SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
THEME 2
FOOD, AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES, AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
TEAMPEST PROJECT
WP5: ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY, BIODIVERSITY LOSS AND
SOCIALLY OPTIMAL PESTICIDE USE
TASK 5.1: LITERATURE REVIEW
WP5: ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY, BIODIVERSITY
LOSS AND SOCIALLY OPTIMAL PESTICIDE USE
TASK 5.1: LITERATURE REVIEW
Theodoros A. Skevas
Prof. Spiro E. Stefanou
Prof. Alfons Oude Lansink
February 2009
Business Economics Group
Wageningen University
The Netherlands
1
Executive Summary
This report presents an interpretive review of the literature in support of the work package on
“Economic Sustainability, Biodiversity Loss and Socially Optimal Pesticide Use.” Particular
attention is focused on the interaction between production decisions and biodiversity loss,
reduction of environmental quality and impacts of agricultural and environmental policy on
pesticides use. This review is organized along the three major themes.
Economic Growth and the Environment
During the last decades, there is a considerable increase in the global level of production of goods
and services. This economic growth that was brought about mainly by technological innovations
has its impact on the environment. The over-exploitation of natural resources has resulted in
environmental degradation but, on the other hand, the development of pollution abatement
technologies promises to ease these environmental problems. Sustainable economic growth is of
primary importance in sustaining human needs and protecting the natural habitat. This major
theme can be partitioned into macro and micro (disaggregated or decision maker level)
perspectives.
Pesticides and Biodiversity
With the productivity gains and cost reductions realized by pesticide use, there are several
disadvantages that relate to the broader ecosystem, genes and species in a region, which
constitutes the region’s biodiversity. Pesticide overuse or use at the crop edges which constitute
forage and nesting habitats for farmland fauna can reduce biodiversity. Non-target plant species
that benefit farmland fauna can also extinct due to competition for nutrients with target species.
Precise use of pesticides can address these problems.
Pesticide Policies
Many international and national policies are trying to regulate pesticide use as consumers are
becoming more aware of pesticide externalities and demand pesticide free agricultural products
and cleaner and safer natural habitat.
The current level of food production is already causing serious environmental problems.
Important efforts towards regulating pollution have been made in industrialized countries in the
form of increasingly stringent environmental regulations. Although much of the environmental
regulations are directed at industrial production, agriculture is affected as well, especially from
pesticide regulations and clean water acts.
European Union is struggling to implement coherent pesticide regulations in an effort to protect
public health and the environment. Regulations on the marketing of plant protection products,
2
maximum residue levels and the thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides compose
the puzzle of the European pesticide policy.
The imposition of a tax or levy scheme is not a costless procedure and its entire regulatory cost
creates uncertainty concerning the optimal time that has to be imposed. In an initial period there
is uncertainty about the stage of the world. Environmental externalities have not still fully
documented and the external costs have not been quantified precisely. Therefore, policy makers
are not sure whether they must introduce a tax now or to wait for further information and
introduce it later. Imposing a tax at an early period can prove to be more costly as there are no
precise indicators of external costs. This absence of knowledge can lead a policy maker to delay
his intervention and to wait to identify the exact external costs and reflect them in the prices of
the different commodities by imposing a suitable tax. Therefore, delaying reduces somehow the
economic risk of imposing a tax scheme. On the other hand waiting can prove to be costly in
cases of irreversible damages.
Organization
With over 220 scientific publications and reports reviewed, several organizational directions are
undertaken. Each publication was reviewed along a set of common criteria: a) abstract, b) setting,
c) modeling framework, d) data, e) applications, and f) results and policy implications. This
review is comprised of three components. The first is the narrative document which follows. In
this document the review develops the three major themes and their branches, with a view toward
identifying the important results, gaps, overlapping results and policy implications. The second
component is a more dynamic organization of this literature in a web-based map where the user
can scan through the outline to obtain a brief description of each theme and sub-theme, and
follow the branches to view the relevant literature in terms of the six common criteria identified
above. The final component of this review is a spreadsheet organizing the literature along these
same criteria that can provide a means for rapidly searching for keywords.
3
Acronyms and definitions
AC
CBS
CMR
Active Substance
Statistical Agency of The Netherlands
Cause Cancer and have Mutagenic or Reproductive Effects
CO 2
CVM
DPR
EC
ED
EFSA
EKC
EPA
EU
EUROSTAT
FQPA
GM
IPM
ITP
IUCN
LZ
MJP-G
MRL
NAP
PBT
POP
PPP
PREC
RASFF
SP
UNEP
UK
US
VAT
vPvB
WP5
WRI
€
$
Carbon Dioxide
Contingent Valuation Method
Department of Pesticide Regulation
European Commission
Endocrine Disruptors
European Food Safety Authority
Environmental Kuznets Curve
Environmental Protection Agency
European Union
European Statistical Agency
Food Quality Protection Act
Genetically Modified
Integrated Pest Management
Income Turning Point
World Conservation Union
Lichtenberg-Zilberman
Multi Year Program for Crop Protection
Maximum Residue Level
National Action Plan
Persistent Bioacummulative and Toxic
Persistent Organic Pollutant
Plant Protection Product
Pesticide Regulation and Evaluation Committee
Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed
Stated Preferences
United Nations Environment Program
United Kingdom
United States
Value Added Tax
very Persistent and very Bioacummulative
Work Package 5
World Research Institute
Euro
Dollar
4
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 6
II. ECONOMIC GROWTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................... 7
A.
i.
ii.
MACRO PERSPECTIVE ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) ......................................................................................................... 7
Agricultural Intensification ......................................................................................................................... 9
a. Inputs Use ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9
b. Environmental Pressure ................................................................................................................................................ 11
c. Agricultural Sustainability ............................................................................................................................................ 12
iii.
iv.
Global Trade ............................................................................................................................................. 13
Political Environment ............................................................................................................................... 14
B. MICRO PERSPECTIVE ...................................................................................................................................... 14
i.
Agricultural Firms .................................................................................................................................... 15
ii.
Households................................................................................................................................................ 17
iii. Institutions ................................................................................................................................................ 18
iv. Political Environment ............................................................................................................................... 18
C. POLICY IMPLICATIONS, GAPS AND OVERLAPS ................................................................................................ 19
III. PESTICIDES AND BIODIVERSITY ............................................................................................................... 20
A.
PESTICIDE USE ............................................................................................................................................... 20
i.
Productivity and Pesticide Use ................................................................................................................. 20
ii.
Pesticide Externalities............................................................................................................................... 22
iii. Pesticide Risk Valuation ........................................................................................................................... 23
iv. Uncertainty in Agriculture ........................................................................................................................ 23
v.
Pesticide Sales in European Countries ..................................................................................................... 25
vi. Use of PPPs in EU & Trends over Time ................................................................................................... 26
vii.
Pesticide Demand Elasticity ................................................................................................................. 27
viii.
Damage Control Specification ............................................................................................................. 29
ix. IPM ........................................................................................................................................................... 29
B. BIODIVERSITY ................................................................................................................................................ 30
i.
Biodiversity Definitions............................................................................................................................. 30
ii.
Valuing Biodiversity .................................................................................................................................. 30
iii. Biodiversity & Irreversibility .................................................................................................................... 32
iv. Farmland Biodiversity .............................................................................................................................. 32
v.
European agri-environmental schemes for conserving and promoting biodiversity ................................ 34
C. BIODIVERSITY & AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY .......................................................................................... 34
D. POLICY IMPLICATIONS, GAPS AND OVERLAPS ................................................................................................ 35
IV. PESTICIDE POLICIES ...................................................................................................................................... 36
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
COMPETITIVENESS & ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ................................................................................. 36
EU PESTICIDE POLICIES.................................................................................................................................. 37
ABATEMENT POLICIES OF EU AND NON-EU COUNTRIES ................................................................................ 42
U.S. PESTICIDE POLICY .................................................................................................................................. 46
UNCERTAINTY UNDER A POLICY INTRODUCTION/INVESTMENT ....................................................................... 48
POLICY IMPLICATIONS, GAPS AND OVERLAPS ................................................................................................ 49
V. CONCLUDING COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 49
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................... 50
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................................. 62
5
I. Introduction
This report presents a literature review in support of work package five (WP5) entitled
“Economic Sustainability, Biodiversity Loss and Socially Optimal Pesticide Use”. The literature
review is organized into three major themes: I) Economic Growth and the Environment, II)
Pesticides and Biodiversity, and III) Pesticide Policies. As each sub-theme is introduce, a
schematic of related concepts is presented to provide the reader with a perspective on how to
organize one’s conceptualization of the issues.
The first theme addresses the relationship between economic growth and the natural habitat, by
looking at both the macro and micro levels. At the macro level economic growth has brought
changes in global policies, agreements and trade patterns while the micro level focuses on the
impact on agricultural producers, consumers and local institutions. These macro and micro level
changes have their own characteristic impacts on the environment. The second major theme
defines plant protection products and provides an overview of their use, impacts and properties.
This theme introduces the concept of biodiversity and reviews its relationship with pesticides and
farm productivity. The final theme presents the pesticide regulations of European Union (EU)
and the United States, and deals with the uncertainty of introducing a pesticide policy and the
impacts of pesticide regulations on the competitiveness of agricultural firms.
Finally,
the
review
document
is
accompanied
by
a
web-based
map
(http://www.personal.psu.edu/ttc/econo_pest_1.htm) where the user can scan through the outline
of this review to view a brief abstract of each component and a reference list for the terminal
modes. The reference list provides the abstract, setting, modeling framework, data and
applications, and results and policy implications for each citation.
6
II. Economic Growth and the Environment
During the last decades, there is a considerable increase in the global level of production of
agriculturally related goods and services. This economic growth that was brought about mainly
by technological innovations has had its impact on the environment. The over-exploitation of
natural resources has resulted in environmental degradation but on the other hand, the
development of pollution abatement technologies promises to ease these environmental problems.
Sustainable economic growth is of prime importance in supporting human needs and protecting
the natural habitat.
A. Macro Perspective
Global economic growth has both positive and negative impacts on the environment. An
overview of the environmental Kuznets Curve studies can shed light to this relationship.
World trade and international policies and agreements play an important role in the process of
economic growth. Global policies and world trade can increase agricultural intensification
leading to environmental pressure. Conversely, global agreements have proven to be an effective
approach toward addressing environmental problems which are often transnational and require a
collective response. Global trade can also provide the means for transferring cleaner technologies.
i. Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC)
The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis proposes that there is an inverted U-shaped
relationship between economic performance and environmental pollution, which suggests that an
economy is associated with lower levels of pollution after clearing an income threshold. Simon
Kuznets’s name was attached to the curve by Grossman and Krueger (1993), who noted its
resemblance to Kuznets’s inverted-U shaped relationship between income inequality and
development.
A number of empirical studies have examined the EKC for various time periods, regions and
pollutants. The early EKC studies are Grossman and Krueger (1993), Shafik and Bandyopadhyay
(1992), Selden and Song (1994), Panayotou (1993) and Cropper and Griffiths (1994), which
found that the inverted U-shaped relationship is monotonically increasing or decreasing.
Stern (2004) and Dasgupta et al. (2002) have undertaken comprehensive reviews and discussions
of these empirical studies have shown that there is no single relationship between environmental
degradation and income that concerns all types of pollutants, time periods and regions. Metaanalysis is a statistical approach that models related empirical studies by synthesizing their results
in a statistical framework. The EKC meta-analyses of Cavlovic et al. (2000) and Li et al. (2007)
indicate that study methods, estimation techniques, data characteristics and pollution categories,
all affect the presence or absence of the EKC, its shape and the income turning points (ITPs)
(Figure 1). It is important to notice that many studies that had dealt with anthropogenic
greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2) did not manage to find ITPs or an improved environment-income
relationship.
7
No single relationship
between environmental
degradation and income
Study
Methods/Characteristics
Income elasticity
International Trade
Estimation Techniques
Scale
Urban air quality
Presence/Absence of EKC
Affected
Data Characteristics
EKC Shape
Aggregate emissions
Greenhouse gases
Pollution Categories
ITPs
Biological Indicators
Hazardous waste
Time Periods
Regions
Figure 1. EKC Meta-analysis features.
Source: Author, 2008
Stern et al. (1994) critiques the EKC on the following grounds (Figure 2): a) the assumption of
unidirectional causality from economy to environment; b) the assumption that environmental
quality is not affected by changes in trade relationships; c) data problems (data on environmental
problems are of poor quality); d) econometric problems (simultaneity); e) asymptotic behavior; f)
the mean-median income problem; g) and the isolation of some EKCs from EKCs for other
environmental problems.
8
Unidirectional causality
Environmental quality and trade
Data problems
Econometric problems
EKC Problems
Asymptotic behavior
Mean-median income
EKCs’ isolation
Figure 2. EKC problems
Source: Author, 2008
Managi (2006) adds to this list of concerns that the empirical EKC studies do not examine
carefully the mechanisms of the inverted U-shaped relationship. The use of a time trend is not an
efficient tool to fully reflect technological progress and the inclusion of technological variables
seems to be of utmost importance in capturing productivity and technological progress factors.
ii. Agricultural Intensification
Agricultural Intensification refers to an increase in the productivity of resources (e.g., land, water)
in order to produce more output in a given area (Tiffen et al., 1994). In this respect, attention is
given to the way the inputs are used, how this use affects the environment and if a sustainable
agricultural intensification is a feasible target.
a. Inputs Use
Agricultural intensification constitutes one of the most important global changes of the twentieth
century (Matson et al., 1997). Hazell and Wood (2008) report a significant rise of the intensity of
agricultural production during the second half of last century.
9
Irrigated area, fertilizers, pesticides
Green Revolution
Increased production intensity
Machinery
Increase of Labor-Capital Inputs
Environmental degradation
Agricultural Output
Figure 3. Agricultural Intensification and Inputs Use
Source: Author, 2008
It is defined as “increased average input of labor or capital on a smallholding, either cultivated
land alone, or on cultivated and grazing land, for the purpose of increasing the value of output per
hectare” (Tiffen et al., 1994). Figure 3 depicts the trajectory of inputs use under agricultural
intensification and its impacts. The agricultural machinery and the irrigated area have grown by
approximately twofold during the last decades (Pretty, 2007). Input use had a tremendous
increase with many advantages and disadvantages. The “Green Revolution” of 1960s brought the
high yielding seeds that boosted agricultural production. The use of fertilizers has increased
substantially during the second half of the last century, but their use declined in recent years
(Stoate et al., 2001). Pesticide use also increased during the same period but their great
importance in reducing crop damage has led only to a slight decline in the recent years. Sexton et
al. 2007 state that despite the existence of alternatives to chemical pesticides (e.g., GM crops,
biological control), the pesticide industry sales total $32 billion with the annual pesticide
application levels estimated at 5 billion pounds.
10
b. Environmental Pressure
Increased erosion
Soil problems
Lower fertility
Biodiversity loss
Groundwater
Environmental Impacts
Water pollution
Water aquifers
Eutrophication
Pesticides
Air pollution
Increased machinery use
Figure 4. Environmental impacts of agricultural intensification
Source: Author, 2008
Agricultural intensification has significant impacts on the environment (Figure 4). Among the
negative consequences are increased erosion, reduced biodiversity, lower soil fertility,
eutrophication and chemical residuals in food. Nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from the use of
fertilizers can contaminate freshwater aquifers and other marine ecosystems. Groundwater can
also be contaminated from nitrates and pesticides leaching while air pollution can result from the
use of pesticides. Modern arable management with increased mechanization and farm size,
simplification of crop rotations and loss of non-crop features has led to soil deterioration and
decreased biodiversity (Stoate et al., 2001).
11
c. Agricultural Sustainability
Resilience
Theoretical Basis
Persistence
Environmental Stewardship
Agricultural Sustainability
Characteristic Goals
Farmers’ Prosperity
Farm Profitability
Environmental Friendly
Practices
Effective
Easily Accessible
Figure 5. Agricultural Sustainability
Source: Author, 2008
Agricultural sustainability implies a way of thinking as well as of using agricultural practices.
Figure 5 presents the theoretical basis of this concept, its characteristic goals and practices.
