The Gates Foundation and African Agriculture: AGRA, the Alliance for Science, and the Debate Over the Green Revolution Model

Headlines about a Cornell student who “took on” Bill Gates and Monsanto, and planned to expose their agenda in a film, reflected a debate that has grown since the mid-2000s: what role should private philanthropy play in shaping agriculture in Africa? The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, now called the Gates Foundation, is one of the world’s largest funders of agricultural development. Its investments include the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), launched with the Rockefeller Foundation in 2006, and the Alliance for Science, a communications initiative started at Cornell University in 2014 to promote public acceptance of agricultural biotechnology.

Supporters see these efforts as bringing improved seeds, fertilizer, markets, and science to farmers who need them. Critics, including many African farmer and civil society groups, argue they promote an industrial farming model that benefits agribusiness, increases farmer debt, and sidelines alternatives such as agroecology. This article examines what AGRA set out to do, what evaluations found, the controversy over the Alliance for Science, and the broader questions about philanthropy and agricultural development.

Has the Gates Foundation helped or hurt African agriculture? It is contested. The foundation has poured billions into boosting African farm yields through improved seeds and fertilizer, chiefly via AGRA. Independent evaluations found yields rose only modestly and hunger increased in focus countries, and African farmer groups say the high-input model sidelined cheaper, more sustainable methods. Supporters point to strengthened seed systems and argue change takes time.

Why Did the Gates Foundation Focus on African Farming?

The foundation argued that raising smallholder yields through modern seeds, fertilizer, and markets could reduce hunger and poverty, modeling its approach on the 20th-century Green Revolution in Asia and Latin America. Most farms in sub-Saharan Africa are small, family-run operations, and crop yields for staples such as maize have long been far below those in Asia, the Americas, and Europe. Fertilizer use per hectare has been very low, many farmers plant saved or local seed, and access to credit, irrigation, storage, and markets is limited. Hunger and rural poverty remain widespread, and climate change is increasing risks from drought, heat, and pests.

The original Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, which spread high-yielding wheat and rice varieties with fertilizer and irrigation in Asia and Latin America, dramatically increased food production and is credited with reducing famine, while also being criticized for environmental damage, inequality, and dependence on purchased inputs. In the mid-2000s, major foundations set out to bring a similar transformation to Africa, adapted to its conditions. The Gates Foundation describes its agricultural development program as aiming to help smallholder farmers increase productivity and incomes sustainably.

What AGRA Set Out to Do

AGRA was founded in 2006 by the Gates and Rockefeller foundations. Its programs supported the development and distribution of improved crop varieties through African seed companies, expanded fertilizer access, trained agro-dealers, supported farmer organizations and market access, and advised governments on agricultural policy. In 2016, it set an ambitious goal of doubling yields and incomes for 30 million farming households by 2020.

AGRA describes its work as supporting African-led agricultural transformation and food systems. It operates across a number of countries, including Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, and others.

Did the Gates-Funded Programs Work?

Independent evaluations of AGRA, the main Gates-backed effort, found staple yields rose only modestly, incomes changed little for most farmers, and the number of undernourished people in focus countries increased. By 2020, AGRA had received about $1 billion in funding since its founding, about two-thirds of it from the Gates Foundation, according to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, whose researchers have been among AGRA’s leading critics. A 2020 report by researchers at Tufts University and African and German civil society groups, titled “False Promises,” argued that AGRA was far from meeting its goals, that staple crop yields in its focus countries had grown only modestly, and that hunger had risen in those countries during its operation.

In early 2022, an evaluation commissioned by AGRA’s donors and conducted by the research firm Mathematica was published. As reported by the Seattle Times, it concluded that the alliance had achieved mixed success over the previous five years, with increased corn yields in half the countries it examined. U.S. Right to Know and other critics characterized the evaluation as showing that AGRA had failed to achieve its goals of improving incomes and food security, and noted that detailed data were not made public. AGRA and Gates Foundation leaders contested the harshest criticism, arguing that transformation takes time, that AGRA had contributed to stronger seed systems and policies, and that broader factors such as conflict, climate shocks, and the pandemic affected food security.

In September 2022, AGRA removed “Green Revolution” from its name, operating simply as AGRA, and its annual African Green Revolution Forum was rebranded as the Africa Food Systems Forum. Critics viewed the change as a response to criticism; AGRA described it as reflecting a broader food systems focus.

