Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Incentives and policies for integrated pest management in Europe: a review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Agronomy for Sustainable Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Integrated pest management and organic farming are alternatives for sustainable agriculture and less pesticide use in the European Union. All professional users of pesticides in the European Union should follow the general principles of integrated pest management from 2014. States should report to the European Commission on their national action plan for the effective application of those general principles through crop-specific guidelines. The major remaining issues are: (1) when guidelines are not already applied, what incentives would encourage European farmers to adopt those guidelines? (2) How and to what extent should public money be used to promote the adoption of guidelines? Here, we review the adoption of integrated pest management in Europe. We deliver a framework to understand the drivers of changes in farmers’ pest management practices. This framework also helps to understand farmer reaction to different policy incentives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products in the market, Directive 2009/128/EC establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides, Regulation (EC) No 1185/2009 concerning statistics on pesticides, Directive 2009/127/EC amending Directive 2006/42/EC with regard to machinery for pesticide application.

  2. The terms Europe and European Union are used indistinctly in the text.

  3. Cost dominance of agricultural practices using less pesticide per ha means that the optimal cost frontier of the farms with lower pesticide use is below the one of farms with higher pesticide use (for farms within the same region with homogenous pedoclimatic characteristics). The cost frontier framework allows for eventual presence of technical and allocative inefficiencies in the data, and is therefore preferred to a traditional cost function.

  4. The opportunity cost of labour is the best wage the farmer could get in a job outside farming.

  5. Apples market is often analysed because it corresponds to an important market share of fruit sales and because apple production relies heavily on pesticides.

  6. From the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union Article 288 : “A directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved upon each Member States to which it is addressed but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.” It can be distinguished from regulations which are self-executing and do not require any implementing measures. Directives normally leave member states with a certain amount of leeway as to the exact rules to be adopted.

  7. The development and implementation of Member State National Action Plans are still on-going and it is difficult to assess, at this stage, levels of consistency/variability between Member States or expected or anticipated levels of success with respect to overall IPM adoption (this would be subject of a future analysis from a period of application and experience, unable to be addressed effectively at this stage, and as such is beyond the current scope of this review).

  8. Under the new rural development policy (Article 15 Advisory services, farm management and farm relief services), it is explicitly stated that support can be granted in order to help farmers benefit from the use of advisory services for the improvement of the economic and environmental performance as well as the climate friendliness and resilience of their farms, and to promote the training of advisors.

  9. Marginal cost of reduction corresponds to the increase in cost when pesticide use is reduced by one unit, or 1 %. Marginal damage corresponds to the increase in damage due to the increase by one unit or 1 % of pesticide use. In theory, both should be taken into account to design an optimal environmental tax.

  10. Pesticides are categorized in toxicity classes in the European Union’s classification system, regulated by the Dangerous Substances Directive (Directive 67/548/EEC) prior to 2016, and the regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures from 2016.

References

  • Areté Consultants (2010) Inventory of certification schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs marketed in the EU member states: Data aggregations. Report prepared for the European Commission DG Agriculture.http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/certification/inventory/inventory-data-aggregations_en.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2014

  • Atanu S, Alan Love H et al (1994) Adoption of emerging technologies under output uncertainty. Am J Agric Econ 76:836–846. doi:10.2307/1243745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aubertot, J. N., J. M. Barbier, et al. (2005) Pesticides, agriculture et environnement: Réduire l’utilisation des pesticides et en limiter les impacts environnementaux. Rapport d’Expertise scientifique collective INRA et Cemagref.http://www.observatoire-pesticides.fr/upload/bibliotheque/704624261252893935317453066156/pesticides_synthese_inra_cemagref.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2014

  • Babcock BA, Lichtenberg E et al (1992) Impact of damage control and quality of output: estimating pest control effectiveness. Am J Agric Econ 74:165–172. doi:10.2307/1243000

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey AP, Garforth CJ et al (2006) Helping farmers adjust to policy reforms through demonstration farms: lessons from a project in England. J Farm Manag 12(10):613–625

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey A, Bertaglia M et al (2009) Integrated pest management portfolios in UK arable farming: results of a farmer survey. Pest Manag Sci 65(9):1030–1039. doi:10.1002/ps.1790

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bale, J., J. van Lenteren, et al. (2008) Biological control and sustainable food production. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society Biological Science. 363(761–76) doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2182