Agricultural sustainability includes the concepts of resilience and persistence. Resilience is the
capacity of systems to endure stress while persistence refers to systems’ capacity to continue over
long periods. Among the goals of sustainable agriculture are environmental stewardship,
prosperity of farming communities and farm profitability. The core of sustainable agriculture is
the development of agricultural technologies and practices that will be easily accessible and
effective for farmers and will not have adverse impacts on the environment. Emphasis is given to
the long-term ability of farmers to obtain inputs and manage resources like labor and also to the
long-term effects of practices on the environment. Therefore sustainable agricultural systems are
those that focus on the optimal use of environmental resources and services without damaging
these assets (Altieri 1995; Tilman et al 2002; Kesavan and Swaminathan 2008).
12
iii. Global Trade
Global Trade
Transfer of Goods and Services
Combat hunger
Variety of
products
Environmental
pressure
Delinking ProductionConsumption
“Clean”
Technologies
Figure 6. Aspects of global trade
Source: Author, 2008
Global trade plays an important role in global economic growth, serving as the means of
transferring goods and services that can stimulate all kinds of economic activities (Figure 6).
Furthermore, trade liberalization has the potential to combat hunger and provides the opportunity
to people to consume products that cannot be grown in their regions. On the other hand, trade
liberalization contributes to environmental pressure by trading non-renewable resources,
endangering species and leading to changes in land use and excessive use of chemical inputs in
order to satisfy the increasing demand for specific products. Dasgupta et al. (2001) report that
agricultural trade liberalization has led to increased pesticide use in Brazil, particularly in export
crops.
Trade liberalization and direct investment enables industries to transfer their production units to
countries with more lenient environmental regulations (Panayotou, 2003). Therefore, there has
been an uncoupling of production and consumption of resource intensive and polluting products.
Finally, global trade provides a unique chance to combat environmental pressure by technology
transfer through foreign direct investment (Dinda, 2004).
13
iv. Political Environment
Figure 7. Interactions of Political Environment
Source: Author, 2008
Political environment plays an important role not only in the economic growth of a country or a
union of countries but also in the effort to protect the environment (Figure 7). Panayotou (2003)
states that the relationship between income and the environment varies across political systems
with environmental quality tending to be lower in non-democratic regimes. Democratization can
have beneficial effects on environmental quality and economic growth through the introduction
of more secure property rights and accounting of benefits for public goods.
Many countries are participating in global environmental agreements such as the Kyoto protocol
and/or unions with common environmental policies (e.g. European Union). These agreements are
important in promoting the effort to reduce environmental externalities as most of the
environmental problems are not restricted within the borders of a country but concern many
nations simultaneously and require joint abatement efforts. Sometimes, participation in the prementioned agreements is not unanimous as some countries consider that some of the agreements
can pose a burden on their economic growth, as abatement policies can bring economic loses for
industries and other sectors.
B. Micro Perspective
Additional insight into the relationship between economic growth and the environment is gleaned
by focusing at the decision makers’ level of analysis. Agricultural entrepreneurs and consumers
14
have their own special contribution to the growth-environment relationship. Additionally,
institutions and regional policies play a major role on decision making and therefore affect both
economic growth and environmental quality.
i. Agricultural Firms
Productivity Growth
Increased Use of Agricultural Inputs
Soil Quality
Crop Losses
Product
Quality
Free Labor
Fuel Use
Figure 8. Productivity and input use
Source: Author, 2008
There is a large range of positive outcomes from the use of agrochemicals but adverse impacts to
human health and the environment are a related consequence. Agricultural productivity
experienced a significant increase as inputs use increased.
Some of the impacts of this increase are summarized in Figure 8. The increased use of fertilizers
and pesticides had improved not only the quality of soil but secured crops from insects and herbs.
Not only has production increased, but also farmers can obtain high quality products that can
have a positive impact on their revenues. Additionally, the use of herbicides has freed labor that
was used for weeding and now can be allocated to other agricultural practices. In general,
technological advances like new and high quality seeds, more efficient pesticides and machinery
in conjunction with a wide range of information on agricultural practices that farmers can receive
(e.g. extension services) have contributed in a significant rise of agricultural productivity.
Structural Changes
Scale
Crops
Capital
Education
Technologies
Figure 9. Structural Changes
Source: Author, 2008
15
During the second half of the last century agricultural firms faced great changes (Figure 9).
Increased farm size and mechanization were predominant features in a process of intensification
that had to satisfy the increased demand for agricultural outputs. A simplified arable system was
the tendency of the more progressive farmers in an effort to maximize their yields and to cultivate
those crops that they yielded higher revenues (Nassauer and Westmacott, 1987). For Europe, the
simplification of arable systems led to a decline in landscape diversity with consequences on
biodiversity and crop productivity (Meeus, 1993).
In the last decades there are a number of factors that have driven farmers to become more aware
of the environmental externalities of their agricultural practices (Figure 10). Agricultural
extension services enable farmers to obtain new information and knowledge in order to enhance
their agricultural activities and therefore to maximize their revenues while protecting the
environment. Furthermore, young farmers with better knowledge are entering the agricultural
sector and investing in new technologies and practices. In this direction, the increasing farm size
appears to be a positive factor as it provides the economies of scale for adopting new
technologies and machines.
Extension Services
Influx of young/innovative farmers
Drivers of farmers’ Environmental
Awareness
Changes in consumers’ preferences
Political Environment
Figure 10. Drivers of farmers’ Environmental Awareness
Source: Author, 2008
The over-reliance of agricultural production on agrochemicals has brought several adverse effects
on the environment and human health. Changes in consumers’ behavior towards higher
environmental quality like chemical-free products have induced a tendency toward a structural
change in the agricultural sector. Agricultural producers responding to this demand and gaining
additional expertise (from the extension services and other training) on the externalities that their
practices can cause are trying to apply “cleaner” agricultural practices and in general more
sustainable production systems. Furthermore, policies aiming to mitigate the negative
externalities of agriculture oblige producers to follow “cleaner” agricultural practices.
16
ii. Households
Demand for envir.
quality: Low
Low Income
Households
“Survival”
Demand for Envir.
friendly products
High Income
Pressure for envir.
regulations
Donations to Envir.
Organisations
Figure 11. Households and Environmental Awareness
Source: Author, 2008
As people become richer and achieve higher living standards they care more about a cleaner
natural habitat (Dinda, 2004). Poor people have a little demand for environmental quality, simply
because their first priority is how they will obtain the essential goods in order to survive (Figure
11). Roca (2003) states that after a particular level of income, the willingness to pay for
environmental quality rises by a greater proportion than income. Higher income consumers tend
to spend more money on environmental friendly products, they donate money to environmental
organizations and, in general, they create pressure for environmental regulations.
Consumers’ preferences have led to a market-oriented production, as farmers are planning their
production according to the market needs and demand. Therefore, households’ and consumers’
preferences play a significant indirect role in transformations in rural areas such as intensification
and changes in labor economy. Many of these transformations, like the increased use of chemical
inputs and the simplification of the agricultural landscapes are leading to serious environmental
problems such as biodiversity loss and water pollution.
17
iii. Institutions
Institutional Services
Technological
advances
Better understanding of
environmental problems
Practical
solutions
Extension
services
Figure 12. Services provided by institutions
Source: Author, 2008
Institutions play an important role in the process of economic growth (Rodrik, et al., 2004). Their
intervention, regulations, proposals and training services can prove to be beneficial in the race to
achieving a sustainable economic growth. Some of the most important services that are provided
by institutions are depicted in Figure 12. Institutions have promoted the technological advances
that alleviated various problems such as the Green revolution that played a significant role in
reducing the rate of world malnourished people. The higher demand for environmental quality
can be the driver for the establishment of environmental institutions that will clarify the
respective problems and will provide practical solutions (Panayotou, 2003).
High quality institutions can contribute to a more sustainable economic growth and reduce the
threat to the environment. For instance, Panayotou (1997) has shown that improvements in the
quality of institutions, such as respect and enforcement of contracts, the extent of government
corruption and efficiency of bureaucracy, have triggered a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
For the agricultural sector, institutions can shape and influence farmers’ practices. Extension
services constitute the link between institutions and farmers. Agricultural institutions offer
training sessions that inform producers on how to use the different inputs and agricultural
machinery, the existence of new technologies and the protection of the environment.
iv. Political Environment
The political environment plays a leading role in the way that different societies deal with the
environment. Furthermore, the economic performance of a society is significantly affected by the
political system and institutions (North, 1991).
Agricultural policies and regulations can influence input choice and use at the farm level. For
instance, the European Union has banned some types of pesticides and has issued rules for the
sustainable use of other types of pesticides. Moreover, policy interventions like subsidies can
have significant impacts at a regional level. Many times farmers abandon traditional crops that fit
18
more to certain landscapes and climatic conditions simply because a subsidy encourages
production of another crop that is promising to increase their profits. This crop switching can
have devastating effects on the ecosystem as some new crops can prove to be resource intensive.
On the other hand, policy initiatives like extension services enable farmers to enlarge their
knowledge on issues like good agricultural practices and the environment.
C. Policy Implications, Gaps and Overlaps
Examining the relationship between economic growth and the environment from a macro and
micro point of view has led us to a number of useful policy recommendations, gaps and overlaps:
-
The early evidence of a relationship between economic performance and environmental
pollution suggesting an inverted U-shaped relationship is now being questioned on
methodological and other grounds.
-
Agricultural sustainability has emerged as a broader concept that includes the notions of
resilience (the capacity of systems to endure stress) and persistence (the system’s
capacity to continue over long periods).
-
Environmental stewardship is now a mainstream attribute of agricultural sustainability,
which admits a stronger set of pressure external to the farm decision making
environment.
-
Trade liberalization and direct investment is being recognized as uncoupling of
production and consumption of resource intensive and polluting products, and global
trade provides an opportunity to technology transfer of cleaner technologies.
-
Democratization can have beneficial effects on environmental quality and economic
growth through the introduction of secure property rights and accounting of benefits of
public goods.
-
The over-reliance of agricultural production on agrochemicals has brought several
adverse effects on the environment and human health. Changes in consumers’ behavior
towards higher environmental quality like chemical-free products have induced a
tendency for a structural change in the agricultural sector.
-
Policies aiming to mitigate the negative externalities
producers to follow “cleaner” agricultural practices.
-
Higher income consumers tend to spend more money on environmental friendly products,
they donate money to environmental organizations and, in general, they create pressure
for environmental regulations.
-
In addition to the use attributes of a product, consumers’ preferences are placing a value
on how products are made and the environmental impact of product manufacturing.
of
agriculture
oblige
19
Households’ and consumers’ preferences play a significant indirect role in
transformations in rural areas such as intensification and changes in labor economy.
-
For the agricultural sector, institutions can shape and influence farmers’ practices.
Extension services constitute the link between institutions and farmers.
III. Pesticides and Biodiversity
Pesticides are used widely in agricultural production. Productivity gains and cost minimization
are some of the advantages of pesticide use but there are several disadvantages. Overuse or use at
the crop edges that constitute forage and nesting habitats for farmland fauna can reduce
biodiversity. Non-target plant species that benefit farmland fauna can also lead to extinct due to
competition for nutrients with target species. Precise use of pesticides can address the prementioned problems.
A. Pesticide Use
Plant protection products constitute one of the most important agricultural inputs. Being a
damage- and risk-reducing input, these products are widely used and their demand is inelastic.
Their stochastic nature (productivity and climatic conditions, pest arrival) is related to uncertainty
on the timing and the way of applying them. Additionally, pesticide application is related to
various externalities that call for an immediate orthological use of these chemical substances.
Pesticide risk valuation studies in conjunction with Integrated Pest management (IPM) strategies
are providing the means of alleviating the above mentioned externalities.
i.
Productivity and Pesticide Use
Pesticides are active substances that enable farmers to control different pests or weeds,
constituting one of the most important inputs in agricultural production (Commission of the
European Communities, 2006). There is a large range of positive outcomes from the use of
different pesticides related to agricultural productivity (Figure 13).
20
Combat hunger (developing
world)
Secure crop yields
Improve health-nutrition
(developing world)
Higher quality products
Impacts of pesticide use on
agricultural productivity
Improve crop yields
Higher farm revenues
Reduce drudgery of weeding
Other
Reduce fuel use for weeding
Faster and more efficient
control of invasive species
Figure 13. Impacts of pesticide use on agricultural productivity
Source: Author, 2008
The potential benefits are particularly important in developing countries where crop losses
contribute to hunger and malnutrition (Anon, 2004). Therefore pesticides can help in securing
crop yields and thus they can combat hunger in these countries and improve the populations’
health and nutrition. Additionally, improving crop yields and quality of the obtained products
results in increased farm and agribusiness revenues. As weeds are the major constraint reducing
yields in many crops, herbicides are the most widely used type of pesticides. Anon (2003),
reports a US $ 13.3 billion loss in farm income in the United States in 2003 if herbicides were not
used. Cooper and Dobson (2007) are referring to a number of benefits due to pesticide use.
Among them are the improved shelf life of the produce, reduced drudgery of weeding that frees
labor for other tasks, reduced fuel use for weeding, invasive species control, increased livestock
yields and quality and garden plants protection. However, the benefits of pesticide use should
always be evaluated in comparison with the benefits and costs of other pest control methods
(Edwards-Jones, 2008). Pesticide use may have clear advantages in some occasions like ease of
use and speed of control. But the use of other pest control methods such as biocontrol agents or
mechanical means may be more preferable in specific cases and farmers and society may select
the most appropriate by considering its benefits and costs.
21
ii.
Pesticide Externalities
Irritations (skin, eyes, etc.)
Poisonings
Health effects
Deaths
Pest-disease proliferation
Pesticide Externalities
Resistance
Environmental
Effects
Chemical residuals in food
Fishery losses
Biodiversity loss
Loss of beneficial
predators
Bee poisonings/reduced
pollination
Figure 14. Pesticide Externalities
Source: Author, 2008
Starting with the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962 which highlighted the risks
of pesticide use, continuous use of chemical inputs such as pesticides produces significant
negative externalities that have been broadly documented in the scientific literature (Pimentel et.
al., 1992; Pimentel and Greiner, 1997). Figure 14 distinguishes pesticide externalities into two
categories; health and environmental externalities Pesticides are not used only in agriculture, but
they are applied for landscaping, on sporting fields, road and railway side weed control, public
building maintenance and other activities. These substances can be dangerous for human health
when the degree of exposure exceeds the safety levels. This exposure can be direct, such as the
exposure of farm workers applying pesticides to various crops and indirect by consumers
consuming agricultural products containing chemical traces or even bystanders near application
areas. Exposure to pesticides is responsible for various short- and long-run ailments and even
deaths (Wilson & Tisdell 2001). This fact is supported from the data of Food and Agriculture
Organization (2008) that show that tens of thousands of farmers each year are affected by
exposure of pesticides. The largest number of poisonings and deaths is recorded in developing
countries as most of the times the farmers do not use the appropriate protective equipment. In
developed countries farmers use pesticides from a close environment such as tractors and
aircrafts. While in developing countries, many of the farmers are small scale operators lacking
protective equipment and are coming in direct contact with pesticides as they use hand sprayers.
Additionally, the excessive and uncontrolled use of pesticides can pose serious and irreversible
environmental risks and costs. Fauna and flora have been adversely affected while the decline of
22
the number of beneficial pest predators has led to the proliferation of different pests and diseases
(Pimentel and Greiner, 1997). Certain pesticides applied to crops eventually end up in ground and
surface water. In surface water like streams and lakes, pesticides can contribute to fishery losses
in several ways (Pimentel et al., 1992). High chemical concentrations can kill fish directly or
indirectly by killing the insects that serve as fish food source. Moreover, the extensive use of
pesticides has often resulted in the development of pesticide resistant weeds and pests. This can
trigger an increased pesticide application in order to reduce the respective damage that results in
high economic costs that the respective farmers must shoulder. Pimentel et al. (1992) mention
many adverse consequences from the overuse of pesticides such as animal poisoning,
contaminated products, destruction of beneficial natural predators and parasites, bee poisoning
and reduced pollination, crop and biodiversity losses.
iii.
