Toute l'actualitéThe issue of reducing pesticide use has now emerged as a central challenge for agricultural systems worldwide. It crystallizes deep tensions between environmental imperatives, public health requirements, and the economic constraints faced by farms. Behind what may appear to be a technical debate lies a broader question concerning the very foundations of the agricultural production model and its ability to remain competitive in a context marked by increasing regulatory pressure, market liberalization, and the intensification of climate-related risks. In many countries, discussions surrounding the regulation of plant protection products emphasize a legitimate concern: preserving producers’ competitiveness in a competitive environment characterized by disparities in standards and production costs. Yet this perspective raises a strategic long-term question: can economic performance sustainably rely on maintaining—or even reinforcing—a structural dependence on chemical inputs?
Reducing Pesticides: An Agronomic, Societal and Economic Imperative
The reduction of pesticide use is not driven solely by societal expectations or regulatory developments. It also reflects profound agronomic dynamics. The emergence of pest resistance, the simplification of crop rotations, and the erosion of functional biodiversity are progressively weakening productivist agricultural systems. This fragilization, compounded by the degradation of natural agroecosystem mechanisms, often leads to an even greater reliance on treatments in a cumulative logic that increases production costs without guaranteeing long-term yield security.
Moreover, dependence on chemical inputs—whose prices are often correlated with those of hydrocarbons—exposes farms to international price volatility and regulatory shifts, thereby increasing economic uncertainty. In this context, reducing pesticide use can be understood as a medium- to long-term risk mitigation strategy, aimed at restoring biological balances whose deterioration ultimately generates significant economic costs.
Alternatives Based on Systemic Transformation
Alternatives to pesticides do exist, but they require systemic transformation rather than simple technical substitution. Lengthening and diversifying crop rotations disrupt pest life cycles and reduce parasitic pressure. The integration of cover crops improves soil structure, enhances water retention capacity, and stimulates biological activity, thereby strengthening crop resilience to stress.
The development of agroecological infrastructures—such as hedgerows and grass strips—encourages the presence of beneficial organisms and reactivates natural regulation mechanisms. These levers are complemented by biocontrol solutions and varietal selection adapted to local soil and climate conditions, enabling a reduction in chemical dependency while maintaining production levels compatible with market expectations.
These approaches are part of the broader framework of regenerative agriculture, whose objective is to restore the ecological functions of soils and agricultural ecosystems in order to enhance their productive resilience. Experience shows that, although this transition requires technical support and an adjustment period, it can ultimately lead to stabilized performance and a gradual decrease in input-related costs.
Organizing the Financing of the Transition
The economic sustainability of this transformation remains a decisive condition for its success. Modifying farming practices entails investment, learning, and temporary risk-taking. It would be economically fragile to place the entire burden of this effort on farmers alone, particularly when the benefits generated—improved water quality, carbon sequestration, biodiversity preservation—extend far beyond the sphere of agricultural production.
A managed reduction in pesticide use therefore requires broader mobilization across value chains. Agri-food companies and retailers hold a structuring lever to support these shifts by integrating environmental criteria into their sourcing strategies and establishing long-term contractual relationships with producers.
Insetting approaches constitute an operational tool in this regard. By financing, within their own value chains, transition projects toward regenerative agriculture, companies help share the cost of transforming practices while securing their supply chains. This mechanism enables economic performance and environmental objectives to be aligned, embedding the transition within a logic of cooperation and shared value creation.
Reconciling pesticide reduction with economic sustainability is therefore not a binary trade-off. It requires embedding agricultural performance within a long-term perspective grounded in the resilience of production systems and in a more balanced distribution of transition costs across value chains. Competitiveness cannot sustainably rely on chemical intensification alone; rather, it will depend on the capacity of agricultural and agri-food stakeholders to invest in more robust systems capable of maintaining productivity while meeting the environmental requirements that increasingly shape markets and public policy.