Zur Hauptnavigation springen Zur Suche springen Zum Seiteninhalt springen Zum Footer springen

  • 10/2024
  • Prof. Dr. Robert Finger, Prof. Dr. Niklas Möhring
Focus Area

Indispensable: Europe Needs an Ambitious Crop Protection Policy

In order to implement sustainable crop protection in agriculture on a broad scale, innovative solutions are needed without economic losses – so that farmers are willing to adopt them.

Crop pretection: A tractor spraying a cereal field. © USDA/Justin Pius/CC PDM 1.0

Crop protection is of crucial importance for food production, food security and the economic viability of European agriculture. However, the current very intensive use of crop protection products contributes significantly to the loss of biodiversity and the burden on ecosystems and has a negative impact on human health. This is true not only for synthetic chemical pesticides, but also for some pesticides used in organic farming, such as copper. Against this background, ambitious political goals have been formulated to reduce the risks of using crop protection products: e.g. globally within the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the EU's Farm to Fork Strategy, but also at national level such as in Germany and Switzerland.

While the strategic goals are clear, their implementation via concrete political and agricultural measures faces major hurdles. For example, the regulation on the sustainable use of crop protection products in the EU was stopped by the European Parliament last fall and withdrawn by the European Commission in February 2024. And although almost all European countries have drawn up ambitious national action plans for crop protection products, the formulated goals are often not achieved.

In particular, conflicting goals between reducing the risks associated with the use of crop protection products and other agricultural policy goals inhibit implementation: It is clear that a transformation to more sustainable crop protection will meet with societal and political approval only if, on the one hand, agricultural businesses do not suffer significant economic losses and, on the other hand, food production remains stable.

It is also crucial that the risks of the use of crop protection products are not simply exported to other parts of the world. If a reduction of the European footprint can only be offset by increased imports, this will increase the intensity of production and land use in other parts of the world and may lead to a shift (rather than a reduction) of global impacts on the environment and human health.

Roads to more sustainable crop protection

Ways must therefore be found to reduce risks to humans and the environment without compromising productivity and profitability. Integrated crop protection management approaches (1) form a central basis for this. The following areas in particular should be implemented. Firstly, the efficiency of pesticide use must be increased, for example through new technologies such as precision agriculture. Secondly, substitution, i.e. crop protection products with high risks for humans and the environment must be replaced by less risky strategies, e.g. through the use of biological control agents and strategies or through agronomic and mechanical approaches to weed control instead of herbicides.

These steps towards efficiency and substitution make it possible to reduce the risks of the use of crop protection products without significantly restricting production. However, they do not eliminate the actual causes of the problems discussed below. It is therefore necessary to redesign the agricultural systems of the future in such a way that pest and disease pressure – and thus the need for interventions of any kind – is reduced. We are talking here about a “redesign” in which agricultural land use, production systems and crop rotations become more diverse and biological approaches and prevention are strengthened, but in which resistant varieties are also increasingly used.

In all approaches that make do with fewer or no crop protection substances, the divergence compared to the performance of conventional production must also be reduced. To this end, researchers in cooperation with practitioners and the industry must increase the effectiveness of approaches to replace crop protection products and reduce their costs.

Social benefits and costs of more sustainable crop protection

Reducing the risks of crop protection products has a direct social benefit, as the external costs to the environment and human health are reduced. Sustainable crop protection also has a long-term positive effect on agricultural productivity – because, among other things, natural crop protection mechanisms (e.g. through an increase in beneficial insects in intact ecosystems) and pollination activity are strengthened. Indirectly, a reduced use of crop protection products can also have a negative impact on the environment if, for example, it makes soil protection measures more difficult.

In the short term at least, a transition to more sustainable crop protection can lead to lower and more volatile yields, especially if farmers do not have effective alternatives at their disposal. The effects are very crop- and region-specific. For example, to switch to more sustainable crop protection or completely give up risky products is often easier for grassland and cereals than for crops such as rapeseed and potatoes, but also for fruit, vegetables and wine. Alternative approaches are also often associated with higher production costs and higher working time requirements.

Approaches for compensating farmers

Farms can certainly benefit from switching to substantial sustainable crop protection if the reduced use or abandonment of crop protection products is either subsidized by the state or compensated by trade and consumers via price premiums. Organic farms already benefit from subsidies and price premiums. However, converting to organic farming often involves major hurdles for farms and the current target of 25% organic farming in the EU is therefore difficult to achieve in the short term. In addition, conversion to organic farming is often associated with a major loss of income.

In order to provide a broad range of farmers with more economically attractive alternatives for reducing the use of crop protection products, solutions that are situated between conventional and organic farming should also be strengthened and promoted – although this, too, presents major challenges. Approaches such as “slightly less than usual” are often neither enough to qualify for a special product label nor for financial compensation from agro-environmental programs. Compensation for a complete move away from conventional crop protection systems is easier to implement and monitor and easier for consumers to recognize.

Nevertheless, experience from Switzerland shows that even a partial renunciation of crop protection products can be supported by direct payments and that consumer labels for integrated pest management (e.g. IP Suisse) can establish themselves on the market. The extent to which these models could be used in Europe as a whole remains to be seen.

In addition, new approaches to pesticide-free but non-organic production are gaining importance in European agriculture. This is a “third way” between conventional and organic farming, in which farmers do not use pesticides on certain crops. This is easier to implement than switching completely to organic farming. Although pesticide-free production leads to lower yields compared to conventional farming, they remain higher than in organic farming because, for example, artificial fertilizers can be used. There is also greater flexibility in which crops and years pesticides can be dispensed with.

