Presentation 2 falck zepeda socioeconomic assessments results from case studies
-
Upload
jose-falck-zepeda -
Category
Technology
-
view
108 -
download
3
Transcript of Presentation 2 falck zepeda socioeconomic assessments results from case studies
Program for Biosafety Systems ndash httppbsifpriinfo
Assessment of Socioeconomic Considerations in Practice
Joseacute Falck Zepeda
Senior Research Fellow
International Food Policy Research Institute ndashProgram for Biosafety Systems (IFPRI - PBS)
Presented at Cornell Alliance for Science Ithaca New York October 26
2016
Program for Biosafety Systems ndash httppbsifpriinfo
Content
1 Results from selected case studies
2 The literature
3 Findings conclusions and recommendations
Ex ante studies completed by IFPRI and partners
The case of fungal resistant bananas in Uganda
bull Considered irreversible cost and benefits using the real options approach
bull Conclusionsndash If approval delayed forego potential
annual (social) benefits of +- US$200 million
ndash Maximum total development costs cannot exceed US$108 million Otherwise GM banana is not a viable alternative
ndash Even when considering precautionary principle concepts within the analysis adoption still benefits Uganda
Citation Kikulwe E J Wesseler and J Falck-Zepeda 2008 Introducing a Genetically Modified Banana in Uganda Social Benefits
Costs and Consumer Perceptions IFPRI Discussion Paper 767 Environment and Production Technology Division International
Food Policy Research Institute Washington D C USA
Copyright Kikulwe copy 2009
Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa
bull Estimation of potential adoption impact of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso Benin Mali Senegal and Togo
bull Study was done in preparation for the eventual approval of Bt cotton in the region
bull Only Burkina Faso adopted whereas Mali and Benin seem to have a precautionary stance towards the technology
bull Cotton is a major source of cash for resource poor farmers in the region
bull Remnants of the cotton system
Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa (2)
bull Use a modified economic method to account for productionfinancial risk and parameter uncertainty
bull Use scenarios to simulate policy questions
ndash No adoption in West Africa adoption elsewhere (impacts on competivity)
ndash Technology price (fee) including reductions
ndash Irregular adoption patterns
ndash Regulatory delays
Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa (3)
bull Some conclusionsndash If region decided not to adopt
the technology it will lose competivity as other regions continue to adopt Bt cotton
ndash Innovators and producers earn the largest share of additional benefits
ndash With a reduced technology fee probability that farmers earn positive net income increases
Mean = -277E+07
X lt=0
995
X lt= - 49173256
5
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
Net Present Value
(millions US$)
Pro
bab
ilit
y
(11
0-8
)
Scenario 1 Total Surplus West Africa
Mean = 332E+07
X lt= 0
386
X lt= 65732204
95
0
02
04
06
08
1
12
14
16
18
2
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Net Present Value
(million US$)
Pro
bab
ilit
y
(11
0-8
)
Scenario 3 Total Surplus West Africa
GM vegetables in Ghana
bull Examine likely impact of the introduction of GM varieties in Ghana
bull Examine four specific technologiesndash Tomatoes resistant to the Yellow Leaf Curl Virus
(TYLCV) disease
ndash Garden eggs (eggplant) resistant to the stem and fruit borer
ndash Cabbages resistant to the Diamond Back Moth (DBM)
ndash Cassava resistant to the African Cassava Mosaic Virus (ACMV) disease
GM vegetables in Ghana
bull Field surveys conducted in Ghana with conventional farmers
bull Asked farmers about potential effects
ndash Without the constraint
ndash With the constraint but without using pesticides
ndash With the constraint and chemical control of the pest
bull Methodologies
ndash Partial budgeting
ndash Economic surplus with stochastic simulations
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
bull There is indeed an impact on yields by the TYLCY virus in Ghana
bull Issues with proper control of white fly (vector) and thus of virus damage
Cummulative Percent of Yield
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46
Yield (t ha)
2005
Unconditional
No Constraint
Constraint No Pesticide
Constraint + Pesticide
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
UnitSCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
Model Small Open Economy
Adoption curve Conventional
(smooth)
Conventional
(smooth)
Irregular Irregular
Max adoption 35 35 35 35
Effective area
adopting GM
technology
Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950
Technology fee Ha 000 917 000 917
Average RampD and
technology transfer
costs
US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000
NPV of Producer
surplus
US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253
Internal rate of return na 101 na 764
Ex post studies completed by IFPRI and partners
A bit of historyhellipThe case of Bt cotton in the US
-22 -12 -14
58 37 37
141
80 97
63
8593
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1996
Industry
US Farmers
Consumers
Foreign Farmers
1997 1998
Industry
36
Consumers
19
US Farmers
45
Total benefit estimates (Millions US $)
Falck-Zepeda Traxler amp Nelson 1999 2000
GE Maize in Honduras
8th Latin American country adopting GMOs since 20021
Only country in Central America cultivating commercially GE food crops
-USA
-Brazil
-Argentina
-South Africa
-Canada
-Uruguay x15
-Philippines x3
-Spain x5
-Chile x7
-Honduras
-Portugal x8
-Czech Republic x 7
-Poland x3
-Egypt x9
-Slovakia x04
-Romania x2
bull By 2011 72 thousand ha with hybrids and GM 15 area planted1
bull GM estimated around 25-30 thousand ha
BT (MON810) RR (NK603) Herculex 1 YGVTPro
(MON89034) traits approved for commercialization
Major maize producing areas in Honduras
GE maize in Honduras First round surveys - 2008
Excellent target pest control
Bt yield advantage 893-1136 Kg ha-1 yield (24-33)
Bt maize yields preferred even by risk averse producers
100 higher seed cost than conventional hybrid
Institutional issues important
Photos credit copy Sanders and Trabanino 2008
ldquoSmall ldquoResource-Poorrdquo Countries Taking Advantage of the New Bioeconomy
and Innovation The Case of Insect ProtectedHerbicide Tolerant Maize in
Hondurasrdquo Jose Falck Zepeda Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Oswaldo
Medina and Rolando Batallas-Huacon Paper presented at the 13th ICABR
Conference ldquoThe Emerging Bio-Economyrdquo Ravello Italy June 17-20 2009
- 180000 metric tons
- 35000 planted hectares gt30 national corn production
- 12000 hectares with GM gt40 GM corn production
- 10000 farmers
- A range of different corn production systems
We captured diversity within the commercial corn production chain
GE maize in Honduras Results from second round surveys
Yield
(mtha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 53 478 - 502
Conventional plots 37 37
Difference 16 108 - 132
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
17 - 32
Income
(US$ha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754
Conventional plots 1244 1244
Difference 530 340 - 510
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
4 - 36
First and second round surveys Key Findings
bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides
bull Less environmental impact using EIQ
bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits
bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
Program for Biosafety Systems ndash httppbsifpriinfo
Content
1 Results from selected case studies
2 The literature
3 Findings conclusions and recommendations
Ex ante studies completed by IFPRI and partners
The case of fungal resistant bananas in Uganda
bull Considered irreversible cost and benefits using the real options approach
bull Conclusionsndash If approval delayed forego potential
annual (social) benefits of +- US$200 million
ndash Maximum total development costs cannot exceed US$108 million Otherwise GM banana is not a viable alternative
ndash Even when considering precautionary principle concepts within the analysis adoption still benefits Uganda
Citation Kikulwe E J Wesseler and J Falck-Zepeda 2008 Introducing a Genetically Modified Banana in Uganda Social Benefits
Costs and Consumer Perceptions IFPRI Discussion Paper 767 Environment and Production Technology Division International
Food Policy Research Institute Washington D C USA
Copyright Kikulwe copy 2009
Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa
bull Estimation of potential adoption impact of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso Benin Mali Senegal and Togo
bull Study was done in preparation for the eventual approval of Bt cotton in the region
bull Only Burkina Faso adopted whereas Mali and Benin seem to have a precautionary stance towards the technology
bull Cotton is a major source of cash for resource poor farmers in the region
bull Remnants of the cotton system
Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa (2)
bull Use a modified economic method to account for productionfinancial risk and parameter uncertainty
bull Use scenarios to simulate policy questions
ndash No adoption in West Africa adoption elsewhere (impacts on competivity)
ndash Technology price (fee) including reductions
ndash Irregular adoption patterns
ndash Regulatory delays
Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa (3)
bull Some conclusionsndash If region decided not to adopt
the technology it will lose competivity as other regions continue to adopt Bt cotton
ndash Innovators and producers earn the largest share of additional benefits
