Tax_overview in Europe.xlsx
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

View only
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
CountryStandard rate for VATVAT levels on pesticides situation 1 January 2017 (as farmers can withdraw VAT it has little influence on real cost level but is still giving farmers a false image of the full costs of using pesticides)Differenciated level of VAT for biocontrol/low riskDifferenciated levels for price of registration of products from pesticides and biocontrol/low risk substancesWhich countries have pesticides taxationWhich countries are considering pesticide taxation/Who had a history in pesticide taxationWhich countries should consider a pesticide taxation, and at what levelComments on the already introduced taxationDoes taxation also apply for biocontrol/low risk products?So how is it going with use reductions in countries with taxes
2
Sourcehttp://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/resources/documents/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/rates/vat_rates_en.pdfIBMA and members*Thomas Böcker and Robert (2016) Finger European Pesticide Tax Schemes in Comparison: An Analysis of Experiences and Developments, Sustainability 2016, 8, 378 EU 28 STUDY ON ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL FISCALREFORM POTENTIAL FOR THE EU28, done for the EU by the IEEP ** Each time suggesting transitoon period from 2017 to 2010, and each time proposing that such a tax if banned according to the potential effects of different active ingredients (as in Denmark and Norway) could be linked to the risk indications to be developed for the NAPs Erkend Spikkerud****Revisiting Pesticide Taxation Schemes (2017) robert finger et all*****
IBMA and members
3
Austria20%20%Austria’s Action Plan is a compilation of the Plans of the nine Länder. In the Action Plan of Vorarlberg, in a response to a stakeholder view, regarding “application of the polluter pays principle and introduction of a ‘pesticide levy’”, the Plan notes, “The introduction of such a levy is not possible in the Land without the involvement of the Federal Government (similarity to turnover tax).” A tax would, we understand, be a matter for federal Government. There is a trend towards banding taxes to reflect the level of hazard associated with them, and we would suggest such an approach is suitable in Austria. Our calculations assume that the country implements a pesticides tax, and in the absence of data regarding the types of active ingredient used, we model revenues as though the tax is applied at a rate of €10 per kg active ingredient.**
4
Belgium21%12%, 21%, 6%Belgium is currently undertaking further research if a tax on pesticides would be useful and constructive. In the 1990s, even a draft for a law was formulated in which selected pesticides should have been charged, but the law did not pass. Meanwhile, stakeholders of the agri-food chain, which includes pesticide producers and distributors, have to finance the Belgian Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain by a yearly fee depending on the number of authorized plant protection products that are sold (Thomas Böcker and Robert (2016) Finger European Pesticide Tax Schemes in Comparison: An Analysis of Experiences and Developments, Sustainability 2016, 8, 378)In February 2014, Belgium published a Pesticide Action Plan (2013-17) composed of a federal action plan and three regional action plans. All of these plans state an aim to reduce the usage of pesticides, although quantitative reduction targets are only put forward by Wallonia.The introduction of a tax on pesticides is not mentioned in the Action Plans, and we suggest that such a tax is implemented across all regions in Belgium. Different active ingredients in pesticides vary in the extent to which they may cause harm to the environment. There is a trend towards banding taxes to reflect the level of hazard associated with them, and we would suggest such an approach is suitable in Belgium. Our calculations assume that the country implements a pesticides tax, and in the absence of data regarding the types of active ingredient used, we model revenues as though the tax is applied at a rate of €17.50 per kg active ingredient. **
5
Bulgaria20%20%There is a trend towards banding taxes to reflect the level of hazard associated with them, and we would suggest such an approach is suitable in Bulgaria. Our calculations assume that the country implements a pesticides tax, and in the absence of data regarding the types of active ingredient used, we model revenues as though the tax is applied at a rate of €5.00 per kg active ingredient. **
6
