24. Safe and sustainable crop protection in Southeast Asia Status, challenges and policy options

24. Safe and sustainable crop protection in Southeast Asia Status, challenges and policy options tài liệu, giáo án, bài...

Safe and sustainable crop protection in Southeast Asia:

a

AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center, P.O Box 42, Shanhua, Tainan 74199, Taiwan

b

AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center, Eastern and Southern Africa, P.O Box 10, Duluti, Arusha, Tanzania

c

Department of Plant Protection Sanitary and Phytosanitary, General Directorate of Agriculture, #54B, Road 656, Sangkat Leuk Laak III, Toul Kork,

Phnom Penh, Cambodia

d

Science Institute of Rural Development & Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Trauqui, Gialam, Hanoi, Viet Nam

e

Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Faculty of Economics, Kasetsart University, Jatujak, 10900 Bangkok, Thailand

1 Introduction

The use of agricultural pesticides has rapidly increased in

SoutheastAsiaaswellasinmostotherdevelopinganddeveloped

countries(SchreinemachersandTipraqsa,2012).InSoutheastAsia,

thistrendhasbeendrivenbylanduseintensificationrelatedtothe

expansion of higher value crop production and integration of

farmersintomarkets.Tostimulate agriculturalgrowth,

govern-mentshavesupportedtheuseofpesticidesbycreatingconditions

forwidespreadavailabilityandaffordableprices(Dasguptaetal.,

2005;Praneetvatakuletal.,2013;Hoietal.,2013).Forinstance,in

Thailand,thequantityofformulatedpesticideproductsappliedper

hectare increased from 2kg/ha in 1999 to 7kg/ha in 2009

(Praneetvatakuletal.,2013).In Vietnam,theuseofagricultural

pesticides increased from 20,000tons/year to 77,000tons/year

during1991–2007(Lamersetal.,2013)

The fast rate of this increase poses enormous challenges to managetheassociatedriskstopeopleandecosystems.Evidencefor widespread pesticide misuse and associated adverse effects is abundantforThailand(e.g.Boonyatumanondetal.,1997;Thapinta andHudak,2000;Stuetzetal.,2001;Asawasinsoponetal.,2006; Kunstadteretal.,2006;Panuwetetal.,2008,2012;Grovermannetal., 2013; Riwthongetal.,2015).Suchevidence isalsoabundant for Vietnam(e.g.Berg,2001;Dasguptaetal.,2005;Hoietal.,2009;Hoai

etal., 2011;Lamersetal.,2011) Asa resultofpesticidemisuse, consumershavebecomeincreasinglyconcernedabouttheir expo-suretopesticideresidues(e.g.Roitner-Schobesbergeretal.,2008) Thegovernments of Thailandand Vietnam realize thatpesticide misuseharms agricultural exportstohigh-income countries,but struggletoimplementeffectiveregulationtoreinintheproblem Forlower-incomecountriesinSoutheastAsiasuchasCambodia andLaos,therearefewerstudiesdocumentingpesticide-related problems (e.g Neufeld et al., 2010; Jensen et al., 2011) Until recently, their agricultural development as well as general economic developmentstagnatedand averagelevelsof agricul-tural pesticide use were low Yet these countries are now experiencingrapideconomicgrowthandfallinglevelsofpoverty

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 13 April 2015

Received in revised form 16 July 2015

Accepted 16 July 2015

Available online 24 August 2015

Keywords:

Agriculture

Developing countries

Integrated pest management

Pesticide

Pesticide policy

Pesticide regulation

A B S T R A C T

ThisstudyaimstoidentifychallengesaswellasentrypointsforgovernmentsinSoutheastAsiaand elsewheretoreducetheriskfromagriculturalpesticidesbycomparinglevelsofpesticideuse,pesticide regulation,andfarm-levelpracticesinCambodia,Laos,ThailandandVietnam.Weidentifiedthreemain challengesto pesticideriskreduction:(a)therapidexpansionofpesticide trade—intermsoftotal volume,number ofproductsand numberofsellingpoints,combined withaweak regulatoryand enforcementcapacity;(b)ahighlevelofsatisfactionamongfarmerswithpesticidescombinedwithlow levelsofriskawareness,lackoftechnicalknow-howaboutintegratedpestmanagement(IPM),and generalunavailabilityofbiocontrolagents;and(c)noregularmonitoringofpesticiderisk,whichmakes

itdifficultforlegislators,regulators,farmersandconsumers tomakerational decisions.Thestudy highlightsseveralexamplescountriescanemulate,includingtheintroductionofapesticide taxin Vietnam,thepesticideregistrationsysteminThailand,regulartrainingofpesticideretailersinThailand andVietnam,andproductcertification

ß2015ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved

* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: pepijn.schreinemachers@worldveg.org ,

p.schreinemachers@gmail.com (P Schreinemachers).

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Environmental Science & Policy

j our na l h ome p a ge : w ww e l se v i e r co m/ l oc a te / e nv sci

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.017

1462-9011/ß 2015 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

(Table 1 Their growth in agriculture is spurring growth in

pesticideuse—similartowhatwasexperiencedbytheir

higher-incomeneighbors(seeSchreinemachersandTipraqsa,2012)

ThisstudyaddresseswhatCambodiaandLaoscanlearnfrom

their neighbors’ experience, both positive and negative, to

minimize the risks to people and ecosystems from pesticide

misuse.Moregenerally,itaimstoidentifychallengesaswellas

entrypointsforgovernmentsinSoutheastAsia,andelsewhere,to

promotesaferandmoresustainablemethodsofcropprotection.In

this context, ‘‘safe and sustainable’’ refers to methods of crop

protectionthathavealowriskforfarmworkersandtheirfamilies,

consumers and the environment; it does not necessary imply

agriculturalproduction without syntheticpesticides The study

meetsitsaimthrougha comparisonofpesticideregulationand

farm-levelpracticesinCambodia,Laos,ThailandandVietnam

Theremainderofthepaperisorganizedasfollows.Westartby

describingthemethodofdatacollectionandsourcesofdata.After

describingrecenttrendsinagriculturalpesticideuse,wefocuson

pesticideregulation—thosethatregulatethesupplyofpesticides

suchasretailrequirements,pesticidelicensingand registration,

and those that influence farm-level demand such as standard

settingandthepromotionofintegratedpestmanagement(IPM)

practices The discussion highlights the main entry points and

challengesthat emergedfrom thecomparison The paperends

withaconclusion

2 Materialandmethods

We applied published guidelines for conducting a pesticide

policysituationalanalysis(WHO,2005;FAO,2010),butextended

thesebasedonownexperienceandinteresttoincludenotonly

policy issues but also the opinions of farmers and pesticide

retailers.Theauthorsfirstagreedonapre-definedlistofquestions

forelicitingresponses.Usingthislist,wecollecteddatainthelast

quarterof2013byinterviewinggovernmentofficersatnational

andsubnationallevelsinkeygovernmentagenciesthatdealwith

crop protection and food safety.Annex 1 lists the government

officesvisited forthisstudy.Regulations,policydocumentsand

scientificliteraturewerealsostudied

We selected three villages (four in Vietnam) representing

contrastingfarmingsystems ineach countryforin-depthfocus

groupdiscussionsonselectedtopicstovalidateand/oraugment

the responses from government officials Annex 2 lists the

locations One village with rice production (the dominant

production system in Southeast Asia), one with horticultural

production, and one with upland agriculture were selected

purposivelybasedontheresearchers’experience.Datacollected

from the village discussions complemented the policy-level

interviewswithfarm-levelinformation,illustratinglocal

experi-ences and opinions In each village, the villageheadmen were

askedtoselectabout10farmerstojoinafocusgroupdiscussion Selectedfarmershadaninterestinthetopicandwereavailableat thetimeforthemeeting.Theactualnumberofparticipantsvaried fromonaverageof8inThailandto30inCambodia,wherewehad

tosplit the participantsinto two subsequentsessions toallow everyoneto join.The discussions covered a range of topics on pesticideusageandpractices,includingpestanddiseaseproblems, the selection of pesticides, sources of information, awareness aboutadversehealtheffects,andavailablealternativestosynthetic pesticides.Localpesticideretailerslocatedinornearbythestudy villageswereinterviewedseparatelyfromthefarmerstocapture potentiallyopposingopinions.Theirinterviewsincludedquestions about what they thought were the main problems related to pesticideuseinthevillage, thetypesofproductstheysold,the trainingtheyhadreceived,andtheadvicetheygavetofarmers Farmers and retailers were also asked for their opinions and suggestions on sustainable pest management approaches com-paredwithcurrentpractices

