Notes - Agri-culture: Reconnecting People, Land and Nature - page 199

the polluter to bear the full costs of its actions. It is technological externalities
that are commonly termed 'externalities' in most environmental literature (see
Davis and Kamien, 1972; Common, 1995; Knutson et al, 1998).
9 For more on the value of nature's goods and services, see Abramovitz,
1997; Costanza et al, 1997, 1999; Daily, 1997; and Ecological Economics , 1999,
vol 25 (1).
10 See Pimentel et al, 1992, 1995; Rola and Pingali, 1993; Pingali and
Roger, 1995; Evans, 1995; Steiner et al, 1995; Fleischer and Waibel, 1998;
Waibel and Fleischer, 1998; Bailey et al, 1999; Norse et al, 2000. The data from
these studies are not easily comparable in their original form as different
frameworks and methods of assessment have been used. Methodological
concerns have also been raised about some studies. Some have noted that several
effects could not be assessed in monetary terms, while others have appeared to
be more arbitrary (eg the US$2 billion cost of bird deaths in the US is arrived
at by multiplying 67 million losses by US$30 a bird: see Pimentel et al, 1992).
The Davison et al (1996) study on the Netherlands agriculture was even more
arbitrary. It added an estimate of the costs that farmers would incur to reach
stated policy objectives, and these were based on predicted yield reductions of
10-25 per cent arising from neither cheap nor preferable technologies, which led
to a large overestimate of environmental damage (see Bowles and Webster, 1995;
Crosson, 1995; Pearce and Tinch, 1998; van der Bijl and Bleumink, 1997).
11 On the effects of pesticides in rice, see Rola and Pingali, 1993; Pingali
and Roger, 1995.
12 Hartridge and Pearce, 2001.
13 See Pretty et al, 2000, 2001. These are likely to be conservative estimates
of the real costs. Some costs are known to be substantial underestimates, such
as acute and chronic pesticide poisoning of humans, monitoring costs, eutro-
phication of reservoirs and the restoration of all hedgerow losses. Some currently
cannot be calculated, such as dredging to maintain navigable water, flood
defences, marine eutrophication and poisoning of domestic pets. The costs of
returning the environment or human health to pristine conditions were not
calculated, and treatment and prevention costs may be underestimates of how
much people might be willing to pay in order to see positive externalities created.
The data also do not account for time lags between the cause of a problem and
its expression as a cost, as some processes that have long since ceased may still be
causing costs. Some current practices, furthermore, may not yet have caused costs,
and this study did not include the externalities arising from transporting food
from farms to manufacturers, processors, retailers and, finally, to consumers.
14 See Pretty et al, 2001.
15 The government's Office of the Director General of Water Services sets
industry price levels every five years, which determine the maximum levels of
water bills and specify investments in water quality treatment. During the 1990s,
the water industry undertook pesticide and nitrate removal schemes, resulting
in the construction of 120 plants for pesticide removal and 30 for nitrate removal
(Ofwat, 1998). Ofwat estimates that water companies will spend a further