falck overview of socioeconomics uganda parlamentarians 2017 final
TRANSCRIPT
Program for Biosafety Systems ndash httppbsifpriinfo
ldquoAn Overview of Economic Impacts of Biotechnologyrdquo
Joseacute Falck ZepedaSenior Research Fellow
International Food Policy Research Institute ndash Program for Biosafety
Systems (IFPRI - PBS)
Program for Biosafety Systems ndash httppbsifpriinfo
Technology Assessment Scope
bull No-Tillage
bull Integrated Soil Fertility
Management
bull Organic Agriculture
bull Precision Agriculture
bull Crop Protection
bull Drip Irrigation
bull Sprinkler Irrigation
bull Water Harvesting
bull Drought Tolerance
bull Heat Tolerance
bull Nitrogen Use Efficiency
httpwwwifpriorgsitesdefaultfilespublication
soc76pdf
Program for Biosafety Systems ndash httppbsifpriinfo
Uganda maizendash Changes in yields area and production with a wetter and hotter
climate change scenario
Source IFPRIrsquos Agritech Toolbox httpagritechharvestchoiceorg
Program for Biosafety Systems ndash httppbsifpriinfo
Where are GM crops planted
27 countries in 1753 million hectares 2013
How does a producer benefit Insect resistance traits
The case of Bt cotton or maize
Producer Profit
Producer Surplus
Cost to Benefit
Additional
Cost of
Using the
Technology
Tech fee
US$80ha
0
+
-
Decrease
pesticide
application
cost
-Insecticide
-Machinery amp
Equipment
Yield
Reduction
in damage
-Timing
applications
-Reduced
damage bolls
Price change
due to increase
in supply
Additional
cost of
controlling
secondary
pests
Amenable to
IPM andor
controlled
easily
Labor
Labor
The case of fungal resistant bananas in Uganda
bull If approval delayed forego potential annual (social) benefits of +- US$200 million
bull Maximum total development costs cannot exceed US$108 million Otherwise GM banana is not a viable alternative
bull 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
Case study Genetically Modified Cotton in Uganda An Ex-ante Evaluation
Daniela Horna Patricia Zambrano Jose Falck-Zepeda Theresa Sengooba
Guillaume Gruere Miriam Kyotalimye
Cotton in Uganda
bull Importance of cotton
ndash Cotton produced by smallholders (250000 hhs)
ndash 3rd agricultural commodity exported but 2 -5 of total exports
ndash Traditional crop but some development in organic cotton production (with some issues)
bull Problems
ndash Very low yields (~400 KgHa) link
ndash Quality deteriorated despite 1 variety policy
ndash Production and yields slowly recuperating since 1979
Potential for Genetically Engineered (GE) cotton in Uganda
bull Public interest to improve performance of cotton
ndash Confined trials approved in 2008
ndash CFT conducted in country
bull Goal provide stakeholders and policy makers with tools to analyze and make decisions about the approval and adoption of GM cotton in Uganda
bull Examine impacts on farm industry trade and institutions using farm surveys expert opinion simulations and qualitative examination of issues
Impacts on Farm - Findings
Will cotton producers be better off with the adoption of GM seed
bull Results using IR and HT cotton varieties yield the highest returns but profitability does not increase dramatically
bull Yield variability is the main determinant of marginal benefits
bull Need to pay attention to ndash Investment in fertilizers and good
quality seedndash Seed prices
Impact on Industry -Findings
What are the benefits and risks associated with the adoption of IR and HT cotton in Uganda
bull Uganda can gain from the introduction of GM cotton but rates of return estimated are not as high as other results
bull Low yields due to low input use have a critical role in explaining benefits generated by GM adoption
bull The probability of a negative rate of return could be as high as 38 in the case of paying full technology fee as paid in other countries including the USAndash Need to carefully think about seed price technology fee level
Impacts on Trade - Findings
Would GM cotton affect tradeAre there possibilities for co-existence of organic and GM cotton
bull GM cotton is not a risk to exports of conventional cotton but potentially to organic exports
bull Coexistence of both systems is possible if seed mixing is avoided
bull Need to discuss seed marketing strategies before introduction of GM cotton
Impact on Institutions - Findings
How has and will the current institutional setting affect the approval and adoption of GM cotton
bull Despite some bottlenecks the regulatory process is leading to the commercial approval of GM cotton
bull Need to look beyond the regulatory process and focus on how to facilitate adoption as part of broader revitalization approach to the sectorndash technology delivery multiplicationndash extensionndash credit
Conclusions
bull GE cotton ndash Can be a risk management tool to reduce downside risk for
farmersndash has the potential to improve cotton productivity
bull But there is a need to facilitate farmersrsquo access to complementary inputs (such as fertilizer herbicides) and to seed
bull This is an opportunity for policy makers need to discuss deployment and sector wide revitalization strategiesndash Technology delivery ndash Technology feendash Seed marketing strategies
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 Trade
Source Smale M Zambrano P Gruegravere G Falck-Zepeda J Matuschke I Horna D Nagarajan La Yerramareddy Ia Jones H 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)
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average GE crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect existing variability
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yet
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 benefitsSystematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance of GE crops including Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmperand Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2012 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009hellip have consistently shown
bull Reductions in yield damage from insects and perhaps weeds
bull Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
bull Decrease in management time and flexibility
bull Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
Important to contextualize these results
bull Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not) gained from the introduction of GE crops
bull Data and method limitations of existing studies
bull Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and Indiahellipbut is changing
bull Important to develop rapid assessments of potential technologies at the country level done in collaboration with national teams
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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
Technology Assessment Scope
bull No-Tillage
bull Integrated Soil Fertility
Management
bull Organic Agriculture
bull Precision Agriculture
bull Crop Protection
bull Drip Irrigation
bull Sprinkler Irrigation
bull Water Harvesting
bull Drought Tolerance
bull Heat Tolerance
bull Nitrogen Use Efficiency
httpwwwifpriorgsitesdefaultfilespublication
soc76pdf
Program for Biosafety Systems ndash httppbsifpriinfo
Uganda maizendash Changes in yields area and production with a wetter and hotter
climate change scenario
Source IFPRIrsquos Agritech Toolbox httpagritechharvestchoiceorg
Program for Biosafety Systems ndash httppbsifpriinfo
Where are GM crops planted
27 countries in 1753 million hectares 2013
How does a producer benefit Insect resistance traits
The case of Bt cotton or maize
Producer Profit
Producer Surplus
Cost to Benefit
Additional
Cost of
Using the
Technology
Tech fee
US$80ha
0
+
-
Decrease
pesticide
application
cost
-Insecticide
-Machinery amp
Equipment
Yield
Reduction
in damage
-Timing
applications
-Reduced
damage bolls
Price change
due to increase
in supply
Additional
cost of
controlling
secondary
pests
Amenable to
IPM andor
controlled
easily
Labor
Labor
The case of fungal resistant bananas in Uganda
bull If approval delayed forego potential annual (social) benefits of +- US$200 million
bull Maximum total development costs cannot exceed US$108 million Otherwise GM banana is not a viable alternative
bull 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
Case study Genetically Modified Cotton in Uganda An Ex-ante Evaluation
Daniela Horna Patricia Zambrano Jose Falck-Zepeda Theresa Sengooba
Guillaume Gruere Miriam Kyotalimye
Cotton in Uganda
bull Importance of cotton
ndash Cotton produced by smallholders (250000 hhs)
ndash 3rd agricultural commodity exported but 2 -5 of total exports
ndash Traditional crop but some development in organic cotton production (with some issues)
bull Problems
ndash Very low yields (~400 KgHa) link
ndash Quality deteriorated despite 1 variety policy
ndash Production and yields slowly recuperating since 1979
