Economics of spatial coexistence of genetically modified and conventional crops: Oilseed rape in Central France
Europe is currently struggling to implement coherent coexistence regulations on genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in all EU Member States. We conduct simulations with the software ArcView® on a GIS dataset of a hypothetical case of GM herbicide tolerant oilseed rape cultivation in Central France. Our findings show that rigid coexistence rules, such as large distance requirements, may impose a severe burden on GM crop production in Europe. These rules are not proportional to the farmers’ basic incentives for coexistence and hence not consistent with the objectives of the European Commission. More alarming, we show that in densely planted areas a domino-effect may occur. This effect raises coexistence costs and even adds to the non-proportionality of rigid coexistence regulations. Instead, we show that flexible measures would be preferable since they are proportional to the incentives for coexistence and, hence, less counterproductive for European agriculture.
|Date of creation:||2008|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.eaae.org|
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.:
- Bullock, D. S. & Desquilbet, M., 2002.
"The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation,"
Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-99, February.
- Bullock, David S. & Desquilbet, Marion & Nitsi, Elisavet I., 2000. "The Economics Of Non-Gmo Segregation And Identity Preservation," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21845, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
- Belcher, Ken & Nolan, James & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2005. "Genetically modified crops and agricultural landscapes: spatial patterns of contamination," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 387-401, May. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:eaae08:43650. 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.