and environmental
play

and Environmental Impacts of LMOs: The Case of Bt Corn in the - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. The Socio-economic and Environmental Impacts of LMOs: The Case of Bt Corn in the Philippines* Leonardo A. Gonzales, PhD** *Paper presented during the Tuesday Forum of the MAP ABCD Foundation, Formation House, Estrada St.


  1. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. The Socio-economic and Environmental Impacts of LMOs: The Case of Bt Corn in the Philippines* Leonardo A. Gonzales, PhD** *Paper presented during the Tuesday Forum of the MAP ABCD Foundation, Formation House, Estrada St. Corner Amapola St. Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City, Metro Manila ** Founding President and Chairman, SIKAP/STRIVE, Inc. Email: lag@strivefoundation.com

  2. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. Outline of the Presentation • Global Trends in the Commercial Adoption of GM Crops • Empirical Findings of the SIKAP/STRIVE, Inc. Impact Assessment Study • Conclusions • Recommendations

  3. I S A A A

  4. Global Area (Million Hectares) of Biotech Crops, 2014: by Country I S A A A Biotech Mega Countries 50,000 hectares (125,000 acres), or more Million Hectares 1. USA 73.1 2. Brazil* 42.2 3. Argentina* 24.3 2% Africa 4. India* 11.6 5. Canada 11.6 6. China* 3.9 87% 11% Asia 7. Paraguay* 3.9 8. Pakistan* 2.9 Americas 9. South Africa* 2.7 10. Uruguay* 1.6 11. Bolivia* 1.0 12. Philippines* 0.8 13. Australia 0.5 14. Burkina Faso* 0.5 15. Myanmar* 0.3 16. Mexico* 0.2 28 countries which have adopted 17. Spain 0.1 Increase over 2013 biotech crops 18. Colombia* 0.1 19. Sudan* 0.1 In 2014, global area of biotech Less than 50,000 hectares crops was 181.5 million hectares, 3 to 4% representing an increase of 3 to Honduras* Romania 4% over 2013, equivalent to 6.3 Chile* Slovakia million hectares. Portugal Costa Rica* Cuba* Bangladesh* Czech Republic Source: Clive James, 2014. * Developing countries

  5. Global Area of Biotech Crops, 1996 to 2014: By Trait (Million Hectares, Million Acres) I S A A A M Acres 297 120 Herbicide Tolerance 247 100 Stacked Traits Insect Resistance (Bt) 198 80 148 60 99 40 49 20 0 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Source: Clive James, 2014

  6. Global Adoption Rates (%) for Principal Biotech Crops (Million Hectares, Million Acres), 2014 I S A A A M Acres 494 200 184 Conventional 445 180 395 160 Biotech 346 140 111 296 120 247 100 198 80 140 60 37 36 99 40 49 20 0 0 82% 68% 30% 25% Soybean Cotton Maize Canola Source: Clive James, 2014 Hectarage based on FAO Preliminary Data for 2012.

  7. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. LMO ADOPTION IN THE PHILIPPINES • The GM corn technology is now more ten years old in the Philippines  In 2002: Bt or corn borer resistant corn  In 2005: HT or herbicide tolerant corn; and Bt/HT or Stacked corn  In 2007: Bt corn first renewal of propagation permit  In 2014: Around 830,000 hectares were planted to GM Corn. 7

  8. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. Area Planted to Yellow Corn by Seed Technology, 1995-2013. 1400 1200 Area Planted ('000 ha) 1000 800 600 2005/2010 : Bt NK603, Bt11, 2002/2007 : Stacked MON810 400 HT Stacked (Bt/HT) 200 Pyramided Stacked Yellow Corn 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Year 8 Note: 1995-2013 data series came from BPI; 2012 and 2013 are own estimates of SIKAP/STRIVE, Inc.

  9. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY • Covered nine major corn producing provinces • Eight cropping seasons (2003-2004  2011-2012) • Sample corn households of 3,505

  10. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY The basic research hypothesis was:  Technological innovations like GM Products are sustainable if they provide positive socio-economic impacts to society and are compliant with the basic requirements of the natural resource systems. 10

  11. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS A. Impacts of Bt Corn 2003-2011 Microeconomic farm level impacts 11

  12. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS A.1 Farm level impact – Yield • The average yield advantage of Bt corn over ordinary hybrid (OH) corn was 19% from 2003 to 2011. • The corn borer resistance agronomic trait of Bt corn largely contributed to the yield difference. 12

  13. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. Trends in Yellow Corn Yield by Seed Technology. 7.0 Yellow Corn (National) Bt 6.0 19% GM (Bt, HT and Bt/HT) Average Bt vs Ordinary Hybrid OH 5.0 Yield (mt/ha) 22% OH vs Natio- 4.0 nal 3.0 2002/2007 : 2005/2010 : MON810 NK603, Bt11 2.0 2007 : El 2004-05 : Niño El Niño 1.0 0.0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year 13

  14. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS A.1 Farm level impact – Cost • On the average, Bt corn has a cost advantage of 10% relative to OH corn from 2003 to 2011. 14

  15. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. Trends in Yellow Corn Farm Production Cost. Farm Level Production Cost (P/kg, 2003 Constant Prices) 5.0 4.5 10% Bt vs 4.0 OH 3.5 3.0 2.5 Bt 2.0 2005/2010 : 2002/2007 : GM (Bt, HT and Bt/HT) Average NK603, Bt11 MON810 1.5 Ordinary Hybrid 1.0 0.5 0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year 15

  16. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS A.1 Farm level impact – Income • The average real peso per kilogram income advantage of Bt corn over OH corn was 8% per annum from 2003 to 2011. 16

  17. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. Trends in Yellow Corn Farm Income. 5.5 Farm Level Income (P/kg, 2003 Constant Prices) 5.0 4.5 8% Bt vs 4.0 OH 3.5 3.0 2.5 Bt 2002/2007 : 2005/2010 : 2.0 MON810 NK603, Bt11 GM (Bt, HT and Bt/HT) Average 1.5 Ordinary Hybrid 1.0 0.5 0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year 17

  18. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS A.1 Farm level impact – Economic carrying capacity • Bt corn consistently outperformed OH corn by 29%, in meeting the food and poverty thresholds, from 2003 to 2011. 18

  19. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. Carrying Capacity Ratio. NFI i x L i CC i = -------------- SE x 1.15 Where: CC i is the carrying capacity ratio of activity i; Ni i = net income of activity i; L i = is the landholding from activity i; and SE = subsistence level expenditures or poverty thresholds for a family of five and the 0.15 in 1.15 represents 15 percent savings of households. 19

  20. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. Trends in Yellow Corn Food Carrying Capacity. 1.5 Food Carrying Capacity Ratio (using 2003 Constant 29% 1.0 Bt vs OH Prices) 0.5 Bt 2002/2007 : 2005/2010 : GM (Bt, HT and Bt/HT) Average MON810 NK603, Bt11 Ordinary Hybrid 0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year 20

  21. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. Trends in Yellow Corn Poverty Carrying Capacity. 1.0 Poverty Carrying Capacity Ratio (using 2003 Constant 29% Bt vs OH Prices) 0.5 Bt 2002/2007 : 2005/2010 : GM (Bt, HT and Bt/HT) Average MON810 NK603, Bt11 Ordinary Hybrid 0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year 21

  22. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS A.1 Farm level Impact – Return on investment • Bt corn users had 42% higher return on investment than OH corn users from 2003 to 2011. • In order to recover the investments at the farm level, corn yield must be at least 4.0 mt/ha. 22

  23. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. Trends in Yellow Corn Farm Level Return on Investment. Return on Investment (%, using 2003 Constant Prices) 90 Bt 80 GM (Bt, HT and Bt/HT) Average 42% 70 Ordinary Hybrid Bt vs OH 60 50 40 30 2002/2007 : 2005/2010 : 20 MON810 NK603, Bt11 10 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year 23

  24. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS A. Impacts of Bt Corn 2003-2011 Environmental impacts 24

  25. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS A.2 Environmental impact indicators • Resource use efficiency is the amount of resource needed to produce one mt of corn grain • In terms of ratio: INPUT RESOURCE USE ------------ OR ------------------------------- OUTPUT GRAIN PRODUCTION 25

  26. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS A.2 Environmental impact – Land use efficiency • Bt corn seed users required 15% less land than OH corn seed users in generating one metric ton of corn grain from 2003 to 2011. • The land use efficiencies of the analyzed seed technologies (OH, Bt and GM) increased dramatically during this period . 26

  27. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. Land Use Efficiency of Yellow Corn by Seed Technology. 0.4 Land Use Efficiency (ha/mt grain) 0.3 15% 0.2 Bt vs OH National: 27% ↑ EFF in 11 Years Yellow Corn (National) 0.1 Bt: 35% ↑ EFF in 8 Years Bt GM (Bt, HT and Bt/HT) Average Ordinary Hybrid: 39% ↑ EFF in 8 Years Ordinary Hybrid 0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year 27

  28. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. SIKAP/STRIVE, INC. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS A.2 Environmental impact – Fertilizer use efficiency • Bt corn adopters, on the average, were 9% more efficient in the use of fertilizer than OH corn seed users from 2003 to 2011. • Fertilizer use efficiency across the analyzed seed technologies improved during this period. 28

Recommend


More recommend