December 1997                                                            211               8                     No. 18
Agriculture
; +_Technology Notest
Rural Developmnent Department (RDV)                                                   (I                The \Vorld Bank
Reform of Pesticide Regulations
Helping Farmers Shift to Biointensive IPM
Developing countries should create a registration process that will make it easier to introduce new zero- and low-
risk pest management inputs, thus giving farmers alternatives to more dangerous broad spectrum poisons.
The term  'biointenisive integrated pest                                      M      of new and less harmfil pesticides through
management (JPM)' describes heavy, but                                               legislation establishing a streamlinied and
not exclusive, dependence on biologically-                                  l        accessible pesticide registration process
based pest management techniques an i      .                                         that does not impose heavy costs (World
inputs, witlh some use of conventional                                               Bank 19931b part II. para 20).
chemlical pesticides. Low-risk inputs for            . ' w      I
bioimtensive IPMI incluide pheromones                                     .          Success with Biointensive IPM
(sex scents to disrupt insect mating),                                IWhen agricultural development is success-
ininocu]aitts (to stimllilate plant iimmiiiiuiiitv                  '                 ... 'siful, farmers aclhieve higlher yields with new
to disease), insect and plant growvth regu-    .                                     crop varieties, inore efficient use of fertil-
lators, viruses an(d bacteria that attack                       ,=                   izer, and otlher improvedtechnologies. But
insect pests, anid isect predators and para-                                         raising yields often increases pressure from
sites. There is. however. no simple corre-                                           pests-if onlv conventional pesticides are
lation between risk and biological source                                       j   available, environmental and public health
some biopesticides are high risk (for ex-    w                                   p  damages increase, no matter how intense
ample, rotenone), and some low-risk inputs    ;    .            '                    the efforts to tighten regulatorv svstems.
are inorganic (such as plastic films.)                               ,              On the other hand, if sufficient inputs and
This Note uses the term  biointensive                                             acl- .    .    - I  *  .-    advice for hiointensive IPM are available.
IPM' to avoid ambiguity. IPM may. for ex-            ,             ,     .     .*,E  modernizinig farmers can boost yields and
ample, refer to pesticide application nles                      ,l             --"  containi pest damage without draconian
or rotation scheimies designed to delay              ,.  environmental and public health trade-offs.
emergenice ofpesticide resistance. Success  '                                          Farmers in many developing countries
Groundnut formers in some regions of south indo h
w,ith such rtiles einstires contiiiued effec-   prowde perches for predatory birds that ecot crop-  have demonstratel SUCCSS with biointen-
tiveness and use of conventional pesticides    destroying insects. Birds hove retumed to these felds    sive IPM for selected crops. For example,
with attendant risks for the environment    os pestcide opplicotions hove stopped or been  farmiiers in Brazil use a virus collectedI from
and public health. This Note is based on    severely reduced. Farmers hove the option of  diseased velvet beaii caterpillars to con-
a recent UNDP-World Bank publicationi   reducing the effects of fsect outbreoks (now rore)  trol that pest on nearly one million
with sprcys~ nf misect vmise.s Bir<ls eait insects infested
(Gisselqiist and Benbrook, 1996).         wilithp    virusen Birds elr set It       hectares of soybeans. In Cuba. the govern-
(Gisseiquist                   ~~~~~~~~~~with the virus, ond their droppings help spreod it              1
ment has aggressively and successfully
Commitment to IPM                         research, training, and extension).        promoted production of microbial pesti-
The WvNorld Bank's Operational Manual,      Au earlier AugricutltuAre Technology Note   cides (viruses and bacteria that attack
(1993b, 1996) promotes IPM  to limit   (No. 2) describes the Bank's commitment    pests). Peru and Columbialhave been lead-
public health and environmnental risks from    to IPM. and advises support for public re-    ers in developing ecological methods of
pesticide use. The overall strategv is   search, extension, and training to help    pest control. including on-farml rearing and
to raise barriers lor mtore dangerous pes-   farmers limit use of celmetiical poisons and    release of pest parasites and predlators.
