Examining the conflict between traditional Green Revolution methods and agroecology in Africa's agricultural development
Imagine a small-scale farmer in rural Mozambique, kneeling in the soil as she has done for generations. She's heard the promises—that specially engineered seeds and chemical fertilizers will transform her harvest, lift her family from poverty, and help feed a continent. Yet after adopting these modern inputs, her yields increase only modestly while her costs soar and her soil grows increasingly tired and dependent on their next application.
This scenario is repeating across Africa, where a high-stakes battle is underway between two competing visions for the continent's agricultural development. On one side stand powerful foundations and agribusiness interests promoting a familiar package of Green Revolution technologies—hybrid seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides. On the other, a growing movement of farmers, scientists, and activists advocates for a shift toward ecological farming methods rooted in local knowledge and biodiversity 2 .
At the heart of this conflict lies a provocative question: Are the much-touted "innovations" being promoted across Africa truly revolutionary advances, or merely old approaches repackaged in new bottles—"selling the past as innovation" while ignoring both their checkered history and more promising alternatives? 2
High-input agriculture with hybrid seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides
Ecological farming methods rooted in local knowledge and biodiversity
In 2006, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) launched with ambitious goals backed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. With soaring rhetoric, it promised to double yields and incomes for 30 million farming households across 13 African countries by 2020 while cutting food insecurity in half 2 . The approach mirrored the 20th-century Green Revolution that had previously been implemented in Asia and Latin America, centered on what AGRA's proponents termed "20th century agricultural technologies—including advanced biotech seed varieties, modern pesticides and fertilizer" 2 .
AGRA launches with promises to double yields and incomes for 30 million farming households by 2020
Over $1 billion in funding plus $1 billion annually in subsidies from African governments
Research reveals yields increased by just 18% over 12 years—far from the promised 100% doubling
After nearly 15 years and over $1 billion in funding, plus an additional $1 billion annually in subsidies from African governments, AGRA's own results tell a different story 2 . Research documented in 2020's "False Promises" report reveals that yields for staple crops increased by just 18% over 12 years—far from the promised 100% doubling. Even heavily subsidized maize saw only 29% yield gains. Meanwhile, incomes largely stagnated, and food insecurity actually worsened—the number of undernourished people in AGRA's 13 focus countries increased by 30% since the initiative began 2 .
The disappointing outcomes have sparked widespread criticism from African civil society organizations, faith leaders, and farmer networks. The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), representing over 200 groups, has repeatedly called on donors to stop funding AGRA and instead support agroecological approaches 4 . In 2021, 500 African faith leaders published an open letter to the Gates Foundation titled "Stop Pushing Industrial Agriculture," arguing that these methods are "hurting the continent" 5 .
A donor-commissioned evaluation in 2022 essentially confirmed these criticisms, concluding that "AGRA did not meet its headline goal of increased incomes and food security for 9 million smallholders" 4 . Despite this evidence, AGRA continues to receive substantial funding, including $200 million from the Gates Foundation announced in 2022 4 .
| Metric | Promised Goal | Actual Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Crop Yields | Double (100% increase) | 18% increase overall |
| Maize Yields | Double (100% increase) | 29% increase |
| Farmer Incomes | Double (100% increase) | Stagnated |
| Food Insecurity | Reduce by half | Increased 30% |
| Funding | $1 billion + $1 billion/year in government subsidies | Continued funding despite poor results |
Amidst this controversy, a team of researchers conducted a rigorous scientific investigation to examine the effectiveness of Green Revolution inputs in Mozambique. Published in the American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, this randomized control trial (considered the gold standard in experimental research) sought to determine whether temporary subsidies for seeds and fertilizer could spark lasting adoption of these technologies 7 .
The research team, led by University of Michigan economist Dean Yang, partnered with the Mozambican government to study their input subsidy program (ISP). The government had identified 25,000 farmers across the country to receive vouchers for seed and fertilizer. From this larger group, the researchers selected a study sample of about 500 farmers 7 .
The researchers designed their experiment to eliminate confounding factors and establish clear cause-and-effect relationships:
The 500 farmers were randomly divided into two groups: a treatment group that would receive the input subsidies, and a control group that would not 7 .
At the outset, researchers surveyed all participants to map their social connections within their villages—identifying friends, relatives, and neighbors they regularly discussed farming with 7 .
Both groups were followed over multiple years to measure not only immediate impacts but also lasting effects 7 .
The social network mapping allowed researchers to track how knowledge and practices spread from treated farmers to their connections in the control group 7 .
This comprehensive approach allowed the team to measure both direct effects on farmers who received subsidies and indirect effects on their social networks.
