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

Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 357–366

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science & Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Safe and sustainable crop protection in Southeast Asia: Status, challenges and policy options Pepijn Schreinemachers a,*, Victor Afari-Sefa b, Chhun Hy Heng c, Pham Thi My Dung d, Suwanna Praneetvatakul e, Ramasamy Srinivasan a a

AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center, P.O. Box 42, Shanhua, Tainan 74199, Taiwan AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center, Eastern and Southern Africa, P.O. Box 10, Duluti, Arusha, Tanzania 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 b c

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 13 April 2015 Received in revised form 16 July 2015 Accepted 16 July 2015 Available online 24 August 2015

This study aims to identify challenges as well as entry points for governments in Southeast Asia and elsewhere to reduce the risk from agricultural pesticides by comparing levels of pesticide use, pesticide regulation, and farm-level practices in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam. We identified three main challenges to pesticide risk reduction: (a) the rapid expansion of pesticide trade—in terms of total volume, number of products and number of selling points, combined with a weak regulatory and enforcement capacity; (b) a high level of satisfaction among farmers with pesticides combined with low levels of risk awareness, lack of technical know-how about integrated pest management (IPM), and general unavailability of biocontrol agents; and (c) no regular monitoring of pesticide risk, which makes it difficult for legislators, regulators, farmers and consumers to make rational decisions. The study highlights several examples countries can emulate, including the introduction of a pesticide tax in Vietnam, the pesticide registration system in Thailand, regular training of pesticide retailers in Thailand and Vietnam, and product certification. ß 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Agriculture Developing countries Integrated pest management Pesticide Pesticide policy Pesticide regulation

1. Introduction The use of agricultural pesticides has rapidly increased in Southeast Asia as well as in most other developing and developed countries (Schreinemachers and Tipraqsa, 2012). In Southeast Asia, this trend has been driven by land use intensification related to the expansion of higher value crop production and integration of farmers into markets. To stimulate agricultural growth, governments have supported the use of pesticides by creating conditions for widespread availability and affordable prices (Dasgupta et al., 2005; Praneetvatakul et al., 2013; Hoi et al., 2013). For instance, in Thailand, the quantity of formulated pesticide products applied per hectare increased from 2 kg/ha in 1999 to 7 kg/ha in 2009 (Praneetvatakul et al., 2013). In Vietnam, the use of agricultural pesticides increased from 20,000 tons/year to 77,000 tons/year during 1991–2007 (Lamers et al., 2013).

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (P. Schreinemachers). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.017 1462-9011/ß 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The fast rate of this increase poses enormous challenges to manage the associated risks to people and ecosystems. Evidence for widespread pesticide misuse and associated adverse effects is abundant for Thailand (e.g. Boonyatumanond et al., 1997; Thapinta and Hudak, 2000; Stuetz et al., 2001; Asawasinsopon et al., 2006; Kunstadter et al., 2006; Panuwet et al., 2008, 2012; Grovermann et al., 2013; Riwthong et al., 2015). Such evidence is also abundant for Vietnam (e.g. Berg, 2001; Dasgupta et al., 2005; Hoi et al., 2009; Hoai et al., 2011; Lamers et al., 2011). As a result of pesticide misuse, consumers have become increasingly concerned about their exposure to pesticide residues (e.g. Roitner-Schobesberger et al., 2008). The governments of Thailand and Vietnam realize that pesticide misuse harms agricultural exports to high-income countries, but struggle to implement effective regulation to rein in the problem. For lower-income countries in Southeast Asia such as Cambodia and Laos, there are fewer studies documenting pesticide-related problems (e.g. Neufeld et al., 2010; Jensen et al., 2011). Until recently, their agricultural development as well as general economic development stagnated and average levels of agricultural pesticide use were low. Yet these countries are now experiencing rapid economic growth and falling levels of poverty

P. Schreinemachers et al. / Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 357–366

358

(Table 1). Their growth in agriculture is spurring growth in pesticide use—similar to what was experienced by their higherincome neighbors (see Schreinemachers and Tipraqsa, 2012). This study addresses what Cambodia and Laos can learn from their neighbors’ experience, both positive and negative, to minimize the risks to people and ecosystems from pesticide misuse. More generally, it aims to identify challenges as well as entry points for governments in Southeast Asia, and elsewhere, to promote safer and more sustainable methods of crop protection. In this context, ‘‘safe and sustainable’’ refers to methods of crop protection that have a low risk for farm workers and their families, consumers and the environment; it does not necessary imply agricultural production without synthetic pesticides. The study meets its aim through a comparison of pesticide regulation and farm-level practices in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. We start by describing the method of data collection and sources of data. After describing recent trends in agricultural pesticide use, we focus on pesticide regulation—those that regulate the supply of pesticides such as retail requirements, pesticide licensing and registration, and those that influence farm-level demand such as standard setting and the promotion of integrated pest management (IPM) practices. The discussion highlights the main entry points and challenges that emerged from the comparison. The paper ends with a conclusion. 2. Material and methods We applied published guidelines for conducting a pesticide policy situational analysis (WHO, 2005; FAO, 2010), but extended these based on own experience and interest to include not only policy issues but also the opinions of farmers and pesticide retailers. The authors first agreed on a pre-defined list of questions for eliciting responses. Using this list, we collected data in the last quarter of 2013 by interviewing government officers at national and subnational levels in key government agencies that deal with crop protection and food safety. Annex 1 lists the government offices visited for this study. Regulations, policy documents and scientific literature were also studied. We selected three villages (four in Vietnam) representing contrasting farming systems in each country for in-depth focus group discussions on selected topics to validate and/or augment 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 purposively based on the researchers’ experience. Data collected from the village discussions complemented the policy-level interviews with farm-level information, illustrating local experiences and opinions. In each village, the village headmen were

