Blue Revolution

The Background and importance of Blue Revolution
One important source of food that has an increasing demand is from the world's seas. On average, people get about 20% of their animal protein from seafood. In Asia, about 1 billion people depend on fish and other seafood as their main source of protein in their diet. However, since the 1970s, the amount of fish caught has been falling as the world's oceans suffer from a decline in fish populations due to overfishing and pollution. The Blue Revolution was a social and technological movement that started in the 1970s. Its aim was to protect marine life as to ensure sufficient seafood, especially fish, for present and future generations. The World Bank, Asian Development Bank and other international aid agencies was rensponsible for superheading this movement.
How is it carried out?

Blue Revolution has encouraged fish farming where farmers rear fish in tanks, ponds, or enclosed areas under special conditions that promote growth, instead of catching them from the sea. (Think of it like growing plants in a greenhouse.) Therefore, factors such as breeding conditions, water quality, animal behaviour, health and nutritional details have to be well taken care of and worken out in detail. Medicine and vaccines are also used to improve health and nutrition of the fishes. By 1985, international Organisations were investing about S$400million a year on fish farming projects. For example, the FAO helped to start the Central Institude of Freshwater Aquaculture in India. By 1988, the institude had over 500 ponds, laboratories, training facilities and hatcheries. They also conduct research on various species such as crap, catfish and prawns. Through research, scientists have developed ways to increase the fertility of fish, to improve their growth rate and increase their resistance to disease. For example, an improved breed of tilapia has been developed to grow much faster than the normal breed. Thus, productivity will increase.

Benefits of Blue Revolution (:

Social benefits-

• As a result of Blue Revolution, there has been a significant increase in the amount of fish available. Currently, fish farmers produced nearly 12% of the annual world harvest of fish (approx 100 million tonnes). This has certainly helped to ensure a stable supply of fish. Therefore, prices of fish has fallen.
• Food supply is stable and food security is ensured, thus reducing food shortage. The fell of prices was especially beneficial to people who depends on fish as their source of protein, especially those in LDCs who could not afford it earlier on.
  

Econmic benefit for the country-

• The compelling attraction of intensive commercial aquaculture is that it generates export revenue can improve a country's overall economy and revenue earned can be used to widen economy of a LDC and develop the country.

Disadvantages of Blue Revolution

Environmental and Health impacts:

• The most important effects are ecological, and are associated with the conversion of natural ecosystems into intensively managed aquacultural ecosystems. For example, the conversion of tropical mangrove forest into aquacultural facilities for the raising of shrimps or prawns results in an extensive loss of natural habitat. This conversion has important consequences for native species, and it may damage offshore ecosystems through increased rates of siltation and pollution.
• Increase in the commercial fish harvest will come at the expense of both the wild fish stocks and the environment. Major disease and pollution problems are already emerging in Japan. Fish waste and uneaten fish food have accumulated on the sea bottom.

Health risk:

• In some countries, the waste stifles the growth of aquatic organisms and causes water quality to deteriorate. Intensive coastal fish farming has also been linked to 'red tides' - an explosive growth of toxic algae that can kill fish and fatally poison people who eat contaminated seafood.

A case study on Shrimp farming - an integral part of the Blue Revolution:

• Not long ago, shrimp is considered a rare and expensive delicacy.
• Thanks to soaring demand from the US, Japan, and Western Europe, shrimps are now raised on an industrial scale in tropical countries.
• The dramatic growth in the consumption of shrimp is due to its increasing affordability.
• The sharp decline in the price of shrimp over the last few decades has been driven by increased production.
• It is propelled by the lure of exporting shrimp to earn foreign exchange, and stiff competition among the producers along the tropical coasts of Asia, Latin America, and Africa.

Environmental and Social Concerns Surrounding Industrial Shrimp Farming
(demerits of shrimp farming)

• The explosive growth of the aquaculture industry has generated mounting criticism over its social, economic, and environmental consequences, and has provoked the establishment of hundreds of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) at the local, national, and international levels.
• Industrial shrimp farming has caused social dislocation, ecological change, and environmental destruction that is arguably worse than from many earlier Green Revolution technologies.
• Some of the most serious environmental problems include the destruction of coastal wetlands, water pollution, disruption of hydrological systems, introduction of exotic species, and depletion and salinization of aquifers.
• Due to pollution, there is a decline of wild shrimp fisheries.
• One of the most critical social problems identified by locals as part of the expansion of the Blue Revolution is the loss of communal resources - including mangrove areas, estuaries, and fishing grounds - that local people depend on for both subsistence and commercial economic activities.

