## European Chemical

### Pesticide-Free Agriculture in 2050

Presentation: Chantal in Mouli (INRAE SMART)
Coordination: Olivier Moria (INRAE DEPE)
with the contribution of L. Muriel (INRAE DEPE), L. Drouet (INRAE ECOSEP/EXPE), J.-A. Berne (INRAE DEPE), V. Kiefer (INRAE SMART), L. Pannys (INRAE DEPE), A. Forslund (INRAE SMART)

<figure><img src="image_337.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_338.png" /></figure>

anr® INRAE

CULTIVER DEPE
environnement

Workshop on alternative business models for pesticide reduction

22-23 November 2023, JRC, Seville

<figure><img src="image_339.png" /></figure>

### Why a foresight on European chemical pesticide-free agriculture in 2050?

* Targets of European public policies that are part of the Green Deal (F2F): - 50% in the use and risk of chemical pesticides and more hazardous pesticides by 2030

* Limited impacts of past policies in terms of pesticide use justify a change in the approach of innovation in cropping systems (Jacquet et al., 2021): A paradigm shift in research from an incremental approach aiming at reducing pesticide use to a disruption approach aiming at building cropping systems without chemical pesticides

* A foresight study to explore the possibility of chemical pesticide-free agriculture in 2050 at EU level and build transition pathways

* Supported by the French national priority research programme (PRP) 'Growing and Protecting crops Differently', and linked (through case studies) to the European Research Alliance 'Towards Chemical Pesticide-free Agriculture'. Presented during a one day conference the 21 March in Paris https://www.inrae.fr/en/news/european-pesticide-free-agriculture-2050

* Chemical pesticides correspond to synthetic pesticides and mineral pesticides that have a negative impact on environment and human health.

Workshop on alternative business models for pesticide reduction, 22-23 November 2023, JRC, Seville

### An original foresight method mixing scenario planning, modelling and backcasting

<figure><img src="image_340.png" /></figure>

* 2 years project

* A dedicated project team

* 144 European experts mobilised in a European expert committee and thematic experts groups

**Three results**

* Three scenarios and their transition pathway

* A quantitative assessment of the impacts of the scenarios

* Four case studies in 4 EU regions (Finland, France, Italy, Romania)

Workshop on alternative business models for pesticide reduction, 22-23 November 2023, JRC, Seville

p.2

### Building disruptive strategies of chemical pesticide-free crop protection in 2050

<figure><img src="image_341.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_342.png" /></figure>

anr® INRAE

CULTIVER DEPE
environnement

### What strategies for chemical pesticide-free crop protection in 2050?

<figure><img src="image_343.png" /></figure>

1. No simple substitution possible

2. A need for a **redesign** of cropping systems

3. A shift from a **curative** strategy against pests to a **preventative** strategy (anticipation of pests)

4. Developing tools for **monitoring** pests and the environment

5. Reinforcing **biological regulation** in **soil and landscape** mobilising **agroecological** principles,

* including temporal and spatial **diversification**

Workshop on alternative business models for pesticide reduction, 22-23 November 2023, JRC, Seville

p.3

### Three disruptive strategies of chemical pesticide-free crop protection in 2050

<figure><img src="image_344.png" /></figure>

By using plant defence simulators, biocontrol plants, biocontrol(Zhang et al., 2020), plant breeding (resistant varieties), by reinforcing interaction with microbes, other crops and plant services

By developing microbial biocontrol, in order to strengthen the adaptability of the holdout and the functions of microbials (Tosi et al., 2005; Simon et al., 2019), by modulating the existing microbiome through agricultural practices, crop-chains, inoculants of microorganisms (Berg et al., 2021) and plant breeding (Wallace et al., 2017)

By promoting biological regulators by increasing biodiversity and agribusiness any space and time, building complex landscapes with 20% of the land with semi-natural habitats (Stahl et al., 2011; Tschumi et al., 2021), a changeable mix of diversified crops (Alger et al., 2020; Seam et al., 2020, endogenously diversification at plot level (Tosi et al., 2022; Thomine et al., 2022), and through plant breeding

Workshop on alternative business models for pesticide reduction, 22-23 November 2023, JRC, Seville

### Three scenarios of European chemical pesticide-free agriculture in 2050

<figure><img src="image_345.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_346.png" /></figure>

anr® INRAE

CULTIVER DEPE
environnement

### Scenario 1 (S1): Global and European food chains based on digital technologies and plant immunity for a pesticide-free food market

<figure><img src="image_347.png" /></figure>

Workshop on alternative business models for pesticide reduction, 22-23 November 2023, JRC, Seville

p.6

### Scenario 1 (S1): Global and European food chains based on digital technologies and plant immunity for a pesticide-free food market

<figure><img src="image_348.png" /></figure>

* Global food chains

* Private certifications and international standards for pesticide-free production

* Specialisation and financialisation of farm structures

* Tools for monitoring pests and individual plant health in the plot

* Robots acting on each plant

* Reinforcing plant immunity through biocontrol and plant defence simulators

* BAU Diets

Workshop on alternative business models for pesticide reduction, 22-23 November 2023, JRC, Seville

### Scenario 2 (S2): European food chains based on plant holobiont, soil and food microbiomes for healthy foods and diets

<figure><img src="image_349.png" /></figure>

Workshop on alternative business models for pesticide reduction, 22-23 November 2023, JRC, Seville

p. 19
> Scenario 2 (S2): European food chains based on plant holobiont, soil and food
microbiomes for healthy foods and diets

<figure><img src="image_350.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_351.png" /></figure>

* Consumer demand for healthy foods

* European value chains without chemical pesticides

* Impact on the whole food system

* Monitoring of microbiomes: soil, plant, food storage and processing, and final food product

* Crop diversification to respond to the target of healthy diets

* Reinforcing interactions between host plants and microorganisms (management of the holobiont) for crop protection

* Transition to healthy diet, more diversified diets: less calories, less animal products and sugar, more fruits and vegetable, more pulses, diversified cereals

> Scenario 3 (S3): Complex and diversified landscapes and regional food chains for a
One Health European food system

<figure><img src="image_352.png" /><figcaption>Workshop on alternative food chains models for pesticide reductions, 12-21 November 2021, p. 12</figcaption></figure>

p. 12

> Scenario 3 (S3): Complex and diversified landscapes and regional food chains for a
One Health European food system

<figure><img src="image_353.png" /></figure>

* Territorial and regional food value chains

* Food protecting human health and environment [One Health]

* UE transition towards One Health approach

* Territorial coordination to reinforce biological regulation (landscape) and relocate value chains

* Complex landscapes with 20% of land dedicated to semi-natural habitats

* Adaptation of the mosaic of crops to the issues of crop protection, temporal diversification of crops

* Monitoring of the environment and anticipation of pests

* Transition to healthy and sustainable diets: less calories, less animal food and more pulses, less sugar

Workshop on alternative food chains models for pesticide reductions, 12-21 November 2021, p. 13

> Impacts of the scenarios on European production, trade and GHG
emissions

<caption>Workshop on alternative food chains models for pesticide reductions, 12-21 November 2021, p. 14</caption>

p. 14

> How does the 3 scenarios impact domestic use, production and net
imports in Europe?

<figure><img src="image_354.png" /></figure>

Resource-use balance in "2010" and in 2050 in S1, S2 and S3 [10³ kcal]

→ Two scenarios have a positive impact on the European agricultural trade balance in calories

Workshop on alternative food chains models for pesticide reductions, 12-21 November 2021, p. 15

p. 15

> Scenarios contribute to improve the European balance of GHG
emissions

* All scenarios (but S1_ub) contribute positively to decrease European agricultural GHG emissions relative to "2010"

<figure><img src="image_355.png" /></figure>

Agricultural GHG emissions in Europe in "2010" and in 2050 in S1, S2 and S3 [Mt CO2 eq.]

Workshop on alternative food chains models for pesticide reductions, 12-21 November 2021, p. 16

p. 16

> Scenarios contribute to improve the European balance of GHG
emissions

* All scenarios lead to a decrease in land-use change emissions in Europe

<figure><img src="image_356.png" /></figure>

Land use change emissions in Europe with S1, S2 and S3 [Mt CO2 eq. per year], under assumption that feed pastureland shifts to shrubland (left panel) or is used to afforestation (with max values for carbon stocks in forest biomass)

Workshop on alternative food chains models for pesticide reductions, 12-21 November 2021, p. 17

p. 17

> Some key messages from the foresight study

* The entire food system, committing **all its actors**, must be considered to build a European chemical pesticide-free agriculture in 2050

* In addition to the shift towards chemical pesticide-free agriculture, **three scenarios** would contribute to **improving the greenhouse gas balance**, biodiversity and overall ecosystems health in Europe.
* **Two scenarios** would contribute to **Improving food sovereignty** in Europe, human nutrition and health

* Key role of dietary changes in the transition

* The **diversification** of crops in time and space, the development of **biocontrol** products, bio-inputs, adapted selected varietals, agricultural equipment and digital tools, and **monitoring** schemes of plants, dynamic and environment are key elements to be combined for an **efficient chemical pesticide-free crop protection**. **Biological regulations** at the soil, crop, and landscape levels should be favoured, as prophylactic actions

* Several chemical pesticide-free cropping systems are probably depending on whether they rely on a **high level of external inputs**, or on a **high level of diversification** and **ecosystem services**

* The transition towards chemical pesticide-free agriculture requires a **mix of coherent public policies** related to **pesticides use**, articulated with other policies such as **food policies**; it involves a transformation of the **Common Agricultural Policy** (CAP) and economic instruments to support the transition; **Finally, trade agreements** at the European Union's borders must be set up to ensure the development of chemical pesticide-free markets

* The transition must also involve **risk sharing** among actors, **co-acceptance** of technologies and cropping systems, and transformations in the **upstream and downstream sectors** of agriculture

Workshop on alternative food chains models for pesticide reductions, 12-21 November 2021, p. 18

p. 18

> Thank you for your attention

More information on the foresight
(abstracts, videos, report):

https://www.inrae.fr/en/news/auropean-pesticide-free-agriculture-2050

Contact: gilbert.mosad@inrae.fr and charaloi.mouet@inrae.fr

<figure><img src="image_357.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_358.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_359.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_360.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_361.png" /></figure>

