“Adoption Impacts and Access to Innovation in
Small Resource Poor Countries: Results from a
Second Round Survey and Instit...
The Honduras maize sector
 Agriculture important to the
economy
 Binding limitations to ag production
 Maize is essenti...
Binding constraints to maize production in
Honduras
 Low productivity
 Damage by lepidopteran insects can be as high as ...
GMOs in Honduras
8th Latin American country adopting GMOs since 20021
Only country in CentralAmerica
cultivating GMOs for ...
Honduras: promotional environment favoring
biotechnology adoption
Favorable policy,economic and social conditions facilita...
 Established Biosafety Framework and Regulations
 Incorporated biotechnology in National Food Self Sufficiency Strategy
...
Enabling biosafety regulatory approach
 Biosafety issues are handled by the Ministries ofAgriculture
and Environment
 A ...
 GM maize provided excellent
target pest control
Bt yield advantage 856-1781 Kg ha-1
yield
Bt maize yields preferred ev...
The 2013 (second) survey to observe experiences of
conventional & GM maize farmers
Economic,social and agronomic impacts
F...
Major maize producing areas in Honduras
Olancho: The main maize producing state in
Honduras
- 180,000 metric tons
- 35,000 planted hectares >30 % national maize ...
Descriptive statistics
Non-Adopters
(n=82)
PartialAdopters
(n=30)
Complete Adopters
(n=92) P
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Landh...
Costs and Net Benefits
Non-Adopters
(n=82)
Complete Adopters
(n=92)
Mean SD Mean SD P
Total costs
(US$/ha) 727.1 226.2 135...
But... our data analysis shows that outliers and
sampling biases are present and relevant to
outcomes
1
3
5
11
2021 40
42
...
Maize yields and net income: raw and
sampling bias/outlier adjusted averages
Yield
(mt/ha)
Raw averages Averages adjusted
...
Small-holders and GM Maize qualitative research
Research questions
 Does the operation of maize production differs among ...
Qualitative Research –Tools used
 One-page identification survey, by
participant
 Map of maize production activities by
...
Women
Plant conventional maize
Plant GM maize
Men
Women Men
31 33
 Only group that use recycle seed
 Solely decides whic...
Net Mapping and Social NetworkAnalysis
Who could influence the adoption of GM maize in Honduras?
Net Mapping and Social Network Analysis –
Indicators of closeness and centrality
Communication and Outreach
Video Documentary on the Impact on
theAdoption of GM Crops in
Honduras
Honduran production crew...
Summary
 Positive economic benefits of using GM
maize technology in Honduras for
current adopters
 Results across our st...
Policy issues for future research
Why is the aggregate adoption rate is low and growing relatively slowly when the return
...
Two upcoming sources of information
 Next Harvest II
 Templeton funded projects
implemented by IFPRI
 A comprehensive s...
Arie Sanders
Maria Mercedes Roca
Miljian Villalta
Alan B. Bennett
Cecilia Chi-Ham
Denisse McLean
José Falck-Zepeda
Patrici...
José Benjamin Falck-Zepeda, Ph.D.
