Presentation 2 falck zepeda socioeconomic assessments results from case studies

Program for Biosafety Systems ndash httppbsifpriinfo

Assessment of Socioeconomic Considerations in Practice

Joseacute Falck Zepeda

Senior Research Fellow

International Food Policy Research Institute ndashProgram for Biosafety Systems (IFPRI - PBS)

Presented at Cornell Alliance for Science Ithaca New York October 26

2016


Content

1 Results from selected case studies

2 The literature

3 Findings conclusions and recommendations

Ex ante studies completed by IFPRI and partners

The case of fungal resistant bananas in Uganda

bull Considered irreversible cost and benefits using the real options approach

bull Conclusionsndash If approval delayed forego potential

annual (social) benefits of +- US$200 million

ndash Maximum total development costs cannot exceed US$108 million Otherwise GM banana is not a viable alternative

ndash Even when considering precautionary principle concepts within the analysis adoption still benefits Uganda

Citation Kikulwe E J Wesseler and J Falck-Zepeda 2008 Introducing a Genetically Modified Banana in Uganda Social Benefits

Costs and Consumer Perceptions IFPRI Discussion Paper 767 Environment and Production Technology Division International

Food Policy Research Institute Washington D C USA

Copyright Kikulwe copy 2009

Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa

bull Estimation of potential adoption impact of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso Benin Mali Senegal and Togo

bull Study was done in preparation for the eventual approval of Bt cotton in the region

bull Only Burkina Faso adopted whereas Mali and Benin seem to have a precautionary stance towards the technology

bull Cotton is a major source of cash for resource poor farmers in the region

bull Remnants of the cotton system

Ex ante assessment Case of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso and West Africa (2)

bull Use a modified economic method to account for productionfinancial risk and parameter uncertainty

bull Use scenarios to simulate policy questions

ndash No adoption in West Africa adoption elsewhere (impacts on competivity)

ndash Technology price (fee) including reductions

ndash Irregular adoption patterns

ndash Regulatory delays


bull Some conclusionsndash If region decided not to adopt

the technology it will lose competivity as other regions continue to adopt Bt cotton

ndash Innovators and producers earn the largest share of additional benefits

ndash With a reduced technology fee probability that farmers earn positive net income increases

Mean = -277E+07

X lt=0

995

X lt= - 49173256

5

0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20

Net Present Value

(millions US$)

Pro

bab

ilit

y

(11

0-8

)

Scenario 1 Total Surplus West Africa

Mean = 332E+07

X lt= 0

386

X lt= 65732204

95

0

02

04

06

08

1

12

14

16

18

2

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Net Present Value

(million US$)

Pro

bab

ilit

y

(11

0-8

)


GM vegetables in Ghana

bull Examine likely impact of the introduction of GM varieties in Ghana

bull Examine four specific technologiesndash Tomatoes resistant to the Yellow Leaf Curl Virus

(TYLCV) disease

ndash Garden eggs (eggplant) resistant to the stem and fruit borer

ndash Cabbages resistant to the Diamond Back Moth (DBM)

ndash Cassava resistant to the African Cassava Mosaic Virus (ACMV) disease


bull Field surveys conducted in Ghana with conventional farmers

bull Asked farmers about potential effects

ndash Without the constraint

ndash With the constraint but without using pesticides

ndash With the constraint and chemical control of the pest

bull Methodologies

ndash Partial budgeting

ndash Economic surplus with stochastic simulations

GM vegetables in Ghana ndash Findings for tomato

bull There is indeed an impact on yields by the TYLCY virus in Ghana

bull Issues with proper control of white fly (vector) and thus of virus damage

Cummulative Percent of Yield

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46

Yield (t ha)

2005

Unconditional

No Constraint

Constraint No Pesticide

Constraint + Pesticide


UnitSCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4

Model Small Open Economy

Adoption curve Conventional

(smooth)

Conventional

(smooth)