The Alliance for Science Controversy

In 2014, the Gates Foundation funded the launch of the Cornell Alliance for Science, an initiative based at Cornell University with the stated goal of promoting science-based decision-making and depolarizing debates over agricultural biotechnology. It trained fellows, many from Africa and Asia, in science communication and advocacy, and produced articles and campaigns supporting genetically engineered crops such as insect-resistant cowpea in Nigeria and Bt eggplant in Bangladesh. In 2020, the Gates Foundation awarded it an additional $10 million, according to U.S. Right to Know. The group later dropped “Cornell” from its name.

Supporters argue that the Alliance has given African scientists and farmers a stronger voice, countered misinformation about GM crops, and helped countries make evidence-based decisions about technologies that could reduce pesticide use and crop losses. Critics, including U.S. Right to Know, faith leaders, and African food sovereignty groups, argue that it functions as a public relations campaign aligned with agrichemical industry interests, that some of its content has been misleading, and that a university setting lends credibility to advocacy. Students and faculty at Cornell were among those who debated the Alliance’s role on campus, which is part of the background to the 2010s headlines about a student challenging Gates and Monsanto.

Question	Input-intensive model (AGRA approach)	Agroecology model (critics’ alternative)
Main tools	Improved and hybrid seeds, synthetic fertilizer, agro-dealers, market links	Crop diversity, legumes, compost, local seed systems, ecological pest control
Strengths cited	Can raise yields quickly where inputs and markets work	Lower costs and debt, soil health, resilience, nutrition diversity
Concerns raised	Farmer debt, soil degradation, reduced crop diversity, dependence on purchased inputs	Yields may rise more slowly; harder to scale; requires knowledge and labor
Evidence base	Strong historical yield gains in Asia; mixed results in Africa	Promising case studies; fewer large-scale rigorous evaluations

Should a Private Foundation Shape African Food Policy?

Critics argue it is problematic for decisions affecting millions of farmers to be driven by a wealthy private philanthropy rather than African governments and farmers, while supporters see valuable funding and expertise. The controversy over AGRA and the Alliance for Science reflects larger questions about the role of private foundations in public policy. Large foundations can mobilize resources and expertise quickly and take risks that governments may avoid. But they are not democratically accountable, and when they fund research, advocacy, media, and policy advice at the same time, critics argue they can shape national agendas in ways that reflect donors’ priorities more than those of the people affected. African farmer organizations, such as the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, have called for donors to shift funding toward agroecology and farmer-led approaches; supporters of AGRA’s model counter that many farmers want access to improved seeds and fertilizer and that productivity growth remains essential to reducing poverty.

The evidence suggests neither side has all the answers. Improved seeds and fertilizer can raise yields where farmers have reliable access to markets, credit, and extension support, but those conditions are often missing, and input subsidies can strain government budgets. Agroecological practices can improve soil health and reduce costs, but rigorous evidence on their large-scale impacts is still developing. Many experts favor locally adapted combinations, accountability to farmers, and transparent evaluation of what works.

Lessons From the Original Green Revolution

The Green Revolution of the mid-20th century is central to this debate because both sides draw lessons from it. Plant breeder Norman Borlaug, who developed high-yielding, disease-resistant wheat varieties in Mexico, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his contribution to increasing world food supplies. His wheat varieties, along with high-yielding rice varieties developed at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines in the 1960s, spread across South Asia, where wheat and rice production rose dramatically. India, which had faced fears of famine in the mid-1960s, became largely self-sufficient in grain.

The gains depended on more than seeds. They relied on irrigation, subsidized fertilizer, public research and extension services, guaranteed prices, and roads and markets, much of it built by governments. They also came with costs: groundwater depletion in parts of India, soil degradation, pesticide overuse, reduced crop diversity, and benefits that went disproportionately to farmers with irrigated land and access to credit.

Supporters of AGRA’s approach take from this history that improved seeds and fertilizer can transform food production. Critics take the lesson that Africa’s conditions, with mostly rain-fed farming, diverse crops, and weaker infrastructure, differ fundamentally from those of irrigated Asian breadbaskets, and that the environmental and social costs of the original Green Revolution should not be repeated.

