Los Beneficios Sociales y Ambient Ales de La Agricultura Biotecnologica en Brasil 1996 2009

 Documents

 3 views
of 4
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Description
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS FROM THE AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY IN BRAZIL: 1996 – 2009 Insect-resistant cotton Insect-resistant corn Herbicide-tolerant soy Preface This document has as purpose to comment on the main results of the study “Social and Environmental Benefits from Using 1/ Biotechnology: 1996/97 – 2008/09” eveloped by Céleres 2/ Ambiental in the second semester of 2009. Accordingly, the results of the general social and environmental benefits from using insect-resistant cotton
Share
Tags
Transcript
    1   S OCIAL AND E NVIRONMENTAL B ENEFITS FROM THE  A GRICULTURAL B IOTECHNOLOGY IN B RAZIL :   1996   –   2009 Insect-resistant cottonInsect-resistant cornHerbicide-tolerant soy   Preface This document has as purpose to comment on the main resultsof the study “Social and Environmental Benefits from UsingBiotechnology: 1996/97 – 2008/09” 1/ eveloped by CéleresAmbiental 2/ in the second semester of 2009. Accordingly, theresults of the general social and environmental benefits fromusing insect-resistant cotton, insect-resistant corn andherbicide-tolerant soy will be reviewed. 1/ The complete report including the study “Social and EnvironmentalBenefits from Using Biotechnology: 1996/97 – 2008/09” can beaccessed from the website www.celeresambiental.com.br. 2/ Céleres Ambiental® is an environmental consulting companyoperating in the agricultural industry seated in Uberlândia, MinasGerais. While searching for adjusting to the market requirements, it hasfurther reached an evidenced competence in the environmentalmanagement of the sugar and alcohol, forest and grain productionindustries. Contents Social and environmental benefits from biotechnology in Brazil:1996/97 a 2008/09.............................................................................2   Biotechnology social and environmental attractiveness in Brazil..........3   Efficiency in the use of Ag chemical by using biotechnology.................4 Exhibition 1. Environmental benefits between 1996/97 and 2008/09: Water........2   Exhibition 2. Environmental benefits between 1996/97 and 2008/09: Diesel.........2   Exhibition 3. Environmental benefits between 1996/97 and 2008/09: CO 2 .............2   Exhibition 4. GM Cotton: Attractiveness/social and environmental risk matrix inthe 2008/09 crop...........................................................................................................3   Exhibition 5. GM Corn: Attractiveness/social and environmental risk matrix in the2008/09 crop.................................................................................................................3   Exhibition 6. GM Soy: Attractiveness/social and environmental risk matrix in the2008/09 crop.................................................................................................................3   Exhibition 7. GM Cotton: Comparative use of defensives in Mato Grosso. 2008/09Crop................................................................................................................................4   Exhibition 8. GM Corn: Comparative use of defensives in Paraná. 2008/09Summer Crop.................................................................................................................4   Exhibition 9. GM Corn: Comparative use of defensives in Mato Grosso. 2008/09Winter Crop...................................................................................................................4   Exhibition 10. GM Soy: Comparative use of defensives in Paraná............................4      2 Social and environmental benefits frombiotechnology in Brazil: 1996/97 a 2008/09 This article will discuss the social and environmental benefitsinherent to the use of biotechnology in Brazil, taking theanalysis of the period between 1996/97 and 2008/09 intoaccount, and the future period between 2009/10 and 2018/19.For the analyses of the social and environmental benefitsaccomplished in the period from 1996/97 to 2008/09 theavailable and already traded events existing in the Brazilianmarket have been taken into account, namely: a HT 1/ soy, IR 2/  cotton and RI corn.It is critical to mention that in the last decades the worldwidesociety has developed a greater concern with theenvironmental protection and the improved quality of thepeople´s lives. Such concern has gained force with theaccelerated increase of the population and the instability asregards the feeding safety. In this sense, biotechnology showsas a tool able to contributing to the agricultural sustainablepractices that reduce pressure exercised on the naturalresources. Additionally, biotechnology shows efficient infostering the biodiversity preservation and helps in theplantation of food in bordering areas, under an agronomicperspective.When considering the use of water in agriculture, the use of biotechnology in Brazil has effectively contributed to a 12.6billion liter decrease, which would mean the supply of a 287.2thousand population in the period from 1996/97 through2008/09 (Figure 1). Out of that total, soy had a 95% share,which can be explained by the extensive planted area and thefact that such technology is available in the trading market for alonger time, officially since 2003 and since 1997, when theproducers brought the first GM soy seeds from Argentina.Cotton, which covers a plantation area much smaller than thatof soy, stood for 2% of the reduced water volume; corn standsout, which in its first plantation year already showed