The country reports in the previous chapter reflect a great diversity within the Asia region in terms of pesticide management. The questionnaire annex that was submitted by the country delegates allowed for a systematic comparison of selected pesticide management aspects, similar to the proposed monitoring of Code implementation as stipulated in Article 12 of the revised version. The workshop questionnaire, however, contained only about 40 questions as compared to the 110 questions in the draft monitoring guidelines. About 30 of the questions were identical. This allowed the workshop participants to practice Code monitoring, to better understand the purpose and procedure of the proposed monitoring guidelines and to see how their answers affect the overall outcome.
The answers from the questionnaires were entered into a database and the results were reported in the "Questionnaire Summaries" at the end of each country report in the previous chapter. In addition, the answers were analyzed with regard to the overall situation of Code implementation in the Asia region.
Not all country delegates were able to answer all the questions. It became clear from this exercise that most countries do not have a single institution that is knowledgeable about all aspects of pesticide management, but this information is scattered over several institutions. This situation is likely to hinder a comprehensive assessment of the benefits and risks of pesticides and the development of appropriate policies. It makes the proposed monitoring of Code implementation difficult as it would require a collaborative effort between multiple partners in order to yield meaningful results. If this effort is not made, the proposed future monitoring of Code implementation would yield incomplete, misleading or incorrect answers. The results from the workshop questionnaire reflect the same difficulties and they may differ significantly from the actual situation. Therefore, the workshop questionnaire survey was a useful exercise to make participants aware of these problems.
According to the results provided by the participants, the overall annual pesticide use was estimated at close to 500 000 tons active ingredients valued at US$8.3 billion. This figure is considerably higher than other estimates which put the Asian pesticide value at about US$5 billion per year. For comparison, this value is more than the national gross products of Cambodia and Lao PDR combined. It has been said that the trend of pesticide use is increasing in Asia, while worldwide it is stagnant. More than half of the regional pesticides are used in China.
These figures are based on the following country estimates. In some instances, conversion factors were used to complete the table, such as 4 kg formulated product per kg of technical active ingredient (a.i.) and US$20 per kg technical a.i. Actual values may differ from these estimates, however, they were not available.
The pattern of pesticide use differs significantly between the countries. Per hectare of agricultural land, most pesticides are used in the Republic of Korea, followed by Malaysia. According to the information collected, the least intensive pesticide users are Lao PDR, Cambodia and Nepal; however, these countries may have unrecorded pesticides from cross border trade which would increase the actual figures.
Most pesticides used are insecticides, particularly in Pakistan, Cambodia, Myanmar, India and Bangladesh. Herbicides dominate the markets in Thailand, Malaysia and Sri Lanka where they are used in plantation crops. The country with the largest share of fungicides was Nepal.
A low pesticide price was not correlated with intensive use. The Republic of Korea has both the highest unit price and the highest consumption. Malaysia, the second most intensive pesticide user, however, has the lowest reported pesticide prices. Other low-price countries with less than US$2 per kg formulated product were Cambodia, Pakistan and Thailand.
Pesticide expenditures in relation to the agricultural GNP or the per capita income again were the highest in the Republic of Korea, followed by China. It was the lowest in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Nepal which are predominantly agricultural countries with more than 30 percent of their GNP coming from agriculture, and at the same time having the lowest per capita income.
Pesticide management
All countries in the Asia region have passed appropriate legislation and have established registration systems to control and supervise the use of pesticides. In most countries, the legislation is pesticide-specific (see Annex 3 for details), while in others pesticides are already regulated in the context of a comprehensive policy on hazardous materials management and environmental protection.
With regard to the institutions in charge of pesticide management, they predominantly belong to the Ministry of Agriculture. Other institutions such as Ministries of Health, Environment or Trade are represented in most of the supervisory committees that exist in about half the countries. The Ministry of Health is primarily in charge of monitoring health effects of pesticides, even though the Ministry of Agriculture is reported to do this also in eight countries. Likewise, environmental agencies are involved in monitoring environmental effects in seven countries.
Pest management
All countries have IPM activities to promote alternative approaches to chemical pest control. National IPM Programmes are reported from all countries except for Singapore. These programmes are mostly associated with extension activities. A national IPM policy has been declared in 12 countries.
One country, the Republic of Korea, has no IPM policy, but has set a target to reduce pesticides by 50 percent. There were no reports from any other country that their IPM policy was linked with a pesticide reduction target. This raises the question of effectiveness of IPM policies and programmes when they are not coupled with a national pesticide management strategy as proposed in the revised Code. This is particularly important as pesticide use appears to be on the rise despite the widespread commitment to IPM.
Testing, quality control and effects in the field
All countries except Singapore have laws specifying the quality of pesticides, usually following FAO/WHO standards. All countries except Lao PDR and Singapore possess laboratories to check the quality of pesticides, however, the capacity and number of analysis per year differs greatly between the countries. Most analyses are done by India, Thailand and Viet Nam. Relative to the amount of pesticides sold, however, Cambodia and India made the most quality checks.
