THE GREEN REVOLUTION: EVALUATION OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS

(1)

13 South -Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies (SAJMS) ISSN:2349-7858:SJIF:2.246:Volume 3 Issue 4

LAW

, POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT

T

HE

G

REEN

R

EVOLUTION

:

E

VALUATION OF THE

C

OSTS AND

B

ENEFITS

KARUNDEEP SINGH

B.AL.L.B(HONS.),NLSIUBANGALORE

INTRODUCTION

The “Green Revolution in India was a period when agriculture in India increased its yields due to improved agronomic technology. It allowed developing countries, like India, to overcome chronic food defects. It started in India in the early 1960s and led to an increase in food production, especially in Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh during the early phase. The main development was due to the higher-yielding varieties of wheat, which were developed by many scientists, including American agronomist Dr.Norman Borlaug, Indian geneticist M. S. Swami Nathanand others.Chemical fertilizers and agricultural machinery was also an integral part of this” process.Unfortunately, there were also some negative effects and externalities which tangibly brought down welfare. Therefore, a deeper analysis is required to effectively weight out the costs and benefits which have arisen in status quo out of the Green Revolution.

(2)

BENEFITS

INCREASE OF FOOD PRODUCTION

The “single greatest benefit of the Green Revolution in India has obviously been the rapid increase in food production.( From 1.4 million tonnes in 1963 to 9.3 million tonnes in 2013).1This increase was extremely critical because the population was increasing at a very high rate at that timeand such a movement was necessary in order to fulfil basic needs, that of hunger. It is also important to understand the context of the start of the movement. During the1960’s, India was facing a foreign exchange crunch, it was importing food grains, it was facing famines and bad rains and about half the population was dependent on agriculture as a means of livelihood. Therefore, this increase in food production becomes all the more important. To give a fitting example in order to understand the significance of the Green Revolution: India became a major net exporter of food from being a net importer due to the Green Revolution.2Without the Green Revolution per capita food intake in developing nations would be about 14 per cent lower, and the fraction of malnourished children would be about 7 per cent higher.3This unexpected and unprecedented increment in food grain production has effectively delayed/offsetted the population collapse foreseen by Malthus” and some other economists.4

Another “important benefit has been that these higher yields in the Green Revolution allowed food production to expand much faster than the area which was being utilised to agriculture, which surprisingly remained a constant over the past five decades.5This relatively small change in land area is very crucial because the conversion of natural ecosystems to agricultural land is one of the leading causes for the loss in biodiversity and the destruction of forests.6 If agricultural technology hadremained at 1961 levels, hundreds of millions of additional hectares

1_{Wheat Production Data (India), Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations Statistics Division}

(FAOUNSD), available at http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/Q/QC/E (Last visited on April 14, 2016). (See Annexures for more details).

2_{Food Balance Data (India), Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations Statistics Division}

(FAOUNSD), available at http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/FB/*/E (Last visited on April 14, 2016). (See Annexures for more details).

3

R.S Anderson, Science, Politics and Agricultural Revolution in Asia, WESTVIEW PRESS JOURNAL, 17, (1982).

4_{T. Malthus,}_{An essay on the Principle of Population}_{, ELECTRONIC SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING PROJECT,}

(1989) available at http://www.esp.org/books/malthus/population/malthus.pdf (Last visited on April 12, 2016).

5

Land Use (India), Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations Statistics Division (FAOUNSD),

available athttp://www.trunity.net/files/242401_242500/242436/untitled.png (Last visited on April 12, 2016). (See Annexures for more details).

(3)

of agricultural land would have been needed to grow the food that was eaten by the 7 billion people on the planet” as of 2011. Thus, this increment was a great benefit.

PRICE OF FOOD

The Green Revolution“also powered a significant decline in the price of food. The reduction in the cost of producing food and the increase in supply combined to reduce the real (adjusted for the effects of inflation) price of food. The real price of wheat did decrease substantially from the 1960’s to the late 1970’s but after the mid 1980’s; the real price of wheat has consistently arisen.7The decrease in price of wheat though had some benefits: together with higher incomes, buying food now required a smaller fraction of the average household’s budget. This reduction implies that households can spend more on non-food items such as housing, clothing, cars, electronic equipment, and entertainment. Essentially, the common man’s purchasing power increases and this provides a major boost” to the economy.