ndash With a reduced technology fee probability that farmers earn positive net income increases
Mean = -277E+07
X lt=0
995
X lt= - 49173256
5
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
Net Present Value
(millions US$)
Pro
bab
ilit
y
(11
0-8
)
Scenario 1 Total Surplus West Africa
Mean = 332E+07
X lt= 0
386
X lt= 65732204
95
0
02
04
06
08
1
12
14
16
18
2
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Net Present Value
(million US$)
Pro
bab
ilit
y
(11
0-8
)
Scenario 3 Total Surplus West Africa
GM vegetables in Ghana
bull Examine likely impact of the introduction of GM varieties in Ghana
bull Examine four specific technologiesndash Tomatoes resistant to the Yellow Leaf Curl Virus
(TYLCV) disease
ndash Garden eggs (eggplant) resistant to the stem and fruit borer
ndash Cabbages resistant to the Diamond Back Moth (DBM)
ndash Cassava resistant to the African Cassava Mosaic Virus (ACMV) disease
GM vegetables in Ghana
bull Field surveys conducted in Ghana with conventional farmers
bull Asked farmers about potential effects
ndash Without the constraint
ndash With the constraint but without using pesticides
ndash With the constraint and chemical control of the pest
bull Methodologies
ndash Partial budgeting
ndash Economic surplus with stochastic simulations
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
bull There is indeed an impact on yields by the TYLCY virus in Ghana
bull Issues with proper control of white fly (vector) and thus of virus damage
Cummulative Percent of Yield
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46
Yield (t ha)
2005
Unconditional
No Constraint
Constraint No Pesticide
Constraint + Pesticide
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
UnitSCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
Model Small Open Economy
Adoption curve Conventional
(smooth)
Conventional
(smooth)
Irregular Irregular
Max adoption 35 35 35 35
Effective area
adopting GM
technology
Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950
Technology fee Ha 000 917 000 917
Average RampD and
technology transfer
costs
US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000
NPV of Producer
surplus
US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253
Internal rate of return na 101 na 764
Ex post studies completed by IFPRI and partners
A bit of historyhellipThe case of Bt cotton in the US
-22 -12 -14
58 37 37
141
80 97
63
8593
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1996
Industry
US Farmers
Consumers
Foreign Farmers
1997 1998
Industry
36
Consumers
19
US Farmers
45
Total benefit estimates (Millions US $)
Falck-Zepeda Traxler amp Nelson 1999 2000
GE Maize in Honduras
8th Latin American country adopting GMOs since 20021
Only country in Central America cultivating commercially GE food crops
-USA
-Brazil
-Argentina
-South Africa
-Canada
-Uruguay x15
-Philippines x3
-Spain x5
-Chile x7
-Honduras
-Portugal x8
-Czech Republic x 7
-Poland x3
-Egypt x9
-Slovakia x04
-Romania x2
bull By 2011 72 thousand ha with hybrids and GM 15 area planted1
bull GM estimated around 25-30 thousand ha
BT (MON810) RR (NK603) Herculex 1 YGVTPro
(MON89034) traits approved for commercialization
Major maize producing areas in Honduras
GE maize in Honduras First round surveys - 2008
Excellent target pest control
Bt yield advantage 893-1136 Kg ha-1 yield (24-33)
Bt maize yields preferred even by risk averse producers
100 higher seed cost than conventional hybrid
Institutional issues important
Photos credit copy Sanders and Trabanino 2008
ldquoSmall ldquoResource-Poorrdquo Countries Taking Advantage of the New Bioeconomy
and Innovation The Case of Insect ProtectedHerbicide Tolerant Maize in
Hondurasrdquo Jose Falck Zepeda Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Oswaldo
Medina and Rolando Batallas-Huacon Paper presented at the 13th ICABR
Conference ldquoThe Emerging Bio-Economyrdquo Ravello Italy June 17-20 2009
- 180000 metric tons
- 35000 planted hectares gt30 national corn production
- 12000 hectares with GM gt40 GM corn production
- 10000 farmers
- A range of different corn production systems
We captured diversity within the commercial corn production chain
GE maize in Honduras Results from second round surveys
Yield
(mtha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 53 478 - 502
Conventional plots 37 37
Difference 16 108 - 132
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
17 - 32
Income
(US$ha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754
Conventional plots 1244 1244
Difference 530 340 - 510
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
4 - 36
First and second round surveys Key Findings
bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides
bull Less environmental impact using EIQ
bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits
bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
Ex ante studies completed by IFPRI and partners
The case of fungal resistant bananas in Uganda
bull Considered irreversible cost and benefits using the real options approach
bull Conclusionsndash If approval delayed forego potential
annual (social) benefits of +- US$200 million
ndash Maximum total development costs cannot exceed US$108 million Otherwise GM banana is not a viable alternative
ndash Even when considering precautionary principle concepts within the analysis adoption still benefits Uganda
Citation Kikulwe E J Wesseler and J Falck-Zepeda 2008 Introducing a Genetically Modified Banana in Uganda Social Benefits
Costs and Consumer Perceptions IFPRI Discussion Paper 767 Environment and Production Technology Division International
Food Policy Research Institute Washington D C USA
Copyright Kikulwe copy 2009
Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa
bull Estimation of potential adoption impact of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso Benin Mali Senegal and Togo
bull Study was done in preparation for the eventual approval of Bt cotton in the region
bull Only Burkina Faso adopted whereas Mali and Benin seem to have a precautionary stance towards the technology
bull Cotton is a major source of cash for resource poor farmers in the region
bull Remnants of the cotton system
Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa (2)
bull Use a modified economic method to account for productionfinancial risk and parameter uncertainty
bull Use scenarios to simulate policy questions
ndash No adoption in West Africa adoption elsewhere (impacts on competivity)
ndash Technology price (fee) including reductions
ndash Irregular adoption patterns
ndash Regulatory delays
Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa (3)
bull Some conclusionsndash If region decided not to adopt
the technology it will lose competivity as other regions continue to adopt Bt cotton
ndash Innovators and producers earn the largest share of additional benefits
ndash With a reduced technology fee probability that farmers earn positive net income increases
Mean = -277E+07
X lt=0
995
X lt= - 49173256
5
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
Net Present Value
(millions US$)
Pro
bab
ilit
y
(11
0-8
)
Scenario 1 Total Surplus West Africa
Mean = 332E+07
X lt= 0
386
X lt= 65732204
95
0
02
04
06
08
1
12
14
16
18
2
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Net Present Value
(million US$)
Pro
bab
ilit
y
(11
0-8
)
Scenario 3 Total Surplus West Africa
GM vegetables in Ghana
bull Examine likely impact of the introduction of GM varieties in Ghana
bull Examine four specific technologiesndash Tomatoes resistant to the Yellow Leaf Curl Virus
(TYLCV) disease
ndash Garden eggs (eggplant) resistant to the stem and fruit borer
ndash Cabbages resistant to the Diamond Back Moth (DBM)
ndash Cassava resistant to the African Cassava Mosaic Virus (ACMV) disease
GM vegetables in Ghana
bull Field surveys conducted in Ghana with conventional farmers
bull Asked farmers about potential effects
ndash Without the constraint
ndash With the constraint but without using pesticides
ndash With the constraint and chemical control of the pest
bull Methodologies
ndash Partial budgeting
ndash Economic surplus with stochastic simulations
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
bull There is indeed an impact on yields by the TYLCY virus in Ghana
bull Issues with proper control of white fly (vector) and thus of virus damage
Cummulative Percent of Yield
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46
Yield (t ha)
2005
Unconditional
No Constraint
Constraint No Pesticide
Constraint + Pesticide
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
UnitSCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
Model Small Open Economy
Adoption curve Conventional
(smooth)
Conventional
(smooth)
Irregular Irregular
Max adoption 35 35 35 35
Effective area
adopting GM
technology
Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950
Technology fee Ha 000 917 000 917
Average RampD and
technology transfer
costs
US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000
NPV of Producer
surplus
US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253
Internal rate of return na 101 na 764
Ex post studies completed by IFPRI and partners
A bit of historyhellipThe case of Bt cotton in the US
-22 -12 -14
58 37 37
141
80 97
63
8593
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1996
Industry
US Farmers
Consumers
Foreign Farmers
1997 1998
Industry
36
Consumers
19
US Farmers
45
Total benefit estimates (Millions US $)
Falck-Zepeda Traxler amp Nelson 1999 2000
GE Maize in Honduras
8th Latin American country adopting GMOs since 20021
Only country in Central America cultivating commercially GE food crops
-USA
-Brazil
-Argentina
-South Africa
-Canada
-Uruguay x15
-Philippines x3
-Spain x5
-Chile x7
-Honduras
-Portugal x8
-Czech Republic x 7
-Poland x3
-Egypt x9
-Slovakia x04