  • Baumol WJ, Oates WE (1988) The theory of environmental policy. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bazoche P, Bunte F et al (2013) Willingness to pay for pesticides’ reduction in EU: nothing but organic? Eur Rev Agric Econ. doi:10.1093/erae/jbt011

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann V, Wesseler J (2003) How labour organisation may affect technology adoption: an analytical framework analysing the case of integrated pest management. Environ Dev Econ 8(3):437–450. doi:10.1017/S1355770X0300238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann, V., E. Irawan, et al. (2009) The effect of farm labor organization on IPM adoption: Empirical evidence from Thailand. ICAR Discussion Paper.http://purl.umn.edu/55767. Accessed 11 June 2014

  • Biguzzi C, Ginon E et al (2014) Consumers’ preferences for integrated pest management: the case of tomatoes. EAAE Congress, Ljubljana, pp 26–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonabana-Wabbi J, Taylor DB et al (2012) A limited dependent variable analysis of integrated pest management adoption in Uganda. J Agric Sci Technol A 2:1162–1174

    Google Scholar 

  • Boussemart J-P, Leleu H et al (2011) Could society’s willingness to reduce pesticide use be aligned with farmers’ economic self-interest? Ecol Econ 70(10):1797–1804. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.05.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boussemart, J.-P., H. Leleu, et al. (2012) Exploring cost dominance between high and low pesticide use in French crop farming systems by varying scale and output mix. Working Papers IESEG School of Management.http://my.ieseg.fr/bienvenue/DownloadDoc.asp?Fich=231112724_2012-ECO-11_Leleu.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2014

  • Braun, A., J. Jiggins, et al. (2006) A Global Survey and Review of Farmer Field School Experiences. International Livestock Research Institute.http://intranet.catie.ac.cr/intranet/posgrado/met%20cual%20inv%20accion/mciap2010/semana%203/documentossem310/review%20of%20ffs%20braun%202006.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2014

  • Brenner, B. L., S. Markowitz, et al. (2003). “Integrated pest management in an urban community: a successful partnership for prevention.” Environmental Health Perspective Retrieved 13, 111, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241688/pdf/ehp0111-001649.pdf.

  • Brewer MJ, Goodell PB (2012) Approaches and incentives to implement integrated pest management that addresses regional and environmental issues. Annu Rev Entomol 57:41–59. doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-120709-144748

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Canali, G. (2011) The role of the “integrated production” scheme in the fruit and vegetable CMO. The common agricultural policy after the Fischler reform. A. Sorrentino, R. Henke and S. Severini. Farnham, England, Ashgate. 417–430

  • Carlson, G. and M. Wetzstein (1993) Pesticides and pest management. Agricultural and Environmental Resource Economics. G. Carlson, D. Zilberman and J. Miranowski. New York, Oxford University Press. 268–318.

  • Christensen T, Pedersen AB et al (2011) Determinants of farmers’ willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones: a choice experiment study. Ecol Econ 70:1558–1564. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cubie, J. (1999) Promoting Conservation Innovation in Agriculture Through Crop Insurance. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Outlook Forum 1999

  • Cuyno LCM, Norton GW et al (2001) Economic analysis of environmental benefits of integrated pest management: a Philippine case study. Agric Econ 25(2–3):227–233. doi:10.1016/S0169-5150(01)00080-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dachbrodt-Saaydeh S (2013) Goals in national action plans and IPM implementation—core elements of the sustainable use Directive, Future of IPM. Riva del Garda, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimara E, Skuras D (2003) Adoption of agricultural innovations as a two-stage partial observability process. Agric Econ 28:187–196. doi:10.1016/S0169-5150(03)00003-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC (2010) Communication on EU best practice guidelines for voluntary certification schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2010/C 341/04).http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:341:0005:0011:en:PDF

  • Ehler, L-E Bottrel D-G (2000) The illusion of pest management. Issues Sci Technol. 16.

  • ENDURE (2010) The potential role of supermarket procurement strategies as drivers of IPM. ENDURE Policy Brief.