a 3%volume share.As regards the decreased consumption of diesel oil noticed inthe plantations using biotechnology in Brazil, the benefit hasreached 104.8 million liters saved. Such volume would besufficient to supply a fleet of 43.7 thousand light vehicles in theperiod from 1996/97 through 2008/09 (Figure 2).Another benefit that has been reviewed is that for theplantations using biotechnology, a CO2 release reductionoccurred as a result of the burning of the diesel oil used in theagricultural machinery. In the period between 1996/97 and2008/09, the plantations using biotechnology answered for aCO2 270.4 thousand tons reduction, which would stand for thepreservation of 2 million trees of riparian forest (Figure 3). Thepercentages referred in the discussion of the previous benefitsare maintained for each GM plantation.Because of the amount of its release, CO2 is the gas that mostcontributes to the global warming. Its release stands for 55% of the total world releases of GEE. Accordingly, in view of theincreasing concerns about the aggravation of the greenhouseeffect, and, consequently, the worldwide efforts to try toreduce such gases, the benefits above re-assert the significanceof biotechnology as a tool to preserve the natural resourcesand to keep the people´s quality of life. 1/ HT:herbicide tolerant 2/ IR: insect resistant Exhibition 1. Environmental benefitsbetween 1996/97 and 2008/09: Water Cotton2%Corn3%Soybean95% 12.6 billionliters   1/ Considering a daily 120 liter / individual consumption, asrecommended by the UN.Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL®, based on its own researches.Note: Soy: 1996/97 through 2008/09; Cotton: 2004/05through 2008/09; Corn: 2008/09. Exhibition 2. Environmental benefitsbetween 1996/97 and 2008/09: Diesel Cotton2%Corn3%Soybean95% 104.8millionliters   2/ Considering the average consumption of a light dieselvehicle, performing 24 thousand km / year and 10 km/lconsumption.Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL®, based on its own researches. Exhibition 3. Environmental benefitsbetween 1996/97 and 2008/09: CO 2 .   Cotton2%Corn3%Soybean95% 270.4thousandt CO 2   3/ Considering riparian forest species.Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL®, based on its own researches.   or 2.0million trees 3/ or 43.7thousand diesel vehiclessupplied in the period 2/   or 287.2thousand people served inthe period 1/      3   Biotechnology social and environmentalattractiveness in Brazil With a view to evaluate the social and environmental benefits,the concept of the attractiveness / social and environmentalrisk matrix has been discussed, based on the review of theproducers´ perspective as related to general topics of social andenvironmental nature, in addition to specific topics of thetransgenic technology studied herein. The addressed aspectshad as purpose to analyze the rural producer´s understandingin connection with these issues, such as the influence of thetransgenic products to the physical environment (soil, waterand air) and to biodiversity, food safety aspects, the ruralworker´s health and safety, quality of life, biosafety andagricultural production.Having as purpose to provide information to help in theenvironmental impact studies on the agricultural biotechnologyin Brazil, SWOT review methodology adjustments and Porter´sstrategic positioning review have been discussed. Suchmethodologies have been used to develop prospectivescenarios, with the definition of environmental indicators andthe evaluation of the weaknesses, strengths, opportunities andthreats that may affect the environment. In that study,strengths and opportunities were called environmentalattractiveness, while weaknesses and threats were calledenvironmental risks, with a view to show the advantages anddisadvantages of genetically modified products.During the interviews with the producers, significant values(weights) and effectiveness (answer) have been reviewed foreach indicator, as relatively considered (taking the significanceof each indicator as related to the others into account), so thatthe indexes for the intended evaluations were obtained. Suchindexes are a result of the multiplications of the significance-attributed values (between 0 and 100%) by the effectivenessvalues (between 0: poor answer; and 10: higher answer) of each impact. Find below the mathematical ratio used to definethe attractiveness and environmental risk analysis.     ! n  W N At  1       ! n  W N Ri  1   Where:At: social and environmental attractivenessRi : social and environmental riskn! : total number of interviews with producersN : Grade given to each variable defined for attractiveness and social andenvironmental risk, as a significance indicatorW : Weight given to each variableWith N for attractiveness as (Minimum: 0 and Maximum: 10), and N for risk as (Minimum: 10and Maximum: 0), reminding that at least one variable must be given a 10 grade.With W being the weight given to each variable oscillating between 0.0 and 1.0, the total beingequal to 1.0. Based on the method above, individual matrixes for eachculture have been studied, the results of which as shown in thefollowing graphs have been obtained from the interviews withthe rural producers. In the aggregate, 360 rural producers wereinterviewed, who were distributed among the main Stateswhere cotton, corn and soy are produced in Brazil. Exhibition 4. GM Cotton: Attractiveness/social andenvironmental risk matrix in the 2008/09 crop ++- PiorCenárioMelhorCenário 05100 5 10      E  n  v   i  r  o  n  m  e  n   t  a   l  r   i  s   k Environmental attractiveness   Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL®, based on Field survey in 