-Romania x2
bull By 2011 72 thousand ha with hybrids and GM 15 area planted1
bull GM estimated around 25-30 thousand ha
BT (MON810) RR (NK603) Herculex 1 YGVTPro
(MON89034) traits approved for commercialization
Major maize producing areas in Honduras
GE maize in Honduras First round surveys - 2008
Excellent target pest control
Bt yield advantage 893-1136 Kg ha-1 yield (24-33)
Bt maize yields preferred even by risk averse producers
100 higher seed cost than conventional hybrid
Institutional issues important
Photos credit copy Sanders and Trabanino 2008
ldquoSmall ldquoResource-Poorrdquo Countries Taking Advantage of the New Bioeconomy
and Innovation The Case of Insect ProtectedHerbicide Tolerant Maize in
Hondurasrdquo Jose Falck Zepeda Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Oswaldo
Medina and Rolando Batallas-Huacon Paper presented at the 13th ICABR
Conference ldquoThe Emerging Bio-Economyrdquo Ravello Italy June 17-20 2009
- 180000 metric tons
- 35000 planted hectares gt30 national corn production
- 12000 hectares with GM gt40 GM corn production
- 10000 farmers
- A range of different corn production systems
We captured diversity within the commercial corn production chain
GE maize in Honduras Results from second round surveys
Yield
(mtha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 53 478 - 502
Conventional plots 37 37
Difference 16 108 - 132
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
17 - 32
Income
(US$ha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754
Conventional plots 1244 1244
Difference 530 340 - 510
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
4 - 36
First and second round surveys Key Findings
bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides
bull Less environmental impact using EIQ
bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits
bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
The case of fungal resistant bananas in Uganda
bull Considered irreversible cost and benefits using the real options approach
bull Conclusionsndash If approval delayed forego potential
annual (social) benefits of +- US$200 million
ndash Maximum total development costs cannot exceed US$108 million Otherwise GM banana is not a viable alternative
ndash Even when considering precautionary principle concepts within the analysis adoption still benefits Uganda
Citation Kikulwe E J Wesseler and J Falck-Zepeda 2008 Introducing a Genetically Modified Banana in Uganda Social Benefits
Costs and Consumer Perceptions IFPRI Discussion Paper 767 Environment and Production Technology Division International
Food Policy Research Institute Washington D C USA
Copyright Kikulwe copy 2009
Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa
bull Estimation of potential adoption impact of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso Benin Mali Senegal and Togo
bull Study was done in preparation for the eventual approval of Bt cotton in the region
bull Only Burkina Faso adopted whereas Mali and Benin seem to have a precautionary stance towards the technology
bull Cotton is a major source of cash for resource poor farmers in the region
bull Remnants of the cotton system
Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa (2)
bull Use a modified economic method to account for productionfinancial risk and parameter uncertainty
bull Use scenarios to simulate policy questions
ndash No adoption in West Africa adoption elsewhere (impacts on competivity)
ndash Technology price (fee) including reductions
ndash Irregular adoption patterns
ndash Regulatory delays
Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa (3)
bull Some conclusionsndash If region decided not to adopt
the technology it will lose competivity as other regions continue to adopt Bt cotton
ndash Innovators and producers earn the largest share of additional benefits
ndash With a reduced technology fee probability that farmers earn positive net income increases
Mean = -277E+07
X lt=0
995
X lt= - 49173256
5
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
Net Present Value
(millions US$)
Pro
bab
ilit
y
(11
0-8
)
Scenario 1 Total Surplus West Africa
Mean = 332E+07
X lt= 0
386
X lt= 65732204
95
0
02
04
06
08
1
12
14
16
18
2
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Net Present Value
(million US$)
Pro
bab
ilit
y
(11
0-8
)
Scenario 3 Total Surplus West Africa
GM vegetables in Ghana
bull Examine likely impact of the introduction of GM varieties in Ghana
bull Examine four specific technologiesndash Tomatoes resistant to the Yellow Leaf Curl Virus
(TYLCV) disease
ndash Garden eggs (eggplant) resistant to the stem and fruit borer
ndash Cabbages resistant to the Diamond Back Moth (DBM)
ndash Cassava resistant to the African Cassava Mosaic Virus (ACMV) disease
GM vegetables in Ghana
bull Field surveys conducted in Ghana with conventional farmers
bull Asked farmers about potential effects
ndash Without the constraint
ndash With the constraint but without using pesticides
ndash With the constraint and chemical control of the pest
bull Methodologies
ndash Partial budgeting
ndash Economic surplus with stochastic simulations
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
bull There is indeed an impact on yields by the TYLCY virus in Ghana
bull Issues with proper control of white fly (vector) and thus of virus damage
Cummulative Percent of Yield
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46
Yield (t ha)
2005
Unconditional
No Constraint
Constraint No Pesticide
Constraint + Pesticide
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
UnitSCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
Model Small Open Economy
Adoption curve Conventional
(smooth)
Conventional
(smooth)
Irregular Irregular
Max adoption 35 35 35 35
Effective area
adopting GM
technology
Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950
Technology fee Ha 000 917 000 917
Average RampD and
technology transfer
costs
US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000
NPV of Producer
surplus
US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253
Internal rate of return na 101 na 764
Ex post studies completed by IFPRI and partners
A bit of historyhellipThe case of Bt cotton in the US
-22 -12 -14
58 37 37
141
80 97
63
8593
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1996
Industry
US Farmers
Consumers
Foreign Farmers
1997 1998
Industry
36
Consumers
19
US Farmers
45
Total benefit estimates (Millions US $)
Falck-Zepeda Traxler amp Nelson 1999 2000
GE Maize in Honduras
8th Latin American country adopting GMOs since 20021
Only country in Central America cultivating commercially GE food crops
-USA
-Brazil
-Argentina
-South Africa
-Canada
-Uruguay x15
-Philippines x3
-Spain x5
-Chile x7
-Honduras
-Portugal x8
-Czech Republic x 7
-Poland x3
-Egypt x9
-Slovakia x04
-Romania x2
bull By 2011 72 thousand ha with hybrids and GM 15 area planted1
bull GM estimated around 25-30 thousand ha
BT (MON810) RR (NK603) Herculex 1 YGVTPro
(MON89034) traits approved for commercialization
Major maize producing areas in Honduras
GE maize in Honduras First round surveys - 2008
Excellent target pest control
Bt yield advantage 893-1136 Kg ha-1 yield (24-33)
Bt maize yields preferred even by risk averse producers
100 higher seed cost than conventional hybrid
Institutional issues important
Photos credit copy Sanders and Trabanino 2008
ldquoSmall ldquoResource-Poorrdquo Countries Taking Advantage of the New Bioeconomy
and Innovation The Case of Insect ProtectedHerbicide Tolerant Maize in
Hondurasrdquo Jose Falck Zepeda Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Oswaldo
Medina and Rolando Batallas-Huacon Paper presented at the 13th ICABR
Conference ldquoThe Emerging Bio-Economyrdquo Ravello Italy June 17-20 2009
- 180000 metric tons
- 35000 planted hectares gt30 national corn production
- 12000 hectares with GM gt40 GM corn production
- 10000 farmers
- A range of different corn production systems
We captured diversity within the commercial corn production chain
GE maize in Honduras Results from second round surveys
Yield
(mtha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 53 478 - 502
Conventional plots 37 37
Difference 16 108 - 132
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
17 - 32
Income
(US$ha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754
Conventional plots 1244 1244
Difference 530 340 - 510
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
4 - 36
First and second round surveys Key Findings
bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides
bull Less environmental impact using EIQ
bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits
bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa
bull Estimation of potential adoption impact of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso Benin Mali Senegal and Togo
bull Study was done in preparation for the eventual approval of Bt cotton in the region
bull Only Burkina Faso adopted whereas Mali and Benin seem to have a precautionary stance towards the technology
bull Cotton is a major source of cash for resource poor farmers in the region
bull Remnants of the cotton system
Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa (2)
bull Use a modified economic method to account for productionfinancial risk and parameter uncertainty
bull Use scenarios to simulate policy questions
ndash No adoption in West Africa adoption elsewhere (impacts on competivity)
ndash Technology price (fee) including reductions
ndash Irregular adoption patterns
ndash Regulatory delays
Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa (3)
bull Some conclusionsndash If region decided not to adopt
the technology it will lose competivity as other regions continue to adopt Bt cotton
