IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v6y2007i3p46-53.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

GM Crops in Europe: How Much Value and for Whom? Les cultures génétiquement modifiées en Europe : quels avantages et pour qui? Genetisch veränderte Feldfrüchte in Europa: Welcher Wert und für wen?

Author

Listed:
  • Matty Demont
  • Koen Dillen
  • Erik Mathijs
  • Eric Tollens

Abstract

GM Crops in Europe: How Much Value and for Whom? Who gains from genetically modified (GM) crops in Europe? We review the global impact literature and assess the potential value of GM crops for Europe and how this value is shared among stakeholders. The literature suggests that, on average, two thirds of the global benefits are shared ‘downstream’, i.e., among domestic and foreign farmers and consumers, while only one third is extracted ‘upstream’, i.e., by gene developers and seed suppliers. Can this global rule of thumb be extrapolated to the EU? We review studies on GM maize, sugar beet and oilseed rape in Spain, Hungary, the Czech Republic and the EU‐25. The potential annual value of GM technologies for single Member States ranges from €0.1 million to €42 million, distributed according to the same rule of thumb. With a global annual value of €668 million, herbicide tolerance in sugar beet cultivation is the EU's most promising ‘first‐generation’ GM technology The new Member States could also substantially benefit from GM crops. While the Czech Republic embraced GM maize in recent years, Hungary imposed a de facto ban on GM crops. By denying farmers access to potentially cost‐reducing technologies, banning GM crops could be counterproductive for the future competitiveness of EU agriculture. Qui bénéfi cie des cultures génétiquement modifiées (GM) en Europe ? Nous passons en revue l'information disponible sur leur incidence générale et évaluons les avantages potentiels des cultures GM pour l'Europe et comment ils sont répartis entre les groupes concernés. La littérature suggère qu'en moyenne, les deux‐tiers des avantages est partagée en aval entre les producteurs et les consommateurs nationaux et étrangers, tandis qu'un tiers est retenu en amont par les sélectionneurs génétiques et les distributeurs de semences. Est‐ce que cette répartition arbitraire peut s'appliquer à l'Union européenne ? Nous passons en revue des études sur le maïs, les betteraves sucrières et le colza génétiquement modifi és en Espagne, Hongrie, République tchèque et Union à 25. La valeur potentielle annuelle des technologies GM pour des états membres individuels varie de 0.1 million d'euros à 42 millions d'euros, répartis selon cette même règle. Avec une valeur globale de 668 millions d'euros par an, la tolérance aux herbicides dans la culture betteravière est la technologie GM de première génération la plus prometteuse pour l'Union européenne. Les nouveaux états membres pourraient aussi profiter nettement des cultures GM. Alors que la République tchèque s'est lancée ces dernières années dans la culture de maïs GM, la Hongrie a imposé une interdiction de fait des cultures GM. En refusant à ses agriculteurs l'accès à des technologies susceptibles de réduire les coûts, l'interdiction des cultures GM pourrait être contreproductive pour la future compétitivité de l'agriculture européenne. Wem nutzen genetisch veränderte (GV‐) Feldfrüchte in Europa? Wir prüfen die Literatur zu den allgemeinen Auswirkungen und schätzen ab, wie groß der potenzielle Wert der GV‐Feldfrüchte für Europa ist und wie dieser Wert unter allen beteiligten Gruppen aufgeteilt wird. Die Literatur deutet darauf hin, dass im Durchschnitt zwei Drittel der allgemeinen Gewinne den nachgelagerten Bereichen (“downstream”) zufallen, d.h. den einheimischen und ausländischen Landwirten und Verbrauchern, während lediglich ein Drittel dem vorgelagerten Bereich (“upstream”), d.h. Gentechnikern und Saatgutanbietern, zugute kommt. Kann diese allgemeine Faustregel auf die EU übertragen werden? Wir prüfen Untersuchungen über GV‐Mais, ‐Zuckerrüben und ‐Raps in Spanien, Ungarn, Tschechien und der EU‐25. Der potenzielle jährliche Wert aus der GV‐Technologie für einzelne Mitgliedsstaaten variiert von 0,1 Millionen bis 42 Millionen Euro, welche sich gemäß derselben Faustregel verteilen. Mit einem allgemeinen jährlichen Wert von 668 Millionen Euro handelt es sich bei der Herbizidtoleranz im Zuckerrübenanbau um die viel versprechendste europäische GV‐Technologie der ersten Generation. Die neuen Mitgliedsstaaten könnten ebenfalls wesentlich von den GV‐Feldfrüchten profi tieren. Während Tschechien den Anbau von GV‐Mais in den vergangenen Jahren angenommen hat, erließ Ungarn ein allgemeines Verbot im Hinblick auf GV‐Feldfrüchte. Ein Verbot von GV‐Feldfrüchten könnte sich kontraproduktiv auf die zukünftige Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der europäischen Landwirtschaft auswirken, da den Landwirten der Zugang zu potenziell kostensenkenden Technologien verwehrt wird.

