CRR DISCUSSION PAPER SERIESA

Discussion Paper No. A-37
Maintenance of Shared Resources and the Use of
Agricultural Pesticides Considered in Terms of
Health Risks and Agricultural Marketing
Etsusaku Shimada
February 2020

Center for Risk Research
Faculty of Economics
SHIGA UNIVERSITY

1-1-1 BANBA, HIKONE,SHIGA 522-8522, JAPANMaintenance of Shared Resources and the Use of Agricultural Pesticides
Considered in Terms of Health Risks and Agricultural Marketing
Etsusaku SHIMADA

1 Introduction
Under the Law for Strengthening the Agricultural Business Base, therationalization of farm management and the certification of farmers and group farming
are promoted. There are important infrastructure functions necessary for the
improvement of agriculture, such as the liquidation of farmland, farm roads, andirrigation facilities. Farmers associated with these policies have access to financial
support from the local administration to receive various rights for when they engage inproduction activities such as agricultural land use. On the contrary, the requirements ofefficiency and productivity have caused soil contamination and water pollution
instigated by increasing use of agricultural chemicals.
Farmers are forced to achieve short-term management goals in the competitivemarket. This reality can make it difficult to cooperate with other farmers to maintainsustainable agriculture and manage shared resources. In other words, farmers’ pursuit ofproduction efficiency carries the risk that the rural environment, with its multifaceted
functions, could suffer serious damage, even involving fisheries. Conserving
biodiversity is regarded as internationally important. The use of agricultural chemicals
is recognized as one of the primary factors threatening the biodiversity. Its impact isequal to the disappearance of habitat brought about by overdevelopment and overfishing(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
The first issue is dioxin contamination in water, which was highest in the 1960s
1and 1970s, according to Masunaga (2000). It was caused by pentachlorophenol (PCP)
and chlornitrofen (CNP) herbicides. Furthermore, in recent sediments, contaminationfrom herbicides used in the past contributed more than equivalent from industrial andhousehold combustion. Most of the dioxins derived from herbicides still remain in the
farmlands and continue to contribute to their outflow of fine particles containing dioxins
into rivers, lakes, and the sea by various routes. Plankton absorbs the dioxin from fresh
water and seawater, which is consumed by small fish, who are then eaten by bigger fish.
The concentration of dioxin in fish is presumed to be approximately 3,000 times as highas the concentration of dioxin in fresh water or seawater. Dioxin is concentrated in foodchain process and will eventually be accumulated in the human body at the top of thefood chain. Humans who live on food from plants and animals grown in contaminatedsoil and water are facing serious health problems.
The next issue is neonicotinoid pesticides. These pesticides are the most widelyused insecticides in the world, based on nicotine-like ingredients and have been in themarket since the 1990s. This insecticide is convenient for agricultural producers because
these can be sprayed less frequently. The apparent “reduced pesticide” requirement
levied on certified farmers, such as eco-farmers, can be achieved easily. For example,
neonicotinoid pesticides can be used in the seeding boxes that are used to raise riceseedlings. Thus, the load on the environment seems to be small. The Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries proactively recommends this practice.
When neonicotinoid-based pesticides came into the market, little was known about
their long-term toxicity and effects on ecosystems, including humans. Originally,
neonicotinoid pesticides were considered to have a greater neurotoxicity for insects thanfor vertebrates, and they were considered safe for humans. A wide range of2

neonicotinoid products have been developed to replace conventional agriculturalchemicals and also for household pest control and pet treatments since the 2000s. These
products have been used in large quantities without clearly proving its safety. However,
the effects on humans are gradually becoming known. There are also reports on theeffects of neonicotinoid pesticides on birds and mammals; these reports point out
several of the dangers. There are accounts of increasing numbers of patients whocomplained of poor health at the same time they used the neonicotinoid pesticides.
Moreover, there is the risk of known fetal developmental disorders. For these reasons,neonicotinoid pesticides have become a worldwide problem. According to Kuroda(2012), these pesticides have chemical structures similar to nicotine, which is an
addictive chemical that affects the nervous system. Neonicotinoids have greater effects
on mammalian nAChRs and brain function, especially on brain development, thanpreviously reported in binding assay studies. These can adversely influence humanhealth, especially in adolescent brains.
Previously, pesticides remained on the surface of agricultural products, so they
could be removed by washing. However, recent pesticides are increasingly watersoluble, so they penetrate the seeds. Therefore, these pesticides’ insecticidal effects last
even after the crops have grown. These insecticides are promoted as effective because
they can protect the entire crop from pests. However, because they are used on such alarge scale on farmland and public land, they are becoming a problem. One of the
problems is that as the use of neonicotinoid pesticides expanded, the mass deaths ofbees began to be reported around the world. Bees are pollinators that play an importantrole in farming. In Europe the movement to regulate the use of neonicotinoid pesticides
began in the early 2000s.
3In mid-2013, the European Commission announced a two-year provisional
regulation for the use of three neonicotinoid pesticides and fipronil (another chemicalthat has the same penetrating capability and similar properties to neonicotinoid
pesticides). This decision was based on precautionary principles that are applied whenscientific evidence is not sufficient but the problem has a suspected significant impact
on the environment and life.
In 2017, Yutaka Kameda’s group (2017) found that honey, bees, and pupas all overJapan are widely contaminated by neonicotinoid pesticides. According to the report, thispesticide was detected in all 73 samples collected in nine prefectures from the Tohoku
to the Okinawa regions. Over 60% of the honey exceeded the provisional standards ofJapan. Neonicotinoid pesticides are connected with the mortality and mass death ofhoneybees and the disappearance of swarms seen in many countries. According to
Kameda, “with some pesticides, half of the bees were found to die within 48 hours, it
was also detected at high concentrations in wild honey bees, which may have alreadybeen affected over a wide area.” (Kameda, 2017).
At the same time, the American scientific journal Science published two research
results 1 revealing that neonicotinoid pesticide is harmful to bees and bumblebees onJune 29, 2017. One of the studies is the result of a large outdoor survey conducted in the
United Kingdom, Germany, and Hungary (Woodcock et al., 2017). This study covered
the first large-scale outdoor research conducted, and it was done by the Center for1

