Tsegaye Tegenu, Stockholm University
July 13, 2010
I would like first to thank Getachew Mequanent for his comments and views which make me reflect on some of my provocative terms. Getachew is of the opinion that green revolution is underway in Ethiopia. Despite acknowledged limitations, he interpreted the government effort as green revolution. According to him the government has “put in place” green revolution program with smallholder farmers at the heart of it. He mentioned “progresses made in the past 15 years to promote the green revolution technologies including fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, improved crop varieties, irrigation and other complementary support systems.”
As he himself acknowledged even if the programs are in place there are limitations to their performance. As I understand, by definition there is no partial green revolution. My view is that one can claim to have green revolution when one introduces an integrated technology package consisting of hybrid seeds, chemical inputs (fertilizers, pesticides) and irrigation cultivation practices as a package and when this package is successfully adopted by farmers. Even if we assume an increase in the introduction of high-yield-crop varieties and fertilizers in Ethiopia, there is no green revolution which is based on rain-fed agriculture. Green revolution is an integrated package that you must have it with all its’ ingredients in practice or you do not have one. It is not like having partial democracy or not. Either the technology helps you to reduce unit costs of production or you still have high costs of production. The question is considering the good will and efforts of the government as mentioned by Getachew, can we expect the coming of green revolution in Ethiopia? If the government has indeed a program of green revolution (because I have not so far read an official document), I will then outline the costs embedded in the making of green revolution assumed to be based on the conditions of smallholder farmers in Ethiopia
Even if the green revolution technology is neutral to scale (adoption is not affected by farm size), the nature of smallholder farmers in Ethiopia is such that they require site-specific technology solutions. Smallholder farmers in Ethiopia are interested in crop varieties that suit their ecology. We should not forget that smallholder farmers in Ethiopia are risk averse not only in terms of the absolute size of income involved but also in terms of food security. They are less likely to adopt new technology that does not suit their production ecology. They prefer the traditional seeds which ensure their household food security. That means the government has to develop technology based on existing major staple crops in Ethiopia. The crop that is needed in Ethiopia is not only one as in the case of rice in Asia. In Ethiopia the major staple crops include teff, maize, barely, sorghum, wheat and enset. Not only that, from the perspective of introducing new technology it is essential as well to consider the soil types on which the crops grown and the major soil types in arable land of Ethiopia include nitosols, vertisols and cambisols. Added to this are differences in rainfall and water availability.
Using the mathematics notion of permutation and combination on set of agro-ecological variables (six staple crops, with two combinations and in three soil types) smallholder agriculture in Ethiopia need at least ten types of technologies. Can the government establish a research system designed to develop ten technologies? In Asia developing and introducing one technology has required billions of dollars.
Do not forget that the Ethiopian smallholder farmers are numerous (about 11 million rural households) spatially scattered in different agro-ecological zones. In Asia there was a need for only one technological packet, namely rice. Even if the smallholders were numerous, a number much greater the one in Ethiopia, they all had similar conditions: rice was the staple food, similar irrigation experience and less difference in soil fertility. It was this homogenous condition which led to the rapid spread of the technology in Asia. For the introduction of green revolution it is necessary that the conditions of smallholder agriculture are homogenous even if their numbers are numerous. As I have said green revolution technology is scale-neutral. But homogenous conditions make it easier to establish and maintain the system of research and diffusion of the technology. One does not need to train the 32 000 development agents in ten different types of green revolution technologies which are probably needed in one given region of Ethiopia. Needles to mention the need for motor-cycle transport facility to travel from one local-specific technology area to another. Because of local variations there may be less farm-to-farm technology diffusion.
