» ‘A wealthy Punjabi farmar standing in a field of ona of tha high-yielding variaties of wheat on which the Green Revolution is based, The introduction of the HYVs has led to increasing rural inequelities and landlessness, and has contributed to the ethnic and communal violence which has claimed thousands of ives in the Punjab. (Photo: Mark Edwards/Stll Pictures) The Green Revolution in the Punjab The Green Revolution has been a failure. It has led 10 reduced genetic diversity, by Vandana Shiva increased vulnerability to pests, soil erosion, water shortages, reduced soil fertility, micronutrient deficiencies, soil contamination, reduced availability of nutritious food crops for the local population, the displacement of vast numbers of small farmers from their land, rural impoverishment and increased tensions and conflicts. The beneficiaries have been the agrochemical industry, large petrochemical companies, manufacturers of agricultural mackinery, dam builders and large landowners. In 1970, Norman Borlaug wasawarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his workin develop- ing high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of ‘wheat. TheGreen Revolution”, launched by Borlaug's “miracle seeds", is often credited with having transformed India froma begging bowl to bread basket.”, and the Punjab is frequently cited as the Green Revolution’s most celebrated suc- ‘Vandana Shiva is divectorof the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Poles, 108 Raipur Road, Dehra Dun 2248001 India Her latest book tobe published in the Westie Saying Alive: Women, Beology and Development (Zed, London, 1983), “The Eeologis, Vol. 21, No.2, Marcl/April 1991 cess story.! Yet, far from bringing pros- perity, two decades of the Green Revolu- tion have left the Punjab ridéled with dis. contentand violence. Instead of abundance, the Punjsb is beset with diseased soils, pest-infested crops, waterlogged deserts and indebted and discontented farmers. Instead of peace, the Punjab has inherited conflict and violence. Origins It has often been argued that the Green Revolution provided the only way in which India (and, indeed, the rest of the Third World) could have increased food avail- ability. Yet, until the 1960s, India was successfully pursuing an agricultural ée- velopment policy based on strengthening the ecological base of agriculture and the self-reliance of peasants, Land reform was viewedasa political necessity and, follow- ing independence, most states initiated ‘measures to secure tenure for tenant culti- -vators, to fix reasonable renis and toabolish the zamindari (landlord) system. Ceilings ‘on Jand holdings were also introduced. In 1951, ata seminar organized by the Minis- try of Agriculture, detailed farming strat- 57egy — the “land transformation” prog- ramme — was put forward. The strategy recognized the need to plan from the bot- tom, to consider every individual village and sometimes every individual field. The programme achieved major successes. In- deed, the rate of growth of total crop pro- duction was higher during this period than inthe years following the introduction of the Green Revolution. However, while Indian scientists end policy makers were working out self-reli- ant and ecologically-soundalternativesfor the regeneration of agriculture in India, another visionof agricultural development was taking shape within the international aid agencies and large US foundations. Alarmed by growing peasent untest inthe newly independent countries of Asia, agencies like the World Bank, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, the US Agency forlntemational Developmentand others looked towards the intensification of agriculture as a means of “stabilizing” the countryside — and in panicular of dofusing the call fora wider redistribution ofland and other resources. Above ll, the US wished toavoid other Asian countries’ following in the revolutionary footstepsof China. In 1961, the Ford Foundation thus launched its intensive Agricultural Devel- ‘opment Programme in India, intended to release” Indian agriculture from * shackles ofthe past” through theintrodac- tion of modern, intensive chemical farm- ing ‘Adding to the perceived geopolitical need tointensify agriculture was pressure from westem agrochemical companies anxious to ensure higher fertilizer consumption overseas. Since the early 1950s, the Ford Foundation had been pushing for increased fertilizer use by In- dian farmers, as hac the World Bank and USAID — with some success. Whilst the government’sFirst Five Year Plan viewed artificial fertilizers as supplementary to organic manures, the second and subse~ quent plans gavea direct and crucial roleto fertilizers. But