Report of the Brainstorming Meeting on Environmental and other
factors needed for Evaluating and Managing Risks posed by
Pesticides at Local Level
1 - 3 July 2009, Geneva, Switzerland
Background
1.
In most countries today, the distribution and use of pesticides is regulated and,
usually involves a registration process for their distribution, sale and use.
Registrations are normally for specified use purposes. In evaluating the potential risks
involved with using these pesticides, many countries rely almost solely on
internationally-available data and hazard and risk assessments. They have little
capacity to make risk management decisions that take into account environmental
conditions and other local determinants that will affect behaviour and potential
impacts of pesticides.
2.
The purpose of the meeting was to bring together the knowledge and
experience among participating experts and stakeholders from different regions to
discuss possibilities for improving the situation. Discussions aimed at exploring which
or what type of local factors should be accounted for in risk based decision making,
identifying data gaps and needs of countries to enhance decision making that takes
national / local circumstances into account. The meeting also discussed ways of
addressing these needs at local, regional and international levels, taking into account
possibilities for building on existing activities.
3.
The meeting proceeded in the following manner:
I.
Opening of the Meeting
4.
The Brainstorming Meeting on Environmental and other Factors Needed for
Evaluating and Managing Risks posed by Pesticides at local level was held at the
International Environment House in Geneva, Switzerland from 1 to 3 July 2009. The
workshop was organized by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Chemicals Branch with financial support from the Government of Norway.
II.
Organizational matters
5.
The workshop undertook its work in plenary and in working groups in
accordance with the agenda included in Annex I.
6.
The workshop was chaired by Mr. Stuart Dobson (United Kingdom). The
UNEP Secretariat acted as the rapporteur for the plenary sessions. Working group I
was chaired by Mr. Sverker Molander (Sweden) with elected rappporteur Mr.
Cornelis van Leeuwen (Netherlands). Working Group II was chaired by Mr. Barry
Soloman (United States of America) Mr. Hans-Lokke (Denmark) was rapporteur.
7.
II.
The list of participating national stakeholders and experts is included in Annex
III.
Opening session
8.
Mr. Bakken welcomed participants to Geneva and gave an overview of the UNEP
work plan. UNEP has six priority areas: climate change; disasters and conflicts;
ecosystem management; environmental governance; harmful substances and hazardous
waste; and resource efficiency. In the harmful substances and hazardous waste area
UNEP Chemicals is leading the work behind the sound management of chemicals. He
said that
ƒ UNEP has since some time seen the need for enhancing its role, efforts and
resources for an improved understanding of environmental risks and
environmental / local influences on chemical risks, in particular in developing
countries and countries with economies in transition that may have somewhat
different conditions compared to developed countries from where much of the
hazard and exposure related data originates.
ƒ Climate and other environmental influences on the fate of chemicals, as well
as poverty, level of education and infrastructure are all factors impacting the
actual risks posed by a chemical in a set location compared to other places. Mr.
Bakken also drew attention to the possible need to consider climate change in
chemical risk management.
ƒ Environmental resources, sensitive ecosystems, endangered species, and
certain vulnerable groups require special precautionary measures in certain
locations and so far, such considerations are not well addressed in
conventional risk assessment and management schemes.
9.
He expected that participants will provide advice, based on their expertise and
experiences, on how UNEP-and possibly others-can better assist countries in
addressing such local issues. He noted that strategies for doing that could include
a) providing access to relevant information,
b) through training and capacity building
c) providing expert advice on specific environmentally related questions and
aspects in risk assessment and management, and
d) by enhancing its contribution to relevant international activities
10.
The special role of UNEP in the environmental field, its on-going activities
that can be built on and where complementarity with other organizations and
institutions can be achieved, are factors that should be taken into consideration in the
proposed recommendations.
11.
Ms. Sundén-Byléhn gave an overview of Strategic Approach to International
Chemicals Management (SAICM) and UNEP’s comprehensive plan to
implement its responsibilities under SAICM. Objectives set out in the SAICM
Overarching Policy Strategy(OPS) include several that address environmentally related
issues,
including:
ƒ risk assessment and management strategies to prevent the adverse effects of
chemicals on susceptible environments (OPS para. 7),
ƒ to implement transparent, comprehensive, efficient and effective risk
management strategies based on appropriate scientific understanding,
including of health and environmental effects, and appropriate social and
economic analysis aimed at pollution prevention, risk reduction and risk
2
ƒ
elimination, including detailed safety information on chemicals, to prevent
unsafe and unnecessary exposures to chemicals (OPS para. 14c),
to make objective scientific information available for appropriate integration
into risk assessments and associated decision-making relating to chemicals
policy, including in relation to assessment of chemical hazards and risks to
human health, especially vulnerable sub-populations such as children, and to
the environment, particularly vulnerable ecosystems (OPS para. 14d) .
12.
Ms. Sunden Bylehn then set the tone of the meeting by requesting the
participants to consider the priority issues for the environment arising from chemicals
of global concern as well as the need to identify and manage chemicals issues of
priority concerns at local (national) level. She also briefed the participants on UNEP
Chemicals activities on the sound management of chemicals and underlined that the
Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE) Chemicals Branch could
benefit from the experts’ opinions on how to go about risk management in the context
of Chemicals Branch work, particularly on environmental fate and chemical effects on
the environment including vulnerable eco-systems. She then introduced the
documents that had been prepared before the meeting, one background document on
existing resources and one discussion document on environmental issues and other
local factors that may need to be better considered in risk management decisions. She
explained that in finalizing the two documents, the meeting discussions would be
taken into account and further contributions from the participants would be welcome.
13.