Pesticide Risk Valuation
There are many difficulties in calculating the economic value of reducing pesticide risk. Over the
last two decades, many attempts have been made in order to value pesticide risks. The metaanalysis of Florax et al. (2005) and Travisi et al. (2006) provide a good overview of the literature
on pesticide risk valuation. These analyses have shown that the literature is very diverse as it
provides willingness to pay (WTP) estimates not only for various human health risks, but also for
environmental risks. However, the majority of studies estimate WTP for the negative externalities
on human health. Furthermore, there is a great variation in the WTP estimates as some studies
have found higher WTP for human safety than environmental quality (Foster and Mourato, 2000),
while others have shown higher WTP for environmental quality than for food safety and human
health (Balcombe et al., 2007). This mixed evidence is attributed to the use of different valuation
techniques and to differences among the available biomedical and ecotoxicological data. Foster
and Mourato (2000) provide a conjoint analysis of pesticide risks by estimating the marginal
value of risk reduction for human health and bird biodiversity. Additionally, Schou et al. (2006)
and Travisi and Nijkamp (2008) used a choice experiment approach to estimate the economic
value of reduced risks from pesticide use. The latter approach was also used by Chalak et al.
(2008) that found high WTP for reduced pesticide use for both environmental quality and
consumer health. Moreover, this study indicates the presence of heterogeneity in people’s
preferences for pesticide reduction in relation to environmental quality and food safety.
iv.
Uncertainty in Agriculture
As pest arrival is an uncertain event and pesticide productivity varies across time and space, there
is an uncertainty about farmers’ profits (Figure 15). This uncertainty can lead to overuse of
pesticides relative to the private or social optimum.
In an effort to avoid crop loses, risk averse farmers apply pesticides at an early stage when the
pest population may not be at its pick. This action can induce extra costs as additional pesticide
doses are applied. On the other hand, waiting and monitoring the pest population and applying
when full information are available may cost extra money from the crop loses of the monitoring
stages. Norgaard (1976) states that the major motivation for pesticide application is the provision
of some “insurance” against damage. Therefore, uncertainty in the pest-pesticide system leads to
a higher and more frequent use of pesticides.
23
Pest Arrival
Climatic Conditions
Resistance
Pesticide Productivity
Durability
Uncertainty
Application timing
Farmers’ Profits
Application precision
Extent of Workers’
Exposure
Figure 15. Uncertainty and pesticide use.
Source: Author, 2008
Moreover, there is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of pesticides. Many times, farmers lack
full knowledge of the relation between pesticides and pest mortality (Feder, 1979). The
effectiveness of pesticides can be influenced by fluctuations of temperature, wind and humidity
conditions. Therefore, the uncertainty is high not only due to the fact that the pest population can
vary with changes in climatic conditions but also these changes can alter the effect of pesticides
as every chemical product has different durability. Feder (1979) shows that an increase of the
degree of uncertainty due to pest damage will cause an increase in the volume of pesticide use.
Horowitz and Lichtenberg (1994) consider three scenarios of uncertainty: a) uncertainty about
crop growth conditions only; b) uncertainty about pest damage only; and c) uncertainty about
both growth conditions and pest damage. Their findings support the conventional view that when
there is uncertainty due to pest damage, pesticides are likely to be risk reducing inputs. However,
the literature reports mixed findings on the role of risk aversion. When both pest populations are
high and growth conditions are favorable, pesticides will be risk increasing as they increase the
variability of harvests (increase output under good growth conditions). Gotsch and Regev’s (1996)
study for Switzerland shows that fungicides for wheat producers have a risk-increasing effect on
farm revenues. Horowitz and Lichtenberg (1993) have shown that pesticides may be risk
increasing inputs even if a federal government provides crop insurances that act as a substitute for
additional pesticide applications.
Saha et al. (1997) report the importance of considering the stochastic nature of both the damage
control and the production function, in order to avoid overestimation of the marginal productivity
of damage control inputs. Furthermore, pesticide productivity is affected by the level of the
developed resistance. The more resistant is the pest population the higher is the use of the damage
control agents (pesticides) until resistance is sufficiently pervasive and alternative damage control
measures are more cost effective.
24
v.
Pesticide Sales in European Countries
Table 1. Total Sales of Pesticides in European Countries (t of active ingredient).
Countries
EU (15
countries)
Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Latvia
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Slovenia
Finland
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Norway
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
301217
10403
3669
32080
118
1782
9870
33236
97889
48050
:
348958
9276
3675
30721
197
2356
9034
34023
109792
84796
:
355527
9861
3619
33644
191
2534
11479
35070
107753
84526
:
352904
9521
2788
30231
184
2102
10153
33614
120501
82048
:
332807
9953
2747
30331
306
2133
11131
34597
94694
79831
284
327642
8845
2890
27885
329
2486
11111
35700
99635
76346
369
:
9204
2722
29531
329
2796
:
:
82448
94711
339
:
8822
:
30164
322
2913
:
:
74524
86705
418
:
9186
:
28753
357
3104
:
:
76099
84292
597
:
9776
:
29512
393
2776
:
:
78265
85073
733
:
:
:
:
467
2874
:
:
71612
81450
2239
:
:
:
:
459
:
:
:
77255
:
1052
357
6865
:
9847
3566
9420
12456
:
912
1529
332
5314
:
10399
3690
9501
12750
:
999
1608
430
6230
:
10721
3341
8699
14365
:
1164
1629
421
5795
:
10196
3419
8469
15396
:
1141
1698
:
5473
184
9655
3563
8848
15469
1469
1146
1652
:
6431
217
7987
3133
8855
15491
1399
1424
1738
:
8232
222
8073
3080
10358
17435
1164
1620
1711
:
:
243
7868
3386
7184
17046
1361
1667
2049
:
:
:
9071
3302
8726
16938
1560
1489
942
:
:
:
9309
3404
16039
16346
1348
1431
1527
:
:
:
9410
:
17102
15703
:
1645
1707
:
:
:
10740
:
15303
16689
:
:
:
24433
706
24489
754
25382
954
25299
796
23601
378
23526
518
23526
818
22564
658
23463
824
23601
511
21151
690
:
:
:=Not available
Source: Eurostat (2008)
25
The main users of pesticides at a European level are Italy, France, Spain, Germany and the
United Kingdom (Table 1). On the other hand the lower positions are shared between the
Scandinavian countries that appear to have the lowest amount of pesticide purchases. In most
of the countries, pesticide sales during the period 1996-2007 appear to experience slight
fluctuations but in general it can be concluded that either they increased slightly or remained
at the same level. Among the exceptions are Italy, Poland, Portugal, and Greece where
pesticide sales increased, and Denmark, France and Germany that have achieved considerable
reductions. The increased pesticide sales in the above mentioned countries can be attributed to
the fact that the economic growth that they are experiencing is translated into agricultural
intensification in the rural areas with increased use of production inputs like pesticides.
Different climatic conditions around Europe are responsible for differences in the types of
pesticides used. Northern European countries that have humid climatic conditions use more
herbicides and fungicides (Appendix, Table 1, 2) while Mediterranean countries use mainly
insecticides (Appendix, Table 3) as the warm climate is responsible for a plethora of insects.
The sales of other pesticides (Appendix, Table 4) like growth regulators and wood
preservatives have a small share in comparison to insecticides and herbicides.
vi.
Use of PPPs in EU & Trends over Time
Upon reviewing the trajectory of pesticide use in European Union (EU), Eurostat (2008)
trends are presented separately for EU-15 countries and EU-25 countries as data for the latter
were obtained after 2000. Total pesticide use increased steadily during 1990’s while after a
period of stabilization at the end of 1990’s, started to decrease (Figure 16).
Total pesticide consumption in EU
Tonnes of active ingredient
300000
250000
200000
EU-15
150000
EU-25
100000
50000
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Figure 16. Total pesticide consumption: EU15, EU25, 1992-2003.
Source: Eurostat (2008)
Figure 17 illustrates the use of different plant protection products (PPPs) at the EU-15 level.
The most widely used type of pesticides is fungicides followed by herbicides, other PPPs
(growth regulators, wood preservatives, rodenticides), and insecticides. The use of fungicides
increased in the mid 1990’s but after this period there is a continuous decrease. This decrease
can be attributed in a shift to substances active at low dosages, dryer climatic conditions at the
Northern EU countries during the last years, and increasing information and knowledge at the
26
farm level (extension services, IPM) that leads to the application of more environmental
friendly agricultural practices.
Use of different PPPs at an EU-15 level
180000
Tonnes of active ingredient
160000
140000
120000
Insecticides
100000
Herbicides
80000
Fungicides
Other PPPs
60000
40000
20000
0
1992 1993
1994 1995 1996
1997 1998
1999 2000 2001
2002 2003
Figure 17. Use of PPPs at an EU-15 level (1992-2003)
Source: Eurostat (2008)
Herbicides use has followed an increasing trajectory with a decrease after 2002 while the use
of other PPPs increased in mid-1990’s but after this period remained at the same level. Finally,
insecticides use seems to follow a steady path throughout 1992-2003. The EU enlargement
and the data availability after 2000 have contributed to an increase in the use of all PPPs.
However, after 2000 there is a stabilizing or a decreasing trend in the use of all types of
pesticides.
vii.
Pesticide Demand Elasticity
The calculation of pesticide demand elasticities is important in order to design an EU wide
regulatory framework for levies on pesticides. If pesticide demand is inelastic the tax or levy
introduced will not affect pesticide use significantly but it will create revenues that can be
reimbursed to the agricultural sector. Table 2 presents a review of the pesticide demand
elasticity estimates of European Countries and United States. A general conclusion based on
this table is that the price elasticity of demand for pesticides is quite low (in most of the cases),
indicating that pesticide use is indifferent to pesticide price increases. Inelastic demand can
mean that there is a lack of knowledge among farmers on alternative production practices or
there is a strong intention towards risk-aversion or even due to behavioral factors like
professional pride derived from weed-free fields.
Another important point is that the more specific the pesticide (fungicides, insecticides) is, the
higher the elasticity of demand is. The reason behind this is that there are not so many
substitutes to these specific products, with the result the producers to face difficulties in
adjusting their agricultural practices.
27
Table 2. Pesticide Demand Elasticity Estimates
Study
Country/Region
Elasticity
Aaltink (1992)
Netherlands
-0.13 to -0.39
Antle (1984)
USA
-0.19
Bauer et al. (1995)
German regions, wheat
-0.02
Brown & Christensen (1981)
USA
-0.18
Carpentier (1994)
France, arable farms
-0.3
DHV & LUW (1991)
Netherlands
-0.2 to -0.3
Dubgaard (1987)
Denmark
-0.3 (threshold approach)
Dubgaard (1991)
Denmark
-0.7 (herbicides)
Dubgaard (1991)
Denmark
-0.8 (fungicides + insecticides)
Ecotec (1997)
UK
-0.5 to -0.7 (herbicides)
Elhorst (1990)
Netherlands
-0.3
Falconer (1997)
UK (East Anglia
arable production)
-0.1 to -0.3
Gren (1994)
Sweden
Johnsson (1991)
Sweden
-0.4 (fungicides)
-0.5 (insecticides)
-0.9 (fungicides)
-0.3 t0 -0.4 (pesticides)
Komen et al. (1995)
Netherlands
-0.14 to -0.25
Lichtenberg et al. (1988)
USA
-0.33 to -0.66
McIntosh &
Williams (1992)
Georgia (USA)
-0.11
Oskam et al. (1992)
Netherlands
-0.1 to -0.5 (pesticides)
Oskam et al. (1997)
EU
-0.2 to -0.5 (pesticides)
Oude Lansink (1994)
Netherlands, arable farms
-0.12
Oude Lansink &
Peerlings (1995)
Netherlands
-0.48 (pesticides)
Papanagioutou (1995)
Greece
-0.28
Petterson et al. (1989)
Sweden
-0.2
Rude (1992)
Sweden
-0.22 to -0.32
Russell et al. (1995)
UK (Northwest)
-1.1 (pesticides in cereals)
SEPA (1997)
Sweden
-0.2 to -0.4
Schulte (1983)
Three German regions
-0.23 to -0.65
Villezca-Becerra &
Shumway (1992)
Texas & Florida (USA)
-0.16 to -0.21
Source: Hoevenagel & van Noort (1999); Falconer & Hodge (2000); Fernandez-Cornejo et al. (1998)
28
viii.
Damage Control Specification
The concept of damage abatement input was first introduced by Hall and Norgaard (1973) and
Talpaz and Borosh (1974). Lichtenberg and Zilberman (1986) were the first to specify
production functions that are consistent with the concept that pesticides are damage abatement
input that have an indirect effect on output rather than a direct yield-increasing effect. The use
of damage control inputs can have both positive and negative effects on output like the
development of pest resistance that can lead to decreased output even if there is increasing use
of pesticides. Damage control inputs reduce damage from natural causes and, except of
pesticides, this class of production inputs include windbreaks, buffer zones and antibiotics.
The damage control framework proposed by Lichtenberg and Zilberman (LZ) (1986) has
important economic value. This framework enabled economists and policy makers to observe
that the (then standard) Cobb-Douglas formulations were resulting in an upward bias in the
optimal pesticide use estimations (underuse of pesticides) while recent evidence suggests an
overuse. Additionally, the damage control specification accounts for changes in pesticide
productivity and enables the prediction of producers’ behavior. Pest resistance initially
triggers farmers to apply more pesticides until alternative damage control measures become
more cost effective. The LZ damage control specification was applied by Babcock et al.
(1992), Carrasco-Tauber and Moffit (1992), Chambers and Lichtenberg (1994) and Oude
Lansink and Carpentier (2001). The results are mixed with some studies indicating overuse of
pesticides and other underuse.
Although in general the LZ specification has been successfully applied and constitutes a
considerable innovation, some authors have expressed various critiques. Oude Lansink and
Carpentier (2001) have shown that in a quadratic production function the lack of
differentiation between damage abatement inputs and productive inputs does not lead to
overestimation of the marginal product as Lichtenberg and Zilberman (1986) argued.
Additionally, they separate inputs into those that increase productivity and those that reduce
damage and assume that there is an interaction between damage abatement and other
production inputs, where the LZ specification precludes these interactions. Oude Lansink and
Silva (2004) challenge the assumption of a nondecreasing damage control function and
assumptions imposed on parameters in the damage control model.
ix.
IPM
IPM aims at farming with a relatively low input of plant protection products and a very high
efficiency of their use. Based on ecological, sociological and economic factors, it emphasizes
the development of alternative pest control practices (genetic, biological, mechanical, and
cultural). Allen and Bath (1980) define IPM is “extremely pluralistic” as different disciplines
see pesticides as the dominating element of IPM, while other focus on natural enemies, and
mechanical and cultural practices. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
defines IPM as “an effective and environmentally sensitive approach to pest management that
relies on a combination of common-sense practices”. Information on the life cycle of different
pests and their interaction with the environment has a central role in an IPM program. This
information in conjunction with existing pest control practices are used in order to address the
problem, of crop losses due to different pests, in an environmentally friendly and
economically viable way.
29
IPM constitutes a mixture of pest control methods and decisions at the farm level. Based on
EPA’s four steps, the first is the setting of action thresholds (pest levels) at which pests can
pose an economic threat and therefore action needs to be taken. Then a farmer has to monitor
and identify the pests of his/her field. This step is essential as it enables farmers to recognize
innocuous and beneficial species, to judge if there is a real need to use pesticides, and if it
seems necessary to use some type of pesticide, to use the correct one. In the third step,
methods/practices should be undertaken in order to prevent pests from becoming a threat.
Among these methods are cultural methods like crop rotation, and plantation of pest-resistant
varieties. The final step prescribes rigorous action should be taken. Initially, less risky control
methods (e.g. mechanical control) are chosen, but when farm operators identify that they are
not effective enough, then additional control methods can be employed (e.g. targeted spraying
of pesticides).
B. Biodiversity
Biodiversity is a concept that comprises the totality of species in an area. Its conservation has
received great importance in recent years, as its loss can be irreversible and reduce the
ecosystem value as well as farm productivity. European agri-environmental schemes
constitute an initiative towards biodiversity conservation.
i.