Potential for Genetically Engineered (GE) cotton in Uganda
bull Public interest to improve performance of cotton
ndash Confined trials approved in 2008
ndash CFT conducted in country
bull Goal provide stakeholders and policy makers with tools to analyze and make decisions about the approval and adoption of GM cotton in Uganda
bull Examine impacts on farm industry trade and institutions using farm surveys expert opinion simulations and qualitative examination of issues
Impacts on Farm - Findings
Will cotton producers be better off with the adoption of GM seed
bull Results using IR and HT cotton varieties yield the highest returns but profitability does not increase dramatically
bull Yield variability is the main determinant of marginal benefits
bull Need to pay attention to ndash Investment in fertilizers and good
quality seedndash Seed prices
Impact on Industry -Findings
What are the benefits and risks associated with the adoption of IR and HT cotton in Uganda
bull Uganda can gain from the introduction of GM cotton but rates of return estimated are not as high as other results
bull Low yields due to low input use have a critical role in explaining benefits generated by GM adoption
bull The probability of a negative rate of return could be as high as 38 in the case of paying full technology fee as paid in other countries including the USAndash Need to carefully think about seed price technology fee level
Impacts on Trade - Findings
Would GM cotton affect tradeAre there possibilities for co-existence of organic and GM cotton
bull GM cotton is not a risk to exports of conventional cotton but potentially to organic exports
bull Coexistence of both systems is possible if seed mixing is avoided
bull Need to discuss seed marketing strategies before introduction of GM cotton
Impact on Institutions - Findings
How has and will the current institutional setting affect the approval and adoption of GM cotton
bull Despite some bottlenecks the regulatory process is leading to the commercial approval of GM cotton
bull Need to look beyond the regulatory process and focus on how to facilitate adoption as part of broader revitalization approach to the sectorndash technology delivery multiplicationndash extensionndash credit
Conclusions
bull GE cotton ndash Can be a risk management tool to reduce downside risk for
farmersndash has the potential to improve cotton productivity
bull But there is a need to facilitate farmersrsquo access to complementary inputs (such as fertilizer herbicides) and to seed
bull This is an opportunity for policy makers need to discuss deployment and sector wide revitalization strategiesndash Technology delivery ndash Technology feendash Seed marketing strategies
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 Trade
Source Smale M Zambrano P Gruegravere G Falck-Zepeda J Matuschke I Horna D Nagarajan La Yerramareddy Ia Jones H 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)
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average GE crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect existing variability
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yet
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 benefitsSystematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance of GE crops including Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmperand Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2012 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009hellip have consistently shown
bull Reductions in yield damage from insects and perhaps weeds
bull Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
bull Decrease in management time and flexibility
bull Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
Important to contextualize these results
bull Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not) gained from the introduction of GE crops
bull Data and method limitations of existing studies
bull Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and Indiahellipbut is changing
bull Important to develop rapid assessments of potential technologies at the country level done in collaboration with national teams
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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
Uganda maizendash Changes in yields area and production with a wetter and hotter
climate change scenario
Source IFPRIrsquos Agritech Toolbox httpagritechharvestchoiceorg
Program for Biosafety Systems ndash httppbsifpriinfo
Where are GM crops planted
27 countries in 1753 million hectares 2013
How does a producer benefit Insect resistance traits
The case of Bt cotton or maize
Producer Profit
Producer Surplus
Cost to Benefit
Additional
Cost of
Using the
Technology
Tech fee
US$80ha
0
+
-
Decrease
pesticide
application
cost
-Insecticide
-Machinery amp
Equipment
Yield
Reduction
in damage
-Timing
applications
-Reduced
damage bolls
Price change
due to increase
in supply
Additional
cost of
controlling
secondary
pests
Amenable to
IPM andor
controlled
easily
Labor
Labor
The case of fungal resistant bananas in Uganda
bull If approval delayed forego potential annual (social) benefits of +- US$200 million
bull Maximum total development costs cannot exceed US$108 million Otherwise GM banana is not a viable alternative
bull 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
Case study Genetically Modified Cotton in Uganda An Ex-ante Evaluation
Daniela Horna Patricia Zambrano Jose Falck-Zepeda Theresa Sengooba
Guillaume Gruere Miriam Kyotalimye
Cotton in Uganda
bull Importance of cotton
ndash Cotton produced by smallholders (250000 hhs)
ndash 3rd agricultural commodity exported but 2 -5 of total exports
ndash Traditional crop but some development in organic cotton production (with some issues)
bull Problems
ndash Very low yields (~400 KgHa) link
ndash Quality deteriorated despite 1 variety policy
ndash Production and yields slowly recuperating since 1979
Potential for Genetically Engineered (GE) cotton in Uganda
bull Public interest to improve performance of cotton
ndash Confined trials approved in 2008
ndash CFT conducted in country
bull Goal provide stakeholders and policy makers with tools to analyze and make decisions about the approval and adoption of GM cotton in Uganda
bull Examine impacts on farm industry trade and institutions using farm surveys expert opinion simulations and qualitative examination of issues
Impacts on Farm - Findings
Will cotton producers be better off with the adoption of GM seed
bull Results using IR and HT cotton varieties yield the highest returns but profitability does not increase dramatically
bull Yield variability is the main determinant of marginal benefits
bull Need to pay attention to ndash Investment in fertilizers and good
quality seedndash Seed prices
Impact on Industry -Findings
What are the benefits and risks associated with the adoption of IR and HT cotton in Uganda
bull Uganda can gain from the introduction of GM cotton but rates of return estimated are not as high as other results
bull Low yields due to low input use have a critical role in explaining benefits generated by GM adoption
bull The probability of a negative rate of return could be as high as 38 in the case of paying full technology fee as paid in other countries including the USAndash Need to carefully think about seed price technology fee level
Impacts on Trade - Findings
Would GM cotton affect tradeAre there possibilities for co-existence of organic and GM cotton
bull GM cotton is not a risk to exports of conventional cotton but potentially to organic exports
bull Coexistence of both systems is possible if seed mixing is avoided
bull Need to discuss seed marketing strategies before introduction of GM cotton
Impact on Institutions - Findings
How has and will the current institutional setting affect the approval and adoption of GM cotton
bull Despite some bottlenecks the regulatory process is leading to the commercial approval of GM cotton
bull Need to look beyond the regulatory process and focus on how to facilitate adoption as part of broader revitalization approach to the sectorndash technology delivery multiplicationndash extensionndash credit
Conclusions
bull GE cotton ndash Can be a risk management tool to reduce downside risk for
farmersndash has the potential to improve cotton productivity
bull But there is a need to facilitate farmersrsquo access to complementary inputs (such as fertilizer herbicides) and to seed
bull This is an opportunity for policy makers need to discuss deployment and sector wide revitalization strategiesndash Technology delivery ndash Technology feendash Seed marketing strategies
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 Trade
Source Smale M Zambrano P Gruegravere G Falck-Zepeda J Matuschke I Horna D Nagarajan La Yerramareddy Ia Jones H 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)
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average GE crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect existing variability
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yet
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 benefitsSystematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance of GE crops including Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmperand Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2012 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009hellip have consistently shown
bull Reductions in yield damage from insects and perhaps weeds
bull Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
bull Decrease in management time and flexibility
bull Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
Important to contextualize these results
bull Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not) gained from the introduction of GE crops
bull Data and method limitations of existing studies
bull Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and Indiahellipbut is changing
bull Important to develop rapid assessments of potential technologies at the country level done in collaboration with national teams
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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
Where are GM crops planted
27 countries in 1753 million hectares 2013
How does a producer benefit Insect resistance traits
The case of Bt cotton or maize
Producer Profit
Producer Surplus
Cost to Benefit
Additional
Cost of
Using the
Technology
Tech fee
US$80ha
0
+
-
Decrease
pesticide
application
cost
-Insecticide
-Machinery amp
Equipment
Yield
Reduction
in damage
-Timing
applications
-Reduced
damage bolls
Price change
due to increase
in supply
Additional
cost of
controlling
secondary
pests
Amenable to
IPM andor
controlled
easily
Labor
Labor
The case of fungal resistant bananas in Uganda
bull If approval delayed forego potential annual (social) benefits of +- US$200 million
bull Maximum total development costs cannot exceed US$108 million Otherwise GM banana is not a viable alternative
bull 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
Case study Genetically Modified Cotton in Uganda An Ex-ante Evaluation
Daniela Horna Patricia Zambrano Jose Falck-Zepeda Theresa Sengooba
Guillaume Gruere Miriam Kyotalimye
Cotton in Uganda
bull Importance of cotton
ndash Cotton produced by smallholders (250000 hhs)
ndash 3rd agricultural commodity exported but 2 -5 of total exports
ndash Traditional crop but some development in organic cotton production (with some issues)
bull Problems
ndash Very low yields (~400 KgHa) link
ndash Quality deteriorated despite 1 variety policy
ndash Production and yields slowly recuperating since 1979
Potential for Genetically Engineered (GE) cotton in Uganda
bull Public interest to improve performance of cotton
ndash Confined trials approved in 2008
ndash CFT conducted in country
bull Goal provide stakeholders and policy makers with tools to analyze and make decisions about the approval and adoption of GM cotton in Uganda
bull Examine impacts on farm industry trade and institutions using farm surveys expert opinion simulations and qualitative examination of issues
Impacts on Farm - Findings
Will cotton producers be better off with the adoption of GM seed
bull Results using IR and HT cotton varieties yield the highest returns but profitability does not increase dramatically
bull Yield variability is the main determinant of marginal benefits
bull Need to pay attention to ndash Investment in fertilizers and good
quality seedndash Seed prices
Impact on Industry -Findings
What are the benefits and risks associated with the adoption of IR and HT cotton in Uganda
bull Uganda can gain from the introduction of GM cotton but rates of return estimated are not as high as other results
bull Low yields due to low input use have a critical role in explaining benefits generated by GM adoption
bull The probability of a negative rate of return could be as high as 38 in the case of paying full technology fee as paid in other countries including the USAndash Need to carefully think about seed price technology fee level
Impacts on Trade - Findings
Would GM cotton affect tradeAre there possibilities for co-existence of organic and GM cotton
bull GM cotton is not a risk to exports of conventional cotton but potentially to organic exports
bull Coexistence of both systems is possible if seed mixing is avoided
bull Need to discuss seed marketing strategies before introduction of GM cotton
Impact on Institutions - Findings
How has and will the current institutional setting affect the approval and adoption of GM cotton
bull Despite some bottlenecks the regulatory process is leading to the commercial approval of GM cotton
bull Need to look beyond the regulatory process and focus on how to facilitate adoption as part of broader revitalization approach to the sectorndash technology delivery multiplicationndash extensionndash credit
Conclusions
bull GE cotton ndash Can be a risk management tool to reduce downside risk for
farmersndash has the potential to improve cotton productivity
bull But there is a need to facilitate farmersrsquo access to complementary inputs (such as fertilizer herbicides) and to seed
bull This is an opportunity for policy makers need to discuss deployment and sector wide revitalization strategiesndash Technology delivery ndash Technology feendash Seed marketing strategies
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 Trade
Source Smale M Zambrano P Gruegravere G Falck-Zepeda J Matuschke I Horna D Nagarajan La Yerramareddy Ia Jones H 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)
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average GE crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect existing variability
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yet
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 benefitsSystematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance of GE crops including Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmperand Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2012 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009hellip have consistently shown
bull Reductions in yield damage from insects and perhaps weeds
bull Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
bull Decrease in management time and flexibility
bull Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
Important to contextualize these results
bull Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not) gained from the introduction of GE crops
bull Data and method limitations of existing studies
bull Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and Indiahellipbut is changing
bull Important to develop rapid assessments of potential technologies at the country level done in collaboration with national teams
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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
How does a producer benefit Insect resistance traits
The case of Bt cotton or maize
Producer Profit
Producer Surplus
Cost to Benefit
Additional
Cost of
Using the
Technology
Tech fee
US$80ha
0
+
-
Decrease
pesticide
application
cost
-Insecticide
-Machinery amp
Equipment
Yield
Reduction
in damage
-Timing
applications
-Reduced
damage bolls
Price change
due to increase
in supply
Additional
cost of
controlling
secondary
pests
Amenable to
IPM andor
controlled
easily
Labor
Labor
The case of fungal resistant bananas in Uganda
bull If approval delayed forego potential annual (social) benefits of +- US$200 million
bull Maximum total development costs cannot exceed US$108 million Otherwise GM banana is not a viable alternative
bull 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
Case study Genetically Modified Cotton in Uganda An Ex-ante Evaluation
Daniela Horna Patricia Zambrano Jose Falck-Zepeda Theresa Sengooba
Guillaume Gruere Miriam Kyotalimye
Cotton in Uganda
bull Importance of cotton
ndash Cotton produced by smallholders (250000 hhs)
ndash 3rd agricultural commodity exported but 2 -5 of total exports
ndash Traditional crop but some development in organic cotton production (with some issues)
bull Problems
ndash Very low yields (~400 KgHa) link
ndash Quality deteriorated despite 1 variety policy
ndash Production and yields slowly recuperating since 1979
Potential for Genetically Engineered (GE) cotton in Uganda
bull Public interest to improve performance of cotton
ndash Confined trials approved in 2008
ndash CFT conducted in country
bull Goal provide stakeholders and policy makers with tools to analyze and make decisions about the approval and adoption of GM cotton in Uganda
bull Examine impacts on farm industry trade and institutions using farm surveys expert opinion simulations and qualitative examination of issues
Impacts on Farm - Findings
Will cotton producers be better off with the adoption of GM seed
bull Results using IR and HT cotton varieties yield the highest returns but profitability does not increase dramatically
bull Yield variability is the main determinant of marginal benefits
bull Need to pay attention to ndash Investment in fertilizers and good
quality seedndash Seed prices
Impact on Industry -Findings
What are the benefits and risks associated with the adoption of IR and HT cotton in Uganda
bull Uganda can gain from the introduction of GM cotton but rates of return estimated are not as high as other results
bull Low yields due to low input use have a critical role in explaining benefits generated by GM adoption
bull The probability of a negative rate of return could be as high as 38 in the case of paying full technology fee as paid in other countries including the USAndash Need to carefully think about seed price technology fee level
Impacts on Trade - Findings
Would GM cotton affect tradeAre there possibilities for co-existence of organic and GM cotton
bull GM cotton is not a risk to exports of conventional cotton but potentially to organic exports
bull Coexistence of both systems is possible if seed mixing is avoided
bull Need to discuss seed marketing strategies before introduction of GM cotton
Impact on Institutions - Findings
How has and will the current institutional setting affect the approval and adoption of GM cotton
bull Despite some bottlenecks the regulatory process is leading to the commercial approval of GM cotton
bull Need to look beyond the regulatory process and focus on how to facilitate adoption as part of broader revitalization approach to the sectorndash technology delivery multiplicationndash extensionndash credit
Conclusions
bull GE cotton ndash Can be a risk management tool to reduce downside risk for
farmersndash has the potential to improve cotton productivity
bull But there is a need to facilitate farmersrsquo access to complementary inputs (such as fertilizer herbicides) and to seed
bull This is an opportunity for policy makers need to discuss deployment and sector wide revitalization strategiesndash Technology delivery ndash Technology feendash Seed marketing strategies
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 Trade
Source Smale M Zambrano P Gruegravere G Falck-Zepeda J Matuschke I Horna D Nagarajan La Yerramareddy Ia Jones H 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)
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average GE crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect existing variability
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yet
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 benefitsSystematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance of GE crops including Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmperand Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2012 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009hellip have consistently shown
bull Reductions in yield damage from insects and perhaps weeds
bull Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
bull Decrease in management time and flexibility
bull Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
Important to contextualize these results
bull Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not) gained from the introduction of GE crops
bull Data and method limitations of existing studies
bull Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and Indiahellipbut is changing
bull Important to develop rapid assessments of potential technologies at the country level done in collaboration with national teams
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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 If approval delayed forego potential annual (social) benefits of +- US$200 million
bull Maximum total development costs cannot exceed US$108 million Otherwise GM banana is not a viable alternative
bull 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
Case study Genetically Modified Cotton in Uganda An Ex-ante Evaluation
Daniela Horna Patricia Zambrano Jose Falck-Zepeda Theresa Sengooba
Guillaume Gruere Miriam Kyotalimye
Cotton in Uganda
bull Importance of cotton
ndash Cotton produced by smallholders (250000 hhs)
ndash 3rd agricultural commodity exported but 2 -5 of total exports
ndash Traditional crop but some development in organic cotton production (with some issues)
bull Problems
ndash Very low yields (~400 KgHa) link
ndash Quality deteriorated despite 1 variety policy
ndash Production and yields slowly recuperating since 1979
Potential for Genetically Engineered (GE) cotton in Uganda
bull Public interest to improve performance of cotton
ndash Confined trials approved in 2008
ndash CFT conducted in country
bull Goal provide stakeholders and policy makers with tools to analyze and make decisions about the approval and adoption of GM cotton in Uganda
bull Examine impacts on farm industry trade and institutions using farm surveys expert opinion simulations and qualitative examination of issues
Impacts on Farm - Findings
Will cotton producers be better off with the adoption of GM seed
bull Results using IR and HT cotton varieties yield the highest returns but profitability does not increase dramatically
bull Yield variability is the main determinant of marginal benefits
bull Need to pay attention to ndash Investment in fertilizers and good
quality seedndash Seed prices
Impact on Industry -Findings
What are the benefits and risks associated with the adoption of IR and HT cotton in Uganda
bull Uganda can gain from the introduction of GM cotton but rates of return estimated are not as high as other results
bull Low yields due to low input use have a critical role in explaining benefits generated by GM adoption
bull The probability of a negative rate of return could be as high as 38 in the case of paying full technology fee as paid in other countries including the USAndash Need to carefully think about seed price technology fee level
Impacts on Trade - Findings
Would GM cotton affect tradeAre there possibilities for co-existence of organic and GM cotton
bull GM cotton is not a risk to exports of conventional cotton but potentially to organic exports
bull Coexistence of both systems is possible if seed mixing is avoided
bull Need to discuss seed marketing strategies before introduction of GM cotton
Impact on Institutions - Findings
How has and will the current institutional setting affect the approval and adoption of GM cotton
bull Despite some bottlenecks the regulatory process is leading to the commercial approval of GM cotton
bull Need to look beyond the regulatory process and focus on how to facilitate adoption as part of broader revitalization approach to the sectorndash technology delivery multiplicationndash extensionndash credit
Conclusions
bull GE cotton ndash Can be a risk management tool to reduce downside risk for
farmersndash has the potential to improve cotton productivity
bull But there is a need to facilitate farmersrsquo access to complementary inputs (such as fertilizer herbicides) and to seed
bull This is an opportunity for policy makers need to discuss deployment and sector wide revitalization strategiesndash Technology delivery ndash Technology feendash Seed marketing strategies
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 Trade
Source Smale M Zambrano P Gruegravere G Falck-Zepeda J Matuschke I Horna D Nagarajan La Yerramareddy Ia Jones H 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)
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average GE crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect existing variability
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yet
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 benefitsSystematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance of GE crops including Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmperand Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2012 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009hellip have consistently shown
bull Reductions in yield damage from insects and perhaps weeds
bull Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
bull Decrease in management time and flexibility
bull Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
Important to contextualize these results
bull Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not) gained from the introduction of GE crops
bull Data and method limitations of existing studies
bull Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and Indiahellipbut is changing
bull Important to develop rapid assessments of potential technologies at the country level done in collaboration with national teams
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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
Case study Genetically Modified Cotton in Uganda An Ex-ante Evaluation
Daniela Horna Patricia Zambrano Jose Falck-Zepeda Theresa Sengooba
Guillaume Gruere Miriam Kyotalimye
Cotton in Uganda
bull Importance of cotton
ndash Cotton produced by smallholders (250000 hhs)
ndash 3rd agricultural commodity exported but 2 -5 of total exports
ndash Traditional crop but some development in organic cotton production (with some issues)
bull Problems
ndash Very low yields (~400 KgHa) link
ndash Quality deteriorated despite 1 variety policy
ndash Production and yields slowly recuperating since 1979
Potential for Genetically Engineered (GE) cotton in Uganda
bull Public interest to improve performance of cotton
ndash Confined trials approved in 2008
ndash CFT conducted in country
bull Goal provide stakeholders and policy makers with tools to analyze and make decisions about the approval and adoption of GM cotton in Uganda
bull Examine impacts on farm industry trade and institutions using farm surveys expert opinion simulations and qualitative examination of issues
Impacts on Farm - Findings
Will cotton producers be better off with the adoption of GM seed
bull Results using IR and HT cotton varieties yield the highest returns but profitability does not increase dramatically
bull Yield variability is the main determinant of marginal benefits
bull Need to pay attention to ndash Investment in fertilizers and good
quality seedndash Seed prices
Impact on Industry -Findings
What are the benefits and risks associated with the adoption of IR and HT cotton in Uganda
bull Uganda can gain from the introduction of GM cotton but rates of return estimated are not as high as other results
bull Low yields due to low input use have a critical role in explaining benefits generated by GM adoption
bull The probability of a negative rate of return could be as high as 38 in the case of paying full technology fee as paid in other countries including the USAndash Need to carefully think about seed price technology fee level
Impacts on Trade - Findings
Would GM cotton affect tradeAre there possibilities for co-existence of organic and GM cotton
bull GM cotton is not a risk to exports of conventional cotton but potentially to organic exports
bull Coexistence of both systems is possible if seed mixing is avoided
bull Need to discuss seed marketing strategies before introduction of GM cotton
Impact on Institutions - Findings
How has and will the current institutional setting affect the approval and adoption of GM cotton
bull Despite some bottlenecks the regulatory process is leading to the commercial approval of GM cotton
bull Need to look beyond the regulatory process and focus on how to facilitate adoption as part of broader revitalization approach to the sectorndash technology delivery multiplicationndash extensionndash credit
Conclusions
bull GE cotton ndash Can be a risk management tool to reduce downside risk for
farmersndash has the potential to improve cotton productivity
bull But there is a need to facilitate farmersrsquo access to complementary inputs (such as fertilizer herbicides) and to seed
bull This is an opportunity for policy makers need to discuss deployment and sector wide revitalization strategiesndash Technology delivery ndash Technology feendash Seed marketing strategies
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 Trade
Source Smale M Zambrano P Gruegravere G Falck-Zepeda J Matuschke I Horna D Nagarajan La Yerramareddy Ia Jones H 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)
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average GE crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect existing variability
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yet
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 benefitsSystematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance of GE crops including Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmperand Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2012 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009hellip have consistently shown
bull Reductions in yield damage from insects and perhaps weeds
bull Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
bull Decrease in management time and flexibility
bull Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
Important to contextualize these results
bull Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not) gained from the introduction of GE crops
bull Data and method limitations of existing studies
bull Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and Indiahellipbut is changing
bull Important to develop rapid assessments of potential technologies at the country level done in collaboration with national teams
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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
Cotton in Uganda
bull Importance of cotton
ndash Cotton produced by smallholders (250000 hhs)
ndash 3rd agricultural commodity exported but 2 -5 of total exports
ndash Traditional crop but some development in organic cotton production (with some issues)
bull Problems
ndash Very low yields (~400 KgHa) link
ndash Quality deteriorated despite 1 variety policy
ndash Production and yields slowly recuperating since 1979
Potential for Genetically Engineered (GE) cotton in Uganda
bull Public interest to improve performance of cotton
ndash Confined trials approved in 2008
ndash CFT conducted in country
bull Goal provide stakeholders and policy makers with tools to analyze and make decisions about the approval and adoption of GM cotton in Uganda
bull Examine impacts on farm industry trade and institutions using farm surveys expert opinion simulations and qualitative examination of issues
Impacts on Farm - Findings
Will cotton producers be better off with the adoption of GM seed
bull Results using IR and HT cotton varieties yield the highest returns but profitability does not increase dramatically
bull Yield variability is the main determinant of marginal benefits
bull Need to pay attention to ndash Investment in fertilizers and good
quality seedndash Seed prices
Impact on Industry -Findings
What are the benefits and risks associated with the adoption of IR and HT cotton in Uganda
bull Uganda can gain from the introduction of GM cotton but rates of return estimated are not as high as other results
bull Low yields due to low input use have a critical role in explaining benefits generated by GM adoption
bull The probability of a negative rate of return could be as high as 38 in the case of paying full technology fee as paid in other countries including the USAndash Need to carefully think about seed price technology fee level
Impacts on Trade - Findings
Would GM cotton affect tradeAre there possibilities for co-existence of organic and GM cotton
bull GM cotton is not a risk to exports of conventional cotton but potentially to organic exports
bull Coexistence of both systems is possible if seed mixing is avoided
bull Need to discuss seed marketing strategies before introduction of GM cotton
Impact on Institutions - Findings
How has and will the current institutional setting affect the approval and adoption of GM cotton
bull Despite some bottlenecks the regulatory process is leading to the commercial approval of GM cotton
bull Need to look beyond the regulatory process and focus on how to facilitate adoption as part of broader revitalization approach to the sectorndash technology delivery multiplicationndash extensionndash credit
Conclusions
bull GE cotton ndash Can be a risk management tool to reduce downside risk for
farmersndash has the potential to improve cotton productivity
bull But there is a need to facilitate farmersrsquo access to complementary inputs (such as fertilizer herbicides) and to seed
bull This is an opportunity for policy makers need to discuss deployment and sector wide revitalization strategiesndash Technology delivery ndash Technology feendash Seed marketing strategies
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 Trade
Source Smale M Zambrano P Gruegravere G Falck-Zepeda J Matuschke I Horna D Nagarajan La Yerramareddy Ia Jones H 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)
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average GE crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect existing variability
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yet
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 benefitsSystematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance of GE crops including Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmperand Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2012 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009hellip have consistently shown
bull Reductions in yield damage from insects and perhaps weeds
bull Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
bull Decrease in management time and flexibility
bull Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
Important to contextualize these results
bull Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not) gained from the introduction of GE crops
bull Data and method limitations of existing studies
bull Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and Indiahellipbut is changing
bull Important to develop rapid assessments of potential technologies at the country level done in collaboration with national teams
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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
Potential for Genetically Engineered (GE) cotton in Uganda
bull Public interest to improve performance of cotton
ndash Confined trials approved in 2008
ndash CFT conducted in country
bull Goal provide stakeholders and policy makers with tools to analyze and make decisions about the approval and adoption of GM cotton in Uganda
bull Examine impacts on farm industry trade and institutions using farm surveys expert opinion simulations and qualitative examination of issues
Impacts on Farm - Findings
Will cotton producers be better off with the adoption of GM seed
bull Results using IR and HT cotton varieties yield the highest returns but profitability does not increase dramatically
bull Yield variability is the main determinant of marginal benefits
bull Need to pay attention to ndash Investment in fertilizers and good
quality seedndash Seed prices
Impact on Industry -Findings
What are the benefits and risks associated with the adoption of IR and HT cotton in Uganda
bull Uganda can gain from the introduction of GM cotton but rates of return estimated are not as high as other results
bull Low yields due to low input use have a critical role in explaining benefits generated by GM adoption
bull The probability of a negative rate of return could be as high as 38 in the case of paying full technology fee as paid in other countries including the USAndash Need to carefully think about seed price technology fee level
Impacts on Trade - Findings
Would GM cotton affect tradeAre there possibilities for co-existence of organic and GM cotton
bull GM cotton is not a risk to exports of conventional cotton but potentially to organic exports
bull Coexistence of both systems is possible if seed mixing is avoided
bull Need to discuss seed marketing strategies before introduction of GM cotton
Impact on Institutions - Findings
How has and will the current institutional setting affect the approval and adoption of GM cotton
bull Despite some bottlenecks the regulatory process is leading to the commercial approval of GM cotton
bull Need to look beyond the regulatory process and focus on how to facilitate adoption as part of broader revitalization approach to the sectorndash technology delivery multiplicationndash extensionndash credit
Conclusions
bull GE cotton ndash Can be a risk management tool to reduce downside risk for
farmersndash has the potential to improve cotton productivity
bull But there is a need to facilitate farmersrsquo access to complementary inputs (such as fertilizer herbicides) and to seed
bull This is an opportunity for policy makers need to discuss deployment and sector wide revitalization strategiesndash Technology delivery ndash Technology feendash Seed marketing strategies
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 Trade
Source Smale M Zambrano P Gruegravere G Falck-Zepeda J Matuschke I Horna D Nagarajan La Yerramareddy Ia Jones H 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)
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average GE crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect existing variability
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yet
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 benefitsSystematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance of GE crops including Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmperand Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2012 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009hellip have consistently shown
bull Reductions in yield damage from insects and perhaps weeds
bull Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
bull Decrease in management time and flexibility
bull Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
Important to contextualize these results
bull Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not) gained from the introduction of GE crops
bull Data and method limitations of existing studies
bull Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and Indiahellipbut is changing
bull Important to develop rapid assessments of potential technologies at the country level done in collaboration with national teams
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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
Impacts on Farm - Findings
Will cotton producers be better off with the adoption of GM seed
bull Results using IR and HT cotton varieties yield the highest returns but profitability does not increase dramatically
bull Yield variability is the main determinant of marginal benefits
bull Need to pay attention to ndash Investment in fertilizers and good
quality seedndash Seed prices
Impact on Industry -Findings
What are the benefits and risks associated with the adoption of IR and HT cotton in Uganda
bull Uganda can gain from the introduction of GM cotton but rates of return estimated are not as high as other results
bull Low yields due to low input use have a critical role in explaining benefits generated by GM adoption
bull The probability of a negative rate of return could be as high as 38 in the case of paying full technology fee as paid in other countries including the USAndash Need to carefully think about seed price technology fee level
Impacts on Trade - Findings
Would GM cotton affect tradeAre there possibilities for co-existence of organic and GM cotton
bull GM cotton is not a risk to exports of conventional cotton but potentially to organic exports
bull Coexistence of both systems is possible if seed mixing is avoided
bull Need to discuss seed marketing strategies before introduction of GM cotton
Impact on Institutions - Findings
How has and will the current institutional setting affect the approval and adoption of GM cotton
bull Despite some bottlenecks the regulatory process is leading to the commercial approval of GM cotton
bull Need to look beyond the regulatory process and focus on how to facilitate adoption as part of broader revitalization approach to the sectorndash technology delivery multiplicationndash extensionndash credit
Conclusions
bull GE cotton ndash Can be a risk management tool to reduce downside risk for
farmersndash has the potential to improve cotton productivity
bull But there is a need to facilitate farmersrsquo access to complementary inputs (such as fertilizer herbicides) and to seed
bull This is an opportunity for policy makers need to discuss deployment and sector wide revitalization strategiesndash Technology delivery ndash Technology feendash Seed marketing strategies
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 Trade
Source Smale M Zambrano P Gruegravere G Falck-Zepeda J Matuschke I Horna D Nagarajan La Yerramareddy Ia Jones H 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)
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average GE crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect existing variability
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yet
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 benefitsSystematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance of GE crops including Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmperand Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2012 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009hellip have consistently shown
bull Reductions in yield damage from insects and perhaps weeds
bull Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
bull Decrease in management time and flexibility
bull Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
Important to contextualize these results
bull Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not) gained from the introduction of GE crops
