Samuel E. Timpo Senior Programme Officer NEPAD Agency African Biosafety Network of Expertise (ABNE)

1. Socio-economic Considerations in Agricultural Biotechnology Samuel E. Timpo Senior Programme Officer NEPAD Agency African Biosafety Network of Expertise (ABNE) Biotechnology & Biosafety Sensitization Workshop November 27 - 29, 2013 Tamale, Ghana

2. Global challenge • perception as a back-breaking occupation • low returns • largely rain-fed agric with associated uncertainties/risk and limited funding support • unfashionable lifestyle • perception as a last resort occupation • punishing training curriculum • Ageing farming population (+ 55 years) • yet we are faced with • youth unemployment • food insecurity • Reasons youth (especially in developing countries) are not interested in farming include:

3. Global challenge The nature of the challenge is not only to increase global future production but also increase it where it is mostly needed by those who need it most…with special focus on smallholder farmers, women and rural households and their access to land, water and high quality seeds … and other modern inputs – Jacques Diouf, DG-FAO FAO and ILO propose rural employment (esp. agric) must be decent, rewarding and modern

4. The economic problem • What to produce? • How to produce it? • Who gets what is produced? Technology Households Commodities

5. Why biotech? - Africa’s agricultural challenge • Region is a net • importer of food • High agric potential • yet low productivity • Low product diversity • Existence of biotic and abiotic stresses • Biotech identified as a tool for agricproductivity and food security • Could be used to address challenges that have been difficult to resolve using conventional approaches

6. Rationale for regulating technology

7. Rationale for regulating technology

8. Biotechnology? holds promise for millions of people requires huge investments has associated/perceived socio-economic risks Biosafety? Article 26 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety allows for the inclusion of socio-economics in biosafety decision-making It is a requirement in our domestic biosafety legislation Why socio-economics in biotech/biosafety?

9. Several African countries have domestic and fairly varied biotech policies, regulations, and strategies Provisions are characterized by unclear definition of socio-economic factors/ considerations a broader scope than is provided for by the protocol inadequate information on assessing the socio-economic impacts of modern biotechnology lack of clarity on the process of incorporating socio-economic considerations in actual decision-making Challenges in implementing Article 26 of CPB

10. Ghana biosafety law (Act 831)

11. Adoption trends & global impacts • In 2012, 17.3 million farmers in 28 countries planted 170.3 million hectares of biotech crops • Global market value of biotech crops in 2012 was US$14.84 billion • Accumulated global value from 1996 to 2011 – US$98.2 billion • US$49.6 billion in developing countries • US$48.2 billion in industrial  countries   Source: James, 2012; Brookes and Barfoot, 2012

12. Contribution of biotech cropsto sustainable global agriculture Contributing to food security, sustainability and climate change by: • contributing to sustainable economic benefits • providing a better environment by reduced pesticide usage • reducing greenhouse gas emissions • conserving biodiversity • contributing to poverty alleviation Source: James, 2012

13. Technophobia • History of technophobia well documented. e.g. • milk pasteurization, freezing food, using microwave ovens, and food colouring • introduction of trains • use of nuclear technology for food irradiation and energy • introduction of computers • introduction of mobile phones • GM controversy gained prominence when monarch butterflies reportedly died from feeding on pollen from Bt corn

14. Activation of toxin: • - crystals solubilized • under high pH • protein cleaved • by gut proteases • Toxin binding to gut receptors: • paralyzes gut • insects stop feeding • - gut membrane leaks • - bacteria multiply in body • - septicemia Ingestion of spores, crystal proteins (= protoxins) How Bttoxins work….. • Practically non toxic to humans • Human gut low pH • No gut receptors Source: Chris DiFonzo

15. Some socio-economic concerns • The technology is new, unfamiliar and difficult to understand • Unaffordable planting materials • Dependence of farmers on rich corporate bodies for seed • It is wrong to patent or tamper with life • Patenting will limit access and increase price of seeds • Products needed in developing countries are not being developed due to market considerations

16. Some socio-economic concerns • Food being dumped on developing countries • Is it linked to obesity? • Europe appears to be against GMOs hence adopting the technology may undermine trade • Transatlantic GMO dispute and implications of policy choices by US and EU for other economic blocks. Potential economic losses. • Issues with segregation and identity preservation, and labelling

