Jeffrey Vitale Gaspard Vognan Marc Ouattarra Karim Traore Oumar Guigemo

Jeffrey VitaleGaspard VognanMarc Ouattarra Karim Traore

Oumar Guigemo

Burkina FasoBollgard II ®

Socio-economic Study: Outcomes from 2011 Field Surveys

Burkina Faso: Pioneering Bt Cotton in SSA Africa

Source: ISAAA 2011.

Burkina Faso: Pioneering Bt Cotton in Africa

• What makes the Burkina Faso story unique?– Demonstrates the feasibility of introducing a GM crop

in a less developed country– Persistence and determination in an environment often

hostile to biotechnology and GM crops– Collaboration among diverse stakeholders, including

smallholder producers, private sector, and public sector

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

2008

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Yield

Year

Are

a (h

a)

Success -> StagnationPests, soil degradation, seed quality, land expansionFertilizer, pesticides, new varieties,

animal traction, extension services Initial contact between Burkina Faso & Monsanto

The Burkina Faso Story: Origins

• Discontent and frustration with “conventional” pest control management

Vitale, Jeff

Now let's back to why we are here including how we got here.

Vitale, Jeff

Put in the 2000 french resistance

Conventional Pest Mgmt

• Conventional pest management is a spray-based regiment with 6 applications

• 4 sprays target bollworms (caterpillars) early in the season: endosulfans

• 2 sprays target piercing/sucking (aphids, whiteflies, etc.) later in the season: pyrethroidsThis management approach is termed “conventional cotton”.

Vitale, Jeff

Consider putting this in the data section. Yes move this slide to later on whenthe results are pbeing presented.

Vitale, Jeff

We'll have more to say about this later on.

Vitale, Jeff

Need to make the point here right from the beginning that "Nobody is very happy with conventional cotton. ..."

The Burkina Faso Story: Origins

• Discontent and frustration with conventional pest methods: – Pest resistance to pyrethroids- return to endosulfans– Health risks and problems – More intensive use of pesticides → rising costs– Ineffective applications (wash-off, timing)– Crop damage and yield losses – Build-up of pest density from long-term cotton production

Vitale, Jeff

Now let's back to why we are here including how we got here.

Vitale, Jeff

Put in the 2000 french resistance

Health and Environmental Concerns

• Environmental and health concerns, particularly the use of endosulfans.– Reports of illness and even death– Children often at risk

Vitale, Jeff

What about through "pyrethroid" resistance

Pest Damage• Cotton yield losses due to insect pest damage on conventional

cotton range between 15% to 35% throughout West Africa, creating economic losses between $18 and $40 million in Burkina Faso

Cotton Boll damage

Vitale, Jeff

try to back out the total economic loss in a typical year over west africa.

jeffrdv

People are always throwing these numbers around but $40 million seems like a safe number to use.It's safe to say that we are in the 10's of millions of dollars.

Bollgard II in Burkina Faso • < 2003 Success -> Stagnation

• 2003-05 Confined Field Trials

• 2006 Demonstration Plots

• 2007 On-farm trials

• 2008 Limited Commercial release

• 2009-11 Large-Scale Commercial release

Initial contacts + all of the political capital required to legalize the testing of Bt cotton.

Biosafety protocols

Business model

Legal frameworks

Technical capacity

Vitale, Jeff

How did we get here???

Vitale, Jeff

Testing efficacy

Vitale, Jeff

Getting it out to prodcuers

Vitale, Jeff

all the while a lot of regulatory work preparing for commercial release

Testing & Evaluation: 2003-2007

Bollgard II in Burkina Faso • < 2003 Success -> Stagnation

• 2003-05 Confined Field Trials

• 2006 Demonstration Plots

• 2007 On-farm Trials

• 2008 Limited Commercial Release

• 2009-11 Large-Scale Commercial Release

Vitale, Jeff

How did we get here???

