Agriculture must continue to satisfy the demands of a complex global market
description
Transcript of Agriculture must continue to satisfy the demands of a complex global market
Agriculture must continue to satisfy the demands of a complex global market
Growing World Population (B)
123456789
1981 1999 2015 2030
Transition NationsDeveloped NationsDeveloping Nations
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1981 1999 2015 2030
Rising Cereal Demand (MMT)Transition NationsDeveloped NationsDeveloping Nations
World population continues to expand
Per capita food consumption
continues to riseConsumers continue to
demand improved taste, convenience, nutrition and healthnutrition and health
FOOD OUTLOOK 2020World demand for cereals and Meat
million metric tonnes
1974 1997 2020
Developed countries 664 725 822
Developing countries 560560 11181118 16751675
Investments in food security US $578.90 billionUS $578.90 billion•Irrigation 174.60•Rural Roads 120.30•Education 75.90•Clean water 86.50•National Agricultural ResearchNational Agricultural Research 121.70121.70
Facts on nutritionOver all number of malnourished children is expected to continue its gradual decrease for 166 million in 1997 to 132 million in 2020
•China’s malnourished children will fall by half
•India will experience slow improvement and will remain 3rd of all malnourished children in the developing world
•Sub-Saharan Africa is in perilous situation. The malnourished is expected to increase by 6 million for by 18% compared with 1997. The region will remain “hot spot” of hunger and malnutrition for years to come
IFPRI , 2004
WHY MICRONUTRIENT DEFICIENCY Nutrition was low priority in crop breeding for
improvement of varieties
Iron Zinc
Range 7–24 16–58Average green revolution variety 12 22IR68144 21 34
Micronutrient density in rice
PPM
Khush , 2003
WHY MICRONUTRIENT DEFICIENCY Food Availability
Maping Index Mapping Typology States
Below 5.0 1. Extremely Low Gujarat
5.0-6.5 2. Very Low RJ, BH
6.5-8.5 3. Low MH,HY,KN,WB
8.5-10.0 4. Moderate UP,HP,AS,TN,OR,AP
Above 10.00 5. High KL,MP,PJ
Indicators•Deficit of food production over consumption•Instability in cereal production•Environmental Sustainability Index•Number of people affected by disasters•Percentage of area affected by drought in the area
Food Access Maping Index Mapping Typology States 0- 5.5 1. Extremely Low BH5.5-7.8 2. Very Low MP,TN,MH,OR,WB7.8-9.0 3. Low GJ,UP,AP,KL9.0-11.2 4. Moderate KN,AS,RJ,HY,PJ11.2-12.8 5. High HP
Indicators•Average per consumer unit per day calorie intake (Kcal) of the lowest deciles•Percentage of population consuming less than 1890 Kcal per consumer unit per day.•Percentage of population below the poverty line •Percentage of persons in labour households to the total population •Rural Infrastructure Index•Juvenile sex ratio (Females per thousand males in 0-9 years)•Percentage of literate females to total female population•Percentage of SC/ST population to total population
WHY MICRONUTRIENT DEFICIENCY
Indicators•Deficit of food production over consumption•Instability in cereal production•Environmental Sustainability Index•Number of people affected by disasters•Percentage of area affected by drought in the area
Food insecurity Atlas 2002
Traditional Technology Past success developing countriesPast success developing countries
Science and Technology underpinned the economic & social gains in countries of South specially ASIA through green revolution(agriculture),white revolution ( milk production ) blue revolution ( marine products) resulted in by increased calorie availability per person 24 percent the key factors are Scientific discoveries, government policies with respect to credit and farm inputs irrigation , public and private participation and international community initiatives Increased agricultural productivity, rapid industrial growth and expansion of non farm rural economy contributed to almost tripling of per capita GDP
StrategiesStrategies SafetySafety
Genetic engineeringGenetic engineering SSafetyafety
Molecular marker assisted breedingMolecular marker assisted breeding AAllll rightright
Tissue cultureTissue culture FFineine
Biological agents Biological agents EExplainxplain
VERI-FICATION AND VALI-DATION
BASIC RESEARCH
APPLIED RESEARCH
DEVELOPMENT
BREEDING LINE DEVELOP-MENT
FIELD TRIALS
VARIETAL REGISTRATION/CERTIFICATIONMARKETTING
CULTIVATION AND PROCESSING