Equally significant, the Green Revolution reduced the fraction of the labour force that works on farms. Globally “this fraction declined from 65 per cent in 1960 to 42 per cent in 2000. In India, the Green Revolution is estimated to have added 27% more workforce to the economy.8 Fewer farmers mean more workers that can make goods and services other than food. Without non-farm workers, the production of non-food goods and services would decline. Such an outcome again fuels the economy and industry. These are the major benefits which arose out of the revolution. Now we move on to the cost’s which come associated” with such a revolution.

COSTS

Like all technological changes, the Green Revolution also imposed considerable costs on some segments of society and the environment. It also did drift considerably away from the initial objectives it had.

SMALL FARMERS

Small farmers in both developed and developing nations “have been hurt by the Green Revolution. From an economic perspective, the Green Revolution must be viewed as a package

7_{Price Database (India), Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations Statistics Division (FAOUNSD),}

available athttp://faostat3.fao.org/browse/P/*/E (Last visited on April 10, 2016). (See Annexures for more details).

(4)

and not in vacuum. How the demise of small farmers, who form a substantial part of the population, happens is in the following way: to participate in the Green Revolution and reap the benefits which arise, the farmers must buy the more expensive seeds of high-yield varieties; sow, manage, and harvest crops on large tracts of lands using mechanized equipment; and use this equipment to apply more fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides”, and water.9

This coupling was “emphasized by Norman Borlaug himself: ‘Once you’ve put together the jigsaw of production, you’ve got to further link it to economic policy that permits the little farmer to apply the technology.’10 After a point of time, it became very clear that this was easier said than done. Large up-front cost for seeds, machinery, and inputs make it difficult for many small farmers to participate. Without access to Green Revolution technologies, small farmers suffered from lower crop prices without being able to enjoy the economies of scale which was happening around them in the market, in which the unit costs of production decline as the quantity produced increases. Lower unit costs meant that large farmers make more profit than small farmers. This gives large farmers an economic incentive to buy out smaller farmers—an effect amplified by greater production and steadily dropping food prices. This effectively meant that the Green Revolution agriculture has contributed to a class of landless farmers.11 Without land, they cannot grow their own food and because they are poor, they cannot afford to buy food produced by the larger farms, even at the lower prices. This slow cut out of small farmers into the class of landless laborers was seen widely in India. This has created some disturbing contradictions. Specifically, the world grows more than enough food to feed everyone, but there are still hungry people who cannot afford to purchase food. For example, India became self-sufficient in grain production during the late 1970s, but the number of hungry people increased between 1980”and 2010.12

ENERGY AND INVESTMENT

Green Revolution “agriculture also has negative environmental effects that are caused by the increased use of energy, materials, and machinery. The direct and indirect use of energy by the

9_{S. Gill,}_{Contradictions of Punjab Model of Growth and Search for an alternative}_{, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL}

WEEKLY, (15 October, 1988).

10_{P. Fitzgerald,} _{The Green Revolution Revisited}_{, UCA PUBLICATIONS, (1970)} _{available at}

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~pfitzger/green.pdf(Last visited on April 15, 2016).

11

F. Frankel, THE POLITICAL CHALLENGE OF THE GREEN REVOLUTION, 38, (1972).

12_{Food Security Indicators (India), Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations Statistics Division}

(5)