Irregular Irregular

Max adoption 35 35 35 35

Effective area

adopting GM

technology

Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950

Technology fee Ha 000 917 000 917

Average RampD and

technology transfer

costs

US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000

NPV of Producer

surplus

US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253

Internal rate of return na 101 na 764

Ex post studies completed by IFPRI and partners

A bit of historyhellipThe case of Bt cotton in the US

-22 -12 -14

58 37 37

141

80 97

63

8593

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1996

Industry

US Farmers

Consumers

Foreign Farmers

1997 1998

Industry

36

Consumers

19

US Farmers

45

Total benefit estimates (Millions US $)

Falck-Zepeda Traxler amp Nelson 1999 2000

GE Maize in Honduras

8th Latin American country adopting GMOs since 20021

Only country in Central America cultivating commercially GE food crops

-USA

-Brazil

-Argentina

-South Africa

-Canada

-Uruguay x15

-Philippines x3

-Spain x5

-Chile x7

-Honduras

-Portugal x8

-Czech Republic x 7

-Poland x3

-Egypt x9

-Slovakia x04

-Romania x2

bull By 2011 72 thousand ha with hybrids and GM 15 area planted1

bull GM estimated around 25-30 thousand ha

BT (MON810) RR (NK603) Herculex 1 YGVTPro

(MON89034) traits approved for commercialization

Major maize producing areas in Honduras

GE maize in Honduras First round surveys - 2008

Excellent target pest control

Bt yield advantage 893-1136 Kg ha-1 yield (24-33)

Bt maize yields preferred even by risk averse producers

100 higher seed cost than conventional hybrid

Institutional issues important

Photos credit copy Sanders and Trabanino 2008

ldquoSmall ldquoResource-Poorrdquo Countries Taking Advantage of the New Bioeconomy

and Innovation The Case of Insect ProtectedHerbicide Tolerant Maize in

Hondurasrdquo Jose Falck Zepeda Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Oswaldo

Medina and Rolando Batallas-Huacon Paper presented at the 13th ICABR

Conference ldquoThe Emerging Bio-Economyrdquo Ravello Italy June 17-20 2009

- 180000 metric tons

- 35000 planted hectares gt30 national corn production

- 12000 hectares with GM gt40 GM corn production

- 10000 farmers

- A range of different corn production systems

We captured diversity within the commercial corn production chain

GE maize in Honduras Results from second round surveys

Yield

(mtha)

Raw averages Averages adjusted

for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 53 478 - 502

Conventional plots 37 37

Difference 16 108 - 132

Estimate of the impact of

sampling bias andor outliers

()

17 - 32

Income

(US$ha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754





()

4 - 36

First and second round surveys Key Findings

bull Adopting farmers using less pesticides

bull Less environmental impact using EIQ

bull GE corn farmers seem to be obtaining higher yields amp profits

bull Surveys showed issues of statistical biases and outliers are real

GE maize in the Philippines First round of surveys 2007-2008

bull Growing Bt maize significantly increases profits and yields

bull Significant insecticide use reductions

bull Adopters tend to bendash Cultivate larger areas

ndash Use hired labor

ndash More educated

ndash Have more positive perceptions of current and future status

Change in economic surplus

(mill pesos)

Producer Surplus 7906

Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609

Producer Share () 92

Innovator Share () 8

Bt maize studies in Philippines led by Dr Jose Yorobe Jr with 466 farmers in

16 villages Isabela Province Luzon South Cotabato Province Mindanao

GE maize in the Philippines Second round of surveys 2011-2012

Table 7 The yield and net farm income impacts of using GMO maize panel data

Yieldha Net Farm Incomeha

Adoption 252507 1041794

Area planted to maize 599935 1224369

Distance from seed source -39645 -153728

Credit lt0001 0845

Seed expenses -0034 -3908

Hired labor expenses 0071 1509

Fertilizer expenses 0002 072

Pesticide expenses -1391 8014

Herbicide expenses -0359 -7668

Seed price 2737 45428

Income from livestock -0439

Non-farm income 2756

Yieldha 10386

Adoption X Gender -1651233 -7003825

Constant 460678 -2384125

Number of Obs 234 234

R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353

= significant at 1 5 and 10 percent level respectively


GE cotton in Colombia

Evidence of yield enhancement rather than pesticide reductions

Bt farmers benefited where the target pest is economically important

Sampling bias important adopters were betterndashoff farmers

Institutional context critical

Photos credit copy Zambrano 2009

Source Zambrano P L A Fonseca I Cardona and E Magalhaes 2009 The

socio-economic impact of transgenic cotton in Colombia In Biotechnology and

agricultural development Transgenic cotton rural institutions and resource-poor

farmers ed R Tripp Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 19

London Routledge Chapter 8 Pp 168-199

GE soybeans in Bolivia

bull Bolivia is one of the few countries in Latin America where there are an important number of small-scale soybean producers