The findings revealed several important patterns that help explain why broad Green Revolution initiatives have struggled:
Farmers who received subsidies experienced significant improvements in crop yields compared to the control group, along with increased household consumption. These benefits persisted for two additional years beyond the subsidy period 7 .
Perhaps the most fascinating finding was that friends and neighbors of treated farmers also began adopting the technologies—but only after observing their success for approximately one year. This demonstrated the crucial role of social learning in technology adoption 7 .
When calculating the economic returns, researchers found that considering only direct effects yielded a respectable benefit-cost ratio of 1.8 (80% return on investment). However, when they incorporated social spillover effects and longer-term benefits, the ratio expanded more than tenfold—reaching approximately $20 in societal benefits for every $1 invested in the program 7 .
| Outcome Measure | Treatment Group (Subsidized) | Control Group (Non-subsidized) | Statistical Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crop Yields | Significant increase | Lower increases | High |
| Household Consumption | Increased | Less pronounced increases | High |
| Persistence of Benefits | Lasted 2+ years | N/A | Important finding |
| Technology Adoption by Social Connections | Increased after 1-year lag | Lower adoption rates | Demonstrates social learning |
The Mozambique study suggests that temporary, well-designed subsidies coupled with social learning mechanisms could potentially make input-based approaches more effective than they have been in broader AGRA implementation. However, it also highlights that the current "one-size-fits-all" approach may be failing to account for these complex social and temporal dynamics.
While AGRA and similar initiatives continue to promote input-intensive agriculture, a robust alternative has been gaining momentum across Africa. Agroecology—a science-driven blend of agronomy and ecology—leverages generations of farmer knowledge about local ecosystems to improve soil quality, combat pests, and build climate resilience 2 .
Unlike the top-down technology transfer model of the Green Revolution, agroecology begins with understanding that farmers possess specific knowledge about their local environments, which can then be enhanced through modern ecological science . This approach is demonstrating impressive results across the continent:
Surveying nearly 300 large ecological agriculture projects across more than 50 poor countries documented an average 79% increase in productivity with decreasing costs and rising incomes 2 .
In response to devastating pest infestations, scientists at the Nairobi-based International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) have developed innovative solutions including pheromone-based controls and biopesticides that target specific pests without harming beneficial insects 2 .
Uniting twelve rural women's networks across West Africa, this campaign has successfully promoted indigenous farming knowledge and ecological techniques while rejecting GMOs and agribusiness-dependent models .
| Factor | Green Revolution Model | Agroecology Model |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Inputs | Purchased seeds, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides | Local seeds, organic matter, biodiversity |
| Knowledge Source | Corporate research, top-down extension | Farmer knowledge, collaborative science |
| Environmental Impact | Soil degradation, water pollution, biodiversity loss | Soil building, water conservation, biodiversity enhancement |
| Economic Model | Dependent on purchased inputs, potential debt | Low external inputs, circular economies |
| Climate Resilience | Often vulnerable to climate stresses | Diverse systems enhance adaptive capacity |
| Social Structure | Can increase dependency | Strengthens food sovereignty, local control |
As Africa stands at an agricultural crossroads, the choices made today will reverberate for generations. The dominant narrative promoted by powerful interests insists that Africa must follow the industrial agricultural path blazed by other regions, despite evidence of its limited success and significant harms 2 5 . The alternative path—championed by a growing alliance of farmers, scientists, and civil society groups—embraces ecological intensification, food sovereignty, and climate resilience 4 .
What makes this debate particularly consequential is the urgent context in which it unfolds—rising global hunger, deepening climate crisis, and escalating inequality. The United Nations has acknowledged that the world is far off track to meet its 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, with ending hunger (Goal #2) among the most jeopardized 2 .
The phrase "old fertilizer in new bottles" ultimately reveals a deeper truth about power and innovation in international development. Who gets to define what counts as innovation? Whose knowledge and expertise is valued? And who will control Africa's food future? As Kenyan activist Anne Maina has argued, the most promising path forward requires African farmers, communities, and governments to lead in shaping agricultural policies that genuinely serve their needs and reflect their ecological realities 4 .
The evidence suggests that rejecting the repackaged approaches of the past in favor of truly innovative, ecological, and equitable food systems may be Africa's best hope for a nourishing, sustainable, and sovereign food future.
Considered the "gold standard" for impact evaluation, RCTs randomly assign participants to treatment and control groups to isolate causal effects 7 .
Mapping relationships between farmers to understand how knowledge and practices spread through communities 7 .
Tracking outcomes over multiple seasons and years to capture long-term trends rather than just short-term impacts 7 .
Combining quantitative yield and income data with qualitative assessments of food sovereignty, gender equity, and ecological health 2 .
Engaging farmers as co-researchers in developing and evaluating agricultural innovations .