Publications:
ISAAA Briefs
No.
26 - 2002
Global
Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2001. Feature: Bt Cotton |
Clive
James
Chair, ISAAA Board of Directors
-
download
Part A (English) and download
Part B (English)
- download (French)
Published
by: |
The
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications
(ISAAA). Ithaca, New York |
Copyright: |
(2002)
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications
(ISAAA) |
|
Reproduction
of this publication for educational or other noncommercial purposes
is authorized without prior permission from the copyright holder,
provided the source is properly acknowledged. |
|
Reproduction
for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without
the prior written permission from the copyright holder. |
Correct
Citation: |
James,
C. 2002. Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2001(Feature:
Bt Cotton). ISAAA Briefs No. 26. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY. |
ISBN: |
1-892456-30-3 |
Publication
Orders: |
Please
contact the ISAAA SEAsiaCenter, write to publications@isaaa.org,
or order online.
ISAAA
SEAsiaCenter
c/o IRRI
DAPO Box 7777
Metro Manila, The Philippines |
Contents
Executive
Summary
List
of Tables and Figures
Introduction
Overview
of Global Status and Distribution of Commercial Trangenic Crops
Value
of the Global Trangenic Seed Market, 1995 t0 2001
Value
of Transgenic Crops in the Context of the Global Crop Protection Market
Global
R&D Expenditures in Crop Biotechnology and Future GM Crop Markets
Overview
of the Commercial Seed Industry
Overview
of Developments in the Crop Biotechnology Industry
Economic
Benefits from GM Crops
Bt
Cotton
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Also
view : Portuguese, Spanish , Africaans and French versions
Global
GM Crop Area
- In 2001
global area of transgenic or GM crops was 52.6 million hectares or
130 million acres, grown in thirteen countries by about 5 million
farmers, over 75% of whom were small resource-poor farmers in developing
countries. The US was the largest grower of GM crops (68%), with
one quarter of the GM crop area grown in the developing countries,
principally in Argentina and China.
- The principal
GM crops were soybean, corn, cotton and canola. On a global basis,
46% of the 72 million hectares of soybean was GM, 20% of the 34 million
hectares of cotton, 11 % of the 140 million hectares of maize, and
11% of the 25 million hectares of canola.
- In the
first six years of GM crop commercialization, 1996 to 2001, a cumulative
total of over 175 million hectares of GM crops were planted globally
which met the expectations of millions of small and large farmers
in both industrial and developing countries.
- Global
GM crop area is expected to continue to grow in 2002.
Value of the Global Transgenic Seed Market in 2001
- The value
of the global transgenic seed market is based on the sale price of
transgenic seed plus any technology fees that apply. The value in
2001 was $3.8 billion up from $3.0 billion in 2000.
Global
R& D Expenditures in Crop Biotechnology in 2001
- Current
global R&D expenditure in the private and public sectors is $4.4
billion with over 95% of the total in the industrial countries, led
by the US. China is the leading investor in R&D crop biotechnology
in the developing countries, followed by India.
Overview of the Commercial Seed Industry
- An overview
of the $30 billion plus commercial seed industry is presented. Expressed
as a proportion of the global commercial seed market, transgenic
seed represented approximately 13% of the estimated $30 billion plus
global commercial seed market in 2001.
Overview of Developments in the Crop Biotechnology Industry
- The
major developments in crop biotechnology in the private sector in
2001 are summarized. Specific developments are discussed in each
of four areas: acquisitions, mergers and spin-offs; genomics and
product discovery; patents and licensing; and re-registration, approvals
and commercialization.
Economic Benefits of GM Crops
- In the
2000 ISAAA Global Review of Transgenic Crops, an assessment was published
of the global benefits associated with the principal GM crops - soybean,
corn, cotton and canola. In the interim, several studies and surveys
have been conducted and these are summarized to provide the reader
with the current information on benefits from GM crops; these include
an overview of the current and potential economic benefits of GM
crops in the US, RR soybeans in Argentina, Bt maize in the Philippines
and Spain and a review of the investments of China in crop biotechnology.
