- Email: [email protected]
Social and environmental impacts of modernization of agriculture in developing countries
ENVIRON IMPACT ASSESS REV 1990;10:219-231
219
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF MODERNIZATION OF AGRICULTURE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIF.S
SHANKARIAH
CHAMALA
In the early 1950s many developing countries lacked indigenous research and
technology capability. In their desperate attempts to modernize traditional agriculture they selectively borrowed technology and strategies of development from the West. Green revolution technology produced some impressive results in food production but also increased poverty and caused deterioration of the environment. It is easier to be critical than to find universal solutions to solve complex problems of development in diverse agro-climatic and sociopolitical systems. This paper examines the external megaforces, namely international agricultural centers, trade, bilateral aid, and international organizations affecting modernization of agriculture in developing countries, and provides a balanced critique on positive and negative impacts of modernization in these countries. General trends of social and environmental impacts are briefly summarized. New approaches undertaken by international centers and by some developing countries to overcome social and environmental impacts of modern agriculture are reviewed. Mechanisms to generate appropriate agricultural technology development and management of delivery services are suggested to achieve integrated socio-economic welfare of the people and sustainable environment.
Introduction Modern agricultural technologies were introduced since the early 1950s in several developing countries to improve the economic and social welfare of millions of farmers, whose main source of income was agriculture. Modernization of tra-
The author is affiliated with the Department of Agriculture, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Australia © 1990 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
0195-9255/90/$3.50
220
SHANKARIAH CHAMALA
ditional agricultural production, processing, storage, and marketing methods was seen as a conditio sine qua non of national prosperity. No doubt, the agricultural technology has produced very many positive effects in increasing productivity and improving human nutrition and general welfare. However, only when the green revolution in India and Asia produced some unintended social consequences was the attention of agricultural policymakers, researchers, extension workers, and administrators drawn to the social impact of agricultural technology and their "bounded vision" of unquestioned trust in technology to solve social problems shaken. Similarly, when the environmental effects of agricultural programs started unfolding, people, especially those in the environmental movement, questioned the quick technology-fix attitudes and rightfully demanded that human welfare and environmental protection must be central foci in attaining sustainable agricultural development. The modernization process of agriculture in developing countries started at different periods in the last forty years. The approach to technology generation and development projects covers a plethora of experiments and pilot projects, leading to some kind of strategies in their (five-year) plans. For example, India, Taiwan, Korea, and Malaysia followed one approach that contrasts to that of some of the African countries or small countries like Nepal, Mauritius, Sri Lanka, Samoa, and recently Papua New Guinea. It is beyond the scope of this paper to cover all these countries or the experiences each country went through. Instead, the paper attempts to draw some generalizations based on several studies and reports to bring attention to the processes, trends, and future actions to be followed. The process of modernization of agriculture in developing countries is categorized into: • Agricultural technology generation and development, and • Methods of planning and implementing agricultural/rural development projects. This complex process is influenced by several external megaforces at the macrolevel and each country's internal forces such as policies on national research and extension programs.
E x t e r n a l Megaforces Affecting Modernization of Agriculture in Developing Countries Before one takes stock of modernizing agricultural development in these countries one has to understand the external megaforces affecting development. Dividing the countries into developing and developed helps academics, politicians, and administrators in comprehending the process and its problems. When the greenhouse effect, acid rain, dust storms, desertification, and pollution of natural resources became prominent, we realized that we are ecologically intricately
AGRICULTURE MODERNIZATION IMPACTS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
221
linked together. The environment became an issue. When terrorists, social unrest, drug production and distribution, and wars became more pronounced, the peace and prosperity of all nations was threatened. Poverty became an issue internationally, irrespective of political or national boundaries. Modern communication technology opened our eyes and ears to these megaprocesses and the inextricable linkages between developed and developing countries. Similar megaprocesses are taking place in the modernization of agriculture in developing countries. An attempt--not exhaustive--is made to identify the major forces affecting this process. This is presented in Figure 1.
International Agricultural Research Centers Several internal agricultural centers were established in the last 30 or 40 years; for example, International Centre for the Improvement of Maize and Wheat (CIMMYT), International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), International Laboratory for Research on Animal Diseases (ILRAD), and International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA). These centers are managed by Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), and the majority of their donors and members are developed countries. The centers, many located in developing countries, have provided institutional frameworks for internationalization of agricultural research. Their initial research was concentrated on high-input, highyielding varieties (HYV). Critics argued that the introduction of these new highyielding, short-statured, nitrogen-responsive cereals developed by IRRI and CIMMYT brought "green revolution" in some developing countries but widened inequalities and hastened rural landlessness and environmental decay (Oasa 1987).
Response of International Centers to Criticism The Consultative Group in International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) has positively responded to criticism of the green revolution. Oasa (1987) reviewed CGIAR's charges in detail. Oasa acknowledges that CGIAR has taken new steps and undertaken some novel approaches in response to socio--ccological criticisms of the Green Revolution policy. For example, it has instituted a number of projects including the Fanning Systems Research Program, a system of integrated pest management, and a program of biological nitrogen fixation and has started new institutions to do research in semiarid tropics (ICRISAT) and provide service to National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) in developing countries, in an attempt to counteract the trend to rural proletarianization. However, environmental degradation and poverty are complex issues specific to each country's agro--ecological and sociopolitical conditions. It would be naive to place blame on agricultural technology, for present level of environ-
222
s
InternationalAgricultural Research Centrse CIMMY'r,IRRI,CIAT,IITA, ICRISAT,ILRAD,ILCA etc.
~
I
Bilateralaid
Internal Tradeand multinational companiesbetween developed and
for food,
training,
development from developed countries
developing countries
t
InternationalOrganisationfor development of agriculture
FAO, UNDP,UNEP,WORLD BANK, ASIAN DEV,BANK, UNESCOetc.
FIGURE 1. External mega-forces affecting modernization of Agriculture in Developing Countries. mental degradation and poverty. There is some evidence that some countries are taking corrective steps in other areas such as rural employment, industrialization and reforestation in an attempt to solve these problems. In addition to the CGIAR group of institutions, several developed countries have established their own research centers, to increase the research capabilities of developing countries. To name a few: International Development Research Centre, Canada, and Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. These centers are also focusing on the above-mentioned issues. They conduct workshops to raise the environmental and poverty issues in relation to agricultural research. Their agendas could cover other issues related to bilateral aid.
International Organizationsfor Development of Agriculture in Developing Countries Under the broad umbrella of the United Nations and other international agencies, several organizations were established after the second world war. To name a few: Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation, International Labour organisation (ILO), and, more recently, the United Nations Environment Programme, World Bank, and Asian Development Bank. All of these institutions have a major input into these programs. In the early phases of development these institutions focused on high-yielding t~hnologies as a means for agricultural development. The debate on the effects of these technologies on the environment and poverty has focused their attention on these issues. Chambers (1983) and the World Bank staff (Cernea 1985) and their publications emphasized putting people first in rural development projects. Several aid agencies have attempted to incorporate these factors into agricultural development.
AGRICULTURE MODERNIZATION IMPACTS 1N DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
223
Now the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank insist that environmental impact and social impact assessments be done before they approve any project in developing countries.
Bilateral Aid for Food, Training, and Development in Developing Countries Many developed countries have established their own aid agencies. To name a few: United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB). Several examples of badly implemented aid projects have been documented and as a result the agencies are now incorporating environmental and poverty considerations into their aid programs. Bilateral aid projects have other agendas and sometimes have strings attached to them. These can be negotiated if the developing country prepares a good case for modification. However, the level of sophistication in negotiation of these projects varies with each developing country's consciousness and commitment to solving these problems in agricultural development.
International Trade International trade is another major force affecting agricultural projects in developing countries. Mellor (1988) raises several issues of the food-developmentforeign assistance-trade nexus in the process of agricultural development in the Third World. He suggests three key elements, namely (1) a well-operating market system, (2) an indigenous agricultural research system, and (3) massive investments in physical rural infrastructure. There are several aspects of this trade, such as multinational companies and trade between developed and developing countries and among developing countries. For example, production of coffee, tea, cocoa, rubber, animal feed, forestry products, oils, cotton, and silk has influence on the food production in these countries. These are cash crops and can earn foreign exchange for developing countries; hence political forces and institutions in collaboration with external players put more emphasis on these crops. Several examples of both unsuccessful and successful projects can be found. Again, the understanding by developing countries of the implications of these projects in their effects on the environment and the distribution of income (poverty) helps in negotiating the projects and striking a balance between economic development, equity, and environment.
Modernization of Agriculture in Developing Countries-Some Generalizations Modernization of agriculture in developing countries is also influenced by internal forces such as population pressure, political system, agro-climatic conditions and historical experience in development.
224
SHANKARIAH CHAMALA
Pinstrup-Andersen (1982) provides a brief historical view of the magnitude of research and extension expenditure and their impact. As mentioned earlier a major component of research and extension for developing countries comes from international agricultural research institutes, intercountry research networks, and other institutions like World Bank, USAID and AIDAB. National or regional (intracountry) research organizations also play an important role. Historically, colonial administrations established agricultural research and extension for export crops. Many countries continued this emphasis after independence. Since then, there has been an increasing awareness of the need to focus development efforts on food and agriculture for domestic use and improving living standards in rural areas. There is a wide gap between the developed and developing countries on research and extension investments. According to Pinstrup-Andersen, (1982) global expenditure on agricultural research in 1979 was $7 billion and developing countries are estimated to have spent about $1 billion only. Asia and Latin America spent more on research than Africa. On the other hand, Africa, Asia, and Latin America spent a larger percentage of the value of agricultural production on extension than did the rest of the world. Poorer countries spent much less on research and more on extension. In other words these countries did not test the borrowed technology within the country's or region's context of agro-climatic and socio-economic conditions. The initial extension methodologies were top-down and target oriented and were not based on any understanding of the community's socioeconomic structure or the behavior of the majority of small farmers. The entire process of modernization of agriculture in developing countries is very complex, and there are wide variations in their approaches. Keeping these factors in view, we can make the following broad generalizations. In the past: 1. There was emphasis on cash crops (research and extension). 2. Food production research (wheat and rice) was focused on high-yielding varieties (HYV), which needed higher inputs of fertilizer and chemical pest and disease control. 3. Research and project expansions were on irrigated crops or high-rainfall regions, which were already well endowed agro-climaticaUy and with infrastructure facilities. 4. Research and extension on dryland crops was neglected until recently. Similarly, research on intercropping or mixed cropping was not attempted until recently. 5. Research and extension on tree-based ecofarming and fish production were given very low priority. 6. Research and extension on soil and water conservation were attempted only after degradation became a serious problem. 7. Indigenous knowledge of biological pest control and eco-farming is not examined thoroughly, and only recently farming systems research emphasizes this aspect.
AGRICULTURE MODERNIZATION IMPACTS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
225
8. Sociological research into community structure, politics, land ownership systems, and bureaucracy was not carded out before attempting the modernization process. 9. Extension methodologies did not have any sociological basis of community structure or infrastructure development. Top-down and centralized planning promoted "trickle-down" extension methodology. Under this strategy, diffusion of information on modern agriculture was focused or targeted on big, rich, educated farmers. Once these farmers adopted it, it was assumed that it would trickle down to the rest of the community; in fact, it made the rich richer and the poor remained poor by inaction. 10. There was no, or very little, coordination among national development agencies on matters such as agriculture, animal production, irrigation, education, road construction, and credit. Integrated rural development remained as an "ideal" only in a few countries. 11. Training of scientists and extension officers was too narrow in technology. Environmental or social impact of technology transfer was not part of their study or training. 12. There has been a lack of involvement of nongovernment organizations in the planning and implementation of agricultural projects. There are some good exceptions in several countries. For example, Bharathiya Agro-Industries Foundation (a nonprofit and nongovernment agency) in India has been very successful in wasteland rehabilitation and poverty eradication programs through agriculture and dairy development. 13. Emphasis in some countries on BIG developmental projects. These monumental projects accelerated the destruction of the environment and displacement of people.
Social and Environmental Impacts of Modernization of Agriculture in Developing Countries In the last four decades the process of modernizing agriculture has produced some excellent results and some unanticipated effects. Here again, only broad generalizations are made.