ndash Innovators and producers earn the largest share of additional benefits
ndash With a reduced technology fee probability that farmers earn positive net income increases
Mean = -277E+07
X lt=0
995
X lt= - 49173256
5
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
Net Present Value
(millions US$)
Pro
bab
ilit
y
(11
0-8
)
Scenario 1 Total Surplus West Africa
Mean = 332E+07
X lt= 0
386
X lt= 65732204
95
0
02
04
06
08
1
12
14
16
18
2
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Net Present Value
(million US$)
Pro
bab
ilit
y
(11
0-8
)
Scenario 3 Total Surplus West Africa
GM vegetables in Ghana
bull Examine likely impact of the introduction of GM varieties in Ghana
bull Examine four specific technologiesndash Tomatoes resistant to the Yellow Leaf Curl Virus
(TYLCV) disease
ndash Garden eggs (eggplant) resistant to the stem and fruit borer
ndash Cabbages resistant to the Diamond Back Moth (DBM)
ndash Cassava resistant to the African Cassava Mosaic Virus (ACMV) disease
GM vegetables in Ghana
bull Field surveys conducted in Ghana with conventional farmers
bull Asked farmers about potential effects
ndash Without the constraint
ndash With the constraint but without using pesticides
ndash With the constraint and chemical control of the pest
bull Methodologies
ndash Partial budgeting
ndash Economic surplus with stochastic simulations
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
bull There is indeed an impact on yields by the TYLCY virus in Ghana
bull Issues with proper control of white fly (vector) and thus of virus damage
Cummulative Percent of Yield
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46
Yield (t ha)
2005
Unconditional
No Constraint
Constraint No Pesticide
Constraint + Pesticide
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
UnitSCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
Model Small Open Economy
Adoption curve Conventional
(smooth)
Conventional
(smooth)
Irregular Irregular
Max adoption 35 35 35 35
Effective area
adopting GM
technology
Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950
Technology fee Ha 000 917 000 917
Average RampD and
technology transfer
costs
US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000
NPV of Producer
surplus
US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253
Internal rate of return na 101 na 764
Ex post studies completed by IFPRI and partners
A bit of historyhellipThe case of Bt cotton in the US
-22 -12 -14
58 37 37
141
80 97
63
8593
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1996
Industry
US Farmers
Consumers
Foreign Farmers
1997 1998
Industry
36
Consumers
19
US Farmers
45
Total benefit estimates (Millions US $)
Falck-Zepeda Traxler amp Nelson 1999 2000
GE Maize in Honduras
8th Latin American country adopting GMOs since 20021
Only country in Central America cultivating commercially GE food crops
-USA
-Brazil
-Argentina
-South Africa
-Canada
-Uruguay x15
-Philippines x3
-Spain x5
-Chile x7
-Honduras
-Portugal x8
-Czech Republic x 7
-Poland x3
-Egypt x9
-Slovakia x04
-Romania x2
bull By 2011 72 thousand ha with hybrids and GM 15 area planted1
bull GM estimated around 25-30 thousand ha
BT (MON810) RR (NK603) Herculex 1 YGVTPro
(MON89034) traits approved for commercialization
Major maize producing areas in Honduras
GE maize in Honduras First round surveys - 2008
Excellent target pest control
Bt yield advantage 893-1136 Kg ha-1 yield (24-33)
Bt maize yields preferred even by risk averse producers
100 higher seed cost than conventional hybrid
Institutional issues important
Photos credit copy Sanders and Trabanino 2008
ldquoSmall ldquoResource-Poorrdquo Countries Taking Advantage of the New Bioeconomy
and Innovation The Case of Insect ProtectedHerbicide Tolerant Maize in
Hondurasrdquo Jose Falck Zepeda Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Oswaldo
Medina and Rolando Batallas-Huacon Paper presented at the 13th ICABR
Conference ldquoThe Emerging Bio-Economyrdquo Ravello Italy June 17-20 2009
- 180000 metric tons
- 35000 planted hectares gt30 national corn production
- 12000 hectares with GM gt40 GM corn production
- 10000 farmers
- A range of different corn production systems
We captured diversity within the commercial corn production chain
GE maize in Honduras Results from second round surveys
Yield
(mtha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 53 478 - 502
Conventional plots 37 37
Difference 16 108 - 132
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
17 - 32
Income
(US$ha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754
Conventional plots 1244 1244
Difference 530 340 - 510
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
4 - 36
First and second round surveys Key Findings
bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides
bull Less environmental impact using EIQ
bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits
bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa (2)
bull Use a modified economic method to account for productionfinancial risk and parameter uncertainty
bull Use scenarios to simulate policy questions
ndash No adoption in West Africa adoption elsewhere (impacts on competivity)
ndash Technology price (fee) including reductions
ndash Irregular adoption patterns
ndash Regulatory delays
Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa (3)
bull Some conclusionsndash If region decided not to adopt
the technology it will lose competivity as other regions continue to adopt Bt cotton
ndash Innovators and producers earn the largest share of additional benefits
ndash With a reduced technology fee probability that farmers earn positive net income increases
Mean = -277E+07
X lt=0
995
X lt= - 49173256
5
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
Net Present Value
(millions US$)
Pro
bab
ilit
y
(11
0-8
)
Scenario 1 Total Surplus West Africa
Mean = 332E+07
X lt= 0
386
X lt= 65732204
95
0
02
04
06
08
1
12
14
16
18
2
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Net Present Value
(million US$)
Pro
bab
ilit
y
(11
0-8
)
Scenario 3 Total Surplus West Africa
GM vegetables in Ghana
bull Examine likely impact of the introduction of GM varieties in Ghana
bull Examine four specific technologiesndash Tomatoes resistant to the Yellow Leaf Curl Virus
(TYLCV) disease
ndash Garden eggs (eggplant) resistant to the stem and fruit borer
ndash Cabbages resistant to the Diamond Back Moth (DBM)
ndash Cassava resistant to the African Cassava Mosaic Virus (ACMV) disease
GM vegetables in Ghana
bull Field surveys conducted in Ghana with conventional farmers
bull Asked farmers about potential effects
ndash Without the constraint
ndash With the constraint but without using pesticides
ndash With the constraint and chemical control of the pest
bull Methodologies
ndash Partial budgeting
ndash Economic surplus with stochastic simulations
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
bull There is indeed an impact on yields by the TYLCY virus in Ghana
bull Issues with proper control of white fly (vector) and thus of virus damage
Cummulative Percent of Yield
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46
Yield (t ha)
2005
Unconditional
No Constraint
Constraint No Pesticide
Constraint + Pesticide
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
UnitSCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
Model Small Open Economy
Adoption curve Conventional
(smooth)
Conventional
(smooth)
Irregular Irregular
Max adoption 35 35 35 35
Effective area
adopting GM
technology
Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950
Technology fee Ha 000 917 000 917
Average RampD and
technology transfer
costs
US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000
NPV of Producer
surplus
US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253
Internal rate of return na 101 na 764
Ex post studies completed by IFPRI and partners
A bit of historyhellipThe case of Bt cotton in the US
-22 -12 -14
58 37 37
141
80 97
63
8593
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1996
Industry
US Farmers
Consumers
Foreign Farmers
1997 1998
Industry
36
Consumers
19
US Farmers
45
Total benefit estimates (Millions US $)
Falck-Zepeda Traxler amp Nelson 1999 2000
GE Maize in Honduras
8th Latin American country adopting GMOs since 20021
Only country in Central America cultivating commercially GE food crops
-USA
-Brazil
-Argentina
-South Africa
-Canada
-Uruguay x15
-Philippines x3
-Spain x5
-Chile x7
-Honduras
-Portugal x8
-Czech Republic x 7
-Poland x3
-Egypt x9
-Slovakia x04
-Romania x2
bull By 2011 72 thousand ha with hybrids and GM 15 area planted1
bull GM estimated around 25-30 thousand ha
BT (MON810) RR (NK603) Herculex 1 YGVTPro
(MON89034) traits approved for commercialization
Major maize producing areas in Honduras
GE maize in Honduras First round surveys - 2008
Excellent target pest control
Bt yield advantage 893-1136 Kg ha-1 yield (24-33)
Bt maize yields preferred even by risk averse producers
100 higher seed cost than conventional hybrid
Institutional issues important
Photos credit copy Sanders and Trabanino 2008
ldquoSmall ldquoResource-Poorrdquo Countries Taking Advantage of the New Bioeconomy
and Innovation The Case of Insect ProtectedHerbicide Tolerant Maize in
Hondurasrdquo Jose Falck Zepeda Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Oswaldo
Medina and Rolando Batallas-Huacon Paper presented at the 13th ICABR
Conference ldquoThe Emerging Bio-Economyrdquo Ravello Italy June 17-20 2009
- 180000 metric tons
- 35000 planted hectares gt30 national corn production
- 12000 hectares with GM gt40 GM corn production
- 10000 farmers
- A range of different corn production systems
We captured diversity within the commercial corn production chain
GE maize in Honduras Results from second round surveys
Yield