native varieties of wheat tend to “lodge”, or fall over, when subject tointensive fenilizerapplications. Thenew “dwarf” varieties developed by Borlaug, however, were specifically designed to ‘overcome thisproblem: shorter andstiffer- stemmed, they could absorb chemical fertilizer, o wnich they were highly recep- tive, without lodging. By the mid 1960s, India’s agricultural policies were geared to pushing the intro- ductionof thenew “miracle” seeds devel- ‘oped by Borlaug, The programme came to 58 be known as the New Agricultural Strat- egy. It concentrated on one-tenth of the arable land, and initially on only one crop — wheat. By 1968, nearly half the wheat planted came from Borlsug’s dwarf vari- A host of new institutions were estab- lished to provide the research required to develop further the Green Revolution, to disseminatethe seeds, and to educate peo- ple inthe appropriate agricultural techni- ques. By 1969, the Rockefeller Founda- tion, in co-operation with the Ford Foun dation, had established the Centro Inter- national de Agriculture Tropical (CIAT) inColombiaand the Intemational Institute for Tropical Agriculture (LITA in Nigeria In 1971, at the initiative of Robert McNamara, the President of the World Bank, the Consultative Group on Interna- The “miracle” seeds of the Green Revolution have become mechanisms for breeding new pests and creating new diseases. tional Agricultural Research (CGIAR) was formed to finance the growingnetwork of intemational agriculturalcentres (ARCS) Since 1971, nine more IARCs have been addedto the CGIAR sysiem. Over the last two decades, FAOhas played akey role in promoting the Green Revolution package of “improved” seeds, agrochemicals and intigation schemes. The Myth of High Yields The term “high-yielding varieties” is a ‘misnomer, because it implies that thenew seedsare high yielding of themselves. The distinguishing festure of the seeds, how- ever, is that they are highly responsive to certain key inputs such as ferilizers and irrigation water. Theterm“high-responsive varieties” is thus more appropriate. Inthe absence of additional inputs of fertilizers and water, thenew seeds perform worse than indigenous varieties. The gain in output is insignificant compared to the increase in inputs. The measurement of ‘output is also biased by restricting it to themarketable elementsof crops. But, ina country likeIndia,cropshavetraditionally been bred to produce not just food for humans, but fodder for animals and or- ganic fertilizer for soils. In the breeding strategy for the Green Revolution, multi- ple uses of plant biomass seem to have been consciously sacrificed for a single use, An increase in the marketable output of grain has been achieved atthe cost of a dectease in the biomass available for ani mals and soils from, for example, stems and leaves, and a decrease in ecosystem productivity due to the over-use of re- sources, Significantly, much of the increased yield obtained by planting the new HYV Varieties consists of water. Increasing the nitrogen uptake of plants through using artificial fertilizers upsets their carbon/ nitrogen balance, causing metabolic prob: lemsto which the plantreacts primarily by taking up extra water. India isa centre of genetic diversity of rice, Out of this diversity, Indian peasants and tribals have selected and improved many indigenous high yielding varieties (see Winin Pereira, this issue). Compara: tive studies of 22 rice growing systems have shown that indigenous systems are more efficient when inputs of labour and energy are taken into account.* Loss of Diversity Diversity isa central principle of traditional agriculture in the Punjab, asin the rest of India. Such diversity contributed to eco: logical stability, and hence to ecosystem productivity. The lower the diversity in an ecosystem, the higher its vulnerability t0 pests and disease, ‘The Green Revolution package has re- duced genetic diversity attwo levels. First, itreplaced mixtures and rotations of crops like wheat, maize, millets, pulses and oil seeds with monocultures of wheat and rice. Second, theintroduced wheatandrice varieties came from a very narrow genetic base. Of the thousands of dwarf varieties bred by Borlaug, only three were eventu- allyused in the Green Revolation. On this nartow and alien genetic base the food supplies of millions are precariously perched Increasing Pesticide Use Because oftheir narrow geneticbase, HY Vs are inherently vulnerable to major pests anddiseases. Asthe Central Rice Research Institute, in Cuttack, India, notes of rice: “The introduction of high yielding varie- “The Ecologist, Vol. 21, No. 2, MarchyApelt 1991,The Colonization of the Seed ‘The technological transformation