GM Crops: The First Ten Years - International Service for the ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Executive Summary and Conclusions • Shorter growing season (eg, for some cotton growers in India) which allows some farmers to plant a second crop in the same season 3 . Also some Indian cotton growers have reported knock on benefits for bee keepers as fewer bees are now lost to insecticide spraying. In relation to the nature and size of GM technology adopters, there is clear evidence that size of farm has not been a factor affecting use of the technology. Both large and small farmers have adopted GM crops. Size of operation has not been a barrier to adoption. In 2005, 8.5 million farmers were using the technology globally, 90% plus of which were resource-poor farmers in developing countries. The significant productivity and farm income gains identified above have, in some countries (notably Argentina) also made important contributions to income and employment generation in the wider economy. For example, in Argentina, the economic gains resulting from the 140% increase in the soybean area since 1995 are estimated to have contributed towards the creation of 200,000 additional agricultural related jobs 4 and export-led economic growth. Environmental impact from changes in insecticide and herbicide use 5 To examine this impact, the study has analysed both active ingredient use and utilised the indicator known as the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) to assess the broader impact on the environment (plus impact on animal and human health). The EIQ distils the various environmental and health impacts of individual pesticides in different GM and conventional production systems into a single 'field value per hectare' and draws on all of the key toxicity and environmental exposure data related to individual products. It therefore provides a consistent and fairly comprehensive measure to contrast and compare the impact of various pesticides on the environment and human health. Readers should however note that the EIQ is an indicator only and does not take into account all environmental issues and impacts. In the analysis of GM HT technology we have assumed that the conventional alternative delivers the same level of weed control as occurs in the GM HT production system. Table 5 summarises the environmental impact over the last ten years and shows that there have been important environmental gains associated with adoption of GM technology. More specifically: • There has been a 15.3% net reduction in the environmental impact 6 on the cropping area devoted to GM crops since 1996. The total volume of active ingredient (ai) applied to crops has also fallen by 7%; • In absolute terms, since 1996, the largest environmental gains have arisen from the adoption of GM HT soybeans. This mainly reflects the (large) share of global GM crop plantings 3 Notably maize in India 4 Trigo et al (2002) 5 See section 4.1 6 The actual ai use and the EIQ impact or load in any year has been compared against the likely ai use and EIQ load that would have arisen if the whole crop in any year had been planted to non GM cultivars, using the same tillage system as used in the GM crop and, in the case of crops for which a comparison is made with GM herbicide tolerant crops, delivering the same level of weed control as delivered by the GM production system xi
Executive Summary and Conclusions accounted for by GM HT soybeans. The volume of herbicide use is 4.1% lower and the environmental impact 20% lower than levels that would have probably arisen if all of this GM crop area had been planted to conventional cultivars. Readers should note that in some countries (notably in South America), the adoption of GM HT technology in soybeans has also coincided with increases in the volume of herbicides used and the environmental impact relative to historic levels. As indicated above, this largely reflects the facilitating role of the GM HT technology in accelerating and maintaining the switch away from conventional tillage to no/low tillage production systems with their inherent environmental benefits. This net increase in the environmental impact should, therefore be placed in the context of the reduced GHG emissions arising from this production system change (see below) and the general dynamics of agricultural production system changes (which the analysis presented above and in Table 5 takes account of); • Major environmental gains have also been derived from the adoption of GM insect resistant (IR) cotton (the largest gains on a per hectare basis). Since 1996, there has been a 24% reduction in the environmental impact, and a 19% decrease in the volume of insecticides applied; • Important environmental gains have also arisen in the maize and canola sectors. In the maize sector a 4.6% reduction in the environmental impact has occurred from reduced insecticide use and a switch to more environmentally benign herbicides has resulted in a further 4% reduction in the environmental impact of maize herbicides. In the canola sector, the environmental impact has fallen by 23% because of a switch to more environmentally benign herbicides. Table 5. Impact of changes in the use of herbicides and insecticides from growing GM crops globally 1996-2005 Trait GM herbicide tolerant soybeans GM herbicide tolerant maize GM herbicide tolerant cotton GM herbicide tolerant canola GM insect resistant maize GM insect resistant cotton Change in volume of active ingredient used (million kg) -51.4 -36.5 -28.6 -6.3 -7.0 -94.5 Change in field EIQ impact (in terns of million field EIQ/ha units) -4,865 -845 -1,166 -310 -403 -4,670 % change in ai use in GM growing countries -4.1 -3.4 -15.1 -11.1 -4.1 -19.4 % change in environmental impact in GM growing countries -20.0 -4.0 -22.7 -22.6 -4.6 -24.3 Total -224.3 -12,259 -6.9 -15.3 The impact of changes in insecticide and herbicide use at the country level (for the main GM adopting countries) is summarised in Table 6. xii
Page 1 and 2: I S A A A INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR
Page 3 and 4: Published by: Copyright: Citation:
Page 5 and 6: Contents 3.6.2 China ..............
