Advertisement

Impact of Biotechnology on Crop Genetic Diversity

  • Matin Qaim
  • Cherisa Yarkin
  • David Zilberman
Chapter
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 27)

Abstract

While there are widespread concerns that agricultural biotechnology might contribute to a further erosion of crop genetic diversity, in this chapter it is argued that the opposite could actually be true. Biotechnology allows for separation between the act of developing novel crop traits and the process of breeding plant varieties. As a result, a given biotechnology innovation may be incorporated into a large number of locally adapted plant varieties. This is confirmed by first empirical evidence from different countries. However, a theoretical model is developed which shows that the outcome is situation specific and depends on various institutional factors. Local research capacities, intellectual property policies, and biosafety regulation schemes are identified as important determinants for the actual impact of biotechnology on crop genetic diversity. Policy implications are discussed with a particular emphasis on developing countries.

Key words

biodiversity biosafety biotechnology intellectual property rights plant breeding transaction costs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ASA, 2002, Cultivares de Maiz y Soja Transgénicos Comercialmente Disponibles en Argentina, Asociación Semilleros Argentinos, Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  2. Carpenter, J., Felsot, A., Goode, T., Hammig, M., Onstad, D., and Sankula, S., 2002, Comparative Environmental Impacts of Biotechnology-Derived and Traditional Soybean, Corn, and Cotton Crops, Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
  3. Evenson, R., and Gollin, D., 2003, Assessing the impact of the green revolution, 1960 to 2000, Science 300:758–762.PubMedCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  4. Falck-Zepeda, J. B., Traxler, G., and Nelson, R. G., 2000, Rent creation and distribution from biotechnology innovations: The case of Bt cotton and herbicide-tolerant soybeans in 1997, Agribusiness 16:21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. FAO, 1998, The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.Google Scholar
  6. FAO, 1999, Glossary of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.Google Scholar
  7. Graff, G., Cullen, S., Bradford, K., Zilberman, D., and Bennet, A., 2003, The public-private structure of intellectual property ownership in agricultural biotechnology, Nature Biotech. 21:989–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. INASE, 2000, Yearbook 1999, Instituto Nacional de Semillas, Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentación, Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  9. Moschini, G., Lapan, H., and Sobolevsky, A., 2000, Roundup Ready soybeans and welfare effects in the soybean complex, Agribusiness 16:33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pray, C. E., Huang, J., Hu, R., and Rozelle, S., 2002, Five years of Bt cotton in China—The benefits continue, The Plant J. 31:423–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Qaim, M., and Traxler, G., forthcoming, Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: Farm-level and aggregate welfare effects, Agrl Econ. Google Scholar
  12. Qaim, M, and Zilberman, D., 2003, Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries, Science 299:900–902.PubMedCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  13. Traxler, G., Falck-Zepeda, J. B., and Sain, G., 1999, Genes, germplasm and developing country access to genetically modified crop varieties, paper presented at the 3rd ICABR conference, Rome.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matin Qaim
    • 1
  • Cherisa Yarkin
    • 2
  • David Zilberman
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Economics and Social SciencesUniversity of HohenheimStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Economic Research and AssessmentUniversity of California Industry-University Cooperative Research Program, University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations