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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Executive Summary and Conclusions Table 6. Reduction in environmental impact from changes in pesticide use associated with GM crop adoption by country 1996-2005 selected countries: % reduction in field EIQ values US Argentina Brazil Paraguay Canada South Africa China India Australia Mexico Spain GM HT soybeans 29 21 6 13 9 7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a GM HT maize 4 NDA n/a n/a 5 0.44 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a GM HT cotton 24 NDA n/a n/a n/a 6 n/a n/a 4 n/a n/a GM HT canola GM IR maize GM IR cotton Note: N/a = not applicable, NDA = No data available. Zero impact for GM IR maize in Argentina is due to the negligible (historic) use of insecticides on the Argentine maize crop 38 n/a n/a n/a 22 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 0 n/a n/a NDA 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a 30 23 4 n/a n/a n/a NDA 28 3 22 NDA n/a In terms of the division of the environmental benefits associated with less insecticide and herbicide use for farmers in developing countries relative to farmers in developed countries, Table 7 shows that in 2005, the majority of the environmental benefits associated with lower insecticide and herbicide use have been for developing country farmers. The vast majority of these environmental gains have been from the use of GM IR cotton and GM HT soybeans. Table 7. GM crop environmental benefits from lower insecticide and herbicide use 2005: developing versus developed countries GM HT soybeans GM IR maize GM HT maize GM IR cotton GM HT cotton GM HT canola % of total reduction in environmental impact: developed countries 53 92 99 15 99 100 Developing countries include all countries in South America % of total reduction in environmental impact: developing countries Total 46 54 Cumulatively over the period 1996 to 2005, developing country farmers have acquired 48% of the total environmental benefits from lower insecticide and herbicide use. 47 8 1 85 1 0 xiii
Executive Summary and Conclusions Impact on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 7 The scope for GM crops contributing to lower levels of GHG emissions comes from two principle sources: • Reduced fuel use from less frequent herbicide or insecticide applications and a reduction in the energy use in soil cultivation. The fuel savings associated with making fewer spray runs (relative to conventional crops) and the switch to conservation, reduced and no-till farming systems, have resulted in permanent savings in carbon dioxide emissions. In 2005 this amounted to about 962 million kg (arising from reduced fuel use of 356 million litres). Over the period 1996 to 2005 the cumulative permanent reduction in fuel use is estimated at 4,613 million kg of carbon dioxide (arising from reduced fuel use of 1,679 million litres); • the use of 'no-till' and 'reduced-till' 8 farming systems. These production systems have increased significantly with the adoption of GM HT crops because the GM HT technology has improved growers ability to control competing weeds, reducing the need to rely on soil cultivation and seed-bed preparation as means to getting good levels of weed control. As a result, tractor fuel use for tillage is reduced, soil quality is enhanced and levels of soil erosion cut. In turn more carbon remains in the soil and this leads to lower GHG emissions. Based on savings arising from the rapid adoption of no till/reduced tillage farming systems in North and South America, an extra 2,929 million kg, of soil carbon is estimated to have been sequestered in 2005 (equivalent to 8,053 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that has not been released into the global atmosphere). Cumulatively the amount of carbon sequestered may be higher due to year-on-year benefits to soil quality. However, with only an estimated 15%-25% of the crop area in continuous no-till systems it is currently not possible to estimate cumulative soil sequestration gains. Placing these carbon sequestration benefits within the context of the carbon emissions from cars, Table 8, shows that: • In 2005, the permanent carbon dioxide savings from reduced fuel use were the equivalent of removing nearly 0.43 million cars from the road; • Cumulatively since 1996, the permanent carbon dioxide savings from reduced fuel consumption since the introduction of GM crops are equal to removing 2.05 million cars from the road for one year (8.5% of all registered cars in the UK); • The additional probable soil carbon sequestration gains in 2005 were equivalent to removing nearly 3.6 million cars from the roads; • It is not possible to estimate the probable soil carbon sequestration gains since 1996 (see above); • In total, the combined GM crop-related carbon dioxide emission savings from reduced fuel use and additional soil carbon sequestration in 2005 were equal to the removal from the roads of nearly 4 million cars, equivalent to about 17% of all registered cars in the UK. 7 See section 4.2 8 No-till farming means that the ground is not ploughed at all, while reduced tillage means that the ground is disturbed less than it would be with traditional tillage systems. For example, under a no-till farming system, soybean seeds are planted through the organic material that is left over from a previous crop such as corn, cotton or wheat xiv
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 14 and 15: Executive Summary and Conclusions
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?