2008/09 crop year. Exhibition 5. GM Corn: Attractiveness/social andenvironmental risk matrix in the 2008/09 crop ++- PiorMelhor 05100 5 10      E  n  v   i  r  o  n  m  e  n   t  a   l  r   i  s   k Environmental attractiveness   Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL®, based on Field survey in 2008/09 crop year. Exhibition 6. GM Soy: Attractiveness/social andenvironmental risk matrix in the 2008/09 crop ++- PiorCenárioMelhorCenário 05100 5 10      E  n  v   i  r  o  n  m  e  n   t  a   l  r   i  s   k Environmental atttractiveness   Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL®, based on Field survey in 2008/09 crop year. Although they show different levels in the attractiveness / riskrelation, the matrixes indicate that the 3 cultures, wherebiotechnology is already used in Brazil, show very favorablecharacteristics under the social and environmental perspective.The average point of the 3 cultures as evidenced in thepertinent matrixes is located in the best attractiveness levelquadrant and the lowest social and environmental risk levelquadrant.    4   Efficiency in the use of Ag chemical by usingbiotechnology Within the scope hereof, in addition to rural producers,technical assistance and research entities have beeninterviewed, with a view to define a benchmark for theproduction models in the 3 cultures. The main reason to reviewthe benchmarks is to compare an ideal production model withthe existing practices in the field.In order to review the cotton case, the States of Mato Grossoand Bahia regions have been selected as benchmarks, takingthe different technological packages recommended for eachsuch region into account. As regards Mato Grosso, the resultsof the use of active ingredient are described in Figure 7. Exhibition 7. GM Cotton: Comparative use of defensives inMato Grosso. 2008/09 Crop 14,3313,7913,5412,5512,550,002,004,006,008,0010,0012,0014,0016,00Convencional IR-1 IR-2 IR-2/HT-1 IR-2/HT-2Class I Class II Class III Class IV Total   Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL®. Values in kg de a.i./hectare. The review of the benchmark data in the State of Mato Grossoshowed that the use of RI-1 cotton suggests a 3.8% reduction inthe total active ingredient volume used as related to theconventional cotton. When comparing the conventional RI-1cotton, a 6.4% reduction is verified in the use of activeingredients of toxicological class I, which cause greater damageto the environment and the human health. The RI-2/TH-1and/or RI-2/TH-2 cotton approval would bring even moreenvironmental benefits, since it would allow for a 12.4%reduction in the total volume of active ingredients used in theculture.As for the summer crop corn, the review of the benchmark datain the State of Paraná showed a 6.8 % reduction in the totalvolume of active ingredients used in the plantations thatadopted the RI-1 summer corn, when compared to the volumeof active ingredients used in the agronomical handling of theconventional corn, as shown in Figure 8. Exhibition 8. GM Corn: Comparative use of defensives inParaná. 2008/09 Summer Crop 6,666,214,600,001,002,003,004,005,006,007,00Convencional IR-1 IR-1-/HT-1Class I Class II Class III Class IV Total   Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL®. Values in kg de a.i./hectare. In a scenario where the use of RI-1/TH-1 corn was already beingused, the use of active ingredient would potentially reach a31% reduction in the total volume used in the culture. It isworth stressing that in the case of the State of Paranábenchmark, the technological package verified both for the RI-1corn culture and the conventional corn showed no toxicologicalclass I and II products.When reviewing the active ingredient in the winter corn in theState of Mato Grosso, the technological package considered asbenchmark indicates that the use of RI-1 corn favors areduction in the total volume of active ingredients by 5.7%,when compared to the conventional corn (Figure 9). This factboosts the significance of the approval of new technologies, asby using the RI-1/TH-1 corn the reduction in the total volume of active ingredients can be in excess of 15%.It is required to stress the reduction of active ingredients withmore aggressive toxicological classes as related to environmentand the rural worker´s health, such as classes I and III. The useof RI-1/TH-1 corn, in addition to suppress the toxicological classI products, would allow for a 94.9% fall in the use of toxicological class III products, if compared to the conventionalcorn in the winter crop (Figure 9). Exhibition 9. GM Corn: Comparative use of defensives in MatoGrosso. 2008/09 Winter Crop 3,713,503,140,000,501,001,502,002,503,003,504,00Convencional IR-1 IR-1-/HT-1Class I Class II Class III Class IV Total   Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL®. Values in kg de a.i./hectare. The review of the soy production in the State of Paraná showedthat the use of RR® soy has resulted in an increased volume of the active ingredient used in the culture handling, althoughsuch increase falls on active ingredients with lowerenvironmental impact to the environment and the ruralworker´s health. By adding the RR2® soy technology, a 64.3%decrease can also be noticed in the use of active ingredients of toxicological class I products. (Figure 10). Exhibition 10. GM Soy: Comparative use of defensives inParaná. 3,133,603,603,420,000,501,001,502,002,503,003,504,00Conv.RRRR2Bt/RR2     k   g     d   e     i .   a    /    h   e   c    t   a   r   e Class IClass IIClass IIIClass IVTotal   Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL®. Values in kg de a.i./hectare.
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks