1Nitrates can be converted to nitrites, which can be acutely toxic to infants and can contribute to the formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines. It is not possible to set a margin.

Comparison of the risk from pesticides and other pollutants in foodstuffs

The table shows that pesticide residues in foodstuffs do not constitute as great a risk as do various heavy metals (lead, cadmium and mercury), PCB and residues of old - now banned - chlorinated pesticides (DDT and dieldrin). Rather, pesticides constitute a risk of about the level of the various mycotoxins. The toxic content of food plants is also considered to constitute a greater risk than pesticides. These toxins include, e.g., glycoalkaloids in potatoes and tomatoes, lectins in dried beans, cyanoglycosides in apricot kernels, bamboo shoots and linseed, and phenylhydrazines in mushrooms, and constitute a greater risk than the pesticide residues. Interest in these toxins is increasing, in part because their content in food plants can be inadvertently increased by gene splicing.

5.4.3 Natural substances

All plants contain poisonous substances to varying extents. Their job is to protect plants against attacks by viruses, micro-organisms and plant-eating animals, especially insects. Evolution has enabled different species of micro-organism and animal to specialise, so that they can live on plants that are poisonous to other organisms. Familiar examples of such poisonous plants are deadly nightshade, spring groundsel and cow parsnip. Man's nourishment consists of less than 100 plant species. Even though individual plants contain substances that are toxic to other groups of organism, they are in most cases only of very low toxicity to humans. Humans have carried out the deliberate selection of crops as being acceptable and edible and, through the forces of evolution, have developed enzyme systems that break down their component substances. Man also uses poisonous plants, such as coffee and tobacco. The special use of the tobacco plant gives a significant risk of developing cancer in humans. When "novel food" products (including products made from genetically-modified plants) are introduced, the authorities conduct a risk assessment comparable to a pesticide assessment, in order to protect consumers.

In contrast to man-made pesticides, natural pesticides are mainly contained within plants and are only released when other organisms approach a plant, touch it or feed on it. Such natural pesticides are normally spread over a larger or smaller area, with the purpose of neutralising pests in the entire area with an effectiveness of at least 90%. This exposes all organisms that come into contact with the toxin or that later feed on parts of plants containing natural pesticide residues in the area.

A Danish EPA publication, "Oversigt over godkendte bekæmpelsesmidler 1998" (an overview of approved pesticides, 1998) shows that a total of nine naturally-occurring active ingredients have been granted approval. In addition, two more are still in the application phase.

Apart from the element sulphur, these naturally-occurring substances degrade relatively easily, so that their effectiveness is of short duration. At the time of writing, they are only used on small areas where, as with synthetic active ingredients, the intent is to neutralise more than 90% of the pests. In principle, there is therefore no difference between these pesticides and synthetic pesticides, considered from the standpoint of their effects on the environment and health.

Natural active ingredients are characterised by their significantly lower toxicity to mammals and by their significantly faster degradation, in comparison to synthetic pesticides.

One of the most important groups of modern, synthetic pesticides is the so-called "pyrethroids", which contain the same active group as pyrethrum, but in which the molecule has been stabilised by inserting, e.g., benzene groups, chlorine atoms, bromine atoms or cyano-groups. This also increases their toxicity to insects considerably, for instance, by 1000 times for deltamethrin, in comparison to the natural pyrethrins. At the same time, the increased stability of the molecules entails the risk of spreading to the atmosphere, to surface water and to ground water. The example of the pyrethroids illustrates how the synthetic pesticides usually contain chemical structures, which are rarely encountered in nature and which increase their biological effect by modifying the physico-chemical properties of the molecule, to obtain lower degradability, higher persistence, changed solubility and increased properties for penetrating membranes.

5.4.4 Patterns of consumption in other countries

Consumption of active ingredients in Denmark and other countries

Patterns of pesticide consumption vary widely from country to country, and Fig. 5.1 shows the consumption of active ingredients per ha in different countries. This is used in other countries as an indirect measure of the impact on the environment. As can be seen from the figure, Denmark has the third lowest level.

The reason for this is a combination of the efforts of agriculture to reduce consumption, as well as differences in cultivation intensity, the crops cultivated, climate conditions and the significant variation in the pressures of disease and pests.

A survey from 1996 described the consumption (kg active ingredient) in four different countries and showed that the quantities used within the individual regions vary widely. Even though there are differences between regions, those differences are still smaller than the differences between farms in a given region. This is because of differences in the cultivation systems used, choice of variety, crop-rotation regimes, variations in the pressures of disease and pests, as well as the choice of product and dose. Only limited information is available on consumption patterns in different crops, which makes it difficult to generalise about pesticide use in crops cultivated in different regions.

Figure 5.1 Consumption of pesticides in other EU countries, 1996.

Captions, Figure 5.1
Belgien = Belgium
Frankrig = France
Italien = Italy
Grækenland = Greece
Tyskland = Germany
Østrig = Austria
Irland = Ireland
Spanien = Spain
Danmark = Denmark
Sverige = Sweden
kg a.s... = kg a.i./ha

5.5. Current Danish regulation of pesticides

5.5.1 Pesticide policy to date

One of the main goals of Danish environmental policy is to secure the health and welfare of the population. As far as pesticides are concerned, this effort is based on the Chemical Substances and Products Act and on the 1986 pesticides action plan. In addition, the EU Council Directive on quality of water intended for human consumption sets a 0.1 µg/l limit for pesticides in drinking water.

Chemical Substances and Products Act

The purpose of this act is to prevent the use of chemical substances from harming health and the environment and to promote the use of cleaner technology. The Act shall ensure illumination of the dangers of substances sold in this country and regulation of the sale and use of chemical substances and products, which are, or are assumed to be, dangerous to the health or harmful to the environment.

Pesticides action plan

The purpose of this 1986 action plan was "to reduce the consumption of pesticides, and thereby to:

• protect people against health risks and harmful effects resulting from the use of pesticides. This applies equally to the users of pesticides and to the population in general, which must be protected against the ingestion of pesticides through food and drinking water;
• protect the environment, i.e., harmless and useful organisms among the flora and fauna on arable land and in aquatic environments."

The goal of the action plan was

"that the total consumption of pesticides be reduced by at least 25% before 1 January 1990. Another 25% reduction is desired before 1 January 1997."

It was also mentioned that

"where the applied quantities and treatment frequencies are concerned, the consumption of products that possess particularly alarming health and environment-related properties shall be accounted separately, as sufficient information on the properties of these products becomes available."

The action plan also emphasised that "as it is peculiarly difficult to determine an environmentally acceptable level for the consumption of pesticides, it is necessary (to reduce the impact on the environment) to reduce as far as possible the consumption of pesticides. Our present agricultural production cannot, however, be sustained in the complete absence of pesticides which, as is common knowledge, are used particularly to protect against weeds, disease and pests, as well as for growth regulation."

Status of the action plan

By the end of the 10-year period, the action plan's goal of tightening the approval scheme had been attained. At that time, the Danish EPA had reassessed 213 active ingredients. Of these, 105 have now been banned, because a lack of documentation meant that no application was made for reassessment or because the applications were withdrawn by the applicants. 78 substances were granted approval, whereas 30 were banned or strictly regulated.

The general reduction in pesticide use was only partially attained, as the quantities of active ingredients sold had dropped by 40%, whereas treatment frequencies had only dropped by a few percent, when no correction is made for changes in crop rotation over the period.

Treatment frequency

Treatment frequency is an expression of the average number of times an agricultural area can be treated with the normal dose, based on the quantities sold. The average treatment frequency for 1981-1985, which was 2.67, is used as the reference for the first action plan's reduction target. The treatment frequency is considered the best indicator of effects on the environment.

Some crops are sprayed more than others, which is why crop rotation affects pesticide consumption and, thus, treatment frequency.

A numerical expression can be obtained, which describes the effect of changes in crop-rotation regimes (from the reference period (1981-1985) to today) on treatment frequency, by comparing treatment frequencies of the individual crops during the reference period, to the acreage covered by those crops in a given year.

This crop-rotation-corrected treatment frequency is obtained by multiplying the relevant acreage used for the different crops in a single year (e.g., 1997) by the treatment frequencies of the reference period. Calculation of how changes in crop rotation have affected the treatment frequency yields a value for 1997 of 3.27, which means that, with crop rotation as in 1997 and with treatment frequencies in the individual crops as in 1981-1985, the treatment frequency would have been 3.27, all other things being equal. For the sake of comparison, the treatment frequency in 1997 was 2.45, which is 25% lower than the value of 3.27.

Load indices, in which consumption is weighted with the toxicity of the products, showed a distinct drop in acute and chronic toxicity to humans and other mammals. The load indices for acute toxicity to birds and crustaceans had also dropped, whereas they remained unchanged for fish. Sales of products suspected of causing cancer remained at the same level as in the reference period.

Ground water policy

In the case of ground water, Danish environmental policy is based on prevention and initiatives at the source. This means that Danish ground water resources must be protected against further pollution and that the preventive effort against the pollution of ground water must be assigned higher priority than any subsequent treatment of polluted ground water.

Current approval practice endeavours to implement this policy. This practice is under constant review, with a view to incorporating the latest expertise in the field. The fact that approved pesticides have been found in concentrations above the limit for drinking water, near the surface and deeper, indicates that the current approval scheme does not give complete security against future pollution of our ground water.

Assessment of the approval scheme by international experts

One international study included a review of the general set of rules and the assessment input information used by the Danish EPA when processing applications. Several specific decisions were also reviewed. This international study included Geological Survey of Denmark's (GEUS) quality assurance of the Danish EPA's assessment input information on the risk of polluting ground water with pesticides. The most important conclusions of the international panel of experts state that the Danish approval scheme is one of the strictest in the EU, and that this fact (despite the fact that Denmark's geology is young and variegated) contributes to ensuring that the 0.1 µg/l limit for drinking water is not exceeded.

Chemicals Report of 1997

The Minister of Environment and Energy's 1997 account of forthcoming initiatives in the area of chemicals stated that a list of undesirable substances was to be promulgated. This list, which covers 100 substances whose use will be phased out, was published at the beginning of 1998. The list does not include the active ingredients of pesticides, but the individual auxiliary substances.

Chemicals strategy of 1999

At the beginning of 1999, the Minister of Environment and Energy presented a chemicals strategy, which contains the following main elements:

• The use of problematical chemicals must be reduced;
• The control of chemicals must be tightened and the responsibility of manufacturers shall be increased, while the access of consumers to information on these chemicals shall be secured;
• EU regulation must be tightened and a coherent, simplified, more efficient and faster EU assessment procedure shall be established;
• Danish efforts on behalf of the efficient, global regulation of chemicals must be reinforced;
• Danish environmental aid must contribute, e.g., to securing the establishment of competence in the chemicals area in the receiving countries.

This strategy is to be expressed in a number of specific national initiatives similar to the already advised regulation of phthalates in toys, lead, bottom paints and indoor paints containing solvents, together with the proposed amendments to the Chemical Substances and Products Act, which seek to finance the control of chemicals via the industry.

Furthermore, the strategy will be followed by a phthalates action plan, forthcoming accounts on PVC and on "Children and chemicals", together with the reports of the Bichel Committee.

The strategy will be undergoing hearings at authorities and interest organisations until mid-March.

5.5.2 Danish regulation of the pesticides field

The earliest Danish rules on the use of poisons were laid down as long ago as the end of the 1700s. An actual poisons act was enacted in 1931 and, in 1948, pesticides were separated from the poisons act and a special pesticides act was enacted. Both acts were amended in 1961 and, in 1980, were reunited in the Chemical Substances and Products Act, which has now been amended several times.

Before 1980, the purpose of the rules was to ensure that the use of pesticides did not incur dangers to humans, domestic animals or bees. The means for achieving this was to classify the products into danger classes "X", "A", "B" and "C", where danger class "X" was assigned to the most toxic products. For each danger class, rules on the labelling, storage, sale and use of the products were established, and the polluting or poisoning of wells and watercourses used for irrigation or bathing was prohibited.

Classification was carried out by the now defunct Toxicological Board, under the Ministry of Agriculture, but was transferred to the Danish EPA on its establishment in 1972. The Toxicological Board was abolished with the advent of the Chemical Substances and Products Act in 1980, and the administration of legislation on pesticides has since been the responsibility of the Danish EPA.

The legislation on pesticides is quite complicated. The main rules governing the approval of products can be found in Part 7 of the Chemical Substances and Products Act, although other rules of the Act also apply to pesticides. The most important of the Act's rules can be found in section 33 (1) which states that pesticides must be approved by the Minister of Environment and Energy prior to sale, importation or use. Contravention of this rule is punishable under section 59 of the Act.

In connection with this act, statutory orders on pesticides have been promulgated, which contain a wide range of specific instructions and requirements on the manufacturers, importers, dealers and users of pesticides.

Moreover, a number of special statutory orders and regulations sanctioned by the Act have been promulgated, e.g., on total or partial prohibitions against the sale of certain pesticides, on the classification, packaging, labelling, sale and storage of chemical substances and products, on training for commercial users and on aerial spraying.

A pesticide must not be imported, sold or used in Denmark unless it has been approved by the Danish EPA. Applications for approval must be sent to the Danish EPA by anyone who wishes to import or market pesticides in Denmark.

In the approval procedure, the Danish EPA assesses whether or not the use of a product would constitute an unacceptable risk to humans and the environment. The product is also assessed for its efficacy in the applications for which approval is sought.

Treatment respites (spraying respites) are stipulated on the basis of toxicological studies and studies of residual concentrations in plants.

Once granted, approval is usually valid for 10 years (pesticides) or eight years (biocides). Products classified as "Toxic" or "Very toxic" are only granted approval for four or five years. If an applicant wishes to maintain approval, he must apply for a renewal at least one year before the current approval expires.

When applying for approval, applicants shall present a number of studies. These studies are described in Annexes 5.1 and 5.3 to Danish EPA Statutory Order No. 241, of 27 April 1998, on pesticides.

Where the environment is concerned, requirements are set on data concerning the active ingredient's physico-chemical properties, its metabolisation and degradation in soil and water and its toxicity to aquatic organisms (fish, daphnia and algae) and terrestrial organisms (micro-organisms, earthworms and birds).

The data presented have normally been obtained from laboratory tests. In cases where these tests indicate that a substance is problematical, supplementary laboratory tests, or semi-field or field tests, are sometimes conducted. This is typically a matter of field studies of the degradability of the active ingredient, semi-field studies of mobility (lysimeter tests) or mesocosmos tests of toxicity to aquatic organisms.

In the area of health, requirements are set on a number of studies of the active ingredient, itself, and a smaller number of studies of the formulated product.

The active ingredient shall be tested for the following properties: acute toxicity, local irritation, dermal allergy, short-term toxicity (sub-chronic toxicity) long-term toxicity (chronic toxicity), carcinogenicity, genetic damage, damage to reproduction and the substance's metabolisation in the body. Some of these studies extend over several years and shall be conducted in at least two different animal species.

The formulated product shall be tested for its acute toxicity and for local irritation.

Based on these studies, the Danish EPA considers whether or not a pesticide is especially dangerous to health and the environment. In addition, the studies are used when classifying the pesticide.

Where the environment is concerned, the active ingredient is assessed on the basis of the application for which approval is sought, to determine whether it has an unacceptably long degradation time, whether it can leach into ground water in concentrations above the permissible limit or whether it can bioaccumulate in the environment. If such is the case, the pesticide cannot be approved.

When assessing whether or not the use of a pesticide presents an unacceptable risk of effects on aquatic or terrestrial organisms, the toxicity of the substance is compared to the concentration of the pesticide to which animals or plants will be exposed in the environment (the exposure). In this connection, distance requirements can be set when granting approval.

In cases where the exposure exceeds the safety margin required between the exposure and the concentration that results in unacceptable effects, a pesticide cannot be approved unless relevant semi-field and field studies of effects on aquatic and terrestrial organisms can prove that its use does not entail unacceptable effects.

It is only possible to account for less than 1% of the quantities of pesticides used in the different media. Information on total mass streams, including the evaporation, spray drift, degradation and metabolisation of pesticides, is lacking as part of the overall analysis. It is, therefore, impossible to describe the impact on health and the environment in detail.

From the standpoint of effects on health, the products are assessed to determine whether or not they have any directly or indirectly harmful effects on human health in normal use. The exposure that occurs in use is assessed for harmful effects. There must also be a certain safety margin between the exposure and the harmful dose.

The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration assesses the magnitude of the residual content that can be accepted in edible crops. Limits are specified for the maximum residual content, and spraying respites are set on the basis of this assessment.

In conjunction with the approval procedure, pesticides are classified according to guidelines that are common to the entire EU. The rules are amended and extended continuously, and are considered to be a reasonably satisfactory and usable system for describing the inherent toxicological properties of chemical substances. The classification of health effects covers acute and chronic effects. The acute effects are toxicity by ingestion, by dermal contact or by inhalation. The abilities to induce local irritation and dermal allergy are also classified.

In addition, classification is also done for chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, damage to reproduction and other types of damage that can be caused by exposure for longer periods.

Concerning the environment, pesticides are classified according to their toxicity to aquatic organisms, their potential for bioaccumulation and their degradation rate in the aquatic environment.

As part of the approval process, maximum residue limits are set for any pesticide residues in edible crops.

Limits are also set on the content in feed crops and animal products (meat, eggs and milk). The limits are set by the Danish veterinary and Foodstuffs Administration. To ensure that the limits can be observed, a spraying respite is also set.

A pesticide cannot be approved for use on an edible crop unless a residue limit has been set for the crop in question.

Recent years have seen more stringent requirements on documentation and the criteria for the approval of pesticides. This has resulted in the prohibition of many substances.

5.5.3 Auxiliary substances

When manufacturing pesticides, many auxiliary chemical substances are added, which include carrier substances, solvents, surfactants, dispersing agents, adhesives, absorption-promoting agents, antioxidants, bactericides, dyes, fillers and perfume. In 1997, about 69% of the sale of pesticides in Denmark consisted of auxiliary substances, which corresponds to about 10,000 tonnes. These auxiliary substances include a varied collection of chemicals, some of which are more toxic than the active ingredient, e.g., organic solvents. Some of these substances are included on the Danish EPA List of undesirable substances. Auxiliary substances have been in focus because of the organic solvents - most recently in 1997, when it became known that they included alkylphenols and alkylphenolethoxylates, which experimental studies have shown to have hormone-like effects in mammals. These substances are now being phased out, which means that many products are being reformulated with the substitution of auxiliary substances, whose known properties are deemed less harmful.

Approval of auxiliary substances

The auxiliary substances (or additives) in pesticides are not, themselves, subject to approval. The individual substances are subject to the same regulation as is described for chemicals, in the Chemical Substances and Products Act. Thus, no actual requirements are set on studies of the individual component substances of pesticides. However, the precise composition of the products shall be known to the authorities, so that all component substances can be identified. The Danish EPA can also require the data sheets for the individual additives. Such data sheets contain, e.g., brief information on the physico-chemical and toxicological properties of the additives, to the extent to which they have been studied. When assessing the additives, comparison is made to the list of dangerous substances, which shows the classifications of many chemicals (and pesticides).

Assessment of the toxicological properties of additives

To some extent, the toxicological properties of additives are apparent from the tests required of a formulated product. These tests include studies of acute toxicity by oral ingestion, by dermal absorption and inhalation, dermal and ocular irritation and, in certain cases, ecotoxicological studies in aquatic organisms, bees, earthworms, micro-flora, etc. If an additive has a serious long-term effect and is included in a product in a sufficiently high concentration, that product will be classified in accordance therewith and the use of the product will be subjected to exposure and risk assessments, even if the active ingredient is without alarming effects. The Danish EPA can withdraw its approval of a product solely on the grounds of an additive. Furthermore, additives shall be declared on the label, if they are present in the product in a concentration of 0.2% or more, for very toxic and toxic substances, and 5% or more, for corrosive substances or substances harmful to the health.

The Committee finds that the approval scheme should be extended, so that the requirements on additives approach the requirements set on the active ingredients of pesticides. Consideration should be given to banning all carcinogenic additives. We must emphasise that the additives are also used for purposes other than the manufacturing of pesticides. For this reason, there should be a general clamp-down on the use of auxiliary substances in all fields of application.

5.6 Present Danish regulation of organic farming

Pursuant to Act No. 363, of 10 June 1987, the Organic Foodstuffs Council was appointed under the Ministry of Food. Starting as early as the late 1980s, the Council took a number of initiatives that have helped to advance the development of organic farming. These initiatives led, e.g., to the establishment of possibilities for granting special subsidies to organic farmers.

Action Plan I

The most important new initiative was taken in 1995, in connection with the publication of the "Aktionsplan for fremme af den økologiske fødevareproduktion i Danmark" (action plan for promoting the organic production of foodstuffs in Denmark). This action plan, which was designed as a number of recommendations presented by the Ecological Agriculture Council to the Minister of Food, made a total of 65 recommendations, distributed over the following five main points:

• making restructuring for the organic production of foodstuffs attractive;
• ensuring a demand for organic foodstuffs;
• the reinforcement of research, development and training in the organic production of foodstuffs;
• removing the barriers to sustainable ecological development;
• ensuring implementation of the action plan for promoting the organic production of foodstuffs in Denmark.

Action Plan II

The task of developing organic farming has been followed up under the terms of Action Plan II - økologi i udvikling (on the way to sustainability), which was published by Danish Directorate for Development in February 1999. The aim of this action plan is - in extension of Action Plan I - to give the sector significant impetus towards further expansion, credibility and development in general.

