Sustainable Pest Management: Achievements and Challenges

THE WORLD BANKAgriculture and Rural Development

3535-FM.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page i

© 2005 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone 202-473-1000 Internet www.worldbank.org/rural E-mail ard@worldbank.org All rights reserved. Rights and Permissions

The material in this work is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly.

For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, www.copyright.com.

All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. CHANGING PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY WORLD-WIDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

POLICY DEVELOPMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Agricultural Subsidies and National Pesticide Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Global Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Pesticide Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Policies Related to Genetically Modified Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

International Conventions and the World Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Biocontrol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

New Pesticides. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Application Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Genetic Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Advances in Crop Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3. STEPS TOWARD SOUND PEST MANAGEMENT IN THE WORLD BANK PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

POLICY CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

World Bank’s Pest Management Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

World Bank’s Role in the Global Policy Dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

National Pesticide and Pest Management Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

OPERATIONAL CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Staff Recruitment and Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Technical Support and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Procurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

OTHER POLICIES AND CHANGES IMPACTING PEST MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Changes in World Bank’s Lending Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Partnerships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

iii

CONTENTS

3535-FM.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page iii

Codex Alimentarius and Private Sector Standards Promoting Sound Pest Management . . . 20

New Chemistry and Genetically Modified Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE PEST MANAGEMENT POLICIES ANDPROGRAMS IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY—LESSONS LEARNED . . . . 23

DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY INVOLVED IN SOUND PEST MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Regional Development Banks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

International Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Bilateral Assistance Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Civil Society Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

WORLD BANK’S PERFORMANCE IN SOUND PEST MANAGEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Project Interventions—Lending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Supervision of Project Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Staff Recruitment and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Procurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

New Programs and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

5. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

PROACTIVE AND SELECTIVE APPROACH TO ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE PEST MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . 35

IMPROVING THE WORLD BANK’S PERFORMANCE IN IPM IMPLEMENTATION IN OPERATONS. . . . . . . . . . 35

6. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

ANNEX 1. POTENTIAL SIDE EFFECTS OF PESTICIDE USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

TABLES, BOXES, AND FIGURES

Table 1.1. Change in Insecticide Use during 1995–2000 in Selected Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Table 2.1. Percentage Changes in the Export of Selected Commodities and Pesticide Use from 1997 to 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 4.1. Pest Management Issues in the World Bank Country Assistance and Poverty Reduction Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 4.2. Pest Management-related Topics as Mentioned in the World Bank Project Appraisal Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 4.3. Agriculture Project Appraisal Documents (PADs) between 1999 and the First Quarter of 2004 with Pest Management Activities and Pest Management Plans (PMP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 4.4. Pest Management Safeguard Rating and Discussion of Pest Management and IPM Issues in Project Status Reports (PSR) of 57 World Bank Agriculture/Rural Projects (1999–2003) Assessed for Having an Impact on Pesticide Consumption at the Project Appraisal Stage (PAD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

iv

3535-FM.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page iv

v

Table 4.5. The World Bank Agriculture/Rural Projects Flagged for Possible Non-compliance by Internal or External Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 4.6. Participation in Training Sessions on Implementation of Pest Management Safeguards Policy OP 4.09 (March 03–March 04) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 5.1. Entry Points for Initiating a Policy Dialogue on Pest Management with Borrower Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Box ES1.1. Global and World Bank Trends in Pest Management—General Conclusions . . . . xvi

Box 1.1. Examples of Recent World Bank Projects That Support Sustainable Pest Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Box 2.1. IFC Guidance Note on Pollution Prevention and Abatement of Hazardous Chemicals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Box 2.2. Pest Management-related International Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Box 2.3. An Alternative to Spraying: Bollworm Control in Shandong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Box 2.4. Reduction in Insecticide Use and Insecticide Poisoning Among Farmers in Hebei/Shandong, China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Box 2.5. Pesticide Effects on Farm Workers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Box 2.6. Human Health, Environmental, and Economic Effects of Pesticide Use in Potato Production in Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Box 4.1. Methodology Used to Review the Integration of Pest Management Issuesin the World Bank’s Country Strategies and Lending Portfolio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 2.1. Import (Value) of Pesticides by Region 1995–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3535-FM.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page v

3535-FM.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was prepared by Riikka Rajalahti (ARD), Abdelaziz Lagnaoui (ESDQC), TjaartSchillhorn-Van Veen (consultant), and Eija Pehu (Task Team Leader).

The authors would like to extend particular thanks to Gershon Feder for his considerable contri-butions during the writing process. The team would also like to thank Agi Kiss, Charles E. Di Leva,Indira J. Ekanayake, Richard H. E. Chisholm, Michael Morris, and Michael Holderness (CABI) fortheir comments and suggestions during the preparation of this report.

The task team thanks Kevin Cleaver (Director, ARD), Sushma Ganguly (Sector Manager, ARD),Stephen Lintner (Sr. Adviser, ESDQC), Nwanze Okidegbe (Adviser, ARD), and the ARDManagement Committee for their support and guidance. The team acknowledges Shari Schlesingerfor editing and formatting the report, and Arunima Dhar and Melissa Williams for their help withthe logistics and production of the report.

vii

3535-FM.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page vii

3535-FM.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page viii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AFD French Development Agency (Agence Française de développement)AfDB African Development BankAFR Africa Region (WB)AFTES Environment and Sustainable Development Division, Africa Technical

DepartmentARD Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentASP Africa Stockpiles ProgramASSP Agricultural Support Services ProjectAVRDC World Vegetable CenterBt Bacillus thuringiensis CAN Conservation Agriculture NetworkCAS Country Assistance Strategy (WB)CDD Community Driven DevelopmentCGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural ResearchCGIAR SP-IPM CGIAR Systemwide Program on Integrated Pest ManagementCIRAD French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (Centre

de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour ledéveloppement)

DECRG Development Research Group (WB)DFID Department for International Development, UKEAP East Asia and Pacific Region (WB)EC European CommissionECA Europe and Central Asia Region (WB)EU European UnionEUREGAP Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group—Good Agricultural PracticesFAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United NationsFFS Farmer Field SchoolGATT General Agreement on Tariffs and TradeGTZ German Development AgencyICIPE International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology ICM Integrated Crop ManagementIDB Inter-American Development BankIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentIFAP International Federation of Agricultural ProducersIFC International Finance CorporationILO International Labor OrganizationIPM Integrated Pest ManagementISR Implementation Status and Results Report (WB)IVM Integrated Vector ManagementLCR Latin America and Caribbean Region (WB)MNA Middle East and North Africa Region (WB)

ix

3535-FM.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page ix

MRL Maximum Residue LevelNAFTA North American Free Trade AgreementNEDA Netherlands Development AssistanceNEPAD New Partnership for African DevelopmentNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationOECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentOED Operations Evaluation DepartmentOPN Operational Policy Note (WB)PAD Project Appraisal DocumentPAN Pesticide Action NetworkPANNA Pesticide Action Network North AmericaPIC Prior Informed Consent PMP Pest Management PlanPOP Persistent Organic PollutantPRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy PaperPSR Project Status Report (WB)QACU Quality Assurance Control Unit (WB)SAI Sustainable Agriculture Initiative SAR South Asia Region (WB)SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary StandardsSSA Sub-Saharan Africa Region (WB)SWAPS Sector Wide Approaches UNEP United Nations Environment Program UNDP United Nations Development ProgramUNICEF United Nations International Children’s Emergency FundUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentWB World BankWBI World Bank Institute WHO World Health OrganizationWRI Water Resources InstituteWTO World Trade Organization

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Metric system

x

3535-FM.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xi

sound agricultural practices that help reducefarmers’ yield losses to pest damage while pro-tecting the health of producers, consumers, andthe environment. However, the uptake of IPMglobally has been slow due to many factors,including the knowledge intensive nature ofIPM, making it difficult and quite expensive todiffuse among farmers, limited technical capac-ity to promote IPM technologies in the agencies,lack of priority among the actors in the sector aswell as low demand by smallholder farmers. Butthere are also positive trends strengthening theenabling environment and technical options forIPM. New policy tools to reduce reliance on haz-ardous chemicals are emerging, especially thephase out of the Persistent Organic Pollutantsunder the recently adapted Stockholm Conven-tion. Stricter food standards and recent techno-logical breakthroughs in agro-chemical industryproducing pesticides of lower toxicity as well as some of the transgenic approaches for pestmanagement is reducing reliance on chemicalpesticides.

The objective of the study is to: (a) reviewWorld Bank’s pest management activities during1999–2004; (b) assess those in view of thechanges in the external and internal contexts; (c) identify appropriate opportunities of engage-ment on pest and pesticide issues; and (d) sug-gest means to further promote sound pest man-agement in the World Bank operations.

National Policies. The importance of soundpest management for sustainable agriculturalproduction is being recognized by many develop-ing countries. Many countries have adoptedsound pest management and IPM policiesauthorizing plant protection services to coordi-nate the promotion of good practices. These poli-cies provide the institutional framework for theplanning and implementation of pest manage-ment. However, these local policies often suffer

The management of pests and weeds is an essentialpart of agriculture and public health and an impor-tant tool in the maintenance of power lines androads. Chemical pest management is a commontool and has helped to reduce losses in agricultureand to limit human exposure to disease vectors.However, if mismanaged, most pesticides1 can leadto crop losses and pose a risk to human health andthe environment. This includes the costs incurreddue to pesticide clean-up (such as those of obsoletestocks), costs related to human health and costsincurred due to increase in pesticide resistance ininsects and disease vectors and destruction of nat-ural enemies of pest species, that may result in lostvalue in agricultural produce.

In the past, investments in agricultural inten-sification were often associated with increase inexternal inputs, such as fertilizers and chemicalpesticides. More recently, new investments aremore economically, socially, and environmen-tally based. Within this context, the World Bankwith several other development agencies consid-ers Integrated Pest Management (IPM)2 andIntegrated Crop Management3 (ICM) to be

1Pesticides = Substances intended to repel, kill, or control anyspecies designated a “pest” including weeds, insects, rodents,fungi, bacteria, or other organisms. The family of pesticidesincludes herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, andbactericides. www.nsc.org/ehc/glossar1.htm

2IPM = IPM refers to a mix of farmer-driven, ecologically basedpest control practices that seek to reduce reliance on syntheticchemical pesticides. It involves (a) managing pests (keeping thembelow economically damaging levels) rather than seeking to erad-icate them; (b) relying, to the extent possible, on non-chemicalmeasures to keep pest populations low; and (c) selecting andapplying pesticides, when they have to be used, in a way that min-imizes adverse effects on beneficial organisms, humans, and theenvironment. Source: World Bank Operational Policy OP 4.09.

3An approach to farming which aims to balance production witheconomic and environmental considerations by means of a com-bination of measures including crop rotation, cultivations,appropriate crop varieties and careful use of inputs. Source:Dataservice. http://dataservice.eea.eu.int

3535-FM.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page xi

from lack of enforcement. The developmentcommunity, including the World Bank, has anopportunity here to strengthen national capacityon safeguard policies and pesticide production,handling and use.

However, it is important to note that agri-cultural and trade policies may act contrary tosustainable pest management. Subsidies in agriculture and health may either encourage pes-ticide use (some countries still subsidize agro-chemical use), may fail to promote the develop-ment of alternatives to pesticide use or shieldfarmers and industry from the full costs of nega-tive externalities of pesticide use. Agriculturalsubsidies may also promote mono-cropping andreduce mixed farming systems and may therebyindirectly increase the reliance on chemical control.4

Increased trade can affect pest managementand pesticide use. International trade carries therisk of introducing new pests and diseases, andinternational markets tend to demand standards(such as perfect appearance of produce) thatoften require chemical control. On the otherhand, consumers in developed markets areincreasingly concerned about food safety issuesleading to the need of exporters to comply withoften stringent food safety standards, such asmaximum residue levels, and labeling require-ments, both of which promote application ofsound pest management among other criteria.Awareness of health and food safety issuesamong developing country consumers is alsoincreasing, resulting in higher demand fororganic and pesticide free produce.

Similarly, codex alimentarius and privatesector programs can promote sound pest man-agement and IPM. Many private sector represen-tatives, such as associations concerned with theinterests of the food processing industry, nationalfarmers’ associations, representatives of foodretail and supply-chain industry, crop protectioncompanies, and biotechnology companies, are

xii

actively involved in promoting sound pest man-agement practices through stewardship programsfor best practice in manufacture, marketing, useand disposal of pesticides; farmer training onpesticide use and IPM; certification schemes andharmonization of standards for IPM and mini-mized pesticide use.

New Chemistry and genetically modifiedcrops. Progress in the plant science industry isproviding new approaches towards sustainablepest management. These new tools range fromimproved application technologies to chemicalswith low mammalian toxicity as well as semio-chemicals5 and biopesticides, and lastly to genet-ically modified crops resistant to pests. The ben-efits of these new technologies to improveagricultural production have been demonstratedin many cases, including recent economic andenvironmental impact studies of geneticallymodified crops. However, in terms of chemicalpesticides one needs to recognize that high toxi-city, broad spectrum pesticides against severalpests and longer persistence in the environmentare still attractive in view of short-term eco-nomic goals in some production systems therebyretaining a demand in the marketplace for theolder, more persistent pesticides.

International donor community. RegionalDevelopment Banks exert considerable leverageon national policies through their lending pro-grams. They have experience in funding projectsincluding pest management and IPM practices,providing policy and strategy support to coun-tries, as well as carrying out farm level trainingin pest management and IPM. Other interna-tional organizations, such as OECD, CGIAR andFAO, have diverse mandates and different expe-riences ranging from harmonization of the poli-cies and standards in member countries to gener-ation and information sharing on new IPM

4Abate et al. 2000 and FFNZ 2002.

5Semiochemicals (Gk. semeon, a signal) are chemicals that medi-ate interactions between organisms. Semiochemicals are subdi-vided into allelochemicals and pheromones depending onwhether the interactions are interspecific or intraspecific,respectively. Source: Flint and Doane 1996.

3535-FM.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page xii

technologies. FAO has also been instrumental inlinking different stakeholders to promote soundpest management policies and practices throughco-founding of the Global IPM Facility in 1997to assist governments and NGOs in developingnational and local IPM programs. Bilateral assis-tance agencies support sound pest managementmainly through funding research, field projectimplementation, guideline development, andsupport to regulatory reforms. In 1993 the EUfacilitated the formation of IPMEurope, a net-work that operates mainly through donor harmo-nization of pesticide policies and IPM among thedonor agencies of its members and through part-nerships and policy influence in internationalfora. The globally active civil society organiza-tions working in the field of pest managementinclude the Pesticide Action Network and theWater Resources Institute that advocate forreduction in pesticide use and increase in the useof sustainable and ecological alternatives tochemical pest control.

Status of sustainable pest management inthe World Bank. Since the early 1980s, theWorld Bank has been one of the pioneers indeveloping pest management policies to addressthe ever-increasing pest management needs in itsrural development and health projects. However,the implementation efficiency of these policieshas occasionally been questioned internally(Schillhorn Van Veen et al. 1997) and externally(Tozun, 2001; Pincus, 2002; Hamburger andIshii-Eitemann, 2003a, b). Recognizing theimportance of promoting economically soundpest management practices and of managinghealth and environmental risks associated withthe use of agricultural chemicals, the WorldBank instituted an Operational Policy Note onpesticides in 1985 (OPN 11.01) and a safeguardpolicy for pest management in 1998 (OP 4.09,1998). The purpose of the safeguard policy onpest management is to ensure good practice inWorld Bank financed projects.

The World Bank promotes a holisticapproach in rural development. The World

xiii

Bank seeks to enhance agricultural productivitythrough efficient application of agricultural tech-nology, to improve the livelihoods of the ruralpoor, and to foster an environment conducive tosustainable rural development (See Reaching theRural Poor: A Renewed Strategy for RuralDevelopment and Agriculture InvestmentSourcebook6). The mainstreaming efforts of IPMthrough the analytical work on pest managementcarried out in the Agriculture and RuralDevelopment Department and in the regionaloperations appear to have had a relatively goodimpact as is evident in the Country AssistanceStrategies and especially in the PovertyReduction Strategies. Review of 366 World Bankprojects and other documents revealed that imple-mentation of the World Bank’s own pest manage-ment policy and safeguards is good, but has beensomewhat slow to adapt to internal changes,whether in new lending modalities (DevelopmentPolicy Based lending, Community DrivenDevelopment projects, etc.) or in internal WorldBank management (i.e., erosion of technicalskills, limited attention in project supervision).Some erosion in agricultural technical know-howand skills of the staff during the past decade hastaken place, mainly due to retirement of skilledstaff and tendency to hire generalists.

Pest management integrated in the projectcomponents. There are very few World Bankprojects dealing exclusively with pest manage-ment. Interventions in pest management arealways treated as good agricultural practicewithin larger projects—addressing capacity tomeet client needs on certification and regulatoryframeworks, introduction of sound pest manage-ment and IPM technologies, research, extension,and training, and elimination and prevention ofobsolete stockpiles. Overall project compliance,and particularly that of rural/agriculture projects,with the World Bank’s safeguard OP 4.09improved during the review period (1999–March

6World Bank 2004a. http://www-esd.worldbank.org/ais/

3535-FM.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page xiii

2004). About one-third of all agriculture projectsduring the review period 1999–2004 included apest management plan, and compliance (acrossthe regions) was 58–100% by the end of thereview period. In short, monitoring of pest man-agement activities and compliance with safe-guard 4.09 has improved since 1999, but chal-lenges remain in the capacity and resources tomonitor and supervise the field level activities(See chapter 4).

Conclusions. In order to allocate resourcesefficiently, and to enhance the impact of policydialogue and investments in sound pest management/IPM, a more targeted strategy maybe considered by development agencies, such asthe World Bank. The World Bank could furtherimprove its performance both in the arena of“do no harm” (i.e., environmental safeguards)and in “do good” (i.e., policy advice and lend-ing). However, the World Bank may have to bemore selective by focusing on a few specificissues using measurable outcome (e.g., pesticide use; adoption of IPM) and impact(health, environment) indicators. The use ofsimple indicators should help to draw the atten-tion of policy makers (including World Bankcountry directors) to the importance of pestmanagement issues. Such indicators will alsobe useful to task teams during project designand subsequently in monitoring impact duringsupervision.

