Lessons from a green revolution in South Africa
2008
This paper examines the outcome of massive food production programme (MFPP) by the Eastern Cape Department of Agriculture (ECDA) as part of its green revolution strategy. The aim of the program was to increase food production very rapidly and inturn provide food security for the poor households in rural areas. The ECDA also earmarked an additional 500,000 hectares of fertile land to supply a multi-billion dollar biofuels industry as part of its “integrated agrarian transformation” plan. Both of these programs were meant to be implemented principally on communal land. Initial subsidies and credit were made available so that farmers could buy into the project.<br /><br />The report identifies a number of long term negative consequences that this green revolution approach has had on the farming sub-sector and poverty alleviation:<br /> destruction of agro-biodiversity and knowledge - one of the most serious impacts of the MFPP, which features in none of the plans or evaluations, has been the loss of traditional seeds reduction in nutritional value and productivity - traditionally farmers intercrop maize with pumpkins and beans. When farmers plant hybrid seeds or GMOs and use chemicals, intercropping with these food crops is impossible poisoning of soils - farmers are now expressing concern about the quality of their soil, as they can see that the fertilizers they use have harden and “poisoned” their soils. the disempowerment of local farmers - perhaps the greatest failure of the MFPP was that it was no different from previous top-down government interventions and was never “owned” by the local farmers.<br />The report concludes that despite all the disruptive land policies of the colonial and apartheid systems, access to land and natural resources still plays a significant role in the livelihoods and household economies of rural dwellers. The Eastern Cape government has chosen to ignore the impressive literature that demonstrates this. As a result, the MFPP focuses on “monetising” livelihoods and limits its concept of food security to the parameter of yield only. The authors argue that the MFPPP have not tried to embrace any of the complex social and economic structures underpinning poverty.
显示更多 [+] 显示较少 [-]