This presentation was made at the Alliance for Science at Cornell October 2016. The presentation considers assessments in practice as related to socioeconomics, biosafety, biotechnology and decision making.

1. Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
Assessment of Socioeconomic
Considerations in Practice
José Falck Zepeda
Senior Research Fellow
International Food Policy Research Institute –
Program for Biosafety Systems (IFPRI - PBS)
Presented at Cornell Alliance for Science, Ithaca, New York, October 26,
2016.

2. Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
Content
1. Results from selected case studies
2. The literature
3. Findings, conclusions and recommendations

3. Ex ante studies completed by IFPRI
and partners

4. The case of fungal resistant bananas in
Uganda
• Considered irreversible cost and
benefits using the real options
approach
• Conclusions
– If approval delayed, forego potential
annual (social) benefits of +/- US$200
million
– Maximum total development costs
cannot exceed US$108 million.
Otherwise, GM banana is not a viable
alternative.
– Even when considering precautionary
principle concepts within the analysis,
adoption still benefits Uganda
Citation: Kikulwe, E., J. Wesseler and J. Falck-Zepeda. 2008. Introducing a Genetically Modified Banana in Uganda: Social Benefits,
Costs, and Consumer Perceptions. IFPRI Discussion Paper 767, Environment and Production Technology Division, International
Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D. C. USA.
Copyright Kikulwe © 2009

5. Ex ante assessment: Case of Bt cotton
in Burkina Faso and West Africa
• Estimation of potential adoption impact of Bt cotton in
Burkina Faso, Benin, Mali, Senegal and Togo
• Study was done in preparation for the eventual approval of
Bt cotton in the region
• Only Burkina Faso adopted whereas Mali and Benin seem
to have a precautionary stance towards the technology
• Cotton is a major source of cash for resource poor farmers
in the region
• Remnants of the cotton system

6. Ex ante assessment: Case of Bt cotton
in Burkina Faso and West Africa (2)
• Use a modified economic method to account for
production/financial risk and parameter uncertainty
• Use scenarios to simulate policy questions
– No adoption in West Africa, adoption elsewhere
(impacts on competivity)
– Technology price (fee) including reductions
– Irregular adoption patterns
– Regulatory delays

7. Ex ante assessment: Case of Bt cotton
in Burkina Faso and West Africa (3)
• Some conclusions
– If region decided not to adopt
the technology it will lose
competivity as other regions
continue to adopt Bt cotton
– Innovators and producers
earn the largest share of
additional benefits
– With a reduced technology
fee, probability that farmers
earn positive net income
increases
Mean = -2.77E+07
X <=0
99.5%
X <= - 49'173,256
5%
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
Net Present Value
(millions US$)
Probability
(1*10
-8
)
Scenario 1. Total Surplus West Africa
Mean = 3.32E+07
X <= 0
3.86%
X <= 65'732,204
95%
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Net Present Value
(million US$)
Probability
(1*10
-8
)
Scenario 3. Total Surplus West Africa

8. GM vegetables in Ghana
• Examine likely impact of the introduction of GM
varieties in Ghana
• Examine four specific technologies:
– Tomatoes resistant to the Yellow Leaf Curl Virus
(TYLCV) disease.
– Garden eggs (eggplant) resistant to the stem and fruit
borer.
– Cabbages resistant to the Diamond Back Moth (DBM)
– Cassava resistant to the African Cassava Mosaic Virus
(ACMV) disease

9. GM vegetables in Ghana
• Field surveys conducted in Ghana with
conventional farmers
• Asked farmers about potential effects
– Without the constraint
– With the constraint but without using pesticides
– With the constraint and chemical control of the pest
• Methodologies
– Partial budgeting
– Economic surplus with stochastic simulations

10. GM vegetables in Ghana – Findings for tomato
• There is indeed
an impact on
yields by the
TYLCY virus in
Ghana
• Issues with
proper control
of white fly
(vector) and
thus of virus
damage
Cummulative Percent of Yield
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46
Yield (t / ha)
2005
Unconditional
No Constraint
Constraint No Pesticide
Constraint + Pesticide

11. GM vegetables in Ghana – Findings for tomato
Unit
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4
Model Small Open Economy
Adoption curve Conventional
(smooth)
Conventional
(smooth)
Irregular Irregular
Max adoption % 35 35 35 35
Effective area
adopting GM
technology
Ha 12,950 12,950 12,950 12,950
Technology fee Ha 0.00 9.17 0.00 9.17
Average R&D and
technology transfer
costs
US$ 0.00 1,500,000 0.00 1,500,000
NPV of Producer
surplus
US$ 12,076,148 11,191,115 8,077,549 7,206,253
Internal rate of return % n.a. 101% n.a. 76.4%

12. Ex post studies completed by IFPRI
and partners

13. A bit of history…The case of Bt cotton
in the U.S.
-22 -12 -14
58 37 37
141
80 97
63
85
93
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1996
Industry
US Farmers
Consumers
Foreign Farmers
1997 1998
Industry
36%
Consumers
19%
US Farmers
45%
Total benefit estimates
(Millions US $)
Falck-Zepeda, Traxler & Nelson 1999, 2000

14. GE Maize in Honduras
8th Latin American country adopting GMOs since 20021
Only country in Central America
cultivating commercially GE food crops
-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 2011, 72 thousand ha with hybrids and GM  15% area planted1
• GM estimated around 25-30 thousand ha
BT (MON810), RR (NK603), Herculex 1 , YGVTPro
(MON89034) traits approved for commercialization

15. Major maize producing areas in Honduras

16. GE maize in Honduras: First round
surveys - 2008
 Excellent target pest
control
 Bt yield advantage 893-
1136 Kg ha-1 yield (24-
33%)
 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
“Small “Resource-Poor” Countries Taking Advantage of the New Bioeconomy
and Innovation: The Case of Insect Protected/Herbicide Tolerant Maize in
Honduras.” Jose Falck Zepeda, Arie Sanders, Rogelio Trabanino, Oswaldo
Medina and Rolando Batallas-Huacon. Paper presented at the 13th ICABR
Conference “The Emerging Bio-Economy”, Ravello, Italy June 17-20, 2009.

17. - 180,000 metric tons
- 35,000 planted hectares >30 % national corn production
- 12,000 hectares with GM  >40% GM corn production
- 10,000 farmers
- A range of different corn production systems
We captured diversity within the commercial corn
production chain

18. GE maize in Honduras: Results from second
round surveys
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%

19. First and second round surveys: Key
Findings
• Adopting farmers using less pesticides
• Less environmental impact using EIQ
• GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher
yields & profits
• Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and
outliers are real

20. GE maize in the Philippines: First round
of surveys, 2007-2008
• Growing Bt maize significantly
increases profits and yields
• Significant insecticide use
reductions
• Adopters tend to be
– Cultivate larger areas
– Use hired labor
– More educated
– Have more positive perceptions of
current and future status
Change in economic surplus
(mill pesos)
Producer Surplus 7906
Seed Innovator 703
Total Surplus 8609
Producer Share (%) 92
Innovator Share (%) 8
Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr. Jose Yorobe Jr. with 466 farmers in
16 villages Isabela Province, Luzon, South Cotabato Province, Mindanao

21. GE maize in the Philippines: Second round
of surveys, 2011-2012
Table 7. The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize, panel data.
Yield/ha Net Farm Income/ha
Adoption 2525.07 ** 104179.4 ***
Area planted to maize 599.935 *** 12243.69 **
Distance from seed source -39.645 -153.728
Credit <0.001 0.845 **
Seed expenses -0.034 -3.908 **
Hired labor expenses 0.071 1.509
Fertilizer expenses 0.002 0.72
Pesticide expenses -1.391 *** 8.014
Herbicide expenses -0.359 -7.668
Seed price 2.737 45.428
Income from livestock -0.439
Non-farm income 2.756 **
Yield/ha 10.386 ***
Adoption X Gender -1651.233 ** -70038.25 ***
Constant 4606.78 *** -23841.25
Number of Obs. 234 234
R2 (within) 0.558 0.659
Prob>F 0.000 0.000
rho 0.411 0.353
***,**,* = significant at 1, 5, and 10 percent level, respectively

22. GE maize in the Philippines: Second round
of surveys, 2011-2012

23. GE cotton in Colombia
 Evidence of yield
enhancement rather than
pesticide reductions
 Bt farmers benefited where
the target pest is
economically important
 Sampling bias important:
adopters were better–off
farmers
 Institutional context critical
Photos credit: © Zambrano 2009
Source: Zambrano, P., L. A. Fonseca, I. Cardona, and E. Magalhaes. 2009. The
socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia. In Biotechnology and
agricultural development: Transgenic cotton, rural institutions and resource-poor
farmers, ed. R. Tripp. Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19.
London: Routledge. Chapter 8. Pp. 168-199

24. GE soybeans in Bolivia
• Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where
there are an important number of small-scale soybean
producers
• Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia, contributes with
– 4.6% of GDP
– 10 % of the total exports
• Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM
crop in Bolivia
• Although approved in 2005, farmers introduced RR
soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil
• The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO)
in Bolivia estimates that 70% of the total production of
soybeans is RR

25. GE soybeans in Bolivia: Political
context
• Government opposition
to GM crops
• GM ban in the newly
(2008) enacted
constitution
• Political tensions
• Santa Cruz main soybean production area

26. GE soybeans in Bolivia: study site
Farm survey
124 farmers:
104 local
20 Mennonites
Cuatro Cañadas,
Provincia de Santa
Cruz

27. GE soybeans in Bolivia: Research
limitations
• Difficulties in selecting a random sample
– Due to political situation
– Communities and farmers not willing to participate
– Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire
• No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeans
• Difficult geographical and climatic condition
– Soybean producers usually don’t live in the plots and many
times not even in the same community
– Areas where small-scale plots (<50 ha) are situated in highly
disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs
– Postponed survey for a year due to El Niño floods. Areas were
unreachable

28. GE soybeans Bolivia: Survey design
and study site
Variable Both Non
-RR
RR
No. households 7 50 70
Soybean plot size ha * 100 36 48
Education hh head 6 5 7
Age hh head 44 42 43
Non-soy activities %, hh head * 14 % 22% 37%

29. GE soybeans in Bolivia: Partial budget
Variable Non-RR RR
Yield (t/ha) * 1.47 1.91
Price (US$/t) * 409.32 398.59
Gross benefit (US$/ha) * 600.26 780.83
Costs (US$/ha)
Seed 23.46 26.78
Herbicides 41.53 32.25
Insecticides 21.34 24.12
Fungicides 37.93 37.86
Labor cost for chemical input application 4.98 5.03
Machinery 55.02 52.13
All other labor costs * 3.50 2.25
Other variable costs 161.74 146.67
Net Benefits ($US/ha) * 436.53 632.54
Difference RR- non-RR (US$/ha) 196.01

30. GE soybeans in Bolivia: Findings
Methods
• Difficult to make a random sample
• Limitations of a one year data
Findings
• Despite open government opposition RR soybeans
continue to expand
• Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed
• C/B analysis favors RR soybeans
• RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests
• Information flows varies by type of farmer

31. IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies

32. Why Gender and GM?

33. GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia
Activity/Issue Burkina Faso Colombia
Inheritance rights X 
Access to land Granted by head HH 
Access to credit, farm inputs X 
Ability to hire personnel X 
Access to information, extension services X Limited
Equal partners with head of HH as cotton
producers
X 
Work contribution in family/male plots  
Active participation in the overall cotton
operation
 