Indian agriculture system has increased by more than an order of magnitude. Since the start of the Green Revolution, energy use has increased faster than production. As a result, the amount of energy used to produce edible crops and livestock has increased by a big margin. This rapid increase in energy use has reduced the energy return on investment for our food supply.13 For most of human history the energy return on investment for agriculture has been greater than 1:1. By definition, if the efforts to grow food exceed the amount of edible energy produced, people would eventually starve but the Green Revolution eliminated that barrier. Now agricultural systems in developed nations produce fewer edible kilocalories than the kilocalories of coal, oil, natural gas, and electricity that they use to grow food. If the energy return on investment for the any agricultural system is about 1:10. That is, it takes about 10 kilocalories of inanimate energy to grow 1 kilocalorie of edible energy.The Indian energy return on investment in food production ratio is also quite high as the economic indexes” in this area have only gone on increasing. 14 There “is nothing inherently wrong with an agricultural energy return on investment that is less than 1 so long as energy supplies are abundant, energy prices are inexpensive, and energy use has little effect on the environment. Unfortunately, that is not status quo and that is why this analysis becomes extremely important. The energy use in the Green Revolution model emits carbon dioxide and methane, which are partially responsible for global climate change and nitrogen and sulfur oxides, which cause photochemical smog and acid deposition.15The statistics cited clearly showcase how bad the emission situation is. Huge energy depletion and the obvious consequences it carries are also existent in status quo. This also tangibly affects the objective of cheap food accessible to all, an objective which strikes at the very heart of the Green Revolution model. The financial sustainability of Green Revolution agriculture is also threatened by the finite supply of oil and natural gas. As supply declines, the price of energy will increase, and this could raise food prices”and reduce supply.

13_{A. Hall,}_{Energy Return on Investment}_{, ENERGY REALITY ORGANISATION PUBLICATIONS,}_{available at}

http://energy-reality.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/09_Energy-Return-on-Investment_R1_012913.pdf (Last visited on April 9, 2016).

14_{Investment (India), Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations Statistics Division (FAOUNSD),}

available at http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/I/*/E(Last visited on April 11, 2016). (See Annexures for more details).

15_{Agricultural Emissions (India), Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations Statistics Division}

(6)

FERTILIZERS AND SOIL

The Green Revolution “model also uses some substances on a widespread scale. These substances are namely fertilizers, pesticides and similar substances. These nutrients are responsible for many environmental challenges that exist in the modern day world and in India. It is also argued that these environmental harms tangibly affect society at large and reduces welfare. The Green Revolution system is to be blamed because it is that point that the Indian state effectively legitimized, promoted and mandated that such agricultural practices are to be used.16 Therefore the harms which now arise out of the practices of such a model due to lack of regulation must necessarily be attributed to” this system.

Among “the most important of these challenges iseutrophication. Crops use only about 30–50 percent of the nitrogen fertilizers and about 45 percent of the phosphorus fertilizers that are applied to agricultural land. The other 50–70 percent goes into the soil and effectively into the water”. 17This leads to major health and environmental concerns. It creates large anoxic regions like the Gulf in United States, the cancer train which runs in Punjab or various areas in Rajasthan.18

The second major concern is “that most of the Green Revolution croplands are planted with a single crop, often a single cultivar. Growing a single crop over a large area is known as monoculture and this is really problematic. Although this approach reduces costs by increasing the efficiency of farm machinery and material inputs, monoculture increases the crop’s vulnerability to pests and disease. That is, a monoculture is the ideal feeding or breeding ground for a pest or disease that specializes in that crop. Under these conditions huge economic losses are possible.19 For example, the corn leaf blight of 1970 ruined 15–25 percent of the U.S. corn crop and caused about $1 billion in losses.To prevent such losses Green Revolution agriculture depends on the development and use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides, which

16

V. Shiva, THE VIOLENCE OF THE GREEN REVOLUTION, 98, (1991).

17_Pesticides _and _our _Health, _GREEN _PEACE _PUBLICATIONS_, _(May ₂₀₁₅₎ _available _at

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/agriculture/2015/Pesticides-and-our-Health.pdf(Last visited on April 7, 2016).

18

S. Pandey, On the cancer train with India’s Pesticides, ALJAZEERA, (January 9, 2015) available at

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/01/cancer-train-india-pesticides-20151411811508148.html (Last visited on April 10, 2016); B. Mazumdar, A Study on the Harmful Effects of Pesticides used in the Cultivation of Brinjal in Longai River Valley, Karimganj, Assam, India, ASSAM UNIVERISTY JOUNRAL OF SCIENCE

available at http://www.inflibnet.ac.in/ojs/index.php/AUJSAT/article/viewFile/508/479(Last visited on April 16, 2016).