Fertilizer: The Abuja Target

Low fertilizer use has long been identified as a major constraint on African yields. In 2006, the same year AGRA was founded, African leaders at the Africa Fertilizer Summit in Abuja, Nigeria, set a goal of raising average fertilizer use to 50 kilograms of nutrients per hectare. Progress toward that goal has been slow in many countries. Governments in several African nations have used input subsidy programs to make fertilizer more affordable, which have increased use and yields in some cases but have been costly, sometimes captured by better-off farmers, and vulnerable to global fertilizer price spikes, such as those that followed the 2022 war in Ukraine.

Critics of fertilizer-centered strategies argue that synthetic fertilizer alone does not restore depleted soils lacking organic matter, and that integrated soil fertility management, combining fertilizer with legumes, manure, and compost, produces better long-term results. Many agronomists agree that both mineral and organic sources are needed.

Seeds and Seed Laws

Most African smallholders obtain seed through informal systems: saving their own seed, exchanging with neighbors, or buying in local markets. Programs like AGRA have worked to build formal seed systems in which companies breed, certify, and sell improved varieties, including hybrids that must be repurchased each season to maintain their yield advantage.

These efforts have intersected with seed laws. Some African countries have adopted or considered laws aligned with international plant variety protection standards, which grant breeders exclusive rights and can restrict farmers’ ability to save, exchange, and sell protected seed. Supporters argue such protections encourage investment in breeding. Critics, including many farmer organizations, argue they threaten traditional seed systems that maintain crop diversity and farmers’ autonomy. How to balance formal and informal seed systems remains one of the most contested issues in African agricultural policy.

Climate Change Raises the Stakes

Climate change is intensifying the pressure on African agriculture. Rising temperatures, more variable rainfall, and more frequent droughts and floods threaten yields of staple crops, and most African farms depend on rainfall rather than irrigation. Both sides of the debate frame their approaches as climate solutions. Supporters of improved seeds point to drought-tolerant and heat-tolerant varieties, including maize bred for drought tolerance. Agroecology advocates point to diversified farming, agroforestry, and improved soil organic matter as ways to build resilience. Evidence suggests that combining improved varieties with practices that protect soil and water may offer the strongest protection.

What Do African Farmers Themselves Say?

Farmer organizations are divided: some welcome improved seeds and inputs, while many say the model pushed costly commercial seeds and fertilizer that raised debt and crowded out local seed varieties and agroecology. African farmers are not a single constituency. Some farmers who adopted improved maize varieties and fertilizer through AGRA-supported programs report higher harvests and incomes, particularly where markets and roads allowed them to sell surplus. Others report debts from input loans after poor rains or low prices, and frustration when promised markets did not materialize. Many smallholders combine approaches, planting improved varieties alongside traditional crops, using some fertilizer with manure, and saving seed for some crops while buying it for others. Farmer organizations differ in their priorities, from expanding access to inputs and credit to defending seed sovereignty and promoting agroecology.

Listening to farmers’ varied experiences, rather than assuming a single model fits all, is one of the most consistent recommendations from independent researchers studying African agricultural development.

How Should You Judge a Development Program?

Useful questions include whether goals were met, who benefited and who bore the costs, whether local people shaped the program, and whether it strengthened lasting institutions or created dependence on outside inputs. Debates over AGRA highlight the importance of rigorous, independent evaluation. Useful questions include: Were goals clearly defined and measured with credible baseline data? Were results compared with similar areas not receiving the program? Did evaluations measure outcomes that matter to farmers, such as income, nutrition, and resilience, not just yields or input sales? Were the data and methods made public so others could check them? Who benefited, and were the poorest farmers and women farmers reached? Did benefits last after funding ended? Programs that publish detailed data and invite independent scrutiny earn more trust than those that report only selected successes.

Key Terms

AGRA: An organization founded in 2006 to promote agricultural transformation in Africa, originally named the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa.

Green Revolution: The spread of high-yielding crop varieties, fertilizer, and irrigation in Asia and Latin America from the 1960s.

Agroecology: Farming that applies ecological principles and emphasizes diversity, soil health, and farmer knowledge.

Smallholder: A farmer operating a small plot, typically a few hectares or less, often relying on family labor.

Seed sovereignty: The right of farmers to save, use, exchange, and sell their own seeds.

Alliance for Science: A Gates-funded communications initiative launched at Cornell in 2014 to support agricultural biotechnology.