Stages in Research Development and Commercialization of Stages in Research Development and Commercialization of Transgenic PlantsTransgenic Plants
Trait Gene
Tissue culture Gene delivery Transgenics
Molecular analysis
Seed set and lab testing
Green house testing
Limited field trials
Toxicity and
allergenicity and
environmental impact
Large scale field trials
with all India
coordination
ICAR/SAUs
Variety release
breeders-
foundation-
certification of seeds
Farmers
Consumers
3 5 7 100
Discovery Development Biosafety
Commercia-lization
Public acceptance
30m 30m 30m 20mRsyrs
What Happened and WhySuccessful Crops
% of Acreage Planted to GE Varieties In U.S. in 2003
Project affected
peopleIndividual and families near the project
Indigenous groups and their leaders
KEY
STAKEHOLDERS
Public sector Local state & National governmentsMultinational & bilateraldevelopment institutions
Private sectorProject financiersLocal businessIndustry
associations
Advocacy GroupsLocal and National grass roots NGO’sReligious groups University and research centers
Thinking in terms stakeholders than stock holders
concernsconcernsThe potential risk toThe potential risk to health of human beings, animals, and environmentsocial, political and economic relationships fundamental philosophical, religious or “ metaphysical” value of individuals or groups
Environment
• Loss of biodiversity• Cross-pollination• Emergence of
superweeds and superbugs
• Potential increase in use of herbicides
• Need to increase yields to feed growing population
• Possibility of reducing need for pesticides, fertilizers
• Grow more food on same amount of land
Anti-GM Pro-GM
*Opinions are generalized, and not all opponents or proponents may hold all of these views.
Human Health
• Fear of unknown allergens
• Spread of anti-biotic resistance
• Inadequate regulation of new products
• Greater regulations than other foods
• Potential benefits to nutrition– golden rice– enhanced protein
content in corn– soybean oil with
less saturated fat
Anti-GM Pro-GM
Food Security
• Need redistribution, not just more
• Farmers will not be able to afford expensive seed, ’technology fees’
• Developing countries need not have to eat the food others reject
• Modified seeds will allow farmers to grow more to feed their family and to sell, reducing the need for food aid
• Public-private cooperation can transfer technology
Pro-GMAnti-GM
Socio-economic concerns
• Corporations benefit, not those in need
• Products needed in developing countries are not being developed because the market is not profitable
• It is wrong to patent life
• Patents needed because new strains are intellectual property
• Publicly funded research can benefit the public good
Pro-GMAnti-GM
Parameters to transgenics useful in effectiveness of strategies
Technology transcending Consumer/farmers viewsTimeCost -benefitInvestmentOptions and alternativesPrecisionSafetyIPR
expertise
Success criteria
Socio-economic factors
Integration with existing strategies
Product formulation
Product Delivery systems
Activities of different Players
Regulatory development GovernmentGovernment
Technology Transfer Marketing
Joint EffortsJoint Efforts
Research and Research and DevelopmentDevelopment PublicPublic
GovernmentGovernment
WHAT ARE PUBLIC CONCERNS
»The term genetically engineered/ manipulated/modified is uncomfortable
»The technology is new and unfamiliar
»The technology is difficult to understand
»Whether GMOs safe
to environment
to Consumption
»What are the benefits from this change
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF RISK
Negative Campaigns.Recent regulatory failure.Communication gap by proponents.
NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNS
Are not being seriously confronted.
Communication between less informed to ignorant perpetuates aberrant meanings.
Propagandists communicate better than proponents.Media encourages sensational negative views.
TYPICAL CASE
Negative Campaigner FACT
•Transgenics do not increase yield. Not True
•GMO not suited for sustainable agriculture. False
•Insect killing genes destroy beneficial insects also. False
•Encourage monopoly Not related to BT
•Pollens escape and weeds benefit. False
•Approvals for regulated field trial but in practice False commercially growned. (Monitoring)
REGULATORY FAILURES
Incidents shaking public confidence:Dropsy from contaminated Mustard Oil.