Biodiversity Definitions
Noss (1990) and Brock and Xepapadeas (2003) state that it is difficult to find a simple,
comprehensive and fully operational definition of biodiversity. Diversity measures are
influenced by the richness and evenness. Richness is the number of species at an ecosystem
while evenness expresses the distribution of species.
Many researchers and organizations tried to formulate biodiversity definitions. McNeely et al.
(1990) state that biodiversity expresses the degree of nature’s variety, including species, genes
and ecosystems. The World Resources Institute (WRI), the World Conservation Union
(IUCN), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (1992), define biodiversity
as “the totality of genes, species and ecosystems in a region”. The United Nations Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro (1992) (Convention on Biological Diversity), defined biodiversity
as “the variability among living organisms for all sources, including, 'inter alia', terrestrial,
marine, and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which they are part:
this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems”. Gaston and Spicer
(2004) provide a more straightforward definition by stating that biodiversity is “the variation
of life at all levels of biological organization”.
ii.
Valuing Biodiversity
The economic valuation of biodiversity is among the most pressing and challenging issues
confronting today’s economists. There are many reasons behind valuing biodiversity.
Biodiversity values can be compared with economic values of alternative options, a corner
stone of any cost-benefit analysis. Additionally, valuing biodiversity can provide useful
insights in environmental assessments, accounting and consumer behavior. A challenge in
30
modeling biodiversity is to identify the states of nature that summarize its value. Economists
deal with similar issues in the modeling of products in terms of their attributes.
Duelli (1997) valued biodiversity by developing a conceptual ‘mosaic’ model in which
biodiversity evaluation is based on structural landscape parameters like landscape
heterogeneity, habitat diversity and on meta-community dynamics. Nijkamp et al. (2008)
summarize the different methods of economic valuation of biodiversity (Figure 18).The
valuation of biodiversity can be done in different ways. Monetary indicators of biodiversity
can be extracted from market prices, for instance, by valuing the financial revenues from
tourism to natural parks. Revealed Preference (RP) Techniques are other methods that can be
applied to valuing biodiversity. Among them are the travel cost method, the hedonic pricing
method and the averting behavior (Bockstael et al., 1991; Palmquist, 1991; Cropper and
Freeman, 1991). The emphases of these techniques lies in valuing biological resources in an
indirect way by investigating peoples’ preferences in purchasing goods that are related in
some way to environmental goods. In other words, they lack of direct questions like how
much a consumer may be willing to pay to preserve a natural resource or a plant or animal
species.
Assessment of biodiversity benefit
Use values
Market
prices
Random
utility
model
Non-use values
Travel
cost
Hedonic
pricing
Averting
behavior
Contingent
valuation
Choice
modeling
Benefit transfer
Figure 18. Methodologies for economic valuation of biodiversity.
Source: Nijkamp et al. (2008)
On the other hand, there are the Stated Preferences (SP) Techniques that are based on price
observations of the good that is going to be valued. Data are collected by means of
questionnaires while the best known method of this category is the Contingent Valuation
Method (CVM). CVM enables researchers to avoid systematic bias and therefore
underestimation of the different values as it uses also the non-use values. CVM allows for ex
ante environmental valuation, offering greater scope and flexibility in comparison to RP
techniques.
According to Nijkamp et al. (2008), the most popular techniques for valuing biodiversity are
the SP techniques and especially the CVM. Among the reasons for this classification are their
easy format, the fact that they are more informative and the ease of isolation of the good in
interest from other closely related goods.
31
iii.
Biodiversity & Irreversibility
Agrochemicals, overexploitation of natural resources, intensification of agricultural
landscapes and trade of endangered species can have irreversible effects on biodiversity.
Experimental studies have underlined the difficulty in enhancing the botanical diversity of
fields especially after a period of intensive use that has depleted the local seed bank (Berendse
et al., 1992; Bekker et al., 1997). Results from the evaluation of European Union agrienvironmental schemes are underlying the difficulty in enhancing farmland biodiversity
(Kleijn & Sutherland, 2003).
Dietz and Adger (2003) estimate their parabolic Kuznets curve showing that biodiversity loss
is expected to decrease and then rise with increasing income (Figure 19). However, the rising
limb cannot be of the same magnitude as the falling limb as the species are not replenished at
the same level. Other biodiversity indicators such as the presence of arthropods and birds
have shown positive patterns in relation with changes in agro-environmental schemes (Kruess
& Tscharntke 2002). Thus, there is a great uncertainty concerning the optimal time of
intervention and policy makers have to weigh and monitor carefully all the costs that are
created.
Biodiversity loss
Falling limb
Rising limb
Hyperbola
Per capita income
Figure 19. Possible forms of the income – environmental degradation relationship.
Source: Dietz and Adger, 2002.
iv.
Farmland Biodiversity
Farmland biodiversity is mainly composed from different plant species, insects, breeding
birds, rodents and small mammals. The largest number of farmland flora and fauna is mainly
found at the field boundaries (Kleijn, 1997; Wossink et al., 1999) as they provide forage,
shelter, and reproduction sites. Field boundaries support many flowering plants and insects,
32
such as bees and butterflies, which are not only important for bird species but can also
contribute to plant pollination.
The intensive agriculture of the last decades has caused considerable environmental problems
including the decline of farmland species. Species poisoning, accumulation of chemical
substances in their bodies and transition to other organisms though the food chain are some of
the common impacts of uncontrolled agrochemical use. Some chemicals can be directly toxic
while some others can be responsible for reducing breeding success to levels that that could
not maintain populations. Pimental et al. (1992) have shown that wild birds are subject to
pesticide contamination and poisoning while Heard et al. (2003) report a 3% annual decrease
of arable weeds since 1940. Donald et al. (2000) propose that farmland birds constitute a good
indicator of overall farmland biodiversity and their populations (in Europe) have declined
during the last decades. European Union data confirm this trend by indicating an overall
decline of a selected group of breeding bird species dependent on agricultural land for nesting
or feeding (Figure 20).
Farmland Bird Index (Index 1990=100)
88
86
84
82
80
78
EU-25
76
74
72
70
68
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Figure 20. Farmland bird index* (EU-25)
Source: Eurostat (2008)
* Indices are calculated for each species independently and are weighted equally when combined in the aggregate index using
a geometric mean. Aggregated EU indices are calculated using population-weighted factors for each country and species.
Pest control methods intend to provide an ideal habitat for crop plants by promoting better
water and nutrient absorption and access to light, but on the other hand the non-crop plants
share on the pre-mentioned resources declines (Firbank, 2005). These non-crop plants
constitute a refuge and a source of food for many farmland birds and the winter food supply
that weed seed banks can provide is important for their survival (Siriwardena et al. 2000).
Moreover, Boatman et al. (2004) and Hawes et al. (2003) have shown that insecticide
application during the breeding season of some farmland birds can be responsible for the
decline of their populations as the supply of invertebrates for feeding chicks is reduced.
Additionally, plant species variety has declined since the increased use of fertilizers favors the
growth of nutrient demanding plants that are highly competitive and impede the growth of
other species. Finally, the homogeneity of agricultural landscapes has dramatically increased
33
and poses a serious threat to biodiversity (Benton et al., 2003). The reasons behind this is that
many farmland species require different food resources that a homogeneous habitat cannot
provide and also the decrease of mixed farming systems deprived small mammals and birds
from feeding and nesting sites.
Among the proposals for enhancing farmland biodiversity are crop rotation and mixed
farming systems that can provide important food reserves for birds and mammals and the
maintenance of crop edges (physical boundaries, trees, bushes and lack of spraying) that
provide forage, shelter, reproduction and over-wintering sites for the farmland fauna.
v.
European agri-environmental schemes for conserving and promoting
biodiversity
Agri-environmental schemes were introduced in European agriculture under the 2078/92
regulation. Their introduction was a response to the increasing concerns for the environmental
impacts of agricultural intensification. Among their main objectives are biodiversity
protections, reduction of nutrient and pesticide emissions, restoring landscapes and preventing
rural depopulation. Farmers receive payments in order to apply environmental friendly
agricultural practices. Among the measures of agri-environmental schemes that aim at
conserving and enhancing biodiversity are conservation of headlands for arable weeds,
conservation of wet meadows, grassland and grazing extensification, botanical management
agreements, meadow bird agreements, conservation of field margin stripes and agreements
concerning wetlands and coastal habitats. Kleijn and Sutherland (2003) reviewed the literature
dealing with the effectiveness of the pre-mentioned schemes but they were unable to express
how effective these schemes are in protecting biodiversity as some studies indicated positive
effects of agri-environmental schemes in terms of increased species diversity while other
showed negative or no effects, or both some negative and positive effects.
C. Biodiversity & Agricultural Productivity
Modern agricultural practices are moving towards the simplification of ecosystems. Pesticides
are widely used in an effort to optimize the growing conditions of target species and/or to
reduce those of competing species. Tilman et al. (2001) note that pesticide use may increase
by 2- to 3-fold resulting in a further decrease of global biodiversity. The harm to biodiversity
arises from the direct toxic effects of pesticides and their potential to reduce the number of
competing plant species. The different weeds that are present around or inside the parcels are
providing a breeding environment and a seed bank for different species such as birds and
insects that can act as beneficial predators (Firbank, 2005). Therefore, increased
intensification and further loss of the diversity of natural habitats is considered to be among
the drivers of biodiversity loss. Biodiversity is closely related to agricultural productivity.
Table 3 summarizes the relationships between pesticide use, biodiversity and agricultural
productivity. While pesticide use may increase agricultural productivity in the short run it can
be negatively impacted due to the development of resistance in the long run. On the other
hand, biodiversity seems to have a positive effect on agricultural productivity.
Table 3. Pesticide Use, Biodiversity and Agricultural Productivity
Agricultural Productivity
Biodiversity
34
Pesticides
◦ Increase
Due to optimizing growing conditions
(Damage control agents)
◦ Decrease
Due to Resistance
◦ Field edges
◦ Beneficial predators
◦ Decreasing number of
weeds (Seed banks, breeding
environment)
Agricultural
productivity
◦ Coexistence
Biodiversity
◦ Increase farm productivity
◦ Reduce risk exposure
◦ Contributes to resilience
◦ Improve natural processes and soil quality
◦ Improve pest control
Source: Author, 2008
Many studies have focused on the benefits of biodiversity in agro-ecosystems’ productivity.
Di Falco and Chavas (2006) found that biodiversity can benefit farm productivity and reduce
environmental risk and yield variability under low pesticide use. Omer et. al (2006) find that
biodiversity enhancement can have positive impacts on agricultural productivity. Tilman et
al., (2005) state that higher yields are obtained from agro-ecosystems with higher diversity
than from lower ones. While increasing the number of species on a farm may reduce
productivity levels of the main crop in the short run due to resource competition, it can
provide services such as soil nutrient enhancement and pollination that can increase
agricultural yields in the long run (Jackson et al. 2007). Furthermore, the abundance of
functionally similar plant species that respond differently to climatic randomness stimulates
resilience that improves the ability of the system to absorb disturbances and enables plants to
thrive (Holling, 1973; Naeem et al., 1994). Finally, biodiversity can improve pest control by
impeding the evolution of pest populations (difficult to spread in a genetically non-uniform
crop system, increased presence of beneficial pest predators) and consequently reducing pest
damages (Priestley and Bayles, 1980; Heisey et al., 1997).
D. Policy Implications, Gaps and Overlaps
The above literature review on pesticide use and biodiversity has generated a number of
policy implications and highlighted some gaps and overlaps. These are as following:
-
The majority of WTP studies estimate WTP for reducing human
health
risks
(decreased presence of pesticide residues in food). There is a great variation in WTP
estimates as some studies report higher WTP estimates for human safety than
environmental quality while other have shown the opposite.
35
-
Pesticide sales are much higher in comparison to pesticide consumption (EU-15). This
difference stems from the fact that pesticide consumption concerns pesticides that are
used in crop production while pesticide sales include pesticides that are being sold not
only for use in agricultural production but also in forestry, horticulture, and amenity
areas (e.g. parks, sport fields).
-
Pesticide demand elasticity studies show clearly that pesticide demand is inelastic.
-
There is a great need for a more detailed investigation of the environmental and
economic impacts of pesticides.
-
Biodiversity valuation and pesticide risk valuation use the same methods: non-use
values; contingent valuation; choice modeling.
-
Few studies exist on biodiversity valuation, albeit this is a growing research area.
-
Farmland biodiversity: The majority of studies measuring biodiversity focuses on
landscape heterogeneity on crop edges and bird populations. The evidence finds that
these populations have decreased dramatically in Europe during the last decade
(Eurostat, 2008). Farming systems that increase landscape heterogeneity in
conjunction with restricted use of pesticides on crop edges can benefit farmland
biodiversity significantly.
-
Biodiversity can benefit farm productivity and reduce environmental risk and yield
variability. Implementation of biodiversity conservation policies can lead to a
sustainable agriculture. Therefore more research should be directed towards the
formulation and practical implementation of such policies.
IV. Pesticide Policies
Many international and national policies are targeting the regulation of pesticide use as
consumers are becoming more aware of pesticide externalities and demand pesticide-free
agricultural products and cleaner and safer natural habitat.
A. Competitiveness & Environmental Regulations
Environmental
Regulations
Technological innovations
Green payments
Enhanced
Competitiveness
36
Figure 21. Porter Hypothesis
Source: Author, 2008
The current level of food production is already causing serious environmental problems.
Following this fact, important efforts towards regulating pollution have been made in
industrialized countries in the form of increasingly stringent environmental regulations. Some
studies have shown that strict environmental regulations slow productivity growth, impede
technological progress and impose extra costs to firms (Palmer et al., 1995; Jaffe et al., 1995).
On the other hand, the Porter Hypothesis states that environmental regulations press firms to
innovate and thus enhance growth and competitiveness (Figure 21) (Porter, 1991). Thus,
environmental regulations play a dual role of increasing costs and stimulating innovation.
Although much of the environmental regulations are directed at industrial production,
agriculture is impacted as well, especially from pesticide regulations and clean water acts.
Nevertheless, agriculture constitutes still one of the major contributors to the global
environmental degradation (Tilman et. al, 2001).
Much of the recent work in identifying the relationship between environmental regulations
and competitiveness has focused on the pork industry. Metcalfe (2002) examined the impacts
of environmental regulations on the competiveness of the European Union (EU), Canada and
the United States (US) by focusing on changes in the expected exports due to fluctuations in
the environmental regulation costs. The result is that an increase of environmental regulations
in the US and Canada will not have a significant negative impact on their pork exports. On the
other hand, more stringent EU regulation will reduce EU competitiveness and will be
beneficial for US and Canada as they will increase their market share in pork products.
In general, the literature indicates that the moving toward more stringent environmental
regulations will not significantly impact competitiveness (Krissoff et al., 1996; Colyer, 2004).
Industrialized countries that seem to have an increasing number of environmental regulations
also have the capability to channel their research into developing innovations that can
minimize the cost of stringent environmental regulations. Furthermore, the US and EU enable
their agricultural sectors to remain competitive in export markets through green payments
(subsidies, tax breaks). The Porter hypothesis is also supported from the findings of Van der
Vlist et al. (2007) that have shown that the intensification of environmental regulations can
lead to efficiency improvements.
B. EU Pesticide Policies
European Union (EU) is struggling to implement coherent pesticide regulations in an effort to
protect public health and the environment. Regulations on the marketing of plant protection
products, maximum residue levels and the thematic strategy on the sustainable use of
pesticides compose the puzzle of the European pesticide policy (Figure 22). Pesticide policies
based on economic incentives (taxies, subsidies) are among the future plans of the EU policy
makers.
