Editing Green Revolution (section)

===Problems in Africa===

{{See also|Agriculture in Africa}}

There have been numerous attempts to introduce the successful concepts from the Mexican and Indian projects into Africa.<ref>{{cite thesis |degree=Master |title=Debating Development – A historical analysis of the Sasakawa Global 2000 project in Ghana and indigenous knowledge as an alternative approach to agricultural development |url=http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/student-theses/2009-0910-200159/UUindex.html |last=Groniger |first=Wout |year=2009 |publisher=Universiteit Utrecht |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120303065240/http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/student-theses/2009-0910-200159/UUindex.html |archive-date=3 March 2012 |df=dmy-all}}</ref> These programs have generally been less successful. Reasons cited include widespread corruption, insecurity, a lack of infrastructure, and a general lack of will on the part of the governments. Yet environmental factors, such as the availability of water for irrigation, the high diversity in slope and soil types in one given area are also reasons why the Green Revolution is not so successful in Africa.<ref name="inwent.org" />

A recent program in western Africa is attempting to introduce a new high yielding 'family' of rice varieties known as "[[New Rice for Africa]]" (NERICA). NERICA varieties yield about 30% more rice under normal conditions and can double yields with small amounts of fertilizer and very basic irrigation. However, the program has been beset by problems getting the rice into the hands of farmers, and to date the only success has been in [[Agriculture in Guinea|Guinea]], where it currently accounts for 16% of rice cultivation.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/world/africa/10rice.html |title=In Africa, Prosperity From Seeds Falls Short |work=The New York Times |date=10 October 2007 |access-date=20 March 2011 |first=Celia W. |last=Dugger}}</ref>

After a famine in 2001 and years of chronic hunger and poverty, in 2005 the small African country of [[Agriculture in Malawi|Malawi]] launched the "Agricultural Input Subsidy Program" by which vouchers are given to smallholder farmers to buy subsidized nitrogen fertilizer and corn seeds.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Chibwana|first1=Christopher|last2=Fisher|first2=Monica|title=The Impacts of Agricultural Input Subsidies in Malawi|url=http://www.ifpri.org/publication/impacts-agricultural-input-subsidies-malawi |publisher=International Food Policy Research Institute|access-date=October 7, 2016}}</ref> Within its first year, the program was reported to have had extreme success, producing the largest corn harvest of the country's history, enough to feed the country with tons left over. The program has advanced yearly ever since. Various sources claim that the program has been an unusual success, hailing it as a "miracle".<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8363914.stm Malawi Miracle] article on the [[BBC]] website. According to the [http://www.wfp.org/countries/Malawi/News/Malawi--P4P-raising-income-for-women-farmers UN website on Malawi] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111106003826/http://www.wfp.org/countries/Malawi/News/Malawi--P4P-raising-income-for-women-farmers |date=6 November 2011 }} the program was highly effective. This website highlights the women farmers program. The claims of success are substantiated by Malawi government claims at [http://www.nso.malawi.net/data_on_line/economics/Trade%20on%20NSO%20website/Malawi%202005%20Trade%20Statistics%20Brief_Release.pdf Malawi National Statistics Organization site] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091113183331/http://www.nso.malawi.net/data_on_line/economics/Trade%20on%20NSO%20website/Malawi%202005%20Trade%20Statistics%20Brief_Release.pdf |date=13 November 2009 }}. The international [[WaterAid]] organisation seems to contradict these facts with its [http://www.wateraid.org/international/what_we_do/where_we_work/malawi/3117.asp report on plans from 2005–2010]. Similarly, the [[Major League Gaming]] reported that [http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp331_e.htm Malawi had noted problems] including lack of transparency and administrative difficulties. This follows with a recent (2010)  [http://www.nyasatimes.com/national/malawi-ranks-153-on-un-human-development-index.html Malawi newspaper tells of UN report] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101108022538/http://www.nyasatimes.com/national/malawi-ranks-153-on-un-human-development-index.html |date=8 November 2010 }} with Malawi one of the lowest on the UN list of developing states, confirmed by this [http://www.wfp.org/content/malawi-20052006-biennial-report UN World Food Program report]. Another [http://www.iss.co.za/pubs/ASR/14No4/EHussein.htm report from the Institute for Security Studies] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120113105320/http://www.iss.co.za/pubs/ASR/14No4/EHussein.htm |date=13 January 2012 }} from 2005, showed corruption still prevailing in Malawi at that time.</ref> Malawi experienced a 40% drop in corn production in 2015 and 2016.<ref name="oakland-currier">{{cite web |last1=Currier |first1=Andy |title=The Failure of Input Subsidies and a New Path Forward to Fight Hunger in Malawi |url=https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/blog/malawi-failure-input-subsidies-new-path-forward-fight-hunger |website=The Oakland Institute |date=23 January 2020 |access-date=26 October 2020}}</ref>

A 2021, a randomized control trial on temporary subsidies for corn farmers in [[Agriculture in Mozambique|Mozambique]] found that adoption of Green Revolution technology led to increased yields in both the short- and long-term.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Carter |first1=Michael |last2=Laajaj |first2=Rachid |last3=Yang |first3=Dean|date=2021|title=Subsidies and the African Green Revolution: Direct Effects and Social Network Spillovers of Randomized Input Subsidies in Mozambique |journal=American Economic Journal: Applied Economics |volume=13 |issue=2 |pages=206–229 |doi=10.1257/app.20190396 |doi-access=free}}</ref>