The contribution of glyphosate to agriculture in Indonesia and implications of restrictions on its use Graham Brookes PG Economics Ltd UK ©PG Economics Ltd 2016

Background and objectives IARC re-evaluated potential carcinogenic risk of several pesticides, including glyphosate in 2015 – re-classified glyphosate as probable carcinogen to humans Some governments are considering banning or restricting use of glyphosate – Indonesia is one of these countries Paper examines glyphosate use in Indonesia and implications of restrictions on use in agriculture ©PG Economics Ltd 2016

Methodology Analysis of pesticide, herbicide and glyphosate use in agriculture – drawing on farm usage data from Gfk Interviews (72) with representatives of government and private plantations crop estates, farmers, agricultural input distributors and suppliers of herbicides/pesticides who had good knowledge of production practices and weed control in crops/uses where glyphosate is used ©PG Economics Ltd 2016

Pesticide use in Indonesia  20.4 million kg of pesticide active ingredient used on 53.2 million ha (2012)  Farmers spend $775 million on pesticides (2012)  Herbicides account for 65% of volume of active ingredient used, 42% of spray area and 31% of expenditure on pesticides  Insecticides are the other main category of pesticides used ©PG Economics Ltd 2016

Herbicide use by crop: amount of active ingredient used (total = 15.2 million kg) ©PG Economics Ltd 2016

Herbicide use by crop: base area sprayed (total = 16.3 million ha) ©PG Economics Ltd 2016

Glyphosate use by crop: amount of active ingredient used (total 9.67 million kg) ©PG Economics Ltd 2016

Glyphosate use by crop: total area sprayed (total 8 million ha) ©PG Economics Ltd 2016

Implications of restrictions on use of glyphosate: land preparation In all crops, key use is for weed control in pre-planting phase (burndown where weeds are cleared before seeds are sown). If glyphosate no longer allowed:  Land preparation phase expected to poorer  Crop yields expected to fall due to poorer weed control  Length of time for effective weed control will decrease – requiring additional weed control activities = higher costs  Increased use of tillage (corn and rice), paraquat (all crops) and more use of manual weeding (rice and corn) ©PG Economics Ltd 2016

Plantation crops(oil palm, rubber, tropical fruit, sugar cane) post land preparation impacts ©PG Economics Ltd 2016  Increased cost of weed control  Poorer levels of weed control  Shorter weed control cycle  Greater difficulty accessing fields  Increased pest problems = more use of manual weeding, extra use of paraquat and other herbicides (sugar cane), increased frequency of herbicide applications

Seasonal crops(corn and rice) impacts ©PG Economics Ltd 2016  Higher costs of land preparation  Increased use of other herbicides – especially paraquat  More use of manual weeding, especially in rice

Cost of production implications ©PG Economics Ltd 2016 CropAdditional cost `000 $ Average cost/ha increase ($/ha) Features Corn Land preparation phase Tropical fruit 9,894Land preparation 4.7, immature 56, mature 72.5 All three of production phases: land preparation, immature and mature Land reclamation Land preparation phase Oil palm 97,422Land prep 32.7, immature 30.5, mature 38.8 All three of production phases: land preparation, immature and mature Rice 40, Land preparation phase and possibly some need for additional pre-emergent control Rubber 13,150Land prep 96.5, immature 74, mature 69.4 All three of production phases: land preparation, immature and mature Sugar cane 2, Land preparation phase and possibly some need for additional pre-emergent control Total of these crops/uses 164,375 Notes: Land preparation phase applicable – all crops/use. Also replacement of glyphosate in immature and mature phase of production for plantation crops oil palm, rubber and tropical fruit Exchange rate used for conversion from Indonesian rupiah to US $ 1$ = 13,590 rupiah (Source: USDA 2014 annual average) Baseline is area of each crop receiving treatments of glyphosate in 2012 – Average cost/ha relates to the average cost per hectare treated with glyphosate (baseline 2012)

Financial implications ©PG Economics Ltd 2016  Highest levels of additional weed control costs will be in oil palm and rice (59% and 24% respectively of total additional costs)  Highest additional costs for alternative weed control expected where significant additional use of manual labour replaces glyphosate use  Negative yield impacts expected – if 1% yield decrease in each crop occurred would result in fall of production of 0.6 million tonnes and loss of production value of $76 million  Main crop negatively affected is oil palm, followed by tropical fruit and rice

Environmental implications of restrictions on glyphosate use ©PG Economics Ltd 2016  If area treated with glyphosate replaced by most commonly cited alternative of paraquat would result in net reduction in amount of total herbicide active ingredient used (-7%) – average of 1.92 kg ai/ha falling to 1.8 kg ai/ha BUT in terms of associated environmental impact would be worse – eg, field EIQ indicator value would increase by 45% from 30.6/ha to 44.2/ha)  Possible loss of some benefits of no/reduced tillage (reduced soil erosion, higher water retention reduced carbon emissions) compared to plough- based alternative in corn and rice  Possible reversion to illegal practice of burning in plantation crops and non agricultural uses