17. Compounded by anti-GM propaganda • Anti-GM propaganda machinery has consistently launched a 3-prong attack (personal, technology, regulatory) • Anti-GM had spread misperceptions such as: • GM crops look like humans • Hybrid varieties are GM • GM causes sterility in man • Unethical applications

18. Some risk perception observations • Risks seem smaller when an individual feels he has some control over the process determining the risk faced • Natural risks are usually perceived as less worrying than human-made risks  • A new risk tends to be more frightening than the same risk after people have lived with it for some time and been able to put it into perspective

19. Some risk perception observations • Research suggests the less people trust the institutions that are responsible for exposure to the risk or communication about the risk, the more frightened they become • A risk that an individual chooses usually seems less risky than one that is imposed • When individuals perceive a benefit from a choice, the risk associated with it seems smaller Credit: Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. Risk in Perspective. June 2003

20. The sluggard says there is a lion in the road, a fierce lion roaming the streets. As a door turns on its hinges, so a sluggard turns on his bed. The sluggard buries his hand in the dish: he is too lazy to bring it back to his mouth. The sluggard is wiser in his eyes than seven men who answer discreetly. Proverbs 26:13-16

21. Cost-benefit analysis • For every economic activity, there exists a risk and an associated threshold • Regulatory decision-making balances risk assessment with cost/benefit analysis in risk management Sum of all costs Sum of all benefits

22. Some impact parameters of interest

23. Key considerations by farmers for technology adoption For farmers, technology must be: • relevant to their needs • affordable • scale neutral • accessible • be economically viable • safe for consumers

24. Factors influencing farmer adoption of HT crops include: • Ease of use and increased/longer time window for spraying • Reduction in damage to crop • Ability to use alternative production technologies • Time and fuel savings • Ease of weed control hence cleaner crops, improved harvest quality and premium price • Avoidance of potential damage from soil-incorporated residual herbicides in follow-on crops • Improved quality of family life Sources: Brooke & Barfoot, 2009; James, 2009; Karembou, 2009; Personal communication, 2008 & 2009

25. Factors influencing farmer adoption of IR crops include: • Reduced risks from crop loss associated with insect pests • Convenience from less time spent on crop walking and/or applying insecticides • Savings in fuel and machinery use • Improved quality • Improved health and safety for farmers & farm workers • Easier crop husbandry practices • Triggered subsidiary benefits for bee keepers as fewer bees were now lost to insecticide spraying • Improved family welfare and education for women and children Sources: Brooke & Barfoot, 2009; James, 2009; Karembou, 2009; Personal communication, 2008 & 2009

26. Some country statistics South Africa • Farm income benefit (1996-2011): $932.7 million • Maize ($891.1 million) • Cotton ($34.6 million) • Maize ($7 million) Burkina Faso • On average, Bt cotton generated 14.7% higher yield than the conventional varieties • Based on higher yields and savings in pesticide costs, higher incomes from Bt cotton ($79 - $154 per ha) Additional information in Brookes and Barfoot, 2012; Vitale et al., 2011

27. Some country statistics

29. Assessment methods and studies Methods being proposed include • Cost-Benefit analysis • Cost effectiveness • Community analysis • Economic risk assessment CBA often mentioned but survey suggests CE more popular • CBA to capture • benefits, costs, and risks from technology adoption and use • environmental and social costs and benefits that can be reasonably quantified • Ex-ante and ex-post assessments have been done but for a broader scope

30. GM Vegetables in Ghana • Ex ante assessment – stochastic economic surplus, partial budgeting, damage abatement and instrumental variables • Case studies • Virus-resistant Tomato • Insect-resistant Cabbage • Insect-resistant Garden Egg • Conclusions • GM vegetable technologies analyzed have a real potential to decrease pesticide use and labor used for applications • High probability of high returns with all GM vegetable crops • Price and yield variability and expected yield losses caused the largest changes in rate of returns in our estimations • Potential to reduce yield losses and income variability Hornaet al, 2008.

31. Time delays have a negative effect on benefits

32. Concluding thoughts • Need for open, candid and informed debate • Legitimate concerns must not be ignored • If regulations and guidelines are followed, GM foods are safe • Need for a change in mindset: biotech/biosafety is business and requires strategic partnerships In business, you don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate – Chester L. Karrass

33. Thank yousam.timpo@nepadbiosafety.net