights that gives individuals the security and incentive to produce in the first place.
ResponderEliminarYou mention the issues with poor soil quality and irrigation, but most of the effort being placed by large donors is not to improve those basic aspects of farming. They are shooing for the shortcut with engineered seeds (GM or not) that require specific fertilizers and which grow in improvished soil. If instead the programs build out the water systems, improved the soil through organic means and encouraged the improvement of native seed quality, the picture would be quite different. African and Indian subcontinent countries can farm scientifically, but should do so by knowing and using the science not just importing the products from a rich country. "Agricultural Science" has become not much more than a way to sell the products for large western companies these days, but it could be far more than that to these places. If only the actual science was driving it and not just the commercial interests, we would all be better off.
ResponderEliminarI agree with Logan.
ResponderEliminarFrom what I've seen of GM crops, they aren't engineered to resist pests - they are engineered to be more pesticide tolerant, so more pesticide may be used on the crops (See hjere Monsanto's "RoundUp Ready Soy). Additionally, GM crops don't produce seed for planting next year - they kill their embryos so the next season's seed must be bought from the seed company again. Smart for the GM company, but not smart for the farmer.
That's not to say we shouldn't share technological advances in farming - just that we should look for sustainable solutions.
I thought this was a very interesting piece that covered a robust range of issues. I believe that the discussion of American and European agricultural subsidies, while a pertinent issue, has limited bearing on the topic as presented by the author. This piece seems to focus more on improvement in subsistence farming and yields for domestic consumption as opposed to export driven production. If subsidies represented the make or break issue, then African states would accept GMO seeds since they would rationally determine that the European export market does not justify sacrificing higher yields for domestic consumption.
ResponderEliminarI thought that the most revealing and powerful point was the mention of the WB Development Report that determined the four-fold increase in income among the poor for agricultural GDP growth vs growth in other sectors. If the Millenium Development Goals are to be accomplished, it seems that improving agricultural productivity is far and away the most important issue to tackle. This flies in the face of development theorists that stress the importance of diversification, and subsequent improvements in terms of trade, as a means to alleviate poverty through sustainable GDP growth.
Maria -
ResponderEliminarI just wanted to clairfy a bit about GM Technology. You are absolutely right that a lot of the technology is engineered to be pesticide tolerant.
But, this doesn't mean more pesticides. Non-GM crops often require a lot of different pesticides to control for different things and often they must be sprayed several times throughout the growing season. With RoundUp Ready Technology (among others) soybeans often only need to be sprayed with one pesticide (RoundUp) and often only once during the season, as opposed to with 5 different chemicals 3 different times.
In Canada, it is recognized that pesticides have been reduced by nearly %50 in the past 20 years. Check it out: agcare.org.
There are also some GM traits that do directly control the pests. Bt Corn is one example. It protects corn from the European Corn Borer.
There is also the misconception of GM crops not producing seed. You refer to what many call the 'Terminator Gene,' which does not allow the seed to germinate again.
Although that technology exists, it is not found in most GM crops. When it is found, it is often there to control disease.
There are a lot of misconceptions out there about GM crops, I just wanted to clear up these common ones.
Um, seriously? Can we use some more loaded language? Africa is "primitive"? It "missed the boat"? Really?
ResponderEliminarMaybe there are more pressing issues facing Africans and African farmers than the "green revolution"? It is easy for us to fret about these issues when we have the luxury of knowing we will always have food available to us. When that luxury does not exist, these issues become secondary, if not tertiary, and it is unfair to foist our own expectations on a continent and groups of people who are dealing with different life conditions. Get off your soap box and actually look around at the world.
There is nothing here that free trade in money, ideas, and humans would not solve overnight.
ResponderEliminarI think it will be another century before Africa is an equal economic continent while high trade barriers and stratospheric human movement barriers are kept in place. The only reason it won't be two centuries is because the internet at least facilitates free movement of ideas.
There should be standardized global education levels (primary, secondary, bachelors, etc.) and people above a certain level, say bachelors degree, should be able to relocate at will anywhere in the G20 or participating developing nations. Let Adam Smith develop the opportunities of Africa.
With free movement of people and money, we could finally get away from the model of trying to teach the inmates in the prison camp from afar how to run their business, which has been tried for the last half century and largely failed.
