Pesticide environmental accounting: a decision-making tool estimating external costs of pesticides

Abstract

In cost-benefit analyses of pesticide use an area-based measure of both costs and benefits is needed for spatial analysis of net benefits. The Pesticide Environmental Accounting (PEA) tool provides a monetary estimate of environmental and health impacts per hectare-application of pesticide (Leach and Mumford 2008). The model combines the Environmental Impact Quotient method (rating human health and eco-toxicological behaviour of specific pesticides) with absolute estimates of external pesticide costs in the UK, USA and Germany. The model converts external costs of a pesticide to other countries using GDP per capita and % GDP from agriculture. For many countries, resources are not available for intensive assessments of external pesticide costs. Economic and policy applications include rationalising pesticide choice, estimating impacts of pesticide reduction policies or calculating benefits from technologies that replace pesticides (sterile insect technique (SIT) or biological pesticides such as Metarhizium). PEA is a logical integration of diverse data and approaches. The assumptions provide transparency and consistency but at the cost of specificity and precision, a reasonable tradeoff for a method that provides both comparative estimates of pesticide impacts and area-based assessments of absolute impacts. The method has been applied to cost-benefit analyses of SIT in fruit flies (two species) and pesticide choice in Desert Locust (DL) campaigns in Africa. An example of external cost calculations for sugar beet herbicides in Europe is presented. There are also planned uses in public health mosquito control.

Intensification for redesigned and sustainable agricultural systems

“…Furthermore, it is not always clear where harmful compounds in the environment may have come from. In studies of pesticide externalities in China, Germany, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, costs have been calculated to range from $4 to 19 (€3 to 15) per kg of AI (41)(42)(43)(44)(45). These costs put annual pesticide externalities worldwide in the range of $10 billion to $60 billion (for use of 3.5 billion kg and for a market size of $45 billion).…”

Integrated Pest Management for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa

“…For the USA, the costs following a complete ban of pesticides were put at $18 billion [ 22 ], and 1% of GDP in Germany after a 75% ban [ 23 ] . Objections subsequently raised to these macro studies centred on the lack of data to describe the relationships between pest/disease ecosystems and the economic system, the reliance on expert opinion, data only derived from research stations, and the failure to account for impacts on human health and the environment (negative externalities) [ 24 , 25 , 26 ]. Pesticide externalities show features commonly found across the agricultural sector: (i) their costs are often neglected; (ii) they often occur with a time lag; (iii) they often damage groups whose interests are not well-represented; and (iv) the identity of the producer of the externality is not always known [ 27 ].…”

Health and environmental impacts of pesticides: A responsibility principle and two novel systems for hazard classification and external cost determination

“…Some scientists did not carefully examine the basics upon which EIQ-equation was built, and eventually made serious calculation errors. For example, Lois Levitan [45] mistakenly dropped the chronic toxicity value from the picker component of the EIQ equation and ended up with a maximum value of 25, instead of 125 for this component. This error was reflected on Levitan's calculation [45] of the maximum EIQ value, as he came up with 176.7 instead of 210.…”

“…For example, Lois Levitan [45] mistakenly dropped the chronic toxicity value from the picker component of the EIQ equation and ended up with a maximum value of 25, instead of 125 for this component. This error was reflected on Levitan's calculation [45] of the maximum EIQ value, as he came up with 176.7 instead of 210. The problem with those mistakes is that they spread and spin in the literature without being noticed.…”