欧州における農業用薬品(農薬等)の有益性についての詳細な調査報告

**この研究はEUの機関(ECPA)とドイツのIVAがおこないドイツの大学教授が取りまとめたものです。

そのなかで重要視しているのは、現在は有害な農薬は作られない開発体系を強化する方向になっており、むしろ農薬の適量や適材適所の情報を充分に提供し効率的な利用により使いすぎをなくすことで対応すべき問題であり、それを短絡的に農薬の全面使用禁止に結びつけるのは農業の実態と本質を無視したものであると指摘している。 また有機はプラスだけとは限らず、きちっと環境負荷や生産面の計算をすべきだという指摘は重要である。

 Germany only: ドイツだけがその規制をやったとき、ドイツだけが落ち込み、相対的に(ドイツが落ちた分だけ)他の諸国の競争力と経済がよくなる。

 EU全部でやったとき:  やっぱりドイツでの落ち込みがひどいがEU全体もひどく落ち込む

 世界全体でやるとどうなるかサーベーがひつようだが、宇宙経済があるわけじゃないから(宇宙人から買うわけにいかないので)人類全体が病むことになるだろう。 世界の市民は今後もAgrichemical(農薬等)を使いつづけることを確認する必要があると結論している。

 

農業生産の落ち込み-

1. 農薬等の75%削減の場合は、小麦など25%の減少でドイツでは総合的に27−45%の農業生産の減少をまねき、小麦と砂糖を輸入しなければならなくなる。

2. 農薬等の全面禁止の場合は収穫量の落ち込み: 50%−84% 農業収入の落ち込み 32−45%と見積もられる。  

農薬等使用を75%強制削減した場合のEU経済における損失額 

(単位:1000百万ドイツマルク)

Member state        In Germany only           In the EU
Germany                  -35.8                 -34.4
France                   + 9.5                 -13.4
Italy                    + 6.5                 -10.9
UK                       + 5.4                 -13.1
Denmark                  + 3.2                 + 0.5
Spain                    + 2.9                 - 2.2
Sweden                   + 2.0                 - 9.1

Finland                      0                 - 1.6

Rest of EU(1)            +16.5                 - 2.3
Total EU                 +10.2                 -86.5

 

 ページ先頭  ページ末尾


以下原文:

Title  EU STUDY HIGHLIGHTS AGROCHEMICAL BENEFITS

Source: January 8, 2002,AGROW (Via Agnet)

 

Summary: 

The benefits of using crop protection products in agriculture "far outweigh" the costs to a national economy and the EU as a whole-- It is the responsibility of the world's citizens to ensure that chemical crop protection continues to be used,

  The study shows that a 75% cut in the use of crop protection products in Germany would result in the following reductions in crop production: 25% in wheat production; fodder grain (-25%); oilseed plants (-20%); fruit and vegetables (-14%); sugar beet (-11%); and other crops (-18%).  The study also shows that this reduction in agrochemical use would lead to a drop in German crop exports of between 27% and 47%.  Germany would then be forced to increase its imports of cereals and sugar. The loss to German agriculture that would be caused by a 75% reduction would be an estimated DM 4,400 million ($2,010 million) per year, while the overall loss annually to the German economy would be an estimated DM 35,800 million or just under 1% of its gross domestic product. 

   If all of the EU reduced the use of crop protection products by 75%, its economy would lose around DM 86,500 million, the study estimates. If Germany were alone in cutting its agrochemical use by 75%, the competitive advantages for the rest of the EU countries would be worth some DM 46,000 million per year. Effect of 75% reduction in agchem use on value of economy (DM 000 million).

  This research was conducted by:  European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) and the German agrochemical industry association, the IVA, Professor Michael Schmitz of the German University of Giessen

----------------------------------

以下全文:

 

EU STUDY HIGHLIGHTS AGROCHEMICAL BENEFITS

 

January 8, 2002

AGROW

(Via Agnet)

 

A new study commissioned by the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) and the German agrochemical industry association, the IVA, has found that the benefits of using crop protection products in agriculture "far outweigh" the costs to a national economy and the EU as a whole.  It is the responsibility of the world's citizens to ensure that chemical crop protection continues to be used, the study's author, Professor Michael Schmitz of the German University of Giessen, says. The study shows the impact that a total ban on or a significant reduction in agrochemical use would have on the financial status of both farmers and the economy as a whole. 