Vitale, Jeff

Testing efficacy

Vitale, Jeff

Getting it out to prodcuers

Vitale, Jeff

all the while a lot of regulatory work preparing for commercial release

Burkina Faso: Commercial Use of Bt Cotton

2009 2010 2011 Average0

50,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000450,000500,000

31%

66% 59%52%

BtTotal

Year

Area

(ha)

Purpose

• Report findings from 2011 field surveys of 548 cotton producers conducted in Burkina Faso

• Measure the economic impacts of Bollgard II on:– Production cost– Yield– Profit– Size and distribution of benefits among stakeholders

• Assess impacts of pesticide use on human health – Poisoning incidents– Pesticide handling practices

jeffrdv

Still hasn't ben any mention of Bt cotton introduction yet.

jeffrdv

Collected two major types of data. One was socio-economic data so that we could measure the economic impacts of Bollgard II.

jeffrdv

Need to keep working on this: Assess Health Impacts still seems awkward.

jeffrdv

Need to describe what the field surveys were intended for. right now it is just a generic expression.

Analysis & Outcomes from 2011 Field Survey

July through December, 2011

Data Analysis• Developed ANOVA models of cotton yield

using the following equation, its main effects, levels, and interaction terms:

Bt Conventional

0 1 2Manual< 1 ha

Small1 bullock pair

Large 2 or more bullock pairs

Yield = f(Gene, Farm_Type , Zone, Late Season Sprays)

SOFITEXFaso Cotton

Socoma

Cotton Zones

PoSOFITEX ≈ 80% production

SOCOMA ≈ 5% update these numbers using Doulayes numbers production

FASO COTTON ≈ 15% production

N = 80 households

N = 40 households

Fada

ANOVA Results

Bt Gene Effect0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

981

1,175

Conventional BG II

Yiel

d (k

g pe

r ha)

a

ANOVA Yield Model Results• Bt Gene effect

BG II Generated Significantly Higher Yields than Conventional Cotton in 2011

Bt gene effect is positive and significant

19.7% Yield Advantage of BG II over Conventional cotton b

jeffrdv

We're mainly converned with how yields vary with gene so we will look first at the Gene effect and then test wheter gene veried across the other terms. We will start off generically.

jeffrdv

If i am doing this right there should be suspense in the air and a drum roll

Are the Bt Yield Gains Equitable?

• Can we further explain the yields?

• Always concerns over the equity so we always investigate potential “bias”.

• Does the impact vary across farm type? Zone? Late season (secondary) sprays?

Manual Medium Large Average0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

915 9471,033

981

1,2151,109

1,2471,175

Conventional BG II

ANOVA Yield Model Results• Farm Type effect

Large Farms Generated Significantly Higher Yields than medium Farms, but no significant difference in BG II yield advantage.

Is the average yield increase consistent across farm type?

33% 17% 21% 19.7%

% diff

aab bc c b

SOFITEX SOCOMA Faso Cotton Average0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1053972

834

981

1258 1,235

995

1175

Conventional BG II

Yiel

d (k

g pe

r ha)

ANOVA Yield Model Results• Zone effect

BG II Generated statistically higher yields in the SOFITEX and SOCOMA regions compared to Faso Cottonbut no significant difference in yield advantage.

% diff

ba

ab b c

20% 27% 19% 19.7%

ANOVA Yield Model Results• Spray effect from 2009

Bt cotton producers who followed recommended spray generated significantly higher yields than those who sprayed only once or did not spray at all.

0 1 2 Mean0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

802

1,054

1,2661,109

933 933

Conventional BG II

Yiel

d (k

g pe

r ha)

N=21

N=34

N=44 N=15

ab bcc

ANOVA Yield Model Results• Late-season spray effect from 2011

No significant effect of late-season sprays in 2011 unlike 2009, but the second spray is still rational as we will see later.

0 1 2 Average0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

966902

1,049 9811,089

1,165 1,175

Conventional BG II

Late Season Sprays

Yiel

d (k

g pe

r ha)

N=30N=0 N=165

aabb b

21% 11% 19.7%

b

Insecticide Seed Labor Other Total 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

4514

141 147

348

12

60

144 142

358

Conventional BG II

Cost

($

per h

a)

ANOVA Model of Production Costs• Costs equal across zone and farm type effects

No significant difference in production costs

Increase in Seed Cost Largely Offset by Savings in Insecticide Costs $46 ≈ $33Producer’s capture nearly all of the yield benefits (about 86.8%) No significant increase in risk

aa

ANOVA Model of Profit• BG II generated significantly higher profit on

average across zone and farm type

Δ Profit =$95 per haΔ

Revenue Prod Cost Profit0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

534

348

187

640

358

282

Conventional BG II

Rev,

Cos

t, &

Pro

fit ($

per

ha)

51.1% increaseab

≈

ANOVA Model of Profit: Farm Type• Profit equal across farm Type

Manual Medium Large Average0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

148.56172.11

220.49

186.54

304.24

241.84

331.37

281.89

Conventional BG II

Profi

t ($

per h

a)

105% 41% 50% 51.1%

aabb

c cb

Vitale, Jeff

Costs equal across all factors. This is explained since production is highly controlled by cotton companies. Input recommendations strictly controlled by cotton companies. Bring in the argument of noise.

ANOVA Profit Model: Across Zone• BGII generated significantly higher income in

each zone

SOFITEX SOCOMA Faso Cotton ALL Zones0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

215.4196.2

120.9

186.5

329.0311.5

175.7

281.9

Conventional BG II

Profi

t ($

per h

a)

ba

ab b c

52% 55% 45% 51.1%

ANOVA Model of Profit• Profit equal across sprays

0 1 2 Average0

50

100

150

200

250

300

177.04

147.5

211.72186.54

250278 282

Conventional BG II

Late Season Sprays

Yiel

d (k

g pe

r ha)

N=30N=0 N=165

aabb bb

Vitale, Jeff

Costs equal across all factors. This is explained since production is highly controlled by cotton companies. Input recommendations strictly controlled by cotton companies. Bring in the argument of noise.

Distribution of Benefits

67.4%32.6%

2011

ProducersSeed Industry & Ginning Industry

53.1%

46.9%

2009


66%34%

2010


Aggregation of Benefits

200 0 200 400 Miles

Bfa_aug01-jan05.shp00.1 - 0.50.5 - 11 - 55 - 88 - 1010 - 12.5

N

EW

S

$66 million

Socio-Economic Benefits BG II: Summary 2009-2011

2009 2010 2011 Average0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

931849

981 971

1,140 1,0971,175 1,168

ConvBG II

Year

Yiel

d (k

g/ha

)

22% 29% 20% 20.3%


2009 2010 2011 Average

-50.00

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

-31.79

47.62

186.54

67.46

33.79

131.71

281.89

149.13

ConvBG II

Year

Profi

t ($/

ha)

206% 177%

52% 121%


• Significant benefits from growing BGII

• Consistent benefits across all three years

• Equitable benefits across farm type and zone

► Health Welfare Summary of Findings

► 46% of households self-reported at least one poisoning incident over last 5 years► 83% related to insecticides

► BGII would reduce cases by ca 5 500 incidents adding up to $1.29 Million

► BGII would reduce number of pesticide containers by $1.4 million

► 49% of farmers raise health risk as the major reason to adopt BGII

jeffrdv

Need to make sure that the health impacts are not being viewed as just a secondary benefit.

The End

Jeffrey Vitale Gaspard Vognan Marc Ouattarra Karim Traore Oumar Guigemo

Documents

burkina faso monsanto4bollgard

burkina faso story unique

burkina faso cotton

conventional cotton

insect pest damage

field surveys1burkina

pioneering bt cotton

longterm cotton production