Need for a second Green Revolution

400 million tons of food grain production as opposed to about 214 million tons in 2006-07 is
the target of “Second Green Revolution. It is unlikely to happen to-morrow or next year, but it
possibly may happen by 2020. To achieve the forgoing amount of production a growth rate of 5
to 6% in agricultural sector has to be maintained over next 15 years. Current growth rate in this
sector is stagnant or at best 2% (in last ten years). The latter has depleted the country’s food stock
and forced the government to negotiate import of 5 million tons of wheat. With practically no
more land to farm and some depletion of the agricultural land, this miracle is not easy to achieve.
Science and technology has to play its big role. High productive seeds, private sector involvement
and expenditure on long stalled irrigation schemes are key to achieving higher production.

Population growth in India is at the rate of 1.8 to 2.2% a year. With rising population and slow
rate of agricultural growth, situation is likely to get alarming if not worst next in 5 to 8 years.
Food self-sufficiency of nineties will be a forgotten achievement. Shortages will loom. Famines
may not visit India, but shortages will visible shaken the national confidence. To quote an old
Chinese saying – When price of rice goes far beyond what a common man can pay, heaven
ordains a new ruler. Agrarian distress is much more worst than industrial unrest. It has already
ejected an otherwise a finely run government of National Democratic Alliance in 2004. Farmer
suicides and other agrarian issues prevented some state voters from voting for the NDA. Situation
is no different toady, except that timely rains this year have brightened the prospect of the Rabi
(wheat) crop. That does not mean that issue will not be pushed to the forefront in the coming
federal elections.

What is Required to Start the Second Green Revolution?

If the gains of “First Green Revolution” 1970-90 are to be strengthened, then a Second Green
Revolution is to be initiated. The First Green Revolution was made possible with the availability
of miracle wheat variety, electricity at the farms and land reforms. The triumvirate of
Swaminathan, Venkatraman & Indira Gandhi, provided the leadership. With its success, the
begging bowl stereotype of India in the West was laid to rest. Instead a new India, still poor but
confidant, proving IR, BPO and KPO service to the world was born. There was a 15 years respite
from a bad news on the agricultural front. A lot of food grains were exported. We in the West,
with Indian heritage, who still prefer Indian basmati and daals, loved to purchase all things
Indian. We still buy the same but are also reading a few bad reports like depleted reserve food
stocks etc. Wheat is arriving from Australia. It has dampened the inflationary mood in the country
a bit. Luckily, the rains of February and March have helped. Need to import the full 5 million
tons of wheat shortfall may not be necessary. The issue at hand is not today but what is likely to
happen in next 10 years, if the agricultural production stayed sluggish.

Hence Government of India is back into square one i.e. what needs to be done to trigger higher
agricultural growth in India. We may wish to call it the “Second Green Revolution”. But it is a
high-end initiative with both Federal and State governments are full participants.

It will also require:

1.Genetically modified (GM) seeds to double the per acreage production i.e. technology,
2.Private sector to develop and market the usage of GM foods i.e. efficient marketing of the ideas,
3.Linking of rivers as much as economically possible to bring surplus water of one area to others
i.e. linking of the rivers.

Not only that, a significant contribution is to be made by the farmers themselves. They have to
get out of the ancient mode of being peasant farmers on small land holdings. They have to
become businessmen, who trade in agricultural products. Just like any other businessmen they
have to look for the most economical way to boost productivity and profits to themselves.
Splitting of land holding, after a father passes away, into multiple children have depleted the
economic viabilities of farms. Farm economics have to be revisited and economic size of the farm
re-established. Continued dependency on government bailout during any crisis has to be
minimized. Lesser the government involved, more likely is that controls and state trading in
grains will be eliminated. It requires farmers to become responsible businessmen.

Consumer has to grow up a bit also. “Genetically Modified Food” is here to stay. It is the
salvations of the rapidly increasing population. Opposition to the GM food in India is wholly
politically motivated. It has to be ended in favor of adopting new techniques to boost
productivity. Forty years back, a similar political lobby opposed the introduction of Mexican
wheat variety in India. This in fact began the first green revolution. Today, results of this wheat
variety are wonderful. Now a similar campaign to demonize GM food is under way. Believe it or
not some of these well-tried concepts are India’s ultimate salvation.