In recent years, such pesticide-free production systems have been increasingly introduced in Europe through public and private initiatives. For example, state agro-environmental programs in Switzerland and Germany have been compensating producers for not using pesticides since 2023. In France (with the “cultivées sans pesticides” label), Switzerland (pesticide-free cereals for bread from IP Suisse) and Germany (e.g. pesticide-free cereals for from KraichgauKorn), retailers and consumers are prepared to pay farmers additional price premiums for such pesticide-free production.

However, the spread of new labels such as “pesticide-free production” is not easy to achieve. For example, labeling is associated with logistical challenges, as all processing steps must be listed separately. It is also unclear to what extent price premiums and eco-scheme payments could be maintained in the long term if these initiatives were implemented on a large scale.

New policy instruments such as levies

New technologies and approaches, as promising as they may be, remain ineffective if they are not adopted by farmers. Today, crop protection products are often cheap and the most cost-effective option, meaning that alternatives are often not lucrative. Of course, external costs of their use, i.e. potential damage to people and the environment, are not priced in. Here, targeted taxes can provide the decisive political incentive for producers to replace harmful pesticides with less risky products or to dispense with them altogether.

Denmark, for example, has achieved positive results with a differentiated levy on pesticides. A separate levy is set for each product: the higher the risk, the higher the levy. A large proportion of the revenue from these targeted taxes flows back into agriculture, for example through reduced land taxes. In Denmark, these levies have significantly reduced the risk associated with the use of pesticides. The introduction of such levies can also take the place of increasing regulation of approval and use.

In any case, they can be a useful part of a comprehensive mix of instruments to achieve political goals efficiently. Ultimately, it will be a combination of regulation, information, advice, training, targeted taxes and incentives within the framework of agro-environmental programs that can provide an impulse for a switch to alternative practices and new technologies. In addition, policymakers can create a framework so that new, e.g. digital technologies, breeding approaches and varieties as well as cultivation methods are developed and made available to farmers.

In Bagmati Province in Nepal, the FAO runs a project with the "Tele Plant Doctor"-App, which also aims to combat pests. © FAO/Robic Upadhyaya

Broadening the view - and defining the goals for reorientation

However, the search for solutions must go beyond the farm. Sustainable crop protection is only possible if it is supported by the food industry and consumers: The produce of farmers should be accepted by the market and be in demand. Crop protection policy must also be seen within an overall agricultural and food policy framework that takes into account the most important areas of dispute and possible solutions. For example, if less food is wasted, less food would be produced – and therefore fewer pesticides would be used.

In order to achieve a political reorientation towards sustainable crop protection, it is also necessary to first define which goals should actually be pursued. At present, attention is often paid solely to the implementation of certain measures, but their actual impact is often neglected. There needs to be a greater focus on concrete effects on the environment, biodiversity and health. Policymakers should be open to a debate in society, formulate goals and create instruments that achieve an actual risk reduction. This is not possible without result- and impact-oriented indicators for risk reduction. If this results in (targeted) measures, these could be regarded as comprehensible and more acceptable by farmers.

Momentum beyond Europe

The transition to production systems in Europe with a lower risk in crop protection substances ultimately has an impact on agricultural and food systems worldwide. For example, the introduction of stricter crop protection guidelines in Europe can lead to shifts in trade flows. The emergence of production with reduced use of crop protection substances in Europe could also become a benchmark for imports and future trade agreements (e.g. as new sustainability standards), which could have significant consequences for trading partners.

An ambitious crop protection policy in Europe can also trigger innovations that spill over to other countries. Newly developed production systems and technologies can create potential for the European economy. Such developments, products and technologies may also pave the way for other countries to make the transition to more sustainable crop protection. In this sense, Europe can become a role model for the transition to a future with low crop protection risks and provide a global impulse for the much-needed transition to more sustainable agricultural practices.

All views expressed in the Welternährung are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view or policies of the editorial board or of Welthungerhilfe.

Prof. Dr. Robert Finger ETH Zurich, Agricultural Economics and Politics
Prof. Dr. Niklas Möhring Bonn University, Production Economics Group

Footnotes:

1) Integrated pest management is based on eight principles and resulting recommendations that propose 'best practices' for each production context. They aim to consider the use of crop protection products as a last resort and to limit it to a level that is “economically and ecologically justified”.

Key References:

Finger, R., Möhring, N. (2024). The emergence of pesticide-free crop production systems in Europe. Nature Plants 10:  360–366. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-024-01650-x

Finger, R. (2024). Europe's ambitious pesticide policy and its impact on agriculture and food systems. Agricultural Economics 55(2): 265-269  https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12817

Finger, R., Sok, J., Ahovi, E., Akter, S., Bremmer, J., Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, S., de Lauwere, C. Kreft, C., Kudsk, P., Lambarraa-Lehnhardt, F., McCallum, C., Oude Lansink, A., Wauters, E., Möhring, N. (2024). Towards sustainable crop protection in agriculture: A framework for research and policy. Agricultural Systems, 219, 104037 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104037

Möhring, N., Ingold, K., Kudsk, P., Martin-Laurent, F., Niggli, U., Siegrist, M., Studer, B., Walter, A., Finger, R. (2020).Pathways for advancing pesticide policies. Nature Food 1, 535–540. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00141-4

Möhring, N., Kanter, D., Aziz, T., Castro, I.B., Maggi, F., Schulte-Uebbing, L., Seufert, V., Tang, F.H., Zhang, X. and Leadley, P., 2023. Successful implementation of global targets to reduce nutrient and pesticide pollution requires suitable indicators. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 7(10), pp.1556-1559. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02120-x

  • The URL has been copied to the clipboard

Related content