“Adoption Impacts and Access to Innovation in

Small Resource Poor Countries: Results from a

Second Round Survey and Institutional

Assessment in Honduras”

José Falck Zepeda1, Denisse McLean2, Patricia Zambrano1, Arie Sanders2, Maria Mercedes Roca2, Cecilia Chi-Ham3 Allan Bennett3

1 IFPRI

2 Zamorano University

3 UC Davis PIPRA

Presentation made at Biosciences for Africa project meeting, Cambridge, UK April 2014.

© 2014 UC-Davis and IFPRI

The Honduras maize sector

Agriculture important to the

economy

Binding limitations to ag production

Maize is essential part of the diet

Increasingly dependent on imports

Maize in Honduras is grown mostly for food/feed

Binding constraints to maize production in

Honduras

Low productivity

Damage by lepidopteran insects can be as high as 40-70%

Increasing issues with other pests and diseases

Heavy damage due to aflatoxins / mycotoxins

GMOs in Honduras

8th Latin American country adopting GMOs since 20021

Only country in Central America

cultivating GMOs for food

-USA*

-Brazil*

-Argentina*

-South Africa*

-Canada*

-Uruguay x1.5

-Philippines x3

-Spain x5

-Chile x7

-Honduras

-Portugal x.8

-Czech Republic x .7

-Poland x3

-Egypt x9

-Slovakia x0.4

-Romania x2

• By 2013, 75 thousand ha with hybrids and GM 15% area planted

• GM estimated around 30-40 thousand hectares

BT (MON810), RR (NK603), Herculex 1 , YGVTPro

(MON89034) traits approved for commercialization

Honduras: promotional environment favoring

biotechnology adoption

Favorable policy, economic and social conditions facilitated adoption

UN Statistics Division, 2011. WTO Statistics, Trade

Profiles, 2012

Strategic interest in aligning agricultural policies with the major

economic and trade partners

• Honduras trade is essentially tied to the United States

• Historically strong presence of agricultural multinationals interested in increased

agricultural productivity

Established Biosafety Framework and Regulations

Incorporated biotechnology in National Food Self Sufficiency Strategy

Coordinated a joint agricultural and environmental political agenda

‘To facilitate the process to incorporate hybrids and transgenic

seeds in 25% of the area planted at the national level by 2014’

Honduras Agricultural and Livestock Ministry goal

Public Agricultural and Food Sector Strategy

1996/98: Biosecurity Regulation with Emphasis in Transgenic Plants

1998: National Committee of Biotechnology and Biosecurity (NCBB)

2006: CAFTA-DR Phytozoosanitary Law modification

2008: Cartagena Protocol Ratification

2001/12: Law for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants USAID GAIN Report 2012.

Honduran government specific policy support for

easing a transition towards biotechnologies

Honduras: A case study to understand

biotechnology adoption in small

resource poor developing countries

Enabling biosafety regulatory approach

Biosafety issues are handled by the Ministries of Agriculture

and Environment

A good dose of pragmatism

What is the risk of adopting Gm crops vs. the risk of NOT

adopting

A biosafety committee composed of technical people with

sound academic credentials

A clear understanding of the process and components of Risk

Analysis as a discipline

Focus on risk assessment only, whereas other considerations

may be part of the final decision making process

GM maize provided excellent

target pest control

Bt yield advantage 856-1781 Kg ha-1

yield

Bt maize yields preferred even by

risk averse producers

100% higher seed cost than

conventional hybrid

Institutional issues important

Photos credit: © Sanders and Trabanino 2008

Falck-Zepeda, J., A. Sanders, C. Rogelio Trabanino, & R. Batallas-Huacon.

Caught Between Scylla and Charybdis: Impact Estimation Issues from the Early

Adoption of GM Maize in Honduras. AgBioForum, 15(2), 138-151. Available on

the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.

2008 GM maize crop cycle in Honduras:

Results from our first survey

The 2013 (second) survey to observe experiences of

conventional & GM maize farmersEconomic, social and agronomic impacts

Farmers by maize typeSize

Total< 7 hectares > 7 hectares

Conventional only 58 25 83

GM only 39 57 96

Both types of maize 11 19 30

Total 108 101 209

o We chose a representative sample of maize farmers from the

main maize producing state in Honduras

Major maize producing areas in Honduras

Olancho: The main maize producing state in

Honduras- 180,000 metric tons

- 35,000 planted hectares >30 % national maize production

- 12,000 hectares with GM >40% GM maize production

- 10,000 farmers

- A range of different maize production systems

We captured diversity within the commercial maize

production chain

Descriptive statistics

Non-Adopters

(n=82)

Partial Adopters

(n=30)

Complete Adopters

(n=92) P

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Landholding size

(ha)25 47 90 152 42 59 <0.01

Maize area (ha) 6 7 4 4 24 43 <0.01

Other crops as

share of total

income (%)

20 19 21 19 11 16 <0.05

Non-Adopters

(n=82)

Partial Adopters

(n=30)

Complete Adopters

(n=92) P

Household income

(US$) Count % of n Count % of n Count % of n

<500 43 52 8 27 8 9

<0.01

500-1000 26 32 8 27 9 10

1000-1500 7 9 2 7 8 9

1500-2000 1 1 3 10 10 11

2000-2500 3 4 7 23 45 49

2500-5000 2 2 2 7 6 7

>5000 0 0 0 0 6 7

Costs and Net Benefits

Non-Adopters

(n=82)

Complete Adopters

(n=92)

Mean SD Mean SD P

Total costs

(US$/ha) 727.1 226.2 1356.8 661.5 <0.01

Yield (MT/ha) 3.0 1.3 5.5 1.4 <0.01

Price (US$/MT) 280.0 44.8 377.1 72.9 <0.01

Income (US$/ha) 830.8 402.3 2081.9 687.8 <0.01

Net utility

(US$/ha) 104.6 413.6 727.2 874.0 <0.01

Partial Adopters

Non-GM Plot

(n=30)

Partial Adopters

GM Plot

(n=30)

Mean SD Mean SD P

Total costs

(US$/ha) 979.6 312.7 1123.2 460.1

Yield (MT/ha) 3.7 1.6 5.3 1.6 <0.01

Price (US$/MT) 328.9 76.3 328.9 76.3

Income (US$/ha) 1244.0 658.6 1773.8 754.4 <0.01

Net utility

(US$/ha) 265.7 511.8 652.4 664.4 <0.05

But... our data analysis shows that outliers and

sampling biases are present and relevant to

outcomes

1

3

5

11

2021 40

42

56 6068

76

7778

84

8586

8889

909192

939496

99

100101 103104 106107 109

110

111112114 115

116

117

120

121 122125127

129

130

131

132

133

135 136137140141

144

145

152

153154

155157158159

161 164166

168

170

171

173

174175176182

183

184185

186191198

199

200

203204

206 208

212

213

214

215216

230

232233

-20

02

04

0

Rob

ust sta

nda

rdiz

ed r

esid

uals

0 500 1000 1500 2000Robust_distance

Observation ID Yield Cook’s D

42 6.500 0.053

84 5.200 0.385

99 7.475 0.033

116 4.543 0.039

120 9.100 0.020

121 2.507 0.022

129 2.839 0.021

131 6.500 0.688

132 3.250 0.054

143 1.817 0.028

152 5.200 1.230

155 7.800 0.036

169 1.083 0.020

170 6.045 2.381

173 0.975 0.030

174 8.060 0.032

182 0.195 0.060

200 5.200 0.033

212 7.800 0.032

217 1.300 0.020

222 9.100 0.022

230 6.500 0.026

“The classical instrumental variables (IV) estimator is extremely sensitive to the

presence of outliers in the sample. This is a concern as outliers can strongly dis-

tort the estimated effect of a given regressor on the dependent variable. Although

outlier diagnostics exist, they frequently fail to detect atypical observations since

they are themselves based on non-robust (to outliers) estimators. Furthermore,

they do not take into account the combined influence of outliers in the first and

second stages of the IV estimator” Desbordes and Verardi, Stata Journal 2012

Maize yields and net income: raw and

sampling bias/outlier adjusted averagesYield

(mt/ha)

Raw averages Averages adjusted

for sampling bias

and/or outliers

GM plots 5.3 4.78 - 5.02

Conventional plots 3.7 3.7

Difference 1.6 1.08 - 1.32

Estimate of the impact of sampling

bias and/or outliers (%) 17 - 32%

Income

(US$/ha)

Raw averages Averages adjusted

for sampling bias

and/or outliers

GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754

Conventional plots 1244 1244

Difference 530 340 - 510

Estimate of the impact of sampling

bias and/or outliers (%) 4 - 36%

Small-holders and GM Maize qualitative research

Research questions

Does the operation of maize production differs among small-scale

adopters and non-adopters?

Are these differences gender specific or gender neutral?

What are the perceived main limitations that small-holders face in the

adoption of GM maize?

Qualitative Research –Tools used

One-page identification survey, by

participant

Map of maize production activities by

specific producer (GM and non-GM

adopter, by gender)

Variety/hybrid preference matrix:

perceptions of main limitations, by group

Priority action matrix, perceptions of

main technology barriers, by group

One-to-one interviews

Women

Plant conventional maize

Plant GM maize

Men

Women Men

31 33

Only group that use recycle seed Solely decides which seed to plant Supervise most work Does much of the work by

themselves Poor knowledge about GM seed

characteristics Only group that believe GM yields

less profits

Need to hire labor

Hire machinery Male HH members supervision Decides jointly with male HH

member which seed to plant Rely on male HH members for

labor demands Believe GM yields 2/3 more times

Supervise and makes all maize operations decisions

No family consultation regarding which seed to plant

Perform no weeding activities Believe GM is less time demanding

and requires less hired labor

Only group that believes GM requires equal or more hired labor

Believe GM is more time demanding

Best knowledge and information about GM market and agronomic characteristics

Small group discussions: Findings

Net Mapping and Social Network AnalysisWho could influence the adoption of GM maize in Honduras?

Net Mapping and Social Network Analysis –

Indicators of closeness and centrality

Communication and Outreach

Video Documentary on the Impact on

the Adoption of GM Crops in

Honduras

Honduran production crew gathered

on-farm footage

Communication firm in Costa Rica

developed the scripts for 3 short video

clips

Farmers share their experience with

the adoption of conventional and GM

maize varieties

Perspectives of government and

academic representatives

Summary

Positive economic benefits of using GM maize technology in Honduras for current adopters

Results across our study area show that GM maize reduce damage, in some cases yield 29-35% higher compared to the conventional hybrid

Production costs per hectare of GM maize are higher than HYV varieties GM => Higher seed price but with lower

pesticide use

GM maize significantly increased farmer’s net benefits per hectare

Need to address multiple institutional and policy issues

Policy issues for future research

Why is the aggregate adoption rate is low and growing relatively slowly when the return to the GM technology is so high in Honduras?

Typical low adoption constraints Lack of adequate information and knowledge about modern maize varieties

Farm size and liquidity constraints (neighborhood effect in more favored areas)

Access to productive inputs

Serious problems of other kind of pests and diseases Black tar spot disease makes current GM technology less attractive for the farmers.

Small market outlet for GM maize Maize processors linked to government programs (WFP) do not accept GM maize

Impact of price fluctuations (?)

Policies to support the “smallest of the smallholders”

Dealing with market uncertainty

Seed companies’ ability to deal with infrastructural issues and producer geographical dispersion Market value chain capacity

Scale issue

Two upcoming sources of information

Next Harvest II Templeton funded projects

implemented by IFPRI A comprehensive survey

measuring agricultural biotechnology capacity South Africa

Nigeria

Kenya

Uganda

A report to the African Development Bank on agricultural biotechnology capacity submitted by IFPRI – to be launched later this year

Arie Sanders

Maria Mercedes Roca

Miljian Villalta

Alan B. Bennett

Cecilia Chi-Ham

Denisse McLean

José Falck-Zepeda

Patricia Zambrano

Sandra Mendoza. Participatory

research consultant

Research funded by:

José Benjamin Falck-Zepeda, Ph.D.Senior Research Fellow / Leader Policy Team Program

for Biosafety Systems

IFPRI

2033 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006-1002

USA

j.falck-zepeda@cgiar.org

Brief bio/pubs: http://www.ifpri.org/staffprofile/jose-falck-zepeda

Blog: http://socioeconomicbiosafety.wordpress.com/

Follow me on Twitter: @josefalck