(mtha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 53 478 - 502
Conventional plots 37 37
Difference 16 108 - 132
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
17 - 32
Income
(US$ha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754
Conventional plots 1244 1244
Difference 530 340 - 510
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
4 - 36
First and second round surveys Key Findings
bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides
bull Less environmental impact using EIQ
bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits
bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa (3)
bull Some conclusionsndash If region decided not to adopt
the technology it will lose competivity as other regions continue to adopt Bt cotton
ndash Innovators and producers earn the largest share of additional benefits
ndash With a reduced technology fee probability that farmers earn positive net income increases
Mean = -277E+07
X lt=0
995
X lt= - 49173256
5
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
Net Present Value
(millions US$)
Pro
bab
ilit
y
(11
0-8
)
Scenario 1 Total Surplus West Africa
Mean = 332E+07
X lt= 0
386
X lt= 65732204
95
0
02
04
06
08
1
12
14
16
18
2
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Net Present Value
(million US$)
Pro
bab
ilit
y
(11
0-8
)
Scenario 3 Total Surplus West Africa
GM vegetables in Ghana
bull Examine likely impact of the introduction of GM varieties in Ghana
bull Examine four specific technologiesndash Tomatoes resistant to the Yellow Leaf Curl Virus
(TYLCV) disease
ndash Garden eggs (eggplant) resistant to the stem and fruit borer
ndash Cabbages resistant to the Diamond Back Moth (DBM)
ndash Cassava resistant to the African Cassava Mosaic Virus (ACMV) disease
GM vegetables in Ghana
bull Field surveys conducted in Ghana with conventional farmers
bull Asked farmers about potential effects
ndash Without the constraint
ndash With the constraint but without using pesticides
ndash With the constraint and chemical control of the pest
bull Methodologies
ndash Partial budgeting
ndash Economic surplus with stochastic simulations
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
bull There is indeed an impact on yields by the TYLCY virus in Ghana
bull Issues with proper control of white fly (vector) and thus of virus damage
Cummulative Percent of Yield
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46
Yield (t ha)
2005
Unconditional
No Constraint
Constraint No Pesticide
Constraint + Pesticide
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
UnitSCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
Model Small Open Economy
Adoption curve Conventional
(smooth)
Conventional
(smooth)
Irregular Irregular
Max adoption 35 35 35 35
Effective area
adopting GM
technology
Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950
Technology fee Ha 000 917 000 917
Average RampD and
technology transfer
costs
US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000
NPV of Producer
surplus
US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253
Internal rate of return na 101 na 764
Ex post studies completed by IFPRI and partners
A bit of historyhellipThe case of Bt cotton in the US
-22 -12 -14
58 37 37
141
80 97
63
8593
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1996
Industry
US Farmers
Consumers
Foreign Farmers
1997 1998
Industry
36
Consumers
19
US Farmers
45
Total benefit estimates (Millions US $)
Falck-Zepeda Traxler amp Nelson 1999 2000
GE Maize in Honduras
8th Latin American country adopting GMOs since 20021
Only country in Central America cultivating commercially GE food crops
-USA
-Brazil
-Argentina
-South Africa
-Canada
-Uruguay x15
-Philippines x3
-Spain x5
-Chile x7
-Honduras
-Portugal x8
-Czech Republic x 7
-Poland x3
-Egypt x9
-Slovakia x04
-Romania x2
bull By 2011 72 thousand ha with hybrids and GM 15 area planted1
bull GM estimated around 25-30 thousand ha
BT (MON810) RR (NK603) Herculex 1 YGVTPro
(MON89034) traits approved for commercialization
Major maize producing areas in Honduras
GE maize in Honduras First round surveys - 2008
Excellent target pest control
Bt yield advantage 893-1136 Kg ha-1 yield (24-33)
Bt maize yields preferred even by risk averse producers
100 higher seed cost than conventional hybrid
Institutional issues important
Photos credit copy Sanders and Trabanino 2008
ldquoSmall ldquoResource-Poorrdquo Countries Taking Advantage of the New Bioeconomy
and Innovation The Case of Insect ProtectedHerbicide Tolerant Maize in
Hondurasrdquo Jose Falck Zepeda Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Oswaldo
Medina and Rolando Batallas-Huacon Paper presented at the 13th ICABR
Conference ldquoThe Emerging Bio-Economyrdquo Ravello Italy June 17-20 2009
- 180000 metric tons
- 35000 planted hectares gt30 national corn production
- 12000 hectares with GM gt40 GM corn production
- 10000 farmers
- A range of different corn production systems
We captured diversity within the commercial corn production chain
GE maize in Honduras Results from second round surveys
Yield
(mtha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 53 478 - 502
Conventional plots 37 37
Difference 16 108 - 132
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
17 - 32
Income
(US$ha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754
Conventional plots 1244 1244
Difference 530 340 - 510
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
4 - 36
First and second round surveys Key Findings
bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides
bull Less environmental impact using EIQ
bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits
bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GM vegetables in Ghana
bull Examine likely impact of the introduction of GM varieties in Ghana
bull Examine four specific technologiesndash Tomatoes resistant to the Yellow Leaf Curl Virus
(TYLCV) disease
ndash Garden eggs (eggplant) resistant to the stem and fruit borer
ndash Cabbages resistant to the Diamond Back Moth (DBM)
ndash Cassava resistant to the African Cassava Mosaic Virus (ACMV) disease
GM vegetables in Ghana
bull Field surveys conducted in Ghana with conventional farmers
bull Asked farmers about potential effects
ndash Without the constraint
ndash With the constraint but without using pesticides
ndash With the constraint and chemical control of the pest
bull Methodologies
ndash Partial budgeting
ndash Economic surplus with stochastic simulations
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
bull There is indeed an impact on yields by the TYLCY virus in Ghana
bull Issues with proper control of white fly (vector) and thus of virus damage
Cummulative Percent of Yield
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46
Yield (t ha)
2005
Unconditional
No Constraint
Constraint No Pesticide
Constraint + Pesticide
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
UnitSCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
Model Small Open Economy
Adoption curve Conventional
(smooth)
Conventional
(smooth)
Irregular Irregular
Max adoption 35 35 35 35
Effective area
adopting GM
technology
Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950
Technology fee Ha 000 917 000 917
Average RampD and
technology transfer
costs
US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000
NPV of Producer
surplus
US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253
Internal rate of return na 101 na 764
Ex post studies completed by IFPRI and partners
A bit of historyhellipThe case of Bt cotton in the US
-22 -12 -14
58 37 37
141
80 97
63
8593
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1996
Industry
US Farmers
Consumers
Foreign Farmers
1997 1998
Industry
36
Consumers
19
US Farmers
45
Total benefit estimates (Millions US $)
Falck-Zepeda Traxler amp Nelson 1999 2000
GE Maize in Honduras
8th Latin American country adopting GMOs since 20021
Only country in Central America cultivating commercially GE food crops
-USA
-Brazil
-Argentina
-South Africa
-Canada
-Uruguay x15
-Philippines x3
-Spain x5
-Chile x7
-Honduras
-Portugal x8
-Czech Republic x 7
-Poland x3
-Egypt x9
-Slovakia x04
-Romania x2
bull By 2011 72 thousand ha with hybrids and GM 15 area planted1
bull GM estimated around 25-30 thousand ha
BT (MON810) RR (NK603) Herculex 1 YGVTPro
(MON89034) traits approved for commercialization
Major maize producing areas in Honduras
GE maize in Honduras First round surveys - 2008
Excellent target pest control
Bt yield advantage 893-1136 Kg ha-1 yield (24-33)
Bt maize yields preferred even by risk averse producers
100 higher seed cost than conventional hybrid
Institutional issues important
Photos credit copy Sanders and Trabanino 2008
ldquoSmall ldquoResource-Poorrdquo Countries Taking Advantage of the New Bioeconomy
and Innovation The Case of Insect ProtectedHerbicide Tolerant Maize in
Hondurasrdquo Jose Falck Zepeda Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Oswaldo
Medina and Rolando Batallas-Huacon Paper presented at the 13th ICABR
Conference ldquoThe Emerging Bio-Economyrdquo Ravello Italy June 17-20 2009
- 180000 metric tons
- 35000 planted hectares gt30 national corn production
- 12000 hectares with GM gt40 GM corn production
- 10000 farmers
- A range of different corn production systems
We captured diversity within the commercial corn production chain
GE maize in Honduras Results from second round surveys
Yield
(mtha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 53 478 - 502
Conventional plots 37 37
Difference 16 108 - 132
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
17 - 32
Income
(US$ha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754
Conventional plots 1244 1244
Difference 530 340 - 510
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
4 - 36