Senior Research Fellow / Leader PolicyTeam Program
for Biosafety Systems
IFPRI
2033 K St...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Falck Zpeda et al Presentation of Honduras Bt_RR maize case study at Templeton Foundation project reporting Cambridge april 2014

759 views

Published on

This is a presentation of the advanced preliminary results from a study on genetically modified Bt-RR maize in Honduras. The study was conducted by IFPRI, Zamorano University and University of California -Davis. Our results show that Bt-RR maize has performed as designed. It has reduced damage due to target lepidopteran insects, and has decreased slightly pesticide use by adopters. Net benefits are substantially higher for Bt-RR maize adopters than for the non-adopters in our sample. Yet, Bt-RR maize remains adoption remains at around 8-10% of total area planted to maize in Honduras in 2013. Our qualitative and quantitative analysis seems to indicated that there are other organizational and institutional constraints which are limiting such adoption. The current Bt-RR maize technology as it stands now is not intending for subsistence farmers much less the poorest of the poor producers in Honduras. This opens the question of whether there may be potential interventions to improve these producers' productivity through conditional transfer programs that include cash and/or productive inputs such as seed, fertilizer and in some cases pesticides and herbicides.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
759
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
36
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Falck Zpeda et al Presentation of Honduras Bt_RR maize case study at Templeton Foundation project reporting Cambridge april 2014

  1. 1. “Adoption Impacts and Access to Innovation in Small Resource Poor Countries: Results from a Second Round Survey and Institutional Assessment in Honduras” José Falck Zepeda1, Denisse McLean2, Patricia Zambrano1, Arie Sanders2, Maria Mercedes Roca2, Cecilia Chi-Ham3 Allan Bennett3 1 IFPRI 2 Zamorano University 3 UC Davis PIPRA Presentation made at Biosciences for Africa project meeting, Cambridge, UK April 2014. © 2014 UC-Davis and IFPRI
  2. 2. The Honduras maize sector  Agriculture important to the economy  Binding limitations to ag production  Maize is essential part of the diet  Increasingly dependent on imports Maize in Honduras is grown mostly for food/feed
  3. 3. Binding constraints to maize production in Honduras  Low productivity  Damage by lepidopteran insects can be as high as 40-70%  Increasing issues with other pests and diseases  Heavy damage due to aflatoxins / mycotoxins
  4. 4. GMOs in Honduras 8th Latin American country adopting GMOs since 20021 Only country in CentralAmerica cultivating GMOs for food -USA* -Brazil* -Argentina* -South Africa* -Canada* -Uruguay x1.5 -Philippines x3 -Spain x5 -Chile x7 -Honduras -Portugal x.8 -Czech Republic x .7 -Poland x3 -Egypt x9 -Slovakia x0.4 -Romania x2 • By 2013, 75 thousand ha with hybrids and GM  15% area planted • GM estimated around 30-40 thousand hectares BT (MON810), RR (NK603), Herculex 1 ,YGVTPro (MON89034) traits approved for commercialization
  5. 5. Honduras: promotional environment favoring biotechnology adoption Favorable policy,economic and social conditions facilitated adoption UN Statistics Division, 2011. WTO Statistics, Trade Profiles, 2012 Strategic interest in aligning agricultural policies with the major economic and trade partners • Honduras trade is essentially tied to the United States • Historically strong presence of agricultural multinationals interested in increased agricultural productivity
  6. 6.  Established Biosafety Framework and Regulations  Incorporated biotechnology in National Food Self Sufficiency Strategy  Coordinated a joint agricultural and environmental political agenda ‘To facilitate the process to incorporate hybrids and transgenic seeds in 25% of the area planted at the national level by 2014’ Honduras Agricultural and Livestock Ministry goal Public Agricultural and Food Sector Strategy 1996/98: Biosecurity Regulation with Emphasis inTransgenic Plants 1998: National Committee of Biotechnology and Biosecurity (NCBB) 2006: CAFTA-DR Phytozoosanitary Law modification 2008: Cartagena Protocol Ratification 2001/12: Law for the Protection of NewVarieties of Plants USAID GAIN Report 2012. Honduran government specific policy support for easing a transition towards biotechnologies Honduras: A case study to understand biotechnology adoption in small resource poor developing countries
  7. 7. Enabling biosafety regulatory approach  Biosafety issues are handled by the Ministries ofAgriculture and Environment  A good dose of pragmatism  What is the risk of adopting Gm crops vs. the risk of NOT adopting  A biosafety committee composed of technical people with sound academic credentials  A clear understanding of the process and components of Risk Analysis as a discipline  Focus on risk assessment only, whereas other considerations may be part of the final decision making process
  8. 8.  GM maize provided excellent target pest control Bt yield advantage 856-1781 Kg ha-1 yield Bt maize yields preferred even by risk averse producers  100% higher seed cost than conventional hybrid  Institutional issues important Photos credit: © Sanders and Trabanino 2008 Falck-Zepeda, J., A. Sanders, C. Rogelio Trabanino, & R. Batallas-Huacon. Caught Between Scylla and Charybdis: Impact Estimation Issues from the Early Adoption of GM Maize in Honduras. AgBioForum, 15(2), 138-151. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org. 2008 GM maize crop cycle in Honduras: Results from our first survey
  9. 9. The 2013 (second) survey to observe experiences of conventional & GM maize farmers Economic,social and agronomic impacts Farmers by maize type Size Total < 7 hectares > 7 hectares Conventional only 58 25 83 GM only 39 57 96 Both types of maize 11 19 30 Total 108 101 209 o We chose a representative sample of maize farmers from the main maize producing state in Honduras
  10. 10. Major maize producing areas in Honduras
  11. 11. Olancho: The main maize producing state in Honduras - 180,000 metric tons - 35,000 planted hectares >30 % national maize production - 12,000 hectares with GM  >40% GM maize production - 10,000 farmers - A range of different maize production systems We captured diversity within the commercial maize production chain
  12. 12. Descriptive statistics Non-Adopters (n=82) PartialAdopters (n=30) Complete Adopters (n=92) P Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Landholding size (ha) 25 47 90 152 42 59 <0.01 Maize area (ha) 6 7 4 4 24 43 <0.01 Other crops as share of total income (%) 20 19 21 19 11 16 <0.05 Non-Adopters (n=82) PartialAdopters (n=30) CompleteAdopters (n=92) P Household income (US$) Count % of n Count % of n Count % of n <500 43 52 8 27 8 9 <0.01 500-1000 26 32 8 27 9 10 1000-1500 7 9 2 7 8 9 1500-2000 1 1 3 10 10 11 2000-2500 3 4 7 23 45 49 2500-5000 2 2 2 7 6 7 >5000 0 0 0 0 6 7
  13. 13. Costs and Net Benefits Non-Adopters (n=82) Complete Adopters (n=92) Mean SD Mean SD P Total costs (US$/ha) 727.1 226.2 1356.8 661.5 <0.01 Yield (MT/ha) 3.0 1.3 5.5 1.4 <0.01 Price (US$/MT) 280.0 44.8 377.1 72.9 <0.01 Income (US$/ha) 830.8 402.3 2081.9 687.8 <0.01 Net utility (US$/ha) 104.6 413.6 727.2 874.0 <0.01 Partial Adopters Non-GM Plot (n=30) Partial Adopters GM Plot (n=30) Mean SD Mean SD P Total costs (US$/ha) 979.6 312.7 1123.2 460.1 Yield (MT/ha) 3.7 1.6 5.3 1.6 <0.01 Price (US$/MT) 328.9 76.3 328.9 76.3 Income (US$/ha) 1244.0 658.6 1773.8 754.4 <0.01 Net utility (US$/ha) 265.7 511.8 652.4 664.4 <0.05
  14. 14. But... our data analysis shows that outliers and sampling biases are present and relevant to outcomes 1 3 5 11 2021 40 42 56 60 68 76 77 78 84 8586 8889 90 91 92 939496 99 100101 103104 106 107 109 110 111112114 115 116 117 120 121 122125 127 129 130 131 132 133 135 136137140141 144 145 152 153154 155 157158159 161 164 166 168 170 171 173 174 175 176182 183 184185 186191 198 199 200 203 204 206 208 212 213 214 215 216 230 232 233 -20 0 2040 Robuststandardizedresiduals 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Robust_distance Observation ID Yield Cook’s D 42 6.500 0.053 84 5.200 0.385 99 7.475 0.033 116 4.543 0.039 120 9.100 0.020 121 2.507 0.022 129 2.839 0.021 131 6.500 0.688 132 3.250 0.054 143 1.817 0.028 152 5.200 1.230 155 7.800 0.036 169 1.083 0.020 170 6.045 2.381 173 0.975 0.030 174 8.060 0.032 182 0.195 0.060 200 5.200 0.033 212 7.800 0.032 217 1.300 0.020 222 9.100 0.022 230 6.500 0.026 “The classical instrumental variables (IV) estimator is extremely sensitive to the presence of outliers in the sample. This is a concern as outliers can strongly dis- tort the estimated effect of a given regressor on the dependent variable. Although outlier diagnostics exist, they frequently fail to detect atypical observations since they are themselves based on non-robust (to outliers) estimators. Furthermore, they do not take into account the combined influence of outliers in the first and second stages of the IV estimator” Desbordes and Verardi, Stata Journal 2012
  15. 15. Maize yields and net income: raw and sampling bias/outlier adjusted averages Yield (mt/ha) Raw averages Averages adjusted for sampling bias and/or outliers GM plots 5.3 4.78 - 5.02 Conventional plots 3.7 3.7 Difference 1.6 1.08 - 1.32 Estimate of the impact of sampling bias and/or outliers (%) 17 - 32% Income (US$/ha) Raw averages Averages adjusted for sampling bias and/or outliers GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754 Conventional plots 1244 1244 Difference 530 340 - 510 Estimate of the impact of sampling bias and/or outliers (%) 4 - 36%
  16. 16. Small-holders and GM Maize qualitative research Research questions  Does the operation of maize production differs among small-scale adopters and non-adopters?  Are these differences gender specific or gender neutral?  What are the perceived main limitations that small-holders face in the adoption of GM maize?
  17. 17. Qualitative Research –Tools used  One-page identification survey, by participant  Map of maize production activities by specific producer (GM and non-GM adopter, by gender)  Variety/hybrid preference matrix: perceptions of main limitations, by group  Priority action matrix, perceptions of main technology barriers, by group  One-to-one interviews
  18. 18. Women Plant conventional maize Plant GM maize Men Women Men 31 33  Only group that use recycle seed  Solely decides which seed to plant  Supervise most work  Does much of the work by themselves  Poor knowledge about GM seed characteristics  Only group that believe GM yields less profits  Need to hire labor  Hire machinery  Male HH members supervision  Decides jointly with male HH member which seed to plant  Rely on male HH members for labor demands  Believe GM yields 2/3 more times  Supervise and makes all maize operations decisions  No family consultation regarding which seed to plant  Perform no weeding activities  Believe GM is less time demanding and requires less hired labor  Only group that believes GM requires equal or more hired labor  Believe GM is more time demanding  Best knowledge and information about GM market and agronomic characteristics Small group discussions: Findings
  19. 19. Net Mapping and Social NetworkAnalysis Who could influence the adoption of GM maize in Honduras?
  20. 20. Net Mapping and Social Network Analysis – Indicators of closeness and centrality
  21. 21. Communication and Outreach Video Documentary on the Impact on theAdoption of GM Crops in Honduras Honduran production crew gathered on-farm footage Communication firm in Costa Rica developed the scripts for 3 short video clips Farmers share their experience with the adoption of conventional and GM maize varieties Perspectives of government and academic representatives
  22. 22. Summary  Positive economic benefits of using GM maize technology in Honduras for current adopters  Results across our study area show that GM maize reduce damage, in some cases yield 29-35% higher compared to the conventional hybrid  Production costs per hectare of GM maize are higher than HYV varieties  GM => Higher seed price but with lower pesticide use  GM maize significantly increased farmer’s net benefits per hectare  Need to address multiple institutional and policy issues
  23. 23. Policy issues for future research Why is the aggregate adoption rate is low and growing relatively slowly when the return to the GM technology is so high in Honduras?  Typical low adoption constraints  Lack of adequate information and knowledge about modern maize varieties  Farm size and liquidity constraints (neighborhood effect in more favored areas)  Access to productive inputs  Serious problems of other kind of pests and diseases  Black tar spot disease makes current GM technology less attractive for the farmers.  Small market outlet for GM maize  Maize processors linked to government programs (WFP) do not accept GM maize  Impact of price fluctuations (?)  Policies to support the “smallest of the smallholders”  Dealing with market uncertainty  Seed companies’ ability to deal with infrastructural issues and producer geographical dispersion  Market value chain capacity  Scale issue
  24. 24. Two upcoming sources of information  Next Harvest II  Templeton funded projects implemented by IFPRI  A comprehensive survey measuring agricultural biotechnology capacity  South Africa  Nigeria  Kenya  Uganda  A report to theAfrican Development Bank on agricultural biotechnology capacity submitted by IFPRI – to be launched later this year
  25. 25. Arie Sanders Maria Mercedes Roca Miljian Villalta Alan B. Bennett Cecilia Chi-Ham Denisse McLean José Falck-Zepeda Patricia Zambrano Sandra Mendoza. Participatory research consultant Research funded by:
  26. 26. José Benjamin Falck-Zepeda, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow / Leader PolicyTeam Program for Biosafety Systems IFPRI 2033 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006-1002 USA j.falck-zepeda@cgiar.org Brief bio/pubs: http://www.ifpri.org/staffprofile/jose-falck-zepeda Blog: http://socioeconomicbiosafety.wordpress.com/ Follow me onTwitter: @josefalck

×