asked to select about 10 farmers to join a focus group discussion. Selected farmers had an interest in the topic and were available at the time for the meeting. The actual number of participants varied from on average of 8 in Thailand to 30 in Cambodia, where we had to split the participants into two subsequent sessions to allow everyone to join. The discussions covered a range of topics on pesticide usage and practices, including pest and disease problems, the selection of pesticides, sources of information, awareness about adverse health effects, and available alternatives to synthetic pesticides. Local pesticide retailers located in or nearby the study villages were interviewed separately from the farmers to capture potentially opposing opinions. Their interviews included questions about what they thought were the main problems related to pesticide use in the village, the types of products they sold, the training they had received, and the advice they gave to farmers. Farmers and retailers were also asked for their opinions and suggestions on sustainable pest management approaches compared with current practices. 3. Results 3.1. Trends in agricultural pesticide use Fig. 1 shows the trend in agricultural pesticide use over the past 10 years as obtained from ministries and based on customs import records. The data shown are indicative of trends but must be interpreted with caution as they only refer to registered imports. Some countries re-export pesticides, legally or illegally, after formulation and repackaging. Illegal pesticide imports also account for a substantial share of actual use. Only Vietnam has started to produce synthetic pesticides domestically, but government officials we interviewed confirmed that it is a negligible amount of the total volume used. The data show clear differences in average pesticide application rates between Thailand and Vietnam on one hand, and Laos and Cambodia on the other hand. These differences mostly reflect variations in land use intensity as indicated in Table 1. Average application rates based on imported quantities per hectare (ha) of arable land in 2012 were 16.2 kg/ha in Vietnam, 8.4 kg/ha in Thailand, 2.9 kg/ha in Cambodia and 0.1 kg/ha in Laos (Table 2). The application rate for active pesticide ingredients per hectare

Table 1 General characteristics of agriculture in the sampled countries, 2012. Thailand

Vietnam

14.6 79.8 82.7 18.6

6.5 64.7 28.3 33.9

66.6 65.5 130.3 0.4

87.8 68.3 283.3 16.9

945 7.3 4.0 1108

1408 8.2 1.4 1642

5480 6.5 15.8 2926

1755 5.2 6.5 4187

Cambodia Population (million) Rural population (%) Population density (people/km2) Poverty headcount ratio at PPP ($1.25/day)1 Per capita GDP (current US$) GDP growth (% per annum) Arable land (million ha) Land productivity (million US$/ha)2

Laos

Source: The World Bank (2014). Note: 1Purchasing power parity. 2Agricultural value added per arable land in million current US$/ha.

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).

P. Schreinemachers et al. / Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 357–366

359

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 Herbicides (%) Insecticides (%) Fungicides (%) Other (%) Annual growth in pesticide use2 Linear (kg/ha) Exponential (%) Main countries of legal pesticide imports (percentage of the total registered import) Main origin of illegal imports

Cambodia

Laos

Thailand

Vietnam

11.8

0.12

132.0

105.0

2.94 – – – –

0.09 – – – –

8.38 81.0 12.7 5.3 1.0

16.15 44.4 20.4 23.2 12.0

0.24 60.6 Thailand, Vietnam

0.02 54.9 China, Vietnam, Thailand

0.47 6.8 China (77%), Israel (5%), India (5%)

0.97 9.7 China (80–90%)

Thailand, Vietnam

Thailand, Vietnam, China

China

China

Notes: 1Data 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. 2Refers to 2003–2012 for Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam, 2008–2012 for Laos (see data in Fig. 1). Source of data: see Fig. 1.

was 4.4 kg/year for Thailand in 2012, but unknown for Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Unlike Thailand, these countries do not record the name and amount of active ingredients that are imported, or at least do not make such data publicly available. Regression analysis was used to quantify the trends. Linear and exponential growth functions were estimated for each country. The exponential growth function gave a better fit in terms of explained variance for each country, which suggests that growth in pesticide use can be expressed as a percentage. Average application rates grew by 6.8% per annum in Thailand and 9.7% per annum in Vietnam. Pesticide use in Cambodia increased by 61% annually over the period 2003–2012, but by 92% since 2008. Laos experienced a 55% annual growth since 2003, but from a very low base: the imported quantity was 18 tons in 2010, 43 tons in 2011, and 121 tons in 2012. The number of different pesticide products (i.e. trade names) has increased dramatically. For Vietnam, Hoi (2010) reported that there were 837 pesticide products on the market in 1999 and more than 3000 in 2008. In Cambodia, there are more than 1300 pesticide products on the market (Chea Hong, 2013). During the focus group discussions, Vietnamese farmers said they were overwhelmed 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 distinguish between products because most had similar-sounding names. During the focus group discussions in Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia, farmers clearly indicated that they felt pesticides were essential for their farm operations. Farmers were particularly satisfied with the application of herbicides as there was insufficient household labor to do weeding by hand. Herbicide use was observed in all crops. Praneetvatakul et al. (2013) showed that most of the growth in pesticide use in Thailand is due to increased herbicide use (particularly paraquat and glyphosate). Herbicides accounted for 81% of total pesticide use in Thailand in 2012 (Table 2). The low average use of pesticides in Cambodia and Laos does not mean that pesticide risk is low. According to Wang et al. (2011), pesticide residue levels on vegetables in Cambodia, particularly on leafy vegetables, are among the highest in the region. For Laos, Kethongsa (2005) showed that pesticide use is concentrated on watermelon, leafy vegetables, yardlong bean, and cucumber. The Lao Plant Protection Center in 2006 found that 27% of vegetables sold in Vientiane markets had pesticide residues above safe levels (as reported by Helvetas Lao, 2008). In comparison, the villagelevel focus group discussions showed that only a few of the

