Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-01148583.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do agri-environmental schemes help reduce herbicide use? Evidence from a natural experiment in France

Author

Listed:
  • Laure Kuhfuss

    (LAMETA - Laboratoire Montpelliérain d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - UM1 - Université Montpellier 1 - UPVM - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier, UM1 - Université Montpellier 1)

  • Julie Subervie

    (LAMETA - Laboratoire Montpelliérain d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - UM1 - Université Montpellier 1 - UPVM - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier)

Abstract
Agri-environmental schemes (AES) are a central component of the environmental policy of the European Union. Despite widespread interest and investment in AESs, few of these pro- grams have been carefully evaluated and doubts are often expressed about the effectiveness of voluntary programs. The purpose of this article is to estimate the additional effects of AESs targeting nonpoint source pollution from pesticides, focusing on one emblematic case study: herbicide use in vineyards. We use original data collected from winegrowers participating in AESs in the south of France, and we use exogenous variation in the timing of the implemen- tation of the AESs as a natural experiment. We show that the quantity of herbicides used by participants in the programin 2012 was around 30%belowwhat theywould have usedwithout the program, while the impact was significantly higher in 2011 - around 50% - presumably be- cause of higher weed pressure. Although significant, these impacts remain smaller than what had been expected by policymakers. Focusing on the "zero herbicide between the vine rows" option, which is both the most often chosen as well as the least stringent among the mea- sures,we moreover showthe presence of windfall effects. Simple extrapolation of these results suggests that this level of effectiveness may not be sufficient to ensurewater quality in thewa- tersheds targeted by the AES.

Suggested Citation

  • Laure Kuhfuss & Julie Subervie, 2015. "Do agri-environmental schemes help reduce herbicide use? Evidence from a natural experiment in France," Working Papers hal-01148583, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01148583
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01148583
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-01148583/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrea Pufahl & Christoph R. Weiss, 2009. "Evaluating the effects of farm programmes: results from propensity score matching," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(1), pages 79-101, March.
    2. Rob Fraser, 2009. "Land Heterogeneity, Agricultural Income Forgone and Environmental Benefit: An Assessment of Incentive Compatibility Problems in Environmental Stewardship Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 190-201, February.
    3. Chabé-Ferret, Sylvain & Subervie, Julie, 2013. "How much green for the buck? Estimating additional and windfall effects of French agro-environmental schemes by DID-matching," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 12-27.
    4. Todd, Petra E., 2008. "Evaluating Social Programs with Endogenous Program Placement and Selection of the Treated," Handbook of Development Economics, in: T. Paul Schultz & John A. Strauss (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 60, pages 3847-3894, Elsevier.
    5. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra E. Todd, 1997. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(4), pages 605-654.
    6. Alberto Abadie & David Drukker & Jane Leber Herr & Guido W. Imbens, 2004. "Implementing matching estimators for average treatment effects in Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 4(3), pages 290-311, September.
    7. Guido W. Imbens, 2004. "Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Exogeneity: A Review," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 4-29, February.
    8. Chihiro Udagawa & Ian Hodge & Mark Reader, 2014. "Farm Level Costs of Agri-environment Measures: The Impact of Entry Level Stewardship on Cereal Farm Incomes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 212-233, January.
    9. Alberto Abadie & Guido W. Imbens, 2006. "Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 235-267, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Philippe Le Coent & Coralie Calvet, 2016. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offsetting through agri-environmental schemes: evidence from an empirical study," Working Papers 16-10, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier.
    2. Stéphane Mussard & Fattouma Souissi-Benrejab, 2019. "Gini-PLS Regressions," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 17(3), pages 477-512, September.
    3. Jacqmin, Julien & Lefebvre, Mathieu, 2016. "Does sector-specific experience matter? The case of European higher education ministers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 987-998.
    4. Calvet, Coralie & Le Coent, Philippe & Napoleone, Claude & Quétier, Fabien, 2019. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offset outcomes through agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from an empirical study in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 113-125.

    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. Laure Kuhfuss & Julie Subervie, 2015. "Do European PES help reduce herbicide use ? Evidence from a natural experiment in France," Working Papers 15-02, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Nov 2015.
    2. Kuhfuss, Laure & Subervie, Julie, 2018. "Do European Agri-environment Measures Help Reduce Herbicide Use? Evidence From Viticulture in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 202-211.
    3. Uehleke, Reinhard & Petrick, Martin & Hüttel, Silke, 2022. "Evaluations of agri-environmental schemes based on observational farm data: The importance of covariate selection," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    4. Fatema, Naureen, 2019. "Can land title reduce low-intensity interhousehold conflict incidences and associated damages in eastern DRC?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Szulc, Adam, 2009. "A matching estimator of household equivalence scales," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 81-83, May.
    6. Gabriela Simonet & Julie Subervie & Driss Ezzine-De-Blas & Marina Cromberg & Amy Duchelle, 2015. "Paying smallholders not to cut down the amazon forest: impact evaluation of a REDD+ pilot project," Working Papers 1514, Chaire Economie du climat.
    7. David McKenzie & John Gibson & Steven Stillman, 2010. "How Important Is Selection? Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Measures of the Income Gains from Migration," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 8(4), pages 913-945, June.
    8. Tommaso Nannicini, 2007. "Simulation-based sensitivity analysis for matching estimators," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 334-350, September.
    9. McKenzie, David & Gibson, John & Stillman, Steven, 2006. "How important is selection ? Experimental versus non-experimental measures of the income gains from migration," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3906, The World Bank.
    10. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    11. Marco Caliendo & Sabine Kopeinig, 2008. "Some Practical Guidance For The Implementation Of Propensity Score Matching," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 31-72, February.
    12. Abbott, Joshua K. & Klaiber, H. Allen, 2011. "The Value Of Water As An Urban Club Good: A Matching Approach To Hoa-Provided Lakes," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103781, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Pandej Chintrakarn, 2008. "Estimating the Euro Effects on Trade with Propensity Score Matching," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 186-198, February.
    14. David McKenzie & John Gibson & Steven Stillman, 2006. "How Important is Selection? Experimental vs Non-experimental Measures of the Income Gains of Migration," Working Papers 06_02, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
    15. Roberto ESPOSTI, 2014. "To match, not to match, how to match: Estimating the farm-level impact of the CAP-first pillar reform (or: How to Apply Treatment-Effect Econometrics when the Real World is;a Mess)," Working Papers 403, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    16. Jones A.M & Rice N, 2009. "Econometric Evaluation of Health Policies," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 09/09, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    17. Cristina SALVIONI & Dario SCIULLI, 2018. "Rural development policy in Italy: the impact of growth-oriented measures on farm outcomes," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 64(3), pages 115-130.
    18. Gregory N. Price & Chris W. Surprenant, 2022. "The Treatment Effect of Business Education on the Supply of High School Entrepreneurs in Atlanta and New Orleans," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 67(1), pages 85-98, March.
    19. Erlend E. Bø & Elin Halvorsen & Thor O. Thoresen, 2019. "Heterogeneity of the Carnegie Effect," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 54(3), pages 726-759.
    20. Cisilino, Federica & Bodini, Antonella & Zanoli, Agostina, 2019. "Rural development programs’ impact on environment: An ex-post evaluation of organic faming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 454-462.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    pesticides; water quality; agri-environmental scheme; herbicides; natural experiment; nonpoint source pollution;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hal:wpaper:hal-01148583. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.