Green Revolution: Impacts, Limits, and the Path Ahead

Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead

Prabhu L. Pingali1 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Agricultural Development, Seattle, WA 98102

Edited by William C. Clark, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved June 25, 2012 (received for review April 2, 2012)

A detailed retrospective of the Green Revolution, its achievement and limits in terms of agricultural productivity improvement, and its broader impact at social, environmental, and economic levels is provided. Lessons learned and the strategic insights are reviewed as the world is preparing a “redux” version of the Green Revolution with more integrative environmental and social impact combined with agricultural and economic development. Core policy directions for Green Revolution 2.0 that enhance the spread and sustainable adoption of productivity enhancing technologies are speciﬁed.

global public goods | nutrition | poverty | technology | agricultural development

he developing world witnessed early successes with wheat at the Inter- and unintended environmental, social, an extraordinary period of food national Maize and Wheat Improvement and institutional consequences of the GR Tcrop productivity growth over the Centre (CIMMYT) in Mexico and rice at strategy for productivity growth. Then, I past 50 y, despite increasing land the International Rice Research Institute turn to the current period and the renewed scarcity and rising land values. Although (IRRI) in the Philippines, the Consultative interest and investment in agricultural de- populations had more than doubled, the Group on International Agricultural Re- velopment, and I give the technology and production of cereal crops tripled during search (CGIAR) was established specif- institutional priorities for a GR 2.0. this period, with only a 30% increase in ically to generate technological spillovers land area cultivated (1). Dire predictions for countries that underinvest in agricul- First GR: Diffusion and Impact of Crop of a Malthusian famine were belied, and tural research, because they are unable to Genetic Improvements much of the developing world was able to capture all of the benefits of those invest- Positive impacts on poverty reduction and overcome its chronic food deficits. Sub- ments (3). After CGIAR-generated lower food prices were driven in large part Saharan Africa continues to be the ex- knowledge, invention, and products (such as by crop germplasm improvements in ception to the global trend. breeding lines) were made publicly avail- CGIAR centers that were then transferred Much of the success was caused by the able, national public and private sectors to national agricultural programs for combination of high rates of investment responded with investments for technology adaptation and dissemination. The pro- in crop research, infrastructure, and mar- adaptation, dissemination, and delivery. ductivity gains from crop germplasm im- ket development and appropriate policy Despite that success, in the post-GR provement alone are estimated to have support that took place during the first period, investment in agriculture dropped averaged 1.0% per annum for wheat (across Green Revolution (GR). I distinguish the off dramatically into the mid-2000s (4). all regions), 0.8% for rice, 0.7% for maize, first GR period as 1966–1985 and the post- However, the need for continued invest- and 0.5% and 0.6% for sorghum and GR period as the next two decades. Large ments in agricultural innovation and pro- millets, respectively (9). Adoption rates of public investment in crop genetic im- ductivity growth is as important today as it modern varieties in developing countries provement built on the scientific advances was in the early years of the GR. Low in- increased rapidly, reaching a majority of already made in the developed world for come countries and lagging regions of cropland (63%) by 1998 (9–15). the major staple crops—wheat, rice, and emerging economies continue to rely on However, global aggregates mask great maize—and adapted those advances to the agricultural productivity as an engine geographic disparities. In Asian countries conditions of developing countries (2). of growth and hunger reduction (5–7). (including China), the percentage of area The GR strategy for food crop pro- However, sustaining productivity gains, planted to modern varieties was 82% by ductivity growth was explicitly based on the enhancing smallholder competitiveness, 1998, whereas improved varieties covered premise that, given appropriate institu- and adapting to climate change are be- only 27% of total area planted in Africa tional mechanisms, technology spillovers coming increasingly urgent concerns (16). This difference may be, in part, be- across political and agroclimatic bound- across all production systems. cause of the later introduction of CGIAR aries could be captured. However, neither Since the mid-2000s and heightened after research programs focused on Africa as private firms nor national governments had the 2008 food price spikes, there has been well as the lag in breeding efforts for the sufficient incentive to invest in all of the renewed interest in agricultural investment, orphan crops—crops that did not benefit research and development of such inter- and there are calls for the next GR, in- from a backlog of research conducted be- national public goods. Private firms oper- cluding those calls made by the former fore the GR period but had improvement ating through markets have limited interest Secretary General of the United Nations that came during the GR and post-GR fi in public goods, because they do not have Ko Annan and Sir Gordon Conway (3, 8). periods, such as cassava, sorghum, and fi the capacity to capture much of the bene t Simultaneously, there is recognition of the millets—which are of greater relative im- fi through proprietary claims; also, because limitations of the rst GR and the need portance to the African poor (10). For of the global, nonrival nature of the re- for alternative solutions that correct for search products, no single nation has the those limitations and unintended conse-

incentive to invest public resources in this quences (5). GR 2.0 must address these Author contributions: P.L.P. wrote the paper. type of research. concerns both where the GR was successful Conflict of interest statement: All the reviewers suggested International public goods institutions and in low income countries and lagging are grantees of the Gates Foundation. It is hard to find were needed to fill this gap, and efforts to regions, where agricultural productivity is reviewers who are not grantees. None of the reviewers develop the necessary institutional capacity, still low. This paper reviews the evidence have any connections with the work in the paper. particularly in plant breeding, were a cen- on the diffusion and impact of GR crop This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. tral part of the GR strategy. Based on the genetic improvements and the limitations 1E-mail: [email protected].