Croatia25%25%Croatia published its National Action Plan in June 2013. Although the Plan does not set objective reduction targets, it states that it is intended to establish the: “… quantitative assumptions, objectives, measures and timetables to reduce the risks and impacts of pesticides on human health and the environment, and stimulates the development and implementation of integrated pest management, and of alternative approaches or techniques in order to reduce dependency on the use of pesticides”. According to the Plan pesticide use increased between 2004 and 2007. However, despite the clear objectives set out in the Plan – that is, reducing the dependency on pesticides – a small tax on pesticides in Croatia linked to water quality was abolished in 2013 (the tax was set at HRK 0.20 (€0.0077) per kilogram active ingredient). The tax was reportedly cut as it was feared that it compromised the competitiveness of Croatia’s agricultural sector on the EU market. Different active ingredients in pesticides vary in the extent to which they may cause harm to the environment. There is a trend towards banding taxes to reflect the level of hazard associated with them, and we would suggest such an approach is suitable in Croatia. Our calculations assume that the country implements a pesticides tax, and in the absence of data regarding the types of active ingredient used, we model revenues as though the tax is applied at a rate of €10 (HRK 76) per kg active ingredient. **
7
Cyprus19%5%Cyprus’ Action Plan for 2013-2017 sets out: “…the quantitative and other targets, measures and timetables to reduce risks and impacts of plant protection products use on human health and the environment and for the development and introduction of integrated pest management and of alternative approaches and techniques in order to reduce dependency on the use of plant protection products.” Moving away from pesticides to other means of managing pests will be critical in minimising their use. Our calculations assume that the country implements a pesticides tax, and in the absence of data regarding the types of active ingredient used, we model revenues as though the tax is applied at a rate of €10 per kg active ingredient. The suggested transition period is from 2017 to 2019, and following this the rate should be kept constant in real terms. Such a tax, especially if banded according to the potential effects of different active ingredients (as in Norway and Denmark) would be a concrete measure that would contribute towards the aims of the Action Plan. **
8
Czech Republic21%21%The Czech Republic’s NAP states that the Ministry of Agriculture will “analyse the possibility of introducing economic instruments, e.g. a sales tax on PP [plant protection] products unsuitable for use in systems of integrated pest management and to evaluate their real effect and impacts”***The Czech Republic’s recently published Pesticide Action Plan has set quantitative reduction targets for the presence of pesticides in both food and water by 2020. In addition, in connection with actions listed under Milestone 1(h) it is stated that the Ministry of Agriculture will “analyse the possibility of introducing economic instruments, e.g. a sales tax on PP [plant protection] products unsuitable for use in systems of integrated pest management and to evaluate their real effect and impacts”. Different active ingredients in pesticides vary in the extent to which they may cause harm to the environment. There is a trend towards banding taxes to reflect the level of hazard associated with them, and we would suggest such an approach is suitable in the Czech Republic. Our calculations assume that the country implements a pesticides tax, and in the absence of data regarding the types of active ingredient used, we model revenues as though the tax is applied at a rate of €7.50 per kg active ingredient. **
9
Denmark25%25%In 1996, Denmark introduced an ad valorem pesticide tax on the highest existing wholesale price. This tax was differentiated by the pesticide’s category. For example, for insecticides a tax rate of 35% was charged and for herbicides, fungicides, and growth regulators a rate of 25%. In 2013, the tax scheme was changed into a more differentiated one. In the new tax scheme, each single pesticide product receives its specific tax rate (LBK nr 232 Bekendtgørelse af lov om afgift af bekæmpelsesmidler as at 26 February 2015). The new differentiated tax for pesticides is a combination of a pesticide use and a pesticide risk indicator. This indicator comprises of three different factors (categories) measuring the environmental load of a pesticide: (1) environmental toxicity load; (2) environmental fate and behavior load; and (3) human health load. The load score of each factor is defined by several sub-indicators and the score is then multiplied by DKK 107. The old scheme is kept for biocides but with increased tax rates of 40% on insecticides (before: 35%) and 30% on herbicides and fungicides (before: 25%).  the revenues of the tax first flow into the states treasury (§ 1 LBK nr 232) but are then returned for agricultural and environmental purposes. In 2013, these revenues were DKK 659 million* http://green-budget.eu/fact-sheet-tax-on-pesticides/ https://www.landbrugsinfo.dk/Planteavl/Plantekongres/Sider/pl_plk_2017_res_37_1_jens_erik_oerum.pdf http://eng.mst.dk/media/mst/69655/MST_sprøjtemiddelstrategi_uk_web_let.pdf http://mst.dk/virksomhed-myndighed/bekaempelsesmidler/sproejtemidler/pesticidafgift/ Tax paid by manufacturers and importers(Lefebvre et all, IPM adoptation in EU). The treatment frequency index (TFI) has been at approximately the same level as before the tax was adopted (2.5), whereas the objective was to reach 1.7. Moreover, Danish pesticide use has increased by around 50% from 2002 to 2011. Given that the tax rate was not differentiated according to product toxicity until recently. (Lefebvre et all, IPM adoptation in EU) Landstinget article show that objective could be reached....