  • EU (2005) Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:070:0001:0016:EN:PDF

  • EU (2009) Directive 2009/127/EC amending Directive 2006/42/EC with regard to machinery for pesticide application.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:310:0029:0033:en:PDF

  • EU (2009) Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:309:0071:0086:en:PDF

  • EU (2009) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:309:0001:0050:EN:PDF

  • EU (2013) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy (the horizontal regulation) 2011/0288 (COD).http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/com628/628_en.pdf

  • Europe PAN (2005) Pesticide taxes: national examples and key ingredients. Brief No 6

  • PAN Europe (2010) Briefing Integrated Production and Integrated Pest Management -An agro-ecological approach to pest management and action to reduce dependence on harmful pesticides by means of strong IPM programmes.

  • EUROSTAT (2007) The use of plant protection products in the European Union - Data 1992–2003. The use of plant protection products in the European Union - Data 1992–2003. Accessed 11 June 2014

  • Falconer K, Hodge I (2000) Using economic incentives for pesticide usage reductions: responsiveness to input taxation and agricultural systems. Agric Syst 63:175–194. doi:10.1016/S0308-521X(00)00007-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falconer K, Hodge I (2001) Pesticide taxation and multi-objective policy-making: farm modeling to evaluate profit/environment trade-offs. Ecol Econ 36:263–279. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00236-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feder G, Just RE et al (1985) Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey. Econ Dev Cult Chang 33(2):255–298. doi:10.2307/1153228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feinerman E, Herriges JA et al (1992) Crop insurance as a mechanism for reducing pesticide usage: a representative farm analysis. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 14(2):169–186. doi:10.2307/1349498

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Cornejo, J. (1996) The Microeconomic Impact of IPM Adoption: Theory and Application. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.149–160.

  • Fernandez-Cornejo J (1998) Environmental and economic consequences of technology adoption: IPM in viticulture. Agric Econ 18(2):144–155. doi:10.1016/S0169-5150(98)80003-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Cornejo J, Beach BD et al (1994) The adoption of IPM techniques by vegetable growers in Florida, Michigan, and Texas. J Agric Appl Econ 26:158–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Florax R, Travisi CM et al (2005) A meta-analysis of the willingness to pay for reductions in pesticide risk exposure. Eur Rev Agric Econ 32(4):441–467. doi:10.1093/erae/jbi025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freier, B. and E. F. Boller (2009) Integrated Pest Management in Europe—History, Policy, Achievements and Implementation. Integrated Pest Management: Dissemination and Impact. R. Peshin and A. K. Dhawan 435–454

  • Goodhue R, Klonsky K et al (2010) Can an education program be a substitute for a regulatory program that bans pesticides? Evidence from a panel selection model. Am J Agric Econ 92(4):956–971. doi:10.1093/ajae/aaq032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillocks RJ, Cooper JE (2012) Integrated pest management – can it contribute to sustainable food production in Europe with less reliance on conventional pesticides? Outlook Agric 41(4):237–242. doi:10.5367/oa.2012.0107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz JK, Lichtenberg E (1993) Insurance, moral hazard, and chemical use in agriculture. Am J Agric Econ 75(4):926–935. doi:10.2307/1243980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd BH (1994) Yield response and production risk: an analysis of integrated pest management in cotton. J Agric Resour Econ 19(2):313–326

    Google Scholar 

  • IOBC-WPRS (web) IOBC-WPRS IP & IPM: Crop specific Integrated Production Guidelines.http://www.iobc-wprs.org/ip_ipm/IP_guidelines_crop_sprecific.html. Accessed 11 June 2014

  • Jacquet F, Butault J-P et al (2011) An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops. Ecol Econ 70:1638–1648. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogan M (1998) Integrated pest management: historical perspectives and contemporary developments. Annu Rev Entomol 43:243–270. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.43.1.243

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenberg E, Zimmerman R (1999) Adverse health experiences, environmental attitudes, and pesticide usage behavior of farm operators. Risk Anal 19(2):283–294. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00405.x

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lohr L, Salomonsson L (2000) Conversion subsidies for organic production: results from Sweden and lessons from the US. Agric Econ 22:133–146. doi:10.1016/S0169-5150(99)00045-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loureiro ML, McCluskey JJ et al (2001) Assessing consumers preferences for organic, eco-labeled and regular apples. J Agric Resour Econ 26(2):404–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Marette S, Messéan A et al (2012) Consumers’ willingness to pay for eco-friendly apples under different labels: evidences from a lab experiment. Food Policy 37:151–161. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marra M, Pannell DJ et al (2003) The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve? Agric Syst 75(2–3):215–234. doi:10.1016/S0308-521X(02)00066-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauceri M, Alwang J et al (2005) Adoption of integrated pest management technologies: a case study of potato farmers in Carchi, Ecuador American agricultural economics association annual meeting. Providence, Rhode Island