Feature for the 2001 Review: Bt Cotton
The content
of this chapter is structured chronologically to provide the reader
with a global overview of the cotton crop, present available data for
assessing the performance of Bt cotton to-date and project its global
potential for the future. The focus on developing countries is consistent
with ISAAA's mission to assist developing countries in assessing the
potential of new technologies. The principal aim is to present a consolidated
set of data that will facilitate a knowledge-based discussion of the
potential benefits that Bt cotton offers global society.
- A total
of 33.5 million hectares of cotton were grown globally in 2001, worth
approximately $20 billion. Developing countries planted over 70%
of the global area, and industrial countries grew 20%, mainly the
USA (5.6 million hectares), as well as Australia, Greece and Spain.
The remaining 10% was grown in Uzbekistan and other Central and West
Asian countries. Asia has about 60% of world cotton, with India,
China, and Pakistan dominating with 50% of global hectarage. Latin
America grows <5% where Brazil is the only major grower. Africa
has almost 15% of global cotton with 22 countries growing small (30,000
hectares) to modest (500,000 hectares) areas of cotton. There are
approximately 20 million cotton farmers globally, 97% of whom farm
in developing countries, 2% in Central and West Asian countries and <1%
in the industrial countries. Most cotton growers in developing countries
are small resource-poor farmers growing 2 hectares or less of cotton.
- Insect
pests represent a major constraint to increased productivity in most
cotton growing countries. The yield losses and the cost of controlling
insect pests with insecticides costs cotton farmers an estimated
$5 billion annually. The most important insect pests globally are
the caterpillar moths - the lepidopteran pests - amongst which the
'bollworms' are the most damaging with losses and insecticide control
costs totaling about $3 billion per year. Approximately 88% of the
global cotton area suffer from medium to high infestation of lepidopteran
pests. On a global basis, cotton farmers used $1.7 billion worth
of insecticides in 2001 in their attempt to control cotton insect
pests - more insecticides are applied to cotton than any other crop.
Cotton consumes 20% of all insecticides applied to all crops globally.
- A novel
method of controlling lepidopteran pests is the use of Bt genes from
a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Bt genes have been
incorporated in cotton through genetic engineering and were first
introduced commercially in 1996 in the US and Australia in Bollgard® varieties.
Bt cotton has been developed by private sector companies and deployed
globally in nine countries. In China, the public sector has also
released Bt cotton varieties, which compete with Bt cotton from the
private sector. Since 1996 a total of nine countries, seven developing
and two industrial countries have successfully grown 13 million hectares
of Bt cotton. These include USA, Mexico, Argentina, and Colombia
(pre-commercial) in the Americas, China, India, Indonesia and Australia
in Asia and South Africa on the African continent.
- The potential
development of resistance poses the biggest challenge to Bt cotton
and the development and implementation of Insect Resistance Management
(IRM) strategies is essential. Countries that have adopted Bt cotton
have successfully implemented different IRM strategies and no resistance
to Bt cotton has been detected to-date despite the fact that 13 million
hectares of Bt cotton have been grown worldwide since 1996; several
claims from critics proved to be unfounded. The recent approval in
Australia of Bollgard II will considerably fortify IRM strategies
because it has two independent Bt genes that confer resistance; other
Bt and novel genes for cotton insect resistance are expected to be
available by 2004. From a global viewpoint, any international initiative
to substantially extend the adoption of Bt cotton must also anticipate
and consider the implications of a significant expansion in the global
area of Bt cotton. These considerations at the international level
are similar to those at the national level and include necessary
global strategies for responsibly managing and optimizing the durability
of resistance, and the spatial and temporal deployment of different
varieties carrying different sources of resistance. An effective
international mechanism to formulate, coordinate and oversee a global
strategy for deploying Bt cotton responsibly and effectively could
play a seminal role if it could be operated without onerous bureaucracy.
- Eight
country case studies are presented which provide detailed and current
information on all aspects of the cultivation, adoption and performance
of Bt cotton, including an assessment of the agronomic, economic,
environmental, health and social impact of the technology. Country
studies are presented for the USA, Australia, China, India, Mexico,
Argentina, South Africa and Indonesia which collectively have six
years' experience with Bt cotton and grew almost 20 million hectares
of cotton in 2001, equivalent to 60 % of the global hectarage of
cotton.
- All countries
that have introduced Bt cotton have derived significant and multiple
benefits. These include increases in yield, decreased production
costs, a reduction of at least 50% in insecticide applications, resulting
in substantial environmental and health benefits to small producers,
and significant economic and social benefits. In the US in 2001,
the economic benefit from Bt cotton was estimated at $103 million
or $50 per hectare. In China in 2001, Bt cotton increased yield on
1.5 million hectares and reduced insecticide use by 78,000 tons (formulated
product) resulting in significantly fewer farmer insecticide poisonings.
In 2001, Bt cotton in China increased annual farmer income by $500/hectare,
equivalent to a national benefit of $750 million. Small resource-poor
cotton farmers in the Makhathini Flats in South Africa, 50% of whom
are women, derived similar benefits including significant social
benefits devoting less time to carrying water and spraying insecticide
and more time caring for children, attending to the sick, and family
duties. To put a human face on the benefits of Bt cotton, for the
average cotton holding of 1.7 hectares in the Makhathini Flats in
South Africa, in a typical season, a woman farmer is relieved of
12 days of arduous spraying, saves over 1,000 liters of water (over
250 US gallons), walks 100 km less, suffers less insecticide poisoning
and increases her income significantly by approximately $85 per season,
through using Bt cotton, rather than conventional cotton.
- Up to
5 million farmers benefited from Bt cotton in 2001, most of them
small resource-poor farmers in developing countries, mainly in China
and also in South Africa where Bt cotton contributed to the alleviation
of poverty by increasing incomes of small farmers substantially.
On a global basis, the benefits from the deployment of Bt cotton
between 1998 and 2001 were estimated to be $1.7 billion.
- In terms
of environmental impact, Bt cotton has resulted in a significant
decrease in the volume of insecticides applied to cotton, which in
turn reduced insecticide runoff into watersheds and aquifers. In
the US alone for the three year period 1998, 1999 and 2001 the volume
of insecticides applied to cotton was reduced by 2,979 MT (active
ingredient). In China for the three period 1999 to 2001, insecticide
tonnage on cotton was reduced by a substantial 123,000 MT of formulated
product. Consequently, insecticide poisonings of cotton farmers,
applying insecticides by hand with knapsacks, decreased by up to
75%. Similar evidence on insecticide poisonings has been reported
for South Africa.
- Cotton
is in many ways an ideal candidate for introduction to cotton-growing
countries as the pilot and model GM crop. Its principal use as a
fiber crop, rather than a food/feed-crop, facilitates its regulation
and acceptance by the public at large. From a biosafety viewpoint
it is a self pollinating tetraploid that will not outcross with native
diploid cottons and the movement of the large pollen, which is not
dispersed by wind, is limited to a few meters. Cotton is not found
as a weed in the global production areas and Bt is unlikely to confer
an advantage that would result in Bt cotton establishing as a weed.
Thus, the potential biosafety consequences are negligible due to
the limited movement of pollen, natural genetic barriers that preclude
outcrossing with native cotton, with no known compatibility with
any wild relatives. The safety of the Cry1Ac protein is well documented
and the Cry1Ac gene is very unlikely to confer any competitive advantage.
With the adoption of any technology, there is always a risk that
unintended or unforeseen effects could present new challenges. However,
with the significant and substantial proven benefits that Bt cotton
offers developing countries, the greatest risk is not to explore
the technology, and thus be certain to suffer the consequences of
inferior technology that will disadvantage farmers in developing
countries who have to compete in international markets.
- To-date,
only nine countries have adopted Bt cotton, which begs the question
of what is the global potential for Bt cotton in the 50 key countries
that grow cotton throughout the world. In the absence of field data
to assess the performance of Bt cotton in the 50 countries, the projected
saving in insecticide that would be associated with the use of Bt
cotton can be used as an indicator of the potential of Bt cotton
globally. The annual projected insecticide saving for the countries
with medium to high infestations of lepidopteran pests is 33,000
MT valued at $690 million and equivalent to 37% of the 81,200 MT
of cotton insecticides used globally in 2001. The gain of $690 million
excludes the significant additional benefits that would accrue from
reducing labor needs for insecticide sprays by half, plus the substantial
additional income from the higher yields of Bt cotton. Potential
annual global water savings, from optimizing the deployment of Bt
cotton globally would reduce insecticide use by half, saving an estimated
6.3 billion liters of water (of which 1.7 billion liters have already
been saved) or approximately 1.8 billion US gallons. To put this
saving into context, 6.3 billion liters would supply a city of 1.5
million people in Africa, with their per capita consumption of 47
liters per day of water, for approximately 3 months
The six
countries that have the potential for significant benefits from Bt
cotton have either already adopted the technology, (China, India, USA
and Australia) or are exploring its development (Pakistan and Brazil).