Woodcock, B. A., J.M. Bullock, R.F. Shore, M.S. Heard, M.G. Pereira, J. Redhead, and L. Ridding(2017) Country-specific effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on honey bees and wild bees, Science356(6345): 1393-1395. 10.1126/science.aaa1190.
Tsvetkov N., O. Samson-Robert, K. Sood, H.S. Patel, D.A. Malena, P.H. Gajiwala, P. Maciukiewicz(2017) Chronic Exposure to neonicotinoids reduces honey bee health near corn crops, Science356(6345): 1395-1397. 10.1126/science.aaa7470.

4

Ecology & Hydrology of the UK Government Research Institute. Along with the resultsof a 2015 research project that used 2,000 hectares of farms in the UK, Germany, and
Hungary, they found that bees exposed to neonicotinoid pesticides had a 24% reduction
in overwintering hibernation.
Another study (Tsvetkov et al., 2017) conducted by a research team at York
University, Canada, found that larvae given pollen contaminated with a neonicotinoid
pesticide had a 23% reduction in average life expectancy. As a result of observing a bee
field far away from a beefare around a corn field, it was found that most of theneonicotinoid-contaminated pollen collected by the honey bees was not from corn.
Furthermore, according to Tsvetkov et al. (2017), the contaminated pollen was foundover a long period of time, from May to September. The residual pesticide concentrationin wild plant pollen collected by the bees was measured. It was then confirmed that thelarva’s life span was shortened by feeding them pollen adjusted to the concentration ofclothianidin. The researchers suggested that the contamination of this wild plant wasfrom “neonicotinoids, which are water-soluble, flow out from the farm to thesurrounding environment and are taken up in plants favorable for the bees,”demonstrating that contamination to the water system can cause contamination
diffusion.”
Three characteristics of neonicotinoid pesticides that have an impact on beecontaining ecosystems are neurotoxicity, permeability, and persistence. The strong
neurotoxicity kills many insects, including beneficial insects, in addition to the target
pests. In other cases, the pesticide imposes obstacles that make it difficult for insects tosurvive. In addition, because of its solubility, there is a risk that it will enter thesurrounding vegetation and groundwater and spread to areas where insecticides are not5used. Although regulations regarding neonicotinoid pesticide use have advanced inmany countries, the problems associated with it seem to have been ignored in Japan. At
present, there are no restrictions on the use of neonicotinoids. In fact, there is amovement in the opposite direction to deregulate usage. It considered a usefultechnology to improve production efficiency and is an accepted inevitability of the
agricultural system.
Two factors promote the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in Japan. First is thepresence of colored grain standards for the quality grade of paddy rice or brown rice in
the Agricultural Products Standard Regulations. The stink bug that creates the spottedrice problems has been designated as a specified pest by Control of Specified Pests(Article 22) in the Plant Protection Act. The death of honeybees in Japanese agricultureis the main damage caused by neonicotinoid pesticide poisoning when it sprayed for the
purpose of controlling spotted stink bugs during the rice flowering period of rice inpaddy rice cultivation. Spotted stink bugs suck during the period when the rice seeds aresoft. The area where the juice was sucked out turns blackish and the rice becomesspotted. It is thought that neonicotinoid pesticides target the nerve cells in the brains ofinsects. Due to water-solubility, the neonicotinoids are then spread widely throughstreams and groundwater.
Spotted rice reduces the selling price of brown rice and creates systemic problems.
The Agricultural Products Standard Regulations on Agricultural Product Inspection(Article 11) defines the quality grades of glutinous brown paddy rice. First class ricemust contain less than 0.1% of colored grains; second class rice must be less than 0.3%;
and third class rice must be less than 0.7%. Although the inspection under the law is
optional, it is necessary to prove inspection by the Agricultural Products Inspection Law
6in order to indicate the place of origin, varieties, and year of production for rice sold incontainers and packaged according to the Food Labeling Standards (Article 19) basedon the Food Labeling Act (Paragraph 1, Article 4). Therefore, there is a de facto duty toinspect all rice to that is to be distributed in the market. Farmers may still sell rice a
certificate of origin if the prefecture name is displayed based on the Traceability System
for Rice/Rice Products. However, it is also obligatory to indicate “no production area
inspection.” It is in the producers’ interest to control stink bugs by spreading
neonicotinoids in paddy fields to prevent spotted rice since the selling price of brownrice varies depending on whether it is high grade or lower grade rice based on
percentage of colored grains as defined in Article 11.
However, spotted rice is not a health hazard. It can easily be removed in the sorting
process using a color sorter. The standard of colored grains related to the quality gradeof brown paddy rice was considered important when high-performance color sorters did
not exist or were not widely used. However, now that inexpensive high-performancecolor sorters are widely available and used for most of the rice distributed in Japan, thehistorical role of grading is no longer important. The standard only protects a very small
number of rice millers who do not have a color sorter. This standard not only promotes
unnecessary pesticide spraying to control spotted rice stink bugs, which produces anegative impact on the paddy field ecosystem, but it also imposes significant costs andadditional labor for producers. Spotted rice stink bugs are currently specified as“Designated Pests” because as they “tend to cause serious damage to crops, special
measures are required” as defined by the Plant Protection Act (Article 22). The
Designated Pests specification should be canceled by revision of the Enforcement
Regulations of the Plant Protection Act.
7

Neonicotinoid pesticides have the potential to have serious adverse effects not only
on bees but also on ecosystems, and their negative effects on human health have beenscientifically proven. The World Health Organization (WHO) has requested their
reduction internationally due to its structure similar to nicotine and strong concerns
about the impacts of neonicotinoid pesticides on human health, particularly on thedevelopment of the fetus and children. As interest in organic foods has increased andagricultural crop contamination due to environmental pollution is becoming apparent inJapan and all over the world, a quest for common ways to recognize and manage soil
and water quality must be commenced. In recent years, an inherent problem in Japanese
government agricultural policy is the fact that it gives priority to marketability andproductivity. This has a tendency to deteriorate the food production environment.
Sustainability in domestic agricultural production has taken second place under policies
promoting certified farmers and village farming.
In Japanese agriculture, there is general information on how eco-farmers, certified
farmers, and village farmers use of dioxin-emitting pesticides and neonicotinoid
pesticides. Different forms of agricultural communities have demonstrated differencesin pesticide use, including how eco-farmers, certified farmers, and community farmers
use of dioxin-emitting and neonicotinoid pesticides. Furthermore, for the use ofneonicotinoid pesticides, the results of an empirical analysis comparing the area of riceland cultivated depends on the production factors and the area of fruit tree lands
cultivated rely on insect pollination services. This analysis highlights how rice farmers
are eroding the interests of orchard farmers. These are pioneering studies and makevaluable contributions in agricultural economics research.

8

2 Improvement of Production Efficiency of Farmers

2.1 Certified Farmers
The certified farmer system was established in 1993. It allows municipalities toapprove five-year plans designed to improve agricultural management according tolocal circumstances. It is based on the Agricultural Business Foundation Strengthening
Promotion Law. Certified farmers can receive management income stabilization
measures. Production condition disadvantage correction subsidies and income reduction
effect mitigation grants are available. Therefore, certified farmers can receive a
supplement for below-cost pricing for the production of wheat and soybeans. They canalso to obtain a safety net against a reduction of income for rice, wheat, and soybeans.
This system also targets group farming.
Furthermore, there is taxation support, called the Agricultural Management
Foundation Strengthening Reserve Fund. In the case of a certified farmer who file a
blue form 2 for an income tax return and lays aside subsidies for measures that stabilize
management income, this reserved fund can then be included in the account ofnecessary expenses for the individual or in deductible expenses for a corporation.
Next, a certified farmer can receive support to strengthen the agricultural
management base. This is a reduction of interest on the initial five years of a loan, suchas a long-term, low-interest loan for management improvement, i.e., the funding
required for the acquisition of agricultural land, facilities, or machinery or for long-term

2

The Blue Form is equipped for the exclusive use by those who are qualified to receive preferential
treatments. The Blue return can be used by tax payers who gain taxable income from Real estate, businessor Forestry. It is necessary to obtain approval from the head of the tax office by an application in advance.
By that, you are granted various privileges in calculation of your income tax.

9

working capital, and Super L fund 3. Also, certified farmers can receive national treasury
subsidies for outstanding loans to introduce agricultural machinery. Also, there aresubsidies that pay half of the insurance premium on the farmers’ pension—from 4,000
JPY to 10,000 JPY—for certified farmers who make a blue declaration. In addition,
certified farmers can benefit from investment by Agribusiness Investment Development
Co., Ltd. (Agri) and Investment Limited Partnership (LPS) based on the Agricultural
Corporation Investment Facilitation Act.
These policies are focused on strengthening the management structure byminimizing costs and pursuing production efficiency of farmers. However, there isconcern that such a policy, which is biased toward pursuing production efficiency andstrengthening the management structure, may generate negative by-products such asenvironmental pollution. This is because there is a possibility that a social disadvantage
can occur as one aspect of private profit. It is important to note that the naturalenvironment is used by all living beings.

2.3 Village Farming
For farmers, the rural environment is a shared resource. It is an important external
economy that provides a stable supply of clean water and rich and soil. Therefore, inorder to continuously gain the benefits from this resource, it is necessary for membersof local communities to cooperate in activities such as village farming. Thereby, it isexpected that the goal will be to reduce uneconomical external conditions and topromote and achieve healthy external economies. Village farming is generally

3

Super L fund is a comprehensive fund that supports the management improvement by the independence
and ingenuity of farmers who have been certified under the Agricultural Management Improvement Plan,
which is handled by the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries business of Japan Finance Corporation.

10

conceived as “a basic unit of social life in a spontaneous community.” Various groups
and social relations share territorial bonding, and form a community. The concept of
local communities formed around agriculture in district municipalities is also called
agricultural settlement (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries).
In the direction of new food, agriculture, and rural policy (new policy) 4 announced
by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in 1992, “promotion of
corporatization” to strengthen organizational management structure and “upbringing of
the management body” were important issues. According to Article 28 of the Food,
Agriculture, and Rural Areas law enacted in 1999, village farming is a farmers’organization that takes necessary measures to promote agricultural production activities
and is entrusted to collaborate with other agrarian community-based organizations. It is
restricted to persons exclusively engaged in agriculture and does include women andsenior citizens (Yabiki, 2015).
Meanwhile, to accelerate the development of specific agricultural corporations andorganizations, item cross-sectoral management stabilization measures (subsequently
renamed “paddy fields/upland farm management income stabilization measures”)
started in 2007. They emphasized management features such as “income” and “full-time
employees” and the viewpoint of maintaining and revitalizing rural societies while
managing local resources that include farmland. However, issues related to managing
regional resources such as farmland and revitalizing rural society were neglected.
Village farming has increased throughout the country due to this measure. The solutionof regional problems, which local residents have discussed, are the need for a “place for
4 1. Development of land use type agriculture, 2. Development of management and efficient use of
farmland, 3. Rice production adjustment and management, 4. Pricing policy, 5. Agriculture that
contributes to environmental conservation, 6. Ensuring proper use of farmland and securing rural
settlement conditions, 7. Initiatives for mountainous areas.