Multiple invisible or undervalued activities  
Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases

34. GE cotton in Burkina Faso, advantages
Labor-saving technologies
• Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to
2 applications- Some estimates:
– Water saved: 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha.
– Time saved: Women have saved 3 trips to the well
for every insecticide application saved, for a total
of 12 trips
– Health implication: Average weight per trip ~20 kg

35. GE cotton in Colombia, advantages
Reduction in number of insecticide applications
– Less hired male laborers
• Saved cash (US$ 15/day)
• Saved supervision
– Use of additional income
• Women invest in their family
• Men invest in leisure activities

36. Less Drudgery for Her, More Maize for Him?
Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South
Africa (World Development)
Maize activity Male Female Child Total
Land preparation and
planting 2.4 1.2 0.2 3.9
Herbicide application -2.1 -1.6 0.0 -3.7
Weeding 5.9 10.9 1.7 18.5
Harvesting -0.2 0.2 -0.2 -0.2
Total 6.1 10.7 1.8 18.6
Averages for 2006/7, 2007/8, and 2009/10 seasons
(7 hr man days/ha)
Source: Gouse, Sengupta, Zambrano, Falck Zepeda, 2016. Data for Hlabisa.

37. What do we know from the economic
impact assessment literature to date?
• A review of 187 peer
reviewed studies
• Examined studies
with a focus on:
– Farmers, household
and community
– 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

38. Food Policy Review 10 conclusions
• On average LMO crops have
a higher economic
performance — but averages
do not reflect the variability
by agro-climate, host cultivar,
trait, farmer
• Too few traits, too few
cases/authors—
generalizations should not be
drawn yet...need more time
to describe adoption
These conclusions are no different than those
for most technologies released to date…

39. A meta-analysis paper by Areal, Riesgo and
Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)
“GM crops perform better than their conventional
counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross
margin) terms”
“GM crops tend to perform better in developing
countries than in developed countries, with Bt
cotton being the most profitable crop grown”

40. Summary of benefits
• Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance
of GE crops (Racovita et al. 2015; Klümper and Qaim 2014; Mannion and
Morse 2013; Areal, Riesgo & Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013; Finger et al., 2011;
Qaim, 2009; Smale et al. 2009; Raney, 2006; Smale et al., 2009; Sexton &
Zilberman, 2011; Tripp, 2009) have consistently shown:
– Reductions in yield damage from insects
– Reduced pesticide applications for target pests
– Decrease in management time and flexibility
– Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops
• Important to contextualize these results
– Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)
gained from the introduction of GE crops.
– Data and methodological approaches’ limitations especially with regard to statistical and
sampling bias
– Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India

41. Concluding comments
• Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only
technologies
• Similarities and differences with other technologies
• Actual and potential benefits from GM technology
adoption…important tool to consider. Cannot disregard
• Developments in the public sector in developing countries
• Additional crops/traits of interest whose limitations can
probably be only addressed through biotechnology means,
will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and
regulatory issues.

42. Our Team and Partners
Our Team:
Judy Chambers
Patricia Zambrano
Debdatta Sengupta
Pilar Rickert
Hillary Hanson
Guillaume Gruère*
Indira Yerramareddy
Aimée Niane*
Hannah Jones*
Daniela Horna*
Our Partners
• Marnus Gouse (U. of Pretoria)
• Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe, Jr. (U. of the
Philippines – Los Banos
• Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)
• Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler
(Wageningen University)
• Arie Sanders, Rogelio Trabanino, Denisse McLean
(Zamorano University)
• Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-
Davis)
• Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U. de los Andes,
Colombia)
• Luz Amparo Fonseca, Iván Cardona, Lorena Ruiz,
(CONALGODON, Colombia)
• Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray, Willy Fernández
Montaño, Jaime Hernández, (ANAPO Bolivia)
• Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)
• Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech
University)

43. José Benjamin Falck-
Zepeda, Ph.D.
Senior Research Fellow
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 on Twitter: @josefalck