|
Still in the Forefront,
After All These Years
The CGIAR-supported Centers and their national partners in South
Asia have responded well to agriculture's evolving needs, and
their work continues to be a sound investment for the region,
despite its changed economic realities, according to a new and
comprehensive impact study from the Group's Science
Council.
For most people who know something about the Centers' work,
the enormous impact of their agricultural research in South Asia
during the 1970s is a now familiar story. Equally well known are
the concerns and problems that arose from that period's Green
Revolution.
Less familiar, perhaps, are the multiple responses of the
Centers - five of them in particular - to South Asia's agricultural challenges
during more recent times and the mixed but largely positive results
of their collaborative work with a widening array of research
partners. From a relatively narrow focus on food-grain productivity
in irrigated areas, they expanded the work to include agricultural
intensification in less-favored environments, aimed specifically at
meeting the needs of the poor, and improved natural resource
management, reinforced with policy changes, to achieve sustainable
agricultural development.
The compelling story of those efforts is thoroughly documented
in a study commissioned by the Science Council's Standing Panel
on Impact Assessment and entitled
An Assessment of the Impact of Agricultural Research in South Asia
since the Green Revolution.
Economist Peter Hazell of the
Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial College London carried
out the analysis, drawing from a vast literature on research
impacts in the region. Following is a brief summary of some key
findings.
Continuing advances
Crop improvement has continued to figure importantly in
agricultural research for South Asia but with more emphasis on
stabilizing yields through greater tolerance to stresses such as
drought and pest attack. This research has also further raised the
yield potential of major crops, and their performance has continued
to improve (though at slowing rates), as farmers have widely
adopted improved varieties.
Increased agricultural productivity remains an important source
of economic growth in South Asia, but it is somewhat less potent
than it was during the Green Revolution era. The reason is that
economies are more diverse now, offering a wider array of options
for wealth creation. Nonetheless, growth in agriculture is still
vital for much of agroindustry and for improving the food security
and livelihoods of vast numbers of poor people.
The economic returns to crop improvement have remained high,
showing no signs of decline. According to many impact studies, the
CGIAR still contributes impressively to that work, with annual
benefits exceeding US$1 billion from research on maize, wheat and
rice alone, compared to an annual cost of just $143 million for all
of the CGIAR's research in the whole of Asia.
A mixed picture
Two main concerns about the Green Revolution were that it
bypassed many poor farmers, especially in marginal areas, and put
greater stress on favorable environments, as a result of poor
management of irrigation water and agrochemicals. Agricultural
research aimed at addressing those concerns has had mixed
results.
There is considerable evidence that agricultural research has
reduced poverty, especially if one takes into account the favorable
effects of growth in agriculture on the larger economy and on food
prices. Though market liberalization has diminished those effects
in recent years, "the numbers of poor helped each year remain
impressive," says the Science Council report. "More
people [have been] raised above the poverty line per dollar spent
than [for] almost any other public investment in rural
areas."
Even so, agricultural research for development has proved less
effective at reducing inequities between regions and between
households within regions. Technological advances, while lifting
many people out of absolute poverty, have sometimes widened the gap
between them and others that were left behind. Much the same thing
can be said about economic growth generally, though. While research
targeted specifically at marginal areas has helped reduce these
income gaps, more powerful solutions lie in better policy
interventions designed to reduce inequities.
Much research in recent years has been directed at halting
natural resource degradation in South Asia's agriculture. For
example, science has contributed importantly to the success of some
watershed development initiatives in the region, helping to boost
agricultural productivity, reduce soil erosion and improve water
availability. The outcomes have been especially favorable where
strong organizations permit active local participation.
More efficient use of water and fertilizers and practices such
as no-till and integrated pest management have also proved
effective for reducing environment damage, while greatly lowering
farmers' production costs. The benefits of such research,
however, have been dampened by relatively low adoption of new
practices. That is the result of poor infrastructure, farmers'
limited market access, the high labor requirements of some
practices and a lack of farmer training and organization, together
with inadequate property rights. Fortunately, though, policy
research is starting to show favorable impacts in confronting those
issues.
Having it both ways
One limitation faced by this and other assessments of impact is
the scarcity of empirical studies that trace causal connections
between investment in research and measurable outcomes in terms of
poverty reduction and environmental protection. In contrast, the
literature is filled with cases documenting the impact of research
in raising agricultural productivity. Perhaps, this limitation
could be overcome, Hazell suggests, if there were general agreement
on indicators that would permit quantitative assessment of poverty
and environmental impacts. Such assessments are badly needed for
helping decision makers determine what kinds of research are most
likely to result in acceptable tradeoffs between the sometimes
conflicting goals of increased productivity, greater equity and
environmental conservation.
Despite its limitations, though, the results of the Science
Council study are highly valuable for what they say, not just about
the past, but about the future. In the decades since the Green
Revolution began, South Asia has undergone a dramatic economic
transformation. Agriculture now accounts for a more modest share of
its gross domestic product, but a large proportion of the labor
force and the majority of the poor remain in rural areas. In search
of new paths out of poverty, rural people have diversified their
livelihoods, giving agriculture a less prominent but still
significant role in poverty reduction. Judging from Hazell's
conclusions, the CGIAR and its partners have responded
appropriately and successfully to those shifts, making their work
highly relevant to the future challenges of a transforming
region.
One must wonder, however, as Jim Ryan (former chair of the
Science Council's Standing Panel on Impact Assessment) mentions
in the foreword to the report, whether the new global food crisis
calls for a "back-to-the future" scenario, with renewed
emphasis on sustainable improvement of food grain production in
South Asia's more favored areas. Hopefully, the region can have
it both ways - dramatically boosting agricultural growth in those
areas, while also pursuing its post-Green Revolution agenda of
agricultural research for the people and places that were left
behind.
 Related Resources
|
