Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline

INRA, UMR LAMETA, 2 place Viala, 34060 Montpellier Cedex 1, France
Ecological Economics (Impact Factor: 2.52). 02/2009; 68(3):810-821. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.014
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT There is mounting evidence of pollinator decline all over the world and consequences in many agricultural areas could be significant. We assessed these consequences by measuring 1) the contribution of insect pollination to the world agricultural output economic value, and 2) the vulnerability of world agriculture in the face of pollinator decline. We used a bioeconomic approach, which integrated the production dependence ratio on pollinators, for the 100 crops used directly for human food worldwide as listed by FAO. The total economic value of pollination worldwide amounted to €153 billion, which represented 9.5% of the value of the world agricultural production used for human food in 2005. In terms of welfare, the consumer surplus loss was estimated between €190 and €310 billion based upon average price elasticities of − 1.5 to − 0.8, respectively. Vegetables and fruits were the leading crop categories in value of insect pollination with about €50 billion each, followed by edible oil crops, stimulants, nuts and spices. The production value of a ton of the crop categories that do not depend on insect pollination averaged €151 while that of those that are pollinator-dependent averaged €761. The vulnerability ratio was calculated for each crop category at the regional and world scales as the ratio between the economic value of pollination and the current total crop value. This ratio varied considerably among crop categories and there was a positive correlation between the rate of vulnerability to pollinators decline of a crop category and its value per production unit. Looking at the capacity to nourish the world population after pollinator loss, the production of 3 crop categories – namely fruits, vegetables, and stimulants - will clearly be below the current consumption level at the world scale and even more so for certain regions like Europe. Yet, although our valuation clearly demonstrates the economic importance of insect pollinators, it cannot be considered as a scenario since it does not take into account the strategic responses of the markets.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Agricultural intensification has led to the decrease of the diversity of wild and domestic pollinators. For instance, honeybees declined by 59 % in 61 years in the USA. About 35 % of major crops in the world depend on pollination services , and 3–8 % of world crop production will disappear without pollinators. Indeed, pollination provides several ecosystem services such as enabling crop and honey productions, regulating weeds and other cultural services. Agricultural in-tensification has also decreased weed diversity by about 50 % in 70 years because massive herbicide sprays have reduced the competition between weeds and crops. Nevertheless, weeds are at the basis of agricultural foodwebs, providing food to many living organisms. In particular, weeds provide flowers for pollinating insects including honey and wild bees. Here, we review the decline of weeds and bees. We discuss the effect of bees and pollination on crop production. We describe the complex interactions between bee pollinators, e.g. honey and wild bees, and landscape habitats such as crop fields and semi-natural elements. For that, we focus on spatial and temporal effects on flower resources. We show that weed abundance can reduce crop yields, thus inducing conflict with farmers. But weed abundance enhances regulating services by ensuring the survival of honeybees in the absence of oil seed crops. Weed abundance also enhances pollination services and, in turn, honey yield for the benefit of beekeepers. Weed abundance has also improved the survival of wild flora and the socio-cultural value of landscapes, a major request from the public. From those findings, we present a conceptual framework allowing to define ecological engineering options based upon ecosystem services of weeds and pollinators.
    Agronomy for Sustainable Development 01/2015; DOI:10.1007/s13593-015-0302-5
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A polinização é um processo ecológico fundamental para as plantas que necessitam da transferência dos grãos de pólen para fertilizar e se reproduzir. Na natureza isso é verdadeiro para maioria das plantas com flores, incluindo muitas espécies cultivadas. Assim, os polinizadores são nossos parceiros, aumentando a produção de muitos frutos e sementes consumidos pelo homem. Mas esta fauna, como quase toda biota, está ameaçada pelo intenso e descuidado uso da terra. Já existem relatos de polinizadores extintos e dos prejuízos subsequentes. Entretanto, para a natureza, o maior problema está nas reações em cadeia que são provocadas quando elementos chave de uma rede de interação são excluídos. Neste capítulo apresentamos os problemas mais críticos que ameaçam a fauna de polinizadores, as consequências que podem advir do declínio desta fauna e, por fim, indicamos algumas medidas que podem atenuar em favor da manutenção dos mesmos. Entre as causas do declínio de polinizadores destacamos a perda, fragmentação e degradação de habitat, a introdução de espécies invasoras e o uso de agrotóxicos. Esperamos com este texto esclarecer e sensibilizar para a necessidade de se preservar nossos polinizadores nativos e assim garantir a polinização que eles desenvolvem.
    Biologia da Polinização, 1 edited by Editora Projeto Cultural, 01/2014: chapter 23 - Conservação dos polinizadores: pages 493-524; , ISBN: 9788568126011
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A b s t r a c t Twenty managed honey bee colonies, split between 5 apiaries with 4 hives each, were monitored between the summer of 2011 and spring of 2013. Living bees were sampled in July 2011, July 2012, and August 2012. Twenty-five, medium-aged bees, free of var-roa mites, were pooled per colony and date, to form one sample. Unlike in France and Belgium, Chronic Bee Paralysis Virus (CBPV) has not been found in Luxembourg. Slow Bee Paralysis Virus (SBPV) and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) levels were below detection limits. Traces of Kashmir Bee Virus (KBV) were amplified. Black Queen Cell Virus (BQCV), Varroa destructor Virus-1 (VDV-1), and SacBrood Virus (SBV) were detected in all samples and are reported from Luxembourg for the first time. Varroa destructor Macula-Like Virus (VdMLV), Deformed Wing Virus (DWV), and Acute Bee Paralysis Virus (ABPV) were detected at all locations, and in most but not all samples. There was a significant increase in VDV-1 and DWV levels within the observation period. A principal component analysis was unable to separate the bees of colonies that survived the following winter from bees that died, based on their virus contents in summer. The number of dead varroa mites found below colonies was elevated in colonies that died in the following winter. Significant positive relationships were found between the log-transformed virus levels of the bees and the log-transformed number of mites found below the colonies per week, for VDV-1 and DWV. Sacbrood virus levels were independent of varroa levels, suggesting a neutral or competitive relationship between this virus and varroa.
    Journal of Apicultural Science 01/2015; 59(1). DOI:10.1515/JAS-2015-0005

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 31, 2014