GM Food and India

GM food is new and its concept is not well understood, especially in India. Communications are
faulty. Everybody who wishes to oppose US in more than one-way, have found a new way to
continue his or her tirade against the GM food. GM food is an American private innovation.
Governments had nothing to do with it. Private sector innovated it and marketed it. Today a
significant amount of daily-consumed foodstuff in North America is GM food. In a nutshell GM
is about improving the crop (such as yield), pest resistance, herbicide tolerance etc. to name a
few. It will improve yield from the same fields by about 25% to 50%. It is something every
farmer would wish to have. It is something a consumer would wish to have as pest free food gets
to the dinner table. Shortages would cease to exist.

There is definitely a health risk with GM food. Because it is a recent innovation, its long term and
very long-term impact on human body is not well understood. But North American consumer is
the best laboratory for it. They have been consuming it for the last 15 years. If any untoward issue
surfaces, they will be the first to feel it. Crop area under GM food production in last 10 years in
US alone has increased 50 times. In India, maize, oil seeds, fruits & vegetables, soybeans, wheat
crop yields will dramatically increase. Other beneficiaries will be cotton, potato, onion etc.
Building on this success in US, President George Bush during his March 2005 visit, began a $100
million initiative - Indo-US Knowledge Initiative in Agricultural Research and Education. Its
precise intentions are to begin the Second Green Revolution in India. Its details are not well
known. One reason for a bit of secrecy is the political sensitivities in India. Without knowing the
details and analyzing the benefits, people who oppose it have called it as an Indian sell out to
American corporate interests. Even if a small (20%) land comes under GM cultivation in India, it
will add 30 to 60 million tons of additional food for the consumer. Not only that, farmer on these
parcels of lands will be lifted out of poverty. This is just the beginning. Fifteen years hence, GM
food may lead the way to lift all the rural population out of poverty. Why Do We Wish that
Private Sector, instead of Government Manage the Second Green Revolution.

There are obvious reasons for wishing corporate participation in India’s Second Green revolution.
First, the above-mentioned triumvirate, which guaranteed the success of the First Green
Revolution, may be difficult to form. Leadership issues and party politics will make any
government initiative difficult to succeed. Make up of governments in last 10 years and 10 more
years to come, has been and will be a hotchpotch of political ideology. Hence, it will be harder to
find a coherent policy for some time to come. Second, efficient delivery of services will be the
key to higher agricultural output. Governments, especially the democratic governments, are not
geared for efficiency and effective delivery of any services. Current food marketing and storage
system all owned by the government (FCI) is key example. Rough estimates indicate that
anywhere from 20 to 30% of the food is spoiled, before it hits the dinner table. Thirdly, US
multinationals (Wal-Mart & Monsanto) would prefer to deal with the private sector than with
government officials.

Private sector in India is very willing to enter this profitable sector. A joint venture between
Bharti Telco’s Milltal and E L Rothschild (a British investment firm) is making foray into export
of fresh fruits & vegetables. It has leased 50,000 acres of land in Punjab and will grow vegetables
for export to Europe. It will also become a laboratory for new ideas. A $50 million investment
initially, is expected to export $15 million worth of produce in the current year rising rapidly in
next three years as shipping and storage issues are overcome. Reliance, which in last 15 years has
become an industrial giant, has plans to invest about $6 Billion in agricultural retail sector. Their
retail outlets will be linked to farms in Punjab, Haryana, Maharashtra and West Bengal. This has
potential to revolutionize handling and distribution of the food in the country. It will also deliver
better returns to the farmers. The forgoing is a US model where corporate giants like Cargill run
distribution and manage farm output. The present government in India has to readjust its policy to
let the private sector play a role. The latter is most likely to succeed. Success of ventures like this
will persuade governments to give up its complete control over food distribution in the country.

