Insectageddon

Insectageddon 

Source: Pietrowski, A., 2016.

A recent study has found that the rate of insect population decline is worse than originally thought, leading to the declaration that we are facing an insect armageddon. The insect population was shown to have declined by a frightening 76% since 1989, and this was in a nature reserve. This is a problem because insects provide humans with valuable ecosystem services such as pollination, medicine, decomposition, population and pest control, aesthetic pleasure, cultural value, and food. Declining population levels thus pose a significant threat to humans, not to mention thousands upon thousands of other reliant species. Without insects, entire ecosystems risk collapse and our food supply would be all but gone.  

Anthropogenic impacts on the environment are the reason for the crisis, particularly the increased use of pesticides in agriculture, which has itself expanded to account for 37.5% of the world’s total land use (World Bank Group, 2014). Not only has this resulted in the poisoning of insects as well as non-target species, but also habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation, which is not simply an effect of agriculture but of the wider human enterprise. Furthermore, for parasitic insects, their habitat is their host. Therefore, threats to other animals also threaten most insects. 

The policy of pesticide taxation, could be put in place to respond to the problem. This Pigovian tax on emissions must follow the “broad, then deep model”, whereby every state implements a suitable variant of the tax, which would gradually increase until the long-term target of sustainable pesticide flows is met (Hanley et al., 2013). For example, one suggestion has been the phasing out of all pesticide use over a ten year period (Dietz et al., 2010). This would reduce the policy’s costs to farmers and upstream sectors by allowing time to transition towards sustainable agricultural practices, alternative markets, and for deflation. 

However, such a tax that hits the pesticide manufacturing and distribution industries hardest will encounter significant resistance from these notoriously powerful actors. Consider Monsanto, and the ease with which pesticides were allowed onto the market in the first place. Therefore, especially where the pesticide lobby is large and powerful, and the future is highly discounted in favour of short term capital gain, politicians will face difficulty in getting the policy passed and accepted by the public.

That said, such a policy would benefit from free-riding avoidance through the global breadth of adoption, and cooperation is required in order to protect the common good of biodiversity (and more specifically, insects’ services). Further benefits include the internalisation of externalities upstream in agricultural production, as well as for consumers of conventionally farmed produce, due to resulting price increases. This will have the benefit of incentivising consumption of organic produce, which will become increasingly more competitive and attractive as an alternative for farmers. 

Making sustainability the criteria for pollution levels shifts priority to the protection of insects and recognises that inter and intra-generational human needs and rights would be better met if pesticide use were to be heavily scaled back, to use only as a last resort given authorisation. Furthermore, not only will taxation improve efficiency of resource use by stopping superfluous pollutant flows, but setting the tax rate based on the industry’s aggregate marginal cost of abatement will also achieve the desired target reductions in the most efficient way.   

The policy of government provision of grants for sustainable, ‘Low Impact’ agricultural practices and for transitioning low-income manufacturers, could also be put in place to address the problem and balance the costs of the tax. Funding would be conditional on applicants meeting stringent criteria, thereby avoiding asymmetrical information problems. Examples of such beneficial practices include Integrated Pest Management, crop rotation, and the creation of protected areas, including Ecological Focus Areas and conservation buffers. 

As part of their policy portfolio, governments must strengthen institutional policies on biodiversity conservation and protected areas for wildlife, such as nature reserves. Such policies benefit from ‘issue linkage’ of the plight of insects with broader species extinction, particularly by incorporating this problem and policies outlined here into the Aichi Biodiversity Targets’ goal A, target one and three; Goal B, target five, seven and eight; and Goal C, target eleven, and revising existing policies accordingly (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2014). 

However, to date, action towards the achievement of these targets has been inadequate, even regressive in cases, reflecting the lack of economic incentives and necessary ‘shocks’ in order to prioritise the case for the required action.

Government-led educational policies for behaviour change and the development of social 

responsibility are also required, as a quarter of pesticide use is on the household level, and it is 

consumer demand that drives the practices that are harmful to insects. It is therefore essential that, where relevant, people are informed about the unsustainability of excessive food intake, the health and environmental benefits of a shift to plant-based diets to meet nutritional needs, as well as about the harm that domestic pesticide use inflicts on insects and more sustainable alternatives. 

In sum, benefits of pesticides and other chemicals for food production and storage do not outweigh the risks to the people, livestock and the environment from their residues (Chakravarthy et al., 2016). Due to the invaluable service that insects provide for us and their wider value in the biotic community, a strong case can be made for a tax on pesticides based on sustainability criteria, investment in habitat creation and grants for sustainable agricultural practices, despite potentially high costs for farmers and industry further upstream. This will be facilitated by government initiatives to develop social responsibility and encourage behaviour change.

References:

Dietz, S. et al., (2010) “Ambiguity is another reason to mitigate climate change”. VOX CEPR’s Policy Portal. Available at: http://voxeu.org/article/ambiguity-another-reason-mitigate-climate-change [accessed on 07/11/2017].

Hallman,  C. A. et al., 2017. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas, PloS ONE: 12(10). 

Hanley, N. et al., 2013. Introduction to Environmental Economics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 300.

Johnson, N., (2015) “So can we really feed the world? Yes — and here’s how”, Grist. Available at: http://grist.org/food/so-can-we-really-feed-the-world-yes-and-heres-how/ [accessed on 07/11/2017].

PAN Europe., (2017) “Making Ecological Focus Areas pesticide-free is the only way forward”.  Available at: http://www.pan-europe.info/resources/briefings/2017/01/making-ecological-focus-areas-pesticide-free-only-way-forward [accessed on 04/11/2017].

Pietrowski, A., (2016) “NOT JUST BEES: ALL INSECTS ARE DECLINING AND HEADING AS WE HEAD FOR ‘MASS EXTINCTION’ ”, The Daily Sheeple. Available at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/bug-chart.png [accessed on 04/11/2017].

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity., 2014. Montréal: Global Biodiversity Outlook 4, pp. 155.

Monbiot, G., (2017) “Insectageddon: farming is more catastrophic than climate breakdown”, The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/20/insectageddon-farming-catastrophe-climate-breakdown-insect-populations [accessed on 04/11/2017].

World Bank Group., (2017) “Agricultural land (% of land area)”. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.ZS [accessed on 04/11/2017].



About the author:

"Insectageddon" was written by Yolanda Cowen, a third year Sustainable Development student. She cares deeply about providing lasting solutions to the world's most 'wicked' problems, aspires to be a responsible global citizen, and to leave as big a net positive impact on the world as possible. She also believes in the value of little things and the power of people when they work together, while recognising the need for a holistic approach to sustainable development.