interviewed farmers used pesticides on rice. Although damage from hoppers and caterpillars was a major concern, farmers said they did not spray and just accepted the damage because rice was mostly for home consumption and farmers did not want to spend money on pesticides on a crop that is not cultivated for profits. The contrast in pesticide use between rice and vegetables was also reported for Thailand, where pesticide use in intensive horticulture was shown to be 10 times higher than in rice cultivation (Praneetvatakul et al., 2013). Customs import records showed that most of the registered pesticide imports came from China (Table 2). For Thailand, pesticide imports from China accounted for 77% of the total quantity of lawfully imported pesticides, but only for 47% of its total import value (about USD 600 million in 2012). For Vietnam, pesticides from China made up 80–90% of total import by weight, but only 43% by value (USD 813 million in 2012). This suggests that the average price of pesticides imported from China is much cheaper than that of pesticides imported from elsewhere. The rapidly developing pesticide industry in China, and to lesser extent in India, has thus been an important driver of pesticide use in Southeast Asia. Not registered (illegal) pesticide imports are a concern to governments in all study countries. For Vietnam, the Ministry of Trade and Industry estimated in 2008 that illegal imports accounted for 30–35% of the used quantity. It is, however, unclear how the ministry estimated this figure. For Cambodia, a study by CEDAC (2006) found that 95% of the pesticide containers sold in Cambodia did not have labels in Khmer and might thus be imported or produced illegally. Interviewed government officers in Thailand and Vietnam reckoned that most illegal imports originate from China, while their counterparts in Laos and Cambodia thought that most were shipped from Thailand and Vietnam, but originated from China. Another major concern of governments and farmers indicated during the focus group discussion is the availability of counterfeit pesticide products. Farmers complained that such products were of poor quality and largely ineffective. It was, however, impossible to judge to what extent farmers could correctly separate between original and counterfeit products. Farmers in Vietnam said that pesticide retailers increased their sales by advising farmers to use dosages higher than what is recommended on the label. 3.2. Pesticide licensing and registration systems Pesticide registration is important to prevent the import of pesticides for which health or environmental risk is too high.

P. Schreinemachers et al. / Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 357–366

360

Registration is a powerful tool because it is much easier to enforce regulation for a few dozen pesticide importers than for thousands of pesticide retailers or millions of farmers. Countries in our study have voluntarily based their pesticide registration systems on the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (FAO, 2006). With minor variations, all countries have a step-wise registration process including registration for conducting trials, provisional registration, and full registration. However, there is variation in requirements and length of validity (Table 3). Thailand classifies pesticides (and all hazardous substances used in crop production) into four categories according to the need for control. Synthetic pesticides are generally classified as a Type III hazardous substance requiring registration as well as licensing. However, biopesticides are classified as a Type II hazardous substance and only require registration to produce or import. Since 2008, pesticide registration in Thailand requires bio-efficacy test results, toxicological data assessment results, quality analysis results, and residue data assessment results. Registration is valid for 6 years without automatic renewal. Registrations have been canceled for 96 pesticides, which have been banned for use in agriculture. In Vietnam, pesticide registration is managed by the Plant Protection Department. As in Thailand, bio-efficacy test results, toxicological data assessment results, and residue data assessment results are required for the full registration of a pesticide. Registration is valid for 5 years, after which it must be renewed. A license renewal is valid for 3 years and does not require field testing. The Plant Protection Department received 1436 submissions for pesticide registration in 2011, which is more than what it can handle (MARD, 2013). The registration process can take up to 4 years, which creates incentives for companies to accelerate the process by bribing government officials as described by Hoi et al. (2013). Vietnam has banned the use of 29 pesticides in agriculture. In Cambodia, pesticide registration is handled by the Department of Agricultural Legislation, which is part of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Unlike Thailand and Vietnam, registration does not require toxicological or residue data, but applicants must submit a sample of the product for efficacy trials and pesticide formulation analysis conducted by the Department of Plant Protection Sanitary and Phytosanitary. Applications must also submit a model of the packaging and label in Khmer. New pesticides that fall in WHO class Ia or Ib cannot be registered, though the registration of existing pesticides in this category can still be renewed. Renewal is valid for 3 years. The Department of

Table 3 Pesticide registration systems and pesticide bans.

Validity of pesticide registration (years) Automatic renewal? Can pesticides be de-registered? No. of pesticides (active ingredients) banned for use in agriculture Rotterdam Convention (year it came into force)1 No. of Annex III pesticides not allowed for import Regulatory bans of Annex III pesticides2 Regulatory bans of non-Annex III pesticides

Cambodia

Laos

Thailand

Vietnam

3

2

6

5

No Yes

No No

No Yes

No Yes

1163

55

96

29

2013

2011

2002

2007

0

21

29

27

0

0

10

0

0

0

42

0

Notes: 1Source: http://www.pic.int. 2As of July 2014, Annex III included 33 pesticides. 3Includes all new pesticides of WHO categories Ia and Ib.

