Socio-Economic Impact Assessments and Biotechnology: The Experience to Date José Falck Zepeda Research Fellow Leader Policy Team Program for Biosaf ety Systems (PBS) IFPRI From left to rigth: a) Damage by Asia corn borer and b) Bt maize plot in Barangay Conel, Mindanao, The Philippines, c) Transgenic Garden, UP-LB Los Banos, Luzon, Philippines
10
Embed
Jose Falck Zepeda Side Event What Do We Know Socio-economics Sept 2010
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
8/8/2019 Jose Falck Zepeda Side Event What Do We Know Socio-economics Sept 2010
“Socio-Economic Impact Assessments and Biotechnology: TheExperience to Date”
José Falck ZepedaResearch Fellow
Leader Policy Team Program for Biosafety Systems (PBS)
IFPRI
From left to rigth: a) Damage by Asia corn borer and b) Bt maize plot in Barangay Conel, Mindanao, The Philippines, c) Transgenic Garden,UP-LB Los Banos, Luzon, Philippines
8/8/2019 Jose Falck Zepeda Side Event What Do We Know Socio-economics Sept 2010
What do we know from the economic impactassessment literature to date? –
A review of 187 peerreviewed studies
Different impact domains
Farmers, household andcommunity
Industry and markets
Consumers
Trade
Citation: Smale, Melinda; Zambrano, Patricia; Gruère, Guillaume; Falck-Zepeda, José; Matuschke, Ira; Horna, Daniela; Nagarajan, Latha;Yerramareddy, Indira; Jones, Hannah. 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, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute(IFPRI) 107 pages
8/8/2019 Jose Falck Zepeda Side Event What Do We Know Socio-economics Sept 2010
On average, profitable—but averages maskvariability by agro-climate, host cultivar, trait, farmer
Some Ex ante results from studies conducted byIFPRI and country partners
Country Crop/Trait Representative findings
Uganda Fungal
resistantbananas
• If approval delayed, forego potential annual (social)
benefits of +/- US$200 million
West Africa Bt cotton • Countries are worse off by not adopting• Smaller net benefits and returns than other studies• Negotiating downward the technology fee is key
Uganda Bt cotton • Positive yield impacts on net benefits• Smaller IRR probably explained due to low initial yields –
need to improve overall cotton productivity• Probability of a negative return can be as high as 38%with a full technology fee charge – negotiate the fee…
8/8/2019 Jose Falck Zepeda Side Event What Do We Know Socio-economics Sept 2010
On average, profitable—but averagesmask variability by agro-climate, hostcultivar, trait, farmer (2) Some Ex post studies conducted by IFPRI and
country partners
Country Crop/Trait Representative findings
Honduras Bt maize • Excellent control of target insects
• Yield advantage 893-1136 Kg/ha yield (24-33% higher yield Bt)• Bt maize preferred even by risk averse producers based on yield only• 100% higher seed cost than conventional hybrid
Philippines Bt maize • Adopters tend to be larger, use hired labor and are more educated.• Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields• Significant insecticide use reductions
Colombia Bt cotton • Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions• Bt farmers benefited from the technology for one of the two regions inthe study, where the target pest is economically important• Sources of bias important: farmers who adopt are those that arebetter off• Institutional context crucial
8/8/2019 Jose Falck Zepeda Side Event What Do We Know Socio-economics Sept 2010