ticides (for example. higher prices and    shift to low-risk inputs and techniques.   For selected crops and countries, donors
tighter regulations, while loNvering bar-   This earlier Note, however, overlooks an   hIave provided crucial suipport for introdiic-
riers for safer alternative technologies   important element of the Bank's IPM       tion of biointensive IPM. For example, the
(such as reasonable registration processes,   strategy-  encoumraging the introductioni   government of Indonesia, xvitlh advice and



RDV Technology1 Notes
sutpport from FAO and other donors, has    countries mayx not find them available or    spending more than a nominal amount of
banned use of many pesticides on rice, and    affordable if cnrrent regulatory systems    time and money to obtain required regis-
trained f:armers to manage pests largely    and pest management policies continue    trations. Xvhen companies judge that costs
without chemicals. In Africa, the Interna-    without reform.                         and uncertainty make registration not
tional Institute for Tropical Agriculture                          .                  worth the effort, farmers have no oppor-
worked with governments to intro(dtuce a                                              tunity to bhy prodncts.
parasitic wasp from Southl America to con-    Reduce  Costs  to  Register  New          Sales of conventional pesticides are large
trol the cassava meal' bug.                Biopesticides. Even though most new        enough even in small markets to provide
products seeking registration in a devel-   sufficient incentives for pesticide compa-
FarmerAccess to Inputs                     oping countryhavealreadlypassedrigorous    nies to spend the time and money to
Pesticide regulatory systems often ohstnict   registration processes in dleveloped coun-    register their products, but in small and
incentives and efforts by the private sec-   tries, registration in a developing country    even medium-sized developing countries,
tor and NGOs to identify and introduce    may  take  an  additional  three  to    annual sales of low-risk biopesticides can
new inputs that could allow farmers to   five years, along with fees for tests and    be too small for companies to bother wvith
shift to biointensive IPM. Virtually all gov-    registration. In a developing country,    the registration processes (see table, helow).
ernnents maintain  lists of approved    multi-year, in-country efficacy (perfor-        Recommendations 1-3 (see box, p. 3)
(registered) pesticide products. and those    mance) tests account for most of the time    urge governments to exempt zero or very
that are not registered cannot be sold. Reg-    and money necessary to register a new    low-risk pesticides from registration, ar-
istration nay' or may not be coupled with    pesticide. Most developing countries re-    range automatic registration, or base
recommendations for use based on offi-    quire efficacy tests for all pesticides, even    decisions to register exclusively on risk
cial field tests.                          those with zero or low risks, but standard    (lata, leaving efficacy for markets to evalulate.
Pesticide registration systems in many    efficacy tests are designed for conventional    Public (and private) organizations would
countries, including most developing    pesticides and are not appropriate for    normally continue to test products for ef-
countries, treat all pest management    biopesticides, which are typically designed    ficacy to develop optimal guidelines for
products alike, forcing low- or zero-risk    to alter pest behavior and physiology in    use, but these tests would not be a part of
produlcts such as pheromones to go    ways that reduce pest damage rather than    the registration process and would often
throullgh the same tests and controls as con-    directly kill target pests. For environmental    follow registration.
ventional high-risk poisons. The standard    and public health risks, however, develop-  These recommendations are similar to on-
legal definition for 'pesticides' covers all   ing countries generally accept data from  going refonns in several OECD countries ald
chemltical and microbiological pest control    registration tests in developed countries.    are also consistent vkith standard market prin-
inputits, whether or not thev are poisons or  Low-risk products for biointensive IPM  ciples - govemments do not need to regulate
have any negative enviromimental or pub-    characteristically target specific pests, and    a produlet unless there is evidence of market
lic health effects, alongwith plant growtlh   consequently have lower potential sales    failure. Reforms consistentvwitl Recommen-
regulators (FAO, 1985, p. 6).              compared to broad spectrum poisons. In    dations 1-3 include:
Regulatory systems, however, are begin-    developing countries, where markets are    * de-regulating plheromones and other
ning to change to favor safer pesticides.   typically  limited, potential sales for     virtually non-toxic pest controls such as
In OECD countries, public pressure to    biopesticides may be too small to justify      pepper, soaps, and vegetable oils; and
re(luce pesticide damage has brouight
regulatory chaniges that are raising the cost
of registering conventional pesticides               Pd large markets
while reducinig the time and expense to                         Sales in markesofdifferent sizes (US$)
move biological and other low-risk pesti-                         sml ( Sg Haiti, M im (e.g.             L        (    Bil,
cides through the regulatory process. This  Pesticide products     Mala  Nepal)  Ncau  Sri Lanka)   China, Iesia)
streamlinfing creates incentives for re-
search and product development to focus     AlL pesiides (actua     1l.240 millio   . 18-45 million       120-1,000 lni;
on biopesticides and other low-risk prod-   imports or sales)
tcts, atd has had notable results. In the   Htheticale60,0-25,00                        1.1-23 milion        6-50  milo
U.S., for examtple, just over hialf of the 4()  conventioaprdc
(sales cluae  s5
new active ingredients that the Environ-    o al pestiidesEales
mental Protection AgTency registered in
fiscal 1995 were biopesticides, and dozenis  Hypotheti                   000            128000 00           12,000-100,000
of new produicts and technologies are in    bipscde(as
variols stages of development.              ofalpeticide  sals)
WVhile m-uchi of this new lowv-risk techi-  er        amavhipir1tptAl   iiijil'.ep,nKny)sae
miology will also be suitable for use in    fi                                                      O )dJ          o X
developing countries, farmers in such       - uiinu, .ui'j-.mbmjim                               i:mi:-iui
page 2



Decem iibe r 1 9.9 7
w;hich the I[dian industry is mainly pro-
Regulatory changes to favor biointensive IPM                              dulcing" (Jackson. 1992, sectioni 4.3.5.3).
Recommendlation 5v asks for an end to
Improvingfarmer access ta inpfts for bioititensive IPM                              teandaot i    biases  favo
l. For pesticideswith 2ero or very low risk either exempt fromT registratior        tra dom enti otlver polire abiases that fieto
mandate automatic registration. Sufficient information on risk is generated        oalest alone, Reconrniendations 4 and
for registration in major developed countries and is avalable.                   5 would Ct retail prices fom r conventional
2. For biopesticides and other low-risk pesticides for agriculure, base registra-   pesticides by fostering competition. Sinice
tion exclusively on risk. However, for pesticides used in public health pro-      private costs lo not reflect total social
-gramns, efficacy should be considered.                                           costs, Recoinmmendation 6i proposes taxes
3, In small and poor developing countries in particular, case registration p        to give farmers pcorrect sinals about so-
cesses suf iciently to allw traders to import and introdue  -ow-rs  pesticides    cial costsi. Gove rnaid tns corild aisseSs
with potential annual sales of no  ore than several hundred dolars.               v'ronuteiital and public health risks, svith
Reduchng incentives to continue with older high-risk conventional 7)C$tICIes        zero taxes on the least dangerous products,
4. For old and off-patent pesticides wit at least one approved brand, establish     and lp to ] 00 percent on more dangerous
a clear policy for quick regtmtion of competing brands of approved formu-         products that are not banned.
lations, subject only to laboratory tests to show that new brands meet objec-        Bring Consumers into Pesticide
tive quality standards.    z                                                      Policy Debates. If developing couintries
5. Maintain liberal pesticide trade polWies, avoiding any bias for dome.stically    are to generate sufficient political wvill to
produeId active ingredients. Since markets for many low-risk biopesticides        shift from currernt high-risk- pest manage-
are low volume, much of the new technology is only available from impErts.        ment systems to low-risk ontes, constiers
wAill be ani essential part of the equiationi.