The Role of African Governments and Institutions

Focusing on foundations can obscure the central role of African governments, which set agricultural budgets, subsidy programs, seed laws, and trade policies. In 2003, African Union leaders committed in the Maputo Declaration to allocating at least 10 percent of national budgets to agriculture, a target many countries have not consistently met. National agricultural research systems, African universities, and regional bodies such as the African Union Development Agency shape research priorities and policy, and international agricultural research centers that are part of the CGIAR network develop many of the improved varieties used across the continent.

Critics of AGRA argue that foundation funding and advice have steered government priorities toward input subsidies and commercial seed systems. Supporters argue that AGRA has worked with governments at their request and strengthened national capacity. Either way, the long-term direction of African agriculture will be decided largely by African governments, farmers, and institutions.

Biotechnology in African Agriculture

The Alliance for Science debate connects to broader decisions about genetically engineered crops in Africa. Several African countries have approved GM crops in recent years, including insect-resistant cotton in multiple countries, insect-resistant cowpea in Nigeria and Ghana, and drought-tolerant and insect-resistant maize in Nigeria and Kenya, as described in our article on global GM crop trends. Supporters see these as tools to reduce pest losses and pesticide spraying for smallholders. Opponents raise concerns about seed costs, corporate control, biosafety, and impacts on export markets and traditional varieties. Many of these crops were developed through public-private partnerships, with the stated aim of providing traits to smallholders without royalties, an arrangement whose long-term effects are still being assessed.

Where Gates Foundation Funding Goes Now

The Gates Foundation remains one of the largest funders of agricultural research and development for low-income countries. Its agricultural programs have funded crop breeding, livestock health, digital advisory services for farmers, climate adaptation research, and support for women farmers, in addition to organizations such as AGRA and CGIAR research centers. Critics continue to call for more funding to go directly to farmer organizations and agroecological approaches and for greater transparency in grant-making and evaluation. Supporters point to the foundation’s investments in public goods such as improved varieties freely available to farmers and research on neglected crops.

Women Farmers and Equity

Women make up a large share of the agricultural workforce in sub-Saharan Africa, yet they often have less access to land, credit, improved inputs, extension services, and markets than men. Development programs, including those supported by the Gates Foundation, increasingly emphasize reaching women farmers, recognizing that closing gender gaps in access to resources could significantly raise agricultural productivity and household nutrition. Critics of input-intensive approaches argue that programs requiring credit and purchased inputs may favor better-off, often male, farmers, while advocates of agroecology emphasize low-cost practices accessible to all. Evaluations increasingly track whether programs reach women and the poorest households, an important test of whether agricultural development reduces inequality or reinforces it.

Common Misconceptions in the Debate

“Gates is forcing GMOs on Africa.” Decisions to approve GM crops are made by African governments through their own regulatory systems. Foundation funding has supported some biotech research and communications, which critics see as influencing those decisions.

“Improved seeds and fertilizer always help farmers.” Results depend on rainfall, soils, market prices, credit costs, and farmers’ circumstances; inputs can lead to debt when harvests or prices disappoint.

“Agroecology means rejecting all modern tools.” Many agroecology advocates support improved varieties bred with farmers, appropriate fertilizer use, and modern science applied to ecological farming.

“Philanthropy is either purely good or purely harmful.” Foundation programs have produced both useful public goods and contested outcomes; evidence should be judged program by program.

Why the Debate Matters Beyond Africa

The questions raised by AGRA and the Alliance for Science extend to agricultural development everywhere: who sets priorities, how evidence is gathered and shared, and whether programs serve the farmers they target. Similar debates have played out over agricultural aid in Asia and Latin America, over corporate partnerships in public research, and over the influence of large donors on global health and education. Readers in wealthy countries also encounter these issues through their governments’ foreign aid budgets and through the food system, since global agricultural markets connect farmers across continents. Understanding the Africa debate helps clarify broader choices about how food systems should evolve in a changing climate.

Questions for Readers to Consider

When evaluating claims from either side of this debate, readers can ask: Is the claim based on independent data or on advocacy materials? Does it distinguish between different programs, countries, and crops, or generalize across a continent? Does it acknowledge both successes and failures? Are African farmers’ and researchers’ own voices represented? And does it consider the alternatives realistically, including their costs and limitations? Applying these questions consistently helps cut through rhetoric on both sides.

Looking Ahead

The coming years will test competing visions for African agriculture. Climate pressures, population growth, rising food demand in cities, and volatile global fertilizer and grain prices will all shape farmers’ choices. Donors, including the Gates Foundation, face pressure to demonstrate results transparently and to involve farmer organizations in setting priorities. African governments are expanding their own agricultural strategies, and research on combinations of improved varieties, soil management, and diversified farming continues. Whatever approaches prevail, independent evaluation and farmers’ own assessments will remain the most important measures of success.

Further Reading

Readers interested in this debate can consult AGRA’s own reports and the Gates Foundation’s descriptions of its agricultural programs, independent evaluations commissioned by donors, analyses by critics such as the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, and research from African universities and international agricultural research centers. Reading sources from different perspectives, and checking which claims are supported by published data, provides the clearest view of what has worked and what has not.

Africa’s Diverse Agricultural Landscape

Generalizations about “African agriculture” obscure enormous diversity. The continent spans arid pastoral regions, humid tropical forests, highland farming systems, and fertile river valleys, and crops range from maize, cassava, sorghum, millet, rice, and plantains to coffee, cocoa, tea, and horticulture. Farm structures, land tenure, market access, and policies differ widely between and within countries. Programs that succeed in one setting may fail in another, which is one reason evaluations often find mixed results and why locally adapted approaches are widely recommended. Recognizing this diversity is essential to understanding both AGRA’s results and the alternatives proposed by its critics.

Measuring Success Differently

Part of the disagreement over AGRA stems from what counts as success. Yield increases for a few staple crops, the number of seed companies established, and fertilizer sales are relatively easy to measure. Household income, dietary diversity, women’s empowerment, soil health, and resilience to drought are harder to measure but arguably matter more to farmers. Programs judged mainly by input adoption may look successful even when farm families are no better off, while programs focused on resilience may show slow yield gains but meaningful improvements in stability. Agreeing on the right measures is a necessary first step toward a more productive debate.

The Bottom Line

The Gates Foundation’s agricultural investments in Africa, including AGRA and the Alliance for Science, have been both ambitious and controversial. AGRA did not meet its goal of doubling yields and incomes for millions of households, and evaluations found mixed results, prompting a name change and continued debate. The Alliance for Science has been praised as a voice for science and criticized as industry-aligned advocacy. The underlying question is not whether Africa’s farmers need better tools, which they do, but which tools, chosen by whom, and evaluated how. Transparent evidence, accountability to farmers, and respect for African decision-making are the best guides through that debate.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is AGRA and how is it connected to the Gates Foundation?

AGRA, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, is an organization launched in 2006 and funded largely by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to transform smallholder farming through improved seeds, fertilizer, and markets. It has received more than a billion dollars, most from the Gates Foundation, and works in about 13 African countries.

Did the Gates Foundation’s African agriculture programs succeed?

Independent evaluations found they fell short of their goals. Over AGRA’s first 14 years, staple crop yields rose only modestly rather than doubling as promised, incomes changed little for most farmers, and the number of undernourished people in its focus countries actually increased. AGRA later dropped some of its original numerical targets.

Why do critics oppose the Gates Foundation’s approach to African farming?

Critics, including many African farmer organizations, argue the approach promoted expensive commercial seeds and synthetic fertilizer that can trap smallholders in debt, reduced crop diversity, and crowded out cheaper, more sustainable agroecological methods. They also question whether a private foundation should have so much influence over African food and seed policy.

What does the Gates Foundation say in response?

The foundation and AGRA argue that building seed systems, training farmers, and developing markets takes longer than the original timelines, and that their work should be judged on institution-building rather than short-term yield targets. They maintain that improved inputs and modern methods are needed to raise African farm productivity and reduce hunger.

What is the alternative to the Gates Foundation model?

Critics point to agroecology and diversified food systems that rely on local seed varieties, intercropping, composting, and natural pest control to raise yields and resilience without dependence on costly imported seeds and fertilizer. Supporters of this approach say it is cheaper for poor farmers and better for soil, biodiversity, and climate resilience.

References

1. Gates Foundation. Agricultural Development. gatesfoundation.org
2. AGRA. About us. agra.org
3. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. AGRA and the Gates Foundation (policy update). iatp.org
4. Seattle Times (via The Chronicle). Gates-funded green revolution in Africa has failed, critics say. 2022. chronline.com
5. U.S. Right to Know. Gates Foundation agriculture project in Africa flunks its own review. March 17, 2022. usrtk.org
6. U.S. Right to Know. Gates Foundation doubles down on misinformation campaign at Cornell as African leaders call for agroecology. 2020. usrtk.org

Last updated: October 1, 2026