Agroeconomic costs for meeting the Environmental Protection Agency's mitigation menu approach to pesticide regulation

Abstract

In April 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced a workplan for pesticide registration and reregistration to meet obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which included a menu of suggested mitigation measures to reduce potential for exposure of nontarget species to runoff, spray drift, and erosion. If adopted on registered product labels, it enables a prospective registrant to meet more stringent ESA criteria for registration, even during non‐ESA‐issued interim decisions. This paper identifies and evaluates complexities posed by the mitigation menu approach that could undermine good intentions underlying this new process and uses existing economic considerations to analyze positive and negative externalities. Several points of complexity demonstrate how the mitigation menu approach would benefit from further regulatory development or refinement. Changes should be informed by fundamental questions about the dynamics between landowners and land managers and, crucially, different motivations decision‐makers face in adopting voluntary versus regulatory mitigations.

FIFRA, ESA, and Pesticide Consultation: Understanding and Addressing the Complexities

“…In-field mitigation measures, such as contour farming, cover cropping, grassed waterways, in-field vegetative filter strips, irrigation water management, mulch amendments with natural materials, residue tillage management, and terrace farming, range in point values from one to three. These practices are centered around mitigating surface runoff within the field; however, these measures are not easily implemented in many cropping systems, installation can result in the loss of productive land, and a significant financial burden can be placed on the grower who is implementing the practice (Duzy et al 2023). Adjacent to the field or other mitigation measures (one to three points) include maintaining riparian areas, vegetated ditches, vegetative filter strips (adjacent to the field), and water retention systems.…”

Rural Business Environments, Information Channels, and Farmers’ Pesticide Utilization Behavior: A Grounded Theory Analysis in Hainan Province, China

“…The EU focuses on integrated pest management (IPM), enforcing farmer training and stringent pesticide approvals [42]. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates pesticide use, providing educational resources and certifications for safe handling [43]. India offers practical training for efficient pesticide application [44].…”