Global impact of Biotech crops: economic & environmental effects Graham Brookes PG Economics Ltd UK ©PG Economics Ltd 2012

General background Biotech crops grown commercially on a global scale since : 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 7 th 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. Full report available at ©PG Economics Ltd 2012

Coverage Cumulative impact: 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 Pesticide change Carbon Emissions 2010 Carbon Emissions 2010 Global farm income Global farm income million kg reduction in pesticides & 17.9% cut in associated environmental impact cut of 19.3 billion kg co2 release; equal to taking 8.6 million cars off the road $78.4 billion increase ©PG Economics Ltd 2012

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 ©PG Economics Ltd 2012

Zimbabwe Zambia Yemen Vietnam Venezuela Vanuatu Uzbekistan Uruguay United States United Kingdom U.A.E. Ukraine Uganda Turkmenistan Turkey Tunisia Togo Thailand Tanzania Tajikistan Syria Switz. Sweden Swaziland Suriname Sudan Sri Lanka Spain South Africa Somalia Solomon Islands Slovenia Slovakia Sierra Leone Senegal Saudi Arabia Rwanda Russia Romania Qatar Portugal Poland Philippines Peru Paraguay Papua New Guinea Panama Pakistan Oman Norway Nigeria Niger Nicaragua New Zealand Netherlands Nepal Namibia Mozambique Morocco Mongolia Moldova Mexico Mauritania Malta Mali Malaysia Malawi Madagascar Macedonia Lux. Lithuania Libya Liberia Lesotho Lebanon Latvia Laos Kyrgyzstan Kuwait S. Korea Taiwan N. Korea Kenya Kazakhstan Jordan Japan Jamaica Italy Israel Ireland Iraq Iran Indonesia India Hungary Honduras Haiti Guyana Guinea-Bissau Guinea Guatemala Greece Ghana Germany Georgia Gambia Gabon French Guiana France Finland Fiji Ethiopia Estonia Eritrea Equatorial Guinea El Salvador Egypt Ecuador East Timor Dominican Republic Dijbouti Denmark Czech Rep. Cyprus Cuba Cote d’Ivoire Costa Rica Congo Dem. Rep. Congo Colombia China Chile Chad Central African Republic Cape Verde Canada Cameroon Cambodia Burundi Burma Burkina Faso Bulgaria Brunei Brazil Botswana Bolivia Bhutan Benin Belize Bel. Belarus Bangladesh Bahamas Azerbaijan Austria Australia Armenia Argentina Angola Algeria Albania Afghanistan Western Sahara Bosnia & Herz. Serbia Montenegro Croatia Farm income gains by country (US $) Canada $3.28 billion increase United States $35 billion increase Mexico $136 million increase Bolivia — $223 million — Brazil $4.6 billion increase — Paraguay $655 million increase — Argentina12.2 billion increase South Africa $809 million increase Australia $408 million increase Philippines $170 million increase China $10.9 billion increase India $9.4 billion increase Spain $114 million Uruguay — $84.4 million Colombia $38.4 million

Farm income & production benefits: India IR cotton % of crop using technology 2010 Farm income gains (US $ millions) 2,4999,39585 Production gains (‘000 tonnes lint) 1,2575,749 Year first used 2002 Average benefit/ha $259/ha ©PG Economics Ltd 2012

Other farm level benefits GM HT cropsGM IR crops Increased management flexibility/convenience Production risk management tool Facilitation of no till practicesMachinery & 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 cropsConvenience benefit Improved crop quality Improved health & safety for farmers/workers ©PG Economics Ltd 2012 In US these benefits valued at $7.6 billion

Cost of accessing the technology ($ billion) 2010 ©PG Economics Ltd 2012 Distribution of total trait benefit: all (tech cost 28%) 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)

Yield gains versus cost savings 60% ($47 billion) of total farm income gain due to yield gains 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 ©PG Economics Ltd 2012 Average across all countries: +9.6%

IR cotton: average yield increase ©PG Economics Ltd 2012 Average across all countries: +14.4%

HT traits: yield and production effects ©PG Economics Ltd 2012 Trait/countryYield/production effect HT soy: Romania, Mexico, Bolivia +23%, +7% & +15% respectively on yield HT soy: 2 nd generation: US & Canada +5% yield HT soy Argentina & ParaguayFacilitation of 2 nd 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 (million tonnes)

Additional conventional area required if biotech not used (m ha) Soybeans Maize Cotton Canola Total

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 ConventionalBiotech Ai/ha (kg) EIQ/ha ©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 = Equivalent to removing 8.6 million cars — 28% of cars registered in the United Kingdom — from the road for one year ©PG Economics Ltd 2012

Reduced GHG emissions: 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 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