Retrospective evaluation of costs associated with methyl bromide critical use exemptions for open field strawberries in California
-
Ann Wolverton
Abstract
Methyl bromide (MBr) has been widely used as a fumigant to control pests in the agricultural sector, but it is also an ozone depleting substance. After 2005, methyl bromide could only be produced when a critical use exemption was agreed to by the signatories to the Montreal Protocol. This paper examines how the EPA’s ex ante cost analyses for open field fresh strawberries in California for the 2006–2010 seasons compare to an ex post assessment of costs. A key input into the ex ante cost analysis is the assumed yield loss associated with methyl bromide alternatives. The EPA used conservative assumptions given the wide range of estimates in the literature at the time, but it appears that a number of viable MBr alternatives – either new fumigants or new ways of applying existing fumigants – may have become available more quickly and resulted in lower yield loss than initially anticipated. Likewise, it appears that farmers who substituted away from methyl bromide did so without imposing large negative impacts on production in prime California strawberry growing areas. Ex post evaluation also confirms the effect of California regulatory restrictions in limiting the use of various economically competitive alternatives. It is worth noting that unanticipated complications after switching away from methyl bromide, such as new diseases, slowed the transition to MBr alternatives.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Jeremy Arling, Christine Augustyniak, William Chism, Jim DeMocker, David Donaldson, Elizabeth Hill, Timothy Kiely, and Leonard Yourman for their helpful suggestions and technical expertise. The author also thanks members of Environmental Economics Advisory Board of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board for their careful review of the draft report upon which this article is based, which can be found at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/c91996cd39a82f648525742400690127/3a2ca322f56386fa852577bd0068c654!OpenDocument.
References
Bolda, M., Tourte, L., Klonsky, K., & De Moura, R. (2010). Sample costs to produce strawberries. Central Coast Region: Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. University of California Cooperative Extension.Suche in Google Scholar
California Strawberry Commission. (2005). Strawberry review: 2005 acreage survey results.Suche in Google Scholar
California Strawberry Commission. (2006). Strawberry review: 2006 acreage survey.Suche in Google Scholar
California Strawberry Commission. (2009). California strawberry revised 2009 acreage survey.Suche in Google Scholar
California Strawberry Commission. (2012a). Strawberry review: 2012 acreage survey.Suche in Google Scholar
California Strawberry Commission. (2012b). The facts about methyl bromide.Suche in Google Scholar
Carpenter, J., Gianessi, L., & Lynch, L. (2000). The economic impact of the scheduled U.S. phaseout of methyl bromide. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy.Suche in Google Scholar
Carpenter, J., Lynch, L., & Trout, T. (2001). Township limits on 1,3-D will impact adjustment to methyl bromide phase-out. California Agriculture,55(3), 12–18.10.3733/ca.v055n03p12Suche in Google Scholar
Carter, C., Chalfant, J., Goodhue, R., Groves, K., & Simon, L. (2004). Impacts of pesticide regulation on the California strawberry industry. Working Paper.Suche in Google Scholar
Carter, C., Chalfant, J., Goodhue, R., Han, F., & DeSantis, M. (2005a). The methyl bromide ban: economic impacts on the California strawberry industry. Review of Agricultural Economics,27(2), 181–197.10.1111/j.1467-9353.2005.00220.xSuche in Google Scholar
Carter, C., Chalfant, J., Goodhue, R., & McKee, G. (2005b). Costs of 2001 methyl bromide rules estimated for California strawberry industry. California Agriculture,59(1), 41–46.10.3733/ca.v059n01p41Suche in Google Scholar
Dara, S., Klonsky, K., & De Moura, R. (2011). Sample costs to produce strawberries. South Coast Region: Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties: University of California Cooperative Extension.Suche in Google Scholar
Daugovish, O., Klonsky, K., & De Moura, R. (2011). Sample costs to produce strawberries. South Coast Region: Ventura County. University of California Cooperative Extension.Suche in Google Scholar
DuPois, E., & Gareau, B. (2008). Neoliberal knowledge: the decline of technocracy and the weakening of the Montreal Protocol. Social Science Quarterly,89(5), 1212–1229.10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00576.xSuche in Google Scholar
Fennimore, S., & Ajwa, H. (2011). Totally impermeable film retains fumigants, allowing lower application rates in strawberry. California Agriculture,65(4), 211–215.10.3733/ca.E.v065n04p211Suche in Google Scholar
Ferguson, W., & Yee, J. (1997). Phasing out registered pesticide uses as an alternative to total bans: A case study of methyl bromide. Journal of Agribusiness,15(1), 69–84.Suche in Google Scholar
Goodhue, R., Fennimore, S., & Ajwa, H. (2003). Economic feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives: field-level cost analysis. White Paper.Suche in Google Scholar
Goodhue, R., Fennimore, S., Klonsky, K., & Ajwa, H. (2004). After methyl bromide: the economics of strawberry production with alternative fumigants. Working Paper. Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics.Suche in Google Scholar
Goodhue, R., Fennimore, S., & Ajwa, H. (2005). The economic importance of methyl bromide: does the California strawberry industry qualify for a critical use exemption from the methyl bromide ban? Review of Agricultural Economics,27(2), 198–211.10.1111/j.1467-9353.2005.00221.xSuche in Google Scholar
Hueth, B., McWilliams, B., Sunding, D., & Zilberman, D. (2000). Analysis of an emerging market: can methyl iodide substitute for methyl bromide? Review of Agricultural Economics, 22(1), 43–54.10.1093/aepp/22.1.43Suche in Google Scholar