12302–12308 | PNAS | July 31, 2012 | vol. 109 | no. 31 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0912953109 Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021 PCA ETR:PERSPECTIVE FEATURE: SPECIAL

instance, the first CIMMYT maize pro- tion worldwide) (26, 27). World food and of $2.5, $10.8, and $0.6–0.8 billion, re- gram focused on Africa only began in the feed prices would have been 35–65% spectively (36). late 1980s. Although the International higher, and average caloric availability As these studies show, there is evidence Institute for Tropical Agriculture research would have declined by 11–13% (28). of continuing high rates of return for crop for cassava started in 1967, its impact was Overall, these efforts benefited virtually all breeding improvements that have wide felt only since the 1980s (10). Although consumers in the world and the poor rel- adaptability, such as those improvements it lagged behind in the GR period, Africa atively more so, because they spend a for wheat, rice and maize. The more recent has witnessed positive growth in the post- greater share of their income on food (29). evidence also shows high returns for im- GR period. Adoption of improved varie- provements in orphan crops in the post-GR ties across sub-Saharan Africa reached Access to Crop Genetic Improvements. The period (10). No studies have found evi- 70% for wheat, 45% for maize, 26% for CGIAR’s numerous crop improvement dence of significant decline in rates of re- rice, 19% for cassava, and 15% for sor- networks allowed for the best breeding turn to agricultural research in the post- ghum by 2005 (17). materials and knowledge to be widely and GR period, likely because of continued freely available and used across the de- investment in breeding for improved stress Impact on Productivity and Food Prices. The veloping world (30, 31). National Agri- tolerance in addition to yield growth. For rapid increase in agricultural output cultural Research Systems (NARS) in example, a recent estimate of the total resulting from the GR came from an im- developing countries generally used vari- benefits of resistance to all types of wheat pressive increase in yields per hectare. eties or crosses from CGIAR centers as rust was estimated to generate between Between 1960 and 2000, yields for all de- parents and then adapted those varieties $600 million and $2 billion per year (37). veloping countries rose 208% for wheat, for particular agroecological environments The spread of crop genetic improvement 109% for rice, 157% for maize, 78% for or preferences. Enabling such adaptive for marginal production environments and potatoes, and 36% for cassava (18). De- transfers significantly improved research orphan crops adds to the continued high veloping countries in southeast Asia and efficiency, reduced research costs, and returns that have been observed in the India were the first countries to show the greatly expanded the pool of genetic re- post-GR period. In Africa, for instance, impact of the GR varieties on rice yields, sources and varieties available to the na- the internal rates of return to CGIAR in- with China and other Asian regions expe- tional programs. Such an uninhibited vestments from 2000 to 2020 in the dual riencing stronger yield growth in the sub- system of germplasm exchange with the purpose cowpea, which was developed sequent decades (19). Similar yield trends best international materials allowed through a collaboration between Inter- were observed for wheat and maize in Asia countries to make strategic decisions national Institute for Tropical Agriculture (20). Analysis of agricultural total factor about investing in plant breeding capacity and the International Livestock Research productivity (TFP) finds similar trends to (32). In general, large NARSs engaged in Institute, have been estimated between the partial productivity trends captured by adaptive transfers rather than direct use of 50% and 103%, depending on the as- yield per hectare [TFP is defined as the CGIAR-generated varieties and crosses, sumptions used (10). ratio of total output to total inputs in a whereas small NARSs used the material production process (20)] (21). For the directly (33). The CGIAR content of Limitations of GR-Led Growth period 1970–1989, change in global TFP modern varieties was high for most food Strategies for agriculture was 0.87%, which nearly crops; 36% of all varietal releases were The GR contributed to widespread poverty doubled to 1.56% from 1990 to 2006 (21). based on CGIAR crosses, although it var- reduction, averted hunger for millions of Crop genetic improvement focused ies greatly by crop (34). In addition, 26% people, and avoided the conversion of mostly on producing high-yielding varieties of all modern varieties had a CGIAR- thousands of hectares of land into agri- (HYVs), but the decrease in time to ma- crossed parent or other ancestor (9). cultural cultivation. At the same time, the turity was also an important improvement GR also spurred its share of unintended for many crops, allowing for an increase Returns to Crop Improvement Research In- negative consequences, often not because in cropping intensity. The rapid spread vestment. The returns to research invest- of the technology itself but rather, because of the rice–wheat system in the Indo- ments in the GR strategy of germplasm of the policies that were used to pro- Gangetic plains (from Pakistan to Ban- improvement have been measured in great mote rapid intensification of agricultural gladesh) can be attributed to the shorten- detail by several economists over the last systems and increase food supplies. Some ing of the crop growing period (22). Other few decades (10). These studies have areas were left behind, and even where improved inputs, including fertilizer, irri- found high rates of returns that, for the it successfully increased agricultural pro- gation, and to a certain extent, pesticides, most part, compare favorably with alter- ductivity, the GR was not always the were also critical components of the GR native public investments. A recent meta- panacea for solving the myriad of poverty, intervention. Asia had already invested review of trends and characteristics of the food security, and nutrition problems significantly in irrigation infrastructure rates of return to agricultural research and facing poor societies. at the start of the GR and continued to development, examining 292 case studies do so throughout the GR and post-GR with 1,900 estimated rates of returns, Poverty and Food Insecurity Persisted Despite periods (2). found a median annual rate of return the GR Success. There is a large econometric Widespread adoption of GR technolo- estimate ranging from 40% to 60%, con- literature that uses cross-country or time gies led to a significant shift in the food sistent with the broad literature. More series data to estimate the relationship supply function, contributing to a fall in importantly, it found no evidence that the between agricultural productivity growth real food prices (23, 24). Between 1960 rates of return to research had declined and poverty. These studies generally find and 1990, food supply in developing over time (35). The overall benefits of high poverty reduction elasticities for ag- countries increased 12–13% (25). Esti- CGIAR contributions to crop genetic im- ricultural productivity growth (2). In Asia, mates suggest that, without the CGIAR provement are estimated in billions of it has been estimated that each 1% in- and national program crop germplasm dollars—mostly because of the benefits crease in crop productivity reduces the improvement efforts, food production in from the improved three main staples number of poor people by 0.48% (38). In developing countries would have been (10). Spring bread wheat, rice (in Asia India, it is estimated that a 1% increase almost 20% lower (requiring another 20– only), and maize (CIMMYT contribution in agricultural value added per hectare 25 million hectares of land under cultiva- only) have produced estimated benefits leads to a 0.4% reduction in poverty in the

Pingali PNAS | July 31, 2012 | vol. 109 | no. 31 | 12303 Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021 short run and 1.9% reduction in the long sumption of the poor (2). The pathways sumers have benefitted from some nutri- run, the latter arising through the indirect through which the GR improved nutritional improvements (56). However, effects of lower food prices and higher tional outcomes depended on whether micronutrient deficiencies among the poor wages (39). For low income countries in a household was a net producer or net persist, indicating that this dietary shift general, the impact on the poverty head- consumer; however, for virtually all con- has not yet fully compensated for the count has been found to be larger from sumers, the supply shifts and GR-driven decline in vitamin intake associated with agricultural growth relative to equivalent rise in real incomes had positive nutri- cereal-dominant diets (2). Biofortification growth in the nonagriculture sector at a tional implications (48, 49). A 10-y study (breeding micronutrients into staple crops, factor of 2.3 times. In sub-Saharan Africa, in southern India found that increased rice such as the vitamin A-enhanced, orange- agriculture’s contribution to poverty re- production resulting from the spread of fleshed sweet potato) offers a new solution duction was estimated to be 4.25 times the HYVs accounted for about one-third of for improving nutrition outcomes, partic- contribution of equivalent investment in the substantial increase in energy and ularly for the rural poor, who depend on the service sector (40). protein consumption of both farmers and their own production for a large propor- Because the GR strategy was based on landless workers, controlling for changes tion of their daily caloric intake (57). intensification of favorable areas, its con- in nonfarm income sources (50). tribution to poverty reduction was rela- The fall in staple prices as a result of Environment: Impacts Have Been Mixed. GR- tively lower in the marginal production the GR also allowed for more rapid diet driven intensification saved new land from environments. In South Asia, the poorest diversification, even among poor pop- conversion to agriculture, a known source areas that relied on rain-fed agriculture ulations, because savings on staple food of greenhouse gas emissions and driver of were also the slowest to benefit from the expenditures improved access to micro- climate change, and allowed for the release GR, contributing to widening interregional nutrient-dense foods (51). In Bangladesh, of marginal lands out of agricultural pro- disparities and an incidence of poverty that for example, the steady fall in real rice duction into providing alternative ecosys- still remains high (34, 41). Technologies prices from 1992 to 2000 led to greater tem services, such as the regeneration of often bypassed the poor for a number of expenditures per capita on nonrice food forest cover (58). HYVs more responsive reasons. Among these reasons were in- and a significant improvement in child to external inputs were central to the equitable land distribution with insecure nutrition status. The amount of rice con- productivity achievements; however, in ownership and tenancy rights; poorly de- sumed did not change, but households many cases, appropriate research and veloped input, credit, and output markets; spent more on nonrice foods as their rice policies to incentivize judicious use of in- policies that discriminated against small- expenditures declined (51). puts were largely lacking (29). Unintended holders, such as subsidies for mechaniza- Nutritional gains of the GR have been consequences in water use, soil degradation or crop and scale bias in research and uneven; although overall calorie con- tion, and chemical runoff have had serious extension; and slow growth in the nonfarm sumption increased, dietary diversity environmental impacts beyond the areas economy that was unable to absorb the decreased for many poor people, and cultivated (59). The slowdown in yield rising numbers of rural unemployed or micronutrient malnutrition persisted. In growth that has been observed since the underused people (42). Migration from some cases, traditional crops that were mid-1980s can be attributed, in part, to the less-favored rural areas has been cited as important sources of critical micronu- above degradation of the agricultural re- a strategy for poverty reduction; however, trients (such as iron, vitamin A, and zinc) source base. These environmental costs when migration out of rural areas occurs were displaced in favor of the higher-value are widely recognized as a potential threat faster than the growth in employment staple crops (25). For example, intensive to the long-term sustainability and repli- opportunities, only a transfer of poverty rice monoculture systems led to the loss of cation of the GR’s success (25, 60). results rather than true poverty reduction wild leafy vegetables and fish that the poor The environmental consequences were associated with agricultural transforma- had previously harvested from rice paddies not caused by the GR technology per se but tion (43). in the Philippines (52). Price effects of rather, the policy environment that pro- Sex played a major role in determining such supply shifts also limited access to moted injudicious and overuse of inputs the distribution of benefits from the GR. micronutrients, because prices of micro- and expansion of cultivation into areas that Women farmers and female-headed nutrient-dense foods rose relative to sta- could not sustain high levels of intensifi- households are found to have gained ples in many places (53, 54). In India, the cation, such as the sloping lands. Output proportionally less than their male coun- increasing price of legumes has been as- price protection and input subsides— terparts across crops and continents (44, sociated with a consequent decline in especially fertilizer, pesticide, and irriga- 45). Technology transfer largely focused pulse consumption across all income tion water—distorted incentives at the on male farmers, with few measures to groups (25). farm level for adopting practices that address women’s technology needs or so- Policy and structural impediments, as would enhance efficiency in input use and cial conditions, and thus, they largely well as a weak private sector, limited the thereby, contribute to sustaining the agri- missed women farmers (46). Cross-country supply responsiveness for vegetables and cultural resource base. Where the policy empirical evidence shows that women other nonstaples. Policies that promoted incentives were corrected, farmers quickly farmers are no less efficient than their staple crop production, such as fertilizer changed behavior and adopted more sus- male counterparts when using the same and credit subsidies, price supports, and tainable practices. For example, the re- productive assets; however, women con- irrigation infrastructure (particularly for moval of pesticide subsides in Indonesia in sistently face barriers to accessing pro- rice), tended to crowd out the production the early 1990s led to a dramatic drop in ductive resources and technologies (47). of traditional nonstaple crops, such as insecticide use (46, 58). pulses and legumes in India (55). More Nutrition: Calorie Availability Increases but recent evidence does suggest that diets are Marginal Production Environments. The orig- Micronutrient Intake Is Still Lagging. Be- shifting in urban and rural Asia to include inal purpose of the GR was to intensify tween 1960 and 1990, the share of un- fewer cereals and more milk, meat, vege- where returns would be high, with a focus on dernourished people in the world fell tables, and fruits. Evidence from India irrigated or high rainfall areas. The in- significantly (25). Improved availability shows a marked increase in protein and fat ternational breeding programs aimed to and decreased staple food prices dramat- intake between 1975 and 1995 across all provide broadly adaptable germplasm that ically improved energy and protein con- income groups, suggesting that all con- could then be grown across a wide set of

12304 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0912953109 Pingali Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021 geographies, but adoption was greatest in ductivity-enhancing technologies (68). alone are estimated to exceed $2.9 billion favorable areas. Technologies in the GR Changing market contexts also create new (10). Yields growth for roots and tubers period did not focus on the constraints to opportunities for farmers in more mar- rose sharply between 1980 and 2005, in- production in more marginal environments, ginal areas to produce for the feed and creasing 40% during this period (17). especially tolerance to stresses such as biofuel markets (17). drought or flooding. Whereas HYVs of To a GR 2.0 wheat provided yield gains of 40% in irri- Gains in Africa Lag Significantly but Are Catch- GR 2.0 is already beginning to take place, gated areas with modest use of fertilizer, in ing Up. Africa was the main exception to and it is happening in low income countries dry areas, gains were often no more than the success of the GR in the developing as well as emerging economies. Low in- 10% (61). Almost full adoption of wheat world. The GR strategy was not appropri- come countries, many of them in sub- and rice HYVs had been achieved in irri- ate where population densities were low Saharan Africa, still have very low pro- gated environments by the mid-1980s, but and/or market infrastructure was poor. ductive agricultural systems. In these areas, very low adoption in environments with Also, the agricultural resource base could chronic hunger and poverty continue to be scarce rainfall or poor water control (in the not sustainably support productivity growth, daunting problems, and they face the age- case of rice) had been achieved (62). In and the poor depended largely on orphan old constraints to enhancing productivity India, specifically, adoption was strongly crops rather than the three main staple growth, such as the lack of technology, poor correlated with water supply (3). World- cereals. The package of innovations that market infrastructure, inappropriate insti- wide, improved seed–fertilizer technologies spurred GR success in Asia was largely tutions, and an enabling policy environ- for wheat were less widely adopted in mar- inappropriate for the African context at ment (17). Emerging economies, including ginal environments and had less of an impact that time (25, 69). However, emerging much of Asia where gains from the first there than in favored environments (63). success stories of agricultural productivity GR were concentrated, are well on their More often than not, marginal envi- growth in recent decades show that (i) the way to agricultural modernization and ronments were left behind, because the context for agricultural development has structural transformation (72). The chal- climate and resource constraints were such shifted dramatically and (ii) investments in lenge for agriculture now is to integrate that returns to investment in GR varieties research to address the crops and con- smallholders into value chains, maintain were low. Despite relatively low adoption straints relevant to the continent’s agricul- their competitiveness, and close the ur- of improved varieties, people living in ture yield high returns. ban–rural income gap (43). Enhancing marginal environments benefitted from the First, during the GR period, the demand staple crop supplies and sustaining pro- GR through consumption and wage link- for intensification in Africa was quite low, ductivity gains continue to be important, ages, such as lower food prices (64). Farm because land was relatively abundant (9). despite declining per capita cereal con- employment and growth in the nonfarm Farmers had little incentive to intensify sumption, to meet the demands of pop- rural economy provided labor benefits to land use, because they had no incentive to ulation growth and demand for feed grain. the landless rural poor and those people save on land costs (69). However, there A confluence of factors has come to- living in marginal production environ- are some areas in Africa today where the gether in recent years to generate renewed ments. Multicountry case studies of rice land/labor ratios are now similar to what interest in agriculture and spur the early environments in Asia show that labor mi- they were in Asia during the GR (70). For stages of GR 2.0. In the low income gration to more productive environments instance, in eastern and southern Africa, countries, continued levels of food deficits resulted in wage equalization and was one the amount of arable land has risen only and the reliance on food aid and food of the primary means of redistributing the marginally, but the percentage of house- imports have reintroduced agriculture as an gains of technological change from favor- holds engaged in agriculture has grown engine of growth on the policy agenda. able to marginal areas (65). Similar results threefold (71). The demand for yield- African leaders have acknowledged that were found for wheat grown in high- and enhancing technologies is consequently agriculture plays a critical role in their low-potential environments in Pakistan rising in the region. development process and that lack of in- (66). There is also a growing body of evi- Second, improvements in rice, wheat, vestment in the sector would only leave dence of spillovers from the productive and maize largely addressed the main food them farther behind. The Comprehensive regions that benefit the more marginal security concerns in Asia. Africa, however, Africa Agriculture Development Program environments. These spillovers involve has huge diversity of cropping systems, (the agricultural program of the New not only technology transfer and capital and many orphan crops are central to food Partnership for Africa’s Development, an investments but also the software of security (27). Even where the major ce- initiative of the African Union) declaration development, such as local institutions, reals are grown in Africa, few suitable of 2006 and resulting pledges by African property rights, and social capital (67). varieties were available for those agro- Heads of State to increase agricultural Poorly endowed environments, never- ecologies until the end of the GR and investments showed their commitment to theless, pose a tremendous challenge to beginning of the post-GR period. In the improve the agriculture sector. There is researchers and policymakers alike to 1960s and 1970s, national and interna- also an increasing awareness of the detri- identify new agricultural research and de- tional programs may have sought to short mental impacts of climate change on food velopment (R&D) opportunities and fa- cut the varietal improvement process in security, especially for tropical agriculture cilitate adoption of technologies and sub-Saharan Africa by introducing unsuit- systems in low income countries (73–77). appropriate institutions to meet the needs able varieties from Asia and Latin Amer- In the emerging economies, growing of the poor living there. In the post-GR ica. This pattern remained until the 1980s, private sector interest in investing in the period, new investments in R&D for when more suitable varieties finally be- agricultural sector has created an agricul- stress-tolerant crops and increased de- came available—based on research spe- tural renaissance (43). Supermarkets are mand for feed grains have changed the cifically targeted to African conditions (9). spreading rapidly across urban areas in prospects for agricultural production Improved varieties of sorghum, millet, and emerging economies and encouraging na- in marginal areas. Drought- and pest- cassava also started to emerge around tional and multinational agribusiness in- resistant varieties, such as submergence- the middle to late 1980s (9). The pro- vestments along the fresh produce value tolerant rice and drought-tolerant maize, ductivity gains from such investments are chains in these countries (78). Conse- provide options that reduce farmers’ risk now starting to emerge; benefits from quently, traditional staple crop systems are and improve incentives to invest in pro- CGIAR investments in Africa for maize diversifying into high-value horticulture