bull Soybeans are an important crop in Bolivia contributes with ndash 46 of GDP ndash 10 of the total exports

bull Roundup Ready (RR) soybean are the only approved GM crop in Bolivia

bull Although approved in 2005 farmers introduced RR soybeans years earlier from Argentina and Brazil

bull The Association of Oil Seed and Wheat Producers (ANAPO) in Bolivia estimates that 70 of the total production of soybeans is RR

GE soybeans in Bolivia Political context

bull Government opposition

to GM crops

bull GM ban in the newly

(2008) enacted

constitution

bull Political tensions

bull Santa Cruz main soybean production area

GE soybeans in Bolivia study site

Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites

Cuatro Cantildeadas Provincia de Santa

Cruz

GE soybeans in Bolivia Research limitations

bull Difficulties in selecting a random samplendash Due to political situationndash Communities and farmers not willing to participatendash Farmers unwillingness to answer part or all questionnaire

bull No data regarding size and location of transgenic soybeansbull Difficult geographical and climatic condition

ndash Soybean producers usually donrsquot live in the plots and many times not even in the same community

ndash Areas where small-scale plots (lt50 ha) are situated in highly disperse areas big distances and expensive field costs

ndash Postponed survey for a year due to El Nintildeo floods Areas were unreachable

GE soybeans Bolivia Survey design and study site

Variable Both Non

-RR

RR

No households 7 50 70

Soybean plot size ha 100 36 48

Education hh head 6 5 7

Age hh head 44 42 43

Non-soy activities hh head 14 22 37

GE soybeans in Bolivia Partial budgetVariable Non-RR RR

Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859

Gross benefit (US$ha) 60026 78083

Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678

Herbicides 4153 3225

Insecticides 2134 2412

Fungicides 3793 3786

Labor cost for chemical input application 498 503

Machinery 5502 5213

All other labor costs 350 225

Other variable costs 16174 14667

Net Benefits ($USha) 43653 63254

Difference RR- non-RR (US$ha) 19601

GE soybeans in Bolivia FindingsMethodsbull Difficult to make a random sample

bull Limitations of a one year data

Findings

bull Despite open government opposition RR soybeans continue to expand

bull Cost of RR seed lower than conventional seed

bull CB analysis favors RR soybeans

bull RR Farmers are better endowed with ag assests

bull Information flows varies by type of farmer

IFPRI-Led Gender and GM Studies

Why Gender and GM

GE Cotton in Burkina Faso and Colombia

ActivityIssue Burkina Faso Colombia

Inheritance rights X

Access to land Granted by head HH

Access to credit farm inputs X

Ability to hire personnel X

Access to information extension services X Limited

Equal partners with head of HH as cotton producers

X

Work contribution in familymale plots

Active participation in the overall cotton operation

Multiple invisible or undervalued activities

Control of cotton operation Limited cases Limited cases

GE cotton in Burkina Faso advantages

Labor-saving technologies

bull Reduction in insecticide application from 6 to 2 applications- Some estimates

ndash Water saved 18 to 20 gallons of water by ha

ndash Time saved Women have saved 3 trips to the well for every insecticide application saved for a total of 12 trips

ndash Health implication Average weight per trip ~20 kg

GE cotton in Colombia advantages

Reduction in number of insecticide applications

ndash Less hired male laborers

bull Saved cash (US$ 15day)

bull Saved supervision

ndash Use of additional income

bull Women invest in their family

bull Men invest in leisure activities

Less Drudgery for Her More Maize for Him Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers in South

Africa (World Development)

Maize activity Male Female Child TotalLand preparation and planting 24 12 02 39Herbicide application -21 -16 00 -37