Thus, Action Plan II expresses the desire to boost the further development of the organic form of production. This is to be achieved by not only increasing the extent of production but also by supporting organic farming in its efforts to attain the goals set for environmental and social sustainability, the production of healthy, quality foodstuffs and optimum animal welfare. Action Plan II therefore makes 85 recommendations in the areas of:

• consumption and marketing;
• primary production;
• quality and health;
• exports;
• institutions and institutional kitchens;
• the environment;
• the health and welfare of domestic animals;
• research and development;
• administrative rationalisation.

Other initiatives

Initiatives have been taken to promote organic farming in several areas. This is due to the fact that a number of restrictions have been imposed on conventional farming and that some of the initiatives have contained elements that focused on promoting organic farming. The most important initiatives are:

the pesticides action plan (1986) -
this plan had the goal of reducing the total consumption of pesticides;
the action plan on the aquatic environment (1986) -
the goal of this plan was to reduce discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus by 50 and 80%, respectively;
the marginal land strategy (1987) -
it was the purpose of this strategy to conserve uncultivated or extensively cultivated areas, to protect especially delicate areas and to mitigate the consequences of marginalising agricultural land;
action plan for the sustainable development of agriculture (1991) -
the overall objective of this plan was to ensure sustainable development in agriculture, e.g., by focusing on the production of healthy foodstuffs, and to avoid influences detrimental to the environment and nature in general;
the action plan on the aquatic environment II (1998) -
the goal of this plan was to reduce still further the loss of nitrogen and to secure the natural and environmental values of the "especially delicate territories". Moreover, this plan presumes increasing access to organic farms.

5.6.2 Danish legislation on the area of the ecology

The first Danish rules on organic agricultural production were laid down in Act No. 363, of 10 June 1987. In pursuance of this, rules were laid down on the authorisation and control of organic farms and on the processing, marketing and labelling of organic foodstuffs. The statutory order entered into force in the same year. This statutory order is now undergoing amendment, as is, for instance, the plan for securing better prospects for following the progress of the goods at all stages.

Due, for instance, to a sharp increase in the number of organic farms in the mid-1990s, pressure increased for more detailed rules on the area of domestic animals. For this reason, the Plant Department appointed a working group which, during the course of 1996, was to draft two reports, with recommendations on organic poultry keeping and cattle and pig keeping, respectively. These reports formed the basis for a new set of rules on organically-managed domestic animals. Further, the Plant Department has just issued a new statutory order that lays down more stringent rules - especially on poultry.

The rules that govern use of the ecolabel are laid down in the statutory order on the conditions for marketing organic foodstuffs.

Action plan II proposes a revision of the present rules.

Rules in the EU and at the international level

The EU Regulation on organic methods of production and on the indication thereof on farm produce and foodstuffs (Council Regulation No. 2092/91) came into effect in 1991. At the time of writing, the EU rules cover only vegetable produce. On 26 July 1996, the Commission of the European Community (CEC) presented a proposal for EU rules on the area of animals. This proposal is still being processed by a working party under the Council.

At the international level, work on rules for the ecology is in progress under the Codex Alimentarius (FAO/WHO). A proposal is expected to be completed during the summer of 1999.

Supervision

The ecology rules are supervised in Denmark by the Plant Department, which authorises and supervises organic farms. As far as slaughterhouses and processing companies are concerned, The Veterinary Department is the supervisory authority. The retail trade is supervised by local food inspectors.

5.7 Precautionary principle

The lack of information on the effects of pesticides on health and the environment has spurred a debate on the application of the precautionary principle to the area of pesticides.

The reason for applying the precautionary principle could be the uncertainty that is always associated with the data on which decisions are based, such as generalisations based on limited studies of the properties of pesticides, as well as the influences on, and reactions of, entire environmental systems or ecosystems and all of the species and populations that must be protected. In this connection, we must state that some ecological systems exhibit chaotic behaviour under certain circumstances.

The precautionary principle shall also make allowance for the risk linked to errors, and no-one wants any errors to affect the future significantly.

The precautionary principle can also embody a wish to give still better protection to especially exposed groups, such as children.

The 0.1 µg/l limit on the content of pesticide residues in drinking water is, thus, an expression of the precautionary principle, as quantities of this magnitude have no toxicological significance to humans. The 1986 pesticides action plan must similarly be considered an expression of the application of the precautionary principle because, to reduce the burden on the environment, it is necessary to reduce the use of pesticides as far as possible, since (as is emphasised as justification for the action plan) it is extraordinarily difficult to set an environmentally-acceptable level for the use of pesticides.

It has been stated in organic quarters that the rationale behind the precautionary principle has its foundation in the ecology's view of the interaction between man and nature, which is a central part of the ideology of organic farming. Organic farming is based on a view that nature comprises an entirety to which man is morally obliged to show consideration. Nature is perceived as a very complex, coherent system, for which reason man does not always have sufficient knowledge to grasp the consequences of various specific actions. Damage to nature and the environment can therefore be harmful to man in the end.

The Committee has noted an example of how work on drafting guidelines for the use of the precautionary principle is done at the European level.

Six principles for the application of the precautionary principle have been proposed in this context:

1. any application of the precautionary principle must start with an objective risk assessment, which identifies the degree of scientific uncertainty at every step;

2. when the results of the risk assessment are available, all relevant parties shall participate in the decision on the application of the different alternatives proposed. This process shall be as open as possible;

3. precautions based on the application of the precautionary principle must be proportional to the risk they are intended to limit or eliminate;

4. the precautions must also include a cost/benefit assessment (advantages/disadvantages) of reducing a risk to a level acceptable to all parties involved;

5. the precautions must assign responsibility for obtaining the scientific material necessary to a complete risk assessment;

6. the precautions must always be provisional, as they must await the results of the scientific research performed to obtain the scientific data for the subsequent renewed risk assessment.

The work is only a draft and must be seen as part of the process in which many players in the field try to advance their views on how to put the principle into operation. This draft is based on the risk assessment and any of its relevant uncertainties. It is, thus, a techno-scientific asset.

The sub-committees have included the greater part of the above principles in their discussions. The sub-committee on environment and health has discussed the various scientific uncertainties, whereas the sub-committee on production, economics and employment has discussed the feasibility of carrying out cost/benefit analyses. Finally, the sub-committee has carried out an assessment of the legal aspects in the EU when applying the precautionary principle.

We should emphasise the fact that the application of the precautionary principle takes place in interaction between the following parties:

1. scientific expertise, which must draw the line for what is foreseeable and isolate that which cannot be clarified;

2. an administrative effort, which must adopt a stance on what can be put into operation;

3. a political opinion, i.e., non-expert, which, with consideration for the population, must make a decision on the basis of its confidence in expert knowledge and of ethical and political considerations.

5.8 Research on pesticides and the ecology

Pesticides

A certain amount of research has been conducted under public auspices, with the intention of clarifying the environment and health-related consequences of pesticide use. Worthy of mention are:

• the pesticide research programme;
• the interministerial pesticide research effort;
• the strategic environmental research programme;
• the monitoring programme of the action plan on the aquatic environment.

The pesticide research programme

The pesticide research programme has been working on four main areas of research since 1992:

• the occurrence and effects of pesticides and other plant protection measures in the vicinity of cultivated land;
• the incidence of environmental effects of pesticide residues in ground water, surface water and air;
• the occurrence and health-related effects of pesticides in the workplace;
• the development of integrated methods of protection and prevention.

Interministerial pesticide research

Interministerial pesticide research also covers the topics of:

• the exposure, fate and effects of chemical pesticides and other protective measures in treated ecosystems;

• the fate and environmental effects of chemical pesticides in the areas adjoining treated ecosystems;

• the exposure of people to pesticides and assessment of the health-related consequences;

• the development and implementation of integrated methods of protection and prevention.

The strategic environmental research programme

The strategic environmental research programme is built up around a number of programmes, of which the following are relevant to pesticides:

• the Danish centre for ecotoxicological research;

• the centre for the biodiversity of arable land;

• the centre for biochemical and industrial epidemiology;

• pesticides and ground water;

• the occurrence and effects of hormone-like substances on reproduction.

Monitoring programme of the action plan on the aquatic environment

The above programme has undertaken an analysis of the incidence of 8 pesticides in ground water. The results are described in a GEUS report, Grundvandsovervågning 1996 (ground-water monitoring), of December 1996.

The monitoring programme is constantly revised to accommodate new substances.

Organic farming

Several initiatives have been taken in the field of research policy, to support the development of organic farming. The first research projects in the area were launched at the end of the 1980s, at the instigation of the Organic Foodstuffs Council. In 1992, a report and an account of research in organic farming were drafted, and were presented to the Folketing by the Government. The account led to the establishment of a research effort, "Forskning i økologisk jordbrug 1993-1997" (research in organic farming, 1993-1997), with total funding of DKK 50m.

Furthermore, the publication of "Den nationale strategi for jordbrugsforskningen" (the national strategy for research on farming) gave additional impetus to research in this area. This strategy, which was published in June 1994, was the result of an extensive investigation of the overall goals of Danish agricultural research. The recommendations adopted on the implementation of this national strategy express the concept of sustainability in no less than four of the six main recommendations on the goals to which future agricultural research should contribute, i.e.:

• to reduce the number of target factors in agriculture, with a view to reducing both costs and impact on the environment;

• to reinforce the knowledge base on alternative forms of production, including the non-food use of biomass and organic farming;

• to increase the knowledge base on appropriate extensification, set-aside and land management;

• to increase the knowledge base on the sustainable development of the rural districts.

However, research received its greatest boost as a result of Action Plan I, from 1995, one of the main points of which was to reinforce research, development and training in the organic production of foodstuffs. As a result of this action plan, the Danish Research Center for Organic Farming (DARCOF), was established at the end of 1996, with the goal of co-ordinating and promoting collaboration in the field of organic agricultural research. DARCOF is a "centre without walls", which means that the researchers remain in their own environments, but work together across institutional boundaries. At the time of writing, this collaboration involves about 100 researchers, from 14 different research institutes, and the research effort receives about DKK 35m annually.

Action Plan II also has the goal of giving an additional lift to research on organic production. One of its recommendations is that the level of grants for current research activities be doubled up to the year 2003, at the minimum.

5.9 Other matters

The mycotoxins are a general problem in conventional and organic farming, as they can proliferate under climatic conditions of high humidity. They can also proliferate if grain is dried too slowly. Mycotoxins from fungi in grain can constitute a threat to the population, and consideration should be given to improving monitoring of the mycotoxin content of food.

5.9.2 Soil preparation, mineralisation and energy consumption

Soil preparation is expected to increase as pesticides are phased out. The reason for this increase would be to keep the pressure from weeds sufficiently low. Soil preparation would be a combination of ploughing, harrowing and hoeing.

Soil preparation affects chemical, physical and biological factors in the soil and, therefore, is indirectly of great importance to mineralisation and the release of nutrient salts and their possible leaching, as well as to the persistence and leaching of pesticides. If soil preparation were to be increased, it would mean the destruction of some of the macropores. In turn, this would mean that the residence time of pesticides in the ploughing layer (where the degradation potential is highest) would probably increase and leaching would probably decrease, although it would also increase surface runoff. If soil preparation were to be reduced or eliminated, transport in macropores would increase, whereby the leaching of pesticides would also increase. Whether or not this would be the case under Danish conditions is unknown.

In comparison to normal soil preparation, reduced preparation could also increase the evaporation of pesticides when the soil is not prepared. If soil preparation were to be reduced, the content of organic material would increase in the long term. This would mean, for instance, that soil porosity would also increase and, thus, the soil's degradation potential, and its pesticide degradation kinetics would change. The effects of soil preparation on the metabolisation of pesticides, as well as on evaporation, are therefore vital.

The mechanical control of couch grass in the autumn is considered to have a deleterious side effect, in the form of increased nitrogen leaching during the winter half of the year, due to the increase in nitrogen mineralisation. It is also known that mechanical weed control in the spring accelerates the nitrogen cycle. This is often considered to have a beneficial effect on crops, which have good prospects during the growing season of utilising the nitrogen released.

In general, slightly larger populations of weeds are expected when mechanical weed control is used, as opposed to chemical weed killers. However, our knowledge of the flora effects that will occur on different types of farm is very limited.

Soil preparation is also important to the fauna. Increased soil-preparation frequency could be harmful to soil organisms, such as earthworms and springtails, and it could also pose a threat to birds that nest on arable land.

If we wish to sustain our production of domestic animals in Denmark, restructuring for pesticide-free farming would result in a net increase in energy consumption; see Table 5.15. This increase would primarily be due to the increased energy costs of feed imports, because the yield drops in the 0-scenario. On the other hand, the energy costs for crop production would drop, primarily due to the energy saved in the manufacturing of pesticides and to the diminishing use of nitrogen from commercial fertilisers.

It is possible that a number of the conditions related to changes in operation, which have not been taken into account, could increase the energy consumption of pesticide-free farming. Reduced soil treatment is, for instance, more difficult in the pesticide-free scenario which, in this scenario, incurs additional energy costs due to the need for increased soil preparation. There is, however, experience to indicate that competitive late crops can reduce the need for mechanical weed control (which is relatively energy-consuming) in the autumn. It is also necessary to include in the energy scenario the energy costs for drying crops and for changes in the use of straw for energy purposes. Similarly, there are items that have not been included in calculating the consequences of pesticide-free farming, but which could reduce the energy costs. For instance, it may be necessary to establish new artesian borings because of pollution of the ground water, or to take steps to protect the surrounding countryside.

Similarly, no position has been adopted on the extent to which a different production pattern, such as organic production or reduced production of domestic animals, would affect energy consumption.

*) incl. harrowing, extra harrowing after harvesting, etc.

**) 100% commercial fertiliser

Agriculture's contribution to the greenhouse effect is about 13 Tg CO₂ equivalents. Of this, CO₂ derived from the consumption of fossil fuels, accounts for about a quarter. The remainder of agriculture's contribution to the greenhouse effect comes from methane and laughing gas. Compensation for the reduced yield when importing fodder means that energy consumption would be higher than when using pesticides. Changes in the release of methane and laughing gas have not been taken into account in our assessment of the change in agriculture's contribution to the greenhouse effect, when switching to pesticide-free operation.

5.10 Ranking of pesticides

At the time of writing, working groups have been started in the OECD and EU to examine the feasibility of ranking pesticides. The working groups have not, however, completed their tasks yet.

An assessment of the feasibility of ranking pesticides on the basis of data obtained from the approval scheme was carried out in association with the Committee's work.

It has not proved possible to rank pesticides according to their ability to leach into ground water. Four different methods (the GUS index, the Hasse diagram, the AF index and an expert assessment) have been used to draft a gross list, which covers 35 substances. The substances on this list should be subjected to more rigorous assessment along the lines of the approval scheme.

Over the coming years, research programmes now in progress will improve the knowledge base on the fundamental problems. The improvements now started in the monitoring of ground water, and an advance warning of any risk that pesticides could percolate down to ground water, will increase safety.

An improved risk assessment of percolation requires further work on clarifying the processes that control the transporting of pesticides to ground water and into ground water deposits.

In connection with the arrival of the results of an ever-increasing number of studies (national and international), we should develop decision-making tools (based on statistically-documented relationships involved in the percolation of pesticides), with a view to generalising the studies to encompass uninvestigated areas and pesticides.

In connection with the increasing use of mathematical models (such as MACRO) for assessing risks of pesticide percolation, we should devote more work to assessing their validity. In this context, there is a special need for obtaining the necessary geological and substance-specific data. The practicability of developing simple stochastic (probabilistic) models should be studied.

As far as the terrestrial environment is concerned, it is not possible to suggest a method for ranking the direct effects, as the indirect effects and the combination of many pesticides play the greatest part.

However, treatment frequency can be used as a measure of the impact, as it is based on the biologically active field dose and can, thus, be used as a simple indicator for the direct effect on target organisms and for the indirect impact on the ecosystem, which results from changes in the quantities and species found in the food chains.

It will also be possible to calculate an index for the dose that is harmless to by far the greater part of the animals and plants in uncultivated areas, which receive pesticides through spray drift or atmospheric transport (tolerance limits).

The present approval scheme is now conducting an expert assessment of the aquatic environment, which could lead to new pesticides or products being granted approval conditional on the observance of a given distance from watercourses and lakes. Such requirements on distance indicate that pesticides are problematical in relation to aquatic organisms, and they would be immediately usable for ranking or grouping the pesticides.

In the field of human toxicology, it is desirable to use the classification of active ingredients as the basis for ranking. It would also be possible to use the distance between the ADI and the estimated exposure as a ranking basis. This would make it possible to identify the substances that have the lowest safety margin for humans in relevant applications. However, as the effects are not directly comparable, a ranking scheme could not stand alone, but would need to be supplemented with an expert assessment.

5.11 Other applicable legislation

The present Danish legislation on pesticides is described in Chapter 5.5 and the current Danish regulation of organic production is described in Chapter 5.6. This section will discuss EU law, WTO law and the rules of the Danish constitution on expropriation.

5.11.1 EU law

In the Treaty on European Union, the articles on technical trade barriers (Arts. 30 and 36), state subsidies (Art. 92), customs duties and charges on good (Arts. 9-12 and 95) and the environmental guarantee (Art. 100a(4)) are of particular relevance to any assessment of the feasibility of a total or partial phase-out of pesticides.

Directive 91/414/EEC, on the marketing of plant protection products, is central to any legal assessment of the feasibility of a total or partial phasing-out of pesticides and of the feasibility of setting requirements on restructuring for organic production. One of the effects of this directive is that it is only under certain circumstances that Denmark can refuse to approve the sale of a pesticide within its borders, when it has already been approved in another Member State. A number of other directives, such as the directive on drinking water and the directive on habitats also concern the regulation of pesticide use. Finally, a number of directives on pesticide residues regulate the setting of limits for pesticides in foodstuffs.

Denmark is a member of the WTO directly, and indirectly, through the EU.

It can generally be said that, to the extent that any intervention in the sale or use of pesticides, or any requirement on restructuring for organic production, is acceptable to other Member States or pursuant to EU rules, corresponding intervention in this area is acceptable to third countries pursuant to WTO law.

5.11.3 Constitutional rules on expropriation

If legislation for reducing pesticide use is enacted, it would be intervention in the affairs of the farming community. We have therefore considered whether or not such legislation would conflict with section 73 of the constitution, if it were implemented without compensation, and whether or not demands for compensation would in such case be made on the direct basis of section 73 of the constitution.

We assert that, pursuant to section 73 of the constitution, it would be possible to implement (normally without compensation) a prohibition of the sale and use of pesticides or a compulsory restructuring for organic production.

5.11.4 Legal assessment of means for phasing out pesticides

Bearing in mind the legislation mentioned above, a legal assessment has been made of a number of options concerning the total or partial phasing-out of pesticides. These options are, e.g.:

• prohibition (total or partial) of the sale and/or use of pesticides;
• quotas for the use of pesticides;
• tightening of the pesticide approval scheme;
• requirements on the marketing of pesticides (such as rules on advertising, authorisation and sales outlets);
• higher surcharges on pesticides;
• agreements with the agricultural industries, on reducing the use of pesticides;
• self-regulation of the use of pesticides in the agricultural industries;
• requirements on training the users of pesticides;
• lower thresholds for pesticides in foodstuffs.

Moreover, a legal assessment has been made of a number of options concerned with restructuring for organic production.

Prohibitions against sale and use

We distinguish between prohibitions against the sale and use of pesticides in the transitional period (up to 2003, at present) and after that period.

Prohibitions against sale and use in the transitional period

During the transitional period (i.e., until 2003, on condition that individual active ingredients are not added to the EU positive list), Denmark can establish general and specific prohibitions against the sale and use of pesticides that have not been added to the positive list. There is however a condition, i.e., that any rules of the type discussed conform to Arts. 30 and 36 of the Treaty on European Union. This means that such rules shall have an objective, environmental or health-related foundation, that the scope of the rules must not extend further than necessary and that there are no alternative means of regulation, which would constitute a lesser obstacle to commerce. The transitional period is set to expire in mid-2003, although it must be expected to be prolonged for several substances, if they have not been reassessed by that time.

Prohibition against the sale of specific pesticides after the transitional period

After the transitional period (i.e., when the individual active ingredients have been added to Denmark's positive list), we will have to distinguish between pesticides for which approval is sought in Denmark (with reference to the fact that a pesticide has already been approved in another Member State pursuant to the common EU rules) and pesticides for which the initial application for approval is made in Denmark.

Pesticides approved in another Member State

The crucial question is whether or not Denmark can refuse to approve the sale of a pesticide in this country after the transitional period, when it has already been approved for sale in another Member State.

After the expiry of the transitional period (2003), Denmark will only exceptionally - and then only within certain limits - be able to refuse to approve the sale of a specific pesticide, if it has already been approved in pursuance of the rules of the Directive in another Member State, cf. Directive 91/414/EEC, Art. 10.

Pursuant to this article, Denmark will be obliged to approve the sale of a pesticide here if it has been approved by another Member State and if the applicant has presented tangible proof that the conditions for mutual recognition are satisfied (mutual-recognition obligation).

Denmark can, however, deny approval (but only within certain limits). A denial would be possible if it were possible to document the existence of different conditions in Denmark (lack of comparability), from the standpoint of conditions of agriculture, plant health and the environment, including the climatic conditions, under which a product would be used.

One example could be that if, in comparison to the corresponding conditions prevailing in the original country of approval, the precipitation and agricultural conditions in Denmark were found to be of such character that a product could percolate down to the ground water in concentrations above the threshold for drinking water.

The Commission must be notified if Denmark wishes to reject a pesticide approved in another Member State and an EU Committee Procedure must be conducted, to decide whether or not a rejection would be legitimate according to EU rules.

If the conditions that constitute the difference between Denmark and the original country of approval could be alleviated by relatively modest measures, e.g., a ban on spraying in the autumn, there would be no basis for banning the sale of a plant protection product, but only for setting (such) national requirements on use.

All things considered, the requirement on mutual recognition (Art. 10) imposes stricter restrictions on Denmark's freedom for action, in cases where a pesticide has been approved for sale in another Member State.

First-time approval

Denmark has a little more freedom if approval is sought for a pesticide that has not been approved in another Member State or if mutual recognition pursuant to Art. 10 of the Directive is not invoked by the applicant (first-time approval).

Our point of departure is that there is no obligation to give notification of first-time approvals. No such obligation is laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC.

When processing first-time approvals, however, Denmark must respect the uniform principles for the assessment and approval of pesticides, as laid down in Directive 97/57/EU. These principles (which are of a technical nature) are, however, somewhat flexible, as many ancillary assessments must be made when assessing the results of studies, etc. The uniform principles assert, for instance, the possibility of denying approval with reference to the principles of "integrated control"; see more on this topic below.

There is no EU Committee Procedure when rejecting a first-time approval (in contrast to what applies when rejecting a pesticide that has already been approved by another Member State), but an interested party can appeal to the CEC, which can institute proceedings at the EU Court.

Should Denmark refuse to grant first-time approval, and should the manufacturer in question subsequently apply for and obtain approval in another Member State, Denmark would (following a renewed application) be obliged to approve that pesticide (mutual recognition pursuant to Art. 10), provided that the conditions of Art. 10 were satisfied.

All in all, Denmark has a certain degree of freedom in the case of first-time approvals, although this freedom could be diminished if a manufacturer who has received a rejection were to obtain approval in another Member State.

General prohibition against the sale of pesticides

Directive 91/414/EEC only regulates questions concerning specific approvals of the sale of specific pesticides, including the requirement on mutual recognition of specific approvals in other Member States.

Thus, the Directive does not regulate the question of a completely general ban against the sale of pesticides as such in the individual Member States, and so the Directive presents no obstacle to a general, national, Danish prohibition against the sale of pesticides.

However, when confronted with a general ban, it would be possible to take advantage of loopholes, which should therefore be assessed with respect to Directive 91/414/EEC. The reason for this is that a general ban on the sale of pesticides would mean that pesticides, which are approved for sale in other Member States, could not be sold in Denmark.

Under all circumstances, it must be assumed that a general ban would only be acceptable if, for each individual pesticide that is approved in another Member State, it were possible to justify the ban on the grounds of overmastering conditions pertaining to health, the environment, etc. In other words, the ban must be subjected to assessments of impartiality and proportionality, cf. EU Court practice concerning Arts. 30-36 of the Treaty on European Union.

On the whole, a general ban on the sale of pesticides in Denmark appears, thus, as a purely theoretical option, which it would be difficult to implement in practice.

As can be seen from the foregoing, the viability of a general ban on sales is limited, where pesticides approved in other Member States are concerned. Consideration should therefore be given to the possibility of an individual Member State, when it is not able to ban the use of a pesticide, setting instead conditions that restrict the prospects for using that pesticide.

In connection with the mutual recognition of approvals issued in other Member States, the Committee considers that, within the formal and factual framework described below, Denmark can impose usage and acreage restrictions when granting first-time approvals of pesticides. Concerning the possibility of setting conditions on use with reference to the principles of "integrated control", see the description below.

As far as first-time approvals of pesticides and mutual recognition of approvals granted in other Member States are concerned, a basic condition is that the usage and acreage restrictions be substantiated, relevant and proportional in relation to the intended goal, as well as non-discriminatory.

Concerning the mutual recognition of approvals issued in other Member States, there is an additional condition, i.e., that the usage and acreage restrictions, which are justified for reasons of the health of dealers, users and employees, or by nutritional considerations, are within the framework imposed by Art. 10 of the Directive.

Another condition with respect to mutual recognition is that usage and acreage restrictions justified by conditions relevant to agriculture, plant health and the environment, including climatic conditions, be designed to reduce the significance of a lack of comparability. Furthermore, it is a condition that these usage and acreage restrictions either be accepted by the applicant or be subsequently endorsed by an EU Committee Procedure.

The Committee is of the opinion that, in relation to the EU rules and the expropriation rules of the Danish constitution, it would in principle be possible to implement a ban (normally without compensation) on the use of pesticides. Such a ban could cover pesticides as such or groups of pesticides. Similarly, it would in principle be possible to include all Danish land or smaller parts thereof.

One prerequisite is, however, that such a ban on the use of pesticides conform to Arts. 30 and 36 of the Treaty on European Union. This means that such rules should be based on unbiased, environmental or health-related grounds, that the scope of the rules not extend further than necessary and that no alternative regulatory instruments exist, which would constitute lesser obstacles to commerce.

The greater the areas covered by a ban, and the more the ban applies to pesticides approved in other Member States, the weightier and more convincing the environmental or health-related grounds must be.

A ban on use set, e.g., on a group of products, could assume so product-specific a character that it could be considered an evasion of the conditions for approval laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC. In such case, that ban would only be accepted if it were to satisfy the conditions for denying the approval of sales, as laid down in Art. 10 of the Directive.

Restriction of the use of pesticides can be established in the form of a quota system. There is, however, a requirement that the quota system satisfy the above requirements laid down on general bans on the use of pesticides.

In connection with the approval of pesticides, there are certain so-called "safety factors" in the assessment input information. If it were possible for the individual Member State to specify these safety factors for itself, it could mean a further tightening of the approval scheme, which would mean further restriction of the pesticides that can be sold in Denmark.

The Committee is of the understanding that Directive 91/414/EEC prevents Denmark, when assessing the environmental effects of pesticides, from applying safety factors higher than those stated in Directive 97/57/EU (on the uniform principles for the assessment and approval of pesticides).

Moreover, it is the opinion of the Committee that Denmark, when assessing the health-related effects of pesticides, can apply its own safety factors for the time being as, at the time of writing, neither general nor specific binding rules on health-related safety factors have been laid down at the Community level.

National provisions thereon must conform to Arts. 30-36 of the Treaty on European Union. This means that such provisions shall be based on impartial, health-related grounds, that the scope of the provisions shall not extend further than necessary and that no alternative regulatory instruments (which would constitute lesser obstacles to commerce) be available.

Thus, in the long term, there are probably no options for the independent, national tightening of the approval scheme through the application of special safety factors.

In association with the foregoing review of administration of the approval scheme, including the options for denying approval (sales ban) and setting conditions on use, it is worth noting that, within the framework of the Directive, Denmark can refuse to approve pesticides, or can set conditions on their use when granting approval, with reference to the Directive's rules on integrated control.

The rules mean that, where appropriate cultivation and pest-control standards (which do not cause unacceptable damage or loss) can be stipulated for a specific crop, it is possible partially or totally to refuse approval of a product. At the time of writing, the concept of "integrated control" has not been defined in greater detail in the context of the EU.

Any denial of approval or imposition of conditions in accordance with the principle of integrated control would, however, require that the Danish authorities be able to refer to relatively certain studies or other input information, which document that the pests can be controlled partially or totally by alternative means or methods.

Furthermore, there must be a requirement on the availability of specific assessments of the economic consequences of the minimum use of pesticides in individual crops in Denmark.

If Denmark can relatively quickly define technically and economically well-founded principles for integrated control, it would be able to influence the more detailed specification or completion of the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC and Directive 97/57/EU, and thus the total real content of the EU rules on the marketing of pesticides, in the direction of lower consumption of such products.

We consider that Denmark has a certain degree of freedom concerning the general regulation of pesticide marketing methods. For instance, it would be possible at the national level to declare that pesticides only be sold through heavy-goods outlets, whose customers are primarily farmers, and that the products only be sold to specially trained persons.

Additional surcharges on pesticides could serve as an instrument for attaining reduced use of these products.

Against the background of experience of pesticide surcharges to date, we can say that, in themselves, they have not caused difficulties with the EU. It is difficult to determine whether or not there is a legal upper limit to the magnitude of such surcharges. Refunding of the surcharges to the agricultural sector would be within the scope of the EU rules on state subsidies and would, therefore, require the approval of the EU.

The Minister of Environment and Energy and the agricultural industries could enter into agreements on reducing the consumption of pesticides. Such agreements could be supplemented with legislation or other rules.

As the Minister would be a party to the agreements it would, according to circumstances, be necessary to report them to the CEC pursuant to Directive 98/34/EU on information procedures. The extent to which agreements between private and public parties are covered by Arts. 30-36 of the Treaty on European Union is unclear, but the CEC would need to adopt a position thereon in connection with any report.

If the agreements are supplemented with subsidies, they would need to be approved by the CEC, pursuant to the rules of state subsidies in the Treaty on European Union.

Self-regulation

Another way of reducing the use of pesticides is through voluntary agreements within the agricultural industries or between them and other industries.

One practical example of this is an agreement between agriculture and the flour and bread industry, the purpose of which is to ensure that any grain used for bread production in Denmark has not been treated with "Round Up" or other products containing glyphosate.

Such voluntary restrictions pose no difficulties in relation to the EU. However, no position has been adopted on the relationship of such agreements to the rules on competitiveness.

In 1993, the Minister issued a statutory order on the training of commercial users of pesticides. It would be possible to sharpen the training requirements without coming into conflict with the EU rules.

The Committee is of the opinion that, in the long term, Denmark cannot set limits on pesticide residues in foodstuffs other than those set by the EU.

The Committee considers that requirements on restructuring for organic production are hardly feasible within the framework of the applicable EU rules. This is because organic production would entail significant restrictions on the use and sale of pesticides and conventional foodstuffs. Compulsory restructuring for organic production would demand that the conditions for a general prohibition of the use of pesticides be satisfied, cf. the foregoing.

Denmark cannot unilaterally ban the importation of non-organic foodstuffs because of the Treaty on European Union rules on the free movement of goods, cf. Arts. 30-36.

EU rules permit the labelling of foodstuffs as being organically produced. If Denmark were to implement such a scheme, however, that scheme would need to be open to manufacturers who satisfy the conditions of Regulation No. 2092/92 in other Member States. It is not possible to set a general requirement in Danish legislation on the labelling of Danish foodstuffs as being manufactured in Denmark. On the other hand, the agricultural industries can voluntarily establish such a labelling scheme.

According to applicable EU rules, there is a possibility of granting EU subsidies to organic production within certain limits. These rules were undergoing amendment at the time of writing and will scarcely be able to subsidise compulsory organic production.

A purely Danish scheme for supporting organic production would require EU approval in pursuance of Arts. 92-93, on state subsidies, of the Treaty on European Union. The Committee is of the opinion that it would be difficult to obtain such approval, as this would be a question of operating support for an entire industry.

However, it would be possible to impose surcharges on conventional agricultural products, to the extent that such surcharges do not differentiate between foreign products in relation to home products. Pursuant to the 6th V.A.T. directive, it would be possible to levy lower V.A.T. rates on organic foodstuffs than on other foodstuffs.

6. Basic assumptions for assessing consequences

6.1 Choice of scenarios for pesticide phase-out
6.1.1 Preconditions and methods of farming
6.1.2 Choice of organic scenarios
6.2 Methods of controlling pests
6.2.1 Prevention and control when deciding crops and crop rotation regimes
6.2.2 Prevention and control of fungal diseases
6.2.3 Seed-born diseases
6.2.4 Prevention and control of pests
6.2.5 Prevention and control of weeds
6.2.6 Growth regulation
6.2.7 Biological control
6.2.8 Use of damage thresholds and decision support system
6.2.9 Genetically-modified crops
6.2.10 Possibility of reducing pesticide consumption through alternative spraying techniques
6.2.11 New pesticides
6.3 Changes in yield and contribution margin following a ban on pesticides
6.3.1 Methods of determining yield losses
6.3.2 Methods of estimating total loss magnitudes
6.3.3 Variations in yield level of current production
6.4 Methods for calculating economic consequences
6.5 Environmental and health-related assumptions
6.6 Review of analyses of the individual scenarios

The Committee's mandate stated that the Committee was to analyse scenarios for the total and partial phasing-out of pesticides. The more detailed choice of scenarios was, however, left to the Committee, and Chapter 6.1 describes these in greater detail.

One decisive prerequisite for calculating the consequences for crop yield when pesticides can no longer be used is a sound knowledge of the significance of pests for crop yield and of how yield losses can be prevented or controlled by non-chemical methods. In Chapter 6.2, the Committee has therefore assessed the feasibility of using alternative methods for the prevention and control of pests. In Chapter 6.3, the Committee has estimated yield losses for the different pests in the most important crops, when pesticides can no longer be used.

We have estimated the economic and environmental consequences of phasing out pesticides. Different models, which are described in Chapters 6.4 and 6.5, have been used in this context.

6.1 Choice of scenarios for pesticide phase-out

Different scenarios for total and partial phase-out

The Committee has assessed a number of scenarios for the total or partial phasing out of pesticides in farming over a 10-year period, and for restructuring for organic production within 30 years.

These scenarios have the following designations:

• Total pesticide phase-out (indicated by "0");
• Almost total pesticide phase-out (indicated by "0+");
• Limited use of pesticides (indicated by "+");
• Optimised use of pesticides (indicated by "++");
• Complete restructuring for organic farming.

Due to the lack of input data for market gardening, fruit growing and private forestry, no estimate has been made of the consequences of a partial phase-out.

6.1.1 Preconditions and methods of farming

Total phase-out of pesticides

For this scenario, consideration has been given to as many alternative methods of control as possible, including experience drawn from organic farming. Biological control in farming was, however, not considered as it was not expected to attain any practical significance within a 10-year period.

We have assumed that exemption would be granted for controlling diseases spread while sowing the early seed generations, as the consequences of the uncontrollable spread of such diseases would be enormous and would result in incalculable losses.

Point of departure in 12 different farm types

The point of departure of this analysis is the 12 farm types listed in Chapter 5.1. An agronomic review was done for 10 of these types, and we have proposed adjustments to crop-rotation regimes for when pesticides have been phased out.

The point of departure of the proposed crop-rotation regimes has been that the current production and structure of the farms be largely maintained, from the standpoints of livestock units and crop types, and that overall animal production also be maintained. In compensation for the drop in coarse-feed production, the land used for this purpose has been expanded slightly, at the expense of the acreage used for grain. Crop-rotation regimes using potatoes, sugar beet and seed grass have been retained, without investigating the practicability of such crop rotation in a total phase-out scenario. The present proportion of set-aside has been maintained.

The analysis also assumes identical mineral soils on the 10 farm types.

In extension of this scenario (which was proposed on the basis of agronomic considerations), another scenario was based on a combination of production optimised from the standpoints of agronomy and operating economy. In the latter case, a maximum of 30% set-aside was allowed, at the property level.

Partial phase-out of pesticides

The mandate did not specify partial phase-out scenarios, and the Committee has therefore set three scenarios for the partial phasing out of pesticide use. These three scenarios presume a combination of the prevention and control of pests.

Almost total pesticide phase-out (0+)

The scenario for the almost total phasing out of pesticides assumes that pesticides are only used where the crop would not be able to satisfy specific legislative requirements on purity, where there are requirements on the control of pests subject to quarantine regulations, as defined in statutory orders issued by the Plant Department, or for dressing first-generation seed corn. Thus, it would still be permissible to use pesticides for:

• protecting all seed corn up to and including the first-generation;

• controlling problematical weed species in seed grass;

• seed potatoes. Use of desiccants and products for controlling potato blight;

• controlling wild oat-grass in stands that make weeding impossible;

• control of Colorado beetles in seed potatoes;

• control of specific pests in pot plants and nurseries.

Limited use of pesticides (+)

Greater use of pesticides is permitted in this scenario than in the above scenarios. We have assumed that pesticide use is permitted in crops where there are large yield losses, or where it is considered that it would not be possible to sustain the profitable production of specific crops. The requirements were, a) significant average loss (>15-20%) due to pests, or b) that production would be so uncertain that it could be expected to fail or that it would interfere with crop rotation. This scenario makes no allowance for the fact that, at individual localities and in individual years, crop losses in excess of 15-20% can occur, since it is not possible to predict how often such a situation will arise for most crops.

Economic optimisation for crop rotation has been done in this scenario.
It would be possible to use pesticides in the following situations:

• minimum control of potato blight in potatoes for food and starch potatoes;
• dressing and band spraying in beets and sugar beet;
• controlling specific weeds in grain (e.g., camomile and charlock);
• controlling weeds in peas;
• controlling patches of perennial weeds, such as thistles, etc.;
• controlling weed grasses in particularly infested areas;
• controlling significant attacks of aphids in wheat and winter barley, when warnings are issued;
• controlling pollen beetles in spring rape, when the crop cannot compensate for the attack;
• band spraying of herbicides in maize;
• chemical control of couch grass every 10th year;
• controlling poisonous weeds, such as spring groundsel, in coarse feed;
• controlling aphids in grain and peas, when the damage threshold is exceeded;
• controlling snails and flea beetles in rape, when the damage threshold is exceeded;
• controlling clover weevil in clover seed production;
• controlling diseases and pests in market gardening and fruit growing on the basis of the intensity of the attack.

Optimised use of pesticides (++)

One assumption made in this scenario was that no significant economic losses would be caused by pests and that production would, therefore, remain at the same level as current production. The scenario is based on a proposal from the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences which, in 1996, assessed the realistic potential for reducing treatment frequency without affecting the present operating economy.

The scenario assumes the use of all of the present damage thresholds and mechanical weed control, where these methods can compete with the chemical methods. Crop rotation is presumed to be very similar to that in use today, where optimisation is practised for economy and also for minimising pesticide use as far as possible.

6.1.2 Choice of organic scenarios

Assumptions

We have attempted to clarify the consequences for the overall production of 100% organic farming in a number of scenarios, which differ in the quantities of imported fodder and in the yield levels of farming crops. The time horizon of the scenarios is 30 years. This long view was adopted because we were considering a situation that would mean significant structural changes in farming and which were considered possible with a 30-year period. Thus, we have assumed that livestock manure, and therefore the animals, can be distributed evenly over the entire country.

Three levels of fodder imports

According to the applicable rules on organic farming, such farms must purchase conventional fodder in quantities corresponding to 15-20% of the animals' daily fodder intake (measured as the energy in the fodder), and a certain percentage of conventional livestock manure. In a 100% organic Denmark, there would be no conventional farms from which to purchase livestock manure or fodder, although it would be possible to import fodder from abroad.

Three levels of fodder imports to Denmark are used in the scenarios:

• no imports, complete self-sufficiency in fodder;
• 15% imported for ruminants and 25%, for non-ruminants;
• unlimited imports of fodder and maintenance of the present level of animal production (1996).

Two different yield levels

The scenarios use two different yield levels in the predominant crops, i.e., grain and grass. The "present yield level", based on current organic practice, and an "improved yield level", in which it was assumed that corn production could be increased by 15% and clover grass production by 10%. The improved yield level was based on a more goal-oriented effort to increase corn production and better use of grass fields as a result of the lower yield of the individual dairy cow, as compared to present organic practice. The three levels of fodder imports and two yield levels are expressed in six different organic scenarios. An overview of these analyses is shown in Table 6.4.

Assumptions on production

In all scenarios, the production of milk and eggs corresponds to present production. The production of milk is limited by milk quotas and could be greater without causing agronomic difficulties. Beef is produced in proportion to the number of dairy cows, in the form of dry cows for slaughtering, heifers and bullocks. The remaining feed is used in producing pork, since meat from poultry is included in the model as pork. The production of pork varies, therefore, in proportion to the produced and imported quantities of fodder, and no vegetables were exported in the scenarios.

Greenhouse production, ornamental plants and fur-bearing animals not included

Production in greenhouses and the production of ornamental plants, etc., (a total of about 4,000 ha), as well as the production of fur-bearing animals, were not included in the scenarios. The assumptions and restrictions of the scenarios are described in more detail in the background report on organic scenarios, from the interdisciplinary group.

6.2 Methods of controlling pests

The Committee has assessed the feasibility of applying existing non-chemical methods of preventing and controlling pests, not only because this was requested in the Parliamentary resolution of 15 March 1997, but also because it was included in assessing the feasibility of a total or partial pesticide phase-out within a 10-year period.

In addition, the Committee has assessed the consequences of increasing the use of non-chemical methods.

6.2.1 Prevention and control when deciding crops and crop rotation regimes

Crop rotation is very important to the overall level of pests and their significance to crops. Thus, it is well-known that the need for pesticides is significantly lower in crop rotation in animal husbandry, with a high coarse-feed production, as compared to the need for specialised plant production, such as sugar beet or potatoes.

We do not consider that, under present economic conditions, there are any realistic prospects for changing crop choices to the production of fodder and vegetable foodstuffs. We do, however, consider that there are certain viable alternatives in the use of wholecrop for sows and biomass production for non-food purposes.

The cultivation of multiple crops, in the form of mixed seed, is not considered to offer any great crop-rotation potential in plant production, although its potential could be greater in organic production, where the inclusion of nitrogen-fixing species affects the yield.

6.2.2 Prevention and control of fungal diseases

Breeding and cultivation methods offer several options for preventing and controlling fungal diseases. At the time of writing, however, these methods are not sufficient to ensure that farming suffers no losses due to fungal diseases.