Ms. Besbelli provided in-depth information on the background document on
the existing resources and approaches to risk assessment and management of
pesticides, focusing on guidance available from the international organizations. The
document is intended to assist countries and countries with economies in transition to
identify systems (international, regional and other) that can be built upon and which
provide useful information for national assessments and management decisions
regarding chemical risks.
Note: The presentations noted below in Sections IV, V, VI, and VII generated
considerable questions and answers and discussion in general. These
discussions are summarized and presented in Section IX.
IV.
National / Regional processes and experiences related to pesticides risk
assessment and management
14.
Participants made presentations regarding national processes and experiences
from the following countries: Burkina Faso, Kyrgyz Republic, Serbia, Sri
Lanka, Tanzania, Turkey and Uruguay. Common issues and main problems
regarding pesticide registration and risk assessment in the countries are:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
A legislative framework exists but needs further development and updating
A more integrated approach is needed and relevant local environmental
aspects should be included
There are not enough financial, technical and human resources to build and
carry-out effective pesticides control systems
Enforcement and implementation is weak
There is lack of coordination at national level and need for collaboration and
coordination between ministries, as well as with private, public interest groups
and civil societies
3
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Registration is done mainly by review of dossier and checking for
completeness. Data from developed countries with strong schemes is generally
accepted without critical review.
There is limited field testing for efficacy conducted in some countries
No evaluation is made for fate and behaviour of pesticides in assessments of
risks and local climatic and other environmental conditions are not considered,
nor are ecosystems sensitivities.
There is a largely unfilled need for relevant laboratories and capable technical
staff
There is no capacity at ministry level for risk assessment and toxicology and a
widespread lack of human, technical and financial resources for risk
assessment with no staff trained in risk assessment and dossier interpretation
There is normally no monitoring of pesticide residues, except as required for
export to specific markets
There is a need for capacity building on sound management of pesticides at
every level
All presentations from the meeting are available on-line at:
http://www.chem.unep.ch/Pesticides/RiskAssessmentWorkshop/default.htm
V.
Presentations provided on the approaches for assessing and managing
risks of pesticides in Sweden and Australia.
15.
Presentations were provided on the approaches for assessing and managing
risks of pesticides in Sweden and Australia. Full risk assessment is conducted and
environmental factors assessed with exposure calculations based on local conditions.
Australian registration authority may use international hazard information where
appropriate. Re-registration is needed yearly in Australia while re-registration is
needed after five years in Sweden. See above link for detailed information.
VI.
16.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
VII.
Inter Governmental Organizations and Non Governmental Organizations
activities and initiatives related to pesticides risk assessment and
management
The following presentations were made under this item:
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) on pesticides risk assessment and
management by Mr Mark Davis
Crop-Life Activities and initiatives related to pesticide risk assessment and
management- by Mr Steve Maund
German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) Activities of management and disposal
of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) chemicals and obsolete pesticides by
Mr Wolfgang Schimpf
Pesticide Action Network(PAN)- Africa Some activities and initiatives of
PAN related to pesticides risk
assessment and management by Mr Abou Thiam
UNEP Chemicals Exchange Information Network (CIEN) by Mr Cyrille
Siewe
World Health Organization (WHO) Risk assessment toolkit by Ms Carolyn
Vickers
Analysis of factors that need to be taken into consideration in risk
assessment and management in developing countries and countries with
economies in transition.
4
17.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
The following presentations were made under the agenda item
Eco-toxicology by Mr Cornelis van Leeuwen
Ecosystem functioning by Mr Sverker Molander
Climatic and other environmental factors by Ms Luisa Castillo Martinez
Environmental fate by Mr Martin Scheringer
Environmental resources by Mr Stuart Dobson
Socio-Economic factors by Mr Barry Solomon
Evaluating and managing risks posed by pesticides - Environmental and other
factors by Mr Hans Lokke
VIII. Working group sessions
Mr Manda provided an overview of the discussion document prepared for the
meeting, which covers environmental, ecological and socio-economic factors that
need to be taken into consideration for managing risks from use of pesticides at local
level. Mr. Manda then introduced the working group discussion topics and suggested
how the groups would work.
18.
19.
ƒ
ƒ
Two groups were established:
Group 1. Local Factors influencing pesticide fate, exposure and effects on
non-target organisms and ecosystem services-climate, ecology and
ecotoxicology
Group 2. Environmental resources and socio-economic factors
20.
The working groups were asked to address a number of questions / issues
included in Annex III:
21.
The reports of the two working groups were presented to the plenary and are
attached as Annex IV to the current report.
IX. Plenary Discussions
A. General consideration in risk assessment and control of pesticides
Risk assessment
22.
Many participants from developing countries informed the meeting that they
are not doing comprehensive risk assessment due to limited capacity. Therefore, they
would welcome support in this area. Developed countries normally perform full
fledged pesticides risk assessments and have taken actions aimed at sharing the
burden and increasing efficiency through mutual acceptance of data and joint
assessments.
23.
Industry is required to submit product dossiers for evaluation during the
registration process. The data submitted in the dossiers is not in a simplified form and
sometimes can be extensive and difficult to review for inexperienced people. This
poses in particular difficulties to pesticides registrars with insufficient personnel, as is
often the case in developing countries and countries with economies in transition.
Moreover, the dossiers submitted do not contain locally relevant information. In some
cases, the local companies obtain the data for registration from internet sources and
submit incomplete dossiers.
24.
Participants from developing countries further informed the meeting that they
are doing very limited or no risk assessments and that no evaluation is made for fate
5
and behaviour of pesticides, exposure, or adverse effects in relevant climatic
conditions and ecosystems. Developed countries normally conduct risk assessments
including assessments of the fate in the environmental media according to local
conditions. Furthermore, data used in these assessments does sometimes come from
relevant testing on local species. However it was noted that even in developed
countries pesticides products are tested only on a few local species, and that those
species are typically chosen for their high sensitivity. This raises the question of the
benefits of performing studies on native species, if comprehensive data exists for a
non-native species which would reliably capture eco-toxicological sensitivity. This
point was discussed at length, illustrating that it is a complex element of the risk
assessment procedure.