> A focus on the hypotheses on breeding and monitoring in the three
crop protection micro-scenarios

Workshop on alternative food chains models for pesticide reductions, 12-21 November 2021, p. 19

p. 19

<figure><img src="image_362.png" /></figure>

Workshop on alternative food chains models for pesticide reductions, 12-21 November 2021, p. 20

p. 20
> **GlobAgri, AE2050 version**

* Biomass balance model: no price, no economics

* One resource-use equation per product and per geographical region:

* Total use (food+ feed+ other) + Exports = Production + Imports

* Linkages between equations, e.g., animal products and crops equations linked through feed

* Imports: fixed share of total use

* Exports: fixed share of world market

* One trade balance equation per product

* One constraint per geographical region:

* Cropland ≤ max cultivable area

* Binding constraint: export coefficients reduced; import coefficients increased

* Pastureland area adjusts freely

* AE2050 version of GlobAgri:

* AE2050: Place des agricultures européennes dans le monde en 2050 (Tibi et al., 2020)

* 23 broad world regions, including 8 European sub-regions

* All agri-food products

* Base year: "2010" (average 2009-2010-2011)

Workshop on alternative business models for pasture reductants, 12-13 November 2013, IC, 50176

p. 31

> **GlobAgri, AE2050 version**

* GlobAgri simulates the impacts of changes in uses (food and other) on:

* Agricultural production and trade

* Agricultural land area (cropland and pastureland)

* GHG emissions (agricultural emissions and land-use change emissions)

* Simulating a scenario to 2050 requires to assign a quantitative value for 2050 to each input variable/parameter of the model. That is in GlobAgri to:

* Population, land use, other uses

* Export coefficients, export coefficients

* Copy yields, cropping intensities

* Livestock efficiencies, grazing intensities

* Maximum cultivable areas

* For each input variable/parameter of the model, assumed quantitative values for 2050 are different:

* according to products

* across geographical regions (incl. 8 European sub-regions)

* For non-European regions, input quantitative values:

* are based on the AE2050 study

* are the same in all scenarios

Workshop on alternative business models for pasture reductants, 12-13 November 2013, IC, 50176

p. 32

> **European diets in 2050 in the 3 scenarios**

* Where our assumptions come from?

<table><thead><tr><th>Scenarios</th><th>S1</th><th>S2</th><th>S3</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Assumptions for diets in 2050</td><td>Trend</td><td>Healthy</td><td>Healthy and environmental friendly</td></tr><tr><td>Based on literature review and expert interviews (2)</td><td>FAO (2018)</td><td>Agrimonde-Terra (2018)<br/>&amp; AE2050 (2020)</td><td>Willet et al. (2019)<br/>Ert Lantou LEX</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_363.png" /></figure>

p. 33

> **Crop yields in Europe in 2050 in the 3 scenarios**

* Where our assumptions come from? (Inspired from Bommarco et al., 2013)

<figure><img src="image_364.png" /></figure>

> **Crop yields in 2050 in Europe in the 3 scenarios**

* Where our assumptions come from

<table><thead><tr><th>Scenarios</th><th>S1</th><th>S2</th><th>S3</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Assumptions for crop yields in 2050</td><td>Reference: AE2050 low yields<br/>Lower-bound (lb): (Based on yield gain organic vs. conventional)<br/>AE2050 low yields: ~1 yield gaps</td><td>Reference: AE2050 low yields<br/>Lower-bound (lb): (Based on yield gain organic vs. conventional)<br/>AE2050 low yields: ~1 yield gaps</td><td>Reference: AE2050 low yields<br/>Lower-bound (lb): (Based on yield gain organic vs. conventional)<br/>AE2050 low yields: ~1 yield gaps</td></tr><tr><td>Upper-bound (ub): (Based on the yield response to diversification set at 20%)</td><td>Lower-bound + 50% yield response to diversification</td><td>Upper-bound (ub): (Based on the yield response to diversification set at 20%)</td><td>Lower-bound + 100% yield response to diversification</td></tr><tr><td>Based on literature review, quantification group and one expert interview</td><td>Bommarco et al. (2013)<br/>Yield gap org. vs. concre. De Pont et al. (2013)<br/>Yield response to diversification: Tbis, Martinet, Valatier et al. (2012)</td><td>Bommarco et al. (2013)<br/>Yield gap org. vs. concre. De Pont et al. (2012)<br/>Yield response to diversification: Tbis, Martinet, Valatier et al. (2012)</td><td>Bommarco et al. (2013)<br/>Yield gap org. vs. concre. De Pont et al. (2012)<br/>Yield response to diversification: Tbis, Martinet, Valatier et al. (2012)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Workshop on alternative business models for pasture reductants, 12-13 November 2013, IC, 50176

p. 35

> **Crop yields in 2050 in Europe in the 3 scenarios**

* What are the implications of our assumptions on average wheat yield in Europe?

