Table 5.
Country | Change in active ingredient use (million kg) | Change in amount of active ingredient used (%) | Change in EIQ indicator (%) |
---|---|---|---|
US | −8.9 | −7.7 | −9.8 |
China | −139.0 | −30.1 | −30.2 |
Australia | −14.1 | −30.2 | −32.1 |
India | −165.0 | −36.4 | −46.1 |
Mexico | −3.2 | −16.6 | −16.5 |
Argentina | −1.8 | −21.9 | −31.1 |
Brazil | −2.5 | −18.4 | −25.5 |
Colombia | −0.2 | −59.3 | −63.0 |
Burkina Faso | 4.4 | −28.4 | −32.4 |
Aggregate impact: all countries | −338.9 | −29.9 | −34.4 |
- Negative sign = reduction in usage or EIQ improvement. Positive sign = increase in usage or worse EIQ value
- Other countries using GM IR cotton – Burkina Faso, Paraguay, Pakistan, and Myanmar not included due to lack of data
- Values related to all insecticides (as bollworm/budworm pests are the main category of cotton pests worldwide). Some of these active ingredients are, however, sometimes used to control to other pests that the GM IR technology does not target
- The analysis aims to avoid over estimation of the insecticide reductions attributable to the technology by restricting the estimates to a crop base area that is equal to the smallest of the GM IR area or the maximum area of the conventional crop area (pre GM IR technology) that used to be annually treated with insecticides to control the pests that the GM IR technology aims to control. Additional detail is provided in relation to the 2020 insecticide use change estimates at the crop/country level shown in Appendix 2. Also, by focusing on this pest type-specific range of insecticides, this contributes to reducing the scope for attributing reductions in insecticide use on the crop that have occurred due to regulatory reasons (withdrawal of active ingredients)