3 Results 3.1 Trendsinagriculturalpesticideuse

Fig.1showsthetrendinagriculturalpesticideuseoverthepast

10yearsasobtainedfromministriesandbasedoncustomsimport records The data shown are indicative of trends but must be interpretedwithcautionastheyonlyrefertoregisteredimports Some countries re-export pesticides, legally or illegally, after formulation and repackaging Illegal pesticide imports also accountfora substantialshareof actualuse.OnlyVietnamhas startedtoproducesyntheticpesticidesdomestically,but govern-ment officials we interviewedconfirmed that it is a negligible amountofthetotalvolumeused

Thedatashowcleardifferencesinaveragepesticideapplication ratesbetweenThailandandVietnamononehand,andLaosand Cambodia on the other hand These differences mostly reflect variationsinlanduseintensityasindicatedin Table1.Average applicationratesbasedonimportedquantitiesperhectare(ha)of arable land in 2012 were 16.2kg/ha in Vietnam, 8.4kg/ha in Thailand,2.9kg/hainCambodiaand0.1kg/hainLaos(Table2

Theapplicationrateforactive pesticideingredientsperhectare

Table 1

General characteristics of agriculture in the sampled countries, 2012.

Cambodia Laos Thailand Vietnam Population (million) 14.6 6.5 66.6 87.8

Rural population (%) 79.8 64.7 65.5 68.3

Population density (people/km 2

) 82.7 28.3 130.3 283.3 Poverty headcount ratio at PPP

($1.25/day) 1

18.6 33.9 0.4 16.9 Per capita GDP (current US$) 945 1408 5480 1755

GDP growth (% per annum) 7.3 8.2 6.5 5.2

Arable land (million ha) 4.0 1.4 15.8 6.5

Land productivity

(million US$/ha) 2

1108 1642 2926 4187

Source: The World Bank (2014) Note: 1

Purchasing power parity 2

Agricultural value

Fig 1 Agricultural pesticide use in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam, in quantity of imported product per hectare of arable land, 2003–2012.

Data on quantities of imported pesticides based on customs import records and obtained through interviews at the Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (Cambodia), Department of Agriculture (Laos), Office of Agricultural Economics (Thailand), and Plant Protection Department (Vietnam) Data on arable land area obtained from World Bank (2014)

LaosandVietnam.UnlikeThailand,thesecountriesdonotrecord

thenameandamountofactiveingredientsthatareimported,orat

leastdonotmakesuchdatapubliclyavailable

Regressionanalysiswasusedtoquantifythetrends.Linearand

exponentialgrowthfunctionswereestimatedfor each country

The exponential growth function gave a betterfit in terms of

explainedvarianceforeachcountry,whichsuggeststhatgrowthin

pesticideusecanbeexpressedasapercentage.Average

applica-tionratesgrewby6.8%perannuminThailandand9.7%perannum

inVietnam.PesticideuseinCambodiaincreasedby61%annually

over the period 2003–2012, but by 92% since 2008 Laos

experienceda 55% annual growthsince 2003,but from a very

lowbase:theimportedquantitywas18tonsin2010,43tonsin

2011,and121tonsin2012

Thenumberofdifferentpesticideproducts(i.e.tradenames)

hasincreaseddramatically.ForVietnam,Hoi(2010)reportedthat

therewere837pesticideproductsonthemarketin1999andmore

than3000in2008.InCambodia,therearemorethan1300

pesti-cideproductsonthemarket(CheaHong,2013).Duringthefocus

group discussions, Vietnamese farmers said they were

over-whelmed and confused by the large number of pesticides

available, which made it difficult to select suitable products

Pesticide retailers also said that it was difficult for them to

distinguishbetweenproductsbecausemosthadsimilar-sounding

names

DuringthefocusgroupdiscussionsinVietnam,Thailandand

Cambodia,farmersclearlyindicatedthattheyfeltpesticideswere

essential for their farm operations Farmers were particularly

satisfiedwiththeapplicationofherbicidesastherewas

insuffi-cienthouseholdlabortodoweedingbyhand.Herbicideusewas

observedin allcrops Praneetvatakulet al (2013)showedthat

mostofthegrowthinpesticideuseinThailandisduetoincreased

herbicideuse(particularlyparaquatandglyphosate).Herbicides

accounted for 81% of total pesticide use in Thailand in 2012

(Table2

ThelowaverageuseofpesticidesinCambodiaandLaosdoes

notmeanthatpesticideriskislow.AccordingtoWangetal.(2011),

pesticideresiduelevelsonvegetablesinCambodia,particularlyon

leafyvegetables,areamong thehighestintheregion ForLaos,

watermelon,leafyvegetables,yardlongbean,andcucumber.The

LaoPlantProtectionCenterin2006foundthat27%ofvegetables

soldinVientianemarketshadpesticideresiduesabovesafelevels

(asreportedbyHelvetas Lao,2008) Incomparison,the

village-level focus group discussions showed that only a few of the

interviewed farmers used pesticides on rice Although damage fromhoppersandcaterpillarswasamajorconcern,farmerssaid theydidnotsprayandjustacceptedthedamagebecausericewas mostlyforhomeconsumptionandfarmersdidnotwanttospend moneyonpesticidesonacropthatisnotcultivatedforprofits.The contrast inpesticide usebetween rice and vegetableswasalso reportedforThailand,wherepesticideuseinintensivehorticulture was shown to be 10 times higher than in rice cultivation (Praneetvatakuletal.,2013)

Customs import records showedthatmost oftheregistered pesticide imports came from China (Table 2 For Thailand, pesticide imports from China accounted for 77% of the total quantityoflawfullyimportedpesticides,but onlyfor47%ofits totalimportvalue(aboutUSD600millionin2012).ForVietnam, pesticidesfromChinamadeup80–90%oftotalimportbyweight, butonly43%byvalue(USD813millionin2012).Thissuggeststhat the average price of pesticides imported from China is much cheaper than that of pesticides imported from elsewhere The rapidlydevelopingpesticideindustryinChina,andtolesserextent

in India, hasthusbeen animportant driver of pesticideuse in SoutheastAsia

Not registered (illegal) pesticide imports are a concern to governmentsinallstudycountries.ForVietnam,theMinistryof Trade and Industry estimated in 2008 that illegal imports accountedfor30–35%oftheusedquantity.Itis,however,unclear howtheministryestimatedthisfigure.ForCambodia,astudyby

CEDAC(2006)foundthat95%ofthepesticidecontainerssoldin Cambodia did not have labels in Khmer and might thus be importedorproducedillegally.Interviewedgovernmentofficersin ThailandandVietnamreckonedthatmostillegalimportsoriginate from China, while their counterparts in Laos and Cambodia thoughtthatmostwereshippedfromThailandandVietnam,but originatedfromChina

Anothermajorconcernofgovernmentsandfarmersindicated duringthefocusgroupdiscussionistheavailabilityofcounterfeit pesticideproducts.Farmerscomplainedthatsuchproductswereof poorqualityandlargelyineffective.Itwas,however,impossibleto judgetowhat extentfarmers couldcorrectly separatebetween original andcounterfeitproducts Farmers inVietnamsaid that pesticideretailersincreasedtheirsalesbyadvisingfarmerstouse dosageshigherthanwhatisrecommendedonthelabel 3.2 Pesticidelicensingandregistrationsystems

Pesticide registration is important to prevent theimport of pesticides for which health or environmental risk is too high

Table 2

Current levels and recent trends in agricultural pesticide use for Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam, 2003–2012.

