IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i16p9408-d619231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subsidy as An Economic Instrument for Environmental Protection: A Case of Global Fertilizer Use

Author

Listed:
  • Mathy Sane

    (Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 16 500 Praha-Suchdol, Czech Republic)

  • Miroslav Hajek

    (Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 16 500 Praha-Suchdol, Czech Republic)

  • Chukwudi Nwaogu

    (Department of Environmental Management, School of Environmental Sciences, Federal University of Technology, Owerri, P.M.B. 1526, Owerri 460114, Nigeria
    Department of Forest Protection and Entomology, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 16 500 Praha-Suchdol, Czech Republic)

  • Ratna Chrismiari Purwestri

    (Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 16 500 Praha-Suchdol, Czech Republic)

Abstract

Fertilizer subsidies may constitute a key economic tool with which to provide food for the growing population. Therefore, this work aimed to (i) assess the effectiveness of subsidized chemical (NPK) fertilizer use in food production by comparing the crop output between developed and developing regions and (ii) examine the benefits of organic fertilizer and the need for its use in developing regions such as Africa. Secondary data from 2000 to 2019 on global subsidized fertilizer use, crop production, income, and other agro-environmental parameters, such as climate and soil, were collected from the international databases of the World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Forest Resources Assessment (FRA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and World Income Inequalities Database (WID), as well as countries’ national statistics. Data were analyzed using qualitative, quantitative, and geospatial software and techniques, such as SPSS, averages, multivariate analysis, and spatial analytical Geographic Information System (GIS) tools. The results reveal that the total global fertilizer use continuously increased from 79 million tonnes in 2000 to 125 million tonnes in 2019. Subsidized fertilizer use and crop production increased with countries’ economic status. For example, countries or regions with more economic resources tended to have higher fertilizer subsidies. More than 95% of North American and European countries recorded the highest total chemical fertilizer use, ranging from 855,160 to 18,224,035 kg ha −1 . In terms of organic fertilizer production, the percentage contribution in Africa relative to global production was only 2%, which was about 932,538 million tonnes below the production yield in North America. More organic fertilizer and less inorganic fertilizer should be encouraged instead of the total eradication of chemical fertilizers. This is especially applicable to developing countries, where food production is low due to poor soil and high food demand owing to a harsh environment and rapid population growth.

Suggested Citation

  • Mathy Sane & Miroslav Hajek & Chukwudi Nwaogu & Ratna Chrismiari Purwestri, 2021. "Subsidy as An Economic Instrument for Environmental Protection: A Case of Global Fertilizer Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-20, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:16:p:9408-:d:619231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/9408/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/9408/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gutiérrez-Romero, Roxana & Ahamed, Mostak, 2021. "COVID-19 response needs to broaden financial inclusion to curb the rise in poverty," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    2. Dawson, C.J. & Hilton, J., 2011. "Fertiliser availability in a resource-limited world: Production and recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(Supplemen), pages 14-22, January.
    3. Barrett E. Kirwan & Michael J. Roberts, 2016. "Who Really Benefits from Agricultural Subsidies? Evidence from Field-level Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1095-1113.
    4. Chen, You-hua & Chen, Mei-xia & Mishra, Ashok K., 2020. "Subsidies under uncertainty: Modeling of input- and output-oriented policies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 39-56.
    5. Mihir Rakshit, 2018. "Some Economics of Fertiliser Subsidy," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 16(1), pages 209-228, December.
    6. Daniel A. Sumner, 2014. "American Farms Keep Growing: Size, Productivity, and Policy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(1), pages 147-166, Winter.
    7. Cees van Beers & André de Moor, 2001. "Public Subsidies and Policy Failures," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2040.
    8. Blampied, Nicolás, 2021. "Economic growth, environmental constraints and convergence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    9. Runge, C. Ford, 1992. "Environmental Effects Of Trade In The Agricultural Sector: A Case Study," Working Papers 14449, University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.
    10. David L. Mather & Thomas S. Jayne, 2018. "Fertilizer subsidies and the role of targeting in crowding out: evidence from Kenya," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(2), pages 397-417, April.
    11. Gary Adams & Patrick Westhoff & Brian Willott & Robert E. Young, 2001. "Do “Decoupled” Payments Affect U.S. Crop Area? Preliminary Evidence from 1997–2000," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1190-1195.
    12. Xinjian Chen & Di Zeng & Ying Xu & Xiaojun Fan, 2018. "Perceptions, Risk Attitude and Organic Fertilizer Investment: Evidence from Rice and Banana Farmers in Guangxi, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-14, October.
    13. Wu, Wenbin & Yu, Qiangyi & You, Liangzhi & Chen, Kevin & Tang, Huajun & Liu, Jianguo, 2018. "Global cropping intensity gaps: Increasing food production without cropland expansion," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 515-525.
    14. Jonathan A. Foley & Navin Ramankutty & Kate A. Brauman & Emily S. Cassidy & James S. Gerber & Matt Johnston & Nathaniel D. Mueller & Christine O’Connell & Deepak K. Ray & Paul C. West & Christian Balz, 2011. "Solutions for a cultivated planet," Nature, Nature, vol. 478(7369), pages 337-342, October.
    15. Lan Huong Nguyen & Susan Holmes, 2019. "Ten quick tips for effective dimensionality reduction," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-19, June.
    16. Munyanyi Watson, 2013. "Agricultural infrastructure developmentimperative for sustainable food production: a Zimbabwean perspective," Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences, CyberLeninka;Редакция журнала Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences, vol. 24(12), pages 13-21.
    17. Paolo Sckokai & Daniele Moro, 2006. "Modeling the Reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy for Arable Crops under Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(1), pages 43-56.
    18. José Manuel Rato Nunes & António Bonito & Luis Loures & José Gama & Antonio López-Piñeiro & David Peña & Ángel Albarrán, 2017. "Effects of the European Union Agricultural and Environmental Policies in the Sustainability of Most Common Mediterranean Soils," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-16, August.
    19. Teklewold, Hailemariam & Kassie, Menale & Shiferaw, Bekele & Köhlin, Gunnar, 2013. "Cropping system diversification, conservation tillage and modern seed adoption in Ethiopia: Impacts on household income, agrochemical use and demand for labor," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 85-93.
    20. Yinhao Wu & Enru Wang & Changhong Miao, 2019. "Fertilizer Use in China: The Role of Agricultural Support Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-23, August.
    21. Macdonald, B.C.T. & Nachimuthu, G. & Chang, Y.F & Nadelko, A.J. & Tuomi, S. & Watkins, M., 2020. "Nitrogen composition in furrow irrigated run-off water," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    22. Kibirige, Joachim S., 1997. "Population growth, poverty and health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 247-259, July.
    23. Crawford, Eric W. & Jayne, Thomas S. & Kelly, Valerie A., 2005. "Alternative Approaches for Promoting Fertilizer Use in Africa, with Emphasis on the Role of Subsidies," Food Security International Development Policy Syntheses 11292, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    24. Dawson, C.J. & Hilton, J., 2011. "Fertiliser availability in a resource-limited world: Production and recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(S1), pages 14-22.
    25. Vico, A. & Sáez, J.A. & Pérez-Murcia, M.D. & Martinez-Tomé, J. & Andreu-Rodríguez, J. & Agulló, E. & Bustamante, M.A. & Sanz-Cobena, A. & Moral, R., 2020. "Production of spinach in intensive Mediterranean horticultural systems can be sustained by organic-based fertilizers without yield penalties and with low environmental impacts," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    26. Kenneth Harttgen & Sebastian Vollmer, 2011. "Inequality Decomposition without Income or Expenditure Data: Using an Asset Index to Simulate Household Income," Human Development Research Papers (2009 to present) HDRP-2011-13, Human Development Report Office (HDRO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
    27. Lenis Saweda O. Liverpool-Tasie, 2014. "Fertilizer subsidies and private market participation: the case of Kano State, Nigeria," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(6), pages 663-678, November.
    28. Crawford, Eric W. & Jayne, Thomas S. & Kelly, Valerie A., 2005. "Alternative Approaches for Promoting Fertilizer Use in Africa, with Particular Reference to the Role of Fertilizer Subsidies," Staff Paper Series 11557, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Raluca Georgiana Robu & Ana-Maria Holobiuc & Alina Petronela Alexoaei & Valentin Cojanu & Dumitru Miron, 2023. "Regional Patterns of Pesticide Consumption Determinants in the European Union," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yinhao Wu & Enru Wang & Changhong Miao, 2019. "Fertilizer Use in China: The Role of Agricultural Support Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-23, August.
    2. Chen, You-hua & Chen, Mei-xia & Mishra, Ashok K., 2020. "Subsidies under uncertainty: Modeling of input- and output-oriented policies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 39-56.
    3. Franklin Egan, J. & Hafla, Aimee & Goslee, Sarah, 2015. "Tradeoffs between production and perennial vegetation in dairy farming systems vary among counties in the northeastern U.S," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 17-28.
    4. Dániel Fróna & János Szenderák & Mónika Harangi-Rákos, 2019. "The Challenge of Feeding the World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    5. Meyer-Aurich, Andreas & Karatay, Yusuf Nadi, 2019. "Effects of uncertainty and farmers' risk aversion on optimal N fertilizer supply in wheat production in Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 130-139.
    6. Michael Barrowclough & L. Geyer, 2015. "Biofuel Policies: The Underground Limitation on Biofuels," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 21(1), pages 55-65, March.
    7. Bhaskar, Arathi & Beghin, John C., 2007. "How Coupled are Decoupled Farm Payments? A Review of Coupling Mechanisms and the Evidence," Working Papers 7347, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    8. Dmitrieva, D. & Ilinova, A. & Kraslawski, A., 2017. "Strategic management of the potash industry in Russia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 81-89.
    9. B. James Deaton & Chad Lawley & Karthik Nadella, 2018. "Renters, landlords, and farmland stewardship," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 521-531, July.
    10. Peter Horton & Steve A. Banwart & Dan Brockington & Garrett W. Brown & Richard Bruce & Duncan Cameron & Michelle Holdsworth & S. C. Lenny Koh & Jurriaan Ton & Peter Jackson, 2017. "An agenda for integrated system-wide interdisciplinary agri-food research," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(2), pages 195-210, April.
    11. Hans-Peter Weikard, 2016. "Phosphorus recycling and food security in the long run: a conceptual modelling approach," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(2), pages 405-414, April.
    12. Tambo, J. & Mockshell, J., 2018. "Differential impacts of conservation agriculture technology options on household welfare in sub-Saharan Africa," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277035, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Reijnders, L., 2014. "Phosphorus resources, their depletion and conservation, a review," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 32-49.
    14. Paul J. A. Withers & Colin Neal & Helen P. Jarvie & Donnacha G. Doody, 2014. "Agriculture and Eutrophication: Where Do We Go from Here?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(9), pages 1-23, September.
    15. Ami Reznik & Ariel Dinar, 2022. "Local conditions and the economic feasibility of urban wastewater recycling in irrigated agriculture: Lessons from a stochastic regional analysis in California," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(4), pages 2115-2130, December.
    16. Shuangxi Li & Zhaohui Zhang & Juanqin Zhang & Xianqing Zheng & Hanlin Zhang & Haiyun Zhang & Yue Zhang & Naling Bai & Weiguang Lv, 2022. "Using Mathematical Models to Study the Influences of Different Ratios of Chemical Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium on the Content of Soluble Protein, Vitamin C, and Soluble Sugar in Melon," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, December.
    17. Olagunju, Kehinde Oluseyi & Feng, Siyi & Patton, Myles, 2021. "Dynamic relationships among phosphate rock, fertilisers and agricultural commodity markets: Evidence from a vector error correction model and Directed Acyclic Graphs," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    18. Chowdhury, Rubel Biswas & Moore, Graham A. & Weatherley, Anthony J. & Arora, Meenakshi, 2014. "A review of recent substance flow analyses of phosphorus to identify priority management areas at different geographical scales," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 213-228.
    19. Jongwoo Kim & Nicole M. Mason & David Mather & Felicia Wu, 2021. "The effects of the national agricultural input voucher scheme (NAIVS) on sustainable intensification of maize production in Tanzania," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 857-877, September.
    20. Aleksandra Dimitrijević & Marija Gavrilović & Sanjin Ivanović & Zoran Mileusnić & Rajko Miodragović & Saša Todorović, 2020. "Energy Use and Economic Analysis of Fertilizer Use in Wheat and Sugar Beet Production in Serbia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-12, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:16:p:9408-:d:619231. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.