ARDHI UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF SPATIAL PLANNING AND SOCIAL SCIENCE (SSPSS)

DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

BACHELOR OF REGIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

ASSIGNMENT; 03

SUBJECT CODE; RP 332

SUBJECT NAME; AGRICULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT

LECTURER; DR MDEMU

YEAR III, SEMISTER 2 2020/2021

S/N NAME REG;NUMBER

01 MWAIGONELA ROMALIO A 22801/X.2018

QUESTION

Is there any possibilities of green revolution in Africa.

Agriculture remains the backbone of most African economies, contributing 24 percent
of gross domestic product in Tanzania, and about 30 percent in Burkina Faso. It also accounts
for a significant proportion of exports; about 65 percent in Kenya and 49 percent of Uganda’s
exports come from the agricultural sector. Yet most African economies have so far failed
to leverage this advantage and it is time to take this bold step if they are to transform their
economies.
“Green Revolution” is the label for concerted initiatives to increase agricultural production
and prevent hunger and starvation in major regions of the world. Earlier efforts, largely
credited to biologist Norman Borlaug (1914 – 2009).
The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) is one of the largest single initiatives
intended to promote smallholder farming in Africa. This is in response to food productivity
deficits through a largely market- and aid-driven process. The few disparate and systematic
analyses of AGRA’s content mainly focus on the broad potential impacts of agricultural
technologies, based on extrapolations from the effects of the first green revolution. Currently
AGRA works in 13 African countries: Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali,
Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia (Dano, 2007; Gimenez
et al, 2006, Mayet 2007).
There is possibility of apply green revolution in Africa because we have many issues in
agriculture sector that needed to be addressed by green revolution.
Firstly, inadequate access to new improved varieties of local food crop. Supporting the
production and distribution of improved crop varieties through private and public channels
(including seed companies, public community seed systems and public extension) so that
farmers can adopt these varieties.
Secondly, decreasing agriculture incomes and weak markets. Identify and nurting
entrepreneurs as they try to establish retail stores or distributorships in areas that are poorly
served with farm supply outlets. Other efforts will be directed at existing dealers who could
benefit from improved technical and business skills.
Thirdly, Inadequate agriculture knowledge. Provides training for new generation of crop
breeders and agricultural scientists upon which the seed system depends for growth and
productivity.
Fourthly, Weak government agriculture policies. To address issues on policies of high
taxes and tariffs that raises the prices of agric inputs, Promotion of safe use of agric inputs
and the development of rural infrastructure.
Fifthly, Weak water management systems. Poor water system management, this is due to
the poor monitoring, evaluation, review of the plan in water and conservation of natural
resources in Africa is poor.
Also, there is initiatives that support green revolution in Africa to happen;
i) The first type of initiative is the successful diffusion of improved crop technologies
through on-farm trials
ii) The second type of significant initiatives is the successful irrigation projects in some
African countries.
 iii) The third significant initiative that could contribute to African Green Revolution is the
existence of advanced crop technologies at International Agricultural Research
Centres and some of the National Research Programmes.
iv) The fourth initiative is the instance of redesign of traditional farming system to
become more productive and sustainable.
In addition, the mentioned above issues and initiatives not only attract implementation
of the green revolution in Africa but there is some argued/debate that critics green
revolution in Africa.
Firstly, Yet there is also a growing political debate about potential costs and how to
counter-act them. Tanzania, for example, is one of the three main countries targeted by the
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. Yet in that country, several prominent non-
government organizations – including Haki Ardhi and the Tanzania Gender Networking
Programme are raising questions about the assumptions and policy proposals of the new
transnational initiative.
Secondly, Critics point to a range of issues, including the potential social and
environmental pitfalls of mono-crop agriculture, the dangers of encouraging farmers to use
genetically modified seeds, and the likelihood that high-cost inputs will lead to growing
inequalities within African farming communities. Is it really a good idea, critics wonder, to
make African farmers more dependent on foreign inputs provided by multinational
corporations? At the most basic level, Tanzanian and other African-based critics question the
underlying Green Revolution assumption that high-tech, commercial agriculture is the best
solution to Africa’s food security challenges. They point to threats to biodiversity when
corporate producers of seeds, fertilizers and other standardized commercial inputs move in
and suppress traditional practices such as farmer-to-farmer seed exchanges. Such fears have
substance, given that the Monsanto Corporation, a partner in the new Green Revolution
effort, has a long record of accomplishment in North America of fostering farmers’
dependency on their commercial seeds.

Thirdly, not everyone is persuaded that this kind of new African Green Revolution is a good
idea. Supporters argue that the Asian Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s resulted in
higher yields of major staple crops, lowered food prices and a reduction in hunger and
malnutrition. They see a similar expansion of modern agriculture as the key to elimination of
poverty and hunger on the African continent. However, previous Green Revolutions also had
downsides. India, which many consider a poster child of the first Green Revolution, did
indeed improve agricultural yields and raise total agricultural outputs. Yet as Glen Davis
Stone has pointed out, hunger in India continues apace, even as the government wrestles with
the problem of overflowing granaries – because poor Indians, including many poor farmers
and farm laborers, simply do not have the money to buy the food commercial agriculture has
produced. Looking into one of the saddest downsides, A.R.Vasavi examined over 200,000
farmer suicides in India spanning more than a decade and found that indebtedness was a
prime spur to such tragedies, as farmers get in over their heads trying to buy expensive
commercial inputs. Most farmer suicides have taken place precisely in the regions where
Green Revolution technologies were most heavily adopted. Some scholars of African
agriculture have claimed that massive bankruptcies of small family farmers, faced with
steadily rising costs for foreign produced seeds and fertilizers but volatile global prices for
their crops, will pave the way for land grabs by foreign agribusiness investors.
Fourthly, Failure to intensify production. Green Revolution programs have not produced a
productivity boom through intensification but rather an intensification onto new lands. The
promotion of intensification is a serious contradiction for Green Revolution proponents. The
explicit goal of “sustainable intensification” is to minimize pressure on land and water
resources while limiting further greenhouse gas emissions. To the extent Green Revolution
programs are encouraging intensification, they are at odds with national and donor
government commitments to mitigate climate change. Depending on individual countries’
land endowments, extensification can be a serious problem. Rwanda, for example, is densely
populated and does not have vast tracts of uncultivated arable land

Fifthly, Decline or stagnation in nutritious food crops. One of the negative consequences
of the Green Revolution focus on maize and other commodity crops is the declining
importance of nutritious and climate-resilient crops like millet and sorghum, which have been
key components in healthy diets. African governments or AGRA rarely supports these;
meanwhile, input subsidies and supports for maize and other favored crops provide incentives
for farmers to decrease the cultivation of their own crop varieties, millet production fell 24%
in the AGRA period, with a 5% drop in area planted and a 21% decline in yields. Sorghum,
an ancient grain that is a staple of many African foods, has also languished under the Green
Revolution. Production grew just 17% as yields stagnated (3%) and area harvested increased
only 13%. Before AGRA, nearly twice as much land was planted in both millet and sorghum
than was planted in maize. Now, maize dwarfs both due to the many incentives to produce
the crop despite the demonstrated climate-resilience of these crop varieties. In this sense,
Green Revolution programs are undermining farmers’ ability to adapt to climate change.
Other critical food security crops suffered as well. Cassava, a key staple in Nigeria,
Mozambique, Uganda, Tanzania and many other AGRA countries, saw a 6% decline in
yields. Overall, roots and tubers, which include nutritious crops such as sweet potatoes,
experienced a 7% decline in yields. Groundnuts, another critical staple source of protein in
many countries, saw an alarming 23% drop in yields.

Sixthly, No evidence of doubling incomes or halving food insecurity. AGRA offers little
evidence that beneficiary farmers’ incomes are increasing, never mind whether they are
doubling. In fact, it is difficult to find anything but anecdotal reporting of farmers’ welfare
improving with AGRA’s interventions. Again, this is disturbing for an international
nongovernmental organization that has received and distributed such large sums in the name
of productivity-led welfare improvements. In the absence of such data from AGRA, we
examine the available national indicators related to poverty and food insecurity for AGRA
countries. Relying primarily on World Bank and FAO data, we see limited and uneven
progress in reducing food insecurity, weak progress in reducing poverty, and continued high
rates of rural poverty where one would expect AGRA’s interventions to have the greatest
impact by increasing smallholder incomes.
 REFERENCES
Dano E. C., (2007). Unmasking the New Green Revolution in Africa. Motives, Players and
Dynamics. Penang: Third World Network.
Holt-Gimenez E., Miguel A. and Rosset P. (2006). ‘Ten Reasons Why the Rockefeller and
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations’ Alliance for Another Green Revolution Will not
Save the Problems Of Poverty and Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa.’ Food First Policy Brief
No.12
Mayet, M. (2007). Policy Brief on the New Green Revolution in Africa. ActionAid.
Timothy A. Wise July 2020: Failing Africa’s Farmers: An Impact Assessment of the
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa