Economic impacts of GM crops on smallholders in the Philippines, Honduras, Colombia and Bolivia

Transcription

1 Economic impacts of GM crops on smallholders in the Philippines, Honduras, Colombia and Bolivia Melinda Smale, Patricia Zambrano, Jose Yorobe and José Falck-Zepeda

2 Outline I. Project goals II. Highlights of systematic review III. Selection of case studies/methods IV. Preliminary findings V. Conclusions Page 2

3 Goals Develop good practices for assessing the impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture Conduct systematic review Pilot methods in the field Contribute new evidence

4 Systematic Review In the first decade, Impact on farmers foremost concern Bt cotton the most studied crop-trait combination China, India and South Africa most represented countries Impact Question No. Farmer 67 Consumer 27 Sector 27 Trade 26 Total article may treat more than on question Crop-trait No. Cotton (Bt) 63 Maize (Bt) 14 Rice (RR,Bt) 16 Soybeans (RR) 16 Other Crops 22 GE-General 20 Other crops: bananas, potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassava, wheat, oilseeds, eggplant, mustard, coarse grains Page 4

5 Farm Impacts Methods Generally addressed ex post Data sources: farmer survey, trial data, farm records Farm budget analysis Stochastic simulation Econometric models Production models/input use functions Stated /revealed preference models Page 5

6 Farm impacts of Bt cotton Aspects of Impact India China South Africa (Makhathini Flats) Argentina Adoption Regional disparities Wide range of germplasm Large scale Wide range of germplasm Atypical zone; Supply-driven Limited by transfer fee Economic benefits Generally positive with exceptions Generally positive in Yellow River Valley Generally positive but farmers vulnerable Limited magnitude Reduction in pesticide use Highly variable depending on the zone Strong relative reduction ; still too high Limited Evident Social and economic sustainability Too early to say ; farmers more knowledgeable Since 1999 Institutional problems ; subsidized Yes, but impact insignificant General conclusion Most debated case Most successful case Least representative case Least relevant case Page 6

7 Methods challenges Selection bias Measurement bias Estimation bias placement self-selection host germplasm farmer recall vs. monitoring of input use toxin expression varies by season and plant part budgets partial household farm models missing rare treatment of risk & uncertainty endogeneity (adoption, input use)

8 Case Studies Selection criteria: Broader geographical representation Traits not heavily studied Early phases of adoption Approaches: Damage abatement models Treatment model (IV) Choice experiments Stochastic budgeting Social network analysis

9 Bt maize in the Philippines Antonio La Vina, Jose Yorobe Jr., Jessica Dator- Bercilla, Mary Jean Caleda, Hazel Alfon, and Loraine Gatlabayan Yellow maize for feed 466 farmers in 16 villages Isabela Province, Luzon So. Cotabato Province, Mindanao

10 Bt maize in the Philippines Adopters larger farms, more hired labor more positive perceptions of current and future status more educated wealthier, less risk averse Controlling statistically for these factors and other sources of bias, growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields, and reduces use of insecticides

11 Bt maize in the Philippines Seed Attribute Isabela So. Cotabato Yield loss from borer with Ekin Birol Bt farmers Non-Bt farmers All farmers Bt maize Farmer informant vs. input agent Credit or cash vs. cash

12 Bt maize in the Philippines Density Bt Non - Bt Predicted Net Income (P/ha) Kernel density of predicted net farm income for Bt and non-bt maize growers Page 12

13 Bt maize in the Philippines Impact on farms using Bt and non-bt hybrid maize Variables Bt Non-Bt Ave. Yield loss (%) Ave. Income per ha.(pesos) 24,549 16,664 Ave. Non-Farm Income(pesos/mo) 4,532 1,510 Page 13

14 Bt maize in Honduras Bt maize, Honduras Arie Sanders, Rogelio Trabanino, Jose Falck-Zepeda Maize is a subsistence crop Sample of 114 growers (21% of estimated total)

15 Bt maize in Honduras 1. Field trial with isogenic lines 2. On-farm evaluation Large-scale producers Small producers (Farmer Field School) 3. Detailed farmer surveys 4. Institutional analysis

16 Bt maize in Honduras In situ, large farmers Non-Bt hybrid (isogenic) had 2 insecticide applications and Bt hybrid none Yield of non-bt and Bt hybrids the same Hybrids Insecticide Applications (#) Productivity (Kg / Ha) Pest Control (US$/ Ha) DK234 RRYG 0 6, * DK ,

17 Bt maize in Honduras In situ, smallholders Bt maize produced 1,136 kg more per hectare

18 Bt maize in Honduras Producer survey Non-Bt Bt Farm size (ha) * Yield * 4,931 5,909 Owns land (%) Mechanized (%) * Irrigation (%) * 6 26 Credit (%) * No. fertilizer apps * No. insecticide apps * Note: * P < 0.10; **P < 0.05; *** P< 0.01 Bt adopters have higher yields and lower insecticide costs

19 Bt Cotton in Colombia Patricia Zambrano, Luz Amparo Fonseca, Iván Cardona, and Eduardo Magalhaes Farm survey 364 farmers season 18 municipalities in Tolima, Córdoba and Sucre

20 Bt Cotton in Colombia Variable Tolima Cordoba Sucre Non- Bt Bt Non-Bt Bt Non-Bt Bt Farm size ha* Rent land % Irrigated area % Education hh head Adequate housing % Cotton % of income

21 Bt Cotton in Colombia IV estimation yield Variable Tolima Coast Whether farmer adopts Bt + -- Owns harvester + Rents land + -- No. applications to control boll weevil Cordoba + Labor cost + +

22 Bt cotton in Colombia High levels of insecticide use continue Use of Bt seed largely determined by access of local associations to services and credit Lack of information about Bt seed and crop management Poor biosafety practices in field trials and refugia

23 RR Soybeans in Bolivia Rodrigo Paz Willy Fernández Melinda Smale Patricia Zambrano Farm survey 124 farmers l04 local 20 Mennonites Cuatro Cañadas

24 RR Soybeans in Bolivia Sample

25 RR Soybeans in Bolivia Variable Non-RR RR No. households * Soybean area (ha )* Education hh head 5 7 Age hh head % hh heads earning income in nonsoybean activities * 22% 37% Page 25

26 RR Soybean in Bolivia Chemicals Non-RR RR Fungicide Herbicides Glyphosate Insecticide Fertilizer ($USD/ha)

27 Conclusions Methods Agronomic/biophysical protocols needed Random sampling difficult Weather, conflicts; need panel data Improve analytical methods Broaden impact themes Findings More endowed farmers adopt first Institutional context crucial Strengthen farmer knowledge