Markets for waste and waste–derived fertilizers. An empirical survey

Journal of Rural Studies 55 (2017) 83e99

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

Markets for waste and wasteederived fertilizers. An empirical survey Sylvie Lupton Institut Polytechnique UniLaSalle Beauvais, INTERACT Research Unit, 19 Pierre Waguet, 60000 Beauvais, France

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 4 October 2016 Received in revised form 13 July 2017 Accepted 19 July 2017

If chemical fertilizers have been extensively studied, there is a dearth of empirical knowledge on markets for waste and waste-derived fertilizers used in agriculture. This paper explores the state of the art on these markets, based on a multi-disciplinary literature review (economics, law, sociology). We first examine the particularity of waste compared to products such as chemical fertilizers in both law and economics, and point out the need to develop the concept of waste from a property rights perspective. On the supply side, we note a lack of aggregate data on the quantities of different materials used in agriculture at European level and the need to benefit from longer time series for US data on organic waste materials used in agriculture. We then study the determinants of demand for waste and wastederived fertilizers in agriculture. We specify the need to develop research on three quality features of waste: variability, interactivity and uncertainty. The case study on sewage sludge spreading in France and in Switzerland allows us to pinpoint the role of actors in the development or disappearance of these markets. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Markets for waste Agriculture Sewage sludge Manure

Contents 1. 2.

3.

4.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Markets for waste and waste-derived fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 2.1. Waste in law and economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 2.1.1. The distinction between products and waste in law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 2.1.2. Waste and products in economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 2.2. Data on the production and use of waste products in agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 2.3. The economic interest of waste products used in agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 2.4. The demand for waste and waste-derived fertilizers in agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 2.4.1. Determinants of waste and waste-derived fertilizers application on agricultural lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 2.4.2. The price of waste and waste-based fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 2.4.3. Quality of waste and waste-derived fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Urban sewage sludge spreading in France and in Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 3.1. Urban sewage sludge in France and the pursuit of land spreading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 3.2. Urban sewage sludge spreading in Switzerland and its prohibition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

1. Introduction

E-mail address: [email protected]. We refer to the material meaning of waste, as “unwanted or unusable material, substances, or by-products” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2017). 1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.07.017 0743-0167/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Waste1 and waste-derived fertilizers used in agriculture are a heterogeneous category of materials ranging from manure, pig slurry, urban sewage sludge, digestate from anaerobic treatment of animal and vegetable waste, green waste, agro-food waste, ash

84

S. Lupton / Journal of Rural Studies 55 (2017) 83e99

from combustion plants, dredging sludge to treated products such as compost composed of organic municipal waste, urban sewage sludge, and/or green waste. Farmers may use them as a necessarily cheaper substitute to chemical fertilizers or soil improvers.2 Social scientists, and notably economists have addressed markets for chemical fertilizers (FAO, 2016; Lecuyer et al., 2013; Ott, 2012; Duflo et al., 2011; Heisey and Norton, 2007; Chapman and Edmond, 2000) in order to understand the determinants of global supply and demand. However, no state of the art in social sciences has been accomplished to comprehend the particularity of markets for waste and waste-derived fertilizers. This seems surprising if not paradoxical. Historically, fertilization is one of the cornerstones of agriculture as it contributes to its productivity, and waste was used in agriculture for this reason at least twenty to forty centuries ago in China, Korea and Japan (King, 1911; Parr and Hornick, 1992). Moreover, the current emphasis on circular economy and sustainable agriculture in political and scientific arenas worldwide (Stahel, 2016; Lacy and Rutqvist, 2015; OECD, 2013; Tilman et al., 2002) has still not triggered such research. As Gregson and Crang (2010) note regarding social sciences and waste research, academia has focused on waste in terms of waste management, waste technologies such as incineration, landfilling and resource recovery. Up to now, most research has analyzed the environmental dimension of waste. In economics, research is based on pollution generated by organic materials such as animal manure (Pye, 1983; Hanley, 1990; Yadav et al., 1997; McCann and Easter, 1999) and agri-environmental policies to avoid such pollution (Bonnieux and Rainelli, 1988; Hahn, 1989; Ribaudo et al., 1999; Metcalfe, 2000; Feinerman and Komen, 2005; Sheriff, 2005; O'Shea and Wade, 2009). Monetary valuation of environmental externalities has also been addressed (Le Goffe and Delache, 1997; Butt et al., 1998; Stenger, 2000; Thornsbury et al., 2000; Soulsby et al., 2002; Cameron et al., 2004). However, little attention has been paid on the analysis of markets for waste and waste-derived fertilizers when these are used in agriculture. This paper is a preliminary study to understand markets for waste and waste-derived fertilizers based on a literature review on empirical research in this field. The aim of this paper is to respond to the following questions. Is waste conceptually the same as products in an economic and legal sense? If markets for waste exist as there is an offer and demand for waste used in agriculture, do they follow the same logic as markets for fertilizers regarding their price, quality, property rights and the interaction between different actors? What are the determinants of demand and the particularity of supply compared to chemical fertilizers? Aside from the contemporary relevance of this topic, this article is necessary for the following analytical and methodological reasons. Markets are often viewed as an ideal-type in social sciences (Geiger et al., 2012). Another way to analyze markets is to base oneself on stylized facts, so as to enrich theory on markets. Secondly, waste in itself is a fundamental research field and its importance is increasingly understood by scholars in social sciences (O'Brien, 2007; Lupton, 2011; Evans et al., 2012). Contrary to goods with positive value, waste is not wanted by its owner. It has not been a priori created for a given market. We put waste at the heart of the analysis in a law and economics approach, based on stylized facts from multi-disciplinary (economics, law, sociology) and empirical research. Understanding markets for waste used in agriculture allows us also to examine the emergence and disappearance of markets for waste from both theoretical (property

rights approach) and empirical perspectives (case study of sewage sludge spreading markets in France and in Switzerland). A property rights approach allows us to understand when exchange emerges, and when waste is only destined to be abandoned. The case study on sewage sludge pinpoints a novel form of market collapse. This article stems from a multidisciplinary collective expertise on the use of fertilizing residual materials used in agriculture and forestry that was managed by INRA, CNRS and IRSTEA and commissioned by the French Ministries of Agriculture and the Environment. Thirty experts from France, Belgium, Canada, and Switzerland, were mobilized for their skills on this topic in agronomy, chemistry, microbiology, ecotoxicology, economics, sociology and law from 2011 to 2014 in order to prepare a report on the state of the art on this field. The present author was responsible for the economic literature survey on residual materials. This article is based on a survey of the literature through different data bases (Business Source Premier, CAB International, Econlit, Factiva, Francis, Google Scholar, JSTOR, ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Knowledge, Web of Science) conducted from December 2012 to March 2017. Grey literature was also included so as to complete this literature review, notably through the United States Department of Agriculture (Economic Research Service), UNIFA (Union des Industries de la Fertilisation, French Union of Fertilizer Industries), INAO (Institut National de l’Origine et de la Qualit
e, French National Institute for Origin and Quality) and Nexis data bases. A total of 3000 documents (books, scholarly articles and grey literature) were explored for the purpose of this article.3 Our research is mostly based on manure and urban sewage sludge because the literature mainly focuses on these two waste materials. Moreover, three developed countries were selected to develop economic aspects of these waste materials: France, Switzerland and the U.S.A. These countries were selected for the following reasons. France and Switzerland were chosen as the sewage sludge spreading markets of these two countries have developed in two opposite directions. France's spreading market developed albeit controversy over their health and environmental consequences whereas Switzerland's spreading market was banned, and the comparison of these two countries seemed essential in understanding the interaction and relative power4 of different actors in shaping how these markets evolved. In order to compare this data with another developed country, we chose the U.S.A. This country has the most developed statistics from the USDA regarding quantities of waste and waste-derived fertilizers spread in agriculture since 1986. The USDA also provides interesting documents on the organization of manure markets. This article is confined to an applied economics perspective on markets for waste and wastebased fertilizers used in agriculture, both regarding offer (quantities produced, economic costs of recycling in agriculture) and determinants of demand (price, quality and other factors). This article shall therefore not address monetary valuation of environmental externalities. We share Mittelhammer's conception of applied economics that cannot be confined to be “exclusively the act of applying an existent body of economic theory to real-world economic problems” (Mittelhammer, 2009, p. 1169). According to us, applied economics also addresses real-world economic issues, through empirical data and case studies that can enrich and provide new insights to economic theory5 and public policy.

3

Among these 3000 documents, 177 were selected for this article. We define power as the potential of an actor to influence other actors' decisions (Vahabi, 2004). See also Lukes (2005). 5 For more information on different concepts of applied economics, see Backhouse and Biddle (2000). 4

2 We refer here to landspreading, that can be defined as “land treatment resulting in benefit to agriculture or ecological improvement” (recovery operation code R10), according to the EU Waste Framework Directive 2008/98.

S. Lupton / Journal of Rural Studies 55 (2017) 83e99

The article first addresses the different dimensions of markets for waste and waste-derived fertilizers used in agriculture. The economic and legal particularity of waste compared to products shall be delved into, and data on the quantities of waste and waste-derived fertilizers shall be first presented. The economic interest of land spreading from the waste producers’ side shall be analyzed. As far as demand, we shall tackle the determinants of the demand for waste and waste-derived fertilizers and how prices are fixed. Finally, one important aspect that has not been tackled enough by economists, the quality of waste, shall be developed in this first section so as to depict the three inherent dimensions of waste characteristics compared to chemical fertilizers. The second part of this article specifies a case study on the evolution of the sewage sludge spreading market in France and in Switzerland. This part emphasizes on the relative power of different actors in shaping the development or disappearance of markets for which radical uncertainty remains on the health and environmental consequences of sewage sludge in agriculture. The conclusion will outline the future paths of research needed for a better understanding on the economics of waste and waste-based fertilizers used in agriculture. 2. Markets for waste and waste-derived fertilizers Is the term “markets for waste” really appropriate as waste is neither wanted and was never intended for a market when it was generated in the first place? This section shall be devoted to understanding the economic and legal particularity of waste compared to products. Legal status changes how they are managed and controlled, and how their price can vary. As for the market for waste and waste-derived fertilizers from an economic point of view, statistics on quantities and prices will be analyzed, and the determinants of offer and demand of these materials shall be developed. 2.1. Waste in law and economics This section is critical to understanding how waste is defined and distinguished from products. According to us, an analysis of waste markets from an applied economics point of view first requires a development of the legal basis distinguishing such terms. We shall examine how waste is legally defined in European and U.S law, and if there exists a clear-cut distinction between products and waste. This distinction has important economic, legal and social consequences. Defining organic materials as a product or waste signifies different levels of compliance with administrative and control requirements (Bontoux and Leone, 1997, p. 22) and different liability schemes. We shall then contemplate how waste is defined in economics in order to understand how waste are distinguished from products. 2.1.1. The distinction between products and waste in law Article 3 of the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) defines waste as “any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard”. The action or intention of getting rid of any object is the first subjective definition of waste, and enables us to distinguish it from a product that is wanted. However, this distinction is far more complex in law and economics. The legal distinction between waste and products (waste-derived fertilisers) is subject to controversy (Etrillard et al., 2014; Da Silva Campos, 2007). Since the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC, article 6), waste can change status and be qualified as a product under certain conditions: “Certain specified waste shall cease to be waste

85

within the meaning of point (1) of Article 3 when it has undergone a recovery, including recycling, operation and complies with specific criteria to be developed in accordance with the following conditions:(a) the substance or object is commonly used for specific purposes;(b) a market or demand exists for such a substance or object;(c) the substance or object fulfils the technical requirements for the specific purposes and meets the existing legislation and standards applicable to products; and (d) the use of the substance or object will not lead to overall adverse environmental or human health impacts”. Organic waste (such as manure directly spread on lands other than the farmer's own lands) without prior treatment is considered as waste. But waste (such as manure) that is spread on lands belonging to the same farmer (owner of the manure) is considered as a product. Waste-derived fertilizers include products based on organic and mineral waste, that can be labelled or benefit from quality standards, and have been treated for a given market; they can be considered as products. If organic materials are qualified as products or waste, different standards and regulations apply.6 Urban sewage sludge, for example, is regulated under directive 86/278/EEC. This directive fixes maximum values of concentrations of heavy metals and bans the spreading of sewage sludge7 when the concentration of certain substances in the soil exceeds these values. However, this regulation has not been revised since, and leaves room to maneuver to all member states. No compulsory treatment prior to use in agriculture is required in this regulation (and pathogen content has not been dealt with). In France for example, the decree of 8 January 1998 obliges sewage sludge producers to conduct a preliminary study for any quantity of urban sewage sludge destined to be spread on agricultural lands. The characteristics of urban sewage sludge must be specified (content in heavy metals, levels of PCB and PAH, prior treatment for sewage sludge is compulsory to reduce the presence of micro-organisms, except for sludge coming from small treatment plants of less than 2000 p.e.).8 Moreover, producers are compelled to 1) analyze the constraints linked to receiving environments; 2) assess soil conditions and cropping systems that intend to receive sludge; 3) define the parcels intended for sewage re de l’Ecologie, de l’Energie, du sludge spreading (Ministe
veloppement durable et de l’Ame
nagement du territoire, De 2009). Likewise, spreading practices must be registered (parcels receiving sewage sludge,9 characteristics of sewage sludge and soils …) and a synthesis report must be sent each year to the Prefect. Sewage sludge spreading is controlled by the state, and sludge producers can appeal to an independent body for a credible reporting of sewage sludge spreading practices.10 The urban sewage sludge producer is responsible for sewage sludge spreading, and a guarantee fund (financed by sewage sludge producers) was created in 2006 to compensate farmers in case of environmental damage and health problems due to urban sewage

6 European regulation exists on fertilizers (Regulation (EC) no 2003/2003), ensuring the free circulation on the internal market, and meeting requirements for their minimal nutrient contents, environmental safety and health considerations. However, the European Union has not fully harmonized legislation on fertilizing materials (Spaey et al., 2012). 7 Sewage sludge refers here to “residual sludge from sewage plants treating domestic or urban waste waters and from other sewage plants treating waste waters of a composition similar to domestic and urban waste waters” (Council Directive 86/278/EEC). 8 P.e. stands for population equivalent. 9 Of course, these parcels must be identified with the prior agreement of the farmer receiving sludge. 10 In 2009, 43 departmental independent bodies (organismes ind
ependants) exisre de l’Ecologie, de l’Energie, du ted to report sewage sludge practices (Ministe
veloppement durable et de l’Ame
nagement du territoire, 2009, p. 11). De

86

S. Lupton / Journal of Rural Studies 55 (2017) 83e99

sludge spreading on lands.11 The fund is based on a risk-sharing mechanism, and each sewage sludge producer pays an annual fee of 0.5 euros/ton. This regulation does not apply to compost (composed of urban sewage sludge) that is considered as a product if it respects the requirements of the NF U 44e095 standard.12 Compost must respect certain concentration limits for mineral and organic pollutants, pathogens and microbial indicators of treatment efficiency (Houot et al., 2005). As table 1.2. shows (annex 1), concentration limits are more stringent for the NF U 44e095 standard than for the French 1998 legislation. Each marketable batch must be inspected and respect maximum concentration limits. The composition will be marked on the product13 and compost can then be used like any other fertilizer or soil improver. However, no land application plan is necessary, contrary to the French legislation when urban sewage sludge is considered as waste. Moreover, no constraints are imposed on the characteristics of the soil receiving the fertilizer, and no soil analysis is demanded. Compost can circulate freely just like any other fertilizer. As any other product, each actor is held responsible in case of product defect (producer, transporter, user),14 and the guarantee fund does not apply. Alike European legislation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has had difficulties distinguishing recyclable wastes from products (Gaba, 1989). According to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976), solid waste is defined as “any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid or contained gaseous material, resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations and from community activities …”.15 The action of discarding is central in the definition of waste analogously to the European legal definition of waste. As for recyclable materials, they are not considered as wastes and are not regulated under RCRA,16 when they are used or reused “as effective substitutes for commercials products” (Industrial Economics Inc, 1986, p. 8); in this case, they remain “within the stream of commerce” (Gaba, 1989, p. 626) and are categorized as products. Regarding waste-derived fertilizers and waste, few states require limits for chemical components (EPA, 1997) for waste-derived fertilizers. As for wastes used in agriculture, some are subject to federal regulation such as municipal sewage sludge (Clean Water Act, 1948). The term “biosolids” has been used to “distinguish sewage sludge that has been

11 The French guarantee fund was established by Water law of the 30th of December 2006 (provisions are specified in Decree n
2009e550 of the 18th of May 2009). The fund covers all damage caused to lands for all damage and risks that could not be known (considering the state of scientific and technical knowledge) at the time of spreading and to the extent that the risk or damage is not insurable by civil liability insurance contacts (article L 425e1). For more information see APCA (1999), Lupton (2007) and Evans (2012). The creation of this fund was inspired by the German fund that is a risk-sharing mechanism covering all victims of damage (farmers, local residents; consumers …). The French mechanism only covers farmers' and landowners’ loss, and compensates damage on land. 12 The NFU 44e095 « Amendements organiques - Composts contenant des matres d'inte
re ^t agronomique, issues du traitement des eaux » was specifically ie designed for compost containing materials presenting agronomic interest resulting from water treatment. It has been implemented since the 18th of March 2004. 13 The composition specifications include the percentage of organic matter, of dry matter, and content of chemical elements nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K). 14 The user can be held responsible if she/he applies compost without respecting precautions of use. The producer will be held responsible if the product contaminates land and crops (which are consumed by consumers), and the farmer can prove that he has used the product properly. The transporter can also be held responsible if he did not respect standards. 15 42 U.S.C. x 6903(27) (1982). 16 40 CFR 261.2 (e).

treated and can be beneficially recycled” (EPA, 1993, p. 8). They are regulated by the 40 CFR17 Part 503 Biosolids Rule of 1993 that establishes quality requirements for these biosolids. Two different classes of biosolids are distinguished. Class A biosolids have pathogen reduction limits and low-pollutant concentration limits. Class A biosolids can be distributed for use as a soil amendment without site or harvesting restrictions. Class B biosolids may still contain pathogens (that have been reduced in density) and there are site restrictions and concentration limits on heavy metals. Class B biosolids cannot be sold or given away in bags or containers at public contact sites, contrary to class A biosolids that are considered as fertilizers (products).18 As far as liability is concerned, if biosolids (whatever the class) fail to comply with Part 503 Biosolids Rule and cause damage, liability issues fall under CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980): any victim of soil contamination due to hazardous waste can solicit the Superfund in order to decontaminate the site. The Superfund will decontaminate the site, and finance the decontamination even if the responsible parties have not been identified. The Superfund can identify the responsible parties, and if this is the case, they will have to pay in fine all the costs of decontamination.19 Liability issues appear when biosolids respect U.S. regulation, but cause environmental and/or health-related damage. In this case, one can expect product liability actions to develop. “Like companies that manufacture fertilizers, the manufacturers of sewage sludge-derived products may be held liable for personal injury or property damage allegedly caused by their products” (Goldfarb et al., 1998, p. 746). No risk-sharing mechanism exists in the U.S. regarding unforeseeable damage caused by sewage sludge spreading that respects given standards contrary to France.

2.1.2. Waste and products in economics Economics faces the same difficulties in distinguishing waste from products as law. Unfortunately, economic literature lacks a clear-cut and exhaustive definition of waste. We share Bisson and Proops's opinion according to which “the conceptualisation of ‘Waste’ is very incomplete” (Bisson and Proops, 2002, p. 2). The economic definition of waste has been essentially scrutinized in three different perspectives. Environmental economics literature defines waste as negative externalities (Cropper and Oates, 1992; Turner et al., 1993; Dales, 2002; Porter, 2002). As Van den Bergh (2001) notes, waste is associated with pollution without any form of compensation. Waste are “things that we don't want that can be dangerous or expensive to get rid of” (Porter, 2002, p. 1). Waste is regarded as being automatically discharged into the environment. Another interesting definition of environmental economics perfectly summarizes how waste is referred to: “The standard approach in the environmental economics literature characterizes pollution as a public “bad” that results from “waste discharges” associated with the production of private goods” (Cropper and Oates, 1992, p. 678). Environmental economists hence propose pollution mitigation or prevention through policy instruments such as taxes or tradable permits so as to reach Pareto optimality. Contrary to this view, ecological economics (Bisson and Proops, 2002; Gowdy and Erickson, 2005; Costanza et al., 2014) regard waste as a resource that should be re-integrated as much as

17

CFR stands for Code of Federal Regulations. For details on requirements for class A and B biosolids, see EPA (1994), pp. 25e56. 19 The superfund has an initial endowment of 1.6 billion dollars. It is financed by taxes imposed on certain products and a tax on general revenues. The Superfund was once used for sewage sludge that did not respect legislation. The contaminated site was deemed to fall under CERCLA (Goldfarb et al., 1998). 18

S. Lupton / Journal of Rural Studies 55 (2017) 83e99

possible into the economic system: “in mature ecosystems all waste and by-products are recycled and used somewhere in the system or are fully dissipated” (Costanza et al., 2014, p. 114). These authors also add that in most cases, waste are “resources in the wrong place” (Costanza et al., 2014, p. 115). Do these two visions of waste grasp the essence of the concept of waste? On the one hand, waste is considered as a thing with no value (or better to say a ‘negative value’) that is thrown in the environment, generating pollution. On the other hand, waste is considered as a valuable asset that can be integrated in production and consumption systems. Both these conceptions of waste are in tune with Jevons' distinction between a commodity and discommodity. Valuable or valueless goods depend on their value the owner gives to them according to circumstances. Jevons (1888) observed that certain secondary products or joint products may have zero (inutility) or negative utility (disutility). If utility generates pleasure, negative utility generates pain. This pain corresponds to harm or inconvenience. Jevons associated negative utility to the concept of discommodity, which is the contrary of the commodity. The owners of a discommodity are ready to pay to get rid of the discommodity20. Although these two approaches seem contrary, they share the same vision of waste: it is seen as a bundle of physical characteristics. Either waste is an undesired residual (output) of consumption and production that has negative value (generating negative externalities). Or waste is regarded as an input at the beginning of the production or consumption cycle (through recycling or reuse). This interpretation of waste seems insufficient in understanding what really distinguishes waste from a product. We consider that the property rights approach is more appropriate in defining waste, and we adopt this definition. According to Demsetz (1964), the good's economic value is more determined by property rights over the good than its physical characteristics. As Demsetz notes ‘‘(T)he value of what is being traded depends upon the allowed rights of action over the physical good and upon the degree to which these rights are enforced’’ (Demsetz, 1964, p. 18). In a property rights perspective, waste is exchanged when costs of transferring ownership are less than the gains for the (prior) owner. Waste can be exchanged from waste producers to farmers who can use it in agriculture (agricultural recycling). Waste or waste-derived fertilizers can have a positive, null or negative price. If waste is exchanged at a negative price, there is a reverse relationship in the exchange. The new owner of the waste does not receive any money in exchange, but receives a service (land spreading and/or transport). As Bertolini (2005, p. 8) rightly remarked, “for classical commodities, the physical and monetary flows move in opposite directions; for waste, these flows move in the same direction”. When costs of transferring ownership are higher than gains, waste is situated in a no man's land: waste is an abandoned good (res derelictae) and therefore belongs to no one. As a good belonging to no one (res nullius), it enters the public domain, and belongs to anyone who is willing to appropriate it (Mackaay, 1999). When it is appropriated, the owner can exercise his/her property rights21 (Locke, 1698; Frow, 2003). The property rights approach points out the dual nature of waste that can either be exchanged (at a negative, null or positive price) or abandoned (generating potential negative externalities) according to the costs and benefits of transferring ownership. Evidently, the concept of waste still needs

20 “Generally speaking, when a person receives assistance in getting rid of some inconvenient possession, he pays in money or other commodity for the service of him who helps to remove the burden” (Jevons, 1888; IV.86). 21 The owner of a good can exercise three rights that come from Roman law: a) the right to use the good (usus); b) the right to enjoy its fruits (fructus); c) the right to dispose of it (abusus). Of course, the right to dispose of the good is limited by law as it can have consequences on health and the environment.

87

to be more thoroughly studied in economics; empirical research could definitely enrich this conceptualization. 2.2. Data on the production and use of waste products in agriculture Data on the production of waste exists at European and international level, according to different economic activities22 and treatment operations. At European level, the Environmental Data Centre on Waste provides information on the quantities of household waste, sewage sludge and agricultural waste generated. However, if one delves into the type of waste produced and used in agriculture, precise data on a yearly basis is lacking. As far as agricultural waste is concerned, according to the European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production, “no overall estimates are available on the quantity of agricultural waste produced in the EU” .23 Moreover, if Eurostat provides statistics on municipal waste or urban sewage sludge that is composted, the actual statistics on the use of municipal waste or sewage sludge composts in agriculture do not exist at European level. The most recent survey of wastes spread on land was conducted in 2001 (Gendebien et al., 2001). The authors explain that the main reason for this discrepancy in data is the fact that most countries have not imposed reporting requirements to different industries as far as waste spread on land. The following valuable data is available in France (Table 1), and allows us to have an idea of the evolution of the use of some waste products in agriculture. No centralized statistics exist before 2005 or after 2010. This data enables us to discern some hypothetical tendencies that should be tested when more statistical observations are available. The demand of waste products has risen when mineral fertilizers witnessed a drastic increase in prices between 2007 and 2009.24 During this period, one can observe a notable increase in the use of livestock manure leaving Britanny (þ175%), the use of droppings, manure and composts imported from Belgium and the Netherlands25 (þ91%) and urban and industrial sewage sludge (þ51%). Hence, animal manure followed by sewage sludge should be used the most during the increase in prices for chemical fertilizers, as their price is comparably low or they can be spread on lands at no cost.26 One can equally detect a slight decrease in the quantity of most waste products used in agriculture between 2009 and 2010, when the price of chemical fertilizers diminished. More detailed statistics were found from the United States Department of Agriculture (Economic Research Service) from 1986 to 2011 as Fig. 1 illustrates. Basing ourselves on these statistics, we first explored the possibility of calculating a correlation between the consumption of these selected organic materials and the price of chemical fertilizers. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (9) was calculated to

22 These include waste from the following sectors: the manufacture of food products, beverages and tobacco products; agriculture and forestry; manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork; manufacture of paper and paper products; water collection, treatment and supply; sewerage; and finally households. All these sectors can produce waste that can be used in agriculture. 23 Source: http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/themes/waste/#10. 24 The price of chemical fertilizers increased considerably in the immediate aftermath of the economic crisis. Nitrogen-based fertilizers' prices increased the most, due to their dependency on ammonia production that requires an important amount of natural gas. 25 These waste products were used in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Picardie, and Champagne regions. 26 This case concerns sewage sludge spreading in France. In this case, waste is transported and spread on land and does not cost anything to the farmer (the cost is entirely borne by the sewage sludge producer).

