Document B Source: “Forgotten Benefactor of Humanity,” Greg Easterbrook, Atlantic Monthly, January 1997 . . . [Norman] Borlaug is an eighty-two-year-old plant breeder who for most of the past five decades has lived in developing nations, teaching the techniques of high-yield agriculture. He received the Nobel [Peace Prize] in 1970, primarily for his work in reversing the food shortages that haunted India and Pakistan in the 1960s. Perhaps more than anyone else, Borlaug is responsible for the fact that throughout the postwar era, except in Sub-Saharan Africa, global food production has expanded faster than the human population, averting the mass starvations that were widely predicted—for example, in the 1967 best seller Famine—1975! The form of agriculture that Borlaug preaches may have prevented a billion deaths. . . . The Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and the World Bank, once sponsors of his work, have recently given Borlaug the cold shoulder. Funding institutions have also cut support for the International Maize and Wheat Center—located in Mexico and known by its Spanish acronym, CIMMYT—where Borlaug helped to develop the high-yield, low pesticide dwarf wheat upon which a substantial portion of the world’s population now depends for sustenance [food]. And although Borlaug’s achievements are arguably the greatest that Ford or Rockefeller has ever funded, both foundations have retreated from the last effort of Borlaug’s long life: the attempt to bring high-yield agriculture to Africa. . . . To Borlaug, the argument for high-yield cereal crops, inorganic fertilizers, and irrigation became irrefutable when the global population began to take off after the Second World War. But many governments of developing nations were suspicious, partly for reasons of tradition (wheat was then a foreign substance in India) and partly because contact between Western technical experts and peasant farmers might shake up feudal cultures to the discomfort of the elite classes. Meanwhile, some commentators were suggesting that it would be wrong to increase the food supply in the developing world: better to let nature do the dirty work of restraining the human population. . . .
U6L6: Document C Source: “The Greening of the Green Revolution,” David Tilman, Nature, November 1998 . . . It is not clear which are greater—the successes of modern high-intensity agriculture, or its shortcomings. The successes are immense. Because of the green revolution, agriculture has met the food needs of most of the world’s population even as the population doubled during the past four decades. But there has been a price to pay, and it includes contamination of groundwaters, release of greenhouse gases, loss of crop genetic diversity and eutrophication [pollution] of rivers, streams, lakes and coastal marine ecosystems (contamination by organic and inorganic nutrients that cause oxygen depletion, spread of toxic species and changes in the structure of aquatic food webs). It is unclear whether high-intensity agriculture can be sustained, because of the loss of soil fertility, the erosion of soil, the increased incidence of crop and livestock diseases, and the high energy and chemical inputs associated with it. The search is on for practices that can provide sustainable yields, preferably comparable to those of high-intensity agriculture but with fewer environmental costs. . . . U6L6: Document D Source: “Realizing the Promise of Green Biotechnology for the Poor,” Harnessing Technologies for Sustainable Development, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa . . . The [implementation of the] first green revolution—from the early 1960s to 1975—introduced new varieties of wheat, rice, and maize that doubled or tripled yields. The new varieties were highly susceptible to pest infestation and thus required extensive chemical spraying. But they were also responsive to high rates of fertilizer application under irrigation. So, large- and medium-scale farmers in regions with adequate irrigation facilities, easy access to credit, sufficient ability to undertake risks, and good market integration adopted the new varieties. But these requirements meant that the new technology bypassed most poor African farmers. Another reason that Africa did not benefit from the first green revolution was the research strategy used. To shortcut the process of varietal improvement, researchers introduced improved varieties [of crops] from Asia and Latin America rather than engaging in the time-consuming exercise of identifying locally adapted germ plasm and using this as the basis for breeding new varieties. After the early euphoria with the high-yielding varieties, several problems became evident. First, the need for significant use of pest and weed control raised environmental and human health concerns. Second, as areas under irrigation expanded, water management required sophisticated skills that were in short supply. As a result poor farmers growing staple food crops in Africa could not adopt the new varieties. What was crucial for Africa was to develop crop varieties that could thrive in water-stressed regions without heavy use of fertilizers. . . .
The Green revolution as successful because bullet points
- Doubled or tripled yields of wheat, rice, and maize
- Met the food needs of most of the world's population
- Introduced new varieties of crops that were responsive to high rates of fertilizer application and irrigation
- Adopted by large- and medium-scale farmers in regions with adequate irrigation facilities, credit access, ability to take risks, and market integration
- Bypassed most poor African farmers due to requirements for adoption
- Raised environmental and human health concerns due to extensive use of pest and weed control
- Required sophisticated water management skills, which were lacking in many regions
- Emphasized the importance of developing crop varieties that could thrive in water-stressed regions without heavy use of fertilizers.