Such selective, targeted approach may con-centrate on those areas where either the risk frompesticides is high or where the opportunity forIPM adoption is high, such as in:

a. Countries with high use of the mostrisky pesticides; or

b. Systems or conditions where the risk ofhuman and/or environmental exposure ishigh (i.e., removal of obsolete pesticidestock); or

c. Countries where the likelihood of IPMadoption is high (e.g., strong regulatoryenforcement or special markets for pes-ticide free products).

xiv

Technical support and training. To improvecompliance with the pest management policyand to assure quality, greater financial and tech-nical resources are needed to help identify,design and supervise the projects requiring pestmanagement assistance. Technical specialistsand timely training would greatly improve pestmanagement practice in World Bank fundedprojects. Similarly, specific manuals for Bankand project staff on pest management that relateto specific and pertinent issues (i.e., pest man-agement in non-agricultural sectors such ashealth, energy, and transport or related to spe-cific lending instruments) and simplification ofthe pesticide procurement process would be use-ful. More attention should be paid to training,especially

a. Training of concerned task team mem-bers and special training in pest manage-ment for World Bank staff in countryoffices;

b. Training of borrower staff in pest man-agement and the preparation of pestmanagement plans; and

c. Training of safeguard reviewers includ-ing a mechanism for periodic retraining/skill updating of staff.

The World Bank’s Role in the global policydialogue. The World Bank continues to engagevarious pest management/IPM interest groups inthe development community in a dialogue to pro-mote a favorable policy environment for expedi-tion in IPM adoption. It uses all opportunities tocreate a platform to contribute to the develop-ment of the global policy framework. As in-house expertise in the World Bank in pest management is very limited, there is a need tofurther enhance partnerships with expert organi-zations in IPM (e.g., System-wide Program onIntegrated Pest management, the Global IPMFacility, the Plant Protection Service of the Foodand Agriculture Organization, the CABIBiosciences, the International Center for InsectPhysiology and Ecology and the World Vegetable

3535-FM.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page xiv

xv

Center). These partnerships can create a strongerplatform to facilitate exchange of mutual inter-est, and particularly enhance technical expertise,local buy-in and balanced view of the dynamicpest management field. Strengthening the part-nership between the CGIAR and the WorldBank, for example, can effectively link the WorldBank’s leverage on national policies and thewealth of technical expertise of the CGIAR. In

addition to cooperation with public sector organ-izations, cooperation in pest management withcivil society organizations, and private industrywould also be beneficial. This could includedeveloping IPM approaches to improve foodsafety as well as to monitor pest managementpractices and pesticide residues in food products.See box ES1.1 for a summary of global andWorld Bank trends in Pest Management.

3535-FM.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page xv

xvi

BOX ES1.1. GLOBAL AND WORLD BANK TRENDS IN PEST MANAGEMENT—GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

Global trends: Policy—Despite the debate on the impact of agriculturalsubsidies and the nearly universal understanding of thefact that direct donor subsidization of pesticides ismorally and economically unacceptable, indirect subsi-dization of pesticides by developing country governmentsis still prevalent. However, a positive change is broughtby the recently adopted Stockholm convention that bansthe use of the Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP). Butthere are also other trends. International trade in agricul-ture has expanded to high value products that may alsocarry the risk of introducing exotic pests and increaseddependence on chemical pest control. On the other hand,compliance with international food safety standards pro-vides incentives for adopting sound pest managementpractices and requires that many developing countrieshave to upgrade their policies, regulations, enforcementand infrastructure. Similarly, authorities and consumers inthe developing countries have become more aware of thepesticide residue levels in their food and pesticide- andother food-related- poisonings, indicating a need for vigi-lance by exporters in developing countries. Requirementsof the food industry regarding pesticide residues havebecome a major force that encourages developing countrygovernments’ to support banning the use of the POPs andthe adoption of sustainable practices. In some industrial-ized countries both commercial and non-commercial pes-ticide users need to obtain a license after being trained andaccredited in pesticide use and IPM.

Technical—A variety of new developments arechanging the outlook in pest management and associatedrisk assessments. Considerable research on IPM and bio-logical control, availability of non-toxic and biodegrad-able agro-chemicals and biocontrol agents, and develop-ments in biotechnology have greatly increased the optionsfarmers have, in concordance with the fact that “popular”but very toxic agrochemicals are being removed from themarket.

Institutional—The international donor communityhas also exerted considerable leverage on national poli-cies through their lending programs, research, policy andstrategy support to client countries. A clear trend is tofacilitate donor harmonization of pesticide policies, stan-dards and regulatory reform and frameworks among thedonor agencies and client countries through partnershipsand policy influence in international fora. Trends in the World Bank: World Bank policies—The World Bank has played animportant role in focusing attention on proper pest man-

agement policies. The creation of the safeguard compli-ance unit had the objective to improve the oversight ofand compliance with the World Bank safeguard policies.World Bank’s pest management policy in lending isguided directly by the pest management safeguard O.P 4.09 and related policy and implementation docu-ments. A substantial number of papers on agriculturalpest management issues and IPM have been published byARD and the discussion is gradually being integratedinto the regional policy documents.

World Bank lending in pest management—TheWorld Bank implements its pest management policythrough various instruments, ranging from national pesti-cide policy support to implementing IPM at the projectlevel. The review of the lending portfolio revealed thatabout one-third of all projects in the rural, health, energyand transport sectors include activities or issues related topest management. Of the projects with pest managementactivities or involving pesticide use, 30 and 46%, respec-tively, included a pest management plan. Supervision ofthe projects, in terms of pest management activitiesremains a challenge. Options, such as decentralizing thesafeguard compliance to regions, and partnering withlocal and international expert organizations, could be fur-ther explored. These two options as well as the lack ofcapacity (within the Bank and within partners) for propersupervision is a concern that needs to be addressed. Oftencountry systems have the needed policy environment (i.e.signatory to the international conventions and agree-ments) but do not have the capacity nor personnelassigned to implement the regulations.

World Bank skills and training—The World Bankhas improved its staffing to oversee the pest managementpolicy compliance, as well as the implementation of IPMin general by acquiring a full-time technical specialist,starting staff training on safeguards (an average of about5% of staff trained each year), and out-sourcing expertisefrom the IPM facility and the CGIAR. Currently someregions employ technical staff familiar with pest man-agement issues whereas others rely on the specialist inthe Safeguard Unit. Some erosion in agricultural techni-cal know-how and skills of the staff during the pastdecade has taken place, mainly due to retirement ofskilled staff and tendency to hire generalists.

Source: Authors.

3535-FM.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page xvi

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1

Before examining the World Bank’s perform-ance it is important to understand the recenttrends in pesticide use. Parallel with the policydebate in the development community, use ofpesticides has increased in some developingcountries and decreased in others during the lastdecade. For example, countries in South andCentral America showed significant increase inthe use of pesticides, including the use of insec-ticides, considered to pose the greatest risk tohuman health and environment (See table 1.1).Decreases were seen in countries such asRomania, Jordan, and India. These changes inthe developing world occurred at a time when

The management of pests and weeds is an essen-tial part of agriculture and public health and animportant tool in the maintenance of power linesand roads. Chemical pest management is a com-mon tool and indeed has helped to reduce losses inagriculture and to limit human exposure to diseasevectors. However, most pesticides can be harmfuland their uncontrolled use can threaten the sus-tainability of agricultural production and pose arisk to human health and the environment (e.g.,destruction of natural enemies of pests and con-tamination of soil and water). Sustainable pestmanagement has been part of the World Bank’srural development agenda since well beforeIntegrated Pest Management (IPM) obtained aprominent place in international policy debate, asdefined by the Agenda 21 in the 1992 Rio EarthSummit. Sustainable pest management practicesin World Bank’s rural portfolio have been imple-mented to varying extent, as pointed out by vari-ous evaluations of the World Bank investments,whether by the World Bank and its affiliates7 or byoutside agencies.8 A number of recent develop-ments (e.g., the IPM extension methodologydebate, Stockholm Convention, development ofpest management policies internationally as wellas in the World Bank) have drawn a renewed inter-est in IPM in the World Bank.

The objective of the study is to: (a) reviewWorld Bank’s pest management activities during1999–2004; (b) assess those in view of thechanges in the external and internal contexts; (c) identify appropriate opportunities of engage-ment on pest and pesticide issues; and suggestmeans to further promote sound pest manage-ment in the World Bank operations.

7See Farah 1994; Lele 2003; Scheriff and Fleischer 2005;Schillhorn van Veen et al. 1997; Sorby et al. 2003.

8See Hamburger and Ishii-Eitemann, 2003a, 2000b; Pincus,2002; Tozun, 2001; Yudelman et al. 1998.

Table 1.1. Change in Insecticide Use

during 1995–2000 in Selected Countries

Average Average ann. use;

Average ann. use kg per annual use Change (kg per rural (MT) (%) ha) inhabitant

Brazil 18,159 34% 0.07 0.56

Colombia 7,306 201% 0.16 0.69

Costa Rica 3,191 50% 0.61 1.75

Ecuador 1,187 268% 0.15 0.25

Honduras 1,019 296% 0.31 0.30

India 32,456 –32% 0.18 0.04

Bangladesh 1,466 65% 0.16 0.01

Pakistan 9,670 106% 0.36 0.11

Thailand 6,785 –24% 0.14 0.14

Korea 8,896 –3% 4.54 1.04

Jordan 184 –56% 0.16 0.14

Turkey 14,464 –7% 0.37 0.89

Romania 2,260 –66% 0.15 0.23

Greece 2,520 –47% 0.28 0.59

Germany 1,369 –66% 0.08 0.13

France 5,506 –24% 0.18 0.39

US (1995–1998) 114,123 — 0.27 1.13

Source: FAOSTAT; World Bank Rural Development indicators2002 (selection largely based on availability of complete data).

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 1

pesticide use in the developed countries declined,either in absolute terms or because of the use ofmore concentrated products and more preciseapplication. The decline in the use of pesticides,especially the more toxic insecticides in Europeand other developed countries, has been drivenmainly by consumer awareness and concernsabout the environmental effects.

Heightened environmental awareness has, inturn, resulted in tighter regulation (such as EUrules on application and on-farm storage of pes-ticides) and efforts to include negative externali-ties in pesticide prices (See Sheriff and Fleischer2005). There have also been a few cases offarmer licensing and compulsory training in pes-ticide use in the developed world. For example,some states in Australia have implemented com-pulsory licensing and safe pesticide use trainingfor both commercial and some non-commercialentities.9 Examples of government initiatedlicensing systems of pesticide users can also befound in Denmark and Norway. At the sametime, research and commercial development ofnon-chemical control methods, and in somecountries the availability of insect-resistant trans-genic crops (See section on Technical Develop-ments in chapter 2), have provided farmers withalternative choices in pest management. Al-though most of the commercial production oftransgenic crops takes place in a few developedcountries, the production in developing countriesis expanding rapidly—in 2004, about 7.4 millionsmall producers in developing countries weregrowing transgenic crops, covering about 34% ofthe total land area under transgenic crops.10

During the past decades, many organizationshave promoted alternative pest managementmethods, especially IPM. Many examples haveclearly demonstrated that reduced use of chemi-cal pesticides does not have a detrimental effect

2

on yield11 and that IPM has played a role in agri-cultural productivity increase as well as inimproving public health among farm workers.12

Hans Herren, in his foreword in the book“Integrated Pest Management in the GlobalArena” (Maredia et al. 2003) argues thatalthough considerable advances have been madein research, IPM has not been well evaluated anddocumented for its role among disciplines thatcontributed to the Green Revolution and to agri-cultural productivity in general.

Despite the potential benefits associated withIPM, adoption of IPM has remained low in mostof the developing world.13,14 Although successhas been demonstrated in selected areas inAsia,15 35 years after the introduction of IPM, noconvincing evidence can be found for large scalechanges in pesticide use in Asian farmers’ rice16

or cotton17 fields. Adoption is limited due to var-ious reasons including technical, institutional,social, cultural, economic, educational, informa-tional, and policy constraints.18 Morse andBuhler (1997) argued that implementation ofIPM among resource poor farmers is problem-atic, as they may not be able to grasp the exten-sive ecological knowledge of pests and oftensite-specific factors that influence pest popula-tions. Dedicated applied ecologists have oftenbeen frustrated in their attempts to translateexperimental results into farm practice. Forexample, with irrigated tropical rice it has takenabout twenty years for proven IPM practices toreach about 1% of Asia’s 300 million rice farm-

9Licensing systems are typically administered by the individualstates’ departments of primary industries (e.g., www.dpi.vic.gov.au).

10ISAAA 2004; FAO 2004.

11See for example Pincus 2002 (rice); NRI 2000 (cotton).12Maredia et al. 2003.13Norton et al. 2005. 14Gutierrez and Waibel 2001.15Dasgupta et al. 2004; Kenmore 1991; Pincus 1996;

van de Fliert 1993.16Waibel and Pemsl 2000. 17Way and Emden 2000.18Norton et al. 2005.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 2

ers.19 Integrated pest management is consideredto be labor intensive, rather costly and difficult todiffuse and sustain.20 Moreover, the impactassessment methods nor the impact indicatorsare not yet widely agreed on. Orr (2003) arguesthat the problem lies less with the supply sidefactors, such as lack of appropriate extension,training, or technology, but with the demand forIPM in smallholder farming systems under cur-rent conditions, where the main production prob-lem facing smallholders is not crop losses frompests but from low average yields.

The objective of sustainable pest manage-ment is to enhance pest management systemsthat do not threaten the sustainability of agricul-tural production and farmers’ incomes nor posedanger to human health or the environment.However, as evident from the discussion abovethis cannot solely be achieved by promotingsound pest management/IPM technologies, butrequires other supportive policies, such as theRotterdam and Stockholm conventions, that dealwith transport of chemicals and phase-out ofPersistent Organic Pollutants (POP), respectivelyand sound national pesticide policies and theireffective enforcement.

In addition to growing awareness on environ-mental issues and food safety in general as dis-cussed earlier the issue of sustainable pest man-agement has also received increased attentionwith the increase in global trade.21 The increas-ing numbers of countries that join the WorldTrade Organization (WTO) are striving to com-

3

ply with the Codex Alimentarius22 that definesmaximum residue levels (MRL) in a variety ofcommonly traded agricultural products.Currently, many countries aim to develop bothnationally and internationally accepted set ofSanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS).However, these standards have proven costly forthose (developing) countries experiencingrefusal of their products and produce in lucrativeinternational markets, often because of excessivepesticide residues. Hence, there is considerableinterest, especially among middle-income coun-tries exporting niche products, to invest in betterdetection capacity and surveillance to assure thatpesticide residue levels of exported products donot exceed acceptable standards. At the sametime large food retailers via coordinated supplychains and contract farming compete for bothglobal and national market shares by trying tomeet suppliers’ and consumers’ preferences byproduct certification schemes. Often the private-sector specifications are more demanding thanpublic-sector requirements of food safety andquality.23 In part because of these new develop-ments, there is a renewed interest in sustainablepest management.

At the same time the World Bank has gainedfurther experience with the implementation of itspest management policies, adopted in the laternineties. Currently, the World Bank promotessound pest management in various ways, rangingfrom policy dialogue to investments in IPM (Seebox 1.1 for a summary and chapter 4 for furtherdetails).

19Way and Emden 2000.20An extensive debate includes Feder et al. 2004; Pincus 2002.21World Bank 2004b.

22The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 byFAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines andrelated texts such as codes of practice under the JointFAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The main purposes ofthis Programme are protecting health of the consumers andensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promotingcoordination of all food standards work undertaken by interna-tional governmental and non-governmental organizations.Source: http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

23van der Meer 2004.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 3

4

BOX 1.1. EXAMPLES OF RECENT WORLD BANK PROJECTS THAT SUPPORT SUSTAINABLE

PEST MANAGEMENT

The Bank has used a variety of approaches to promotesustainable pest management. Recent approachesinclude:(i) Policy dialogue (for example in Mali) and help in

drafting of the policy or plant protection laws. Forexample in the Kyrgyz Republic: AgriculturalServices Project (ASSP), Tunisia: ASSP andTurkmenistan during preparation of CropProtection and Animal Health Project (CPAH);

(ii) Improvement in diagnostics, such as investment indetection of pesticide residues—Ghana: ASSP;Tunisia: ASSP; also the Colombia: AgriculturalTransition Project;

(iii) Investment in IPM research—India: KarnatakaWatershed Development Project; India: NationalAgricultural Technology Project; Turkey:Agricultural Research Project; Romania: ASSP;

Uganda: National Agricultural Advisory Services;Peru: Agricultural Research and ExtensionProject; Madagascar: Rural development Project;and Tunisia: ASSP;

(iv) Support for biological control—Uzbekistan:Cotton Sector Improvement Project; pilot ofTurkmenistan CPAH.

(v) Investment in safe handling of pesticides—Uganda: NAAS; and Uzbekistan: CSIP;

(vi) Investment in IPM implementation throughfarmer training—see list and summaries in Sorbyet al. 2003; and

(vii) Investment in clean-up of obsolete pesticidestock—Yemen: Surdud cleanup pilot; and Africaregion: Africa stockpiles program.

Source: Authors.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 4

Since the mid nineties a number of importantdevelopments, especially in agriculture, haveemerged that have or can have an impact on pestmanagement policies and tools. These develop-ments are diverse and cover a variety of sectorsand issues. Broadly, they can be divided into pol-icy issues and technical developments. Some ofthese new developments provide new opportuni-ties but also generate new concerns.

POLICY DEVELOPMENTS

At the policy level the four main issues that seri-ously impact agriculture and consequently pestmanagement are: (a) changing views on agricul-tural subsidies; (b) global trade; (c) new develop-ments in the pesticide industry; (d) national poli-cies for the promotion of exports and emergingdominance of supermarket chains in food retail-ing globally; (e) policies regarding the use ofgenetically modified organisms; and (f) therecently ratified Stockholm convention.

AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES AND

NATIONAL PESTICIDE POLICIES

The impact of agricultural subsidies on farming,environment and human health has been widelydebated. Sheriff and Fleischer (2005) state that afree market may make farmers less inclined toadopt management practices with reduced pesti-cide use. Farmers often bear only the direct costs,(i.e., the purchase of pesticide and labor costs),whereas the hidden costs, such as damage to farmworkers’ health and productivity and the sustain-ability of the farm ecosystem are borne by soci-ety. Government policies that are aimed at raisingfarm incomes distort relative prices and lead toexcessive use of pesticides. These policies mustbe eliminated in order to change the bias away

5

from pesticide use. Such policies include prefer-ential exchange rates, explicit price interventions,sales tax exemptions, agricultural credit, lowimport duties, and foreign aid donations. In addi-tion, actions that do not directly impact prices butresult in lower costs associated with pesticide use,such as chemical-oriented research and exten-sion, reforms of other market distortions withoutdue consideration for other sectors, and ineffec-tive regulation, can be as harmful. A rational pes-ticide policy would include prices for pesticideinputs that reflect their true social cost coupledwith sufficient regulatory system and educationand research efforts on alternatives to chemicalpest control.

With respect to developing countries theseviews on subsidies have led to a nearly universalunderstanding of the fact that direct donor subsi-dization of pesticides is morally and economi-cally unacceptable. Most donors have nowrefrained from their earlier donations of pesti-cides, or from promoting subsidized use.Implementation, however, is complicated byrequests from developing countries for emer-gency assistance, such as outbreaks of vectorborne diseases in the human or animal popula-tion, locust swarms or other vermin control. Ithas been observed that pesticides intended foremergency assistance are often diverted and usedinappropriately for regular pest control.

Although farmers worldwide have proven tomake rational decisions in managing their crops,indirect subsidization by developing countries’governments is still prevalent and promotes pes-ticide use. In only a few countries, whetherdeveloped or developing, are the full negativeexternalities included in the price. As demon-strated by Sheriff and Fleischer (2005), price subsidies of pesticides may be the result of

CHAPTER 2. CHANGING PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY WORLD-WIDE

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 5

macro-economic policies, (i.e., distorted foreignexchange rates, tariffs and duties, taxation as wellas direct subsidization). Costa Rica and Ecuador,for example, which are high users (See table 2.1),supported pesticide use through credit subsidies,favorable import duty, and favorable sales tax.

In many developing countries farming isoften mixed (crop-livestock-fish, agro-forestry,and inter-cropping). Such systems may requiredifferent labor, equipment and other inputs, andhave different pest management needs. Mostdeveloped countries have a 50-year history ofchemical pest control, and their farming systemshave adapted and evolved into a predominantlymonoculture-type of agricultural production sys-

6

tems. When farmers move to monocultures, thereis a risk of increased pesticide use,24 leading toserious negative impacts on the environment.Such impacts led the EU to bring new reforms tothe Common Agricultural Policy in the nineties.A major reform, known as the McSharry reform,acknowledged the environmental damage causedby the chemical inputs in intensive agricultureand compensated farmers engaged in environ-mentally friendly agriculture as part of the moveaway from price support to direct income pay-ments. One of the spillovers of this policy is a

24See Faeth et al. 1991; Pingali, 1998; Reardon et al. 1999.

Table 2.1. Percentage Changes in the Export of Selected Commodities and Pesticide Use from 1997 to 2002

Soybean Potato Fruit Vegetable Insecticide Herbicide Fungicideexport export export export use use use

Argentina 298% –62% neg neg nd nd nd

Brazil 357% >1000% n/a 50% 34% 55% 31%

Chile neg 136% 55% 111% –38% –41% 33%

Colombia neg –15% 161% 38% 201% 226% 393%

Ecuador >1000% –97% –80% >1000% 268% 362% 184%

Paraguay 85% n/a neg neg 0% 0% 0%

Peru neg 1212% neg neg 38% 86% nd

Uruguay >1000% nd neg neg 90% 143% –39%

C. Rica neg 34% –72% 39% 50% 179% 293%

Dominican Republic neg nd –7% 70% –55% 25% –9%

Guatemala 114% 26% >1000% 215% nd nd nd

Honduras neg 42% >1000% >1000% nd –77% nd

Germany 223% –38% 137% 46% –15% 3% –3%

Greece >1000% –90% >1000% >1000% 69% 24% 83%

Hungary 633% nd 706% 19% 0% 0% 0%

China –26% 316% 456% 32% nd nd nd

Malaysia 110% 48% –64% –19% nd nd nd

Thailand 199% 913% 64% 186% –23% –8% –35%

Vietnam –36% nd >1000% >1000% 0% 0% 0%

Korea 855% –16% –58% –54% –3% 0% 10%

Egypt neg –45% >1000% 82% nd nd nd

Jordan neg 35% –49% 55% nd nd nd

Kenya neg –42% –17% 34% nd nd nd

Senegal neg neg –99% neg 11% 15% 55%

S. Africa >1000% 93% 370% –54% –100% 30% nd

Source: FAOSTAT. Neg= negligible(less than 1000 MT); nd = no data.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 6

slow shift in production systems (from largecommodity production to more mixed produc-tion systems) and a re-evaluation of the costs andbenefits of reliance on chemical pest control.25

GLOBAL TRADE

With increasing adoption of international tradeagreements, such as the General Agreement onTariffs and Trade (GATT), North American FreeTrade Agreement (NAFTA) and Lome/Cotonouagreements, international trade in agriculturalproducts has changed. Earlier trade was limitedto major commodities, such as grain, oilseed, andcotton, whereas now trade has greatly expanded tovarious niche products, including fruits, vegeta-bles, and cut flowers partly due to greater demandand availability of air freight. For example, cutflower imports from Latin America into the USdoubled between 1990 and 1999; flower importa-tion into the EU from Kenya, Zimbabwe, Ugandaand Zambia increased five fold between 1990 and2000. On the positive side, new livelihood oppor-tunities for farmers and rural workers have beencreated, however, a negative outcome is that cutflowers and many other high-value crops haveincreased demand for pesticides.26 Similar trendsare observed with respect to vegetable exportsfrom developing countries, largely fueled by sea-sonal demand and increasing sophistication in themarket place requiring perfect external quality ofthe produce.

Although the increased trade in cash cropshas considerable economic benefits, it also car-ries a number of risks that include: (a) the risk ofintroducing exotic pests. Developed countries areincreasing their vigilance and often require chem-ical control to keep such introduction to a mini-mum. Although such protection is legitimateunder WTO rules, exporting countries find itmore difficult and expensive to comply with theincreasing protective regulations; and (b) theincrease in export to developed countries, and

7

their demand for esthetically attractive produce aswell as the regulations under (a) have led farmersto increase dependence in chemical pest control.Dramatic increases in pesticide use have beenobserved in South and Central America wherepesticide use increased more than 100% associ-ated with increased exports of soybean, flowers,bananas and other fruits and vegetables, and coin-cided with the NAFTA and Mercosur agreements(See table 2.1). This increase has already had adetrimental effect on farm workers’ health.27

On the other hand, increased trade can alsoimprove farmers’ pest management practices.The participation of developing countries ininternational trade requires adherence to foodsafety (as well as quality) rules in the recipientcountry, many of which have fairly strict stan-dards on chemical residue levels in food.Excessive pesticide residues are among themajor reasons for rejection of shipments of agri-cultural products. In order to be able to complywith international food safety standards (publicand particularly private standards), many devel-oping countries have to, or are in the process of,upgrading their policies, regulations, enforce-ment and infrastructure on pest management.According to a recent World Bank study on foodsafety and agricultural health standards,28 evi-dence indicates that in many instances the bene-fits of compliance with standards exceed thecosts.

PESTICIDE TRADE

One of the major developments in the last decadeis the increase in pesticide production and tradein developing countries with the associatedinsufficient regulation of the negative externali-ties of pesticide use. Especially India and China

25See Altieri and Nicholls 1999; FFNZ 2002.26Palán & Palán 1999.

27See Penagos 2002 on health effects among banana workers, andde London et al. 2002 on the health and other effects onwomen. One of the high priority issues of women farm workersin CDD projects in Latin America is to reduce reliance onchemical pesticides (Matthew McMahon, World Bank, per-sonal communication).

28World Bank 2004b.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 7

that have well developed chemical industrydepend less on imports and in fact have becomemajor exporters of pesticides. Figure 2.1 indi-cates that imports of pesticides grew in manydeveloping countries from 1995 to 1999, andsubsequently eased off. In China and India thisdecline was mainly a result of increased localproduction capacity. The export (in dollar terms)of pesticides from China, India and Thailandincreased 52, 64, and 68%, respectively, from1997 to 2002.29 At the same time, exports fromEurope and North America remained the same.Much of these exports from the developingcountries comprise of older pesticides and/orreformulations, some of which are banned inmany developed countries.30 Pesticide trade fromlarge developing countries31 has raised concernsabout the quality of their products, the steward-ship level by the manufacturing or formulatingagro-chemical companies and about a furtherrisk of accumulating stockpiles.

Liberalized trade may have serious negativeimplications if effective regulatory measures arenot in place. Most developing counties do neither

8

have the rules, the skilled staff nor the infrastruc-ture to provide for adequate oversight over localpesticide trade and use. Therefore, special attentionshould be paid to enhance information services,improve access to quality inputs, and support pes-ticide packaging and application methods designedin such a way that the exposure of consumers andfarmers and their families is minimized. Recently,The International Finance Corporation (IFC) of theWorld Bank Group developed a set of performancestandards related to the production and use of POPs(See box 2.1 for details).

POLICIES RELATED TO GENETICALLY

MODIFIED ORGANISMS

Technical advances in biotechnology (see belowunder technical developments) have led to exten-sive public discussion about the ethics, use andcommercialization of bioengineered agriculturalproducts.32 Supporters hail such products as

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

Africa

Asia de

v'ed

Asia de

v-ing

China

Sout

h Asia

Near E

ast

C.Ameri

ca

S. Ameri

ca CIS

E.Euro

pe

($x

1000

)

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Figure 2.1. Import (Value) of Pesticides by Region 1995–2002.

29Source FAOSTAT.30APO 2002.31Feder et al. 2004.

32Plant Biotechnology is defined as the application of knowledgeof biological process and technologies to develop plants withspecial traits or for specific use. This broad definition includesalso plant tissue culture and molecular tools used in plantbreeding. These are generally accepted techniques. The focusof societal interest is in transgenic crops, which have beendeveloped by inserting foreign DNA into the plant genomeusing advanced molecular techniques.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 8

essential in addressing food security and malnu-trition in developing countries as well as toreduce the environmental impact of selectivepesticides. Opponents warn that lessons shouldbe learned from earlier promised “silver bullets”(often using the example of DDT) and that unbri-dled release of engineered crops and animals canhave adverse effects on the environment, changepower relations within the industrial sector andreduce small farmers’ choice of inputs. The fulldebate is beyond the context of this paper but anumber of aspects are relevant:

a) Some genetic modifications offer thepossibility of reducing the use of certainagricultural pesticides, and may alsoimprove the efficiency of the use of fer-tilizers and other soil improvementmethods; and

b) The scientific assessment of the environ-mental and health impacts of the releaseof genetically engineered plants and ani-mals is still at an early stage. Decisionsabout such use should be made on acase-by-case basis.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

AND THE WORLD BANK

Although much attention has been given toIPM—including in the World Bank’s safeguardpolicy—a major policy development likely to

9

have a significant impact on pest management indeveloping countries has been the StockholmConvention. The convention went into force inMay 2004 and aims to phase out the POPs,including some of the most hazardous pesticides(often referred to as the “dirty dozen”). It islikely to change the behavior of some donorcountries that until recently considered donationof pesticides an appropriate tool in povertyreduction. It may also provide an opportunity forpolicy debate and investments. A number ofWorld Bank policy and project interventionshave been developed in support of this conven-tion, including the Africa Stockpiles Programand the Demonstration of alternatives toChlordane and Mirex in Termite Control Projectin China.

The World Bank refers to the list of activeingredients included in Annex A and B of theStockholm Convention on the POPs to ensurethat no chemical formulations are manufactured,sold or used in the World Bank-financed proj-ects, unless an exception is granted as noted inAnnexes A and B of the Stockholm Convention.The World Bank refers to the lists included inAnnex III of the Rotterdam Convention on thePrior Informed Consent to ensure that the appro-priate procedure is followed in disclosing infor-mation about the hazards of these chemicals tothe host governments and obtaining the requiredconsent. Given the hazardous nature of these

BOX 2.1. IFC GUIDANCE NOTE ON POLLUTION PREVENTION AND ABATEMENT

OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS

The IFC Performance Standard on hazardous chemicalstakes a clear stand against the manufacture, trade and useof active ingredients included in Annex A and B of theStockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutantsand in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention on thePrior Informed Consent. Given the hazardous nature ofthese chemicals, these provisions apply irrespectively ofwhether the project is located in a country that is party tothe above-mentioned conventions. The PerformanceStandard also requires that the Client not manufacture,trade, or utilize products that fall in World HealthOrganization Recommended Classification Classes 1a

and 1b (extremely and highly hazardous) or formulationsof products in class II (moderately hazardous) if theClient lacks restriction on their distribution and use andif they are likely to be accessible to lay personnel or oth-ers without proper training, equipment, and facilities tohandle, store and apply these products properly. Thestandard refers to the Food and AgricultureOrganization’s (FAO) International Code of Conduct onthe Distribution and Use of Pesticides (FAO, 2003) forproper management of pesticides.

Source: IFC Performance Standards and Guidance Notes (inpreparation).

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 9

chemicals, these provisions should apply irre-spectively of whether the project is located in acountry that is Party to the above-mentionedconventions. Earlier, the World Bank initiated anumber of technical assistance and project inter-ventions to phase out methyl bromide in supportof the Montreal Protocol. See box 2.2 for furtherdetails on the relevant protocols.

TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS

BIOCONTROL

At the technical level, a variety of new develop-ments are changing the outlook in pest manage-ment and risk assessments. Considerable

10

research on IPM and biological control, avail-ability of non-toxic and biodegradable agro-chemicals and biocontrol agents, and develop-ments in biotechnology have greatly increasedthe options farmers have, compatible with thefact that “popular” but very hazardous agro-chemicals are being removed from the market (inorder to comply with the Stockholm conven-tions) (See box 2.3 for an example on biocon-trol). With respect to IPM great strides have beenmade in better understanding pest behavior, con-trol options and risk. In their recent summary,Maredia et al. (2003) describe the current under-standing of the pest ecology and control optionsas well as the development and implementationof IPM in different regions and countries of the

BOX 2.2. PEST MANAGEMENT-RELATED INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent OrganicPollutants (POP) is a global treaty to protect humanhealth and the environment from the chemicals that per-sist in the environment for extended periods of time andtend to accumulate in living tissues of various organisms.Being at the top of the food chain, humans tend to absorbthe greatest concentrations of these POPs, resulting inserious disruptions of the endocrine system, suppressionof the immune system, disruption of reproductive func-tion, and various developmental abnormalities. In its ini-tial phase, the Convention lists twelve chemicals to bephased out from production and use, among which nineare pesticides (aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin,heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex and toxaphene)and three non-pesticides (dioxins, furans and polychlori-nated biphenyls). The Convention came into force inMay 2004 upon the 50th ratification.

The Rotterdam Convention on the PriorInformed Consent Procedure for Certain HazardousChemicals and Pesticides in International Trade is aglobal treaty adopted in 1998 to limit the potential risksposed by the production and trade in hazardous chemi-cals and pesticides. Countries lacking adequate infra-structure to monitor the import and use of such sub-stances were particularly vulnerable. In the 1980s, UNEPand FAO developed voluntary codes of conduct andinformation exchange systems, culminating in the PriorInformed Consent (PIC) procedure introduced in 1989.The new Convention replaces this arrangement with amandatory PIC procedure. PIC requires exporters tradingin a list of hazardous substances to obtain the prior

informed consent of importers before proceeding withthe trade. As of 24 February 2004, the RotterdamConvention entered into force after the 50th ratification.

The World Bank refers to the list of active ingredi-ents included in Annex A and B of the StockholmConvention on Persistent Organic Pollutants to ensurethat no chemical formulations are manufactured, sold orused in the Bank-financed projects, unless an exceptionis granted as noted in Annexes A and B of the StockholmConvention. The Bank refers to the lists included inAnnex III of the Rotterdam Convention on the PriorInformed Consent to ensure that the appropriate proce-dure is followed in disclosing information about the haz-ards of these chemicals to the host governments andobtaining the required consent. Given the hazardousnature of these chemicals, these provisions should applyirrespectively of whether the project is located in a coun-try that is Party to the above-mentioned conventions.

Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substancesis an international treaty, adopted in 1987, to eliminatethe production and consumption of chemicals thatdeplete the ozone layer. Principal among these chemicalsis Methyl Bromide, widely used in agriculture as a fumi-gant for soil-borne pests and diseases, stored grains pests,and quarantine pests in fresh produce (fruits and vegeta-bles, flowers). The World Bank as an implementingagency helps client countries in planning, policy formu-lation and implementation of projects to meet their objec-tives within the framework of this treaty.

Source: Buccini 2004.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 10

world. There is an inevitable trade-off betweenthe ecological benefits of narrow spectrum (shortpersistence/lower toxicity) pesticides and theshort-term economic benefits of broader spec-trum (longer persistence/higher toxicity) pesti-cides. The latter is often the focus of pesticideusers while government regulations tend to pressfor the former.

There has been a substantial increase incommercialization of biocontrol products, suchas beneficial insects, cultivated predators andnatural or non-toxic pest control products.Biocontrol, which was initially used for nicheproducts, is now being mainstreamed to majoragricultural commodities, such as cotton, cornand most commonly vegetable crops.Biocontrol is also slowly emerging in vectorcontrol in public health and in areas that for along time mainly focused on chemical vectorcontrol in mosquito/malaria—and blackfly/onchocerciasis—control programs. Thenumber and size of commercial companies mar-keting these biocontrol products has expandedrapidly over the last decade in developed coun-tries. It also offers considerable benefits todeveloping countries, in terms of a userfriendly, employment creating technology.However, as the products of biocontrol (oftenliving organisms such as beneficial insects,entomopathogenic nematodes fungi, bacteria orviruses) are perishable, production facilitiestend to be dispersed and as observed in India, itis often difficult to get a sufficient volume and

11

consistent supply of production.33 Another rea-son for low availability of biopesticides on themarket is the registration process that tends tofavour companies registering high-volumeproducts, and thereby indirectly discouragesapplications of small and medium-sized biopes-ticide producers.34

NEW PESTICIDES

There has also been a continuing development ofnewer pesticides (sulfonylureas, methoxyacry-lates, napthoquinones, nereistoxin analogues,Pyridine azomethine, pyridine azomethine andpyridinamines and the biorationals (microbialpesticides and semiochemicals) that require lessvolume when applied, are more potent againsttarget pests, and may be less toxic to mammalsthan the older and voluminous organophosphatesand chlorinated hydrocarbons. However, thedevelopment, especially registration and com-mercialization process (the “bringing to mar-ket”), of the new pesticides has been slower andmore costly, as fulfilling the technical and envi-ronmental sustainability criteria have become

BOX 2.3. AN ALTERNATIVE TO SPRAYING: BOLLWORM CONTROL IN SHANDONG

Farmers in Shandong (China) have been using “innova-tive” methods to control bollworm infestation in cottonwhen this insect became resistant to most pesticides.Among the control measures implemented were:1. The use of pest resistant cultivars and interplanting

of cotton with wheat or maize. 2. Use of lamps and poplar twigs to trap and kill adults

to lessen the number of adults. 3. If pesticides were used, they were applied on parts of

cotton plant’s stem rather than by spraying the whole

field (to protect natural enemies of the bollworm).These and some additional biological control toolshave proved to be effective in controlling insect pop-ulations and insect resistance, protecting surround-ings and lowering costs.

Source: Bin Xiao Kefu Xue, 1998.

33Harris (2000) lists the main challenges in biocontrol delivery as(a) developing products to meet high performance standards; (b) achieving good product quality with inherent safety and effi-cacy implications; (c) achieving adequate market penetration andproduct distribution; (d) competing effectively with agro-chemicals; and (e) operating within an unfavorable regulatoryenvironment. 34Anon 1997.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 11

more complex and expensive. The compatibilityof some of these newer pesticides, such asPyrethroids, with IPM should be assessed, asthey can be highly toxic to other organisms (e.g.,crustaceans) and to beneficial insects.35

Furthermore, the uptake of these newer productsin the developing country markets is limited bythe availability of older, less expensive, genericpesticide products (that are often already bannedin developed countries).36

APPLICATION TECHNOLOGY

More efficient application of pesticides hasreceived considerable attention; however, thetechnologies are mainly used in the developedcountries. Broadcast spraying (or blanket spray-ing) is still the main application method ofchoice, although the timing and implementationof such spraying is increasingly regulated, and tosuch an extent that in some parts of the worldfarmers leave the spraying (and the increasinglytightening rules on storage, etc) to specializedpesticide application companies. Western spray-ing equipment has become more sophisticated(computer control, and precision control/site-specific application, and gradual-release gran-ules) and more expensive and employs technolo-gies that are often ill-suited to mixed farmingand or small holder farming. Some other applica-tions, such as improved nozzle selection forknapsack sprayers and improved temporal target-ing of applications, may offer opportunities forsmall farmers in developing countries. Due toprice and availability issues, the application indeveloping countries is largely based on simplesprayers and hand mixing of chemicals. Betteradapted packaging and more innovative applica-tion methods could reduce unnecessary humanexposure to pesticides.

12

GENETIC ENGINEERING

To reduce human and environmental exposure topersistent and broad spectrum pesticides, and toprepare for the envisioned future limitations onpest control by spraying of chemicals, the agro-chemical companies invested heavily in the bio-sciences since late 1980s. Advances in plantbiotechnology during the past decades haveintroduced major changes in the development ofnew plant varieties, including new approachesfor improved disease and insect resistance. Aknown example of an insect resistant transgeniccrop is Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton devel-oped through insertion of an insecticidal proteingene in the cotton variety. Another biotechnolog-ical innovation in crops is herbicide resistance,whereby the crop is made resistant to an herbi-cide, which can then be used to control weeds inthe field where the transgenic crop is grown(e.g., “Round-up ready soybean”). Recent evi-dence shows that some transgenic crops, espe-cially insect-resistant cotton, are yielding signif-icant economic gains to small farmers as well asimportant social, health and environmental bene-fits through the reduced use of agriculturalchemicals. See box 2.4 for further details.Despite positive impacts in the case of Bt-cotton, the economical, environmental, andsocial impacts of transgenic crops overall are stillwidely debated. Especially the question onwhether herbicide resistant crops increase orreduce the use of herbicides is unresolved.37

ADVANCES IN CROP MANAGEMENT

Other “new” agricultural practices, such as no-till agriculture, urban agriculture and bio-controlof pests, offer exciting new opportunities but arenot without risks.

a. The no-till technology has generallybeen promoted with chemical weed con-trol, rather than with non-chemical weed

35A DANIDA study in Vietnam. In: Insecticides disrupt IPM.Pesticides News No. 39 (March 1998): 12–13.

36APO 2002; Harris 2000.

37Eichelbaum et al. 2001; Freckleton et al. 2003; Persley andLantin 2000.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 12

control methods, such as use of covercrops and mulch technologies. Thechoice is by no means clear as no-tillmulch technologies tend to have a vari-able impact on weed control. In somecases they effectively reduce the needfor herbicide use whereas in other casesthe need for weed control may increaseas the composition of weeds in the fieldchanges. Many soybean producers inBrazil, for example, use no-till withoutherbicide-resistant crops whereas inArgentina farmers appear to dependmore on the use of herbicide resistantsoybeans.38

b. Urban/peri-urban agricultural productionin the world is gaining in importance—in 1993, 15–20% of the world’s foodwas estimated to be produced in urbanareas.39 However, the renewed emphasison urban agriculture is generally notincreasing the risk of unsustainable pes-ticide use, as many of the producers aredriven by producing “safe or organic”food for specialized markets.40

13

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTS

Consumers in both developed and developingcountries have become more aware of food andenvironmental safety. Highly publicized out-breaks of two animal diseases (mad cow diseaseand foot and mouth disease) in Europe and aninitially poorly managed release (in terms ofpublic relations) of transgenic crops resulted in agreater consumer awareness of food safety, farm-ing practices and rural livelihoods in general andfueled an intensive and broad debate aboutbiotechnology by consumers. Several complexissues among which poor information provisionand lack of public consultation associated withthe first commercial releases of transgenic cropsand overall weak consumer confidence in someEuropean countries in regulatory processes con-tributed to the debate. Consumers are alsobecoming increasingly aware about the risks,both real and perceived, of certain productionsystems and demand that such risks are weightedagainst the societal including environmental ben-efits. The risks of using pesticides have been partof that debate.

Authorities and consumers also in the devel-oping countries have become more aware of the pesticide residue levels in their food and pesticide- and other food-related- poisonings,indicating a need for vigilance by producers,traders and retailers in developing countries.Requirements of the food industry regarding pes-ticide residues have become a major force that

BOX 2.4. REDUCTION IN INSECTICIDE USE AND INSECTICIDE POISONING AMONG FARMERS

IN HEBEI/SHANDONG, CHINA

A survey of agricultural producers in China demonstratesthat Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton adoption increasedproduction efficiency and improved farmer health. Afteradopting Bt-cotton, both insecticide use and poisoningsamong small farmers were reduced five-fold, from 57.8to 10.3 kg/ha and 22.2 to 4.7%, respectively. A survey ofChina’s plant biotechnologists showed that China isdeveloping the largest plant biotechnology capacity out-side of North America. The list of genetically modified

plants already in the field trials, including rice, wheat,potatoes, and peanuts, is impressive and differs fromthose being worked on in other countries. Poor farmers inChina are cultivating more area of genetically modifiedplants than are small farmers in any other developingcountry.

Source: Huang et al. 2002.

38Schnepf et al. 2001.39Mougeout 2002.40FAO 1999.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 13

encourages developing country governments tosupport the adoption of IPM practices. The risingpublic demand for food safety and quality is cre-ating niche market opportunities for certifiedproducts, such as organic and pesticide-free or“green” food in both developed and developingcountries. This heightened awareness of food-and feed-related risks can create incentives forcountry level policy changes and practices con-tributing to sound pest management.

The understanding of the specific effects ofpesticides on human and animal health hasimproved. New epidemiological and biochemicalstudies provide more detailed information on the

14

adverse effects on human health. There isincreasing evidence of the adverse effects ofexposure to pesticides on overall health, onreproductive health, cancer risks, and prenataland juvenile growth rates in children41 (See box 2.5 and box 2.6 for further details). There isalso evidence that these effects may differ in peo-ple (and pets42) depending on sex, ethnicity, typeand length of exposure, etc. These differences

BOX 2.5. PESTICIDE EFFECTS ON FARM WORKERS

The number of pesticide poisoning cases reported to theDPR in California, dropped from 665 in 1991–1996 to475 in 1997–2001. California has the strictest rules onpesticide application worldwide, to such an extent thatmany farmers leave application to professional compa-nies that know the rules and use up-to-date equipment.Most farms have reduced their reliance on chemicals anduse various means of biological control. In contrast tothis, over 50% of flower workers in Ecuador showedsymptoms of pesticide intoxication (Pálan and Pálan

1999) and in Indonesia, 92% of farmers participating inthe Integrated Swamps Project reported health problemsafter applying pesticides (Ishii-Eiteman and Ardhianie2002). The long term effects of these poisoning episodesare not known, but recent experience seems to indicatethat minor exposure may have major effects on childgrowth and development.

Source: Ishii-Eiteman and Ardhianie 2002; Pálan and Pálan1999.

BOX 2.6. HUMAN HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF PESTICIDE USE

IN POTATO PRODUCTION IN ECUADOR

The International Potato Center (CIP) conducted aninterdisciplinary and inter-institutional research-intervention project dealing with pesticide impacts onagricultural production, human health, and the environ-ment in Carchi, Ecuador. Carchi is the most importantpotato-growing area in Ecuador, where smallholder farm-ers dominate production. They use tremendous amountsof pesticides for the control of the Andean potato weeviland the late blight fungus. Virtually all farmers applyclass 1b highly toxic pesticides using hand pump back-pack sprayers. Research concerning pesticides has exam-ined: neurological impacts on farmers and their families;poisoning incidence; studies of farmers’ attitudes, knowl-edge, and practices; economic impacts; and contamina-tion of ground and surface water, clothing and body sur-faces, food, and farmers’ homes. Intervention activities

have included: farmer field schools, community meetingsanalyzing personal and household exposure pathways,promotion of safety measures, radio announcements, edu-cational programs, and stakeholder workshops.

The study found that the health problems caused bypesticides are severe and are affecting a high percentageof the rural population. Despite the existence of technol-ogy and policy solutions, Government policies continueto promote the use of pesticides. The study conclusionsconcurred with those by the pesticide industry, “that anycompany that could not ensure the safe use of highly toxicpesticides should remove them from the market and that itis almost impossible to achieve safe use of highly toxicpesticides among small farmers in developing countries.”

Source: Yanggen et al. 2003.

41See de London et al. 2002; Murray et al. 2002.42Glickman et al., 2004 provided strong evidence of susceptibil-

ity of one specific breed of dog to exposure of herbicide (2-4D)treated lawns (and leading to bladder cancer).

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 14

15

demonstrate that generalizations are risky, andthat especially with respect to developing coun-try populations, often ethnically different andless studied than Western populations, extrapola-tions of safety data have to be done on a case-by-case basis.43

The internet, world wide web, and other rapidaccess information exchanges along with massmedia approaches44 have helped in the dissemi-nation of information in a number of countriesand regions where farmers increasingly have bet-ter access to such communication means.

43Most countries do require local verification of efficacy, butrarely require locally verified safety data. 44Heong et al. 1998; Huan et al. 1999.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 15

16

POLICY CONTEXT

WORLD BANK’S PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY

Overall, the World Bank has played an importantrole in focusing the attention of the developmentcommunity and client countries on the impor-tance of pest management policies. Numerouspublications generated by the World Bank’sDevelopment Research Group (DECRG),Agriculture and Rural Development Department(ARD), and by the Environment and SustainableDevelopment Division in the Africa region(AFTES), discuss various policy aspects of pestmanagement and IPM.45 The main tool for main-streaming the implementation of sound pestmanagement in the World Bank since 1998 hasbeen the OP 4.09 safeguard policy on pest man-agement and related policy and implementationdocuments. This policy is part of theEnvironmental Assessment umbrella policy(OP/BP 4.01) used to identify, assess and miti-gate the potential negative impacts associatedwith project operations. The application of theEnvironmental Assessment to projects involvingpest management is detailed in the Annex C ofthe Bank Procedures on environmental assess-ment (BP 4.01 Annex C). The latest revisions ofOP 4.09 and BP 4.01 Annex C (1998 and 1999respectively) did not include major changes inthe policy itself but was mainly aimed to clarifyand, hence, improve the compliance by requiringa pest management plan in the case that WorldBank investments would lead to changes in pes-ticide use directly or indirectly through signifi-cant changes in agricultural practices.

Rural: The World Bank’s pest managementpolicy in lending is guided directly by the OP4.09 and implemented through various instru-ments, ranging from support to country policydevelopment to implementing sound pest man-agement/IPM at the project level. Box 1.1 (chap-ter Introduction) lists examples of recent WorldBank projects that support sustainable pest man-agement.

The pest management and IPM issuesdebated in the World Bank in the last decadehave included:

(i) The use of Farmer Field Schools to pro-mote IPM; while recognizing the meritof intensive training for participatingfarmers, the World Bank questioned theextent of farmer-to-farmer diffusion, andraised the issue of fiscal sustainabilityrelated to this knowledge intensive edu-cational approach;

(ii) The World Bank’s position towards theuse of genetically engineered crops indeveloping countries; and

(iii) The trend toward meeting the dualobjective of agricultural productivity andenvironmental sustainability throughsustainable intensification (see the sec-tion on Sustainable productivity intensi-fication in the Agriculture InvestmentSourcebook).

Above mentioned issues have been discussedin various World Bank publications46 as well asin international and national workshops.47

CHAPTER 3. STEPS TOWARD SOUND PEST MANAGEMENT IN THE WORLD BANK PROJECTS

46E.g., Feder et al. 2004a,b; Quizon et al. 2001; Rola et al. 2002;and World Bank 2004a.

47See Persley and Lantin 2000.

45See Farah 1994; Feder 1979; Feder et al. 2004a, b; Kiss andMeerman 1991; Lele 2003; Quizon et al. 2001; Rola et al. 2002;Sheriff and Fleischer 2005; Schillhorn van Veen et al. 1997;and Sorby et al. 2003.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 16

17

More recently,

(iv) Food safety and standards have beenadded to this agenda, including the needto harmonize and enforce standards,reduce pesticide residues in food andfacilitate developing countries’ access tointernational markets (van der Meer et al. 2005).

(v) In addition, considerable work was doneto develop tools and policies to reduceobsolete stock of out-dated pesticides,especially in the Africa region.

Most of the above mentioned issues are partof the World Bank’s “do good” agenda (promo-tion of measures to avoid farmers’ adoption ofpesticides and supporting IPM as an agronomicbest practice among other sustainable agricul-tural practices), new developments in the realmof pest management may also require a reviewunder the “do no harm” (i.e., safeguard and mit-igation of potential negative effects of pesticides,including use of IPM) policy.

Health: The World Bank’s vector controlpolicy in lending is more or less guided by theWorld Health Organization (WHO) or UNICEF(United Nations International Children’sEmergency Fund) initiated policies. Previoussuccess stories include the long term commit-ment to River Blindness control in Africa and toa lesser extent control of Chagas and other vec-tor transmitted diseases. The most recent exam-ple is the joint WHO-UNICEF initiated guide-lines used in the Roll Back Malaria Partnership.These guidelines are fairly simple and mainlyfocus on the use of bed nets in mosquito control.However, for a more sustainable long termapproach, greater emphasis on integrated vectormanagement (IVM) methods is needed.48

Toward that end, the WHO developed a globalstrategic framework on integrated vector man-agement to guide policy makers and to

strengthen collaboration within the developmentcommunity.49

Transport and Energy: The major link topest management in the transport and energysectors is by way of the need for vegetation con-trol. In some developing countries, where laboris cheap, the cost-benefit ratio of using laborrather than (imported) pesticides may tilt towardsusing labor, especially when the potential nega-tive externalities of herbicide use (including sus-tainability of the farm ecosystem and effects onhuman health) are taken into account. However,relatively little work has been done to reducereliance on herbicides in vegetation control.Therefore, there is a need to consider the feasi-bility of labor intensive alternatives to herbicidesin World Bank financed projects that involvevegetation control.

WORLD BANK’S ROLE IN THE GLOBAL

POLICY DIALOGUE

The World Bank continues to engage the variouspest management interest groups in the develop-ment community in a dialogue to promote afavorable policy environment for expedition ofsound pest management/IPM adoption. It usesall opportunities to create a platform to influencethe global policy framework. Recent examplesinclude the adoption by the Steering Committeeof the Consultative Group on InternationalAgricultural Research (CGIAR) System wideProgram on IPM (SP-IPM), in which the WorldBank is represented, of a pesticide policy thatexcludes the use of Persistent Organic Pollutants,Class I pesticides and where feasible class II pes-ticides. In the recent locust crisis, the WorldBank, in conjunction with the donor communityurged FAO and the Desert Locust ControlCommittee (DLCC) to consider: (a) continuedsupport for long-term preventive approach to theDesert Locust problem, including joint planningfor prevention; and (b) giving greater attention to

48See Review by Rose, 2001 (Pesticides and Public Health). 49See WHO 2004.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 17

the use of environmentally friendly pesticides.Excessive supplies of chemical pesticides underdeclared emergency situations are likely to con-tribute to the buildup of stockpiles of obsoletepesticides. The World Bank urged the donorcommunity to consider the concept of a“Pesticide Bank” to supply affected countriespesticides in small consignments, spread overtime to reduce the risk of buildup of stocks.

