Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

, New

Del

hi

Rabindra Padaria

ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute New Delhi-110012, India

Developing guidelines and Methodologies for Socio-Economic

Assessment of LMOs

Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

, New

Del

hi

Reference crops and traits

S.N. Crop Trait

1 Cotton Resistant to American bollworm

2 Wheat Herbicide tolerant

3 Mustard Aphid resistant

Locale : Punjab and Haryana

Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

, New

Del

hi

Sampling framework

Punjab

Bhatinda Mansa

Haryana

Fatehabad Sirsa Hissar

•Districts and Blocks were selected purposively based on acreage of cotton

•Farmers were selected with simple random selection procedure

•Sample size: 220 farmers

•Scientists/scholars /Media representative selected randomly

Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

, New

Del

hi

Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

, New

Del

hi

Stakeholders’ Workshop at PAU, Ludhiana May 26, 2015

Above 100 participants including farmers, scientists, extension professionals, NGO professionals, input dealers, seed agencies, media persons Result of Focus Group Discussion Lack of understanding about GM technology Bt cotton successful Other biotech crops acceptable if profitable Scientists’ verdict about safety Openness in experimentations Public awareness and Educational campaign Deployment through govt agencies Reasonable cost of seed

Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

, New

Del

hi

Major socio-economic issues Risk perception, consequences Economic benefits Preferences Potential threat to livelihood systems, biodiversity

and ecological set up Social and economic stability and equality institutional arrangements Business ethics and legal systems for safe and

trustworthy deployment; and knowledge systems

Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

, New

Del

hi

Indicators Methods Awareness & Knowledge Checklist method

Risk perception Psychometry, Factor analysis and Semantic Differential

Preferences Matrix ranking, Focus Group Discussion, Garret Ranking

Willingness for Adoption Logit regression

Adoption Checklist method

Change in yield and income Benefit Cost Ratio

Impact on health Survey, Interview method (Number of mandays lost, expenditure on medicine and health check up)

Methods used

Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

, New

Del

hi

Socio-economic profile Age

Age group (Years)

Percentage

20-40 38.2

40-60 49.1

Above 60 12.7

Size of holding

Size of holding group

Percentage

Less than 5 acres 26.40

5-10 acres 30.00

10-25 acres 31.80

More than 25 acres 11.80

Annual Income

Income group Percentage

Less than 2.5 lakh 25.5

2.5-5 lakh 29.5

5-10 lakh 24.1

More than 10 lakh 20.9

Level of Education

Education group Percentage

UP to primary 50.9

Secondary 15.9

Intermediate 22.7

College and above 10.5

Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

, New

Del

hi

Possession of assets

Assets Quantity Av. Number of well 1.0 Value of well (Rs) 196227.27 Maintenance cost of well 8543.18 Av. Number of tractor 0.72 Value of tractor (Rs) 283968.18 Maintenance cost of tractor (Rs) 9847.73 Av. Number of tools 11.8 Value of tools (Rs) 9677.27 Maintenance cost of tools (Rs) 821.81

Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

, New

Del

hi

Av. Number of cows 0.74 Value of cows (Rs) 21527.27 Maintenance cost of cows (Rs) 3693.18

Av. Number of buffalo 1.66 Value of buffalo (Rs) 110802 Maintenance cost of buffalo (Rs) 12118.18

Av. Number of cattle shed 0.9636 Value of cattle shed (Rs) 109636.36

Maintenance cost of cattle shed (Rs)

6656.36

Constraints Garret score Rank

High cost of input 69.6 I

High incidence of Pests 66.46 II

Climatic risks 51.92 III

Lack of availability of quality input 50.2 IV

Shortage of water 44.7 V

Weed menace 42.28 VI

Unavailability of labour 39.82 VII

Lack of availability of quality Seed 36.44 VIII

Constraints in agriculture

S.N. Criteria Mean Score (MS)

1. Yield 9.67 2 Efficacy in problem solving

(pest management) 9.67

3 Germination potential 8.67 4. Cost of seed 8.50 5 Size of ball and plant

(cotton) 8.43

6. Inputs requirement 8.33 7. Suitability to farm 8.13 8. Safety to human and cattle 7.66 9. Irrigation intensiveness 7.33 10. Crop duration 6.67

Understanding Farmers’ Decision criteria for selection of varieties

Why farmers adopted Bt. cotton?

• Average Number of sprays reduced by 32.72% • Average Yield increased by 35.55 % • Increase in BCR by 22.22% • Perceived advantage of improved quality of

ecosystem and reduced health hazards due to pesticides

Criteria Mean Score Bt. Cotton hybrids

Non-Bt Cotton hybrids

Relative advantage

Germination potential 8.33 9.33 Incidence of American bollworm 0 10

Incidence of sucking pest 8.5 8.5

Cost on spray 3.75 6.5 Boll size 8.25 6.5 Yield 8.75 6.67

Compatibility Suitability to light soil 5.00 7.00 Suitability to heavy soil 9.00 8.50

Input intensiveness 9.00 7.5 Complexity Ease of use (Refugia) 6.5 8.75

Crop geometry constraints 6.5 4.5

Susceptibility to stress 8.75 4.75 Trialability Small scale trial 9.5 6.5 Observability Discernable effect 8.25 7.5

Criteria based assessment of Bt cotton and non-Bt cotton hybrids by farmers

Parameters Mean

t-value P-value Bt Cotton Non-Bt cotton

Land preparation 1342.28 1350.91 -0.241 0.809 Seed cost 1630.23 601.59 61.637 0.01 Sowing charge 492.73 495.45 -0.490 0.625 Irrigation cost 2300.50 1559.64 11.263 0.01 Weeding cost 2043.18 1945.23 2.104 0.04 Fertilizer cost 2498.90 2550.84 -2.999 0.01 Number of spray 4.73 7.03 -24.304 0.01 Cost of spray 3260.00 3994.55 -10.447 0.01 Harvest 4077.50 2959.55 26.339 0.01 Bagging cost 922.05 926.59 -0.296 0.767 Total cost 18080.50 16384.34 12.615 0.01 Yield 8.16 6.02 20.450 0.01 Gross income 35900.00 26500.00 20.450 0.01 BCR 1.98 1.62 17.398 0.01

Bt. cotton vis-à-vis non-Bt cotton: Have farmers gained?

Attribute Attribute Levels Entire Sample

High Income Group

Medium Income Group

Low Income Group

Type Pesticide free GM 0.029 -1.608 1.217 0.337 Pesticide sprayed GM -3.727 -4.051 -3.928 -3.184

Pesticide sprayed non-GM

-1.591 -0.532 -2.253 -1.719

Pesticide free non-GM

5.289 6.191 4.963 4.566

Developer Government institutions

0.478 -0.046 0.863 0.628

Private institutions -0.828 -0.244 -1.359 -0.774 Developed in collaboration

0.35 0.29 0.496 0.145

Price 20% higher than normal price

2.535 1.476 2.845 3.474

Normal price 5.069 2.953 5.69 6.948 20% lesser than normal price

7.604 4.429 8.536 10.422

Nutrition 20% higher nutrition -3.721 -3.965 -3.4 -3.982

Average nutrition -7.441 -7.929 -6.801 -7.964 20% lesser nutrition -11.162 -11.894 -10.201 -11.945

Determining consumers’ preference with conjoint analysis: Utility estimates for various attribute levels of the GM wheat

Cost of cultivation of mustard Items Mustard

Land preparation (Rs) 1525.19

Seed cost (Rs) 279.31

Sowing charge (Rs) 437.40

Irrigation cost(Rs) 748.63

Fertilizer (Rs) 2112.29

Weeding charge (Rs) 982.06

Pesticide (Rs) 855.73

Harvesting (Rs) 2406.11

Bagging+Transport (Rs) 405.34

Total cost (Rs) 9752.06

Yield (qtl/acre) 7.04

Price (Rs/qtl) 3500

Gross return (Rs) 24633.59

BCR 2.53

Scenario Lowest yield (Qtl/acre)

Highest yield (Qtl/acre)

In absence of aphid

5.29 7.18

In presence of aphid

2.95 3.86

aphid+ management

3.92 6.01

Cost of cultivation of wheat Items Wheat Land preparation (Rs) 1896.00 Seed cost (Rs) 1870.00 Sowing charge (Rs) 515.45 Irrigation cost(Rs) 1754.86 Fertilizer (Rs) 2083.25 Weeding charge (Rs) 573.18 Harvesting (Rs) 1200 Bagging+Transport (Rs)

550.91

Total cost (Rs) 10443.91 Yield (qtl/acre) 19.91 Price (Rs/qtl) 1525 Gross return (Rs) 30356.16 BCR 2.92

Scenario Lowest yield (Qtl/acre)

Highest yield (Qtl/acre)

In absence of weed

15.88 19.04

In presence of weed

12.99 13.96

Weed+management

14.82 16.45

Statement Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree Strongly Agree

Mean SD

GM crops like Bt cotton will be beneficial for farmers

2

(0.9)

8

(3.6)

14

(6.4)

167

(75.9)

29

(13.2)

3.84 0.57

Adoption of GM seeds will reduce the cost of cultivation.

6

(2.7)

30

(13.6)

14

(6.4)

169

(76.8)

1

(5.0)

3.54 0.89

Cultivation of GM crops will ensure food security for the rapidly growing population.

4

(1.8)

20

(9.1)

2

(0.9)

191

(86.8)

3

(1.4)

3.69 0.81

Cultivation of GM crops will be risky as pollen flow from GM plants will contaminate other neighbouring crops.

0

(0.00)

22

(10.0)

165

(75.0)

33

(15.0)

0

(0.00)

3.23 0.46

Since GM crops carry genes from different species they will cause harm to the human and cattle.

0

(0.00)

25

(11.4)

135

(61.4)

50

(22.7)

10

(4.5)

3.30 0.54

Farmers’ perception about GM crops

Entry of GM food in food chain should be stopped as they will lead to abnormality in body growth.

0

(0.00)

26

(11.8)

103

(46.8)

85

(38.6)

6

(2.7)

3.56 0.65

Cultivation of GM crops will harm agro- biodiversity.

10

(4.5)

25

(11.4)

107

(48.6)

75

(34.1)

3

(1.4)

3.48 0.62

The production and trade of GM seeds will increase the monopoly of big companies in the seed market.

26

(11.8)

104

(47.3)

7

(3.2)

76

(34.5)

7

(3.2)

2.57 1.16

GM technology is required for few crops.

19

(8.6)

93

(42.3)

59

(26.8)

47

(21.4)

2

(9)

3.08 0.81

Rigorous scientific testing is done prior to release of GM crops.

12

(5.5)

13

(5.9)

18

(8.2)

164

(74.5)

13

(5.9)

3.88 0.62

Genetic engineering scientists tend to conceal data about harmful effects of GMOs.

67

(30.5)

74

(33.6)

63

(28.6)

16

(7.3)

0

(0.00)

2.24 1.01

Only the large farmers will be benefitted by genetic engineering technology.

22

(10.0)

69

(31.4)

8

(3.6)

119

(54.1)

2

(9)

3.51 0.86

Promotion of GM technology will cripple indigenous knowledge system.

14

(6.4)

34

(15.5)

20

(9.1)

150

(68.2)

2

(0.9)

3.93 0.31

Promotion of GM crops should be banned as it will pose a serious threat to GI marked high value crops (eg Basmati rice).

12

(5.4)

25

(11.4)

22

(10.0)

160

(72.9)

1

(5.0)

3.71 0.69

Genetically modified foods should be labelled for the benefit of consumers.

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

93

(42.3)

107

(48.6)

20

(9.1)

3.70 0.53

Information on biotechnology provided by mass media sources is trustworthy

0

(0.00)

11

(5.0)

93

(42.3)

100

(45.5)

16

(7.3)

3.59 0.59

Deployment of GM crops will increase the cost of cultivation.

19

(8.6)

68

(30.9)

91

(41.4)

32

(14.5)

10

(4.5)

2.84 0.77

Prevalence of secondary pests will increase due to

1

(5.0)

33

(15.0)

87

(39.5)

89

(40.5)

10

(4.5)

3.41 0.64

Identification of Risk Perception Domains A set of 18 statements were Administered to •Farmers •Scientists & Scholars •Media representatives •NGO representatives •Input dealers •Consumers

farmers

Scientists

Component Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of

Variance Cumulati

ve % Total % of

Variance Cumulativ

e % Total % of

Variance Cumulative

% Threats 5.21 28.98 28.98 5.22 28.980 28.980 3.784 21.024 21.024

Regulatory arrangements

3.218 17.879 46.859 3.218 17.879 46.859 3.527 19.595 40.619

Seed systems 1.793 9.959 56.818 1.793 9.959 56.818 2.637 14.648 55.267

Openness in innovation process

1.538 8.544 65.362 1.538 8.544 65.362 1.817 10.095 65.362

Risk Perception domain among the farmers

Variables Rotated Component Matrixa Threats Regulatory

arrangements Seed systems Openness in

innovation process

Cost effectiveness of GM seed

.858

GM seedsFood security

.706

Health unfriendly foreign genes in GM seed

-.619

Seed Monopoly -.646

Gene flow- risk .663

Food chain risk .728

Loss of biodiversity .817

Resource rich biasness

.752

Loss of ITK .629

Increased threat (pests)