Positive Impacts of Modernization of Agriculture Estimation of the impact on global production in developing countries is difficult because crop yields are influenced by a large number of factors that vary among countries and over time. A few studies such as Dalrymple (1977), CIMMYT (1978), and Pinstrup-Andersen (1982) attempted to estimate increase in yield due to introduction of high-yielding varieties. Total production of wheat and rice in these countries definitely increased. For example, Pinstrup-Andersen (1982) estimated that in 1976-1977 production of wheat and rice in developing countries as a whole increased with the use of modern varieties and added about
226
SHANKARIAH CHAMALA
twenty-one million tons of wheat and ten million tons of rice to the world production in that year. Some generalizations on positive impacts of modernization are: 1. Food production increased in several developing countries. 2. Several developing countries became selfsufficient in food production in spite of the growth in population. Glaeser (1978) summarized the success of the early green revolution introduced in several Asian countries in 1965, and by 1970 HYVs were being cultivated over an area of ten million hectares. Within three years, Pakistan ceased to be dependent on wheat imports from the United States. Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and a number of African and South American countries achieved record harvests. India had become selfsufficient in wheat and rice, tripling its wheat production between 1961 and 1980. 3. Higher intake of food improved nutritional levels and general health of certain sections of the population. 4. Mass starvation was certainly avoided, and few incidents of famine (except in some countries in Africa) occurred in comparison to the premodemization period. For example, India avoided a severe famine in 1967 and produced enough grain within five years to support its population. Even after the 1979 drought grain imports were not necessary. Similarly, food a i d t o Africa avoided mass deaths several times in the last 40 years.
Unintended or Negative Impacts of Modernization of Agriculture Despite its obvious successes, modernization of agriculture by using high yielding varieties and high input of fertilizers, machinery, and pesticides---under the general name of the green revolution--came under severe criticism during the 1970s for ecological and socio--economic reasons. (See among others Pearse (1977), Centre for Science and Environment (1985), and Glaeser (1987).) These can only be summarized in general terms: 1. Created regional imbalances: High-input modern agriculture was very much suited to rich soils or irrigated conditions. In the early periods of modernization, there was very little technology available for rainfed or less favorable soils. Moreover, farmers living in rainfed or problem regions were frequently too poor to afford expensive irrigation equipment and the inordinate amounts of pesticides required (Egger and Glaeser 1984). This created regional imbalances---rich regions became richer and poor regions became poorer. 2. Widened the gap between rich and poor: Modernization of agriculture resulted in rich farmers getting richer while the poor became poorer, and a rural proletariat was subsequently created. Income distribution shifted in favor of the wealthy, and class conflicts developed in several regions of developing countries (Glaeser 1987). 3. Affected women's health and employment: The impact of modernization on women in certain regions of developing countries was severe. Jiggins (1984)
AGRICULTURE MODERNIZATION IMPACTS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
227
described the World Bank's view on women's involvement in agriculture. Introduction of machinery, especially in rice and wheat cultivation, created unemployment (though in some parts of Asia HYV green revolution technology created more work for women in the field than before the introduction of this technology). Castillo (1985) vividly described the impact of the green revolution in the Philippines. UNDP report (1980) notes that in Asia there appears to be an association between women working in paddy fields and gynecological infection. India has experienced an increase in other health hazards such as susceptibility to intestinal and parasitic infection, splitting heels, pain from leech bites, rheumatic joints, and arthritis (Agarwal 1984). These health effects on agricultural labor must have existed earlier, but recording problems and finding solutions has now started. 4. Resulted in environmental degradation. The modernization of agriculture unwittingly introduced several innovations that affected the environment badly. The ecological consequences of these practices were felt years after introduction. Hindsight is always easier than foresight. The list of environmental degradations is increasing as our consciousness of them increases. The major effects of modernization of agriculture and rural development can be briefly summarised here: a) The early stages of green revolution technology, according to Glaeser (1987) and others, resulted in the extinction of valuable germ plasm owing to the introduction of crop monocultures. Related to genetic vulnerability are problems associated with plant resistance to insects and diseases. Insects that were known to be obscure and relatively harmless before the introduction of HYVs have proliferated due to a host of factors. Genetic diversity has been lost through uncontrolled development pressures. The total loss of plant species is estimated at 10,000 per year or one species an hour (Brown 1988) throughout the world. b) The long-term effects of exogenous fertilizers and fertilizer-based crop intensification have been associated with water contamination by nitrates and phosphates and oxygen reduction. c) Introduction of heavy machinery and intensive agriculture resulted in soil erosion, overcompaction, and the generation of dust through agriculture and other non-point pollution. d) Deforestation was increased for various reasons such as fuel wood, increased poverty, curing of tobacco, shifting cultivation, and need for building timber in developed and developing countries. The forests are disappearing at an alarming rate, estimated at more than 11 million hectares per year or 50 acres a minute--a rate aggravated by the fuel deficit among the poor of the world (Brown 1988). Sutlive, Jr. (1981) described deforestation, reporting that shifting cultivators and cattle ranchers clear 80,000 and 35,000 square miles of forest each year, respectively, while commercial loggers clear 20,000 square miles per annum. Similarly, Indonesian rain forests are cleared for transmigration and resettlement programs. Clearing of rain forests in Brazil has attracted world media attention. This deforestation creates concern for the environment and the
228
SHANKARIAH CHAMALA
greenhouse effect, but also raises questions about sustainability of agriculture where crop and livestock production is dependent in one way or the other on trees and shrubs. e) Water resources were affected. Negative effects of technological change on the quality of groundwater and surface water may be of a more long-term nature. Deforestation and use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides have affected water quality and quantity. Water scarcity is reported in several countries. For example, in India 170,000 tubewells were added every year during the 1970s. The water table is declining in many areas, leaving the dug wells of the poor high and dry (Centre for Science and Environment 1985). Water quality problems are noted more in industrialized countries, and some actions are taken with the advent of the environmental movement, which is slowly spreading to the developing countries. 5. Modernization of agriculture has increased the use of energy resources. There is little doubt that technological change has caused relatively large increases in the use of fossil fuel by the agricultural sector worldwide. In developing countries, fossil fuel is used directly as tractor fuel or as fuel for pumps and generators, and it is embodied in fertilizers, pesticides, and other farm inputs (Pinstrup-Andersen 1982). Since the beginning of the energy crisis, agricultural research and development priorities have placed more emphasis on issues such as nitrogen fixation by plants from the atmosphere, improved photosynthetic efficiency, use of organic wastes as fertilizer, and a number of other issues.