Pesticide policies were first introduced at an EU level in 1979. Directives 91/414/EEC and
98/8/EC on the placing of plant protection products and biocidal products, respectively, on the
market were the first to deal with the authorization of pesticides. The waste framework
directive (2006/12/EC) and the directive on hazardous waste (91/689/EEC) constitute
37
regulations impacting pesticide use in many ways as they establish provisions for the safe
collection/disposal of empty pesticide packages and unused or expired pesticides. The water
framework directive (2000/609/EC) and the regulation on MRLs (396/2005) address pesticide
residuals as the first identifies substances that are hazardous for water (including active
substances in plant protection products) and thus contributing to the authorization of
pesticides, while the second sets maximum residue levels of active substances in food and
feed. The Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides completes the puzzle of
current pesticide policies as it aims at regulating pesticide use. In the following lines it is
provided a detailed representation of the pre-mentioned policies.
Market
Introduction
Placing on the market of PPPs (91/414/EEC & 98/8/EC)
Use
Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides
Residues
Waste
MRLs & Water Framework Directive
Waste Framework & Hazardous Waste Directives
Figure 22. Pesticide Policies at an EU Level in equivalence with aspects of pesticide use.
Source: European Commission (2007)
The European Council adopted recently a regulation concerning the placing of Plant
Protection Products (PPPs) on the market. The regulation contains a proposal for “cut off”
criteria for the approval of active substances based on hazard properties of the substance
(Annex II 3.6-3.7) (Figure 23). The criteria imply that it will not be allowed to approve
substances: a) that could cause cancer, have mutagenic or reproductive effects unless the
human exposure is negligible (known as CMR category 1 or 2); b) giving rise to endocrine
disruptions (ED) unless the exposure to human is negligible; c) fulfilling the criteria of being
persistent organic pollutants (POPs); and, d) fulfilling the criteria of being persistent,
bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT), or very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB).
38
CMR
ED
“cut off” criteria
POPs
PBT
vPvB
Figure 23. Cut off criteria for the placing of PPPs on the market
Source: Author, 2008
Furthermore, the regulation includes criteria for selecting candidates for substitution (Annex
II 4). The substances fulfilling these criteria are also identified.
Another regulation concerns the establishment of Maximum Residue Levels (MRL), which is
“the highest levels of a pesticide residue that is legally tolerated in or on food and feed”
(European Commission, 2008). Currently there are MRLs for 315 fresh products, but these
MRLs also apply to the same products after processing. The MRLs cover approximately 1100
pesticides currently or formerly used in agriculture within and outside the EU. European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA) is responsible for holding safety assessments that concern all the
consumer groups and are based on pesticides’ toxicity, the maximum levels expected on food
and the different diets of EU consumers. Figure 24 presents the composition of the MRL
regulation, who is responsible for its enforcement and, who takes action when the MRL of a
specific product is above the legal level. The MRLs also contain: a) the EU MRLs already in
force before September 2008 (about 45,000); b) the recently harmonized MRLs previously set
by the Member States (about 100,000); and, c) a list of low risk substances for which MRLs
are not necessary.
The Member states are responsible for the control and enforcement of MRLs, while the EU
has some mechanisms of ensuring that the MRLs are applied in an adequate way. These
mechanisms are the EU multiannual control programme, the Food and Veterinary Office and
the Community Reference Laboratories. Finally, if some food or feed are found to contain
excess amount of pesticide residues, then the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF)
takes measures to protect the consumers.
39
EU MRLs
Composition
Member States MRLs
Low risk substances
EU multiannual control programme
MRLs
Enforcement
Food and Veterinary Office
Community Reference Laboratories
Action
RASSF
Figure 24. Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) in EU.
Source: Author, 2008
European Commission adopted on July 2006 the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of
Pesticides that is accompanied by an impact assessment and a legislative proposal that will
create a policy framework for pesticide use. The goal of this strategy is to minimize the
adverse effects and risks on human health and the environment from the use of pesticides
(European Commission, 2007). The strategy includes a number of measures that will be
implemented either by using existing policy frameworks or by introducing new legislations
(Figure 25). According to the European Commission (2007) these measures are: a) new
measures that cannot be integrated, fully or to a large extent, into existing instruments; b)
measures that can best be integrated into existing instruments; and, c) actions and measures
that are currently not proposed as part of the Thematic Strategy, but could be examined again
at a later stage.
Establishment of National Action Plans (NAPs) to reduce hazards, risks and dependence on
pesticides is one of the measures of the first category. These National Plans have been very
successful in the past and they will mirror the parts of the Thematic Strategy for the
sustainable use of pesticides at national level. Involvement of different stakeholders and
public participation in the preparation and implementation of the NAPs is one of the priorities
of the thematic strategy. Another measure of this initiative is the creation of a system of
awareness-raising and training of professional pesticide users, distributors and advisers. The
risks linked to the use of pesticides should become known to all the involved stakeholders and
member states should ensure that these stakeholders have access to the minimum training
required. Furthermore, the inspection of the application equipment will be compulsory. Well
40
maintained application equipment can minimize the risks to human health and the
environment and can ensure the efficient use of pesticides.
Thematic Strategy on the
Sustainable Use of
Pesticides
Goal
Minimize risks of
pesticides to human
health+environment
Measures
New
Integrated into existing
instruments
To be included in
the future
NAPs
Compliance monitoring
Quantitative reduction targets
Training
Comparative assessment
Tax/levy schemes
Equipment inspection
Substitution principle
PPPs free areas
Residue monitoring
Storage/handling
Epidemiological exposure studies
Waste management
Environmental monitoring
Prohibition of aerial spraying
Research on pesticides
Protect aquatic environment
VAT application
IPM
International dimension
Progress measurement
Information exchange
Figure 25. The Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides
Source: Author, 2008
Additionally, areas of reduced or zero pesticide use will be defined. Each member state
should indicate areas such as special protected areas (Natura 2000 network), areas that are
accessed by vulnerable groups (playgrounds, around schools) and areas of high public
exposure (such as parks). Storage and handling of pesticides is another important measure.
41
Waste management should be established for unused and empty packages while residues from
leaning spray equipment must be disposed in accordance with the rules for hazardous waste.
Other measures of the first category are: the prohibition of aerial spraying, the enhanced
protection of the aquatic environment, the implementation of principles of Integrated Pest
management (IPM) by professional pesticide users, measuring progress in risk reduction
through appropriate indicators, establishment of a system of information exchange at
community level and the improvement of systems for collecting information on distribution
and use.
Among the measures that can best be integrated into existing instruments are: improved
systems for monitoring compliance with the legal requirements concerning pesticides,
comparative assessment and substitution principle, residue monitoring and epidemiological
exposure studies, environmental monitoring, research on pesticides, application of normal
Value Added Tax (VAT) rate to pesticides and the establishment of an international
dimension by contributing to the safe use of pesticides in third countries outside the EU.
Finally, there are some actions and measures that presently do not constitute a part of the
Thematic Strategy but need to be examined and debated for a future adoption. One of them is
the establishment of quantitative reduction targets. This measure requires careful examination
since its establishment can be impeded potentially by a) the absence of direct links between
quantities of a substance used, the risks to human health and the natural habitat and/or b) the
absence of data in several member states on current pesticide use that renders the
identification of an appropriate baseline difficult. Tax and levy schemes are another measure
that will be examined at a later stage. Taxation of pesticides will provide revenues that can be
used to finance the different pre-mentioned measures.
C. Abatement Policies of EU and non-EU countries
Several countries have undertaken pesticide reduction programmes in the last two decades.
Table 4 summarizes these individual efforts.
Table 4. Pesticide Policies in some European Countries and California (U.S.).
Country
Description of Pesticide
Policy
Values for Pesticide
Taxies/Fees/Levies
Impact on
Pesticide Use
Sweden
Environmental levy per
Kg of active substance
30 SEK/Kg Active
Substance (AC)
(3.25 €/Kg AC)
● Minimal/zero
impact
● Increased use of lowdose pesticides
Norway
Banded Tax System
● Basic Tax: 20 NOK/ha
(2.6 €/ha)
● Low toxicity products (f=1):
2.6 €/ha
● Medium toxicity products (f=4):
10.4 €/ha
● High toxicity products (f=8):
20.8 €/ha
● Seed treatment pesticides (f=0.5):
● Main trend: decrease
42
1.3 €/ha
● Concentrated hobby products
(f=50): 130 €/ha
● Ready to use hobby products
(f=150): 390 €/ha
Denmark
● Differentiated pesticide levy
● Overall levy on all pesticides
sold by retailers
● Insecticides: 54% of retail price
● Herbicides/fungicides/growth
regulators: 34% of retail price
● Wood preservatives: 3% of gross
Value
● 5 to 10% decrease
● Increased use of lowdose pesticides
Italy
● Ban on Atrazine
● Re-registration of pesticides
● Sales control
● Pesticide Tax
● Pesticide Tax: 2% of retail price
● Minimal
UK
● Levies to finance pesticide
registration
● Target fee for registration
of new active ingredient
● General fee for industry
● Target fee: about 5000 €
● General fee: 5719 €
Switzerland
● Low Pesticide Integrated
Production Farming Protocols
● Direct payments
● Minimum ecological standards
● Extra subsidies
Finland
● Registration charge
● Target fee (new active
ingredient)
The Netherlands
● MJP-G
● Integrated Crop Protection
on certified farms
_
● 50% reduction
France
● Pollution tax on antiparasite
Pesticides
_
● Marginal
Germany
● Crop Protection Act
● Pesticide Reduction Programme
_
_
_
_
● 40% decrease
● Registration charge: 2.5%
of net selling price
● Target fee: about 1000 €
_
Source: Lesinsky and Veverka, (2006); PAN Europe (2005); Hoevenagel et al. (1999); OECD (2008).
Sweden is one of the first countries that had introduced a simple tax scheme based on an
environmental levy of 30 SEK (3.25 €) per kg active substance. According to Swedish
estimates, the introduction of the tax reduced the risk to human health by 77% in the 19972001 period and environmental risk by 63% over the same period. However, the taxation had
minimal impact on the aggregate volume of pesticides used but farmers substituted past
pesticides used for low-dose pesticides. On balance, the pesticide load on the environment
decreased due to technical assistance to farmers and training that led to more environmental
friendly agricultural practices. A portion of the tax revenues have been used to finance
research related to risk reduction.
Norway introduced a tax system in 1988 based on a percentage of the import value of
pesticides. In 1999, a tax system was introduced where the taxation level is banded by health
and environmental properties. The system is based on differentiated tax rates per hectare and
standard area doses. From January 2005 the base rate is NOK 25 per hectare. There are seven
tax bands including adjuvants (no tax), seed treatment and biological pesticides (low tax),
ordinary pesticides for professional use (3 bands, differentiated according to human health
43
and environmental risk), and pesticides used in home gardens (2 bands) with the highest tax.
According to this hierarchy, each band corresponds to a factor f. The tax for each band is
calculated by multiplying the base rate with the respective f. Since the mid-1980s there has
been a steady decrease in the use of pesticides to about 50% of baseline levels while after the
implementation of the banded tax system there was a massive stockpiling of pesticides.
Norwegian data show that the risk to human health was decreased by 33% while the risk to
the environment decreased by 37%. One third of the tax revenues is recycled back through the
reduction programme to provide incentives for farmers to change their attitude and practices
to more environmental friendly methods. While farmers claim the banded tax system has led
to higher costs, the tax system has contributed to the use of less harmful for human health and
the environment pesticides. There are examples where the tax differences between different
bands are minimal and in some cases it can be more profitable to use pesticides from higher
tax bands that are not in accordance with the intentions of the policy makers. As far as the
pesticide sales are concerned, there is a decreasing trend with a considerable variation.
The Danish pesticide reduction plan started in 1986 in response to a major increase in the use
of pesticides and a large decline in farmland biodiversity. A tax scheme was initiated to
protect consumers and land workers from health risks and harmful effects and the
environment. Introduced in 1992, this system was based on taxing the retail price of various
agricultural chemicals. Currently it is a 34% of retail price for herbicides, fungicides and
growth regulators, 54% for insecticides, and 3% for wood preservatives. With 83% of the tax
returned to farmers by funding a number of agricultural activities, while the remainder
allocated to research and administrative costs. The Danish Government estimated that the
reduction in pesticide consumption ranged from 5 to 10%. Danish farmers generally accepted
pesticide taxation given there was a clear return to them in the form of lower land tax and
transparency in how the retained funds were used for funding of action plan programme
activities and research. The combined sale and consumption of plant protection products in
agriculture has declined nearly 60% between 1985 and 2000. It is difficult to separate the
impact of taxation on pesticide use from the other factors influencing farmers’ use decisions.
The fall in the pesticide consumption is largely due to a switch to low-dose agents, but a
reduction of the combined cultivated land, the increased conversion to organic farming, and
the improved pesticide technologies and management during the last decade have played a
crucial role in reducing the use of pesticides. The objective of the Pesticide Action Plan
(2004-09) is to reduce even more the pesticide use (1.7 applications per harvest year). In
addition to the tax plan, this plan includes annual payments to farmers who do not use
pesticides, technical assistance, decision support systems, and training and approval
procedures.
After the 1986 discovery of widespread herbicide pollution of drinking water in large areas of
the North and Central Italy, subsequent measures were taken (“Atrazine Emergency”).
Among them were a ban on atrazine, re-registration of pesticides (PD 223/1998 and DLg
52/1997), and stringent control on pesticide sales. Additionally, in 1999 a pesticide tax of 2%
on the retail price was introduced. Its revenues were going to fund a nationwide publicity
campaign promoting organic products with television, newspaper, and magazines
advertisements. Nevertheless, OECD (2008) reports that pesticide use increased by 8% during
the period 1990-2008. Pesticide residues have found in groundwater especially in Northern
Italy while around 2% of fruits and vegetables found to have residual pesticides above
national standards. There are however some positive signs like the increasing share of organic
crops and the low use of herbicides and insecticides following the introduction of low-dosage
products.
44
The United Kingdom (UK) pesticide taxes are assessed to the agrochemical industry based on
an annual turnover of approved pesticide products, while in Italy there is a flat tax that varies
between domestic and imported pesticides. The UK industrial fee is due to cover the cost of
post-approval monitoring of plant protection products. Furthermore, in the context of national
Codes of Good Agricultural Practice the UK have introduced a Local Environmental Risk
Assessment for Pesticides (Stoate et al., 2001). This constitutes a framework that regulates
pesticide use by indicating some environmental friendly agricultural practices and restricting
others. Among these restrictions are that farmers are not allowed to use pesticides at field
margins on arable land as they have negative effects on the presence and abundance of plant
and animal species (De Snoo, 1997; Chiverton and Sotherton, 1991).
Switzerland has developed low pesticide integrated production farming protocols which cover
several major crops and animal products. Swiss direct payments require farmers to adopt
minimum ecological standards (e.g., pest warning devices, prognosis models in pesticide
decisions). Swiss farmers can enjoy extra subsidies if they have further decreases in pesticide
use. In 1994, Switzerland initiated its agri-environmental policy by identifying clear targets
that had to be completed by 2005. The agri-environmental objectives were the selective and
risk-guided use of plant protection products. The respective target was to reduce the use of
pesticides by 32% of active ingredient between 1990-92 and 2005. This target was achieved
and, among other useful insights, it was found that the main reason for pesticide presence in
water aquifers is the expansion of cereal and corn crops to land whose soil characteristics are
not suitable for this kind of crops use.
The Netherlands developed a Multi Year Programme for Crop Protection (MJP-G) in 1991,
which was the product of a constructive dialogue and negotiations between the government,
farmers’ organizations, the organization of pesticide producers, and several environmental
organizations. The main targets of this national plan were: a) the reduction of the quantity of
pesticides used; b) the reduction of the emissions of pesticides to water, air, and soil; and, c)
the reduction of the dependence on pesticides. An emphasis was placed on information and
education, research and economical incentives. The MJP-G was replaced in 2001 with a plan
called “View of Healthy Crops, Certified Cultivation at Integrated farms” that it will run until
2010. The three main goals of this plan are: a) a further decrease of pesticide use; b) a further
reduction of emissions to the environment; and, c) the improvement of compliance with the
pesticide regulations to minimize the adverse effects on public health, agricultural workers
and the environment (van de Zande et al., 2002). The objective is to achieve these goals
through integrated crop protection on certified farms. Certified farms increase the
transparency of production processes in an era where consumers demand more reliable food
information. The target is to achieve a 95% pesticide reduction by 2010 compared with 1998.
According to OECD (2008), the use of pesticides was reduced by 50% during the period
1990-2003. The Ministry of Agriculture had estimated that the agricultural sector costs of
reducing pesticide use were around € 50 million in 2003. Nevertheless, the Statistical Agency
of The Netherlands (CBS) (2006) shows that the total use of pesticides in arable and
horticultural farming was stable over the 2000-2004 period.
In France, herbicides are the most commonly used type of pesticides. Despite the volume of
farm production increasing by 2% in total over the period 1990-2004, pesticide use decreased
by 10% during the same period. Nevertheless, pesticide use continues to be higher than the
average in other OECD European countries (OECD, 2005). While there has been a decrease
in pesticide use in general, contamination of water bodies remain widespread. In 1999, France
45
introduced a pollution tax on antiparasite pesticides but its effects were characterized as
marginal under the framework of a general tax on polluting activities. However, it is difficult
to isolate the impacts of a pesticide tax from other policy measures (such as extension
services) or even from trends that can affect pesticide use (such as the increase of organic
crops).
Additionally, France has a well developed monitoring system of nutrients and pesticides. In
2003, several French ministries asked the Environmental Health Safety Agency and the Food
Safety Agency of the country to establish a research center that will be responsible for
monitoring pesticide residues. One of its tasks is to gather information on pesticide residues in
different environments, the estimation of levels of exposure and the improvement of
extension services that will provide better and more systematic information on pesticide use.
Germany has introduced a Crop Protection Act in 1998, which states that farmers should use
integrated pest control, relying on biological and biotechnical techniques, plant breeding and
other agronomical practices to reduce pesticide use to a “necessary extent” (Burger et al.,
2007), which is the extent of pesticide use that will maintain the profitability of crop
production. The Pesticide Reduction Program that followed the Crop Protection act tried to
fill the gap of preciseness on the definition of the “necessary extent”, Among the measures
identified in the Pesticide Reduction Program is the development of a standardized treatment
index that measures the intensity of pesticide use in agriculture and the integration of this
index into the environmental quality assurance systems for agricultural enterprises.
D. U.S. Pesticide Policy
The federal regulation of pesticide products in US is governed by the Food Quality Protection
Act (FQPA) of 1996 (USDA, 2008). This act has amended two previously established acts,
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), which establishes tolerances of
pesticide residues on food and feed, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), which regulates the sale and use of pesticides. Figure 26 presents the main parts
of the FQPA.
The FQPA imposes uniform safety standards to residues in raw and processed food and forces
the different States to comply with the federal standards instead of develop different ones.
Pesticide residues no longer fall under the Delaney Clause (“no food additive will be safe if it
is found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animal”). Therefore, a uniform healthbased standard is applied to all foods and risks. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is responsible to review all tolerances within 10 years. Anyone may petition to establish, and
modify a tolerance, if a registrant includes a summary of data with an authorization to publish
these data and information on health effects.
46
Uniform national standard
General tolerance standard
Petition for tolerances
Re-evaluation of tolerances
Minor-use pesticides
Food Quality Protection
Act
Consideration of the diets of infant and children
Improve access on pesticide exposure information
Estrogenic screening program
Penalties
Figure 26. A contour of U.S. pesticide policy
Source: Author, 2008.
Furthermore the new regulations made it easier to register public-health pesticides (i.e., those
used to protect the public from diseases carried by insects or animals) and pesticides used on
minor crops including many fruit and vegetable crops. The new Act defines minor use as the
use of a pesticide on an animal or on a commercial crop/site if the crop is grown on less than
300,000 U.S. acres. The new law intends to improve consumers’ access to information on
pesticide exposure by authorizing the EPA to provide a list of substitute foods for higher risk
products and distribute it to the supermarkets. Additionally, it considers the risks from
pesticide residues to infants and children. According to the law, research should be
undertaken to identify the consumption patterns of infant and children, their susceptibility to
pesticide chemicals (even in utero exposure), and the cumulative effects of pesticide residues.
Other provisions of the act include the development and implementation (EPA) of a screening
program for estrogenic and other endocrine effects. The aim of this program is to identify
substances that have similar effect in humans to ones produced by naturally occurring
estrogen or other endocrine effects. Finally, the law establishes penalties for any person who
introduces or trades food that contains pesticide residues above the tolerance thresholds.
California is the most important state in the value of agricultural production in the US. This
state’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) is responsible for registering pesticide
products and providing sale permissions in that state (DPR, 2008). Registration fees are as
following: a) $750 for registering a new product, b) $750 for renewing product registration,
and c) $100 for label amendment. Free of charge are the emergency exemption from
registration, the special local registration and the research authorization. Registration fees
exist also in other U.S.A. states like Florida, Oregon, Missouri, Kentucky, New Jersey,
Washington and Virginia.
47
The California DPR provides public access to registered pesticides that currently amount to
13,162 products. To apply for product registration an applicant must submit an application for
registration form (including the $750 registration fee), six copies of the printed label (or
printer’s proof), data concerning the pesticide product, and a copy of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)-approved label and letter. The data concerning the pesticide product
include: acute toxicology data, chemistry data, efficacy data, phytotoxisity data (if used on a
plant), fish and wildlife data (if applicable), volatile emissions potential data, chronic
toxicology data (if the product contains a new active ingredient to California), environmental
fate data for the first agricultural use of the active ingredient in California, and medical
management data (if the product contains a new active ingredient to California).
All
registration applications are reviewed by DPR, DPR scientists and public agencies (notified
by DPR) that can be affected by pesticide use. The Pesticide Registration and Evaluation
Committee (PREC) provides the forum for possible concerns on pesticides registrations raised
from public agencies or even common citizens. After a product is registered, it is subject to an
annual renewal fee, a quarterly mill and risk assessment, reevaluation and data call-ins.
E. Uncertainty under a policy introduction/investment
Period 1
Uncertainty for the state of
the world
State of the world
Period 2
More info available
State of the world
Good
Pesticide Application
Do not introduce a tax
Good or bad?
Tax Introduction?
Bad
Introduce a tax
Figure 27. Two period diagram for pesticide and tax application.
Source: Author, 2008.
The imposition of a tax or levy scheme is not a costless procedure and its entire regulatory
cost creates uncertainty concerning the optimal timing it is imposed. In period 1 there is
uncertainty about the stage of the world. The externalities of pesticide use have not still fully
documented neither the external costs have been quantified precisely. Therefore, a policy
maker is not sure whether he or she has to introduce a pesticide tax now or to wait for further
information and introduce it later.
Imposing a pesticide tax in period 1 (Figure 27) can proved to be more costly as there are no
precise indicators of the external costs of pesticides. Therefore, this lack of knowledge can
48
lead a policy maker to delay his intervention and to wait to identify the exact external costs of
pesticides and reflect them in the prices of the different commodities by imposing a suitable
tax. For instance, in the case of water pollution acting at an early stage can be burdensome
while delaying can enable a policy maker to obtain accurate scientific information that reflect
at a good extent the external costs of pesticides. Therefore, delaying reduces somehow the
economic risk of imposing a tax scheme. On the other hand waiting can proved to be
devastating in cases like biodiversity loss.
Even if new information at period 2 show that the state of the world is “bad”, a tax can be
imposed after comparing and weighting the costs of introducing and not introducing a tax and
the external costs of pesticides to the society as a whole. This comparison should take place as
they may exist alternative and less costly ways of reducing or internalizing the external costs
of pesticides.
F. Policy Implications, Gaps and Overlaps
Reviewing the EU and non-EU pesticide policies and analyzing policy effects on
competitiveness and the uncertainty concerning their time of application we identified some
policy recommendations, gaps and overlaps:
-
Stricter environmental regulations can trigger farmers to innovate and to improve their
production efficiency.
-
There are relatively few national pesticide policies that are based on economic
measures/incentives in many European countries.
-
Financial incentives and flexible policies can improve resource allocation. Subsidies
on the adoption of environmental friendly farm practices and/or levies on
pesticide use are some well known financial incentives.
-
Income support policies that focus on specific crops impact farmers’ risk attitude and
lead to increased pesticide use that has negative impact on farmland biodiversity.
Policies that intend to enhance biodiversity should try to modify farmers’ short run
returns by alternative schemes like compensation funds. Therefore, income support
policies should be re-examined by better cooperation among policy makers,
environmental scientists and agricultural economists (Di Falco and Perrings, 2005;
Omer et al., 2007; Heisey et al., 1997).
-
An EU pesticide levy should be differentiated according to environmental hazards of
different pesticides and take into account the countries' specific agronomic
circumstances. Nevertheless, a pesticide tax alone cannot be an effective measure. A
combination of policy instruments (taxes, subsidies, training, and research) can tackle
pesticide externalities.
V. Concluding Comments
This review maps the literature on economic sustainability, biodiversity loss and, socially
optimal pesticide use. The detailed database provided in this study integrates three different
49
streams of literature: a) economic growth and the environment; b) pesticide use and
biodiversity; and c) pesticide regulations.
Economic growth has a dual impact on the environment. While it is responsible for
environmental degradation (e.g. through agricultural intensification), it can also serve as a
mean of improving environmental quality by transfer of clean technologies, establishment of
environmental institutions and enforcement of global environmental agreements. Economic
growth has brought a market-oriented production as consumers are more aware of agricultural
externalities and demand environmental friendly products. This consumer-oriented production
is responsible for significant rural transformations, like agricultural intensification and influx
of environmental friendly technologies, which have both positive and negative impacts on the
natural habitat. Increased use of pesticides have a negative impact on biodiversity and as a
result on agricultural productivity. Therefore, more precise applications and/or use of
alternative pest control methods can protect biodiversity and farm income. Concerning
pesticide policies, the present review provides evidence which shows that a socially optimal
pesticide use can be achieved through the establishment of an EU wide pesticide regulatory
framework based on a variety of measures, including economic incentives. This attempt
requires the involvement of all the respective stakeholders that should cooperate for the
establishment of flexible pesticide policies taking into account the economic and
environmental impacts of pesticides. Special attention should be paid to the protection of
landscape heterogeneity and farmland biodiversity that play a decisive role in augmenting
crop productivity and decreasing environmental risk and yield variability.
Addressing the above-mentioned themes, a number of shortcomings have been appeared. To
begin with, there is a gap in understanding and monitoring the economic and environmental
impacts of pesticides. A more detailed investigation of this impact can help policymakers in
designing effective pesticide policies. As it stressed throughout the literature review,
biodiversity conservation should be an integral part of any pesticide policy. But this study has
shown that biodiversity valuation is an ambiguous and challenging issue in a growing
research field. Therefore, more research should be directed towards biodiversity valuation and
formulation and practical implementation of biodiversity conservation policies.
Difficulties in monitoring the exact economic and environmental impacts of pesticides in
conjunction with a lack of studies on biodiversity valuation have led to a shortage of socially
optimal pesticide policies that are based on economic incentives which reflect to a great
extent pesticide externalities.
References
Aaltink, A.J., 1992. “Economische Gevolgen van de Beperking van het Bestrijdings
middelengebruik in de Akkerbouw”. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics,
Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
Altieri, M.A., 1995. Agroecology: the Science of Sustainable Agriculture. Bounder, CO:
Westview Press.
Antle, J.M., 1984. “The Structure of US Agricultural Technology, 1910-78.” American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(4): 414-421.
50
Anon, 2004 "The State of Food Insecurity in the World: 2004." FAO/Economic and Social
Department. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
Anon, 2003. "Herbicide use essential to crop production." Chemical Market Reporter, 18(4):
263.
Babcock, B.A., E., Lichtenberg, and D., Zilberman, 1992. “Impact of Damage Control and
Quality of Output: Estimating Pest Control Effectiveness”. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 74(1): 165-172.
Balcombe, K., A., Bailey, A., Chalak, and I.M., Fraser, 2007. “Bayesian Estimation of
Willingness-to-Pay where Respondents Mis-report their Preferences”. Oxford Bulletin of
Economics and Statistics, 69(3): 413-438.
Bauer, S., U., Hoppe, and S., Hummelsheim, 1995. “Decision Support System for Controlling
Pesticide Use in Hessen”. In: Proceedings, Workshop on Pesticides, Wageningen, The
Netherlands.
Bekker, R.M., G.L., Verweij, R.E.N.,Smith, R.,Reine, J.P., Bakker, and , S., Schneider, 1997.
“Soil seed banks in European grasslands: does land use affect regeneration perspectives?”.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 34 (5): 1293-1310.
Benton T.G., J.A., Vickery, and J.D., Wilson. 2003. “Farmland Biodiversity: Is Habitat
Heterogeneity the Key?”. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18(4): 182-188.
Berendse, F., M.J.M., Oomes, H.J., Altena, and W., Elberse, 1992. “Experiments on the
restoration of species-rich meadows in The Netherlands”. Biological Conservation, 62(1), 5965.
Boatman N.D., N.W., Brickle, J.D., Hart, A.J., Morris, A.W.A., Murray, K.A., Murray, and
P.A., Robertson. 2004. “Evidence for the Indirect Effects of Pesticides on Farmland Birds”.
Ibis, 146(2): 131-143.
Bockstael, N.E., K.E., McConnell, I., Strand, 1991. In: Braden, J.B., Kolstad, C.D., Miltz, D.
(Eds.), “Recreation, Measuring the Demand for Environment Quality”. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands.
Brock, W.A, and A., Xepapadeas, 2003. “Valuing Biodiversity from an Economic Perspective:
A Unified Economic, Ecological, and Genetic Approach”. The American Economic Review,
93(5): 1597-1614.
Brown, R.S., and L.R., Christensen. 1981. “Estimating Elasticities in a Model of Partial Static
Equilibrium: An Application to U.S. Agriculture”. In: E.R., Berndt and B.C., Field (Eds.),
Modeling and Measuring Natural Resource Substitution, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Burger, J., F., de Mol, and B., Gerowitt, 2007. “The "Necessary Extent" of Pesticide Use –
Thoughts about a Key Term in German Pesticide Policy”. Crop Protection, 27(3-5): 343-351.
51
Cavlovic, T., K., Baker, R., Barrens, and K., Gawande, 2000. “A Meta-analysis of the
Environmental Kuznets Curve Studies”. Agriculture and Resource Economics Review, 29(1):
32-42.
Carpentier, A., 1994. “A Pesticide Ban in the Context of Intensive Cropping Technology. The
Case of the French Crop Sector”. In: Michalek, J.and Hanf, C.H. (Eds.), The Economic
Consequences of a Drastic Reduction in Pesticide Use in the EU. Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk
Kiel KG (Christian Alberechts University, Kiel) pp. 281-303.
Carson, R.L., 1962. “Silent Spring”. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Carrasco- Tauber, C., and L.J., Moffit, 1992. “Damage Control Econometrics: Functional
Specification and Pesticide Productivity”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74(1):
158-162.
Chalak, A., K., Balcombe, A., Bailey, and I., Fraser, 2008. “Pesticides, Preference
Heterogeneity and Environmental Taxes”. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59(3): 537-554.
Chambers, R.G., and E., Lichtenberg, 1994. “Simple Econometrics of Pesticide Productivity”.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76(3), 407-417.
Chiverton, P. A., and N.W., Sotherton, 1991. “The effects on beneficial arthropods of the
exclusion of herbicides from cereal crops”. Journal of Applied Ecology, 28 (3): 1027–1039.
Commission of the European Communities, 2006. “A Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable
Use of Pesticides”. Communication for the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,
COM(2006) 372 Final, Brussels, Belgium.
Colyer, D., 2004. “Environmental Regulations and Agricultural Competitiveness”. Estey
Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 5(1): 70-90.
Cooper, J., and H., Dobson, 2006. “The Benefits of Pesticides to Mankind and the
Environment”. Crop Protection, 26(9): 1337-1348.
Cropper, M., and C., Griffiths, 1994. “The Interaction of Population Growth and
Environmental Quality”, American Economic Review, 84(2): 250-254.