Health information
Only half the countries have data on pesticide poisoning cases or possess poison control or treatment centers. The number of reported cases varies greatly and probably reflects more the efforts made by some individuals than the actual situation in the country. Relative to the amount of pesticides used, most poisoning cases were reported from Nepal and Sri Lanka; 70-80 percent of these cases were intentional suicides. Reported occupational and accidental exposure cases amounted to only 1.2, 0.5 and 0.2 cases per ton of pesticide used for Nepal, Sri Lanka and Thailand, respectively. Due to the difficulties in obtaining accurate poisoning estimates that do not only cover the most severe cases of hospital admissions, these figures are not likely to represent an accurate picture of the effects of pesticides on human health in the Asia region.
Environmental information
Similar to data on pesticide effects on human health, data on pesticide effects on the environment are also very incomplete. Even though 13 countries reported possessing a residue monitoring system, only one country (Republic of Korea) reported having data on ecological and wildlife effects of pesticides. Four countries reported that they have significant environmental contamination from pesticides. However, with the absence of actual data, questionnaire responses are probably only personal opinions which may not always be based on a detailed knowledge of the situation. To obtain a more meaningful assessment of the pesticide effects on the environment, a more systematic collection of data and case studies is needed.
Pesticide manufacture, use and trade
Only a few country reports contained a comprehensive description of the pesticide market. For a complete picture one would need to know the amounts of pesticides manufactured and formulated in the country, plus the amounts imported and exported. With this information one could cross-check the pesticide use estimates and determine the amount of illegal trade, which is probably more widespread than only in the three countries that reported estimates.
Few country reports contained information on the amounts of public health and household pesticides. It is possible that these uses are not covered by the existing legislation and registration which focuses primarily on agricultural pesticides. Most countries were knowledgeable about the amounts of insecticides, fungicides and herbicides used. For more accurate and meaningful data on volume and value, however, one would need to report the information separately for the different chemical classes.
Selected standards
In all but one country (India), the use of highly toxic pesticides is banned or severely restricted. About half the countries reported having services to collect and safely dispose of containers and small quantities of left-over pesticides; details about these services were not made available. Also, about half the countries reported having an inventory of outdated and obsolete products.
Industry associations of pesticide manufacturers and dealers exist only in nine countries, and ten countries reported having non-governmental organisations with an interest in pesticide related issues. These associations could be valuable partners for monitoring Code implementation.
Conclusion and comments
The workshop questionnaire exercise raised an important question: Who should monitor Code implementation? Monitoring is only useful if the collected information is comprehensive and accurately reflects the situation in the country. Most importantly, however, the proposed monitoring should not only be seen as a required reporting to FAO, but as an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the country's own policies on pest and pesticide management. Therefore, policy makers should become involved. The questionnaire responses should be thoroughly discussed and reflected at the country level.
The Code of Conduct is a policy document to which each country has committed itself through the FAO Assembly. It is now up to the countries to determine which part of this policy needs strengthening. For example, country pesticide policies should treat pesticides not as production inputs, but as damage control agents. As data from India clearly show, foodgrain production is not linked with pesticide consumption. In that country, the volume of pesticides used declined by bout 30 percent since 1990, while foodgrain production continued to rise with increased fertilizer consumption.
The revised Code of Conduct provides a unique opportunity for all countries to assess the effectiveness of their pesticide management policies. It could be used as an instrument to bring together information from different institutions and organizations for a comprehensive look at the benefits and risks of pesticides. As reflected in the Code, pesticide policies must be effectively linked with appropriate pest management policies in order to achieve synergistic benefits. So far, there is inconsistent evidence among Asian countries of consistent pest and pesticide management policies with clear national targets.
Thailand is one of few countries in the region which has conducted, with the assistance of GTZ, a systematic pesticide policy analysis which resulted in a comprehensive pesticide policy strategy of 2002 to 2006.
From 2000 to 2001, Pakistan conducted, with UNDP assistance, a pesticide policy analysis and reviewed risks and benefits from pesticides use in the country. As one of the results from this study, a National IPM Program was founded and funded by the Government to promote a more rational use of pesticides.
In 2002, the Code was revised and updated to strengthen its guidance on reducing the adverse effects of pesticides on health and the environment and to support sustainable agricultural practices. The revised version of the Code includes international instruments relevant to pesticides and demonstrates that pesticide management should be considered a part of chemical management.
Among other changes, the revised Code contains important new provisions on monitoring and observance. Under Article 12 of the Code, all stakeholders are invited to monitor and report on implementation of the Code. Other provisions call upon governments and industry to collect and report on various types of information relating to pesticides. Draft guidelines on monitoring and observance of the revised version of the Code have been sent to selected delegates for review. Their feedback and that of the workshop will facilitate the finalization of the monitoring guidelines later in 2005.
The participant of Malaysia, Mr. Md. Sufian Yek, noted that monitoring of the questionnaire is quite lengthy and would require much time for completion, since some of the information may not be readily available to the pesticide regulatory agency. He pointed out some confusion between poison control treatment facilities and Poison Control and Information Centers. He made a number of valuable suggestions for improvement which are covered later in chapter 4.
The representative of CropLife pointed out that IPM works best when biological, chemical and biotechnical methods are used together, and that biotechnical pest management methods were not covered in the questionnaire.
The representative of PAN AP presented a series of slides to explain the approach of PAN to Code monitoring:
