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。
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
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,
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)
----------------------------------
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
../gmo_contents.htm . /gmo_title.htm ../gmo_start.htm