Capacity of pesticides registrars
25.
Registrars present in the meeting stated that there are no training programs
especially designed for pesticides registrars in developing countries. Many pesticides
registrars in developing countries have to learn on the job. Understandably then, there
are serious shortages of qualified personnel in the pesticides registrars’ offices. The
pesticides registrar’s office in developing countries is typically understaffed to
perform risk assessments, sometimes these are manned by only one individual, which
is a serious shortfall in terms of human resource considering the technical and
complex nature of the work entailed. Participants also acknowledged that mobility of
trained staff is also a source of concern.
26.
Coherent training materials should be used, and the FAO Code of Conduct
provides a solid basis to build upon. The meeting was also informed that there is a
master level programme for pesticides registrars in the final stages of development
and that these courses will be given at the University level at Cape Town University
in South Africa starting in the Fall of 2009
27.
Simplified and easy to apply guidance documents and procedures could assist
pesticides registrars when assessing pesticides products for registration. These
documents and procedures could also include a stepwise procedure for conducting
risk assessments including exposure assessments based on pesticide fate in the
environmental media of concern and a mapping of sensitive national ecosystems that
need protection from pesticides contamination.
Administration and funding of the regulatory mechanism
28
In many developed countries generally pesticides registration and reregistration fees are adequate to support the costs for running the pesticides
registration process. However, in developing countries the fees from pesticides
registration are quite low and inadequate to support administrative costs; these
agencies therefore require government funding. Government funding is not adequate
to support the required national activities of pesticides management, including the
establishment and servicing of incentives, disincentives and fines in the overall
enforcement system.
Pesticides use in developing countries is increasing
29.
The FAO representative stressed that the organization’s main focus is on food
production to provide a secure supply of food to an increasing global population.
Since developing countries are experiencing population growth and have limited
available land, there is a focus on intensified food production in these lands to feed
their populations. This intensified activity is expected to result in increased use of
6
fertilizers and pesticides. The recent development to increase use of crops for bioenergy would not improve this situation.
30. It was also highlighted that there are concerns of land degradation and
contamination as a result of pesticides use in many developing countries. However,
data on the scope and extent of degradation is almost universally absent in these
countries, while in developed countries some data are available. Such data is
important for decision making.
Regional and international cooperation
31.
A participant from the Permanent Interstates Committee For Drought Control
(SAHEL) region explained how they have approached the difficulties of lack of
expertise for toxicologists and eco-toxicologists by pooling pesticides registration
resources together for the 9 countries that have similar socio-economic, ecological
and climatic conditions. He also explained that each country in the SAHEL region has
a national pesticides management committee and the SAHEL committee coordinates
their work. Further, field trial data from one country in the SAHEL region is
acceptable for registration purposes to other countries in this region due to similar
environmental conditions. There was considerable discussion on whether such an
approach can in fact provide for a reliable basis for such large geographical areas. It
was widely agreed that further investigations on this topic are needed. A
representative from a developed country stated that her country asks for specific data
which addresses the species that are found in the country, thus capturing the local
ecosystem sensitivity.
32.
A participant from the European Union (EU) region explained how new
pesticides are registered in the EU countries. After the Rapporteur Member State
confirms that the dossier submitted is complete or with no substantial data gaps, the
applicant sends to the Member States and the Commission the full dossier. A
discussion takes place at the Standing Committee on Plant Protection (SCPH) and
after favourable opinion of the SCPH, the Rapporteur Member State starts the detailed
information evaluation of the dossier and prepares a draft assessment report
(monograph). A peer review process is organized with experts from the Member
States on: identity, physical and chemical properties; impact on human and animal
health; fate and behaviour in the environment; eco-toxicology; residues. The
legislation group is informed by the Commission of the conclusions of the peer
reviews.
33.
In the new Plant Protection Products regulation EU is divided into 3 zones,
south, middle and north Europe and if a specific product is approved in one country, it
is approved in all countries within this zone.
34.
Participants agreed that information exchange is crucial for the success of
regional cooperation. Information exchange should include South-South as well as
North-South. Some examples of regional information exchange and cooperation
which currently deal with specific priority issues include SAHEL cooperation in
Africa, Central Asia regional centers dealing with pesticides, Multiletaral
Environment Agreement (MEA) regional centers, the Asia-Pacific region, Comunidad
Andina in the Andean region, activities in the Caribbean. However, most of these are
operating under resource difficulties and require further strengthening. Existing
information resources tools and training (e.g. Chemical Information Exchange
Network (CIEN) administered by UNEP Chemicals) could be used as platforms for
further enhancing information exchange. Specific efforts should be made to capture
7
and disseminate specific information on targeted topics, such as incidents (e.g. spills
and discharges into rivers or other water bodies), handling of obsolete pesticides, etc.
B. Environmental and other local factors in risk assessment/management
Environmental fate and exposure modeling pesticides
35.
Understanding the environmental fate of pesticides in different climatic
conditions is crucial for assessing exposures and evaluating the risks posed by these
chemicals at local level. However, mobility and degradation of chemicals are not well
understood for environmental media and ecosystems in developing countries. There
have been some rather interesting results from recent studies on the movement of
pesticides from lower to higher elevations through evaporation/condensation and
subsequent appearance in streams.
36.
