4. Assessment of country monitoring capacities

The workshop participants were divided into three working groups according to geographical areas so that participants from neighbouring countries could get to know each other better:

• South Asia countries: Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka;

• Southeast Asia countries: Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore and Thailand; and

• China and neighboring countries: China, DPR Korea, Republic of Korea, Lao PDR, Philippines and Viet Nam.

The working groups reviewed the proposed monitoring guidelines for Code implementation with a dual purpose. Firstly, to give feedback to the questionnaire designers with regard to completeness and comprehension of the questions; secondly, to assess their country's capacity to answer the questions and determine, where and in what format, the requested data are available.

The summarized results of the working groups are as follows:

General feedback on the questionnaire

• Make clear, to whom the questionnaire is addressed: coordinating role of responsible national authority in collecting data

• Questionnaire should have more instructions on how to fill it out

• Provide separate questionnaires for government and industry

• Include more definitions/explanations, e.g. for IPM

• Combine household and public health pesticides

• Avoid questions with "significant" or "to what extent"

• Use time-limited questions such as "existing", "last year", "from ... to".

• Requests to describe basis for responses is too lengthy and time consuming; should be rephrased

• Ask for supporting documents/data wherever possible instead of asking officials to describe in a lengthy report

• Supporting documents may be in local language

• Ask for institution names instead of names of official

• More awareness of the hazardous effects of pesticide on end users

• More awareness of risk assessment program

• Ask for percentage of adoption instead of compliance

• Minimum standards to be defined by the country

• Ask for

  - most important?
  - greatest strength?
  - weakness?
  - priority areas?

A. Pest and pesticide management

Important issues or questions missing:

• Give definition and scope of IPM

• Resistance management to be separated for agricultural and public health pesticides

• Include efforts for resistance monitoring

• "Does the government has a pesticide resistant and monitoring system in place?"

Ambiguous questions:

• "Resources" in 3.7 needs to be clearly refined; difficult to quantify

Minimum standard of compliance

• adaptation, acceptance

Objectively verifiable indicators:

• ask for targets and to what extent they have been achieved

• answers to be given in percentages

• more focus on:

  - do you have IPM policy successes?

  - what IPM programme do you have?

  - what crops are covered?

  - what targets in terms of IPM training, type of farmers, etc.?

  - were targets met?

  - focus on financial aspects: what kind of resources were provided?

  - what proportion of financial resources comes from the government? Others?

Availability and quality of information:

B. Testing, quality control and effects in the field

Important issues or questions missing:

• 4.2 part 2 should be divided in two parts, one for sale and one for export

• "Do you have a law to assess quality of pesticides for sale/export/import?"

• "Do you have facilities to assess quality of pesticides for sale/import/export?"

• In 4.4 add: "in cooperation with industry"

Ambiguous questions:

• 4.4 not clear: who should answer on behalf of government or industry

Minimum standard of compliance

• FAO specifications

Objectively verifiable indicators:

• In 4.4 provide clear description or ranking of actions taken for risk assessment

• Who (government/industry) does what?

Availability and quality of information:

NA = not available

C. Health and environment

Important issues or questions missing:

• Separate food monitoring from environmental monitoring

• Exchange "survey" with "information"

• Obtaining poisoning data is difficult due to social, political, educational and legal factors

• Harmonization of format/protocol of reporting of occupational farm worker poisoning; household; public health should find place

• Many hospitals function as poison treatment facilities

• Clarification of effects on human health

• Ask for data on environmental pesticide exposure, not only effects

• Community monitoring should be recommended

Ambiguous questions:

• What are "methods to document poisoning cases?"

• Definition of poison control center/facility

• Explanation of "near areas"

Minimum standard of compliance

• increasing trend of safety

Objectively verifiable indicators:

• give data as a percentage

Availability and quality of information:

D. Manufacture, use and trade

Important issues or questions missing:

• Issue of labeling/classification of pesticides should be included

• Key issue is to know used amounts and categories of pesticides to determine effects on health/environment

Ambiguous questions:

• 6.1.8 part 1 is too broad, explanation required

• Clarification of quantity/extent

• 6.1.8 part 5 about use of data to assess possible effects is too ambitious and was suggested to be dropped

• What is "method to detect and control illegal trade" mean?

Minimum standard of compliance

• FAO/WHO, WHO, GHS

• Variable standards of compliance

Objectively verifiable indicators:

Availability and quality of information:

E. Selected standards

Important issues or questions missing:

• Protective clothing difficult to wear

• 5.2.3 to be answered by industry only

• Enquire about incentives for container collection

• Rinsing of containers not to be encouraged

• Give list of prohibited pesticides instead of a description

• Question 6.2.7 to include application equipment

• National legislation and enforcement to be broken up into questions

• Voluntary responsive action may be mandatory in some countries

Ambiguous questions:

• Poison information center/poison control center/poison facility; partially repetitive of Section C.

• 5.2.3 addressed to industry

• 5.1.5 and 5.3.3 repetitive questions

• Classification of pesticides by WTO, WHO

• Question about pesticide registration as yes/no question

Minimum standard of compliance

• Code of Conduct

Objectively verifiable indicators:

• Small/large degree > rating system

• Ask for percentage instead of what degree

• List of banned/restricted pesticides

Availability and quality of information:

NA = not available

F. General input on observance

• This section requires a good overview and comprehension of the pesticide situation.

• Level of awareness missing

• Ask for results

• Ask for ratification of international conventions

Ad hoc monitoring report

• should be made widely known to the public and interested groups

Conclusion

Challenges

Identifying imports of pesticides disguised as other chemicals

Better enforcement of regulations

Vested interest from agrochemical companies

Areas for FAO Assistance

Strengthening of risk assessment

Strengthening of IPM programmes

Inventory and disposal of obsolete pesticides

Establishment of biocontrol laboratories

Establishment of quality control laboratories