Blood screening failure for HIV.
Spurious seed manufacturers.
Spurious pesticides/fertilisers.
[None involve Biotechnology but all involve major regulatory failure]
PUBLIC OPINION IS BASED ON PERCEPTIONS OF REALITY RATHER THAN ON REALITY ITSELF
Do you fear that branded milk may be adulterated and unsafe to drink?
Yes 60% No 13% Can’t say 27%
What is your regular source of milk supply?
DMS 12% Mother Dairy 38%
Milkman/Private Dairy 50% (Pasteurization ?)
Delhiities Say
Food adulteration is rampant & the law against it remains only on paper 93%
Checking, testing and enforcement machinery must be revamped and strengthened 96%
Awareness must be built up among public so that they are also vigilant. 98%
Telephonic poll conducted by TNS-MODE among 249 Delhiities on May 31 to June 2.
SURVEY RESULTS ON FOOD SAFETY- EXAMPLE
SYSTEM OF VARIETY DEVELOPMENT AND RELEASE
Breeder
Public Sector Variety’s Release
Seed Production
Coordinated Variety Release Committee
DEVELOPMENT & TESTING
State variety release committee.
Certified Seed
Marketing
Foundation
Notification by sub-committee on crop standards, release and notification.
SYSTEM OF VARIETY DEVELOPMENT AND RELEASEPrivate Sector Variety’s Release
i) Testing of public variety’s release
Seed production Marketing
Certification
ii) Development and Testing of private sector developed varieties
[NO SYSTEM OF RELEASE AND NOTIFICATION THROUGH PUBLIC SECTOR CHANNELS]
Seed Production …..
Marketing PVP PBR
SYSTEM OF TRANSGENICS RELEASE
QUARANTINE
DBT
NBPGR ICAR
FOOD SAFETY
ENVIRON-MENT
SAFETY
IBSC -- RCGM -- GEAC
REGULATED FIELD TRIALS
DATA ANALYSIS, LOCATION TRIALS
CHECKS AND COUNTER CHECKS
SEED REGISTRATIONSEED REGISTRATION
LABELLINGLABELLING
FATE OF ILLEGAL GMO TRAFFICKING
SMUGGLING GMO’s IS
CRIME
Quarantine ?
COMPANY A
Government of
India
DBTMOEF
Government of
Gujarat
COMPANY B
State GovernmentSeed act
Media - reported regularly and views of all without wrong interpretations
Politicians - wanted protection of farmer interests and punishment of guilty as per Law
Central government: want to enforce EPA Act through sate government as per biosafety guidelines
Farmers - request to protect their investment and enforce law at the same time
Public general: getting information and are more concerned for the future
Scientists : want to set an example by punishing the guilty to set an example
Consensus is building on to protect farmers interest, punish Consensus is building on to protect farmers interest, punish guilty and ensure maximum safety to environment with guilty and ensure maximum safety to environment with relatively low risk relatively low risk
A TYPICAL CASE OF STAKEHOLDERDS INTERACTION - SHAPING THE FUTURE OF TRANSGENICS
Private character of biotechnology A CONCERN
In the late 1970s the top 20 pharmaceutical companies collectively had about 5 percent of the global pharmaceutical market. If you look at it today, they have over 40 percent of the global pharmaceutical market.
We didn’t pay much attention to veterinary medicines 20 years ago, but today the top 10 have about 60 percent of the global market in veterinary medicines
Private character of biotechnology A CONCERN
In 1979 there were 7000 public and private seed institution.s. Not even one company occupied significant percentage of global commercial seed market. Today 10 companies control in excess of 1/3 of global commercial seed market.
•In the late 1970s, there were 65 companies that were inventing and marketing crop chemicals-- herbicides, insecticides, nematicides and so on . Now we’re down to nine companies that make up about 91 percent of the global market.