Approaches to Overcoming Social and Environmental Impacts of Modern Agriculture It is easier to be critical of modernization in developing countries than to find universal solutions applicable to these agro-climatic or socio-political systems. Several authors have attempted to provide solutions; international agricultural centers, aid agencies, UN organizations, and many countries have tried alternative approaches with some success. It is not possible to provide an exhaustive list in this paper, but broad approaches are summarized under two categories: 1. Technology development, and 2. Management and delivery of services for modernization and rural development.
New Approaches To Agricultural Technology Development Glaeser (1987) summarized several new attempts made by CGIAR and alternative approaches in three continents, namely Latin America, Asia and Africa. CGIAR promoted fanning systems research, integrated pest management, research into nitrogen fixation, and soil fertility; it established research centers to examine dry land crops (ICRISAT) and developed International Services for
AGRICULTURE MODERNIZATION IMPACTS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
229
National Agricultural Research. Similarly, developed countries, United Nations organizations, several aid agencies, and the World Bank have incorporated environmental and equity issues into developing agricultural technology. The major focus is on development of low-input sustainable agricultural technology. Various terms are used to describe this approach. Glaeser (1987) called it ecodevelopment, in which an integrated approach is used that includes the use of cultivation techniques based on the careful treatment and regeneration of resources to intensify and stabilize agricultural production. Such ecofarming systems are appropriate for developing natural production potential in a sustainable way. The old debate about developing appropriate technologies to use the natural endowments of land, labor and capital is re-emerging again, not only in developing countries, but in developed countries also. However, many researchers, development administrators, and field extension workers have to develop a concerted program of learning and cooperation in field training and mutual exchange of information and knowledge between indigenous knowledge of peasants and improved knowledge of technicians for the successful development and diffusion of new technology.
New Approaches to Management of Delivery of Services for Modernization and Rural Development Management of agricultural development in several developing countries has a very brief history. Understanding the process of managing research, extension, and development projects is very limited due to lack of research or documentation. Only successful studies are reported. Governments (leaders and bureaucrats or agricultural workers) don't document or publicize for understandable reasons. Sometimes the media are censored heavily in developing countries. In spite of these limitations, some new approaches are made by several countries. Aid agencies, the World Bank, and some countries now insist on doing some social or environmental impact studies of new projects. Some departments also monitor and modify these programs, while others never do any preproject or postproject appraisal in detail. The new approach is summarised here: 1. Develop appropriate administrative structures and policies to incorporate environmental and equity considerations into rural development projects. Monitoring of these programs for the possible unanticipated effects must be incorporated into the project management. 2. Train research, extension, and administrative staff. The process of agricultural development must be incorporated, highlighting the problems of equity and environmental degradation. Training programs must incorporate social impact analysis as well as environmental impact analysis. Agricultural planning and administration must develop cost-effective methodologies and incorporate them into the program planning and implementation. 3. Involve nongovernment agencies in agricultural development programs, not
230
SHANKARIAH CHAMALA
only to reduce costs but to bring involvement and commitment from a wider perspective. 4. Increase coordination among different government agencies, which is essential for balanced development. 5. Increase community awareness using appropriate communication, and inform or educate politicians on these issues. Such an awareness was raised by several artists such as TV or film stars or pop singers in industrialized countries. Media have taken up these issues for debate. 6. Use innovative approaches in designing rural development projects for income generation, such as nonagricultural activities or animal production projects. These are essential to utilise local resources. Targeting special groups, e.g., the landless, small farmers, dryland farmers, the poor, or women, has been tried in several countries with some success. 7. Link family planning to farm planning. This is essential if environmental or social disasters are to be avoided. Population pressure is partly responsible. Integrated development through community participation should be the major approach in managing rural development in developing countries. The delivery mechanisms of services and programs must be designed and developed by social scientists, so that appropriate structures and participative methods can be developed.
References Agarwal, B. 1984. Rural women and high yielding variety rice technology in India. Review of Agriculture 19:39-152. Brown, N. J. 1988. Investing in our future. In Future 10:12-15. Castillo, C. T. 1985. Filipino women in rice farming systems: Some empirical evidence. Transactions of the National Academy of Science & Technology 7:279-334. Centre for Science and Environment. 1985. The Second Citizens" Report. The State of India's Environment 1984-1985. New Delhi. Cernea, M. M. (ed). 1985. Putting People First---Sociological Variables in Rural Development. Published for the World Bank. New York: Oxford University Press. Chambers, R. 1983. Rural Development--Putting the Last First. London: Longman. CIMMYT Review. 1978. Mexico City: CIMMYT. Dalrymple, D. G. 1977. Evaluating the impact of international research on wheat and rice in less developed nations. In Resource Allocation and Productivity in National and International Agricultural Research, T. M. Amdt, D. G. Dalrymple and V. W. Ruttan (eds). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Egger, K. and Glaeser, B. 1984. Kritik der griinen Revolution; Weg zur 6kologischen Alternative. In Okologischer Landhau in den Tropen, P. Rottach (ed). Karlsuche: C. F. Miiiler. 2nd ed., pp. 13-37. Glaeser, P. (ed). 1987. The Green Revolution Revisited---Critique and Alternatives. Boston: Allen and Unwin. Jiggins, J. 1984. Rhetoric and reality: Where do women in agricultural development
AGRICULTUREMODERNIZATIONIMPACTSIN DEVELOPINGCOUNTRIES
231
projects stand today? Part l--Women in agricultural development: The World Bank's view. Agricultural Administration 15:157-175. Mellor, J. W. 1988. Agricultural development in the Third World: The food, development, foreign assistance, trade nexus. Paper prepared for the 1988 World Food Conference, European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute, Reprint No. 124, pp. 1-8. Osas, E. K. 1987. The political economy of international agricultural research: A review of the CGIAR's response to criticisms of the "Green Revolution." In The Green Revolution Revisited: Critique and Alternatives, B. Glaeser (ed). London: Allen & Unwin. Pearse, A. 1977. Technology and peasant production: Reflections on a global study.
Development and Change 8. Pinstrup-Andersen, P. 1982. Agricultural Research and Technology in Economic Development. The Impact of Agricultural Research and Modern Technology on Food Production, Economic Growth and Income Distribution in Developing Countries. London: Longman. Sutlive, V. H., Jr. 1981. Introduction to Blowing in the Wind: Deforestation and Long Range Implications. Studies in Third World Societies, Publication No. 14. Williamsburg, Va.: Dept. of Anthropology, College of William and Mary. UNDP. 1980. Rural women's participation in development. Evaluation Study No. 3. New York: United Nations Development Programme, June 1980.