(7)

are chemicals designed to kill fungal diseases. Over time the application of these chemicals has increased and without these chemicals, insects and fungi would reduce the world food crop by about 70 percent. Agricultural chemicals reduce that loss to about 42 percent. To give you more analysis on this, chemicals may reduce losses in the short term, but they initiate an evolutionary positive feedback loop that causes farmers to increase their use of pesticides and puts pressures firms to develop new pesticides. The positive feedback loop works as follows.20 The application of a pesticide kills most individuals in a pest population but individuals that are less susceptible to the pesticide are more likely to survive and reproduce. If resistance is based on an individual’s genetic makeup, repeated application will increase the frequency of genes that confer resistance in subsequent generations. The increasing number of resistant individuals forces the farmer to apply more pesticide, which accelerates the selection process. Eventually the genetic basis for resistance is present in most of the pest population. At this point the pesticide is ineffective, and firms must develop a new pesticide. Because of this feedback loop, the number of insects and mites, weeds, and plant diseases that are resistant has increased since the 1950s.Furthermore, most pesticides and herbicides are not specific. Pesticides kill many species, including predators that eat and in some cases control the population of pests. Due to the loss of predators, pesticides sometimes increase the pest population. For example, in the 1890s California citrus farmers imported the Videlia beetle from Australia to control the cottony cushion scale. In 1947 farmers sought to supplement that control with the newly developed pesticide DDT. Unfortunately, DDT killed the Videlia beetle faster than it killed the cottony cushion scale, and within a year losses associated with the cottony cushion scale increased.21 Therefore, to effectively sustain the Green Revolution model and continue to operate on a large scale mono-crop mode of production, the farmer will have to use more and more pesticides and we know by know how tangible ground harms take place” because of that.22

20_V. _Shiva, _Chemical _Fertilizers _and _Soil _Fertility_, _SJI _PRESS, ₍₂₀₀₁₎ _available _at

http://www.sji.bt/assets/PDFs/Speech-of-Dr-Vandana-Shiva.pdf (Last visited on April 10, 2016); A. Howard, AGRICULTURAL TESTAMENT, Oxford Press, 25, (1970).

(8)

THE MYTH OF THE HIGH YIELDING VARIETY

As has been proved by many scientists, the term ‘high yielding variety’ is a misnomer because it implies that the new seeds are high yielding in and of themselves.23 The distinguishing feature of the seeds, however, is that they are highly responsive to certain key inputs such as fertilizers and irrigation. Thus, maybe we should call them ‘high responsive varieties’. In the absence of key additional inputs like fertilizer and irrigation, the new seeds perform worse than the indigenous varieties. With the additional inputs, the gain in output is insignificant compared to the increase in outputs. This also creates a more pressing burden when we look at the harms and the cost of energy usage in status quo.

The measurement of output is also biased by restricting it to the marketable part of crops. However, in a country like India, crops have traditionally been bred and cultivated to produce not just food for man but also fodder for animals and organic fertilizer for soils. It is argued that the uses other than food for man are very important to the common farmer and they are strong enough to affect his choices when it comes to agricultural practices. According to various authorities on agriculture, under the Green Revolution model, multiple uses of plant biomasses seem to be consciously sacrificed for a single use.24 This was done through the use of non-sustainable means of fertilization and irrigation. The increase in marketable output of grains has been achieved at the cost of decrease in biomass for animals and soils and the decrease of the ecosystem productivity due to the over use of resources. The increase in production of grain for the market was achieved by reducing the biomass for internal use on farms. The reduction of output of biomass for straw production was probably not considered a serious cost since fertilizers were viewed as a total substitute for organic manure and mechanisation was viewed as a substitute to animal power. Thus, it is now recognized that in terms of overall plant biomass, the green revolution varieties could even reduce the overall yields of crops and create scarcity in terms of outputs such as fodder.25The economic and welfare impacts of such a model are pretty obvious and high. The pushing out of biomass and organic waste and relying on resources which are not sustainable, like fertilizers and heavy irrigation, ultimately leads to overall welfare

23_{B. Bowender, THE MYTHS AND RELAITIES OF INDIAN AGRICULTURE (International Institute of Social}

Studies, The Hague), 91- 102, ( 2008); Supra, note 16 at chapter 2.