10
Estonia20%20%Estonia published its Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products in February 2013. As the plan states: “If we compare the data on the plant protection products marketed in the countries of the so-called Old Europe with the data on Estonia, we can see that this country still has a long way to go, but even so, the quantities marketed in Estonia show a tendency towards continuous growth and it is hence justified that the aspects of the usage of plant protection products are addressed”. Although objective reduction targets have not been set, the Plan recognises the need to protect the environment and human health. Different active ingredients in pesticides vary in the extent to which they may cause harm to the environment. There is a trend towards banding taxes to reflect the level of hazard associated with them, and we would suggest such an approach is suitable in Estonia. Our calculations assume that the country implements a pesticides tax, and in the absence of data regarding the types of active ingredient used, we model revenues as though the tax is applied at a rate of €2.50 per kg active ingredient. **
In 2013 the Tallinn branch of the Stockholm Environmental Institute together with University of Tartu produced an overall report on environmental taxation, including recommendations for further development of these. Agriculture was not the focus of the report; however a modest suggestion of research into possible taxes on fertilisers and pesticides was included. The report is available but in Estonian only and for some reason there isn't even an English summary. It can be downloaded from: http://www.seit.ee/et/publikatsioonid?id=4447 The then Minister of Agriculture (and currently chair of the Parliament's Rural Affairs Committee) responded that taxation of fertilisers and pesticides would not be good for competitiveness of Estonian farmers and result in price rises for food (not very bright or new view:). http://majandus24.postimees.ee/1265866/seeder-vaeetiste-maksustamine-muudab-toidu-kallimaks There has not been much discussion since them. Whenever we pick up these issues we are confronted with the statement that since our direct payments are so much lower than in most MS... etc. Estonia actually shows the link between the direct payments and pesticide use in two ways: a) since our payments are among the lowest, so is also our use of pesticide per hectare; b) however, since our payments are slowly rising, the pesticide use is also on the rise.
11
Finland24%24%Finland introduced a fee on pesticide use in 1988, the primary purpose was not to encourage use reductions but to finance control and registration. The fee was abandoned in 2006. E(Source conomic Instruments in Chemicals Policy: Past Experiences and Prospects By Patrik Söderholm, Nordiska Ministerrådet)Finland does not have a pesticide tax at the moment. As noted in Appendix A.7.0 between 1988 and 2006 it used to levy a pesticide registration fee on the pesticide industry, but this fee was not used for environmental purposes. We therefore suggest that a pesticide tax dedicated to reduce the impact of pesticides on the environment and human health be introduced from 2017 with a transition period until 2019. The proposed tax could cover pesticides used for professional purposes, as well as pesticides used in households. The proposed rate is €10 per kg active ingredient. A rate structure similar to the one in Norway or Denmark, where the rate is banded according to the potential effects of different active ingredients, is considered to be the most effective.**
The then Minister of Agriculture (and currently chair of the Parliament's Rural Affairs Committee) responded that taxation of fertilisers and pesticides would not be good for competitiveness of Estonian farmers and result in price rises for food (not very bright or new view:).
12
France20%10 or 20%France has introduced a volume tax on pesticides in 2000. In 2009, the TGAP was replaced by a fee on the non-point agricultural pollution (redevance pour pollutions agricoles diffuses). Contrary to the TGAP, only three different pesticide categories are established. Pesticide products being based on mineral AS are charged at the lowest level (   0.9/kg AS). Pesticides that are considered to be dangerous to the environment are charged at    2/kg AS. Pesticides that are mutagenic, carcinogenic, or hazardous to reproduction are charged at the highest level, 5.10/kg AS (Art. L213-10-8 and Art. R213-48-13 Code de l'environnement). The total revenues of the fee amounted up to    60 million in 2012 and 2013. Half of these revenues are dedicated to water utility and sewage treatment operators in dependence of the regional pesticide contamination in the water. The remaining tax revenues are invested in other measures of the NAP.* The General Tax on Polluting Activities (TGAP) has been applied to “antiparasitic products for use on farms, and other similar products” from 2000. But since 2008, the TGAP was replaced by a fee on diffuse agricultural pollution collected by public water agencies from pesticide distributors, according to the quantity of active substance sold by products distributors in France and the toxicity level. The rate is equal to 2 €/kg for dangerous organic substances and 0,90 €/kg for mineral substances (OECD 2011). The proceeds of the tax are distributed among the water and waste-treatment-plant operators.( Le Febvre et all (2013) IPM adoptation in the EU). The existing pesticide tax in France has been reinforced by the law, voted in December 2018, by adding some pesticides to the list of products submitted to this tax, and by raising the rate of the tax. The pesticide tax is payed by pesticide buyers, collected by pesticides sellers, and goes to the "agences de l'eau" the water agencies. Details >>https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006074220&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006833066&dateTexte=&categorieLien=cid Pesticides are taxed in France according to their diffuse pollution burden at rates from €0.9 to €5 per kg. Active ingredients in pesticides are harmful to the environment and taxing them helps reduce the volume of active ingredients in the products. It is suggested that France could increase its pesticides tax to a rate of €12.50 per kg active ingredient, reflecting ‘best practice’. **the French programme for pesticide reduction will only be able to achieve its objectives if a sufficiently ambitious public policy is adopted. In our model we have tested the effect of taxes an subsidies for organic farming. We have shown that taxes, in order to be effective, have to be set at a sufficiently high level, but that this level could be lower if at the same time other economic inducements, such as subsidies for organic farming, were introduced. These results are in accordance with most economic studies ....In terms of policies, different conclusions can be drawn from these results. In order to achieve a 10 to 20% reduction in pesticide use, the policies required should relate mainly to extension and training services, the role of institutions responsible for advising farmers being of central importance. Achieving higher reductions in the use of pesticides presupposes setting up other economic incentives or regulatory instruments. Pesticide taxation is probably the most efficient way to achieve reduction in pesticide use, but the level of taxes should be high enough for a taxation mechanism to be effective. In these cases compensation should be considered. Other economic incentives can be applied, in particular the remuneration of environmental services through voluntary contracts subsidising low-input practices, but here also the present appraisal of the Agri-Environmental measures of the second pillar of the CAP shows that more research is needed to combine acceptability and efficacy of the measures.(Jacquet, F., et al.,(2011) An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops) Our findings indicate that these measures have not been effective in the short term as no real decrease in pesticide use was observed so far. One reason might be that the Pigovian tax used in France remained much lower than that applied in other countries, such as Denmark (Commission des affaires économiques sur le projet de loi de finances pour 2013, 2012). (Hossard et al (2016l) Lack of evidence for a decrease in synthetic pesticide use on the main arable crops in France ) The tax rate is too low and the tax revenues cover less than the sole cost of treating pesticide contaminated water for drinking. ( Le Febvre et all (2013) IPM adoptation in the EU)
http://www.observatoire-pesticides.gouv.fr/index.php?pageid=184&ongletlstid=165&locator=Foire%20aux%20questions
la loi sur l’eau de 2006 a déjà créé une « redevance pour les pollutions diffuses », appliquée aux pesticides, et qui s’échelonne de 0,90 € à 5,10 € par kilo de produit.
13
Germany19%19%In Germany, the state minister of agriculture from Schleswig-Holstein proposed to introduce a tax on pesticides in October 2015. The suggestion is a tax scheme which is related to the Norwegian one. A base rate of 20/ha shall be multiplied by a human risk indicator. Additionally, ready-to-use products and pesticides that are on the EU list for substitution shall be levied at higher rates. The tax is proposed to be paid by the industry or the wholesalers. Short-term and long-term reductions of pesticide use are expected to be about 20% and 35% in arable farming. The tax would increase the costs of pesticides by 40% to 50% per hectare. (Thomas Böcker and Robert (2016) Finger European Pesticide Tax Schemes in Comparison: An Analysis of Experiences and Developments, Sustainability 2016, 8, 378)*There is currently no tax on pesticides in (the entire) Germany. Article 4 of the Directive on Establishing a Framework for Community Action to Achieve the Sustainable Use of Pesticides (Directive 2009/128/EC) speaks of the requirement for National Action Plans on pesticides. It is suggested that Germany implements a pesticides tax at a rate of €5 per kg active ingredient.**
There has not been much discussion since them. Whenever we pick up these issues we are confronted with the statement that since our direct payments are so much lower than in most MS... etc. Estonia actually shows the link between the direct payments and pesticide use in two ways: a) since our payments are among the lowest, so is also our use of pesticide per hectare; b) however, since our payments are slowly rising, the pesticide use is also on the rise.
14
Greece24%24%Greece’s Action Plan aims to provide training on the sustainable use of pesticides in order to minimise use and in order to shift to alternative pesticide management methods. Our calculations assume that the country implements a pesticides tax, and in the absence of data regarding the types of active ingredient used, we model revenues as though the tax is applied at a rate of €20 per kg active ingredient. **
http://majandus24.postimees.ee/1265866/seeder-vaeetiste-maksustamine-muudab-toidu-kallimaks
15
Hungary27%27%Hungary’s National Pesticide Action Plan on pesticides was approved in November 2012. Although objective reduction targets have not been set, the Plan recognises the need to protect the environment and human health. The section on ‘Use of Plant Protection Measures’ includes an indicator that will be used, along with others, to measure the success of the Plan. The indicator is: “quantity of plant protection products sold”. There is a trend towards banding taxes to reflect the level of hazard associated with them, and we would suggest such an approach is suitable in Hungary. Our calculations assume that the country implements a pesticides tax, and in the absence of data regarding the types of active ingredient used, we model revenues as though the tax is applied at a rate of €10 per kg active ingredient. ** COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Country Report Hungary 2017 Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK AND THE EUROGROUP 2017 European Semester: Assessment of progress on structural reforms, prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances, and results of in-depth reviews under Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 {COM(2017) 90 final} {SWD(2017) 67 final to SWD(2017) 93 final} http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017SC0082

Growth friendly taxes such as environmental or property taxes play a relatively moderate role. The tax system is already strongly reliant on consumption taxes with the highest standard VAT rate (27 %) in the EU. At the same time, studies show there is potential to increase the reliance on environmental taxes (including vehicle and pesticides taxes or congestion charges) (Eunomia, 2016). The effective excise rates on unleaded petrol and diesel are among the lowest within the EU (European Commission, 2016a). Finally, the level of recurrent property taxes is also low (0.6 % of GDP), well below the EU average. The recovery of the property market seems to provide better conditions for shifting taxes towards property.
According to the VAT overview applies by Member States, as of 1 Janaury 2017 http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/resources/documents/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/rates/vat_rates_en.pdf
There has not been much discussion since them. Whenever we pick up these issues we are confronted with the statement that since our direct payments are so much lower than in most MS... etc. Estonia actually shows the link between the direct payments and pesticide use in two ways: a) since our payments are among the lowest, so is also our use of pesticide per hectare; b) however, since our payments are slowly rising, the pesticide use is also on the rise.
16
Ireland23%23%There is currently no tax on pesticides in Ireland. Article 4 of the Directive on Establishing a Framework for Community Action to Achieve the Sustainable Use of Pesticides (Directive 2009/128/EC) speaks of the requirement for National Action Plans on pesticides. Ireland’s National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides does not set clear objectives for reducing the amount of pesticides used within the country (objectives are more heavily focused on storage, packaging, traceably and safe application). Given that the OECD has noted an increase in the use of pesticides in Ireland, it t is suggested that a pesticides tax at a rate of €5 per kg active ingredient be introduced.**
17
Italy22%22%Italian tax in place since 2000. The Italian tax is a flat tax of 2% to all pesticides manufactured and sold that are classified has having certain health risks and/or toxicity to aquatic organisms (Evelyn Underwood IEEP).There is a tax on pesticides in Italy with its small revenues ring-fenced for organic and quality farming. Active ingredients in pesticides are harmful to the environment and taxing it helps reduce the volume of active ingredients in the products. It is suggested that Italy implements a more substantial pesticides tax, and shift from the current approach to a banded tax set at a rate equivalent to €15 per kg active ingredient. **
18
Latvia21%21%While Latvia currently uses smaller volumes of pesticides than more developed Member States the use of these substances still poses risks to human and environmental health. The current pesticide management plan for Latvia does not specifically mention taxes on pesticides; however, the introduction of such taxes may help to achieve the wider objectives of the plan which explicitly encourage alternatives to be used prior to resorting to the use of pesticides. There is a trend towards banding taxes to reflect the level of hazard associated with them, and we would suggest such an approach is suitable in Latvia, with special provisions being made to meet specific national circumstances (e.g. the control of particular invasive species). Our calculations assume that the country implements a pesticides tax, and in the absence of data regarding the types of active ingredient used, we model revenues as though the tax is applied at a rate of €2.50 per kg active ingredient. **