Pingali PNAS | July 31, 2012 | vol. 109 | no. 31 | 12305 Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021 and livestock production (79). Private varieties that emerged at a time when develop photosynthesis-efficient C4 rice as sector has also made significant investments research on rust resistance had largely well as the global cassava partnership for in other commercial crops for fiber and stopped (assuming that the problem had genetic improvement, an international alli- biofuel (80). For example, private R&D been solved), underscore the necessity ance of research institutes (see textbox be- and supply chains have been the primary of continued investments to maintain low). The CGIAR also needs to become driver behind the rapid rise of Bt cotton resistance to pests and diseases to avoid clearer in terms of the work on which it production across Asia and Latin America future shocks (3). Finally, technologies to focuses and when it is hands off to the (81). Despite these positive developments, increase input use efficiency and improve NARS. For instance, the CGIAR centers interregional differences in productivity management practices are necessary to could hand over improved breeding material and poverty persist in many emerging ensure the competitiveness and sustain- to the NARS and leave it up to them to economies. Rising demand for feed and ability of production systems. complete the adaptation and varietal de- biofuels and technological advances in International public goods research velopment process. The CGIAR should also breeding for stress tolerance could result in continues to play a critical role, but in devolve the activities associated with tech- a revitalization of these areas. The rapid contrast to the first GR, the context in nology diffusion to the NARS, private sec- rise of hybrid maize production in eastern which the CGIAR operates has changed tor, and nongovernmental organization India is a case in point (82). significantly. NARSs in many emerging partners (61). Finally, at the global level, there has countries have become research leaders in The CGIAR has had limited success been an increased tightening of food their own right, which is especially true of in generating and diffusing technologies markets driven by population and income China and Brazil (85). The multinational and practices that enhance resource and growth as well as diversion of food grain for life sciences companies are now the lead- input use efficiency, thereby contributing to biofuel and livestock feed. As a conse- ing source of innovation in agricultural improved competitiveness and sustain- quence, the long-term declining trend in science, especially biotechnology (86). ability (61). The call in the work by Con- real food prices, observed worldwide since New partnerships can channel the exper- way (3) for a “Doubly Green Revolution,” 1975, leveled off by 2005 (5). The food tise of the private sector and advanced which is repeated in his latest book, is price crisis of 2008, sustained high prices, national programs in emerging countries important for the CGIAR and the NARSs and more recent peaks observed in 2011 to benefit the low income countries. to heed (3). The point that this work (3) and 2012 have brought agriculture back In 2007 the CGIAR began a major repeatedly makes is that understanding onto global and national agendas (83). reform process to better address this the underlying science is crucial to devel- By 2050, global population is projected changing context. It is still too early to say oping effective solutions. Improved un- to increase by about one-third, which will whether the system itself will be able to derstanding of tropical and subtropical require a 70% increase in food production reorient itself, but there are definite signs agroecologies is an important global public (84). To meet this need, GR 2.0 must that individual centers are starting to work good that contributes to innovation and continue to focus on shifting the yield innovatively. For example, IRRI partnered new sustainable resource management frontier for the major staples. Increasing with the Beijing Genomics Institute to practices. The emphasis of global public cereal productivity not only meets demand carry out genetic fingerprinting of IRRI’s good research in resource management for staples, it also allows for the release entire gene bank collection, which will must be on such strategic knowledge of land to diversify into high-value crops then become publicly available data. Sim- generation rather than development of and movement of labor out of agriculture, ilarly, CIMMYT is developing drought- location-specific techniques and products. where other economic opportunities pro- tolerant maize for Africa through a part- The emerging Digital Revolution provide greater returns. GR 2.0 must also nership with Monsanto, which provided vides new opportunities for smarter use focus on improving tolerance to stresses, proprietary germplasm that CIMMYT of agricultural resources. Remote sensing both climatic and biotic (pest and disease). incorporated into high-yielding maize and spatial mapping technologies allow for Improved varieties that are tolerant to varieties adapted to African conditions better targeting and monitoring of agri- drought or submergence enhance small- (see textbox below). cultural investments. Cell phones and holder productivity in marginal envi- There are also emerging examples of other information and communication ronments and provide tools to adapt to advanced NARSs leading global public good technologies can contribute to smarter climate change. Epidemics such as the efforts with the CGIAR as a partner and application of water, fertilizers, and other recent UG-99 wheat stem rust infestation, collaborator. Exemplary cases include the inputs. The adaptation of precision agri- a new virulent strain resistant to improved partnership between IRRI and China to culture techniques for developing country