In the tropics, the soil type, crop types, temperature, humidity, topography,
wind, type of agriculture such as small scale, or hydroculture and specific natural
habitat are all quite different from the conditions in temperate zones. Use and dosage
regimes are also often different, e.g. there are differences in pest species that need to
be controlled, quantities used and frequencies of use can differ. Formulations and
compositions of the product may also differ (impurity profiles). Assumptions about
how the pesticides are applied may also be incorrect and differ considerably from the
actual use practices. In some situations there is an overapplication of pesticides per
hectare.
37.
The discussions around existing modeling systems concluded that models
could be adapted for use by countries with a tropical or other special climates and
conditions.
38.
Participants from developing countries noted that pesticide residue monitoring
is generally conducted only in cases of products that are for export to other countries
that require control of residues. Most developing countries do not have laboratories
and capacities for residue analysis and usually there are no systematic programmes
which monitor pesticides residues in products for the local market. Some limited
research studies are conducted by academia, but these cannot be considered
monitoring. There is hence an urgent need for developing national monitoring
programmes in most developing countries.
Ecosystems - vulnerable organisms, fragile ecosystems and endangered
species
39.
Participants from some developing countries informed the meeting that
ecosystems are not usually considered during the assessment of pesticides for
registration. A participant from a developing country pointed out that risk assessments
should but do not take the sensitive ecosystems into account.
40.
Participants discussed the vulnerability of organisms and ecosystems, and the
issue of endangered species. Most tropical ecosystems are complex, diverse and
fragile. The Sahel was cited as a region with a very fragile ecosystem where, for
example, the amphibian population has noticeably declined.
41.
Developing countries lack necessary information on sensitive ecosystems and
their distribution in their countries. Further, participants expressed concern about the
lack of protection of sensitive ecosystems from pesticides pollution. They stated the
importance of protecting the ecosystems and wildlife, including beneficial organisms
8
such as bees and earthworms; biodiversity; endangered and rare species; unique
habitats, sensitive and protected areas (bird resting areas, national parks). Protective
measures should also benefit eco-tourism; cultural and heritage areas and recreational
areas.
Environmental resources and ecosystem services
42.
The discussions also addressed the importance of protecting environmental
resources, such as drinking water resources and economically important
organisms/activities such as shrimp farming and eco-tourism. Heavy use of pesticides
endanger species such birds which are an attraction to tourists.
43.
In most developing countries the scarcity of clean drinking water is an issue of
great concern and therefore, special attention has to be paid to the protection of water
sources from pesticide contamination.
44.
Participants emphasized that drinking water (surface and ground water) is the
most important and priority resource that requires protection from pesticides
pollution. In most developing countries there is no special consideration given to
protect drinking water sources from pesticides pollution. It was also noted that in
some developing countries ALL water is considered drinking water, a point which
succinctly highlights why local conditions need to be considered in risk assessments
and the shortcomings in the current procedures.
45.
Other ecosystem services that were eluded to included, bee pollination, the
nitrogen cycle and soil fertility, water infiltration, CO2 sequestration and economic
activities dependent on healthy environments, which may be particularly sensitive to
pesticides such as fish farming, silkworms, recreational values, cultural and historical
values, among others. Participants also emphasized the need for recognizing
economic incentives to encourage the protection of these types of resources from
adverse effects of pesticides pollution.
Risk reduction and Socio-economic considerations
46.
Socio-economic considerations are not usually factored in the decisions of the
pesticides registrar or in the pesticides registration scheme. Enhanced risk situations
are associated with illiteracy and poor practices due to a lack of awareness of the
potential adverse effects of pesticides. Issues include over-application of pesticides,
use of defective, inadequate or improperly calibrated pesticides application
equipment, lack of personal protecting equipment, application without consideration
of impacts on wildlife or farm-animals, and misuse, including application of the
wrong type of pesticide (e.g. insecticide against fungus infection), application of
market products to repel insects and application in water to kill and catch fish.
47.
Integrated pest management is the careful consideration of all available pest
control techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that discourage
the development of pest populations, keep pesticide use and other interventions to
levels that are economically justified and reduce or minimize risks to human health
and the environment. Integrated pest management emphasizes the growth of a healthy
crop, with the least possible disruption to agro-ecosystems, and encourages natural
pest control mechanisms. The advantages of IPM include but are not limited to
avoidance of adverse health and environmental effects of pesticides, and development
of pesticide resistance. There are a number of examples of integrated pest
management (IPM) being applied in developing countries, and IPM in rice
cultivation has received a lot of support in a number of countries, in particular in Asia.
9
However, after dis-investments in extension services the local farmer communities
receive no guidance on pesticides use and available alternative methods.
48.
Participants also discussed the economic cost to the communities that arise
from pesticides use. The economic costs may include among others, impacts on
environmental resources (pollution of water or economic activities dependent on a
healthy environment) (fish-farms, ecotourism, silk production), potential loss of
export markets as a result of pesticides residues above Maximum Residue Levels
(MRLs). Therefore, guidance for socio-economic studies are needed to understand
how local communities may be affected by pesticides use and there is need for
development of guidance on socio-economic factors to be accounted for in risk
management decisions.
49
A participant from an EU country stated that the EU takes a precautionary
approach to pesticides risk assessment and management. However, they
acknowledged that the precautionary approach may not be feasible for developing
countries and countries with economies in transition where the situation is different
and where other issues e.g. malaria may not make this approach possible.
50.
All participants agreed that there is need to undertake economic impact
analysis studies of pesticides use in developing countries. In order to understand the
full benefits and costs to society arising from pesticides use, such studies should
include externalities. Lessons could be learnt from past experiences e.g. cost-of cleanup for persistent chemicals from the developed countries.
C. Environmental Expert Group
51.
The participants noted that FAO and WHO have expert groups on pesticides
management dealing with agriculture and health aspects respectively. However, they
expressed concern that there is no expert group addressing environmental issues that
are associated with pesticides use. It was suggested that this role should be played by
UNEP Chemicals whose primary focus is to protect the environment from adverse
effects caused by chemicals throughout their lifecycle, and hazardous waste.