Cropper, M.L., A.M., Freeman III, 1991. “Environmental health effects”. In: Braden, J.B.,
Kolstad, C.D., Miltz, D. (Eds.), Measuring the Demand for Environment Quality. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Dasgupta, S., B., Laplante, H., Wang, and D., Wheeler, 2002. “Confronting the
Environmental Kuznets Curve”. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(1): 147-168
Dasgupta , S., B., Laplante, and N., Mamingi, 2001. “Capital Market Responses to
Environmental Performance in Developing Countries”. Policy Research Working Paper; no
WPS1909.
52
De Snoo, G. R.. 1997. “Arable flora in sprayed and unsprayed crop edges”. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment, 66 (3): 223–230.
DHV and LUW, 1991. “The Possibility of a Regulatory Framework for Agricultural
Pesticides”. Final Report. Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Di Falco S., and J.P., Chavas, 2006. “Crop Genetic Diversity, Farm Productivity and the
Management of Environmental Risk in Rainfed Agriculture”. European Review of
Agricultural Economics, 33(3): 289-314.
Dietz S., and W. N. Adger, 2003. “Economic growth, biodiversity loss and conservation
effort”. Journal of Environmental Management. 68(1): 23-35.
Dinda, S., 2004. “Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey”. Ecological
Economics, 49(4): 431-455.
Donald, P.F., R.E., Green, and M.F., Heath, 2000. “Agricultural Intensification and the
Collapse of Europe’s Farmland Bird Populations”. Proceedings: Biological Sciences,
268(1462): 25-29.
DPR, Department of Pesticide Regulation, California, U.S., 2008. Available at:
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/registration/regmenu.htm#registration
Dubgaard, A., 1987. Anvendelse of afgifter til regulering af pesticidforbruget. Statens
Jordbrugokonomiske Institut, Rapport 35, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Dubgaard A., 1991. “Pesticide Regulation in Denmark”. In: N., Hanley (ed.), Farming and the
Countryside: an Analysis of External Costs and Benefits. CAB International, Wallingford, pp.
48-58.
Duelli, P., 1997. “Biodiversity Evaluation in Agricultural Landscapes: An Approach at Two
Different Scales”. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 62(2): 81-91.
Ecotec, 1997. Economic Instruments for Pesticide Minimization. Ecotec. Birmingham.
Edwards-Jones, G., 2008. Do benefits accrue to 'pest control' or 'pesticides?': a comment on
Cooper and Dobson. Crop Protection, 27(6): 965-967.
Elhorst, J.P., 1990. De Inkomensvorming en Inkomensverdeling in de Nederlandse Landbouw
Verklaard Vauit de Huishoudproduktietheorie. LEI-onderzoeksverslag 72, Den haag, The
Netherlands.
EPA, United States
http://www.epa.gov/
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
2008.
Available
at:
European Commission, 2007. “EU Policy for a Sustainable Use of Pesticides. The Story
Behind the Strategy”. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg. ISBN: 92-79-03221-6.
53
European Commission, 2008. “New Rules on Pesticide Residues in Food”. Directorate
General for Health and Consumers. Factsheet,
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/press/pesticide_residues.pdf. Accessed:
September, 2008.
Eurostat, 2008. Statistical Office of the European Communities. Available at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1090,30070682,1090_33076576&_dad=
portal&_schema=PORTAL
Accessed: October, 2008.
Falconer, K., and I. Hodge. 2000. “Using economic incentives for pesticide usage reductions:
responsiveness to input taxation and agricultural systems”. Agricultural Systems, 63(3): 175194.
Falconer, K.E., 1997. Environmental Policy and the Use of Agricultural Pesticides. PhD
Thesis. University of Cambridge, UK.
Feder, G., 1979. “Pesticides, Information, and Pest Management Under Uncertainty”.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(1): 97-103.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., S., Jans, and M., Smith, 1998. “Issues in the Economics of Pesticide
Use in Agriculture: A Review of the Empirical Evidence”. Review of Agricultural Economics,
20(2): 462-488.
Florax, R.J., C.M., Travisi, and P., Nijkamp, 2005. “A Meta-analysis of the Willingness to
Pay for Reductions in Pesticide Risk Exposure”. European Review of Agricultural Economics,
32(4): 441-467.
Firbank, L., 2005. “Striking a New Balance Between Agricultural Production and
Biodiversity”. Annals of Applied Biology, 146(2): 163-175.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2008. Available at: http://www.fao.org, Accessed:
September, 2008.
Foster, V., and S., Mourato, 2000. “Valuing the Multiple Impacts of Pesticides Use in the UK:
a Contingent Ranking Approach”. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51(1): 1-21.
Gaston, K.J., and J.I., Spicer, 2004. “Biodiversity: an introduction”, Blackwell Publishing.
2nd Ed., ISBN 1-4051-1857-1(pbk.)
Gotsch, N., and U., Regev, 1996. “Fungicide Use under Risk in Swiss Wheat Production”.
Agricultural Economics, 14(1): 1-9.
Gren, I.M., 1994. “Regulating the farmers’ Use of Pesticides in Sweden”. In: H., Opschoor
and K., Turner (Eds.), Economic Incentives and Environmental Policies: Principles and
Practice. North-Holland, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Grossman, G.M., and A., Krueger, 1993. “Environmental Impacts of a North American Free
Trade Agreement”. In: Garder, P. (Ed.), The U.S. Mexico Free Trade Agreement. MIT Press,
Cambridge, pp. 13-56.
54
Hall, D.C., and R.B., Norgaard, 1974, “On the Timing and Application of Pesticides:
Rejoinder,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56(3): 644-645.
Hazell, P., and S., Wood, 2008. “Drivers of Change in Global Agriculture”. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363(1491): 495-515.
Hawes, C., A.J., Haughton, J.L., Osborne, D.B, Roy, S.J., Clark, J.N., Perry, P., Rothery,
D.A., Bohan, D.R., Brooks, G.T., Champion, A.M., Dewar, M.S., Heard, I.P., Woiwod, R.E.,
Daniels, M.W., Young, A.M., Parish, R.J., Scott, L.G., Firbank, and G.R., Squire, 2003.
“Responses of Plants and Invertebrate Trophic Groups to Contrasting Herbicide Regimes in
the Farm Scale Evaluations of Genetically Modified Herbicide-Tolerant Crops”.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 358(1439): 1899-1913.
Heard M.S., C., Hawes, G.T., Champion, S.J., Clark, L.G., Firbank, A.J., Haughton, A.,
Parish, J.N., Perry, P., Rothery, R.J., Scott, M., Skellern, G.R., Squire, and M.O., Hill, 2003.
“Weeds in Fields with Contrasting Conventional and Genetically Modified HerbicideTolerant Crops.2. The Effects on Individual Species”. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B, 358:1833-1846.
Heisey, P.W., M., Smale, D., Byerlee, and E., Souza, 1997. “Wheat Rusts and the Costs of
Genetic Diversity in the Punjab of Pakistan”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
79(3): 726-737.
Hoevenagel, R., E., Van Noort, and R., De Kok, 1999. “Study on a European Union Wide
Regulatory Framework for Levies on Pesticides”. Commissioned by: European Commission/
DG XI, EIM/Haskoning, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands.
Holling, C.S., 1973. “Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems”. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics, 4: 1-23.
Horowitz, J.K., & E., Lichtenberg, 1993. “Moral Hazard, and Chemical Use in Agriculture”.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(4): 926-935.
Horowitz, J.K., & E., Lichtenberg, 1994. “Risk-reducing and Risk-increasing Effects of
Pesticides”. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 45(1): 82-89.
Jackson, L., U., Pascual, and T., Hodgkin, 2007. “Utilizing and Conserving Agrobiodiversity
in Agricultural Landscapes”. Agriculture, Ecosystems and the Environment, 121(3): 196-210.
Jaffe, A.B., S., Peterson, P., Portney, and R., Stavins, 1995. “Environmental Regulation and
the Competitiveness of US Manufacturing: What does the Evidence Tell us?”. Journal of
Economic Literature, 33(1): 132-163.
Johnsson, B., 1991. Kostnader for Begransad Anvandning av Kemiska Bekampningsmedel.
Research Paper. Department of Economics Swidissh University of Agricultural Sciences,
Uppsala, Sweden.
55
Kesavan, P.C., and M.S. Swaminathan, 2008. “Strategies and Models for Agricultural
Sustainability in Developing Asian Countries”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B, 363(1492): 877-891.
Kleijn D., 1997. “Species Richness and Weed Abundance in the Vegetation of Arable Field
Boundaries”. Ph.D. thesis. Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands.
Kleijn D., and W. J., Sutherland, 2003. “How effective are European agri-environment
schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity?”. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40(6): 947969.
Komen, M.H.C., A.J., Oskam and J., Peerlings, 1995. “Effects of Reduced Pesticide
Application for the Dutch Economy”. In: Oskam, A.J., and Vijftigschild, R., (Eds.),
Proceedings, Workshop on Pesticides, August 24-27, 1995, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Krissoff, B., N., Ballenger, J. Dunmore, and D. Gray, 1996. “Exploring Linkages Among
Agriculture, Trade and the Environment: Issues for the Next Century”. Agricultural Economic
Report No 738. Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture, May.
Kruess, A., and T., Tscharntke, 2002. “Contrasting responses of plant and insect diversity to
variation in grazing intensity”. Biological Conservation, 106(3): 293-302.
Lesinsky D., and M. Veverka. 2006. Towards Sustainable Pesticide Use in Europe? “An
Effective Pesticide Use, Control and Financing (EPUC) system for the EU, Global Greengrant
Fund (GGF) Edition”, CEPTA, Centre for Sustainable Alternatives, Slovakia.
Li., H., T., Grijalva, and R.P., Barrens, 2007. “Economic Growth and Environmental Quality:
A Meta-analysis of Environmental Kuznets Curve Studies”. Economic Bulletin, 17(5): 1-11.
Lichtenberg, E., and D., Zilberman, 1986. “The Econometrics of Damage Control: Why
Specification Matters”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(2): 261-273.
Lichtenberg, E., D.D., Parker, and D., Zilberman, 1988. “Marginal Analysis of Welfare Costs
of Environmental Policies: The Case of Pesticide Regulation”. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 70(4): 867-874.
Managi, S., 2006. “Are there Increasing Returns to Pollution Abatement? Empirical Analytics
of the Environmental Kuznets Curve in Pesticides”. Ecological Economics, 58(3): 617-636.
Matson P.A., W.J., Patron, A.G., Power, and M.J., Swift, 1997. “Agricultural Intensification
and Ecosystem Properties”. Science, 277(5325): 504-509.
McIntosh, C.S., and A.A., Williams, 1992. “Multiproduct Production Choices and Pesticide
Regulation in Georgia”. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 24(1): 135-144.
McNeely, J.A., K.R., Miller, W.V., Reid, R.A., Mittermeier and T.B., Werner, 1990.
“Conserving the World's Biological Diversity”. IUCN, WRI, CI, WWF and World Bank.
Washington DC.
56
Meeus, J.H.A., 1993. “The Transformation of Agricultural Landscapes in Western Europe”.
The Science of the Total Enviromnent, 129(1-2): 171-190.
Metcalfe, M.R., 2002. “Environmental Regulation and Implications for Competitiveness in
International Pork Trade”. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 27(1): 222-243.
Naeem, S., L.J., Thompson, S.P., Lawler, J.H., Lawton, and R.M., Woodfin, 1994. “Declining
Biodiversity can Affect the Functioning of Ecosystems”. Nature, 368: 734-737.
Nassauer, J., and R., Westmacott, 1987. Progressiveness among farmers as a factor in
heterogeneity of farmed landscapes, Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance. In: M. Goigel
Turner, Editor, Ecological Studies vol. 64, Springer-Verlag, New York (1987), pp. 200–210.
Nijkamp, P., G., Vindigni, and P.A.L.D., Nunes, 2008. “Economic Valuation of Biodiversity:
A Comparative Study”. Ecological Economics, 67(2) :217-231.
Norgaard, R.B., 1976. “The Economics of Improving Pesticide Use”. Annual Review of
Entomology, 21(397): 45-60.
North, D., 1991. “Institutions”. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1): 97-112.
Noss, R., 1990. “Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchial Approach”.
Conservation Biology, 4(4): 355-364.
OECD, 2008. “Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990”.
ISBN 978-92-64-04092-2.
OECD, 2005. “Environment and Sustainable Development. Environmental Performance
Reviews-France”, Complete Edition ISBN 9264009124. vol. 2005(8): 1-251.
Omer, A., U., Pascual, and N.P., Russell, 2007. “Biodiversity Conservation and Productivity
in Intensive Agricultural Systems”. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58(2): 308-329.
Oskam, A.J., H. van Zeijts, G.J., Thijssen, G.A.A., Wossink and R., Vijftgschild, 1992.
“Pesticide Use and Pesticide Policy in The Netherlands”. Wageningen Economic Studies 26.
Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Oskam, A.J., R., Vijftgschild, and C., Graveland, 1997. “Additional EU Policy Instruments
for Plant Protection Products”. Wageningen Agricultural University (Mansholt Institute),
Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Oude Lansink, A., 1994. “Effects of Input Quota in Dutch Arable Farming”. Tidschroft voor
Sociaal Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek van de Landbouw 9, 197-217.
Oude Lansink, A., and J., Peerlings, 1995. “Farm Specific Impacts of Policy Changes on
Pesticide Use in Dutch Arable Farming”. In : Oskam A.J., and R., Vijftgschild, (Eds),
Proceedings, Workshop on Pesticides, August 24-27, 1995, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Oude Lansink, A., and A., Carpentier, 2001. “Damage Control Productivity: An Input
Damage Abatement Approach”. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52(3), 1-12.
57
Oude Lansink, A. and E. Silva, 2004. “Non-Parametric Production Analysis of Pesticides Use
in the Netherlands”. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 21(1) 49-65.
Palmer, K., W.E., Oates, and P.R., Portney, 1995. “Tightening environmental standards: the
benefit-cost or the no-cost paradigm?”. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4): 119–132.
Palmquist, R.B., 1991. “Hedonic Methods”. In: Braden, J.B., Kolstad, C.D., Miltz, D. (Eds.),
Measuring the Demand for Environment Quality. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
PAN Europe. 2005. Pesticide taxes- national examples and key ingredients. Briefing no. 6.
Available at: http://www.pan-europe.info/publications/index.shtm, Accessed: September,
2008.
Panayotou, T., 2003. “Economic Growth and the Environment”. Paper; Spring Seminar of the
UN Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva, Italy.
Panayotou, T., 1997. “Demystifying the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Turning a Black Box
into a Policy Tool”. Environment and Development Economics, 2(4): 465-484.
Panayotou, T., 1993. “Empirical Tests and Policy Analysis of Environmental Degradation at
Different Stages of Economic Development”, Working Paper WP238 Technology and
Employment Programme, International Labor Office, Geneva, Italy.
Papanagiotou, E., 1995. “The Potential for a Substantial Reduction of Pesticide Application in
Greek Agriculture”. In : Oskam A.J., and R., Vijftgschild, (Eds), Proceedings, Workshop on
Pesticides, August 24-27, 1995, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Petterson, O., J., Petterson, V., Johansson, H., Fogelfors, R., Sigvald, and B., Johnsson, 1989.
Minskad Bekampning I Jordbruket; Mogligheter och Kronsekvenser. K. Skogs-och
Lantbruksakademisk Tidskrift 128, 379-396.
Pimentel D., and A., Greiner, 1997. “Environmental and socio-economic costs of pesticide
use”. Pages 51-78 in Pimentel D, ed. Techniques for Reducing Pesticide Use: Economic and
Environmental Benefits. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Pimentel D., H., Acquay, M., Biltonen, P., Rice, M., Silva, J., Nelson, V., Lipner, S.,
Giordano, A., Horowitz, and M., D'Amore, 1992. “Environmental and Economic Costs of
Pesticide Use”. BioScience, 42(10): 750-760.
Porter, M.E., 1991. “America’s Greening Strategy”. Scientific American, 264: 168.
Pretty J., 2007. “Agricultural Sustainability: Concepts, Principles and Evidence”.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 363(1491): 447-465.
Priestley, R.H., and R.A., Bayles, 1980. “Varietal Diversification as a Means of Reducing the
Spread of Cereal Diseases in the United Kingdom”. Journal of the National Institute of
Agricultural Botany, 15: 205-214.