bull Data and method limitations of existing studies
bull Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and Indiahellipbut is changing
bull Important to develop rapid assessments of potential technologies at the country level done in collaboration with national teams
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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
Impact on Industry -Findings
What are the benefits and risks associated with the adoption of IR and HT cotton in Uganda
bull Uganda can gain from the introduction of GM cotton but rates of return estimated are not as high as other results
bull Low yields due to low input use have a critical role in explaining benefits generated by GM adoption
bull The probability of a negative rate of return could be as high as 38 in the case of paying full technology fee as paid in other countries including the USAndash Need to carefully think about seed price technology fee level
Impacts on Trade - Findings
Would GM cotton affect tradeAre there possibilities for co-existence of organic and GM cotton
bull GM cotton is not a risk to exports of conventional cotton but potentially to organic exports
bull Coexistence of both systems is possible if seed mixing is avoided
bull Need to discuss seed marketing strategies before introduction of GM cotton
Impact on Institutions - Findings
How has and will the current institutional setting affect the approval and adoption of GM cotton
bull Despite some bottlenecks the regulatory process is leading to the commercial approval of GM cotton
bull Need to look beyond the regulatory process and focus on how to facilitate adoption as part of broader revitalization approach to the sectorndash technology delivery multiplicationndash extensionndash credit
Conclusions
bull GE cotton ndash Can be a risk management tool to reduce downside risk for
farmersndash has the potential to improve cotton productivity
bull But there is a need to facilitate farmersrsquo access to complementary inputs (such as fertilizer herbicides) and to seed
bull This is an opportunity for policy makers need to discuss deployment and sector wide revitalization strategiesndash Technology delivery ndash Technology feendash Seed marketing strategies
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 Trade
Source Smale M Zambrano P Gruegravere G Falck-Zepeda J Matuschke I Horna D Nagarajan La Yerramareddy Ia Jones H 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)
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average GE crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect existing variability
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yet
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 benefitsSystematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance of GE crops including Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmperand Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2012 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009hellip have consistently shown
bull Reductions in yield damage from insects and perhaps weeds
bull Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
bull Decrease in management time and flexibility
bull Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
Important to contextualize these results
bull Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not) gained from the introduction of GE crops
bull Data and method limitations of existing studies
bull Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and Indiahellipbut is changing
bull Important to develop rapid assessments of potential technologies at the country level done in collaboration with national teams
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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
Impacts on Trade - Findings
Would GM cotton affect tradeAre there possibilities for co-existence of organic and GM cotton
bull GM cotton is not a risk to exports of conventional cotton but potentially to organic exports
bull Coexistence of both systems is possible if seed mixing is avoided
bull Need to discuss seed marketing strategies before introduction of GM cotton
Impact on Institutions - Findings
How has and will the current institutional setting affect the approval and adoption of GM cotton
bull Despite some bottlenecks the regulatory process is leading to the commercial approval of GM cotton
bull Need to look beyond the regulatory process and focus on how to facilitate adoption as part of broader revitalization approach to the sectorndash technology delivery multiplicationndash extensionndash credit
Conclusions
bull GE cotton ndash Can be a risk management tool to reduce downside risk for
farmersndash has the potential to improve cotton productivity
bull But there is a need to facilitate farmersrsquo access to complementary inputs (such as fertilizer herbicides) and to seed
bull This is an opportunity for policy makers need to discuss deployment and sector wide revitalization strategiesndash Technology delivery ndash Technology feendash Seed marketing strategies
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 Trade
Source Smale M Zambrano P Gruegravere G Falck-Zepeda J Matuschke I Horna D Nagarajan La Yerramareddy Ia Jones H 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)
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average GE crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect existing variability
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yet
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 benefitsSystematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance of GE crops including Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmperand Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2012 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009hellip have consistently shown
bull Reductions in yield damage from insects and perhaps weeds
bull Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
bull Decrease in management time and flexibility
bull Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
Important to contextualize these results
bull Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not) gained from the introduction of GE crops
bull Data and method limitations of existing studies
bull Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and Indiahellipbut is changing
bull Important to develop rapid assessments of potential technologies at the country level done in collaboration with national teams
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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
Impact on Institutions - Findings
How has and will the current institutional setting affect the approval and adoption of GM cotton
bull Despite some bottlenecks the regulatory process is leading to the commercial approval of GM cotton
bull Need to look beyond the regulatory process and focus on how to facilitate adoption as part of broader revitalization approach to the sectorndash technology delivery multiplicationndash extensionndash credit
Conclusions
bull GE cotton ndash Can be a risk management tool to reduce downside risk for
farmersndash has the potential to improve cotton productivity
bull But there is a need to facilitate farmersrsquo access to complementary inputs (such as fertilizer herbicides) and to seed
bull This is an opportunity for policy makers need to discuss deployment and sector wide revitalization strategiesndash Technology delivery ndash Technology feendash Seed marketing strategies
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 Trade
Source Smale M Zambrano P Gruegravere G Falck-Zepeda J Matuschke I Horna D Nagarajan La Yerramareddy Ia Jones H 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)
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average GE crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect existing variability
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yet
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 benefitsSystematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance of GE crops including Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmperand Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2012 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009hellip have consistently shown
bull Reductions in yield damage from insects and perhaps weeds
bull Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
bull Decrease in management time and flexibility
bull Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
Important to contextualize these results
bull Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not) gained from the introduction of GE crops
bull Data and method limitations of existing studies
bull Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and Indiahellipbut is changing
bull Important to develop rapid assessments of potential technologies at the country level done in collaboration with national teams
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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
Conclusions
bull GE cotton ndash Can be a risk management tool to reduce downside risk for
farmersndash has the potential to improve cotton productivity
bull But there is a need to facilitate farmersrsquo access to complementary inputs (such as fertilizer herbicides) and to seed
bull This is an opportunity for policy makers need to discuss deployment and sector wide revitalization strategiesndash Technology delivery ndash Technology feendash Seed marketing strategies
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 Trade
Source Smale M Zambrano P Gruegravere G Falck-Zepeda J Matuschke I Horna D Nagarajan La Yerramareddy Ia Jones H 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)
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average GE crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect existing variability
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yet
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 benefitsSystematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance of GE crops including Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmperand Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2012 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009hellip have consistently shown
bull Reductions in yield damage from insects and perhaps weeds
bull Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
bull Decrease in management time and flexibility
bull Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
Important to contextualize these results
bull Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not) gained from the introduction of GE crops
bull Data and method limitations of existing studies
bull Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and Indiahellipbut is changing
bull Important to develop rapid assessments of potential technologies at the country level done in collaboration with national teams
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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 Trade
Source Smale M Zambrano P Gruegravere G Falck-Zepeda J Matuschke I Horna D Nagarajan La Yerramareddy Ia Jones H 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)
Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
bull On average GE crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect existing variability
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yet
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 benefitsSystematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance of GE crops including Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmperand Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2012 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009hellip have consistently shown
bull Reductions in yield damage from insects and perhaps weeds
bull Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
bull Decrease in management time and flexibility
bull Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
Important to contextualize these results
bull Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not) gained from the introduction of GE crops
bull Data and method limitations of existing studies
bull Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and Indiahellipbut is changing
bull Important to develop rapid assessments of potential technologies at the country level done in collaboration with national teams
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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 GE crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect existing variability
bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yet
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 benefitsSystematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance of GE crops including Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmperand Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2012 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009hellip have consistently shown
bull Reductions in yield damage from insects and perhaps weeds
bull Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
bull Decrease in management time and flexibility
bull Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
Important to contextualize these results
bull Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not) gained from the introduction of GE crops
bull Data and method limitations of existing studies
bull Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and Indiahellipbut is changing
bull Important to develop rapid assessments of potential technologies at the country level done in collaboration with national teams
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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 benefitsSystematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance of GE crops including Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmperand Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2012 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009hellip have consistently shown
bull Reductions in yield damage from insects and perhaps weeds
bull Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
bull Decrease in management time and flexibility
bull Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
Important to contextualize these results
bull Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not) gained from the introduction of GE crops
bull Data and method limitations of existing studies
bull Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and Indiahellipbut is changing
bull Important to develop rapid assessments of potential technologies at the country level done in collaboration with national teams
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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 benefitsSystematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance of GE crops including Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmperand Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2012 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009hellip have consistently shown
bull Reductions in yield damage from insects and perhaps weeds
bull Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
bull Decrease in management time and flexibility
bull Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
Important to contextualize these results
bull Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not) gained from the introduction of GE crops
bull Data and method limitations of existing studies
bull Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and Indiahellipbut is changing
bull Important to develop rapid assessments of potential technologies at the country level done in collaboration with national teams
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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
Important to contextualize these results
bull Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not) gained from the introduction of GE crops
bull Data and method limitations of existing studies
bull Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and Indiahellipbut is changing
bull Important to develop rapid assessments of potential technologies at the country level done in collaboration with national teams
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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
Five takeaways from the National Academies of Sciences GE crops report1 The best evidence suggests current GM
crops are just as safe to eat as regular crops
2 Current GM crops have proven valuable to many farmers mdash but context matters
3 Beware of simplistic arguments over whether GM crops can feed the worldldquo
4 Some GM crops have had positive environmental effects mdash but watch out for superweedsldquo
5 Genetic engineering is changing radically mdashand regulations need to adjust
Source
Concluding comments
bull Biotechnology and GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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 GE crops have had and may have an important role in meeting the present and future challenges of food production ndash Biotechnology and GE Crops are still only technologies
ndash Similarities and differences with other technologies
bull Current and potential benefits are real and cannot be ignored
bull Public sector developments 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
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