Additional resources*

• African Agricultural Technology Foundation (2011) Water Efficient Maize For Africa: Progress Report. Available at http://www.aatf-africa.org/userfiles/WEMA-Progress-Report_2008-2011.pdf. • CIMMYT, IITA (2012) The Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa Initiative: Background. Available at http://dtma.cimmyt.org/index.php/about/background. • dela Cruz R (December 20, 2011) Scientists ramp up sequencing of rice varieties. Available at: http://www.scidev.net/en/agriculture-and-environment/news/scientists-ramp-up-sequencing-of-rice-varieties.html. • Global Rice Science Partnership (GRiSP) (2010) Proposal for a CGIAR Research Program on Rice-Based Production Systems. Available at: http://www.cgiarfund.org/cgiarfund/sites/cgiarfund.org/files/Documents/PDF/fc3_GRiSP%20proposal_rev3%20Sept%2016.pdf. • Global Cassava Partnership (2002) The Global Cassava Partnership for Genetic Improvement. Available at: http://www.danforthcenter.org/GCP21/Bellagio-I/19_GPC-GI_Statement_Oct_18.pdf. • James C (2011) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2011. ISAAA Brief No. 43 (ISAAA, Ithaca, NY). http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/ • NEPAD (2012) Countries with Compacts/Investment Plans. Available at: http://www.caadp.net/pdf/Table%201%20Countries%20with%20Investment%20Plans%20ver15%20(2).pdf.

*All websites accessed June 20, 2012.

12306 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0912953109 Pingali Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021 smallholder agriculture conditions could and improving competitiveness and investments and institutional reform can have significant global public good benefits. sustainability. help create the enabling environment for The number of alternate suppliers of smallholder productivity growth. Further- Conclusions agricultural technologies, specifically seed- more, a probusiness policy environment Developing country agriculture is faced based technologies, has expanded rapidly that includes intellectual property pro- with a growing set of challenges: meeting over the last two decades. Strong NARSs tection, reduced trade barriers, and a the demands of diet diversity resulting from and the private sector have become major transparent biosafety procedure will lead rapidly rising incomes; feeding rapidly players in the research, generation, and to additional private sector research in- growing urban populations; accessing release of new varieties. Even nongovern- vestments in the emerging economies. technologies that are under the purview of mental organizations and civil society However, the opportunities to meet proprietary protection; and gearing up for organizations are becoming active in de- these needs are not without concurrent the projected negative consequences of veloping community seed systems. In- climate change. Even as it absorbs the new novative partnerships are needed across challenges in the areas of international challenges, the food policymaking com- the entire R&D value chain to channel the coordination of public good research, munity continues to grapple with its tra- varied expertise to enhancing smallholder weak R&D and policy capacity among ditional preoccupation of the persistence productivity growth. low income developing countries, and of hunger and poverty in low income At the country level, public policy can increasing demands for immediate re- countries, particularly in sub-Saharan play an important role in ensuring that new sults. Climate change will also stress ag- Africa, and lagging regions of emerging innovations reach and benefit smallholders ricultural systems in poor countries as economies. and encouraging the sustainable use of well the capacity of the suppliers of public Harnessing the best of scientific knowl- natural resources. This role requires poli- good R&D. Implementing a GR 2.0 will edge and technological breakthroughs cies that (i) emphasize agriculture as an have to contend with all of these chal- is crucial for GR 2.0 as we attempt to engine of growth and poverty reduction, lenges and sequence innovations over reestablish agricultural innovation and (ii) enhance competitiveness of modern- time to succeed in achieving ’ iii production systems to meet today s com- izing agricultural systems, and ( ) focus sustainable change. plex challenges. New global public goods on sustaining the resource base by cor- are needed that focus on shifting the yield recting distortions that create incentives ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. I thank Kate Schneider for frontier, increasing resistance to stress, for unsustainable use. Both infrastructure her valuable assistance.