First and second round surveys Key Findings
bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides
bull Less environmental impact using EIQ
bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits
bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GM vegetables in Ghana
bull Field surveys conducted in Ghana with conventional farmers
bull Asked farmers about potential effects
ndash Without the constraint
ndash With the constraint but without using pesticides
ndash With the constraint and chemical control of the pest
bull Methodologies
ndash Partial budgeting
ndash Economic surplus with stochastic simulations
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
bull There is indeed an impact on yields by the TYLCY virus in Ghana
bull Issues with proper control of white fly (vector) and thus of virus damage
Cummulative Percent of Yield
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46
Yield (t ha)
2005
Unconditional
No Constraint
Constraint No Pesticide
Constraint + Pesticide
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
UnitSCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
Model Small Open Economy
Adoption curve Conventional
(smooth)
Conventional
(smooth)
Irregular Irregular
Max adoption 35 35 35 35
Effective area
adopting GM
technology
Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950
Technology fee Ha 000 917 000 917
Average RampD and
technology transfer
costs
US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000
NPV of Producer
surplus
US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253
Internal rate of return na 101 na 764
Ex post studies completed by IFPRI and partners
A bit of historyhellipThe case of Bt cotton in the US
-22 -12 -14
58 37 37
141
80 97
63
8593
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1996
Industry
US Farmers
Consumers
Foreign Farmers
1997 1998
Industry
36
Consumers
19
US Farmers
45
Total benefit estimates (Millions US $)
Falck-Zepeda Traxler amp Nelson 1999 2000
GE Maize in Honduras
8th Latin American country adopting GMOs since 20021
Only country in Central America cultivating commercially GE food crops
-USA
-Brazil
-Argentina
-South Africa
-Canada
-Uruguay x15
-Philippines x3
-Spain x5
-Chile x7
-Honduras
-Portugal x8
-Czech Republic x 7
-Poland x3
-Egypt x9
-Slovakia x04
-Romania x2
bull By 2011 72 thousand ha with hybrids and GM 15 area planted1
bull GM estimated around 25-30 thousand ha
BT (MON810) RR (NK603) Herculex 1 YGVTPro
(MON89034) traits approved for commercialization
Major maize producing areas in Honduras
GE maize in Honduras First round surveys - 2008
Excellent target pest control
Bt yield advantage 893-1136 Kg ha-1 yield (24-33)
Bt maize yields preferred even by risk averse producers
100 higher seed cost than conventional hybrid
Institutional issues important
Photos credit copy Sanders and Trabanino 2008
ldquoSmall ldquoResource-Poorrdquo Countries Taking Advantage of the New Bioeconomy
and Innovation The Case of Insect ProtectedHerbicide Tolerant Maize in
Hondurasrdquo Jose Falck Zepeda Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Oswaldo
Medina and Rolando Batallas-Huacon Paper presented at the 13th ICABR
Conference ldquoThe Emerging Bio-Economyrdquo Ravello Italy June 17-20 2009
- 180000 metric tons
- 35000 planted hectares gt30 national corn production
- 12000 hectares with GM gt40 GM corn production
- 10000 farmers
- A range of different corn production systems
We captured diversity within the commercial corn production chain
GE maize in Honduras Results from second round surveys
Yield
(mtha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 53 478 - 502
Conventional plots 37 37
Difference 16 108 - 132
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
17 - 32
Income
(US$ha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754
Conventional plots 1244 1244
Difference 530 340 - 510
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
4 - 36
First and second round surveys Key Findings
bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides
bull Less environmental impact using EIQ
bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits
bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
bull There is indeed an impact on yields by the TYLCY virus in Ghana
bull Issues with proper control of white fly (vector) and thus of virus damage
Cummulative Percent of Yield
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46
Yield (t ha)
2005
Unconditional
No Constraint
Constraint No Pesticide
Constraint + Pesticide
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
UnitSCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
Model Small Open Economy
Adoption curve Conventional
(smooth)
Conventional
(smooth)
Irregular Irregular
Max adoption 35 35 35 35
Effective area
adopting GM
technology
Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950
Technology fee Ha 000 917 000 917
Average RampD and
technology transfer
costs
US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000
NPV of Producer
surplus
US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253
Internal rate of return na 101 na 764
Ex post studies completed by IFPRI and partners
A bit of historyhellipThe case of Bt cotton in the US
-22 -12 -14
58 37 37
141
80 97
63
8593
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1996
Industry
US Farmers
Consumers
Foreign Farmers
1997 1998
Industry
36
Consumers
19
US Farmers
45
Total benefit estimates (Millions US $)
Falck-Zepeda Traxler amp Nelson 1999 2000
GE Maize in Honduras
8th Latin American country adopting GMOs since 20021
Only country in Central America cultivating commercially GE food crops
-USA
-Brazil
-Argentina
-South Africa
-Canada
-Uruguay x15
-Philippines x3
-Spain x5
-Chile x7
-Honduras
-Portugal x8
-Czech Republic x 7
-Poland x3
-Egypt x9
-Slovakia x04
-Romania x2
bull By 2011 72 thousand ha with hybrids and GM 15 area planted1
bull GM estimated around 25-30 thousand ha
BT (MON810) RR (NK603) Herculex 1 YGVTPro
(MON89034) traits approved for commercialization
Major maize producing areas in Honduras
GE maize in Honduras First round surveys - 2008
Excellent target pest control
Bt yield advantage 893-1136 Kg ha-1 yield (24-33)
Bt maize yields preferred even by risk averse producers
100 higher seed cost than conventional hybrid
Institutional issues important
Photos credit copy Sanders and Trabanino 2008
ldquoSmall ldquoResource-Poorrdquo Countries Taking Advantage of the New Bioeconomy
and Innovation The Case of Insect ProtectedHerbicide Tolerant Maize in
Hondurasrdquo Jose Falck Zepeda Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Oswaldo
Medina and Rolando Batallas-Huacon Paper presented at the 13th ICABR
Conference ldquoThe Emerging Bio-Economyrdquo Ravello Italy June 17-20 2009
- 180000 metric tons
- 35000 planted hectares gt30 national corn production
- 12000 hectares with GM gt40 GM corn production
- 10000 farmers
- A range of different corn production systems
We captured diversity within the commercial corn production chain
GE maize in Honduras Results from second round surveys
Yield
(mtha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 53 478 - 502
Conventional plots 37 37
Difference 16 108 - 132
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
17 - 32
Income
(US$ha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754
Conventional plots 1244 1244
Difference 530 340 - 510
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
4 - 36
First and second round surveys Key Findings
bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides
bull Less environmental impact using EIQ
bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits
bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato
UnitSCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
Model Small Open Economy
Adoption curve Conventional
(smooth)
Conventional
(smooth)
Irregular Irregular
Max adoption 35 35 35 35
Effective area
adopting GM
technology
Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950
Technology fee Ha 000 917 000 917
Average RampD and
technology transfer
costs
US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000
NPV of Producer
surplus
US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253
Internal rate of return na 101 na 764
Ex post studies completed by IFPRI and partners
A bit of historyhellipThe case of Bt cotton in the US
-22 -12 -14
58 37 37
141
80 97
63
8593
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1996
Industry
US Farmers
Consumers
Foreign Farmers
1997 1998
Industry
36
Consumers
19
US Farmers
45
Total benefit estimates (Millions US $)
Falck-Zepeda Traxler amp Nelson 1999 2000
GE Maize in Honduras
8th Latin American country adopting GMOs since 20021
Only country in Central America cultivating commercially GE food crops
-USA
-Brazil
-Argentina
-South Africa
-Canada
-Uruguay x15
-Philippines x3
-Spain x5
-Chile x7
-Honduras
-Portugal x8
-Czech Republic x 7
-Poland x3
-Egypt x9
-Slovakia x04
-Romania x2
bull By 2011 72 thousand ha with hybrids and GM 15 area planted1
bull GM estimated around 25-30 thousand ha
BT (MON810) RR (NK603) Herculex 1 YGVTPro
(MON89034) traits approved for commercialization
Major maize producing areas in Honduras
GE maize in Honduras First round surveys - 2008
Excellent target pest control
Bt yield advantage 893-1136 Kg ha-1 yield (24-33)
Bt maize yields preferred even by risk averse producers
100 higher seed cost than conventional hybrid
Institutional issues important
Photos credit copy Sanders and Trabanino 2008
ldquoSmall ldquoResource-Poorrdquo Countries Taking Advantage of the New Bioeconomy
and Innovation The Case of Insect ProtectedHerbicide Tolerant Maize in
Hondurasrdquo Jose Falck Zepeda Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Oswaldo
Medina and Rolando Batallas-Huacon Paper presented at the 13th ICABR