<figure><img src="image_365.png" /></figure>

Workshop on alternative business models for pasture reductants, 12-13 November 2013, IC, 50176

p. 36
# VITIREV
## Insurance policy to cover yield losses from diseases in vineyard along with reducing pesticides use

Diritril LEIY, head of agricultural department (GCA) - DIFV Groupama-afh
Baptiste DUBOIS, in charge of agricultural climate insurance (GMA) - diritril.coussine@groupama.com

<figure><img src="image_366.png" /></figure>

Groupama

### Political context

* French government has launched from 2010 a national program of investment for future

* It includes a financing for regional administration

* French region « Nouvelle Aquitaine » has started a project named « VITIREV » to promote global change in wine production :

* Environment care

* Society challenges

* Protection of biodiversity

<figure><img src="image_367.png" /></figure>

Groupama

2

### Context : the insurance part

* **Goal to achieve**

* Experiment an insurance contract to protect wine producers against new risks coming from transition toward a more sustainable way to grow wineyard

* **Issues**

* Multi-Perf Climate Insurance (MPCI) as the only protection against risks but only for climate losses (the premium is partly indexed)

* Wine producers are still challenging MPCI's benefit : less than a half are insured

* Pesticides are cheap and don't weight a lot in the cost of production of wine

* Pesticides are the easiest way to prevent from diseases damages

* In case of severe event, farmers often get financial help from the government (ex : 2023 mildew)

* **Targets**

* A decrease of 50% in pesticides use compared to 2017-2019 mean

* 60% of wine producers insured

* 90% of customer satisfaction

* 10% claims

<figure><img src="image_368.png" /></figure>

Groupama

3

### Context : project members

* « Nouvelle-Aquitaine » regional administration

* French Institute of Wine (IPV), head of the project

* 2 wine coopératives : Bizet and Tutiac, field support

* University of Bordeaux

* Groupama (Centre-Atlantique and Groupama Mutuelles Assurances), the insurer

<figure><img src="image_369.png" /></figure>

Groupama

4

### The insurance contract

* **Special coverage provided against yield losses from main diseases in vineyard**

* If a specific pesticides plan is followed by the farmer, calibrated to reduce pesticides use by 50%

* It requires to be insured with an MPCI contract

* **Insurance policy :**

* Yield losses

* Caused by mildew end/or black-rot end/or powdery mildew, the three main diseases in vineyard

* If the farmer follows the advice from the JFV's tool regarding pesticides use : « Decitralt »

<figure><img src="image_370.png" /></figure>

Inputs : weather, wineyard growth, pest development, models

= Powered in the tool = Decitralt =

Output : advice for pesticides use along with a reduction of 50% of the total amount of fungicides

<figure><img src="image_371.png" /></figure>

Groupama

5

## The insurance contract

### How to manage the 2 different insurance policies taking into account the expectations of the wine producers

* 2 different yields insured :

* MPCI : best yield between five-year olympic mean and three-year mean

* Insurance policy against diseases risk : best yield from the past 5 years

Expectation from wine producers

* 2 different deductibles :

* MPCI : between 20 and 30%

* Insurance policy against diseases risk : no deductible

Expectation from wine producers

* Loss adjustment : based on the official statement to French administration made by each wine producer every year

<figure><img src="image_372.png" /></figure>

Groupama

6

## The experimental plan

### Fila

* 2019 / 2020 / 2021 / 2022 : 4 plots

* Cooperative 1 : 3 plots >> 30 ha

* Cooperative 2 : 2 plots >> 20 ha (conventional) et 1 plot >> 10 ha (basic)

<figure><img src="image_373.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_374.png" /></figure>

### Data collected

Weather conditions (rainfall, temperature)

Pest symptoms

Agricultural tasks

Wineyard growing period

### Fila

Collect as much data as possible in order to :

* calibrate a pricing model

* build an index based insurance

Pest symptoms

<figure><img src="image_375.png" /></figure>

Date

<figure><img src="image_376.png" /></figure>

Groupama

7

## Yield variability : example of Bordeaux red wine

<figure><img src="image_377.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_378.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_379.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_380.png" /></figure>

Groupama
Groupama France

<figure><img src="image_381.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_382.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_383.png" /></figure>

## Insurance results

* 2019 / 2020 / 2021 : good efficiency of the pesticides plan advised by Decitralt (decrease by 50% of the pesticides use without any yield loss)

* 2022 : mismatch between rainfall data from MeteoFrance vs individual data => not enough amount of pesticides advised by Decitralt, which led to significant damage on the wineyard

<table><thead><tr><td>Year</td><td>Premium</td><td>Payouts</td><td>Loss ratio</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2019</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>2020</td><td>13,6 k€</td><td>13,7 k€</td><td>101 %</td></tr><tr><td>2021</td><td>19,5 k€</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td>2022</td><td>12,8 k€</td><td>123,4 k€</td><td>968%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>45,8 k€</td><td>137,1 k€</td><td>299%</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_384.png" /></figure>

Groupama

9
## Assessment

* Significant payments for farmers : enable them to start a new production cycle after important losses

* Reduction in pesticides use

* To be improved

* Many difficulties from the coexistence of 2 different contracts

* Interactions between climate and pest

* Not easy, even impossible, for a loss-adjuster to split the damage between the different parts

* Payout for diseases damages are complicated to assess and always challenged by farmers

