âBorlaugâs initial efforts in a few African nations have yielded the same rapid increases in food production as did his initial efforts on the Indian subcontinent in the 1960s. Nevertheless, Western environmental groups have campaigned against introducing high-yield farming techniques to Africa, and have persuaded image-sensitive organizations such as the Ford Foundation and the World Bank to steer clear of Borlaug.â
The Green Revolution wasnât even GMOsâjust dwarf crop varieties, fertilizers, and pesticides. Not only did opposition to this mean many more people dying of malnutrition, but also more rainforest cut down, so more loss of biodiversity and climate change.
Here some more details from the article that I found interesting, too:
Nonetheless, by the 1980s finding fault with high-yield agriculture had become fashionable. Environmentalists began to tell the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and Western governments that high-yield techniques would despoil the developing world. As Borlaug turned his attention to high-yield projects for Africa, where mass starvation still seemed a plausible threat, some green organizations became determined to stop him there. âThe environmental community in the 1980s went crazy pressuring the donor countries and the big foundations not to support ideas like inorganic fertilizers for Africa,â says David Seckler, the director of the International Irrigation Management Institute.
Environmental lobbyists persuaded the Ford Foundation and the World Bank to back off from most African agriculture projects. The Rockefeller Foundation largely backed away tooâthough it might have in any case, because it was shifting toward an emphasis on biotechnological agricultural research. âWorld Bank fear of green political pressure in Washington became the single biggest obstacle to feeding Africa,â Borlaug says. The green parties of Western Europe persuaded most of their governments to stop supplying fertilizer to Africa; an exception was Norway, which has a large crown corporation that makes fertilizer and avidly promotes its use. Borlaug, once an honored presence at the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, became, he says, âa tar baby to them politically, because all the ideas the greenies couldnât stand were sticking to me.â
Borlaugâs reaction to the campaign was anger. He says, âSome of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. Theyâve never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, theyâd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things.â
Opposing the Green Revolution in Africa here:
âBorlaugâs initial efforts in a few African nations have yielded the same
rapid increases in food production as did his initial efforts on the
Indian subcontinent in the 1960s. Nevertheless, Western environmental
groups have campaigned against introducing high-yield farming techniques to Africa, and have persuaded image-sensitive organizations such as the Ford Foundation and the World Bank to steer clear of Borlaug.â
The Green Revolution wasnât even GMOsâjust dwarf crop varieties, fertilizers, and pesticides. Not only did opposition to this mean many more people dying of malnutrition, but also more rainforest cut down, so more loss of biodiversity and climate change.
Great share. Really hurt to read, oh man.
Here some more details from the article that I found interesting, too: