|
FAQs
|
|
|
|
Q: What is the main purpose of IPM?
A: To provide the highest agricultural production (or vector control) on a sustainable, long term basis, at least cost and with the least risk to human health and the environment.
Q: Which cropping systems provide the highest risk of pesticide problems, or the best targets for IPM?
A: The best opportunities are in crops and cropping systems which: (i) typically experience high pest pressure; (ii) typically involve high levels of pesticide application and/or highly hazardous chemical use; (iii) have developed pests resistant to commonly used pesticides; or (iv) for which demonstrated effective IPM methods are available. Cotton and rice score high on all counts: they are major users of pesticides worldwide, including some of the most hazardous products on the market, and are often strongly affected by pesticide resistance. At the same time, some of the best known and most effective IPM programs have been in these crops, including several in developing countries (Egypt, Sudan, Colombia, Indonesia, etc.). Vegetable and fruit production are also excellent candidates because of high pest pressures, high levels of pesticide use to meet cosmetic standards, and frequent involvement of untrained growers. High value import markets in Europe and elsewhere are also putting pressure on fruit and vegetable growers to reduce or eliminate the use of many pesticides, stimulating farmer interest in IPM alternatives. Perennial crops such as coffee and cacao are particularly suited to biological control. IPM programs are also important for food crops in developing countries, where farmers need economic pest management methods that do not rely on expensive imported inputs.
Q: Is there a definitive list of pesticides which are excluded from Bank financing?
A: Due to immediate health risks, pesticides which fall under WHO Class Ia and Ib are not allowed, and those that fall into WHO Class II are excluded if professional use with protective equipment cannot be guaranteed. Controversial pesticides listed in the PIC and POP conventions as well as those in the "Dirty Dozen" list should be given extra scrutiny (See "Selection and procurement of pesticides"). Pesticide products which are not registered in the client country must not be used if this violates national legislation. Otherwise, a prudent approach on a case-by-case basis is needed, with guidance from the Regional Environment Units and QACU. Specialist knowledge is often required to assess whether use of a particular product is permissible under specific use conditions. Some pesticides have relatively low acute oral toxicity to mammals (falling into WHO Class III or IV) but raise concerns due to other factors such as long persistence, skin or eye irritation, chronic health impacts (e.g. carcinogens, mutagens), or high toxicity to non-target species. Lack of registration in OECD countries may be a warning that there are significant health or environmental concerns about a product.
Q: How do I determine whether a pesticide falls into the WHO Class Ia, Ib or II?
A: The WHO Classification of Pesticides by Hazard provides information on the oral toxicity of the active ingredient. However, pesticides products used in the field are formulated mixtures with other materials that dilute the active ingredient and facilitate application. These additives are known as "inert ingredients" but are sometimes also hazardous. All active ingredients that fall into WHO Class Ia are excluded, regardless of the formulation. Products containing other active ingredients can be considered for financing if the formulated product does not fall within the toxicity limits for Classes Ib or II. For many standard pesticide formulations the WHO Class formulations is known. Otherwise, it can be calculated using a formula that takes into account the toxicity and the concentration of the active ingredient (seeWHO Classification of Pesticides by Hazard, document page 41).If a product contains more than one active ingredient, the product is considered to be as hazardous as its most hazardous ingredient. (Note however that in some cases there may be synergistic or multiplicative effects among active ingredients).
Q: Do I have to bother about negative impacts of pesticide use in a country where average pesticide use levels are low?
A: In many developing countries, average pesticide use is low in terms of tons per total land area. However, pesticide use may tend to be concentrated in a few high-input crops. There, health and environmental problems related to pesticides are as frequent and as serious as in other regions and warrant special attention. Furthermore, farmers in developing countries are less likely to have the knowledge and the protective equipment to handle hazardous materials safely.
Q: Why doesn't the Bank rely on the legislation and regulatory framework of the client countries? Shouldn't the countries decide for themselves what risks they want to take?
A: The Bank is committed to improving the lives of people in its client countries in many ways, including by reducing environmental, health and agricultural risks from dependence on chemical pesticides. In many countries, legislation regulating pesticide registration and use is out of date. When updating old legislation, most countries have tightened regulations and adopted the standards of OECD countries. Moreover, many countries lack the capacity and infrastructure to enforce legislation that is in place, for example regulations restricting access to highly hazardous materials to trained professionals or ensuring safe disposal. In the broader context of supporting IPM, the Bank has a responsibility to promote best practices and approaches. This includes influencing the policies and modes of operation of research, extension and educational institutions, particularly when unsustainable practices have become entrenched.
Q: Does it make sense to put restrictions on the type of pesticides to be used in a project area if other, more toxic pesticides are freely available at local markets?
A: Yes. The Bank is always directly responsible for the impacts of activities and products that it finances. As with all of its Safeguard Policies, failure to implement the provisions of OP 4.09 can lead to criticism, including Inspection Panel cases. At the same time, the Bank should complement its direct action of restricting pesticide financing by engaging in a policy dialog with concerned government institutions to encourage and assist them to update the national legislation and regulatory framework to internationally accepted standards.
Q: Do I have to worry about pesticides when preparing a public health project?
A: Yes. If a public health project includes a vector control element, pesticides are a potential issue. For indoor pesticide use the main concerns are acute and chronic human health risks. For outdoor use, there is a risk of accelerating resistance if public health and agricultural programs make use of the same types of pesticides in the same general area. In addition, pesticides procured for public health use are often illegally diverted for agricultural use (a particular common problem with DDT, which is now banned for agricultural use in most countries but still commonly used indoors for malaria control).
Q: If IPM is such a superior approach, why is it not spreading automatically among farmers?
A: There are a number of reasons. IPM is knowledge-intensive and demands certain skills to yield good results. IPM is not available as a grab-and-go technology (there is no IPM in a bottle!). IPM approaches are undervalued since chemical pesticides are still subsidized in many countries (e.g. tax breaks, lack of eco taxes). IPM also stresses long-term sustainability of agroecosystems, but farmers may favor short-term production targets to support their families. Farmers, like most people, may downplay health and environmental risks either because they are unaware of them or because they are less pressing than more immediate concerns. Many farmers also regard chemical control as "modern" and therefore desireable, and may regard non-chemical methods such as crop sanitation and biological control as traditional or backward. Market infrastructure is another factor why farmers have easier access to chemical pesticides than to other IPM tools.
Endnote:
Suggestions for topics to be included into this section are most welcome!
Please contact:
Abdelaziz Lagnaoui, ESDQC
or the Safeguards Help Desk |
|
|
RSS