* Experimental plan impossible to spread out at a large scale

* Tool for treatment advice : Decitral : has to be improved

* Not enough visibility : tests to challenge the variability of the advice

* Not enough data about the efficiency of the treatment advice

* Too many constraints to get a control sample untreated in each plot

* Significant variability between 2 different plots

* A system is required to be able to record the treatment application by the farmer (date, amount and type of pesticide) to challenge if effective or not

* Pesticides applied in right conditions : damage covered

* Pesticides not right applied du to lack of time, machinery unavailable, etc. : damage not covered

<figure><img src="image_385.png" /></figure>

Groupama

10

## Target for an insurance contract

* Keep recording data : sensors, weather conditions, etc. to finally get an index based insurance

* Same coverage for both insurance contracts

* Same deductible from climate losses and pest losses, same yield insured, same areas insured

* Loss-adjustment based on the official statement to French administration

* Challenge and communicate the economic issues regarding pesticides cost vs insurance premium

* Amount of pesticides saved using Decitral

* Improve the pricing model of the insurance policy

* Get subsidized from French government as an additional coverage to MPC1

* Keep encouraging farmers to reduce their pesticides use (Ecophyto)

* Make/keep the link with other projects in progress or to be started

* VIVIDA to gather together all data related to wine production

* Tools to record agricultural practices (ex : Eklibet

* Vinowert : link between weather conditions and pest spreading

* Spread out to other vineyards and/or more areas

<figure><img src="image_386.png" /></figure>

Groupama

11
<figure><img src="image_387.png" /></figure>

Regenerative Agriculture
Insurance Solutions

November 22nd 2023

OUR INTENTION
TODAY

<figure><img src="image_388.png" /></figure>

Climate

1. Intro AXA Climate

2. Case study

3. Q and A

Our evolution

The story of "living" company

<figure><img src="image_389.png" /></figure>

Our impact

In a few figures

<figure><img src="image_390.png" /></figure>

Our mission: to de-risk the transition to regenerative agriculture

Our expertise: data driven experts of innovative risk-transfer solutions

Insurance to Derisk the Regenerative Agriculture Transition

23% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture using 38% of land as crop yields and biodiversity decrease and populations increase

Regenerative techniques help to sequester carbon, and reduce scope 3 emissions to deliver on Science Based Targets for reporting but are hard to quantify

The transition to regenerative farming is **cost intensive** with payback and improved soil health only possible after the first few years, hurting farmers

**De-risking** the transition to regenerative farming will increase speed of adopters, generate long term returns, and embedded emissions reduction

**$100 Billion**
**Opportunity**

in shift to regenerative agriculture and decarbonization to 2050 with need for investors and corporations to take the lead and be regulation ready

Insurance to Derisk the Regenerative Agriculture Transition

23% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture using 38% of land as crop yields and biodiversity decrease and populations increase

Main reason for no transition are:

- Lack of knowledge

- Financial risk

**De-risking** the transition to regenerative farming will increase speed of adopters, generate long term returns, and embedded emissions reduction

**$100 Billion**
**Opportunity**

the lead and be regulation ready

Challenges we face

- Internal (not willingness to insure new things)

- Scientific (little knowledge of the risk)

- Willingness to pay

How a Regen Ag Pilot Integrating Insurance Co-Creation Works

Clients: Food & fashion brands, input or technology providers, commodity buyers, coops, developers, traders, investors

<figure><img src="image_391.png" /></figure>

Regen case study #1
Wheat

<figure><img src="image_392.png" /></figure>

**Client** Input provider 20x helping farmers relative to 'No Pesticide Residue label' (NPR) in France

**Challenge** Encouraging farmers to change pesticide practices

**Commodity** Soft wheat

**Solution** Commercial guarantee to cover potential revenue loss for farmers using new pesticide protocol

**Benefit** Incentivize farmers to adopt pesticide use and increase revenue

**Methodology** Definition of clear agricultural guidelines and verification of the absence of pesticide residues on site

**Next step** Following up on renewal
Regen case study #2
Vineyards

<figure><img src="image_393.png" /></figure>

Client

Remy Cointreau/Time Producer

### Challenge

Risk of disease outbreak when suppliers switch to bio control

### Solution

AXA Climate consulting: climate adaptation as assessment

Hybrid insurance solutions: covering disease outbreak for grape producers

### Benefit

Greater acceptance of transition to bio-control, less tillage in water, less impact on biodiversity

### Methodology

In field: social occurrence measurement with ramutao or on-field loss adjustment

### Next step

Claims payment and scaling in other markets

Client selling a yield performance
Disease not insured by traditional
Insurance

Covering grape diseases under
biocontrol treatment

Covering risk of disease outspread when you switch from conventional fungicides toward biocontrol

Use of decision support tool
Decitrait from IFV

* What is covered?

* Yield losses linked with the outspread of site disease (mildew, powdery mildew (oldwin), black rot)

* What are the conditions for the coverage to be valid?

* Pest management strategy is based almost exclusively on biocontrol treatments

* The risks are appropriately protected using the biocontrol treatment (use of a decision support tool is mandatory)

* How are the losses assessed?