of seeds is usted by scientists and industialsts in the language of improve- tment” and inerease of “economic value". However, “improvement” and “value” are not neutral terms. What is improvement i. one context ie oft regrossion in anothor What is value added from one perspective Is value lost from another. The “improvement” of seeds is essentially paltical process, shiting control aver biological divessity from pezsants to transnational corporatons and chenaing a sel-teproducing resource into @ mere “input. || ~The ability ofthe seed to repreduce seit is an important || _ barrier to the penetration of agriculture by the corporate || sector. n planing ezch year's crop farmers also reproduce a necessary part of heir means cf production, Modern plant breeding s primarily an attempt to remove this Biological obstacle te corporate contro of the market in seeds, Self-reproducing seadis free, a common resource Linder the farmer's control. Corporate sed, howover, has a cost and is under the contol of the corporate sector or the |) agrcuiteral research institutes. The cycle of regeneration of biodiversity is thus replaced by a linear flow of feo germplasm from farms and forests into labs and research stations, and the flow of modified uniform products as priced commodities trom corporations to farmers. Winnowng wheat, Uttar Pracesh, india. Tredionally, farmers keep part of their grain harvest to plant the following yoar. “improved se0ds, however, have to be bought for each harvest as ther produetiviy decreases with succesive generations, increasing ‘epandeney and debt in farming communities. (Photo: Mark Eawardy/Stl Pictures) ‘The new biotechnologies, and especially the development of crops resistant to brand-name herbicides, will increase | farmers reliance on technology. Whether a chemical is ‘added externally or internally, it remains an external inputin the ecological cycle of the reproduction of seed. ties has brought about a marked change in the status of insect pests like gall midge, brown planthopper, lesf-folder, whore maggot, etc, Most of the high-yielding varieties released so far are susceptible to majorpests with a crop loss of 30-100 per cent.”” Even where new varieties are spe~ cially bred for resistance to disease, “breakdown in resistance can occur rap- idly and in some instances replacement varietiesmay be requiredevery three years or so." In the Punjab, the rice variety PR 106, which currently accounts for 80 per cent of the area under rice cultivation, was considered resistant to whitebacked planthopper and stem rot when it was in- troduced in 1976. It has since become susceptible to both diseases, in addition to suecumbingtoriceleaf-folder, hispa, stem- borer and several other insect pests The natural vulnerability of HYVs to pests has been exacerbated by other as- pects of the Green Revolution package. Large-scale monoculture provides a large and often permanent niche for pests, taming minordiseases nto epidemics; inaddition, fertilizers have been found to lower plants” resistance to pests. The result has been a ‘massive increase inthe use of pesticides, in itself creating still further pest problems duetotheemergence of pesticide-resistant Vol. 21, No.2, MarchyApril 1991 pests and areduction inthe natural checks ‘on pest populations ‘The “miracle"seeds of the Green Revo- lution have thus become mecianisins for breeding new pests and creating new dis- eases. Yet the costs of pesticides or of breeding new “resistant” verieties was never counted as part of the “miracle” of the new seeds. Soil Erosion Overthe centuries, the fertility oftheIndo- Gangetic plains was preserved through treating the soil as a living system, with soil-depleting cropsbeing rotated with soil- building legumes. Twenty yearsof “Farm- ers’ Training and Education Schemes”, however, have transformed the Punjab farmer into an efficient, if unwilling, “soil bandit” Marginal land or forests have been cleared to make way for the expansion of agriculture; rotationshave been abandoned; and cropland is now used to grow soil- depleting crops year-in, yeat-out. Since the start of the Green Revolution, the area ‘under wheat, for example, has nearly doubled and the area under rice has in- ‘creased five-fold, During the same period, the area under lepumes has been reduced byhalf. Today, 84 percent of the Punjabis under cultivation, asagainst42 percent for India as a whole. Only four per cent ofthe Punjab isnow “forest”, most of this being plantations of Eucalyptus.* Theresult ofsuch agricultural intensifi- cation has been “a downward spiralling of agricultural Jand use — from legume to wheat to wasteland."