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

• Published in: Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit Vol. 6; no. Suppl 1; pp. 21 - 26
• Main Authors: Leach, Adrian W., Mumford, John D.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel SP Birkhäuser Verlag Basel 01.05.2011
• Subjects: Agriculture; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biotechnology; Chemistry/Food Science; Conference Proceedings "Decision Making and Science"; Food Science; Life Sciences; Metarhizium; Plant Genetics and Genomics; USA; British Isles; Germany; Africa; Externalities; Herbicides; Sugar beet; Pesticide environmental accounting; Environmental impact
• ISSN: 1661-5751; 1661-5867
• DOI: 10.1007/s00003-011-0674-7

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 trade-off 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.