88

S. Lupton / Journal of Rural Studies 55 (2017) 83e99

Table 1 French statistics on waste products used in agriculture from 2005 to 2010. Type of waste product

Unit

Droppings, manure and composts (imported from Belgium and the Netherlands) Urban and industrial sewage sludge (food industries) Composts composed of urban and industrial sewage sludge (food industries) Composts composed of household and green waste Sugar scum Beet pulp Meat powder Livestock manure leaving Brittany (droppings, poultry manure, NP fertilizers composed of pig slurry)

Quantities (thousands of tons)

Source

05/06

06/07

07/08

08/09

09/10

165

183

363

694

676

DM DM

295 334

310 351

325 439

491 453

474 510

DM GT DM DM GT

1474 1066 597 6 80

1547 920 664 94 90

1550 1047 731 93 100

1417 1122 721 104 275

1400 989 653 80 275

GT77 78

French Customs and Flemish Land Agency for 08/09 and 09/10 campaigns ADEME and ONEMA campaigns 08/09 and 09/10 6 Water bodies and ONEMA campaigns 08/09 and 09/10 ADEME- ITOM statistics ANPEA statistics FCM and Cristanol SIFCO statistics IF2O and UGPVB campaigns 08/09 and 09/10

Source: UNIFA, 2011, p. 7

Fig. 1. US consumption of selected organic materials (in material short tons).

observe the correlation between US consumption of organic materials and the price of chemical fertilizers (see annex 2). We observe that Spearman's rank correlation coefficient is higher concerning dried manure (9 ¼ 0,649) and compost (9 ¼ 0,7418) than for sewage sludge (9 ¼ 0,428) and other organic materials (9 ¼ 0,613). It is unfortunately impossible to conjecture any further as the sample size (n ¼ 25) is too small, and would lead to gross generalization. We would need a much longer time series of a minimum of 385 years (n ¼ 385) to correctly interpret the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient we found for compost (9 ¼ 0,7418), with a desired confidence interval width close to 0.2 and a confidence level of a ¼ 0,05 according to Bonett and Wright (2000). Other research conducted on the way farmers manage chemical fertilizers can enlighten us on possible substitution of waste for chemical fertilizers. Williamson (2011) analyses how farmers manage nitrogen nutrients when the prices of chemical fertilizers vary. While some research finds that there exists a relatively price-inelastic demand for nitrogen fertilizer (Burrell, 1989; Hansen, 2004), Williamson (2011) analyses farmers' behavior with a price increase of nitrogen fertilizers. Basing himself on fieldlevel microdata from the USDA's Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS), he notes that farmers responded to the increase in the price of nitrogen fertilizers in 2005, by using fewer quantities of nitrogen fertilizers. He also noted a slight substitution of manure for nitrogen. If the price of chemical fertilizers is more influenced by the price variation of pesticides and agricultural products than their own price, Bel et al. (2004) also point out that price elasticity of chemical fertilizers is higher when prices increase significantly. Although substitution exists, the latter remains minor

due to the supplier power in the chemical fertilizer market. According to a recent market study on fertilizers, there is a “lack of substitutes for specific fertilizer inputs. Specific chemicals are required for the composition of certain fertilizers, which are often marketed under their chemical name. As such, certain chemical inputs cannot be substituted, as products made of different chemical compounds often have specific roles and applications” Marketline (2014, p. 18). There definitely is a need to know more about the quantities of waste and waste-derived fertilizers used. This is the first condition to understand the determinants of the use of waste and waste-derived fertilizers on agricultural lands from an economic viewpoint in a long-term perspective and compare data from different countries.

2.3. The economic interest of waste products used in agriculture On the waste producers’ side, one of the reasons why waste is used in agriculture is that it is the least costly outlet. Waste can either be incinerated, landfilled or used in agriculture prior or after being treated.27 Landfilling is considered as the worst environmentally sustainable option in the European Union, according to Council Directive 1999/31/EC, and biodegradable waste have been

27 This article does not delve into the treatment costs of waste. The reason is the amount of technical details that would be involved in explaining all the treatment costs for different waste and waste-derived fertilizers. This should be the object of an independent article. These costs can be found in chapter 7 of the MAFOR scientific expertise (Houot et al., 2014, p. 842e846): https://www6.paris.inra.fr/depe/ content/download/3814/36299/file/ESCoMafor%20rapport_Chap7_oct2014.pdf.

S. Lupton / Journal of Rural Studies 55 (2017) 83e99

progressively banned in landfills in France and across Europe.28 Given the lack of recent data, the following figures comparing various treatment costs (incineration, composting) must be interpreted very cautiously. In a final report to the European Commission, Hogg (2002) observed the high variation of treatment costs of municipal waste in fifteen member states (due to differences in taxation, size of treatment plants and regulatory requirements). In order to avoid discrepencies, we shall therefore only select one European country (France) so as to compare treatment costs. In France, the unit cost of composting municipal waste is between 24 and 95 euros/ton (Hogg, 2002).29 As for incineration with energy recovery, the costs vary between 67 and 129 euros/ton30. Finally landfilling (only authorized for inert waste) costs between 40 and 97 euros/ton (including taxes),31 and anaerobic digestion costs 57 euros/ton.32 Composting is clearly an interesting outlet for waste producers compared to incineration. The most recent report (AMORCE, 2012) analyses treatment costs of urban sewage sludge based on 46 communities and confirms this difference in treatment costs. Compost facility operators indicate an average cost of composting around 45 to 50 V/t of raw material. Incineration with energy recovery cost between 58 and 107 V/t of raw material. The average cost of landfilling was 67 V/t of raw material. 2.4. The demand for waste and waste-derived fertilizers in agriculture 2.4.1. Determinants of waste and waste-derived fertilizers application on agricultural lands The demand for waste and waste-derived fertilizers depends on numerous factors. One important factor is the perceived profitability of applying these materials compared to chemical fertilizers ~ ez and McCann, 2008 33). Farmers’ (Parr and Colacicco, 1987; Nún demand in waste and waste-based fertilizers also depends on many other considerations. Demand hinges upon the price, transport (Lazarus and Koehler, 2002), spreading costs, quality (agronomic
pre
s, 2006), geographic location, value, pollutant content) (De reputation (Lupton, 2002), availability of waste and waste-derived ~ ez fertilizers (Odhiambo and Magandini, 2008), farm size (Nún and McCann, 2008), ownership of farm and lands, competition with other fertilizers (organic and/or chemical fertilizers),

28 This is not the case in the USA where landfilling is not restricted although recycling is more encouraged. 29 Costs vary according to the type of waste (here kitchen waste and green waste were considered), treatment technology (open air window, open air and forced aeration no odour treatment, enclosed and forced aeration with biofilter) and treatment capacity (measured in tpa, tons per annum). They also vary according to land acquisition, plant utilisation rate, purity of source separation, and revenues for sale of the compost. For green waste, treatment costs were situated between 34 and 57/tonne at 12 000 tpa (open air window technique). For kitchen waste, costs were situated between 63 and 95/tonne at 6000 tpa (open air window). Compost was sold between 0 and 8 euros/ton for garden waste and 0 to 6 euros/ton for kitchen waste. For more details, see Hogg (2002, p. 54). 30 Costs of incineration with energy recovery vary according to costs of land acquisition, scale, plant utilization rate, treatment and disposal of ash residues, efficiency of energy recovery, recovery of metals and revenues received from recovery and the revenue received for energy delivered. These costs do not include sales revenue of electricity that amounted to 0,023 V/kWh that year. The figures here correspond to pre-tax costs. There are significant diseconomies of small scale (Hogg, 2002, p. 55). 31 Landfill costs depend on acquisition costs, engineering requirements (e.g. proximity to sensitive aquifers), scale, the rate at which the landfill is filled, restoration costs, aftercare costs and landfill taxes. 32 There is no variation in costs given by Hogg (2002) as few detailed breakdowns of costs were obtained. 33 ~ ez and McCann (2008) studied the determinants of manure application by Nún crop farmers. Their survey covered 173 crop farmers in Iowa and Missouri that responded to a questionnaire sent in winter 2004.

89

legislation (USDA, 2009), state of the economy, personal preferences, perceptions of farmers (odor, weed seeds, difficulty calculating application rates of manure, uncertainty of crop response) ~ ez and McCann, 2008) and farmer characteristics (age, in(Nún come). Basing themselves on a survey of 452 Danish farmers, Case et al. (2017) found that farm activity had a strong influence on the use of organic fertilizers: over half of arable/horticulture farmers used at least one type of organic waste products; larger farms were also more likely to use organic fertilizers. Last but not least, different actors' influence can be determinant in developing or freezing waste-based fertilizers and organic waste markets (Lupton, 2011). Neighboring residents' reaction to odors after waste is spread on lands, farmers unions’ outlook, agricultural cooperatives (Barton, 1989), agricultural organizations (such as organic agricultural organizations), retail industry and food industry requirements on the quality of food products, national policies encouraging or discouraging (banning) the use of certain organic materials, and finally consumers and citizens can have a significant power on the development of these markets. We can take different waste or waste-based fertilizers as an example to demonstrate the role of various actors in the development of different markets. If organic agriculture in European regulation allows the use of animal manure (European Communities, 2007), Denmark has adopted another stance. The two main Danish organic agricultural organizations34 have decided to gradually phase out (and ultimately ban) the use of animal manure and straw in organic production (Oelofse et al., 2013) in order to strengthen internal and regional nutrient recycling on organic farms, decrease organic agriculture's reliance on conventional agriculture and avoid the import of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into organic systems35 (Oelofse et al., 2013, p. 42).36 As for sewage sludge, if French and U.S. governments have encouraged land application (considered as recycling) of treated sewage sludge qualified as waste-based fertilizers (class A biosolids in the U.S. for example) after a debate on the environmental and health impacts during the mad-cow disease crisis in the middle of the 1990s, other governments have banned their use in agriculture such as Switzerland since 2003. We shall develop this further in the case study on sewage sludge to show the relative influence of the retail industry, the food industry, the water industry and governments in the development or collapse of sewage sludge spreading markets. The role of actors in the expansion or shrinking of markets can also be illustrated with the example of the manure market in the state of Maryland. Contrary to most states, Maryland has obliged all farms (with a turnover higher than $ 2500) to implement nutrient management plans.37 The plans focus both on nitrogen and

34 Organic Denmark (OD) and the organic section at the Danish Agriculture and Food Council (DAFC). These two organizations thought about this phasing out since 2003. 35 Environmentalists in Denmark are considerably concerned with GMOs. 36 Moreover, parallel to this development, the Danish government has also supported organic farmers through subsidies, and discouraged conventional farming through high taxes on chemical fertilizers. 37 In the Delmarva Peninsula, 625 million chickens were raised annually, including portions of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, representing an annual production of 3.2 billion pounds of waste that caused water pollution through nitrogen and phosphate nutrients (Ruhl, 2000). Maryland General Assembly adopted the Water Quality Improvement Act (WQIA) in 1998. It was implemented by the Maryland Department of Agriculture. It “may be the most aggressive state legislation in the nation for the control of nutrients from farming and other nonpoint sources” (Winsten, 2004, p. 28). Nutrient Management Programs (NMPs) must include the level of bioavailable nutrients (N and P) in all fertilizer materials (including chemical fertilizers). NMPs must be calculated based on expected crop yields. Farmers applying nutrients on their own land have to follow a continuing education course on nutrient application every three years. Poultry operations must use specific feed additives to decrease the level of phosphates in manure.

90

S. Lupton / Journal of Rural Studies 55 (2017) 83e99

phosphorous needs, and any manure that is transported away from a confined animal feeding operation can only be applied on farms where such plans exist (OECD, 2007, p. 96). The transport of excess manure is subsidized by the state through the Manure Transport Program for all animal producers with high phosphorous levels or lacking land to apply their manure. This program was enacted by the federal government in 1999. Farmers can receive up to $ 20/ton to transport excess manure to other farms.38 The state also provided a 100% tax deduction for the cost of manure spreaders in their year of purchase “to help offset the costs of converting from commercial fertilizer to poultry litter” (Gardner et al., 2002, p. 54). The same year, Maryland established a Manure Matching Service that enables farmers needing manure (“buyers”) to farmers having excess manure (“sellers”) or alternative use projects (e.g. composting, pellet and granule fertilizers). Farmers can connect to an internet platform acting as a virtual market place39 that is free of charge for both buyers and sellers. One could expect this manure market to have developed drastically throughout the years, thanks to the promotion of the state, supporting transport costs and encouraging a manure market through an internet platform. However, it was actually the opposite. If the market was successful until 2002, it shrank in the following years. One major reason can be found in the financial support given by the state regarding manure transport. The latter decreased its support from $750,000 in 1999 to less than $500,000 in 2002 and $250,000 in 2003 (Bevan-Dangel, 2005, p. 15). Furthermore, farmers were unwilling to comply with strictly regulated nutrient management plans that were a condition of state grants. The demand for manure greatly exceeded the delivery on manure (Nelson, 2005). According to Maryland's 2014e2015 Programmatic Two-Year Milestones, during the fall of 2014, there were only 38 participants in the Manure Matching Service, comprising 24 sending operations and 14 receiving operations. 2.4.2. The price of waste and waste-based fertilizers Regarding the price of waste and waste-based fertilizers, the latter depends on the agronomic value, cropping activities of farmers interested in these organic materials40 (Massey, 2007), local competition between different fertilizers (e.g. existence of manure from intensive livestock production), and the quality of commercial relationships (Levasseur and Aubert, 2006). The price of waste and waste-based fertilizers can be indexed to the price of chemical fertilizers.41 Unfortunately, there are no available statistics on the evolution of prices for different waste used in agriculture and waste-based fertilizers that could enable us to quantitatively analyze the determinants of the evolution of the price of different materials. One can however give some data for prices of waste and

38 According to Maryland Department of Agriculture (2014, p. 4), during 2014, “the Manure Transport Program provided Maryland farmers with grants to transport 118 995 tons of manure to approved farms and businesses.” Total financial support provided to farmers through the Manure Transport Program amounted to $1,028, 188 in 2014 (Maryland Department of Agriculture, 2014). 39 http://mda.maryland.gov/resource_conservation/Pages/manure_management. aspx. 40 In the U.S, from 2003 to 2006, “dairy manure is used by more than half of the corn, oats, and barley operations who use manure. Beef manure was used by more than half of the sorghum and wheat operations that used manure, while poultry litter was used by more than half of the peanut and cotton operations that used manure. Only soybeans received manure from a wide variety of species.” (USDA, 2009, p. 10). 41 In the French commune of Renay (Department of Loir-et-Cher) for example, the compost platform producing poultry manure-based compost had to bring compost prices into line with the prices of chemical fertilizers, with the price decrease from 2009 to 2010 (Ouest-France, 2012). The correlation between the price of chemical fertilizers and that of organic waste or waste-based fertilizers has not been studied enough by economists.

Table 2 Manure removal transactions from livestock operations. Dairy

Hogs

Broilers

Percent of total production Manure removed from operation Sold by operation Operation paid to haul it away Operation gave it away

19 4 7 8

26 5 3 18

61 22 3 36

$ per cwt of production Prices Revenue from manure sales Expenses to haul manure away

0.28 0.39

0.22 0.34

0.20 0.31

Source: Calculations done by MacDonald, Ribaudo, Livingston, Beckman, and Huang (USDA, 2009), based on data from the Agricultural Resource Management Survey, Phase III, version 4, 2004 (hogs), 2005 (dairy), and 2006 (broilers).

waste-based fertilizers from U.S. and French data. Regarding manure, the USDA (2009) provides interesting data on the price of manure that has been used with the drastic price increase of nitrogen and phosphate commercial fertilizers between 2000 and 2008.42 Manure seems relatively more appealing to farmers in this context, albeit some factors that can give them second thoughts.43 Manure is indeed costly to transport over long distances, especially for liquid manure that corresponds to transporting water. This is the main reason why manure produced onfarm is applied on the farm's cropland: “among farmers who use manure, more than 80 percent of barley, corn, oats, soybean, and wheat producers, and 71 percent of sorghum producers, apply manure produced on-farm” (USDA, 2009, p. 13). Two exceptions are peanuts and cotton that often use poultry litter which is dry and therefore less costly to transport over longer distances. The problem of transport costs is evidently universal to all countries, explaining why manure markets are highly localized. In France, costs (costs per m3 km1) of pig slurry transport and spreading on lands can be practically divided by two if the farmer can spread them 2 km from the farm instead of 8 km (Le Bris, 2010, p. 27).44 Furthermore, manure may not have the adequate mix of nutrients required for particular crops and fields (USDA, 2009). As a waste, manure's price can vary from having a negative price (e.g. livestock producers pay farmers to apply their manure), no price at all (manure is often acquired by farmers for free, even though the latter may pay to transport it) or a positive price: according to the agronomic value (nutrients, dry-matter content) and needs of the farmer for his/her crops, he/she may pay for the manure. Table 2 gives some data on manure removal transactions in the U.S. Regarding France, one can find records on the prices of different waste and waste-derived fertilizers. The data specified in Table 3

42 A very interesting calculator is now available online to farmers applying manure. Based on fertilizer replacement value and application costs, farmers can calculate the value of manure for different species. It was established by Bob Koehler (retired from University of Minnesota Southwest Research & Outreach Center), Bill Lazarus and Will Meland (UM Department of Applied Economics). See http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/manure-management-and-air-quality/ manure-application/calculator/ Adhikari et al. (2005, p. 1071e72) have also analyzed the costs savings from dairy manure applications to different crops. 43 Research on the manure market has also been conducted in developing countries, such as Kenya (Kirigia et al., 2013). Due to the specificity of these markets (e.g. manure is used for the construction of huts), we chose not to develop this literature. 44 According to Le Bris (2010), the transport and spreading of pig slurry (for a ton of 15 m3) costs 2,25 euros/m3 for a distance of 2 km, compared to 4,02 euros/m3 for a distance of 8 km, and 4,61 euros/m3 for a distance of 10 km. See also Gibbons et al. (2007).

S. Lupton / Journal of Rural Studies 55 (2017) 83e99

91

Table 3 Indicative sales price of some waste and waste-based fertilizers.79 Type of waste or waste-derived fertilizer

Price (V/t)

Source

Urban sewage sludge Urban sewage sludge compost (respecting standard NF U44-095) Cattle liquid manure (to be taken on the farm) N ¼ 2 Pig slurry (to be taken on the farm) Cattle manure (on-farm piles) Sheep manure (on-farm piles) Poultry manure (on-farm piles) Mushroom compost 50% of DM (0,7, 0,16, 0,7) Blue stalk mushroom manure 33% of DM (0,7, 0,36, 0,11) Green waste compost (Department of Loire) 70% of DM (1, 0,5, 1) Grape marc compost (approved for use in organic agriculture) (pulp, skin and grape-seed) 42% of DM (0,05, 0,06, 0,4) Cattle manure compost (covered) 50% of DM (0,8, 0,5, 0,14) UFAB (Union française de l'agriculture biologique-French Union of Organic Agriculture) fertilizer Mix of animal bone meal, poultry manure and meat meal 57% of DM (7, 4, 2) Composted wood chips (approved for use in organic agriculture) 90% of DM (2, 0,8, 2) Pelletized dehydrated cattle manure (certified AB80) 85% of DM (2, 1, 2) Organic fertilizer composed of fish meal (approved for use in organic agriculture) 50% of organic matter (4, 2, 6)

0 3.3 7.5 6e8 14e19 18e22 38e42 10

AMORCE (2012)

enables us to understand the great variability of prices according to the agronomic value of each particular waste or waste-derived fertilizers. Unfortunately, this table does not allow us to observe the variation of prices for a specific waste or waste-based fertilizer according to the local demand, competition with other waste and waste-derived fertilizers and types of crops. For example, urban sewage sludge compost (respecting standard NF U44-095) can be given for free, or can be sold at 3.3 euros/ton or more according to local circumstances (competition between other waste-based fertilizers …). Likewise, no negative prices are available. The reasons for the lack of information on these prices is mostly due to the fact
, 2005), that these transactions are informal (Le Goffe and Salanie and even when spreading contracts exist (for sewage sludge spreading or manure), no centralized data is available on prices agreed upon.

2.4.3. Quality of waste and waste-derived fertilizers Economic literature suffers from one major shortcoming regarding its analysis of waste. It has insufficiently studied the particularity of its characteristics. A product is conceived ex ante and is created for a market, whereas waste is produced ex post, and had never been conceived or created for a given market (Bertolini, 1990). The product (e.g. a particular chemical fertilizer) is in itself homogeneous as it can be produced and replicated, and each item should be identical in all its characteristics (size, height, weight, color, shape, texture and content of different nutrients). On the contrary, waste is by its very nature heterogeneous (Li et al., 2013; Esbensen and Velis, 2016), as it is the undesired outcome of

Chambre d’Agriculture Oise (2014)

ATV 49 (2013)

13

26

32

40e90

190

306

358

426

production (e.g. animal manure) or treatment (e.g. urban sewage sludge). The characteristics of waste were never designed ex ante contrary to products such as chemical fertilizers.45 For example, animal manure is composed of different substances whose concentration and presence can vary according to many criteria such as climate, breed and age of animals, size of the livestock, appearance of diseases, the type of livestock feed, rearing conditions, and manure storage conditions. For the same animal manure (coming from the same farm), the nutrient content can vary significantly (Davis et al., 2002). Agricultural inputs (livestock feed and veterinary medicines) have an impact on animal manure composition: manure quality generated by the same animal through time is by nature heterogeneous. Moreover, waste is a mixture of substances (Vallero, 2011) that can interact with each other (such as the interaction of different veterinary products46). Scientists are more and more concerned about the “possible additive or synergistic cocktail effects from mixtures of pharmaceutical and other stressors” (Arnold et al., 2014, p. 5). The environmental and health effects of spreading animal manure on agricultural lands have been studied only for the

45 Of course, this does not mean that chemical fertilizers do not contain potentially dangerous substances, such as heavy metals. For example, concentrations of cadmium, lead, arsenic, chromium, mercury, nickel, vanadium, copper and zinc can be found in rock phosphates (EPA, 1999). 46 As Jjemba (2002, p. 269) remarks, “excretion is the major means by which human and veterinary medical compounds are introduced into the environment”. If pharmaceuticals are found in low concentrations in the environment (soils, water and food chain), they have been conceived to have biological effects at very low doses (Arnold et al., 2014).

92

S. Lupton / Journal of Rural Studies 55 (2017) 83e99

last 15 years (Boxall et al., 2012) as far as pharmaceuticals are concerned, and further research is needed.47 This brings us to question quality uncertainty of organic waste and waste-derived fertilizers. When analyzing the multiple components of these materials, typical asymmetric information issues existing for credence goods evidently have to be overcome.48 But issues of radical uncertainty are also important to consider. Farmers and consumers do not know all the characteristics and health and environmental risks related to the land application of waste-based fertilizers. We are also faced with uncertainty on waste characteristics shared by all actors in the market (waste producers, regulators, farmers, cooperatives, food industry …). Hence, waste spread on agricultural lands are faced with three main features that have not been sufficiently studied in economic literature: variability (heterogeneity and variation of waste's characteristics through time), interactivity (cocktail effects) and uncertainty. Economic literature often fails to analyze problems related to shared uncertainty on goods' quality (Lupton, 2005, 2015), and waste are not the only items concerned with shared uncertainty. Economics analyses quality as characteristics that are fully known, at least to the producer or seller (Chamberlin, 1953; Akerlof, 1970; Nelson, 1970; Darby and Karni, 1973). However, shared uncertainty related to substances contained in waste or waste-derived fertilizers and their potential environmental and health consequences, is a key factor in understanding major controversies in Europe and in U.S. on the legitimacy of applying sewage sludge on lands. European and North American governments promote these markets basing themselves on a risk-based assessment of sewage sludge spreading in agriculture. Risk-based assessment can be defined as a process of engendering “scientific information” in a way that is “credible, objective, realistic, and balanced,” and without consideration of “non-scientific factors” (EPA Risk Assessment Council, 1991). Nevertheless, as Waliser (2003, p. 81e82) decorously emphasizes, “each step in the risk assessment process is laden with scientific uncertainty and subjective, value-laden policy choices that are made to address the uncertainty. These choices may severely skew the results”.49 As Shere (1995, p. 414e415) discerns, “the unreliability of risk assessment is an open secret (…). Even

47 As Arnold et al. (2014, p. 1) mention, « there are a number of uncertainties associated with the environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals due to lack of knowledge concerning their fate in wastes and the environment, their uptake, metabolism and excretion (pharmacokinetics) in wildlife, and their target affinity and functional effects (pharmacodynamics) in non-target species”. This also applies to the health risks associated to pharmaceuticals in manure (and sewage sludge) spread on land that bioaccumulate in crops and can therefore be found in the food chain. 48 Darby and Karni (1973) defined credence goods as goods whose quality can neither be evaluated by the consumer in normal use nor known before purchase. Assessing the quality of these goods is prohibitively costly for the consumer who is not an expert. The authors give the example of repair services whose quality is difficult if not impossible to determine by the consumer. The latter will be unable to cognize the quality of the service, and for these goods, fraud on behalf of providers of services will be likely to prevail. Waste-based fertilizers require expert knowledge, that farmers do not have (inability to analyze content of different substances, difficulty in assessing risks related to limited rationality). Waste-based fertilizer producers can take advantage of this asymmetric information to their benefit. For example, farmers may be liable to pay more for a given product/waste than its agronomic value. This explains why products and waste are subject to different control schemes and quality standards, enabling farmers to differentiate products and waste according to their respective quality. 49 Waliser (2003, p. 82) summarizes the four steps of risk assessment process: “The first step is hazard identification, which asks whether a substance is causally linked to a particular health effect. The second step is dose-response assessment, which attempts to scientifically establish the probability of a response from given dose levels. The third step is exposure assessment, which determines the human and environmental exposure levels to the substance. The fourth step is risk characterization, which, using the results from the previous steps, determines the overall magnitude of the risk”.

when uncertainty is acknowledged, it is almost always treated as a limited, manageable problem that can be resolved through refinements in the risk assessment process”. Radical uncertainty is an issue that shall be addressed in the following case study on urban sewage sludge spreading in agriculture in France and in Switzerland. 3. Urban sewage sludge spreading in France and in Switzerland In France, in Europe and in the U.S.50, a debate on the safety of sewage sludge spreading started in the early nineties, and amplified after 1995, with the increasing concern on food safety, notably perturbed by the mad cow disease crisis. The two cases below on the evolution of the spreading market in France and Switzerland demonstrate how different actors’ position regarding uncertainty of health and environmental consequences of sewage sludge spreading had different implications on the development or disappearance of agricultural use.51 3.1. Urban sewage sludge in France and the pursuit of land spreading In France, one of the main reasons that farmers were reluctant to accept sewage sludge was the growing restrictions of the food sector: food industry, cooperatives, large retailers started to impose stricter requirements than the French legislation on sewage spreading. Although cooperatives may not directly influence farmers in their decision to take sewage sludge, farmers that have contracts with food industry or large retailers will definitely be influenced by the position of these actors regarding sewage sludge spreading on crops. Bonduelle was the first food industry to have established spreading conditions that were more stringent than the French regulation, and this industry had an important influence. In 1995, it first banned sewage sludge spreading in its supply charter. In 1997, this food industry imposed a quality charter on its 2200 suppliers of the North and South East of France, claiming its concern to reinforce food safety for consumers. The quality requirements for sludge were closer to the German requirements, and this can be explained

50 We chose not to develop a case study in the US as we thought it best to focus on the evolution of two different sewage sludge spreading markets: France and Switzerland. Regarding the U.S.A, alike France, sewage controversy over sewage sludge spreading in agriculture developed especially in the 1990s with the increasing amount of waste spread on lands (Rodriguez and Peterson, 1999; Harrison and Eaton, 2001; Krogmann et al., 2001; Beecher et al., 2004, 2005; Gattie and Lewis, 2004; Goodman and Goodman, 2006; Youngquist et al., 2015). Krogmann et al. (2001, p. 115) rightly depict biosolids controversy in the US as follows: “As land application of sewage sludge continues to increase, such applications are of public concern, especially in the northeastern region of the US. Some of the reasons for this concern include local management problems, such as odours, vectors, stockpiling, and truck traffic (…). Other reasons include taking account of uncertainties and disagreements, concerning the safety and appropriateness of sewage sludge land application among researchers, regulatory authorities, environmental groups, and the public.” 51 The objective of this article was not to adopt a position regarding the different management alternatives of sewage sludge (be it incineration or spreading in agriculture). According to us, each alternative is a tragic choice (Calabresi and Bobbitt, 1978), as it boils down to choosing either incineration (costly and worst preferred option in the waste hierarchy) in a perspective to protect consumers, or spreading in agriculture in the spirit of the European waste hierarchy that promotes recycling. Both choices can lead to different externalities (incineration causing air pollution with its environmental and health consequences, and sewage sludge spreading causing potential soil contamination and having potential consequences on the food chain) that are difficult to compare and hierarchize. This critical and epistemological issue should be developed in an independent article with various scientists (soil scientists, micro-biologists, sociologists and economists).