219
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF MODERNIZATION OF AGRICULTURE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIF.S
SHANKARIAH
CHAMALA
In the early 1950s many developing countries lacked indigenous research and
technology capability. In their desperate attempts to modernize traditional agriculture they selectively borrowed technology and strategies of development from the West. Green revolution technology produced some impressive results in food production but also increased poverty and caused deterioration of the environment. It is easier to be critical than to find universal solutions to solve complex problems of development in diverse agro-climatic and sociopolitical systems. This paper examines the external megaforces, namely international agricultural centers, trade, bilateral aid, and international organizations affecting modernization of agriculture in developing countries, and provides a balanced critique on positive and negative impacts of modernization in these countries. General trends of social and environmental impacts are briefly summarized. New approaches undertaken by international centers and by some developing countries to overcome social and environmental impacts of modern agriculture are reviewed. Mechanisms to generate appropriate agricultural technology development and management of delivery services are suggested to achieve integrated socio-economic welfare of the people and sustainable environment.
Introduction Modern agricultural technologies were introduced since the early 1950s in several developing countries to improve the economic and social welfare of millions of farmers, whose main source of income was agriculture. Modernization of tra-
The author is affiliated with the Department of Agriculture, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Australia © 1990 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
0195-9255/90/$3.50
220
SHANKARIAH CHAMALA
ditional agricultural production, processing, storage, and marketing methods was seen as a conditio sine qua non of national prosperity. No doubt, the agricultural technology has produced very many positive effects in increasing productivity and improving human nutrition and general welfare. However, only when the green revolution in India and Asia produced some unintended social consequences was the attention of agricultural policymakers, researchers, extension workers, and administrators drawn to the social impact of agricultural technology and their "bounded vision" of unquestioned trust in technology to solve social problems shaken. Similarly, when the environmental effects of agricultural programs started unfolding, people, especially those in the environmental movement, questioned the quick technology-fix attitudes and rightfully demanded that human welfare and environmental protection must be central foci in attaining sustainable agricultural development. The modernization process of agriculture in developing countries started at different periods in the last forty years. The approach to technology generation and development projects covers a plethora of experiments and pilot projects, leading to some kind of strategies in their (five-year) plans. For example, India, Taiwan, Korea, and Malaysia followed one approach that contrasts to that of some of the African countries or small countries like Nepal, Mauritius, Sri Lanka, Samoa, and recently Papua New Guinea. It is beyond the scope of this paper to cover all these countries or the experiences each country went through. Instead, the paper attempts to draw some generalizations based on several studies and reports to bring attention to the processes, trends, and future actions to be followed. The process of modernization of agriculture in developing countries is categorized into: • Agricultural technology generation and development, and • Methods of planning and implementing agricultural/rural development projects. This complex process is influenced by several external megaforces at the macrolevel and each country's internal forces such as policies on national research and extension programs.
E x t e r n a l Megaforces Affecting Modernization of Agriculture in Developing Countries Before one takes stock of modernizing agricultural development in these countries one has to understand the external megaforces affecting development. Dividing the countries into developing and developed helps academics, politicians, and administrators in comprehending the process and its problems. When the greenhouse effect, acid rain, dust storms, desertification, and pollution of natural resources became prominent, we realized that we are ecologically intricately
AGRICULTURE MODERNIZATION IMPACTS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
221
linked together. The environment became an issue. When terrorists, social unrest, drug production and distribution, and wars became more pronounced, the peace and prosperity of all nations was threatened. Poverty became an issue internationally, irrespective of political or national boundaries. Modern communication technology opened our eyes and ears to these megaprocesses and the inextricable linkages between developed and developing countries. Similar megaprocesses are taking place in the modernization of agriculture in developing countries. An attempt--not exhaustive--is made to identify the major forces affecting this process. This is presented in Figure 1.
International Agricultural Research Centers Several internal agricultural centers were established in the last 30 or 40 years; for example, International Centre for the Improvement of Maize and Wheat (CIMMYT), International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), International Laboratory for Research on Animal Diseases (ILRAD), and International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA). These centers are managed by Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), and the majority of their donors and members are developed countries. The centers, many located in developing countries, have provided institutional frameworks for internationalization of agricultural research. Their initial research was concentrated on high-input, highyielding varieties (HYV). Critics argued that the introduction of these new highyielding, short-statured, nitrogen-responsive cereals developed by IRRI and CIMMYT brought "green revolution" in some developing countries but widened inequalities and hastened rural landlessness and environmental decay (Oasa 1987).
Response of International Centers to Criticism The Consultative Group in International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) has positively responded to criticism of the green revolution. Oasa (1987) reviewed CGIAR's charges in detail. Oasa acknowledges that CGIAR has taken new steps and undertaken some novel approaches in response to socio--ccological criticisms of the Green Revolution policy. For example, it has instituted a number of projects including the Fanning Systems Research Program, a system of integrated pest management, and a program of biological nitrogen fixation and has started new institutions to do research in semiarid tropics (ICRISAT) and provide service to National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) in developing countries, in an attempt to counteract the trend to rural proletarianization. However, environmental degradation and poverty are complex issues specific to each country's agro--ecological and sociopolitical conditions. It would be naive to place blame on agricultural technology, for present level of environ-
222
s
InternationalAgricultural Research Centrse CIMMY'r,IRRI,CIAT,IITA, ICRISAT,ILRAD,ILCA etc.
~
I
Bilateralaid
Internal Tradeand multinational companiesbetween developed and
for food,
training,
development from developed countries
developing countries
t
InternationalOrganisationfor development of agriculture
FAO, UNDP,UNEP,WORLD BANK, ASIAN DEV,BANK, UNESCOetc.
FIGURE 1. External mega-forces affecting modernization of Agriculture in Developing Countries. mental degradation and poverty. There is some evidence that some countries are taking corrective steps in other areas such as rural employment, industrialization and reforestation in an attempt to solve these problems. In addition to the CGIAR group of institutions, several developed countries have established their own research centers, to increase the research capabilities of developing countries. To name a few: International Development Research Centre, Canada, and Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. These centers are also focusing on the above-mentioned issues. They conduct workshops to raise the environmental and poverty issues in relation to agricultural research. Their agendas could cover other issues related to bilateral aid.
International Organizationsfor Development of Agriculture in Developing Countries Under the broad umbrella of the United Nations and other international agencies, several organizations were established after the second world war. To name a few: Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation, International Labour organisation (ILO), and, more recently, the United Nations Environment Programme, World Bank, and Asian Development Bank. All of these institutions have a major input into these programs. In the early phases of development these institutions focused on high-yielding t~hnologies as a means for agricultural development. The debate on the effects of these technologies on the environment and poverty has focused their attention on these issues. Chambers (1983) and the World Bank staff (Cernea 1985) and their publications emphasized putting people first in rural development projects. Several aid agencies have attempted to incorporate these factors into agricultural development.
AGRICULTURE MODERNIZATION IMPACTS 1N DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
223
Now the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank insist that environmental impact and social impact assessments be done before they approve any project in developing countries.
Bilateral Aid for Food, Training, and Development in Developing Countries Many developed countries have established their own aid agencies. To name a few: United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB). Several examples of badly implemented aid projects have been documented and as a result the agencies are now incorporating environmental and poverty considerations into their aid programs. Bilateral aid projects have other agendas and sometimes have strings attached to them. These can be negotiated if the developing country prepares a good case for modification. However, the level of sophistication in negotiation of these projects varies with each developing country's consciousness and commitment to solving these problems in agricultural development.
International Trade International trade is another major force affecting agricultural projects in developing countries. Mellor (1988) raises several issues of the food-developmentforeign assistance-trade nexus in the process of agricultural development in the Third World. He suggests three key elements, namely (1) a well-operating market system, (2) an indigenous agricultural research system, and (3) massive investments in physical rural infrastructure. There are several aspects of this trade, such as multinational companies and trade between developed and developing countries and among developing countries. For example, production of coffee, tea, cocoa, rubber, animal feed, forestry products, oils, cotton, and silk has influence on the food production in these countries. These are cash crops and can earn foreign exchange for developing countries; hence political forces and institutions in collaboration with external players put more emphasis on these crops. Several examples of both unsuccessful and successful projects can be found. Again, the understanding by developing countries of the implications of these projects in their effects on the environment and the distribution of income (poverty) helps in negotiating the projects and striking a balance between economic development, equity, and environment.
Modernization of Agriculture in Developing Countries-Some Generalizations Modernization of agriculture in developing countries is also influenced by internal forces such as population pressure, political system, agro-climatic conditions and historical experience in development.
224
SHANKARIAH CHAMALA
Pinstrup-Andersen (1982) provides a brief historical view of the magnitude of research and extension expenditure and their impact. As mentioned earlier a major component of research and extension for developing countries comes from international agricultural research institutes, intercountry research networks, and other institutions like World Bank, USAID and AIDAB. National or regional (intracountry) research organizations also play an important role. Historically, colonial administrations established agricultural research and extension for export crops. Many countries continued this emphasis after independence. Since then, there has been an increasing awareness of the need to focus development efforts on food and agriculture for domestic use and improving living standards in rural areas. There is a wide gap between the developed and developing countries on research and extension investments. According to Pinstrup-Andersen, (1982) global expenditure on agricultural research in 1979 was $7 billion and developing countries are estimated to have spent about $1 billion only. Asia and Latin America spent more on research than Africa. On the other hand, Africa, Asia, and Latin America spent a larger percentage of the value of agricultural production on extension than did the rest of the world. Poorer countries spent much less on research and more on extension. In other words these countries did not test the borrowed technology within the country's or region's context of agro-climatic and socio-economic conditions. The initial extension methodologies were top-down and target oriented and were not based on any understanding of the community's socioeconomic structure or the behavior of the majority of small farmers. The entire process of modernization of agriculture in developing countries is very complex, and there are wide variations in their approaches. Keeping these factors in view, we can make the following broad generalizations. In the past: 1. There was emphasis on cash crops (research and extension). 2. Food production research (wheat and rice) was focused on high-yielding varieties (HYV), which needed higher inputs of fertilizer and chemical pest and disease control. 3. Research and project expansions were on irrigated crops or high-rainfall regions, which were already well endowed agro-climaticaUy and with infrastructure facilities. 4. Research and extension on dryland crops was neglected until recently. Similarly, research on intercropping or mixed cropping was not attempted until recently. 5. Research and extension on tree-based ecofarming and fish production were given very low priority. 6. Research and extension on soil and water conservation were attempted only after degradation became a serious problem. 7. Indigenous knowledge of biological pest control and eco-farming is not examined thoroughly, and only recently farming systems research emphasizes this aspect.
AGRICULTURE MODERNIZATION IMPACTS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
225
8. Sociological research into community structure, politics, land ownership systems, and bureaucracy was not carded out before attempting the modernization process. 9. Extension methodologies did not have any sociological basis of community structure or infrastructure development. Top-down and centralized planning promoted "trickle-down" extension methodology. Under this strategy, diffusion of information on modern agriculture was focused or targeted on big, rich, educated farmers. Once these farmers adopted it, it was assumed that it would trickle down to the rest of the community; in fact, it made the rich richer and the poor remained poor by inaction. 10. There was no, or very little, coordination among national development agencies on matters such as agriculture, animal production, irrigation, education, road construction, and credit. Integrated rural development remained as an "ideal" only in a few countries. 11. Training of scientists and extension officers was too narrow in technology. Environmental or social impact of technology transfer was not part of their study or training. 12. There has been a lack of involvement of nongovernment organizations in the planning and implementation of agricultural projects. There are some good exceptions in several countries. For example, Bharathiya Agro-Industries Foundation (a nonprofit and nongovernment agency) in India has been very successful in wasteland rehabilitation and poverty eradication programs through agriculture and dairy development. 13. Emphasis in some countries on BIG developmental projects. These monumental projects accelerated the destruction of the environment and displacement of people.
Social and Environmental Impacts of Modernization of Agriculture in Developing Countries In the last four decades the process of modernizing agriculture has produced some excellent results and some unanticipated effects. Here again, only broad generalizations are made.
