MÉTODOS ESTADÍSTICOS 1 PRUEBA CHI-CUADRADO

Walter A. Pengue

GEPAMA – www.gepama.com.ar, Grupo de Ecología del Paisaje y Medio Ambiente (Landscape Ecology and Environment Group), Universidad de Buenos Aires – Argentina, wapen-

[email protected]

Introduction

Soybean has transformed itself into the most important crop of Argentina. In the same way, the country is at the global top ranking in relation with the adoption of the transgenic soybean technology. This year, planted surface with this crop rise to around 11,000,000 ha with a pro- duction of 34,000,000 metric tons (95% is transgenic).

For farmers, Round-up Ready (RR) soybean came to solve one of the main problems for the farm management: weed control, obtaining a cost reduction in the herbicide price, less fossil energy consumption and simple application that made the technical package offered irresista- ble. For the private pesticides and seed production sector, it opened the unique possibility to concentrate and rearrange the business of production and commercialization of insecticides and weed killers to the new biotechnological alternative.

The main area where soybean were produced was The Pampas, one of the most productive places in the world. But currently, due to the need for larger scale production, farmers are go- ing out, increasing the pressure on more environmental sensitive areas. This situation is re- produced in Bolivia, Brazil and Paraguay.

The Pampas prairie is a vast, flat region of Argentina that comprises more that 50 million hec- tares of arable lands for crop and cattle production. Agriculture in the pampas has a short his- tory (a little more than 100 years), and shared several common features with the agricultural history of the North American Great Plains. Both ecoregions were mostly native rangelands until the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, and both of them were later in- troduced into crop (cereal crops and oil seeds) and cattle production on dryland conditions.

The Pampas prairie is not homogeneous in soils (Morello, J and Matteucci, S, 1997). Using soils and rainfall patterns, the Pampas can be divided (Viglizzo, 2002) into five homogeneous areas: 1) Rolling Pampas, 2), Central Pampas (which could be subdivided in Suhumid on the East and Semiarid on the West, 3) Southern Pampas, 4), Flooding Pampas and 5) Mesopota- mian Pampas.

In Argentina, specially in the Pampas, and now in areas out of it, from the north to the west, soybean production has, during last five years, displaced 4,600,000 ha dedicated earlier to other production, like dairy, fruticulture, horticulture, cattle or other agricultural sectors. More

than fifty percent of the whole agrifood sector in Argentina (73,000,000 metric tons) will come this year from soybean sector. This unusual situation may endanger the stability of the Argentina economy or at least several sectors of it, as well as the food sovereignty of the country itself.

The increase of the soybean sector, which responds specifically to a global demand – Argen- tina consumes a very little of its own production – has produced important impacts on the en- vironment, the economy and the society.

New technologies imported, success in economic terms of the No Tillage model, Transgenic Soybean and an explosive consumption of very specific pesticides have produced a particular combination that doubled the argentine production during the last decade: the “Input Dec- ade”.

Landscape transformation in the rural sector is evident, the homogenization of the rural land- scape and the transformation of virgin areas, could produce consequences that we are now evaluating, because this type of process has not a prior history in Argentina, neither in South American or global agriculture in general, and its impacts must be evaluated thoroughly.

Soybean Production in Argentina

Since 1997, the private companies, in many cases with the support and expectations of the government sector, has established that the transgenic package (Round- up Ready soybean + glyphosate) could offer to the country a real competitive advantage.

These advantages added to the already existing comparative advantages of the country could make Argentina one of the most efficient countries for producing and trading agricultural commodities.

In this way, since the 1996/1997 season, there has been a strong campaign for the commer- cialization of RRsoybean, that grew from 20% to 95% of the surface planted with GMO-soya in 2002/2003. In seven years, there was rapid adoptions of the new technology by growers, so that in the current season the whole production of argentine soybean is transgenic. Argentina did not generate the new technology, which has been imported by an international company’s branch from USA.

Few years ago, traditional cultivation of grains alternated with fallow seasons for cattle pas- ture. This rotation system allowed maintaining the agronomic and environment system in the long-term. But, in the 1980s, world market prices for grains and oilseeds increased, while at the same time productivity of raising cattle declined. Agriculture became more lucrative, since the production of soybean in rotation with wheat or sunflower allows for three harvests in two year. Furthermore, the opening of the economy to the global market, the end of hyper- inflation due to the fixation of the argentine peso against the US dollar, and abolition of ex-

port levies on agricultural products, triggered an investment in new technologies. This new framework favored the import of machinery and agricultural inputs as pesticides, fertilizers and royalties on seeds at low prices and their use in oilseed production under No Tillage sys- tem for export markets (Picture Nº 1).