® The removal of legumes rom cropping patterns, for exam- ple, has removed a major source of free nitrogen from thesoil.Inadgition,thenew HYVs reduce the supply of fodder and organic fertilizeravailableto farmers, Tra- ditional varieties of sorghum yield six pounds of straw per acre for every pound of grain, By contrast modera rice varieties produce equivalent amounts of grain and straw. This has contributed to the thirty- fold rise in ferilizer consumption in the state since the inception of the Green Revolution. Incressed fertilizer use, however, has not compensated for the over-use of the soil. High-yielding varietiesrapidly deplete micronutrients from soils and chemical fertilizers (unlike organic manures which contain a wide range of trace elements) cannot compensate for the loss. Micto- nutrient deficiencies of zine, iron, copper, 59‘manganese, magnesium, molybdenum and boron are thus common. In rezent surveys, ‘overhalf of the 8706 soil samples from the Punjabexhibitedzinc deficiency, reducing yieldsof rice, wheat and maize by upto3.9 tonnes perhectare. Partly asa result of soil deficiencies, the productivity of wheat and rice has declined in many districts in the Punjeb, in spite of increasing levels of fertilizer application. Water Shortages Traditionslly, irrigation was only used in the Punjab as an insurance against crop failure intimes of severe drought. Thenew seeds, however, need intensive irrigation as an essential input for crop yields. Al though high-yielding varieties of wheat may yield over 40 per cent more than traditional varieties, they need about three timesas much water. Intermsof water use, therefore, they are less han half as produc tive? One result of the Green Revolution has therefore been to create conflicts over di- minishing water resources. Where crops are dependent on groundwater for iriga- tion, the water table is declining at an estimated rate of one-third to half ¢ metre per year. A recent survey by the Punjab Directorate of Water Resources, hasshown that 60 out of the 118 development blocks in the state cannot sustain any further in- crease in the number of tubewells. Social Impact Although the Green Revolution brought initial financial rewards to many farmers, especially the more prosperous ones, those rewards were closely linked to high sub- sidies and price support. Such subsidies could not be continued indefinitely and farmers in the Punjab are now facing in: creasing indebtedness. Indeed, there is evidence of a decline in farmers’ real in- come per hectare from 1978-79 onwards. The increased capital intensity of farming — in particular the need to pur- chase inputs — has generated new ineq: ualities between those who could use the new technology profitably, and those for ‘whom it tumed into an instrument of dis- possession. Small farmers — who make upnearly half ofthe farming population — have been particularly badly hit. A survey carried out between 1976 and 1978 indi cates that small farmers’ households were running into an annual average deficit of 60 around 1500 rupees. Between 1970 and 1980, the number of smallholdings in the Punjab declined by nearly « quarter dueto their “economic non-viability”.* “The prime beneficiarieshave been larger farmers and agrochemical companies. AS peasantshave become more and more de- pendenton “off-farm” inputs, sothey have become increasingly dependent on those ‘companies that control the inputs. HYV seedsare illustrative, Unlikethe traditional high yielding varieties witich have co- evolved with local ecosystems, the Green Revolution HYVs have to be replaced frequently. Afterthree tofive years’ lifein the field, they become susceptible to dis- eases and pests. Obsolescence replaces sustainability. And the peasant becomes dependent on theseed merchants (see Box) ‘The further commercializationof seeds hasbeenactively encouraged by the World Bank, despite widespread resistance from facmers who prefer to retain and exchange seeds among themselves, outside the market framework, Since 1969, the World Bank has made four loans to the National Seeds Project. The fourth loan — disbursed in 1988 — was specifically intended to encourage the involvement of the private sector, including multinational corpora- tions, in seed production, Such involvement was considered necessary because “sUs- tained demand for seeds did not expandas expected, constraining the developmentof the fledgling industry.” Intensive irrigation has led to the need for large-scalestorage systems, centraliz- ing control over water suppliesand leading to both local and inter-state water con- ficts. Despite asuccession of water-sharing agreements between the Punjab, Rajasthan and Haryana, there is increasing conflict over both the availability of water and its quality. nthe