S. Lupton / Journal of Rural Studies 55 (2017) 83e99

by the importance of Bonduelle's exports to Northern countries such as Germany, representing 51% of its turnover (Piacentino, 1996). Bonduelle anticipated a possible refusal of its products if it did not meet Northern sewage sludge standards, and at the same time these strict requirements were a way to establish quality differentiation in France.52 This industry also claimed to fear a reaction of mistrust from consumers who were less and less confident concerning food safety, since the different health-related scandals. Bonduelle was not the first organization to take a stand on the issue of sewage sludge spreading, but its quality charter lead to accelerate the process of refusal or restrictions of other food industries. Croix de Savoie and Panzani (pasta industries) forbid in summer 1997 wheat cultivated on land that had received sewage sludge in the past two years. The retail sector (Carrefour and Auchan) adopted similar measures at the same period, as well as some processors (Moulins de Savoie, STL53). This mimetic movement in the food sector was directly followed by cooperatives and local traders, who are the intermediary actors between farmers on the one side and processors, food industry and large retailers on the other. Some groups adopted very categorical attitudes, as for example the AGPM (general association of corn producers). On the 17th of December 1997, this association used the “precautionary principle”54 to justify its refusal of sewage sludge spreading for all members of the association: as one cannot prove the innocuousness of sewage sludge, these wastes cannot be spread as they represent a risk for the food chain. These different actors put pressure on farmers to reduce or stop spreading. Faced with such pressure, farmers could be driven to refuse to take sludge, either confronted directly to a refusal from cooperatives or food industry, or fearing a future generalization of this refusal for any product cultivated on land that had received sludge. Since 1998, the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Agriculture both initiated a national committee in order to sign an agreement with the major national representatives of the sewage sludge spreading market (including local authorities, association of food industry, landowners, two main farmer unions, ministries of agriculture and environment, sludge producers, experts from public or private research bodies, environmental and consumer associations).55 Paradoxically, environmental and consumer associations were the only actors that knew nothing of the sewage sludge spreading practice, while they were often used as a

52 These standards apply retroactively: if sewage sludge practices do not correspond to Bonduelle standards, in a four-year delay before the Bonduelle charter, Bonduelle refuses to select the products cultivated on these lands. 53
te
de Transformation des Le
gumes) is a firm that processes vegetaSTL (Socie bles, and does not accept any product that has been cultivated on land that has received sewage sludge. 54 The roots of the precautionary principle can be found in various legislations that developed in Germany (Federal Republic of Germany) in the 1980s, notably with the 1985 law on nuclear energy (Atomgesetz), and the Federal Emissions Protection Act of 1990 (Bundesimmissionsschutzgesetz). It was then integrated in the European Treaty of Maastricht (1992), though it was not explicitly defined (de Sadeleer, 2001). This principle was integrated in French legislation in 1995. It is defined as the “principle according to which the absence of certainty, taking into account the scientific and technical knowledge of the moment, must not delay the adoption of effective and proportionate measures aiming at preventing a risk of serious and irreversible damage to the environment, at an acceptable economic cost” (French law n
95e101). This principle was extended to health issues in 1998 in European law with the mad cow disease. 55 Up to now, this agreement was never signed. The fact that there were different parallel institutions defending spreading (the national association of food industries, ANIA-association nationale des industries agro-alimentaires) or prohibiting them (quality labels) did not facilitate the signature. Moreover, landowners (through the national federation named F
ed
eration Nationale de la Propri
et
e Agricole) wanted to be integrated in the sewage sludge spreading contract signed between farmers and sludge producers in order to be consulted.

93

justification of refusing sewage sludge by food industry (Lorraine
Viandes and Vico in 1996, Bonduelle in 1997, the coop
Qualite erative de Manosque in 1998). All the actors in the national committee were equally present in a technical committee whose objective was to synthesize knowledge on sewage sludge spreading. The scientific consensus on the interest of sewage sludge spreading contributed to the fact that environmental and consumer associations accepted the interest of sewage sludge spreading under the condition that legislation was respected. Sociological studies (D’Arcimoles et al., 1999; D’Arcimoles et al., 2000) tend to conclude that the national agreement did not have a significant influence on the decision of farmers to accept or refuse sludge, as these decisions are taken at local level according to the influence food industry, cooperatives and large retailers have on farmers. However, it is likely that the negociation process between major actors and the government's support56 of sewage sludge spreading probably reassured farmers. It should be noted that sewage sludge is managed by French water and waste companies (Suez and Veolia) that are not only local companies but multinational companies (Lorrain, 2005) that have become “centres of an international network of influence” (Hall and Lobina, 2007, p. 75). Veolia and Suez Environnement represent 77.8% of the turnover of the water and wastewater collection and treatment sectors (Xerfi, 2016) in France, and have a significant influence on the sewage sludge market and the development of sewage sludge spreading in agriculture. The French government supports these companies and is an indirect shareholder in these two companies.57 This crucial detail can also explain why sewage sludge spreading market is predominant in France, as it is jointly supported by two behemoths and the French state. In France, from 1995 to 1998, sludge producers were concerned about the future of the sludge spreading market. Although it was more difficult for them to find farmers ready to accept sludge, statistics show that the market was not significantly perturbed during this period. In 1994, 58% of sewage sludge was spread on lands, compared to 66.5% in 1997. What has changed is the increasing amount of sewage sludge treated as compost. The spreading market represents around 73% in 2008 (out of which 28% is compost). In 2010, 76% are spread on lands (out of which 33% is compost) (AMORCE, 2012, p. 10), and in 2012, 73% are spread on lands (out of which 29% are composted) (SYPREA, 2016).58 The bans undoubtedly influenced the development of the compost market, as the transformation of sewage sludge into compost increases the agronomic quality of sewage sludge, allowing greater acceptance among farmers (D’Arcimoles and Borraz, 2003; Amon et al., 2006;
pre
s, 2006).59 De At present, most restrictions on sewage sludge spreading

56 On the 5th of July 2000, Minister of the Environment Dominique Voynet held a speech during a national conference on sewage sludge spreading. She defended the ecological and economic interest of sewage sludge spreading. The Ministry of Agriculture also recognized that sewage sludge spreading was a service farmers rendered to society (D’Arcimoles et al., 2000). 57 Veolia Environnement's biggest shareholder (8,62% of shares in april 2016) is
p o ^ ts et Consignations that belongs to the State. As for Suez the Caisse des De Environnement, Engie holds 33,55% of shares in april 2016. The French state is itself shareholder of Engie (32,76%). 58 The SYPREA (Syndicat des Professionnels du Recyclage en Agriculture) is a groupment of seven companies (ABCDE, SAUR, SEDE Environnement, Suez Environnement SITA VERDE, Suez Environnement TERRALYS, VALTERRA Environnement and VEILLAUX Environnement) that manage the agricultural recycling of 5,6 million m3 of agro-industrial waste or industrial sludge, and 2,5 million tons of urban sewage sludge and 800 000 tons of compost. The most recent data was retrieved from http://syprea.org/article/destination-boues.html. 59 Sociological research has also been led on social acceptance of waste and wastederived fertilizers. We chose not to develop this aspect as a survey has recently been accomplished by Barbier (2014).

94

S. Lupton / Journal of Rural Studies 55 (2017) 83e99

revolve around quality trademarks such as PDOs (protected designations of origin), PGIs (protected geographical indications), TSG (Traditional Speciality Guaranteed), DOCs (denominations of controlled origin) and food quality labels such as Label Rouge60
pre
s and Vollet, 2015). Carrefour also bans (Hirczak, 2011; De sewage sludge spreading for its Carrefour Quality Lines (see annex 3 that develops all the present restrictions regarding sewage sludge spreading in France).61 Likewise, the duration of spreading contracts with farmers depends on the existence of restrictions (such as quality brands, DOC, DOP and labels like Label Rouge): the higher
pre
s, restrictions are, the shorter the spreading contracts will be (De 2006, p. 204). Farmers depending on these bans usually refuse sludge (Amon et al., 2006). Nevertheless, sludge producers eventually find farmers willing to take sludge. In departments in which sewage sludge restrictions are higher (quality trademarks),62 local governance schemes have enabled the pursuit of sewage sludge spreading, as the cases of Ain and Haut-Rhin departments illustrate
pre
s and Vollet, 2015, p. 15).63 (De One dimension seems not to have received sufficient attention by social sciences: the role of experts. In France, both experts from the private sector and scientific experts64 were represented in the national committee. According to D’Arcimoles et al. (2000, p. 68),

60 Label Rouge is a French label that guarantees superior quality of food products. “The Label Rouge product must meet the requirements defined in the specifications, validated by the Institut national de l'origine et de la qualit
e (INAO, National Institute of Origin and Quality) and approved by a ministerial order published in the Official Journal of the French Republic.” (INAO, 2016). 61 The reasons for the adoption of these private quality standards are numerous. The latter enable consumers to be reassured about safety issues. They also enable retailers and food industries to differentiate the quality of their products (Vandemoortele and Deconinck, 2014). Private quality standards can also be used to increase their bargaining power over suppliers (Von Schlippenbach and Teichmann, 2012). 62 In some cases such as in the department of Aveyron, urban sewage sludge bans due to food quality requirements were high (38% of agricultural holdings were
pre
s and Vollet, concerned by quality trademarks such as PDOs, PGIs, DOCs) (De 2015). In order to handle urban sewage sludge bans, a quality charter on agricul
relative a  l'utilisation agricole des boues tural use of sewage sludge Charte qualite
puration was signed in 2002 between different actors of the market (sludge d'e producers, famers, service providers in sludge spreading, the Aveyron Chamber of agriculture, Aveyron General Council, municipalities, government, environmental NGOs). Since this charter and the involvement of the Chamber of agriculture, food
pre
s quality requirements were changed and sewage sludge bans were relaxed (De and Vollet, 2015). 63 In the Ain department, the Chamber of agriculture has coordinated the sewage sludge spreading market through a mission promoting waste application in agri
chets) since 1986. Its culture (mission relative  a la valorisation agricole des de implication in sewage sludge use in agriculture has enabled to sustain land spreading. As for the Haut-Rhin department, an independent body controls and manages sewage sludge spreading, supporting sewage sludge spreading in the area
pre
s and Vollet, 2015). (De 64 Experts belonged to the private sector composed of the association of water and
ne
rale des hygie
nistes de France, Syndicat des Prosanitation (Association ge fessionnels du Recyclage Agricole), the association of organic amendments (Chambre syndicale des fabricants d'amendements organiques), the ADEME (a parapublic agency specialized in the environment-Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l’Energie). They also came from local agencies such as the Water Agency Rhin Meuse. They included scientific experts from INRA and CEMAGREF (now called IRSTEA). 65 The only reference we found was Bowler (1999), who gave an actor-network interpretation of sewage sludge spreading regulation in the UK. He notes that various heavy metal limits existing in different countries' legislation “can be interpreted as being politically rather than scientifically determined” (Bowler, 1999, p. 39). According to him, water companies do not publish information on all risks related to sewage sludge spreading (such as organic compounds and viruses). According to the same author, “the actor-network-theory narrative emphasizes the pivotal role of scientific knowledge as an actant within the actor network. The ‘expert knowledge’ of scientists forms the basis of regulation as one of the modes of ordering of the actor network and control over such knowledge gives power to a number of actors including governmental policy-makers and the water companies” (1999, p. 39).

scientific experts were solicited (and enrolled) to give credence to the idea that sewage sludge spreading was the “one best way” through the national and technical committees and in various conferences related to sewage sludge, which probably did not facilitate negotiations between actors. Moreover, the role of experts in building legislations at national and European level would enable a better understanding of legislations as socio-political constructs.65 An in-depth analysis of the role of scientific expertise as necessarily immerged in values and intentions, and embedded in political decisions would be welcome in an interdisciplinary perspective (Coutellec, 2015).66 3.2. Urban sewage sludge spreading in Switzerland and its prohibition In Switzerland, the main element that caused a crisis in the sewage sludge spreading market was the development of organic labels starting from 1993 by large retailers. Although organic products were originally sold directly by farmers or health stores, retailers anticipated the success of this niche. Organic labels were thus developed by the two retailers (Naturaplan for Coop in 1993; and label Bio of Migros created in 1995),67 during a time where food quality and safety was much appreciated (especially after the mad cow disease starting in 1996). Migros and Coop announced in autumn 2001 that they banned the use of sewage sludge spreading for all their quality labels (although this was already done since 1993 onwards for organic labels) on the basis of persistent uncertainties on sewage sludge spreading (and its consequence on food safety). This led to a domino effect. The Swiss Farmers’ Union (Union Suisse des Paysans) and the Swiss milk producers also advised farmers to stop using sewage sludge on lands. The success of organic food sold by retailers, and the relative power of Coop and Migros (who both represent around 80% of the retail market) evidently had some bearing on farmers directly selling organic products to Migros or Coop since 1993. Moreover, farmers must have been influenced by an anticipation of the 2002 Agricultural Policy that confirmed direct payments to farmers for ecological performance (including organic farming) (Siegenthaler and Tscharland, 2002). Farmers must also have been tempted to refuse sewage sludge after the announcement of retailers and the bans of the Swiss Farmers’ Union68 and the Swiss milk producers in 2001. One can observe a regular decrease of the sewage sludge spreading market from 1994 to 2002. In 1994, 55% of sewage sludge was used in agriculture, and this percentage gradually fell from 41% in 2000, to 29% in 2002 (Hügi et al., 2008; Stadelmann et al., 2002; OFEV, 2013). Faced with these bans, the government (Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications) organized a consultation with major actors on the ban of sewage sludge use in agriculture in 2002 (agricultural organizations, cantonal governments, federal authorities responsible for agriculture and environmental protection, environmental and consumer organizations, universities and specialized schools). Most agricultural organizations agreed with the ban, as did most actors. Others were

66 According to Coutellec (2015, p. 60), it is an illusion to think science is free of decision-making considerations. 67 Berner et al. (2005) note that this led to a great success of organic products: “the sales volume increased drastically when the two large supermarket chains Coop and Migros began to sell organic products (Coop in 1993, Migros in 1995). Today, 50% of organic products are sold by Coop, 25% by Migros and 16% by health food stores.” 68 Swiss Farmers' Union defends interests of farming families (and is composed of 60 000 farming families).