Positive Impacts of Modernization of Agriculture Estimation of the impact on global production in developing countries is difficult because crop yields are influenced by a large number of factors that vary among countries and over time. A few studies such as Dalrymple (1977), CIMMYT (1978), and Pinstrup-Andersen (1982) attempted to estimate increase in yield due to introduction of high-yielding varieties. Total production of wheat and rice in these countries definitely increased. For example, Pinstrup-Andersen (1982) estimated that in 1976-1977 production of wheat and rice in developing countries as a whole increased with the use of modern varieties and added about
226
SHANKARIAH CHAMALA
twenty-one million tons of wheat and ten million tons of rice to the world production in that year. Some generalizations on positive impacts of modernization are: 1. Food production increased in several developing countries. 2. Several developing countries became selfsufficient in food production in spite of the growth in population. Glaeser (1978) summarized the success of the early green revolution introduced in several Asian countries in 1965, and by 1970 HYVs were being cultivated over an area of ten million hectares. Within three years, Pakistan ceased to be dependent on wheat imports from the United States. Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and a number of African and South American countries achieved record harvests. India had become selfsufficient in wheat and rice, tripling its wheat production between 1961 and 1980. 3. Higher intake of food improved nutritional levels and general health of certain sections of the population. 4. Mass starvation was certainly avoided, and few incidents of famine (except in some countries in Africa) occurred in comparison to the premodemization period. For example, India avoided a severe famine in 1967 and produced enough grain within five years to support its population. Even after the 1979 drought grain imports were not necessary. Similarly, food a i d t o Africa avoided mass deaths several times in the last 40 years.
Unintended or Negative Impacts of Modernization of Agriculture Despite its obvious successes, modernization of agriculture by using high yielding varieties and high input of fertilizers, machinery, and pesticides---under the general name of the green revolution--came under severe criticism during the 1970s for ecological and socio--economic reasons. (See among others Pearse (1977), Centre for Science and Environment (1985), and Glaeser (1987).) These can only be summarized in general terms: 1. Created regional imbalances: High-input modern agriculture was very much suited to rich soils or irrigated conditions. In the early periods of modernization, there was very little technology available for rainfed or less favorable soils. Moreover, farmers living in rainfed or problem regions were frequently too poor to afford expensive irrigation equipment and the inordinate amounts of pesticides required (Egger and Glaeser 1984). This created regional imbalances---rich regions became richer and poor regions became poorer. 2. Widened the gap between rich and poor: Modernization of agriculture resulted in rich farmers getting richer while the poor became poorer, and a rural proletariat was subsequently created. Income distribution shifted in favor of the wealthy, and class conflicts developed in several regions of developing countries (Glaeser 1987). 3. Affected women's health and employment: The impact of modernization on women in certain regions of developing countries was severe. Jiggins (1984)
AGRICULTURE MODERNIZATION IMPACTS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
227
described the World Bank's view on women's involvement in agriculture. Introduction of machinery, especially in rice and wheat cultivation, created unemployment (though in some parts of Asia HYV green revolution technology created more work for women in the field than before the introduction of this technology). Castillo (1985) vividly described the impact of the green revolution in the Philippines. UNDP report (1980) notes that in Asia there appears to be an association between women working in paddy fields and gynecological infection. India has experienced an increase in other health hazards such as susceptibility to intestinal and parasitic infection, splitting heels, pain from leech bites, rheumatic joints, and arthritis (Agarwal 1984). These health effects on agricultural labor must have existed earlier, but recording problems and finding solutions has now started. 4. Resulted in environmental degradation. The modernization of agriculture unwittingly introduced several innovations that affected the environment badly. The ecological consequences of these practices were felt years after introduction. Hindsight is always easier than foresight. The list of environmental degradations is increasing as our consciousness of them increases. The major effects of modernization of agriculture and rural development can be briefly summarised here: a) The early stages of green revolution technology, according to Glaeser (1987) and others, resulted in the extinction of valuable germ plasm owing to the introduction of crop monocultures. Related to genetic vulnerability are problems associated with plant resistance to insects and diseases. Insects that were known to be obscure and relatively harmless before the introduction of HYVs have proliferated due to a host of factors. Genetic diversity has been lost through uncontrolled development pressures. The total loss of plant species is estimated at 10,000 per year or one species an hour (Brown 1988) throughout the world. b) The long-term effects of exogenous fertilizers and fertilizer-based crop intensification have been associated with water contamination by nitrates and phosphates and oxygen reduction. c) Introduction of heavy machinery and intensive agriculture resulted in soil erosion, overcompaction, and the generation of dust through agriculture and other non-point pollution. d) Deforestation was increased for various reasons such as fuel wood, increased poverty, curing of tobacco, shifting cultivation, and need for building timber in developed and developing countries. The forests are disappearing at an alarming rate, estimated at more than 11 million hectares per year or 50 acres a minute--a rate aggravated by the fuel deficit among the poor of the world (Brown 1988). Sutlive, Jr. (1981) described deforestation, reporting that shifting cultivators and cattle ranchers clear 80,000 and 35,000 square miles of forest each year, respectively, while commercial loggers clear 20,000 square miles per annum. Similarly, Indonesian rain forests are cleared for transmigration and resettlement programs. Clearing of rain forests in Brazil has attracted world media attention. This deforestation creates concern for the environment and the
228
SHANKARIAH CHAMALA
greenhouse effect, but also raises questions about sustainability of agriculture where crop and livestock production is dependent in one way or the other on trees and shrubs. e) Water resources were affected. Negative effects of technological change on the quality of groundwater and surface water may be of a more long-term nature. Deforestation and use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides have affected water quality and quantity. Water scarcity is reported in several countries. For example, in India 170,000 tubewells were added every year during the 1970s. The water table is declining in many areas, leaving the dug wells of the poor high and dry (Centre for Science and Environment 1985). Water quality problems are noted more in industrialized countries, and some actions are taken with the advent of the environmental movement, which is slowly spreading to the developing countries. 5. Modernization of agriculture has increased the use of energy resources. There is little doubt that technological change has caused relatively large increases in the use of fossil fuel by the agricultural sector worldwide. In developing countries, fossil fuel is used directly as tractor fuel or as fuel for pumps and generators, and it is embodied in fertilizers, pesticides, and other farm inputs (Pinstrup-Andersen 1982). Since the beginning of the energy crisis, agricultural research and development priorities have placed more emphasis on issues such as nitrogen fixation by plants from the atmosphere, improved photosynthetic efficiency, use of organic wastes as fertilizer, and a number of other issues.
Approaches to Overcoming Social and Environmental Impacts of Modern Agriculture It is easier to be critical of modernization in developing countries than to find universal solutions applicable to these agro-climatic or socio-political systems. Several authors have attempted to provide solutions; international agricultural centers, aid agencies, UN organizations, and many countries have tried alternative approaches with some success. It is not possible to provide an exhaustive list in this paper, but broad approaches are summarized under two categories: 1. Technology development, and 2. Management and delivery of services for modernization and rural development.
