Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
farmers and white Bt maize hybrids in South
Africa; they found average yield gains of
32% on Bt plots. In the Philippines, average
yield advantages of Bt maize are 34%. h ese
patterns suggest that smallholder farmers
face bigger constraints in controlling insect
damage in their conventional crops.
h e proi t ef ects of Bt technologies are
also shown in Table 14.2. Bt seeds are more
expensive than conventional seeds, because
they are sold mostly by private companies
that charge a special technology fee. h e fee
is correlated positively with the strengths of
IPR protection in a country. In all countries,
Bt-adopting farmers benei t i nancially; that
is, the economic advantages associated with
insecticide savings and higher ef ective
yields more than outweigh the technology
fee charged on GM seeds. h e absolute gains
dif er remarkably between countries and
crops. On average, the extra proi ts are
higher for Bt cotton than Bt maize. h ey are
also higher in developing than developed
countries. Apart from agroecological and
socio-economic dif erences, GM seed costs
are often lower in developing countries, due
to weaker IPRs, seed reproduction by
farmers and subsidies or other types of
government price interventions (Basu and
Qaim, 2007; Krishna and Qaim, 2008).
comes of Bt cotton in India, including the
ef ects on rural employment and household
incomes. Building on a village-modelling
approach, they show that Bt technology is
employment generating, especially for hired
female agricultural labourers. h is is due to
signii cantly higher yields being harvested.
But employment is also generated in other
local rural sectors, like trade and services,
which are linked to cotton production. h e
impacts on rural household incomes, includ-
ing the farm and non-farm community, are
shown in Fig. 14.1. Each additional hectare
of Bt cotton produces 82% higher aggregate
incomes than conventional cotton, implying
a remarkable gain in overall economic
welfare through technology adoption. All
types of households - including those below
the poverty line - benei t considerably more
from Bt cotton than from conventional
cotton. h ese i ndings demonstrate that Bt
crops can contribute to poverty reduction
and rural development.
Recent long-term studies for India
suggest that these technological benei ts
have been stable or even increasing over
time (Krishna and Qaim, 2012). Kathage
and Qaim (2012) show that farm households
adopting Bt cotton have increased their
living standards signii cantly, as measured
by higher food and non-food consumption
values. Because of higher incomes, Bt
cotton-adopting households can not only
af ord more calories but also better dietary
quality. Qaim and Kouser (2013) coni rm
that the introduction of Bt technology in
India has contributed to a reduction of food
insecurity by 15-20% among cotton-grow-
ing households.
h ese results cannot be generalized,
because impacts do not depend on the tech-
nology only but also on the context (Glover,
2010; Stone, 2011; Kathage and Qaim,
2012). A conducive institutional environ-
ment is important to promote wide and
equitable access to new seed technologies.
Well-functioning input and output markets,
including ei cient micro-credit schemes,
will spur the process of innovation adoption.
Unfortunately, such conditions i rst need to
be established in the poorest countries of
Africa and Asia, so that the GM crop impacts
h e majority of the world's poor are small-
holder farmers or agricultural labourers.
h erefore, GM crops may also have import-
ant implications for poverty and income
distribution in developing countries. Bt
crops are generally suitable for the small
farm sector. Especially in China, India and
South Africa, Bt cotton is often grown by
farms with less than 5 ha of land. In South
Africa, many smallholders grow Bt white
maize as their staple food. Several studies
show that the Bt advantages for small-scale
farmers are of a similar magnitude as for
larger-scale producers, in some cases even
higher (Pray
et al
., 2001; Morse
et al
., 2004;
Qaim, 2009).
1
Subramanian and Qaim (2010) have
analysed the broader socio-economic out-