Punjab, farmers areactively campaigning tohalt the construction of the Sutles-Yamuna Link Canal, which will take water to Haryana to inrigate 300,000 hectaresfor Green Revolution agriculture, whilst in Haryana, local politicians are lobbying hard for itscompletion. In 1986, irate farmers in the Ropar district of the Punjab, wherethe Link Canal begins, vir- tually forced the Irrigation Department to abandonworkon theproject. In May 1988, 30 labourers were killed at one of the construction sites. The worsening lot of the peasantry in the Punjab, which is largely made up of Sikhs, has undoubtedly contributed to the development of Punjab nationalism. Many complain that the Punjab is being treated like @ colony in order to provide cheap food for urban élites elsewhere in India, representative of a Punjab farming organ ization stated in 1984: “For the past three years, we have increasingly lost money from sowing all our acreage with wheat. We have been held hostage to feed the rest of India. Weare determined thatthis will change.” A Second Revolution ‘Thereare two optionsavailable forgetting ‘out of the crisis of food production in the Punjab. One is to continue down the toad of further intensification; the other is to make food production economically and ecologically viable again, by reducing in- put costs. Sadly, the Indian government appears to have adopted the former sirat- egy, seeking to solve the problems of the first Green Revolution by launching a second. The strategy and thetoric are the same; farmers are being encouraged to replace the “old technologies” ofthe first revolution with the new biotechnologies of the second; and to substitute wheat and rice grown fordomestic consumption with fruit and vegetables for the export market The production of staple foods is being virtually ignored Like the first Green Revolution, the ind is being promoted on the promise -e and prosperity”. It is highly unlikely that the second revolution can succeed where the first failed. ‘This anicle isextracted from The Violence of the Green Revolution: Ecological Degradation and Political Conflict in Punjab, a book published by Vandana Shiva, Dehra Dun, 1989. References - 1. Swaninathas, MS. Science and the Conquest of “unger, Concept, Delhi, 198, p49. Revolution a Micro Scale’ is Understonding Green Revolutions, Cambridge Univesity Pres, 1984 5. Doprs,B, Empty Stomachs and Packed Godeons, New Dethi, 1988 4. CGIAR, Integrative Report, Washington, DC, 1978, Revolution with a focus on Panjab led’ in [Richard Bamet (9d), ernational Dimensions of the Environmental Crisis, Westview, Boulder, CColerado, 1982 Thi 1 bid 1. Gill. “Contadicion of Punjab Modt of and Political Weekly, 1S Oeobet, 1918 9. Christian Science Monitor, May 1984, 9.10. ‘The Ecologist, Vol. 21, No. 2, Marei/April 1991amera ness “Factual errors and misinformation. Norman Borlaug defends the Green Revolution. I recently read with interest and considerable dismay the article you published entitled "CGIAR: Agricultural Research for Whom?" (The Ecologist Vol.26 No.6, November/December 1996). The article contains many errors, of fact and interpretation, and is clearly ‘not an unbiased treatment of some exceedingly important and complex issues. But what bothered me even more than the misinformation contained in the article was the clear implication that there has been litle or 1no payoff to poor countries, such as India, of the Green Revolutien in wheat and rice. Given the facts of the Indian ‘ase alone (many other examples could be cited), how could the author possibly arrive at that conclusion? By the mid-1960s, India’s population had reached about 465 million, localized famines were already happening, and widespread hunger and malnutrition were imminent. The doom-sayers of the day were predicting a famine of unprecedented The Feok Letter Forum proportions throughout South Aa. The Green Revolution wheat and rice varieties that were introduced in the mid-1960s not only staved off this desperate Malthusian scenario, but have enabled india to build grain reserves of 20:30 milion tons; in fact, ‘they have maintained these reserves against inclement weather and other disasters for more than a decade now, ‘even in the face of a near doubling of their population (to about 940 million today)! Tell me again how there has been no impact of the Green Revolution in india. Let me be clear: | do not advocate rnor condone the kind of population growth that India has experienced, But Thave always maintained that our responsibility as agricultural scientists is to buy time, so that educational, religious and political leaders can attack the complex issues of rapid population growth and rein in the “Population Monste-" that | spoke about in accepting my Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, To my knowiedge, there are few environmental groups who seek to stem the rising tide of humanity | sincerely applaud the efforts of those who do. But I cannot ‘and will not stand iely by and watch millions starve when itis within my power and the power of modern agricultural science to prevent such an immoral catastrophe. ft seems to me that a responsible journal lke The Ecologist is obligated to present a more balanced view to its readers than does this particular article. When it comes to the environmental and social impacts of agricultural development, poverty. population growth, and amyriad of other elements affecting the human condition, we are clearly alin the same boat, and we had better start rowing together, at least in the same general direction, before itis too late forall of us. Norman E Borlaug Nobel Peace laureate International Center for Maize and Wheat Improvement, Mexico Vol. 27, No.5, September/Getober 1997 «Dr Vandana Shiva responds Norman Borlaug’ dismay at the article on the CGIAR system which gave a realistic analysis of the costs of the Green Revolution is understandable Borlaug is supposed to have created a ‘miracle’ ~ a task usually left to gods and saints, not to scientists. He still seems to be under the impression that itis his “power and the power of modern agricultural science” which has saved Indians like me from starving Scientists who start seeing themselves, in the role of god cannot tolerate an honest and realistic evaluation of the impact of their work on nature and on people. Borlaug's letter perpetuates five myths on which the ‘miracle’ of the Green Revolution rests. The first myth is that india was unable to feed herself til the Green Revolution was launched. The second myth is that ‘American scientists like Borlaug were dedicated only to preventing starvation and not to promoting the use of chemicals. The third myth is that the increase in wheat and rice production through monocultures is an increase in overall food production and nutritional availability. The fourth myth is that the Green Revolution is an efficient way to provide food in a country witha large population and low resource availability. The fifth rth is that India's grain reserves are exclusively the result of the Green Revolution, and will continue to e» in preparation for possible future disasters. Borlaug is supposed to have pulled aunIndia out of a‘ship-to-mouth’ existence and transformed India from ‘a beaging bowl to a bread basket’ However, India has been an agricultural society for more than forty centuries. In 1889, Dr John Augustus Voelcker was commissioned by the Secretary of State to India to advise the imperial government on the application of agricultural chamistry to Indian agriculture. In his report to the Royal Agricultural Society of England ‘on the improvement of indian agricuture, Voelcker stated: “Ido not share the opinions which have been expressed as to Indian agriculture being as a whole backward and primitive, but | believe that in many parts there is nothing that can be improved. | may be bold to say that it is a much eatier task to propose improvements in English agriculture than to make really valuable suggestions ‘or that of India.” Borlaug went to India with the same task as Voelker — to apply chemicals to Indian agriculture. Unlike Voelcker, however, he did not show hurriity Instead he is convinced that before him indians did not know how to feed themselves. As he writes in his letter, “famines were already happening and widespread hunger and malnutrition were imminent.” The last famine India had experienced was in 1942, during British tule, which killed 2 million people. Famines were a legacy of colonialism, The famine in 1717 killed 10 million people, but as Warren Hastings wrote to the directors of the East india Company, revenues collected by the British in that year were higher than earlier years. n the 1960s when Borlaug was trying to introduce chemical agriculture and his new seeds, india was not suffering from famines. Independent india dic not have any famines, although in 1966 it did have a severe érought. Food imports to india were as low as 711,009 tons in the mid-1950s. Borlaug and other US experts had been trying 10 introduce the Green Revolution to India since 1963 but had faced major resistance from Indian planners. They finally got their chance in 1966 when India suffered a drought and was forced to import 10 million tons of wheat. The US exploited this scarcity in its use of food as a weapon and forced non-sustainable, resource-inefficient, capital and chemical-intensive agriculture on one of the most ancient