11

discussion, reasons for agreement, an organization coordinator for system
implementation, funds available for activity, and through these the residents can solve,
by unique collaborative community activities, changes in life style and a new way of
thinking.” Linking business with satisfaction and fulfillment of life could revitalize theagricultural community and maintain the Commons as a driving force.
Although the government measures focus on the production function of village
farming, village farming was originally organized to play a role in settlement, including
preservation of regional resources in the process of its establishment (Yabiki, 2015).
Therefore, village farming should contribute to the maintenance of shared resources andthe preservation of the environment, which is essentially part of its original nature androle. According to Hayami (1986), family small farms are efficient production
organizations with the resources and technology provided. However, their efficiency
cannot be achieved independently. For example, if one farmer fails to control pests in
his or her field, it will spread to the fields of neighbors. As is true in this case, some
farmers could benefit from using neonicotinoid pesticides, but some farmers could be
harmed by it. However, if they work together as members of the same community tomaximize community interests, there will be a restraint on the use of pesticides.
However, this does not apply if the pollution is widespread beyond the community area
due to the water-soluble nature of the neonicotinoid pesticides. We want to examine theeffect of village farming on the use of pesticides, along with the use of dioxingenerating pesticides.

2.3 Eco-farmers

12

“Eco-farmer” is the nickname for farmers who are certified by the prefectural
governor because of their “plans submitted concerning the promotion of theintroduction of highly sustainable agricultural production methods.” These plans should
include soil-building technology, techniques for keeping the soil in good condition, andchemical fertilizer and chemical pesticide reduction technology based on Article 4 of the
Law Concerning the Promotion of the Introduction of a Highly Sustainable Agricultural
Production System enacted in July 1999. The term “eco-farmer” was selected fromapplications submitted to the National Conservation Agriculture Promotion Council inAugust 2000 (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Shiga Prefecture). On
becoming an eco-farmer, direct-payment grant assistance is possible for environmental
conservation agriculture and special resources are available from the agricultural
improvement fund (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries).
Since the establishment of the eco-farmer system in 1999, the number of accredited
eco-farmers continued to increase with the rise of environmental awareness. From only
12 eco-farmers nationwide in 2000, there were 50,000 by 2005, 100,000 in 2007, and200,000 in 2010. This increase was expected to promote highly sustainable agricultural
methods nationwide. In some prefectures, however, the number of certified eco-farmers
is sluggish, such as in Tokushima, Ehime, Mie, Iwate, and Aomori prefectures. The
manner in which eco-farmers are accepted in contemporary Japanese agriculture differs
by region and prefecture. In Tokushima prefecture, for example, in an interview with theTokushima newspapers (August 4, 2015), a farmer said, “reducing pesticides andchemical fertilizers, increases the work load such as grass cutting, and it is also
necessary to check whether insect pests are increasing frequency,” and “income does
not increase with the extra labor.” “Eco-Farmer’s agricultural products are not valued in13the market and the middleman wholesaler will not buy it at an acceptable price,” said afarmer. It is conceivable that there is a problem in the efficiency of production and theeffectiveness of sales promotion activities for eco-business entities. It may be necessary
to consider countermeasures including a distribution department that deals withhandling of crops that do not conform to the sales standards in shipping and collection.

3 Econometric Analysis

3.1 Model and Results (Accumulation of Dioxin)
In this paper, we analyzed how changes in the numbers of certified farmers, village
farmers (individuals and corporations), and eco-farmers influenced pollutant (dioxin)
deposition on shared resources such as water and soil. The dataset is composed of 45
prefectures observed 2001 through 2013, with the exception of Hokkaido and Okinawa
prefectures. The data sources are in the Ministry of the Environment (2014) 5
Dioxin deposition is the dependent variable, and it is found in four locations: (a)dioxin sedimentation in a water area (variable symbol: Bot_war), (b) sedimentation in
groundwater (Gr_war), (c) sedimentation in the general environment (Gen_Env), and(d) sedimentation by regional summary survey (Soil). With respect to each location, we
estimate the number of certified farmers (Certified_far), individual village farming(V_Inv), corporate village farming(V_f_Inv), and eco-farmers (Eco_far) using multiple
regression analysis by robustness test.

5

See Note 1.

14

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics
Variable

Obs

Mean

Std. Dev.

Min

Max

Unit

Bot_warter

585

39.68

22.43

6

112 pg-TEQ/L

Gr_warter

585

18.22

14.27

0

88 pg-TEQ/L

Gen_envir

585

27.03

26.61

0

228 pg-TEQ/g

Soil

585

39.09

41.11

0

365 pg-TEQ/g

Eco_farmer

450

3588.314168.64

0

25568

unit

Certified_farmer

585

4153.662955.62

441

13785

unit

V_farm_Indiv405

242.37

216.74

0

822

unit

V_farm_Corp

405

38.82

52.45

0

298

unit

The average value of the pollutant concentration and the survey sites in 2001 arecalculated as follows.
Water quality of public water bodies: Regarding the water quality of public
water bodies, a survey was conducted at 2,213 points nationwide (1,674 rivers, 95 lakes,
444 sea areas, and 2,635 samples), and the average value for each prefecture wascalculated.
Groundwater quality: The groundwater quality was surveyed using 1,473
specimens nationwide at 1,480 points, and the average for each prefecture wascalculated.
Soil: Regarding soil, a general environmental survey and a survey of the surroundingsof the source were conducted at 3,735 locations nationwide, with the same number ofsamples, and the average value for each prefecture was calculated.
Display method for target substances measurements and measurement
results: Dioxins (isomers shown for reference among PCDD, PCDF, and coplanar PCB)
were measured, and the measurement results were shown as toxic equivalents (TEQ).

15

This is the sum of the measured concentrations of each isomer multiplied by the
Toxicity Equivalence Factor (TEF).