6. Tax pesticides, with Eates varying across formulions as a function of risk,      One wav to biring consumers into the publie
so that prices to farmers refleet total social costs (including externalities).   policy debate about pesticides is to pro-
Entistirg constmfer- ifavor of biointensive 1PM                                     vide them wNith mlore information about
S Set maxhairun residue limits, test fod and feed in domnestic markets, and         the health consequenecs of pesticide resi-
publish results.                                                                  dues in food. Currently, imnost developing
countries have little or no residue testing,
except for vegetables and fruits that are
exported to developed couintries.
o agireeing to accept registratioi decisions  process - create co-dependence between      The limited information available on
by anyv OECD countrv or neighboring      vendors and regulators. Reco(iinieiidation    pesticide residues in dlevelopin4 couintries
couniitry for non-toxic a(grieultuiral bio-  4 asks govemnmeits of developinig coun-    suggests serious problems, at least for
pesticides, including pheromones aiid    tries to register competing brands ot'   some products, markets, and reg,ions. For
plant and inseet growth regulators,      off-patent pesticides to redcuce profits and(   example, recent residue tests in India
Cut Incentives that Favor Conven-    incentives for lelder conventional pesticides.   foulnd t "1) D T residues I that] exceeded the
tional Pesticides. If policies are to oif'er  To the exteint that developing countries    Codex MRI l. [maxmniii  residue limitj in
accurate signals about the social costs of    no longer protect unnecessary monopolies    about 10% of the cereals, 60r/c of the bo-
alternative pest management techiologies,   for old proouhCts, multinationial research-    vine imilk, and 66% of' the butter samples"
then another challenge is to redue incen-    based pesticide companies will lose sales    (Kannan et al., 1992), Overall. consumiiers
tives to contiinuie with older anli more    of older anid more dangerous pesticides    in flria are exposed to residue levels sev-
dangerons conventional pesticides. Many    to  competing  lower-cost produicers.    eral times greater thaoi those in Europe.
of these are off-patentt so that multiple    Suggested  reformis  may  encourage    the United States, or Japan.
b)rands of the samne formiiulation compete    research-based  companies to shift to       Even with aggressive programs to re-
in nworldl trade. Nevertheless, re nulators    newer and safer products for developing    strict ani  haan high-risk convelltiollal
in developing cotintries often limit m1ar-   as wvell as developed counitries,         pesticides, mainal danggerous poisons5 VVill
ket access to one or a few brands for         Another coiiumlon source of bias favor-   continue to le approved for non-food
popular formulations, delivering large    ing  olter anti high-riski prodtucts  is   crops and public lealtlh uses suic as ilos-
profits to favored comiipaniies. Indoiiesia.    government policies that favor domestic    quiito eradication. Withotit residule testillg,
for example, restijets the iitumber of re-    prodsiction o- er imports  D. In India, for    there is no way to nmeasuire or address the
istration hiolders to three for each active    exaniple, where government encourages    risk that farmers will divert dangerous pes-
ingredient (Jacksoin. 1992, sectioni 4.4.4).   local pesticidte production, "the intro-    ticides for use on food crops.
Large profits on conventional pesticides    duction of new  pesticides, developed      Even in situations  ihere food is home-
-gener-ated in part f'rom restraints on    elsewhere, is iadel difficuilt,' leaving farm-    grown or traded through local mnarkets.
trade th-ough the pesticide registration    es NVith "the older gencration of pesticides    residue testing can provide the public with
page 3



IDV Technologyj Notes
information they need to improve the    it easier for NGOs promoting organic ag-        Implications for Donors. Stories of
safety of their food supply. For examiiple, a    riculture for high-value export crops to    successful efforts by the World Bank,
government could test samples of freslh   import and introduce inputs from other    NARS, or extension agencies to introduce
vegetables from a town market (without    countries where organic agriculture is   low-risk IPM  for a specific country and
tr'ingtto link samiples to a particular farner    more advanced (for example, farmers in    crop are encouraging. While important,
or trader), theni publicly annlounce results    Central America could use inputs from  widelv heralded successes can mask the
to stimulate community pressure for safe    California).                              enormous scope of the challenges ahead.
pesticide use.                               A larger role for private and NGO re-    Even long lists of successful projects do
Promotin  Biopest e  search and extension does not implv     r not penetrate to the heart of the challenge.
rejection of government research and ex-    If ev'ery specific success with biointensive
Recormmendations in this Note are pro-    tension programs -it is not a choice    IPM  depended on international dehate
posed as a common strategy for diverse    betxveen public and private organizations.   and support from Washington, Rome, or
interests to promote biointensive IPM:     Since pest management technologies of-    other donor capital, then low-risk pest
* environmentalists want to limit damage    ten involve large positive or negative    management would have a dim future in
1rom conventional pesticides:            externalities, public research and extension    developing countries.