NATIONAL PESTICIDE AND PEST

MANAGEMENT POLICIES

The importance of sound pest managementpractices for sustainable agricultural productionis being recognized by many developing coun-tries. Some have developed policies that author-ize plant protection services to coordinate thepromotion of pest management practices foragricultural production and promote their adop-tion among local farmer groups. These policiesprovide the institutional framework for theplanning and implementation of pest manage-ment, including IPM, as well as emphasize thepromotion of sound pest management practiceswithin the local farming communities. Theextent to which these national policies success-fully promote environmentally sound agricul-tural practice will depend on the country’scapacity to enforce their articles and the incen-tives to implement them (prices for exportscrops and specialized markets). A greater num-ber of countries are signatory to the FAOInternational Code of Conduct on the distribu-tion and use of pesticides and are passing lawson the control of the distribution and use of pes-ticides. However, there are still many inade-quate local policies and lack of enforcement ofthe existing regulations that contribute to thegreater use of unsafe pesticides. The WorldBank continues to engage in policy dialogue onpest management with borrower countries (Seetable 5.1 for examples).

18

OPERATIONAL CONTEXT

STAFF RECRUITMENT AND SKILLS

The creation of the safeguard compliance unit in2000 had the objective to improve the oversightof and compliance with the World Bank safe-guard policies. The World Bank also agreed toimprove its staffing to oversee the policy compli-ance of OP 4.09, as well as the implementationof IPM in general by acquiring a full-time tech-nical specialist, initially as a secondment underthe umbrella of the joint FAO/UNEP/UNDP/World Bank IPM facility, but after 2003 with astaff expert. Training on safeguards, and pestmanagement in particular, started in 2001 andintensified in 2003 both at headquarters and inthe field offices.

Some erosion in agricultural technical know-how and skills among World Bank staff duringthe past decade has taken place, mainly due toretirement of skilled staff and hiring of general-ists. The total number of staff in the rural sectordeclined by about 15% from 1996 to 2001.50

Some of the regional pest managementrelated work was outsourced to consultants or tothe IPM Facility. The Facility had a depth ofskills and helped in the quality control of theWorld Bank project operations, although thefocus of the Facility was somewhat limited, (i.e.,mainly FFS training and associated in-countryprojects). The outsourcing for IPM expertise didnot significantly advance sustainable pest man-agement and IPM in World Bank lending. Thisissue was further complicated by the policy ofincreased hiring of local staff in country offices,many of whom have had limited earlier exposureto the risks and benefits of various pest manage-ment tools and policies.

50From “Vision to Action in the Rural Sector:” Working Paper1996. World Bank and Reaching the Rural Poor 2001.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 18

19

The hiring of the World Bank-wide pest man-agement expert in 2003 and the nomination ofregional safeguard focal points is showing somepositive impact in several regional projects.Furthermore, the increased awareness of SPS inthe promotion of export projects has actuallyresulted in a genuine call for sound pest manage-ment practices that are country-driven.

TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND TRAINING

Sufficient human and financial resources areneeded to support TTLs, the World Bank’s in-country staff and borrowers to identify, designand supervise projects that require compliancewith OP 4.09 as well as the projects that wouldbenefit from promotion of pest managementalternatives and IPM as an agronomic “best prac-tice.” World Bank task teams could be helped bythe regional full- or part-time technical specialistas well as by manuals and templates for WorldBank staff and project staff on pest managementthat relate to specific and relevant issues (i.e.,pest management in non-agricultural sector suchas health, energy, and transport); or related tospecific lending instruments (i.e., CommunityDriven Development (CDD), on-lending, adjust-ment), including a template for pesticide pro-curement. As current skills on pest managementare stretched far, it is recommended to reviewand reassess the need to hire and/or train special-ist staff, and include an appropriate reward sys-tem. Attention to identification and design ofpest management activities at the preparationstage are likely to support compliance but moreattention has to be paid on the quality of supervi-sion. Training of team members and the WorldBank’s in-country staff (e.g., a primer in pestmanagement and training in safeguards) is onestep. Supervision missions and review of super-vision documents of projects with pest manage-ment activities could be supported by internaland external technical specialists as needed.Formal and informal monitoring of pest manage-

ment activities (among other project activities)and safeguard compliance by the private sectorand non-governmental organizations could befurther promoted. Besides improving compli-ance with OP 4.09, it is important to promote the“do good” agenda by identifying means to inte-grate overall sustainable agricultural practices,including IPM, into projects that do not explic-itly require compliance with the safeguard 4.09.Finally, to support the trend toward policy-basedlending, which reduces the leverage of the WorldBank’s own safeguards, special attention shouldbe paid to building capacity among nationalexperts involved in plant protection to preparesound pesticide policies and national safeguards.

PROCUREMENT

The World Bank has recognized the potentialrisks associated with the use of pesticides andhas set a number of conditions on their procure-ment. However, the internal compliance to theseconditions has been somewhat irregular, whichcan pose a reputational risk to the World Bank.Additional guidance in procurement has beendeemed necessary—steps toward this goal arethe recent revision of the pesticide procurementguidelines and the updated and detailed instruc-tions available in the Pest ManagementGuidebook51 to help with pesticides and pestmanagement issues.

OTHER POLICIES AND CHANGES

IMPACTING PEST MANAGEMENT

Apart from the pest management safeguard pol-icy (OP 4.09) there are a number of other poli-cies and actions, which have an impact on the

51http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTARD/EXTPESTMGMT/0,,menuPK:584328~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:584320,00.html

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 19

World Bank’s ability to comply with OP 4.09 andto promote overall sound pest management.These include:

CHANGES IN WORLD BANK’S LENDING

INSTRUMENTS

The rural portfolio is moving towards greaterdecision-making power being shifted from gov-ernment officials to farmers and rural communi-ties (particularly in CDD projects). In addition,the project safeguard responsibilities are shiftingfrom World Bank teams to the project counter-parts. This greater decision making by rural peo-ple and rural societies through credit and socialor competitive fund instruments has increaseddevelopment financing through on-lending pro-grams. This has also shifted the direct programoversight from World Bank staff to local agen-cies and loan officers who comply with andadhere to the policies of their own lending insti-tutions and are less familiar with risk assessmentand management, and in general unfamiliar withthe principles and application of the WorldBank’s safeguard policies. Changes in the poli-cies of the lending institutions as well as trainingof local loan officers in environmental risk man-agement are options to pursue to reduce the riskof unsustainable pest management practices.

PARTNERSHIPS

As in-house expertise in pest management isvery limited, there is a need to further enhancepartnerships with expert organizations in pestmanagement (e.g. CGIAR SP-IPM, the GlobalIPM Facility (GIF), Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO) andWHO, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs)and selected research organizations, such asWorld Vegetable Center (AVRDC), TheInternational Center for Insect Physiology andEcology (ICIPE), and CABI). These partnershipsmay: (a) help in the development of sound pestmanagement programs targeted to specificcrops, livestock, agroforestry, fisheries or publichealth in developing countries; (b) raise aware-

20

ness and support dissemination of the concept ofsound pest management (both “do no harm” andproactive “do good”) as well as specific pestmanagement technologies; and (c) help theWorld Bank in identifying those technologiesthat are ready to be main-streamed throughWorld Bank supported programs. ICIPE, forexample, not only has a sound research programon IPM in public health and agriculture, but hasalso promoted commercialization of IPM tech-nologies that are specifically targeted for ruraldevelopment in Africa.

Of all the partnerships the alliance of theWorld Bank with the CGIAR System wide pro-gram on IPM is of strategic importance becauseit provides the World Bank with an access to awide and inclusive network of specialist expert-ise to help in promoting sound pest managementpractices in World Bank financed projects. TheSP-IPM, an initiative of the CGIAR, has growninto a program including many IPM interestgroups and stakeholders operating in severalcountries.

CODEX ALIMENTARIUS AND PRIVATE SECTOR

STANDARDS PROMOTING SOUND PEST MANAGEMENT

Developing countries are increasingly facingstricter regulations related to health and foodsafety standards that continue to evolve interna-tionally, nationally, and within individual supplychains as a response to improved scientificunderstanding of risks and consumer demand.Non-compliance with these standards seriouslythreatens countries’ access to lucrative marketsin developed countries.52 As part of the technicalassistance related to SPS and trade, the WorldBank has been involved in operational lendingprojects in standards and SPS capacity buildingwith the goal of enhanced agricultural productiv-ity in developing countries. Current projects inWorld Bank lending operations include: (a) TheAgro-Pastoral Export Promotion Project forNiger that aims to make producers and exporters

52World Bank 2004b.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 20

21

more efficient at supplying the agro-pastoralexport market with pesticide free produce; and(b) the Tunisia Agricultural Support ServicesProject that aims to improve the institutionalcapacity and quality of agricultural servicesdelivered by public and private institutions andproducer organizations to improve market accessby focusing on pesticide residue testing inTunisian produce and promoting more sustain-able pest management practices. Many develop-ing countries have taken the lead in updating orsetting standards for their products to make themmore competitive in the market place. For exam-ple, asparagus producers in Peru accepted theCodex Alimentarius standards as the interna-tional benchmark for food standards andPeruvian policy makers presented their positionat the various Codex Committee meetings, henceinfluencing the standard setting. Peru is now oneof the largest asparagus exporters in the world.Another, a more extreme example of the privatesector’s interest in IPM is cocoa production inIndonesia. The entire sector is threatened by therapid expansion of cocoa borer infestation. Theprivate sector is engaging with national expertsand international donors to introduce IPM tocontrol the borer.53

Private sector has an important role to play inpromotion of sound pest management and IPMparticularly through promotion of agronomicgood practices and requirements for certificationand compliance with safety standards. Privatesector involvement includes trade associationsconcerned with the interests of the food process-ing industry, crop protection and biotechnologycompanies and farmers’ associations. As anexample of food industry initiative, theSustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) Platformthat was created by the food industry and cur-rently includes 17 members, aims to activelysupport sustainable agriculture involving the dif-

ferent stakeholders of the food chain. SAIPlatform supports agricultural practices, includ-ing sound pest management and IPM, and agri-cultural production systems that preserve thefuture availability of current resources to guaran-tee a long-term supply of agricultural raw mate-rials. EUREPGAP, including retailers, suppliers/growers and associate members from the inputand service side of agriculture was established in 1997 as an initiative of retailers belonging tothe Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group(EUREP). It aims to agree on standards and pro-cedures for development of good agriculturalpractice (GAP) and is based on Integrated CropManagement. Activities include a certificationscheme and harmonization of standards for IPMand minimized pesticide use.

CropLife International, led by companiessuch as BASF, Bayer CropScience, DowAgroSciences, DuPont, FMS, Monsanto,Sumitomo and Syngenta, is a global federationrepresenting the plant science industry (mainlycrop protection and agricultural biotechnologycompanies) network of regional and nationalassociations in 91 countries. The companies par-ticipate in promotion of sound pest managementparticularly through stewardship programs, on abroad range of crop protection and environmen-tal stewardship issues that support the marketingstandards agreed under the FAO Code. Activitiesinclude e.g., educational outreach programs,research, best practice in manufacture, market-ing, use and disposal of pesticides, certificationand farmer training on pesticide use and IPM.Lastly, the umbrella organization of 100 nationalfarmer associations (IFAP) is promoting soundpest management and IPM as part of its work onsustainable agriculture.

NEW CHEMISTRY AND GENETICALLY

MODIFIED CROPS

Progress in the plant science industry is focusedon producing safer pesticide products withshorter persistence in the environment. New pest management tools ranging from less toxic

53http://www.chocolateandcocoa.org/Programs/SARF/indonesia.asp

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 21

22

chemicals, to semiochemicals, biopesticides, andinsect resistant transgenic crops are becomingavailable to both developed and developingcountries. The benefits of these new technologiesto the improvement of agricultural productivityand environmental sustainability have beendemonstrated in many cases, including thosearising from the use of genetically modifiedcrops. The latter have, however, generated a greatdeal of debate over the potential risks these cropspose on the environment. The World Bank’s posi-

tion is to engage in a dialogue on these develop-ments with all the interest groups in the coun-tries, including NGOs, academia and the privatesector. The World Bank remains an importantpartner for investing in new technologies whilemaintaining its long-standing tradition of beingan honest broker of information in helping theWorld Bank’s client countries to make informeddecisions about science and technology policiesand investments in the agriculture sector.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 22

23

Before reviewing the World Bank’s performancein pest management a brief description is pro-vided of pest management approaches in thegeneral development community. This includes aview of: development banks, international organ-izations, bilateral assistance agencies, the privatesector, and civil society organizations.54

DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY

INVOLVED IN SOUND PEST

MANAGEMENT

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS

Regional Development Banks exert considerableleverage on national policies through their lend-ing programs. The African, the Inter-Americanand the Asian Development Banks all have expe-rience in funding projects including IPM prac-tices. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) hasoperated both through policy and strategy sup-port to its mandate countries as well as throughfarm level training in IPM. The AfricanDevelopment Bank’s (AfDB) EnvironmentalPolicy emphasizes the importance of naturalresource management in the agricultural sector.It is committed to long-term sustainable produc-tivity with strategies to use environmentally safechemicals and IPM techniques and has an IPMoperational policy similar to that of the WorldBank. The Inter-American Development Bank(IDB) has a broad operational policy, whichencourages integrated approach to sustainableagricultural development. However, IDB does

not have an operational policy on IPM.International Fund for Agricultural Development(IFAD) is a strong supporter of agriculturaldevelopment and promotes IPM supporting tech-nologies and farmer level training approaches.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

International organizations have diverse man-dates and different experiences. The Organi-zation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-ment (OECD 1995) focuses primarily onharmonizing the policies and standards of itsmember countries. It sees IPM as one of the mosteffective ways to reduce the risk of pesticide useand issued “Guidelines for Aid Agencies on Pestand Pesticide Management”. The CGIAR is themost prominent organization in research to sup-port international agriculture. In 1995 it formedthe SP-IPM program, which focuses on the gen-eration and information sharing on new IPMtechnologies, fostering links between differentstakeholders including the private sector andNGOs and promotion of sound pest managementpolicies. The FAO has a broad agenda withstrong focus on sustainable agriculture and IPMincluding heading up the International Code ofConduct on the Distribution and Use ofPesticides and the Rotterdam Convention onPrior Informed Consent (with UNEP). Togetherwith UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank, FAOalso co-founded the Global IPM Facility in 1997to assist governments and NGOs in developingnational and local IPM programs.

BILATERAL ASSISTANCE AGENCIES

Bilateral agencies support pest management and IPM through funding research, field projectimplementation, guideline development, and

CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE PESTMANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS IN THE

DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY—LESSONS LEARNED

54See further information and discussion in Sorby et al (2003).

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 23

24

support to regulatory reforms. For example, UnitedStates Agency for International Development(USAID) supports research on IPM through fund-ing the CGIAR centers. The EuropeanCommission (EC) supports IPM through severalagricultural research and field projects and hasdeveloped guidelines for assessing environmentalimpact of pest management programs. In 1993 theEU facilitated the formation of IPMEurope, a net-work for coordinating European support to IPM inresearch and development. IPMEurope involvesinstitutions of the EC, EU member states, Norwayand Switzerland (the associate states) with an inter-est in promoting IPM in developing countries.IPMEurope operates mainly through donor harmo-nization of pesticide policies and IPM among thedonor agencies of its members and through part-nerships and policy influence in international fora.The French development agency commissions itsIPM work to French Agricultural Research Centrefor International Development (CIRAD), which isa large research organization specializing in tropi-cal agriculture. Other major bilateral donors activein IPM include the Netherlands DevelopmentAgency and UK Department of InternationalDevelopment (DFID). Also the Nordic donors andSwiss Aid have supported a limited number of IPMfield projects.

CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS

The Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is a glob-ally active NGO working in the field of pestmanagement. PAN focuses on influencing inter-national and national policies to reduce pesticideuse and increase the use of sustainable and eco-logical alternatives to chemical pest control. TheWater Resources Institute (WRI) is an advocacyorganization with a broader environmentalagenda that also includes IPM as a part of sus-tainable agricultural development. Other NGOsconcerned with pest management include theSustainable Agriculture Network (SAN)55 andthe Rainforest Alliance.

In light of the activities in the developmentcommunity as a whole, the World Bank experi-ence and performance in pest management isreviewed below.

WORLD BANK’S PERFORMANCE

IN SOUND PEST MANAGEMENT

The World Bank works on pest management boththrough enhancing knowledge through analyticalwork as well as through supporting pest manage-ment and IPM in the World Bank’s lending oper-ations. Various efforts have been made in therecent years to measure the World Bank’s per-formance in pest and pesticide management andits adherence to its safeguard policy. These eval-uations include assessment by the QualityAssurance Group, Regional EnvironmentalReviews and OED. While none of these reviewsdealt exclusively with pest management, they didpoint out good practices and alerted to problemsin this area. In addition to these internal reviews,a number of NGOs provided World Bank man-agement and the public with feedback on theWorld Bank’s compliance to its safeguard policy.56 In a more detailed desk review (See box 4.1). World Bank projects (Project AppraisalDocuments and Project Supervision Reports57)and policy documents were screened andreviewed to assess progress made in the applica-tion of the World Bank’s Pest Management pol-icy (OP 4.09) in recent economic policy recom-mendations and project interventions.

55Formerly called the Conservation Agriculture Network (CAN).

56Reviews have been prepared in particular by the PesticideAction Network North America that has a dedicated programmonitoring the World Bank’s performance with respect to itsPest Management policies.

57The Project Supervision Report (PSR) has been streamlinedand redesigned as the Implementation Status and Results (ISR)report. The PSR system was frozen on December 31, 2004 andthe new ISR system was rolled out World Bank wide onJanuary 3, 2005.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 24

25

POLICY

The World Bank has been among the pioneers inthe world-wide dialogue about pest managementand IPM policy and its relevance to sustainabledevelopment. The results of the analytical workon IPM have been widely disseminated throughWord Bank documents and through the main-stream literature (See chapter 1).

