E Rodriguez Cerezo

Joint Research Centre (JRC)

JRC Brussels on 24 March 2010 – Roundup Ready Maize Symposium 1

HT maize:ex-ante study in Europe

Emilio Rodríguez-Cerezo, Francisco Areal & Laura Riesgo

IPTS - Institute for Prospective Technological Studies

Seville - Spain

http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

ex-ante study in Europe


Introduction

Global area of HT maize (1996-2008)

5

6

7

8

Mil

lio

n h

ecta

res

0

1

2

3

4

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Mil

lio

n h

ecta

res

Source: James (1997-2009)


Introduction

Countries growing HT maize (2008)

5% 2% 1%

<0.1%

<0.1%2%

90%

USA Canada South Africa Argentina Philippines Honduras Chile

Source: James (2009)


Introduction

Possible economic impacts of HT maize:

- Facilitate adoption of no-tillage systems (cost savings:

reduced labour, fuel costs associating with plowing)

- Greater management flexibility: ease of use, broad-spectrum

herbicides and longer time window for spraying


Introduction

2 GM crops authorised in the EU (Bt maize, Amflora potato)

Mandatory coexistence measures in the EU

EU GM farmers have to implement specific segregation

measures


Objective

Analysing factors affecting the ex ante adoption of GM crops

Focusing on HT oilseed rape and HT maize

Effect of coexistence measures on adoption


Questionnaire to EU farmers (Mar-Jul, 2007):

HT OSRCzech Republic: 200 Germany: 208UK: 200

Survey

UK: 200

TOTAL: 608

HT maizeFrance: 101Hungary: 100Spain: 104

TOTAL: 305

The low response rate for some of the

questions included in the analysis

reduced the number of valid observations

HT OSR: 426 farms

HT maize: 280 farms


Questionnaire structure

Four sections:

1) Select those farmers that were cropping OSR or maize in 2006

2) Farm characteristics: farm size, hired workers, and machinery

3) Farm management: variety of seeds, use of herbicides and

pesticides, price and production, and WTAd questions

4) Socio-demographic data


Willingness to Adopt

Farmers were asked whether they would grow HT OSR/HT maize.

Respondents could choose amongst 5 ordered alternatives:

a) It's very unlikely I would change to HT OSR (HT maize)

b) It's somewhat unlikely I would change to HT OSR (HT maize)

c) It's uncertain I would change to HT OSR (HT maize)c) It's uncertain I would change to HT OSR (HT maize)

d) It's likely I would change to HT OSR (HT maize)

e) It's very likely I would change to HT OSR (HT maize).

An ordered probit model was used to estimate the probability of

adoption


Willingness to Adopt

Czech Republic Germany UK

Very unlikely 0.15 0.06 0.10

Ex-ante adoption for HT OSR

0.34 0.18 0.26

Somewhat unlikely 0.19 0.12 0.16

Uncertain 0.29 0.25 0.28

Likely 0.31 0.42 0.36

Very likely 0.06 0.15 0.100.37 0.57 0.46


Conceptual Framework

France Hungary Spain

Very unlikely 0.12 0.15 0.07


Ex-ante adoption for HT maize

0.35 0.41 0.25


Uncertain 0.36 0.35 0.36

Likely 0.24 0.21 0.31

Very likely 0.05 0.03 0.08

0.29 0.24 0.39


Explanatory variables

Farmers evaluated a number of reasons:

Economic reasons (Economic):

- 'It guarantees the reduction of losses caused by weed growth‘

- 'It guarantees higher income‘

- 'It reduces weed control costs‘- 'It reduces weed control costs‘

Environmental impact reduction (Environment):

- 'the environmental impact on my farm is reduced because it involves a

cut down in herbicides‘

Facilitation of work (Ease):

- 'It facilitates my work being a technology that makes cultivation easier'



Administrative measures (Administra):

- 'the plot must be identified in a public register'

- 'the neighbouring farmers must be notified‘

- 'if the land is rented, the owner has to be notified‘

- 'it must under public registration for 5 years'

Cleaning and segregation of harvest & transport (Technical):Cleaning and segregation of harvest & transport (Technical):

- ‘the combine harvester must be thoroughly cleaned both before and after

harvesting’

- ‘the compulsory of separate harvesting and transportation’

Insurance policy (Insurance):- 'an insurance policy to cover claims for neighbours‘

Separation distance (Separation):

- ‘the distance over which I would stop growing HT OSR/Ht maize is …‘



Disbelief in GM technology (Disbelief):

