Spain: non-renewal of glyphosate would mean losing € 2.1bn and 5,000 jobs

According to the Socioeconomic Impact Study of Conservation Agriculture and the non-renewal of the authorization of glyphosate in Spain, prepared by the PricewaterhouseCoopers (Pwc) consultancy, to dispense with glyphosate-based herbicides would be a negative economic impact for our country. Would amount to 2,124 million euros, in terms of production, equivalent to 0.10% of National Production. In terms of employment, the losses that would result from the non-renewal of the use of this substance are estimated at about 5,000 jobs.

The cause of such high monetary and labor losses would be largely due to the decline in agricultural production, which would affect the activity of related sectors (suppliers, customers, the food sector, agriculture, hospitality and catering and wholesale and retail trade), given that the production of crops in which glyphosate is used in Spain amounts to almost 19 million tonnes and 5,900 million euros, which is 23% and 21% of The agricultural production in Spain in tonnes and in monetary units, respectively.

Not renewing the authorization of glyphosate would affect mainly the agricultural sector generating three immediate effects on the agricultural production that currently uses it:

• Decrease in production per hectare by an average of 10% for all crops. It would particularly affect cereal and permanent crops, causing production reductions of around 11% on the affected surface, extensive crops would also drop significantly, at around 5%.

• Increasing the workload of farmers. Glyphosate offers a simple and quick method of handling crops, performing minimum tillage. Therefore, the elimination of glyphosate could increase working requirements, from 1.91 h / ha to 3.85 h / ha, an increase of 49% in annual hours.

• Increased cost of agricultural production. Farmers would have to use more expensive alternative formulas that would increase production costs by around 9% and Conservation Agriculture practice would be severely impaired.

Giving up glyphosate would mean an increase in the variable production cost of cereals of 18% on average and 3% in the case of extensive crops

As a result of this increase in agricultural production, there would be an increase in the price level in the food chain.

With regard to commercial transactions, the fall in production and the increase in production would lead to an increase of imports of 304 million and a reduction of exports of 346, worsening the trade balance by 650 million euros. Likewise, the decrease in economic activity would have a significant impact on the revenues of the Public Administration, mainly through the reduction of tax collection, by 163 million euros.

As a whole, the agricultural sector has contributed to reduce the national trade deficit by obtaining a positive balance of 5,323 million euros and the fall in production would mean a loss of agricultural GDP of 296 million, to which should be added an additional 111 million derived from the loss due to higher production, which would together imply a loss of 3% of agricultural GDP. For example, in the case of cereals they would suffer a drop in production of 277 million euros, a decrease of 7.7%.

In Spain the importance of the agricultural sector represents 2.6% of GDP and 4% of national employment and the area treated with this active substance amounts to 3.9 Mha, approximately 28% of the total cultivated area

The use of glyphosate is not limited exclusively to the agricultural environment but its use extends to the maintenance of different infrastructures, such as industrial, transport networks, urban roads, parks and gardens. About 70% of the roads are treated with herbicides (about 125,000 kilometers annually) and more than 15,000 kilometers of railroads. Alternatives to the use of glyphosate are significantly more expensive, as is the case of mechanical mowing, which is between 4 and 5 times more expensive.

Glyphosate is also used to avoid the risk of fires that may be caused by weeds; increase the level of safety by preventing the weed from hindering the sight of traffic signals and getting in the way of trains and vehicles; and prevent vegetation from serving as a refuge for pests and diseases, mainly in parks and gardens.

From the business association representing the manufacturer of phytosanitary products in Spain (AEPLA) point out that “the scientific evidence on the safety of this active substance proves that the European Commission proposes the renewal of glyphosate for 15 years, as contemplated by the standard , And now the socio-economic arguments show the high value of this active substance and the enormous impact that would have a non-renewal of it”.

AEPLA recalls that the competent authorities of the European Union, such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) have welcomed the safety of glyphosate In English), authorities from Member States such as the German BfR, authorities from countries such as the US Environmental Assessment Agency, and authorities from Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, among other countries. In all cases they have determined that glyphosate is safe for the intended uses.

In the words of Carlos Palomar, Director General of AEPLA, “we understand and accept a strict regulatory framework like the current one in phytosanitary matters, but we do ask that it be predictable. Only in this way will companies see a guarantee of security in order to take on the investment effort of developing new solutions”, adding that” we have created and agreed upon an organizational structure in Europe in which different bodies and scientific authorities take responsibility for ensuring for our health and food safety. We regret that this opinion is not valued against emotional messages that are positioned and mobilized against scientific evidence. If the ban on a substance such as glyphosate, whose safety has been confirmed by the competent bodies in the matter is finally agreed, we would be setting a precedent for very negative consequences for the future”.

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT

Source: AEPLA