2. Presentation coverage
Current status of agricultural biotechnology use in
Europe
Why do farmers use the technology?
Issues affecting current adoption
Implications of ignoring agricultural biotechnology in
Europe
Copies of various research papers on these issues
available on www.pgeconomics.co.uk
3. Biotech crop plantings Europe
Country Crop 2004-05 (hectares) Comments
Spain IR Grain maize 58,100 (2004) 48,000 ha 2005
(decrease due to
drought: fall in
total maize
plantings)
Portugal IR Grain maize 780 (2005) 1st year 2005
Germany IR Grain maize 300-500 (2005) Pre-commercialisation
only
Czech Republic IR Grain maize 300 (2005) 1st year 2005
France IR Grain maize 500 (2005)
Romania HT Soybeans 70,000 (2004)
IR = insect resistant, HT = herbicide tolerant
4. Main commercial biotech crops: 2004
Insect resistant (IR) maize in Spain:
since 1998
Herbicide tolerant (HT) soy in Romania:
since 1999
2004: 58,000 ha Spain (12% of crop),
70,000 ha Romania (58% of crop)
5. Why do farmers use the technology:
GM IR maize in Spain?
GM IR maize targets main corn pest in Spain
(corn borer) – causes economic damage to
25-30% of crop area
Corn borer incidence varies by region and
year – affected by climate/weather and
planting times
7. Why do farmers use the technology:
GM HT soybeans in Romania
Addresses weed problems effectively
Weeds = main problem affecting yields and
harvest quality
Problem linked to limited herbicide use since
1990 – economic difficulties - establishment of
weeds difficult to control
Few farmers apply full recommended number
of sprays (low profitability)
8. Farm level of GM crops in Europe
Average Range
Spain: yield impact +6.3% +1% to +15%
Romania: yield impact +31% +12% to +50%
Spain: increase in farm +13% Zero to +29%
gross margin
Romania: increase in +156% +12% to +300%
gross margin
9. National level impact of GM crop use
Million Euros 2004 Cumulative Value added as
since first % of national
grown production
value 2004
IR maize: Spain +5.2 +18 +1
HT soy: +14.8 +31.4 +25
Romania
10. Other impacts
Insurance benefit: a production risk management
tool
Convenience benefit: less time crop walking/spraying
Small saving in energy costs and fuel
Improved quality (lower mycotoxin levels in corn,
less weed material in soy)
Reduced risk of exposure to agro-chemicals
Environmental benefits: lower levels of spraying
and/or switch to more environmentally benign
herbicides
11. Conclusion on farm level impact
Benefit varies with level of pest & weed problems = varies by
region and year
Offers substantial benefits to some farmers but of marginal
benefit to others = not a technology for all farmers
Main benefits to the farmer; higher yield, improved farm
profitability, convenience, risk management and less exposure
to pesticides
Main benefits to society: contribution to lower costs/real
prices, improved grain quality (less mycotoxins) and improved
environmental ‘foot print’ (less spraying)
12. Why limited adoption in Europe?
Lack of trait approval for planting: only GM IR (bt)
maize so far approved & few traits now being bought
forward for reg approval
Conditions of use: so-called co-existence measures
Opposition to technology: NGOs very active &
effective in scaring farmers, food chain, politicians
and consumers
Farmers will only adopt if they perceive can sell their
crops
Development of non GM market
13. Why limited use in Europe: co-
existence
Co-existence rules: supposed to allow farmers
freedom to choose method of production
In Spain have been based on sound science &
commercial experience BUT some political
interference from 2006
Being used in some countries as a way to
discourage adoption (eg, Portugal, Germany)
14. Why limited use in Europe: non GM
demand
Demand for non GM products: perception that
this dominates = influences farmer planting
decisions
BUT
Reality: only 15% of soy and 25% corn
required to be certified as non GM in Europe
15. What is Europe missing out on?
Economic benefits = important for competitiveness
of agriculture & food industry in Europe – competes
in an ever ‘open’ global market
Failure to adopt cost saving & productivity enhancing
technology = loss of income & employment in
European agriculture & user sectors
Loss of environmental benefits: decreased
environmental footprint from pesticide use &
contribution to lower greenhouse gas emissions
16. The future
Ag biotech likely to be embraced slowly in
Europe
Currently-next 5 years: Europe loses out
economically & environmentally
Wider adoption will come 5-10 year horizon
but playing catch up with rest of world
