Sort by
Are farm input subsidies a disincentive for integrated pest management adoption? Evidence from Zambia

AbstractInput subsidy programmes (ISPs) remain a popular but contentious policy tool to promote agricultural intensification, food security and poverty reduction across Africa. Although previous studies have explored the impact of ISPs on various smallholder outcomes, no studies have analysed the impact of recent ISPs on pest management. This is particularly important given the increasing pest challenges due to climate change and the recent surge in pesticide use in low‐income countries and its associated negative consequences for human and environmental health. Thus, this study assessed the effects of ISPs on smallholder adoption of sustainable pest management practices, using data from 1048 smallholder maize plots across major maize‐producing zones of Zambia and a control function regression approach. We find consistent evidence that input subsidy receipt is negatively associated with smallholders' adoption of environmentally friendly and sustainable pest management strategies. Participation in the Zambia ISP (particularly the flexible e‐voucher system) encourages synthetic pesticide use, at the expense of sustainable practices. We also find that farmers consider synthetic pesticides and biopesticides as substitutes and are more likely to adopt sustainable pest management when they have tenure security and access to financial resources. Given the human and environmental health consequences associated with synthetic pesticide use, it would be important to leverage input subsidy schemes to promote the adoption of safer and more sustainable alternatives to synthetic pesticides. Beyond input subsidies, policies that improve tenure security and financial access for smallholders can promote the adoption of sustainable pest management practices.

Open Access Just Published
Relevant
Landscape‐level determinants of the performance of an agglomeration bonus in conservation auctions

AbstractThe agglomeration bonus (AB) has been advocated as an incentive mechanism to boost spatially coordinated conservation efforts, where such coordination is thought to be beneficial to achieving biodiversity or other ecological outcomes. Specifically, an AB is paid to individual landholders if their conserved habitats are spatially connected to the conserved habitats of adjacent neighbours. This paper employs a series of controlled lab experiments with agriculture students to investigate the performance of AB in budget‐constrained discriminatory‐price auctions across different landscape types. We focus on the spatial correlation of opportunity costs and environmental benefits as one potentially important aspect of the landscape. We set up a stylised agricultural landscape where the conservation agency aims to connect fragmented wildlife habitats by incentivising farmers to enrol land in a conservation programme. We investigate the effects of an AB in landscapes where opportunity costs and environmental benefits are uncorrelated, negatively correlated or positively correlated over space. We found that the benefits of an AB in improving landscape‐scale environmental outcomes were significant in the positive correlation landscape. However, the AB resulted in worse outcomes in the uncorrelated and negative landscapes.

Open Access
Relevant