Weeding 59 109 17 185

Harvesting -02 02 -02 -02

Total 61 107 18 186

Averages for 20067 20078 and 200910 seasons

(7 hr man daysha)

Source Gouse Sengupta Zambrano Falck Zepeda 2016 Data for Hlabisa

What do we know from the economic impact assessment literature to date

bull A review of 187 peer reviewed studies

bull Examined studies with a focus onndash Farmers household

and community

ndash Industry and markets

ndash Consumers

ndash TradeCitation Smale Melinda Zambrano Patricia Gruegravere Guillaume Falck-Zepeda Joseacute Matuschke Ira Horna Daniela Nagarajan Latha

Yerramareddy Indira Jones Hannah 2009 Measuring the economic impacts of transgenic crops in developing agriculture during the first

decade Approaches findings and future directions (Food policy review 10) Washington DC International Food Policy Research Institute

(IFPRI) 107 pages

Food Policy Review 10 conclusions

bull On average LMO crops have a higher economic performance mdash but averages do not reflect the variability by agro-climate host cultivar trait farmer

bull Too few traits too few casesauthorsmdashgeneralizations should not be drawn yetneed more time to describe adoption

These conclusions are no different than those for most technologies released to datehellip

A meta-analysis paper by Areal Riesgo and Rodriguez-Cerezo (2012)

ldquoGM crops perform better than their conventional counterparts in agronomic and economic (gross margin) termsrdquo

ldquoGM crops tend to perform better in developing countries than in developed countries with Bt cotton being the most profitable crop grownrdquo

Summary of benefitsbull Systematic reviews and formal meta-analysis measuring the performance

of GE crops (Racovita et al 2015 Kluumlmper and Qaim 2014 Mannion and Morse 2013 Areal Riesgo amp Rodriguez-Cerezo 2013 Finger et al 2011 Qaim 2009 Smale et al 2009 Raney 2006 Smale et al 2009 Sexton amp Zilberman 2011 Tripp 2009) have consistently shown

ndash Reductions in yield damage from insects

ndash Reduced pesticide applications for target pests

ndash Decrease in management time and flexibility

ndash Positive gross (in some cases net) margins from the adoption of such crops

bull Important to contextualize these resultsndash Results do not imply that every single farmer or groups of farmers (adopting or not)

gained from the introduction of GE crops

ndash Data and methodological approachesrsquo limitations especially with regard to statistical and sampling bias

ndash Research focuses significantly on the assessments of Bt cotton grown in China and India

Concluding comments

bull Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops are still only technologies

bull Similarities and differences with other technologies

bull Actual and potential benefits from GM technology adoptionhellipimportant tool to consider Cannot disregard

bull Developments in the public sector in developing countries

bull Additional cropstraits of interest whose limitations can probably be only addressed through biotechnology means will be available if we manage to resolve institutional and regulatory issues

Our Team and Partners

Our TeamJudy ChambersPatricia ZambranoDebdatta SenguptaPilar RickertHillary HansonGuillaume GruegravereIndira YerramareddyAimeacutee NianeHannah JonesDaniela Horna

Our Partnersbull Marnus Gouse (U of Pretoria)bull Daylinda Cabanilla and Jose Yorobe Jr (U of the

Philippines ndash Los Banosbull Isidore Lobne (Western Oregon University)bull Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe and Justus Wesseler

(Wageningen University)bull Arie Sanders Rogelio Trabanino Denisse McLean

(Zamorano University)bull Cecilia Chi-Ham and Alan Bennett (PIPRA UC-

Davis)bull Jorge Higinio Maldonado (U de los Andes

Colombia)bull Luz Amparo Fonseca Ivaacuten Cardona Lorena Ruiz

(CONALGODON Colombia)bull Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray Willy Fernaacutendez

Montantildeo Jaime Hernaacutendez (ANAPO Bolivia)bull Samuel Timpo (NARO-Uganda)bull Jessica Beyer and George Norton (Virginia Tech

University)

Joseacute Benjamin Falck-Zepeda PhDSenior Research Fellow

IFPRI 2033 K Street NW

Washington DC 20006-1002USA

jfalck-zepedacgiarorgBrief biopubs

httpwwwifpriorgstaffprofilejose-falck-zepeda

Blog httpsocioeconomicbiosafetywordpresscom

Follow me on Twitter josefalck


Content

1 Results from selected case studies

2 The literature

3 Findings conclusions and recommendations






























Mean = -277E+07

X lt=0

995

X lt= - 49173256

5

0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20

Net Present Value

(millions US$)

Pro

bab

ilit

y

(11

0-8

)


Mean = 332E+07

X lt= 0

386

X lt= 65732204

95

0

02

04

06

08

1

12

14

16

18

2

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Net Present Value

(million US$)

Pro

bab

ilit

y

(11

0-8

)





(TYLCV) disease










bull Methodologies







0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46

Yield (t ha)

2005

Unconditional

No Constraint







(smooth)

Conventional

(smooth)

Irregular Irregular


Effective area

adopting GM

technology

Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950


Average RampD and

technology transfer

costs

US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000

NPV of Producer

surplus

US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253




-22 -12 -14

58 37 37

141

80 97

63

8593

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1996

Industry

US Farmers

Consumers

Foreign Farmers

1997 1998

Industry

36

Consumers

19

US Farmers

45






-USA

-Brazil

-Argentina

-South Africa

-Canada

-Uruguay x15

-Philippines x3

-Spain x5

-Chile x7

-Honduras

-Portugal x8

-Czech Republic x 7

-Poland x3

-Egypt x9

-Slovakia x04

-Romania x2





















- 10000 farmers




Yield

(mtha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 53 478 - 502





()

17 - 32

Income

(US$ha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754





()

4 - 36











ndash More educated



(mill pesos)


Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609








Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)





































Mean = -277E+07

X lt=0

995

X lt= - 49173256

5

0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20

Net Present Value

(millions US$)

Pro

bab

ilit

y

(11

0-8

)


Mean = 332E+07

X lt= 0

386

X lt= 65732204

95

0

02

04

06

08

1

12

14

16

18

2

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Net Present Value

(million US$)

Pro

bab

ilit

y

(11

0-8

)





(TYLCV) disease










bull Methodologies







0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46

Yield (t ha)

2005

Unconditional

No Constraint







(smooth)

Conventional

(smooth)

Irregular Irregular


Effective area

adopting GM

technology

Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950


Average RampD and

technology transfer

costs

US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000

NPV of Producer

surplus

US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253




-22 -12 -14

58 37 37

141

80 97

63

8593

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1996

Industry

US Farmers

Consumers

Foreign Farmers

1997 1998

Industry

36

Consumers

19

US Farmers

45






-USA

-Brazil

-Argentina

-South Africa

-Canada

-Uruguay x15

-Philippines x3

-Spain x5

-Chile x7

-Honduras

-Portugal x8

-Czech Republic x 7

-Poland x3

-Egypt x9

-Slovakia x04

-Romania x2





















- 10000 farmers




Yield

(mtha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 53 478 - 502





()

17 - 32

Income

(US$ha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754





()

4 - 36











ndash More educated



(mill pesos)


Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609








Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)




































Mean = -277E+07

X lt=0

995

X lt= - 49173256

5

0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20

Net Present Value

(millions US$)

Pro

bab

ilit

y

(11

0-8

)


Mean = 332E+07

X lt= 0

386

X lt= 65732204

95

0

02

04

06

08

1

12

14

16

18

2

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Net Present Value

(million US$)

Pro

bab

ilit

y

(11

0-8

)





(TYLCV) disease










bull Methodologies







0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46

Yield (t ha)

2005

Unconditional

No Constraint







(smooth)

Conventional

(smooth)

Irregular Irregular


Effective area

adopting GM

technology

Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950


Average RampD and

technology transfer

costs

US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000

NPV of Producer

surplus

US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253




-22 -12 -14

58 37 37

141

80 97

63

8593

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1996

Industry

US Farmers

Consumers

Foreign Farmers

1997 1998

Industry

36

Consumers

19

US Farmers

45






-USA

-Brazil

-Argentina

-South Africa

-Canada

-Uruguay x15

-Philippines x3

-Spain x5

-Chile x7

-Honduras

-Portugal x8

-Czech Republic x 7

-Poland x3

-Egypt x9

-Slovakia x04

-Romania x2





















- 10000 farmers




Yield

(mtha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 53 478 - 502





()

17 - 32

Income

(US$ha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754





()

4 - 36











ndash More educated



(mill pesos)


Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609








Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)


























Mean = -277E+07

X lt=0

995

X lt= - 49173256

5

0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20

Net Present Value

(millions US$)

Pro

bab

ilit

y

(11

0-8

)


Mean = 332E+07

X lt= 0

386

X lt= 65732204

95

0

02

04

06

08

1

12

14

16

18

2

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Net Present Value

(million US$)

Pro

bab

ilit

y

(11

0-8

)





(TYLCV) disease










bull Methodologies







0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46

Yield (t ha)

2005

Unconditional

No Constraint







(smooth)

Conventional

(smooth)

Irregular Irregular


Effective area

adopting GM

technology

Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950


Average RampD and

technology transfer

costs

US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000

NPV of Producer

surplus

US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253




-22 -12 -14

58 37 37

141

80 97

63

8593

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1996

Industry

US Farmers

Consumers

Foreign Farmers

1997 1998

Industry

36

Consumers

19

US Farmers

45






-USA

-Brazil

-Argentina

-South Africa

-Canada

-Uruguay x15

-Philippines x3

-Spain x5

-Chile x7

-Honduras

-Portugal x8

-Czech Republic x 7

-Poland x3

-Egypt x9

-Slovakia x04

-Romania x2





















- 10000 farmers




Yield

(mtha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 53 478 - 502





()

17 - 32

Income

(US$ha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754





()

4 - 36











ndash More educated



(mill pesos)


Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609








Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)




















Mean = -277E+07

X lt=0

995

X lt= - 49173256

5

0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20

Net Present Value

(millions US$)

Pro

bab

ilit

y

(11

0-8

)


Mean = 332E+07

X lt= 0

386

X lt= 65732204

95

0

02

04

06

08

1

12

14

16

18

2

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Net Present Value

(million US$)

Pro

bab

ilit

y

(11

0-8

)





(TYLCV) disease










bull Methodologies







0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46

Yield (t ha)

2005

Unconditional

No Constraint







(smooth)

Conventional

(smooth)

Irregular Irregular


Effective area

adopting GM

technology

Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950


Average RampD and

technology transfer

costs

US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000

NPV of Producer

surplus

US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253




-22 -12 -14

58 37 37

141

80 97

63

8593

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1996

Industry

US Farmers

Consumers

Foreign Farmers

1997 1998

Industry

36

Consumers

19

US Farmers

45






-USA

-Brazil

-Argentina

-South Africa

-Canada

-Uruguay x15

-Philippines x3

-Spain x5

-Chile x7

-Honduras

-Portugal x8

-Czech Republic x 7

-Poland x3

-Egypt x9

-Slovakia x04

-Romania x2





















- 10000 farmers




Yield

(mtha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 53 478 - 502





()

17 - 32

Income

(US$ha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754





()

4 - 36











ndash More educated



(mill pesos)


Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609








Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)













Mean = -277E+07

X lt=0

995

X lt= - 49173256

5

0

05

1

15

2

25

3

35

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20

Net Present Value

(millions US$)

Pro

bab

ilit

y

(11

0-8

)


Mean = 332E+07

X lt= 0

386

X lt= 65732204

95

0

02

04

06

08

1

12

14

16

18

2

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Net Present Value

(million US$)

Pro

bab

ilit

y

(11

0-8

)





(TYLCV) disease










bull Methodologies







0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46

Yield (t ha)

2005

Unconditional

No Constraint







(smooth)

Conventional

(smooth)

Irregular Irregular


Effective area

adopting GM

technology

Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950


Average RampD and

technology transfer

costs

US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000

NPV of Producer

surplus

US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253




-22 -12 -14

58 37 37

141

80 97

63

8593

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1996

Industry

US Farmers

Consumers

Foreign Farmers

1997 1998

Industry

36

Consumers

19

US Farmers

45






-USA

-Brazil

-Argentina

-South Africa

-Canada

-Uruguay x15

-Philippines x3

-Spain x5

-Chile x7

-Honduras

-Portugal x8

-Czech Republic x 7

-Poland x3

-Egypt x9

-Slovakia x04

-Romania x2





















- 10000 farmers




Yield

(mtha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 53 478 - 502





()

17 - 32

Income

(US$ha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754





()

4 - 36











ndash More educated



(mill pesos)


Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609








Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)











(TYLCV) disease










bull Methodologies







0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46

Yield (t ha)

2005

Unconditional

No Constraint







(smooth)

Conventional

(smooth)

Irregular Irregular


Effective area

adopting GM

technology

Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950


Average RampD and

technology transfer

costs

US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000

NPV of Producer

surplus

US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253




-22 -12 -14

58 37 37

141

80 97

63

8593

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1996

Industry

US Farmers

Consumers

Foreign Farmers

1997 1998

Industry

36

Consumers

19

US Farmers

45






-USA

-Brazil

-Argentina

-South Africa

-Canada

-Uruguay x15

-Philippines x3

-Spain x5

-Chile x7

-Honduras

-Portugal x8

-Czech Republic x 7

-Poland x3

-Egypt x9

-Slovakia x04

-Romania x2





















- 10000 farmers




Yield

(mtha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 53 478 - 502





()

17 - 32

Income

(US$ha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754





()

4 - 36











ndash More educated



(mill pesos)


Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609








Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)














bull Methodologies







0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46

Yield (t ha)

2005

Unconditional

No Constraint







(smooth)

Conventional

(smooth)

Irregular Irregular


Effective area

adopting GM

technology

Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950


Average RampD and

technology transfer

costs

US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000

NPV of Producer

surplus

US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253




-22 -12 -14

58 37 37

141

80 97

63

8593

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1996

Industry

US Farmers

Consumers

Foreign Farmers

1997 1998

Industry

36

Consumers

19

US Farmers

45






-USA

-Brazil

-Argentina

-South Africa

-Canada

-Uruguay x15

-Philippines x3

-Spain x5

-Chile x7

-Honduras

-Portugal x8

-Czech Republic x 7

-Poland x3

-Egypt x9

-Slovakia x04

-Romania x2





















- 10000 farmers




Yield

(mtha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 53 478 - 502





()

17 - 32

Income

(US$ha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754





()

4 - 36











ndash More educated



(mill pesos)


Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609








Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)












0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46

Yield (t ha)

2005

Unconditional

No Constraint







(smooth)

Conventional

(smooth)

Irregular Irregular


Effective area

adopting GM

technology

Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950


Average RampD and

technology transfer

costs

US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000

NPV of Producer

surplus

US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253




-22 -12 -14

58 37 37

141

80 97

63

8593

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1996

Industry

US Farmers

Consumers

Foreign Farmers

1997 1998

Industry

36

Consumers

19

US Farmers

45






-USA

-Brazil

-Argentina

-South Africa

-Canada

-Uruguay x15

-Philippines x3

-Spain x5

-Chile x7

-Honduras

-Portugal x8

-Czech Republic x 7

-Poland x3

-Egypt x9

-Slovakia x04

-Romania x2





















- 10000 farmers




Yield

(mtha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 53 478 - 502





()

17 - 32

Income

(US$ha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754





()

4 - 36











ndash More educated



(mill pesos)


Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609








Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)












(smooth)

Conventional

(smooth)

Irregular Irregular


Effective area

adopting GM

technology

Ha 12950 12950 12950 12950


Average RampD and

technology transfer

costs

US$ 000 1500000 000 1500000

NPV of Producer

surplus

US$ 12076148 11191115 8077549 7206253




-22 -12 -14

58 37 37

141

80 97

63

8593

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1996

Industry

US Farmers

Consumers

Foreign Farmers

1997 1998

Industry

36

Consumers

19

US Farmers

45






-USA

-Brazil

-Argentina

-South Africa

-Canada

-Uruguay x15

-Philippines x3

-Spain x5

-Chile x7

-Honduras

-Portugal x8

-Czech Republic x 7

-Poland x3

-Egypt x9

-Slovakia x04

-Romania x2





















- 10000 farmers




Yield

(mtha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 53 478 - 502





()

17 - 32

Income

(US$ha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754





()

4 - 36











ndash More educated



(mill pesos)


Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609








Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)










-22 -12 -14

58 37 37

141

80 97

63

8593

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1996

Industry

US Farmers

Consumers

Foreign Farmers

1997 1998

Industry

36

Consumers

19

US Farmers

45






-USA

-Brazil

-Argentina

-South Africa

-Canada

-Uruguay x15

-Philippines x3

-Spain x5

-Chile x7

-Honduras

-Portugal x8

-Czech Republic x 7

-Poland x3

-Egypt x9

-Slovakia x04

-Romania x2





















- 10000 farmers




Yield

(mtha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 53 478 - 502





()

17 - 32

Income

(US$ha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754





()

4 - 36











ndash More educated



(mill pesos)


Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609








Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)









-22 -12 -14

58 37 37

141

80 97

63

8593

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1996

Industry

US Farmers

Consumers

Foreign Farmers

1997 1998

Industry

36

Consumers

19

US Farmers

45






-USA

-Brazil

-Argentina

-South Africa

-Canada

-Uruguay x15

-Philippines x3

-Spain x5

-Chile x7

-Honduras

-Portugal x8

-Czech Republic x 7

-Poland x3

-Egypt x9

-Slovakia x04

-Romania x2





















- 10000 farmers




Yield

(mtha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 53 478 - 502





()

17 - 32

Income

(US$ha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754





()

4 - 36











ndash More educated



(mill pesos)


Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609








Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)











-USA

-Brazil

-Argentina

-South Africa

-Canada

-Uruguay x15

-Philippines x3

-Spain x5

-Chile x7

-Honduras

-Portugal x8

-Czech Republic x 7

-Poland x3

-Egypt x9

-Slovakia x04

-Romania x2





















- 10000 farmers




Yield

(mtha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 53 478 - 502





()

17 - 32

Income

(US$ha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754





()

4 - 36











ndash More educated



(mill pesos)


Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609








Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)
























- 10000 farmers




Yield

(mtha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 53 478 - 502





()

17 - 32

Income

(US$ha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754





()

4 - 36











ndash More educated



(mill pesos)


Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609








Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)























- 10000 farmers




Yield

(mtha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 53 478 - 502





()

17 - 32

Income

(US$ha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754





()

4 - 36











ndash More educated



(mill pesos)


Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609








Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)











- 10000 farmers




Yield

(mtha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 53 478 - 502





()

17 - 32

Income

(US$ha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754





()

4 - 36











ndash More educated



(mill pesos)


Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609








Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)









Yield

(mtha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 53 478 - 502





()

17 - 32

Income

(US$ha)


for sampling bias

andor outliers

GM plots 1774 1584 - 1754





()

4 - 36











ndash More educated



(mill pesos)


Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609








Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)


















ndash More educated



(mill pesos)


Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609








Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)













ndash More educated



(mill pesos)


Seed Innovator 703

Total Surplus 8609








Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)











Adoption 252507 1041794



Credit lt0001 0845









Yieldha 10386


Constant 460678 -2384125


R2 (within) 0558 0659

ProbgtF 0000 0000

rho 0411 0353






















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)




























to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)



























to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)
















to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)










to GM crops


(2008) enacted

constitution




Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)









Farm survey

124 farmers

104 local

20 Mennonites


Cruz








Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)















Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)









Variable Both Non

-RR

RR







Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)









Yield (tha) 147 191

Price (US$t) 40932 39859


Costs (US$ha)

Seed 2346 2678





Machinery 5502 5213







Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)










Findings







Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)









Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)








Why Gender and GM









X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)
















X






















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)

























Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)



















Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)











Weeding 59 109 17 185


Total 61 107 18 186


(7 hr man daysha)





and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)











and community


ndash Consumers




(IFPRI) 107 pages


















Concluding comments
















University)

























Concluding comments
















University)





















Concluding comments
















University)


















Concluding comments
















University)








Concluding comments
















University)


















University)