Linking of the Rivers to Transfer Surplus Water to deficient Areas

It is no longer a pipe dream, although there are a few un-surmountable obstacles. East India
(Brahamaputra valley) is surplus in water. This water during July to October each year causes
havoc. This could be transferred to West and South. Similarly rainy season surplus water in the
Gangetic plains can reach the southern India and develop agriculture in areas unknown before.
But there are problems. Bangladesh would not permit digging of any canal from Assam to
Central India through its territory, even though; it benefits them as much as it benefits India.
Again, the Gangetic plains are at lower elevation and 400 miles wide mountain ranges, rising at
places from 3,000 feet to 6,000 feet in central India’s geography prevents any easier transfer of
water. Hence, although agriculture will benefit immensely with both these river link schemes,
solutions are not forthcoming in next 20 to 30 years. Bangladesh issue may never reach solution.
They would prefer to float in floodwater year after year than to let India dig a canal through its
territory. Hence water of Brahamaputra may never reach central India. For north-south link of
rivers, technology may some day, make digging of tunnel-canal link easier. That is a hope. A
garland canal link traveling the contours of Indian peninsula is possible. It has been previously
suggested but has not gone beyond the feasibility stage. It will circumvent the mountains in
central India but does not deliver water to the arid lands of south-central India, where it is needed
most. Moreover the garland canal is useless until it gets a huge water supply from the Assam
valley. Without loosing heart on possible river links, India has to explore other possibilities. A
scheme to transfer Gangetic basin water westwards towards Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat is a
possibility. The latter scheme will be a great engineering achievement. This, half the size of the
original scheme, will increase the land under cultivation by 15%. Impact on local economy of this
water will be huge.

India has about 150 million hectares of land under cultivation. This is down by about 10% from
land under cultivation 20 years back. Urban encroachment, unprofitable cultivation, water
logging etc. are key reasons of this reduction. Of the total land under cultivation, only 45 million
hectares are irrigated. This delivers about 55% of the total food output. Rest of the 95 million
hectares of land is rain fed or ground water irrigated. This bulk of the land produces 45% of the
total food production. This latter is the area to concentrate most to boost food output. Whereas
progressive Indian farmers can experiment with GM food in the irrigated lands, minor and major
irrigation schemes have to play a major role in boosting productivity in the un-irrigated areas.
This is where the state and federal governments have to play a bigger role.

Whether it is interlinking of the rivers or local irrigation schemes, something more need to be
done. Government initiatives are the key to the success. Funding for the local schemes is to be
readily made available. Current Budget envisages a much higher level of funding for rural
schemes. This increase is partly an election year politics and partly to boost funds for the rural
areas which previously were not a top priority. Whether this increased availability of funds will
translate into start of much delayed irrigation initiatives or not, time will tell. Usually any
government schemes requires 3 to 4 years of paper work before the first shovel of dirt is thrown
at site and another 4 years to complete. Any initiatives taken now will bear fruit in about 6 to 8
years. This time frame on new projects is an acceptable consequence of democracy. Projects,
which are already in progress or on which progress is slow, can be expedited. Speedily
appropriated funds can to expedite projects already in the pipeline. This will fill-up the gap before
newer and bigger projects like river links become a reality.

Conclusion
The Second Green Revolution of boosting food-grain output in India to 400 million tons in next
15 years is need of the day. Its achieving is not very difficult. Rather it is achievable if mindset on
introducing newer technology is changed. India has to whole-heartedly embrace the new
technology. Private sector is better suited to deliver results than government managed schemes.
Governments on the other hand can play a key role in expediting irrigation schemes and
managing water resources.
 G. K. Nair

India needs a paradigm shift in its agricultural policy

India needs a paradigm shift in its farm policy to overcome the "fatigue in the green revolution
due to increasing cost of production, dwindling natural resources and climate."

The Food Agriculture Organisation Director-General, Mr Jacques Diouf, while addressing a

meeting of the World Affairs Council of Northern California in San Francisco, recently, said: "In
the next few decades, a major international effort is needed to feed the world when the population
soars from six to nine billion. We might call it a second Green Revolution." The original Green
Revolution of the 1950s/1960s doubled world food production by bringing the power of science
to agriculture, but "relied on the lavish use of inputs such as water, fertiliser and pesticides," he
said.