agricultural civilizations of the world. ‘American agricultural experts like 212 Borlaug did not introduce the Green Revolution to “buy time” for india, They introduced it to sell chemicals to India. American companies were anxious to find fertilizer markets overseas. In 1967, at a meeting in New Deli, Borlaug told the audience: “It were a member of your parliament, | would leap from my seat every fifteen minutes and yell at the top of my voice ‘Fertilizer! .. Give the farmers more fertilizer’ There isno more vital ‘message in India than this.” ‘When the Green Revolution was introduced, the foreign exchange was six times the total amount allocated to agriculture during the preceding period. This foreign exchange requirement was met through debts, Green Revolution-related debts accounted for two-thirds of India’s national debt over time. The third myth that Borlaug perpetuates is equating rice and wheat production with food-grain production. The growth of rice and wheat has taken place by the destruction of oilseeds, pulses and millets such as. barnyard millet and finger millet, which are highly nutritious and resource-prudent crops. In terms of nutrition, the Green Revolution has actualy led to a decline both by displacing more nutritious food-grains and by undermining agricultural production in areas not well endowed with itrigation anc fertile soil The Green Revolution in fac focussed on the least nutritious crops It could be said that the focus on rice and wheat alone was a kind of ‘racism’ projected to crops. with white grains being considered superior and dark grains ‘inferior’ or ‘marginal’ crops in spite of being more nutritious. If we look at nutrition per acre, Boriaug’s miracle’ varieties did not yield more Not only has this contributed to a decline in nutrition and the erosion of biodiversity it has also led to soil and land degradation The Green Revolution led to and promoted the constant use of cropland under soil depleters like wheat and rice, rather than rotation with soil- building leguminous crops like pulses ‘As Kang has cautioned, “This process implies a downward spiralling of agricultural land use ~ from legume to wheat to rice to wasteland." 50% of Punjab’s farmland is severely degraded. Micronutrient deficiencies are creating new plant diseases. Intensive irigation has led to waterlogging and salinity in some places and groundwater-mining in other parts. Weed and pest problems are overtaking the monocultures, leading to increased use of herbicides and pesticides. Further introduction of Green Revolution rice and wheat ‘monocultures has led to the erosion of biodiversity. India used to grow more than 100,000 varieties of rice before the Green Revolution, many of which were high-yielding and all of which were more efficient users of water and had higher resistance to pests and diseases, Destroying the natural capital of fertile sols, abundant water resources and rich biadiversity can hardly be described as “buying time”. itis selling the future. The resource inefficiencies of chemical-industrial agriculture are now well documented. indigenous agriculture based on biodiversity needs only 5 units of input to produce 100 units of food, whereas industrial agriculture requires 200 units of input to produce the same 100 units of food in high-population, scarce-resource contexts it makes sense to use more resource -prudent systems to provide food and nutrition, rather than the more inefficient and wasteful ones. in this sense too Boriaug's prescriptions did not “buy time” for India. Finally, Borlaug points to India’s grain reserves as ¢ result exclusively of ‘the Green Revolution. These reserves would have been built up anyway as a result of investments in irrigation and pricing policies and support prices to farmers for distributing cheap food through the public distribution system. Today under the new wave of globalization and under pressure of the World Bank's structural acjustment programme, the subsidies for farmers ‘and for the public distribution systems are being dismantled. Quantitative restrictions on food imports and ‘exports are being removed under the WTO disciplines. India’s food security is once again severely threatened. To create an alternative beyond the non- sustainability of the Green Revolution and the brutality of free trade in food, ‘we will have to build our agriculture on principles of diversity and integraton to ensure that itis sustainable, conserves resources, and provides nutritional and food security \while providing immunity to unstable and volatile global markets. Dr Vandana Shiva Director, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, India. ‘The Ecologist, Vol. 7, No.5, September/October 1997