* Physical loss adjustment is performed in the grapes at specific development stages to assess yield losses

* Correct usage of the biocontrol treatment is evaluated using a set of rules that relies on comparing actual applications with the recommendation of the decision support tool

Insurance pilot 2023

* Covering 20ha+ on two different sites

* Insured value of 21700€/ha

<figure><img src="image_394.png" /></figure>

Pleinchamp

Dans le vignoble bordelais, la lutte désespérée face au milieu

Les Echos

Vin : offensive historique du milieu dans les vignes bordelaises

<figure><img src="image_395.png" /></figure>

Situation 2023

* Exceptionally challenging situation in south western France

* The Cognac region was slightly better than Bordeaux, but still very high pressure, especially when renouncing to use chemical fungicides

Outcome 2023

* Pits with biocontrol treatment systematically have lower yield than the ones with conventional treatment

* Strong heterogeneity in the losses, even if all pits are from the same varieties (Ugn Blanc)

* One site more affected than the other slightly different situation in term of precipitation

The impact of not using chemical fungicides is particularly strong in challenging years like 2023

Final payout of 107'000€ to compensate losses related to renunciation to chemical fungicides

“After a year like this one the insurance is reussing us, and we can continue on our goal to reduce the usage of chemical pesticides”

Responsible: Remy Cointreau

<figure><img src="image_396.png" /></figure>

What's next for 2024

* Further expansion of the area without chemical fungicides on the Remy Cointreau domain

* First tests with the deployment to external wine growers that deliver to Remy Cointreau

Outcome 2023

* Pits with biocontrol treatment systematically have lower yield than the ones with conventional treatment
* Very difficult and inefficient loss adjustment process

* Strong heterogeneity in the losses, even if all pits are from the same varieties (Ugn Blanc)

* One site

* Different

* Other

The index basis risk particularly strong in challenging years like 2023

Final payout of 107'000€ to compensate losses related to renunciation to chemical fungicides

“After a year like this one the insurance is reussing us, and we can continue on our goal to reduce the usage of chemical pesticides”

Responsible: Remy Cointreau

<figure><img src="image_397.png" /></figure>

Only study cited in the WWF sustainable insurance report for agriculture

* First tests with the deployment to external wine growers that deliver to Remy Cointreau

Nature Insurance Product Roadmap: Agri, Carbon, Forestry Focus

Focus on row crops, exploring specialty crops, carbon markets, diversifying into forestry, new geographies

Stage 1 Scaling Team
Agri Ag Yield Revenue Loss Insurance

Pesticide Reduction Label Insurance

3 France pilots securing new pilots

Spire claims management platform

Yield database: eDNA biodiversity pilot

Stage 2 Scaling Pilots

Forestry Peril Insurance

Testing with Belgian client

Agr/ Green Score Incentive

Testing with brokers in Americas

Stage 3 Scaling Partners
Agriculture Fund to Support Pilots

Pilots

Investor outreach

Input, equipment, UVV partners

<figure><img src="image_398.png" /></figure>

Stage 4 Piloting Carbon

Agri Ag Yield Carbon Credit Guarantee

Cover perils, emergence risk
Credit shortfall cover via cash transfer
Manikin re-floorsation project in Brazil

TBC
Stage 5 Piloting NBS: 2025

Other Nature Based Solutions
Coral, mangroves, biochar, silvopasture
Co developing offering with consulting

Stage 6 Scaling Distribution:

Bioenergies Product Offering
Testing with barries and commodity buyers

Our recommendation for scaling these initiatives

1. **Clearer pan European standards** are needed to define requirements for labels such as no pesticide use. Similar harmonization of organic, regenerative, or emissions reduction labels or standards is also needed to make it easier for growers and consumers to understand.

2. **Education and Training support** for the food industry, farmers, and consumers to help them to understand how to reduce pesticide use and to introduce more regenerative practices would help to scale these initiatives.

3. **Insurance subsidies** condition to sustainable agriculture practice and/or subsidies to agriculture insurance products supporting the agriculture transition. EU farm subsidies scheme could help to encourage more farmers to adopt these practices by helping to de risk the process.

4. **Digitalization of agriculture** would help controlling farming practices and thus not only controlling sustainable farm management practices but also losses estimation for faster insurance payment

5. **Support for scientific research** is also needed to help to further digitize the monitoring of pesticide use and modelling to show how this impacts biodiversity and soil health.

Q&A

<figure><img src="image_399.png" /></figure>

Climate

Regenerative Agriculture Examples

Client projects ongoing demonstration insurance helps growers to transition

<table><thead><tr><th>Comparative scaling transition program</th><th>Challenge</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Indirect more eco-friendly agriculture practice</td><td>Challenge: Convincing growers to change practices and participate in transition program<br>Solution: Lay reflection coverage for finding implementation of cover cropping, nitrogen reduction, residue management<br>Benefit: Maintaining grower participation and trust in cooperative<br>Methodology: Field comparison between transition and reference groups</td></tr><tr><td>Wine product increasing growers introducing bio control with disease outbreak coverage</td><td>Challenge: Risk of disease outbreak when switching to bio control inputs<br>Solution: Covering disease outbreak for wine product supply to the wine industry<br>Benefit: Create a capture of transition to be control following claims payment<br>Methodology: In field disease occurrence measurement, introduction of decision support tool to verify bio control use</td></tr><tr><td>Input provider helping farmers receive "No Pesticide Residue Label" with reverse link insurance</td><td>Challenge: Encouraging farmers to change pesticide practices<br>Solution: Commercial guarantees cover potential revenue loss for farmers using new pesticide protocol for soft fruit<br>Benefit: Increase/convert farmers to adopt pesticide use and increase revenue<br>Methodology: Diffusion of such clear agricultural guidelines and verification of the absence of pesticide residues</td></tr></tbody></table>
## Our evolution