Picture Nº 1. Agriculture Intensification under the No Tillage Model in Argentina.

(RR soybean means GMO-soybean resistant to Glyphosate).

The intensification of the production system was followed by a decline in soil fertility and in- crease of soil erosion (Prego, E, 1996) Consequently, fertilizer consumption stepped up from 0.3 million tons in 1990 to 2.5 million tons in 1999. Another step was the continuos increase of No Tillage system that is directly associated with the high consumption of herbicides – such as glyphosate – reinforced with the release of transgenic soybean that are tolerant to this herbicide (package glyphosate + Roundup Ready soybean).

The main factors that produce the rapid adoption of transgenic soybean are:

a) Lower herbicide prices. In Argentina, from a price of $ 28/litre goes down now to $ 3/l, much less expensive that in the USA. Four companies (Monsanto, Atanor, Nidera and Dow) dominate more than 80% of glyphosate market in Argentina, mainly im- ported from USA, EU and China.

0 2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 10000000 12000000 91/ 92 92/9 3 93/ 94 94/9 5 95/ 96 96/ 97 97/ 98 98/ 99 99/ 00 0 20000000 40000000 60000000 80000000 100000000 120000000 91/ 92 92/ 93 93/ 94 94/95 95/ 96 96/97 97/ 98 98/99 99/ 00 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 7000000 8000000 9000000 10000000 91/9 2 92/9 3 93/9 4 94/9 5 95/9 6 96/9 7 97/9 8 98/9 9 99/0 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 No Tillage Glyphosate

RR Soybean _{No Tillage Seeder}

Hectares Equivalent litres

Hectares Sowing Equipment

Source: SAGPyA, Aapresid, Pengue, 2000.

b) Fewer expenses on labor, fuel and machinery. No Tillage and more effective herbicide application allow for crop cultivation with less labor and fewer machinery cycles. c) Complete knowledge of the technological package associated to No Tillage + Soy-

bean.

d) Seed prices and self-reproduction. In Argentina, farmers don’t pay technological fee for seeds and they reproduce the new seeds in theirs fields. This year the “white bag” (seed with no certificate and fiscalization) is around 300.000 ton.

Risks and profits under conditions of technological changing

Biotechnology is emerging at a period of worsening inequalities between the developing countries and the industrialized world. The income gap between the fifth of the world’s peo- ple living in the richest countries and the fifth in the poorest was 74 to 1 in 1997, up from 60 to 1 in 1990 and 30 to 1 in 1960 (UNDP, 1999). And of the US$ 460 billion spent in R&D worldwide, only one tenth was spent in developing world where 80% of the world’s popula- tion resides (UNESCO, 1999). These figures imply that much of developing countries are unlikely to benefit from biotechnology.

Although many of the developing countries are interested in the role of biotechnology for im- proving nutrition and reducing hunger, the majority of current agricultural biotechnology ef- forts are driven by the markets in the developed world: thus much of the research focus is on crops that are staple varieties for animal foods, attributes that minimize labor and comfort for farmers (unique herbicides, insecticides) or improve the quality of foods. Many of the crop varieties, traits and environmental or health conditions that could be important for large parts of the developing world are still largely ignored.

The intensification of agriculture implies for South American countries like Argentina and Brazil (the two main crop growers) two important transformations of land use:

An intensive production, under high input technology on common agricultural lands in the whole Pampas.

An extensive production, on new lands, gaining and advancing on marginal areas (agricultural border) with new varieties of soybean (transgenic and not transgenic), bred specifically to be adapted to these new virginal lands (Photo Nº 1).

Photo Nº 1. Clearfield of lands in the Yungas forest prepared for soybean production (Salta,

Argentina, 2002).

Three decades before, soybean was a botanical curiosity. Nowadays, it is the engine of MERCOSUR. It is the third exportation good (after coffee and sugar) and the first of Argen- tina. But, both countries have followed different goals and different views of markets. While Argentine followed the United States and continue with the intensification of OGM produc- tion, the production and release of engineered crops is under discussion in Brazil, where the government only allowed planted transgenic soybean this season, with an open end for the next future (Table Nº 1).

Table Nº 1. Growing of surface implanted with soybean in Argentina and Brazil.

Country decade 1970 1980 1990 2000 Argentina Hectares 50,000 2,000,000 5,000,000 8,000,000 Brazil Hectares 1,000,000 6,000,000 12,000,000 13,000,000

Source: Pengue, Walter. Seminar Sustainable Agriculture in the Third World, pp.71-87 (2002), Brussels.

The current situation seems to be a bifurcation of the world market. By one side, those coun- tries that accept engineered crops and those that do not accept engineered crops or insist that those crops and foods have to be labeled.