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarl, B. A. (1981) Economics of Integrated Pest Management: an interpretive review of the literature. International Plant Protection Center and Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Oregon State University.http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/4894/SR%20no.%20636_ocr.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 11 June 2014

  • McConnachie A, de Wit M et al (2003) Economic evaluation of the successful biological control of Azolla filiculoides in South Africa. Biol Control 28:25–32. doi:10.1016/S1049-9644(03)00056-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKee GJ (2011) Coordinated pest management decisions in the presence of management externalities: the case of greenhouse whitefly in California-grown strawberries. Agric Syst 104(1):94–103. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara KT, Wetzstein ME et al (1991) Factors affecting peanut producer adoption of integrated pest management. Rev Agric Econ 13:129–139. doi:10.2307/1349563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miljøstyrelsen (2012) The Agricultural Pesticide Load in Denmark 2007–2010. Environmental review.http://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publikationer/2012/03/978-87-92779-96-0.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2014

  • Mitchell, P. D. (1999) The Theory and Practice of Green Insurance: Insurance to Encourage the Adoption of Corn Rootworm IPM. PhD. Iowa State University

  • Mouron P, Heijne B et al (2012) Sustainability assessment of crop protection systems: sustainOS methodology and its application for apple orchards. Agric Syst 113:1–15. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2012.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford JD, Norton GA (1984) Economics of decision making in pest management. Annu Rev Entomol 29:157–174. doi:10.1146/annurev.en.29.010184.001105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musser, W. N., B. V. Tew, et al. (1981) An economic examination of an integrated pest management production system with a contrast between E-V and stochastic dominance analysis. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics.119–124.

  • Musser WN, Wetzstein ME et al (1986) Beliefs of farmers and adoption of integrated pest management. Agric Econ Res Rev 38(1):34–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists (2012) Integrated Pest Management– National Action Plans in Nordic-Baltic countries. NJF seminar 458, Estonia.https://portal.mtt.fi/portal/page/portal/mtt/hankkeet/pesticidelife/julkaisut/NJF%20458%20peli%20finaln%20seminar.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2014

  • Norton GW, Mullen J (1994) Economic evaluation of integrated pest management programs: a literature review. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2011) OECD Economic survey France.

  • Pannell D (1991) Pests and pesticides, risk and risk aversion. Agric Econ 5:361–383. doi:10.1016/0169-5150(91)90028-J

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, A. B., H. O. Nielsen, et al. (2011) WP3 Ex-Post Case studies: The Danish Pesticide Tax. EPIWater FP7 Deliverable D3.1.http://www.feem-project.net/epiwater/docs/d32-d6-1/CS4_Denmark.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2014

  • Pelzer E, Fortino G et al (2012) Assessing innovative cropping systems with DEXiPM, a qualitative multi-criteria assessment tool derived from DEXi. Ecol Indic 18:171–182. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.11.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rademaekers, K., J. van der Laan, et al. (2011) The role of market-based instruments in achieving a resource efficient economy. Report prepared for the European Commission DG Environment. The role of market-based instruments in achieving a resource efficient economy. Accessed 11 June 2014

  • Regev U, Gotsch N et al (1997) Are fungicides, nitrogen and plant growth regulators risk-reducing? Empir Evid Swiss Wheat Prod J Agric Econ 48:167–178. doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.1997.tb01143.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreinemachers P, Tipraqsa P (2012) Agricultural pesticides and land use intensification in high, middle and low income countries. Food Policy 37(6):616–626. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sexton S, Lei Z et al (2007) The economics of pesticides and pest control. Int Rev Environ Resour Econ 1:271–326. doi:10.1561/101.00000007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma A, Bailey A et al (2009) Technology adoption and pest control strategies among UK cereal farmers: evidence from parametric and nonparametric count data models. International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Beijing, China

    Google Scholar 

  • Singerman, A., C. E. Hart, et al. (2011) Price Analysis, Risk Assessment, and Insurance for Organic Crops. CARD Policy Brief 11-PB 6. Iowna State University.