Agricultural Legislation can decide to cancel a registration if new evidence is provided that warrants such action. 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 mandatory to register the pesticides (including biopesticides) that are produced, imported, exported, distributed and used in Lao PDR. However, registration is not required for botanical pesticides that are not for sale (e.g. home-made biopesticides). Registration is valid for 2 years but can be withdrawn in case of serious violation of the regulations, if the pesticide is deemed no longer effective, or if it is withdrawn from the market. Provisional registration can be granted for products imported for the purpose of research, trial or exhibition, if evidence is provided that the products are registered in the country of origin. All four countries have accepted the Rotterdam Convention—a multilateral treaty to promote open exchange of information about hazardous chemicals that calls on exporting countries to inform importers about any known restrictions or bans in other countries and obliges exporters to comply with the laws and regulations of importing countries. The convention covered 33 pesticides in 2014. Thailand has made notification that it does not consent to the import of 29 of these. Vietnam and Laos do not consent to the import of 27 and 21 pesticides, respectively. However, Cambodia has not made any notification and any country can therefore export any of the 33 hazardous chemicals included in the convention to Cambodia. The Rotterdam Convention also requires countries to notify the convention secretariat about domestic regulatory actions to ban or severely restrict any hazardous chemical. Such exchange of information is essential to the functioning of the treaty. Thailand is the only country that has notified the convention of regulatory actions against certain pesticides. It has officially banned 10 Annex III pesticides and 42 non-Annex III pesticides. The other three countries have not exchanged information about their regulatory actions. 3.3. Pesticide pricing and retail None of the four countries directly subsidizes agricultural pesticides. However, all provide pesticides to farmers free of charge in case of pest outbreaks, which are loosely defined as a sudden increase in pest populations causing economic damage. In Cambodia, for instance, interviewed government officials informed us that about 50 tons of pesticides were provided in 2008 and about 10 tons in 2010. The government of Vietnam maintains a strategic reserve of pesticides to be used for pest outbreaks. The country also has a well-functioning pest surveillance system for monitoring and forecasting pest populations at the district level for most crops of economic importance. Thailand has such a system at the provincial level, which provides weekly reports to the Department of Agricultural Extension in Bangkok. Cambodia and Laos do not have a systematic pest surveillance system; in these countries monitoring is done on an ad hoc basis, only for rice and only if a pest outbreak is suspected. To make pesticides affordable for farmers, governments of Cambodia, Laos and Thailand do not levy an import tax or value added tax on pesticides or other agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and plant growth regulators. Vietnam levies a 3% import tax on insecticides and fungicides, a zero import tax on herbicides and a 5% value added (sales) tax on all pesticides, which is below the standard sales tax of 10%. The tax was introduced in 2012 after earlier initiatives failed because of strong opposition from various stakeholders (McCann, 2005). Advertising of pesticide products is generally allowed in Laos and Thailand without restriction other than the product must have

P. Schreinemachers et al. / Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 357–366

been registered for use and comply with consumer protection laws. In Cambodia, the Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries must approve all advertising of registered pesticide products. In Vietnam, the advertising of registered pesticides must be consistent with the product’s certificate of registration and must contain a health warning about the toxicity and its correct use, similar to what is required on the product label. Promotional events such as seminars for farmers must include a session on safety aspects of pesticide use, the contents of which must be guided by the Plant Protection Department. Regulations for pesticide retailing are the most extensive in Vietnam. Pesticide retailers in Vietnam must be trained professionals holding a certificate issued by a local office of the Plant Protection Department. Certificates are valid nationwide and permanent. Certificates are necessary to apply for a retail license. Pesticide retailers are required to attend annual training to retain their licenses, which will be revoked if two training sessions in a row are missed. Furthermore, the siting of pesticide shops must be approved by local authorities and may not be located near residential areas, schools, hospitals, markets, water sources or areas that are prone to flooding. Other stipulations require the availability of fire equipment, display cabinets, shelves or racks and personal protection gear such as gloves, masks, water and soap. However, compliance is low. A nationwide inspection conducted by the Plant Protection Department in 2000 found that 87% had no certificate on technical pesticide knowledge, 23% had no official permission to run their business, and 50% had no adequate storage facility (Huan and Anh, 2000). Several of the Vietnamese retailers visited for this study did not follow safety rules and some were located close to schools, markets or residential areas. Yet all retailers had biopesticides available (mostly abamectin and emamectin) and said that these products formed an important part of their business. In Thailand, pesticide retailers must also obtain a license, but training is only required every 5 years. The training course is 2 days to obtain a new license and 1 day for renewing an existing license. To open a pesticide shop, the shop owner must submit an application form to the Department of Agriculture together with copies of the commercial registration form, the owner’s identity card, the certificate of pesticide training, the location of the shop and building, and a certificate acknowledging a safe pesticide storing system. We found that the interviewed pesticide retailers in Thailand had more knowledge about the products they sold than in the other countries. Retailers in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos said that the best pesticides are those that destroy or kill pests instantly; retailers in Thailand emphasized that the best pesticides are those that are effective but less harmful to humans and the environment. Some Thai retailers also regularly informed farmers about safe pesticide use and biopesticides. They said that biopesticides are effective to control pests, but there is limited demand for them. Retailers not only suggested the government should support more training of farmers in the use of alternative management methods, but also suggested the government should control pesticide prices to keep them affordable. In Cambodia, pesticide retailers are required to be trained on pesticide handling, storage and disposal. Yet only a few retailers interviewed for this study had received such training. This confirms a previous study by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, which found that only 50% of the retailers were actually trained (MAFF, 2012). That study also found that out of 5300 retail shops, only 87% had a license. In Laos, retailers must register their businesses with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry but there are no requirements for specific qualifications or complementary regular training programs. Of the nine pesticide retailers interviewed for this study, none had received any training in pesticide handling, storage or disposal.

361

We generally found that pesticide retailers had limited knowledge about the products they were selling. Pesticide retailers viewed their business as any other buying-and-selling enterprise and they neither see the need to take special precautions, nor do they think they must educate or inform farmers about pesticide risk. They typically recommended products that react quickly against pests and did not recommend the use of biopesticides or mechanical measures such as insect traps because they either didn’t know about them or claimed these products were not effective enough to attract customer demand. Pesticide retailers in Cambodia and Laos usually helped customers to read the product labels, but did not provide additional information or advice. Interviewed retailers in Cambodia were unaware that the government had banned certain pesticide products. Enforcement of the rules is difficult because of a large and increasing number of pesticide retailers. For instance, in Vietnam there were already more than 27,000 licensed retailers a decade ago (Hoi, 2010). In Thailand there are more than 22,000 licensed retailers, according to an officer who was interviewed for this study at the Department of Agriculture (Agricultural Regulatory Office). 3.4. Farmers’ perceptions about pesticide risk The use of synthetic pesticides is the dominant form of crop protection according to interviewed farmers in the four study countries, with the exception of rice cultivation in Laos. Focus group discussions with farmers consistently showed that farmers were very satisfied with the use of synthetic pesticides. Farmers considered a pesticide to be of good quality if it killed insects or weeds instantly. Farmers were generally aware of adverse health effects and could mention various poisoning symptoms such as nausea, respiratory problems, and skin irritations they had experienced after spraying. However, there was a consensus among farmers that good crop protection had priority. Asked how they knew how dangerous a certain pesticide product was, farmers in Cambodia and Vietnam answered that pesticides with a bad smell were more dangerous. Farmers in Vietnam thought that pesticides of well-known brands such as Syngenta and Bayer were less dangerous than lesser-known brands. They also thought that shorter pre-harvest intervals on the product label meant that a product was less dangerous. We found that farmers in Cambodia correctly used color codes on the container to find out about the risk of personal exposure. Asked about the effect on the environment, farmers in all study countries observed a decline in biodiversity—most noticeably a dramatic decline in the number of fish, crabs, frogs, shrimp and shellfish in their paddy fields after they had started using pesticides. Farmers in Vietnam said they no longer found any of these in their fields. Yet farmers generally agreed that crop protection was more important to them than preventing any harmful impact on the environment. Other farmers were the main source of information about pest management. Pesticides were generally selected based on farmers’ own experience of what works. Farmers in Thailand and Vietnam consulted mostly with pesticide retailers and occasionally with extension officers, but this was less common in Laos and Cambodia, where the capacity of the extension system is very limited. Pesticide retailers in Laos were not trained and some indicated they could only help farmers read product labels but could not provide additional advice. In Laos, Thai media is an important source of information about pesticides for farmers. None of the interviewed farmers mentioned problems selling agricultural produce because of high pesticide residues. Pesticide residues were not a concern to them. Farmers in Laos clearly stated that using pesticides made it easier for them to sell produce as it looked more attractive.

362

P. Schreinemachers et al. / Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 357–366

Monitoring pesticide residues is a challenge for all four countries. Member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) harmonized maximum residue limits (MRLs) for main food crops in 2007. The ASEAN MRLs are largely based on international food standards as defined in the Codex Alimentarius of FAO/WHO. Such standards are only effective if compliance can be monitored. None of the study countries has a national program for monitoring pesticide residues in farm produce. Monitoring is done on an ad hoc basis, usually in the context of a project. Cambodia has no capacity to analyze pesticide residues in crops, though it is being developed with foreign assistance. 3.5. Product certification To help improve food safety and gain consumer trust in the domestic food system, ASEAN member countries have introduced public standards for good agricultural practices (GAP). These are comprehensive standards that focus on pesticide residues as well as safe and quality food in general. National GAP standards are being harmonized to the common ASEAN GAP standard launched in 2006. The harmonization is to be accomplished in 2015 and should promote regional trade in agricultural products. Thailand has led the way in terms of public GAP standards. It introduced its standard, called Q-GAP, in 2004 and gave out certificates to more than 121,000 farmers in 2013 covering 27 crops (Table 4). Thailand’s Q-GAP standard targets the domestic market, while for exports to high income countries it uses GlobalGAP and ThaiGAP. Monitoring farmers’ compliance with the standard’s control points is a problem because of the sheer number of farmers involved (Schreinemachers et al., 2012; Amekawa, 2013). According to an officer at the Plant Production Standard and Certification Office, there were 467 auditors in 2013 and the number of certified fields per auditor was 270. In Vietnam, the scale of public GAP is much smaller and chiefly aims at exports. Only 198 farmers and farmer groups received VietGAP certificates in 2013. An important constraint to public GAP standards in Thailand and Vietnam is the lack of a price premium for certified produce— an issue that came up during focus group discussions with farmers. Certified produce often ends up being sold alongside non-certified produce for the same price, providing little incentive for farmers to comply with the standard. However, tea farmers in Thai Nguyen province in Vietnam said that VietGAP certification had doubled their farm-gate price. Farmers in Thailand found that the certification process was too slow; they had difficulty renewing their certificates, which are valid for 1 year for seasonal crops. Farmers in Vietnam who had used VietGAP found that the record keeping was tedious and production costs were high. Cambodia adopted the ASEAN GAP standard in 2006 and Laos introduced LaoGAP in 2011, but no farmers had been certified in either country by 2013. The focus group discussions showed that farmers in both countries were generally aware of the GAP standard but none had received any training in it. In Laos, the government allocated just USD 6200 per province to promote LaoGAP. Farmers in Cambodia expected that GAP requirements would be too complicated for them, while farmers in Laos expected that GAP would help them to increase yields. Organic agriculture has been promoted across Southeast Asia by national and international non-governmental organizations. Yet, only Laos and Thailand have a national organic standard. Cambodia and Vietnam have several private organic standards but no regulatory framework for certified organic agriculture.1 In theory, anyone can therefore label produce as ‘‘organic’’. The area 1 These include CorAA (Cambodian Organic Agricultural Association) and CEDAC (Centre d’Etude et de De´veloppement Agricole Cambodgien) in Cambodia and Bac Tom and PGS (Participatory Guarantee System) in Vietnam.

under (privately and publicly) certified organic production has expanded in all four countries, but still accounts for less than 0.5% of the agricultural land area in any of them (Table 4). Rice is the main crop that is grown organically, but most of this is for export rather than domestic use. 3.6. Integrated pest management (IPM) The main vehicle for promoting IPM in Southeast Asia has been the use of farmer field schools, which were introduced to the region in the early 1990s (Table 4). Farmer field schools are a group learning process in which (usually up to 30) farmers meet on a regular basis to share ideas and learn through experimentation. A skilled extension officer or farmer facilitates the process via the discovery learning approach. Farmer field schools have been highly successful in various countries but have targeted mostly rice and to lesser extent vegetables (Matteson, 2000). Many of these programs are supported by international organizations, mainly FAO and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and foreign governments, mainly Denmark and Australia, usually in close cooperation with national governments. Cambodia started its IPM program in 1993. The overall goal of the national IPM program was to promote food security and safety and provide better market access for IPM produce. Pesticide-safe produce was supplied to supermarkets, restaurants, large hotels and casinos (Vanhan, 2012). Farmer field schools were used as the principal way to deliver IPM strategies to farmers. There are currently 30 farmer field schools supported by FAO and another 615 by IFAD. Farmer field schools practicing IPM have been established and registered at community levels, and these groups can apply for grants from the Commune Development Funds (FAO IPM, 2008). Laos first implemented an IPM program in rice in 1995 with FAO assistance. IPM has been used to promote clean agriculture (Douangphrachanh, 2007). The National IPM Office was initially based at the Plant Protection Center, but moved to the newly established National Agriculture and Forestry Extension Service (NAFES) in 2000–2001 and then moved to the Department of Agriculture in 2005. An IPM program for vegetables started in 2005 (Douangphrachanh, 2007). Vietnam implemented a national IPM program in 1992, managed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development with the Plant Protection Department as the main implementing 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. The success of farmer field schools allowed farmers to actively participate in IPM research and training and local governments allowed farmers to establish local IPM clubs. FAO (2013) studied the effect of farmer field school training in Cambodia and Vietnam and found that it improved knowledge and attitudes about safe pesticide use and led to a reduction in risky practices, total pesticide use and in the use of highly toxic pesticides. Rejesus et al. (2012) also found that farmer field schools in Vietnam had a positive effect on farmers’ knowledge, but did not find a significant reduction on insecticide use. Thailand initially adopted farmer field schools in 1992 but it remained a solely donor-driven activity and the program was discontinued in 1998 (Praneetvatakul et al., 2007). The program was reintroduced and rolled out nationwide when the King of Thailand endorsed the concept after seeing its benefits in 1999. This marked a turning point in the government’s attitude toward pesticides (ibid.). Soon there were more than 1000 farmer field schools in vegetables alone. However, the promotion of farmer field schools and integrated pest management was not sustained.

P. Schreinemachers et al. / Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 357–366

363

Table 4 Selection of pesticide demand reduction strategies as of 2013. Reduction Strategy

Cambodia

Laos

Thailand

Vietnam

Public GAP standards Name of standard Year introduced Farmers certified Main crops

ASEAN GAP 2006 0 –

LaoGAP 2011 0 –

Q-GAP 2004 121,2851 Rice, fruits, vegetables

VietGAP 2008 1982 Fruits, rice

Organic agriculture National standard Area (1000 ha)3 Share of agricultural land (%)3 Main crops

No 9.0 0.16 Rice, vegetables

Yes (Laos Organic) 6.0 0.26 Coffee, rice, vegetables

Yes (Organic Thailand) 32.6 0.18 Rice, tea, vegetables, fruits

No 36.3 0.35 Rice

1993 Rice, fruits, vegetables, rice-fish, mungbean

1996 Rice, vegetables

1992 Mostly rice

1992 Rice, vegetables

Farmer field schools Year introduced Main crops

Notes: 12011 Data from DOA (2013). 22010 data including individual farms, groups and cooperatives (2600 ha in total). 3Data from Willer et al. (2014).

Although the concept still appears in government policies, support for it is currently low (Praneetvatakul et al., 2013). The focus group discussions did not specifically target communities that were active in farmer field schools. The discussions revealed that farmers have very limited knowledge about crop protection methods other than synthetic pesticides. In Cambodia, none of the farmers participating in the discussion knew about biopesticides. In Laos, some of the interviewed farmers produced their own biopesticides using locally available herbs, but said these preparations were slow in reacting and not very effective. In Thailand and Vietnam interviewed farmers were generally aware of biopesticides. Thailand has at least six major biopesticides on the market such as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), neem, Trichoderma harzianum, entomopathogenic fungi, entomopathogenic nematodes and nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV). Of these, Bt is the most widely used biopesticide because of the level of control it achieves against various insect pests, product availability and application convenience (Rushtapakomchai, 2005). During the interviews, Thai farmers mentioned products such as Bt, Beauveri, and Trichoderma. Some were satisfied with these products but said they were slow to react and were less effective than synthetic pesticides. Biopesticides used by Vietnamese farmers included abamectin, emamectin and Bt. They claimed that these products were more expensive than synthetic pesticides and were slow in their effect. Still, some farmers preferred using them because they considered them to be less harmful. Interviewed farmers in Cambodia and Laos knew about the role of natural enemies to control insect pests, but in Cambodia none of them had heard about applying biological control agents in crop production. In Laos, some of the interviewed farmers had heard about using natural enemies, but none had ever seen it in practice. 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 biological control methods or other IPM methods. Some natural enemies were available for farmers from the provincial agricultural office. For example, green lacewings were used to control pests in cassava, mango, coffee, chili, tomato, Chinese kale, and lettuce, and farmers were happy with the results. Some farmers in Vietnam hand-picked insects or caught butterflies using nets and traps in paddy fields, but said that such practices were only possible in small plots and were not effective enough. 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). Farmers in Laos were particularly interested in the use of natural enemies to increase biodiversity on their farms. Vegetable farmers in Thailand wanted to try screen nets to control insect pests in leafy vegetables such as Chinese kale, Chinese cabbage, and lettuce. They suggested that the Department of Agricultural Extension establishes demonstration plots at the district level to help farmers learn about new methods of pest management. They also suggested that the government encourages consumers to buy safe vegetables so that farmers have an incentive to produce these crops. Farmers in Vietnam suggested that the government should take more control over pesticide sellers to improve the quality of products sold by eliminating adulterated and illegal products, and to ensure sellers give correct advice.

4. Discussion The results of our comparison of pesticide use and regulation in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam show that pesticide risk is

Table 5 Suggestions made by farmers to make crop protection more safe and sustainable. Cambodia

Laos

Thailand

Vietnam

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

364

P. Schreinemachers et al. / Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 357–366

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 Ban pesticides that are difficult to manage safely in the country Limit the number of different pesticide products on the market Actively participate in the Rotterdam Convention Regulate pesticide retailers and enforce regulation

Thailand and to a lesser extent Vietnam All countries, but poor enforcement in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia None All have ratified, but only Thailand uses it Thailand and Vietnam, but enforcement is poor

2. Reduce pesticide demand Raise farmers’ awareness about pesticide health risks Regulate pesticide advertising and enforce the regulation Provide sustained support for national IPM programs – target horticultural crops rather than rice Provide more farm-level training and technical support for IPM methods Introduce an import tax on synthetic pesticides and reinvest revenues into the national IPM program Promote urban demand for certified agricultural produce while setting up realistic standards for the domestic market 3. Improve monitoring of pesticide risk Record and make publicly available detailed data on pesticide imports Regularly sample farm produce, members of the farm population, and soil and water resources for pesticide residues and make data publicly available Regularly monitor prevalence of illegal and counterfeit pesticide products and make data publicly available

high and increasing in these countries. The main challenges can be divided into three categories: First, these countries are experiencing very rapid expansion of trade in pesticide products—in terms of total volume, number of products and number of selling points. This makes the enforcement of pesticide regulation extremely challenging, mostly because the government capacity to enforce regulation has not expanded at an equal pace and also because the countries’ departments of agriculture have traditionally been very supportive of increased pesticide use. Second, farmers’ demand for and satisfaction with synthetic pesticides is high. Although farmers are aware of adverse effects, they give greater priority to stable crop yields and are either unaware or skeptical about alternative methods of pest management. Farmers’ demand for biocontrol agents is as low as consumers’ demand for safe agricultural produce, though such demand is rising among wealthier consumers. Third, there exist no national systems to monitor pesticide risk on a regular basis. If data are collected, then these typically are not made publicly available. Lack of factual information about pesticide risk hampers not only good policy making but also the decision-making of farmers and consumers. 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 maintain a strong ‘‘green revolution mentality’’ with a focus on increasing rice productivity through the adoption of modern inputs, including pesticides. Horticultural production systems, agricultural sustainability and food safety receive low priority in comparison. It is emblematic that national IPM programs, if they exist, tend to focus on rice production while pesticide misuse and food contamination with pesticides is most often associated with horticultural produce. In Thailand the current emphasis is on certification with public GAP standards, but without a strong IPM component and price premiums for certified produce it is neither a suitable method to drive down pesticide use nor an attractive option for most farmers. The public GAP program provides much less support to IPM than farmer field schools did in the mid-1990s. If Cambodia and Laos

No systematic program in any of the countries Vietnam None. All IPM programs characterized by irregular support and a focus on rice Limited in all countries. Biocontrol agents most widely available in Thailand Vietnam introduced a tax Thailand

Only Thailand, but data only available upon request None. Either no monitoring or on an ad hoc basis

None. Either no monitoring or on an ad hoc basis

decide to follow this path then they need to address these shortcomings. Low interest of farmers in IPM methods can be explained by a lack of exposure to such methods and the low availability of biocontrol agents. There is a clear need for more farm-level training and technical support in IPM in all four countries to stimulate farmers’ interest and this supports the finding of Parsa et al. (2014), who identified a lack of training and technical support as the main obstacle to IPM adoption in a survey across 96 countries. The results of the study also provided various entry points for reducing pesticide risk, as summarized in Table 6. It shows many opportunities for the four countries to learn from each 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 introduced a pesticide import and sales tax and has relatively strict requirements for pesticide retailers (though enforcement is a problem). The efficacy of the pesticide tax is an open question and an assessment would provide important information for other countries as well. Thailand and Vietnam have seen widespread problems with pesticides including ill-health effects on the farm population, environmental pollution and food contamination. Policy makers have been aware of the problems, but it has been difficult to adapt laws and regulations to address the issue because of strong opposition by farmer groups and private sector which have developed a vested interest in pesticides (as described in Hoi et al., 2013 and McCann, 2005 for Vietnam). Cambodia and Laos can learn from this and adapt laws and regulations when imported volumes are still relatively low, rather than wait until volumes are large and vested interests have taken root. 5. Conclusion Rapid growth in trade of agricultural pesticide products—in terms of total volume, number of products and number of selling points—has created enormous challenges for Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam to manage pesticides safely. Average application rates of registered quantities of imported pesticides

P. Schreinemachers et al. / Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 357–366

per hectare of cropland are 16.2 kg/ha for Vietnam, 8.4 kg/ha for Thailand, 2.9 kg/ha for Cambodia, and 0.1 kg/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 low tax rates on these pesticides encourage misuse. Biocontrol agents are not widely available are considered expensive as compared to synthetic pesticides. National IPM programs are strongly dependent on donor funding and have not received continuous support. Monitoring of pesticide risk is not done regularly and data are not made publicly available. Improvements in these key areas will be needed to reduce people’s exposure to pesticide residues. Entry points were identified. Vietnam recently introduced a pesticide tax and has a sound system of regulating pesticide retail (though enforcement is a problem). Thailand has led the way in terms of pesticide registration, is generally better able to enforce regulation, has setup voluntary GAP standards targeting the domestic market, and collects detailed data on pesticide imports. Laos and Thailand have national standards for organic agriculture. The effect of regulation and standard setting would be greater if farmers and retailers were better informed and had more alternatives to synthetic pesticides.

365

Appendix B. Annex 2: Locations for the farm-level data collection In Cambodia, data were collected in Kratie province. Within the province we selected different villages representing rice, horticulture and upland farming systems. In Laos, the study took place in Bolikhamxay, Champasak and Oudomxay provinces, each covering both horticulture and rice production as farmers typically combine both and only a minor share of 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 study vegetables, and one village in Nan province to study upland agriculture (rice and maize). In Vietnam, we selected one village in Hun Yen province for rice farming, one village in periurban Hanoi and one village in Son La province (Moc Chau district) for vegetable farming, and one village in Thai Nguyen province for tea cultivation.

Appendix C. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07. 017.

Acknowledgments References Financial support from Humidtropics, a CGIAR Research Program that aims to develop new opportunities for improved livelihoods in a sustainable environment, and the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Germany is gratefully acknowledged. We acknowledge the contributions to this study by Chaniga Leitae and Aer Sirijinda in Thailand, Nguyen Thi Hang Nga, Vo Xuan Hung, and Dinh Tuan Hai in Vietnam, and Linkham Douangsavanh, Souklaty Sysaneth and Saithong Phengboupha in Laos. We thank two anonymous reviewers of this journal for their helpful comments. Appendix A. Annex 1: Organizations consulted for the research Cambodia: (1) Department of Plant Protection, Sanitary and Phytosanitary (PPSPSD), (2) Department Agricultural Legislation (DAL), (3) National Agricultural Laboratory, (4) Department of Drugs and Food, Ministry of Health; (5) Kratie Province Department of Agriculture (KPDA); (6) Kratie Province Department of Environment (KPDE). Laos: (1) Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, (2) Oudomxay Province Department of Agriculture, (3) Bolikhamxay Province Department of Agriculture, (4) Champasak Province Department of Agriculture. Thailand: (1) Pest Management Division, Department of Agriculture (DOA), Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), (2) Agricultural Regulatory Office, DOA, (3) Plant Protection Research and Development Office, DOA, (4) Plant Standard and Certification Office, DOA, (5) Department of Agricultural Extension (DOAE), MAF, (6) Pest Management Center Chiang Mai, DOAE; (7) Khamsakaesaeng District Agricultural Office, Nakhon Ratchasima; (8) Muang District Agricultural Office, Pathum Thani; (9) Provincial Agricultural Office, Nan. Vietnam: (1) Department of Plan protection, (2) Department of Crop Production, (3) Vietnam Plant Protection Association, (4) Institute of Plant Protection, (5) Association of Production and Business Enterprise, and (6) Vietnam Association of Organic Agriculture.

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.

366

P. Schreinemachers et al. / Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 357–366

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.