The story of "living" company

<figure><img src="image_400.png" /></figure>

## Our impact

In a few figures

<figure><img src="image_401.png" /></figure>
## Results: risk preferences

<figure><img src="image_402.png" /></figure>

## Results: risk preferences

<figure><img src="image_403.png" /></figure>

## Results: risk preferences

<figure><img src="image_404.png" /></figure>

## Results: risk preferences

<figure><img src="image_405.png" /></figure>

## Willingness to reduce PPP use...

<figure><img src="image_406.png" /></figure>

## What role for risk preferences?

* Simple logistic regressions with one single explanatory variable capturing risk preferences (declared or as lottery)

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Declared risk</th><th>Lottery based risk</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>... no yield loss</td><td>n.s.</td><td>n.s.</td></tr><tr><td>... no income loss</td><td>n.s.</td><td>Reduced with higher risk aversion</td></tr><tr><td>... alternative products</td><td>n.s.</td><td>n.s.</td></tr><tr><td>... insurance for losses</td><td>Reduced with higher risk aversion</td><td>n.s.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_407.png" /></figure>

## IPM declared use...

<figure><img src="image_408.png" /></figure>

Significant **negative** impact of risk aversion on adoption of IPM both for declared and lottery based risk measures

Significant **positive** impact of using IPM in any of the 4 options to reduce PPP use – size of impact more or less the same

<figure><img src="image_409.png" /></figure>

## Conclusions (?)

Farmers are risk averse?

<figure><img src="image_410.png" /></figure>

Farmers are willing to reduce PPP use?

<figure><img src="image_411.png" /></figure>

Willingness to reduce PPP is related to risk preferences?

<figure><img src="image_412.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_413.png" /></figure>

Willingness to reduce PPP is related to IPM adoption?

<figure><img src="image_414.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_415.png" /></figure>

Thank you and keep in touch

<figure><img src="image_416.png" /></figure>

EU Commission (2001)

Willingness to reduce PPP use is strongly related to the declared risk preferences. For example, the declared risk preferences of 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, 6.5, 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, 8.5, 9.0, 9.5, 10.0, 10.5, 11.0, 11.5, 12.0, 12.5, 13.0, 13.5, 14.0, 14.5, 15.0, 15.5, 16.0, 16.5, 17.0, 17.5, 18.0, 18.5, 19.0, 19.5, 20.0, 20.5, 21.0, 21.5, 22.0, 22.5, 23.0, 23.5, 24.0, 24.5, 25.0, 25.5, 26.0, 26.5, 27.0, 27.5, 28.0, 28.5, 29.0, 29.5, 30.0, 30.5, 31.0, 31.5, 32.0, 32.5, 33.0, 33.5, 34.0, 34.5, 35.0, 35.5, 36.0, 36.5, 37.0, 37.5, 38.0, 38.5, 39.0, 39.5, 40.0, 40.5, 41.0, 41.5, 42.0, 42.5, 43.0, 43.5, 44.0, 44.5, 45.0, 45.5, 46.0, 46.5, 47.0, 47.5, 48.0, 48.5, 49.0, 49.5, 50.0, 50.5, 51.0, 51.5, 52.0, 52.5, 53.0, 53.5, 54.0, 54.5, 55.0, 55.5, 56.0, 56.5, 57.0, 57.5, 58.0, 58.5, 59.0, 59.5, 60.0, 60.5, 61.0, 61.5, 62.0, 62.5, 63.0, 63.5, 64.0, 64.5, 65.0, 65.5, 66.0, 66.5, 67.0, 67.5, 68.0, 68.5, 69.0, 69.5, 70.0, 70.5, 71.0, 71.5, 72.0, 72.5, 73.0, 73.5, 74.0, 74.5, 75.0, 75.5, 76.0, 76.5, 77.0, 77.5, 78.0, 78.5, 79.0, 79.5, 80.0, 80.5, 81.0, 81.5, 82.0, 82.5, 83.0, 83.5, 84.0, 84.5, 85.0, 85.5, 86.0, 86.5, 87.0, 87.5, 88.0, 88.5, 89.0, 89.5, 90.0, 90.5, 91.0, 91.5, 92.0, 92.5, 93.0, 93.5, 94.0, 94.5, 95.0, 95.5, 96.0, 96.5, 97.0, 97.5, 98.0, 98.5, 99.0, 99.5, 100.0

EU Science Hub

joint-research-centre.europa.eu

EU Science Hub

EU Science Hub - Joint Research Centre

EU Science Hub and Innovation

EU Science Hub

EU Science Hub

EU Science Hub

Disclaimer: The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may not under any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.

