The reduction of pesticide use and associated environmental risks has become a central challenge in agricultural policy across Europe. Yet the implementation of effective and socially acceptable policy instruments remains uncertain, particularly in light of conflicting stakeholder interests and limited guidance on how high-level sustainability goals should translate into operational policy measures. This study addresses this gap by identifying stakeholder-supported strategies for pesticide risk reduction in Germany. Using a modified Delphi approach and a structured set of policy design parameters, the study facilitated iterative, dialogue-based deliberation among experts from agriculture, environmental protection, and academia. Rather than seeking consensus, the process enabled participants to examine trade-offs across policy options and co-develop governance mechanisms that balance environmental objectives with agricultural viability. A three-pillar policy framework gained broad stakeholder support: risk-based reductions within intensive production systems, targeted promotion of ecosystem services, and protection of non-target habitats. Market-based instruments, such as levies or licensing systems, were favored for their ability to preserve farm-level flexibility while incentivizing environmental outcomes. However, views diverged on administrative feasibility, and equity, particularly regarding cross-border trade. The findings provide actionable insights into how stakeholder perspectives can inform the development of politically feasible and socially robust plant protection policies. More broadly, the study demonstrates the value of deliberative, evidence-informed governance processes for navigating contested environmental policy domains.
Jannik Aaron Dresemann (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: