Global impact of Biotech crops:
economic & environmental effects
1996-2010
Graham Brookes
PG Economics Ltd
UK
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
General background
• Biotech crops grown commercially on a global scale since
1996
• 2011: 160 million ha, 16.7 million farmers (90% small,
resource poor farmers in developing countries)
• All biotech crops subject to strict scientific safety approval
process examining impacts on health and environment
before allowed to be grown
• After 16 years of growing and consuming biotech crops
there has been no credible and documented evidence of
any negative safety, health or environmental impact
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
•
•
•
•
Background
7th annual review of global GM crop impacts
Authors of 13 papers on GM crop impacts in peer review
journals
Current review in 2 open access papers in journal GM
crops. www.landesbioscience.com/journal/gmcrops
Full report available at www.pgeconomics.co.uk
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
Coverage
• Cumulative impact: 1996-2010
• Farm income & productivity impacts: focuses on
farm income, yield, production
• Environmental impact analysis covering pesticide
spray changes & associated environmental impact
• Environmental impact analysis: greenhouse gas
emissions
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
Methodology
• Literature review of economic impact in each
country – collates & extrapolates existing work
• Uses current prices, exch rates and yields (for each
year): gives dynamic element to analysis
• Review of pesticide usage (volumes used) or
typical GM versus conventional treatments
• Use of Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ)
indicator
• Review of literature on carbon impacts – fuel
changes and soil carbon
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
Key Findings
Pesticide
change 1996-2010
438 million kg
reduction in
pesticides &
17.9% cut in
associated
environmental
impact
Carbon Emissions
2010
cut of 19.3
billion kg co2
release; equal
to taking 8.6
million cars off
the road
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
Global
farm income
1996-2010
$78.4
billion
increase
Farm income gains 2010: highlights
• Total farm income benefit $14 billion
• Equal to adding value to global production of
these four crops of 4.3%
• Average gain/hectare: $100
• Income share
Developed,
45%
Developing,
55%
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
Farm income gains 1996-2010 by country
(US $)
Canada
$3.28 billion increase
Sweden
Russia
Finland
Norway
Estonia
United Kingdom
Canada
United States
$35 billion increase
Mexico
$136 million increase
Netherlands
Germany
Portugal
Belarus
Poland
Bel. Lux.
Spain
$114 million
United States
Latvia
Lithuania
Denmark
Ireland
France
Czech Rep.
Ukraine
Slovakia
Moldova
Switz. Austria Hungary
Slovenia
Croatia
Romania
Bosnia &
Italy
Kazakhstan
Mongolia
Herz.
Serbia
Montenegro Bulgaria
Macedonia
Albania
Spain
Morocco
Cyprus
Syria
Lebanon
Iraq
Israel
Jordan
Tunisia
Iran
Kuwait
Algeria
Libya
Western Sahara
Bahamas
Mexico
Egypt
Qatar
Jamaica
Belize
Honduras
Guatemala
El Salvador
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Colombia
$38.4 million
Saudi Arabia
Mauritania
Mali
Cape Verde
Senegal
Gambia
Guinea-Bissau Guinea
Nicaragua
Panama
Costa Rica
Guyana
Suriname
French Guiana
Venezuela
Colombia
Sierra Leone
Liberia
Burkina
Faso
Benin
Cote
Togo
d’Ivoire
Ghana
Niger
Eritrea
Chad
Sudan
Nigeria
Cameroon
— Brazil
$4.6 billion increase
— Paraguay
Peru
Bolivia —
$223 million
Uruguay —
$84.4 million
Brazil
Bolivia
Chile
Argentina
Uruguay
Angola
billion increase
Burundi
Bhutan
Bangladesh
Taiwan
Burma
Laos
Philippines
Brunei
Malaysia
Indonesia
Tanzania
Zambia
Indonesia
Malawi
Zimbabwe
Botswana
Papua
New Guinea
Solomon Islands
Vanuatu
Fiji
Mozambique
Madagascar
Swaziland
Lesotho
South Africa
$655 million increase
— Argentina12.2
Kenya
Nepal
India
East Timor
Namibia
Paraguay
Uganda
Japan
China
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Somalia
Congo
Rwanda
Gabon
Dem. Rep.
Congo
Ecuador
Yemen
Ethiopia
Equatorial Guinea
Afghanistan
Thailand
Vietnam
Cambodia
Dijbouti
Central
African
Republic
N. Korea
S. Korea
China
$10.9 billion increase
Philippines
India
$170 million
$9.4 billion increase
increase
U.A.E.