Table 2. Quantitative results with robustness (Accumulation of Dioxin)（ a）
t-values
Dependent Var
Eco_farmer

（ c）

（ b）

Bot_wartert-values
Gr_warter（ d）
t-values

Gen_envir

t-values
Soil-0.0015 ***-5.38-0.0005 *** -2.60-0.0019 ***-6.27-0.00301 ***-6.65

Certified_farmer-0.0001-0.22

0.0006 **2.15

0.0012 ***2.59

0.0018 ***2.80

V_farm_Indiv-0.0105 **-2.25-0.0044-1.29-0.01023 *-1.92-0.0073-0.91

V_farm_Corp-0.0059-0.29-0.0029-0.25-0.1836-0.58-0.0247-1.02

Constant var

40.4851 *** 16.27

18.7177 *** 12.66

29.4587 *** 11.58

37.76856 ***9.79

Number of obs

359

359

359

359

R2

0.0646

0.0332

0.09280.0954(1) *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1

3.2 Model and Results (Spread of Neonicotinoids Pesticides)
Secondly, we analyzed how changes in the number of certified farmers, the numberof village farmers (individuals and corporations), and the number of eco-farmers haveinfluenced the shipment volume that reflects the demand for and spread of pollutants.
The dataset is composed of 45 prefectures from 2006 through 2010 except
Hokkaido and Okinawa prefectures. The data sources are written in the Center for
Environmental Risk Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies 6.

6

Shipment of Neonicotinoids pesticides: Database of Agricultural Chemicals, WebKis-Plus, Center
for Environmental Risk Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies (See Note 2)16

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics
Variable

Obs

Mean

Std. Dev.

Min

Max

Unit

Acetamiprid

225

1.27

1.96

0.02

22.6

t

Imidacloprid

225

1.41

1.02

0.07

4.57

t

Clothianidin

225

1.05

1.03

0.01

8.21

t

Tiapride

225

0.47

0.76

0

4.12

t

Thiamethoxam

225

0.62

0.69

0

4.52

t

Dinotefuran

225

3.11

3.09

0.01

16.08

t

Nitenpyram

225

0.18

0.24

-0.02

1.33

t

Fipronil

225

0.89

0.70

0

4.98

t

Eco-farmer

3824.163976.29

1.00

21889

Eco-farmer % to farmer

225
180

0.06

0.07

0.00

0.58

unit
ratio

Certified farmer

225

4612.153143.61

789

13785

unit

Certified farmer % to farmer

180

0.07

0.04

0.01

0.17

ratio

Individual Village Farmer

238.56213.120811

Individual Village farming % to farmer

225
180

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.02

unit
ratio

Cooporate Village Farmer

225

32.74

42.76

0

238

unit

Corporate Village farming % to farmer

180

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

ratio

We chose Dinotefuran, which is the largest volume for the trade of neonicotinoid
pesticide, for our analyses and used prefectures’ dummy for the analysis at Table 4.

17

Table 4. Quantitative results with robustness
Variables

Neonicotinoid(Dinotefuran)t-value
Eco farmer-0.0001 ***-2.91

Certifield farmer

0.0004 *1.71

Individual village farming

0.0049 ***3.48

Corporate Village farming

0.0066 **1.42

Aomori2.5064 ***

7.06

Iwate

8.8053 ***8.39

Miyagi6.4280 ***

5.04

Akita

5.9529 ***

6.67
9.15

Yamagata

4.4806 ***Fukushima

3.3545 ***3.23

Ibaraki

2.5120 ***

5.93
2.08

Tochigi

1.1290 **Gunma

1.1992

1.18

Saitama

1.8247 *

1.71

Chiba

3.3112 ***

4.93

Tokyo

2.1077

1.13

Kanagawa

1.7784

1.08

Niigata

11.3036 ***9.28

Toyama2.3532

0.96

Ishikawa

3.7961 **

2.03

Fukui

2.3900

1.05

Yamanashi

3.5101 **2.01

Nagano3.6145 ***

5.24

Gifu

2.2628

1.24

Shizuoka

2.9204 ***

3.41

Aichi

2.7773 **

2.49

Mie

2.157082

1.24

Shiga

2.1611

0.97

Kyoto

2.5201

1.28

Osaka

2.6054

1.38

Hyogo

0.19780.10

Nara

2.8691

1.49

Wakayama

4.2324 ***3.23

Tottori

2.1474

1.07

Shimane1.1477

0.54

Okayama

2.5160 *1.73

Hiroshima

0.8141

0.36

Yamaguchi

2.31201.18

Tokushima

2.3285

1.50

Kagawa2.4654

1.32

Ehime

5.2718 ***

4.87

Kochi

2.2656 *1.75

Fukuoka

2.2254

1.41

Saga0.0242

0.02

Nagasaki1.4404 *1.78

Kumamoto

1.0048

1.35

Ooita

-0.5829-0.43

Miyazaki1.0763 ***3.15

Number of obs

225

R2

0.9483* Degree of significance expressed as*** p < 0.01 ( t > 2.57 ). ** p < 0.05 ( t > 1.96 ). * p < 0.10 ( t > 1.64 ) .

18

Table 5. Estimated results by Panel Data analysis to explain the expected use of Neonicotinoid pesticide

Variables(a) Fixed-Effect(b) Random EffectNeonicotinoid(Dinotefuran)

Neonicotinoid(Dinotefuran)

Neonicotinoid(Dinotefuran)

Neonicotinoid(Dinotefuran)z-valuez-valuez-valuez-value

―

―

―

―

General environment-0.1422 *-1.70-0.0155 *Paddy ratio to the field

45.0297 ・

1.56

4.0609 **Fruit farm ratio to the field-48.9418 **

-2.26
―

Lag operator of Dependent var.