Suggested Citation

  • Matty Demont & Koen Dillen & Erik Mathijs & Eric Tollens, 2007. "GM Crops in Europe: How Much Value and for Whom? Les cultures génétiquement modifiées en Europe : quels avantages et pour qui? Genetisch veränderte Feldfrüchte in Europa: Welcher Wert und für wen?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 6(3), pages 46-53, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:6:y:2007:i:3:p:46-53
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-692X.2007.00075.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2007.00075.x
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giancarlo Moschini & Harvey Lapan & Andrei Sobolevsky, 2000. "Roundup ready® soybeans and welfare effects in the soybean complex," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 33-55.
    2. Pray, Carl & Ma, Danmeng & Huang, Jikun & Qiao, Fangbin, 2001. "Impact of Bt Cotton in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 813-825, May.
    3. José Benjamin Falck-Zepeda & Greg Traxler & Robert G. Nelson, 2000. "Surplus Distribution from the Introduction of a Biotechnology Innovation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 360-369.
    4. Matin Qaim, 2005. "Agricultural Biotechnology Adoption in Developing Countries," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1317-1324.
    5. Price, Gregory K. & Lin, William W. & Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin & Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, 2003. "Size And Distribution Of Market Benefits From Adopting Biotech Crops," Technical Bulletins 33562, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. Thirtle, Colin & Beyers, Lindie & Ismael, Yousouf & Piesse, Jenifer, 2003. "Can GM-Technologies Help the Poor? The Impact of Bt Cotton in Makhathini Flats, KwaZulu-Natal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 717-732, April.
    7. Jose B. Falck-Zepeda & Greg Traxler & Robert G. Nelson, 2000. "Rent creation and distribution from biotechnology innovations: The case of bt cotton and Herbicide-Tolerant soybeans in 1997," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 21-32.
    8. Matin Qaim & Greg Traxler, 2005. "Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: farm level and aggregate welfare effects," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 73-86, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:ags:jlaare:257998 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Gunnar Breustedt & Uwe Latacz‐Lohmann & Jörg Müller‐Scheeßel, 2009. "Forecasting the Adoption of Genetically Modified Oilseed Rape Prognosen hinsichtlich der Einführung von gentechnisch verändertem Raps Prévisions sur l’adoption de colza transgénique," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 8(2), pages 44-50, August.
    3. Demont, Matty & Daems, W. & Dillen, Koen & Mathijs, Erik & Sausse, C. & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Are EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations proportional?," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44191, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. repec:ags:ifaamr:269674 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Dillen, Koen & Demont, Matty & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Modelling heterogeneity to estimate the ex ante value of biotechnology innovations," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43945, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Matty Demont & Marie Cerovska & Wim Daems & Koen Dillen & József Fogarasi & Erik Mathijs & František Muška & Josef Soukup & Eric Tollens, 2008. "Ex Ante Impact Assessment under Imperfect Information: Biotechnology in New Member States of the EU," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 463-486, September.
    7. Gunnar Breustedt & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Jorg MŸller-Scheesel, 2009. "Forecasting the Adoption of Genetically Modified Oilseed Rape," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 8(SpecialIs), pages 44-50, August.
    8. Demont, Matty & Dillen, Koen & Daems, Wim & Sausse, Christophe & Tollens, Eric & Mathijs, Erik, 2009. "On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 508-518, December.
    9. Tillie, Pascal & Dillen, Koen & Rodríguez-Cerezo, Emilio, 2014. "Modelling ex-ante the economic and environmental impacts of Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant maize cultivation in Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 150-160.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:6:y:2007:i:3:p:46-53. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley Content Delivery). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.