<figure><img src="image_417.png" /></figure>
# Annex 3: Agenda

## AGENDA OF THE WORKSHOP ON ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS MODELS FOR PESTICIDE REDUCTION

22&23 November 2023

Seville (Spain), Edificio Expo (Room Machado)

Organizer: European Commission's Joint Research Centre

### DAY 1: 22 November

<table><tr><td>14:00-15:00</td><td colspan="2">Opening Session</td></tr><tr><td>20 min</td><td>Welcome and background</td><td>Alessandra Zampieri, JRC</td></tr><tr><td>20 min</td><td>EU Regulatory framework</td><td>Gordon Rennick, SANTE</td></tr><tr><td>20 min</td><td>The sustainable use of pesticides and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)</td><td>Aymeric Berling, AGRI</td></tr><tr><td>15:00-15:15</td><td colspan="2">Break (15 minutes)</td></tr><tr><td>15:15-17:00</td><td colspan="2">Session 1 (Part I): Existing and future business models for crop protection<br/>Chair: Manuel Gómez-Barbero (JRC)</td></tr><tr><td>30 min</td><td>Service-based business models to incentivize the efficient use of pesticide in crop protection</td><td>Thomas M Chappell, Texas A&M University</td></tr><tr><td>30 min</td><td>Decision Support Systems</td><td>Antonio Vicent, IVIA</td></tr><tr><td>30 min</td><td>Outcome-based business models for CP reduction</td><td>Marius Wolf, Bayer</td></tr><tr><td>15 min</td><td>General discussion</td><td>All</td></tr></table>

Self-paid dinner at Restaurant Manolo León-GUADALQUIVIR, C/ Guadalquivir 8, Sevilla

### DAY 2: 23 November

<table><tr><td>09:00-10:45</td><td colspan="2">Session 1 (Part II): Existing and future business models for crop protection<br/>Chair: Manuel Gómez-Barbero (JRC)</td></tr><tr><td>30 min</td><td>Innovations in Application Technology for Crop Protection</td><td>Peter Hloben, John Deere</td></tr><tr><td>30 min</td><td>Modelling policies towards pesticide-free agricultural production systems</td><td>Gabriele Mack, Agroscope</td></tr><tr><td>30 min</td><td>European Chemical Pesticide-Free Agriculture in 2050</td><td>Chantal Le Mouël, INRAE</td></tr><tr><td>15 min</td><td>General Discussion</td><td>All</td></tr><tr><td>10:45-11:00</td><td colspan="2">Break (15 minutes)</td></tr><tr><td>11:00-12:45</td><td colspan="2">Session 2: Linking pesticide reduction and insurance products: theory, institutions and experiences<br/>Chair: Jesús Barreiro-Hurle (JRC)</td></tr><tr><td>30 min</td><td>How do non-life insurers think?</td><td>Francisco Sebastian, FIA</td></tr><tr><td>30 min</td><td>Insurance policy to cover yield losses from diseases in vineyard along with reducing pesticides use</td><td>Baptiste Dubois & Dimitri Lely, Groupama</td></tr><tr><td>30 min</td><td>Regenerative Agriculture Insurance Solutions</td><td>Sylvain Coutu - AXA Climate</td></tr><tr><td>15 min</td><td>General Discussion</td><td>All</td></tr><tr><td>12:45-14:00</td><td colspan="2">Break (1 hour 15 minutes)</td></tr><tr><td>14:00-16:15</td><td colspan="2">Session 3: What have agricultural economists found out about linking insurance and PPP reduction?<br/>Chair: Emilio Rodríguez-Cerezo (JRC)</td></tr><tr><td>30 min</td><td>Can insurance increase the willingness of farmers to reduce pesticide use? Experimental evidence from 4 EU countries</td><td>Jesús Barreiro-Hurle, JRC</td></tr><tr><td>30 min</td><td>Crop insurance and pesticide use in European Agriculture</td><td>Niklas Mohring, University of Bonn</td></tr><tr><td>30 min</td><td>Green Insurance for Pesticide Reduction: Acceptability and Impact for French Wine Growing</td><td>Marianne Lefebvre, University of Angers & Yann Raineau, INRAE</td></tr><tr><td>30 min</td><td>The Interaction between Insurance and Protective Devices: The Case of Apples Producers in South Tyro</td><td>Marco Rogna, JRC</td></tr><tr><td>15 min</td><td>General Discussion</td><td>All</td></tr><tr><td>16:15-16:30</td><td colspan="2">Break (15 minutes)</td></tr><tr><td>16:30-17:00</td><td colspan="2">Concluding Remarks</td></tr><tr><td>15 min</td><td colspan="2">Chantal Le Mouël, INRAE</td></tr><tr><td>15 min</td><td colspan="2">Emilio Rodríguez-Cerezo, JRC</td></tr></table>
## Getting in touch with the EU

### In person

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you online (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en).

### On the phone or in writing

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service:

- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696,

- via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en.

## Finding information about the EU

### Online

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website (european-union.europa.eu).

### EU publications

You can view or order EU publications at op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications can be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en).

### EU law and related documents

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex (eur-lex.europa.eu).
Science for policy

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) provides
independent, evidence-based knowledge
and science, supporting EU policies to
positively impact society

<figure><img src="image_418.png" /></figure>

EU Science Hub

joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu