Böcker, Thomas: Farm-level impacts of policy instruments targeting plant protection products. - Bonn, 2018. - Dissertation, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn.
Online-Ausgabe in bonndoc: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hbz:5n-52097
@phdthesis{handle:20.500.11811/7363,
urn: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hbz:5n-52097,
author = {{Thomas Böcker}},
title = {Farm-level impacts of policy instruments targeting plant protection products},
school = {Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn},
year = 2018,
month = sep,

note = {Plant protection is necessary to achieve high yields with high quality. The application of pesticides, however, leads to negative external effects to the environment. Society calls for stricter agri-environmental instruments in order to control pesticide use on farms. Intensively discussed topics are the introduction of a specific tax on pesticides and bans on pesticides such as glyphosate. The aim of this dissertation is to analyse potential effects of those two policy instruments on pesticide use on farms.
This dissertation contains four studies. The first two studies deal with potential effects of specific pesticide taxes from a more general perspective. Gaps in literature on whether a pesticide tax can be effective in achieving policy objectives and whether farmers respond to price increases of pesticide products are closed. In study three and four, a bio-economic model is developed in order to analyse potential effects of agri-environmental policy instruments in detail. Furthermore, these two studies close knowledge gaps by analysing economic and environmental effects of a glyphosate ban for the example of silage maize production.
Both policy instruments could contribute to reducing the environmental risks caused by pesticide application. However, in case of a pesticide tax, the design is important and should be in line with policy goals. Differentiated pesticide taxes that impose higher taxes on more toxic products are more suitable than ad valorem or per unit taxes. In case of a glyphosate ban, a significant decrease of the pesticide load with respect to environmental toxicity, environmental fate and human health was found. On the other hand, a glyphosate ban would lead to an increase in energy consumption. Introducing measures to substitute pesticide applications by mechanical strategies thus reduce energy efficiency on farms.
Farmer's costs increase by a pesticide tax as well as a glyphosate ban. In the first case, the own-price elasticity of demand for pesticides was found to be inelastic, meaning that the demand for pesticides decreases relatively little if the price increases. However, demand is heterogeneous for different types of pesticides and herbicide demand was found to be relatively more elastic compared to fungicide and insecticide demand. In the second case, the substitution of glyphosate with mechanical strategies is more expensive and leads to higher labour demand. Moreover, a small but significant yield reduction was found in the analysis, at least in case of a glyphosate ban. On average, those losses do not lead to a significant decrease of the gross margin in this analysis. This is because the optimal control strategy was changed from direct or strip-till sowing with glyphosate application to conservation tillage without glyphosate application, which leads to lower sowing costs. Instead of a full replacement of pesticides because of policy pressure adapting the cropping strategy can thus help to mitigate losses at the farm-level.},

url = {https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11811/7363}
}

The following license files are associated with this item:

InCopyright