* fArmers want safe, effective, and low-   can improve social welfare by promoting     Donors can help not only by funding and
cost pest managemenit technologies;      selected technologies. For example, clas-    offering advice for public sector research
* comupanies offering biopesticides want    sic  biological  control  can  achieve    and extension programs, but also by policy
lower regulatory costs an(d highler net  effectively permanent control of some    advice for governments to ease regulator'
profits; and                             pests at no cost to farmers. Strong argu-    obstacles to private technology transfer.
a consumers want safer food.               ments can be made for rnore research on    Policy changes that facilitate independent
Recommendations are not intended to   low-risk pest management in specialized    initiatives by a wide range of autonomous
be a complete agenda for any group, but   institutes such as the International Insti-   public and private institutions can be ex-
identifying and focusing on areas of agree-   tute  of Biological Control and  the    pected to vastly improve f:armer access to
ment may allow an alliance to achieve    International Centre of Insect Physiology    low-risk  pesticides  and  adlvice  for
meaningful reforms.                       and Ecology, as well as through the cen-    biointensive IPM systems. Donors can also
NMultiple Channels for Research and    ters of the  Consultative  Group  on    help bv channeling some of their aid re-
Dissemination. Reforms recommeilded    International Agricultural Research and    sources through  university consortia,
in this Note support autonomous private    national agricultural research systems    NGOs, and other organizations, thus di-
efforts to promote low-risk pest mlaniage-    (NARS).                                 rectly supportinig multiple channels for
ment. For example, reforms could make                                                 initiative and technology transfer.
References and Readings                                          Human Dietary Exposure." Joumal ofAgricultural Food
FAO. 1985. Guitdelinesjbr the Registration and Control of     Chemistr- 40:518-524.
Pesticides. Rome: FAO.                                     Schillhom. Tjaart W. et al. 1997. "Integrated Pest Management:
FAO. 1993. Trade Yearbook. Rome: FAO.                         Strategies and Policies for Effective Implementation."
Gisselquist, David, and Charles Beuibrook. 1996. "Technology  Environmentally Sustainable Developmelt Studies and
Transfer. Competition, and Trade Liberalization for Low      Monographs Series No 13. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Risk Pest Management." Occasional Paper II. UNDP-WB        World Bank. 1993a. Pesticide Usage in the Latin America and
Trade Expansion Program. Washington. D.C.: World Bank.       Caribbean Region. Washington, D.C.
Jackson, G. J. 1992. Agrochemical Usage in Asia Region: A    World Bank. 1993b. "Good Practices 4.03, Agricultural Pest
Reference Compendium. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.          Management." Operational Manual. Washington, D.C.
Kannan, Kurunthachalam et al. 1992. "Persistent Organochlorine  World Bank. 1996. "Operational Policies 4.09, Pest Management."
Residues in Foodstuffts trom India and Their Implications on  Operational Manual. Washington, D.C.
Agriculture Technology Notes pr e p-to-dte i     ion sel    tio           ld Ba nk proesionals.a Cees de Haan coordinates the
series. This Note was prepared by Davd                                     fChars Benbrok (conultant) and Agi Kiss (World
Bank). TO obtain opies othis or other Notes, orto enir ue s          se 02) 40464. oes in his series incld
Sustainable Agriculture      Competitive Research Grant Systes;     n     ted Soil Maethe Tropics
Reform of Seed Regulations   Provision of Mineral Supplements       Te P i  T          g  to mp   Forestrm Investments
World Fishers                Simple Animal Health echniques                  rtals
National Seed System         Prom       Sustainable Agriculturean  atent
Biotechnology                Privatization of Aimal Health Servicesent
Integrated Pest Management    Part toryRuralAssessen                Lvso  P       t  ad Suse Use
Edited by SehBe      ,Besadc          bi        miato           PA. Layot  yT Condell, Condelo Design, Pittsburgh, PA
page 4