Date:October 20, 2008 (Mon.) 16：00-18：00PM
Venue:AA447, Research Building No.2, Kyoto University, Yoshida Main Campus,
Presentation:
・Koichi Fujita (Professor, CSEAS)
・Wakatsuki Toshiyuki(Professor, Kinki University)
At this seminar for paradigm formulation, two presenters gave reports on the theme of the Green Revolution, from different perspectives and using different cases. Although the Green Revolution is often discussed in terms of the successful improvement of rice varieties by IRRI, or wheat by CIMMYT, the first presenter, Professor Koichi Fujita (CSEAS) suggested the importance to understand its context. He pointed out that the progress of the Green Revolution in India (and Punjab in particular)was supported by the major transformation of agricultural policy (toward an emphasis on technology) against the backdrop of the major droughts in the mid 1960s, development of irrigation canals during the British colonial period, existence of medium-scale farmers, use of tube wells, and other factors in the region. And he categorized the Green Revolution in India into two waves: the first starting in the middle of the 1960s and the second in the 1980s. He pointed out that the first period was a time of industrial stagnation due to the national government’s emphasis on agriculture, but that during the second wave of the Green Revolution, which was promoted by small-scale irrigation using pumps, rural villages in India in general became affluent offering markets for the industrial and service sectors, leading to economic “take off” from agricultural production onto a growth path. He then derived the following lessons from the Indian case: the control of water was critical for the growth of agricultural production; land capital investment for improvement would not take place without a certain level of population pressure; and the growth of income in agricultural villages was important for economic growth.
Second, Professor Toshiyuki Wakatsuki (Kinki University) reported on his work focusing on Western Africa. Firstly he pointed out that behind the failure of crop improvements to result in higher yield in Africa, there are the low level of soil fertility and the unstable precipitation, and then stated that although irrigation was important, only 1% or so of the total land area was fit for it in Africa. On that basis, he described his project aiming for the achievement of stable yield growth by transferring a set of technologies for identifying appropriate lands, making rice paddies and cultivating them while controlling the volume of water used. Although rice paddies have a potential sustainable productivity about 10 times that of non-paddy fields when considering differences in yields and the need for fallows, creating paddies requires land improvements such as the transformation of land with bushes into rice fields. Professor Wakatsuki is trying to spread this system by educating a small number of farmers at a demonstration site.
During the question and answer session, there was in-depth discussion on the central issues of the two presentations. One participant pointed out the importance of paying attention to the work of farmers who served as the foundation for the Green Revolution (by improving farming tools and fertilizers during the Edo period, for example). Also, questions were raised on the sustainability of the two cases of agricultural production growth taken up here. (Although India appears to have succeeded, aren’t there problems such as a decrease in the underground water level? Can the system of rice paddies supported by large rivers in Asia be called sustainable in Africa with its different environment?) Further, there was an exchange of views on the relationship between the purchasing power of agricultural villages and economic growth in the case of India, and on ways to raise the motivation for land improvement and the question of cooperation and individuality in land improvement in the case of Africa.
The discussion clarified not only the factors behind success concerning food production and economic growth in each case but also problems being faced. In order to formulate a new paradigm for a sustainable humanosphere, it will be necessary to continue to delve into these two aspects.
(Shuhei Kimura)