.561

Threats Regulatory arrangements

Seed systems

Openness in innovation process

Limited application

.770

Closed science -.623

Scientific rigour .657

Threat to GI products

.846

Right to options

( labeling)

-.761

Trust in information source

-.797

Increased cost .634

Scientists & Scholars’ Risk Perception domain

Factors Initial Eigen values Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of

Variance Cumulative

% Total % of

Variance Cumulative

%

Threats 4.124 22.913 22.913 4.124 22.913 22.913

Relative advantage

2.301 12.784 35.697 2.301 12.784 35.697

Innovation process

1.594 8.857 44.554 1.594 8.857 44.554

Regulation (monopoly, autonomy, labeling)

1.274 7.079 51.633 1.274 7.079 51.633

Trust of information

1.076 5.976 57.609 1.076 5.976 57.609

Statement Strongly Disagree

Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree

GM crops like Bt cotton will be beneficial for farmers

6.7 46.7 20 26.7 0

Adoption of GM seeds will reduce the cost of cultivation.

13.3 46.7 20 20 0

Cultivation of GM crops will ensure food security for the rapidly growing population.

0 33.3 40 20 6.7

Cultivation of GM crops will be risky as pollen flow from GM plants will contaminate other neighbouring crops.

0 26.7 53.3 20 0

Since GM crops carry genes from different species they will cause harm to the human and cattle.

0 13.3 33.3 46.7 6.7

Media’s perception about GM crops

Entry of GM food in food chain should be stopped as they will lead to abnormality in body growth.

0 13.3 40 46.7 0

Cultivation of GM crops will harm agro- biodiversity.

0 6.7 40 53.3 0

The production and trade of GM seeds will increase the monopoly of big companies in the seed market.

0 6.7 73.3 20 0

GM technology is required for few crops.

0 0 60 33.3 6.7

Rigorous scientific testing is done prior to release of GM crops.

0 0 20 33.3 46.7

Genetic engineering scientists tend to conceal data about harmful effects of GMOs.

0 13.3 60 26.7 0

Only the large farmers will be benefitted by genetic engineering technology.

6.7 6.7 40 40 6.7

Capturing Co-existence of knowledge systems: Managing white fly with Dr Dalal Mixture

•Improve plant health and manage pests with biological systems •Understanding the life cycle of insects • Knowing the pest dynamics in nature: Helpful and

Harmful insects •Regular monitoring of ETL • Spray of 2.5 kg urea, 2.5 Kg DAP, 0.5 Kg Zn with

100 litres of water •Social learning and Dissemination through Mahila Keet Pathshala

Safety, Sovereignty, Sustainability, satisfaction

BENEFICIAL

SUCCESSFUL

POISONOUS

RELIABLE

COSTLY

DURABLE

ESSENTIAL

EXCEPTIONAL

VALUABLE

COMPATIBLE

DESTROYER

SAFE

FARMER-FRIENDLY

SUPPORTIVE

NATURAL

NON-BENEFICIAL

UNSUCCESSFUL

NON-POISONOUS

UNRELIABLE

CHEAP

UN-DURABLE

NON-ESSENTIAL

ORDINARY

WORTHLESS

UN-COMPATIBLLE

CONESTRUCTIVE

DEADLY

UNFRIENDLY

NON-SUPPORTIVE

UNNATURAL

MOST 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 LEAST

FARMERS’ PERCEPTION: SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL Sishupal Ender Balbir Malkit Shankr Vishnu Chunia Krparam Subhas Bhimse Sunil Manhor Vinod Nathu

ram Harpal

BENEFICIAL

SUCCESSFUL

POISONOUS

RELIABLE

COSTLY

DURABLE

ESSENTIAL

EXCEPTIONAL

VALUABLE

COMPATIBLE

DESTROYER

SAFE

FARMER-FRIENDLY

SUPPORTIVE

NATURAL

NON-BENEFICIAL

UNSUCCESSFUL

NON-POISONOUS

UNRELIABLE

CHEAP

UN-DURABLE

NON-ESSENTIAL

ORDINARY

WORTHLESS

UN-COMPATIBLLE

CONESTRUCTIVE

DEADLY

UNFRIENDLY

NON-SUPPORTIVE

UNNATURAL

MOST 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 LEAST

FARMERS’ PERCEPTION: SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL

Variable B Standard error Wald df Significance P-value

Exp (B)

Education -.228 .163 1.957 1 .162 .796

Family size .871 .253 11.878

1 .001 2.389

Annual Income .000 .000 7.112 1 .008 1.000

Farming Experience -.046 .024 3.618 1 .057 .955

Size of holding -.072 .033 4.836 1 .028 .930

Social participation .960 .483 3.957 1 .047 2.612

Social network 1.462 .542 7.260 1 .007 4.313

Risk orientation .465 .512 .824 1 .364 1.591

Constant -3.140 1.526 4.231 1 .040 .043

Variable(s) entered on step 1: Education, Famsize, Income, farmgexp, szeholding, socialpart, Socialnetwrk, Riskorient

Determinants of adoption decision :Logit regression model

100

would you be willing to pay for GM seed?

Yes

No

95

5

How much price would you pay?

< 10% of what you paid last season

10-25% of what you paid last season

25-50% of what you paid last season

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

No other option

Reasonable cost

Quality seed

Nearness

Trust with source

Available on Credit

Percentage

Reason to choose primary seed source

Total

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Received training on how to use pesticides or herbicides?

Use gloves, cover mouth and nose when applying?

Wear protective clothing when applying?

Wear boots when applying chemicals?

Wear spectacles?

Follow wind direction while spraying?

Eat while applying chemicals?

Drink water while applying chemicals?

Smoke while applying chemicals?

Wash hands/ bath after applying chemicals?

Percentage

Knowledge about handling and use of pesticides

No

Yes

65.45

34.54

Experience of any health problem during or after insecticide sprays

No

Yes

81.36

15.91 2.73

Ways of treatment when affected due to insecticide sprays

No treatment

Self

Doctor

79.09

17.27 3.6

Loss of work due sickness and treatment

No loss

Partial

Full day

87.3

12.7

Having received any advice/training in the past two seasons

NO

YES

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100% Percentage

Information sources

Frequency of contact with information sources

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

80

72.3

100

20

27.7

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Do you seek information about market prices before you

plant?

Do you seek information about market preferences before you

plant?

Are you aware of any LMO crop grown in your area?

Percentage

N0

Yes

100

100

85

90.8

100

4.2

0

0

15

9.2

0

95.8

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

If yes, did GM cotton give higher yield than other hybrids?

If yes, did GM cultivation led to increase in your income or profit?

If yes, did GM cotton need higher inputs?

Will you adopt GM mustard or GM wheat?

Have you ever cultivated Bt cotton (GMO)?

Do you know about genetic modification of crops?

Percentage

No

Yes

Awareness among farmers

45.8

29.2

15.8 9.2

Opinion about GM crops

Beneficial

Risky

Costly

Unsustainable

39.20%

35.80%

10.80% 10% 4.20%

Traits preferred by farmers

High yield

Pest resistant

Less water

Less weed

Quality produce

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%

Yes No Donot know

Percentage

Will GM crops cause harm to livestock and human?

Livestock

Human

5%

59.20%

35.80%

Will GM crops lead to environmental risks?

Yes

No

Do not know

Conclusion • Cost of input with highest Garret score of 69.6 was found to be the major

constraint in farming followed by high incidence of pest and climatic risks. • With the highest mean score of 9.67 the yield potential and efficacy in

management of pests were considered as the first and foremost criteria for selection of any Bt. Hybrid.

• With adoption of Bt cotton, there was drastic fall (about 32%) in number of

pesticide spray and cost on spray also reduced significantly. • The yield increased by nearly 36 percent, while the benefit cost ratio increased by

about 22 per cent. • Factor analysis revealed that the major domains of risks were related seed

systems, resource systems, openness in innovation generation, and regulations systems.

• Most of the respondents have opined that adoption of Bt cotton had led to

increased input use.

Conclusion • Many of the respondents have pointed out higher yield and pest

resistance as major traits required. • Very few respondent have opined that GM crops are harmful to

human (12.5% in Punjab and 3% in Haryana) and animals (11.7% in Punjab and 18% in Haryana).

• A majority of the farmers purchased seeds every year and travelled

4 to 8 Km for seed procurement. • Seed sellers also influenced seed purchase decision of farmers. • Fellow farmers are the major source of information for farmers. • A majority of respondents of both states did not have knowledge

about genetic modification of the crop.

Suggestions for enhanced understanding about socio-economic considerations related to Living Modified Organisms

– Conduction of stakeholders’ workshops at block level

– Intensive extension or outreach programmes for enhanced public awareness

– Dialogue between scientists and social as well as media groups

– Publication and distribution of literature and videos, related to LMOs

– Involvement of farmers’ representatives/Panchayati raj Institutions in regulatory process

– Promotion of inter-disciplinary research and ex-ante studies on LMOs

THANK YOU