For the sake of discussion let us assume that the government can cover the billion dollar costs for only few types of the technology packets. There is the other side of the green revolution, namely, do smallholder farmers have the capacity to buy the technology? We should not forget that green revolution technology requires working capital. The household working capitals associated with green revolution technology are substantially higher. Difference in the adoption rate of fertilizers, pesticides and hybrid seeds is often related to households’ cash constraints. According to MOARD, in 2007, an average of 36 kg fertilizer is applied per ha of land relative to about 85 kg of fertilizer requirement per hectare of the crops grown in Asian countries. Since the Ethiopian government does not subsidize fertilizer, the costs are higher beyond households’ income gained by selling crop outputs. Households which do not have capacity to purchase fertilizer are forced to apply more household labour to the same land area in the same location. They use terracing, manure, inter-cropping, shortening the fallow cycle, etc., to raise land productivity. This is not surprising. The options are either the country has to produce its own fertilizer (first phase of industrial decentralization) for selling to farmers at reasonable price or apply more labour.
Increasing crop and land productivity through the use of green revolution
technology initially raises labor demand for fertilizer and irrigation management and for harvest.
Unless labor requirements were subsequently reduced through mechanization,
there will be an increase in labor input required by the green revolution. Already
the smallholder farmers suffer from labor shortages (see Table) and are forced
to exchange and/or hire local labor.
|
Regions |
HH Types |
In percent |
HH Crop land holding (ha) |
Labor input required per hector (1 adult=0,25) |
Household available labor input per holding |
Labour exchanged and/or hired |
Total Labour Productivity Per HH holding |
|
LRS |
29,38 |
0,75 |
3 |
0,88 |
2,12 |
11,28 |
|
|
Tigray |
LRL |
18,25 |
2,21 |
8,84 |
3,57 |
5,27 |
59,93 |
|
CR |
51,92 |
0,88 |
3,52 |
1,76 |
1,76 |
11,49 |
|
|
LRS |
30,02 |
0,93 |
3,72 |
1,64 |
2,08 |
14,39 |
|
|
Amhara |
LRL |
20,84 |
2,67 |
10,68 |
4,17 |
6,51 |
45,65 |
|
CR |
49,11 |
0,96 |
3,84 |
3,28 |
0,56 |
13,15 |
|
|
LRS |
25,98 |
0,19 |
0,76 |
0,28 |
0,48 |
2,99 |
|
|
SNNP |
LRL |
10,53 |
0,5 |
2 |
0,91 |
1,09 |
7,41 |
|
CR |
63,42 |
0,31 |
1,24 |
0,67 |
0,57 |
4,85 |
Considering the common agricultural activities (ploughing,
sawing, wedding and harvesting) and the traditional means of cultivation, an
adult farmer cannot cultivate more than 0,25 hector of land. Viewed from this
optimal level and the size of household land holdings, the available household
labour is two times lower than the required labour input. The household labour
shortage problem increases if irrigation is practiced.
While the increase in labour input required by the green revolution enabled large increases in output, this still constituted an additional input and the cost of additional labour may be a factor limiting the adoption of the green revolution technology. As I have repeatedly mentioned in my previous postings and articles, the level of households saving in rural Ethiopia is very low due to the higher consumption requirements. Families with large number of children find it difficult to save and invest in agriculture technology.
The conclusion is that green revolution based on smallholder farming in Ethiopia is costly both for the government and smallholder farmers. Under such circumstances it is difficult to expect for a successful technology transfer even if there is an enthusiasm and need for it. The question is what is the alternative?
My view is that the government has to undertake green revolution on behalf of small holder farmers in Ethiopia. The government can select one or two technologies (such as high yielding varieties of maize and wheat) and productive areas (such as the Awash valley or western parts of Ethiopia) where you have homogenous agro-ecological factors including water availability. One thing that should not be confused is that the purpose of green revolution is not to eradicate household poverty as is commonly assumed in some circles. Green revolution is about ensuring national food self-sufficiency (production for domestic markets). Poverty reduction has never been the purpose of green revolution. Poverty is eradicated through other development strategies (I have suggested two phases of industrialization decentralization as a means for increasing labour productivity and income). If there is a need to provide green revolution benefits to smallholder agriculture it is important to consider them as private sector actors and study conditions of their involvement. But the government do not need to wait until such a study of private sector involvement is completed. Given the existing food deficiency in the rural areas and considering the rapid urbanization process in Ethiopia, state-led green revolution is urgent in the Ethiopian context (food grain produced by the state for the domestic market).