New Approaches To Agricultural Technology Development Glaeser (1987) summarized several new attempts made by CGIAR and alternative approaches in three continents, namely Latin America, Asia and Africa. CGIAR promoted fanning systems research, integrated pest management, research into nitrogen fixation, and soil fertility; it established research centers to examine dry land crops (ICRISAT) and developed International Services for
AGRICULTURE MODERNIZATION IMPACTS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
229
National Agricultural Research. Similarly, developed countries, United Nations organizations, several aid agencies, and the World Bank have incorporated environmental and equity issues into developing agricultural technology. The major focus is on development of low-input sustainable agricultural technology. Various terms are used to describe this approach. Glaeser (1987) called it ecodevelopment, in which an integrated approach is used that includes the use of cultivation techniques based on the careful treatment and regeneration of resources to intensify and stabilize agricultural production. Such ecofarming systems are appropriate for developing natural production potential in a sustainable way. The old debate about developing appropriate technologies to use the natural endowments of land, labor and capital is re-emerging again, not only in developing countries, but in developed countries also. However, many researchers, development administrators, and field extension workers have to develop a concerted program of learning and cooperation in field training and mutual exchange of information and knowledge between indigenous knowledge of peasants and improved knowledge of technicians for the successful development and diffusion of new technology.
New Approaches to Management of Delivery of Services for Modernization and Rural Development Management of agricultural development in several developing countries has a very brief history. Understanding the process of managing research, extension, and development projects is very limited due to lack of research or documentation. Only successful studies are reported. Governments (leaders and bureaucrats or agricultural workers) don't document or publicize for understandable reasons. Sometimes the media are censored heavily in developing countries. In spite of these limitations, some new approaches are made by several countries. Aid agencies, the World Bank, and some countries now insist on doing some social or environmental impact studies of new projects. Some departments also monitor and modify these programs, while others never do any preproject or postproject appraisal in detail. The new approach is summarised here: 1. Develop appropriate administrative structures and policies to incorporate environmental and equity considerations into rural development projects. Monitoring of these programs for the possible unanticipated effects must be incorporated into the project management. 2. Train research, extension, and administrative staff. The process of agricultural development must be incorporated, highlighting the problems of equity and environmental degradation. Training programs must incorporate social impact analysis as well as environmental impact analysis. Agricultural planning and administration must develop cost-effective methodologies and incorporate them into the program planning and implementation. 3. Involve nongovernment agencies in agricultural development programs, not
230
SHANKARIAH CHAMALA
only to reduce costs but to bring involvement and commitment from a wider perspective. 4. Increase coordination among different government agencies, which is essential for balanced development. 5. Increase community awareness using appropriate communication, and inform or educate politicians on these issues. Such an awareness was raised by several artists such as TV or film stars or pop singers in industrialized countries. Media have taken up these issues for debate. 6. Use innovative approaches in designing rural development projects for income generation, such as nonagricultural activities or animal production projects. These are essential to utilise local resources. Targeting special groups, e.g., the landless, small farmers, dryland farmers, the poor, or women, has been tried in several countries with some success. 7. Link family planning to farm planning. This is essential if environmental or social disasters are to be avoided. Population pressure is partly responsible. Integrated development through community participation should be the major approach in managing rural development in developing countries. The delivery mechanisms of services and programs must be designed and developed by social scientists, so that appropriate structures and participative methods can be developed.
References Agarwal, B. 1984. Rural women and high yielding variety rice technology in India. Review of Agriculture 19:39-152. Brown, N. J. 1988. Investing in our future. In Future 10:12-15. Castillo, C. T. 1985. Filipino women in rice farming systems: Some empirical evidence. Transactions of the National Academy of Science & Technology 7:279-334. Centre for Science and Environment. 1985. The Second Citizens" Report. The State of India's Environment 1984-1985. New Delhi. Cernea, M. M. (ed). 1985. Putting People First---Sociological Variables in Rural Development. Published for the World Bank. New York: Oxford University Press. Chambers, R. 1983. Rural Development--Putting the Last First. London: Longman. CIMMYT Review. 1978. Mexico City: CIMMYT. Dalrymple, D. G. 1977. Evaluating the impact of international research on wheat and rice in less developed nations. In Resource Allocation and Productivity in National and International Agricultural Research, T. M. Amdt, D. G. Dalrymple and V. W. Ruttan (eds). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Egger, K. and Glaeser, B. 1984. Kritik der griinen Revolution; Weg zur 6kologischen Alternative. In Okologischer Landhau in den Tropen, P. Rottach (ed). Karlsuche: C. F. Miiiler. 2nd ed., pp. 13-37. Glaeser, P. (ed). 1987. The Green Revolution Revisited---Critique and Alternatives. Boston: Allen and Unwin. Jiggins, J. 1984. Rhetoric and reality: Where do women in agricultural development
AGRICULTUREMODERNIZATIONIMPACTSIN DEVELOPINGCOUNTRIES
231
projects stand today? Part l--Women in agricultural development: The World Bank's view. Agricultural Administration 15:157-175. Mellor, J. W. 1988. Agricultural development in the Third World: The food, development, foreign assistance, trade nexus. Paper prepared for the 1988 World Food Conference, European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute, Reprint No. 124, pp. 1-8. Osas, E. K. 1987. The political economy of international agricultural research: A review of the CGIAR's response to criticisms of the "Green Revolution." In The Green Revolution Revisited: Critique and Alternatives, B. Glaeser (ed). London: Allen & Unwin. Pearse, A. 1977. Technology and peasant production: Reflections on a global study.
Development and Change 8. Pinstrup-Andersen, P. 1982. Agricultural Research and Technology in Economic Development. The Impact of Agricultural Research and Modern Technology on Food Production, Economic Growth and Income Distribution in Developing Countries. London: Longman. Sutlive, V. H., Jr. 1981. Introduction to Blowing in the Wind: Deforestation and Long Range Implications. Studies in Third World Societies, Publication No. 14. Williamsburg, Va.: Dept. of Anthropology, College of William and Mary. UNDP. 1980. Rural women's participation in development. Evaluation Study No. 3. New York: United Nations Development Programme, June 1980.