Tsegaye Tegenu and
I appear to have different views on the green revolution in Ethiopia. Allow me
then to add a few more points to the discussion in the spirit of enriching
public knowledge. The data in the table below is taken from my Ph.D. thesis (1998,
p. 119, Table 6) to show the delivery of fertilizers, improved crop varieties,
herbicides and pesticides to farmers in Gondar, in the period between 1994/95 and
1996/97. Hence, by 1996/97, both model farmers
(who were trained by the government to lead by example) and ordinary farmers would
have consumed 49,000 quintals of fertilizers (1 quintal = 100 kg), 11,000
quintals of six improved crop varieties, 18,000 liters and 24,00 kg of
insecticides and 10,000 liters of pesticides. As you can see from the table,
the rate of adoption of modern inputs was very high. Teff
and wheat varieties were popular. While
collecting these data, I travelled with agricultural extension workers to
witness model farmers staging demonstrations on their own farms to motivate
other farmers to use fertilizers and improved varieties. I was unable to access
data for the following years (1997-present) because of time and organizational
constraints.
Input Supply for Years 1994/95, 1995/96 and
1996/97
_______________________________________________________________________
Input 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 (planned)
____________________________________________________________________
Model farmers
Fertilizer (quintal) 1,060 14,430 18,810
Ordinary farmers
Fertilizer (quintal) no data 15,427.5 no
data
Improved seeds (quintal)
Teff
66.0
1,079.0
1,404
Sorghum 2.3 88.0 80
Wheat 315.0 3,290.0 4,666
Maize
0.0
53.0
75
Barely
0.0 0.0 31
Potato
00
0.0
120
Insecticide
Liquid (liters) 0.0 9,254.0 9,254
Powder (kg) 0.0 12,276.0 12,276
Pesticide
Liquid (liter)
0.0
5,291.0 5,291
Powder (kg) 0.0 8.0 8
_____________________________________________________________________
Source: North Gondar Zone Department of
Agriculture (1996)
In 2008, I briefly toured Gondar and other areas of the Amhara region to
document evidences of
successful farmer adoption of modern agricultural inputs. I wrote
a conference paper focused on fertilizer adoption (Measuring Development Results and Sustainability: Lessons from Ethiopia,
2010) which I will share at appropriate time. In the paper, I mention that “farmers had acquired sufficient experience
and knowledge of fertilizer application. They said that they were rather
concerned with how to economize the application of fertilizers in order to
minimize costs and maximize benefits (prices have gone up)”. And they have been innovative by shifting to
compost use. For example, Quoting Addis Zemen, the Addis-based
Capital News Paper (28 December, 2009) wrote “some
two million farmers have prepared over 30.7 million cubic meters compost in Amhara State during the past five months” and that “farmers
had prepared 28 million cubic meters compost last year, which helped them save
over 1.2 billion Birr that could be spent on purchasing artificial fertilizers”.
Then, one questions some of the studies which
argue that Ethiopian farmers have been slow to take up fertilizers and other
inputs, without realizing that they are mass producing composts, exchanging
seeds locally and so on. Are the stories the same for other regions? Although a
generalization should be avoided, one also understands that the Amhara region is not different from other highland areas
where agricultural activities are concentrated. The government has a national agricultural policy that delivers the same
programs for all regions.
The agricultural
development led
industrialization (ADLI) (the driver of government rural policy and
planning) has three core objectives: infrastructure
building, delivery of social services and agricultural research and extension.
Basically, you would expect research and extension efforts to focus on
modernizing the Ethiopian agriculture including diffusion of modern
agricultural inputs or, if you like, green revolution technologies. For example, a
study by Girma Tesfahun Tadesse Adgo and Seid Yassin (Agricultural Development Efforts and Lessons of a
Decade in the Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia, n.d., table
3, p. 12) identifies 716 crop and livestock research activities. These research
activities aim to develop Ethiopia’s traditional crop
varieties and livestock to ensure that they are suitable for adoption in diverse
agro-ecological zones. The authors wrote, "a number of policies and
strategies of economic development and specifically of agricultural research
and development have been framed and implemented during the last 12-13
years”'. All this is to say to Tsegaye that
ADLI may or may not be an official green revolution document – it certainly is
the policy trade mark of the revolutionary democrats -, but it has as a core
objective the promotion of green revolution technologies. It is too simplistic
to state that he himself will
“outline the costs embedded in the making of green revolution (that are)
assumed to be based on the conditions of smallholder farmers in Ethiopia”.
The limitation in Tsegaye’s arguments is that
they are too theoretical which run the risk of being too simplistic and suggesting
a one-size-fits-all approach. For example, the difference between “partial
green revolution” and “full-package” green revolution is irrelevant and
unhelpful. In a developing country like Ethiopia, not to accept a “partial
green revolution” is a complete oversight of the challenges (material,
organizational, social, environmental, etc.). If irrigation
is the missing dimension in Ethiopia’s green revolution, anything done
otherwise (fertilizer and improved crop adoption) is not a green
revolution? And who says “there is no
green revolution which is based on rain-fed agriculture”? Ethiopian crop
varieties are adopted to rainfall, compared to the Asian
rice varieties that practically grow under water. And the famous Asian rice
paddies (famous because scientist claim that they
produce too much CO2) lie in lowland river marshes where you only need to dig
water canals to create irrigation. In Ethiopia, you will have to conquer the
torturous geography to, first, create water-retaining dams and, second, develop
the technology that delivers water uphill using gravity. As Yemane T noted,
these days farmers cultivate on steep hills and cliffs. Even those pockets of farm fields found on highland
plateaus lie on volcanic rocks and so they are unsuitable for tractor ploughing. The best technology would remain
oxen-ploughed technology or something like gas- or battery-powered machine like
lawnmower (grass cutter). This is the reality unless we are thinking about
mechanized farming in what is now malaria and snake infested lowland areas of Western
and South-Western Ethiopia. I rest my case and thank you.
Getachew Mequanent
Ottawa, Canada
July 2010