Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000

Science

Volumn 300, Issue 5620, 2003, Pages 758-762

  Evenson, R E ^a   Gollin, D ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURE; COSTS; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; GENETIC ENGINEERING; PRODUCTIVITY; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT;

FOOD PRICES;

CROPS;

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH; CROP PRODUCTION; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GREEN REVOLUTION; IMPACT; PRODUCTIVITY;

AGRICULTURAL WORKER; AGRICULTURE; CONSUMER; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CROP PRODUCTION; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; GRAIN; MARKETING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NONHUMAN; PLANT GENETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

EID: 0038418048     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1078710     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. The CGIAR is the organization through which most donor support for international agricultural research is channeled. In addition to IRRI and CIMMYT, the other centers include CIAT (International Center for Tropical Agriculture), CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research), CIP (International Potato Center), ICARDA (International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas), ICLARM (International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management), ICRAF (International Center for Research in Agroforestry), ICRISAT (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics), IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute), IITA (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture), ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), IPGRI (International Plant Genetic Resources Institute), ISNAR (International Service for National Agricultural Research), IWMI (International Water Management Institute), and WARDA (West African Rice Development Association). Some unaffiliated centers (e.g., the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology; International Fertilizer Development Center) have also engaged in related research.
2. R. E. Evenson, D. Gollin, Eds., Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of International Agricultural Research (CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 2003).
3. The crops are rice, wheat, maize, sorghum, pearl millet, barley, beans, lentils, groundnuts, potatoes, and cassava. The study did not address the impact of research done by CGIAR centers on livestock, fisheries, or forestry, nor on broad-based management, policy, or resource issues.
4. R. E. Evenson, in Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of International Agricultural Research, R. E. Evenson, D. Gollin, Eds. (CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 2003), chap. 21.
5. D. Dalrymple, Development and Spread of High Yielding Wheat Varieties in Developing Countries (Bureau for Science and Technology, Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, 1986).
6. D. Dalrymple, Development and Spread of High Yielding Rice Varieties in Developing Countries (Bureau for Science and Technology, Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, 1986).
7. N. L. Johnson, V. M. Manyong, in Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of International Agricultural Research, R. E. Evenson, D. Gollin, Eds. (CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 2003), chap, 16.
8. N. L. Johnson, D. Pachico, in Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of International Agricultural Research, R. E, Evenson, D. Gollin, Eds. (CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 2003), chap. 12.
9. Our measure is of varieties released through a formal process. This is admittedly a weak measure, because varieties could be released without being adopted by farmers, but in practice such "phantom releases" appear to be rare and do not occur in any systematic way.
10. V. M. Manyong et al., in Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of International Agricultural Research, R. E. Evenson, D. Gollin, Eds. (CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 2003), chap. 8.
11. T. J. Dalton, R.G. Guei, in Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of International Agricultural Research, R. E. Evenson, D. Gollin, Eds. (CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 2003), chap. 6.
12. J. W. McKinsey, R. E. Evenson, in Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of International Agricultural Research, R. E. Evenson, D. Gollin, Eds. (CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 2003), chap. 19.
13. By comparison, IARC programs represented fewer than 3% of the agricultural scientists and less than 5% of agricultural research expenditure in developing countries.
14. The study included estimates for each crop of the productivity advantages of converting crop acreage from traditional varieties to MVs. In some cases, estimates of productivity advantages of converting from early-generation MVs to later generation MVs were also reported. The project also included three country studies for India, China, and Brazil. All approaches to measuring productivity gains reported similar estimates of impact.
15. The IFPRI/IMPACT model includes 18 agricultural commodities and covers 37 countries or country groups. The model solves for an economic equilibrium that allows researchers to see how crop yields, crop area, crop production, crop trade, and international prices would change under different scenarios. This model also calculates two welfare indexes associated with this equilibrium: the proportion of children (0 to 6%) malnourished, and average food caloric consumption. It is described more fully at www. ifpri.org/themes/impact.
16. R. E. Evenson, M. Rosegrant, in Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of International Agricultural Research, R. E. Evenson, D. Gollin, Eds, (CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 2003), chap. 23.
17. The lowest benefit-cost ratios were realized in SubSaharan Africa.
18. K. B. Griffin, Political Economy of Agrarian Change: An Essay on the Green Revolution (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1974).
19. V. Shiva, Monocultures of the Mind: Perspectives on Biodiversity and Biotechnology (Zed, Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1993).
20. C. Hewett de Alcántara, Modernizing Mexican Agriculture: Socioeconomic Implications of Technological Change, 1940-1970 (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva, 1976).
21. See also the Web sites of activist groups such as Food First (www.foodfirst.org) and the Turning Point Project (www.turnpoint.org).
22. This paper summarizes major findings from a study conducted by researchers from a number of institutions and disciplines. The study was commissioned by the Standing Project on Impact Assessment of the Technical Advisory Committee of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). We particularly acknowledge the following individuals who are authors of component chapters of the study: F. Afonso de Almeida, A. Aw Hassan, M. C. S. Bantilan, Y. P. Bi, V. Cabanilla, E. Cabrera, S. Ceccarelli, T. Dalton, S. De Silva, U. K. Deb, A. F. Dias Avila, A. G. O. Dixon, H. J. Dubin, W. Erskine, P. C. Gaur, R. Gerpacio, E. Grande, S. Grando, R. G. Guei, P. W. Heisey, M. Hossain, R. Hu, J. Huang, N. Johnson, S. Jin, G. S. Khush, P. Kumar, M. A. Lantican, J. H. Li, V. M. Manyong, J. W. McKinsey Jr., A. McLaren, M. Mekuria, M. Morris, S. N. Nigam, D. Pachico, M. Rosegrant, S. Rozelle, A. Sarker, K. Shideed, R. Tutwiler, T. Walker, and C. S. Wortmann. In addition, we acknowledge specific comments on a draft of this article from D. Dalrymple, C. Doss, D. Duvick, G. Gryseels, G. Manners, and M. Morris.