There was a great assessment of the needs of Africa in the testimony of Dr. Gebisa Ejeta before Congress recently. (PDF: foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2009/EjetaTestimony090324a.pdf)
ResponderEliminarHe stressed the need for science and for other crucial pieces of infrastructure. Withholding science and technology from Africa would be so wrong--really unethical I think. Like saying: well, sometimes antibiotics are misused, so we shouldn't give them antibiotics....
But when peak oil hits, weather patterns become more erratic and world trade slower only subsistence farmers will be able to survive.
ResponderEliminarRegardless of any perceived benefits of a "green" revolution without building (think multi-century) sustainability into a system its is doomed.
Well let's see, much of Africa is dirt poor and "going green" requires at least some money, so maybe that might have something to do with it.
ResponderEliminarWith the Iranian Green Revolution happening right now--a potentially major geopolitical shift--how can you refer to anything else as the "Green Revolution"? Movement, perhaps. But this week? A Revolution?
ResponderEliminarTo keep this short answer probably not. There are several reasons why African will more than likely not see a green revelotion any time soon.
ResponderEliminar1. Priority.
When suitable housing, food, clean water, and disease are under control, then maybe a green revolution could be thought of.
2. Money
Going "green" cost a lot of it. Though it is a necessary to sustain comfortable living on this planet, retro-fitting buildings and driving hybrids are not cheap enough for most people in the western world, let alone 2nd and 3rd world countries.
Biotechnological agriculture in the current economic structure merely increases the overhead, and thus debt assumption, of smallholders. For-profit seed patents and production for export are the most destructive aspects of the current system, not some mythical "withholding" of technology from Africa.
ResponderEliminarFurthermore, with respect to the empty alarmism of the danger of increased forest destruction, any smallholder destruction of forests would pale in comparison to the places where forests are being most diligently razed for export-led beef production.
If biotech firms had any interest whatsoever in helping African farmers, they would refrain from patents and eagerly offer their services at a financial loss. Since, as we have seen with Monsanto and others, they are largely unwilling to do this, aid in the form of GMO seeds turns into dependence on costly inputs. The technology isn't necessarily the problem, it's an economic structure which makes profit the only source of motivation for technological development.
#10: 1. I question the implication that having only 2% of a country
ResponderEliminar@john #21: You are assuming that all GMOs are corporate. First, that isn't the case--that's just what foodie activists tell everyone. Second, a way to reduce the corporate influence in this field is to train more local plant scientists in the relevant technologies to ensure that their needs are met.
ResponderEliminarI can't find the original article now, but at some point I read an article on the influence of open-source biotech on agriculture in Africa. The article claimed that open source biotech development had created a number of high-yield seed varieties which were available at a lower cost than the non-open source alternatives. The article went on to claim that this was making a dramatic difference in African food production.
ResponderEliminarGiven how few African countries allow genetically modified crops, I have to wonder how big a difference the availablity of low-cost but high-yield genetically modified seeds can actually make.
These are some very cogent and thoughtful critiques of the original article, I'm reading them carefully.
ResponderEliminarAnd I'd like to see all agricultural aid come with family planning services and condoms. It's much easier to subsist when you can control the size of your family and aren't dying of AIDS.
The danger is that genetically modified seeds are in the hands of a few huge companies -- these emerging economies and small farmers will sign contracts to buy all of their seed (and the therefore mandatory pesticides and herbicides) from these corporations, who have the bottom line in mind. Traditional seed saving and agriculture didn't have that dimension at all, so this is not returning the seeds to the farmers -- it's opening up a new market that is desperately dependent on companies like Monsanto, which puts the food supply in their greedy, offshore hands. Look what they've done to American farmers -- why would they stop at our shores?
ResponderEliminarIt is rich for us to sit here comfortably and ask illiterate farmers to use GM seeds.
ResponderEliminar1. The farmers are forced to buy expensive/ proprietary seeds and pesticides and must keep buying forever. The old method of saving the seeds for next planting season ensured that the crops were suitable for local pests and weather conditions. This was the best strain that would ensure success and what we now worship as "heirloom" . We don't want GM foods but expect the poor to eat it - beggars can't choose.
2. Illiteracy is causing pollution when farmers do not know how to use the pesticides effectively. There are villages in Punjab, India where cancer has exploded. NPR reports on the local train called the Cancer Express for the number of patients it carries to nearby treatment facilities.
3. Golden Rice was supposed to be the magical cure for Vit A deficiency . Except it failed and locally available fruits/Veg/herbs are still the cure for this condition . Who can eat pounds of rice to meet daily requirement? We expect these people to give up efficient traditions and adapt to methods that are economically not viable and are not even sensible.
4. Are we surprised when the locals look the gift horse in the mouth? When every new idea lines the pockets of multinationals, the resistance is natural.
Hi D -
ResponderEliminarThere are many reasons why I made the statement "I question the implication that having only 2% of a country
To echo some of the points already raised, you have failed to mention that the West dumping FOOD on the continent is killing off any hopes of developing agricutural science in Africa, let's face it if we are going to give them the food why should they bother to learn how to produce it? I wouldn't.
ResponderEliminarI also fail to understand why farming methods that do not rely on artificial fertilizers or GM seeds are so wrong? Africa is a continent and and not a country and within that continent some countries are doing rather well when ti comes to food production and feeding their people in spite of waht the media would have you believe.
Reading your article makes one feel like there is nothing happening in African agriculture. The African Green Revolution is ALREADY happening, although in small pockets across the continent. The focus should be to identify where this is happening and scale it up. Last year, the CEO of Africa Harvest, Dr. Florence Wambugu, won the Yara Prize award for a green revolution in Africa. Her project, the Tissue Culture Banana project has helped feed millions.
ResponderEliminarAs two prior posters have noted the dumping of hundreds of tonnes of free food in the name of aid is certainly the best way to kill of any form of local agriculture. It's pretty tough to stay in business when your customers can get the same product for free from someone else. If aid companies were to first buy from local farmers and import extra food if needed this would certainly go a long way to promoting local farming. Though I guess the US and Europe need to get rid of any surplus production their subsidies cause in their own countries somehow.
ResponderEliminarThe same goes for giving away clothing. I've heard of several cases where local textile factories, tailors, weavers, seamstresses etc. have gone out of business simply because it's so darn hard to make a profit when some idiot is handing out boatloads of stuff for free.
The point I want to make is that foreigners should stop treating Africa like a charity case. The men and women of Africa are hard working and many of them are pretty shrewd businessmen. There are plenty of investment opportunities for foreign companies and individuals. If Western politicians would start treating them like trading partners instead of an easy way to make meaningless symbolic gestures for their own electorates Africans will quickly start making use of whatever comparative advantages they have.
A discussion of agriculture in Africa won't be complete without mentioning it's former breadbasket, Zimbabwe, which unfortunately had one of Africa's greatest basket cases for a leader. Of course there's plenty of those to go around. I'll just say that without respecting private property and the rule of law any government is doomed to fail.
On a more general note: Foreign governments should stop interfering in the internal affairs of African countries, or any country which they don't govern for that matter. Africa has had enough colonialism over the past century to last it through this millennium. Having had Europeans draw arbitrary lines on maps and then forcing the people living between those lines to abide by their rules has caused enough instability, thank you. Africans need to decide for themselves how they will govern themselves. If this means a few civil wars and the redrawing of a few colonial boundaries, so be it. After all, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." UN "peacekeeping" forces inevitably only increases the instability. Darfur, Congo and Somalia being cases in point.
A green revolution can't hit countries that aren't prosperous enough to pay the high price of green fuels.
ResponderEliminarAnd we pay our farmers not to produce. Hey, bleeding heart leftists: stop complaining about "unfair market practises" of the voluntary capitalistic type, which happen to be the only thing that have ever gotten a nation out of poverty, and stop complaining about stuff like farm subsidies, where our government regulates trade to hurt the third world.
ResponderEliminarWhen you equate "science-based farming" with industrial agriculture, you seem to be ignoring the insights of the hundreds of scientists who contributed to the IAASTD (funded by the World Bank and the U.N.). One of their points is that there has been very little research on appropriate solutions for small farms on marginal lands. Adding industrial inputs to such a system is certainly not the only possible solution to overworked, exhausted soil and low yields, not has it been shown to be the best one.
ResponderEliminarPerhaps the reason that starving people are refusing GMO's is that the information is not suppressed about there deadly consequences, not too mention that 70% of small farmers who grow GMo's go bankrupt after several season due to high seed costs, continued and increased fertilizer use, contamination of their other crops with Bt resistant strains and decreased desirability of their crops.
ResponderEliminarStill sound like they'll save the world?