There is great potential for genetically reducing expected losses caused by leaf diseases. However, breeding probably cannot solve all problems simultaneously within a 10-year period. Since, apart from leaf diseases in grain, there is also a need to work with resistance to seed-born diseases and with better abilities for competing against weeds, it would be vital to set the right priorities in our breeding effort. We consider that there is a need for a major intensification of work on breeding and of research on breeding, if we are to see any noticeable change in the range of resistant varieties, as compared to the range available today.

Foreign plant breeding has great general significance to the Danish range of varieties and production; there is also a close collaboration between Danish and foreign breeders. The feasibility of changing Danish breeding priorities in favour of breeding for resistance would, thus, depend on the interests of foreign breeders.

There is not insignificant potential for the strategic use of resistance (e.g., increased use of mixed varieties, to reduce the losses that result from fungal diseases).

Several technical factors could be adjusted in present cultivation systems, such as the sowing time, fertilisation and quantities sown, which would improve the prospects of minimising the problems of pests. However, diseases can neither be prevented nor minimised solely by adjusting cultivation factors. Several of these technical changes would reduce the yield level.

Different methods, which can reduce attacks by diseases, are also available in market gardening and fruit growing. None of them can keep cultures free from all problems. Several of these methods are associated with an increased manpower effort.

The environmental advantage of developing and using resistant varieties is the (obviously) reduced consumption of pesticides, with the concomitantly reduced risk of polluting ground water and the surroundings. In the area of health, the gain would consist of the lowered exposure of spraying personnel or the farmer and smaller quantities of pesticide residues in the crops.

6.2.3 Seed-born diseases

85-90% of all grain seed is dressed today, as is a large part of other crops in Denmark. If dressing were to be generally omitted, we consider that there would either be a rapid proliferation of the significant seed-born diseases or that this part of our agricultural production would take place abroad, where dressing products are still permitted.

Continued dressing of the first generations of grain, followed by an assessment of the needs of subsequent consignments of seed, would be one way of reducing fungicide consumption - a way that should be examined more closely and tested. The assessment of needs would demand fast, certain analytical methods, the separation of seed consignments and probably the discarding of significant quantities of grain for multiplication. There could also be the question of considerable losses in beets, as a result of insect attacks and soil-born diseases, which could cause uncertainties when establishing a crop, if dressing were omitted.

Work is in progress today on several alternative methods of controlling seed-born diseases, including resistant varieties, the use of biological pesticides and technical control methods using hot water/air or brushes. None of these methods have been fully developed and major R&D work must be done before we can assess whether or not these methods could immediately replace the chemical methods.

The environmental advantage of developing alternative methods including, e.g., the use of resistant varieties, increased need assessment and biological pesticides, is the lower use of pesticides, even though the consumption of dressing is already low. Seed dressing entails a risk to the birds and small mammals that feed on the seed.

In the health area, the primary gain from omitting dressing would be the cessation of exposure during production, which is often carried out at large dressing plants, and during handling in connection with sowing, as well as smaller quantities of systemic pesticide residues in crops (i.e., the pesticides absorbed by plants).

6.2.4 Prevention and control of pests

There is only limited expertise on the resistance of Danish varieties to insects, which has so far been a largely unexplored area. Simple screening for receptivity to pests could prove this to be an unused resource. We consider it unlikely that the use of plants genetically-modified to promote insect resistance will become widespread within the next 10 years.

It is well-known that natural field fauna, such as ground beetles and spiders, influence pest populations. In some years, they make a significant contribution to controlling, e.g., aphids, whereas they are insufficient in other years, because of high proliferation rates. We lack specific knowledge of the effects occurring in this area.

The course of development of pest attacks is strongly affected by the climate and losses will be caused at regular intervals by major attacks, which cannot be prevented - typically in seasons of hot weather, when the proliferation rate is high.

Technical factors, such as the sowing time, fertilisation and soil preparation, can affect the populations of certain pests and such methods should be included to the extent practicable, to reduce the losses caused by pests.

Several alternative methods of controlling certain pests are available in market gardening and fruit growing. These methods include the placing of crops in satisfactory crop-rotation regimes, the adjustment of sowing times, the use of netting and of watering.

The use of insect-resistant crops would reduce the burden on the environment, due to the (obviously) reduced use of pesticides and the concomitantly reduced risk of polluting ground water and the surroundings.

In the area of health, the gain would consist of the reduced exposure of employees and smaller quantities of pesticide residues in the crops.

6.2.5 Prevention and control of weeds

Any total or partial pesticide phase-out would necessitate the combination of preventive, technical and mechanical methods, in order to attain a sufficient level of weed control. Experimental results have shown that there are potential options for mechanical weed control in almost all crops. In such crops as rape, mechanical methods can already compete with chemical methods. There is, however, some uncertainty as to how a conversion to mechanical weed control would affect the seed pool in the soil.

Mechanical weed control could be problematical in certain situations, e.g., special soil types, unstable weather conditions or poor crop establishment. Crop damage after harrowing and a generally lower level of weed control would increase losses and would be linked to increased costs, when crop choice and cultivation practice would need to be adjusted for the sake of weed control. The capacity of mechanical methods is generally less than that of chemical methods, which could be problematical in conjunction with unstable weather. We consider that there is great potential for improving present mechanical methods, including methods to replace manual weeding. A conversion to non-chemical methods would demand considerable retraining and supplementary training, and most farms would need to invest in new machines.

Under present cultivation conditions, the occurrence of poisonous plants in Danish farm produce presents no health problems for humans. There are occasional problems with mortalities in domestic animals caused by poisoning. In Denmark, spring groundsel and deadly nightshade are considered to be the two most significant poisonous species. It cannot be precluded that restructuring for organic/pesticide-free agriculture would allow these species to proliferate. There would hardly be any question of an increased poisoning risk for humans. But it cannot be precluded that there could be more cases of poisoning among domestic animals, which would cause a certain production loss in the form of reduced milk yields, reduced growth and suchlike.

Pursuant to the act on wild oat-grass, seed-bearing wild oat-grass must not occur during the growth season. When producing grain without pesticides, it would be necessary to replace the chemical control of wild oat-grass with manual weeding. This is a realistic method of controlling relatively small populations of wild oat-grass, although it is not realistic for large populations. In such cases, it would be necessary to change crop rotation in favour of coarse-feed production, in order to reduce the population.

The growing of grass and clover seed, as well as vegetable and flower seeds, covers a broad range of cultures. Denmark is the world's largest exporter of grass seed. Over 90% of our production is exported. Common factors of these cultures are that the crop is destined for sowing and that the primary price criteria are high purity, high germination capacity and that the seed contain no or only very few seeds of other cultures or weeds. These criteria set very high requirements on the cleanliness of the crops - requirements that, for the greater part of production, would be difficult to sustain without the use of herbicides, given our present level of expertise.

couch grass can be controlled without pesticides on most land. Comparisons of the necessity of controlling couch grass by mechanical harrowing after harvesting or by spraying glyphosate in plant-production crop-rotation regimes have been assessed in several studies. Mechanical harrowing after harvesting (as a substitute for treatment with glyphosate every four years) is necessary every year in such crop-rotation regimes. We have reasonably good experience of controlling couch grass in organic cattle farming, in which crop rotation is, however, very different to that practised in the individual types of plant production. Experience from organic farming shows that thistles can be a major problem. Variations in the quantities of root weeds from field to field will become greater without access to pesticides, as it can take several years to attain effective control of large stands of such weeds.

We must expect the costs of harvesting and drying to increase if chemical weed control were to be abandoned.

Provided that mechanical weed control is very efficient, the quantity of weeds would not differ significantly from that in fields treated with pesticides, so that the environmental gain for flora would be absent. Moreover, mechanical weed control has significant detrimental effects on the soil's meso- and macrofauna, especially on earthworms and springtails, and harrowing can damage crops.

On the other hand, increased mechanical weed control in farming would have generally beneficial effects on the environment, since it does not entail any risk of polluting ground water or of spreading pesticides to adjoining areas. Careful fertilisation is also considered to be an attractive option for improving the competitiveness of crops over weeds. All other things being equal, it would improve the utilisation of fertiliser and, thus, reduce fertiliser loss to the surroundings.

In the area of health, the most significant change resulting from the prevention of weed problems and the use of mechanical weed control, as compared to the use of pesticides, would be the reduced exposure of spraying personnel or the farmer and the reduced quantities of pesticide residues in the crops. However, broader use of manual weed control would increase the monotony of this repetitive work and would be a physical burden, despite the fact that it is only necessary for a brief period.

6.2.6 Growth regulation

Growth regulators are used in about 10% of our winter cereals, especially barley. Measured as the quantity of active ingredient, about a third is used in the market-gardening sector (ornamental plants) and about two-thirds is used in grain and seed grass. The use of growth regulators in winter wheat is diminishing. No identical trend has been discerned in rye, as this is more exposed to lodged corn. At the time of writing, there is no statistical information to demonstrate any drop in the use of growth regulators in seed grass.

Growth regulators are used to protect against lodged corn, quality reduction and increased difficulty of harvesting. In winter wheat, there are attractive options for the use of alternative methods of reducing the risk of lodged corn. Thus, this risk is small when cultivating varieties of good stalk stiffness and reduced plant counts. If varieties of lower stalk stiffness are cultivated, it could be necessary to reduce the applied quantity of nitrogen by 10-13 kg/ha. There is a considerable risk of lodged corn occurring in rye grown in the better soils, although this risk is lower in sandy soils. No rye varieties are free from the risk of lodged corn, although the risk is lower in some varieties. This risk can also be reduced by postponing sowing until the beginning of October and by reducing the quantities of seed sown and of applied nitrogen. This would, however, reduce the net yield by 6-7 hkg/ha.

The use of alternative methods of growth regulation in seed grass will only be reviewed to a limited extent. We can expect a reduction of cultivation stability in certain soils, until light is cast on the potential of alternative methods of growth regulation.

Growth regulators are primarily used in pot-plant cultivation to promote the especially richly-blossoming and compact plants that have the best sales values. No methods of replacing chemical growth regulators are immediately available for pot plants. Certain alternatives do exist, such as photo-induction or the reduction of phosphorus, but there is a great need for research on this, to determine whether or not these alternative methods can replace chemical methods in the wide variety of pot-plant cultures.

If the use of growth regulators were to cease, an increased risk of lodged corn would be expected in certain soils and on certain farms. This would cause major problems when drying the crop for harvesting. It would also cause increased pollution of grain by soil-born fungi, including by several species of Penicillium and Fusarium. The greatest problem in this context would probably be Fusarium culmorum, which is very common in soil and which can form a number of mycotoxins.

The mycotoxins constitute a general problem in conventional and organic farming, as they can proliferate under climate conditions that favour high humidity. They can also proliferate if grain drying takes too long.

6.2.7 Biological control

Biological methods (which include useful organisms and microbiological methods) of pest control have great potential in production in greenhouses, where they are already used to a significant extent in vegetable production, whereas there is still unutilised potential when producing ornamental plants in greenhouses. Effective methods for controlling diseases biologically in greenhouses are still limited. We consider that there is a certain potential in field cultures for the biological control of pests in special crops whereas, in the short term, biological disease control only appears to hold possible potential against seed-born diseases and fungi that damage germinating sprouts in spring-sown cereals.

There is a need for a major research effort in the development of field methods in this area, and in the improvement and dissemination of the use of biological control of diseases and pests in ornamental plants cultivated in greenhouses.

As is the case for the use of disease-resistant or insect-resistant crops, biological control would result in reduced environmental load, due to the reduced use of pesticides. In turn, this could be expected to reduce the risk of polluting ground water and surrounding areas.

Corresponding gains in the area of health would be the reduced exposure of employees and reduced quantities of pesticide residues in crops.

The utilisation of useful organisms and microbiological methods would, however, present a significant risk of proliferation of alien organisms, which could have a detrimental effect on the environment. Theoretically speaking, the proliferation of local species could also disturb natural ecological balances. The use of microbiological methods entails a risk of industrial injuries, in the form of allergies or bronchial diseases.

6.2.8 Use of damage thresholds and decision support system

In recent years, warning and decision support systems have been developed for several of our major crops, to support the farmer's assessment of the need for pesticides. Such decision support systems have made significant contributions to reducing and adjusting doses, not only by direct use of the programs, but also through advisory services and newsletters from the Danish Agricultural Advisory Service. Even though damage thresholds and decision support systems have attained a certain popularity, it has not been possible to reach all farmers. Damage-threshold systems are still lacking for a large number of crops, and there is great potential for the improvement of several of the present systems. We consider that it would be possible to attain a 20-50% reduction in many crops, by combining decision support systems with chemical and non-chemical methods.

Integrated production, which is described, e.g., by the Plant Protection Products Directive, is based on the use of the current body of knowledge to minimise dependency on pesticides.

Tests and research have shown that purposeful use of fertiliser, pesticides and other factors related to the phase-out can contribute to satisfying environmental requirements and simultaneously optimise production economically. The use of decision support systems offers clear potential for reducing the exposure of the environment and people.

6.2.9 Genetically-modified crops

Danish developments in genetically-modified crops, which it will be possible to market within a few years, have made the greatest progress in herbicide-resistant plants. When genetically-modified, herbicide-tolerant beet varieties are introduced, herbicide consumption is expected to be reduced significantly, by about 2 kg/ha active ingredient. We do not consider that there will be any significant reduction in the case of herbicide-tolerant rape and maize. Based on the current body of knowledge, we do not consider it possible to forecast the effects of genetically-modified plants on pesticide consumption in Danish agriculture during the next 10 years. All over the world, major research initiatives are under way in this area, which will without any doubt change our culture plants significantly. We must assume that it will be possible to establish a basis for reducing losses resulting from diseases, especially if techniques are developed for the fast improvement of genetically-modified, disease-resistant plants.

Genetically-modified plants offer an opportunity for reducing the use of pesticides and, therefore, the exposure of the environment and people. Some of these crops could, however, cause inadvertent spreading and concomitant damage to the environment. This is especially true of plants whose abilities for establishing themselves in competition with the natural fauna are improved.

Furthermore, plants that are resistant to insects could affect species other than the pests. In this context, we are particularly thinking of predatory insects and birds that feed on plant eaters associated with the genetically-modified crop. They could either be affected directly by the toxicity of their prey or indirectly, by changes in their food supply. Such effects can also be caused by the use of spray products. However, the potential effects of insect-resistant plants differ from those of spray products by virtue of the fact that they can occur throughout the growing season. It is to be expected, however, that a number of non-target organisms would be less affected by genetically-modified plants than by the conventional use of spray products.

In relation to current spraying techniques, the introduction of known alternative spraying techniques could only offer limited prospects of reducing the quantities of pesticides used. Exceptions to this are, however, techniques for positional treatment, which could offer the possibility of varied treatment patterns at the field level with the aid of GPS (Global Positioning System) technology.

There are good prospects for reducing spray drift by the use of new nozzles, which minimise the proportion of spray drops available for drifting. Some of these new nozzles increase capacity in comparison to earlier spray types, which also improves the prospects of carrying out spraying in calm weather. We also consider that, in fruit growing, new shielded sprays (which collect spray residues) could offer good prospects for reducing the impact on the surrounding environment.

We consider that there are good prospects for minimising the point-source pollution of ground water, own wells, borings and watercourses in connection with the filling, washing and cleaning of sprays, by reinforcing efforts in information and guidelines for the farmer, on the filling and cleaning of sprays. These alternatives would only require limited financial investments.

As far as health is concerned, the reduced need for spraying would immediately reduce the exposure of the spray operators.

6.2.11 New pesticides

New pesticides are constantly being developed to replace the old products and new products are also being developed that offer new control options, for instance, for take-all disease. These products are generally used in smaller quantities than has previously been the case, and there is an increasing tendency to use, e.g., certain insecticide products, as dressings. The search is being intensified for active ingredients derived from nature's own substances which, however, often need significant modification to become stable and suitable pesticides. The success rate for finding products has fallen, as a result of the more stringent environmental and health requirements now set on such products.

As resistance to many products is continuously increasing, the constant development of products that act through other mechanisms is vital, if we are to ensure continued effective pest control.

The data used when estimating losses resulting from disease and pest attacks were mostly obtained from pesticide studies conducted by the Landøkonomiske Foreninger (within the Danish Farmers' Union) and the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences. Several test-related factors are of significance to the magnitude and uncertainty, when estimating loss percentages resulting from pest attacks. Thus, although the magnitudes of losses obtained from such studies cannot be said to be representative of the losses that would occur in different farm types, there are no better sources on which to estimate losses caused by pests.

For some of the most significant pests, such as aphids in grain, it has been possibility to split losses into loss percentages in sandy and clay soils, whereas it has only been possible to use the national average for other pests.

Certain losses can only be calculated with difficulty, including effects on quality parameters. It is especially true of potatoes that losses resulting from poorer storage properties can only be calculated with difficulty. Consignments of potatoes with blighted tubers are particularly difficulty to store in loosely-layered clamps. Potato consignments with more than 2% infected tubers are considered high-risk consignments from the storage standpoint.

The production of malting barley is another area where crop quality can be significantly affected by whether or not pesticides are used. In some years, sorting (accounts are affected by the grain size) could be adversely affected by fungus or aphid attacks which could, in turn, make it impossible to sell the grain as malting barley.

Losses caused by harvesting difficulties and drying costs, which are particularly common where there are large weed stands, are also difficult to quantify and it is difficult to forecast the acreage that must be abandoned if they become overgrown with weeds.

There are large uncertainties in the loss magnitudes that would result from a switch to mechanical weed control. Only a few studies have been conducted, in which the effects on weeds and yield under a regime of mechanical weed control are compared with the effects of standard herbicide treatment. In some cases, it would not be possible to differentiate between the effects of remaining weeds on the yield and the crop damage that would be caused by mechanical weed control, itself. These studies were conducted under conditions of conventional farming, which means that the size and composition of the weed population would probably be lower than could be expected under herbicide-free crop rotation.

The weed problem in present crop-rotation regimes is due to the fact that the relevant species are well-adapted to the crops in question and that they are controlled less effectively with present pesticides. It is to be expected that, in a crop-rotation regime in which weed controlled is solely based on mechanical means, there would be an increase in highly competitive weed species, which are difficult to control mechanically.

The point of departure for loss estimates in grain was numerical data from the whole-year organic test farms where weeds were recorded, after mechanical weed control was carried out. The intensity of mechanical weed control at the organic farms is more limited than is generally recommended for mechanical weed control in grain. We therefore propose that the yield losses found as a result of the direct effects of weeds on the whole-year organic farms be halved, as it is assumed that increased mechanical weed control would reduce losses to below the present level.

This reduction would, however, be cancelled by the considerable losses resulting from the significant crop damage associated with mechanical weed control. Mechanical crop damage has, thus, been estimated on the basis of the comparison studies of herbicide treatment. As far as the other crops (which are not cultivated on the whole-year organic farms) are concerned, the loss estimates are based on the few studies available and on educated guesses.

The alternative methods that can be used to prevent and minimise the problem of pests are described in Chapter 6.2. The application of some of these alternative methods is, however, linked to yield drawbacks. To minimise weed problems, postponed sowing of wheat and winter barley is recommended. To ensure a healthy, competitive crops, however, sowing in the second half of September is recommended. Any additional postponement of sowing would reduce the prospects of establishing winter cereals in many years, and cannot, therefore be recommended. A minor yield loss (3-7%) can be expected as a result of the proposed postponement.

One of the other parameters that can reduce yield is the choice of the most resistant wheat varieties. Such varieties have a lower yield potential than the highest-yield varieties and, according to the tests of 1995-1997, giving resistance priority over yield would cost 4-5 hkg/ha. Since, in the case of losses resulting from disease, the average for all varieties during the period 1992-1997 (thus not making any special allowance for losses in the resistant varieties) was used, we have elected to halve the 4-5 hkg/ha loss due to the choice of resistant varieties, as the realistic additional yield of the more resistant varieties is considered to be 2 hkg/ha below that of the receptive varieties. 3% has been added for the choice of resistant wheat varieties, but there is nothing to indicate such a loss in the other species of grain.

6.3.2 Methods of estimating total loss magnitudes

Five different loss magnitudes have been used

The total loss has been pieced together from five different loss magnitudes; see Table 6.1. Loss 1 covers losses due to cultivation practice changed to minimise the risk of pest attacks, such as postponed sowing time and the choice of resistant varieties. Loss 2 covers losses resulting for disease attacks. Loss 3 covers losses resulting from pest attacks. Loss 4 covers losses resulting from the crop damage caused by mechanical weed control and Loss 5 covers losses resulting from the fact that more weeds remain after mechanical weed control than after the application of herbicides.

Loss magnitudes are multiplied together

The various loss magnitudes can either be added or multiplied. For our task, we have chosen multiplication. This ensures, for instance, that there is no risk of obtaining negative yields in extreme situations. In the studies, losses are usually expressed as hkg/ha, which we have converted to loss percentages. It has not generally been possible to differentiate loss magnitudes according to crop yields. This was only possible for diseases in wheat.

Indication of maximum loss

We have also calculated the maximum loss (loss, max.), which covers the situation in which one of the five loss functions gives the maximum loss and will, thus, establish a basis for the worst possible loss in the relevant crop. The maximum losses are often about twice as large as the average losses. Such losses can occur, e.g., if a potato blight attack develops very early in the growing season, or if wheat suffers a severe attack of stripe rust or Septoria. It is difficult to estimate the frequency at which such maximum losses will occur as they usually depend on the climate.