• Commercial shrimp farming has displaced local communities, exacerbated conflicts and provoked violence involving property and tenant rights.
• The major questions to ask include:
1. do the touted benefits of shrimp farming outweigh the risks/costs to local people and environments?
2. Do employment opportunities compensate for declines in access to communal resources and other social and cultural costs?
3. Are the environmental and human costs balanced in some way by improving local lives, livelihoods, and cultures?
• A widespread response shared by many people living in the locales in which the shrimp farming industry has expanded is a thunderous "NO!" .
• This is especially true where those protesting industry practices and expansion in places like Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Honduras, and Guatemala are murdered.
• Shrimp farming, outside of harvesting and packaging, is not labor-intensive. Neither is the industry known for providing high wages, except to the few aquaculture experts who set up and maintain production systems.
• Add to this the fact that income from pre-existing livelihood activities like fishing and farming may be affected negatively by the loss of habitat and environmental degradation.
• Benefits related to broadening the economic base of rural areas, generating local employment, enhancing food security, and conserving local environments are minor compared to the overarching objectives of industrial shrimp farming - generating profits for corporations and increasing foreign exchange earnings for Third World nations.

Green

What is GREEN Revolution?
Green Revolution is the use of mordern technology to help LDCs increase their production of food crops to solve food shortage.

Background and History of Green Revolution

The term Green Revolution refers to the renovation of agricultural practices beginning in Mexico in the 1940s. Because of its success in producing more agricultural products there, Green Revolution technologies spread worldwide in the 1950s and 1960s, significantly increasing the amount of calories produced per acre of agriculture.

The beginnings of the Green Revolution are often attributed to Norman Borlaug, an American scientist interested in agriculture. In the 1940s, he began conducting research in Mexico and developed new disease resistance high-yield varieties of wheat. By combining Borlaug's wheat varieties with new mechanized agricultural technologies, Mexico was able to produce more wheat than was needed by its own citizens, leading to its becoming an exporter of wheat by the 1960s. Prior to the use of these varieties, the country was importing almost half of its wheat supply.

Due to the success of the Green Revolution in Mexico, its technologies spread worldwide in the 1950s and 1960s. The United States for instance, imported about half of its wheat in the 1940s but after using Green Revolution technologies, it became self-sufficient in the 1950s and became an exporter by the 1960s.

Why is there a need?

Efforts are required to increase food production keep up with rapid population growth. This is especially so in LCDs, where subsistence farming could not produce food to meed the damnds of the people. As the LCDs began to develop, there was rising competition for land needed for housing and industry, resulting in less land available for farming. As a result, it is a challenge to make use of the remaining land that is available for farming to produce enough food to feed people. There is therefore a need to look for a solution to cope with the situation. The available land left had to be cultivated more intensively to increase the amount of food produced.

The Green Revolution was the first systematic attempt which made mordern technology available for farming in the LCDs. The aim of Green Revolution was to reduce food shortage by increasing food production and to halp subsistence farmers in the LCDs to increase their income and help LDCs be more self-sufficient.

High-yielding varieties (HYVs)

A significant feature of the Green revolution was the developments of improved strains of rice, wheat and other cereals. These imoroved strains of rice are known as high-yielding varieties and they were developed by cross-breeding a broad range of existing cereal strains. Depending on the need of farmers, the HYVs are develpoed with different special traits such as pest-resistance or shorter growth duration as compared to normal cereals.

An example of the HYV is the IR58. It is known as the 'wonder rice' of the 1980s and is resistant to most pests and diseases. In addition, it also requires a shorter period to grow as compared to other strains of HYV. The IR58 has a growing period of 100 days compare the the eralier IR8's 130 days. This shorter growing peIriod results in even higher yield of crops prodcuced.

Modern irrigation methods were also introduced during the Green Revolution. Irrigation is the practise of supplying water to the land using artificial means. The means include huge irrigation facilities such as human-made dykes, dams ans canals, to direct water from their sources, such as rivers and reservoirs to farms. They also include the use of automated irrigation systems like water sprinkles and sluice gates to control the amount if water used for watering the crops.

Irrigation allows farmers to control the amount of water supplied to crops. Thus it is usually practised in countries such as Egypt where rainfall is insufficient. It is also practised in countries such as India which exprience seasoal or irregular rainfall throughout the year. This ensures the crops recieve enough water during dry seasons, to ensure healthy plant growth, which will eventually increase production of crops.

Use of chemicals: examples of some chemicals used-

Fertilisers are substances added into the soil of a piece of land to provide nutrients to ensure healthy plant growth.This is especially useful when farmers need to continuously use their land for cultivatiob of crops. Different type of fertilisers can be mixed to meet specific needs of crops and different soil types The use of fertilisers to enrich the soil is a good way to ensure a continuous supply of nutrients for the plants throughout the growing season. This will ultimately increase output of crops and help reduce food shortage.

Pesticides are toxic chemicals used to destroy pets which affect crop growth. They may be in the form of insecticides whuch kills insects, or poison which gets rid of other animals or pests who eat crops. For example in India, arsenic is uded by farmers to poison rats who attack rice crops. When crops remained unharmed, production of crops will improve.

Economic Advantages:

1)In india, Green Revolution brought about some economic benefits. Advantage to farmers: this includes their economic situation improving, as their profits increased and they have more earnings. This is mostly because of the significant increase in production ans yields. Even small and marginal farmers getting better yield, control on many insects and pests, mechanizing improved working conditions. New seeds have also been developed with better yield and disease fighting capability.

2) As production increase, the economic situation of a country can also improve. For example, Philipines, a major rice producing country will see its economic situation improving when it is able to produce more rice to export to other parts of the world.

Social benefits:
1) Higher income growth for some farmers and reduced incidence of poverty were found in the states where yields increased the most. Standard of living was hence improved for some.
2) Wheat and rice production have increased significantly, and more land is now given to growing these crops. As production of crops increase, there will be more food to feed the growing population. Hence there will be less hunger and problems brought about by food shortage will be reduced.
3) Jobs are created in fertilizerfactories, transport (to transport suppies around) etc.
4) Government schemes to benefit poor people, including land redistribution, have been important alongside Green Revolution prosperity.There is an increase in rural to urban migration.

Although the objectives of the Green Revolution were realistic and attainable, several problems regarding their application are still being encountered thirty years later.

Disadvantage of Green Revolution:

Loss of Diversity-(ecology)
Diversity is a central principle of traditional agriculture in the Punjab, a in the rest of India,. Such diversity contributed to ecological stability, and hence to ecosystem productivity. The lower the diversity in an ecosystem, the higher its vulnerability to pests and desease.
The Green Revolution has reduced genetic diversity at two levels. First, it replaced mixtures and rotations of crops like wheat, maize, millets, pulses and oil seeds which monocultures of wheat and rice. Second, the introduced wheat and rice varieties came from a very narrow genetic base. On this narrow and alien genetic base the food supplies of millions are precariously perched.
Also,

• -chemical fertilizers can lead to water pollution
• -machineries and pesticides lead to air pollution

Economic disadvantage:

• The peasant farmers are poor and cannot afford farming implements, insecticides, pesticides and fertiliser. Poorer farmers therefore cannot achieve yields as high as those with better access to water, fertiliser and land.
• The Green Revolution is an expensive programme and there is a lack of capital for meeting the costs. The country increasingly relies on loans from abroad to pay for their programmes.
• Yields increased steadily for 15 years after the Green Revolution, but have now slowed or reversed. This means food security could again become a problem as the population continues to grow rapidly.
• Hence the Green Revolution do not just have benefits.

Social Disadvantage:
1) Many people were made unemployed as their labour is no longer required, as Machinery can replace their manpower. When they are out of jobs, they will face difficulty feeding their families and more problems may arise.
2) Also, in many countries, the widespread use of pesticides and other agro-chemicals has caused severe environmental degradation and endangered public health.
3) Cash cropping may not increase local food supply, thus not achieving aim of Green Revolution and people may continue to suffer from food shortage.
4) Green Revolution is expensive and could not be afforded by the poorer farmers. Hence while richer farmers managed to increase their productivity and income, the poorer farmers do not gain from this and as a result, the gap between the rich and the poor had widen in India.