The challenge is to provide the same opportunity for the potential
beneficiary countries, with small to modest areas of cotton, in the
developing world where several factors preclude access to Bt cotton.
It is important that these smaller cotton-growing countries with resource-poor
cotton farmers are offered the option of commercial access to Bt cotton
so that they are not disadvantaged by being denied the significant
benefits that accrue to adopters of the technology. There are 30 such
developing countries, 21 in Africa, five in Asia and four in Latin
America that grow small to modest areas of cotton that are potential
beneficiaries of commercial Bt cotton but because of various constraints
do not have the option to explore the potential benefits that Bt cotton
offers in their own countries. The constraints range from absence of
a regulatory framework that would allow field-testing of Bt cotton
to determine its performance, lack of trained personnel, material and
financial resources or the transaction cost may be too high for commercializing
a relatively small area of cotton. Experience to-date in several developing
countries has clearly demonstrated that Bt cotton can deliver significant
economic, environmental, health and social benefits to small resource
poor farmers that are assigned high priority by the donor community.
Developing countries interested in evaluating Bt cotton and gaining
commercial access to the technology in their own countries need assistance
from the international public and private sector development community
which pledged its support at Johannesburg, for a more sustainable agriculture,
a better quality of life and alleviation of poverty for the poorest
of the poor, which include millions of resource-poor cotton farmers.
The compelling case for providing more developing countries the option
of sharing in the substantial environmental, health, economic and social
benefits delivered by Bt cotton to millions of resource-poor cotton
farmers in developing countries on millions of hectares over the last
six years, represents a challenge for both the donor community and
the developing countries which are the potential beneficiaries. Bt
cotton presents a unique opportunity to utilize technology to contribute
to the alleviation of poverty as proposed in the 2001 UNDP Human Development
Report.
List
of Tables
Table
1
|
Global
Area of Transgenic Crops, 1996 to 2001 |
Table
2
|
Global
Area of Transgenic Crops in 2000 and 2001: Industrial and Developing
Countries |
Table 3
|
Global
Area of Transgenic Crops in 2000 and 2001: by Country |
Table 4
|
Global
Area of Transgenic Crops in 2000 and 2001: by Crop |
Table 5
|
Global
Area of Transgenic Crops in 2000 and 2001: by Trait |
Table 6
|
Dominant
Transgenic Crops, 2001 |
Table 7
|
Transgenic
Crop Area as Percent of Global Area of Principal Crops, 2001 |
Table 8
|
Estimated
Value of Global Transgenic Seed Market, 1995 to 2001 ($ millions) |
Table 9
|
Global
Crop Protection Market in 2001: by Product (Value in $ millions) |
Table 10
|
Value
of Global Transgenic Crops in 2001: by Crop and Region ($ millions) |
Table 11
|
Global
Crop Protection Market, 2001: by Industrial/Developing Country
and Product ($ millions) |
Table 12
|
Global
Crop Protection Market, in 2001: by Country Expressed as Percentage
of Total Market |
Table 13
|
Global
Crop Protection Market, in 2001: by Crop Expressed as Percentage
of Total Market |
Table 14
|
2000
Estimates of Global R&D Expenditures on Crop Biotechnology |