19
Lithuania21%21%Lithuania’s National Pesticide Action Plan does not set any objective reduction targets for the use of pesticides. However, the Plan recognises the need to protect the environment and human health and the general need to reduce the use of pesticides. The Action Plan includes the following measure as a means of tracking the successful implementation of the Plan: “Changes in the amount of utilised quantities of active substances of plant protection products”. There is a trend towards banding taxes to reflect the level of hazard associated with them, and we would suggest such an approach is suitable Lithuania. Our calculations assume that the country implements a pesticides tax, and in the absence of data regarding the types of active ingredient used, we model revenues as though the tax is applied at a rate of €5 per kg active ingredient. **
20
Luxembourg17%17%A recent review of the state of waters in Luxembourg concluded that the main threat to water quality is diffuse pollution from nitrates and pesticides, these being widely present in groundwater. 70% of below ground monitoring points detected pesticides in the period 2008-2012, with the herbicide metalochlor being the most commonly detected (13% of cases). Luxembourg does not have a tax on pesticides. There is a trend towards banding taxes to reflect the level of hazard associated with them, and we would suggest such an approach is suitable for Luxembourg. Our calculations assume that the country implements a pesticides tax, and in the absence of data regarding the types of active ingredient used, we model revenues as though the tax is applied at a rate of €12.5 per kg of active ingredient. **
21
Malta18%18%Malta does not have a tax on pesticides. There is a trend towards banding taxes to reflect the level of hazard associated with them, and we would suggest such an approach is suitable for Malta. Our calculations assume that the country implements a pesticides tax, and in the absence of data regarding the types of active ingredient used, we model revenues as though the tax is applied at a rate of €15 per kg of active ingredient. **
22
Netherlands21%21%The Netherlands, for example, have had several pesticide tax debates which led to the denial of a proposed taxation in the beginning of the millennium. Arguments against a fiscal instrument were the relatively high organizational effort, the low elasticity of demand, and the higher burdens for domestic producers as well as leakage through import. The aims proclaimed in the NAP until 2010 were reached at least partially: large parts of targets regarding environmental load and residue limits in water supply and food have been reached. Looking at the overall sold quantity of pesticides, it can be seen that the sales numbers reduced by almost fifty percent since the 1980s. This decrease was mainly due to stricter obligations for soil fumigants, of which in 1985 10,800 t AS were used and in 2005 only 1,400 t AS. (*Thomas Böcker and Robert (2016) Finger European Pesticide Tax Schemes in Comparison: An Analysis of Experiences and Developments, Sustainability 2016, 8, 378)The Netherlands does not have a pesticides tax and its Action Plan does not expressly mention the introduction of such a tax. There is a trend towards banding taxes to reflect the level of hazard associated with them, and we would suggest such an approach is suitable in the Netherlands. Our calculations assume that the country implements a pesticides tax, and in the absence of data regarding the types of active ingredient used, we model revenues as though the tax is applied at a rate of €10 per kg active ingredient. The tax could be applied on imports and ideally at the EU level to avoid competitiveness concerns.**
23
Poland23%6%There is currently no tax on pesticides in Poland. Article 4 of the Directive on Establishing a Framework for Community Action to Achieve the Sustainable Use of Pesticides (Directive 2009/128/EC) speaks of the requirement for National Action Plans on pesticides. Poland published its National Pesticide Action Plan in May 2013. The Plan recognizes the need to protect the environment and human health, and defines indicators to assess risks associated with pesticide use. Different active ingredients in pesticides vary in the extent to which they may cause harm to the environment. There is a trend towards banding taxes to reflect the level of hazard associated with them, and we would suggest such an approach is suitable in Poland. It is suggested that Poland implements a pesticides tax at a rate of €5 per kg active ingredient. **
24
Portugal23%6%There is a trend towards banding taxes to reflect the level of hazard associated with them, and we would suggest such an approach is suitable in Portugal. Our calculations assume that the country implements a pesticides tax, and in the absence of data regarding the types of active ingredient used, we model revenues as though the tax is applied at a rate of €7.5 per kg active ingredient. **
25
Romania19%9%Romania recently published its National Pesticide Action Plan (September 2013). Although objective reduction targets have not been set, the Plan recognizes the need to protect the environment and human health. Different active ingredients in pesticides vary in the extent to which they may cause harm to the environment. There is a trend towards banding taxes to reflect the level of hazard associated with them, and we would suggest such an approach is suitable in Romania. Our calculations assume that the country implements a pesticides tax, and in the absence of data regarding the types of active ingredient used, we model revenues as though the tax is applied at a rate of €5 per kg active ingredient.**
26
Slovakia20%20%Slovakia’s National Pesticide Action Plan does not set objective pesticide reduction targets, but recognizes that “prevention must be the starting point for protection”. The document recognizes the need to protect the environment and human health and provides data to suggest that application of active ingredients to agricultural land has fluctuated between 2002 and 2011, but shown no real decreasing trend (rates have fluctuated between 0.97 kg of active substance per hectare in 2008 and a high of 1.31 kg of active substance per hectare in 2010).1236 There is currently no tax on pesticides in Slovakia. Different active ingredients in pesticides vary in the extent to which they may cause harm to the environment. There is a trend towards banding taxes to reflect the level of hazard associated with them, and we would suggest such an approach is suitable in Slovakia. Our calculations assume that the country implements a pesticides tax, and in the absence of data regarding the types of active ingredient used, we model revenues as though the tax is applied at a rate of €5 per kg active ingredient. **
27
Slovenia22%9.50%The Slovenia Plan notes, amongst other things, that: “…the maximum residue levels of PPP found in food, feed and the environment have still been exceeded in some cases, which requires a more thorough systemic approach to the integrated pest management (hereinafter referred to as: IPM) and the shift of farm holdings from the existing conventional production to sustainable farming practices (e.g. organic or integrated)”. Amongst its objectives are the following: “…to minimize the hazard and risk to human and animal health and the environment from the use of PPP, including through the substitution of the most dangerous substances with safer (including non-chemical) alternatives; to reduce the levels of harmful active substances in food and drinking water, including through the substitution of the most dangerous ones with safer (including non-chemical) alternatives”. One part of the Programme considers ‘Reduction of PPP use or risk resulting from their use or prohibition of their use in specific areas’. There is a trend towards banding taxes to reflect the level of hazard associated with them, and we would suggest such an approach is suitable for application in Slovenia to support the objectives of the Programme. Our calculations assume that the country implements a pesticides tax, and in the absence of data regarding the types of active ingredient used, we model revenues as though the tax is applied at a rate of €10 per kg active ingredient. **
28
Spain21%10%NoSpain does not have a national tax or regional pesticides taxes in place and its consumption of pesticides is currently one of the highest in the EU. Since specific data on the types of active ingredient used for the preparation of the pesticides sold in the country is missing, a general tax rate of €7.5 per kg of active ingredient could be implemented. **
29
Sweden25%25%As the first country worldwide, Sweden introduced a special flat tax on pesticides based on the volume sold in 1984. Initially, the tax was introduced with SEK 4/kg AS and was increased stepwise to currently SEK 34/kg AS (~3.64/kg. The last increase from SEK 30 to 34 took place at the beginning of August 2015 (§ 2 Lag (1984:410) om skatt på bekämpningsmedel ) Until 1995, the financial means of the tax were used for agri-environmental programs aiming to reduce pesticide application and to promote integrated pest management. After 1995, the revenues have been directly allocated to the state’s treasury. The revenues are expected to be about SEK 70 million in 2015 and SEK 75 million in 2016 (~ 7.5 million and ~ 8 million, respectively) assuming that the sales quantity stays constant*. Tax paid by manufacturers and importers. (Lefebvre et all, IPM adoptation in EU)Sweden are considering to change its pesticide taxation towards a diversified system (Anita Sundgren LRF)As noted above, Sweden already has a tax on pesticides (“Skatt på bekämpningsmedel”), which is set at a rate of SEK 34 (€3.93) per kilogram of active ingredient. It is suggested that the tax rate be extended to a rate of €5 per kg active ingredient.**The doses per hectare have remained stable since the tax was introduced in 1984, but the tonnage of active substance has decrease by more than 60%, and the aggregate risk factor has also declined by over 70%. efebvre et all, IPM adoptation in EU)
30
United Kinddom20%20%
31
32
33
NorwayAs the second European country, Norway introduced a tax on pesticides in 1988. First, the tax was designed as an ad valorem tax as a percentage of the import value. In 1999, the tax was changed into a differentiated scheme and now consists of a base rate and an additional rate.* For professional use products, the size of the tax depends on the health and environmental properties of the plant protection products (five different classes), meaning that the most harmful products will have relatively higher taxes. For non-professional use private garden use products, two different tax classes applyPesticides are sorted into seven different categories. The base rate is a tax per ha, which is calculated by multiplying NOK 25/ha times a specific factor being associated with the category of a certain pesticide (ranging from 0.5 to 150). The categories are assessed by two sub‐ categories: i) risks for human health and ii) environmental risks. All pesticides for professional use are tested according to several criteria and then categorized in a low, medium, or high risk (§ 28 Forskrift om plantevernmidler). The human health‐ criterion is based on the intrinsic properties (according to R‐ phrases) and the exposure during application and mixing. The environmental criterion is compounded by eight sub‐ scores. They measure effects on earthworms, on bees and other arthropods, on birds, on aquatic organisms, the leaching potential, the persistence, the bioaccumulation, and the formulation type. Products that are allowed in organic farming are exempted from the tax (§§ 27–28 Forskrift om plantevernmidler ).The government estimates to earn about NOK 50 million in 2015 (~5.8 million)* For further information: https://www.mattilsynet.no/language/english/plants/plant_protection_products/taxes_for_plant_protection_products.17427Taxrevenues in Norway are not specific used for agricultureal or releted purposes. It should be used to finance measures that create leverage effects with respect to reduction of risks caused by pesticide use. These might comprise measures such as i) support for extensification (switch to organic or low pesticide production technique) ii) support of new spraying material and new equipment; iii) support for independent extension and advisory services iv) support of biological plant protection strategies*****YesReduced use of chemical pesticides on greenhouse vegetables
In 2015, biological control agents were applied to 90 per cent of the area of edible crops in greenhouses, while chemical pesticides were used on less than 30 per cent of the area. Within ornamental plants, the corresponding shares were 31 and 83 per cent respectively. (source https://www.ssb.no/en/jordmil)
34
Taxation of the agricultural pesticides was first introduced in Norway in 1988, as a percentage of the import value of the pesticides. A new system was developed in 1998 (NAIS 1999) as a follow-up of the Norwegian Action Plan for Pesticide Risk Reduction (1998-2002) (Ministry of Agriculture, 1998).The Norwegian pesticide tax system consists of three parts; a registration fee and a levy to fund the efficacy and residue trials, inspections and the registration process, and a banded tax system. The tax system is calculated as tax per treated area. Standard area dose (SAD) is used to convert tax per hectare to tax per kg or litres of product. The banded tax system consists of seven tax bands: Adjuvants are placed in a separate band with no tax (factor 0). There is a separate band for seed treatment pesticides and biological pesticides with a low tax. Ordinary pesticides for professional use have three tax bands (2-4). There are two bands for pesticides used in home gardens with high tax. The three tax bands for the professionally used pesticides are differentiated according to human health and environmental risk (intrinsic properties and exposure). The pesticide products are placed in one of two environmental categories based on a system of threshold values. The pesticides are assessed according to their toxicity in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, as well as their bioaccumulation, persistence and leaching potential. If an active ingredient exceeds the threshold value for at least one of these parameters, it is placed in the high environmental risk category. Remaining products are placed in the low-risk category. Greenhouse pesticides are placed directly in the low-risk category because of low environmental exposure. The experience so far is that the area-based tax system seems to be a better system than the old system based on import value. There was some concern that the area-based system using SAD would favour high application rates, which in turn would lead to higher recommended application rates on the product labels. This has not been the case. The biggest weakness of the SAD system is that for certain products it can be difficult to determine which crop(s) that represent the product’s main area of application. As a result, the determined SAD can be based on the wrong premises and thus lead to inconsistencies. User surveys will probably reduce this problem.
35
SwitzerlandOngoing debate about pesticide taxes since the 1990s. So far, the Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape argued against pesticide taxes due to the assumed higher effectiveness of other measures (e.g., cross-compliance, registration guidelines, or agri-environmental measures), insufficient knowledge about the tax effects, and too high burdens for Swiss farmers. However, there is some public and political pressure to further promote a reduced application of pesticides. In this context, the necessity of a NAP was analyzed and also the effects of a possible tax are re-analyzed (*Thomas Böcker and Robert (2016) Finger European Pesticide Tax Schemes in Comparison: An Analysis of Experiences and Developments, Sustainability 2016, 8, 378)
In 2015, biological control agents were applied to 90 per cent of the area of edible crops in greenhouses, while chemical pesticides were used on less than 30 per cent of the area. Within ornamental plants, the corresponding shares were 31 and 83 per cent respectively.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Loading...