Du Pont3%
Monsanto80%
BASF5%
Syngenta5%
Aventis7%
Agriculture biotechnology Agriculture biotechnology Market Shares 1999Market Shares 1999
NOT ONLY GEPS ?
LEHARWHEATFLOURCLOTHESALOOBHUJIA
COMPUTERS
ICECREAMSCELLO PHONES
HONDA
FORD
SOAPS
WIMPYMc DONALDSDOMINOSCOSMETICSPIZZA
KENTUCKYCHICKEN
WTO CODEX CBD TRIPS
WIPRO
DESCRIPTION OF TRADITIONAL FARMER
Illiterate
Small and Marginal
Subsistence farming
No Money for inputs
Low risk bearing ability
DESCRIPTION OF MODERN FARMER
Politically proactive
Moderately literate -- 1951 (18%), 1991(33-75%)
Access to TV, phone and modern transport
Awareness level
Moderately conscious
Product Category % Branded % Unbrande
d & LocalBlues 64 36Biscuits 62 38Hair wash powder 54 46Home insecticides 54 46Tea 53 47Coconut oil 50 50Washing cakes & bars 49 51Iodised salt 48 52Coffee 35 55Edible oil 6 94
Brand Preferences of Consumer Goods Reflect Public Acceptance for New Products
CHANGING RURAL LIFESTYLE
Spending on Consumables excluding grains
PENETRATION OF
• Necessary products (Toilet soaps,Washing cake, Tea)
• Share of total consumption (Toilet soap, Washing cakes, Blades)
• Creams, Shampoo, Powder
Rs. 202-441/- PM (Average Rs. 270/- PM)
60-91%
50%
20-54%
Product Category % Branded % Unbrande
d & LocalBlues 64 36Biscuits 62 38Hair wash powder 54 46Home insecticides 54 46Tea 53 47Coconut oil 50 50Washing cakes & bars 49 51Iodised salt 48 52Coffee 35 55Edible oil 6 94
BRAND PREFERENCES
CONTRASTING AGRICULTURE CONTRASTING AGRICULTURE SCENARIOSCENARIO
USAUSA INDIAINDIA
No of farm familiesNo of farm families 0.9m0.9m 105M105M
Average size of farmAverage size of farm 200 Ha200 Ha < 2ha< 2ha
Share in workforceShare in workforce <2%<2% >64%>64%
Contribution to GDPContribution to GDP 1.7%1.7% 26%26%
“ I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ARE ALL FIGHTING . WE HAVE TRUST IN OUR SCIENTISTS AND LEARNED PEOPLE . WHEN YOU
CAN ARRANGE MODERN DANGEROUS ARMS TO SOLDIERS,
WHY CAN NOT YOU PROVIDE MODERN TOOL AND TECHNIQUES
TO FARMERS TO INCRASE PRODUCTIVITY . PLEASE DO NOT
DELAY. WE CAN DECIDE THE FATE
OF TECHNOLOGY IN NO TIME “
Farmers are politically proactive, audio visual
literate and eager to adopt new biotechnologies
IMPACT OF BT COTTON IN CHINAIMPACT OF BT COTTON IN CHINA
Estimated areaEstimated area : :
19971997 4491000 HA4491000 HA
19981998 4459000 HA4459000 HA
19991999 3736000 HA3736000 HA
Percentage surveyed Farmers:Percentage surveyed Farmers: 1- 85.6 1- 85.6
Control plantsControl plants Boll worm resistant and susceptible Boll worm resistant and susceptible
Bt varietiesBt varieties CAAS (Chinese Academy of Agricultural CAAS (Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences) and Monsanto- DPL (MDP) varietiesSciences) and Monsanto- DPL (MDP) varieties
Yield : seed cottonYield : seed cotton Bt Bt Non BtNon Bt St St deviationdeviation
Mean Kg/Ha Mean Kg/Ha 3426-34953426-3495 2841-3700 2841-3700 550-585550-585
359
547
306
960
131
255
258
1996
3698
5433
5525
6925
3772
5911
4531
5073
9161
10701
11273
14288
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximun
TotalOthersLabourPesticideseed
BTBT
NonBtNonBt
COST OF SEED COTTON PRODUCTION ( RMB )COST OF SEED COTTON PRODUCTION ( RMB )
RMB /Kg 3.99-4.45RMB /Kg 3.99-4.45
RMB /Kg 2.68-3.19RMB /Kg 2.68-3.19
PPesticide sprays reduced to 3- 12 from 30 or 15000 tonsesticide sprays reduced to 3- 12 from 30 or 15000 tons !!
DISTRIBUTION OF THE BENEFITSDISTRIBUTION OF THE BENEFITSSmaller farmers adoption was about the same as larger Smaller farmers adoption was about the same as larger farmersfarmers
Higher income groups adopted more completely than lower Higher income groups adopted more completely than lower income groupsincome groups
Smaller farms and farms which had lower income Smaller farms and farms which had lower income consistently obtained larger increases in net income than consistently obtained larger increases in net income than larger farmers and those with higher incomeslarger farmers and those with higher incomes
Farmers benefited by $ 45 to 69.6 million ( 82.5 to 87% )Farmers benefited by $ 45 to 69.6 million ( 82.5 to 87% )
Seed companies benefited by gross revenue of $ 5-9.6 Seed companies benefited by gross revenue of $ 5-9.6 millionmillion
Monsanto and Delta Pine Land profitted by less than 6 Monsanto and Delta Pine Land profitted by less than 6 percent of the income earned by farmers by adopting their percent of the income earned by farmers by adopting their Bt cottonBt cotton
Performance of Bt MECH-162, non-Bt MECH-162, CC under IPM and CC without IPM
Treatment IPM Non-IPM
Bt MECH-162 non-Bt MECH-162 CC CC
Area (ha) 5.76 1.44 18.70 7.28
Seed cotton 12.375a 9.620b 7.060c 3.704d
Yield (q/ha)8*
Yield of pigeonpea nil nil 2.47 1.47
(q/ha)**
Returns (Rs/ha) 28462 22126 20420 11018
Cost of production, 12231 9693 9913 10074
including protecton (Rs/ha)
New returns (Rs/ha) 16231 12433 10507 944
B:C ratio 2.327 2.283 2.060 1.094
Means with at least one letter common are not significantly different.
*Market rate Rs.2300 per q seed cotton.
** Market rate Rs.1700 per q.
Population of sucking pests, bollworms and natural enemies
Mean number of pests/natural enemies over the season
IPM Non-IPM Insect pest Standard week# Bt MECH-162 Non- Bt MECH-162 CC CC
Sucking pests*
Whiteflies 30-42 0.15ª 0.15ª 0.24b 0.29b
Jassids 30-42 0.07ª 0.07ª 0.14b 1.97c
Thrips 30-42 4.88ª 4.56ª 5.98b 12.62c
Aphids 30-42 3.96ª 3.50ª 20.56b 44.34c
Bollworms**
American bollworm eggs 31-49 0.12ª 0.12ª 0.08b 0.17c
American bollworm larvae 31-49 0.03ª 0.06b 0.05b 0.09c
Spotted bollworm larvae 31-49 0.00ª 0.01ª 0.03b 0.06c
Natural enemies **
Green lacewign eggs 31-49 0.37ª 0.37ª 0.61b 0.26c
Ladybird beetle adults 31-49 1.33ª 1.23ª 2.06b 0.69c
Means with at least one letter common are not significantly different.
# Standard week 30 corresponds to 23-29 July.
8 Number of insects/three leaves, ** Number of insects/plant.
WHY COMMUNICATE
People who have knowledge tend to accept.
People who lack knowledge reject.
Public determines commercial success.
Perception being based on misunderstood or distorted data.
“That which is not understood is feared, and that which is feared is opposed”
PROPONENTS OF TECHNOLOGY SHOULD START COMMUNICATING EFFECTIVELY THAN OPPONENTS.
The public should be viewed as a “partner” and a level of trust needs to be created. Developing this style will be a major challenge for business leaders as well as university scientists and government regulators.
(NELKIN, 1997)