Inventory of existing policy instruments

This database contains a list of policy instruments related to IPM implemented in the 8 AGROWISE partners countries (DE, FR, HR, IE, IT, PL, RO, SE). This list is not exhaustive. 

It appears from the study of this database that external factors such as behavioural factors, farm and market contexts or the level of knowledge on IPM have an influence on the effectiveness of IPM policy instruments, as demonstrated in the literature and confirmed during the stakeholder interviews held as part of Agrowise WP4.

The characterisation of more than 300 IPM policy instruments from 8 countries in the database has shown that >80% of the IPM policy instruments are solely focussed on farmers, with the vast  majority of IPM instruments (83%) implemented by national authorities. 

>80% of the IPM policy instruments are solely focussed on farmers	>80% of the IPM policy instruments are solely implemented by national authorities

Most IPM policy instruments neglect to target a specific IPM Principle. It appears that 53% of the policy instruments fail to target one or several Principles but are related to “general IPM”. Approximately 25% of instruments target Principle 6 (“reduced pesticide use”) while the less targeted is Principle 8 (“evaluation”), with only 2% of the listed instruments. However, the synthesis of the number of practices per IPM principles hightlight the incredible richness of Principle 1 Prevention and suppression. 

Of the policy instruments identified a similar distribution between the types of instruments (regulatory, informative and economic instruments) exists across the member states. A mix of policy instrument types allows policies to address the different drivers that farmers and other stakeholders will answer to.

This inventory is also the basis of an analysis of the strenghs and weaknesses of each category of instrument identified. This report on strenghs and weaknesses of the policy instrument, available to download, aims to gather insights into the advantages and disadvantages of the instruments which were catalogued, drawing on both expert stakeholder interviews and supplementary literature reviews.