Next Article in Journal
Sensitivity Analysis on the Impact Factors of the GSHP System Considering Energy Generation and Environmental Impact Using LCA
Next Article in Special Issue
Agroecology and Ecological Intensification. A Discussion from a Metabolic Point of View
Previous Article in Journal
A Systemic and Systematic Approach to the Development of a Policy Mix for Material Resource Efficiency
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Sustainability 2016, 8(4), 378; doi:10.3390/su8040378

European Pesticide Tax Schemes in Comparison: An Analysis of Experiences and Developments

1
Institute for Food and Resource Economics, University of Bonn, 53115 Bonn, Germany
2
Agricultural Economics and Policy Group, ETH Zürich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Manuel González de Molina and Gloria Guzman
Received: 16 February 2016 / Revised: 3 April 2016 / Accepted: 11 April 2016 / Published: 16 April 2016
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [892 KB, uploaded 16 April 2016]   |  

Abstract

Policy measures are needed to reduce the risks associated with pesticides’ application in agriculture, resulting in more sustainable agricultural systems. Pesticide taxes can be an important tool in the toolkit of policy-makers and are of increasing importance in European agriculture. However, little is known about the effects of such tax solutions and their impacts on the environment, farmers, and human health. We aim to fill this gap and synthesize experiences made in the European countries that have introduced pesticide taxes, i.e., France, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. The major findings of our analysis are: (1) overall, the effectiveness of pesticide taxes is limited, but if a tax on a specific pesticide is high enough, the application and the associated risks will be reduced significantly; (2) in all countries, hoarding activities have been observed before a tax introduction or increase. Therefore, short-term effects of taxes are substantially smaller than long-term effects; (3) differentiated taxes are superior to undifferentiated taxes because fewer accompanying measures are required to reach policy goals; (4) tax scheme designs are not always in line with the National Action Plan targets. Low tax levels do not necessarily lead to a reduction of pesticide input and differentiated taxes do not necessarily lead to fewer violations of water residue limits. View Full-Text
Keywords: pesticide tax; national action plan; pesticide risk indicator; integrated pest management; Sweden; Denmark; Norway; France pesticide tax; national action plan; pesticide risk indicator; integrated pest management; Sweden; Denmark; Norway; France
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Supplementary material

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Böcker, T.; Finger, R. European Pesticide Tax Schemes in Comparison: An Analysis of Experiences and Developments. Sustainability 2016, 8, 378.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top