24_{V. Shiva, THE VIOLENCE OF THE GREEN REVOLUTION, 71-82, (1991); A. Howard, FOOD SHORTAGE}

AND AGRICULTURE, 183, (1979).

(9)

decrease because of the fertilizer problem pointed out above in this paper. It also puts a huge economic cost on the farmers who have to use something else in place of that biomass. The crops and vegetable’s which come to the market are not healthy due to excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides which leads to huge tangible harms on the ground. This can be tackled by organic farming but without biomass, there can be no organic farming.26Moving on, finally there is now increasing evidence that indigenous varieties could also be high yielding, given the required inputs. Various studies and reports in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab categorically prove this.27

CONCLUSION

Finally, to conclude, it has often been argued that the Green Revolution model was the only available one for increasing food availability. International agencies and Third World governments had no other option, we are told. The inevitability of the Green Revolution option was built on neglecting the other avenues for increasing food production that is more ecological, such as improving mixed cropping systems, improving indigenous seeds improving the efficiency of the use of local resources and even controlling the Green Revolution model in a regulated manner with concern to welfare. Geertz labelled this process of the organic intensification of agriculture, ‘involution’. In contrast to the chemical intensification strategy of the Green Revolution, involution offered higher yields at the cost of sustainability. This paper understand that there are certain benefits which did arise out of the Green Revolution but its problem is with the sustainability and long term effects which accrue after the state confers legitimacy on such a model.

26_P. _Smith, _The _Organic _Green _Revolution_, _OGM _{Publications,} ₍₂₀₀₈₎ _available _at

http://stopogm.net/sites/stopogm.net/files/webfm/plataforma/OrganicGreenRev2008.pdf(Last visited on April 10, 2016).

27_{S. Geertz,} _{Understanding Green Revolutions}_{, Oxford University Press, (1984); D.S Kang,} _{Environmental}

(10)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

1. T. Malthus, An essay on the Principle of Population.(2008) 2. S. Geertz, Understanding Green Revolutions. (1984)

3. V. Shiva, THE VIOLENCE OF THE GREEN REVOLUTION. (1991)

4. B. Bowender, THE MYTHS AND RELAITIES OF INDIAN AGRICULTURE. (2001) 5. P. Fitzgerald, The Green Revolution Revisited. (1992)

6. G. Blyn, INDIA’S CROP OUTPUT TRENDS: PAST AND PRESENT. (1979) 7. C. Subramaniam, THE NEW STRATEGY IN AGRICULTURE. (1980) 8. A. Howard, FOOD SHORTAGE AND AGRICULTURE. (1971)

9. A. Howard, AGRICULTURAL TESTAMENT. (1982).

ARTICLES

1. D.S Kang, Environmental Problems of the Green Revolution with a focus on Punjab, INTERNATION DIMENSIONS JOURNAL, Vol. II (1982).

2. P. Smith, The Organic Green Revolution, OGM Publications, (2008) 3. V. Shiva, Chemical Fertilizers and Soil Fertility, SJI PRESS, (2001)

4. S. Pandey, On the cancer train with India’s Pesticides, ALJAZEERA, (January 9, 2015) 5. B. Mazumdar, A Study on the Harmful Effects of Pesticides used in the Cultivation of

Brinjal in Longai River Valley, Karimganj, Assam, India, ASSAM UNIVERISTY

JOUNRAL OF SCIENCE

6. Pesticides and our Health, GREEN PEACE PUBLICATIONS, (May 2015).

7. A. Hall, Energy Return on Investment, ENERGY REALITY ORGANISATION PUBLICATIONS.

8. S. Gill, Contradictions of Punjab Model of Growth and Search for an alternative, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, (15 October, 1988).

9. P. Fitzgerald, The Green Revolution Revisited, UCA PUBLICATIONS, (1970).

10. R.S Anderson, Science, Politics and Agricultural Revolution in Asia, WESTVIEW PRESS JOURNAL.

(11)

12.S. Chand, The cancer train and Punjab, The Hindu.

DATA CENTERS

1. Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations Statistics Division (FAOUNSD).

2. Indian Agricultural Ministry.

3. Delhi University, Department of Statistics.