―

Eco farmer(c) Dynamic Panel-Data 1 (d) Dynamic Panel-Data 2-0.5707 *

-1.85

-1.04

-0.0215

-1.25

1.44

57.1220 ・

1.54

-2.03

-44.5086

-1.39

―

―

-0.0001-0.97-0.4511

-1.01

-1.85

-0.15432.02

55.3170 ・-3.7718-0.88-60.9116 **――Eco farmer % to farmer-2.6712 *-1.92-2.6225 *-1.85-0.7132

-0.35

―

―

Certifield farmer

―

―

―

―

―

―

-0.0002-0.27

Certifield farmer % to farmer

4.05941.08

8.1490 **2.21

4.15250.93――

Individual village farming

―

―

―

―

―

―

0.0114 **2.14

Individual village farming

66.2358 ・

1.60

42.49421.04-29.5322

-0.99

―

―

Corporate village farming

―

―

―

―

―

―

-0.0009

-0.08

-1.74

-164.7478

-1.17

-1.00

―

―

Corporate village farming % to farmer

Hausman test
Number of obs-249.3859 *-189.3481

Fixed effect (Prob > Chi2 = 0.0003)

180

180

90

90

* Degree of significance expressed as*** p < 0.01 ( z > 2.57 ). ** p < 0.05 ( z > 1.96 ). * p < 0.10 ( z > 1.64 ) . ・p < 0.15 ( z > 1.43 ).

4 Results of the Quantitative Analysis

4.1 Certified Farmers
The results of the econometric analysis significantly demonstrate that as thenumber of certified farmers increases, dioxin deposits in the groundwater and soil also
increase (see Table 2). Certified farmers work hard to strengthen the management
structure required by the system. This provides the incentive for certified farmers toabandon sustainable agricultural methods as soil-building and cultivation of agricultural

19

crops that do not rely on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides since these are
not directly quantified as evaluation criteria.
The quantity of the number of certified farmers was also significantly related to theamount of approximately all contaminants in the system, including the quantity
neonicotinoid pesticides shipped. Similar to the accumulation of dioxin, it isconceivable that certified farmers seek production efficiency and profitability without
any regard for the effects on the ecosystem. These priorities tend to promote the use ofneonicotinoid pesticide as a substitute for regulated pesticides.

4.2 Corporation Village Farming
An increase in corporate village farming did not indicate a decrease in dioxin,
which confirmed the author's hypothesis. Also, no significant results were obtained
regarding the use of neonicotinoid pesticides. It is inferred that corporate village
farming has does not play its original role, as Hayami (1986) explains. Neonicotinoid
pesticides are water-soluble, and contaminants can spread beyond the user's agriculturalcommunity through groundwater veins. Therefore, if the affected farmland is outside thesource community, it will not be possible to build cooperation.
Village farming involves rural agricultural communities, a social capital that
protects shared resources indispensable in rural areas. However, it is possible that thisprotective role can no longer be fulfilled. In J (new policy) of new food, agriculture, andrural policy announced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in 1992,
in the Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas law constituted in 1999, and in the paddy
fields/upland farm management, income stabilization measures started in 2007 havechanged the emphasis. As a result, the objective of “Maintaining and revitalizing rural
20

society while managing regional resources including agricultural land” originallypossessed by village farming communities tends to be neglected (Takeyama andYamamoto, 2013). Village farming has been impacted by such measures. The nature of
the original agricultural community has been impaired and its purpose cannot becompletely fulfilled. The government measures are similar to the characteristics seen in
the certified farmer system, which focuses on the production function of village
farming. However, the original role of village farming was to preserve regional
resources that included farmland, and this was rooted in the farmers' trust relationships,
and this is unlikely to be fulfilled.

4.3 Individual Village Farming
The results show that as the number of individual village farmers increases,
deposition of dioxin in the bottom of the water areas (rivers/lakes and wetlands/sea
areas) and in the general environment index decreases. Individual village farming does
not operate in the same way as corporate village farming. The farmers are economicallyindependent units, and it is natural for them to perform production activities that focus
on efficiency in contemporary competitive markets. Nevertheless, it is important to notean increase in personal village farming that is significantly related to a decrease indioxin.
According to the original role of village farming, village farming was predicted tofunction and contribute to preserve agricultural lands and water sources and prevent
pollution. Therefore, if the government can take measures to support village farming
based on cooperative relationships among farmers original agricultural communities
will develop in rural areas across the country. It is expected that the village farmers will21

enhance their inherent functions and that the external problems such as water quality
and soil contamination can be suppressed and the external economy necessary for
agriculture will be promoted.
However, for neonicotinoid pesticides, we did not obtain the expected significant
results. This suggests that the common understanding that neonicotinoid pesticides are
toxic to insects that maintain ecosystems could be incorrect or that farmers are careful intheir use of neonicotinoid pesticides.

4.4 Eco-farmers
The econometric analysis strongly indicated that the increase in the number of ecofarmers makes it possible to reduce the deposition of dioxin at the bottom of rivers,
lakes, wetlands, and groundwater. This is shown in the general environment survey
indexes and regional survey indexes. These results point to the outcome of “introducing
highly sustainable agricultural production methods” approved by eco-farmers. Ecofarming integrates soil-building efforts and chemical fertilizer and pesticide reduction
technology.
Similarly, it was estimated that neonicotinoid pesticide consumption could
decrease as the ratio of eco-farmers to farmers increases. However, we should still notethat there is a lack of regulation in certifying eco-farmers who are not now obliged to
produce “Special Cultivation Agricultural Products.” These products must be grownwith reduced use of chemical pesticides to less than 50% of prefectural standards,
including neonicotinoid pesticides. Therefore, they are not prohibited from using
neonicotinoid pesticide as a substitute for regulated pesticides.

22

4.5 Considerations and Discussions
From the results in Table 5, the reasons for the use of neonicotinoid pesticides(Dinotefuran) can be explained in terms of the following variables: dioxin pollution
concentration, area ratio of fruit farm to farmland, and area ratio of paddy to farmland in
addition to eco-farmers, certified farmers, individual village farming, and corporate
village farming. Panel data composed of these variables for 45 prefectures in Japan isused for fixed effect analysis. It is conceivable that neonicotinoid pesticide is being used
as an alternative while the use of pesticides that release dioxin has been restricted.
Furthermore, the eco-farmer scheme seems to have had some effect in lowering the useof neonicotinoid pesticides due to the rise of consciousness regarding the environmental
preservation of agriculture. However, because statistical results for some areas are
insufficient, countermeasures against the use of pesticides are still required. On theother hand, the use of neonicotinoid pesticide tends to be comparatively restrained inareas of fruit tree cultivation. However, in some areas, artificial pollination is carried out
without relying on insects. In these cases, there may be no link to the motivation to
suppress the use of the pesticides. In addition, although the number of farmers peramount of arable land is high, it is possible to carry out more careful cultivation.
Therefore, it is considered easier to respond to harmful pests, and the existence of a
sufficient labor force makes it difficult to substitute with pesticides.

5 Conclusion
In this paper, we assume that the causes of the accumulation of dioxin sediment inJapanese waters (rivers, lakes, wetlands, and seas), groundwater, and soil and the spreadof neonicotinoid pesticides in rural areas of Japan are associated with the numbers of23

certified farmers, individual village farmers, corporate village farmers, and eco-farmers.
A quantitative analysis with annual statistics from 45 prefectures, excluding Hokkaido
and Okinawa, from 2000 to 2013 for dioxins and from 2006 to 2010 for neonicotinoids
was carried out.
As the number of certified farmers increased, the accumulation of dioxin increasedin the groundwater and in a wide range of soils. There was no statistically significant
increase in dioxin in the environment due to changes in the number of cooperative type
farming villages in either water bodies or in the soil. However, as the number ofindividual village farmers increased, the deposition of dioxin on the bottom of waters(rivers/lakes/sea areas) and in the soil (from the survey on the general environment) was
significantly reduced. Furthermore, we also obtained significant results showing that anincrease in the number of eco-farmers led to a significant reduction in accumulation ofdioxin on the bottom of water courses (rivers/lakes and wetlands/sea areas), in
underground water, as well as in the general environment survey indexes and regional
survey indexes.
Our analysis of the characteristics of farmers and agricultural communities also
allowed us to estimate the causes of the spread of neonicotinoid agricultural chemicals.
When the ratio of paddies to fields increases, the use of neonicotinoids also increases,
which shows a positive influence. However, when the ratio of fruit farms to fields
increases, the use of neonicotinoids decreases, indicating a negative influence. Paddy
rice farming currently depends on the use of neonicotinoids as a pesticide against stinkbugs, which damage rice crops. Most vegetable farmers also use insecticides, including
neonicotinoids, but fruit farms need insects for pollination and so do not use
neonicotinoids. Also, fruit farmers and vegetable farmers must corporate with each24

other, and in some cases one farmer manages both vegetable fields and orchards.
Moreover, when the ratio of eco-farmers to farmers increased, the use of neonicotinoid
pesticides seems decreased. Furthermore, neither individuals nor corporations havedone enough to reduce the use of neonicotinoid pesticides.
The papers of Woodcock et al. (2017) and Tsvetkov et al. (2017) published in
Science, June 30, 2017, revealed that neonicotinoid pesticides are strongly toxic for
insects and that the use of neonicotinoid pesticides, which are water-soluble, destroys awide range of ecosystems and threatens the sustainability of agriculture. These results
were published in 2017. Therefore, it is conceivable that farmers and administrators inJapan are still not addressing this as a problem that needs an immediate solution. Thereis no effective prohibition or restriction policy on the use of neonicotinoid pesticides,
and this means that the situation will be exacerbated.
The government must act in order to prevent farmers from improving productivity
by pursuing profits through the use of pesticides and excessively strengthening
management structure at the expense of important shared resources in rural areas. The
government is required to reassess what village farming has been and ought to be. The
current Japanese agricultural (JA) regime as seen in the Agricultural Products Standard
Regulations on Agricultural Product Inspection is outdated and the rice distribution
system and pricing based on quality rankings needs to be reassessed and revised toreflect market demand and global precautionary standards. The government should
promote the cooperative relationships among farmers and to restrict the use of chemicalfertilizers and agricultural chemicals to certain farmers and to ban the use ofneonicotinoids altogether.

25

Satochi satoyama 7 is a shared resource not only for rice farmers but also for nonrice farmers and urban residents, who are the largest consumers of the crop. However,regarding the benefits of the Commons, such as insect pollination services, there may be
conflicts of interest between rice farmers, non-rice farmers, and crop consumers. The
distribution system under the current laws and regulations creates asymmetry of
information that is advantageous for rice farmers and hinders the functioning of pricecompetition mechanisms in healthy markets. For instance, the introduction of rational
technologies in distribution has been neglected. To preserve shared resources and enable
sustainable agricultural production, it is necessary to prohibit the use of neonicotinoid
pesticides. It is also important to raise the awareness of urban residents who arebeneficiaries of the Commons, and to provide them with accurate information. Whenthe crops that have been nurtured by diverse biota are grown in Satochi satoyama’s
clean and abundant soil and water environment and the inhabited ecosystems that havecoexisted with humans are traded properly in markets without information asymmetry,the quality of each product can be reasonably evaluated under the diverse needs of theconsumers. Eventually, it is expected that farmers will be given incentives to preserve
the Commons and grow crops that do not harm to the human body and the ecosystem.
For these reasons, it is important to develop an appropriate market.
Globally, neonicotinoid pesticides are being restricted and, in some cases, arecompletely banned, including in EU countries, South Korea, and Taiwan. From the7

Satochi satoyama comprises human settlements and several types of ecosystems, developed andmanaged through prolonged interation between humans and ecosystems. Satochi satoyama occupies
more than 40 percent of Japan’s total land. According to Ministry of the Environment (2020),
Satochi satoyama is a space created by people working on nature. People have obtained energy suchas firewood, materials such as building materials, and food from Satochi satoyama, and at the sametime, have protected a place where various creatures such as Japanese killifish, frogs, and cats can
live.

26

results obtained in this study, eco-farmers are able to produce goods withenvironmentally friendly farming methods, while certified farmers are using
neonicotinoids in pursuit of larger profits. This suggests that the eco-farming methods
can be generalized to all farmers in competition in the market as well as to certified
farmers. It is not desirable for a specific farmer, i.e., a rice farmer, to increase profits at
the expense of others, i.e., fruit farmers and vegetable farmers. As long as it seems
difficult to trade with each other over the pesticides between rice farmers who aredependent on insecticide and farmers who are dependent on pollinators and there is ahuge loss in the ecosystem and agricultural production, neonicotinoid pesticides must becompletely banned.
In the future, it will be important to analyze the impact of environmental pollution
from neonicotinoid pesticides on human health in terms of conditions such as
carcinogenicity, immunotoxicity, genetic disorders, reproductive function, and fetal
development. The resulting impacts on economic welfare due to this must be calculated.
In order to suppress such damage from agricultural production methods, both the cost
incurred by prohibiting or reducing the use of chemical substances such as
neonicotinoid pesticides and the cost of removing residual agricultural chemicals
accumulated in the production environment such as soil should be analyzed. Then, we
need to compare this with the possible health hazards when those measures are nottaken. The benefits that can be gained in the welfare economy by removing
neonicotinoids must also be assessed.

27

Acknowledgments
In carrying out this research, I would like to thank Professor Tomoko Kinugasa(Kobe University) for her useful guidance and comments. I also received valuable
discussion and advice from Emeritous Professor Mitoshi Yamaguchi (Kobe University),
Professor Taiji Hagiwara (Kobe University), Professor Kenji Takeuchi (Kobe
University). I express my deep appreciation to them all.

28

Appendix
Note 1
1. Data on certified farming is from “Certification status of agricultural management
improvement plan by prefecture,” Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries(1999–2013).
2. Data on village farmers (individuals and corporations) is from “Number of farmers byorganization type” by Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (1999–2013).
3. By-prefecture data on farm rent of paddy fields and fields come from “Survey on
Agricultural Land Price and Farm Rent” edited by Japan Real Estate Institute (1999–2013).

Note 2
1. Dioxin Sedimentation: Bottom of water area (rivers/lakes and wetlands/ sea areas),groundwater, general environment survey indexes, Regional summary survey
indexes is quoted from “Environmental survey result on dioxins” edited by
Ministry of the Environment (2001–2014).
2. Shipment of neonicotinoid pesticides: Database of Agricultural Chemicals,
WebKis-Plus, Center for Environmental Risk Research, National Institute forEnvironmental Studies.
3. Number of certified farmers quoted from “Certification status of agricultural
management improvement plan by prefecture” edited by Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries (2001–2014).
4. Village farmers (individuals and corporations) is quoted from “Number of farmers
by organization type” edited by Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries(2001–2014).
5. Number of eco-farmers is quoted from “Certification status of highly sustainableagricultural production method introduction plan” by Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries (2001–2014).

29

References
Woodcock, B. A., J.M. Bullock, R.F. Shore, M.S. Heard, M.G. Pereira, J. Redhead, andL. Ridding (2017) Country-specific effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on honeybees and wild bees, Science 356(6345): 1393-1395. 10.1126/science.aaa1190.
Kimura-Kuroda , J., Y. Komuta, and H. Kawano (2012) The effects of neonicotinoid
pesticide on humans and mammals, Japanese
Journal of Clinical Oncology 21(1):46-56.
Hayami, Y. (1986) Agricultural Economy, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Honma, M. (1994) Political Economy of Agricultural Issues, Tokyo: Nikkei Inc.
Kameda,Y. (2017) NIKKEI, Aug 28, 2017
Masunaga S., (2000) The Origin of and Change in, Dioxin Pollution in Japan -The
Contribution of Dioxins in Herbicides -, Waste Management Research, 11(3):173-181
Matumura, M., N. Nishimura, and Y. Saijoh (1988) Plant Succession in Paddy
Fields Lying Fallow in Hida Mountainous Regions Gifu Prefecture,
Japanese Journal of Ecology 38(2): 121-133.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005
Ministry of the Environment (2020, Feb 22) What is Satochi satoyama, Retrieved
from http://www.env.go.jp/nature/satoyama/satonavi/satochi/
Tsvetkov N., O. Samson-Robert, K. Sood, H.S. Patel, D.A. Malena, P.H. Gajiwala, P.
Maciukiewicz (2017) Chronic Exposure to neonicotinoids reduces honey bee
health near corn crops, Science 356(6345): 1395-1397.
10.1126/science.aaa7470.
Takeyama, K. and Y. Yamamoto (2003) A Study on Evaluation System of Management
Development and Regional Contribution in Village Farming Organization,
Bulletin of the Shimane Agricultural Technology Center, 41, pp.1-18
Tsvetkov N., O. Samson-Robert, K. Sood, H.S. Patel, D.A. Malena, P.H. Gajiwala, P.
Maciukiewicz (2017) Chronic Exposure to neonicotinoids reduces honey bee
health near corn crops, Science 356(6345): 1395-1397.
10.1126/science.aaa7470.
Tokushima Newspaper (2015). August 4, 2015
Yabiki (2015) Relationship analysis between cultivation abandoned land and village
farming by statistical data, Technical Report of The National Institute for RuralEngineering, 217, pp.75-8330