IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331438.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Pesticide Reducing Instruments – An Interdisciplinary Analysis of effectiveness and optimality

Author

Listed:
  • Jacobsen, Lars-Bo
  • Jensen, Jørgen D.
  • Andersen, Martin
  • Bjørner, Thomas B.
  • Hauch, Jens
  • Topping, Chris J.

Abstract

In the paper we combine several analytical tools in search of an effective pesticide reduction instrument and an optimal application of such an instrument. The tools under consideration are a CGE model used for evaluating the cost and to calculate general economic and sectoral consequences. The CGE model is linked to an agricultural sector model calculating the optimal use of land and application of pesticides. The agricultural sector model is then linked to a biological agent based simulation model (ABM) calculating changes in the population of a key species of farmland bird, due to changes in production and landscape. The results from the agricultural sector model are also used in a Bayesian network evaluation of pesticide usage and the leaching of pesticides to ground water. In this combined model framework three scenarios are analyzed. All three scenarios are constructed such that they result in the same welfare implication (measured by national consumption in the CGE model). The scenarios are: 1) pesticide taxes resulting in a 25 percent overall reduction; 2) use of unsprayed field margins, resulting in the same welfare loss as in scenario 1; and finally 3) increased conversion to organic farming also resulting in the same welfare loss as in scenario 1. Biological and geological results from the first part of our analysis allow us to select the most costeffective instrument of those analysed for improving bio-diversity and securing drinking water. We proceed by including valuation studies of increased bio-diversity and secure water resources which thus contribute to a cost-benefit analysis. Furthermore, we address the question of optimal application of the selected instrument by calculation of the total abatement cost and benefit curves. From these curves we can then deduce the marginal benefit and cost curves, which allow us to determine the optimal instrument application. Results suggest that Denmark could benefit from adaptation of unsprayed field margins and further that the optimal application of such margins should exceeds 20 percent of the total agricultural area.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacobsen, Lars-Bo & Jensen, Jørgen D. & Andersen, Martin & Bjørner, Thomas B. & Hauch, Jens & Topping, Chris J., 2005. "Pesticide Reducing Instruments – An Interdisciplinary Analysis of effectiveness and optimality," Conference papers 331438, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331438
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331438/files/2223.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kym Anderson, 2003. "Measuring Effects of Trade Policy Distortions: How Far Have We Come?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 413-440, April.
    2. Bernard Hoekman & Carlos Braga, 1997. "Protection and Trade in Services: A Survey," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 285-308, July.
    3. Hoekman, B. & Sauve, P., 1995. "Liberalizing Trade in Services," World Bank - Discussion Papers 243, World Bank.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Acar, Mustafa & Afyonoglu, Burcu & Kus, Savas & Vural, Bengisu, 2007. "Turkey’s Agricultural Integration with the EU: Quantifying the Implications," Conference papers 331657, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    2. Kym Anderson, 2005. "On the Virtues of Multilateral Trade Negotiations," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(255), pages 414-438, December.
    3. Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2008. "Measuring Protection: Mission Impossible?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 577-616, July.
    4. Bernard Hoekman & Patrick Messerlin, 2002. "Initial conditions and incentives for Arab economic integration : can the European Community's success be emulated?," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03607662, HAL.
    5. Toma, Luiza & Mathijs, Erik & Revoredo-Giha, Cesar, 2006. "Linkages between Agriculture, Trade and the Environment in the Context of the European Union Accession," Working Papers 45991, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    6. Lawrence White, 2002. "International Trade In Services: More Than Meets the Eye," Working Papers 02-13, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    7. Sahoo, Pravakar & Dash, Ranjan Kumar, 2014. "India's surge in modern services exports: Empirics for policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 1082-1100.
    8. Eppinger, Peter S., 2019. "Service offshoring and firm employment," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 209-228.
    9. Fukase,Emiko & Martin,William J. & Fukase,Emiko & Martin,William J., 2015. "Economic implications of a potential free trade agreement between India and the United States," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7212, The World Bank.
    10. Alan V. Deardorff & Robert M. Stern, 2009. "Empirical Analysis of Barriers to International Services Transactions and the Consequences of Liberalization," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Globalization And International Trade Policies, chapter 15, pages 523-595, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm, 2024. "Effect of the accession to the world trade organization on commercial services exports," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 106-127.
    12. Sèna K. Gnangnon, 2021. "Aid for Trade and services export diversification in recipient countries," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 189-225, June.
    13. Bernard Hoekman & Carlos Braga, 1997. "Protection and Trade in Services: A Survey," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 285-308, July.
    14. Robert M. Stern, 2000. "Quantifying Barriers to Trade in Services," Working Papers 470, Research Seminar in International Economics, University of Michigan.
    15. Glebe, Thilo W., 2011. "Welfare economics of agricultural trade liberalisation and strategic environmental policy," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 8(2).
    16. Alan V. Deardorff, 2001. "International Provision of Trade Services, Trade, and Fragmentation," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(2), pages 233-248, May.
    17. Juan A. Marchetti, 2011. "Do Economic Integration Agreements Lead to Deeper Integration of Services Markets?," Chapters, in: Miroslav N. Jovanović (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Integration, Volume III, chapter 19, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Joseph Francois & Julia Woerz, 2008. "Producer Services, Manufacturing Linkages, and Trade," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 199-229, December.
    19. Fulvio Castellacci, 2008. "Innovation in Norway in a European Perspective," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 34, pages 1-1.
    20. Henk Kox & Arjan Lejour, 2005. "Regulatory heterogeneity as obstacle for international services trade," CPB Discussion Paper 49, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331438. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.