E Rodriguez Cerezo

JRC Brussels on 24 March 2010 – Roundup Ready Maize Symposium 1

Joint Research Centre (JRC)

HT maize:
ex-ante study in Europe

Emilio Rodríguez-Cerezo, Francisco Areal & Laura Riesgo
IPTS - Institute for Prospective Technological Studies
Seville - Spain

http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

Introduction

Global area of HT maize (1996-2008)
8

7

6

5
Million hectares

4

3

2

1

0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Source: James (1997-2009)

Introduction

Countries growing HT maize (2008)

<0.1%
5% 2% 2%1%
<0.1%

90%

USA Canada South Africa Argentina Philippines Honduras Chile

Source: James (2009)

Introduction

Possible economic impacts of HT maize:

- Facilitate adoption of no-tillage systems (cost savings:
reduced labour, fuel costs associating with plowing)

- Greater management flexibility: ease of use, broad-spectrum
herbicides and longer time window for spraying

Introduction

2 GM crops authorised in the EU (Bt maize, Amflora potato)

Mandatory coexistence measures in the EU

EU GM farmers have to implement specific segregation
measures

Objective

Analysing factors affecting the ex ante adoption of GM crops

Focusing on HT oilseed rape and HT maize

Effect of coexistence measures on adoption

Survey

Questionnaire to EU farmers
(Mar-Jul, 2007):

HT OSR
Czech Republic: 200
Germany: 208
UK: 200
TOTAL: 608

HT maize The low response rate for some of the
France: 101 questions included in the analysis
Hungary: 100 reduced the number of valid observations
Spain: 104
HT OSR: 426 farms
TOTAL: 305 HT maize: 280 farms

Questionnaire structure

Four sections:
1) Select those farmers that were cropping OSR or maize in 2006

2) Farm characteristics: farm size, hired workers, and machinery

3) Farm management: variety of seeds, use of herbicides and
pesticides, price and production, and WTAd questions

4) Socio-demographic data

Willingness to Adopt

Farmers were asked whether they would grow HT OSR/HT maize.
Respondents could choose amongst 5 ordered alternatives:
a) It's very unlikely I would change to HT OSR (HT maize)
b) It's somewhat unlikely I would change to HT OSR (HT maize)
c) It's uncertain I would change to HT OSR (HT maize)
d) It's likely I would change to HT OSR (HT maize)
e) It's very likely I would change to HT OSR (HT maize).

An ordered probit model was used to estimate the probability of
adoption

Willingness to Adopt

Ex-ante adoption for HT OSR
Czech
Republic Germany UK

Very unlikely 0.15 0.06 0.10
0.34 0.18 0.26
Somewhat unlikely 0.19 0.12 0.16

Uncertain 0.29 0.25 0.28

Likely 0.31 0.42 0.36
0.37 0.57 0.46
Very likely 0.06 0.15 0.10

Conceptual Framework

Ex-ante adoption for HT maize
France Hungary Spain

Very unlikely 0.12 0.15 0.07
0.35 0.41 0.25
Somewhat unlikely 0.23 0.26 0.18

Uncertain 0.36 0.35 0.36

Likely 0.24 0.21 0.31
0.29 0.24 0.39
Very likely 0.05 0.03 0.08

Explanatory variables

Farmers evaluated a number of reasons:

Economic reasons (Economic):
- 'It guarantees the reduction of losses caused by weed growth‘
- 'It guarantees higher income‘
- 'It reduces weed control costs‘

Environmental impact reduction (Environment):
- 'the environmental impact on my farm is reduced because it involves a
cut down in herbicides‘

Facilitation of work (Ease):
- 'It facilitates my work being a technology that makes cultivation easier'


Administrative measures (Administra):
- 'the plot must be identified in a public register'
- 'the neighbouring farmers must be notified‘
- 'if the land is rented, the owner has to be notified‘
- 'it must under public registration for 5 years'
Cleaning and segregation of harvest & transport (Technical):
- ‘the combine harvester must be thoroughly cleaned both before and after
harvesting’
- ‘the compulsory of separate harvesting and transportation’
Insurance policy (Insurance):
- 'an insurance policy to cover claims for neighbours‘
Separation distance (Separation):
- ‘the distance over which I would stop growing HT OSR/Ht maize is …‘


Disbelief in GM technology (Disbelief):
- 'I do not think there would be an improvement in yield‘
-'I do not think there would be an improvement in financial returns‘
- 'I do not belief in these new products‘
- ‘I prefer not to change the type of crop. I do not really like change‘
- 'I have been advised not to use this type of rape‘
- 'I think it would be difficult to market the grain‘
- ‘It will not be well received by society in general’


Age
High education level (Education)
Farm size (Size)
Income

Germany (GE)
Czech Republic (CZ)
United Kingdom (UK)
Spain (SP)
France (FR)
Hungary (HU)


Summary statistics of explanatory variables
HT OSR HT maize
Explanatory variable Mean SD Mean SD
ECONOMIC 0.76 0.41 0.84 0.36
ENVIRONMENT 0.60 0.48 0.69 0.46
EASE 0.83 0.38 0.85 0.36
DISBELIEF 0.35 0.48 0.16 0.36
ADMINISTRA 0.03 0.18 0.01 0.11
TECHNICAL 0.32 0.46 0.29 0.16
SEPARATION 0.54 0.35 0.41 0.49
INSURANCE 0.70 0.47 0.62 0.49
AGE 47.69 11.29 47.61 11.13
EDUCATION 0.42 0.49 0.43 0.50
SIZE 850.79 950.48 269.50 617.28
INCOME 0.25 0.44 0.06 0.50
GE 0.48 0.48 - -
CZ 0.29 0.46 - -
FR - - 0.33 0.47
SP - - 0.35 0.47

Results Ordered probit for HT OSR and
HT maize - WTAd -

HT OSR HT maize
Explanatory variable Coefficient z-statistic Coefficient z-statistic
Constant 1.159*** 3.43 1.133*** 2.62
ECONOMIC 0.560*** 4.10 0.283 1.34
ENVIRONMENT 0.347*** 2.98 0.175 1.06
EASE 0.674*** 4.37 0.459** 2.17
DISBELIEF -0.385*** -3.22 -1.441*** -6.16
ADMINISTRA -0.466 -1.61 -1.303 -1.56
TECHNICAL -0.601*** -4.68 -0.698*** -3.92
SEPARATION -0.211** -1.92 -0.360** -2.45
INSURANCE -0.258** -2.13 -0.344** -2.28
AGE -0.009* -1.93 -0.002 -0.29
EDUCATION 0.261** 2.19 0.167 0.99
SIZE 0.000 -0.61 0.000 0.22
INCOME -0.252** -2.06 -0.442 -1.48
GE 0.284** 1.97 - -
CZ -0.231 -1.39 - -
FR - - 0.164 0.85
SP - - 0.424** 2.14
Cut-off parameters
Cut-off_2 0.63*** 10.52 0.81*** 10.15
Cut-off_3 1.37*** 21.46 1.76*** 20.82
Cut-off_4 2.57*** 29.18 2.86*** 25.13
Log –likelihood -574.88 -366.10
Likelihood Ratio test 165.69*** 138.83***
Pseudo R-squared 0.13 0.16
N 426 280

Conclusions

Positive factors:
- HT OSR: Economic, environmental issues, ease of use.
Socio-demographic variables (Age, education, income)
- HT maize: Ease of use

Negative factors:
HT OSR & HT maize: Coexistence measures, disbelief

Country differences:
- HT OSR: GE** > UK > CZ
- HT maize: SP** > FR > HU

Conclusions

Decision on HT adoption in the EU is shaped by the
implementation of coexistence measures:

Technical measures have large effect on the probability of
adopting

25-metre distance and insurance cover lesser impact on
farmers' WTAd HT crops

Future research

Impacts on inputs use

GM adoption in the EU:
- Effect of coexistence measures
- Effect of efficiency on GM adoption

Consumer behaviour on GM products


Baseline Herbicide use for maize
Number of herbicide treatments Expenses on herbicides (€/ha)

EU EU
Obs= 304; Mean= 1.46; Median= 1; SD= 0.52 Obs= 279; Mean= 47.77; Median= 45; SD= 31.98

25
80

24.1%

20.5%

20
60

54.6 %

14.8%
Percentage

15
Percentage
44.4 %
40

11.5%

10
6.8% 6.5%
20

5.4%
5

3.2%

1.0 % 1.4% 1.1% 1.4% 1.4%
0.7% 0.7% 0.4%
0

0

0 1 2 3 4
No. of herbicides treatments 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Expenses on herbicides (€/ha)


Thank you for your attention!

E Rodriguez Cerezo

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Monsanto

More from Monsanto (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

E Rodriguez Cerezo