Kopits, E., McGartland, A., Morgan, C., Pasurka, C., Shadbegian, R., Simon, N., Simpson, D., & Wolverton, A. (2014). Retrospective cost analyses of EPA regulations: a case study approach. Journal of Benefit Cost Analysis. Analysis, 5(2), 173–193.10.1515/jbca-2014-0024Suche in Google Scholar
Mayfield, E., & Norman, C. (2012). Moving away from methyl bromide: political economy of pesticide transition for California strawberries since 2004. Journal of Environmental Management, 106(15), 93–101.10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.009Suche in Google Scholar
Noling, J. (2005). Reducing methyl bromide field application rates with plastic mulch technology. Paper ENY046. Institute of Food and Agricultural Science, University of Florida.Suche in Google Scholar
Noling, J., & Botts, D. (2010). Transitioning to methyl bromide alternatives: a current U.S. assessment. White Paper. Available at: http://mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/002NolingJBottsDMBAO2009TransitioningtoMethylBromideAlternatives.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
Noling, J., Botts, D., & MacRae, A. (2010). Alternatives to methyl bromide soil fumigation for Florida vegetable production. Vegetable Production Handbook. University of Florida, IFAS Extension.Suche in Google Scholar
Norman, C. (2005). Potential impacts of imposing methyl bromide phaseout on U.S. strawberry growers: a case study of a nomination for a critical use exemption under the Montreal Protocol. Journal of Environmental Management,75, 167–176.Suche in Google Scholar
Othman, M., Ajwa, H., Fennimore, S., Martin, F., Subbarao, K., Browne, G., & Hunzie, J. (2009). Strawberry production with reduced rates of methyl bromide alternatives applied under retentive film. Proceedings for 2009 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions.Suche in Google Scholar
Perez, A., Plattner, K., & Baldwin, K. (2011). Fruit and tree nuts outlook. FTS-347. National Agricultural Statistical Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.Suche in Google Scholar
Porter, I., Trinder, L., & Partington, D. (2006). Validating the yield performance of alternatives to methyl bromide for pre-plant fumigation. Special report commissioned by the Methyl Bromide Technology Options Committee, Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, UNEP.Suche in Google Scholar
Rubin, S. (2012). Arysta to pull methyl iodide from U.S. Monterey County Weekly. March 22.Suche in Google Scholar
Samtani, J., Ajwa, H., Weber, J., Browne, G., Klose, S., Hunzie, J., & Fennimore, S. (2011). Evaluation of non-fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for weed control and crop yield in California strawberries. Crop Protection,30(1), 45–51.10.1016/j.cropro.2010.08.023Suche in Google Scholar
Sances, F. (2000). Conventional and organic alternatives to methyl bromide on California strawberries. Working paper. Presented at Methyl Bromides Alternatives Conference.Suche in Google Scholar
Sydorovych, O., Safley, C., Ferguson, L., Poling, E., Fernandez, G., Brannen, P., Monks, D., & Louws, F. (2006). Economic evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives for the production of strawberries in the southeastern United States. HortTechnology, 16(1), 1–11.10.21273/HORTTECH.16.1.0118Suche in Google Scholar
Takele, E., Klonsky, K., & De Moura, R. (2006). Sample costs to produce strawberries. South Coast Region: Santa Barbara County, Santa Maria Valley. University of California Cooperative Extension.Suche in Google Scholar
UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme). (2006). Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. 7th Edition, United Nations.Suche in Google Scholar
UNEP. (2010). 2010 Report of the methyl bromide technical options committee.Suche in Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2000). Economic implications of the methyl bromide phaseout. Economic research service. Agriculture Information Bulletin, 756.Suche in Google Scholar
U.S. EPA. (2004–2013). Methyl bromide critical use nomination for preplant soil use for strawberries grown for fruit in open fields. Submitted for 2006–2015 seasons.Suche in Google Scholar
VanSickle, J., Brewster, C., & Spreen, T. (2000). Impact of a methyl bromide ban on the U.S. vegetable industry. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Science. Bulletin 333.Suche in Google Scholar
VanSickle, J., & NaLampang, S. (2002). The impact of the phase out of methyl bromide on the U.S. vegetable industry. Policy Brief 02-1. University of Florida. International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center.Suche in Google Scholar
Article note
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. EPA.
©2014 by De Gruyter
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Retrospective cost analyses of EPA regulations: a case study approach
- Ex ante and ex post cost estimates of the Cluster Rule and MACT II Rule
- Retrospective evaluation of costs associated with methyl bromide critical use exemptions for open field strawberries in California
- National primary drinking water regulation for arsenic: A retrospective assessment of costs
- A retrospective assessment of the costs of EPA’s 1998 Locomotive Emission Standards
- Do regulators overestimate the costs of regulation?
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Retrospective cost analyses of EPA regulations: a case study approach
- Ex ante and ex post cost estimates of the Cluster Rule and MACT II Rule
- Retrospective evaluation of costs associated with methyl bromide critical use exemptions for open field strawberries in California
- National primary drinking water regulation for arsenic: A retrospective assessment of costs
- A retrospective assessment of the costs of EPA’s 1998 Locomotive Emission Standards
- Do regulators overestimate the costs of regulation?
