In 1970, South Asia was in a critical state of food insecurity. The developing nations, including India, Indonesia, and Malaysia, were relying heavily on foreign food aid, and population increase and drought deepened their need. But 25 years later, cereal production increased by 107.4 percent. Through the use of scientifically adapted seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, and governmental policies, Asia was able to exponentially increase food production – a phenomenon known as the “Green Revolution.”
And yet, many environmentalists view the Green Revolution as a disaster, citing instances of groundwater loss, pesticide overuse, and fertilizer pollution. Some eschew the Green Revolution as an environmental catastrophe and promote agroecology as a preferable solution. However, this conclusion is deeply flawed. Instead of rejecting the model entirely, environmentalists should be asking, “what went wrong and how can we fix it?” And given the major increases in yield, “how do we replicate such increases in other food insecure nations without the collateral environmental damage?”
The answer to both of these questions lies in food policy. Asian governments were able to spur the trajectory of agricultural yield by investing in agriculture and adopting appropriate food policies. The environmental damage incurred during the revolution was a result of poor policies, not the science itself. Despite this, the action of Asian governments in the face of food crisis was laudable. Governments invested heavily in agriculture R&D, supporting the development of higher-yielding wheat and rice seeds. They selected varieties well suited to Asian soils, and intended them to work in tandem with pesticides, fertilizer, and modern irrigation. Governments intervened in markets to ensure farmers had access to these inputs. In 1972, agriculture made up, on average, 15.4 percent of all Asian governments’ spending.
The returns on investment paid off. In only six years, wheat production doubled in India. Notwithstanding a 60 percent population increase, calories available per person increased by 30 percent. Through the technologies and infrastructure of developed agriculture, India and other South Asian countries successfully avoided a food crisis and ended their dependence on food aid.
Their policies did, however, lend themselves to environmental damage. In the 1980s, the Indonesian government subsidized pesticides and fertilizer—incentivizing farmers to use both excessively. At the same time, the Indian government subsidized electricity, which lowered the price of pumping water and caused groundwater reduction. While all of these effects were certainly detrimental, many were mitigated by removing the policies that caused them, and they could be avoided in the future by more thoughtful policymaking.
Moreover, environmental critics not only fail to see the solutions to the ecological issues that occurred during the Green Revolution, but they neglect the most salient point of all—Asia was able to prevent the deforestation of land necessary to grow food for an increasing population. The Indian scientist M.S. Swaminathan argues that in 1994, India produced 57 million tons of wheat on 24 million hectares of land. To produce this much wheat using the old seeds would have required roughly 60 million hectares. Not only would more trees have needed to be cut down, but land less suited for agriculture would have needed to be employed, and biodiversity would have been lost. The Green Revolution created environmental damage, but the destruction would have been catastrophic had the revolution not occurred.
And it’s worth asking: what do critics of the Green Revolution wish had happened instead? Many propose an agroecological approach—the rejection of modern technologies for indigenous farming practices. Agroecologist Miguel Altieri stresses the importance of local management and distribution systems. He claims that small farmers can produce much of the needed food for rural and neighboring urban communities. However, the International Food Policy Research Institute rebuts, “most alternative farming approaches cannot match the high productivity levels achieved by modern farming methods in Green Revolution areas.” IFPRI also points out that most alternative farming studies juxtapose organic systems with unusually high output to conventional systems with modest output in order to create a “sleight of aggregation” effect.
While critiques of the Green Revolution are evidently problematic, these arguments should guide improvements in the current system. Governments attempting to increase agricultural yield through modern technology should learn from Asia and avoid subsidies for fertilizer and pesticides. What’s more, governments should adopt precision agriculture practices used in the developing world—integrated pest management, no tilling, efficient irrigation—to further minimize the negative environmental effects of pesticides and fertilizer. Lastly, governments should invest in education to farmers so they can adopt these techniques effectively.
These guidelines will prove crucial when developing policy for current food insecure countries. If policymakers learn from Asia’s mistakes, they may achieve a Green Revolution acceptable to environmentalists.
References
- Altieri, Miguel. "Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty." Monthly Review, 61.3 (2009).
- Fao.org. “Food for All - World Food Summit - Agricultural Machinery Worldwide.” 2015.
- Hazell, Peter. "The Asian Green Revolution." International Food Policy Research Institute, (2009).
- Paarlberg, Robert L. Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know. Second Ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2013.
- Rosset, Peter. "Lessons from the Green Revolution: Do We Need New Technology to End Hunger?" Tikkun Magazine, March 1, 2000, 52-56.