back
Frequently Asked Questions About the Original Green Revolution
December 2006Did the Green Revolution reduce hunger?
In 1960 there were one billion people in developing countries who did not get enough to eat, equivalent to 50% of the population in these countries. If this proportion had remained the same, the hungry now would number two billion, more than double the actual current estimate of about 850 million, or about 20% of the present population in these countries.
Since the 1960s world food prices have declined in real terms by roughly 70%. Those who benefit the most are the poor who spend the highest portion of their income on food, including many poor farmers who are net food purchasers.
Real per capita incomes almost doubled in Asia between 1975 and 1995, and the incidence of poverty declined from nearly three out of five to less than one in three. Asians, a majority of whom were farmers, had more income with which to purchase less expensive food.
Robert Evenson and his colleagues at Yale University used an international multi-market model to estimate what would have happened had there been no Green Revolution (Science 300, 758-762, May 2, 2003). They concluded that in developing countries;
1. Caloric intake would have been 13.3-14.4% lower
2. Proportion of malnourished children would have been 6.7-7.9% higher
3. The Green Revolution succeeded in raising the health status of 32-42 million preschool children.
Did the Green Revolution harm the environment?
The Green Revolution led to the modernization of agriculture in Asia and Latin America. This included use of genetically improved crop varieties and significantly greater use of fertilizer, irrigation and pesticides. Some of the same environmental problems associated with modern agriculture elsewhere in the world have occurred in some locations. Considerable effort has been made to mitigate these problems with much success in using integrated pest management and genetic resistance to reduce the need for pesticides.
It should also be noted that the traditional forms of agriculture that the Green Revolution replaced have their own environment problems including deforestation, soil nutrient depletion , soil erosion, loss of biodiversity and wildlife extinction. From 1950 to 2000 cereal production roughly tripled form 650 million tons to 1,900 million tons without a significant increase in the land area under cultivation. Without the increase in yields associated with the Green Revolution, the land area under cultivation would have had to increase from 600 million hectares to nearly 1,800 million hectares, resulting in significant deforestation and habitat loss.
Did the Green Revolution favor large farmers over small farmers?
Generally speaking, in Latin America yes; in Asia, no. Green Revolution seed varieties performed best and were primarily adopted in areas that had irrigation and/or reliable rainfall, i.e., prime agricultural land. In Latin America, prime agricultural land is primarily owned by large scale farmers.
In Asia prime agricultural land is dominated by small scale farming. In Asia “larger” farms tend to be only about five acres, with small farms being an acre or less. As long as they had access to irrigation or reliable rainfall, all sizes benefited. The technology is scale-neutral. Landless laborers benefited from the increase in demand for labor.
However, there were also losers in Asia. Those farmers that did not adopt Green Revolution varieties (primarily in areas without irrigation or reliable rainfall) did not have increases in productivity but did experience decreases in prices along with everyone else. If they were net sellers of grain the lower prices caused them to lose income. However, if they were net purchasers of grain (as many of the poorest farmers are) they gained more than they lost form the reduction in prices. Drought-tolerant, high yielding rice is now being introduced to the drought-prone regions of Asia to try to benefit the farmers that did not benefit from the early Green Revolution.
top of the page