[PDF] - Pesticide Use in Agriculture: an Economic Evaluation Jittinan PDF Document

SLIDE 1

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

International Health Policy Program -Thailand

Research Questions

Cost-benefit analysis of pesticide use in agriculture
Health cost accounted for?
Pesticide blood testing worthwhile?
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

SLIDE 2

International Health Policy Program -Thailand

Background

According to the Department of Agriculture and

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
Minimum amount of pesticide use per rai of 1.13

kilograms (or 0.56 kilograms of active ingredients per rai)

3 International Health Policy Program -Thailand

International Health Policy Program -Thailand

Background (continued)

Pesticide exposure possibly causing
Acute symptoms such as coughing fit, skin irritation,

eyelid spasm, stomach run, nausea, vomiting, etc. (พิบูลย์

อิสสระพันธุ์, 2554)

Chronic toxicity such as cardiopulmonary disorders,

neurological and hematological symptoms, skin disease, etc. (Rola and Pingali, 1993)

4

SLIDE 3

International Health Policy Program -Thailand

Literature Review

Various models of pesticide use and health impacts at

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. (2006), and Linhaves (2008)

Modeling methods employed
Decision tree model – interview questions
Expected utility model – health cost/happiness

functions

5 International Health Policy Program -Thailand

International Health Policy Program -Thailand

Model

An expected utility model of individual farmers’

choice of pesticide use

A risk neutral farmer assumed to maximize his/her

expected profit by choosing the level of pesticide use

Optimal rule stating “marginal benefit = marginal

cost” to maximize profit

6

SLIDE 4

International Health Policy Program -Thailand

Model (continued)

Marginal benefit = output price*additional output
Additional output measured via an estimation of the

production function

Output as some function of pesticides, labor, and

fertilizers

Ceteris paribus, additional output derived as the change

in output per a unit change in pesticide use

Additional output = ∂output/∂pesticides

7 International Health Policy Program -Thailand

International Health Policy Program -Thailand

Model (continued)

Marginal cost = per unit cost + marginal health cost
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 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

SLIDE 5

International Health Policy Program -Thailand

Scope of Study and Data Collection

Focusing on rice production
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 (Overgaard et al., 2010)

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 International Health Policy Program -Thailand

International Health Policy Program -Thailand

Scope of Study and Data Collection (continued)

Period of study: 1 growing season
Selection of study sites
Khon Kaen – representing in-season rice production in

the Northeastern part of Thailand

Chainat – representing irrigated rice production
A sample of 92 households drawn at each site to

ensure generalization at 95% confidence level and 10% precision level

10

SLIDE 6

International Health Policy Program -Thailand

Scope of Study and Data Collection (continued)

Only farmers applying pesticides themselves included

in the study

Data collected via questionnaires
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 International Health Policy Program -Thailand

International Health Policy Program -Thailand

Preliminary Data

Personal information (Form 1)

Personal Information Khon Kaen Chainat Age (year) Average

48 49

Maximum

66 77

Minimum

27 18

Weight-height ratio (kg/m2) 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

SLIDE 7

International Health Policy Program -Thailand

Preliminary Data (continued)

Pesticide use and acute toxicity information (Form a)

Pesticide Use Information Khon Kaen Chainat

Number of brands used

41 > 90

Purpose of use

Golden apple snail Insect and and weed control disease control

Classes of pesticides used

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

Common symptoms

Headache, nausea Weakness, fatigue, excessive sweating, headache, nausea

13 International Health Policy Program -Thailand

International Health Policy Program -Thailand

To-Do List

Data preparation for regressions, specifically,
Checking for accuracy and correctness of some of the

pesticide names listed by farmers

Data cleaning – output and input information (Form 2)
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

SLIDE 8

International Health Policy Program -Thailand

Policy Implications

If marginal health cost not statistically significant,
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

Policies to be directed towards external costs of

pesticide use

15 International Health Policy Program -Thailand

International Health Policy Program -Thailand

Policy Implications (continued)

If significant marginal health cost, but not accounted

for,

Marginal health cost “saved/avoided” from using less

pesticides possibly considered benefit of pesticide blood testing, assuming changes in risk behavior of farmers after the blood test

Relevant cost-benefit analysis of pesticide blood testing

16

SLIDE 9

International Health Policy Program -Thailand

Acknowledgement

Ministry of Public Health of Thailand
National Health Security Office
Health Systems Research Institute
Hat Asa Subdistrict Municipality, Chainat
Ubolratana Hospital, Khon Kaen
Hat Asa Health Promoting Hospital, Chainat
Sapphaya Hospital, Chainat

17