IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops

  • Jacquet, Florence
  • Butault, Jean-Pierre
  • Guichard, Laurence

The paper aims to study the effects of reducing pesticide use by farmers in the arable sector in France and the feasibility of a policy target of reducing pesticide use by half. The originality of the approach is to combine statistical data and expert knowledge to describe low-input alternative techniques at the national level. These data are used in a mathematical programming model to simulate the effect on land use, production and farmers’ income of achieving different levels of pesticide reduction. The results show that reducing pesticide use by 30% could be possible without reducing farmers’ income. We also estimate the levels of tax on pesticides necessary to achieve different levels of reduction of pesticide use and the effect of an incentive mechanism combining a pesticide tax with subsidies for low-input techniques.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/109382
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by European Association of Agricultural Economists in its series 120th Seminar, September 2-4, 2010, Chania, Crete with number 109382.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:eaa120:109382
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.eaae.org
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Janssen, Sander & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2007. "Assessing farm innovations and responses to policies: A review of bio-economic farm models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 622-636, June.
  2. Petr Havlík & Patrick Veysset & Jean-Marie Boisson & Michel Lherm & Florence Jacquet, 2005. "Joint production under uncertainty and multifunctionality of agriculture: policy considerations and applied analysis," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 489-515, December.
  3. van Calker, K.J. & Berentsen, P.B.M. & Giesen, G.W.J. & Huirne, R.B.M., 2008. "Maximising sustainability of Dutch dairy farming systems for different stakeholders: A modelling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 407-419, April.
  4. Sexton, Steven E. & Lei, Zhen & Zilberman, David, 2007. "The Economics of Pesticides and Pest Control," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 1(3), pages 271-326, September.
  5. Jack Peerlings & Nico Polman, 2008. "Agri-environmental contracting of Dutch dairy farms: the role of manure policies and the occurrence of lock-in," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 35(2), pages 167-191, June.
  6. Wilson, Clevo & Tisdell, Clement A., 2000. "Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental health and sustainability costs," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48363, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
  7. Geels, Frank W., 2002. "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1257-1274, December.
  8. Mosnier, Claire & Ridier, Aude & Kphaliacos, Charilaos & Carpy-Goulard, Françoise, 2009. "Economic and environmental impact of the CAP mid-term review on arable crop farming in South-western France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1408-1416, March.
  9. Falconer, Katherine & Hodge, Ian, 2001. "Pesticide taxation and multi-objective policy-making: farm modelling to evaluate profit/environment trade-offs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 263-279, February.
  10. Vereijken, P., 1989. "Experimental systems of integrated and organic wheat production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 187-197.
  11. Falconer, K. & Hodge, I., 2000. "Using economic incentives for pesticide usage reductions: responsiveness to input taxation and agricultural systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 175-194, March.
  12. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2008. "Why are ecological, low-input, multi-resistant wheat cultivars slow to develop commercially? A Belgian agricultural 'lock-in' case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 436-446, June.
  13. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
  14. Bockstaller, C. & Girardin, P., 2003. "How to validate environmental indicators," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 639-653, May.
  15. Kerselaers, Eva & De Cock, Lieve & Lauwers, Ludwig & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2007. "Modelling farm-level economic potential for conversion to organic farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 671-682, June.
  16. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2004. "Some Hard Truths About Agriculture and the Environment," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(1), April.
  17. Zilberman, David & Millock, Katti, 1997. "Financial incentives and pesticide use," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 133-144, April.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:eaa120:109382. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.