Current situation and trends for agriculture production in Argentina.

Argentina can be considered as a “natural” country, free till the first years of this decade of high inputs of chemicals as fertilizers, insecticides or herbicides for its crops (Table Nº 2). This is a “market value”. But, in hands of globalization and facing an important soybean de- mand, the country is changing its system of production, intensifying agriculture, with high consumption of imported chemicals, new varieties of crops and a class of agricultural bio- technology that implies more consumption of herbicides, with active principles [ingredients?] imported too.

Table Nº 2. Some agriculture indicators in selection agriculture economies.

Argentina USA France

Insecticides (gr./ha) 250 1000 3000

Fertilizer (kg. /ha) 25 100 300

Herbicides (gr./ha) 250 900 2000

Changes in farm area (%) 18 5 - 2.5

Native mammals under danger of extinction (%) 10 11 50

Native birds under danger of extinction (%) 2 8 40

Native reptiles under danger of extinction (%) 0 6 38

Sources: INTA (1995), INRA(1995), USDA (1996), Pengue (1996)

Historically, Argentina has been characterized for its natural conditions, that even following the intensification of the “green revolution”, the country did not consume much chemicals. Only the erosion and nutrient exportation have been important as a consequence of wrong management and the incorporation of the package for soybean, without the right evaluation of the environmental context. But nowadays, adding to the problems with the soil resource, the entire ecosystem will be involved. The “new biorevolution”, in the way that is being promoted in Argentina, will allow increasing the agricultural cycles, diminishing the length of fallow fields and restoration, increasing the impacts and pressure over natural resources, the social system and the economy.

Agriculture intensification has produced environmental, economical and social consequences that have not been evaluated conspicuity in the country. Probably, the new biorevolution

could exacerbate the weak conditions of the system: Intensification of agriculture, globaliza- tion, large farm concentration, low levels of credit for small farmers, dependence of imported supplies, dependence of technology, apropiation of large farms by outside owners, concentra- tion of seeds and chemicals on a very few agricultural firms.

This simplification of agriculture will produce effects that will affect the commercial position of Argentina in the meantime: degradation of soils and biodiversity, rural migration, concen- tration in large farms only producing high yielding crops in place of more natural foods.

There are social and economic consequences related with the important changes and trans- formation of national economy. Since 1991, starting the period of dollar convertibility and opening of the argentine market, changes in the mode of production have led to a number of social transformations for the agricultural sector:

a) Dependence on imports. Grains and soybean have become the main goods for foreign markets, boosting the dependence on import of the inputs. Local production of pesti- cides rose 16.6%, while 43.6% are imported and the other 39.8% are produced in Ar- gentina with imported drugs. Glyphosate consumed in 2003 is around 160,000,000 lt. b) Concentration of holdings. New technological package offered in a context of profit

margins falling down by half between 1992 and 1999, makes it very difficult to sur- vive for many farmers indebted with bank loans of high interest rates to pay back for these investments in machinery, chemical inputs and seeds. This situation favors the concentration of holdings and many farmers (especially small and medium size grow- ers which were the train of the argentine economy) disappeared. Between 1992 and 1999, the number of farms in Las Pampas declined from 170,000 to 116,000, while the average size of a producer’s farm increased from 243 to 357 hectares. In 2003: 532 hectares.

c) Dumping prices. Argentina as many developing countries subsidize neither its farmers nor the goods they produce, but are being affected by those governments that subsi- dize the production of commodities in developed countries. In this way, these activi- ties promote an intensification of agriculture production in developing countries, over- exploitation of resources and subutilization of goods (that excluded the valuation of externalities).

d) Exclusion of small farmers, who cannot get financial support, for the acquisition of the technological package.

e) Adverse consequences for organic farming by contamination or gene flow.

It is a real consideration that short-term economic and social objectives that ignore mid and long-term environmental effects put the future sustainability of the society at risk. However, although indicators to measure social or economic changes are abundant, indicators for as- sessing environmental changes are scarce. The generation and development of proper indica- tors for an agro-environmental information system are essential to get a permanent quality as- sessment of rural environments.

About the current situation and the exploitation of the environment under a typical situation of pressure and technological change we can question if our Pampas are sustainable at this time? Where were we and where are we in environmental terms?, What are the tendencies?, Which are the most worrying ones?, and which are the most appropriate indicators for an encompass- ing evaluation of the environment of the Pampas today. Another question is how these indica- tors are related to the social and economical ones mentioned before.

The first results are available from studies that evaluated twelve indicators: Land use, con- sumption of fossil energy, fossil energy use efficiency, nitrogen and phosphorus balances, ni-

trogen and phosphorus risk, pesticide contamination risk, relative levels of habitat interven- tion, changes in Carbon stock and greenhouse gases balance.

