AGRA meeting in Tanzania - farming at the talking level

The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) has just had its latest meeting in Tanzania.

Naturally, there have been many reports of what a smashing success it was. Easily the biggest success of the meeting was how effectively the organizers ensured that there was media which would simply regurgitate what they wanted to get across, rather than raise any of the issues about AGRA that many people involved in agriculture across Africa are concerned about.

This is not at all hard to do, unfortunately. The deep pockets of principal AGRA funder, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, mean that there are many media organizations who are happy, even eager to be megaphones for the whole effort. Much of that media finds it hard to ponder a critical, questioning approach to an ‘African-led’ effort with the good marketing sense to hire former UN secretary general Kofi Annan as its main spokesperson.

So the media was compliant, fully in the bag from beginning to end. They were there not so much to ‘report,’ but to simply broadcast what they were told, to act as a megaphone for AGRA. The stories about the meeting from media as scattered as those in Ghana, Rwanda and Tanzania itself were astonishing in their same-ness.

So congratulations are in order to AGRA for its strong public relations drive. Likewise, shame are in order for the media for failing to do basic journalism, and instead willingly allowing themselves to be propaganda tools in the pockets of the Gates Foundation and AGRA.

If anything, the gushing, unquestioning and un-analytical reportage that Gates Foundation and AGRA mandarins might be very pleased about also makes them appear as being afraid to confront the issues that make them controversial. It is a little bit like politicians not quite confident of their authority and popularity, who then purchase fawning media coverage. Very often the fawning is so overdone that the image achieved is ultimately the opposed of that intended.

But perhaps this is to be overly, unfairly cynical about AGRA’s heavy use of public relations by hired, sponsored or otherwise compromised media. Let’s hear what one report said were the accomplishments of the meeting in Arusha:

* Encourage private sector lending to agriculture, especially small scale players.

* Remove trade barriers

* Address the bottlenecks that inhibit regional markets from working effectively

* Legislatures must enact legislation that encourages private sector investment

There you have it- the much hyped African Green Revolution Forum had absolutely nothing new to say about agricultural development in Africa! It was merely farming by talking, a pest that has long plagued Africa.


African Agriculture

A contrarian view of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa

Chido Makunike

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's baby, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) has been around long enough that no one can fairly say it is not making some positive contributions to farmers in the countries where it has its projects.

At it's just ended Africa Green Revolution Forum, held in Tanzania, AGRA pulled out all its publicity and media-influencing guns to press home the contention that they are simply pure-hearted do-gooders motivated by nothing else than what is beneficial to Africa's small scale farmers.

Why then should such a noble-sounding project still be treated with such deep suspicion by many? (Gasp) Is it not almost sacrilege to doubt the good intentions of Bill Gates and Kofi Annan, to accuse them of being marketing hucksters for Monsanto?

You would not find any hint of an answer to this question in the orgy of self-congratulation that was AGRA's Tanzania meeting, nor in the breathlessly, unquestioningly lapdog style of the reports of the meeting that followed in most media. The media seemed to have been invited simply to provide cheering and adulation for whatever AGRA said. Almost none of the many similar articles that have followed the meeting have deviated from the script of AGRA as the latest of many efforts over the years to come to 'save' Africa and its agriculture.

So what exactly is the beef that many have with AGRA's claimed do-goodism?

AGRA has so swamped and bamboozled much of the African media that this is rarely asked. Any outfit that comes into Africa flashing money as a 'donor' gets a free pass, no questions asked. Strangely enough, the occasional voices one hears giving an alternative, cautionary view of the whole AGRA approach are from the United States, by various activists who are less willing than most of Africa's own media to treat the Gates Foundation's media-sponsored thrust as gospel.

AGRA has wisely chosen to downplay its support for gene modified crops, knowing that this is still a controversial subject in much of Africa, and remembering the early accusations that its main mission was helping the 'hijacking and controlling of Africa's food supply by making farmers dependent on GM seeds.'

A group of international activist organizations that coalesce under the umbrella of Friends of the Earth have been one of the most active and consistent at explaining their gripe with the Gates Foundation's AGRA.

Says a representative of Friends of the Earth Nigeria, "Donors controlling the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) are representing the interests of biotechnology corporations rather than African small farmers. It is time African Governments stop bowing to corporate donors and instead put farmers in the driver's seat."

In short, the charge is that rather than have the best interests of African small scale farmers at heart, the Gates Foundation and AGRA's primary interest is to create new markets for U.S. and European agribusiness corporations with which they are allied.

Suppose that were true. Apart from the Gates Foundation not being quite as philanthropic as they like to appear, what would be so wrong with that? Is there an inherent contradiction between fronting for seed, fertilizer and other western agribusiness companies and giving small scale African farmers a meaningful leg up?

The answer of many critics of the Gates Foundation/AGRA model of agricultural intervention is that yes, the two are incompatible, partly because of the vastly uneven bargaining powers of the two (US/European agribusiness vs. small scale African farmers.) So uneven, and so differing in their whole philosophies of life/livelihood that it is not possible to claim to be reconciling their interests, the argument goes.

Therefore, say the critics, the call of Gates Foundation/AGRA for African farmers to adopt methods of farming which will necessarily mean more dependence on products (seed, fertilizer, pesticides) that western agribusiness corporations dominate the production of is not as 'innocent' as it may sound. Once that dependence sets in, and once the built-in subsidies of AGRA-like 'projects' have fallen away, how will these farmers continue to afford these products?

In all the countless agricultural projects that Africa has been a testing ground for over decades, no one has yet been able to figure out a way for small scale farmers to increase production/income to levels that they can on their own keep up with the (ever-rising) prices of manufactured inputs. The issue of how responsible it is to devise donor-funded pilot projects to hook farmers onto inputs they simply won't be able to sustainably afford once the 'project' expires and the donor pulls out is entirely legitimate.

You would not expect this issue to be brought up at AGRA's recent Tanzania talk shop. But one would have hoped that at least a few amongst the African media from several countries that was roped into the forum would have found the courage to stick their necks out just a little bit to ask this question on behalf of their readers! That almost none of them have done so, choosing instead to be uncritically awed by Gates Foundation/AGRA propaganda, is not only shameful, it is almost criminal.

Malawi is an example of a country currently in the news for grappling with this exact problem, as have many other countries before it. Yields certainly go up when small scale farmers are availed of subsidized (by government or through AGRA-type projects of one kind or another) inputs, but (1) the subsidies are almost always short-term because of their expense and (2) it almost never happens that inputs-access and yield gains can be sustained after those subsidies are lifted.

What to do then? Abandon the AGRA-targeted farmers to their old low-yield farming methods because the Gates Foundation has shareholding in a giant agribusiness company with a poor public image like Monsanto, or because those farmers might not be able to continue buying the fancy inputs after AGRA pulls out?

The argument of AGRA critics like Friends of the Earth is that there are 'agro-ecological' methods accessible to the farmers to enable them to achieve the same yield gains as the AGRA high-inputs methods. Putting those agro-ecological methods to work in the field is far from as easy and straightforward as the activists sometimes make it sound, so amongst the many grains of truth of their arguments are also a lot of holes.

Some of the anti-AGRA activists are motivated as much by ideology as by interest or knowledge of the day to day reality of farming, so sometimes they sound shrill and unrealistically inflexible in what they say should be 'allowed' in growing crops. There are probably relatively few farmers, especially those struggling at the bottom ends of productivity and survival, who can afford or have the luxury of being as purely ideological as the activists often are. Making a living from the soil is such a hard challenge that most farmers will employ a combination of all the best methods at their disposal at any given time.

That means, for instance, that they may solely use agro-ecological methods partly because of their benefits, but also partly because they cannot afford fertilizer. If you donate or subside the fertilizer to them, most will gladly use it, usually in combination with the 'agro-ecological' methods they normally rely on, but sometimes (unfortunately) they will rely solely on the fertilizer if they are given or can afford enough of it. Are these agro-ecological or high-inputs AGRA-type farmers? These are false categories and demarcations that make sense to various flavours of activists and bureaucrats, but probably to very few farmers.

More often than not, what informs what methods a farmer uses is, 'What inputs/methods that I currently have access to will maximise my yields?,' rather than, 'Am I an AGRA-type farmer or am I a Friend of the Earth type of farmer?'

The main points of this post are to suggest that:

(1) There is nothing essentially new about the Gates Foundation/AGRA green revolution methodologies in Africa, except perhaps the new trick of a blanket propaganda effort through a surprisingly compliant African media. Increasing yields through the use of hybrid seed, fertilizer and pesticides has probably been tried in every African country at one time or another-until the subsidy money ran out, farmers could no longer afford the unsubsidised inputs and fell back to their old farming methods.

The Gates Foundation/AGRA's real 'success' will only be apparent after they pull out of the areas of their current projects. It will then become clear how long the farmers can carry on the AGRA-taught high-inputs methods when they have to purchase them on their own at full market prices. That is the green-revolution-in-Africa riddle that no one has been able to crack yet. It remains to be seen if agri-whiz kids Bill Gates and Kofi Annan have the answer that has escaped everybody else.

(2) The harsher critics of the Gates Foundation/AGRA seem to really believe them to be cynical, diabolical actors who are consciously, knowingly manipulating poor African farmers for the ultimate benefit of the Monsanto in which they (Gates Foundation) are part owners. But even if this view is unfair and extreme, and even if they are genuinely primarily do-gooders, rather than an advance marketing team-to-Africa for Monsanto et al, many of the questions about the fundamental long term and widespread workability/sustainability of the high-inputs model of farming for small holders under the economic conditions prevailing for most African farmers are entirely legitimate, and remain dodged by AGRA. No amount of positive spin they are able to buy or sponsor in African newspapers will change the day of reckoning for that previously tried and failed model.

Whether that model has worked somewhere else is only relevant if you are able to replicate the success conditions of that somewhere else. There is little that AGRA has revealed about its interventions to suggest that it has done that, or that the wide range of those conditions is even within the purview of a donor project to change.

None of this is to suggest that AGRA is 'bad' (or even evil, as some of those who ascribe to it the marketing-for-Monsanto label argue) or that there will be no long-term benefits from its investments and projects. If they are humble, flexible, willing to learn from countless previous failed projects and if they are also lucky, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa may well be able to make an incremental, evolutionary contribution to agricultural development in Africa (training of scientists, imparting of general business skills, etc,etc).

Comparing what AGRA is doing to what has been tried before all over Africa under different names makes me doubtful that there is any farming revolution at their instigation in the offing. The arrogance of not being willing to learn from and take on board the lessons of why methods almost identical to its current efforts did not work where so many other needed conditions were not in place is a needless waste of money and effort.

African Agriculture

Yet another African green revolution talk shop scheduled for Tanzania

If committment to solving a problem could be measured by the number of conferences devoted to it, Africa would have had countless 'green revolutions' in the last few decades. The continent would be bursting with crop surpluses, causing all kinds of economic and other 'revolutions.'

Alas, talk is cheap but translating it into action, not so easy.

The Bill and Melinda Gates-funded Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) is organizing a meeting for September 26 to 28 in Arusha, Tanzania.

While controversial and hotly debated, AGRA has practical projects underway in several countries. But whether yet another talk shop dominated by besuited bureaucrats (i.e. there will be few or no actual farmers in sight) adds anything at all to its efforts is debatable.

The usual formula of such conferences is of like-minded people re-enforcing and validating each others' views, ignoring or disparaging critical voices and generally congratulating themselves (awards) on how they 'get it' and nobody else does. Will this event be any different from the typical conferences put on by all shades of agricultural ideologues?

The listed topics of discussion have all been addressed in hundreds of previous conferences by an alphabet soup of organizations over the years. It will be interesting to see what new pearls of wisdom might emerge from this latest talk shop.

Not to worry though. Some positive results are guaranteed. The views around beautiful, scenic Arusha will be breathtaking as always, there will be much friendly backslapping and networking, and the beer and wine are likely to be well chilled. A good time will no doubt be had by all.

African Agriculture   

Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa unsurprisingly deeply embedded in G8 plan

It was hard not to notice how the thinking behind the G8 nations’  New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, recently announced by U.S. president Barack Obama, sounds so similar to that of the initiatives so far spearheaded by the Bill and Melinda Gates-funded Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA.)

Indeed, the G8 plan seems to have been heavily influenced by AGRA-type thinking. So it was not surprising when it was announced that AGRA ‘was given a key role in the G8's next phase of a shared commitment to achieve global food security. The Scaling Seeds and Other Technologies Partnership, part of the new initiative focused on increasing agricultural food production in Africa, will be housed at AGRA and will focus on strengthening Africa's seed sector.’

To those who believe these initiatives are a welcome addition to local initiatives to give more support to African agriculture, this is welcome pooling of resources. To those who fear that they represent a new type of corporate-led agricultural neo-colonialism, the ganging up of AGRA-like initiatives with the money and influence of the governments of G8 nations on weak, easily donor-influenced African governments is a nightmare scenario.

Seed and who controls it is a major area of ideological contestation between pro and anti-AGRA/green revolution people. It also is a huge business opportunity that remains largely untapped in most of Africa, as Monsanto, Syngenta and many others have noted. These and many other similar companies were very quick to issue sugary Press statements crowing about their eagerness to participate in the G8’s announced focus on private sector ‘investment’ in Africa’s agriculture.

‘Strengthening Africa’s seed sector’ is a deceptively innocuous phrase that can mean almost anything depending on whether you’re AGRA, Monsanto or a small scale African farmer.

The banding together of AGRA and the G8 on their vision of what Africa’s agriculture ‘needs’ is a either a cause for great celebration, or an occasion to be very afraid.

Which is it?

African Agriculture

African media's frequent failure to pose the tough questions to AGRA

‘We are set to double income of African smallholder farmers.’

That is the bold claim that makes up the heading of an article in the March 12 edition of The Vanguard (Nigeria) newspaper following a ‘phone chat’ with Joseph DeVries, executive director of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).

Among other things, DeVries talks about AGRA’s Programme in Africa’s Seed Systems (PASS) to increase the delivery of seeds to farmers in the countries in which Africa operates, although it typically, lazily, falsely refers to ‘Africa’ as if every corner of this huge continent of more than 50 countries is going to be reached by the project.

Whether it is the failure of reporters to do their job by asking for more precise information about which necessarily tiny parts of ‘Africa’ programmes like this specifically mean, or the desire of promoters of such projects to make them seem much grander than could possibly be, the loose use of ‘Africa’ is disconcerting and deeply misleading about the reach of such programmes.

We are told that a recent $56 million grant to PASS ‘will dramatically increase Africa’s capacity to breed, produce and disseminate quality seed of staple food crops such as maize, rice, cassava, beans, sorghum, millet and other staples. The programme is educating a new generation of plant breeders and seed specialists, improving extension services to share information about new alternatives, expanding seed production
facilities, and strengthening agro-dealer networks.’

These are all obviously positive things to do, although the interviewer neglects to get into whether all these wonderful things are to be accomplished by capacity building African institutions throughout the chain from seed production to delivery to the farmers, or whether it is mainly to simply set up local distribution chains for foreign seed suppliers. Ostensibly there is no difference, but in reality one has the potential to really strengthen local agriculture in the participating countries, while the other may mainly deliver millions more people involved in farming in Africa to the doors of corporates in the USA and Europe.

This gets to the crux of why not everybody sees AGRA as an ‘innocent’ philanthropic initiative, but instead as a stealth strategy for foreign agribusiness to control Africa’s seed supply.

Without at least posing questions related to this issue to DeVries, the Vanguard’s article comes off as merely another of the propaganda pieces for AGRA that much of the media all across Africa disturbingly distribute. It is free public relations on behalf of AGRA rather than real journalism by these publications for their readers.

Embarrassingly silly, softball, kindergarten questions like the Vanguard's 'Will this programme bring hunger to an end in Africa?' do not even particularly do any favors for AGRA itself, even though it may be delighted to only be asked the kind of things it can easily fend off with stock public relations mumbo jumbo phrases.

African Agriculture

G8 forgets how 'green revolution' conditions in Africa differ from those in Asia

Chido Makunike

U.S. president Barack Obama and his G8 pals are the latest do-gooders who are in short order going to bring about a ''green revolution' in Africa.

So far the entirely predictable reactions have been along the lines of whether that is a good or bad thing. Peddlers of fertilizer and agro-chemicals, hybrid and GM seed, thousands of NGOs and 'non profits' who hope to be part of the feeding trough of 'projects' sure to ensue have all wet themselves with excitement at the G8's New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition.

On the other side are the usual motley crew of activists who immediately see red at the expression 'green revolution' for a whole host of reasons not necessary to rehash here. Their skeptical to hostile reaction to the G8 plan is as standard and predictable as agribusinesses' support of it.

But let's  step away from that pro/anti-green revolution dichotomy for a moment, and reflect on some of the reasons why there almost cannot be an Asia-style green revolution in Africa even if there was broad agreement that it was a good thing to aim for, which there clearly isn't.

* Africa is not a country. for better or for worse, it is made up of 50+ sovereign states. To talk about almost anything 'for Africa,' let alone a green revolution, is almost nonsensical by definition. These countries often have great political and economic differences between them. Those differences unfortunately mean they sometimes struggle to cooperate on simple things which would clearly be to their benefit. The idea that outsiders are going to be able to coordinate them into a continent-wide 'Africa green revolution' is silly. The best anybody can do is to seek some examples of national and perhaps regional-level interventions in the relatively few areas that are considered green-revolution prepped, which is by no means all of the continent.

* Africa is a huge land mass; most of its countries much bigger geographically than those of Asia. Population densities in Africa are on average much lower than those in Asia and populations are often much more scattered in Africa. This is one reason why 'development' interventions of any type are much more difficult in such conditions. Asia's relatively small countries and dense population densities made green revolution 'developmental' or business-penetration strategies a very different proposition from those of most parts of Africa.

* Poor infrastructure linking (or not linking) these scattered, sparse populations, with sometimes very long distances between them, are a major reason strapped governments struggle to deliver 'development' to them.

The G8 plan may emphasize the role of 'private sector investment,' but what does that really mean?

A fertilizer multinational that opens depots for its products is 'investing,' but is surely not going to invest in the good roads to improve accessibility at a reasonable price. Of course that is not a foreign private company's responsibility anyway, but no such access infrastructure and you lack one critical 'green revolution' ingredient. The road or railway that would deliver fertilizer to some remote settlement is also what would deliver the farmers' produce to distant markets. These are the great underlying infrastructural challenges to 'development' in many parts of Africa, long before you excitedly dream up a business plan to have many more African farmers as customers for your fertilizer, hybrid or GM seeds.

* The agri-climate conditions in Africa are on average very different from those of Asia. Much of  Asia is in a heavy rain belt while much of Africa is dry and getting drier. No amount of promised new 'drought-tolerant' hybrid or GM seeds is going to make up for this difference.

This is just scratching the surface. The point is that improving agriculture in Africa requires very different thinking than the catch-all expression 'green revolution' can possibly cover. Even if there was unanimity of opinion that a high-inputs green revolution is just what Africa needs, there are so many factors about how to effect it that many of today's 'experts' seem to be oblivious of, like so many others before them.

Long before you read the nitty gritties of the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, you get a sense that these very smart, probably generally well-intentioned people are making promises of results in conditions they have very little real understanding of.

African Agriculture

              

‘Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa is a major assault on seed sovereignty’

The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa aims to revolutionize farming in Africa by various interventions including supporting research, farmer seed and fertilizer access and in various other ways.

Based in Kenya and chaired by Ghanaian former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the organization is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. That automatically gave it deep pockets and prestige, making the organization an important agenda setter in African agriculture. But those who are opposed to ‘green revolution’ thinking look at the organization not as a welcome help to Africa’s agricultural challenges, but instead as a new threat.

Indian activist Vandana Shiva is a strong critic of green revolution effects in her country. She is one of the most prominent voices to warn African countries against repeating what she feels are the dangers of the technological efforts that raised agricultural yields in Asia, but at a human and environmental cost that some argue is unacceptable.

Shiva and like-minded people worry that there is a vast conspiracy afoot for giant, mostly American agribusiness companies to control the world’s seed supply. They argue that this profit-driven drive puts the world’s majority poor farmers in grave risk of being beholden and indebted to these companies.     

“If farmers do not have their own seeds or access to open pollinated varieties that

they can save, improve and exchange, they have no seed sovereignty – and consequently no food sovereignty,” Shiva writes in her latest contribution on the subject. “Seed sovereignty includes the farmer's rights to save, breed and exchange seeds, to have access to diverse open source seeds which can be saved - and which are not patented, genetically modified, owned or controlled by emerging seed giants. It is based on reclaiming seeds and biodiversity as commons and public good.”

Shiva then goes on to give examples of how unsustainable farmer seed and inputs debt to seed companies have led to thousands of suicides in India. She writes about the loss of biodiversity from the introduction of GM seed, the cynicism of the major seed companies in advancing their interests and several other themes that are fairly common in anti-green revolution arguments.

Although agriculture in Africa is not the main thrust of her article on the Al Jazeera website, AGRA does get a mention as an example for Shiva of the corporate thrust to control the global food chain right from the source, the seed.

Shiva writes,”The GMO seeds Monsanto is offering are failing. This is not “improvement" of genetic resources, but degradation. This is not innovation but piracy

For example, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) - being pushed by the Gates Foundation - is a major assault on Africa's seed sovereignty.”

The extensively argued article by Vandana Shiva is The seed emergency: The threat to food and democracy.

African Agriculture

China's 'Green Revolution' farming history now misapplied in Africa

by William G Moseley

As sub-Saharan Africa grapples with high food prices in some regions and famine in others, many experts argue that increasing food production through a programme of hybrid seeds and chemical inputs is the way to go.

This approach, marketed as a "New Green Revolution" for Africa, is increasingly supported by a triumphant telling of China's history with this method in the 1970s and 1980s. This Chinese success story is not only distorted, but it is being misapplied in Africa.

China's Great Famine of 1958-1961 reportedly killed 36 million people. This was a seminal moment for the country and, from that point forward, producing enough food would be a major priority. China would subsequently increase grain production dramatically between 1960 and 2000, with wheat output increasing eightfold, exiling the ghost of famine to the margins of that country's collective social imagination.

According to many Chinese and Western observers, these stunning productivity increases were due to two factors. First, the Chinese aggressively embraced a Green Revolution approach. They would both borrow hybrid seeds from the West and develop their own such technologies.

Furthermore, they would massively increase nitrogen fertilizer production by importing manufacturing technology, eventually becoming the world's largest producer of these agricultural inputs.

Second, the Chinese adopted a series of more market-oriented reforms from the late 1970s, allowing for the decentralization and decollectivisation of agriculture, as well as a rise in producer prices.

Now experts from some the world's major development institutes and organizations are arguing that sub-Saharan Africa ought to follow the Chinese example in the realm of agricultural development. They not only suggest that this will increase food production, but that it will build a foundation for future industrial development.

While a renewed focus on African agriculture is welcome (as this is an area that has been ignored for more than 20 years), this particular telling of the Chinese success story is distorted, and the type of agricultural development being promoted is problematic.

While Chinese agricultural production did, indeed, increase dramatically from 1960 to 2000, it was done at great environmental and social cost. China now faces stagnating production and declining yields, which are most likely related to soil degradation - due to, among other factors, the overuse of nitrogen fertilizers.

Untold is the fact that China had been seriously exploring a bio-intensive path to increasing agricultural production up until about 1972, when it began to gradually open up to the West. From that point forward, the Green Revolution approach would take precedence.

Furthermore, while the agricultural reforms of the late 1970s and 1980s did allow some peasants to produce more crops, these reforms also led to dramatic increases in inequality in the Chinese countryside.

The current reality is that a rapidly urbanizing China is experiencing major shifts in dietary patterns. With increasing prosperity comes increasing consumption of meat, and a greater need for grain to feed these animals. With stagnating grain production, China needs to find other sources of food around the world.

By pushing for a "New Green Revolution" in Africa, both China and the West are clear winners. Many Chinese commentators view sub-Saharan Africa as under-populated and land-rich. As such, enhancing agricultural productivity on the continent means that it will have more food to export to China, which increasingly needs such imports.

Moreover, the US is home to some of the world's major seed companies and agrochemical firms. By encouraging an input-intensive approach to agriculture dependent upon imported technology, US firms are destined to profit.

Most egregious are long-term leases of land in sub-Saharan Africa to foreign entities (often sovereign wealth funds of Middle Eastern, North African or Asian countries, as well as Western hedge funds) for the production of agricultural goods for export. These deals are often "sold" to local publics as a source of employment and as a means to bring the New Green Revolution to sub-Saharan Africa.

The reality is that these leases (often for 50 years or more) essentially allow other regions of the world to export their food insecurity to Africa, or for Western investors to profit from a decade-long trend of steadily increasing global food prices.

While China and the West benefit from this New Green Revolution strategy, it is not clear if the same is true for small farmers and poor households in sub-Saharan Africa.

For most food-insecure households on the continent, there are at least two problems with this strategy. First, such an approach to farming is energy-intensive, as most fertilizers and pesticides are petroleum-based. Inducing poor farmers to adopt energy-intensive farming methods is short-sighted, if not unethical, if experts know that global energy prices are likely to rise.

Second, irrespective of energy prices, the "New Green Revolution" approach requires farmers to purchase seeds and inputs, which means that it will be inaccessible to the poorest of the poor, who are the most likely to suffer from periods of hunger.

If not the New Green Revolution approach, then what? Many forms of bio-intensive agriculture are, in fact, highly productive and much more efficient than those of industrial agriculture.

For example, crops grown in intelligent combinations allow one plant to fix nitrogen for another rather than relying solely on increasingly expensive, fossil fuel-based inorganic fertilizers for these plant nutrients. Mixed cropping strategies are also less vulnerable to insect damage and require little to no pesticide use for a reasonable harvest.

These techniques have existed for centuries in the African context and could be greatly enhanced by supporting participatory collaboration between local people, African research institutes and foreign scientists.

This is not the first time that sub-Saharan Africa has been sold a set of flawed policies based on a misreading of another region's history and experiences. In the early 1980s, international financial institutions convinced African nations to adopt neo-liberal economic reforms based, in part, on a particular telling of the economic history of the newly industrialized countries (NICs) and the Asian Tigers.

African countries were told to focus on exports as the NICs had done, and that a free-market approach was required to reach that end. What international advisers conveniently neglected to mention was that the export success of the Asian Tigers was also due to generous government support and intervention (and not the free market).

Now China is being held up as an Asian agricultural tiger for the nations of sub-Saharan Africa to emulate. Africa's leaders ought to carefully study their comparative world history before accepting this advice.

William G Moseley is a human-environment and development geographer. He is a professor at Macalester College in St Paul, Minnesota, US and is the author of several books, including most recently Taking Sides: Clashing Views on African Issues (McGraw-Hill, 2011).

Al Jazeera

Gates Foundation official visits Ethiopia, answers green revolution, GMO questions

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation aims to innovate and lead in its philanthropic endeavours. With its 36.7 billion dollar endowment, the Gates Foundation is the largest charity in the world. The Foundation’s success is largely attributed to the business acumen of its founders, Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, both of whom have introduced the notion of “philantrocapitalism.”

This is largely due to the Foundation’s underlying philosophy of being a “catalyst for change,” according to Sylvia Mathews, president of the Global Development Program.

Mathews was deputy director of the powerful Office of Management and Budget during the Bill Clinton Administration; she also served as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff. Mathews joined the Foundation in 2001, and her current responsibilities require her to design and implement programmes to combat poverty across the world through agricultural development and financial services to the poor.

But these projects are not without controversy. There are critics who allege that the Foundation wants to turn the continent into a test ground for biotech companies in the West.

While visiting Ethiopia, Mathews sat with Tamrat G. Giorgis, managing editor of Fortune, on July 17, 2011 to reflect on why the foundation is criticised for trying to do good.


Fortune: Let me go to your flagship programme, which is introducing the second green revolution in Africa. The tenet of this programme is to introduce sustainable growth in the agriculture sector by combining technology, innovation, and skill. But I understand that many people were not happy with the plan. Why?

Mathews: You may be able to understand that better than us.

Fortune: I am sure you are aware of these criticisms.

Mathews:Yes, we are aware, but we always want to hear more. I think some of the criticisms stemmed from issues with the initial green revolution. Whereas the initial green revolution saved millions of lives, it had some problems related to sustainability defined by environmental concerns. There is also a valid criticism on how the water table has been exhausted in India. We are working on all of those issues. We are probably the largest single and private donor for organic farming. We believe there are a range of solutions for the smallholder farmer that need to be examined and we are investing in a variety of them.

A second area that we, as an institution, receive criticism for is on the agricultural front; namely, on our engagement with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). We believe that there are suitable solutions that farmers need; and when we engage in breeding, we do everything from conventional breeding to what is called marker-assisted breeding, which gives us the ability to understand what things a plant has to offer.

And then, we do transgenic, which is the part that I think many people have a problem with, but we believe it is a part of the solution. We believe it needs to be safe; that countries need to make their own decisions; and that these countries need the regulatory capability to make those decisions. We have funded Michigan State University, along with NePAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development), to provide grants and technical assistance here in the continent of Africa for those countries which seek regulatory assistance, so that their scientists have the capability and equipment to conduct testing.

There is a third, which has to do with the question of how hybrid seeds relate to corporations and companies that sell it. But, again, we believe that choice is up to the farmer.

Fortune: Don’t you think that it is valid criticism? I understand that the Trust [Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Trust has bought 27 million dollars worth of shares in a seed breeding company, Monsanto] It has a substantial investment in one of the corporations which is involved in the seed business. Therefore, while you are promoting this project in the name of charity, there is another corporation, where you have a vested financial interest in, which sells products to farmers you support. Are you not promoting a corporate interest here?

Mathews: The intellectual property for all the works that Monsanto does on drought-resistant gene is free. The company is losing money on this effort. We keep our investments and the work of the Foundation separate. It is what we choose to do, as we believe, the Foundation should focus on the issues we are discussing here.

Fortune: You have a Trust which manages the Foundation’s endowment, investing in companies with high returns. You also have the Foundation, which is going around the world, trying to support poor people and overcome poverty. But the criticism comes when the companies your Trust invests in are doing things that undermine the wellbeing of the very poor people the Foundation is trying to help.

Mathews: In the case of Monsanto, the investment is very small relative to our portfolio. But I do not think that is actually a relevant point. The more relevant point is that, I am not sure I understand what Monsanto does in undermining the poor. It gave the intellectual property away for free, a right which costs an American farmer a tremendous amount of money, but would not cost an African farmer anything. How is Monsanto undermining the poor here?

Fortune: By making them dependent on the very product that it is selling?

Mathews: It is the farmers’ choice whether or not to buy hybrid. A farmer can use Open Pollinated Variety (OPV) maize, or use a hybrid. That should be the farmer’s choice...out of an economic rationale...

The idea that farmers become hooked is false. We believe that putting choice in the farmer’s hand is a better approach than dictating what the farmer should do.

Fortune: I read a statement made by one of your officers a while back; he said he would like to see many African companies flourish in the African seed selling market. Is the Foundation interested in supporting such companies in Ethiopia, for instance, by providing financial support? How would it work?

Mathews: Given that we are a large organization based in Seattle, most of our work is done through intermediaries. 

AGRA will be supporting the agro-dealers and the seed producers that are producing the largest volume of seed on the continent of Africa; and they are private. That would be a place where we could add value, and the support comes in a number of forms. There are direct grants that AGRA does; it also provides technical assistance to help these countries think about a concept known as the “business development portion.” AGRA will help with their financial management, set up their books, business practices, as well as give them direct cash support.

These seed companies, the agro-dealers and distributors, are springing up everywhere. In Mali, I have visited a woman who has started up a company that uses smaller seed packs, which is what farmers need in terms of their ability to pay.

Fortune: I understand the laws of Ethiopia prohibit the import and use of genetically modified food [GMO], which I see you are passionate about.

Mathews: Only six per cent of our financing goes to GMOs. The project has transgenic and non transgenic components. The benefits of these products are to the farmers. The changing lives of the poor will determine how people think about the laws. We respect the laws of the countries and that will determine what they want and where they want to be on the GMO issue. But as I said, countries will make their own choices on what is good for them.

On the importation of seeds and the ability to move products across countries, we will probably be working on our policy. For instance, eight new breeds of pigeon pea have come out from Uganda. In the next two months, they will move to South Sudan because they do not have a law prohibiting it. For South Sudan, right now, the top quality pigeon pea breeding seeds will make a very big difference.

Fortune: Are you a grant providing agency or are you also involved in the actual operations that you support?

Mathews: We are a grant making agency, but we have active partners. I am sure some of our grantees would say we may be more active than they want us to be as a partner. For instance, an example of our deep engagement is with AGRA...

Fortune: Much of the allegations from your critics come as a result of their ideological worldview. They see the alignment of forces coming together against what they say is an imposition of a neo-liberal agenda on Africa. You have international financing organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank imposing policies. You have foundations, which are somehow in line with these international financing institutions. You have corporations, which are part of the whole foundation network, because the foundations come from these corporations. The concern is that for the first time, there is an alignment of these three groups imposing the interests of the West on Asia, Africa and the underdeveloped world, in order to control resources.

Mathews: We are hopeful that our role is for more forces to come together within the country. I think Ethiopia is a very good example of what we hope can happen in the agriculture sector. We hope to contribute support to the government in developing the sector. Both the strategy and the implementation are nationally owned and our job is to provide support in developing the strategy, helping get the transformation off the ground, and bring other partners to the table to fund the Ethiopian plan. We see ourselves as part of that triangle. But what drives off the relationship is what a country needs. Then the process would be on how you drag resources against that, and support the country with tools, technologies and funding to try and make achievements.

I appreciate the Washington Consensus problems, in terms of how the IMF and other agencies were driving certain standards and certain change. I also appreciate the concerns when corporations, or other parties, come in with certain view on resources.

Fortune: How do you feel when you come with funds to support projects, and you are subjected to these criticisms?

Mathews: Criticisms usually make you stronger and better if you stop and listen. It will make you more effective. You have to come with the mindset of pausing and listening to what the criticism is all about. Even in their exaggerated forms; criticisms are words of some kind. So we stop, listen and try to get to the core of the issue.

Fortune: You seem to give a lot of emphasis on the individual farmer’s choice; on whether or not to embrace what you are trying to introduce and your interest to improve their lives. But in a situation where they may have a state that is not accountable, or refuses to be accountable, and in a situation where the governance issue has a lot to do with the inability to make individual choices, how concerned are you with the governance issue and a government’s lack of accountability in countries where you work, including Ethiopia?

Mathews: There are places where there is not enough governance, at any level. There are places that are completely unstable, and those are places where we do not do much work. We do not work in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), for instance. We actually have great sympathy, but we are not engaged in the kind of work we do with Ethiopia.

Yes, we are concerned about it in a sense that one of the things we believe about our work is creating broad ownership. It is not that government leadership is central; however it is a necessary component, but it is not a sufficient component.

I think, what we do is try to make sure that we consistently have our eyes open and embed the work with people as much as possible. We fundamentally believe that when you empower people economically, you empower change because their knowledge, desires and everything moves. That is an important part of an evolving process, one that we can contribute to good governance.

Fortune: Do you believe there is a kind of political setting in Ethiopia that allows you to make a difference towards your goals?

Mathews: We feel it is sufficient, or we would not be working here. We hope we are a part of long-term positive change for the individual on the ground in this country, that we can support them in the change, because they are the change agents, not us.

full interview...Addis Fortune

The effects of high-input, green revolution crop production in Zimbabwe's smallholder sector*

by H.A. Elwell

Since the 1950s the initial impact of high-external input agriculture has often been remarkable, with large areas once sprinkled with poor crops suddenly flourishing under a green carpet. So dramatic was the impact in certain continents, particularly Asia, India and Latin America, that the phenomenon became known as The Green Revolution.

The foundation of the technology was improved crop varieties dependent particularly on high levels of nitrogen, inorganic fertilisers, pesticides, fungicides and herbicides. The technology could equally have been called The Chemical Revolution.

...half the rice, wheat and maize areas in Third World Countries are now planted to modern varieties, nitrogen consumption has increased from 2 to 75 million tonnes and pesticide consumption in many individual countries has increased by 10-30% during the nineteen eighties alone. As a result, production of food per capita has grown by about 40%.

On the surface The Green Revolution seems to have fulfilled the dreams of the politicians, scientists and particularly of the Chemical and Seed Industries. As recently as 1993, Donald Plunkett, scientific advisor to CIGAR, eulogised the Green Revolution in the following terms:

"...the greatest agricultural transformation in the history of humankind, and most of it has taken place within our lifetime. The change was brought about by the rise of science-based agriculture which permitted higher and more stable food production ensuring food stability and security for a constantly growing world population."

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the extent to which Zimbabwe's smallholder farmers have been able to benefit from the high-input technologies of the Green Revolution. This is done by examining the crop production data and background related to the smallholder sector and comparing it to the commercial sector where relevant. The difficulties of the smallholder sector in adopting the new technologies are investigated in terms of the major constraints.

IMPACT OF GREEN REVOLUTION ON CROP PRODUCTION IN ZIMBABWE.

The Two Farming Sectors Under Study.

The soils of commercial farming areas are predominantly deeper, more fertile, better drained and less drought-prone than communal soils. Supplementary irrigation is an important feature, assisting in sustaining yield levels and providing a buffer against drought by enabling early root establishment. Commercial farms are fully mechanised and management standards are high. The farmers have direct access to the top specialist advice of the agro-industry, to markets, suppliers and to credit facilities.

Communal farming is mainly for subsistence with the surplus being sold to the market. The 5.4 million people living in communal lands make up 51.4% of Zimbabwe's population. 74% of all communal land is located in the drier regions of the country.

The soils of the communal farming areas are largely shallow infertile sands, with low moisture and nutrient holding capacities. They are deficient of organic matter and prone to drought. Smallholder farms are poorly mechanised. Most smallholder farmers have no access to even ox draft power and the majority of farming operations are carried out using hand tools. Management standards and knowledge of new techniques are rudimentary. Farmers often cannot raise the collateral needed to access credit facilities and cannot repay the loans from their meagre harvests. Information on agricultural matters is transmitted to them through a long chain of civil servants. Much information from specialists in the agro-industry is lost, delayed, distorted or diluted by the time it reaches its intended source. Access to suppliers and markets is confounded by poor roads, long distances and inadequate transport.

Cropping History of Zimbabwe.

1. Traditional Agriculture.

The traditional system of agriculture practised by the indigenous population before the arrival of the Europeans, and for some considerable time afterwards was shifting cultivation. The fields were...predominantly light sandy soil, which could be easily worked with a hoe, and avoiding obstacles such as rocky outcrops, big trees, compacted areas and stony soil. Land preparation consisted of cutting the trees at shoulder height, clearing the understorey and piling the waste around the base of the stumps.

No attempt was made to manure the ground but wood ash and weeds were dug in. Farmers collected their own seeds from the previous crop. The land was cropped for about three years and then abandoned to regenerate under fallow for about 15-20 years. Crops grown included finger millet (Eleusine coracana), mhunga (Pennisetum typhoides), maize (Zea mais), sorghum (Sorghum vulgare), rice (Oryza sativa), various beans, cowpeas (Vigna ungiculata), groundnuts (Arachis hypogaea), bambara nuts (Voandzeia subterranea), sweet potatoes (Ipomea batatas), pumkins and gourds, cucurbits and tomatoes. Mixed cropping was commonly followed, a practice recognised today as a good soil, moisture and fertility conserving practice as well as a risk-spreading technique. Maize was by no means the dominant crop.

Farming activities were integrated with spiritual, social and cultural life... the "loss" of crops to insects and animals was regarded as an acceptable "payoff" to keep the ecosystems functioning. The fact that no truly indigenous in-field pest control technologies stem from this period, although techniques to control pests in storage, were well developed and widely utilised, probably indicates that insects posed no real threat to field crops.

In pre-colonial times, the population was low enough and the land area sufficiently large for shifting agriculture to satisfy the requirements of the people. But, as the population expanded...shifting agriculture was practised only in the most remote areas.

During the colonial period, the thrust of research and development was geared towards commercial agriculture. Very little effort went into developing technologies appropriate to communal farmers. The prevailing attitude was that communal farmers were (or should be) aspiring commercial farmers and could benefit from any technologies developed for their commercial counterparts. This attitude prevails even today.

Several important changes have taken place over the years in the areas of crops under cultivation and the types grown. The most dramatic has been the replacement of small grains as the predominant crop by maize.

Another major change which has taken place in the smallholder sector has been the introduction of cash crops such as cotton, sunflowers and tobacco, with areas under cultivation rising steeply over...Maize and cash crops now dominate smallholder agriculture in place of many of the drought tolerant traditional food crops grown in earlier times.

2. European Agriculture.

Southern Rhodesia's Department of Agriculture was established in 1897. By 1923, when the territory became a self-governing Crown Colony it had developed into a strong and efficient organisation, comprising of a number of specialist branches.

From the very beginning of colonial history, commercial farms consisted of large holdings. Early settlers used ox-traction to plough the land and the first tractors were introduced between the two World Wars. From the early days of colonialism, maize (open-pollinated) was the most important crop. Other crops of interest to large scale commercial farmers of this period were: wheat, sorghum, millets, oats, barley, rye, rice, tobacco, cotton, groundnuts, sunflower, linseed, sugarcane, varieties of beans, lucerne, potatoes and horticultural crops such as citrus, deciduous fruit, coffee and tea.

History of Improved Seed & Crop Varieties.

It is not possible in this paper to record the historical development of all major crops grown in Zimbabwe, but a few notable examples will suffice to give an overview of developments and help to identify the periods when improved varieties, commonly associated with the Green Revolution, began to impact on the yields of crops in the commercial and communal sectors.

Commercial production of hybrid seed maize started in 1948. Today all commercial maize producers grow hybrid maize...the development and introduction of hybrid maize was perhaps the greatest single contribution made by research to the agricultural industry during 1924-1950 and was, in conjunction with a greater use of fertilisers, and other improvements in cultural practices, largely responsible for the greatly increased yields of maize per acre in the years to come.

Early crop records for the communal areas do not emphasise maize over and above other crops. Indeed, before the colonial era sorghum and millet formed a substantial part of the food security strategies of communal farmers. Larger areas of higher density hybrid maize, often under continuous monoculture, became popular during the 1960's onwards; until, today, the crop dominates communal agriculture, even in areas previously considered too dry for maize cultivation.

The principal reasons for the very rapid increase in hectares under maize, almost entirely hybrid, in this sector can be attributed to aggressive promotion by government extension agents and Seed Houses, the distribution of hybrid seed (and fertilisers) in free production packs, feeding of maize to people as drought relief, the ease of harvesting and processing maize in a communal setting, and the susceptibility of small grains to bird damage. Today, hybrid maize is not only the dominant crop grown in communal areas, providing the basis of household food security, the promotion of hybrid seed and recurrent droughts have almost entirely eradicated traditional varieties from the scene.

Little effort was directed by the colonial government towards the improvement of traditional small grains, which were considered to be unimportant subsistence crops. The first improved varieties of grain sorghum and millet were released in 1987. These varieties are mostly grown by commercial farmers for specialised markets such as the Stock Feeds Industry and the Breweries. The modern varieties have not been made widely available to communal farmers due to the limited amount of commercial seed being produced by the seed companies. Therefore, most of the sorghum and millet varieties currently grown in communal areas consist of low-yielding traditional varieties.

History Of Fertiliser Consumption.

...little fertiliser was used before the Second World War. Locally, only small quantities of organic fertiliser consisting of bone meal, blood meal and bat guano were available. All inorganic fertiliser had to be imported... fertiliser consumption began to rise dramatically from 1944 onwards, just prior to the introduction of hybrid maize seed (1949/50). This period, then, marked the beginning of the Green Revolution in Zimbabwe.

The most rapid growth in fertiliser consumption occurred during the nine year period from 1964 to 1974, when consumption more than doubled. In 1975 a 25.6% drop in consumption was recorded, due largely to a significant reduction in the maize hectares planted. Consumption in years 1980 and 1981 immediately following independence rose sharply largely in response to the free fertiliser (and seed) packs distributed by the new government to communal farmers. Thereafter the total amount consumed declined steadily due to the drop in numbers of commercial farms.

...prior to 1980 little fertiliser was being consumed by the communal sector. Clearly communal farmers were not able to take advantage of Green Revolution technologies at this stage. Consumption...rose sharply in 1980 and 1981 due to the distribution of free fertiliser by the government, to rise slowly over the period 1982-1986 as short term credit became more available to smallholders, and to decline from 1986 to 1990 as the Agriculture Finance Corporation tightened its credit facilities due to non-repayment of loans. Thereafter the amount of fertiliser consumed in the communal sector rose as more free fertiliser was handed out in drought-relief packs.

Even during the euphoria of the post-independence years, when free fertiliser was handed out and loans were more readily available, the communal sector appeared to be unable or reluctant to consume adequate amounts of inorganic fertiliser. The inequality of fertiliser usage...given by Humphreys (1983) for the 1982/83 season... estimates fertilizer application rates in the communal sector to be 14 kgs of nutrients per hectare compared to 177 kgs on commercial farms.

Almost all fertiliser in communal areas is applied to maize and rarely on other crops. Even then application rates are usually well below the recommended rates. Very little is applied to small grains and other basic staples...

Crop Yield History.

The changes in yield over time for maize... show very definitely that commercial farmers were able to take advantage of the Green Revolution technologies. Mean yields rose three-fold, from about 1 250 kg/ha prior to 1950 to 3 308 after 1950. By contrast...communal farmers were not able to do so. The post 1950 mean yield of 750 kg/ha is little different from the yields prior to 1950...

Comparison of the yields for sorghum from 1970 onwards... show yields of these two crops in the communal areas to be well below those on commercial farms, where very substantial increases in yields took place between 1950 and 1970 during the period when Green Revolution technologies were being introduced.

Conclusions.

The introduction of Green Revolution technologies, principally fertilisers and improved seed, brought about very substantial increases in yields in major crops in the commercial farming areas. Clearly this farming sector was able to take full advantage of the new technologies.

This was not the case in the communal sector, where crop yields stayed very much the same as they were before the Green Revolution. In addition, a marked switch in cropping strategy has taken place in this sector, with traditional small grains being replaced by maize as the basic food staple, and cash cropping coming to the fore. It is possible that these changes in cropping patterns have contributed substantially to increasing the susceptibility of smallholders to drought and making them more dependent than ever on aid.

Some of the major constraints affecting the ability of communal farmers to take advantage of Green Revolution technologies:

CONSTRAINTS IN COMMUNAL LANDS.

Prior to the Second World War, communal farming was geared towards providing sufficient food for the household. Today, under the influence of government and agro-industry extension and sales programmes, driven by the euphoric successes of Green Revolution technologies in other countries, communal farmers are growing more and more crops for sale. Today, cash is a necessity...But the real value of the change from low-input to high-input technologies can be seriously doubted if, rather than liberating, it merely entrenches poverty, food shortages and in addition undermines the self-sufficiency of farming communities.

Apart from making good sense, it is widely acknowledged that full advantage of the improved yields offered by Green Revolution technologies cannot be taken unless many important conditions are available at one and the same time. High input technologies come as a package, and any limiting factor can exercise a grave constraint on the yield-gains ultimately achieved. Yield levels, in turn, determine whether loans can be repaid and adequate levels of the new inputs purchased.

The following is a list of the main conditions which need to be present for Green Revolution technologies to "pay their way":

Adequate soil moisture. Optimal soil fertility. Uniformity of field conditions. Availability of finance. High levels of management.

Each of these will now be discussed in relation to Zimbabwe's smallholder farming areas.

Adequate Soil Moisture.

... the vast majority of communal lands fall within the semi-arid to arid zones, experiencing inadequate rainfall to support all but small areas of very drought-tolerant crops.

The rainfall pattern in Zimbabwe is mono-modal, the vast majority of the seasonal rainfall falling during the period October to April... annual amounts are extremely variable, and fears have been expressed that the variation is increasing and quantities are declining. A mid-season drought commonly occurs, which can have an adverse impact on crop production even in the more humid areas.

The data...show maize yields in the communal sector faithfully following trends in seasonal rainfall, thus substantiating that adequate rainfall/soil moisture is the factor most limiting to crop production in the drier areas of Zimbabwe.

Under the influence of high-input technologies (annual ploughing, cash cropping practices and agro-chemicals) considerable loss of valuable rainfall occurs in the form of surface runoff and evaporation. On average, 30% of the seasonal runoff is estimated to run off communal cropland during storms.

Water supplies, both surface and underground, are limited in these dryer areas and insufficient to make a substantial impact on cropping. Irrigation is limited to stream courses and wet areas in the humid areas and, in the dryer parts of the country, to the vicinity of a few irrigation schemes supplied by large dams on major rivers.

Soil moisture, probably the most important condition for successful adoption of Green Revolution technologies, is thus seriously limiting in communal areas. Lack of it can be expected to have a large adverse impact on the successful adoption of any high-input production package.

Optimal Soil Fertility.

The inherent properties of a soil play an important role in determining its response to applied fertility, moisture, amounts of inputs required and on the ultimate yield.

The majority of the soil in the smallholder sector consists of drought-prone, acid sandy soils of low inherent fertility. These soils are deficient in fine particles (clay and silt) and rely heavily for fertility (moisture and nutrient holding capacity) on the organic matter content.

The early farmers relied on shifting cultivation and minimum tillage (hoe cultivation) to maintain soil organic matter and they moved to new lands when it declined. However, rapid decline in soil fertility was noticed with the introduction of the mouldboard plough, which took place from 1920 onwards.

Under the dry conditions prevalent in Zimbabwe the organic matter is rapidly lost under annual ploughing, with most of the loss taking place within 5 years on sands and 10 years on clays. This loss of organic matter can have a major impact on rates of soil loss and runoff from arable lands.

In addition, research data from Malawi... show even modest applications of inorganic fertilisers contribute significantly to loss of soil organic matter...the experimental data also show increased applications of soluble inorganic fertilisers to contribute to soil acidification.

That too little rainfall is a severe constraint to production, particularly on the drought-prone sandy soils of the communal areas, is a matter of common sense and common experience. What is less appreciated is that loss of organic matter brings two other severe constraints in its wake. The first is that the soil can hold nutrients poorly, which wash out readily during heavy storms and restrict yields even when nutrient applications are at recommended levels. Secondly, that leaching plus removal of a wide spectrum of nutrients by each successive crop must lead eventually to the emergence of deficiencies of many of the nutrients not considered under the simplified NPK approach. In addition, a widespread feature of the sandy granitic soils of the communal areas is that, in high rainfall years or during wet periods, because of profile characteristics, they suffer regularly from waterlogging, which prevents nutrient uptake and causes further leaching losses. It is not surprising therefore that, due to the combination of these adverse forces and others, communal farmers cannot enjoy high yields even when rainfall is not limiting.

Far from enjoying optimal soil fertility, communal soils are inherently infertile, shallow, acid and prone to drought. In addition, the evidence shows that technologies associated with the Green Revolution (annual ploughing and inorganic fertilisers) are exacerbating the problem.

Uniform Field Conditions.

Successful adoption of technical packages has depended to a great extent on the uniformity of on-farm field conditions. Broad prescriptions do not perform well under variable circumstances. Green Revolution technologies, for instance, have increased yields markedly in relatively uniform (and favourable) areas of Asia and Latin America but have so far had little overall impact in Africa because of this complexity...

Smallholder field conditions are complex. Granitic soils are characterised by wide and rapid changes in texture, chemistry, and profile characteristics. It is quite common to see very marked changes in soil properties occurring even within individual smallholder fields. Textures range from fine grained sands to coarse and from clays to loams. Some sands are acid, some alkaline; some are prone to waterlogging and others are relatively well drained. Some soils are deficient in specific major and minor nutrients, while the fertility of the soil "almost next door" can be conditioned by a completely different set of nutrient deficiencies or by past practices. Packages developed at specific locations by central research organisations simply cannot cope with this degree of variability, especially when, as in Zimbabwe, most research stations were sited to serve commercial and not communal farmers.

Given such circumstances, it is difficult to imagine the simplified pattern of commercial farming being imposed upon smallholder fields.

Uniform, high quality tillage is another requirement for successful adoption of Green Revolution technologies. Since the introduction of the single furrow mouldboard plough in the early part of the century, annual ploughing has become the routine practice. Attempts to introduce Reduced, Minimum and Zero tillage techniques into the smallholder farming sector have met with very little success. The quality and timeliness of annual ploughing in the communal sector is very variable.

... studies which found that 43% of communal farmers do not own cattle and 55% have less that the 4 cattle to give adequate draught power for ploughing...a later study...covering four communal lands...74.8% of farmers were found to have less than the necessary four draught oxen. addition to having too few oxen, even after good rainfall years, the cattle are in a seriously weakened state by the end of the long dry season. The combined effect of these two factors is that most lands in communal areas are ploughed shallowly (to a depth of 150 mm instead of the recommended 230 mm) and too late in the season. The quality of ploughing in terms of spatial uniformity is also very variable.

Apart from the lack of uniformity of soil texture, fertility and ploughing quality, farm size would be another serious constraint to the adoption of the simplified, uniform, farming practices consisting of single crops spread over large areas, characteristic of fields under Green Revolution technologies. Unlike large areas, small areas cannot be easily managed or mechanised. Methods of farming have to be scaled down, operations are more difficult to perform and more labour intensive. Farming costs are generally higher that is the case with large fields under monocrops.

Thus, the lack of uniformity of soil texture, soil fertility, ploughing quality, diversity of farming and very small farm size, all militate against the adoption of the simplified, uniform, large scale farming operations which underpinned the success of the Green Revolution elsewhere in the world.

Availability of Finance.

A sound cash flow and sufficient capital are hallmarks of high-external-input technologies. Smallholder farmers do not earn sufficient to purchase the inputs and have unsteady cash flows.

... in 1985 Norad estimated the cash income to be less than $720/yr made up as follows: 40% from agriculture;30% from cash transfers from town;30% other employment & non-agricultural activities.

Farmers are reported to be applying considerably less than the officially recommended fertiliser rates because they cannot afford to do so or in order to reduce the risk of financial loss should the crop fail. Page and Chonyera (1994), for example, found that 64% of the farmers in their sample had applied less than the recommended amounts of fertiliser. It appears that the majority of the farmers have found low-external-input strategies more cost-effective...

In their economic study of maize grown during the 1990/91 season which was carried out in a year of reasonable rainfall (national average 502 mm compared to 335 mm in 1991/92) in four top maize producing communal areas... Chiweshe, Page and Chonyera (1994) found that among the 32% of the farmers who had applied all the officially recommended fertiliser to their maize crop, often by obtaining these inputs on credit, yields were so low that 48% of them could not have met the grain needs of their families and had sufficient maize grain left for sale to cover their loans.

The fact that nearly half of the farmers using the high-external-input approach cannot make ends meet is mute testimony to the lack of appropriateness of these Green- Revolution-style packages under smallholder conditions.

The financial position of farmers could be improved if increases in producer prices were to exceed the rising costs of fertiliser... in general, increases in producer prices lag well behind the rising costs of fertiliser... fertiliser cost 35% more than the list price by the time it gets onto the farm.

Clearly, under smallholder conditions, income from cropping in general is insufficient to pay its way and has to be subsidised by other on-farm and off-farm income-generating activities. Access to credit provides no relief under such circumstances as, even when recommended fertiliser rates are applied, yields from Green Revolution crops such as maize are too low to enable loans to be repaid. Most farmers, it appears, are driven by high risk factors to minimise costly external inputs.

The fact that producer prices are not keeping pace with the cost of fertilisers has inhibited past usage and bodes ill for the future, especially since fertiliser purchases generally account for 60% of input costs...

High Levels of Management.

High levels of management are essential to the success of high input technologies. Among those factors found most vital under local conditions are: appropriate crop varieties, optimal fertilisation, timeliness of planting, weed control and pest control. Adequate training of farmers needs to be supplied before they can adopt new strategies, particularly those requiring high standard of management.

1. Appropriate Crop Varieties.

Generally, understanding of the importance of matching crop variety with field conditions is poor among both smallholder farmers and their advisers. It seems obvious that there is little point in planting a high-yielding variety on a farm which does not enjoy the optimal soil, rainfall, fertility and management that will enable the yield potential to be realised. But this is precisely the case in the smallholder sector of Zimbabwe. Hybrid maize varieties are distributed throughout all the regions of the country in spite of the low yields attained...

In spite of the fact that Natural Region IV and V are classified as unsuitable for cropping, maize has been promoted throughout these areas via the post-independent free packs and drought relief measures. Though the people once preferred the taste of small grains they now prefer maize through being supplied with maize meal as drought relief food. Furthermore, drought relief production packs commonly contain a high proportion of maize seed for planting. In 1992 even the long season variety SR52 was supplied to Natural Regions IV and V for planting the following season. In addition, in 1995 the seed in these packs was predominantly hybrid maize (70% maize and 30% small grains). As discussed earlier these regions typically experience a drought at least one year in five (seven years in twelve being the highest reported in this paper). Naturally these drought relief policies have ensured that people will continue to plant maize in unsuitable areas and will inevitably become more and more dependent upon aid...

Except in the few optimal conditions existing in communal areas (fertile soils, adequate rainfall and/or irrigation, adequate cash and good management), there is little justification in persuading farmers to plant hybrid maize with a potential of 6-8 t/ha when the actual yields obtained are of the order of 1 t/ha. Open pollinated varieties with yield potentials of 3t/ha or more are more appropriate for general conditions and will save farmers the cost of buying seed.

Small grains are the most appropriate crops for many of the drier communal lands. Before the colonial era and for a period afterward, sorghum and millet formed a substantial part of food security. For years, these important subsistence crops were ignored by research and extension. A limited amount of research was conducted on them prior to 1950 but the results were disappointing. The first improved varieties of grain sorghum and millet were released as late as 1987 but have not become available to communal farmers due to commercial seed supplies not being made available. The situation today is that the majority of farmers in the marginal rainfall areas are short of small grain seed due to the combination of successive droughts, the aggressive promotion of maize (contrasting starkly with the scornful attitude of farm advisors to small grains) and the shortage of replacement seed.

The above considerations show that, as far as the most important crop, maize, was concerned potential production gains were frustrated by the promotion of maize per se into inappropriate climatic areas and by the promotion of inappropriate high-yielding varieties (hybrid) into the generally low fertility conditions in the smallholder sector. As far as the two next most important smallholder crops are concerned, millets and sorghum, potential production gains were frustrated by the lack of attention paid to the crops by research and extension, shortage of seed and the failure to make improved varieties available to smallholder farmers.

The conclusion of this section is therefore that the important condition that "appropriate crop varieties should be available" as part of the Green Revolution package has not been met. Without doubt this has had a significant and adverse impact on attempts to introduce high-external-input packages into the smallholder sector.

2. Optimal Fertilisation & Timeliness of Planting.

As described in earlier sections the majority of smallholder farmers do not apply the recommended rates of fertilisation, but opt for lower yields through adopting low-input strategies. Manure is the most common source of on-farm fertility used by smallholders. However, supplies of manure are limited as most householders do not own cattle or have too few cattle to provide sufficient manure. Where manure is in short supply, anthill and leaf mould are commonly used.

It appears ...that in opting for lower input combinations of fertiliser and on-farm organic amendments, smallholders who are able to afford some fertiliser manage to achieve yield levels in keeping with the level of fertility they apply to their fields. Mixtures of organic and inorganic fertilisers are likely to be more sustainable in the long run than reliance wholly on inorganic fertilisers which, as discussed in an earlier section, leaves the soil prone to loss of organic matter, acidification, micro-nutrient deficiencies and soil erosion and high runoff.

Timeliness of planting is important if optimal yield levels are to be obtained. Early root establishment increases effective season length...and...effective season length and quality of the rainfall season are by far the most important constraints to economic dryland crop production. Early planting also acts as a buffer against the mid-season drought. In ...,drought years (1991/92 & 1994/95), early-planted crops were observed to fare better than late planted crops in almost all areas.

Small-scale farmers are rarely able to achieve timely planting. Arising from the weakened state of draught oxen by the end of the dry season and the hard nature of the dry soil, farmers have traditionally ploughed their fields with the first soaking rains and planted later. As a result even farmers owning 4 draught oxen cannot achieve the optimal planting date i.e. plant with the first rain. Farmers having no oxen plant even later, for they have to wait for the fields of the oxen-owners to be ploughed first. Another delaying factor is that smallholders plant by hand, a laborious process taking time. Sandy soils can hold only a limited amount of moisture that rapidly evaporates in the hot sun. A delay of one day in planting can make a considerable difference to crop yield. Thus only a limited area can be planted during the period when moisture is optimal.

... many farmers, because of the remoteness of the areas and supply and transport difficulties, experience problems in obtaining their inputs in time to meet the optimal planting dates.

The success of Green Revolution high-external-input packages depend to a large extent upon optimal fertilisation and timeliness of planting. Neither of these essential factors are within the grasp of most smallholder farmers.

3. Weed and pest control.

Weed control is vital to crop production. Under Zimbabwe's conditions the presence of weeds can completely nullify yields or reduce them significantly. An experiment into weed biomass on different peasant tillage systems Vogel (1994) found the crop (maize) to face such aggressive weed competition that crop establishment was threatened when weeding was delayed by 20 days.

The poor resource base and meagre crop yields of communal farmers renders most chemical and mechanical control methods unfeasible. Hoe weeding is the most common method of weed control in the smallholder sector. This method is highly labour intensive. Labour is generally insufficient to allow more than small areas to be weeded clean or timely.... Yield losses and even total crop failure are often due to inadequate weeding.

Smallholder crops are subject to attack by numerous pests... an experiment showed the decline in yields of well-fertilised continuous maize to be largely due to soil pests. Crop rotations have been advocated to control pests in the absence of agro-chemicals... However, crop rotations have been pushed out by the simplified monocropping advocated by followers of Green Revolution technologies.

Unlike the weed and pest free fields envisaged by the developers of high-external-input packages, smallholder farmers do not have the finances to purchase the necessary chemicals nor the spray equipment to apply them. Labour is insufficient to keep pace with weed infestations and the extension services have little to offer in the place of agro-chemicals for pest control.

4. Adequate Farmer Training.

...the wide range of technical expertise in the small-scale farming sector has long been recognised.
Apart from the training component, the major distinction between Master Farmers (smallholders and small-scale commercial farmers trained to apply high-external-input packages) and Non-Master Farmers is their respective resource endowment. Non-Master Farmers have less draught power, fewer farm implements, less finance to purchase inputs and lower access to information... Of this situation, Martin Whiteside comments:

"Many agricultural programmes have not taken sufficient notice of the diversity among farmers. Worse still, agricultural policy, research and extension have often been directed at an unrepresentative sector of farmers atypically richer, male, and less remote."

Thus, it would appear that only the minority with sufficient resources to be able to apply the costly technologies receive training. This may make good sense, but adds yet another explanation to reasons why the majority of smallholders have been unable to take advantage of the Green Revolution technologies. It would seem that, far from bettering the lot of the resource poor, the countrywide extension focus on high-external-input technologies has contributed substantially to undermining the household food security and incomes of the rural poor.

CONCLUSIONS.

The introduction of Green Revolution into Third World countries made headlines during the years following the Second World War. Politicians, scientists and sales representatives paid homage to the technology in glowing terms. The new technologies began to be introduced into Zimbabwe in the fifties. Releases of new maize hybrids coincided with rapid increases in the use of inorganic fertiliser. Although the commercial sector was able to benefit in terms of increased yield and cost-effectiveness, the vast majority of smallholders were unable to do so.

Compared to the low input strategies of post Green Revolution days, average yields in the smallholder sector have not generally improved at all. In the wake of the rapid spread of these technologies into the more marginal rainfall areas during the years following independence, the food security and economic viability of smallholder farming has deteriorated further. Most households eke out a mere survival by non-agricultural income generating activities.

It would seem that, far from bettering the lot of the resource poor, the countrywide extension-focus on high-external-input technologies has contributed substantially to undermining the household food security and incomes of the rural poor.

Attempts have been made to offset the deficiencies in the high-external-input philosophy by showing that lower levels of the same inputs would be more practical...but perhaps the philosophy itself needs to be seriously challenged.

It has been shown that successful adoption of high-external-input technologies requires the concurrent presence of many supporting conditions. The technology simply does not work, cannot pay for itself, if these conditions are not present. The information in this paper shows that all the most essential conditions are absent from the communal smallholder sector or are inadequate to meet the requirements for successful adoption of high-external-input technologies.

A question relevant to our times is: "should the traditionally diverse, complex and dynamic way of life of smallholder farmers be changed taking into account the conditions of smallholder farmers described in this paper?"

That very complexity, diversity and ability to respond rapidly to changes in the environment, to market forces and to personal circumstances, are the characteristics that allow farmers to survive in harsh conditions. The simplified high-input style of farming advocated by proponents of Green Revolution technologies are seriously jeopardising the ability of these farmers to survive.

The new Ecologically based movements arising in Africa and around the globe are offering sounder, more practical and environmentally safer approaches for achieving future production goals, and do not inhibit the dynamism of traditional practices. For these to bear fruit, however, the aim of production itself needs to be reviewed.

The justification for the Green Revolution was "more food to feed the expanding populations of the world" but, perhaps the understanding that "less food produced does not necessarily mean more people will be hungry" would have modified the excesses that followed. Recent events have shown that more food does not necessarily mean a reduction in world hunger. Poor distribution facilities, politics, corruption and hard economics have ensured that food does not get to hungry people in enough quantities nor in time.

Agriculture of the future should not aim at simple maximisation of production in some parts of the world in order to feed other parts, but at ensuring that every rural household can produce sufficient food for its own needs, plus a little left over for sale. A world in which most farmers depend on food handouts and financial aid in order to survive is clearly not the answer to our problems. Yet this is precisely the situation perpetuated by so-called Green Revolution technologies and accompanying philosophies.

*The study was done in 1999, just before wholesale changes in Zimbabwe's land-holding patterns, and declines in all sectors of agriculture. This abbreviated version omits the references, diagrams and bibliography of the original.