On a global scale the effort of the implemen-tation of sound pest management policies inoverall policy dialogue or donor investments hasbeen relatively limited and seems to be overshad-owed by the major global pesticide policychanges of the last decade, i.e., the Rotterdam

and Stockholm Conventions (See also box 2.2).Also, the Global IPM Facility, that the WorldBank helped to set up, did not evolve into amajor forum for discussion and advocacy on pestmanagement policy issues.

Within the World Bank, the mainstreamingefforts through the analytical work carried out inthe Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentDepartment, and in the regional operationsappears to have had a relatively good impact asrepresented in the Country Assistance Strategies(CAS) and especially in the poverty reductionstrategies (See table 4.1). About 15% of theCASs reviewed mention either agricultural pestsor possible health effects of pesticide use. The

BOX 4.1. METHODOLOGY USED TO REVIEW THE INTEGRATION OF PEST MANAGEMENT ISSUES

IN THE WORLD BANK’S COUNTRY STRATEGIES AND LENDING PORTFOLIO

CAS and PRSPs: Country Assistance Strategies (CAS)and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) from1999 to 2004, a total of 92 and 62 documents, respec-tively, were reviewed for content on: pest problems, pestcontrol/management (including pesticide use, crop pro-tection or plant health measures), IPM, level of IPMinterventions, vector/malaria/dengue and control mea-sures, pesticides and insecticide treated bed-nets, andIVM. (Notes: In case there was more than oneCAS/PRSP per the review period, the most recent onewas selected. In the case of PRSPs either a full or aninterim paper was reviewed. In addition, where possibleone annual progress report per PRSP was also includedas significant changes were often observed in theprogress reports).

Project documents: Project Appraisal Documents(PADs) for agriculture (including agriculture, credit,fisheries, forestry, irrigation and research), health, trans-port and energy projects approved from 1999 to March2004 were reviewed. The 115 agriculture PADs werescreened for triggering of the pest management safeguardpolicy OP 4.09, mention of pesticide purchase, mentionand/or activities on pest and pest management, and indi-cation of pesticide use (e.g. pesticide purchase and use,mitigation of the negative impacts of pesticide use, etc.,projects that aimed to limit pesticide use for research pur-pose only, were not considered). The 127 transport and38 energy PADs were screened for mention and/or activ-ities on vegetation control (and related activities) or her-

bicide use in vegetation control. The 87 PADS of healthprojects were screened for mention of vector/malaria/dengue, inclusion of vector/malaria/dengue control activ-ities, use of pesticides and insecticide-treated bed-nets.Projects that mentioned malaria and/or vector controlonly in association with Millennium Development Goalswere not considered. All PADs were screened for inclu-sion of Pest Management Plan (PMP), mention of theterm “Integrated Pest or Vector Management”, and thelevel of intervention of IPM measures (or displayed IPM-related activities) as a minor component, a component tomitigate the potential negative impact, major component,and/or IPM as a component of a research program. Allprojects were also assessed for having a direct and/orindirect impact on pesticide consumption and for theircompliance with OP 4.09 at the appraisal stage.

The Project Status Reports (PSRs) of the agricultureprojects that were assessed for having an impact on pes-ticide consumption at the appraisal stage (62 in total)were further screened for Pest Management safeguardrating, discussion of pest management and IPM issues,and any changes in compliance during the project imple-mentation. This data was compared to the external (provided either by World Bank or other organizations)information on compliance at the preparation and imple-mentation stages on a few selected projects.

Source: Authors.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 25

26

Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs)showed even a clearer mainstreaming effect withover half mentioning pest issues in agricultureand health. PRSPs are generally drafted by teamsthat included other donors and NGOs and mayhence provide a more comprehensive view of theissues.

The data also show that the mentioning ofpest management related issues in both CASsand PRSPs increased during the survey period.This may indicate an increasing awarenessamong the World Bank and its clients of soundpest management, as there is no solid evidenceof significant changes in pest management thatwould indicate a real increase in pest incidence.While strategy papers of countries with low orunchanged pesticide use would not be expectedto highlight pest management issues, in somecases the CAS did not highlight even a substan-

tial increase in the use of pesticides. For exam-ple, pest management issues were not includedin the CASs of many of the Central Americancountries where pesticides have been claimed tocause pesticide-related occupational healthproblems in 19% of the population or 76% ofthe farm workers (Murray et al., 2002).Similarly, pesticide issues were frequently notcovered in CASs of countries with cotton andother cash crop production usually associatedwith high pesticide use. The lack of discussionmay reflect, however, the overall trend towardsincluding fewer technical details in the policyand strategy papers. Also, the emphasis in gen-eral should perhaps be more on internalizing theexternalities and on removing distorting policiessuch as pesticide subsidies.

The analytical method used, (i.e., review ofCASs, PRSPs and Project Status Reports (PSR),

Table 4.1. Pest Management Issues in the World Bank Country Assistance and Poverty Reduction Strategies

Total Total(No) (%) 1999 2000 2000 2002 2003 2004

Country Assistance Strategies (CAS) reviewed (total) 92 100 9 16 14 22 24 7*

...that discuss agriculture 89 97 100 100 93 91 100 100

...that mention agricultural pests 3 3 0 6 0 9 0 0

...that mention agricultural pest control*** 14 15 11 19 0 18 21 14

...that mention health effect of pesticide use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

...that mention malaria, dengue or vector control 42 46 33 44 21 41 67 57

...that mention vector control 22 24 11 31 7 18 33 43

...that mention impregnated bed nets 1 1 11 0 0 0 0 0

Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSPs) reviewed (total) 62 100 0 8 10 17 20 7

...that mention pest issues 32 52 n/a** 38 50 53 50 71

...that mention agricultural pests 23 37 n/a 50 80 29 25 14

...that mention agricultural pest control*** 39 63 n/a 38 70 65 60 86

...that mention health effect of pesticide use 31 50 n/a 75 90 35 35 43

...that mention malaria, dengue or vector control 44 71 n/a 63 90 76 60 71

...than mention vector control 36 58 n/a 63 70 59 50 57

...that mention impregnated bed nets 2 3 n/a 13 0 0 5 0

Notes: * = 2004 first quarter; ** = PRSPs started in 2000; and ***= incl. pest control, IPM, crop protection, plant health orpesticides.

The numbers in annual columns indicate the proportion of the total number of documents in a given year.

Source: Authors.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 26

does not capture other policy dialogues withGovernments. Such dialogues have taken placein the World Bank implemented MontrealProtocol projects with respect to reducing the useof methyl bromide (for example in Mali, KyrgyzRepublic, Tunisia, Iran, and others) or the GlobalEnvironment Facility/World Bank StockholmConvention projects for phasing out and disposalof persistent organic pollutants (i.e., AfricaStockpile Programme, Demonstration of Alter-natives for chlordane and mirex for termite con-trol in China) during project supervision. Such adialogue has also been more or less formalized inthe design of the African Stockpiles Program.However, some high pesticide consuming coun-tries may sometimes be reluctant to engage ineither a policy dialogue or in a lending programin agriculture, thereby limiting the World Bank’sopportunity to initiate such a dialogue and tosupport sound pest management practices.

PROJECT INTERVENTIONS—LENDING

In the World Bank project Portfolio, there arevery few projects dealing exclusively with pestmanagement. Interventions in pest managementare always treated as good agricultural practicewithin larger projects. These interventions rangefrom establishing regulatory frameworks tocleaning up of obsolete pesticides (Schillhornvan Veen, 2003). Specific interventions include:

1. Regulations: With the ever-increasingdemands on product safety, exportingcountries need to establish certificationprograms. The World Bank is oftenasked to build the necessary capacity(for example, analytical laboratories forresidue testing as in the case ofColombia) and to strengthen localexpertise to meet the demands of theexport markets. Often these activities areassociated with the necessary policy dia-logue to support the development of reg-ulatory frameworks (i.e., such as thecase of organic production in Romania,

27

and the case of vegetable and fruit pro-duction for export in Tunisia).

2. Introduction of IPM technologies: TheWorld Bank has supported several initia-tives over the years, including bio-control of cotton pests in Central Asia,the organic coffee production in Mexico,the control of water hyacinth in EastAfrica, and the introduction of tsetsetraps for the management of trypanoso-miasis in Central Africa.

3. Research, extension, and training: TheWorld Bank has a number of agricul-tural support projects ranging from IPMresearch and extension to providing agri-cultural inputs, to catalyzing the dissem-ination of information and promotion ofIPM knowledge (i.e., cotton in Mali,export crops in Tunisia, IPM researchand extension in Turkey and India,Agricultural research and extension inPeru).

4. Obsolete stockpiles: The World Bank ispresently leading a partnership effort,including FAO, World Wildlife Fund,Croplife International, UNEP, PAN, andothers, to help clean up the obsoletestocks of pesticides in Africa (SeeStockpile Program in MNA and SSAregions). This will be a long process thatrequires interventions on several fronts(regulatory, prevention, procurement,and communication).

A summary of a review of 366 projectappraisal documents approved between 1999(when the stronger pest management policywas in effect for the first time) and the firstquarter of 2004 are shown in Table 4.2. Themajority of these projects were in transport andrural sector. Over half of the rural projects and between 20 and 30% of the projects inhealth, energy and transport mentioned pestmanagement, weed or vector control. The num-ber of projects that clearly indicated the use of

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 27

pesticides58 was lower, but still fairly high inhealth (16%) and agriculture/rural projects(54%). Project compliance with the WorldBank’s safeguard OP 4.09 would have requiredthe development of a pest management plan(PMP) in the projects. The observed trendtowards improvement in compliance is likely tobe due to improved understanding of the safe-

28

guard OP 4.09 requirements. It should also benoted that projects focus on implementingWorld Bank safeguards but as policy-basedlending is increasing there is a stronger need toestablish and build capacity in client countriesto develop and enforce their own safeguardpolicies.

The compliance with the safeguard require-ment at the appraisal stage of the agriculture/rural projects varied to some extent among theregions, 20 to 75% of the projects having a PMP,and 60 to 100% of the projects having a PMPand/or IPM component (See table 4.3) indicatingthat some projects planned to include IPM activ-ities without developing a PMP. The complianceimproved significantly during the review period,from 14% in 1999 to between 58–100% by thefirst quarter of 2004. It is also noteworthy that40% of all agriculture projects (46 out of 115)mentioned that they include IPM activities. In

Table 4.2. Pest Management-related Topics as Mentioned in the World Bank Project Appraisal Documents

Total Total (no) (%) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Projects in Rural/Agriculture (total) 115 100 26 21 22 14 22 10

...with pest management mentioned 73 63 69 52 64 79 59 60

...with indication of pesticide use* 62 54 54 43 59 64 55 50

...with Pest Management Plan (PMP) 34 30 8 19 45 43 32 50

Projects in Energy (total) 38 100 7 7 11 12 1 0

... with vegetation control 10 26 14 14 36 25 100 0

... with indication of herbicide use 2 5 0 0 9 8 0 0

... with PMP 1 3 0 0 0 8 0 0

Projects in Transport (total) 127 100 20 31 25 15 25 11

... with indication of vegetation control 25 20 10 19 16 33 28 9

... with indication of herbicide use 2 2 0 3 4 0 0 0

... with PMP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Projects in Health (total) 86 100 17 24 19 18 8 0

...that mention malaria, dengue or vector control 17 20 29 17 21 17 13 0

... with indication of pesticide use 14 16 24 13 16 17 13 0

...with PMP 2 2 0 4 0 6 0 0

* = Projects with PMP due to e.g. purchase or application of pesticides, and projects without PMP but with a clear indication ofhaving an increase in pesticide use (8 projects stating an increase in pesticide use, 3 with Environmental Management Plan statingconcerns on increased pesticide use, 6 projects claiming to mitigate the negative impact of pesticides, 5 with a clear indication tointensify and increase production, and 6 with other clear indication of using increasing amounts of pesticides). The numbers inannual columns indicate the % of the total number of documents.

Source: Authors.

58In agriculture/rural projects, clear indication of pesticide usewas considered in (a) projects that included a PMP due to (e.g.,purchase or application of pesticides), and (b) projects withoutPMP but with a clear indication of having an increase in pesticideuse: 8 projects stating an increase in pesticide use, 3 withEnvironmental Management Plan stating concerns on increasedpesticide use, 6 projects claiming to mitigate the negative impactof pesticides, 5 with a clear indication to intensify and increaseproduction, and 6 with other clear indication of using increasingamounts of pesticides. Projects that limited pesticide use only forthe research purpose were not considered to have a major impact,and as such, not counted.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 28

addition, eight projects without pesticide use intended to include IPM or similar activities(data not shown). The inclusion of IPM in PSRs was less than that at the design stage (Seetable 4.4).

SUPERVISION OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Realism of compliance with safeguards is diffi-cult to measure. A recent Quality of SupervisionAssessment59 indicated that overall supervisionquality, after a steady improvement from fiscalyear 1997 to year 2000, has stabilized at about90% satisfactory. Many aspects of supervisionperformance were rated strong, but supervisionquality for compliance with safeguard policiesfor environmental assessments and pest manage-ment was satisfactory at 72%.

To enforce compliance, considerable empha-sis on monitoring is required. To get a clearerpicture on the situation, the agriculture/ruralprojects assessed for having an impact on pesti-

29

cide consumption at the appraisal stage (57 in1999–2003) were further screened for pest man-agement safeguard rating, discussion on pestmanagement and IPM issues, and any changes inOP 4.09 compliance during the project imple-mentation (See table 4.4). The PSRs of projectswith clear indication to increase pesticide usetypically paid little attention to pest managementand IPM issues despite the fact that most of theseprojects (73%) mentioned IPM issues at theappraisal stage. Attention to IPM issues in PSRsimproved steadily, albeit slightly from 1999 to2002. The lack of attention to pest managementand IPM issues in PRSs may also reflect the factthat there were no serious issues in the imple-mentation of the prior agreed IPM plans or thefact that aide memoirs are the preferred choice ofTTLs to discuss project implementation in detail.

In most PSRs, the rating for pest manage-ment safeguard compliance was satisfactory ornot applicable, and remained the same through-out the project implementation. Seven percent ofthe projects (a total of 8 out of 57) also ratedcompliance satisfactory despite not having aPMP at the appraisal stage. However, most of

Table 4.3. Agriculture Project Appraisal Documents (PADs) between 1999 and the First Quarter of 2004

with Pest Management Activities and Pest Management Plans (PMP)

LCR MNA AF SA EAP ECA

PADs reviewed 13 11 25 13 22 31

PADs mentioning pest management (PM) activity 7 (54%) 8 (73%) 18 (72%) 9 (69%) 14 (64%) 17 (55%)

Projects with impact on pesticide use1 5 8 16 8 10 16

... of which with PMP 3 6 10 6 6 3

...of which with PMP and IPM 2 4 10 4 6 2

... of which with IPM 5 4 13 6 9 9

... of which without PMP and IPM 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 3 (23%) 2 (25%) 1 (10%) 6 (40%)

Compliance at PAD stage2 60% 75% 63% 75% 60% 20%

1 = Projects with PMP due to e.g. purchase or application of pesticides, and projects without PMP but with a clear indication ofhaving an increase in pesticide use (8 projects stating an increase in pesticide use, 3 with Environmental Management Plan statingconcerns on increased pesticide use, 6 projects claiming to mitigate the negative impact of pesticides, 5 with a clear indication tointensify and increase production, and 6 with other clear indication of using increasing amounts of pesticides).

2 = Compliance defined as having a PMP in place when the project had an impact on pesticide use. The compliance improvedsignificantly during the review period, from 14% in 1999 to varying degree between 58–100% by the first quarter of 2004.

Source: Authors.

59QSA5, 2003.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 29

these projects were approved in 1999, when thePMP requirement was in effect for the first timewhereas the project preparation had taken placeprior to 1999. Information gleaned from theWorld Bank internal reviews of application of itssafeguards in supervision indicated that thesupervision effort—increasingly by staff withlimited experience in agronomy or pest manage-ment tend to concentrate on the major projectobjectives (often research, extension, and creditdisbursement). In some cases where the pestmanagement safeguard was not complied withincluded those with a major objective to encour-age private sector participation. However, whensuch non-compliance was noted during supervi-sion (or during safeguard review of supervision)corrective action was taken (See box 2.2).

30

A comparison between the internal and/orexternal supervision and evaluation reports andthe regular World Bank PSR reports also verifiedthe challenges in supervision (See table 4.5). Atotal of 19 projects were selected based on theavailability of recent reports by the World Bankand others. Regarding the design stage, devia-tions from the safeguard policy were frequent andclaims for non-compliance valid in all but 2 casesout of 15. The selected supervision missions wereable to identify major deviations from the pestmanagement safeguard in 2 out of 12 projects. Inmost cases, deviations were observed and fol-lowed up after external monitoring missions iden-tified them. These results indicate that due atten-tion at the design phase does not guaranteecompliance during the implementation stage.

Table 4.4. Pest Management Safeguard Rating and Discussion of Pest Management and IPM Issues in Project

Status Reports (PSR) of 57 World Bank Agriculture/Rural Projects (1999–2003) Assessed for Having an

Impact on Pesticide Consumption at the Project Appraisal Stage (PAD)

Total Total(no) (%) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Total number of PADs 105 100 26 21 22 14 22

PADs with pesticide use1 57 54 14 9 13 9 12

of which with IPM activities 36 34 6 5 10 7 8

of which with PMP2 at PAD stage 29 28 2 4 10 6 7

Retrieved projects with PSRs 47 1003 12 8 13 8 6

PSRs of projects with IPM activities 7 15 1 1 3 2 0

PSRs mentioning plant protection

(in addition to IPM) 8 17 2 1 2 3 0

Pesticide safeguard compliance rating

Satisfactory—Highly S 33 70 9 4 11 7 3

Unsatisfactory 3 6 32 0 0 0 0

Not Applicable 10 21 0 4 2 1 3

Notes: Dropped (D) or not available (NA) 1 NA, 1 NA 1D 6 NAprojects in 1999–2003 all had IPM activities 1 Dat the PAD stage.

