Conservation Agriculture in Trouble? Estimating the Economic Impact of an Eventual Glyphosate Prohibition in Spain

Abstract

Weed control is a crucial aspect in many conservation agriculture systems given that costs and time savings from avoiding tillage are closely linked to the use of effective and environmental friendly herbicides. This has led to the widespread use of glyphosate in farms, as it is a broad-spectrum, easily degradable, low- cost herbicide. The recent debate on the safety of glyphosate and on the excessive use of chemical herbicides in food production has caused concern on farmers about the possible economic effects of a virtual ban on glyphosate. The aim of this paper is to estimate the costs associated with an eventual prohibition of glyphosate in Spanish conservation agriculture areas. The costs of different alternative weed control strategies for herbaceous and tree crops were calculated: i) substitution of glyphosate in chemical control; ii) minimum tillage; iii) conventional tillage; and iv) natural or planted vegetal groundcovers. The results show that banning glyphosate would increase the costs of chemical control by 40% for herbaceous and by 57% for tree crops. However, conventional tillage would be a cheaper option for herbaceous because costs increase by 10% compared to current techniques. Our estimations suggest that the ban on glyphosate would have a negative impact on the economic profitability of farms and also on other non-economic advantages derived from conservation farming techniques.

Contaminants of Emerging Concern: A Review of Biological and Economic Principles to Guide Water Management Policies

“…Thus, a reduction or elimination of a particular compound (e.g., antibiotic, pesticide or herbicide) could lead to its substitution by a different substance with greater environmental impacts on the same environment (aquatic ecosystem) or on other resources (air, soil, etc.). As indicated by Pardo and Martínez (2019), a ban on the use of the herbicide glyphosate in agriculture would lead to an increase in the use of other chemical herbicides that are less effective in controlling weeds and involve greater environmental impacts. In a similar way, Perry and Moschini (2020) found that the introduction of neonicotinoids has increased the toxicity risk to honeybees but has significantly lowered the risk to mammals, birds, and fish.…”

“…In this respect, Pearce and Koundouri (2003b) state the importance of assessing cross-elasticities besides own-price elasticities of pesticides, and suggest toxicity weighted taxes would capture geographic and product variation in damage better than a single tax. Likewise, eliminating the use of petrochemical plastics or agrochemicals may lead to their replacement by other factors of production (i.e., other materials or mechanical techniques), increasing the use of other resources such as land, water or fossil fuels, which affect air pollutant emissions (Brizga et al, 2020;Pardo and Martínez, 2019). Thus, it is crucial to take into account the environmental and biological dimensions in the economic analyses so that the feasibility of regulations and the substitution effects between different products are properly assessed in order to design efficient policies.…”