Page 7 and 8: List of Tables Table 37. Change in
Page 10 and 11: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS E
Page 12 and 13: Table 2. GM crop farm income benefi
Page 16 and 17: Executive Summary and Conclusions T
Page 18 and 19: Table 8. Context of carbon sequestr
Page 20 and 21: 1 INTRODUCTION GM Crops: The First
Page 22 and 23: GM Crops: The First Ten Years Figur
Page 24 and 25: Figure 4. Global GM crop plantings
Page 26 and 27: 3 THE FARM LEVEL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF
Page 28 and 29: • The annual total national farm
Page 30 and 31: 3.1.3 Brazil GM HT soybeans were pr
Page 32 and 33: Table 14. Farm level income impact
Page 34 and 35: GM Crops: The First Ten Years Table
Page 36 and 37: 3.2.2 Canada GM Crops: The First Te
Page 38 and 39: 3.3.2 Other countries GM Crops: The
Page 54 and 55: 3.7.4 Insect resistant potatoes GM
Page 56 and 57: size. The analysis found that mean
Page 58 and 59: GM Crops: The First Ten Years soybe
Page 60 and 61: GM Crops: The First Ten Years c) Bu
Page 62 and 63: Table 28. Herbicide usage on soybea
Page 64 and 65:
GM Crops: The First Ten Years a sma
Page 66 and 67:
GM Crops: The First Ten Years Makin
Page 68 and 69:
GM Crops: The First Ten Years Figur
Page 70 and 71:
GM Crops: The First Ten Years aceto
Page 72 and 73:
Table 38. Herbicide usage on cotton
Page 74 and 75:
GM Crops: The First Ten Years At th
Page 76 and 77:
GM Crops: The First Ten Years Figur
Page 78 and 79:
GM Crops: The First Ten Years Table
Page 80 and 81:
GM Crops: The First Ten Years been
Page 82 and 83:
GM Crops: The First Ten Years Table
Page 84 and 85:
Table 47. Comparison of insecticide
Page 86 and 87:
GM Crops: The First Ten Years g) Su
Page 88 and 89:
In terms of GHG each litre of tract
Page 90 and 91:
GM Crops: The First Ten Years As we
Page 92 and 93:
GM Crops: The First Ten Years using
Page 94 and 95:
GM Crops: The First Ten Years b) So
Page 96 and 97:
GM Crops: The First Ten Years a) Fu
Page 98 and 99:
GM Crops: The First Ten Years b) So
Page 100 and 101:
4.2.7 Insect resistant cotton The c
Page 102 and 103:
Table 63. Summary of carbon sequest
Page 104 and 105:
Appendix Appendix 2: The Environmen
Page 106 and 107:
Appendix environmental factor is eq
Page 108 and 109:
Appendix 3: Additional information
Page 110 and 111:
Typical herbicide regimes for GM HT
Page 112 and 113:
Typical insecticide regimes for cot
Page 114 and 115:
References Fernandez-Cornejo J & Mc
Page 116:
ISBN 1-892456-41-9
show all

GM Crops: The First Ten Years - International Service for the ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?