- 'I do not think there would be an improvement in yield‘

-'I do not think there would be an improvement in financial returns‘

- 'I do not belief in these new products‘

- ‘I prefer not to change the type of crop. I do not really like change‘

- 'I have been advised not to use this type of rape‘- 'I have been advised not to use this type of rape‘

- 'I think it would be difficult to market the grain‘

- ‘It will not be well received by society in general’



Age

High education level (Education)

Farm size (Size)

Income

Germany (GE)Germany (GE)

Czech Republic (CZ)

United Kingdom (UK)

Spain (SP)

France (FR)

Hungary (HU)



Summary statistics of explanatory variables

HT OSR HT maize

Explanatory variable Mean SD Mean SD

ECONOMIC 0.76 0.41 0.84 0.36

ENVIRONMENT 0.60 0.48 0.69 0.46

EASE 0.83 0.38 0.85 0.36

DISBELIEF 0.35 0.48 0.16 0.36

ADMINISTRA 0.03 0.18 0.01 0.11 ADMINISTRA 0.03 0.18 0.01 0.11

TECHNICAL 0.32 0.46 0.29 0.16

SEPARATION 0.54 0.35 0.41 0.49

INSURANCE 0.70 0.47 0.62 0.49

AGE 47.69 11.29 47.61 11.13

EDUCATION 0.42 0.49 0.43 0.50

SIZE 850.79 950.48 269.50 617.28

INCOME 0.25 0.44 0.06 0.50

GE 0.48 0.48 - -

CZ 0.29 0.46 - -

FR - - 0.33 0.47

SP - - 0.35 0.47


Results Ordered probit for HT OSR and HT maize - WTAd -

HT OSR HT maize

Explanatory variable Coefficient z-statistic Coefficient z-statistic

Constant 1.159*** 3.43 1.133*** 2.62

ECONOMIC 0.560*** 4.10 0.283 1.34

ENVIRONMENT 0.347*** 2.98 0.175 1.06

EASE 0.674*** 4.37 0.459** 2.17

DISBELIEF -0.385*** -3.22 -1.441*** -6.16

ADMINISTRA -0.466 -1.61 -1.303 -1.56

TECHNICAL -0.601*** -4.68 -0.698*** -3.92

SEPARATION -0.211** -1.92 -0.360** -2.45

INSURANCE -0.258** -2.13 -0.344** -2.28

AGE -0.009* -1.93 -0.002 -0.29 AGE -0.009* -1.93 -0.002 -0.29

EDUCATION 0.261** 2.19 0.167 0.99

SIZE 0.000 -0.61 0.000 0.22

INCOME -0.252** -2.06 -0.442 -1.48

GE 0.284** 1.97 - -

CZ -0.231 -1.39 - -

FR - - 0.164 0.85

SP - - 0.424** 2.14

Cut-off parameters

Cut-off_2 0.63*** 10.52 0.81*** 10.15

Cut-off_3 1.37*** 21.46 1.76*** 20.82

Cut-off_4 2.57*** 29.18 2.86*** 25.13

Log –likelihood -574.88 -366.10

Likelihood Ratio test 165.69*** 138.83***

Pseudo R-squared 0.13 0.16

N 426 280


Conclusions

Positive factors:

- HT OSR: Economic, environmental issues, ease of use.

Socio-demographic variables (Age, education, income)

- HT maize: Ease of use

Negative factors:

HT OSR & HT maize: Coexistence measures, disbelief

Country differences:

- HT OSR: GE** > UK > CZ

- HT maize: SP** > FR > HU


Conclusions

Decision on HT adoption in the EU is shaped by the

implementation of coexistence measures:

Technical measures have large effect on the probability of

adoptingadopting

25-metre distance and insurance cover lesser impact on

farmers' WTAd HT crops


Future research

Impacts on inputs use

GM adoption in the EU:

- Effect of coexistence measures

- Effect of efficiency on GM adoption- Effect of efficiency on GM adoption

Consumer behaviour on GM products


Baseline Herbicide use for maize

Number of herbicide treatments Expenses on herbicides (€/ha)

EU

Obs= 304; Mean= 1.46; Median= 1; SD= 0.52

EU

Obs= 279; Mean= 47.77; Median= 45; SD= 31.98

54.6 %

44.4 %

1.0 %

020

40

60

80

Per

centa

ge

0 1 2 3 4No. of herbicides treatments

6.8%

3.2%

6.5%

20.5%

24.1%

11.5%

14.8%

5.4%

1.4% 1.1% 1.4%0.7% 0.7% 0.4%

1.4%

05

10

15

20

25

Per

centa

ge

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160Expenses on herbicides (€/ha)


Thank you for your attention!Thank you for your attention!

Technology

E Rodriguez Cerezo