Conference ldquoThe Emerging Bio-Economyrdquo Ravello Italy June 17-20 2009
- 180000 metric tons
- 35000 planted hectares gt30 national corn production
- 12000 hectares with GM gt40 GM corn production
- 10000 farmers
- A range of different corn production systems
We captured diversity within the commercial corn production chain
GE maize in Honduras Results from second round surveys
Yield
(mtha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 53 478 - 502
Conventional plots 37 37
Difference 16 108 - 132
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
17 - 32
Income
(US$ha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754
Conventional plots 1244 1244
Difference 530 340 - 510
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
4 - 36
First and second round surveys Key Findings
bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides
bull Less environmental impact using EIQ
bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits
bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
Ex post studies completed by IFPRI and partners
A bit of historyhellipThe case of Bt cotton in the US
-22 -12 -14
58 37 37
141
80 97
63
8593
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1996
Industry
US Farmers
Consumers
Foreign Farmers
1997 1998
Industry
36
Consumers
19
US Farmers
45
Total benefit estimates (Millions US $)
Falck-Zepeda Traxler amp Nelson 1999 2000
GE Maize in Honduras
8th Latin American country adopting GMOs since 20021
Only country in Central America cultivating commercially GE food crops
-USA
-Brazil
-Argentina
-South Africa
-Canada
-Uruguay x15
-Philippines x3
-Spain x5
-Chile x7
-Honduras
-Portugal x8
-Czech Republic x 7
-Poland x3
-Egypt x9
-Slovakia x04
-Romania x2
bull By 2011 72 thousand ha with hybrids and GM 15 area planted1
bull GM estimated around 25-30 thousand ha
BT (MON810) RR (NK603) Herculex 1 YGVTPro
(MON89034) traits approved for commercialization
Major maize producing areas in Honduras
GE maize in Honduras First round surveys - 2008
Excellent target pest control
Bt yield advantage 893-1136 Kg ha-1 yield (24-33)
Bt maize yields preferred even by risk averse producers
100 higher seed cost than conventional hybrid
Institutional issues important
Photos credit copy Sanders and Trabanino 2008
ldquoSmall ldquoResource-Poorrdquo Countries Taking Advantage of the New Bioeconomy
and Innovation The Case of Insect ProtectedHerbicide Tolerant Maize in
Hondurasrdquo Jose Falck Zepeda Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Oswaldo
Medina and Rolando Batallas-Huacon Paper presented at the 13th ICABR
Conference ldquoThe Emerging Bio-Economyrdquo Ravello Italy June 17-20 2009
- 180000 metric tons
- 35000 planted hectares gt30 national corn production
- 12000 hectares with GM gt40 GM corn production
- 10000 farmers
- A range of different corn production systems
We captured diversity within the commercial corn production chain
GE maize in Honduras Results from second round surveys
Yield
(mtha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 53 478 - 502
Conventional plots 37 37
Difference 16 108 - 132
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
17 - 32
Income
(US$ha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754
Conventional plots 1244 1244
Difference 530 340 - 510
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
4 - 36
First and second round surveys Key Findings
bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides
bull Less environmental impact using EIQ
bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits
bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
A bit of historyhellipThe case of Bt cotton in the US
-22 -12 -14
58 37 37
141
80 97
63
8593
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1996
Industry
US Farmers
Consumers
Foreign Farmers
1997 1998
Industry
36
Consumers
19
US Farmers
45
Total benefit estimates (Millions US $)
Falck-Zepeda Traxler amp Nelson 1999 2000
GE Maize in Honduras
8th Latin American country adopting GMOs since 20021
Only country in Central America cultivating commercially GE food crops
-USA
-Brazil
-Argentina
-South Africa
-Canada
-Uruguay x15
-Philippines x3
-Spain x5
-Chile x7
-Honduras
-Portugal x8
-Czech Republic x 7
-Poland x3
-Egypt x9
-Slovakia x04
-Romania x2
bull By 2011 72 thousand ha with hybrids and GM 15 area planted1
bull GM estimated around 25-30 thousand ha
BT (MON810) RR (NK603) Herculex 1 YGVTPro
(MON89034) traits approved for commercialization
Major maize producing areas in Honduras
GE maize in Honduras First round surveys - 2008
Excellent target pest control
Bt yield advantage 893-1136 Kg ha-1 yield (24-33)
Bt maize yields preferred even by risk averse producers
100 higher seed cost than conventional hybrid
Institutional issues important
Photos credit copy Sanders and Trabanino 2008
ldquoSmall ldquoResource-Poorrdquo Countries Taking Advantage of the New Bioeconomy
and Innovation The Case of Insect ProtectedHerbicide Tolerant Maize in
Hondurasrdquo Jose Falck Zepeda Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Oswaldo
Medina and Rolando Batallas-Huacon Paper presented at the 13th ICABR
Conference ldquoThe Emerging Bio-Economyrdquo Ravello Italy June 17-20 2009
- 180000 metric tons
- 35000 planted hectares gt30 national corn production
- 12000 hectares with GM gt40 GM corn production
- 10000 farmers
- A range of different corn production systems
We captured diversity within the commercial corn production chain
GE maize in Honduras Results from second round surveys
Yield
(mtha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 53 478 - 502
Conventional plots 37 37
Difference 16 108 - 132
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
17 - 32
Income
(US$ha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754
Conventional plots 1244 1244
Difference 530 340 - 510
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
4 - 36
First and second round surveys Key Findings
bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides
bull Less environmental impact using EIQ
bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits
bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GE Maize in Honduras
8th Latin American country adopting GMOs since 20021
Only country in Central America cultivating commercially GE food crops
-USA
-Brazil
-Argentina
-South Africa
-Canada
-Uruguay x15
-Philippines x3
-Spain x5
-Chile x7
-Honduras
-Portugal x8
-Czech Republic x 7
-Poland x3
-Egypt x9
-Slovakia x04
-Romania x2
bull By 2011 72 thousand ha with hybrids and GM 15 area planted1
bull GM estimated around 25-30 thousand ha
BT (MON810) RR (NK603) Herculex 1 YGVTPro
(MON89034) traits approved for commercialization
Major maize producing areas in Honduras
GE maize in Honduras First round surveys - 2008
Excellent target pest control
Bt yield advantage 893-1136 Kg ha-1 yield (24-33)
Bt maize yields preferred even by risk averse producers
100 higher seed cost than conventional hybrid
Institutional issues important
Photos credit copy Sanders and Trabanino 2008
ldquoSmall ldquoResource-Poorrdquo Countries Taking Advantage of the New Bioeconomy
and Innovation The Case of Insect ProtectedHerbicide Tolerant Maize in
Hondurasrdquo Jose Falck Zepeda Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Oswaldo
Medina and Rolando Batallas-Huacon Paper presented at the 13th ICABR
Conference ldquoThe Emerging Bio-Economyrdquo Ravello Italy June 17-20 2009
- 180000 metric tons
- 35000 planted hectares gt30 national corn production
- 12000 hectares with GM gt40 GM corn production
- 10000 farmers
- A range of different corn production systems
We captured diversity within the commercial corn production chain
GE maize in Honduras Results from second round surveys
Yield
(mtha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 53 478 - 502
Conventional plots 37 37
Difference 16 108 - 132
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
17 - 32
Income
(US$ha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754
Conventional plots 1244 1244
Difference 530 340 - 510
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
4 - 36
First and second round surveys Key Findings
bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides
bull Less environmental impact using EIQ
bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits
bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
Major maize producing areas in Honduras
GE maize in Honduras First round surveys - 2008
Excellent target pest control
Bt yield advantage 893-1136 Kg ha-1 yield (24-33)
Bt maize yields preferred even by risk averse producers
100 higher seed cost than conventional hybrid
Institutional issues important
Photos credit copy Sanders and Trabanino 2008
ldquoSmall ldquoResource-Poorrdquo Countries Taking Advantage of the New Bioeconomy
and Innovation The Case of Insect ProtectedHerbicide Tolerant Maize in
Hondurasrdquo Jose Falck Zepeda Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Oswaldo
Medina and Rolando Batallas-Huacon Paper presented at the 13th ICABR
Conference ldquoThe Emerging Bio-Economyrdquo Ravello Italy June 17-20 2009
- 180000 metric tons
- 35000 planted hectares gt30 national corn production
- 12000 hectares with GM gt40 GM corn production
- 10000 farmers
- A range of different corn production systems
We captured diversity within the commercial corn production chain
GE maize in Honduras Results from second round surveys
Yield
(mtha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 53 478 - 502
Conventional plots 37 37
Difference 16 108 - 132
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
17 - 32
Income
(US$ha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754
Conventional plots 1244 1244
Difference 530 340 - 510
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
4 - 36
First and second round surveys Key Findings
bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides
bull Less environmental impact using EIQ
bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits
bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GE maize in Honduras First round surveys - 2008
Excellent target pest control
Bt yield advantage 893-1136 Kg ha-1 yield (24-33)
Bt maize yields preferred even by risk averse producers
100 higher seed cost than conventional hybrid
Institutional issues important
Photos credit copy Sanders and Trabanino 2008
ldquoSmall ldquoResource-Poorrdquo Countries Taking Advantage of the New Bioeconomy
and Innovation The Case of Insect ProtectedHerbicide Tolerant Maize in
Hondurasrdquo Jose Falck Zepeda Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Oswaldo
Medina and Rolando Batallas-Huacon Paper presented at the 13th ICABR
Conference ldquoThe Emerging Bio-Economyrdquo Ravello Italy June 17-20 2009
- 180000 metric tons
- 35000 planted hectares gt30 national corn production
- 12000 hectares with GM gt40 GM corn production
- 10000 farmers
- A range of different corn production systems
We captured diversity within the commercial corn production chain
GE maize in Honduras Results from second round surveys
Yield
(mtha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 53 478 - 502
Conventional plots 37 37
Difference 16 108 - 132
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
17 - 32
Income
(US$ha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754
Conventional plots 1244 1244
Difference 530 340 - 510
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
4 - 36
First and second round surveys Key Findings
bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides
bull Less environmental impact using EIQ
bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits
bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
- 180000 metric tons
- 35000 planted hectares gt30 national corn production
- 12000 hectares with GM gt40 GM corn production
- 10000 farmers
- A range of different corn production systems
We captured diversity within the commercial corn production chain
GE maize in Honduras Results from second round surveys
Yield
(mtha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 53 478 - 502
Conventional plots 37 37
Difference 16 108 - 132
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
17 - 32
Income
(US$ha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754
Conventional plots 1244 1244
Difference 530 340 - 510
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
4 - 36
First and second round surveys Key Findings
bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides
bull Less environmental impact using EIQ
bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits
bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GE maize in Honduras Results from second round surveys
Yield
(mtha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 53 478 - 502
Conventional plots 37 37
Difference 16 108 - 132
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
17 - 32
Income
(US$ha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
for sampling bias
andor outliers
GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754
Conventional plots 1244 1244
Difference 530 340 - 510
Estimate of the impact of
sampling bias andor outliers
()
4 - 36
First and second round surveys Key Findings
bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides
bull Less environmental impact using EIQ
bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits
bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
First and second round surveys Key Findings
bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides
bull Less environmental impact using EIQ
bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits
bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008
bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields
bull Significant insecticide use reductions
bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas
ndash Use hired labor
ndash More educated
ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share () 92
Innovator Share () 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data
Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha
Adoption 252507 1041794
Area planted to maize 599935 1224369
Distance from seed source -39645 -153728
Credit lt0001 0845
Seed expenses -0034 -3908
Hired labor expenses 0071 1509
Fertilizer expenses 0002 072
Pesticide expenses -1391 8014
Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668
Seed price 2737 45428
Income from livestock -0439
Non-farm income 2756
Yieldha 10386
Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825
Constant 460678 -2384125
Number of Obs 234 234
R2 (within) 0558 0659
ProbgtF 0000 0000
rho 0411 0353
= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GE cotton in Colombia
Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions
Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important
Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers
Institutional context critical
Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009
Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and
agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19
London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GE soybeans in Bolivia
bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers
bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports
bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia
bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context
bull Government opposition
to GM crops
bull GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
bull Political tensions
bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GE soybeans in Bolivia study site
Farm survey
124 farmers
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa
Cruz
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations
bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition
ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community
ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR
Yield (tha) 147 191
Price (US$t) 40932 39859
Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083
Costs (US$ha)
Seed 2346 2678
Herbicides 4153 3225
Insecticides 2134 2412
Fungicides 3793 3786
Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503
Machinery 5502 5213
All other labor costs 350 225
Other variable costs 16174 14667
Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254
Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample
bull Limitations of a one year data
Findings
bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand
bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans
bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
bull Information flows varies by type of farmer
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
Why Gender and GM
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X
Access to land Granted by head HH
Access to credit farm inputs X
Ability to hire personnel X
Access to information extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers
X
Work contribution in familymale plots
Active participation in the overall cotton operation
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages
Labor-saving technologies
bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates
ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha
ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips
ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
GE cotton in Colombia advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
ndash Less hired male laborers
bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)
bull Saved supervision
ndash Use of additional income
bull Women invest in their family
bull Men invest in leisure activities
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37
Weeding 59 109 17 185
Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02
Total 61 107 18 186
Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons
(7 hr man daysha)
Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date
bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies
bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household
and community
ndash Industry and markets
ndash Consumers
ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha
Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first
decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) 107 pages
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo
ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown
ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects
ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility
ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops
ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias
ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies
bull Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard
bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries
bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
Our Team and Partners
Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna
Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the
Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes
Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz
(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez
Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck
Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow
IFPRI 2033 K Street NW
Washington DC 20006-1002USA
jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs
httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda
Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom
Follow me on Twitter josefalck