Quantity and monetary value of agrochemical pollution from intensive farming in Indonesia

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to measure the environmental performance of intensive farming and estimate agrochemical waste in physical and monetary terms. The intensive farming provides adverse impacts including health and environmental quality associated with the use of agrochemicals. Design/methodology/approach This study uses a theory of environmental efficiency that measures how efficient the farm uses agrochemical inputs. The efficiency was estimated using a set of farm-level data of intensive farming that use agrochemicals. Data were compiled from a survey of randomly selected 240 farmers who operated intensive farming in three regions of Java in 2014. Findings The results show that the performance of intensive farming was low. This condition caused agrochemical waste leading to the externality. Taking the external costs into account resulted in the improvement in efficiency of agrochemicals. The actual level of agrochemicals was about a hundred times higher than the most efficient level. Research limitations/implications This study is beyond the exogenous external costs. There is a need for a further comprehensive study to include more exogenous external costs associated with agrochemicals to have the potential value of such costs and the most socially efficient use of agrochemicals. The long-term effects of external cost to the environment and socio-economic livelihood of the farmers and other communities are considerable. Advocating for alternatives to decrease the use of detrimental agro-inputs, in the long run, will provide sound quality of the environment. Socially, both producers and consumers get the environmental and health benefits. Practical implications To reduce the agrochemical waste that caused environmental problems, a policy should be formulated to make farming more efficient, particularly for agrochemical use. It can be done by introducing agronomic technologies and enhancing farmers’ knowledge on environmentally friendly agriculture. Originality/value Environmental efficiency is able to estimate the quantity of agrochemical waste. The waste is a kind of non-point source pollution whose source and quantity are very difficult to identify and measure. As there are many definitions and measurement of environmental performance, this concept of environmental efficiency can be one of the alternatives.

Analysis of Production and Sales of Organic Products in Ukrainian Agricultural Enterprises

“…Organic agricultural production has gained more popularity recently due to changes in customer tastes and income [1][2][3]. In 2017, organic agriculture was licensed in 181 countries, and approximately 2.4 million farmers were engaged in organic production [4,5].…”

Bamboo as an Alternative Bioenergy Crop and Powerful Ally for Land Restoration in Indonesia

“…Furthermore, there is a potential risk to biodiversity and food security of bamboo plantations if farmers clear-cut native vegetation or convert the farmlands to bamboo plantations in the pursuit of higher profits [59]. Even if bamboo requires less pesticides and fertilizers compared to other crops, in a pursuit of higher production, intensive management that involves harmful chemicals could cause land and water pollution [68]. Like other dedicated bioenergy crops, bamboo may also compete for land and water with food crops, if it is grown on agricultural lands.…”

Using the Socio-Ecological Model to Frame the Influence of Stakeholders on Cocoa Farmers’ Pesticide Safety in Nigeria: Findings from a Qualitative Study

“…7 In addition, unsafe pesticide use accompany with adverse health impact have also been reported in the developing agricultural nations such as Morocco, Indonesia, Iran and Thailand. [8][9][10][11] For instance, pesticides related symptoms such as headache, fatigue and itching were reported among 29.4%, 45.9% and 57.6% of study participants in Thailand, respectively. 9 Moreover, workrelated pesticide symptoms have also been reported among roughly 23% Indian, 25% Mexican and 43% Zimbabwean farmers.…”