Fatimah Mohamed Arshad (2011). Green Revolution: Face up to New Challenges, New Straits Times, 23 June.
http://www.nst.com.my/nst/articles/18green/Article/index_html
IT is time to initiate a "Green Revolution 2" after a long lull following the success of the Green Revolution (GR) of the 1960s and 1970s.
The original GR revolutionised padi production in Asia, alleviating farmers from the productivity trap while poor consumers benefited from an abundant supply of rice.
Some countries in Asia, including Malaysia, were able to enjoy a reasonable degree of food security, particularly in rice. Productivity enhancement was the order then.
After the 2008 food crisis, "food security" is once again the buzzword in Malaysia.
The World Food Summit in 1996 defined food security as existing when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meet their dietary needs and food preferences.
The GR developed new varieties of rice that were more resistant to pests and diseases, and improved taste and grain quality.
The success of GR in Malaysia began with the realisation that investment in increasing agricultural productivity was a prerequisite to economic development, including food security.
This vision was translated into research and development (R&D) in enhancing rice productivity and infrastructure by public agencies.
The move was proven right as indicated by the increase in productivity, farmers' income and consumers' welfare.
Despite these successes, the downside of GR are potentially serious. The technology developed in the 1970s may no longer be relevant in the current environment.
After four decades of GR application (with minimal modifications), the intensification of agriculture and chemical input has led to environmental degradation, increased salinity and pesticide misuse.
In particular, the excessive use of pesticides is destroying the environment. Lately, frequent weather and natural hazards have made climate change an important variable in the supply equation. The GR has already run its course.
The investment in rice has been lopsided towards protectionist measures to ensure producers achieve the self-sufficiency target set rather than for "productive" purposes, particularly increasing productivity and adding value.
Protectionist measures include price control (such as a guaranteed minimum price), cash and input subsidies, market regulations and import controls.
Between 2000 and 2009, the government dished out RM9 billion in subsidies to the industry to achieve 65 to 70 per cent self-sufficiency in rice production.
The allocation for R&D is a meagre percentage of this value.
As proven elsewhere, interventionist measures are distortive, economically inefficient and a huge burden on the government and taxpayers.
Despite all these, the strategy is able to ensure a relatively stable supply of rice. But this trade-off is a costly one indeed.
The investment in food in general has been reduced significantly as imports are much cheaper than if they are to be grown locally.
The downward trend in public investment in the food sector has not been matched by a concomitant rise in private investments. The private sector investments were mainly concentrated on industrial crops, such as oil palm and agribusiness ventures.
While the food sector is being marginalised by the government and private sector, the demand for food continues to increase because of population and income growth.
The implications in changes in the consumption sector were overlooked by many.
Food demand is influenced by population growth, urbanisation, income and associated changes in dietary preferences.
As income grows, consumers shift their diet from one largely dependent on rice to a more diversified diet comprising meat, milk, fruits, vegetables and processed foods.
These needs are met through imports that are increasing , resulting in large deficits about RM11 billion last year.
In the last three decades, Malaysia's rice import has hovered around 30 per cent of the local requirement.
In the short term, Malaysia has enough foreign exchange to import rice and other food items, but in the long term, this strategy may not hold any more.
Without major breakthroughs, demand could easily outstrip the overly stressed supply sector. There is evidence of resource overuse.
Rice production will have to address several major challenges. Water, for one, will become a major constraining factor because the quality and quantity of water will decline as a result of pollution, forest degradation, and increased agricultural, domestic and industrial use.
Continuous urbanisation would lead to loss of padi land to residential and industrial development and a decline in the number of workers.
Overuse of chemical fertilisers and pesticides reduces soil fertility and water quality and harms the environment.
Thus, an increase in rice production would have to be achieved by using less water, labour and cultivated land. This requires new varieties with high yield potential, water use efficiency and better resistance to pests and diseases.
These challenges have to be addressed by modern science such as biotechnology.
To institute a radical change in rice productivity, a new green revolution is imperative. It must achieve a new objective, that is productivity that is sustainable to the environment and mankind. And, it should start now.
Read more: Green Revolution: Face up to new challenges http://www.nst.com.my/nst/articles/18green/Article/index_html#ixzz1U0ZKPnz0