58
Roca, J., 2003. “Do individual preferences explain Environmental Kuznets Curve?”.
Ecological Economics, 45(1): 3–10.
Rodrik, D., A., Subramanian, and F., Trebbi, 2004. “Institutions rule: The primacy of
institutions over geography and integration in economic development”. Journal of Economic
Growth, 9(2): 131-165.
Rude, S., 1992. Pesticideforbrugets Udvikling Landbrugs og Miljopolitiske Scenarier (Report
No.68). Statens Jordbrugsokonomiske Institut, Copenhagen. (English Summary).
Russell, N.P., V.H., Smith, and B.K., Goodwin, 1995. “The Effects of Common Agricultural
Policy Reform on the Demand for Crop Protection in the UK”. In : Oskam A.J., and R.,
Vijftgschild, (Eds), Proceedings, Workshop on Pesticides, August 24-27, 1995, Wageningen,
The Netherlands.
Saha, A., C.R., Shumway, and A., Havenner, 1997. “The Economics and Econometrics of
Damage Control”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79(3): 773-785.
Schou, J.S., B., Hasler, and B., Nahrsted, 2006. “Valuation of Biodiversity Effects from
Reduced Pesticide Use”. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2(2): 174181.
Sexton, S.E., Z., Lei, and D., Zilberman, 2007. “The Economics of Pesticide and Pest
Control”. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 1(3): 271-326.
SEPA, 1997. “Environmental Taxes in Sweden”. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency,
Stockholm, Sweden.
Shafik, N., and S. Bandyopadhyay, 1992. “Economic Growth and Environmental Quality:
Time Series and Cross-Country Evidence”. Background Paper for the World Development
Report, Washington, DC: The World Bank, USA.
Schulte, J., 1983. “Der Einluss Eines Begrentzen Handelsduenger und PfalanzenbehandlungsMitteleinsatzes auf Betriebsorganisation und Einkommen Verschiedner Betriebssyteme”.
Dissertation. Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms Universitat, Bonn, Germany.
Siriwardena, G.M., S.R., Baillie, H.Q.P., Crick, and J.D., Wilson. 2000. “The Importance of
Variation in the Breeding Performance of Seed Eating Birds in Determining their Production
Trends on Farmland”. Journal of Applied Ecology, 37(1):128-148.
Statistical Agency of The Netherlands (CBS), 2008. Available at: http://www.cbs.nl/enGB/menu/themas/landbouw/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2006/2006-1877-wm.htm. Accessed:
October 2008.
Stern, D.I, M.S., Common, and E.B., Barbier, 1996. “Economic Growth and Environmental
Degradation: The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Sustainable Development”. World
Development, 24(7): 1151-1160.
Stern, D.I., 2004. “The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve”. World
Development. 32(8): 1419-1439.
59
Stoate, C., N.D., Boatman, R.J., Borralho, C.R., Carvalho, G.R., de Snoo, and P., Eden, 2001.
“Ecological Impacts of Arable Intensification in Europe”. Journal of Environmental
Management, 63(4): 337-365.
Talpaz, H., and I., Borosh, 1974. “Strategy for pesticide use: frequency and application”.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56(4): 769–775.
Tiffen, M., Mortimore, M., and F., Trebbi, 1994. More People, Less Erosion: Environmental
Recovery in Kenya, Chichester: Wiley.
Tilman, D., K.G., Cassman, P.A., Matson, R., Naylor, and S., Polasky, 2002. “Agricultural
Sustainability and Intensive Production Practices”. Nature, 418(6898): 671-677.
Tilman, D., J., Fargione, B., Wolff, C., D'Antonio, A., Dobson, R., Howarth, D., Schindler,
W.H., Schlesinger, D., Simberloff, and D., Swackhamer, 2001. “Forecasting Agriculturally
Driven Global Environmental Change”. Science, 292(5515): 281-284.
Tilman, D., S., Polasky, and C., Lehman, 2005. “Diversity, Productivity and Temporal
Stability in the Economics of Humans and Nature”. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management, 49(3): 405-426.
Travisi, C.M., P., Nijkamp, and G., Vindigni, 2006. “Pesticide Risk Valuation in Empirical
Economics: A Comparative Analysis”. Ecological Economics, 56(4): 455-474.
Travisi, C.M., and P., Nijkamp, 2008. “Valuing Environmental and Health Risk in
Agriculture: A Choice Experiment Approach to Pesticides in Italy”. Ecological Economics,
67(4): 598-607.
USDA, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/
2008.
Van de Zande, J.C., J.M.G.P., Michielsen, H., Stallinga, H.A.J., Porskamp, H.J. Holterman,
and J.F.M., Huijsmans, 2002. “Spray Distribution when Spraying Potatoes with a
Conventional or an Air-assisted Field Boom Sprayer”. An ASAE Meeting Presentation, Paper
no: 021003, Hyatt Regency Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Van der Vlist, A.J., C., Withagen, and H., Folmer, 2007. “Technical Efficiency under
Alternative Environmental Regulatory Regimes: The Case of Dutch Horticulture”. Ecological
Economics, 63(1): 165-173
Villezca-Becerra, P., and C.R., Shumway, 1992. “State-Level Output Supply and Input
Demand Elasticities for Agricultural Commodities”. Journal of Agricultural Economics
Research, 44(1): 22-34.
Wilson, C., and C., Tisdell, 2001. “Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite
environmental, health and sustainability costs”, Ecological Economics, 39(3): 449-62.
60
World Resources Institute, IUCN-The World Conservation Union, United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), 1992. “Global Biodiversity Strategy: Guidelines for action
to save, study and use Earth's biotic wealth sustainably and equitably”. ISBN: 0-915825-74-0
Wossink A., J., van Wenum, C., Jurgens, and G., de Snoo, 1999. “Co-ordinating Economic
Behavioural and Spatial Aspects of Wildlife Preservation in Agriculture”. European Review
of Agricultural Economics, 26(4): 443-460.
61
Appendix
Table 1. Sales of fungicides in European Countries (t of active ingredient)
Countries
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
123395
2402
631
167190
2582
794
167910
2654
770
167333
2990
715
159093
3056
614
149085
2302
561
10404
26
550
3248
10165
48625
25074
9397
15
698
3104
11299
64050
52638
10530
13
593
4731
11984
58807
53605
9702
8
415
3707
10978
63021
52865
9642
21
459
4676
10528
52834
52377
57
8246
19
430
4860
7854
54130
48523
60
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
EU (15
countries)
Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Latvia
:
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
181
1989
:
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Slovenia
Finland
Sweden
:
182
1591
:
3624
1697
2986
9746
Norway
:
224
1896
:
4356
1685
3058
9397
186
1690
:
:
:
:
10129
29
458
:
:
:
:
:
10032
30
627
:
:
43351
63196
69
:
8045
30
:
:
:
39317
:
:
:
:
37175
:
82
:
10184
:
:
:
:
97
:
2407
180
3628
1336
2815
11561
933
192
258
3582
1300
3710
13322
825
224
202
3230
1712
1944
12954
843
221
194
4176
1493
3080
12459
1142
236
221
4181
1650
4915
12366
968
253
211
4908
120
4730
150
4740
160
5932
225
5944
61
6536
140
6509
177
6353
265
6336
220
4907
54
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
35957
113
2264
136
220
323
:
:
:
:
:
2819
:
:
:
:
35921
:
1691
135
209
300
:
2610
574
1590
105
154
262
:
4564
1393
2583
11274
:
115
253
:
5127
1473
2909
10475
:
4470
1598
2504
10855
843
177
238
:
United
Kingdom
:
:
2612
:
36919
:
339
:
:
:
146
:
:
:
3980
:
4709
:
5124
:
:
4697
259
222
:
:
:
:
5308
99
:
:
:=Not available
Source: Eurostat (2008)
62
Table 2. Sales of herbicides in European Countries (t of active ingredient)
Countries
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
115884
5953
2915
112984
4543
2726
117854
4965
2619
117766
4475
1892
109486
5188
1982
111833
4908
2164
16541
84
879
2717
8652
36052
9888
16485
172
1260
2116
9153
33576
10536
17269
167
1413
2303
9413
36439
10665
15825
167
1314
2318
9066
42462
9741
16610
275
1289
2331
9942
30845
9507
177
14942
298
1641
2650
12138
32122
10063
255
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
EU (15
countries)
Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Latvia
:
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
148
3247
:
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Slovenia
Finland
Sweden
:
121
2489
:
3016
1536
5534
1584
Norway
:
183
2894
:
2984
1601
5167
1769
198
2831
:
:
:
:
14328
211
1820
:
:
:
:
:
15351
268
1854
:
:
28780
11829
236
:
15922
197
:
:
:
24502
:
:
:
:
26104
:
316
:
14699
:
:
:
:
414
:
4076
22
2171
1436
4748
2235
362
1120
1432
2215
1459
4926
2125
189
1278
1447
2210
1435
3772
2398
325
1339
1817
2443
1533
3740
2104
286
1174
690
2482
1466
8381
1751
289
1077
1280
10770
377
10770
632
10253
458
10537
502
10679
420
10711
503
10752
504
11168
544
11138
449
10783
283
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
23068
486
3599
15
790
1285
:
:
:
:
:
4340
:
:
:
:
29209
:
3130
19
844
1269
:
5022
2105
2682
10
734
1303
:
2842
1659
4546
1955
:
677
1236
:
2921
1603
4401
1914
:
2605
1609
4795
1826
405
862
1364
:
United
Kingdom
:
:
4138
:
26808
:
1497
:
:
:
735
:
:
:
2533
:
2736
:
9317
:
:
8435
1274
1432
:
:
:
:
9131
549
:
:
:=Not available
Source: Eurostat (2008)
63
Table 3. Sales of insecticides in European Countries (t of active ingredient)
Countries
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
EU (15
countries)
Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Latvia
29268
996
51
28569
1023
55
27203
1002
46
26505
925
41
27059
893
49
792
1
85
2440
9758
5399
4433
769
2
86
2436
9944
6074
6931
1036
2
86
2505
10173
4672
6985
953
3
72
2835
9985
3612
7066
846
3
60
2864
10470
3103
7135
3
740
3
66
2638
11781
2487
6941
5
:
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
26238
1179
36
:
10
1041
:
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Slovenia
Finland
Sweden
9
667
:
513
98
434
501
Norway
:
11
893
:
440
100
581
435
19
805
:
:
:
:
742
6
47
:
:
:
:
:
779
6
42
:
:
2308
4450
8
:
1081
2
:
:
:
2224
:
:
:
:
2460
:
11
:
977
:
:
:
:
10
:
1439
27
227
99
549
414
81
42
12
186
97
463
607
44
49
30
216
102
560
441
52
34
21
200
113
494
409
34
22
14
176
138
500
425
36
28
18
650
8
650
10
516
12
557
9
551
6
853
16
876
18
965
19
901
20
652
8
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
2140
13
1307
42
67
57
:
:
:
:
:
1640
:
:
:
:
2505
:
926
34
46
27
:
806
43
771
47
47
15
:
338
90
409
463
:
55
13
:
396
87
648
439
:
260
105
571
476
99
55
17
:
United
Kingdom
:
:
1524
:
2100
:
34
:
:
:
25
:
:
:
173
:
179
:
497
:
:
553
24
36
:
:
:
:
675
6
:
:
:=Not available
Source: Eurostat (2008)
64
Table 4. Sales of other pesticides* in European Countries (t of active ingredient)
Countries
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
EU (15
countries)
Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Latvia
35700
869
87
39516
1155
104
41194
1219
175
40602
1054
135
37723
784
110
39665
742
116
4343
7
268
1465
4661
7813
8655
4070
8
312
1378
3627
6092
14691
4809
9
442
1940
3500
7835
13271
3751
6
301
1293
3585
11406
12376
3233
7
325
1260
3657
7912
10812
47
3957
9
349
963
3927
10896
10819
49
:
:
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
18
588
:
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Slovenia
Finland
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Norway
:
20
567
:
2694
235
466
625
:
12
547
:
:
:
:
:
:
4332
21
471
:
:
:
:
:
4002
18
390
:
:
8009
15236
26
:
3705
17
:
:
:
8481
:
:
:
:
10360
:
9
:
3652
:
:
:
:
76
:
804
14
1961
262
743
1281
23
70
36
2090
224
1259
1381
106
69
32
2212
137
908
1253
141
73
17
2252
163
1412
1966
98
57
17
2470
151
2243
1804
91
72
18
7198
13
7198
26
7054
27
6437
88
6427
24
6332
47
6351
55
6896
126
6924
107
7259
33
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
10447
111
1062
29
64
33
:
:
:
:
:
1142
:
:
:
:
10630
:
684
29
65
33
:
766
430
22
64
28
:
2452
277
931
1704
:
65
27
:
2277
178
741
1537
:
2320
251
978
2312
122
52
33
:
2619
304
695
1149
18
469
:
1404
:
11428
:
369
:
:
:
146
:
:
:
2724
:
3116
:
2164
:
:
1618
89
17
:
:
:
:
6037
36
:
:
:=Not available
Source: Eurostat (2008)
65
* This
group includes various pesticides which are not included under the heading insecticide, herbicide or fungicide. Definitions of these pesticides differ from country to country.
Table 5. Farmland bird index (Index 1990=100) for some EU countries.
EU (25 countries)
Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Spain
France
Italy
Latvia
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
Norway
1995
86
94.6
118.5
84.2
119.4
57.4
82.8
100
79.4
96.6
90.5
83.1
100
1996
84
88.5
107.9
83.7
126.9
83.1
100
87.7
109
83.9
87.7
84.8
81.2
51.9
1997
82
87.5
86.4
80.1
115.6
77.2
112.2
89.4
109.7
82.2
85.2
81.1
76
53.2
1998
81
85.7
86.4
78.3
110.8
74.5
100
116.6
87.1
119.8
80.7
91
82.4
72.8
51.4
1999
80
83.6
71.3
84.1
125.5
77.2
113.1
123.2
83.3
111
79.5
91.1
72.9
74.4
57.6
2000
81
64.9
72.9
79.9
113.9
82.9
116.2
126.1
82
100
104
77.7
100
89.9
72.4
78.7
57.8
2001
82
72.5
78.9
78.3
107.7
115.8
128.8
81.5
93.3
127.7
75.2
95
97.1
73.6
81.2
55.3
2002
77
56
80.9
73.6
98.8
116.5
119
82
78.4
113.2
73.6
92.6
91.9
68.8
76.8
50.3
2003
76
63.9
70
71
84.9
108
115.3
78.1
74.2
118.6
73.2
84.9
94.2
70.7
73.3
47.9
2004
78
72.3
85.4
68.1
86.1
107.8
118.6
83
81.7
108.7
75.2
86.1
100
94.2
61.6
71.9
46.5
2005
79
67.6
65.8
60.3
90.5
108.6
121.8
82.5
88.4
117
76.6
90.5
101
91.7
61.1
71.1
45.8
2006
75
-
Source: Eurostat (2008)
66
Use of Insecticides EU-15 - EU-25
Tonnes of active ingredient
30000
25000
20000
Insecticides EU-25
15000
Insecticides EU-15
10000
5000
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Figure 1. Use of insecticides: EU15, EU25, 1992-2003.
Source: Eurostat (2008)
Use of herbicides EU-15 - EU-25
300000
Tonnes of active ingredient
250000
200000
Herbicides EU-25
150000
Herbicides EU-15
100000
50000
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Figure 2. Use of herbicides: EU15, EU25, 1992-2003.
Source: Eurostat (2008)
67
Use of fungicides EU-15 - EU-25
450000
Tonnes of active ingredient
400000
350000
300000
250000
Fungicides EU-25
200000
Fungicides EU-15
150000
100000
50000
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Figure 3. Use of fungicides: EU15, EU25, 1992-2003.
Source: Eurostat (2008)
Use of other PPPs EU-15 - EU-25
70000
Tonnes of active ingredient
60000
50000
40000
Other PPPs EU-25
Other PPPs EU-15
30000
20000
10000
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Figure 4. Use of other PPPs: EU15, EU25, 1992-2003.
Source: Eurostat (2008)
68