Table 15
|
Global
Value of Transgenic Crop Market 1996-2010 |
Table 16
|
Latest
Estimated Values (US$ millions) of the Commercial Markets for Seed
and Planting Material for the Top 20 Countries |
Table 17
|
Selected
Highlights of Crop Biotechnology Developments in Industry, 2001 |
Table 18
|
Impact
of GM Crops planted in USA in 2001 |
Table 19
|
Potential
Impact of GM Crops approved but not adopted in USA in 2001 |
Table 20
|
Summary
of Current and Potential Gains for GM Crops in USA, 2001 |
Table 21
|
China's
26 GM crop applications (commercialized and in trials) in 2001 |
Table 22
|
Top
10 Cotton-Growing Countries by area, 2001-2002 |
Table 23
|
Top
10 Producers of Lint Cotton in 2001-2002 |
Table 24
|
Top
10 Consumers of Lint Cotton in 2001-2002 |
Table 25
|
Top
10 Importers of Cotton 2001-2002 |
Table 26
|
Top
10 Exporters of Lint Cotton 2001-2002 |
Table 27
|
Estimate
of Number of Cotton Farmers Worldwide and Size of Cotton Holdings,
2001 |
Table 28
|
Principal
Lepidopteran Pests in the Major Cotton Producing Countries of the
World |
Table 29
|
Global
List of the 33 Countries Growing More than 100,000 hectares of
Cotton in 2001-2002, Listing Insect Pests that can be of Major
Importance and Average Number of Insecticide Sprays/Season |
Table 30
|
Lepidopteran
Pest Infestation Levels and Cotton Area (000s of hectares) in the
Top 50 Cotton-growing Countries |
Table 31
|
Range
of Actual and Potential Losses from Cotton Insect Pests for Different
Global Regions |
Table 32
|
Losses
Due to Cotton Insect Pests in the US and Cost of Control by Insecticides
and Other Means, 1994 to 2001 |
Table 33
|
Value
of Global Cotton Insecticides at Farmer Level, 2001 |
Table 34
|
Estimated
Level of Caterpillar Pest Control Provided by Bollgard® I Bt
Cotton in the USA |
Table 35
|
Relative
Efficacy (Percent pest mortality) of Bollgard® and Bollgard® II |
Table 36
|
Insect
Resistance Management Strategy for Bollgard® Cotton |
Table 37
|
Global
Adoption of Bt cotton (Bt and Bt/Herbicide Tolerance), 1996 to
2001 (millions of hectares) |
Table 38
|
Losses
Due to Cotton Insect Pests in the US and Cost of Control by Insecticides
and Other Means |
Table 39
|
Adoption
of Bt Cotton in the USA |
Table 40
|
Lint
Yields for Bt Cotton Varieties and Their Non-Bt Near Isogenic Parents |
Table 41
|
US
National Benefits from Bt Cotton |
Table 42
|
Distribution
of Economic Surplus from Bt Cotton in the USA (expressed as %) |
Table 43
|
Adoption
of Bt Cotton in Australia |
Table 44
|
Yield
(Bales/Hectare) of Bt Cotton Compared with Non-Bt Cotton in Australia |
Table 45
|
Reduction
in Number of Insecticide Sprays with Bt Cotton in Australia |
Table 46
|
Insect
Control Cost (A$/Hectare) for Bt Cotton and Non-Bt Cotton in Australia |
Table 47
|
Production
of Bt Cotton in China 1997-2001 |
Table 48
|
Insecticide
Use on Bt and Non-Bt Cotton in China 1999-2001, Kg/Hectare of Formulated
Product |
Table 49
|
Percentage
of Bt and Non-Bt Cotton Farmers Suffering from Pesticide Poisonings
in China, 1999-2001 |
Table 50
|
Net
Revenue (US$/Hectare) of Bt and Non-Bt Cotton Farmers in China
1999, 2000, 2001 (US$/Hectare) |
Table 51
|
National
Economic Benefits Associated with Bt Cotton in China |
Table 52
|
Land
Holdings, Distribution and Production Statistics of Cotton Farmers
in India |
Table 53
|
Summary
of Bt Cotton Trials Conducted in India, 1998-1999 |
Table 54
|
Results
of Field Trials and Economic Benefits of Bt Cotton in India |
Table 55
|
Relative
Agronomic and Economic Performance of Bt and Conventional Cotton
in ICAR Field Trials in India in 2001 |
Table 56
|
Pest
Control for Cotton in India 1998-2001 |
Table 57
|
Economic
Advantage of Bt Cotton Versus Conventional Cotton in India in ICAR
2001 Field Trials |
Table 58
|
Bt
Cotton Area and Percent Adoption in Mexico, 1996-2001 |
Table 59
|
Area
Planted to Bt Cotton by State, Mexico 2000 |
Table 60
|
Lint
Yield (MT/hectare) of Bt Cotton and Non-Bt Cotton in Mexico 1997
and 1998 |
Table 61
|
Number
and of Cost of Insecticide Applications on Bt Cotton and Non-Bt
Cotton in Mexico |
Table 62
|
Economic
Advantage ($/Hectare) of Bt Cotton and Non-Bt Cotton in Mexico
1997 |
Table 63
|
Economic
Advantage ($/Hectare) of Bt Cotton and Non-Bt Cotton in Mexico
1998 |
Table 64
|
Adoption
of Bt Cotton in Argentina, 1998-2001 |
Table 65
|
Comparison
Between the Performance of Bt Cotton and Non-Bt Cotton in Argentina
1999-2000 and 2000-2001 |
Table 66
|
Cotton
Production in South Africa - 2001-2002 Production Year |
Table 67
|
Area
of Bt Cotton and Number of Bt Cotton Farmers in the Makhathini
Flats, South Africa 1998-1999 to 2000-2001 |
Table 68
|
Yield
Advantage (Kg/Hectare) of Bt Cotton Versus Non-Bt Cotton for Small
and Large Farmers on Irrigated and Dry Land in South Africa |
Table 69
|
Advantages
of Bt Cotton, Makhathini Flats, South Africa 1998-1999 and 1999-2000:
Yield, Pesticide Use, Seed Cost and Gross Margins |
Table 70
|
Savings
Associated with Fewer Insecticide Sprays and Less Labor on Bt Cotton
in South Africa, 2000-2001 |
Table 71
|
Incidence
of Insecticide Poisonings and Data on Adoption of Bt Cotton in
the Makhathini Flats in South Africa 1997-1998 to 2000-2001 |
Table 72
|
Economic
Advantage (US$/Hectare) of Bt Cotton Versus Non-Bt Cotton for Small
and Large Farmers in South Africa |
Table 73
|
Performance
of Bt Cotton in Indonesia, 2001 |
Table 74
|
Global
Yield Increases (%) in Bt Cotton in Selected Countries |
Table 75
|
Increase
in Lint Production due to Bt Cotton in USA |
Table 76
|
Estimated
Reduction in Number of Insecticide Sprays per Season for Bt Cotton
in Selected Countries |
Table 77
|
Reduction
in Use of Cotton Insecticide in China 1999, 2000 and 2001 |
Table 78
|
Estimates
of Insecticide Reductions (MT of a.i.) Associated with Bt Cotton
in 2001, based on 0.45 kg a.i per Hectare/Spray |
Table 79
|
Estimates
of Global Benefits from Bt Cotton 1998 to 2001 ($ millions) |
Table 80
|
Distribution
of Share of Economic Surplus from Transgenic Crops (Expressed as
Percentage), for Different Stakeholders |
Table 81
|
Estimated
Potential Savings of Cotton Insecticide in 2001 (MT metric tons
of Active Ingredient (a.i.)) in the Top 50 Cotton-growing Countries and
Lepidopteran Pest Infestation Levels |
List
of Figures
Figure
1 |
Global
Area of Transgenic Crops, 1996 to 2001 |
Figure
2 |
Global
Area of Transgenic Crops, 1996 to 2001: Industrial and Developing
Countries |
Figure
3 |
Global
Area of Transgenic Crops, 1996 to 2001: By Country |
Figure
4 |
Global
Area of Transgenic Crops, 1996 to 2001: By Crop |
Figure
5 |
Global
Area of Transgenic Crops, 1996 to 2001: By Trait |
Figure
6 |
Global
Adoption Rates (%) for Principal Transgenic Crops, 2001 |
Figure
7 |
Global
Adoption of Bt Cotton (Bt and Bt/Herbicide Tolerance), 1996 to
2001 (Millions of Hectares) |
Appendix
Table
1A
|
Latest
Estimates for Seed Exports: Worldwide: by Crop (US$ millions) |
Table
2A
|
Latest
Estimates of Seed Exports: Major Exporting Countries (US$ millions) |
|