| Subject: | |
| From: | |
| Reply To: | |
| Date: | Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:44:16 +0100 |
| Content-Type: | text/plain |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
This is Jonathan Shoham for the third time.
As this excellent conference closes, one aspect which has perhaps not been covered in detail is the economic and environmental implications of the new traits - the original questions in the FAO Background Document were the following:
"4.2 What are the likely implications of these new GMOs for developing countries?
Specific questions that can be addressed regarding this topic include:
4.2.1 What are the likely implications of these new GMOs on food security and nutrition in developing countries?
4.2.2 What are the likely implications of these new GMOs on socio-economic conditions in developing countries?
4.2.3 What are the likely implications of these new GMOs on sustainable management of natural resources in developing countries?
4.2.4 What are the likely implications of these new GMOs on adaptation to climate change in developing countries"
Most contributions have rightly and necessarily focused on the technical aspects.
It is more difficult to address the socio-economic and environmental dimensions as these depend very much on the country specifics and are intrinsically difficult to quantify. Having said that, it is possible to address this aspect in a generic fashion. The bottom line is that unless a new trait provides the farmer with some economic benefit it is unlikely to be launched, and if it is launched but provides no economic benefit it will fail. Economics 101 tells us that this benefit can come either from an increase in farmer revenues or a reduction in his costs. Deconstructing this further:
Revenue benefits derive from either:
- increased yields - there is much evidence that GM traits launched so far, especially Bt ones, provide yield benefits (e.g. see the work of Brookes and Barfoot: http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/publications.php)
- or increased prices for the output - these can came from a better quality crop or one which offers a consumer benefit for which a price premium can be obtained - e.g. improved oil quality. There are as yet few examples of this but these types of consumer traits are only now beginning to appear.
Cost reduction benefits can come from decreased use or costs of herbicides and insecticides. For example glyphosate tolerant crops led to considerable reductions in weed control costs.
So the answer to the original questions are that if a new trait is successfully launched it is very likely that it will make a positive contribution to food security (and nutrition in the case of biofortification) and improve the socio-economic conditions in the country by improving farmer incomes. Otherwise it would not be successfully launched. It's a sort of reverse 'Catch 22'
Finally, addressing the last two environmentally-related sub-questions above, the best way to improve sustainability is to increase yields in an environmentally sustainably manner, as this leads to less land and water requirements per unit of output. This is recognised in the FAO's push for sustainable Crop Production Intensification. So any traits which increase yields are also likely to have environmental benefits. Furthermore, traits which lead to a reduction in pesticide use have additional benefits. And on the last question, it is almost tautological that traits developed to address environmental challenges, for example drought, heat, salt tolerance will help with adaptation to climate change.
Jonathan Shoham
Agricultural Economist
Haslemere, Surrey,
United Kingdom
e-mail: jonathanl.shoham (at) gmail.com
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the Biotech-Room2-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=Biotech-Room2-L&A=1
|
|
|