 

To do this, two general numerical equilibrium models developed by Professors M Brockmeier (Bundesforschungsanstalt fur Landwirtschaft, Braunschweig,

 

Germany) and J-H Ko (Pusan University, Korea) were applied to Germany and the EU. A complete ban on the use of agrochemicals in Germany would lead to drastic drops in production of between 50% and 84%, the study shows.  Yields would decline and the market share of crops produced would be lost to competitor countries.  A total ban would also result in German farmers losing between 32% and 45% of their income.

 

The study shows that a 75% cut in the use of crop protection products in Germany would result in the following reductions in crop production: 25% in wheat production; fodder grain (-25%); oilseed plants (-20%); fruit and vegetables (-14%); sugar beet (-11%); and other crops (-18%).  The study also shows that this reduction in agrochemical use would lead to a drop in German crop exports of between 27% and 47%.  Germany would then be forced to increase its imports of cereals and sugar. The loss to German agriculture that would be caused by a 75% reduction would be an estimated DM 4,400 million ($2,010 million) per year, while the overall loss annually to the German economy would be an estimated DM 35,800 million or just under 1% of its gross domestic product. 

 

If all of the EU reduced the use of crop protection products by 75%, its economy would lose around DM 86,500 million, the study estimates. If Germany were alone in cutting its agrochemical use by 75%, the competitive advantages for the rest of the EU countries would be worth some DM 46,000 million per year. Effect of 75% reduction in agchem use on value of economy (DM 000 million)

 

Member state        In Germany only           In the EU

Germany                  -35.8                 -34.4

France                   + 9.5                 -13.4

Italy                    + 6.5                 -10.9

UK                       + 5.4                 -13.1

Denmark                  + 3.2                 + 0.5

Spain                    + 2.9                 - 2.2

Sweden                   + 2.0                 - 9.1

Finland                      0                 - 1.6

Rest of EU(1)            +16.5                 - 2.3

Total EU                 +10.2                 -86.5

 

(1) Austria, Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Portugal.

Source: study calculations based on the Brockmeier EU model. Instead of banning or reducing the use of agrochemicals, the way in which they are used could be optimised.  "This would lead to considerable savings," Professor Schmitz points out.  For this to happen, users of crop protection products would need to be provided with more extensive information and guidance.  This would also lead to a fall in the risks incurred by pesticide users related to poor use of information, he adds.

 

Professor Schmitz acknowledges that there are still many questions that should be answered before a full cost benefit analysis can be carried out. "The lacking co-ordination of national and international research results is regrettable," he adds.  Furthermore, not all of the components of a comprehensive cost benefit analysis can be clearly quantified, he points out. "The effects of some crop protection methods have not yet even been researched."  He also hints that organic farming does not only bring positive effects and that more research is needed. The ECPA welcomes the study, but highlights that it also reveals the gaps in the data required to "truly" evaluate the costs and benefits of agrochemicals.  It also highlights the impact on the agrochemical industry and other food chain members of state intervention and "symbolic" political gestures. 

 

"To achieve the sustainable use of crop protection products, it is vital to have all the facts before introducing political measures. We believe that a more comprehensive pan-European cost benefit analysis is required if the correct decisions are to be made," says ECPA director-general Dr Pierre Urech. Professor Schmitz believes that politicians and the agrochemical industry need to work essentially as "partners" in order that the benefits of agrochemicals be maintained and that the potential negative external effects be reduced to an "absolute minimum". Professor Schmitz makes a number of recommendations to the agricultural and agrochemical industry and those concerned on a political level.  To the industry he suggests: the further development of precision farming; greater use of computers; further development of a new generation of agrochemicals that are more effective, contain smaller amounts of active ingredient, break down more rapidly and are intended for selective use only; the development of seed with improved agronomic traits; the use of more environmentally benign application and equipment cleaning procedures; the development of more effective diagnosis and prognosis systems; and investment in training.

 

Politicians are urged to consider: the implementation of suitable legislative measures to reduce risks to human health and the environment; the introduction of measures that distinguish between the requirements of different locations and crop types; the creation of a standardised measurement network for surface and ground water contamination by agrochemicals; the assessment of the effectiveness of current regulations covering the approval and use of crop protection products; the introduction of financial incentives and market economy rules; co-operation between parties instead of state intervention; and that any costs that arise in relation to the use of crop protection products should be borne where they are incurred.

 

* The report, "A Cost Benefit Analysis of Crop Protection", by Professor Michael Schmitz of the University of Giessen in Germany is available from Stephen Weller at the ECPA.  Tel: +32 2 663 1563.  Fax: +32 2 663 1560.

E-mail: stephen.weller@ecpa.be.

AGROW - World Crop Protection News

 


 ページ先頭  


もどる

../gmo_contents.htm . /gmo_title.htm   ../gmo_start.htm