Transcript Productivity, Access, and Risk: the Keys to Biotechnology in Developing Countries David Zilberman, University of California Gregory Graff, University of California Matin Qaim, University of.

Productivity, Access, and Risk:
the Keys to Biotechnology in Developing
Countries
David Zilberman, University of California
Gregory Graff, University of California
Matin Qaim, University of Bonn
Cherisa Yarkin, University of California
Presumed Points of Failure
1. Productivity: Biotechnology aims to solve
problems of the North; will not make a
difference in the South.
2. Access: Biotechnology is controlled by
corporations; will not be accessible on feasible
terms to poor peasants.
3. Risks: Damage to environment and human
health, contamination of native genetic
materials, and loss of crop biodiversity
Productivity: Yield-Increasing Potential
Yield = potential output x (1 - damage)
damage = f (pest, pest control)
Combination of high pest pressure and minimal
existing use of pest control  potential for
yield-increasing effect
Attractive features of pest-control agricultural
biotechnologies
Simplicity of use
Reduction in use of chemicals or labor
Productivity: Evidence for Bt Cotton Gains
Bt cotton in:
United States: yield effect 0 – 15%
China: yield effect 10%
South Africa: yield effect 20%-40%
India: yield effect 60 – 80 %
In every country have reduction in chemical usage
The Impact of Bt Cotton in India
Bt cotton is used to provide resistance to the
American bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera).
The technology was developed by Monsanto
and was introduced in collaboration with the
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company (Mahyco).
Field trials with these Bt hybrids have been
carried out since 1997 and, for the 2002/03
growing season, the technology was
commercially approved by the Indian
authorities.
Our study
For our analysis, we use data from onfarm field trials that were carried out
during the 2001/02 growing season as
part of the regulatory procedure.
In 2001, field trials were carried out on
395 farms in seven states of India.
These trials were initiated by Mahyco
and supervised by the regulatory
authorities.
Experimental design
Three adjacent 646 m2 plots were planted: the first
with a Bt cotton hybrid, the second with the same
hybrid but without the Bt gene (non-Bt counterpart),
and the third with a different hybrid commonly used
in the particular location (popular check).
All three plots were managed by the farmers
themselves, following customary practices.
This setup allows reducing the effects of differences
in agroecological conditions and managerial abilities
when making technological comparisons.
The actual data source
In addition to the regular trial records, more
comprehensive information was collected for 157
farms on agronomic aspects and farm and
household characteristics.
Observations from these 157 farms constitute the
data basis for this analysis.
They cover 25 districts in three major cottonproducing states—Maharashtra and Madhya
Pradesh in Central India and Tamil Nadu in the
South. Plot-level input and output data were
extrapolated to 1 hectare to facilitate comparisons.
Results
Bt hybrids were sprayed three times less often
against bollworms than the conventional hybrids.
On average, insecticide amounts on Bt cotton plots
were reduced by almost 70%, which is consistent
with studies from other countries.
At average pesticide amounts of 1.6 kg/ha (active
ingredients) on the conventional trial plots, crop
damage in 2001/02 was about 60%. Bt does not
completely eliminate pest-related yield losses.
Results II
Average yields of Bt hybrids exceeded those
of non-Bt counterparts and local checks by
80% and 87%, respectively.
2001/02 was a season with high bollworm
pressure in India, so that average yield
effects will be somewhat lower in years with
less pest problems.
Insecticide Use and Crop Losses with and without Bt
Technology
Yield and pesticides use comparisons
Bt
Non-Bt
Popular
count erpart
check
Sprays against boll worm
0.62* (1.28)
3.68 (1.98 )
3.63(1.98)
Sprays against sucking pests
3.57 (1.70)
3.51(1.66)
3.45(1.62)
Amount of insecticide (kg/h a)
1.74* (1.86)
5.56 (3.15 )
5.43(3.07)
Toxicity class I
0.64*(1.10 )
1.98 (1.78 )
1.94(1.78)
Toxicity class II
1.07*(1.27 )
3.55 (2.66 )
3.46(2.60)
Toxicity class III
0.03 (0.08 )
0.03 (0.08)
0.03(0.08)
Active ing redient (kg/h a)
0.48*(0.55 )
1.55 (0.96 )
1.52(0.95)
Yield (kg/h a)
1,501*(857)
833(572)
802(571 )
* Me an values are different fro m those of non-Bt coun terparts and popular check s at a 5% significance
lev el.
Yield lev els refer to the amo unt of seed cotton b efore ginning.
Predicted yield effects of pest controlling Biotech
Availability
Adoption of Yield
Pest
of chemical
chemicals
pressure
alternatives
Develop ed coun tries
Low-med
high
high
low
L.Am (commercial)
medium
medium
high
low -med
China
medium
medium
high
low- med\
L.Am(non -commercial)
medium
low -med
low
med -high
South & So. e ast Asia
high
low -med
low -med
high
Africa
high
low
low
high
Region
effect
of
GM crops
Access
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
Registrations
Access: Biotechnologies in the South
Most IP is generated by research in
the North
Transfer of public sector’s rights to
the private sector provides incentives
for development and
commercialization
Companies have little incentive to
invest in applications specific to the
South
Access: Biotechnologies in the South
Companies are willing to give technologies for use
in South; good PR
Companies worry about liability, transaction costs
Universities with rights to technology will also be
open to transferring to South applications
Needed institutional mediation: IP clearinghouse
Access: Objectives of clearinghouse for IPR
Reduce search costs to identifying set of
technologies accessible
Reduce transaction cost for the
commercialization of innovations
Increase transparency about ownership of IPR
Provide mechanisms to manage negotiation of
access to IPR
Improve technology transfer mechanisms and
practices (mostly in public sector institution)
Access: Model of a clearinghouse for IPR
Member organizations
IP providers:
Non-member
organizations
Assignment, license, or option for full or limited fields of use
Direct licensing
transactions
“Re-packaging”
Pooled sub-licensing
Single patent sub-licensing
IP users:
Non-member IP users
Non-member IP users
Member organization IP
users
Access: Reducing Regulatory Constraints
Registration should be efficient. Excessive
requirements may be used as a source of political
economic rent seeking.
Borders are arbitrary. Countries can take
advantage of regulatory clearances granted
elsewhere and concentrate on addressing unique
local problems and risks.
Countries should develop regional alliances for
regulation and establish mechanisms for easy
transfer of regulatory information.
Environment
Risks
Agricultural biodiversity
Environment: Sound Basis for Risk Analysis
Is the Precautionary Principle a sound basis for risk
analysis?
There are always trade-offs between risks and benefits,
and between risks and risks.
In Africa, does risk of “genetic contamination” exceed risk of
starvation?
Agricultural biotechnology should be evaluated in
comparison to pesticides and other real alternatives.
In tropics, increased productivity would reduce pressure for
deforestation.
Gmo’s are not perfectGmo’s have problems-resistance buildup,
damage to secondary pests, genetic
contamination.
Refugia, monitoring of impacts, restriction of
use in some locations can address these
problems partially-but alternatives have
problems and risks that have to be considered.
Agricultural biotech is in its infancy- built up of
human capital and accumulation of -will lead to
eliminations of many bug and lead to better
technologies
Environment: Sound Basis for Risk Analysis
Risks and benefits should be quantified.
Sound reliability factors—i.e. confidence
intervals—should be used to standardize risk
estimates.
Environment: Relative to Modern Breeding
Biotech Can Enhance Crop Biodiversity
Main premise: Agbiotech allows minor
modification of existing varieties and
under appropriate institutional setup
can be adopted while preserving crop
biodiversity
Conventional breeding involves often massive
genetic changes, and adjustments to
accommodate biodiversity are costly and
Well functioning IPR system can lead to crop
biodiversity preservation
Field data support this claim
Table 1. Number of available varieties for different GM
technologies in selected countries (2001/2002)
Numb er of
local
varieties/hybrids
Numb er of
imp orted
varieties/hybrids
Country
Technology
Area under
technology (ha)
USA
RR soybean
22 mi llion
>1,100
0
Bt corn
7 million
>700
0
Bt cotton
2 million
19
0
RR soybean
10 mi llion
45
11
Bt corn
0.7 million
15
6
Bt cotton
22,000
0
2
China
Bt cotton
1.5 million
22
5
India
Bt cotton
40,000
3
0
Mexico
Bt cotton
28,000
0
2
South Africa
Bt cotton
20,000
1
2
Argentina
a
Environment: Biodiversity scenarios in the field
Strong IPRs, strong breeding sector, and low
transaction costs. (US) Private technology owner
will license the innovation to different seed
companies, who incorporate it into many or all
crop varieties, so that crop biodiversity is
preserved.
Strong IPRs, strong breeding sector, but high
transaction costs. (EU) If an agreement cannot
be reached, companies will bypass breeding
sector, directly introduce GM crop varieties that
are not locally adapted.
Environment: Biodiversity scenarios in the field
Weak IPRs and a strong breeding sector. (China)
Many different GM varieties are available Farmers
and consumers are beneficiaries. SR social
optimum.
Weak IPRs and a weak breeding sector. (Africa) If
foreign GM crop varieties are even introduced,
are done directly without adaptation. A loss of
local crop biodiversity.
Biotech Could Enhance Crop Biodiversity
Conventional breeding led to wholesale
replacement of land races with elite line
monocultures
Biotechnology could provide precise
improvements to traditional land races
Could lead to reintroduction of new
“technologically competitive” land races ”Jurasic garden”
Conclusions
Agbiotechnology has significant potential
for developing countries; the challenge
is to realize that potential:
Productivity: yield effect of biotechnology
tends to be larger in developing countries
Access: institutions can reduce IP and
regulatory costs for developing countries
Risks: crop biodiversity can be preserved and
could even be restored with biotechnology
Ag bio tech is only part of the
solution
Ag biotech is more than Gmo’s.
It will evolve- alternative molecular approaches
will be developed-but
knowledge will not be accumulated without
experience
Development may be dependent on public and
private sector funding
Ag biotech must be pursued as part of a
portfolio of technology and knowledge tools
aiming to enhance productivity and
environmental sustainability of agriculture.
Consider
250 million Americans are the “guinea pigs” for
agricultural biotechnology. Northern countries also
took the risk with cars and with modern chemicals.
Africa missed the Green Revolution; will it also miss
the Gene Revolution?