In the Indian context, with reports of farmers committing suicides in several States such as
Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala, the need for a second green revolution becomes
imperative. The predicament in agriculture speaks of serious flaws in the country's farm policies.

Appreciable progress

It is true that the nation has made appreciable progress in this sector during the past over five
decades. The foodgrains production has made a quantum leap from 51 million tonnes in 1950 to
108 million tonnes in 1970-71, 172 million tonnes in 1989-90, and crossed 200 million tonne last
fiscal. Production of rice, wheat and other coarse grains have improved significantly. But this is
not enough to cater to the needs of a population growing briskly. The population growth rate for
2005-06 is projected at 2.3 per cent against the projected overall GDP growth rate of 8.1 per cent.
The lacklustre performance of the agricultural sector can be attributed to policy flaws.

Rise in population

Significantly, the population, which was 350 million in 1951, shot up to 850 million in 1991
and to an estimated 1,085 million in 2004. Of the population of 1,025 million in 2001, about 740
million were in agriculture. The total economically active population is only 451 million, of
which those active in agriculture is estimated at 267 million.

Much more concentration is needed on improving output and area under coarse cereals.
Production of pulses continued to dwindle between 11 million tonnes and 14 millions tonnes for
decades. As a result, their per capita consumption, which was 69 gram per day in 1971, fell to
35.9 gram/day in 2004. The sharp decline in the consumption of pulses is a cause of serious
concern. India has been importing pulses in large quantities to meet the domestic requirement.

Inequitable distribution of the means of production, especially land, could be one of the major
reasons for this predicament.
 Hence, the land reforms should result in increased agricultural production, in general, and food
output, in particular; rational use of scarce land resources;re-distribution of land to the landless
class; preventing the exploitation of tillers; use of improved methods of cultivation, and increased
per man acre and per unit input productivity.

Agricultural packages

The agriculture packages, announced regularly, which include fertilisers, seeds, irrigation,
water and credit, in practice, are invariably siphoned off by influential landowners. They miss out
the most precious input — the farmer. He instead has become the passive recipient of inputs,
imposed by the superior technology of extension workers.

Even credit becomes useless as a stimulus to innovation without motivation. A vigorous local
self-government would have changed all this in favour of the small farmer, but how could
articulation of the masses happen when elected bodies are captured by the rural elite?

Besides, new strategies for irrigation and water management need to be implemented. Since
water is a scarce resource, it is necessary that emphasis be shifted on its more efficient use.
According to the FAO chief, in many regions, water for irrigation is being pumped out of the
ground faster than it can be replenished. In Tamil Nadu , over-pumping has lowered the water
level in wells by 25-30 metre in a decade.

Focus on small farmer

Given this scenario, deliberate introduction of agrarian development towards the small farmer,
that is, what he and his family can do and want to do with their knowledge and labour, be it in
developing new techniques, seed varieties, extension service, distribution of inputs, improved
farm practices, is the need of the hour. The aim should be to increase his productivity and income.

The economic capacity of the small farm may be restricted, but economic capacities can be
socially determined and the Government must encourage the formation of voluntary multi-
purpose cooperatives for joint farming, pooling of inputs, marketing to eliminate the middlemen,
and involve the small farmer actively in what he does.

Credit institutions also need to be streamlined to support the extremely small and scattered
clientele.

Agricultural prices need to be remunerative and incentive-based to make production

reasonably safer for the small farmer who is continually sustaining losses; it is not industry alone
that needs incentives to promote a healthy investment climate. And its support prices are
remunerative and government procurements are well timed lest farmers' over-dues accumulate.

At the recent Congress Chief Ministers' conclave, Mr N. D. Tewari, Uttaranchal Chief

Minister, said that India needs a paradigm shift in its agricultural policy to overcome the "fatigue
in the green revolution due to increasing cost of production, dwindling natural resources and
climate".
 Pranab sees need for second green revolution

Staff Reporter

KOLKATA: Union Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee reiterated here on Friday the need for
a second green revolution to ensure food security.

If agricultural productivity in the eastern States could be doubled it would go a long way in
meeting the nation's requirements.

“The first green revolution was confined to three or four States – Punjab Haryana and the
Godavari-Kaveri belt. The endeavour now will be to extend the green revolution to wider areas,”
said Mr. Mukherjee.

400-crore allocation

An allocation of Rs. 400-crore was made “to extend the green revolution to the eastern region
that comprises Bihar, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, eastern Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Orissa.”

“Merely 1,000 to 1,200 kg of food grains is produced a hectare in West Bengal, whereas nearly
4,000 kg is produced in Punjab,” Mr. Mukherjee said.

For food security it will have to be ensured that fertile land was not utilised for non-
agricultural purposes.

Mr. Mukherjee was speaking at a function where a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was
signed for beautification of the riverfront in the city by officials of the Kolkata Port Trust, the
Railway Ministry and the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.

All the three signatories to the MoU are headed by leaders belonging to the Trinamool
Congress.
 New Delhi: India needs a second Green Revolution to boost food supplies, or its 1.1 billion
people will face huge social turmoil, the country’s top farm scientist has warned.

The government has identified agriculture as a key area for economic reform and called for
changes to boost output of staples such as wheat, rice, pulses and vegetables and bring down
soaring food prices.

But so far there has been “no sign of major steps to make that happen”, said Monkombu
Sambasivan Swaminathan, Rajya Sabha member and architect of the Green Revolution of the
1960s, which quadrupled food production and made India self-sufficient.

“What we need is political action — we need politicians to ‘walk the talk’,” Swaminathan, 82,
said. “If we don’t succeed, we will face tremendous social problems,” he said.

Swaminathan, a plant geneticist whose ideas helped transform India from a starving nation into
a food exporter, runs the Chennai-based M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, which looks
for ways to create new farm technologies.

Policymakers globally now are grappling with how to tackle fast-rising food prices and
dwindling stocks, with food riots erupting in some countries.

India’s agriculture has been in decline in recent years and growing at a far slower pace than the
overall economy. In 2006, it was forced to import grain for the first time in years, ringing alarm
bells about food security. Some two-thirds of its population still live off agriculture, which grows
about 3% a year. That is less than half the 8% economic expansion forecast by the government
for the financial year to March 2009.

Swaminathan won his doctorate in genetics from Britain’s Cambridge University, but turned
down a US professorship when he realized he had studied to “produce enough food” in post-
independence India and “serve the nation”.

Memories were still fresh of the Great Bengal Famine, the world’s worst-recorded food
disaster, which occurred in 1943, when Britain governed India and an estimated four million
people died of hunger.

Now a burgeoning population, a growing middle class with more purchasing power, and
erratic weather are among factors creating food scarcity, thus pushing prices up and requiring a
new agricultural leap forward, Swaminathan said.

“We need to take advantage of the existing technology bank. There’s a large amount of
technology out there not being used — in efficient water use, efficient fertilizer use, in extension
of farmer-to-farmer knowledge,” he added.

For instance, nearly 70% of India’s farmers still depend on rain because of a lack of proper
irrigation. “Storage of food supplies is (still) a big issue,” Swaminathan said, with many crops
being devoured by rats before humans can eat them.
 Swaminathan said India faced a much tougher challenge in producing a second Green
Revolution than it did in the 1960s, when too many hungry bellies forced it to live a “ship-to-
mouth” existence, depending on US foodgrain imports to stave off famine.

“Politics is much more complicated these days,” he said, referring to the unruly anational
coalition governments that are often at odds with state administrations.

“The prime minister, who was then Indira Gandhi, had authority over the entire country” to
make sure decisions were implemented, he said.

Gandhi gave Swaminathan free rein to implement a new agricultural programme, believing it
vital for India to be able to feed itself.

“I’ve been trying for a pan-political approach to produce a second Green Revolution—after all
we all have to eat first,” Swaminathan said, adding he was optimistic India could achieve the
goal.

“Crisis is a mother of invention. We faced a crisis in the 1960s and we succeeded.”