1Projects with PMP due to (e.g., purchase or application of pesticides), and projects without PMP but with a clear indication ofhaving an increase in pesticide use (8 projects stating an increase in pesticide use; 3 with Environmental Management Plan statingconcerns on increased pesticide use; 6 projects claiming to mitigate the negative impact by pesticides; 5 with a clear indication tointensify and increase production; and 6 with other clear indication of using increasing amounts of pesticides). 2The rating in two projects changed from U to S in the next PSR.3The rating percentages in the total % column from this point downward present the proportion of retrieved projects with PSRs, notof the total number of projects in 1999–2004.

Source: Authors.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 30

STAFF RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING

One indicator of implementation of pre-statedobjective is the hiring of staff and the amount ofeffort provided into staff training. The WorldBank’s attempts to recruit IPM expertise fromthe agro-chemical industry through the staffexchange program met with limited success.Staff secondments to the Agriculture and RuralDevelopment Department from the Global IPMFacility and the GTZ organization helped to pro-mote the IPM agenda, however, only provided atemporary solution. More recently the WorldBank has hired a fulltime pest managementexpert.

Although about 30% of the rural sector invest-ment projects include pest management, few ofthe regions have been able to designate a dedi-cated pest management expert among their staff.The East Asia Region frequently uses consultants,and the ECA Region has designated a staff mem-ber with an agronomy background as the pestmanagement specialist with part-time responsibil-ities in oversight of pest management safeguard

31

reviews. Other regions either use consultants ordepend on the QACU (Quality Assurance andCompliance Unit)/ARD specialists.

With the increasing visibility of the safe-guard the World Bank started a comprehensivetraining program that consisted of a comprehen-sive 1-day training of safeguard application ingeneral, as well as a 0.5 or 1-day special trainingcovering a single safeguard. For example, in theperiod of April 2003 to March 2004, a total of 9 training sessions were organized, four specifi-cally provided in the regional offices (SA, LCR,and AF), others were held at the headquarters(See table 4.6).

Comprehensive training was providedthrough the World Bank’s training program (byWorld Bank Institute) and in some cases throughregional training. During the period of April2003–March 2004, a total of 5 training sessionswere provided at headquarters with an averageattendance of 15 staff members/half-day session.This appears fairly low especially in the ECA,LCR, and SA region (Note in table 4.3 that ECAand LCR are also the low outliers with respect to

Table 4.5. The World Bank Agriculture/Rural Projects Flagged for Possible Non-compliance by Internal

or External Reviews

LCR MNA AF SA EAP ECA Total

Number of projects with possible compliance issue 2 1 8 1 4 3 19

Design stage reviewed

Internal1 0 0 7 0 0 0 7

External2 1 1 2 1 2 2 9

Validity of the claim3 1 1 8 0 2 2 13

Implementation stage reviewed

Internal 0 0 7 0 0 1 8

External 1 1 1 0 2 1 5

Issue flagged in PSR4 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

Follow-up action by the project 1 — 3 — 1 1 5

1Internal reports refer to supervision/evaluation reports prepared by the World Bank’s own quality assurance staff and/orconsultants. The selected projects were approved between 1994 and 2001.2External reports refer to reports prepared by independent organizations/individuals, (i.e., mainly PANNA.)3Validity of the claim = whether the World Bank reviewer considered the claim valid. 4Value 0 = the Project Status Reports did not identify any deviations from safeguard compliance.

Source: Authors.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 31

PMPs). The LCR and SA regions, however,organized special training in OP 4.09/pest man-agement in the region (i.e., respectively Ugandaand Columbia for 2 days, India and Sri Lanka)that was attended by local World Bank and proj-ect staff. Other regions have organized safeguardtraining in general in the region, but not specifi-cally on pest management/OP 4.09.

Unlike training in procurement or trust fundmanagement, training in safeguards is not a pre-condition for task managers or for safeguardreviewers. The latter is of concern, as recognitionof pest management related safeguard issuesrequires expertise and understanding of the par-ticular systems and alternatives, whether in agri-culture, health or vegetation control. However,training and enforcement may result in greaterattention on safeguard issues, including pestmanagement, as indicated in Table 4.2. The num-ber of projects (that included pesticide use) witha PMP increased from 11% in 1999 to 54% in2003 in all four sectors whereas the greatestimprovement was in agriculture/rural projectsfrom 14% in 1999 to 58–77% in years2001–2003.

Apart from safeguard training, training inpest management is generally limited to occa-sional coverage of relevant topics during the“Rural Week,” an annual venue for dialogue andtraining for rural staff, and covering contempo-rary issues. Of the 8 rural weeks held since 1997,

32

pest management was 5 times on the program, ofwhich once on the main program and 4 times in break-out sessions. Nearly all trainingis provided at the headquarters; some of this isconcentrated around Rural Week or other eventsduring which country-office staff visit headquar-ters. In some cases pest management related top-ics are part of the program of regional sectorretreats.

PROCUREMENT

Although the procurement of large volumes ofpesticides is deemed to be something of thepast (with possible exception of emergencyprograms) many projects appear to procuresmall volumes of pesticides (See table 4.2).The purchases include herbicides for vegeta-tion control in power and transport projects,vector control in health (including the use ofimpregnated bed nets) and various agriculturaland CDD interventions.

Direct large scale pesticide procurement,although decreasing, may be facilitated by con-tinuing the on-going effort to develop better pro-curement manual and templates. Much of theprocurement, however, relates to smaller vol-umes in CDD projects, on-lending projects andor (agricultural) research. Some regions, ECAfor example, have prepared specific manuals forthe procurement of (agricultural) goods throughon-lending or CDD projects. Safeguard condi-

Table 4.6. Participation in Training Sessions on Implementation of Pest Management Safeguards Policy

OP 4.09 (March 03–March 04)

AFR EAP ECA LCR MNA SAR Other

Staff participating in OP 4.09 training at headquarters (4 sessions) 12 14 5 5 4 5 15

Total task team leaders1

(WB data 2004) 252 128 187 156 59 112 n/a

Percentage TTLs trained 2003/04 5% 11% 3% 3% 7% 4% n/a

Participants of in-country training2

(sessions) 25 (1) 0 0 48 (1) 0 76 (2) n/a

1Most TTLs attending the pest management safeguard training belonged to rural sector. 2In-country training for World Bank and project staff was provided in Uganda, India, Bangladesh, and Columbia.

Source: Authors.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 32

tions include monitoring and/or annual reportingof the aggregate portfolio of the communities,credit banks or other group-clients to preventadverse cumulative effects when numerous on-lending clients would borrow for pesticide orother commodities, products or equipment thatcould affect human health or the environment.

The preparation of detailed World Bank doc-uments, such as project implementation plansand tender documents, need to be managed bytrained staff or consultants who are familiar withWorld Bank requirements and/or past experi-ence. The pesticide tender documents aim to helpin moving towards this sustainability goal.Recent reviews of compliance with World Banksafeguards and other experiences with the pro-curement of pesticides indicate that task leaders,Project Implementation Unit staff and othersinvolved in World Bank financed projects areneither always aware of best practices nor of therisk and need for compliance.

NEW PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS

In part driven by the recently adopted StockholmConvention and by the World Bank’s interest insector wide approaches (SWAPS), the World

33

Bank has launched new programs and projectswith direct impact on the pest management policy. Principal among these, the AfricaStockpile Program, in collaboration with FAO,WWF, PAN-UK, PAN-Africa, NEPAD (NewPartnership for Africa’s Development) and theprivate sector. This program aims to help Africancountries cope with obsolete stock of pesticidesthat threaten human health and the environment.The project on the Demonstration of Alternativesto Chlordane and Mirex in Termite Control aimsto phase out the persistent organic pollutants,Chlordane and Mirex, through environmentallysustainable and cost-effective integrated termitemanagement, based on baiting systems. Sector-wide approaches, and close collaboration withinternational agencies (especially FAO andWHO) are also successfully implemented in thehealth sector (Malaria Booster Program) and inthe agricultural sector (the Africa EmergencyLocust Project).

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 33

In the past, investments in agricultural intensifi-cation were often associated with an increase inexternal inputs such as fertilizers and chemicalpesticides. More recently, new investments aremore economically, socially and environmentallybased. This holistic approach is seeking toenhance agricultural productivity (through effi-cient use of agricultural technology), to improvethe livelihood of the rural poor and to foster anenvironment conducive to sustainable ruraldevelopment. Within this context, the Bank con-siders integrated pest and crop management as acost-effective and sustainable agricultural prac-tice to increase farmer income, foster growth andfood security by reducing pest losses while pro-tecting the health of producers, consumers andthe environment.

Chemical pesticides have indeed been a pow-erful tool in managing pests in various sectorsand ecological conditions. They can be effective,fast acting, adaptable to all crops and situations.When first applied, a plant protection strategybased exclusively on chemical pesticides canresult in impressive production gains. However,despite these initial gains, excessive use of insec-ticides has proven to be ecologically unsound,leading to the destruction of natural enemies, theincrease of pest resistance pest resurgence andoutbreaks of secondary pests. These conse-quences have often resulted in higher productioncosts and lost markets due to undesirable pesti-cide residue levels, as well as environmental andhuman health costs. Many development agenciesand international research organizations haverecognized these negative effects of chemicalpesticides and many, including the World Bank,have pursued the strategy of promoting IPM asan alternative crop protection and springboardtowards sustainable agricultural production. Thestrategy has in most cases been two-pronged: (a) monitoring the procurement and application

34

of pesticides by safeguard policies with associ-ated institutional mechanisms for their enforce-ment; and (b) promotion of IPM in developmentprojects and programs. The latter has beenattempted mainly through extending IPM techni-cal support for projects involving investments incrop production. These efforts have met with onlylimited success. The adoption of IPM practices byfarmers has been relatively limited in view of theinvestments made for its promotion. The lowadoption of IPM has been attributed a number ofreasons with varying relative importance. Theserange from technical, institutional, social, cul-tural, economic, educational, informational, topolicy constraints. The traditional response hasbeen to allocate more funding to alleviate one ofmore of these constraints. The most importantreason, however, remains with the end user.Farmers often address this dilemma in economicbenefits and their decisions are based on whethertheir efforts will result in actual profits.

The economic incentives for the adoption ofIPM in many cases start with a significant reduc-tion in production costs, but can also come fromtwo other sources: (a) internalizing the potentialharmful external impacts of pesticides in theirprice and removal of price distorting direct andindirect subsidies; and (b) price premiums paidfor food products grown under IPM regimes. Theformer calls for sound national pesticide policiesand the latter for technical, marketing and certi-fication competence to reach the recently openedmarkets created by consumer demand for pesti-cide free and organic food products. In addition,an improved regulatory system is needed toreduce the utilization of undesired pest manage-ment methods, thus improving the prospects forIPM approaches.

In this context, and in view of the trendtowards policy based lending and restrictedresources available for agricultural development,

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 34

it is important that the World Bank and the devel-opment community at large revisit their strate-gies regarding pest management and IPM.

PROACTIVE AND SELECTIVE

APPROACH TO ADVANCING

SUSTAINABLE PEST MANAGEMENT

In order to allocate resources efficiently, and toenhance the impact of policy dialogue andinvestments in IPM, a more targeted strategymay be considered by development agencies,such as the World Bank.

A targeted promotion of more intensive IPMprograms in those countries/areas where the ben-efits of IPM are likely to be higher, the resourceuse justified and opportunities for IPM adoptionlikely, (i.e., countries with a high pesticide con-sumption, prominent cash crop production, largemonoculture/sole cropping areas, access to highvalue markets for pesticide-free products, coun-tries with a conducive policy environment forIPM or with particular risk of pesticide exposureand pesticide related health problems).Agricultural and economic benefits that can beobtained include decreased pesticide use,reduced likelihood of emergence of pesticideresistant pests, reduced production costs, higheroutput prices and lower public health costs.

The above approach is relatively easy wheregovernments have expressed interest in develop-ing their pesticide policies and in promotingIPM, but may be more complicated when thisinterest and especially when the respective sectordialogue is lacking. Table 5.1 lists a number ofentry points for such a discussion, whetherwithin agriculture (especially with the renewedinterest of countries in SPS and internationaltrade) or in health (especially where there aresolid data on farm worker intoxication and watercontamination, (i.e., in LAC and Asia). This dia-logue can be strengthened through coordinationwith international agencies (including CGIAR,WHO, FAO, and others), and through involve-ment of NGOs, and the private sector in identify-

35

ing the issues, conducting preliminary studies,helping to design solutions and in monitoringimplementation. Considering the number anddiversity of stakeholders and the potential asso-ciated conflict of interest, the World Bank is wellplaced to play a catalytic role as an honest brokerin such policy dialogues. An added benefit ofenhanced national policy-based support to IPMis the need for capacity building in the clientcountries’ own safeguard policies and good prac-tice as development assistance shifts from proj-ect support to development policy based support.This focus may also be supported by identifyingand monitoring clear and measurable indicators(e.g., yield losses to pests, pesticide consumptionper capita, health indicators for farm workers,and pesticide residue in water and in the foodchain; area under IPM production) which areconsistently included in policy dialogue, CASreviews, PRSPs, and portfolio reviews.

IMPROVING THE WORLD BANK’S

PERFORMANCE IN IPMIMPLEMENTATION IN OPERATIONS

Improvement of World Bank performance can beachieved by paying more attention to projectdesign and supervision through improvement ofstaff skills, in particular those of task team mem-bers and operational staff in country offices.Further effort also needs to be made to increaseawareness among managers and safeguardreviewers. In addition, it is essential to addressthe need to include sufficient resources to buildup borrower’s capacity in pest management pol-icy, research and management issues.

The World Bank task teams could be helpedby the availability of technical specialists (orstaff with pest management skills), as well as by manuals and templates for World Bankstaff and project staff on pest management thatrelate to specific and relevant issues (i.e., pestmanagement in the non-agricultural sector such as health, energy, and transport or related to specific lending instruments) and pesticide

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 35

procurement (i.e., Pest Management Guide-book). As current skills are stretched far, it is rec-ommended to review and reassess the need tohire and/or train specialist staff or to obtain nec-essary expertise through partnerships with expertorganizations. It is also recommended that link-ages with regional and country focal points onpest management, pesticides, safeguards andthose for international protocols and conventions(Montreal protocol and Stockholm Convention)be strengthened.

Supervision performance needs to beimproved by continuing current quality assur-ance monitoring of supervision. PSRs/ISRs

36

and supervision packages of projects thatinclude pest management activities should bereviewed by technical specialists, and moreattention should be given to possible formal orinformal monitoring of safeguard complianceby the private sector, non-governmental organ-izations or by the civil society (i.e., the com-munities themselves).

The experience of using FAO and the GlobalIPM facility technical expertise in project designand supervision and involving NGOs to monitorimplementation has been positive and should beencouraged, and expanded to a wider group ofNGOs. Similarly, preliminary experiences with

Table 5.1. Entry Points for Initiating a Policy Dialogue on Pest Management with Borrower Countries

Entry point Examples of policy discussion or projects

Global data show excessively high pesticide consumption, either in terms of volume or in expenditure.

Global data show excessively high incidence of pesticide toxicity among farm families.

Country has considerable stock of obsolete pesticides.

Countries that have substantial or growing domestic pesticide industry.

Countries where a large number of international pesticide companies are present.

Countries where agricultural sector policy indicates diversification into crops which are traditionally high pesticide users (e.g. horticulture, cotton).

Country wants to improve sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards (SPS) to enhance trade. Data on refused exports, or below-price exports can be used in the assessment.

Country wants to borrow for pest management related investments.

(Agricultural) research projects, especially competitive research. Allocate a certain funding block to IPM research.

EA during project Project Concept Note indicated a need for PMP. PMP discussion may lead to broader Government interest in improvingpest management policy.

Project supervision shows flaws in safeguards compliance, and country wants to correct this.

Country wants to mainstream pilot work by NGO’s, CGIAR or others.

Partnership with international organizations whether locally or strategically.

Partnership with private industry.

Source: Authors.

Limited experience with Pakistan.Potential candidates include selected Latin Americancountries.

CGIAR’s work in Ecuador is a powerful example, butso far rarely used because of the lack of data. Betterpublic health data may help in using this approach.

Countries participating in the Stockpile Program inMNA and SSA regions.

China, India

India, China, Pakistan

Horticultural production in Kenya.Promotion of exports in Tunisia.Irrigation Project in the coastal region of Peru.

Various countries have approached the World Bankincluding Tunisia (ASSP), Romania (ASSP), Colombiaand Brazil.

Borrowers for locust and vector control.

Turkey Agricultural Research Project. NationalAgricultural Technology Project in India.

Iran Integrated Water and Land Development Project(pending).

Armenia ARP (completed), Romania ASSP (ongoing)

Indonesia IPM (completed).

Malaria control projects (ongoing) African StockpilesProgram in alliance with FAO and WWF (pending).

IPM initiatives with Masterfoods in Indonesian cocoaindustry.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 36

community monitoring have been promising,and can be considered at the project design stageas it is the case for the Africa StockpileProgramme. Partnerships with technical and pol-icy groups in academia, NGOs, farmers andother professional associations, with specializedinternational centers and institutes, such as theSP-IPM, CGIAR institutions, AVRDC, ICIPE,GIF or CABI, as well as other internationalorganizations, such as WHO, ILO (InternationalLabor Organization) and FAO, are essential inobtaining technical input, local buy-in and a bal-anced view of this dynamic field. ICIPE, forexample, not only has a sound research programon IPM in public health and agriculture, but hasalso promoted commercialization of IPM tech-nologies that are specifically targeted for ruraldevelopment in Africa.