Table 6.1 : Please look here

Estimated loss percentages resulting from pests, etc., in different crops in the 0-scenario. Only direct yield losses have been included. Losses due to the increased costs of weeding are not included in this table.

The loss percentages shown are, however, considered relatively optimistic, e.g., as a result of the following:

• the expected loss resulting from weeds is halved, in comparison to what is observed on organic farms today. On the other hand, a larger loss has been added as a result of crop damage in connection with mechanical weed control;

• it is unknown whether, in a situation without control, disease epidemics would cause faster proliferation rates and reduced durability of the built-in resistance genes;

• no correction has been made for the situations in which the set conditions are not valid (e.g., low-level land);

• allowance has not been made to any great extent for the fact that production management would not be optimum in all situations;

• the fact that the latest fungicides (strobilurines) make it possible to harvest a greater yield than the traditionally-used products has not been taken into account.

6.3.3 Variations in yield level of current production

Scatter in yield level

In conventional cultivation the yield level generally exhibits very high scatter because of local cultivation conditions, climatic factor in the individual years and variations in pest levels. Taking matters at face value, greater variation is to be expected if pesticides are not available, as pests would have greater "freedom" to cause yield losses. This is reflected, e.g., in the many studies in which increased yields were harvested after spraying.

Figures from the National Department of Plant Production test database, which has collected data for the period 1992-1998, show very large annual yield variations for the tests in which pesticide treatment was generally carried out.

There is no data to document the variations in yield level in areas that have not been treated with pesticides at all. Data is only available for individual factors (disease or pests or weeds). If we consider the variations in the tests without fungicide treatment, and how they change over the years, the average differences between the treated and untreated areas are simply parallel level shifts in most years. In years of severe disease attack, such as 1998, there is a clear tendency for the curves to drop, which indicates reduced certainty of cultivation.

Variations at farm level

The yield variations in some crops are quite small. Large yield variations can occur in other crops, such as grass seed and potatoes. With several crops in crop rotation, the total yield of a farm will always vary less than with the individual crops. But types of farm with only a few crops will be strongly affected by the variations.

6.4 Methods for calculating economic consequences

The calculated yield losses and other agricultural adjustments (including the need for mechanical weed control) have been transferred for use in the analyses of operating economy in the different scenarios, The calculated results are, thus, expressions of the agronomic and partial operating-economic optimum situation.

With the aid of the Danish Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Economics’ accounting statistics for working year 1995/1996, we have estimated harvest yields, product prices, subsidies and cost structures for each individual crop in the crop-rotation regime, for each of the 10 types of farm. A total of 2,000 accounts were included and, within each farm type, this number varies between 27 and 170 accounts. The accounts were specially selected and are considered to be representative of Danish farming.

As the prices and yields of rape were extraordinarily low in 1995/1996, we have elected to increase the production value of rape by DKK 900/ha in our calculations. It was also possible to assess the farms' costs for pesticides. We have distinguished between sandy and clay soils.

A linear programming model ("DØP", Danish acronym for "farm-economy pesticide model") was developed to calculate the economically optimum acreage and pesticide utilisation. For each scenario and farm type, the model calculated the acreage utilisation that gives the greatest total contribution margin II from field cultivation (contribution margin II is the amount available for covering the costs of building, land, etc., when all other costs, including wages, have been deducted). For each scenario and each farm type, the model calculated the acreage utilisation that gives the greatest possible return for land and buildings. A number of assumptions were built into the model, such as restrictions on pesticide use, as well as diverse crop-rotation restrictions, early crop effects, fodder balances, working capacity, etc. Only the crops used in Present Cropping were included in the calculations. Cattle farming was kept unchanged in the model and the aim was to sustain unchanged levels of feed production on the farms, throughout the entire phase-out.

Accounts were not kept of plant nutrients, although adjustments were made for the lower fertiliser costs in relation to the lower yields of the 0-scenario and the intermediate scenarios. One restriction was that set-aside land constituted a minimum of 10% and a maximum of 33% of the area with reform crops, including set-aside. 6% late crops were established, cf. the action plan on the aquatic environment II. The production of sugar beet, grass seed and clover grass was limited to the maximum quantity produced in 1995/1996 and a number of other assumptions were built into the model.

When correcting the contribution margin, allowance was made for yield losses and increases, changed costs for the purchasing and application of pesticides and changed costs for mechanical weed control. The value of the saved costs of pesticide application and the increased costs of mechanical weed control were determined on the basis of machine pool rates.

The costs of mechanical weed control were calculated for normal weed pressure. In the case of sugar beet and fodder beet, the costs were increased by the wages for 2x50 hours manual hoeing of weeds per ha. The costs of increased difficulty of harvesting and the increased need for drying were not included in the model and neither were costs of a more individual nature, such as difficulties with wild oat-grass or special weed problems on low-level land, etc. It was assumed that the increased costs of pest monitoring would amount to about DKK 150/ha/year.

The chemical control of couch grass was administered in the model as an independent use of pesticides common to the entire crop-rotation regime. The mechanical control of couch grass demands a regime with several spring crops, where late crops or winter cereals could otherwise be cultivated. For the control of couch grass without chemicals, the model demands space for thorough mechanical couch grass control every three years and winter cereals could only be cultivated on a maximum of 40% of the land.

The price of grain, in particular, has dropped considerably since 1995/1996 and higher surcharges have been imposed on pesticides. Price sensitivity analyses were undertaken for a single type of farm, i.e., plant cultivation on clay soil, to clarify ways in which these price changes could affect the operating-economic consequences. The full effect on the ad valorem tax on pesticides in the retail trade was not included in the calculations. In other words, the model has only calculated with a 25% increase in the prices of herbicides and fungicides and 50%, for insecticides, together with a 30% reduction in the grain price as compared with 1995/1996.

The basis of the analyses at the levels of the sector and society was Danish Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Economics’ AAGE model (the agricultural applied general equilibrium model for the Danish economy). In principle, this model covers all Danish trades, industries and households, which are assumed to minimise production costs and maximise utility. Apart from the trades' and industries' demand for semi-finished products and primary production factors (work force, capital and land), this model also describes the available range of goods and services and, to a lesser extent, the public sector. The model also processes the trades' and industries' range of goods for export and their imports of goods and services for consumption and manufacturing. The model is characterised by the fact that all markets are in equilibrium by virtue of the assumption of totally flexible price and wage adjustment.

The model is based on a constant return in manufacturing which, in combination with the assumption of total competition on the markets, means that there is zero profit in the companies. Changes in consumer preferences and technology must basically be established outside the model.

This model makes possible the systematic description of the entire economy, as it captures the most important interactions and reactions in the economic system. The model shows adjustments in the economy in the long view, i.e., weight is attached to structural relationships in the economy. The model also makes it possible to illuminate the effects of changes in price conditions in manufacturing and factor utilisation, and the derived macroeconomic effects on consumption, employment, foreign trade, etc., which makes it suitable for quantifying the effects of changes in politico-economic initiatives.

It must be stated that the model cannot handle unbalanced aspects and the formation of expectations in the economy, for which reason it can tell us nothing of the extent and duration of adjustments from one state of equilibrium to another. From the standpoint of this analysis, this means that the model says nothing of the possible costs of adjustment that will confront the sector in the short term, if the use of pesticides were to be banned. It should also be noted that, in similarity to most economic models, this model is based on unchanged technology.

The model's input data is Danmarks Statistik's input-output table for 1992, in which the agricultural sector is split up into eight primary production sectors and five sectors of the agricultural manufacturing industry. Thus, primary agriculture is treated as an average farm, with eight production sectors, i.e., the model does not enable us to identify adjustment barriers within the sector, such as structural limitations and regional barriers to the adjustment of production. The output of the model must be interpreted as a result for the long term, where such barriers are negligible.

Subdivision of the operating-economic analyses into sandy and clay soils was retained in the sector and socioeconomic analyses, by weighting the sand and clay farms in the averages that were exported to the equilibrium model.

It was necessary to adjust the model on a number of points before it could be used for analysing the industrial and socioeconomic consequences of phasing out pesticides.

In the first place, the standard version of the model describes the agricultural consumption of pesticides as an aggregated item. We have therefore adjusted the specification of the model on a number of points, so that the consumption of different types of pesticide is specified for different crops. We have also built in options for substituting other types of factor related to the pesticide phase-out, which is necessary when modelling adjustments in pesticide consumption.

In the second place, it was necessary to extend the model with a description of pesticide-free production. In reality, this was a question of a new technology, for which the input data offers no description basis. As a novelty in general equilibrium analysis, the model was therefore extended so that, for each vegetable sector, a corresponding sector was defined to give the same production, but using a technology/combination of factors in which there are no pesticides (0-scenario), or in which pesticides are included to a limited extent (+-scenario). The combinations of factors in the alternative sectors were determined according to calculations made with the operating-economy model.

The data were converted for export by calculating for each plant-cultivation sector in the DØP model the percentage change in factor use on the changeover to pesticide-free production (this calculation was performed for each of the above types of farm and to give the weighted average for all agriculture). The percentages calculated in this way formed the basis on which to correct the use of factors in the AAGE model. As an example, Table 6.2 shows the correction of factor use in grain production, in the 0- and +-scenarios.

As can be seen from the table, a roughly 28%-larger area is needed to produce the same quantity of grain in the 0-scenario as in Present Cropping, which corresponds to a drop in yield of 23% per ha. In the +-scenario, an area increase of 16% is needed, which corresponds to a 14%-lower yield. It can also be seen that the contributions, e.g., of the machine pool, manpower and fertiliser in grain produce, would be about 18% greater than in Present Cropping, in contrast to 9-11% greater in the +-scenario.

In both cases, the scenarios were implemented by imposing a prohibition on the production of vegetable produce by present production technology. From the technical standpoint, production in the traditional sectors was "subsidised away", after which land, capital and the work force would be freed resulting, e.g., in a falling land interest rate. In such a situation, the land would be re-allocated to the alternative vegetable industries in agriculture (i.e., to the branches of the industries that do not use pesticides, or which only use them to a limited extent). In the new equilibrium, the land would be re-allocated between the active vegetable industries, so that the return to agricultural land would be identical in the individual branches of the industries). Capital and manpower would be re-allocated to the alternative vegetable sectors and to the other industries in the Danish economy.

The theoretical substitution options would not be used in the 0- and +-scenarios, as the consumption of pesticides would only occur within a fixed, rule-directed framework. The restricted use of pesticides is shown as permissible crop-dependent quantities and, for instance, in a fixed relationship to the amount of land (a fixed treatment quantity/ha). This would ensure that the use of pesticides in the +-scenario could not exceed the fixed framework of that scenario.

The analyses we have performed were based on a set of economic models (adjusted to the needs of analysis), which made it possible to clarify the economic consequences of phasing out pesticides at the levels of the farm, sector and society. The analytical concept was securely founded on economic theory and parts of the model have been used in calculating consequences in connection with the assessment of other political measures.

Basing the analyses on model calculations has meant that the results obviously reflect the fixed assumptions of the models. At the farm level, for instance, the calculations presumed complete knowledge and openness in the decision-making process, which probably reflected what the best managers could attain. Further, the analyses performed at the farm level focused on relatively short-term adjustments whereas, in the analyses carried out at the sector and socioeconomic levels, weight was attached to the long-term effects on agriculture and the Danish economy. These results must therefore be applied with caution, when planning policy in the short- and mid-term. It should also be noted that, as there are by definition no adjustment costs in the long term, the results of the equilibrium model underestimate the adjustment costs in the short term. Conversely, it is to be expected that the farm model's results overestimate the adjustment costs in the longer term, where there is greater potential for adjustment.

Finally, it should be noted that the models do not make it possible to describe technological changes. Thus, no consideration was given in the analyses to the fact that R&D could make it possible to develop crops and production methods that would be mode competitive in pesticide-free farming.

The above circumstances must, of course, be taken into consideration when assessing the results. Even though the exercise was a question of an idealised description of the situation in the three perspectives we consider that, despite their limitations, the analyses gave credible indications of the magnitudes and, in particular, the directions, of the effects of the scenarios analysed.

6.5 Environmental and health-related assumptions

Estimates were made of the environmental effects on different intermediate scenarios, in four main areas:

• effects of pesticides on the aquatic environment - algae and daphnia;
• effects of pesticides on the lower fauna - spring tails and earthworms;
• effects of pesticides on the avian populations of arable land - nine bird species;
• effects of pesticides on the soil's seed pool - five weed species.

The results of the model calculations should not be seen as an exact expression of the consequences for the relevant organisms. We should stress in this context that the model calculations cannot be considered to be an expression of the consequences for all other organisms in the terrestrial and aquatic environments, either.

Aquatic environment

The point of departure of the model calculations was a well-defined pond of between 30 and 450 m², with an average depth of 0.9 m, fed by the surface runoff from fields of 2-3 ha. In the model, pesticides are only transported by wind drift and surface runoff. The applicable requirements on distances from the various pesticides are built in and spraying is never carried out closer than 2 m to the aquatic environment. Wind drift constitutes a maximum of 1% of the acreage dose, whereas surface runoff is only considered to occur when the precipitation exceeds 10 mm, whereby the pond receives 0.2% of the pesticide content from the nearest 2-ha fields.

Models were set up for the main crops, i.e., grain, rape, potatoes, beets and peas. The doses and times of spraying of the individual pesticides conformed to the instructions for use. Only the most-used pesticides were included in the model calculations. The absorption of pesticides by crops, and the crops' eventual effects on pesticide degradation were not included in the model. The model does include the temperature dependency of pesticide degradation.

Birds on arable land

A number of bird species are characteristic of arable land in Denmark. Their population trends and distributions in the landscape were studied as part of research into the effects of pesticides on nature and the environment. Based on adjustments of this information, it was possible to undertake simple estimates of how avian populations would develop in the different scenarios of acreage and pesticide use.

The algorithm was based on data taken from three years' bird counts during breeding time on 54 large Danish farms, for which data was available on all crop and biotope conditions and all pesticide treatment. The distributions of the different species in relation to biotope conditions, crops and treatment frequencies were estimated and tested using covariance analyses. The treatment frequencies of pesticides that have exhibited statistically significant effects, as well as the mutual acreage relationships of the crops, were varied in the calculations.

It was assumed that the average field size would not change, that there would be no general changes in the number of hedges and other marginal vegetation and that other natural content of arable land would not change. It was also assumed that the each species' population density could be calculated independently of those of other species. It was assumed that, in the event that the effects of pesticides and herbicides occur simultaneously, the overall effect would be the product of the effects, i.e., as a mutually reinforcing effect. Finally, it was assumed that the estimated population densities could be extrapolated to the national level without any consideration for what the localities could actually support. The estimated success of populations can therefore be interpreted as the upper limits for the changes that can be expected.

Effects on fauna

To soil organisms, pesticide use as we know it in Denmark does not have much affect on the welfare of these species. The lower fauna are affected directly by treatment with insecticides, and indirectly, by the removal of plants and micro-organisms that form their food supply. The latter effect can be caused by the use of herbicides and fungicides. Other elements, such as soil treatment and the use of organic fertiliser, also have significant effects.

When assessing the effects on spring tails (Collembola) and earthworms, we have thus taken our point of departure solely in the effects that would be caused by the changed compositions of crops in the different scenarios. In assessing the effects on arthropods, the treatment frequency was used as an indicator of the actual effects.

Effects on flora

25-year plant trends were estimated by the application of two different types of mathematical model, i.e., the "seed-pool model" and the "crop-rotation model". These models have diverse limitations and have not been completely validated, but they can give preliminary estimates of development trends. The seed-pool model was developed for unrotated spring barley in sandy soil and, thus, does not include crop rotation. It used plant species that are frequently encountered as weeds. The model was validated over three years.

The crop-rotation model was developed for simulating crop-rotation regimes using genetically-spliced sugar beet and rape, respectively. The sugar beet model used a crop-rotation regime of sugar beet - barley - winter wheat - winter wheat, whereas the rape model used winter rape - winter wheat - winter wheat - winter barley. This model can test 4-6 wild plants as well as volunteer plants that occur as weeds. A rough estimate of the weed biomass trend was also calculated. Two seed-pool levels were tested in all three models. The first level was an average seed content of 6,900 seeds/m², which corresponds to the median value for Danish fields found in the latest study. The second level was 22,000 seeds/m², which corresponds to the upper limit for 80% of the fields.

The 0-scenario calculations were not the same as in the 0-scenario described by the sub-committee on agriculture, but covered a scenario in which no mechanical weed control or adjustments of crop rotation were practised. This permitted the wild plants to proliferate "freely". This scenario was compared with Present Cropping. An intermediate scenario was also estimated, which roughly corresponded to the +-scenario, as band spraying was carried out in beet crops, couch grass was controlled every 10 years, mechanical weed control was used and resistant varieties were cultivated.

6.6 Review of analyses of the individual scenarios

Table 6.3 shows the descriptions and calculations performed for the total or partial prohibition of pesticides in agriculture. This table shows whether or not economic optimisation of crop rotation was undertaken, estimates of farming and social economy and whether or not descriptions of the environmental and health-related effects were carried out.

Table 6.3: Please look here
Description of the analyses performed on the four scenarios for the total and partial prohibition of pesticides.

Due to the lack of data, no extensive estimates of the consequences of banning pesticides were performed for market gardening, fruit growing and private forestry. The areas in which a total ban would be problematical were described for the individual production areas. The economic consequences were also estimated in that connection. The environmental and health-related effects are only described qualitatively, as it was not possible to carry out calculations. No analyses were made for the intermediate scenarios.

Table 6.4 reviews the analyses that were done for the organic scenario.

Table 6.4: Please look here
Analyses performed on restructuring for organic production.

7. Consequences of phasing out pesticides and of restructuring for organic production

7.1 Total and partial phase-out of pesticides in the agricultural sector
7.1.1 Consequences for agricultural production
7.1.2 The economic consequences
7.1.3 Environmental effects
7.1.4 Effects on the working environment
7.1.5 Effects on public health
7.1.6 Energy consumption, emission of greenhouse gases, leaching of nutrient salts
7.2 Total or partial phase-out of pesticides in market gardening and fruit growing
7.2.1 Consequences for market gardening and fruit growing
7.3 Total or partial phase-out of pesticides in private forestry
7.4 Total conversion to organic farming
7.4.1 Consequences for agricultural production
7.4.2 The economic consequences
7.4.3 The environmental and health consequences
7.4.4 Discussion and perspectives
7.5 Phasing out pesticides in particularly sensitive drinking water areas

This chapter deals with the consequences for farming, production, economy, environment and health of phasing out pesticides. The legal possibilities are described in section 5.11 and will therefore not be repeated in this chapter.

For market gardening, fruit growing and forestry, only a limited description of the consequences is given owing to a lack of data, which makes a full analysis impossible.

7.1 Total and partial phase-out of pesticides in the agricultural sector

Consequences of a total phase-out

It is judged that agronomic crop rotation is practicable, although with a 10-25% loss of yield in relation to Present Cropping. There is great uncertainty about its course, especially with large proportions of special crops, where the loss of yield is expected to be closer to 50%.

Major change in crop rotation

To achieve the 0-pesticide scenario, there would have to be a significant change in farming in relation to the existing situation. For one thing, crop rotation regimes with a substantially smaller proportion of winter crops (max. 40% of the rotation) would be necessary in order to reduce the problem of grass weed. To maintain the requirement concerning 65% green crops, succeeding crops would have to be inserted in connection with the cultivation of spring crops. Fodder beet and maize would have to be replaced by total crop and clover grass. In addition, a large number of cultivation measures would have to be included in order to minimise pest problems.

Loss ratios

Loss ratios as a consequence of cultivation without pesticides have been estimated for all crops. For the individual crops, the loss ratios have been broken down between different pests. The total average production losses for different crops would vary between 7% and 50%. For potatoes, the loss as a consequence of potato blight, for example, would be around 38%, while for seed grass, it is estimated that the yield would be halved owing to weed problems and problems with removing weed seed. For wheat, the total loss is estimated at 27-29% as a result of a loss of 7-9% from leaf diseases, 14% because of weeds and damage to the crop during harrowing and around 3% from pests, while other factors, such as postponing the sowing time and use of resistant species, give a 7-8% loss. Grass and winter rape, which would only be very slightly affected, are estimated to have the smallest losses.

Annual fluctuations

Substantial annual fluctuations in the losses can be expected, which would reduce the existing cultivation security. It must be expected that some productions with big requirements concerning cleanness and freedom from disease would have to be abandoned. There is generally considerable uncertainty in the estimation of loss ratios in a 0-pesticide scenario because of a significantly different epidemiology and population dynamic for the pests. Today, there is only very limited test documentation for use in assessing a 0-scenario.

For crop rotation regimes used in cattle farming, restructuring would be relatively easy and cause only limited losses, while the biggest loss would be suffered in connection with farms specialising in crop farming, which have a substantial production of, for example, seed, potatoes and sugar beet. It is not deemed realistic to maintain these specialised productions if pesticides are banned altogether. Financial analyses of contribution margin II for whole types of farms, assuming that the present proportion of special crops and that set-aside acreage is maintained, thus show, in relation to Present Cropping, an average reduction of 4% to 8% for cattle farms on sandy soil, 37% to 48% for crop farming on sandy and clayey soil, respectively, and 50% to 93% for seed growers and sugar beet growers, respectively, while for potato growers, the reduction would be 66% (table 7.4).

Agronomically and economically optimised farms

Besides the agronomic crop rotation regimes proposed in order to reduce the level of pests and maintain the present acreage with special crops, an economic optimisation model has been used to arrive at some agronomically and economically optimised types of farms.

In a 0-scenario, these farms would almost totally phase out special crops (table 7.1). This accords well with the expected high cost of getting rid of weeds and losses as a consequence of, for example, mould, mildew and blight attacks. In a 0-scenario, special crops would thus be outcompeted by other crops.

Increased set-aside acreage

Owing to a negative contribution margin II on many crops, set-aside would be advantageous because of the present subsidy schemes from the EU. The proportion of set-aside acreage would rise to about 30% at pure crop farmers, who do not have to consider handling of liquid manure and harmonisation rules.

In the agronomic 0-scenario, some rape and peas are proposed in many crop rotation regimes. These crops would not be found competitive where economic optimisation was practised, but would be replaced by rotation set-aside, which is also assigned a preceding-crop value. Spring cereals would also generally gain ground at the expense of winter cereals.

Table 7.1: Please look here

Land use in %, operational analyses.

Model-calibrated Present Cropping. The calculations show selected types of farms. Cattle farming on sandy soil includes extensive operation.

Quality requirements

The success of a 0-pesticide scenario would depend greatly on whether the current quality requirements for, e.g. seed, seed potatoes, starch potatoes and similar could still be met. For row crops, manual weeding would be necessary until new methods had been developed. Whether it would be possible to procure sufficient manpower for seasonal work has not yet been clarified. A shortage of manpower could make it difficult to continue sugar beet production. The lower yields and, in some cases, high extra costs for, e.g. weeding and drying, must be assessed in relation to whether it would be possible to achieve an additional price for crops that had not been treated with pesticides.

Several unexploited alternatives

There are deemed to be several unexploited alternatives to chemical control methods that could improve the cultivation conditions in a 0-pesticide scenario. The most obvious is wider use and development of mechanical control methods, together with better use of disease resistance. Rotational adjustments would have a big effect when preventive pest control became more important than direct control. The demand for alternative methods would in itself be expected to promote and stimulate the development of alternative methods.

Partial phase-out of pesticides

The sub-committee has considered 3 intermediate scenarios: a 0+scenario, a +scenario and a ++scenario.

The 0+scenario

This scenario implies an almost total phase-out of pesticides. The reason for using pesticides is to enable compliance with the current phytosanitary legislation and requirements. The treatment frequency would be very low in this scenario. For most types of farms it would be almost 0, while for potato and seed growers it would be less than 5% of the present level.

The +scenario

This scenario implies limited use of pesticides. The reason for using pesticides would be to limit the financial losses, since pesticides could still be used to control pests in crops of great economic importance. It is intended to ensure continuation of a profitable special crop production. Altogether, the treatment frequency would be around 0.5 in this scenario, which represents a reduction of about 80% in relation to the present frequency. The treatment frequency would vary between 0.2 for cattle farms on sandy soil and 1.1 for potato growers on sandy soil.

Change of crop rotation

A prerequisite for this reduction is largely the same restructuring of production as described in the 0-scenario. The chosen input is deemed sufficient to retain the present production of sugar beet, seed-producing crops and potatoes. The scenario permits the use of pesticides where pests would result in an average loss of yield of more than 15-20%. Thus, the scenario does not calculate the existing losses of yield that could occur in a crop in individual localities and at individual farms because, for most crops, it is impossible to predict how often such a situation would occur. However, a maximum loss has been calculated for the individual crops, based on a single pest causing particularly big losses, which does happen in some years.

Agronomically and economically optimised

In the agronomically and economically optimised +scenario, the treatment frequencies would generally be of the same order of magnitude as for the purely agronomic scenarios; however, the falls in the contribution margins, particularly for crop farmers, would be smaller (table 7.4). The fall would be 14-15% for cattle farms on sandy soil, 8-19% for crop holdings on sandy and clayey soil, and seed breeders and sugar beet growers would have losses of 15% and 23%, while potato growers would lose 15%.

Table 7.2: Please look here
Treatment frequency in 3 scenarios for 10 different types of farms, with a breakdown between clayey and sandy soil

The ++scenario

This scenario implies optimised use of pesticides in that it permits sufficient continued use to prevent financial losses. Crop rotation is expected to be as today, with economic optimisation but also optimisation with a view to using as little pesticide as possible. Compared with Present Cropping, more hours would have to be spent on monitoring pests and running damage-threshold programmes.

The total treatment frequency (TF) in the agronomic scenario is about 1.7, corresponding to a 31% reduction compared with the treatment frequency in 1997, 36% compared with the treatment frequency in the reference period 1981-85, and 50% compared with the crop-adjusted treatment frequency. This covers a variation of 0.7 TF for cattle farms on sandy soil to 2.6 for potato growers on sandy soil. In the corresponding economically optimised scenario, TF ranges from 0.3 at intensive cattle farms on sandy soil to 2.6 at farms with a large proportion of potatoes. Contribution margin II for all farms does not differ significantly from the Present Cropping. For cattle farms, which generally have the lowest contribution margins, however, there is some uncertainty about the trend in the different scenarios.

General assessment of the intermediate scenarios - yields

For the intermediate scenarios in general, it can be said that they reduce substantially the losses expected in the 0-scenario. In the +scenario, the yield losses would typically be smaller, while they would be almost removed in the ++scenario. However, there are no studies that show the possibilities in a +scenario. There are thus considerable uncertainties in this scenario since it assumes that those activities that would produce substantial losses could be identified equally accurately. We have insufficient knowledge today to make this identification. A considerable restructuring of crop rotation is also assumed – with all the uncertainties that implies.

In the ++scenario, in which use of pesticides would be optimised, it is important to be able to identify profitable activities. All existing knowledge from damage thresholds and decision-support systems would have to be used, and mechanical methods would be used where they could compete with chemical methods. For some pests/crops, there is insufficient basis for such identification and assessments. Farmers would have to invest in row cultivators and row crop sprayers in order to achieve the reductions described. Studies and practical experience show that a treatment frequency of 1.3 can be achieved for traditional cereal growing with our present knowledge without radically changing our present crop distribution. This corresponds directly to the ++scenario described above.

Total production

Changes in the total production are shown in table 7.3. With respect to the production of sufficient fodder units to maintain Denmark’s present livestock production, the 0-scenario is based on sufficient crop farming at cattle farms to maintain the necessary production of fodder units. Total grain production would fall by 30% in both the agronomically and the economically optimised scenario, which would make it necessary to import grain in order to maintain pig production at the present level. Both potato and seed production would go down by half, while both rape and pea production would rise by about 30%. This rise would reduce the need for bought-in supplementary fodder. In the economically optimised scenario, this production would largely be replaced by set-aside and both potato production and sugar beet production would be reduced by more than 90% and seed production by 60%. The total production figures in a 0-scenario and a +scenario are assessed in the following on the basis of a socioeconomic model calculation, whereby different production figures emerge than those based on the farm calculations.

Table 7.3:
Principal productions in 1000 hkg (crop units) for Present Cropping. For the scenarios, the change in production is given in %.

Total production figures are not given for the ++scenario because it is estimated that there would be only a small change in the level of yield in this scenario compared with Present Cropping, cf. the definition of this scenario.

7.1.2 The economic consequences

One of the main questions relating to reducing the use of pesticides in farming is the extent to which that would affect earnings and production in the sector. As stated above, a considerable fall in the level of yield would have to be expected in crop farming, and even if the optimum use of fertilisers were reduced, a lower return would have to be expected, leaving less for manpower and capital – a situation that would be aggravated by the fact that more labour is required for farming without pesticides.

Contribution margin II for the different scenarios

To assess the general production consequences of the different scenarios described, table 7.4 shows the main figures for changes in contribution margin II for 10 different types of farms.

Contribution margin (CM) II is a good measure of the effects of the different intermediate scenarios for the different types of farms. The contribution margin expresses the total economy/ha since this quantity adjusts for loss of yield and extra yields, changes in cost of purchasing and application of pesticides, together with changes in the costs of mechanical weed control. The value of the saved costs for spreading of pesticides and the increased costs for mechanical weed control have been determined by using machine station rates. It will be seen that in the agronomic crop rotation regimes, reductions in CM II of between 4 and 93% are measured for the 0-scenario, of between 0 and 36% for the +scenario and of between 0 and 17% for the ++scenario.

Where economic optimisation is used, the reduction in CM II for the O-scenario is generally smaller and more evenly distributed than in the agronomic scenarios. The model-optimised CM II’s for Present Cropping are DKK 50-400/ha higher than for actual Present Cropping, which indicates that there may be a potential for improving the economy of existing farms.

The contribution margin in the 0-scenario

Calculations based on the farm model (DØP) show that the 0-scenario would reduce the contribution margin by 30-40% on clayey soil and by 20-50% on sandy soil, depending on the type of farm. The fall in contribution margin would generally translate into a lower return for land. The calculation is based on all other input factors (including manpower) being remunerated at unchanged price and on agricultural product prices not being affected by the intervention. Farms with special crops would generally be hardest hit by the ban. This applies particularly to farms with sugar beet and potato production, where it is estimated that the return for land would fall by 40% and 50%, respectively, and that set-aside acreage would increase considerably, although with a maximum permissible limit of 33%.

The economic yield of cattle farms would be less affected by a ban on pesticides than that of other types of farms. That is naturally because cattle farmers generally use fewer pesticides than both crop farmers and pig farmers, who do not grow coarse fodder. For cattle farmers, the loss would to some extent also be made up for by the fact that they could replace fodder beet with total crops and grass, which would substantially reduce the need for pesticides.

The contribution margin in the +scenario

In the +scenario, the reduction in the contribution margin would be considerably smaller. On clayey soil, the loss would be almost halved, while for crop farmers and, particularly, for potato growers on sandy soil, the loss would be reduced still further. As shown in table 7.4, producers of sugar beet on clayey soil would still have to reckon on a considerable fall in yield if the +scenario’s criteria were used.

A possible explanation for this is that full account has not been taken of the great need for pesticides in sugar beet production.

Table 7.4 Please look here

Contribution margin II in DKK/ha for 10 different types of farms with and without economic optimisation of the intermediate scenarios. The contribution margin in the Present Cropping is defined from the crop composition, which is based on the 13,000 farm accounts.

Price sensitivity

Product and factor prices from the financial year 1995/96 have been used in the calculation of the operational consequences of phasing out pesticides. Prices have fallen substantially since then, particularly in the case of cereals, and pesticide taxes have risen. In addition, in connection with the negotiations on enlargement of the EU, a further reduction of the level of subsidies in the EU’s agricultural policy is proposed.

To illustrate the effect of changes in agricultural prices, analyses have been carried out of crop farming on clayey soil. The basis for these analyses is the so-called Santer package’s proposal to reduce the price of feed grain by 20%. In the analyses, however, a 30% reduction of the cereal price is assumed because the price of cereals has already fallen by 10% since 1995/96. An area subsidy of DKK 2,601 per ha is assumed for all reform crops, although DKK 2,857 per ha for peas, which corresponds to the assumptions of the Santer package. It is also assumed that the set-aside acreage cannot exceed 10% and that the price of herbicides and fungicides increases by 25% and the price of insecticides by 50% as a result of increased taxes. It should be noted that the area subsidies are assumed to be paid as a production-independent subsidy to farmers, i.e. the area subsidy does not affect the farmer’s decisions with respect to production intensity. However, the area subsidy is included in the contribution margin and will therefore affect the land rent.

Owing to the big fall in the price of cereals, the contribution margin – and thus the return on land in model-calibrated Present Cropping – will fall from DKK 3,418 to DKK 1,967 per ha. At the same time, the treatment frequency is reduced from 2.32 to 1.39 (table 7.5). This means that the lower price level for cereals together with the increase in pesticide tax will contribute towards a significant reduction in the use of pesticides. The calculations show that the losses from phasing out pesticides are halved when the analysis is based on the lower product prices. Or, conversely, it does not cost as much to phase out pesticides when the product price level is reduced. The above analyses apply to clayey soil. For sandy soil, the cost of phasing out pesticides will be even smaller after a price fall.

According to table 7.5, the intensity of pesticide use would be reduced with the assumption of optimised operation. However, the analyses show that the cost of maintaining a higher pesticide usage (than the calculated optimum) would be modest. The analyses illustrate that, with lower product prices, the intensity in the production must be expected to be reduced and that, through that, it would be possible to achieve/expect less use of pesticides in farming. However, the total effect would depend on how farmers assessed the risk of reducing their use of pesticides. Here, the fact that precautionary spraying does not cost very much would play a role.

Table 7.5: Please look here
The effect of changed price and subsidy assumptions for crop farming on clayey soil

Note: The analyses are based on a 30% reduction in the price of cereals compared with 1995/96 and an assumption that the area subsidies for cereals and silage corn are increased by 18%, that the area subsidies for rape, peas, flax grown as oil-seed crop, and set-aside, are reduced by 32, 10, 39 and 6%, respectively, and that the acreage with reform crops must include between 10 and 30% set-aside. It is also assumed that the price of herbicides and fungicides rises by 25%, and the price of insecticides by 50%, as a result of taxes introduced.

Cultivation security

The importance of pesticides to security in crop farming has been discussed in both the Sub-committee on Agriculture and the Sub-committee on Production, Economics and Employment. Basic data are not available for reliable analysis of whether cultivation security would be greater or smaller if pesticides were phased out. In this connection, it is pointed out that the farmer does not necessarily aim for a constant level of yield, but wants to even out the financial yield, in which product prices also play a role. Since fluctuations in the yields for a number of crops often have a negative correlation with the price (e.g. potatoes), adjustment to the market would have an equalising effect that the farmer could include in his planning.

Observations from all-year experiments have not revealed differences in the variation in yield between conventional and organic farms. This is explained by the fact that the organic farmer concentrates on resistant species and that changed crop rotation and cultivation practice has made it possible to eliminate the increased cultivation risk in return for a lower yield. For special crops, where there is generally a higher risk of loss of yield as a result of pests, knowledge is not available that can throw light on how cultivation security is affected. Generally, however, there is no doubt that pesticides can help to stabilise production by remedying big losses in yields as a consequence of pests. However, the yields fluctuate considerably, both with and without pesticides, under the influence of climate impacts and the general growth conditions.

The importance of good farm management and the effect of the climate on pests would increase with the phasing out of pesticides. While the consequences of big attacks by pests or plant diseases could have a significant effect on the yield in a single year, the situation would be different in the case of weeds. If weeds were allowed to spread for just one year, extra mechanical weed control might be needed for many years and, if things came to the worst, some financially interesting crops, such as seed grass, fodder beet and winter crops, would have to be omitted from the crop rotation regime.

Economic sectoral analyses

The analyses of the economy of the agricultural sector are based on the general equilibrium model (AAGE), which can be used to illuminate the economic consequences for the sector as a whole and for different production sectors. Unlike the analyses at farm level, which, as mentioned, are based on fixed product and factor prices, the AAGE model includes the interaction with other sectors in the economy and foreign trade, which means that account is taken of changes in supply and demand in the product and factor markets and the consequent changes in prices.

Total phase-out of pesticides

As shown in table 7.6, a ban on the use of pesticides in farming would have a marked effect on the price of vegetable products. This applies particularly to potatoes and sugar beet, although the price of cereals and rape must also be expected to rise, whereas the price of livestock products would be only slightly affected. The price changes must be seen in correlation with a drastic fall in crop farming, whereas livestock production would be largely unaffected, apart from a slight increase in production of pork and poultry.

The fall in cereal products is related to the aforementioned fall in yields, combined with the fact that intensive international competition means that prices could not rise without serious negative consequences for export and import of cereals. Cereal exports would thus fall by almost 90%, while cereal imports would rise by 275%.

Change in agricultural prices and production

Table 7.6

Change in agricultural prices and production, in per cent

Crop farming

As mentioned earlier, it would be possible from an agronomic point of view to increase rape production even though pesticides were banned. However, the economic conditions would not provide a basis for increasing production – on the contrary, the analyses show that rape production would largely disappear because there would be too much foreign competition for farmers to increase the price sufficiently.

Despite price increases of more than 20%, it is estimated that potato production would fall by up to 70%, which would mean no export and a more than 800% increase in imports. This covers complete discontinuation of production of starch potatoes and a moderate reduction in supplies of ware potatoes, which are deemed to be less exposed to outside competition.

Despite price rises approaching 30%, it is estimated that sugar beet production would fall by about 60%. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, the production of refined sugar is exposed to serious international competition, which limits how much the price could rise (in the analyses, it rises by 3-4%). Secondly, sugar beet accounts for a relatively modest part of total costs at sugar mills, so a big rise in the price of the primary product would have only a limited effect on the mills’ unit costs. Although there has thus been a basis for substantial increases in the price of sugar beet, the increase has not been sufficient for sugar beet to compete with, for example, cereals.

Livestock production

A pesticide ban would have relatively limited effects in the livestock sectors. Costs in the coarse fodder sector would be reduced as a consequence of lower land prices, which it is estimated would reduce the price of coarse fodder by around 8% (not shown in the table). The consequently lower costs in the cattle sector would increase the competitiveness of milk production, but milk production (and beef production) would not change owing to the milk quota.

For both pork and poultry production, falling input prices would lead to lower unit costs, causing production to rise.

For the industries processing livestock products, there would be generally beneficial effects on production and foreign trade. The biggest effect would be found in the pork and poultry sectors, where production could be increased, while the better economy in milk production would mainly be reflected in a higher value of the milk quota.

The +scenario and crop farming

In the +scenario, the possibility of limited use of pesticides means that the plant sectors’ costs would increase less, with a consequently lower fall in production compared with a complete phase-out of pesticides. In this case, cereal production would be reduced by just over 30%, which would mean a 50% reduction in cereal exports compared with Present Cropping and a rise of "only" 80% in cereal imports. In this case, too, rape production would largely disappear.

The price of potatoes would rise by only 2% (compared with 22% in the 0-scenario), and production would be reduced to just under half because production of starch potatoes would disappear in this scenario as well. Sugar beet is the crop that would suffer least in the +scenario, in that production would fall by only 6%. As mentioned, the reason for this is that sugar beet accounts for only a small proportion of sugar mill costs, which makes it possible for the sugar mills largely to remain competitive vis-à-vis foreign mills despite slightly rising prices for the producers.

Livestock production

For the livestock sectors, the +scenario would have only a limited effect on prices and production, and for largely all processing sectors, exports would rise slightly and imports fall slightly.

Gross factor income in agriculture and the processing industries

The result of the above-mentioned changes would be a fall in gross factor income in primary agriculture of DKK 3.4 billion in the 0-scenario, corresponding to a 15% fall (table 7.8). Most of the fall would be in the crop farming sectors, with the cereal sector alone accounting for a reduction of DKK 3.0 billion. Apart from the sugar mills, the processing sectors would be relatively little affected by a pesticide ban. The loss for the sugar mills is calculated to be almost DKK 1.4 billion, mainly as a result of falling production of sugar beet in Denmark. Overall, it is estimated that the gross factor income in the agro-industrial complex would fall by DKK 4.5 billion.

A breakdown of the loss in primary agriculture shows that the biggest reduction in earnings in the 0-scenario would be in capital (DKK 2.0 billion) and manpower (DKK 1.6 billion), while the land rent would fall by up towards DKK 470 million (13%). The fall would be counteracted by an approx. DKK 700 million increase in the value of the milk quota. When assessing these figures it must be remembered that this is an equilibrium situation, in which land, capital and manpower achieve the same earnings within and outside agriculture.

Table 7.8

Change in gross factor income in farming and processing

Note: All amounts are given in 1992 prices. Fixed GNP prices.

The corresponding calculations for the +scenario show a fall in the primary agricultural sector’s earnings of just under DKK 1.8 billion (8%), of which the cereal sector alone would account for DKK 1.5 billion. Earnings in the livestock sectors would rise, while, overall, there would be a small loss in the processing sectors, primarily as a result of lower earnings for the sugar mills. The distribution of the loss in primary agriculture would be as follows: approx. DKK 300 million land rent (8%), DKK 1,000 million on capital, DKK 871 million on manpower and an increase of just over DKK 380 million in the value of the milk quota.

It should be noted that the above-mentioned changes in gross factor income in agriculture indicate the change in return on manpower, capital and land. It is thus not directly possible to compare these figures with the result of the operational analyses, which are based on the change in contribution margin II in crop farming. The contribution margin can largely be taken as a measure of the fall in the land rent, which can be compared with the above-mentioned fall in the return on land. Summation of the changes in the contribution margin gives a loss for the sector of almost DKK 2.4 billion (25% loss) in the 0-scenario and DKK 1.4 billion (9%) in the +scenario, which is almost 5 times more than the above-mentioned falls in return on land of DKK 470 million and just over DKK 295 million, respectively. Such a difference is only to be expected because the operational analyses are based on fixed product and factor prices and on unchanged livestock production, while the socioeconomic analyses take into account the possibility of savings in agriculture through adjustment of production and the industry’s price relations.

Employment

Phasing out pesticides in agriculture would affect employment in the agro-industrial complex. The effect would mainly be felt in primary crop farming, where employment would fall by more than 55% in the 0-scenario and by almost 30% in the +scenario (table 7.9).

Table 7.9

Effect on employment of total and partial phase-out of pesticides

Note: The calculations are based on unchanged total employment, i.e. the manpower released in the agricultural sector would find employment in other sectors.

The fall is primarily a result of lower production, even when allowance has been made for the need for extra manpower for manual cleaning of the crops, which means, for example, that manpower consumption in the production of sugar beet would rise despite falling acreage and production. The fall in sugar beet production is reflected in the sugar mills’ employment, which can be expected to fall by around 70% in the 0-scenario compared with 7% in the +scenario. In the livestock sector, on the other hand, employment would rise, with a knock-on effect on employment in slaughterhouses and dairies. All in all, employment in the agricultural sector is expected to fall by just over 16,000 full-time employees in the 0-scenario (14%) and just over 8,000 in the +scenario (7%). Most of the reduction will be in primary agriculture.

Socioeconomic consequences

Calculations of the socioeconomic consequences have only been carried out for the 0-scenario and the +scenario. The +scenario lies so close to the 0-scenario with respect to production that the socioeconomic consequences are not expected to differ from those in the 0-scenario, and the ++scenario lies so close to present production that it is not expected to have any major socioeconomic consequences.

The above-mentioned losses in agriculture would affect the rest of the economy through a release of resources and a fall in the demand for capital goods. This would be felt most in the sectors associated with agriculture, such as agricultural service and production of commercial fertiliser, in which there would be a marked fall in home market production. Of greater importance, however, would be the indirect effects through the release of manpower, which would directly reduce the general level of pay. In that connection it must be borne in mind that there would be full adjustment to the new equilibrium and that it is assumed in the calculations that employment would be maintained and that there would be equilibrium in the balance of payments. As mentioned below, this would imply a considerable redistribution between the different sectors of industry, with manpower released from a number of home-market sectors. In these circumstances it has been found that real wages would fall by around 1% in the 0-scenario and by 0.54% in the +scenario.

Improved competitiveness and falling real wages

A fall in real wages would, on the one hand, improve competitiveness in sectors exposed to competition, resulting in increased net exports of goods and services. On the other hand, falling real wages would reduce domestic demand. That would hit particularly the home-market industries, which do not have the same possibility of selling for export. The interaction between the change in supply and demand would be reflected in falling product prices for most industries of the order of magnitude of 1-2% in the 0-scenario and around 0.5% in the +scenario. However, while the export-oriented industries would generally be able to increase production, production would fall in a number of home-market industries. For example, it has been found that gross factor income in the sectors building and construction, commerce, services and housing, taken together, would be reduced by DKK 3.7 billion in the 0-scenario and DKK 1.5 billion in the +scenario (table 7.10), while the total fall in gross factor income would amount to DKK 5.4 billion and DKK 2.4 billion, respectively. Adjusted for taxes and levies, this corresponds to a reduction in gross national product of DKK 7.0 billion in the 0-scenario and DKK 3.1 billion in the +scenario.

Table 7.10

Change in gross factor income

Notes: All amounts are given in 1992-prices. A model-calculated fall in the GNP deflator of 1.63% is used in the 0-scenario and 0.64% in the +scenario as the basis for the conversion into fixed GNP-prices.

Gross national product broken down into private and public consumption

Table 7.10 shows a breakdown of the change in gross national product between private consumption, public consumption, investment, change in stock and foreign trade. In reality, the gross national production (i.e. total production) would fall by DKK 7.3 billion (0.8%) in the 0-scenario compared with DKK 3.1 billion (0.4%) in the +scenario. When this is compared with the aforementioned changes in pesticide usage, it will be seen that DKK 4.2 billion could be saved by going from a full phase-out to limited use of pesticides corresponding to an increased treatment frequency of 0.2-0.7 standard doses per ha.

Table 7.11

Change in gross national product, mill. 1992 DKK

Note: Gross national product is equal to the sum of private and public consumption plus investments, stock changes and exports and less imports.

Gross national product is expressed in quantities, which means that the figures do not sum to the total and that the total figures differ from the gross national product in fixed gross national prices in table 7.10. All amounts are given in 1992 prices.

As a consequence of the lower real wages, disposable income would be reduced, with negative consequences for consumption. Assuming that public consumption was unaffected, private consumption would fall by DKK 7.6 billion (1.7%) in the 0-scenario compared with DKK 3 billion (0.7%) in the +scenario. This corresponds to DKK 1,500 and DKK 600 per capita, respectively, measured in 1992 prices. Investments would go down by just under DKK 2 billion in the 0-scenario and by DKK 950 million in the +scenario.

In the model calculations, a policy is assumed that ensures equilibrium on the balance of payments. As far as the consequences for foreign trade are concerned, the total Danish real export in the 0-scenario would increase by slightly less than DKK 6.4 billion, while the real import would increase by DKK 5.2 billion. The growth in exports of other goods and services as a consequence of improved competitiveness in other sectors than agriculture would thus fully make up for the smaller Danish agricultural exports. On the import side, rising agricultural imports would make up for lower imports of other products. The terms of trade (calculated as the ratio between the development of export and import prices) would fall by 1% due to falling export prices, in that it is assumed that import prices would remain unchanged. The picture in the +scenario is the same except for a far smaller increase in export and import quantities.

Global phase-out of pesticides

As mentioned, the analyses here are based on a unilateral Danish regulation of pesticide usage, with the assumption that Danish consumers and manufacturers have free access to purchase conventional foreign products and capital goods at internationally determined market prices. As shown above, this means that cereals produced in Denmark would be replaced by imported, conventional, foreign cereals, which would make it possible to maintain Danish livestock production at a largely unchanged level.

If similar regulation of pesticide usage were implemented in and outside the EU, the same trend could be expected in other countries, i.e. the supply of cereals would be reduced globally. Such a development would result in an increase in the price of cereals and thus improve the competitiveness of non-pesticide cereals produced in Denmark. However, it would also increase production costs in livestock production – especially pork and poultry production – which would thus be less able to compete. In a global context, such a development would increase food prices with consequent financial loss for the consumers and restructuring of production within and outside agriculture, as described above.

It is not possible with the existing analytical tools to calculate the economic consequences of such a global restriction of pesticide usage. One could – as has been done in the organic scenarios – calculate for a situation in which a ban is imposed on increased importation of traditionally produced cereals (the calculations in question indicate which results one would get). Real calculations would require expansion of, for example, DIAFE’s international global trade model in a number of areas, which is outside the scope of this study. However, a global ban on the use of pesticides in agriculture must be expected to result in substantial socioeconomic losses, while a partial phase-out could probably be absorbed more easily within the framework of a continuous economic adjustment of the structure of industry, where the development of new technology could help to facilitate the restructuring process.

Economic valuation

The purpose of the valuation study has been to establish tentative measures for the socioeconomic value of the health and environmental improvements that a ban on pesticides can be expected to produce. The improvements include reduced pesticide pollution of ground water, greater biodiversity and recreational and aesthetic benefits. The alternative cost method is used to value reduced pesticide pollution of the aquatic environment. Through studies of the international literature, unit values have been found for health effects and saved lives, while valuation of such environmental benefits as greater biodiversity and aesthetic values require preference-based valuation methods. It has not been possible to carry out empirical investigations within the budget and time schedule for the project. Instead, extensive studies have been carried out of the literature on relevant international and national studies on valuation.

Savings within water resources

Pesticides are still regarded as a threat to the ground water. In this study, the benefits of phasing out pesticides have been examined on the basis of an alternative cost analysis covering the expected socioeconomic savings within the drinking water supply if pesticides are no longer used. It is estimated that, within 30 years, 5% of all ordinary water supply plants with a capacity of more than 1 million m³/year would be able to avoid remedial measures. The same applies to 8% of plants with a capacity of 10,000 – 100,000 m³/year and 20% of ordinary plants with a smaller capacity than 10,000 m³/year. In addition, it is estimated that 25% of all individual extraction units – typically private wells and boreholes – would avoid closure if pesticides were no longer used.

The saved costs correspond to the construction and operating costs that would otherwise have been incurred for remedial measures. On the basis of the political wish to use ground water of a quality that requires normal water treatment, we operate with two development scenarios. The first comprises both direct remedial measures (moving the well field, amalgamating waterworks, etc.) and expanded treatment. The other comprises only direct remedial measures in the form of moving the well field and amalgamating waterworks.

The size of the saving depends on whether treatment is included as a remedial measure. If treatment were permitted, the countermeasures could be implemented for DKK 96 to 120 million per year, depending on the discounting assumption. If the political objective concerning a decentralised water supply structure in which treatment must only occur as a temporary measure were maintained, the countermeasures would cost from DKK 145 to 183 million per year, depending on the discounting factor.

Preserving clean ground water can have a value for society beyond the ground water resources’ utility value in the drinking water supply system. There can be figures concerning both option value and existence value.

Valuation of health effects

The use of pesticides in agriculture is giving rise to increasing concern about the effect of the substances on public health. Therefore, as an element of a socioeconomic assessment of limiting the use of pesticides, it seems obvious to try to assess the value of the health effect. The basis for such a valuation is to try to determine the value of a statistical life, the value of avoiding a statically serious disease and certain symptoms of diseases.

The traditional way of calculating the value of health risks is to look at the costs of medicine and treatment of diseases and loss of productivity/earnings in connection with the disease. However, such costs considerations have no foundation in the economics of welfare, which must be based on the public’s preferences in order to reflect their willingness to pay for better health. It has not been possible to carry out such an analysis within the framework of this project.

On the basis of studies of the literature, we therefore decided to try to determine unit values for a statistical life and for avoiding diseases and, by combining these with an estimate of the relationship between pesticide usage and disease frequency, to arrive at qualified estimates of the total health value.

There is generally great uncertainty concerning the health effects of pesticides and the necessary data for a real valuation do not exist. There is thus no basis for assessing the order of magnitude of these benefits.

Valuation of biodiversity

Biodiversity means the multiplicity of fauna and flora in the natural environment. The concept normally refers to the number of species and individuals in a selected area, but biodiversity can also be used in a wider context as the function and stability of eco-systems. Economically, biodiversity can have both a utility value (outdoor life and genetic resources), option value (possibilities of future use) and existence value (preservation of species etc.). Biodiversity can be regarded as a public good, since there is normally free access to it and one person’s use of it does not normally reduce the benefit others derive from it. The market mechanism is therefore only able to a limited extent to register the socioeconomic value of biodiversity.

Foreign studies show that there can be substantial values. Therefore, economic valuation can in principle make a significant contribution to the political decision-making process in connection with the ordering of priorities that include biodiversity. However, it is difficult to handle such a valuation in practice, and there are as yet no complete estimates of the economic externality costs that arise due to pesticides. There are some foreign studies of the economic value of biodiversity, but none of these estimates can be transferred directly to the scenarios here.

Valuation in general

The purpose of the valuation study has been to establish tentative measures of the socioeconomic value of the environmental improvements that a ban on pesticides can be expected to produce. The alternative cost method has been used to value reduced pesticide pollution of the aquatic environment. The calculated economic orders of magnitude are DKK 100 to 200 million per year with a ban on the use of pesticides, calculated on the basis of the cost of treating drinking water. As mentioned, there are considerable benefit components that it has not been possible to value. This applies primarily to human health effects and biodiversity. Nor would it be sound on the present basis to say anything about the order of magnitude of these benefits seen in relation to the calculated loss figures from a complete or partial phase-out of pesticides. A complete cost-benefit analysis of the socioeconomic advantages and disadvantages of ceasing to use pesticides requires extensive knowledge about people’s willingness to pay for other values associated with these scenarios, e.g. environment and the countryside.

7.1.3 Environmental effects

The principal impacts occur in connection with the spreading of the pesticides, when organisms are directly hit and when indirect impacts occur as a consequence of the effect on food chains. Here, plants play a key role as the first link in the food chains. The number of species of wild plants and their frequency in Danish fields have halved in the last 25 years. The main reason for the decline is the use of herbicides and changed cultivation practice. Both on cultivated land and the adjacent biotopes, the use of pesticides involves a risk of reductions in plant and animal populations, changed biodiversity, change of cultivation medium and natural pest control, and feed-chain and indirect effects.

Agricultural land accounts for 62% of Denmark’s total area. Compared with other countries, Denmark has a high rate of cultivational utilisation. Generally speaking, it is not the individual field and its possible loss of wild plants that are the problem, but the total effect, countrywide, on the characteristic flora of farmland, where big distances between small, uncultivated biotopes, such as water holes, hedges, dykes and fences reduce the propagation and recolonisation of species and increase the risk of local extinction.

The sub-committee estimates that a general reduction of pesticide usage in an unchanged area would have a less beneficial effect on flora and fauna than if the same reduction occurred through the establishment of permanent spray-free brim zones and a ban on spraying in environmentally sensitive areas.

The lower forms of fauna are affected by both direct treatment with insecticides and the indirect effect from removal of plants and microorganisms as basic food through use of herbicides and fungicides. The effect of the different types of pesticides is partially specific and proportional to the treatment frequency of fungicides, herbicides and insecticides. In comparisons of the scenarios, the treatment frequency is therefore an indicator of the undesired side-effect of pesticide consumption on individuals, species and plant and animal communities, assuming that the treatment frequency is an expression of the size of the treated area. If treatment with herbicides were omitted, the insect fauna could be expected to increase by a factor of 2-7, measured as individuals, and by a factor of 1.5, measured as number of species per specimen. If fungicide treatment were omitted, the fungivorous insect fauna would increase by a factor of 1-2.5 for a period. If insecticides were not used, the insect fauna would increase by a factor of 2-4. Fungicides and insecticides often have a shorter effect than herbicides because the elimination of weeds affects the fauna for the whole season.

The sub-committee has assessed the scenario calculations for springtails and earthworms as the only groups of soil animals for which there are sufficient data (figures 7.1 and 7.2).

Figure 7.1: Please look here
Calculation of the average density of springtails in the soil under Present Cropping and in the 0-scenario. For comparison, a calculation is shown in which succeeding crops are used in all spring crops.

It can be concluded that the density of both springtails and earthworms would not be affected by the pesticides used in the scenario for Present Cropping, but that the crop rotation, including soil treatment, fertilisation and any succeeding crops, would play an important role in the population density. Scenarios that imply increased use of manure and clover grass would favour these groups of fauna.

Scenarios with worms
Scenarier = Scenarios
Kløvergræs = Clover grass
Nul = Zero
Nudrift = Present cropping
Worms per square metre

Figure 7.2
Calculation of the average density of earthworms in Present Cropping and the 0-scenario. For comparison, calculations are shown for the average density using pig manure and the density in clover grass one year after reploughing.

Effects of the scenarios on bird life in farmland

The sub-committee has carried out calculations of the consequences of the scenarios for 9 ordinary bird species. The results of these calculations are shown in figure 7.3.

The sub-committee concludes from the scenario calculations that the stocks of common partridge, whitethroat and yellow bunting would increase in all scenarios compared with Present Cropping and that all the scenarios show a significantly increased population density for these species. This applies not only to the 0-scenario but also to the +scenario and the ++scenario. For the other 6 species, the index would be unaffected by the pesticide usage compared with Present Cropping. Since the direct toxic effects on birds is negligible today, the indirect effects would be the important ones e.g. changes in the birds’ food base. Here, it would make no difference to the birds whether their food base were removed with pesticides or by mechanical or other methods. For ground-nesting species, hoeing and harrowing could present a risk. Similarly, early and/or more extensive soil treatment in the autumn would very probably have serious effects on birds. On the other hand, mechanical treatment would be of great importance to the land and small biotopes near fields because these would no longer be affected by drift.

Scenarier = Scenarios
Økologisk = Organic
Nul = Zero
Plus = Plus
Plus-plus = Plus-plus
Gulspurv = Yellow bunting
Tornirisk = Linnet
Stær = Starling
Krage = Crow
Tornsanger = Whitethroat
Landsvale = Swallow
Sangærke = Lark
Vibe = Lapwing
Agerhøne = Partridge

Modelled index

Figure 7.3:  Please look here
Calculated population indices for nine species of farmland birds in different scenarios, with Present Cropping put at index 100. Indices are calculated on the basis of the agronomically and economically optimised crop rotation regimes. A comparison has also been carried out with the organic scenario.

For all the species with the exception of partridge and, to some extent, whitethroat, the calculations show significantly larger numbers in the organic scenario than in the 0-scenario because of the difference in crop rotation regimes. However, the crop rotation regimes used are based on organic farms as they were in the 1980s, when forms of operation and land use differed from today’s organic farming.

The sub-committee concludes from the results of the calculations with two different models that, in all the scenarios, there could be an improvement in the conditions for wild flora and the animal species associated with them without the number of wild fauna growing out of control provided mechanical weed control and limited chemical control were used. In the +scenario, a number of species of wild flora could occur with greater frequency in crop rotation regimes with either field beet or rape. A more varied plant community could thus be expected, which could similarly form the food base for a more varied animal community (invertebrates and their predators).

On the basis of the model calculations carried out, the sub-committee considers that there would be a probability of effects on both flora and fauna as a consequence of run-off in scenarios that correspond both to Present Cropping and to the ++scenario and the +scenario (figures 7.4 and 7.5).

Probability of effects on algae in water holes in 4 scenarios
Behandlingshyppighed = Treatment frequency
Sandsynlighed i % = Probability in %

The probability of effects would fall with the amount of pesticides used in the scenarios. The models show that, all else being equal, the use of pesticides in the crops winter cereals, potatoes, field beet and peas constitutes a major risk to flora and fauna in water holes. Crops imposing less of a burden are spring cereal, spring rape, maize and, to some extent, winter rape. The model predicts that the critical pesticides for algae and aquatic plants (macrophytes) in water holes would be isoproturon, glyphosphate, phenylpropimorph, ethofumesat, metamitron, pendimethalin, metribuzin, prosulphocarb, mancozeb, maneb and clopyralid. Crustaceans and insects are largely equally sensitive, and the simulated effects on crustaceans can, in principle, be transferred to insects. The critical pesticides for crustaceans and insects would be esfenvalerat, propiconazol, pendimethalin, metribuzin, prosulfocarb, mancozeb and maneb. If run-off events did not occur within the growth season, drift would be the only source of burden on the water hole. The calculations show that this would only be of importance in the case of esfenvalerat, with a reduction of 6-9% in the average biomass of the daphnias.

Probability of effects on crustaceans in water holes in 4 scenarios
Behandlingshyppighed = Treatment frequency
Sandsynlighed i % = Probability in %

During spraying, drift occurs to the surrounding land. However, hedges, dykes, fences and other small biotopes are so narrow that they should in practice be included in the area affected by spray agents. The drift can affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Several studies have demonstrated effects from spray-agent drift up to 50 metres from the sprayed area. However, most of the flora were only affected in an area between 0 and 5 m from the field. However, there is no experimental data on effects of herbicides in low doses on wild plant species and the size and effect of drift on flora have not been systematically studied in Denmark. Both the 0- and the 0+ and +scenarios would reduce herbicide usage and thus the risk of drift to land near the fields. This would reduce the burden appreciably where spraying was either discontinued or only carried out occasionally. However, owing to lack of data, it is not possible to quantify the beneficial effect on the vegetation. The affected areas would be reduced in step with the herbicide usage. In the 0+ scenario, the burden would be reduced to the few localities in which pesticides were used. In the 0-scenario, the burden would disappear completely in the neighbouring areas.

For the aquatic environment, any effect from pesticides is undesirable, including changes in flora and fauna in coastal waters, lakes, water holes and watercourses. Of the aquatic ecosystems, it is particularly water holes, watercourses and lakes near fields that could potentially be affected. There is every probability that the fresh-water environment is affected by the present use of pesticides, but it is not possible to quantify the effect. On the basis of information from county councils, it is estimated that approx. 2% of unfulfilled targets in approx. 11,000 km of watercourses are due to chemical substances, including pesticides. With our existing knowledge, it is difficult to judge how the present pesticide usage affects Denmark’s fresh-water systems. However, several measurements indicate that, in the case of pyrethroids and some thiophosphate insecticides, concentrations close to the level that causes an effect according to the existing literature have been found. For some pesticides, this level is lower than the limit value for drinking water, which is 0.1m g/l. The available concentration levels indicate particularly that it is the insecticides, and especially the pyrethroids, that may have a detrimental effect. Because of their persistence, the pyrethroids could also occur in the fresh-water ecosystems for a long period of time.

For the scenarios in which pesticides are used, there are no systematic studies of how pesticides in large, connected areas affect wild flora and the associated fauna in hedges, ditches and other small biotopes and neighbouring natural ecosystems. The effect on the flora as a consequence of the precipitation’s content of herbicides transported over long distances is not known in Denmark. International studies show that effects are probable, but for a more detailed determination, studies are needed of both the effects and the atmospheric transportation. There is also a need to assess the effect of pesticides on aquatic organisms in relation to the actual finds in watercourses and surface water.

More consistent and systematic use of permanent, spray-free brim zones as buffer zones would help to protect watercourses, lakes and water holes, together with well-preserved vegetation in small biotopes and natural ecosystems (where these are still to be found). Where the terrestrial small biotopes’ vegetation has been seriously affected by the past decades’ load of both herbicides and fertilisers, recolonisation would normally take place very slowly. Here, it would be necessary to establish permanent spray-free and fertiliser-free brim zones, where the vegetation and the associated fauna were to be reestablished. The sub-committee suggests a possible increase in the distance requirements to watercourses and lakes.

7.1.4 Effects on the working environment

The risk of acute effects from pesticides is estimated to be considerably lower today than it was just 10 years ago, because the most harmful agents are no longer permitted. When the protection aids recommended for the individual pesticide according to its classification and labelling are used, there is estimated to be a small risk of incurring chronic health effects. Some risk cannot be excluded for employees that do not observe the given regulations on personal protection and correct use of the pesticides and in cases of inappropriate work routines and poor work hygiene. There can be a considerable exposure of employees in greenhouses and in the production of fruit and vegetables, where pesticides are used frequently. Intensified action is called for here.

Many of the loads and effects on the working environment that are found within agriculture today would be the same, whether pesticides were used or not. On the other hand, the exposure to pesticides would diminish in step with the phasing out of the substances. In field spraying, the risk of exposure in a single working day can exceed the daily intake via food by a factor of 1000. If protection aids are not used, this risk can be much greater.

The risk of work accidents might increase in connection with mechanical weed control through the introduction of more machines and thus a need for repair and maintenance. In addition, increased manual weeding could result in more frequent injury in connection with monotonous, repetitive work (MRW). There is a generally increased risk of physical injury - particularly osteoarthritis – in farm workers that is associated with stable work, milking, driving a tractor and heavy physical work that is not related to the use of pesticides.

Accident risks are estimated to be of the same magnitude in the different scenarios. There might be an increased risk relating to repair and maintenance work because a larger number of different tools would be used in mechanical weed control in the scenarios with reduced pesticide usage.

It is not thought that the 0-scenario and the intermediate scenarios would in themselves result in more cases of damaged hearing. Since the number of old tractors used in farming is not known, there would still be situations in which noise and vibrations could be harmful.

Neither conventional nor organic farmers have ever concerned themselves very much with the working environment, and not all injuries are reported despite the fact that the agricultural sector has many serious accidents and accounts for most fatal accidents compared with all other industries. The working environment in farming should be given greater priority in connection with both conventional and pesticide-free operation.

7.1.5 Effects on public health

A review of pesticide intake from food products and drinking water shows that the predominant source of the burden on the population is the intake from berries, fruit and vegetables (84%) and, to some extent, cereals and cereal products (15%), while the intake from drinking water, animal food products and fish (<1%) plays a much smaller role in the total burden. In treated crops there must always be assumed to be some residue, so the fact that no information is provided on this can only be taken to mean that the content is smaller than the analytical detection limit.

The total average burden from food products is estimated to be approx. 200 µg pesticide/day, of which about 60% comes from imported products and 40% from Danish products (figure 7.6).

This intake can vary from a very low figure to about 600 µg per day. The average burden at single-substance level from food products is typically about 1% or less of the present acceptable daily intake (the ADI value).

The calculations of daily intake include both Danish and imported food products. Assuming that the proportional composition of Danish and imported products in the diet does not change, the daily intake can be estimated for the different scenarios. These imply a reduction in Danish pesticide usage of 31% in the ++scenario, 80% in the +scenario, 95% in the 0+ scenario and 100% in the 0-scenario. The results are shown in figure 7.6.

Nul = Zero
Nul-plus = Zero-plus
Plus = Plus
Plus-plus = Plus-plus
Nudrift = Present cropping
Dansk = Danish
Import = Imported

It will be seen from figure 7.6 that pesticide residue from imported food products would dominate the intake in all scenarios and would also be present with a total phase-out of pesticides in Denmark. One can conjecture about changes in the diet pattern of Danes in the event of complete or partial phase-out of pesticides, but such predictions are very uncertain. It would depend for example on the development of society both in Denmark and elsewhere and on the derivative market mechanisms. Basically, it is assumed that the intake from imported food products would remain unchanged despite movements between the individual products.

It cannot be proved on the basis of existing epidemiological studies that pesticides are harmful to health in the quantities to which the general population is exposed to them, for example through their diet. Similarly, it can never be proven scientifically that a chemical substance, including a given pesticide, will not cause a risk to health. All one can hope to do is establish the likelihood of a health risk or absence of the same with more or less certainty/uncertainty. Similar considerations apply to tests carried out on animals.

Epidemiological studies on the effects of metabolites and non-active ingredients, which often constitute a substantial proportion of the products, are largely non-existent.

7.1.6 Energy consumption, emission of greenhouse gases, leaching of nutrient salts

Energy consumption in pesticide-free farming

With a switch to pesticide-free farming, the direct energy cost for mechanical weed control would rise, but the rise would be partially compensated for by a saved indirect energy cost for production of pesticides. The total energy cost for land use in Denmark would not change very much with a change to pesticide-free farming, but this must be seen in relation to the considerable fall in yield of about 25%. The extent to which a different production pattern, e.g. reduced livestock production or organic farming, would reduce energy consumption has not been examined.

Emission of greenhouse gases in pesticide-free farming

The agricultural sector’s contribution to the greenhouse effect is approx. 13 Tg CO₂ equivalents. Of this, CO₂ from fossil energy consumption accounts for 1/4. The remainder of agriculture’s contribution to the greenhouse effect comes from methane and Nitrous oxide. The compensation for the reduced yield through import of fodder means a higher energy consumption than with use of pesticides. In the estimation of the change in agriculture’s contribution to the greenhouse effect in the case of restructuring for pesticide-free operation, changes in the emission of methane and Nitrous oxide are not included.

Leaching of nutrient salts

Changes in mechanical soil treatment and changed crop rotation regimes would affect the leaching of nutrient salts. The changes could be both detrimental and beneficial. In the pesticide-free scenario, the reduction in yield would, all else being equal, result in a smaller consumption of fertiliser and consequently reduced leaching. In the event of crop failure due, for example, to fungal diseases, on the other hand, increased leaching could be expected. The leaching from year to year would thus depend on an interaction between the choice of crops, the level of fertilisation, the intensity and timing of soil treatment and plant health. If fertiliser usage were reduced in the different scenarios, the implementation of Aquatic Environment Plan II would be accelerated.

7.2 Total or partial phase-out of pesticides in market gardening and fruit growing

In this section we will assess the consequences for outdoor cultivation of vegetables, fruit and berries, greenhouse production and nursery cultures.

Very little experimental data are available for assessing the consequences of a total and partial phase-out of pesticides in market gardening and fruit growing. This is partly because there is no useable experimental material on which to base an estimate of loss sizes and partly because untreated plots in experiments do not always give a real picture of any loss since they do not include any other preventive measure or other possible forms of control, including different cultivation techniques. Therefore, in some areas, the yield losses in a 0-scenario have been estimated on the basis of estimates from organic growers. These estimates are deemed to be the most reliable, particularly since special crops would often be placed where the fertilisation conditions are optimum. The level of fertilisation is therefore not expected to be far from the conditions in conventional cultivation.

There are also very little data in the environmental and health fields. Generally, these productions cover a small area compared, for example, with agriculture, but the spraying intensity is relatively high. Pollution from such productions could therefore be expected – for example, in the form of point-source pollution, and there could also be high exposures for the employees.

7.2.1 Consequences for market gardening and fruit growing

The yield losses in a 0-scenario have been estimated on the basis of estimates from organic growers. The yield losses have only been estimated for large crops. The reduction in yield would be about 30% for onions, 25% for common cabbage, 15% for carrots and 35% for peas. It is estimated that productions such as cauliflower and broccoli would be very uncertain, which is reflected in the fact that there is only a very small organic production of these vegetables today. It is thought that production of Chinese cabbage for winter sale would not be possible. It is estimated that the production would be even more exposed to big yearly fluctuations than it is today because there would be serious attacks by pests in some years.

In a scenario with a partial phase-out of pesticides, some areas are indicated where there are not deemed to be alternative methods that could replace the chemical methods for combating diseases and pests. Within weed control, the possibility of band spraying is pointed out, which could reduce consumption by 60-70%. There would be a big need to develop rational and effective methods for controlling weeds in rows by mechanical means or by means of cover material.

In the case of garden seed, it is considered, in particular, that increased costs for weed control would affect production. It is estimated that cultivation security would be considerably reduced as a consequence of a greater risk of pollution with weeds and fungal attack on the seeds. Most of the production is exported, and it is estimated that it would be difficult to maintain this market if the quality could not be maintained.

It is also expected that there would be very substantial consequences for a 0-scenario for field vegetables and garden seed. Most of the production within this sector would be abandoned because the estimated yield loss and/or additional costs would be high. A very big premium would be needed to keep contribution margins unchanged. In present-day organic production, a premium of 30-100% is obtained, depending on the crop. It is estimated that corresponding premiums would be necessary for products in a 0-scenario. For some crops, e.g. spring onions and carrots, weed control is of great importance to the size of the yield. Both mechanical and manual control could be used, but the costs could be high and it is very uncertain whether sufficient manpower for manual weeding could be procured.

The yield losses in a 0-scenario have mainly been estimated on the basis of estimates from organic growers. The yield losses have only been estimated for the large crops. The losses for apple production in relation to current quality requirements would amount to around 80% of the harvest yield. The yield in unsprayed pears would be reduced by 40-80%, depending on the species. For cooking cherries, the losses are estimated to be 30-70%, for blackcurrants about 50% and for strawberries about 60% of the traditional production. It is thus believed that there would be a very big reduction in the production. It is not expected that it would be possible to produce apples that would keep until Christmas, which would have major consequences for the quantity of fruit produced in Denmark. A big reduction would have to be expected in new plantings and in new players in the sector because cultivation security would be significantly reduced.

In a scenario with a partial phase-out, it is thought that there would be some pests for which there would not be alternative methods that could directly replace chemical methods of combating diseases and controlling pests (including rusting on apples, brown rot on cherries, bud gall mites in blackcurrants and grey mould on strawberries). Much of the production could be expected to be maintained if there were means of combating these pests. In particular, it is regarded as important to have agents for combating russeting on apples left on the tree over the winter. In organic production, problems with apple russeting have been mounting since the ban in Denmark on agents containing copper.

Weed control without herbicides is possible in fruit and berry cultures, but the solutions are considerably more costly. In some of the cultures it is possible to cultivate more disease-resistant species, but a change in the assortment – in the case of apples, for example – often takes 10-15 years. There are different cultivation techniques that can reduce attacks by disease and pests. However, many of them are rather costly (removal of old foliage, cutting out of infected shoots, etc.) and would make production considerably more expensive.

There would be a great need to develop rational and effective alternative methods of controlling pests and weeds if pesticides were phased out. It might also be necessary to consider whether the quality rules for the products should be changed.

Owing to international competition, the production of fruit and berries has shown a downward trend in the last few years and, with the exception of cherries, self-sufficiency is considerably less than 100% and falling, especially in the case of apples. Today, industrial production of unsprayed products is of negligible size, while there is some production of organic products.

On the basis of the earnings in organic production, it is estimated that the contribution margin would be reduced considerably for all fruit and berry cultures if pesticides were phased out. The prospects are worst for apples and pears, for which a substantial fall in earnings would have to be expected despite use of the most resistant species available, while the loss would be smaller in the production of blackcurrants and strawberries.

With a total phase-out of pesticides (the 0-scenario), it is regarded as very doubtful whether a commercial production of apples, pears and cooking cherries could be maintained to any significant extent, whereas some production of blackcurrants and strawberries could be expected to be maintained. With a partial phase-out (the +scenario), it is estimated that - assuming that spraying against the main pests could be maintained – the economic consequences could be limited to a 15-30% reduction in earnings.

Since plant production in greenhouses comprises a very large number of cultures – both edible cultures and ornamental plants – generalisation of the consequences for a 0-scenario is very difficult. However, it is estimated that a 0-scenario introduced over a short time horizon would have very negative consequences for present greenhouse production, which would, for instance, not be able to meet the international requirements concerning pest control in connection with exportation. The visual quality of ornamental plants is of great importance to their saleability. Thus, compact and uniform ornamental plants are a major quality requirement on the export market – something that would be difficult to retain if growth regulators were not used. The presence of pests can also mean direct rejection of plants, which would particularly occur where pests were covered by 0-tolerance rules.

The reduction in the production of ornamental plants would be between 0 and 100%, depending on culture and season. The explanation for this big variation must be seen in the light of legislation that permits maximum 2% of ordinary pests such as green-fly and thrips. It might be impossible to ensure this percentage in periods of the year using biological agents. A pesticide ban would be unfortunate for all main cultures. The reason for putting the loss at between 0 and 100% is that there are very big variations from one season, culture and year to another. Biological control is clearly a possibility for spring cultures, but a massive arrival of thrips, for example, after the grain harvest would often make biological control impossible – a fact that could impair the quality of the plants and the possibility of selling them.

In a scenario with a partial phase-out of pesticides, there are deemed to be good possibilities of continued production of greenhouse vegetables. This is due particularly to the fact that biological control methods are already widely used for pests. Biological control can keep pests down but regularly fails because of changes. This can mean that the pest gets out of control and in such cases chemical control is needed to reestablish the balance between pest and beneficial insects.

With a partial phase-out there would also be a need for pesticides for combating disease. Here, it is particularly pythium in propagation plants, mildew on cucumbers and grey mould on tomatoes that cause problems. The last-mentioned can often be dealt with by brushing sore faces and removing leaves. It is thought that problems with diseases could be reduced by better hygiene etc. However, that would imply increased use of disinfectants, which must also be regarded as a kind of control agent, even though they are not included among pesticides.

There is deemed to be a big potential for extending biological control to ornamental plants. If that were done, chemical agents could in time be reserved for situations in which biological control had failed and for meeting 0-tolerance and the 2% rule for pests. It is estimated that growth regulators and fungicides would be needed within a 10-year period to ensure stable production.

However, pesticides could not be completely phased out without a substantial reduction in the production of greenhouse vegetables. Losses would differ greatly, both from one nursery to another and from year to year at the same nursery. A loss of up to 50% is not unrealistic, while the average yield is expected to be reduced by 5-15% with a total phase-out of pesticides.

Altogether, restructuring for pesticide-free market gardening would mean considerable reductions in the sector as a whole. A partial phase-out of pesticides could probably be accommodated in vegetable production, whereas commercial productions would have difficulty in meeting such a requirement without a considerable fall in production – from 0-100%, depending on the culture and the season. Production of vegetables and, particularly, potted plants would be facing tough competition from conventional production in other countries.

It is estimated that 30-50% of this production would disappear because of competition problems and problems in supplying plants without pests. Nursery cultures are extremely sensitive in the propagation phase. This applies to propagation from both seed and cutting. It is thus considered that a 0-scenario for insecticides and fungicides would destroy the production of many cultures. Particular problems are predicted for fruit trees and ornamental trees, fruit bushes, roses and many other ornamental plants if alternative methods are not available. In the case of herbicides, a 0-scenario here and now would be extremely detrimental to production, especially in the propagation phase because the extra cost of mechanical control, including manual weeding, would be so big that it would be difficult to compete with other countries. All productions would require a change in the rules on quality if pesticides disappeared because it would be difficult to comply with the phytosanitary rules for pests. There are 0-tolerance values for certain pests, while for others, a small number is accepted.

It is difficult to analyse the consequences of a partially phase-out of pesticides for cultivation of nursery cultures. It is considered that some nursery production could be maintained, even with a reduction of pesticide usage, but for that to happen there would have to be agents available for combating acute, serious pest attacks. For some cultures – roses, fruit trees and ornamental trees, fruit bushes and some ornamental plants - big problems could be expected, particularly with russeting and various mites. It is in the propagation phase, which is often 1-2 years, that it would be most difficult to do without control agents. It is believed that technical changes could to some extent cope with the problem of weed control. That would mean different methods of cultivation in which mechanical control was easier and use of cover crops or organic materials, such as wood chips, to deal with the problem of weeds. Many of these alternative methods are still at the development stage.

Up to the present time, only a few firms have tried pesticide-free nursery operation, and the existing examples have been less than promising. It is estimated that, with a complete phase-out of pesticides (the 0-scenario), the yield from the production would be halved, while the +scenario should provide a possibility of maintaining some cultures at a certain level.

Owing to the high treatment frequency in market gardening, fruit growing and nurseries, there is a potential risk of pollution of the surroundings, including the ground water.

As a consequence of the intensive use of pesticides in greenhouses, nurseries and fruit and berry production, the employees have an increased exposure to pesticides. Although, in Danish conditions, certain health & safety effects as a consequence of work with and handling of pesticides have not been shown, increased action is deemed necessary in order to reduce the exposure.

7.3 Total or partial phase-out of pesticides in private forestry

Consequences for timber production

Compared with farming, market gardening and fruit growing, very little use has ever been made of pesticides in forestry. Most of the pesticides applied are herbicides, which are used in young stands to combat grass etc. that can be a threat to survival of the young plants. In addition, pests in the form of mice, deer and weevils cause serious problems. After some years’ growth, the culture is able to cope on its own, and pesticides are not used in the following 50-150 years.

Ornamental greenery and Christmas trees

Ornamental greenery and Christmas trees are highly specialised products that have to satisfy other requirements than timber production. The quality requirements are high and even minor damage may determine whether the product can be sold. Therefore more pesticides are used in this production than in other forestry. Owing to the market’s high quality requirements, it must be expected that a total ban on pesticides would undermine the economy of the production of ornamental greenery. Analyses indicate that the financial yield from the production could fall by around 80%. However, the possibility cannot be excluded of new production methods being found that could limit the use of herbicides. Within a 10-year time horizon, insect attack would remain a serious threat if the use of pesticides were banned.

It is estimated that, in old forest areas, a pesticide ban would result in a fall of 30-50% in the financial profit, and in heath forestry it is doubtful whether it would be possible to achieve a positive return. Furthermore, the production would become less valuable with respect to quality.

Afforestation on arable land

In the case of afforestation on arable land, the conditions for alternative weed control are better than in existing forests. However, the development of mechanical systems for weed control is moving relatively quickly and, particularly in light soils, there are good possibilities of reducing the use of pesticides. On the other hand, the already slow afforestation on clayey soil would be seriously impeded if one were prevented from using herbicides.

Environmental effects in forestry

In forestry, the quantity of pesticides used is small, whereas in Christmas tree and ornamental greenery production, it is of the same order of magnitude as in farming. There are no specific studies of the effect of herbicides on forest floor flora, but there is no doubt that even the limited use made of pesticides in forestry has a very adverse effect on the flora. Many species have a very slow recolonisation rate of less than 1 metre per year, which makes them particularly sensitive to herbicides, even though these are only used in connection with felling and planting. If the use of herbicides in forests were discontinued, it might mean that a forest floor flora could in time be recreated that was naturally adapted to the local soil and climatic conditions. However, mechanical control of unwanted vegetation by deep-ploughing large areas could have the same direct effects on the flora as herbicides and thus the same indirect effects on the associated fauna. In addition, there would be deleterious effects on soil organisms, fungi, soil profile and national monuments. In cases in which natural regeneration is not used, it is important for the forest floor flora that the soil treatment leaves uncultivated areas and that the regeneration is in the form of a shelter-wood system with preservation of the chosen species of trees. The use of herbicides in ornamental greenery and Christmas tree cultures in the + and ++scenarios would maintain a low biodiversity for the flora in these areas in the absence of alternative, more eco-friendly methods.

For forest fauna, it is the indirect effects of pesticide use that are most serious. As far as concerns the long-term effects on both flora and fauna, we lack tools and knowledge to assess the effects of pesticides.

7.4 Total conversion to organic farming

In organic farming, there are more limits to what can be grown in the way of different crops than there are in conventional farming. There must be a considerable proportion of nitrogen-fixating crops and the crop rotation regimes must be versatile and include perennial crops. Land use in the organic scenarios differs considerably from the present use. Table 7.12 shows the use of the entire cultivated area in the six organic scenarios, compared with the use in Danish agriculture in 1996.

The production systems in the organic scenarios would be very different from the present-day systems. An average of 40% of the acreage would be clover grass, providing feed richer in coarse fodder than today. Livestock manure, being a limited resource, would be evenly distributed in relation to the crop rotation. It must therefore be assumed that the livestock would be more evenly distributed in a 100% organic farm than they are today. There would be 10-15% more dairy cows in the scenarios than in present-day farming, with a lower average yield, and the bull calves from the milk production would be fattened as bullocks. The cows would be kept in a parlour and yard system and would be put out to grass in the summertime. The sows would be out on grass and the bacon pigs would have access to an outdoor area and straw bedding.

In Danish agriculture today, there is a substantial production of plant products for export – particularly cereals, rape and seed and such processed products as sugar and potato starch. In the organic scenarios, plants would only be produced for domestic consumption and fodder, while the production of animal products would exceed domestic consumer demand and some of it would be exported. To ensure sufficient good-quality seed grain, the first generations of seed would be treated with fungicide until non-chemical methods had been developed and implemented.

The total production of primary agricultural products in the six organic scenarios is shown in table 7.13, compared with the agricultural production in 1996. The production of cereals in the scenarios is considerably smaller than in 1996 and varies between the scenarios, while there is a bigger production of grass than in present-day farming. In the scenarios without fodder import, rape is only grown for fodder, while in all the scenarios, seed is produced for home consumption as seed for clover grass. The production of pork and poultry products varies in step with the import of fodder and productivity in crop farming. With 0-import, the production would be 30-44% of present-day production, while with 15-25% import, it would be 71-93% of present-day production. Milk production would still be limited by the milk quota and would therefore remain unchanged. The production of beef varies slightly from one scenario to another because the average milk yield would vary with the fodder supply.

Total production of primary agricultural products in 1996 and in the organic scenarios

Table 7.14 shows the quantities that would be available for export in the organic scenarios after meeting domestic demand and the need for fodder. This is compared with the export of cereals and rape and the net export of other agricultural products in 1996 and with the fodder import to Danish farms in 1995/96 and in the organic scenarios. It will be seen that with "unlimited import", the fodder import would be at the same level as in Danish agriculture today, but that with "15/25% import", it would be smaller.

Besides the domestic consumption of animal products, exports of milk products and beef in the scenarios would be at the same level as today. Pork exports would be unchanged with unlimited import and would fall by 10-40% with 15/25% import of fodder and by 70-90% with 0-import.