Pesticide Use in Agriculture: an Economic Evaluation Jittinan - PDF document

Pesticide Use in Agriculture: an Economic Evaluation Jittinan Aukayanagul, Ph.D. Nisachol Cetthakrikul, M.Sc. Kumaree Pachanee, B.Sc., M.A. International Health Policy Program (IHPP) Ministry of Public Health, Thailand Think Tank Meeting January 8, 2013 Research Questions o Cost-benefit analysis of pesticide use in agriculture International Health Policy Program -Thailand  Health cost accounted for?  Pesticide blood testing worthwhile? International Health Policy Program -Thailand o Motivation  Part of “Development of Health Benefit Package under Universal Health Care Coverage Scheme”  Pesticide blood testing to be included as to raise awareness?  Farmers not well aware of the health cost? 2

Background o According to the Department of Agriculture and International Health Policy Program -Thailand Office of Agricultural Economics (OAE), in 2009,  Pesticide import estimating at 138 million kilograms (or 69 million kilograms of active ingredients)  Crop growing land covering 122 million rais International Health Policy Program -Thailand  Minimum amount of pesticide use per rai of 1.13 kilograms (or 0.56 kilograms of active ingredients per rai) 3 Background (continued) o Pesticide exposure possibly causing International Health Policy Program -Thailand  Acute symptoms such as coughing fit, skin irritation, eyelid spasm, stomach run, nausea, vomiting, etc. ( พิบูลย์ อิสสระพันธุ์ , 2554 )  Chronic toxicity such as cardiopulmonary disorders, International Health Policy Program -Thailand neurological and hematological symptoms, skin disease, etc. (Rola and Pingali, 1993) 4

Literature Review o Various models of pesticide use and health impacts at International Health Policy Program -Thailand individual level including Rola and Pingali (1993), Antle and Pingali (1994), Pingali et al. (1994), Cole et al. (1998), Muambe and Swinton (2002), Dung and Dung (2003), Darnhofer et al. (2005), Baral et al. International Health Policy Program -Thailand (2006), and Linhaves (2008) o Modeling methods employed  Decision tree model – interview questions  Expected utility model – health cost/happiness functions 5 Model o An expected utility model of individual farmers’ International Health Policy Program -Thailand choice of pesticide use o A risk neutral farmer assumed to maximize his/her expected profit by choosing the level of pesticide use International Health Policy Program -Thailand o Optimal rule stating “marginal benefit = marginal cost” to maximize profit 6

Model (continued) o Marginal benefit = output price*additional output International Health Policy Program -Thailand  Additional output measured via an estimation of the production function  Output as some function of pesticides, labor, and fertilizers International Health Policy Program -Thailand  Ceteris paribus, additional output derived as the change in output per a unit change in pesticide use  Additional output = ∂ output/ ∂ pesticides 7 Model (continued) o Marginal cost = per unit cost + marginal health cost International Health Policy Program -Thailand  Marginal health cost measured via an estimation of the health cost function  Health cost as some function of pesticides, age, nutritional status, smoking, drinking, and protective International Health Policy Program -Thailand measures  Ceteris paribus, marginal health cost derived as the change in health cost per a unit change in pesticide use  Marginal health cost = ∂ health cost/ ∂ pesticides 8

Scope of Study and Data Collection o Focusing on rice production International Health Policy Program -Thailand  Rice as a major economic crop of Thailand (OAE, 2009)  Growing area estimating at 65 million rais and pesticide use amounting to a total of 9 thousand tons in 1993 International Health Policy Program -Thailand (Overgaard et al., 2010) o Considering only acute symptoms  Persistent toxic pesticides (i.e. organochlorine) banned under Stockholm Convention in 2004  Possibly small long-run effects due to chance and discounting 9 Scope of Study and Data Collection (continued) o Period of study: 1 growing season International Health Policy Program -Thailand o Selection of study sites  Khon Kaen – representing in-season rice production in the Northeastern part of Thailand International Health Policy Program -Thailand  Chainat – representing irrigated rice production o A sample of 92 households drawn at each site to ensure generalization at 95% confidence level and 10% precision level 10

Scope of Study and Data Collection (continued) o Only farmers applying pesticides themselves included International Health Policy Program -Thailand in the study o Data collected via questionnaires International Health Policy Program -Thailand  Form 1: personal information collected at the beginning  Form a: pesticide use record and acute toxicity collected every time farmers apply pesticides  Form 2: output and input information collected at the end 11 Preliminary Data o Personal information (Form 1) International Health Policy Program -Thailand Personal Information Khon Kaen Chainat Age (year) Average 48 49 Maximum 66 77 International Health Policy Program -Thailand Minimum 27 18 Weight-height ratio (kg/m 2 ) Average 23.60 23.43 Maximum 32.32 33.33 Minimum 13.71 17.96 Smoking ≥ 20 cigarettes a day 21 7 Drinking at least 3-4 times a week 27 9 Congenital/chronic diseases 17 22 12

Preliminary Data (continued) o Pesticide use and acute toxicity information (Form a) International Health Policy Program -Thailand Pesticide Use Information Khon Kaen Chainat Number of brands used 41 > 90 Golden apple snail Insect and Purpose of use and weed control disease control Classes of pesticides used International Health Policy Program -Thailand 2, 3 ? (DOA classification) Most commonly used pesticide Tea seed meal (saponin) Nothing in particular (61% of the sample) Use of protective measures 81% of the sample 72% of the sample during application Acute toxicity 20% of the sample 19% of the sample Weakness, fatigue, Common symptoms Headache, nausea excessive sweating, headache, nausea 13 To-Do List o Data preparation for regressions, specifically, International Health Policy Program -Thailand  Checking for accuracy and correctness of some of the pesticide names listed by farmers  Data cleaning – output and input information (Form 2) International Health Policy Program -Thailand o Regression analyses and statistical testing  Marginal health cost statistically significant?  If so, checking whether it is accounted for by farmers in their decision making process 14

Policy Implications o If marginal health cost not statistically significant, International Health Policy Program -Thailand  A claim such as “farmers using too much of pesticides than necessary” considered invalid  Pesticide blood testing not the right choice of policy to tackle pesticide problem International Health Policy Program -Thailand  Policies to be directed towards external costs of pesticide use 15 Policy Implications (continued) o If significant marginal health cost, but not accounted International Health Policy Program -Thailand for,  Marginal health cost “saved/avoided” from using less pesticides possibly considered benefit of pesticide blood testing, assuming changes in risk behavior of International Health Policy Program -Thailand farmers after the blood test  Relevant cost-benefit analysis of pesticide blood testing 16

Acknowledgement  Ministry of Public Health of Thailand International Health Policy Program -Thailand  National Health Security Office  Health Systems Research Institute  Hat Asa Subdistrict Municipality, Chainat  Ubolratana Hospital, Khon Kaen International Health Policy Program -Thailand  Hat Asa Health Promoting Hospital, Chainat  Sapphaya Hospital, Chainat 17