Land use is the most important factor that drives the environmental behavior of the region (Table Nº 3). All indicators, from fossil energy consumption to contamination risk, from ero- sion risk to greenhouse gases emission, are particularly sensitive to land use. Technology is the next factor (Viglizzo, op. cit).

Table Nº 3. Changes in the area allocated to predominant annual crops (soybean, maize,

wheat and sunflower) in the Argentina Pampas during the period 1960-2000.

Percentage of the Total Area

Pampas Area / Year 1960 1988 1996

Regional Average 23.70 30.30 40.00 Rolling Pampas 28.90 47.60 63.40 Central Subhumid 31.30 38.30 53.60 Central Semiarid 21.70 38.40 39.10 Southern Pampas 23.40 32.40 36.80 Flooding Pampas 12.20 8.20 13.20 Mesopotamian Pampas 10.40 7.60 10.40

Source: National Program of Agro-Environmental Management, Argentina, 2002.

Trends in fossil energy consumption in The Pampas indicate that intensification is increasing at high rates. Land productivity and fossil energy consumption have almost doubled in less than ten years. This shows a direction of Argentinean agriculture towards a more intensive model, departing from the traditional semi-intensive one. Rolling Pampas has an energy budget that highly exceeds the whole Pampas average (Table Nº 4).

Table Nº 4. Energy productivity and fossil energy consumption in the Argentine Pampas dur-

ing the period 1960-2000. Comparison of trends among ecologically homogeneous areas. Energy Productivity (Gj/ha/year) Fossil energy consumption (Gj/ha/year)

1960 1988 1996 1960 1988 1996 Regional Area 6.40 13.45 22.16 1.30 1.68 3.31 Rolling Pampas 9.03 24.11 31.92 1.27 1.95 3.79 Central Subhumid 6.39 14.40 25.59 1.88 2.00 3.81 Central Semiarid 2.75 4.33 8.43 1.19 1.88 2.68 Southern 5.44 11.23 19.48 1.15 1.78 3.12 Flooding Pampas 3.48 4.19 10.91 0.56 0.50 1.43 Mesopotamian 3.21 3.42 13.92 0.56 0.51 1.86

In a general context, the Pampas has not been fertilized till the beginning of the nineties. The nutrient budget of the Pampas had some stabilization before this time, by the rotation of crops and cattle, the most common production system in the area. But it was in the nineties when the land use transformations and an increase in fertilizer use drove the Argentinean Pampas

into more intensive models that are typical of the northern hemisphere.

Soybean has had and will have an emblematic role in relation with nutrient balance, loss of quality and richness of ours soils.

Each year the country exports with its grains a considerable amount of nutrients – especially nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium – that in the process of intensification, are not replen- ished. Argentina exports yearly around 3,500,000 metric tons of nutrients – with no recogni- tion in the market prices, increasing the “ecological debt” (Martinez Alier and Oliveras, 2003). Soybean, the engine of this transformation, represents around fifty percent of this aver- age. If we compensate the natural depletion with mineral fertilizers, Argentina will need around 3,326,786 metric tons of nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers and an amount of 900,000,000 American dollars to buy it in the market (Table Nº 5) (Pengue, W, 2003).

Table Nº 5. Stimation of nutrients (N, P) exportation and the cost for soybean harvest

2002/2003 (34,000,000 metric tons).

Nitrogen Phosphorous Total

Nutrient Extraction in metric tons 1,020,000 227,800 1,247,800

Equivalent in Mineral Fertilizers in metric tons 2,217,400 1,109,386 3,326,786

Cost Stimation reposition (US$) 576,524,000 332,816,000 909,340,000

Source: Pengue, W. La economía y los subsidios ambientales: Una Deuda Ecológica en la Pampa Argentina. Fronteras Nº 2: 7-8. Año 2. Number 2. GEPAMA.FADU.UBA. Buenos Aires. 2003.

Stimation for next season (2003/2004) considered that around 30% of the whole soybean area (4,500,000 hectares) will be fertilized with mineral fertilizers. In 2002/2003 surface implanted with soybean rose to 12,900,000 ha and next season the estimation is around 13,600.000 hec- tares. The scenery shows a trend in important depletion of nutrients in ours soils that will be consumed completely in 50 years (Ventimiglia, 2003).

Under No Tillage system, indicators show that soil erosion risk tend to decline. Although the area cultivated with annual crops expanded, minimum and No Tillage practices compensated the more intensive use of land.

The use of land and the expansion of the agricultural border is the most relevant impact factor