1. Wik M, Pingali P, Broca S (2008) Background Paper for Agricultural Research, eds Evenson R, Gollin D (CABI 30. Morris M, Dubin HJ, Pokhrel T (1994) Returns to wheat the World Development Report 2008: Global Agricultural Publishing, Cambridge, MA), pp 447–472. breeding research in Nepal. Agric Econ 10:269–282. Performance: Past Trends and Future Prospects (World 17. Binswanger H, McCalla A (2010) Handbook of 31. Maredia M, Byerlee D, eds (1999) The Global Wheat Bank, Washington, DC). Agricultural Economics, eds Pingali P, Evenson R Improvement System: Prospects for Enhancing Effi- 2. Hazell P (2010) Proven Successes in Agricultural Devel- (Elsevier, Amsterdam), pp 3571–3712. ciency in the Presence of Spillovers [International opment, eds Spielman D, Pandya-Lorch R (International 18. FAO (2004) The State of Food and Agriculture 2003– Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC), pp 2004 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United D.F., Mexico]. 67–97. Nations, Rome). 32. Traxler G, Pingali P (1998) Farmers, Gene Banks, and 3. Conway G One Billion Hungry (Cornell Univ Press, 19. Cassman KG, Pingali PL (1995) Intensification of Crop Breeding: Economic Analyses of Diversity in Ithaca, NY), in press. irrigated rice systems: Learning from the past to meet Wheat, Maize, and Rice, ed Smale M (Kluwer, Boston), 4. Herdt R (2010) Handbook of Agricultural Economics,eds future challenges. GeoJournal 35:299–305. pp 205–216. Pingali P, Evenson R (Elsevier, Amsterdam), pp 3253–3304. 20. Swaminathan MS, ed (1993) Wheat Revolution: A 33. Byerlee D, Traxler G (2001) Agricultural Science Policy: 5. World Bank (2007) World Development Report 2008: Dialogue (Macmillan, Madras, India). Changing Global Agendas, eds Alston J, Pardey P, Agriculture for Development (World Bank, Wash- 21. Fuglie K (2010) The Shifting Patterns of Agricultural Taylor M (Johns Hopkins Univ Press, Baltimore), pp ington, DC). Production and Productivity Worldwide, eds Alston JM, 161–186. 6. Johnston B, Mellor J (1961) The role of agriculture in Babcock BA, Pardey PG (Midwest Agribusiness Trade 34. Hazell P (2010) Handbook of Agricultural Economics, economic development. Am Econ Rev 51:566–593. Research and Information Center, Iowa State Univ, eds Pingali P, Evenson R (Elsevier, Amsterdam), pp 7. Lipton M (2005) The Family Farm in a Globalizing World: Ames IA), pp 63–98. 3469–3530. The Role of Crop Science in Alleviating Poverty (Inter- 22. Pingali P, Shah M (1998) Sustaining Rice-Wheat 35. Alston JM, Chan-Kang C, Marra MC, Pardey PG, national Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, Production Systems: Socio-eEonomic and Policy Issues, Wyatt TJ (2000) A Meta-Analysis of Rates of Return to DC). ed Pingali P (Rice-Wheat Consortium, New Delhi), pp Agricultural Ex Pede Herculem? (International Food 8. Annan K (2003) A challenge to the world’s scientists. 1–12. Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC). Science 299:1485. 23. Hayami Y, Herdt RW (1977) Market effects of tech- 36. Raitzer DA, Kelley TG (2008) Benefit–cost meta- 9. Evenson RE, Gollin D (2003) Assessing the impact of the nological change on income distribution in semisub- analysis of investment in the International Agricultural green revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science 300:758–762. sistence agriculture. Am J Agric Econ 59:245–256. Research Centers of the CGIAR. Agric Syst 96:108–123. 10. Renkow M, Byerlee D (2010) The impacts of CGIAR 24. Scobie G, Posada R (1978) The impact of technical 37. Dubin H, Brennan J (2010) Proven Successes in Agricultural research: A review of recent evidence. Food Policy 35: change on income distribution: The case of rice in Development, eds Spielman DJ, Pandya-Lorch R 391–402. Colombia. Am J Agric Econ 60:85–92. (International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, 11. Herdt R, Capule C (1983) Adoption, Spread, and 25. Webb PJR (2009) Fiat Panis: For a World Without DC), pp 31–66. Production Impact of Modern Rice Varieties in Asia Hunger, ed Eiselen H (Hampp Media/Balance Publica- 38. Thirtle C, Lin L, Piesse J (2003) The impact of research- (International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, tions, Stuttgart), pp 410–434. led agricultural productivity growth on poverty Phillipines). 26. Stevenson J, Byerlee D, Villoria N, Kelley T, Maredia M reduction in Africa, Asia and Latin America. World Dev 12. Byerlee D, Moya P (1993) Impacts of International (2011) Measuring the Environmental Impacts of 31:1959–1975. Wheat Breeding in the Developing World [Interna- Agricultural Research: Theory and Applications to 39. Ravallion M, Datt G (1996) How important to India’s tional Maize and Wheat Improvement Center CGIAR Research, ed CGIAR Independent Science and poor is the sectoral composition of economic growth? (CIMMYT), D.F., Mexico]. Partnership Council (Independent Science and World Bank Econ Rev 10:1–25. 13. Morris ML (2002) Impacts of International Maize Partnership Council Secretariat, Rome), pp 49-87. 40. Christiaensen L, Demery L, Kuhl J (2011) The (evolving) Breeding Research in Developing Countries [International 27. Evenson R, Gollin D (2003) Crop Variety Improvement role of agriculture in poverty reduction—An empirical Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), and Its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of Inter- perspective. J Dev Econ 96:239–254. D.F., Mexico]. national Agricultural Research, eds Evenson R, Gollin D 41. Fan S, Hazell P (2001) Returns to public investments in 14. Walker T, Ryan J (1991) Village and Household (CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA), pp 7–38. the less-favored areas of India and China. Am J Agric Economies in India’s Semi-Arid Tropics (Johns Hopkins 28. Evenson R, Rosegrant M (2003) Crop Variety Im- Econ 83:1217–1222. Univ Press, Baltimore). provement and Its Effect on Productivity: The Impact 42. Hazell P (2003) Agricultural Research and Poverty 15. Walker T, Crissman C (1996) Case Studies of the Eco- of International Agricultural Research,edsEvensonR, Reduction: Some Issues and Evidence, eds Mathur S, nomic Impact of CIP-Related Technologies [International Gollin D (CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA), pp 473–497. Pachico D [Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical Potato Center (CIP), Lima, Peru]. 29. Pingali P (2007) Handbook of Agricultural Economics, (CIAT), Cali, Colombia], pp 43–58. 16. Evenson R (2003) Crop Variety Improvement and Its eds Evenson RE, Pingali PL (Elsevier, Amsterdam), pp 43. Pingali P (2010) Handbook of Agricultural Economics,eds Effect on Productivity: The Impact of International 2779–2805. Pingali P, Evenson R (Elsevier, Amsterdam), pp 3867–3894.

Pingali PNAS | July 31, 2012 | vol. 109 | no. 31 | 12307 Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021 44. Doss C (1999) Twenty-Five Years of Research on (International Food Policy Research Institute, New 73. Byerlee D, Janvry AD, Sadoulet E (2009) Agriculture for Women Farmers in Africa: Lessons and Implications for Delhi). development: Toward a new paradigm. Annual Agricultural Research Institutions (International Maize 58. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems Review of Resource Economics 1:15–31. and Wheat Improvement Center, D.F., Mexico). and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends 74. Parry M, Rosenzweig C, Livermore M (2005) Climate 45. Paris TR (1998) Impact of Rice Research, eds Pingali PL, (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Washington, DC). change, global food supply and risk of hunger. Philos Hossain M (International Rice Research Institute, Los 59. Burney JA, Davis SJ, Lobell DB (2010) Greenhouse gas Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:2125–2138. Banos, Phillipines), pp 241–262. mitigation by agricultural intensiﬁcation. Proc Natl 75. Parry M, Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Livermore M, 46. McIntyre BD, Herren HR, Wakhungu J, Watson RT, eds Acad Sci USA 107:12052–12057. Fischer G (2004) Effects of climate change on global food (2009) Agriculture at a Crossroads: The Global Report 60. Pingali PL, Rosegrant MW (1994) Confronting the production under SRES emissions and socioeconomic (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Environmental Consequences of the Green Revolution scenarios. Glob Environ Change 14:53–67. Science and Technology for Development, Washington, in Asia (International Food Policy Research Institute, 76. Stern N (2007) The Economics of Climate Change: The DC). Washington, DC). Stern Review (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, 47. FAO (2011) The State of Food and Agriculture 2011: 61. Pingali P, Kelley T (2007) Handbook of Agricultural United Kingdom). Women in Agriculture: Closing the Gender Gap for Economics, eds Pingali PL, Evenson RE (Elsevier, 77. Fischer G, Shah M, Tubiello FN, van Velhuizen H (2005) Development (Food and Agriculture Organization of Amsterdam), pp 2381–2418. Socio-economic and climate change impacts on the United Nations, Rome). 62. Byerlee D (1996) Modern varieties, productivity, and agriculture: An integrated assessment, 1990–2080. 48. Alston JM, Norton GW, Pardey PG (1995) Science sustainability: Recent experience and emerging chal- Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:2067–2083. Under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural lenges. World Dev 24:697–718. 78. Reardon T, Minten B (2011) The Quiet Revolution in Research Evaluation and Priority Setting (Cornell Univ 63. Byerlee D, Morris M (1993) Research for marginal India’s Food Supply Chains (International Food Policy Press, Ithaca, NY). environments: Are we underinvested? Food Policy 18: Research Institute, New Delhi). 49. Fan S, Brzeska J (2010) Handbook of Agricultural 381–393. 79. Dorjee K, Broca S, Pingali P (2003) Diversiﬁcation in Economics, eds Pingali P, Evenson R (Elsevier, 64. Lantican MA, Pingali P, Rajaram S (2003) Is research on South Asian Agriculture: Trends and Constraints (Food Amsterdam), pp 3401–3434. marginal lands catching up? The case of unfavourable and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 50. Pinstrup-Andersen P, Jaramillo M (1991) The Green wheat growing environments. Agric Econ 29:353–361. Rome). Revolution Reconsidered: The Impact of the High 65. David C (1994) Modern Rice Technology and Income 80. Fuglie KO, et al. (2011) Research Investments and Yielding Rice Varieties in South India, eds Hazell P, Distribution in Asia, ed Otsuka K (Lynne Rienner, Market Structure in the Food Processing, Agricultural Ramasamy C (Johns Hopkins Univ Press, Baltimore), pp Boulder, CO). Input, and Biofuel Industries Worldwide (Economic 85–104. 66. Renkow M (1993) Differential technology adoption Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, 51. Torlesse H, Kiess L, Bloem MW (2003) Association of and income distribution in Pakistan: Implications for Washington, DC). household rice expenditure with child nutritional research resource allocation. Am J Agric Econ 75:33–43. 81. Pray C (2001) Public-private sector linkages in research status indicates a role for macroeconomic food policy 67. Ruben R, Pender J, Kuyvenhoven A, eds (2007) and development: Biotechnology and the seed in- in combating malnutrition. J Nutr 133:1320–1325. Sustainable Poverty Reduction in Less-Favored Areas dustry in Brazil, China and India. Am J Agric Econ 83: 52. Cagauan A (1995) Impact of Pesticides on Farmer (CAB International, Cambridge, MA). 742–747. Health and the Rice Environment, eds Pingali P, 68. Dercon S (2009) Rural poverty: Old challenges in new 82. Gulati A, Dixon J, eds (2008) Maize in Asia: Changing Roger P (Kluwer, Boston), pp 203–248. contexts. World Bank Res Obs 24:1–28. Markets and Incentives (Academic Foundation, New 53. Bouis H (2000) Improving human nutrition through 69. Binswanger H, Pingali P (1988) Technological priorities Delhi). agriculture: The role of international agricultural for farming in sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank Res Obs 83. FAO (2011) The State of Food Insecurity in the World research. Food Nutr Bull 21:550–567. 3:81–98. 2011 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the 54. Kataki PK (2002) Shifts in cropping system and its 70. Otsuka K, Kijima Y (2010) Technology policies for a United Nations, Rome). effect on human nutrition: Case study from India. green revolution and agricultural transformation in 84. FAO (2009) How to Feed the World in 2050 (Food and Journal of Crop Production 6:119–144. Africa. J Afr Econ 19:ii60–ii76. Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 55. Welch RM, Graham RD (2000) A new paradigm for 71. Jayne TS, Mather D, Mghenyi E (2010) Principal Rome). world agriculture: productive, sustainable, nutritious, challenges confronting smallholder agriculture in sub- 85. Byerlee D, Fischer K (2002) Accessing modern science: healthful food systems. Food Nutr Bull 21:361–366. Saharan Africa. World Dev 38:1384–1398. Policy and institutional options for agricultural 56. Shetty PS (2002) Nutrition transition in India. Public 72. Timmer C (2007) Structural Transformation as the biotechnology in developing countries. World Dev 30: Health Nutr 5:175–182. Pathway Out of Poverty: The Changing Role of 931–948. 57. Ecker O, Breisinger C, Pauw K (2011) Growth Is Agriculture in Economic Development (The AEI Press, 86. Paarlberg R (2010) Food Politics: What Everyone Needs Good, but Not Good Enough to Improve Nutrition Washington, DC). to Know (Oxford Univ Press, New York).

12308 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0912953109 Pingali Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021