S. Lupton / Journal of Rural Studies 55 (2017) 83e99

against like the Swiss union of towns, and operators of wastewater treatment plants (as this method is the cheapest to manage sewage sludge). The Swiss Federal Council decided to ban sewage sludge spreading on agricultural lands, as it was seriously questioned both on a scientific basis (pathogens, drugs, emerging substances) and on a socio-political basis (Osubst; RS 814.0369). Sewage sludge spreading is progressively forbidden, and this should be progressively implemented to all Switzerland by 2008. Recent statistics show that sewage sludge use in agriculture totally disappeared in Switzerland from 2010 onwards (OFEV, 2013)70. What is interesting to note when analyzing the sewage sludge market is that Switzerland and France demonstrate two opposite trends in the development of a market with shared uncertainty regarding the asset's characteristics.71 Uncertainty exists on the potential impacts of urban sewage sludge land spreading on food safety and the environment. Different actors focus on remaining uncertainty on its health and environmental impacts, and influence (or not) the spreading market, which explains why some markets remain (like in France) and others disappear like in Switzerland. In Switzerland, contrary to France, sewage sludge is managed by small
nieurs conseils SA, 2008). These small public companies (BG inge firms did not have substantial negotiating power and influence over government. The power of large retailers, the importance of organic agriculture72 and the prominence of food safety defended by most local authorities73 in Switzerland outstripped the actors defending urban sewage sludge use in agriculture, and government supported the ban. On the contrary, in France, government had an active role in defending the agricultural interest of sewage sludge spreading, supported by sewage sludge companies (Suez and Veolia), and most local authorities.74 These two case studies are useful in understanding a type of market collapse that has not been sufficiently analyzed by economists. The disappearance or shrinking of the market is not caused by market failure associated with externalities, asymmetric information or principal-agent problems. Markets disappear or prevail due to the power of different actors in

69 The 1986 Ordinance on dangerous substances for the environment (Ordonnance du 9 juin 1986 sur les substances dangereuses pour l'environnement, Osubst; RS 814.03) was revised and integrated this ban. The way scientific expertise was used is quite relevant here. The government announces that sewage sludge was banned for scientific reasons. However, the expertise it was supposed to base itself on was elaborated by FAL, the Swiss research institute on agriculture and farming. In its risk analysis (FAL, 2001), this research institute “found no urgent need for action” according to Lamprecht et al. (2011, p. 118). 70 In 2012, 194 534 tons of sewage sludge (dry matter) were eliminated in Switzerland and of which 43% were burnt in sewage sludge incineration plants, 27% in household waste incinerators, and 27% in cement plants. 3% were exported in other countries (OFEV, 2013). 71 Aside experience (Nelson, 1970), search (Nelson, 1970) and credence goods (Darby and Karni, 1973), Lupton (2005) develops the concept of indeterminate goods, whose characteristics (e.g. safety) cannot be known by the producer/seller, consumer and all agents linked to the market. The problem of indeterminate goods is not linked with asymmetrical information but with incomplete knowledge on the good's characteristics. Rival hypotheses coexist on the market (minimizing or stressing the extent of the gaps of knowledge existing on the product's safety), and uncertainty is strategically used by influential agents to ban the product. This category of goods is particularly relevant to the sewage sludge spreading market. 72 Organic agriculture represents 12% of total agricultural lands in Switzerland in 2012 (Meredith and Willer, 2014). 73 Most Swiss Cantons defended the disappearance of the spreading market, and the Swiss Conference of Directors of Civil Engineering, Land-use Planning and Environmental Protection pointed out the environmental and health hazards regarding organic pollutants, hormones, pharmaceuticals and fragrances contained in sewage sludge (OFEFP, 2003). 74 One consumer association (UFC Que Choisir) had a consultative role after having been presented the agronomic benefits and risks of sewage sludge spreading, and the economic interest of agricultural use compared to incineration. The Swiss Government had the opposite stance, as it consulted actors to agree upon the banning of sewage sludge.

95

shaping the general opinion of all actors linked to the market (government, farmers, local authorities, retailers, food industry), basing themselves on uncertainties regarding the safety of waste. Radical uncertainty is used by different actors as a strategic tool, and is non neutral, contrary to what is often assumed in conventional economics.75 Table 4 compares the main actors influencing sewage sludge spreading markets in France and Switzerland. 4. Conclusion This literature review on waste and waste-based fertilizer spreading markets in an applied economics perspective leads us to different observations, and allows us to advance some prospects for future research. At a macro level, there is a clear lack of aggregate data on the quantities of different waste materials used in agriculture at European level, as the example of France illustrates. We have a better knowledge on the evolution of quantities of waste materials (compost, dried manure, sewage sludge and other organic materials) used in agriculture in the U.S.A since 1986, although time series are unfortunately not long enough to conclude on any substitution effects when the price of chemical fertilizers increases. European data lacks cruelly, and does not allow economists to understand how demand evolves in a long-term perspective, and what factors determine this demand (price of fertilizers, oil, weather conditions …) through statistical and econometric tools. This void could be filled if the EU imposed statistics to all industries producing waste and waste-based fertilizers used in agriculture (green waste, agro-food waste, ash from combustion, biochar …). This would also enable governments to better inform farmers and regulate potential negative externalities. This information could trigger a multidisciplinary research on the sustainability of recycling waste in agriculture. If we do not know what is actually used in agriculture, how can we properly evaluate environmental and health-related impacts? At micro level, we stressed three quality features of waste that have been insufficiently analyzed in the literature: variability, interactivity and uncertainty. Empirical analyses are missing on how these localized markets are organized. To our knowledge, few research has been conducted for different waste and waste based fertilizers, and most research revolves around animal manure and urban sewage sludge. Many questions need to be tackled at local level. How are transactions organized by waste/waste-based fertilizer providers and farmers (formal contracts, informal exchange)? How are prices determined and how do they evolve in the long run? What are the factors (competition, price, quality …) and actors (cooperatives, food industry, retailers, government, scientific experts, environmental and consumer associations …) that effect farmers’ use of these materials as substitutes to chemical fertilizers? Addressing these tendencies would allow researchers, farmers and policy-makers to have a larger picture of these markets, and improve long-term decision-making. Applied economic research on these topics would also be the basis for enhancing novel theoretical avenues on the conceptualization of markets notably regarding power relationships, and the concept of waste. The case studies on urban sewage sludge spreading markets in France and in Switzerland illustrated how a market can be viewed as a “game of thrones”, or a multi-level network of actors with asymmetric power. At global and national levels, food companies and retailers compete over food quality (and safety) requirements

75 If agents are equally uncertain in a general equilibrium market, this does not affect Pareto efficiency (Postlewaite, 1989).

96

S. Lupton / Journal of Rural Studies 55 (2017) 83e99

Table 4 Major actors influencing sewage sludge spreading markets in France and Switzerland. France

Switzerland

Large retailers

Carrefour and Auchan adopt a radical ban in the summer of 1997: sewage sludge spreading is forbidden five years before any potato crop in the Carrefour quality charter. Carrefour and Auchan are major retailers in France, and have a direct influence over farmers who sign production contracts with them.

Food industry

During the summer of 1997, Croix de Savoie and Panzani refuse sewage sludge spreading two years before any wheat is cultivated. Food industry directly influence farmers who have production contracts with them. The government managed however to limit restrictions of the food industry to quality labels. Large multinational companies (Suez and Veolia) support sewage sludge spreading. These behemoths have a significant power over government's decisions as the latter is an important shareholder of these companies.
de
ration Nationale des Syndicats The two unions (FNSEA-Fe d’Exploitants Agricoles and CNJA-Cercle National des Jeunes Agriculteurs) require more guarantees (respect of regulation and guarantee fund). They agreed on sewage sludge spreading if these conditions were granted. Government had an active role in defending the sewage sludge market. French government structured and oriented discussions between all actors and was the actor of last resort supporting the sewage sludge spreading market.

Coop and Migros develop their own organic labels in 1993, banning sewage sludge spreading. The ban of sewage sludge spreading is generalized to all their quality labels since autumn 2001 for reasons of food safety (mad cow disease context). Large retailers are a key sector in Switzerland's economy. The Swiss government supported their decision. Swiss milk producers recommend farmers not to use sewage sludge.

Water companies

Farmers' unions

Government

that are stricter than governmental regulation, using uncertainty over sewage sludge safety to justify various bans.76 According to their relative power at national level compared to sewage sludge producers, the urban sewage sludge spreading market can be significantly perturbed. Governments are the determining decision-makers in encouraging (or banning) spreading markets, according to the actors they defend. Empirical evidence indicates that governments often support the most influential actors at national level. To our knowledge, this type of market collapse has not been thoroughly tackled in economic theory, contrary to market failure issues such as externalities and public goods. Of course, this does not only apply to waste, but any good whose benefits are questioned by influential actors (i.e. innovations such as GMOs and nanotechnologies). Needless to say, applied economic research lacks not only for waste markets but for most markets per se. If the functioning of markets has been extensively developed in economics from a theoretical point of view, there is a need to develop more empirically based research on how markets work in the real-world, so as to enrich economic theory. This article is only a little taste of what still needs to be accomplished in the research journey ahead.

76 One can wonder what drives food companies and retailers to develop quality standards stricter than public regulation, especially when sludge spreading requirements are not signalled to consumers. One reason is to avoid potential recalls and suffering from reputation loss (Fagotto, 2014). Moreover, “limitations in public regulation have prompted private actors to take additional steps to ensure food safety” (Fagotto, 2014, p. 91). More generally, private quality standards contribute to reducing risks and liability costs (Havinga, 2006). 77 GT: Gross Tons. 78 DM: Dry Matter. 79 We searched the most recent prices through grey literature. Sales price corresponds to business to farmer price. 80 AB (Agriculture Biologique-Organic Agriculture) is a French certification mark on products containing at least 95% of organic agricultural products. It is the exclusive property of the French Ministry of Agriculture. More information is available on the official site of the French Agency for the Promotion of Organic Agriculture: http://www.agencebio.org/.

Small public water companies support sewage sludge spreading.

Swiss Farmers' Union (Union Suisse des Paysans) advise farmers to stop spreading. This union has an advisory role for Swiss farmers.

Government played an active role in banning the sewage sludge spreading market in Switzerland. Government oriented and coordinated discussions between all actors and was the actor of last resort supporting the ban of the sewage sludge spreading market.

References Adhikari, M., Paudel, K.P., Martin, N.R., Gauthier, W.M., 2005. Economics of dairy waste use as fertilizer in central Texas. Waste Manag. 25 (10), 1067e1074. Akerlof, G., 1970. The market for ‘lemons’: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 84 (3), 488e500. Amon, G., Aznar, O., Vollet, D., 2006. Why are some French farmers sludge-takers? Some agronomic and socioeconomic explanations. Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 5 (2e3), 289e308.
puration. Co-traitement avec les AMORCE 2012. Gestion des boues de stations d’e
chets me
nagers, Se
rie technique DT 52, November. de APCA 1999. Fonds d’indemnisation “boues”. L’exemple allemand. La proposition
s des française, report written by Renard C., Collection Etudes et activite Chambres d'Agriculture, 92, January. Arnold, K.E., Brown, A.R., Ankley, G.T., Sumpter, J.P., 2014. Medicating the environment: assessing risks of pharmaceuticals to wildlife and ecosystems. Philosophical Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 369, 1e11.
2013 (liste non ATV 49 2013. Amendements et engrais organiques : offre du marche
de
ration Viticole de l'Anjou. Vins de exhaustive), Chambres d'Agriculture. Fe Loire. Backhouse, R.E., Biddle, J., 2000. The concept of applied economics: a history of ambiguity and multiple meanings. Hist. Political Econ. 32, 1e26.
sociale des Mafor : e
le
ments d’analyse, Chapter 7, Barbier, R. 2014. Acceptabilite res fertilisantes d'oripart 7.4., in Houot S. et al. (2014), Valorisation des matie
siduaire sur les sols a  usage agricole ou forestier, impacts agronomiques, gine re
conomiques. Expertise scientifique collective, environnementaux, socio-e rapport, INRA-CNRS-Irstea, 876e900. Barton, D., 1989. What is a Cooperative? (Chapter 1) In: Cobia, David (Ed.), Cooperatives in Agriculture. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 1e20. Beecher, N., Connell, B., Epstein, E., Filtz, J., Goldstein, N., Lono, M., 2004. Public Perception of Biosolids Recycling: Developing Public Participation and Earning Trust. Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria VA. Beecher, N., Harrison, E., Goldstein, N., McDaniel, M., Field, P., Susskind, L., 2005. Risk perception, risk communication, and stakeholder involvement for biosolids management and research. J. Environ. Qual. 34 (1), 122e128.
et limites d’une Bel, F., Drouet d'Aubigny, G., Lacroix, A., Mollard, A., 2004. Efficacite
s : e
le
ments d’analyse a  partir de seize pays europe
ens. taxe sur les engrais azote

vision 166, 99e113. Economie Pre Berner, A., Speiser, B., Schmid, O., 2005. Fertilizers and soil conditioners in organic farming in Switzerland. In: Canali, S., Stopes, C., Schmid, O., Speiser, B. (Eds.), Current Evaluation Procedures for Fertilizers and Soil Conditioners Used in Organic Agriculture. FIBL, Frick, pp. 73e78.
des ordures. Economie et gestion des de
chets Bertolini, G., 1990. Le marche
nagers. l'Harmattan, Paris. me

chets. Des pre
occupations croissantes, de Bertolini, G. 2005. Economie des de
Technip environnement. gles, de nouveaux marche
s. Paris, Ed. nouvelles re Bevan-Dangel, F., 2005. Healthy Farms for a Healthy Bay: the Benefits of Agricultural Conservation Programs. MaryPIRG Foundation, Baltimore MD.
nieurs conseils SA, 2008. Proposition de re
forme de l'organisation de BG inge

S. Lupton / Journal of Rural Studies 55 (2017) 83e99 l'assainissement en Suisse. Doc n
6419.01eRN022a/Chx, Mandat de l’OFEV, Berne. Bisson, K., Proops, J., 2002. An introduction to waste. In: Bisson, K., Proops, J. (Eds.), Waste in Ecological Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 1e12. Bonett, D.G., Wright, T.A., 2000. Sample size requirements for estimating Pearson, Kendall and Spearman correlations. Psychometrika 65 (1), 23e28. Bonnieux, F., Rainelli, P., 1988. Agricultural policy and environment in developed countries. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 15 (2e3), 263e281. Bontoux, L., Leone, F., 1997. The Legal Definition of Waste and its Impact on Waste Management in Europe. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Bowler, I.R., 1999. Recycling urban waste on farmland: an actor-network interpretation. Appl. Geogr. 19 (1), 29e43. Boxall, A., Rudd, M.A., Brooks, B.W., Caldwell, D.J., Choi, K., Hickmann, S., Van Der Kraak, G., et al., 2012. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: what are the big questions? Environ. Health Perspect. 120 (9), 1221e1229. Burrell, A., 1989. The demand for fertilizer in the United Kingdom. J. Agric. Econ. 40, 1e20. Butt, E., Morse, G., Guy, J., Lester, J., 1998. Co-recycling of sludge and municipal solid waste: a cost-benefit analysis. Environ. Technol. 19 (12), 1163e1175. Calabresi, G., Bobbitt, P., 1978. Tragic Choices. W. W. Norton Co, New York. Cameron, E., How, N., Saggar, S., Ross, C., 2004. The Cost-benefits of Applying Biosolid Composts for Vegetable, Fruit and Maize/Sweetcorn Production Systems in New Zealand. Landcare Research Science Series, 27, Lincoln, Canterbury, New Zealand. Case, S.D.C., Oelofse, M., Hou, Y., Oenema, O., Jensen, L.S., 2017. Farmer perceptions and use of organic waste products as fertiliserseA survey study of potential benefits and barriers. Agric. Syst. 151, 84e95. Chamberlin, E., 1953. The product as an economic variable. Q. J. Econ. 67 (1), 1e29. mes fourrages 2014 HT. http://www. Chambre d'Agriculture Oise, 2014. Bare chambres-agriculture-picardie.fr/gestion-de-lexploitation/baremes-indices/ fourrages-2014.html. Chapman, K., Edmond, H., 2000. Mergers/acquisitions and restructuring in the EU chemical industry: patterns and implications. Reg. Stud. 34 (8), 753e767. Costanza, R., Cumberland, J.H., Daly, H., Goodland, R., Norgaard, R.B., Kubiszewski, I., Franco, C., 2014. An Introduction to Ecological Economics. CRC Press.
piste
mologie pour les sciences Coutellec, L. 2015. La science au pluriel. Essai d’e
es. Versailles, e
ditions Quæ. implique Cropper, M.L., Oates, W.E., 1992. Environmental economics: a survey. J. Econ. literature 30 (2), 675e740.
guler ou qualifier? Le cas des boues d'e
puration D'Arcimoles, M., Borraz, O., 2003. Re urbaines. Sociol. Du. Trav. 45 (1), 45e62. D'Arcimoles, M., Borraz, O. and Salomon D. 2000. Le monde des boues. La difficile res d’e
pandage des boues de station d’e
puration institutionnalisation des filie
n e
rale des eaux, Lyonnaise des urbaines en agriculture. Rapport ADEME-Ge
veloppement (Partenaires de l’e
tude MATE, agences de eaux-SEDE-Agro-De l’eau), 81 p.
pandage des boues de stations D'Arcimoles, M., Borraz, O., Salomon, D., 1999. L’e
puration urbaines en agriculture : pratiques, blocages et mises aux normes d’e
partements. CAFI, Paris. dans six de Da Silva Campos, C., 2007. Waste, product and by-product in EU waste law. Environ. Law Netw. Int. Rev. 2, 28e43. Dales, J., 2002. Pollution, Property & Prices: an Essay in Policy-making and Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Darby, M., Karni, E., 1973. Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. J. Law Econ. 16, 67e88. Davis, J.G., Iversen, K.V., Vigil, M.F., 2002. Nutrient variability in manures: implications for sampling and regional database creation. J. soil water conservation 57 (6), 473e478.
caution en droit comde Sadeleer, N., 2001. Le statut juridique du principe de pre  la re gle. Cah. droit Eur. 37 (1/2), 91e132. munautaire : du slogan a Demsetz, H., 1964. The exchange and enforcement of property rights. J. Law Econ. 7, 11e26.
pre
s, C., 2006. Une approche ne
o-institutionnelle de la fourniture de services De
pandage agricole des boues environnementaux : le cas du service d’e
puration et ses formes d’organisation territoriale. Doctoral dissertation. d’e
de Bourgogne, Dijon. Universite
pre
s, C., Vollet, D., 2015. La gestion du changement institutionnel en matie re De
pandage agricole des boues d'e
puration en France. Une double de
pendance d'e nes et aux apprentissages territoriaux ante
rieurs, Territoire aux facteurs exoge
ographie et ame
nagement. Territ. Mov. J. Geogr. en mouvement Revue de ge Plan. 25e26, 2e18. Duflo, E., Kremer, M., Robinson, J., 2011. Nudging farmers to use fertilizer: theory and experimental evidence from Kenya. Am. Econ. Rev. 101 (6), 2350e2390. EPA, 1993. 40 CFR Part 257 et al. Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge. Final Rules Part II. Federal Register, February 19. EPA, 1994. A Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503 Biosolids Rule. EPA/832/R-93/ 003, September. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/biosolids/503pe_index. cfm. EPA, 1997. Waste-Derived Fertilizers, Environmental Fact Sheet, Office of Solid Waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December. EPA, 1999. Background Report on Fertilizer Use, Contaminants and Regulations. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington DC. January. http://www. epa.gov/opptintr/pubs/fertilizer.pdf.

97

EPA Risk Assessment Council, 1991. Guidance for risk assessment 4. November. Esbensen, K.H., Velis, C., 2016. Transition to circular economy requires reliable statistical quantification and control of uncertainty and variability in waste. Waste Manag. Res. 34 (12), 1197e1200. Etrillard, C., Lupton, S., Pradel, M., Tibi, A., 2014. Cadrage de l’ESCo (Chapter 1). In: res fertilisantes Houot, S., Pons, M.-N., Pradel, M. (Eds.), Valorisation des matie
siduaire sur les sols a  usage agricole ou forestier Impacts agronod'origine re
conomiques. Rapport d’expertise e version miques, environnementaux, socio-e finale, 9e114. European Communities, 2007. Council Regulon (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Off. J. Eur. Union 50 (L189), 1e23. Evans T. (2012), Biosolids in Europe, Proc. 26th WEF Residuals & Biosolids Conference. 25e28 March, Raleigh, NC, USA. Evans, D., Campbell, H., Murcott, A., 2012. A brief pre-history of food waste and the social sciences. Sociol. Rev. 60 (S2), 5e26. Fagotto, E., 2014. Private roles in food safety provision: the law and economics of private food safety. Eur. J. Law Econ. 37 (1), 83e109. FAL, 2001. Risikoanalyse zur Abfalldüngerverwertung in der Landwirtschaft. Teil 1: Grobbeurteilung. FAL, Zurich. FAO, 2016. World Fertilizer Trends and Outlook to 2019. FAO, Rome. Feinerman, E., Komen, M.H., 2005. The use of organic vs. chemical fertilizer with a mineral losses tax: the case of Dutch arable farmers. Environ. Resour. Econ. 32 (3), 367e388. Frow, J., 2003. Individuous distinction: waste, difference and classy stuff. In: Hawkins, G., Muecke, S. (Eds.), Culture and Waste: the Creation and Destruction of Value, pp. 25e38. Lanham. Md., Rowman & Littlefield. Gaba, J.M., 1989. Solid waste and recycled materials under RCRA: separating chaff from wheat. Ecol. Law Q. 16, 623e666. Gardner, B.L., Chase, R., Haigh, M., Lichtenberg, E., Lynch, L., Musser, W., Parker, D., 2002. Economic Situation and Prospects for Maryland Agriculture, Center for Agricultural and Natural Resource Policy. Policy Analysis Report 02-01. University of Maryland. Gattie, D.K., Lewis, D.L., 2004. A high-level disinfection standard for land-applied sewage sludges (biosolids). Environ. Health Perspect. 112 (2), 126e131. Geiger, S., Kjellberg, H., Spencer, R., 2012. Shaping exchanges, building markets. Consum. Mark. Cult. 15 (2), 133e147. Gendebien, A., Ferguson, R., Brink, J., Horth, H., Sullivan, M., Davis, R., Brunet, H., Dalimier, F., Landrea, B., Krack, D., Perot, J., Orsi, C., 2001. Survey of Wastes Spread on Land. Final Report. European Commission-Directorate General For Environment, WRc Medmenham, UK. Gibbons, M.M., Smith, K.A., Anthony, S.G., 2007. SPREADSeA system for controlling the costs and efficiency of manure and slurry spreading on farms. In: Proc. 5th Annual Conference of the European Federation of it in Agriculture,“Environment and Rural Sustainability through ICT”. EFITA/WCCA 2007. Glasgow Caledonian University. July 2007. http://www.efitaglasgow.org. Goldfarb, W., Krogmann, U., Hopkins, C., 1998. Unsafe sewage sludge of beneficial biosolids: liability, planning, and management issues regarding the land application of sewage treatment residuals. Boston Coll. Environ. Aff. Law Rev. 26, 687e768. Goodman, J., Goodman, B., 2006. Beneficial or biohazard? How the media frame biosolids. Public Underst. Sci. 15, 359e375. Gowdy, J., Erickson, J.D., 2005. The approach of ecological economics. Camb. J. Econ. 29 (2), 207e222. Gregson, N., Crang, M., 2010. Materiality and waste: inorganic vitality in a networked world. Environ. Plan. A 42 (5), 1026e1032. Hahn, R.W., 1989. Economic prescriptions for environmental problems: how the patient followed the doctor's orders. J. Econ. Perspect. 3 (2), 95e114. Hall, D., Lobina, E., 2007. International actors and multinational water company strategies in Europe, 1990e2003. Util. Policy 15 (2), 64e77. Hanley, N., 1990. The economics of nitrate pollution. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 17 (2), 129e151. Hansen, L.G., 2004. Nitrogen fertilizer demand from Danish crop farms: regulatory implications of heterogeneity. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 52, 313e331. Harrison, E.Z., Eaton, M.M., 2001. The role of municipalities in regulating the land application of sewage sludges and septage. Nat. Resour. J. 41 (1), 77e123. Havinga, T., 2006. Private regulation of food safety by supermarkets. Law policy 28 (4), 515e533. Heisey, P.W., Norton, G.W., 2007. Fertilizers and other farm chemicals. Handb. Agric. Econ. 3, 2741e2777.
et environneHirczak, M., 2011. L'interrelation complexe entre signes de qualite ment en France. Norois 2, 75e88. Hogg, D., 2002. Costs for Municipal Waste Management in the EU. Final Report. Directorate General Environment. European Commission. Eunomia Research & Consulting, Bristol, United Kingdom. Houot, S., Bodineau, G., Rampon, J. N., Annabi, M., Francou, C., and Poitrenaud, M. 2005. Agricultural use of different residual waste compostsecurrent situation and experiences in France. Conference “The future of residual waste management in Europe, 17th and 18th November. Houot, S., Pons, M.-N., Pradel, M., Tibi, A., Aubry, S., Augusto, L., Barbier, R., Benoît, P., re, H., Caillaud, M.-A., Casellas, M., Chatelet, A., Dabert, P., De Mareschal, S., Bruge
nermont, S., Giamberini, L., He
lias, A., Doussan, I., Etrillard, C., Fuchs, J., Ge
, E., Le Perchec, S., Lupton, S., Marron, N., Me
nasseri, S., Mollier, A., Jarde Morel, C., Mougin, C., Nguyen, C., Parnaudeau, V., Patureau, D., Pourcher, A.-M.,
, L., Viguie
, C., 2014. Rychen, G., Savini, I., Smolders, E., Topp, E., Vieuble

98

S. Lupton / Journal of Rural Studies 55 (2017) 83e99

res fertilisantes d'origine re
siduaire sur les sols a  usage Valorisation des matie agricole ou forestier, impacts agronomiques, environnementaux, socio
conomiques. Expertise scientifique collective, rapport. INRA-CNRS-Irstea, e France, 930 pp. Hügi M., Gerber P., Hauser A., Laube A., Quartier R., Schenk K., and Wysser M. 2008.
chets 2008. Politique suisse de gestion des de
chets Rapport sur la gestion des de
es et perspectives. Etat de l’environnement no 0830. Office 2005e2007: donne
d e
ral de l’environnement, Berne: 122 p. fe INAO, 2016. Official signs identifying quality and origin. available at: http://www. inao.gouv.fr/eng/Official-signs-identifying-quality-and-origin. Industrial Economics Inc, 1986. Guidance Manual on the RCRA Regulation of Recycled Hazardous Wastes, Prepared for the Office of Solid Waste. U.S. EPA, March. Jevons, W.S., 1888. The Theory of Political Economy, third ed. Library of Economics and Liberty http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Jevons/jvnPE.html. Jjemba, P.K., 2002. The potential impact of veterinary and human therapeutic agents in manure and biosolids on plants grown on arable land: a review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 93 (1), 267e278. King, F.H., 1911. Farmers of Forty Centuries: or, Permanent Agriculture in China, Korea and Japan. Reissued by Rodale Press, Emmaus, Pennsylvania. Kirigia, A., Njoka, J.T., Kinyua, P.I.D., Young, T.P., 2013. Characterizations of livestock manure market and the income contribution of manure trade in Mukogodo, Laikipia, Kenya. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 8 (46), 5864e5871. Krogmann, U., Gibson, V., Chess, C., 2001. Land application of sewage sludge: perception of New Jersey vegetable farmers. Waste Manag. Res. 19, 115e125. Lacy, P., Rutqvist, J., 2015. Waste to Wealth: the Circular Economy Advantage. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Lamprecht, H., Lang, D.J., Binder, C.R., Scholz, R.W., 2011. The trade-off between phosphorus recycling and health protection during the BSE crisis in Switzerland. A disposal dilemma. GAIA-Ecological Perspect. Sci. Soc. 20 (2), 112e121. Lazarus, W.F., Koehler, R.G., 2002. The economics of applying nutrient-dense livestock waste at low rates. Rev. Agric. Econ. 24 (1), 141e159.
jections. Optimiser les chantiers d’e
pandage. Cap. Le Bris, B., 2010. Gestion des de
levage 47, 26e27. e Le Goffe, M., Delache, X., 1997. Impacts de l'agriculture sur le tourisme. Une
donistes. Econ. rurale 239, 3e10. application des prix he
, J., 2005. Le droit d’e
pandage a-t-il un prix ? Mesure sur le Le Goffe, P., Salanie
foncier. Cahiers d’e
conomie Sociol. rurales 77, 36e63. marche
raux dans les exploitaLecuyer, B., Chatellier, V., Daniel, K., 2013. Les engrais mine
ennes. Econ. Rurale 1, 147e157. tions agricoles françaises et europe Levasseur, P., Aubert, C., 2006. Contexte, atouts et faiblesses des effluents porcins et
s  ^tre exporte
s. Techniporc 29 (2), 1e11. avicoles destine ae Li, J., Lin, C., Huang, S., 2013. Considering variations in waste composition during waste input-output modeling. J. Industrial Ecol. 17 (6), 892e899. Locke, J., 1698. 1988. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lorrain, D., 2005. La firme localeeglobale: Lyonnaise des Eaux (1980e2004). Sociol. Du. Trav. 47 (3), 340e361. Lukes, S., 2005. Power: a Radical View. Hampshire. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
et e
conomie des biens controverse
s : le Lupton, S., 2002. Incertitude sur la qualite
d'e
pandage des boues de stations d'e
puration urbaines. Doctoral marche dissertation. EHESS, Paris. Lupton, S., 2005. Shared quality uncertainty and the introduction of indeterminate goods. Camb. J. Econ. 29 (3), 399e421. Lupton, S., 2007. Insurance regarding radical uncertainty: approaches in France and in Germany for sewage sludge land spreading. Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 6 (3), 378e392.
chets. Une approche institutionnaliste. Brussels, De Lupton, S. 2011. Economie des de Boeck. Lupton, S., 2015. Quality uncertainty in early economic thought. Hist. Political Econ. 47 (3), 511e534. Mackaay, E., 1999. On property rights and their modification. In: Fase, M.M.G., Kanning, W., Walker, D.A. (Eds.), Economics, Welfare Policy and the History of Economic Thoughtdessays in Honour of Arnold Heertje. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 245e264. Marketline, 2014. Fertilizer in France. Marketline Industry Profile. October. Maryland Department of Agriculture, 2014. 2014 Progress Report Implementing Nutrient Management Programs, A Report to Governor Martin O'Malley and the Maryland General Assembly by the Nutrient Management Advisory Committee, July 1st, Maryland. Massey, R., 2007. Value of Manure as a Fertilizer. University of Missouri. Commercial Ag Program, available at: www.delaval.com/ImageVaultFiles/id_3942/cf_662/ ValueofManureasFertilizerMassey.pdf. McCann, L., Easter, K.W., 1999. Transaction costs of policies to reduce agricultural phosphorous pollution in the Minnesota River. Land Econ. 402e414. Meredith, S., Willer, H. (Eds.), 2014. Organic in Europe. Prospects and Development. IFOAM EU Group, Brussels. Metcalfe, M., 2000. State legislation regulating animal manure management. Rev. Agric. Econ. 22 (2), 519e532. re de l'Ecologie, de l'Energie, du De
veloppement durable et de l’Ame
nageMiniste
ments de contexte et re
glementation française ment du territoire, 2009. Ele
es, Direcrelatifs  a la valorisation des boues issues du traitement des eaux use
, 5 May. tion de l'Eau et de la Biodiversite Mittelhammer, R., 2009. Applied economicsdwithout apology. Am. J. Agric. Econ.

91 (5), 1161e1174. Nelson, P., 1970. Information and consumer behaviour. J. Political Econ. 78 (2), 311e329. Nelson, R.H., 2005. A Bigger Bang for the Buck. Offsets and Other Cost-effective Strategies for Nitrogen Reductions for the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland School of Public Policy, University of Maryland (August). ~ ez, J.T., McCann, L., 2008. Determinants of manure application by crop farmers. Nún J. soil water conservation 63 (5), 312e321. Odhiambo, J.J., Magandini, V.N., 2008. An assessment of the use of mineral and organic fertilizers by smallholder farmers in Vhembe district, Limpopo province, South Africa. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 3 (5), 357e362. OECD, 2007. Instrument Mixes for Environmental Policy. OECD Publishing, Paris. www.sourceoecd.org/environment/9789264017801. OECD, 2013. Policy Instruments to Support Green Growth in Agriculture. OECD Publishing, Paris. Oelofse, M., Jensen, L.S., Magid, J., 2013. The implications of phasing out conventional nutrient supply in organic agriculture: Denmark as a case. Org. Agric. 3 (1), 41e55.
sultats de la consultation concernant l'interdiction OFEFP, 2003. Rapport sur les re
puration comme engrais. OFEFP, Berne. d'utilisation des boues d’e
puration en Suisse. Recensement de 2012. OFEV, 2013. Elimination des boues d’e
de
ration Suisse, OFEV, Division des De
chets established by Melike Tezcan. Confe res Premie res, July. et Matie Ott, H., 2012. Fertilizer Markets and Their Interplay with Commodity and Food Prices. Report for the European Commission Join Research Centre, Brussels.  l'engrais organique. Thursday 19 Ouest-France, 2012. Les agriculteurs convertis a January. Oxford English Dictionary, 2017. Oxford Living Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/. O'Brien, M., 2007. A Crisis of Waste? Understanding the Rubbish Society. Routledge, London and New York. O'Shea, L., Wade, A., 2009. Controlling nitrate pollution: an integrated approach. Land Use Policy 26 (3), 799e808. Parr, J.F., Colacicco, D., 1987. Organic materials as alternative nutrient sources. Energy plant Nutr. pest control 2, 81e99. Parr, J.F., Hornick, S.B., 1992. Agricultural use of organic amendments: a historical perspective. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 7 (04), 181e189.
chets des villes : le monde agricole s'interroge Piacentino, J., 1996. Recycler les de
puration. La Fr. Agric. 2633, 22. March, 22. sur les boues d'e Porter, R., 2002. The Economics of Waste. Resources for the Future, Washington. Postlewaite, A., 1989. Asymmetric information. In: Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., Newman, P. (Eds.), Allocation, Information and Markets. Macmillan Press, The New Palgrave, New York, pp. 35e38. Pye, V.I., 1983. In: Groundwater Contamination in the United States, Workshop on Groundwater Resources and Contamination in the United States (Summary and Papers). National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. Ribaudo, M., Horan, R., Smith, M., 1999. Economics of Water Quality Protection from Nonpoint Sources: Theory and Practice. Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report No. 782, 106 pp. Rodriguez, L., Peterson, J.W., 1999. Risks from an “unknown” technology: how lowans perceive agricultural sludge. J. Environ. Educ. 30 (3), 37e42. Ruhl, J.B., 2000. Farms, their environmental harms, and environmental law. Ecol. Law Q. 27, 263e349. Shere, M.E., 1995. The myth of meaningful environmental risk assessment. Harv. Environ. Law Rev. 19, 409e492. Sheriff, G., 2005. Efficient waste? Why farmers over-apply nutrients and the implications for policy design. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 27 (4), 542e557. Siegenthaler, A. and Tscharland, E. 2002. Aspects of legislation for the handling of fertilizers. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the RAMIRAN Network, Slovakia, 14e18 May. Soulsby, P.G., Hickman, G.A.W., McMahon, P.L., 2002. Economics of recovering value from recycling treated biosolids to land. Water Environ. J. 16 (1), 18e24. Spaey, D., Traon, D., Joas, R., 2012. Study on options to fully harmonise the EU legislation on fertilising materials including technical feasibility, environmental, economic and social impacts. In: A Study for the EC, Directorate-general for Enterprise and Industry. Contract (30-CE), 0392420. Stadelmann, F., Külling, D., Herter, U., 2002. Sewage sludge: fertilizer of waste? EAWAG news 53 e, 9e11. Stahel, W.R., 2016. The circular economy. Nature 531 (7595), 435. Stenger, A., 2000. Experimental valuation of food safety: application to sewage sludge. Food Policy 25 (2), 211e218. SYPREA, 2016. Destination des boues. SYPREA. http://syprea.org/article/destinationboues.html. Thornsbury, S., Stoffella, P., Minton, T., 2000. Economics of organic waste compost utilization in a commercial tomato production system. Acta Hortic. 536, 93e99. Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., Polasky, S., 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418 (6898), 671e677. Turner, R.K., Pearce, D., Bateman, I., 1993. Environmental Economics: an Elementary Introduction. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press, 328 pp.
ments des bilans soufre et azote et indicateur d'efficacite
de l'azote UNIFA, 2011. Ele
ral sur ble
tendre. report written by Marques Bortoletto G., La De
fense. mine UNIFA, 36 pp. USDA, 2009. Manure Use for Fertilizer and for Energy. Report to Congress. USDA (Economic Research Service, report prepared by MacDonald J.M., Ribaudo M. O.,

S. Lupton / Journal of Rural Studies 55 (2017) 83e99 Livingston M. J., Beckman J., and Huang W., June). Vahabi, M., 2004. The Political Economy of Destructive Power. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltanham. Vallero, D., 2011. Risk assessment, management and accountability. In: Letcher, T.M., Vallero, D. (Eds.), Waste: a Handbook for Management Chapter 32. Academic Press, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 503e540. Van den Bergh, J.C., 2001. Ecological economics: themes, approaches, and differences with environmental economics. Reg. Environ. Change 2 (1), 13e23. Vandemoortele, T., Deconinck, K., 2014. When are private standards more stringent than public standards? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 96 (1), 154e171. Von Schlippenbach, V., Teichmann, I., 2012. The strategic use of private quality standards in food supply chains. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 94 (5), 1189e1201. Waliser, S., 2003. Another tragedy of the commons: placing cost where it belongs by banning hazardous substances in fertilizer through state legislation. J. Environ. Law Litig. 18, 51e128.

99

Williamson, J.M., 2011. The role of information and prices in the nitrogen fertilizer management decision: new evidence from the Agricultural Resource Management Survey. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 36 (3), 552e572. Winsten, J.R., 2004. Developing and Assessing Policy Options for Reducing Phosphorus Loading in Lake Champlain. Technical Report 47, Lake Champlain Basin Program, sponsored by U.S.E.P.A. And the States of New York and Vermont, April.
de l’eau et de l’assainissement. Conjoncture et pre
visions. Xerfi, 2016. Le marche March. Xerfi, Paris. Yadav, S.N., Peterson, W., Easter, K.W., 1997. Do farmers overuse nitrogen fertilizer to the detriment of the environment? Environ. Resour. Econ. 9 (3), 323e340. Youngquist, C.P., Goldberger, J.R., Doyle, J., Jones, S.S., 2015. Public involvement in waste management research and decision-making: a case study. Regional Sci. Policy & Pract. 7 (3), 141e161.