IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/eptddp/116.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

To reach the poor: results from the ISNAR-IFPRI Next Harvest study on genetically modified crops, public research, and policy implications

Author

Listed:
  • Atanassov, Atanas
  • Bahieldin, Ahmed
  • Brink, Johan
  • Burachik, Moises
  • Cohen, Joel I.
  • Dhawan, Vibha
  • Ebora, Reynaldo V.
  • Falck-Zepeda, José
  • Herrera-Estrella, Luis
  • Komen, John
  • Chon Low, Fee
  • Omaliko, Emeka
  • Odhiambo, Benjamin
  • Quemada, Hector
  • Peng, Yufa
  • Sampaio
  • Idah Sithole-Niang, Maria Jose
  • Sittenfeld, Ana
  • Smale, Melinda
  • Sithole-Niang, Idah
  • Sutrisno
  • Valyasevi, Ruud
  • Zafar, Yusuf
  • Zambrano, Patricia

Abstract

"Local farming communities throughout the world face productivity constraints, environmental concerns, and diverse nutritional needs. Developing countries address these challenges in a number of ways. One way is public research that produces genetically modified (GM) crops and recognize biotechnology as a part of the solution. To reach these communities, GM crops, after receiving biosafety agreement, must be approved for evaluation under local conditions. However, gaps between approvals in the developed and developing world grow larger, as the process of advancing GM crops in developing countries becomes increasingly difficult. In several countries, only insect resistant cotton has successfully moved from small, confined experimental trials to larger, open trials and to farms. By far, most GM crop approvals have been for commercial products that perform well under tropical conditions. However, complete information on public GM crop research in developing countries has not been assessed. “Will policies and research institutions in the developing world stimulate the safe use of publicly funded GM food crops?” The relatively few GM crops approved from public research, coupled with growing regulatory, biosafety capacity, trade, and political concerns, argue to the contrary. To tackle this issue, we identified and analyzed public research pipelines for GM crops among 16 developing countries and transition economies. Respondents reported 209 genetic transformation events for 46 different crops at the time when the survey was conducted. The pipelines demonstrate scientific progress among publicly funded crop research institutes in participating countries. Information and findings are presented for GM crops nearing final stages of selection. Additional details are provided for the types of genes and traits used, the breadth of genetic resources documented, implications for regulation, and the type of research partnerships employed. Regulations, GM crop approvals, choice of transgene, and policy implications are discussed as they affect this research. Based on these findings, recommendations are presented that would help sustain and increase efficiency of publicly supported research while meeting biosafety requirements. To do so, the study examines results concerning investments and choices made in research, capacity, and policy development for biotechnology. These indicate the risk and potential for GM technologies in developing countries. Policy makers, those funding biotechnology, and other stakeholders can use this information to prioritize investments, consider product advancement, and assess relative magnitude of potential risks, and benefits." Authors' Abstract

Suggested Citation

  • Atanassov, Atanas & Bahieldin, Ahmed & Brink, Johan & Burachik, Moises & Cohen, Joel I. & Dhawan, Vibha & Ebora, Reynaldo V. & Falck-Zepeda, José & Herrera-Estrella, Luis & Komen, John & Chon Low, Fee, 2004. "To reach the poor: results from the ISNAR-IFPRI Next Harvest study on genetically modified crops, public research, and policy implications," EPTD discussion papers 116, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:fpr:eptddp:116
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ifpri.org/cdmref/p15738coll2/id/68496/filename/68497.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Binenbaum, Eran & Nottenburg, Carol & Pardey, Philip G & Wright, Brian D & Zambrano, Patricia, 2003. "South-North Trade, Intellectual Property Jurisdictions, and Freedom to Operate in Agricultural Research on Staple Crops," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 51(2), pages 309-335, January.
    3. Beyers, Lindie & Thirtle, Colin G., 2003. "Can Gm-Technologies Help African Smallholders? The Impact Of Bt Cotton In The Makhathini Flats Of Kwazulu-Natal," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25922, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. 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.
    5. Binenbaum, Eran, et al, 2003. "South-North Trade, Intellectual Property Jurisdictions, and Freedom to Operate in Agricultural Research on Staple Crops," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 51(2), pages 309-335, January.
    6. Spielman, David J. & von Grebmer, Klaus, 2004. "Public-private partnerships in agricultural research: an analysis of challenges facing industry and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research," EPTD discussion papers 113, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. DiMasi, Joseph A. & Hansen, Ronald W. & Grabowski, Henry G., 2003. "The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 151-185, March.
    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. Cohen, Joel & Komen, John & Zepeda, Jose Falck, 2004. "National agricultural biotechnology research capacity in developing countries," ESA Working Papers 23790, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    2. Linacre, Nicholas A. & Koo, Bonwoo & Rosegrant, Mark W. & Msangi, Siwa & Falck-Zepeda, José & Gaskell, Joanne & Komen, John & Cohen, Marc J. & Birner, Regina, 2005. "Security analysis for agroterrorism: applying the threat, vulnerability, consequence framework to developing countries," EPTD discussion papers 138, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Falck-Zepeda, Jose & Mnyulwa, Doreen & Mulenga, Dorothy & Gouse, Marnus & Masanganise, Patricia, 2010. "The Status of the Inclusion of Socio-Economic Considerations in Biosafety Regulations and Biotechnology Decision Making Processes in Southern and East Africa: Practical Implications and Consequences f," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188118, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    4. Smyth, Stuart J. & Falck-Zepeda, Jose & Ludlow, Karinne, 2016. "The Costs of Regulatory Delays for Genetically Modified Crops," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 17(2), pages 1-23, December.
    5. Falck-Zepeda, Jose & Mnyulwa, Shumba & Mulenga, Dorothy & Gouse, Marnus & Masanganise, Patricia, 2010. "The Status of the Inclusion of Socio-Economic Considerations in Biosafety Regulations and Biotechnology Decision Making Processes in Southern and East Africa: Practical Implications and Consequences f," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188422, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pardey, Philip G. & Koo, Bonwoo & Nottenburg, Carol, 2004. "Creating, Protecting, And Using Crop Biotechnologies Worldwide In An Era Of Intellectual Property," Staff Papers 13600, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    2. Tiffany Shih & Brian Wright, 2011. "Agricultural Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 49-85, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Suntornpithug, Pasu & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G., 2009. "Understanding the Adoption of Cotton Biotechnologies in the US: Firm Level Evidence," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(1), pages 1-17.
    4. Spielman, David J., 2007. "Pro-poor agricultural biotechnology: Can the international research system deliver the goods?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 189-204, April.
    5. Evita Pangaribowo & Nicolas Gerber & Pascal Tillie, 2013. "Assessing the FNS impacts of technological and institutional innovations and future innovation trends," FOODSECURE Working papers 11, LEI Wageningen UR.
    6. Gomez-Barbero, Manuel & Rodgriguez-Cerezo, Emilio, 2005. "Estimate of the Potential Adoption of Genetically Modified Cotton by Farmers in Southern Spain and its Economic Implications," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24556, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Blakeney, Michael, 2011. "Recent developments in intellectual property and power in the private sector related to food and agriculture," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(S1), pages 109-113.
    8. Qaim, Matin, 2003. "Bt Cotton in India: Field Trial Results and Economic Projections," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(12), pages 2115-2127, December.
    9. Langyintuo, Augustine S. & Mungoma, Catherine, 2008. "The effect of household wealth on the adoption of improved maize varieties in Zambia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 550-559, December.
    10. Michel Fok & Marnus Gouse & Jean-Luc Hofs & Johann Kirsten, 2007. "Contextual appraisal of GM cotton diffusion in South Africa," Post-Print halshs-00176546, HAL.
    11. Hanjra, Munir A. & Qureshi, M. Ejaz, 2010. "Global water crisis and future food security in an era of climate change," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 365-377, October.
    12. Lee, Yunkyung & Perrin, Richard K. & Fulginiti, Lilyan E., 2022. "Potential Economic Impacts of Gene-edited High-oleic Soybeans," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322392, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Koo, Bonwoo & Pardey, Philip G. & Qian, Keming & Zhang, Yi, 2003. "The economics of generating and maintaining plant variety rights in China:," EPTD discussion papers 100, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    14. Kar, Ashim Kumar & Rahman, Sanzidur, 2018. "Changes in total factor productivity and efficiency of microfinance institutions in the developing world: A non-parametric approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 103-118.
    15. GianCarlo Moschini, 2004. "Intellectual Property Rights and the World Trade Organization: Retrospect and Prospects," Chapters, in: Giovanni Anania & Mary E.. Bohman & Colin A. Carter & Alex F. McCalla (ed.), Agricultural Policy Reform and the WTO, chapter 19, pages 474-511, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Nguyen-Anh, Tuan & Hoang-Duc, Chinh & Tiet, Tuyen & Nguyen-Van, Phu & To-The, Nguyen, 2022. "Composite effects of human, natural and social capitals on sustainable food-crop farming in Sub-Saharan Africa," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    17. Cohen, Joel I. & Paarlberg, Robert, 2004. "Unlocking Crop Biotechnology in Developing Countries--A Report from the Field," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1563-1577, September.
    18. Lee, Yunkyung, 2020. "Potential economic consequences of gene-edited technology on the U.S. soybean market," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304241, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Cohen, Joel & Komen, John & Zepeda, Jose Falck, 2004. "National agricultural biotechnology research capacity in developing countries," ESA Working Papers 23790, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    20. Nazli, Hina & Orden, David & Sarker, Rakhal & Meilke, Karl D., 2012. "Bt Cotton Adoption and Wellbeing of Farmers in Pakistan," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126172, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:fpr:eptddp:116. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.