Agricultural pesticide use (million

kg of imported product)

Pesticide application rate (kg/ha) 1

Annual growth in pesticide use 2

Main countries of legal pesticide

imports (percentage of the

total registered import)

Thailand, Vietnam China, Vietnam, Thailand China (77%), Israel (5%), India (5%) China (80–90%)

Main origin of illegal imports Thailand, Vietnam Thailand, Vietnam, China China China

Notes: 1

Data in kilograms (kg) of imported product per hectare of arable cropland As based on 2012 data for Thailand, about 53% of this quantity will be the weight in active ingredients 2 Refers to 2003–2012 for Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam, 2008–2012 for Laos (see data in Fig 1 Source of data: see Fig 1

regulationforafewdozenpesticideimportersthanforthousands

ofpesticideretailersormillionsoffarmers.Countriesinourstudy

havevoluntarilybasedtheirpesticideregistrationsystemsonthe

International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of

Pesticides(FAO,2006).Withminorvariations,allcountrieshavea

step-wiseregistrationprocessincludingregistrationfor

conduct-ingtrials,provisionalregistration,andfullregistration.However,

thereisvariationinrequirementsandlengthofvalidity(Table3

Thailand classifies pesticides (and all hazardous substances

usedincropproduction)intofourcategoriesaccordingtotheneed

forcontrol.SyntheticpesticidesaregenerallyclassifiedasaTypeIII

hazardoussubstance requiringregistrationas wellaslicensing

However, biopesticides are classified as a Type II hazardous

substanceandonlyrequireregistrationtoproduceorimport.Since

2008,pesticideregistrationinThailandrequiresbio-efficacytest

results, toxicological data assessment results, quality analysis

results,andresiduedataassessmentresults.Registrationisvalid

for6yearswithoutautomaticrenewal.Registrationshavebeen

canceledfor 96 pesticides, which havebeen bannedfor usein

agriculture

In Vietnam, pesticide registration is managed by the Plant

ProtectionDepartment Asin Thailand,bio-efficacytest results,

toxicologicaldataassessmentresults,andresiduedataassessment

results are required for the full registration of a pesticide

Registrationisvalidfor5years,afterwhichitmustberenewed

Alicenserenewalisvalidfor3yearsanddoesnotrequirefield

testing.ThePlantProtectionDepartmentreceived1436

submis-sionsforpesticideregistrationin2011,whichismorethanwhatit

canhandle(MARD,2013).Theregistrationprocesscantakeupto

4years,whichcreatesincentivesforcompaniestoacceleratethe

processbybribinggovernmentofficialsasdescribedbyHoietal

(2013).Vietnamhasbannedtheuseof29pesticidesinagriculture

InCambodia,pesticideregistrationishandledbythe

Depart-mentofAgriculturalLegislation,whichispartoftheMinistryof

Agriculture,ForestryandFisheries.UnlikeThailandandVietnam,

registrationdoes not require toxicologicalor residue data, but

applicantsmustsubmitasampleoftheproductforefficacytrials

andpesticideformulationanalysisconductedbytheDepartment

ofPlantProtectionSanitaryandPhytosanitary.Applicationsmust

alsosubmit amodelofthepackagingandlabelinKhmer.New

pesticidesthat fall in WHOclass Ia or Ib cannotbe registered,

thoughtheregistrationofexistingpesticidesinthiscategorycan

stillberenewed.Renewalisvalidfor3years.TheDepartmentof

AgriculturalLegislationcandecidetocancelaregistrationifnew evidenceisprovidedthatwarrantssuchaction

In Laos, the Department of Agriculture at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry handles pesticide registrations (MAF,

2010) Laos has banned the use of 55 active ingredients It is mandatorytoregisterthepesticides(includingbiopesticides)that areproduced,imported,exported,distributedandusedinLaoPDR However,registrationisnotrequiredforbotanicalpesticidesthat are not for sale (e.g home-made biopesticides) Registration is validfor2yearsbutcanbewithdrawnincaseofseriousviolation

oftheregulations,ifthepesticideisdeemednolongereffective,or

ifitiswithdrawnfromthemarket.Provisionalregistrationcanbe grantedforproductsimportedforthepurposeofresearch,trialor exhibition,ifevidenceisprovidedthattheproductsareregistered

inthecountryoforigin

AllfourcountrieshaveacceptedtheRotterdamConvention—a multilateraltreatytopromoteopenexchangeofinformationabout hazardouschemicalsthatcallsonexportingcountriestoinform importersaboutanyknownrestrictionsorbansinothercountries andobligesexporterstocomplywiththelawsandregulationsof importing countries The convention covered 33 pesticides in

2014.Thailandhasmadenotificationthatitdoesnotconsenttothe import of29 ofthese.Vietnamand Laosdo notconsenttothe importof27and21pesticides,respectively.However,Cambodia has not made any notification and any country can therefore export any of the 33 hazardous chemicals included in the conventiontoCambodia

TheRotterdamConventionalsorequirescountriestonotifythe conventionsecretariataboutdomesticregulatoryactionstobanor severely restrict any hazardous chemical Such exchange of informationisessentialtothefunctioningofthetreaty.Thailand

istheonlycountrythathasnotifiedtheconventionofregulatory actionsagainstcertainpesticides.Ithasofficiallybanned10Annex III pesticides and 42 non-Annex III pesticides The otherthree countrieshavenotexchangedinformationabouttheirregulatory actions

3.3 Pesticidepricingandretail None of the four countries directly subsidizes agricultural pesticides However, all provide pesticides to farmers free of chargeincaseofpestoutbreaks,which areloosely definedasa suddenincreaseinpestpopulationscausingeconomicdamage.In Cambodia,forinstance,interviewedgovernmentofficialsinformed

us that about50tonsof pesticideswereprovided in 2008and about10tonsin2010.ThegovernmentofVietnammaintainsa strategicreserveofpesticidestobeusedforpestoutbreaks.The countryalsohasawell-functioningpestsurveillancesystemfor monitoringandforecastingpestpopulationsatthedistrictlevelfor mostcropsofeconomicimportance.Thailandhassuchasystem

at the provincial level, which provides weekly reports to the DepartmentofAgriculturalExtensioninBangkok.Cambodiaand Laosdonothaveasystematicpestsurveillancesystem;inthese countriesmonitoringisdoneonanadhocbasis,onlyforriceand onlyifapestoutbreakissuspected

To make pesticides affordable for farmers, governments of Cambodia,LaosandThailanddonotlevyanimporttaxorvalue added tax on pesticides or other agricultural inputs such as fertilizersandplantgrowthregulators.Vietnamleviesa3%import taxoninsecticidesandfungicides,azeroimporttaxonherbicides anda5%valueadded(sales)taxonallpesticides,whichisbelow thestandardsalestaxof10%.Thetaxwasintroducedin2012after earlierinitiativesfailedbecauseofstrongoppositionfromvarious stakeholders(McCann,2005)

AdvertisingofpesticideproductsisgenerallyallowedinLaos andThailandwithoutrestrictionotherthantheproductmusthave

Table 3

Pesticide registration systems and pesticide bans.

Cambodia Laos Thailand Vietnam Validity of pesticide

registration (years)

Automatic renewal? No No No No

Can pesticides be

de-registered?

Yes No Yes Yes

No of pesticides (active

ingredients) banned

for use in agriculture

116 3 55 96 29

Rotterdam Convention

(year it came into

force) 1

2013 2011 2002 2007

No of Annex III pesticides

not allowed for import

Regulatory bans of Annex III

pesticides 2

Regulatory bans of

non-Annex III pesticides

Notes: 1

Source: http://www.pic.int 2

As of July 2014, Annex III included

3

been registeredfor useand comply withconsumer protection

laws In Cambodia, the Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and

Fisheries must approve all advertising of registered pesticide

products.InVietnam,theadvertisingofregisteredpesticidesmust

be consistentwith the product’s certificate of registration and

mustcontainahealthwarningaboutthetoxicityanditscorrect

use,similartowhatisrequiredontheproductlabel.Promotional

events suchasseminarsfor farmers mustinclude a session on

safety aspects of pesticide use, thecontents ofwhich must be

guidedbythePlantProtectionDepartment

Regulationsfor pesticide retailing arethe mostextensive in

Vietnam.Pesticideretailersin Vietnammustbetrained

profes-sionalsholdinga certificateissuedbya localofficeofthePlant

Protection Department Certificates are valid nationwide and

permanent.Certificatesarenecessarytoapplyforaretaillicense

Pesticideretailersarerequiredtoattendannualtrainingtoretain

theirlicenses,whichwillberevokediftwotrainingsessionsina

rowaremissed.Furthermore,thesitingofpesticideshopsmust

beapproved by local authorities and may not belocated near

residential areas, schools, hospitals, markets, water sources or

areasthat are prone toflooding.Other stipulationsrequirethe

availabilityoffireequipment, displaycabinets, shelvesorracks

and personal protection gearsuchas gloves, masks,water and

soap However, compliance is low A nationwide inspection

conductedbythePlantProtectionDepartmentin2000foundthat

87%hadnocertificateontechnicalpesticideknowledge,23%had

no official permission to run their business, and 50% had no

adequatestorage facility (Huanand Anh, 2000) Several of the

Vietnameseretailersvisited forthis studydidnotfollowsafety

rules and some were located close to schools, markets or

residential areas Yet all retailers had biopesticides available

(mostlyabamectinandemamectin)andsaidthattheseproducts

formedanimportantpartoftheirbusiness

InThailand,pesticideretailersmustalsoobtainalicense,but

trainingisonlyrequiredevery5years.Thetrainingcourseis2days

toobtainanewlicenseand1dayforrenewinganexistinglicense

To open a pesticide shop, the shop owner must submit an

applicationformtotheDepartmentofAgriculturetogetherwith

copiesofthecommercialregistrationform,theowner’sidentity

card,thecertificateofpesticidetraining,thelocationoftheshop

and building, and a certificate acknowledging a safe pesticide

storingsystem.Wefoundthattheinterviewedpesticideretailers

inThailandhadmoreknowledgeabouttheproductstheysoldthan

intheothercountries.RetailersinVietnam,CambodiaandLaos

saidthatthebestpesticidesarethosethat destroyorkillpests

instantly;retailersinThailandemphasizedthatthebestpesticides

arethosethatareeffectivebutlessharmfultohumansandthe

environment.SomeThairetailersalsoregularlyinformedfarmers

about safe pesticide use and biopesticides They said that

biopesticidesare effectivetocontrol pests, but thereis limited

demandforthem.Retailersnot onlysuggestedthegovernment

shouldsupportmoretrainingoffarmersintheuseofalternative

managementmethods,butalsosuggestedthegovernmentshould

controlpesticidepricestokeepthemaffordable

InCambodia,pesticideretailersarerequiredtobetrainedon

pesticidehandling,storageanddisposal.Yetonlyafewretailers

interviewed for this study had received such training This

confirmsapreviousstudybytheMinistryofAgriculture,Forestry

and Fisheries, which foundthat only 50% of theretailers were

actuallytrained(MAFF,2012).Thatstudyalsofoundthatoutof

5300retailshops,only87%hadalicense

InLaos,retailersmustregistertheirbusinesseswiththeMinistry

ofAgricultureandForestrybuttherearenorequirementsforspecific

qualifications or complementary regular training programs Of

the ninepesticideretailersinterviewedfor thisstudy, nonehad

receivedanytraininginpesticidehandling,storageordisposal

We generally found that pesticide retailers had limited knowledgeabouttheproductstheywereselling.Pesticideretailers viewedtheirbusinessasanyotherbuying-and-sellingenterprise andtheyneitherseetheneedtotakespecialprecautions,nordo theythinktheymusteducateorinformfarmersaboutpesticide risk They typically recommended products that react quickly againstpestsanddidnotrecommendtheuseofbiopesticidesor mechanical measures suchas insect traps because they either didn’t know about them or claimed these products were not effectiveenoughtoattractcustomerdemand.Pesticideretailersin CambodiaandLaosusuallyhelpedcustomerstoreadtheproduct labels, but did not provide additional information or advice Interviewed retailers in Cambodia were unaware that the governmenthadbannedcertainpesticideproducts

Enforcement of the rules is difficult because of a large and increasingnumberofpesticideretailers.Forinstance,inVietnam therewerealreadymorethan27,000licensedretailersadecade ago(Hoi,2010).InThailandtherearemorethan22,000licensed retailers,accordingtoanofficerwhowasinterviewedforthisstudy

attheDepartmentofAgriculture(AgriculturalRegulatoryOffice) 3.4 Farmers’perceptionsaboutpesticiderisk

Theuseofsyntheticpesticidesis thedominantformof crop protection according to interviewed farmers in the four study countries, with theexception of rice cultivationin Laos Focus groupdiscussionswithfarmersconsistentlyshowedthatfarmers wereverysatisfiedwiththeuseofsyntheticpesticides.Farmers consideredapesticidetobeofgoodqualityifitkilledinsectsor weedsinstantly.Farmersweregenerallyawareofadversehealth effects andcouldmentionvarious poisoningsymptomssuchas nausea, respiratory problems, and skin irritations they had experienced after spraying However, there was a consensus amongfarmersthatgoodcropprotectionhadpriority

Asked how they knew how dangerous a certain pesticide product was, farmers inCambodia and Vietnamanswered that pesticides with a bad smell were more dangerous Farmers in Vietnamthoughtthat pesticides ofwell-known brands suchas Syngenta and Bayer were less dangerous than lesser-known brands Theyalsothoughtthat shorterpre-harvest intervalson theproductlabelmeantthata productwaslessdangerous.We foundthatfarmersinCambodiacorrectlyusedcolorcodesonthe containertofindoutabouttheriskofpersonalexposure Askedabouttheeffectontheenvironment,farmersinallstudy countries observed a decline inbiodiversity—most noticeablya dramaticdeclineinthenumberoffish,crabs,frogs,shrimpand shellfish in their paddy fields after they had started using pesticides.FarmersinVietnamsaidtheynolongerfoundanyof these in their fields Yet farmers generally agreed that crop protection was more important to them than preventing any harmfulimpactontheenvironment

Otherfarmerswerethemainsourceofinformationaboutpest management.Pesticidesweregenerallyselectedbasedonfarmers’ ownexperienceofwhatworks.FarmersinThailandandVietnam consulted mostlywithpesticide retailers and occasionallywith extensionofficers,butthiswaslesscommoninLaosandCambodia, where the capacity of the extension system is very limited Pesticide retailersin Laoswerenot trainedand someindicated theycouldonlyhelpfarmers readproductlabelsbut couldnot provide additional advice In Laos, Thai media is an important sourceofinformationaboutpesticidesforfarmers

Noneoftheinterviewedfarmersmentionedproblemsselling agriculturalproducebecauseofhighpesticideresidues.Pesticide residueswerenotaconcerntothem.FarmersinLaosclearlystated thatusingpesticidesmadeiteasierforthemtosellproduceasit lookedmoreattractive

Monitoring pesticide residues is a challenge for all four

countries.MembercountriesoftheAssociationofSoutheastAsian

Nations(ASEAN)harmonizedmaximumresiduelimits(MRLs)for

mainfoodcropsin2007.TheASEANMRLsarelargelybasedon

internationalfoodstandardsasdefinedintheCodexAlimentarius

ofFAO/WHO.Suchstandardsareonlyeffectiveifcompliancecan

bemonitored.Noneofthestudycountrieshasanationalprogram

formonitoringpesticideresiduesinfarmproduce.Monitoringis

done on an ad hoc basis, usually in the context of a project

Cambodiahasnocapacitytoanalyzepesticideresiduesincrops,

thoughitisbeingdevelopedwithforeignassistance

3.5 Productcertification

To helpimprovefood safetyand gain consumertrust in the

domesticfoodsystem,ASEANmembercountrieshaveintroduced

publicstandardsforgoodagriculturalpractices(GAP).Theseare

comprehensivestandardsthatfocusonpesticideresiduesaswell

assafeand qualityfood ingeneral NationalGAPstandardsare

beingharmonizedtothecommonASEANGAPstandardlaunched

in2006.The harmonizationis tobeaccomplishedin 2015and

shouldpromoteregionaltradeinagriculturalproducts

ThailandhasledthewayintermsofpublicGAPstandards.It

introduced its standard, called Q-GAP, in 2004 and gave out

certificatestomorethan121,000farmersin2013covering27crops

(Table4 Thailand’sQ-GAPstandardtargetsthedomesticmarket,

whileforexportstohighincomecountriesitusesGlobalGAPand

ThaiGAP Monitoring farmers’ compliance with the standard’s

controlpointsisaproblembecauseofthesheernumberoffarmers

involved(Schreinemachersetal.,2012;Amekawa,2013)

Accord-ingtoanofficeratthePlantProductionStandardandCertification

Office,therewere467auditorsin2013andthenumberofcertified

fieldsperauditorwas270.InVietnam,thescaleofpublicGAPis

muchsmallerandchieflyaimsatexports.Only198farmersand

farmergroupsreceivedVietGAPcertificatesin2013

AnimportantconstrainttopublicGAPstandardsinThailand

andVietnamisthelackofapricepremiumforcertifiedproduce—

anissuethatcameupduringfocusgroupdiscussionswithfarmers

Certifiedproduceoftenendsupbeingsoldalongsidenon-certified

produceforthesameprice,providinglittleincentiveforfarmersto

complywiththestandard.However,teafarmersinThaiNguyen

provinceinVietnamsaidthatVietGAPcertificationhaddoubled

their farm-gate price Farmers in Thailand found that the

certificationprocesswastooslow; theyhaddifficultyrenewing

their certificates,whichare validfor 1 yearfor seasonalcrops

FarmersinVietnamwhohadusedVietGAPfoundthattherecord

keepingwastediousandproductioncostswerehigh

CambodiaadoptedtheASEANGAPstandardin2006andLaos

introducedLaoGAPin2011,butnofarmershadbeencertifiedin

eithercountryby2013.Thefocusgroupdiscussionsshowedthat

farmers in both countries were generally aware of the GAP

standard but none had received anytraining in it In Laos, the

government allocated just USD 6200 per province to promote

LaoGAP.Farmers in Cambodiaexpected thatGAP requirements

wouldbetoocomplicatedforthem,whilefarmersinLaosexpected

thatGAPwouldhelpthemtoincreaseyields

OrganicagriculturehasbeenpromotedacrossSoutheastAsia

by national and international non-governmental organizations

Yet,only Laos and Thailand have a national organic standard

CambodiaandVietnamhaveseveralprivateorganicstandardsbut

no regulatory framework for certified organic agriculture.1 In

theory,anyonecanthereforelabelproduceas‘‘organic’’.Thearea

under (privately and publicly) certified organic production has expandedinallfourcountries,butstillaccountsforlessthan0.5%

oftheagriculturallandareainanyofthem(Table4 Riceisthe maincropthatisgrownorganically,butmostofthisisforexport ratherthandomesticuse

3.6 Integratedpestmanagement(IPM) The mainvehicle for promoting IPMin Southeast Asia has beentheuseoffarmerfieldschools,whichwereintroducedto theregionintheearly1990s(Table4).Farmerfieldschoolsare

a group learning process in which (usually up to 30) farmers meet on a regular basis to share ideas and learn through experimentation.Askilledextensionofficerorfarmerfacilitates the process via the discovery learning approach Farmer field schoolshavebeenhighlysuccessfulinvariouscountriesbuthave targetedmostlyriceandtolesserextentvegetables(Matteson,

2000).Manyoftheseprogramsare supportedbyinternational organizations, mainly FAO and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and foreign governments, mainly Denmark and Australia, usually in close cooperation withnationalgovernments

CambodiastarteditsIPMprogramin1993.Theoverallgoalof thenationalIPMprogramwastopromotefoodsecurityandsafety andprovidebettermarketaccessforIPMproduce.Pesticide-safe producewassuppliedtosupermarkets,restaurants,large hotels andcasinos(Vanhan,2012).Farmerfieldschoolswereusedasthe principal way to deliver IPM strategies to farmers There are currently30farmerfieldschoolssupportedbyFAOandanother

615 by IFAD Farmer field schools practicing IPM have been establishedandregisteredatcommunitylevels,andthesegroups canapplyforgrantsfromtheCommuneDevelopmentFunds(FAO IPM,2008)

LaosfirstimplementedanIPMprograminricein1995withFAO assistance IPM has been used to promote clean agriculture (Douangphrachanh,2007).TheNationalIPMOffice wasinitially based at the Plant Protection Center,but moved to thenewly establishedNational Agricultureand ForestryExtension Service (NAFES) in 2000–2001 and then moved to the Department of Agriculturein2005.AnIPMprogramforvegetablesstartedin2005 (Douangphrachanh,2007)

Vietnam implemented a national IPM program in 1992, managedbytheMinistryofAgricultureand RuralDevelopment withthePlantProtectionDepartmentasthemainimplementing agency The national IPM program started training farmers in vegetable IPM in 1994 FAO and the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) have funded much of the IPM program.Thesuccessoffarmerfieldschoolsallowedfarmersto actively participate in IPM research and training and local governmentsallowedfarmerstoestablishlocalIPMclubs

FAO(2013)studiedtheeffectoffarmerfieldschooltrainingin CambodiaandVietnamandfoundthatitimprovedknowledgeand attitudesaboutsafepesticideuseandledtoareductioninrisky practices, total pesticide use and in the use of highly toxic pesticides.Rejesusetal.(2012)alsofoundthatfarmerfieldschools

inVietnamhadapositiveeffectonfarmers’knowledge,butdidnot findasignificantreductiononinsecticideuse

Thailandinitiallyadoptedfarmerfieldschoolsin1992butit remained a solely donor-driven activity and the program was discontinuedin1998(Praneetvatakuletal.,2007).Theprogram was reintroduced and rolled out nationwide when the King of Thailandendorsedtheconceptafterseeingitsbenefitsin1999.This marked a turning point in the government’s attitude toward pesticides(ibid.).Soon thereweremore than1000farmerfield schools in vegetablesalone However, thepromotionof farmer fieldschoolsandintegratedpestmanagementwasnotsustained

1

These include CorAA (Cambodian Organic Agricultural Association) and CEDAC

(Centre d’Etude et de De´veloppement Agricole Cambodgien) in Cambodia and Bac

foritiscurrentlylow(Praneetvatakuletal.,2013)

The focus group discussions did not specifically target

communities that were active in farmer field schools The

discussionsrevealed that farmershave very limited knowledge

aboutcropprotectionmethodsotherthansyntheticpesticides.In

Cambodia, none of the farmers participating in the discussion

knewaboutbiopesticides.InLaos,someoftheinterviewedfarmers

producedtheirownbiopesticidesusinglocallyavailableherbs,but

said these preparations were slow in reacting and not very

effective In Thailand and Vietnam interviewed farmers were

generallyawareofbiopesticides.Thailandhasatleastsixmajor

biopesticides on the market such as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt),

neem,Trichodermaharzianum,entomopathogenicfungi,

entomo-pathogenicnematodesandnuclearpolyhedrosisvirus(NPV).Of

these,Btisthemostwidelyusedbiopesticidebecauseofthelevel

of control it achieves against various insect pests, product

availability and application convenience (Rushtapakomchai,

2005).During theinterviews, Thaifarmersmentioned products

suchasBt,Beauveri,andTrichoderma.Someweresatisfiedwith

theseproducts but saidtheywere slowtoreactand wereless

effective than synthetic pesticides Biopesticides used by

Viet-namese farmers included abamectin, emamectin and Bt They

claimedthattheseproductsweremoreexpensivethansynthetic

pesticides and were slow in their effect Still, some farmers

preferred using them becausetheyconsidered them to beless

harmful

InterviewedfarmersinCambodiaandLaosknewabouttherole

ofnaturalenemiestocontrolinsectpests,butinCambodianoneof

themhadheardaboutapplyingbiologicalcontrolagentsincrop

production.InLaos,someoftheinterviewedfarmershad heard

aboutusingnaturalenemies,butnonehadeverseenitinpractice

In Vietnam, very few of the interviewed farmers knew about

biological control using natural enemies In Thailand, about a quarter of the respondents had experience with the use of biologicalcontrolmethodsorotherIPMmethods.Somenatural enemieswereavailableforfarmersfromtheprovincialagricultural office.Forexample,greenlacewingswereusedtocontrolpestsin cassava,mango,coffee,chili,tomato,Chinesekale,andlettuce,and farmers werehappywiththeresults.Some farmersinVietnam hand-pickedinsectsorcaughtbutterfliesusingnetsandtrapsin paddy fields,but saidthatsuchpractices wereonly possiblein smallplotsandwerenoteffectiveenough

When asked for suggestions about what could be done to promote safe and sustainable pest management, farmers in all study countries mentioned the need for more training and information about alternative pest control methods (Table 5

FarmersinLaoswereparticularlyinterestedintheuseofnatural enemiestoincreasebiodiversityontheirfarms.Vegetablefarmers

inThailandwantedtotryscreennetstocontrolinsectpestsinleafy vegetablessuchasChinesekale,Chinesecabbage,andlettuce.They suggested thattheDepartment ofAgricultural Extension estab-lishesdemonstrationplotsatthedistrictleveltohelpfarmerslearn aboutnewmethodsofpestmanagement.Theyalsosuggestedthat thegovernmentencouragesconsumerstobuysafevegetablesso thatfarmershaveanincentivetoproducethesecrops.Farmersin Vietnamsuggestedthatthegovernmentshouldtakemorecontrol overpesticidesellerstoimprovethequalityofproductssoldby eliminatingadulteratedandillegalproducts,andtoensuresellers givecorrectadvice

4 Discussion Theresultsofourcomparisonofpesticideuseandregulationin Cambodia,Laos,ThailandandVietnamshowthatpesticideriskis

Table 5

Suggestions made by farmers to make crop protection more safe and sustainable.

Provide more knowledge about

alternative methods of crop

protection

Provide training in safe pesticide use

Extension officers and pesticide

retailers should not only always

recommend pesticides but also

suggest other methods

Ensure that all pesticide products

have labels in Khmer

Would like to try using natural enemies in pest control and are also interested in organic agriculture as it would increase on-farm biodiversity

Provide information and training

in the use of alternative methods Suggest establishing

demonstration plots at the district level

Encourage consumers to buy safe vegetables

Control highly toxic pesticides Promote use of biopesticides

More information and training to farmers

More control over pesticide sellers

to improve product quality and ensure sellers give correct advice Reduce number of sold pesticide products

Table 4

Selection of pesticide demand reduction strategies as of 2013.

Reduction Strategy Cambodia Laos Thailand Vietnam Public GAP standards

198 2

Main crops – – Rice, fruits, vegetables Fruits, rice Organic agriculture

National standard No Yes (Laos Organic) Yes (Organic Thailand) No

Share of agricultural land (%) 3 0.16 0.26 0.18 0.35

Main crops Rice, vegetables Coffee, rice, vegetables Rice, tea, vegetables, fruits Rice

Farmer field schools

Main crops Rice, fruits, vegetables,

rice-fish, mungbean

Rice, vegetables Mostly rice Rice, vegetables

Notes: 1

2011 Data from DOA (2013) 2

2010 data including individual farms, groups and cooperatives (2600 ha in total) 3

Data from Willer et al (2014)

dividedintothreecategories:

First,thesecountriesareexperiencingveryrapidexpansionof

tradeinpesticideproducts—intermsoftotalvolume,numberof

productsandnumber ofsellingpoints.Thismakesthe

enforce-ment of pesticide regulation extremely challenging, mostly

becausethegovernmentcapacity toenforceregulationhasnot

expanded at an equal pace and also because the countries’

departmentsofagriculturehavetraditionallybeenverysupportive

ofincreasedpesticideuse

Second, farmers’demand forand satisfaction withsynthetic

pesticidesishigh.Althoughfarmersareawareofadverseeffects,

they give greater priority to stable crop yields and are either

unawareorskepticalaboutalternativemethodsofpest

manage-ment Farmers’ demand for biocontrol agents is as low as

consumers’ demandfor safeagricultural produce, though such

demandisrisingamongwealthierconsumers

Third,thereexistnonationalsystemstomonitorpesticiderisk

onaregularbasis.Ifdataarecollected,thenthesetypicallyarenot

made publicly available Lack of factual information about

pesticideriskhampersnotonlygoodpolicymakingbutalsothe

decision-makingoffarmersandconsumers

None of the countries has given sustained support to their

national IPM programs, which are still mostly donor driven

Government departments give low priority to IPM as they

maintaina strong‘‘greenrevolution mentality’’withafocus on

increasing rice productivity through the adoption of modern

inputs, including pesticides Horticultural production systems,

agriculturalsustainabilityandfoodsafetyreceivelowpriorityin

comparison.ItisemblematicthatnationalIPMprograms,ifthey

exist, tend to focus on rice production while pesticide misuse

andfoodcontaminationwithpesticidesismostoftenassociated

withhorticulturalproduce

InThailandthecurrentemphasisisoncertificationwithpublic

GAPstandards,but withouta strong IPMcomponentand price

premiumsforcertifiedproduceitisneitherasuitablemethodto

drivedownpesticideusenoranattractiveoptionformostfarmers

ThepublicGAPprogramprovidesmuchlesssupporttoIPMthan

farmerfieldschoolsdidinthemid-1990s.IfCambodiaandLaos

decide to follow this path then they need to address these shortcomings

LowinterestoffarmersinIPMmethodscanbeexplainedbyalack

ofexposuretosuchmethodsandthelowavailabilityofbiocontrol agents There is a clear need for more farm-level training and technicalsupportinIPMinallfourcountriestostimulatefarmers’ interestandthissupportsthe findingofParsaetal.(2014),who identified a lack of training and technical support as the main obstacletoIPMadoptioninasurveyacross96countries

Theresultsofthestudyalsoprovidedvariousentrypointsfor reducingpesticiderisk,assummarizedinTable6.Itshowsmany opportunities for thefour countries to learn fromeach other’s experience For instance, Thailand has a relatively advanced system for pesticide registration, collects data on pesticide imports, and makes these publicly available Vietnam recently introducedapesticideimportandsalestaxandhasrelativelystrict requirements for pesticide retailers (though enforcement is a problem).Theefficacyofthepesticidetaxisanopenquestionand

an assessment would provide important information for other countriesaswell

Thailandand Vietnamhave seen widespread problemswith pesticides including ill-health effects on the farm population, environmentalpollution andfood contamination.Policy makers havebeenawareoftheproblems,butithasbeendifficulttoadapt laws and regulations to address the issue because of strong opposition by farmer groups and private sector which have developedavestedinterestinpesticides(asdescribedinHoietal.,

learn fromthis and adaptlaws and regulationswhenimported volumesarestill relativelylow, ratherthan waituntilvolumes arelargeandvestedinterestshavetakenroot

5 Conclusion Rapid growthin trade of agriculturalpesticide products—in termsoftotalvolume,numberofproductsandnumberofselling points—has created enormous challenges for Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam to manage pesticides safely Average applicationrates ofregisteredquantitiesofimported pesticides

Table 6

Policy options for reducing pesticide risk in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam.

Entry point that emerged from this study Which countries have done this?

1 Improve control of the pesticide supply

Set up a transparent and efficient pesticide registration system Thailand and to a lesser extent Vietnam

Ban pesticides that are difficult to manage safely in the country All countries, but poor enforcement in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia

Limit the number of different pesticide products on the market None

Actively participate in the Rotterdam Convention All have ratified, but only Thailand uses it

Regulate pesticide retailers and enforce regulation Thailand and Vietnam, but enforcement is poor

2 Reduce pesticide demand

Raise farmers’ awareness about pesticide health risks No systematic program in any of the countries

Regulate pesticide advertising and enforce the regulation Vietnam

Provide sustained support for national IPM programs – target

horticultural crops rather than rice

None All IPM programs characterized by irregular support and a focus on rice Provide more farm-level training and technical support for

IPM methods

Limited in all countries Biocontrol agents most widely available in Thailand Introduce an import tax on synthetic pesticides and reinvest

revenues into the national IPM program

Vietnam introduced a tax Promote urban demand for certified agricultural produce while

setting up realistic standards for the domestic market

Thailand

3 Improve monitoring of pesticide risk

Record and make publicly available detailed data on pesticide

imports

Only Thailand, but data only available upon request Regularly sample farm produce, members of the farm population,

and soil and water resources for pesticide residues and make

data publicly available

None Either no monitoring or on an ad hoc basis

Regularly monitor prevalence of illegal and counterfeit pesticide

products and make data publicly available

None Either no monitoring or on an ad hoc basis

Thailand, 2.9kg/ha for Cambodia, and 0.1kg/ha for Laos and

are increasing exponentially in all four countries Actual

quantities will be much higher because of a large volume of

illegal pesticide imports Farmers’ demand for and level of

satisfaction with synthetic pesticides is high; zero or lowtax

rateson these pesticides encourage misuse Biocontrol agents

arenotwidelyavailableareconsideredexpensiveascompared

to synthetic pesticides National IPM programs are strongly

dependentondonorfundingandhavenotreceivedcontinuous

support Monitoring of pesticide risk is not done regularly

and data are not made publicly available Improvements in

thesekey areaswill beneeded toreducepeople’sexposure to

pesticide residues Entry points were identified Vietnam

recentlyintroducedapesticidetax andhasa soundsystemof

regulatingpesticide retail(though enforcement is a problem)

Thailandhas ledtheway in termsof pesticideregistration, is

generallybetterabletoenforceregulation,hassetupvoluntary

GAP standards targeting the domestic market, and collects

detailed data on pesticide imports Laos and Thailand have

nationalstandardsfororganicagriculture.Theeffectof

regula-tion and standard setting would be greater if farmers and

retailers were better informed and had more alternatives to

syntheticpesticides

Acknowledgments

Financial support from Humidtropics, a CGIAR Research

Programthat aims todevelop new opportunitiesfor improved

livelihoodsinasustainableenvironment,andtheFederalMinistry

forEconomicCooperationandDevelopment,Germanyisgratefully

acknowledged.Weacknowledgethecontributionstothisstudyby

ChanigaLeitaeandAerSirijindainThailand,NguyenThiHangNga,

Vo Xuan Hung, and Dinh Tuan Hai in Vietnam, and Linkham

Douangsavanh,SouklatySysanethandSaithongPhengbouphain

Laos.Wethanktwoanonymousreviewersofthisjournalfortheir

helpfulcomments

AppendixA Annex1:Organizationsconsultedfortheresearch

Cambodia: (1) Department of Plant Protection, Sanitary and

Phytosanitary(PPSPSD), (2)Department Agricultural Legislation

(DAL), (3) National Agricultural Laboratory, (4) Department of

Drugsand Food,MinistryofHealth;(5) KratieProvince

Depart-mentof Agriculture(KPDA); (6) Kratie Province Departmentof

Environment(KPDE)

Laos:(1)DepartmentofAgriculture,MinistryofAgricultureand

Forestry,(2) OudomxayProvince DepartmentofAgriculture,(3)

BolikhamxayProvinceDepartmentofAgriculture,(4)Champasak

ProvinceDepartmentofAgriculture

Thailand: (1) Pest Management Division, Department of

Agriculture(DOA), Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF),

(2) Agricultural Regulatory Office, DOA, (3) Plant Protection

Researchand Development Office,DOA,(4) Plant Standard and

CertificationOffice,DOA,(5)DepartmentofAgriculturalExtension

(DOAE),MAF,(6)PestManagementCenterChiangMai,DOAE;(7)

KhamsakaesaengDistrictAgriculturalOffice,NakhonRatchasima;

(8)MuangDistrictAgriculturalOffice,PathumThani;(9)Provincial

AgriculturalOffice,Nan

Vietnam:(1)DepartmentofPlanprotection,(2)Departmentof

Crop Production, (3) Vietnam Plant Protection Association, (4)

Instituteof Plant Protection, (5) Association of Production and

Business Enterprise, and (6) Vietnam Association of Organic

Agriculture

AppendixB Annex2:Locationsforthefarm-leveldata collection

InCambodia,datawerecollectedin Kratieprovince.Within the province we selected different villages representing rice, horticultureanduplandfarmingsystems.InLaos,thestudytook place in Bolikhamxay, Champasak and Oudomxay provinces, eachcoveringbothhorticultureandriceproductionasfarmers typically combine bothand onlya minor shareof production

is sold Oudomxay also represented upland agriculture In Thailand, we selected one village in Nakhon Ratchasima province to study rice, one village in Pathum Thani province

to studyvegetables,andone villagein Nan province tostudy uplandagriculture(riceandmaize).InVietnam,weselectedone villageinHunYenprovinceforricefarming,onevillagein peri-urban Hanoi and one village in Son La province (Moc Chau district) forvegetable farming,andone villagein ThaiNguyen provinceforteacultivation

AppendixC Supplementarydata Supplementarydataassociatedwiththisarticlecanbefound,in theonline version,at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07

017 References

Amekawa, Y., 2013 Can a public GAP approach ensure safety and fairness? A comparative study of Q-GAP in Thailand J Peasant Stud 40 (1), 189–217.

Asawasinsopon, R., Prapamontol, T., Prakobvitayakit, O., Vaneesorn, Y., Mangklabruks, A., Hock, B., 2006 The association between organochlorine and thyroid hormone levels in cord serum: a study from northern Thailand Environ Int 32 (4), 554–559.

Berg, H., 2001 Pesticide use in rice-fish farms in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam Crop Protect 20, 897–905.

Boonyatumanond, R., Tabucanon, M.S., Siriwong, C., Prinyatanakun, P., 1997.

Distribution of organochlorine pesticides in the Chao Phraya River, Thailand Environ Monit Assess 44 (1), 315–325.

CEDAC, 2006 Report on Pesticide Use and Consequence in Cambodia Technical Report Centre d’Etude et de De´veloppement Agricol Cambodgien (CEDAC), Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Chea, Hong, 2013 Pesticide Use in Cambodia (in Khmer) Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Phen.

Dasgupta, S., Meisner, C., Wheeler, D., Lam, N.T., Xuyen, K., 2005 Pesticide Poisoning of Farm Workers: Implications of Blood Test Results From Vietnam The World Bank, Washington, DC.

DOA, 2013 GAP Annual Report 2012 (in Thai) Department of Agriculture, Bangkok.

Douangphrachanh, B.O., 2007 Country report on plant protection and plant quarantine of Lao PDR In: 25th Session of Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission, Beijing, China, 27–31 August, 2007 p 6, Available from: http:// www.apppc.org/sites/apppc.org/files/documents/20131113/

1199889146454_Laos_country_report_2013111310%3A46–37.06%20KB.pdf

(accessed November 2014).

FAO, 2006 International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, Revised Version Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

FAO, 2010 International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides Guidance on Pest and Pesticide Management Policy Development FAO, Rome.

FAO, 2013 Empowering Farmers to Reduce Pesticide Risks, FAO Regional IPM/ Pesticide Risk Reduction Programme in Asia FAO-RAP, Bangkok.

FAO IPM, 2008 Cambodia National IPM Programme Available from: http:// www.vegetableipmasia.org/Countries/cambodia1.html (accessed November 2014).

Grovermann, C., Schreinemachers, P., Berger, T., 2013 Quantifying pesticide overuse from farmer and societal points of view: an application to Thailand Crop Protect 53, 161–168.

Helvetas Lao, 2008 PROFIL Promotion of Organic Agriculture and Marketing in the Lao PDR: Phase I report Helvetas Lao, Vientiane.

Hoai, P.M., Sebesvari, Z., Minh, T.B., Viet, P.H., Renaud, F.G., 2011 Pesticide pollution in agricultural areas of Northern Vietnam: case study in Hoang Liet and Minh Dai communes Environ Pollut 159 (12), 3344–3350.

Hoi, P.V., 2010 Governing Pesticide Use in Vegetable Production in Vietnam PhD DissertationWageningen University, The Netherlands, pp 181.

Hoi, P.V., Mol, A.P.J., Oosterveer, P., van den Brink, P.J., 2009 Pesticide

distribution and use in vegetable production in the Red River Delta of

Vietnam Renew Agric Food Syst 24 (03), 174–185.

Hoi, P.V., Mol, A., Oosterveer, P., 2013 State governance of pesticide use and

trade in Vietnam NJAS – Wageningen J Life Sci 67 (0), 19–26.

Huan, N.H., Anh, D.T., 2000 Increased demand for locally adapted hybrid fruit

and vegetable varieties in Vietnam In: Workshop on Quality Management in

Food Hygiene and Safety, Food administration of the Ministry of Health ,

Hanoi, 9 September 2000.

Jensen, H.K., Konradsen, F., Jørs, E., Petersen, J.H., Dalsgaard, A., 2011 Pesticide

use and self-reported symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning among aquatic

farmers in Phnom Penh, Cambodia J Toxicol (Article ID 639814).

Kethongsa, S., 2005 Lao People’s Democratic Republic In: Proceedings of the

Asia Regional Workshop on the Implementation, Monitoring and Observance

of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of

Pesticides, Bangkok, Thailand, 26–28 July 2005 RAP Publication 2005/29.

FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.

Kunstadter, P., Mevatee, U., Prapamontol, T., 2006 Exposure of Highland Hmong

villagers to pesticides in Northern Thailand Epidemiology 17 (6), S521.

Lamers, M., Anyusheva, M., La, N., Nguyen, V.V., Streck, T., 2011 Pesticide

pollution in surface- and groundwater by paddy rice cultivation: a case

study from Northern Vietnam Clean Soil Air Water 39 (4), 356–361.

Lamers, M., Schreinemachers, P., Ingwersen, J., Berger, T., Sangchan, W.,

Grovermann, C., 2013 Agricultural pesticide use in mountainous areas of

Southeast Asia: towards reducing exposure and rationalizing use In:

Fro¨hlich, H., Schreinemachers, P., Stahr, K., Clemens, G (Eds.), Policies and

Innovations for Sustainable Land Use and Rural Development in

Mountainous Areas of Southeast Asia Springer, Heidelberg, New York,

Dordrecht and London.

MAF, 2010 Regulation on Control of Pesticides in Lao PDR No 2860/MAF.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Available at: http://www.

laotradeportal.gov.la/index.php?r=site/display&id=96 (accessed December

2014).

MAFF, 2012 Annual Report for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2012–2013.

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Phnomh Phen.

MARD, 2013 Report on Implementation of Ordinances on Plan Protect and

Quarantine Enclosed with the application number 110/TTr-CP (in

Vietnamese) Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Hanoi (March

19, 2013).

Matteson, P.C., 2000 Insect pest management in tropical Asian irrigated rice.

Annu Rev Entomol 45, 549–574.

McCann, L., 2005 Transaction costs of pesticide policies in Vietnam Soc Nat.

Resour 18 (8), 759–766.

Neufeld, D.S.G., Savoeun, H., Phoeurk, C., Glick, A., Hernandez, C., 2010.

Prevalence and persistence of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides in

Cambodian market vegetables Asian J Water Environ Pollut 7 (4), 89–98.

Panuwet, P., Prapamontol, T., Chantara, S., Thavornyuthikarn, P., Montesano,

M.A., Whitehead, R.D.J., Barr, D.B., 2008 Concentrations of urinary pesticide

metabolites in small-scale farmers in Chiang Mai Province Thai Sci Total

Environ 407, 655–668.

Panuwet, P., Siriwong, W., Prapamontol, T., Ryan, P.B., Fiedler, N., Robson, M.G.,

Barr, D.B., 2012 Agricultural pesticide management in Thailand: status and

population health risk Environ Sci Policy 17 (0), 72–81.

Parsa, S., Morse, S., Bonifacio, A., Chancellor, T.C.B., Condori, B., Crespo-Pe´rez, V.,

Hobbs, S.L.A., Kroschel, J., Ba, M.N., Rebaudo, F., Sherwood, S.G., Vanek, S.J.,

Faye, E., Herrera, M.A., Dangles, O., 2014 Obstacles to integrated pest management adoption in developing countries Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

111 (10), 3889–3894.

Praneetvatakul, S., Schreinemachers, P., Pananurak, P., Tipraqsa, P., 2013.

Pesticides, external costs and policy options for Thai agriculture Environ Sci Policy 27, 103–113.

Praneetvatakul, S., Waibel, H., Meenakanit, L., 2007 Farmer Field Schools in Thailand: History, Economics and Policy Pesticide Policy Project Publication Series, No 12 Institute of Development and Agricultural Economics, Faculty

of Economics and Management, Leibniz University of Hannover, Germany.

Rejesus, R.M., Mutuc, M.E.M., Yasar, M., Lapitan, A.V., Palis, F.G., Chi, T.T.N., 2012.

Sending Vietnamese rice farmers back to school: further evidence on the impacts of farmer field schools Can J Agric Econ 60 (3), 407–426.

Riwthong, S., Schreinemachers, P., Grovermann, C., Berger, T., 2015 Land use intensification, commercialization and changes in pest management of smallholder upland agriculture in Thailand Environ Sci Policy 45, 11–19.

Roitner-Schobesberger, B., Darnhofer, I., Somsook, S., Vogl, C.R., 2008 Consumer perceptions of organic foods in Bangkok Thai Food Policy 33 (2), 112–121.

Rushtapakomchai, W., 2005 Use and production of biopesticides in Thailand In: Roettger, U., Muschler, R (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium

on Biopesticides for Developing Countries, Bib Orton IICA/CATIE, Turrialba, C.R pp 127–130.

Schreinemachers, P., Tipraqsa, P., 2012 Agricultural pesticides and land use intensification in high, middle and low income countries Food Policy 37 (6), 616–626.

Schreinemachers, P., Schad, I., Tipraqsa, P., Williams, P., Neef, A., Riwthong, S., Sangchan, W., Grovermann, C., 2012 Can public GAP standards reduce agricultural pesticide use? The case of fruit and vegetable farming in northern Thailand Agric Human Values 29 (4), 519–529.

Stuetz, W., Prapamontol, T., Erhardt, J.G., Classen, H.G., 2001 Organochlorine pesticide residues in human milk of a Hmong hill tribe living in Northern Thailand Sci Total Environ 273 (1–3), 53–60.

Thapinta, A., Hudak, P.F., 2000 Pesticide use and residual occurrence in Thailand Environ Monit Assess 60 (1), 103–114.

World Bank, 2014 World Development Indicators The World Bank, Washington,

DC Available at: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/variableSelection/ selectvariables.aspx?source=world-development-indicators (accessed

19 December 2014).

Vanhan, H., 2012 Food Safety Responsibility of Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) China-ASEAN SPS Cooperation Information Web Available from: http://www.chinaaseansps.com/html/c283/2012-09/753.htm

(accessed November 2014).

Wang, H.S., Sthiannopkao, S., Du, J., Chen, Z.J., Kim, K.W., Mohamed Yasin, M.S., Hashim, J.H., Wong, C.K., Wong, M.H., 2011 Daily intake and human risk assessment of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) based on Cambodian market basket data J Hazard Mater 192 (3), 1441–1449.

WHO, 2005 Guidelines on Situation Analysis for Public Health Pesticide Management WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES) World Health Organization, Geneva.

Willer, H., Lernoud, J., Schlatter, B., 2014 Current statistics on organic agriculture worldwide: organic area, producers and market In: Willer, H., Lernoud, J (Eds.), The World of Organic Agriculture Statistics and Emerging Trends 2014 FiBL-IFOAM Report Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), Bonn, pp 34–124.