Oman
Cuba
Kyrgyzstan
Turkmenistan Tajikistan
Turkey
Greece
Malta
Uzbekistan
Georgia
Armenia Azerbaijan
South Africa
$809 million increase
Australia
New Zealand
Australia
$408 million increase
Farm income & production benefits:
India IR cotton
2010
1996-2010
% of crop using
technology 2010
Farm income
gains (US $
millions)
2,499
9,395
85
Production gains
(‘000 tonnes lint)
1,257
5,749
Year first used 2002
Average benefit/ha $259/ha
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
Other farm level benefits
GM HT crops
GM IR crops
Increased management
flexibility/convenience
Production risk management tool
Facilitation of no till practices
Machinery & energy cost savings
Cleaner crops = lower harvest cost &
quality premia
Yield gains for non GM crops
(reduced general pest levels)
Less damage in follow on crops
Convenience benefit
Improved crop quality
Improved health & safety for
farmers/workers
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
In US these benefits valued at $7.6
billion 1996-2010
Cost of accessing the technology ($
billion) 2010
• Distribution of total trait
benefit: all (tech cost 28%)
Cost of tech,
5.3
Farm income,
14
• Distribution of benefit:
developing countries (tech cost
17%)
Cost of tech goes to seed supply chain (sellers of
seed to farmers, seed multipliers, plant breeders,
distributors & tech providers)
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
Cost of tech,
1.61
Farm
income, 7.67
Yield gains versus cost savings
• 60% ($47 billion) of total farm income gain due to yield
gains 1996-2010
• Balance due to cost savings
• Yield gains mainly from GM IR technology & cost savings
mainly from GM HT technology
• Yield gains greatest in developing countries & cost savings
mainly in developed countries
• HT technology also facilitated no tillage systems – allowed
second crops (soy) in the same season in S America
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
IR corn: average yield increase 1996-2010
25.0%
15.0%
10.0%
20.2%
18.8%
20.0%
12.0%
8.8%
7.0%
6.6%
5.6%
7.0%
5.0%
5.0%
0.0%
US & Can
S Africa
Argentina
Philippines
Average across all countries:
+9.6%
Spain
Uruguay
Brazil
Colombia
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
CRW
US/Can
IR cotton: average yield increase 1996-2010
45.0%
41.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
30.0%
25.2%
24.1%
25.0%
19%
20.0%
15.0%
9.8%
9.9%
US
China
10.5%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
-5.0%
S Africa
Mexico
Average across all countries:
+14.4%
Argentina
Brazil-1.4%
India
Colombia
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
Burkina Faso
HT traits: yield and production effects
Trait/country
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
Yield/production effect
HT soy: Romania, Mexico,
Bolivia
+23%, +7% & +15%
respectively on yield
HT soy: 2nd generation: US &
Canada
+5% yield
HT soy Argentina & Paraguay
Facilitation of 2nd crop soy
after wheat: equal to +20%
and +7% respectively to
production level
HT corn: Argentina, Brazil,
Philippines
+10%, +2.5% & +5%
respectively on yield
HT cotton: Mexico, Colombia
+2.3% & +4% respectively on
yield
HT canola: US, Canada &
Australia
+2.8%, +7.4% & +17.3%
respectively on yield
Additional crop production arising from positive yield
effects of biotech traits 1996-2010 (million tonnes)
159.4
160.0
140.0
120.0
97.5
100.0
80.0
60.0
28.3
40.0
20.0
13.1
12.5
2.1
0.7
Cotton
Canola
0.0
Soybeans
Corn
2010
1996-2010
6.1
Additional conventional area required if
biotech not used (m ha)
Soybeans
Maize
Cotton
Canola
Total
2010
5.08
5.57
2.97
0.35
13.97
1996-2010
37.92
31.36
18.01
3.34
90.63
Impact on pesticide use
• Since 1996 use of pesticides down by 438 m kg (-9%) &
associated environmental impact -17.9% - equivalent to 1.6
x total EU (27) pesticide active ingredient use on arable
crops in one year
• Largest environmental gains from GM IR cotton: savings
of 170 million kg insecticide use & 26% reduction in
associated environmental impact of insecticides
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
Insecticide use and environmental impact
changes: IR cotton: India
Conventional
Biotech
Ai/ha (kg)
1.86
1.06
EIQ/ha
70.07
34.43
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
Impact on greenhouse gas emissions
Lower GHG emissions: 2 main
sources:
• Reduced fuel use (less spraying
& soil cultivation)
• GM HT crops facilitate no till
systems = less soil preparation
= additional soil carbon storage
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
Reduced GHG emissions: 2010
• Reduced fuel use (less
spraying & tillage) = 1.7
billion kg less carbon
dioxide
=
• Facilitation of no/low till
systems = 17.6 billion kg
of carbon dioxide not
released into atmosphere
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
Equivalent to removing 8.6
million cars — 28% of cars
registered in the United Kingdom
— from the road for one year
Reduced GHG emissions: 1996-2010
• less fuel use = 12.2 billion kg co2 emission
saving (5.4 m cars off the road)
• additional soil carbon sequestration = 134
billion kg co2 saving if land retained in
permanent no tillage. BUT only a
proportion remains in continuous no till so
real figure is lower (lack of data means not
possible to calculate)
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
Concluding comments
• Technology used by 16.7 m farmers on 160 m ha
in 2011
• Delivered important economic & environmental
benefits
• + $78.4 billion to farm income since 1996
• -438 m kg pesticides & 17.9% reduction in env
impact associated with pesticide use since 1996
• Carbon dioxide emissions down by 19.3 billion kg
in 2010: equal to 8.6 m cars off the road for a year
©PG Economics Ltd 2012
Concluding comments
• GM IR technology: higher yields, less production risk, decreased
insecticide use leading to improved productivity and returns and more
environmentally farming methods
• GM HT technology: combination of direct benefits (mostly cost reductions)
& facilitation of changes in farming systems (no till & use of broad
spectrum products) plus major GHG emission gains
• Both technologies have made important contributions to increasing world
production levels of soybeans, corn, canola and cotton
• but GM HT technology has seen over reliance on use of glyphosate by
some farmers which has contributed to development of weed resistance
©PG Economics Ltd 2012