  • Skevasa T, Stefanoua SE et al (2012) Can economic incentives encourage actual reductions in pesticide use and environmental spillovers? Agric Econ 43:267–276. doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2012.00581.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern VM, Smith RF et al (1959) The integration of chemical and biological control of the spotted alfalfa aphid. Hilgardia 29(2):81–101

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Swinton SM, Day E (2003) Economics in the design, assessment, adoption, and policy analysis of integrated pest management. integrated pest management: current and future strategies. K. Barker Counc Agric Sci Technol Ames Task Force Rep 140:196–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Swiss Confederation (1996) Federal Ordinance on Ecological Direct Payments (Ökobeitragsverordnung (OeBV), January 24th, 1996. .

  • Swiss Confederation (2013) Federal Ordinance on Direct Payments (Direktzahlungsverordnung, DZV), 23 October 2013.

  • Torjusen, H., L. Sangstad, et al. (2004) European Consumers’ Conceptions of Organic Food: A Review of Available Research. European Commission Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources.http://www.organichaccp.org/haccp_rapport.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2014

  • Tscharntke T, Bommarco R et al (2007) Conservation biological control and enemy diversity on a landscape scale. Biol Control 43(3):294–309. doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2007.08.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA (2013) Federal Crop Insurance – Organic Crops Audit Report 05601-0006-KC.R. M. Agency.http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/05601-0006-KC.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2014

  • Vasileiadis VP, Sattin M et al (2011) Crop protection in European maize-based cropping systems: current practices and recommendations for innovative integrated pest management. Agric Syst 104(7):533–540. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2011.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waibel, H. (1993) Government intervention in crop protection in developing countries. Crop Protection and Sustainable Agriculture. D. J. Chadwick and J. Marsh. Baffins Lane, Chichester, Wiley

  • Waterfield G, Zilberman D (2012) Pest management in food systems: an economic perspective. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:223–245. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-040911-105628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Withana, S., P. Brink, et al. (2012) Study supporting the phasing out of environmentally harmful subsidies. Report prepared for the European Commission DG Environment. Institute for European Environmental Policy.http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/taxation/pdf/report_phasing_out_env_harmful_subsidies.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2014

  • Yong-gong, L. and Q. Guo-jun (2001) Socioeconomic Study on Farmers’ Adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Strategies in Brassica Vegetable Crops in China. working paper Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.http://aciar.gov.au/files/node/2139/iap_wp40.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2014

  • Yue C, Alfnes F et al (2009) Discounting spotted apples: investigating consumers’ willingness to accept cosmetic damage in an organic product. J Agric Appl Econ 41(1):29–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Zepeda JF, Barreto-Triana N et al (2006) An exploration of the potential benefits of integrated pest management systems and the use of insect resistant potatoes to control the Guatemalan tuber moth (Tecia solanivora Povolny) in Ventaquemada, Colombia. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Zilberman D, Millock K (1997a) Financial incentives and pesticide use. Food Policy 22(2):133–144. doi:10.1016/S0306-9192(97)00004-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zilberman D, Millock K (1997b) Pesticide use and regulation: making economic sense out of an externality and regulation nightmare. J Agric Resour Econ 22(2):321–332

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research leading to this article has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme PURE under the grant agreement n°265865. This work does not necessarily reflect the view of the European Union and in no way anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this area. The authors would like to thank Silke Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, Alison Burell, Patrizia Pitton and Aymeric Berling for providing valuable inputs and comments. We would also like to thank the partners of the PURE FP7 (Innovative crop protection for sustainable agriculture, www.pure-ipm.eu) and participants of the “Future of IPM” conference (Riva del Garda, Italy 19–21 March 2013) for inspiring discussions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Agrilife Unit, Edificio Expo. c/Inca Garcilaso, 3, 41092, Seville, Spain

    Marianne Lefebvre, Stephen R. H. Langrell & Sergio Gomez-y-Paloma

Authors
  1. Marianne Lefebvre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen R. H. Langrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sergio Gomez-y-Paloma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marianne Lefebvre.

Additional information

The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lefebvre, M., Langrell, S.R.H. & Gomez-y-Paloma, S. Incentives and policies for integrated pest management in Europe: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 27–45 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0237-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0237-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation