THE BICHEL COMMITTEE

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.