These partnerships should be strengthenedto: (a) develop and support IPM programs as a“good practice on specific crops, livestock orpublic health projects in developing countries;(b) raise awareness and support dissemination of

37

the concept of IPM as well as specific IPM tech-nologies and policies; (c) facilitate compliancewith pest management policy by providing back-stopping support in the preparation, implementa-tion and supervision of projects; (d) catalyze thedissemination of knowledge and informationthrough workshops, training courses andexchange visits; and (e) help the Bank in identi-fying those technologies that are ready to bemain-streamed through Bank supported pro-grams. Examples of successful partnershipsinclude the Africa Emergency Locust Project,where the technical expertise of the FAOEmergency Center for Locust Operations hasbeen crucial to the project; the Africa StockpileProgramme featuring a close collaboration withthe FAO obsolete pesticide unit, the WorldWildlife fund and the Pesticide Action Network(United Kingdom and Africa). Other potentialoutcomes include the collaboration with theInternational Potato Center on the linkages ofagriculture, pesticides, and health.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 37

Abate, T., A.van Huis, and. J. K. O. Ampofo (2000). PestManagement Strategies in Traditional Agriculture: AnAfrican Perspective. Annual Review of Entomology,45: 631–659.

Altieri, M. A., and C. I. Nicholls l999. “Biodiversity,ecosystem function and insect pest management inagricultural systems.” In: Biodiversity inAgroecosystems. W. W. Collins and C. O. Qualset(eds.) pp. 69–84. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Anon. 1997. Agrow World Crop Protection News, USEPA Official warns of OP losses, PJB PublicationsLtd., 1997, 298:12.

Anon 1998. “Insecticides Disrupt IPM.” Pesticides NewsNo. 39: 12–13.

APO 2002. “Production and Utilization of Pesticides inAsia and Pacific.” Asian Productivity Organization,Tokyo.

Bin Xiao Kefu Xue, 1999. “Studies on Management toInsecticide Resistance of Cotton Bollworm inShandong.” In Leong Foo and T. Della Senta (eds.),Proceedings of the Internet Conference on IntegratedBio-Systems. Tokyo: Institute of Advanced Studies,United Nations University.

Buccini, J. 2004. The Global Pursuit of the SoundManagement of Chemicals. The World Bank, 83pages.

Cole, D. C., F. Carpio, and N. Leon 2000. “EconomicBurden of Illness from Pesticide Poisoning inHighland Ecuador. Rev. Panam. Salud Public,8:196–201.

DANIDA 1998. “Insecticides Disrupt IPM.” PesticidesNews No. 39 (March 1998): 12–13.

Dasgupta, S., C. Meisner, and D. Wheeler 2004. “IsEnvironmentally-friendly Agriculture Less Profitablefor Farmers? Evidence on Integrated Pest Managementin Bangladesh.” World Bank Policy ResearchWorking Paper 3417, September 2004.

Eichelbaum, T., J. Allan, J. Fleming, and R. Randerson(2001). Report of the Royal Commission on GeneticModification. Department of Internal Affairs:Wellington, New Zealand. pp. 150.

Faeth, P., R. Repetto, K. Kroll, Q.Dai, and G. Helmers1991. “Paying the Farm Bill: US Agricultural Policyand the Transition to Sustainable Agriculture.”Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

38

Fakih, M., T. Rahardjo, and M. Pimbert 2003.“Community Integrated Pest Management inIndonesia: Institutionalizing Participation and People-centered Approaches.” Institutionalizing ParticipationSeries; IIED, IDS, and READ.

FAO 1999. “Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture,” ReportCOAG/ 99/10. Rome: Food and AgriculturalOrganization.

FAOSTATS 2002. FAO Statistical Databases.http://faostat.fao.org/

FAO 2003. International Code of Conduct on theDistribution and Use of Pesticides (Revised Version).http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/Code/PM_Code.htm

FAO 2004. “State of Food and Agriculture 2003–04.”Part I. Agricultural Biotechnology. Meeting the Needsof the Poor? p. 208.

Farah, J. 1994. “Pesticide Policies in DevelopingCountries. Do They Encourage Excessive Use?”World Bank Discussion Paper No. 238, Washington,DC: World Bank.

Feder, G. 1979. Pesticides. “Information and PestManagement under Uncertainty.” Am. J. Agric. Econ.,61: 97–103.

Feder, G., R. Murgai, and J. B. Quizon 2004a. “TheAcquisition and Diffusion of Knowledge: The Case ofPest Management Training in Farmer Field Schools inIndonesia.” J. Agric. Economics, vol. 55 (2): 217–239.

Feder, G., R.Murgai, and J. B. Quizon 2004b. SendingFarmers Back to School: The Impact of Farmer FieldSchools in Indonesia.” Review of AgriculturalEconomics 26: 45–62.

FFNZ (2002). “Life After Subsidies: The New ZealandFarming Experience 15 Years Later,” FederatedFarmers of New Zealand (Inc). www.fedfarm.org.nz

Fliert van de, E. 1993. Integrated Pest Management:Farmer Field Schools Generate Sustainable Practices.Wageningen: The Netherlands.

Flint, H. M., and C.C. Doane1996. “UnderstandingSemiochemicals with Emphasis on Insect SexPheromones in Integrated Pest ManagementPrograms.” University of Minnesota.http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/flint.htm

REFERENCES

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 38

Freckleton, R. P., W. J. Sutherland, and A. R. Watkinson2003. “Deciding the Future of GM Crops in Europe.”Science 302: 994–996

Glickman, L. T., M. Raghavan, D. W. Knapp, P. L.Bonney, and M. H. Dawson 2004. “HerbicideExposure and the Risk of Transitional Cell Carcinomaof the Urinary Bladder in Scottish Terriers.” J. Am.Vet. Med. Assoc. 224: 1290–1297.

Gutierrez, A., and H. Waibel 2001. Review of theCGIAR System-wide Programme on Integrated pestManagement (SP-IPM).http://www.spipm.cgiar.org/Approach/SPIPM. 143 p.

Hamburger, J., and M. Ishii-Eitemann 2003a. “TheStruggle to Reduce Reliance on Pesticides in WorldBank Projects. Can Community-based MonitoringLead to Improved Policy Compliance?” ReportPesticide Action Network, North America, SanFrancisco, March 2003.

Hamburger, J., and M. Ishii-Eiteman 2003b. “FightingPesticide Dependence in a World Bank Project inChina. A Case Study of Community-basedMonitoring.” Global Pesticide Campaigner, vol. 13(2). http://www.panna.org/resources/gpc.html

Harris, J. 2000. “Delivering Biocontrol: IdentifyingBottlenecks.” Biocontrol News and Information21(2) CABI.

Heong, K. L., M. M. Escalada, N. H. Huan, and V. Mai1998. “Use of Communication Media in ChangingRice Farmers’ Pest Management in the MekongDelta,” Vietnam. Crop Protection 17, 5: 413–425.

Huan, N. H., V. Mai, M. M. Escalada, and K. L. Heong1999. “Changes in Rice Farmers’ Pest Management inthe Mekong Delta,” Vietnam. Crop Protection 18:557–563.

Huang, J., S. Rozelle, C. Pray, Q. Wang 2002. “PlantBiotechnology in China.” Science 295 (5555): (25 January, 2002): 674–677.

ISAAA, 2004. “Preview. Global Status ofCommercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2004.”International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. No. 32–2004.

Ishii-Eiteman, M. J.,and N. Ardhianie, N. 2002.Community Monitoring of Integrated PestManagement versus Conventional Pesticide Use in aWorld Bank Project in Indonesia.” Int. J. Occupt.Environ. Health 8: 220–231.

Karel, B. 2003. “Pesticide Dependence Persists at theWorld Bank.” Global Pesticide Campaigner, vol. 13(2). http://www.panna.org/resources/gpc.html

39

Kenmore, P. 1991. “Indonesia’s Integrated PestManagement: A Model for Asia.” The IndonesianNational IPM Program and the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations Regional Office,Jakarta, Indonesia.

Kiss, A., and F. Meerman 1991. “Integrated PestManagement and African Agriculture.” TechnicalPaper No.142, Washington, DC: World Bank.

Lele, U. 2003. Biotechnology: Opportunities andChallenges for Development. Am. J. Agr. Econ.,85: 1119.

London, L. D. de, Wesseling, S. Kisting, H. A. Rother,and D. Mergler 2002. Pesticide Usage and HealthConsequences for Women in Developing Countries:Out of Sight Out of Mind. Int. J. Occupat. Health8: 46–59.

Maredia, K. M., D. Dakuo, and D. Mota-Sanchez 2003.Integrated Pest Management in the Global Arena.Oxon, UK: CABI Publishing.

Meer van der, K. 2004. “Exclusion of Small-scaleFarmers from Coordinated Supply Chains: MarketFailure, Policy Failure or Just Economies of Scale?”Discussion Paper, Dec. 2004. ARD, Washington, DC:World Bank.

Morse, S., and W. Buhler 1997. “IPM in DevelopingCountries: The Danger of an Ideal.”Integrated PestManagement Reviews 2: 175–185.

Mougeot, L. J.A. 2002. “Urban Agriculture, MainConcepts. Enhancing the Contribution of UrbanAgriculture to Food Security.” Urban AgricultureMagazine. Special edition for the World FoodSummit. June 2002.

Murray, D., C. Wesseling, M. Keifer, M. Corrials, and S. Henao 2002. “Surveillance of Pesticide-relatedIllness in the Developing World.” Int. J. Occup.Health 8:243–248

Norton, G. W., E. A. Heinrichs, G. C. Luther, M. E.Irwin 2005. Globalizing Integrated Pest Management.A Participatory Process. Blackwell Publishing. 375 p.

NRI 2001. Uzbekistan IPM Component. Cotton SubsectorImprovement Project. Final Report. Chatham, UK:Natural Resources International, pp. 155.

OECD 1995. Guidelines for Aid Agencies on Pest andPesticide Management/OECD DevelopmentAssistance Committee. Paris: OECD, 1995, p. 46.

OED 2004. Draft OED Report on the Global IntegratedPest Management Facility. Washington, DC: WorldBank.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 39

Orr, A. 2003. “Integrated Pest Management for Resource-Poor African Farmers: Is the Emperor Naked?” WorldDevelopment, 2003, vol. 31, issue 5, pp. 831–845.

Palán, Z., and C. Palán 1999. “Employment and WorkingConditions in the Ecuadorian Flower Industry. ReportInternational Labor Organization, Geneva.

Penagos, H. G. 2002. “Contact Dermatitis Caused byPesticides among Banana Workers in Panama.” Int. J.Occup. Health 8: 14–18

Persley, G. J., and M. M. Lantin (eds). 2000.“Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor.”Proceedings of a Conference. Washington, DC:Consultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch.

Pincus, J. R. 1996. “The Impact of IPM Farmer FieldSchools on Farmers’ Cultivation Practices in TheirOwn Fields.” Internal Report, Hanoi, Vietnam: FAOICP.

Pincus, J. R. 2002. “State Simplification and InstitutionBuilding in a World Bank-financed DevelopmentProject.” In: J. R. Pincus and J. A. Winters (eds.),Reinventing the World Bank pp. 77–100. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press.

Pingali, P. L .,and M. W. Rosengrant 1994. “Confrontingthe Environmental Consequences of the Rice GreenRevolution in Asia.” EPTD Discussion Paper No 2.August 1994, 34 p. Washington, DC: IFPRI.

Pingali, P. L., 1998. “Confronting the EnvironmentalConsequences of the Rice Green Revolution inTropical Asia.” In: International AgriculturalDevelopment 3rd edition (C.K. Eicher and J. M. Staatz(eds.), pp. 474–491. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

QSA5 2003. Quality of Supervision in FY01/02 (QSA5):A QAG Assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Quizon, J., G. Feder, and R.Murgai 2001. FiscalSustainability of Agricultural Extension: The Case ofthe Farmer Field School Approach. J. Intern. Agr. andExtension Educ., 8: 13–24.

Reardon, T., B. C. Barnett, V. Kelly, and K. Savadogo1999. “Sustainable versus Unsustainable AgriculturalIntensification in Africa: Focus on Policy Reforms andMarket Conditions.” In: D. R. Lee and C. B. Barrett(eds.), pp. 365–382. Tradeoffs or Synergies?Agricultural Intensification, Economic Developmentand the Environment in Developing Countries.Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

Rola, A., S. Jamias, and J. Quizon, 2002. “Do FarmerField School Graduates Retain and Share What They

40

Learn? An Investigation in Iloilo, Philippines.”J. Intern. Agr. And Extension Educ. 9 (Spring 2002):

65–76.

Rose, R. I. 2001. Pesticides and Public Health: IntegratedMethods of Mosquito Management. CDC EmergingInfectious Disease 7: (1).

Schillhorn van Veen, T. W., D. A. Forno, S. Joffe, D. L.Umali Deiniger, and S. Cooke 1997. “Integrated PestManagement, Strategies and Polices for EffectiveImplementation.” Env. Sust. Dev. Studies andMonograph Series No. 13, Washington, DC: WorldBank.

Schillhorn van Veen, T. W. 2002 Agricultural PestManagement at a Crossroads: Old Tools, NewPerspectives, Risk and Opportunities.” In: Productionand Utilization of Pesticides in Asia and Pacific. pp. 131–151. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization.

Schillhorn van Veen, T. W., D. A. Forno, S. Joffe, D. L.Umali-Deininger, and S. Cooke 1997. Integrated PestManagement: Strategies and Policies for EffectiveImplementation. World Bank.

Schnepf, R. D., E. Dohlman, and C. Bolling, 2001.“Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina: Developmentsand Prospects for Major Field Crops.” ERSAgriculture and Trade Report No. WRS013. 85pp.

Sheriff, G., and G. Fleischer forthcoming. 2005 Towardseconomically rational pesticide policies. Backgroundpaper prepared for the Agriculture and RuralDevelopment Department of the World Bank. Mimeo.

Sorby, K., G. Fleischer, and E. Pehu 2003. “IntegratedPest Management in Development. Review of Trendsand Implementation Strategies, Agricultural and RuralDevelopment,” Working Paper No. 5, Washington,DC: World Bank.

Tozun, N. 2001. New Policy,”Old Patterns. A Survey ofIPM in World Bank Projects.” Global PesticideCampaigner 11: (1). San Francisco: Pesticide NetworkNorth Americas.

Waibel, H., and D. Pemsl 2000. Evaluation of the Impactof Integrated Pest Management Research atInternational Agricultural Research Centres. IAEG.92 pp.

Way, M. J., and H. F. van Emden 2000. “Integrated PestManagement in Practice—Pathways TowardsSuccessful Application.” Crop Protection 19: 81–103.

WHO. 2004. Global Strategic Framework forInternational Vector Management. Geneva, 2004. 12 p.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 40

Williamson, S. 2003. “Pesticide Provision in LiberalizedAfrica: Out of Control?” Agricultural Research andExtension Network. Network Paper No. 126, 15 pp.

World Bank 1996. From Vision to Action in the RuralSector: Working Paper, World Bank, Washington, DC.

World Bank 2001. Rearching the Rural Poor. StaffEdition. World Bank, Washington, DC.

World Bank. 2002. Rural Development Indicators 2002.http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2002/environment.htm

World Bank. 2004a. Agriculture Investment Sourcebook.Washington, DC: World Bank. http://www-esd.worldbank.org/ais/

World Bank 2004b. Food Safety and Agricultural HealthStandards: Challenges and Opportunities forDeveloping Country Exports. A Research ProgramSynthesis. A Joint Product of the International Trade

41

Department and Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentDepartment, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Yanggen, D., D. Cole, C. Crissman, and S. Sherwood.2003. “Human Health, Environmental, and EconomicEffects of Pesticide Use in Potato Production inEcuador.” Research Brief by the International PotatoCenter.

Yudelman, M., A. Ratta, and D. Nygaard 1998. “PestManagement and Food Production. Food, Agricultureand the Environment.” Discussion Paper No. 25,Washington, DC: IFPRI.

Youdeowei, A., van der Valk, H. and M. C. Verlaeten2002. IPM Thematic Review. “A Study on Compliancewith the Safeguard Policy on Pest Management inSelected World Bank financed Projects in Africa.”Washington, DC: World Bank.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 41

ANNEX 1. POTENTIAL SIDE EFFECTS OF PESTICIDE USE

42

The debate on pesticide effects is generally strat-ified by effects on health, environment, econ-omy, and trade and—in particular relating tomethyl bromide—on global implications. Thepositive effects are linked to reduction in vector-borne diseases (especially malaria) and plantpests, to labor saving in agriculture, road andpower line maintenance, to erosion reduction inagriculture, and to the production of estheticallyattractive produce with extended shelf life orstorage. The negative effects include:

HEALTH EFFECTS

• Direct poisoning among farm workers andor food industry.This is still a major issue in developingcountries. In Central America, for example,case rate is 171/100,000 in the generalpopulation, but a staggering 76% amongfarm workers (mainly fruits, vegetable andbanana plantation workers). An economicanalysis indicates the cost per case is atleast 5 times the daily wage.

• Indirect effects on others exposed eitherthrough contact or pesticide (residue)consumption.More sophisticated research is pointing to thefact that these effects can not be generalizedbut are product specific, which complicatesthe analysis. However, among the majoreffects of pesticide are cancers and endocrinalchanges (including effect on fertility, refocuspuberty, child development etc.)

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

• Effect on plant biodiversity.

• Effect on animal biodiversity. Especially thenewer pesticides (including pyrethroids) that

are relatively safe for mammals but are verytoxic for lower animals.

• Presence of pesticides in the environmentthat may further affect public health.There is some evidence that meat-eatinghuman population can accumulate certainpesticides in their bodies and in the longerrun be affected similarly to other predatorsat the top of the food chain.

ECONOMIC EFFECTS

Improper pesticide application has major effecton beneficial insects including• risk of eliminating bees, silkworms and

other economically important insects.

• detrimental effect on predator arthropods(“bugs”) that largely control populations ofinsect pests.

TRADE EFFECTS

• Developing countries that exportagricultural products are faced with fairlyhigh standards of food safety applied indeveloped countries, and risk refusal of theirproduct when MRL are exceeded.

• Limiting trade: developing countries see thestricter application of MRL and emphasison “safe” pesticides as a tool to limit tradeto developed countries.

Details in Altieri and Nichols, 2001; APO, 2002;London et al. 2002; Maredia et al. 2003, Murrayet al, 2002; Pingali and Rosengrant, 1994:Yudelman et al. 1998.

3535-Book.pdf 6/22/05 12:39 PM Page 42