X. Conclusions and recommendations
Conclusions
52.
The Meeting made the following conclusions:
ƒ
In most developing countries there is no comprehensive risk assessment
undertaken and registration is done mainly by review of dossier and checking
for completeness. Data from developed countries with strong schemes is
generally accepted without critical review and no evaluation with regard to
differences in the local conditions.
ƒ
Human, technical and financial resources required for risk assessment of
pesticides is lacking. There are no systems to sustain the registration and risk
assessment capacities in countries. There are no training programmes
especially designed for pesticides registrars. Coherent training materials that
are based on FAO Code of Conduct are needed, as well as simplified and easy
to apply guidance documents and procedures to assist registrars when
assessing pesticides products for registration.
10
ƒ
Resources for enforcement and implementation of national legislation are
mostly not adequate. Registration fees normally don’t cover the costs of
national registration programmes and national governments in developing
countries with economies in transition usually bear the full responsibility of
funding the enforcement and implementation of pesticides legislation.
National legislation and enforcement systems for the control of pesticides are
hence weak. Many national pesticide management programmes and pesticide
legislations have not adequately covered all aspects of life cycle of pesticides.
Collaboration and coordination between ministries, and also with private and
public societies is weak or non existent but are required for efficient and
coherent pesticide management programmes.
ƒ
Countries lack the systems for regular training of pesticides inspectors and
analysts. Monitoring programmes are weak and national laboratories and
analysts are lacking and existing ones are not accredited.
ƒ
There is need for strengthening national awareness-raising activities and
pesticides management training programmes as well as locally adapted
guidance documents and tools for pesticides distributors, users and waste
managers in the countries. Dis-investments in extension services have left the
local farmer communities without guidance on pesticides use and available
alternative methods.
ƒ
There are current efforts to join forces through regional and sub-regional
programmes, networking and activities. These efforts include the Committee
on Drought Control in the SAHEL, Common Regulation for Pesticide
Registration in West Africa. However, more regional collaboration efforts of
this nature should be encouraged.
ƒ
Information exchange was considered crucial for successful cooperation at
regional level. Countries need to exchange information and experiences and
CIEN under UNEP could play an important role to facilitate both South to
South and North to South communication. Dissemination of information on
specific topics such as incidents e.g. spill, management of obsolete pesticides
was also requested.
ƒ
In most developing countries and countries with economies in transition there
are no locally based evaluations made for fate and behavior of pesticides,
exposure, or adverse effects that take into account local conditions. Mobility
and degradation of chemicals are not well understood for environmental media
and ecosystems in the developing countries and there are no monitoring
programmes for pesticides residues. In the tropics, the soil type, crop types,
temperature, humidity, topography, wind, type of agricultural activities are all
different from temperate regions, hence; result in different types of exposures.
ƒ
Existing international guidelines and guidance tools on pesticides risk
assessment and management need strengthening regarding environmental
determinants to fully support developing countries and countries with
economies in transition in achieving environmentally sound management of
pesticides
11
ƒ
Expertise and guidance tools for risk assessments and management that take
into account local environmental conditions are largely non-existent in
developing countries and they lack the expertise to use complicated methods
and exposure models to conduct pesticides risk assessment and management.
Existing models could be adapted for use by countries with a tropical or
special climates and conditions.
ƒ
National risk management does not normally address the need to protect
fragile and vulnerable ecosystems in developing and transition countries and
the understanding of the vulnerability of the local environmental organisms
and ecosystems, and endangered species by countries is weak. Ecosystem
sensitivities and their geographical distribution in the countries are not
identified in most countries. Beneficial organisms and protected areas are also
not adequately considered in registration schemes or otherwise protected by
national laws
ƒ
Important environmental resources, including drinking water and
environmentally dependent activities such as shrimp farming, eco-tourism are
not adequately protected by national laws from adverse impacts from use of
pesticides. The protection of water resources should be of highest priority in
most countries and need better protection from pesticide within national laws.
ƒ
Countries do not usually incorporate socio-economic considerations into their
risk management decisions despite their impacts on the actual risk situations.
ƒ
There is a need for economic incentives to encourage the protection of
environmental resources from adverse effects of pesticides pollution.
ƒ
In developing countries, economic impact analysis studies of pesticides use
that include externalities should be conducted. Lessons could be learnt from
past experiences e.g. cost-of clean-up for persistent chemicals from the
developed countries.
ƒ
Population growth, limited available lands are trends that will result in
increased use of pesticides and fertilizers in the developing countries.
ƒ
There is a long-standing need for expert advice to assist countries in ensuring
environmentally sound management of pesticides. An international expert
group is urgently needed to provide such advice and guidance on
environmental determinants for risk assessment and management.
Recommendations
53. The Meeting made the following recommendations to address the various needs
identified:
Need for international expert advice
ƒ Expert group
It was recommended that an expert group be established to assist countries and
other stakeholders in addressing environmental factors and concerns linked to
pesticides use. It was suggested that such an expert group be formed by UNEP
Chemicals with the aim to provide advice and develop appropriate guidance
on specific issues.
12
ƒ Guidance documents
The meeting identified a number of specific areas where advice and guidance
is needed:
o Assistance in identifying fragile and vulnerable ecosystems;
o Guidance on protection of environmental resources and ecosystem
services, giving protection of water resources the highest priority;
o Simplified and easy to apply guidance for conducting risk assessments,
including exposure assessments based on behaviour and fate of
pesticides in different environmental media. Models should be adapted
to needs of countries with tropical and special climates.
Need for improved understanding and assessments of environmental issues in
relation to risks posed by pesticides
ƒ Climatic and other environmental impacts on the fate of pesticides
Capacities to assess behaviour and fate of pesticides in different environmental
media need to be increased to enable countries to adequately assess exposures
from pesticide use under local circumstances.
ƒ Knowledge of ecosystem sensitivities and services
Countries should enhance their understanding of the vulnerability of the local
environmental organisms and ecosystems, and endangered species. Mapping
and prioritization of sensitive ecosystems should be done at national level.
UNEP should coordinate assistance from developed to developing countries
ƒ Understanding particular environmental issues of concern at local level
Countries should fully investigate the impacts of pesticides use at the local
level, including effects on beneficial organisms such as pollinators. UNEP
should aid countries in identifying suitable methodology.
ƒ
Expert guidance on assessment of locally related issues, including
simplified exposure models
UNEP through the expert group and working with other partners should
develop simple and easy to use exposure models for risk assessment.
Need for incorporating environmental and socio-economic concerns into risk
management decisions
ƒ Social considerations impacting risk levels
National decisions in pesticides risk management should take into account the
levels of literacy, awareness of the public on possible risks of pesticides and
training of the persons handling pesticides.
ƒ
Better understanding of local resources and economic activities that may
be adversely impacted from the use of pesticides
Countries should improve the understanding of possible impacts of pesticide
use on important environmental resources, including economically important
activities such as shrimp farming, eco-tourism. Protection of the most
important environmental resources, especially drinking water, should be given
highest priority. Guidance on methodology should be developed.
ƒ
Socio-economic studies
13
Economic impact analysis studies that incorporate externalities are needed and
countries should receive guidance for socio-economic studies for better
understanding of how local communities may be affected by pesticides.
Need for improved legislation and enforcement systems for the control of
pesticides
ƒ Legislation
Countries must strengthen their legislative frame work on pesticides. A
national pesticide management programme and national pesticide legislation
must involve all relevant government agencies. It should address all sectors of
use and ensure that all aspects of the life cycle of pesticides are covered.
Collaboration and coordination among line ministries, the private sector,
NGOs and other national relevant stakeholders should be strengthened.
ƒ Registration
Registration system should be tailored to national needs. The institution with a
national mandate for the administration of pesticides registration and the
responsibilities of other stakeholders should be clearly defined. Activities
requiring registration should be well defined. Local climatic, environmental
conditions and sensitivities of ecosystems should be considered in the
evaluation of pesticides registration scheme.
Countries must explore the potential and investigate the added benefits of
regional collaboration on pesticide registration. UNEP should keep track of,
and encourage such collaboration.
ƒ Enforcement and implementation
Countries should make available adequate resources for the implementation
and enforcement of legislation at national level and preferably provisions for
this should be included in legislation. Developing countries should investigate
the feasibility and applicability of the various funding options that are
available for implementation in developed countries. Countries must
strengthen their national audit and monitoring systems.
Capacity building and training to improve risk management
ƒ Registration authorities
Systems should be developed to sustain the competence of the registration and
risk management cadre. Guidance documents, tools and training
workshops/programmes should be provided.
ƒ Enforcement and control
There should be a system for training of inspectors and analysts and countries
must provide incentives for their retention. Accredit selected national
laboratories and analysts to be used in the registration schemes.
ƒ Pesticide handlers (distributors, users and “waste managers”)
UNEP in collaboration with other international organizations should provide
guidance documents and tools to be used at national level in training pesticides
distributors, users and waste managers. Countries in collaboration with NGOs
and industry should increase their efforts in awareness raising on the adverse
effects of pesticides and training in sound management of pesticides.
14
Regional cooperation and exchange of experiences
Regional and sub-regional networking, information and work sharing on
pesticides should be facilitated and existing structures e.g. SAHEL and CIEN
strengthened and improved. Further, efforts should be made to exchange
experiences and disseminate information on specific topics such as incidents
e.g. spill, management of obsolete pesticides. Preferably, a system should be
established for reporting on incidents and accidents with pesticides. UNEP
should keep track of, and encourage such collaboration.
XII. Closure of the workshop
15
ANNEX I
Agenda
Brainstorming meeting on environmental and other factors needed
for evaluating and managing risks posed by pesticides at local level
Geneva, Switzerland, 1 - 3 July 2009
Agenda
01 July 2009
08:30 – 09:15
09:15 – 09:45
Opening Session
Registration of participants
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
09:45 – 10:00
10:00 – 10:20
Per Bakken
Agneta Sunden – Bylehn
Introduction of participants
UNEP
Resources from international
organizations on pesticides management
Coffee Break
UNEP
Regional experiences related to pesticides risk assessment and management
(Pesticides risk assessment practices in pesticide registrations / control systems in countries and
experiences in addressing local conditions / factors)
10:20 – 12:00
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
12:00 – 12:30
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
10 minutes for each
Burkina Faso/ Sahel
presentation
Jamaica
Kyrgyzstan
Sri Lanka
Serbia
Syria
Tanzania
Thailand
Turkey
Uruguay
Perspectives from developed countries
(Pesticides risk assessment practices in pesticide registrations / control systems in countries and
experiences in addressing local conditions / factors)
12:30 – 14:00
Australia
Sweden/ EU
OECD
Lunch
Presentations by Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) on their activities and initiatives
related to pesticides risk assessment and management
16
14:00 – 15:00
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
15:30 – 15:50
FAO
Crop Life
GTZ
PAN
UNEP’s Information tools to support
risk management strategy
Coffee Break
Experts presentations related to pesticides risk assessment and management
(Analysis of factors that need to be taken into consideration in risk assessment and management in
developing countries and countries with economies in transition)
15:50 – 17:30
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Eco-toxicology
Ecosystem functioning
Climatic and other Environmental
factors
Cornelis van Leeuwen
Sverker Molander
Hans Lokke
***
02 July 2009
Experts presentations related to pesticides risk assessment and management
(Analysis of factors that need to be taken into consideration in risk assessment and management in
developing countries and countries with economies in transition)
ƒ Environmental fate
Martin Scheringerr
9:00 – 10:30
ƒ Environmental resources
Steward Dobson
ƒ Socio-Economic factors
Barry Solomon
ƒ Toolkit for chemical Risk Assessment
Caroline Vickers
10:30 – 10:50
Coffee Break
12:30 – 14:00
Review the current pesticides risk
assessment and management tools and other
possible supportive administrative tools to
lead into discussion on special needs and
circumstances of developing countries and
countries with economies in transition
Lunch
14:00 – 15:30
Break away groups to address the
following theme:
10:50 – 12:30
UNEP
UNEP
Identify the needs of developing countries
and countries with economies in transition
and strategies to address the identified
needs on
Group 1
ƒ Climatic and environmental factors
ƒ Environmental fate
ƒ Eco-toxicology and ecosystem
functioning
17
ƒ
ƒ
15:30 – 16:00
16:00 – 18:30
Group 2
Environmental resources
Socio-economic factors
Coffee Break
Break away groups discussions continue
***
03 July 2009
Plenary
9:00 – 10:30
10:30 – 11:00
UNEP
Presentations and discussions of the
outcomes
of group discussions
Coffee Break
Plenary
11:00 – 12:30
General discussions to reach a common
understanding of the required support from
international, sub-regional and academic
institutions and suitable strategies /
activities or other operative means.
ƒ
ƒ
Outputs and outcomes.
Identify main gaps and needs
Identify solutions and strategies for
addressing the gaps and needs at three
levels: International, regional and
national level
12:30 – 14:00
Lunch
14:00 – 16:30
Plenary
Develop the final conclusions,
recommendations and the followup activities to the meeting
****
18
ANNEX II: List of participants
Mr. Yacouba Sanou
Ingénieur d’Agriculture
Protection des Vegetaux
Ministère de l’Agriculture,
de l’Hydraulique
et des Ressources Halieutiques
Ouagadougou
Burkina Faso
Tel: (+226) 5036 1915 / 5037 0139
Fax: (+226) 5036 1865 / 5033 0865
Ms. Ainash Sharshenova
Head of Dept. of Environmental Health
Scientific and Production Centre for
Preventive Medicine
34 Baitik Baatyr Str.
Bishkek 720005
Kyrgyz Republic
Tel./fax: (+996 312) 544573
E-mail: shainak@totel.kg;
asharshenova@yahoo.com
E-mail: sanouyacouba2002@yahoo.fr
Ms. Luisa Eugenia Castillo Martinez
Vice-President for Reseach
Department for Research
Central American Institute for Studies
on Toxic Substances, National University
Appartado Postale 86-3000
Heredia
Costa Rica
Fax: (+506) 277 3583
E-mail: lcastill@una.ac.cr
Mr. Hans Lokke
Director of Research Department
National Environmental Research Institute
Department of Terrestrial Ecology
Aarhus University
Vejlsovej 25, P.O. Box 314
DK-8600 Silkeborg
Denmark
Tel: (+45 8) 920 1482 (direct)
Fax: (+45 8) 920 1413
E-mail: hlo@dmu.dk
Mr. Wolfgang A. Schimpf
Senior Advisor
German Technical Cooperation (GTZ)
Dag-Hammarskjöld-Weg 1-5
65760 Eschborn
Germany
Tel.: +49 (6196) 79 7562
Fax: +49 (6196) 79 807562
Email: Wolfgang.Schimpf@gtz.de
Mr. Cornelis Van Leeuwen
Principal Scientist
TNO Quality of Life
(The Netherlands Organisation for Applied
Scientifc Research)
Ulrechtseweg 48, P.O. Box 360
3700 AJ Zeist
The Netherlands
Tel: (+31 30 6944965
Fax: (+31 30) 695 6742
E-mail: k.vanleeuwen@tno.nl
Ms. Abiola Olanipekun
Chief Environmental Scientist
Department of Pollution Control
Federal Ministry of Environment
Plot 14, Aguiyi Ironsi Street
Maitama District
Abuja
Nigeria
Tel. + 234 80231 75742
E-mail: abiolanipekun@yahoo.co.uk
Mr. Abou Thiam
Regional Coordinator
Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Africa
B.P. 15938
Dakar
Senegal
Tel.: +221 (33) 8254914
Fax: +221 (33) 8251443
Email: abouthiam@pan-afrique.org
Ms. Valentina Radjenovic
Head of Chemicals Department
Ministry of Environment and Spartial
Planning
91, Dr Ivan Ribara Street
11070 Belgrade
Republic of Serbia
Tel: (+381 11) 21 58 759
Fax: (+381 11) 22 87 553
Mr. Martin Scheringer
Safety and Environmental Technology
Group, Institute for Chemical and
Bioengineering, Room HCI G 127
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
ETH Zuerich, Wolfgang-Pauli-Str. 10
CH-8093 Zurich
Switzerland
Tel: (+41-44)-632 30 62
Fax: (+41-44)-632 11 89
Email: scheringer@chem.ethz.ch
E-mail: valentina.radjenovic@ekoplan.gov.rs
Mr. Gamini Manuweera
Registrar of Pesticides
Office of the Registrar of Pesticides
Department of Agriculture
PO Box 49
Peradeniya
Sri Lanka
Tel: (+94 811) 238 8076
Fax: (+94 811) 238 8135
Mr. Steve Maund
Fungicides Section Leader
Global Product Registration
Syngenta
WRO 1004.4.03 - Postfach
4002 Basel
Switzerland
Tel: (+41 61) 323 8471
Fax: (+41 61) 323 8970
E-mail: Steve.maund@syngenta.com
E-mail: pest@slt.lk; gaminimanu@gmail.com
Mr. Gerhard Krautstrunk
Global Regulatory Manager, Insecticides
Bayer CropScience
BCS AG-D-GRA, Building 6100, Room
E2., Alfred-Nobel Strasse 50
40789 Monheim, Germany
Tel: +2173 38 7350
Fax: +2173 38 3580
Ms. Karin Hanze
Senior Scientific Officer
International Secretariat
Swedish Chemicals Agency
Ministry of Environment
P.O. Box 2, S-172 13 Sundbyberg
Sweden
Tel: +46-8-5194 1100
Fax: +46-8-735 76 98
E-mail: karin.hanze@kemi.se
E-mail:
gerhard.krautstrunk@bayercropscience.com
Mr. Jonathan Akhabuhaya
Registrar of Pesticides
Tropical Pesticides Research Institute
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security
P.O.Box 3024
Arusha
Tanzania
Tel: (+255) 763 359 415
Fax: (+255 27) 250 5871
E-mail: akhabuhaya@yahoo.co.uk
Mr. Sverker Molander
Professor
Environmental Systems Analysis /
Energy & Environment
Chalmers University of Technology
SE-412 96 Gothenburg
Sweden
Tel: (+46 31) 772 21 69
Fax: (+46 31) 772 2172
E-mail: sverker.molander@chalmers.se
20
Ms. Sakine Ugurlu
Agricultural Engineer
Plant Protection Centre Research Institute
Department of Physiology and Toxicology
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Gayret Mah. Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bulv. No.
66-68A, 06172 Yenimalalle-Ankara
Turkey
Tel: +90 312-344 5994 /202
Fax: (+90 312-315 1531
E-mail: sugurlu@hotmail.com
Mr. Paul Whylie
Scientific Affairs Officer
Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention
United Nations Environment Programme
11-13 Chemin des Anémones
CH-1219 Châtelaine
Geneva
Switzerland
Tel: (41 22) 917 8305
Fax: (41 22) 917 8098
E-mail: PWhylie@pops.int
Mr. Stuart Dobson
Chemical Risk Assessment & Safety
Birchtree House, Jones Drove
Angle Bridge, Whittlesey
Peterborough PE7 2HW
United Kingdom
Tel: (+44 0) 1733 841199
Fax: (+44 0) 7770 301666
E-mail: stuart.dobson@birchtree.uk.com
Mr. Mark Davis
Plant Production and Protection Division
Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Prot.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO)
Vialle delle Terme di Caracalla
I-00100 Rome
Italy
Tel: +(39 06) 5705 2188
Fax: +(39 06) 5705 6347
E-mail: Mark.Davis@fao.org
Ms. Ann D. Herbert
Agricultural Specialist
Sectoral Activities Department
International Labour Organization
4, route des Morillons
CH-1211 Chatelaine
Geneva
Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 799 7111
Fax: +41 22 799 7967
E-mail: herbert@ilo.org
Mr. Barry D. Solomon
Professor
Department of Social Sciences
Michigan Technological University
1400 Townsend Drive
Houghton, MI 49931-1295
United States of America
Tel: (+1 906) 487 1791
Fax: (+1 906) 487 2468
E-mail: bdsolomo@mtu.edu
Mr. Moustapha Kamal Gueye
Economic Affairs Officer
Economics and Trade Branch
Division of Technology, Industry
and Economics
United Nations Environment Programme
11-13, Chemin des Anemones
CH-1219 Chatelaine
Geneva
Switzerland
Tel: + 4122 917 82 55
Fax: + 4122 917 80 76
E-mail: MoustaphaKamal.Gueye@unep.ch
Ms. Jacqueline Alvarez Mourelle
Directora
Nominated Regional Center
Laboratorio Tecnológico del Uruguay
(LATU), Avda. Italia 6201
11500 Montevideo
Uruguay
Tel.: (+598 2) 917 0710 / 917 4106
Fax: (+598 2) 917 0710 / 917 4170
E-mail: jacque.alva@gmail.com
jacqueline.alvarez@dinama.gub.uy
21
Ms. Neslihan Grasser
Scientific Affairs Officer
Rotterdam Convention
United Nations Environment Programme
11-13, Chemin des Anemones
CH-1219 Chatelaine
Geneva
Switzerland
Tel: + 4122 917 82 55
Fax: + 4122 917 80 76
E-mail: ngrasser@pic.int
Mr. Kaj Madsen
Senior Scientific Affairs Officer
Chemicals Branch, Division of Technology,
Industry and Economics
United Nations Environment Programme
11-13, Chemin des Anemones
CH-1219 Chatelaine, Geneva
Switzerland
Tel: + 4122 917 8258
Fax: + 4122 797 3460
E-mail: kmadsen@chemicals.unep.ch
Ms. Carolyn Vickers
Team Leader, Chemical Safety
World Health Organization
20 Avenue Appia
CH-1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 1286
Fax: +41 22 791 4848
Mobile: +41 79 472 9560
E-mail: vickersc@who.int
Ms. Sheila Logan
Scientific Affairs Officer
Chemicals Branch, Division of Technology,
Industry and Economics
United Nations Environment Programme
11-13, Chemin des Anemones
CH-1219 Chatelaine, Geneva
Switzerland
Tel: + 4122 917 8511
Fax: + 4122 797 3460
E-mail: slogan@chemicals.unep.ch
Ms. Nida Besbelli
Consultant
Senior Scientific Affairs Officer
Chemicals Branch, Division of Technology,
Industry and Economics
United Nations Environment Programme
11-13, Chemin des Anemones
CH-1219 Chatelaine, Geneva
Switzerland
Tel: + 4122 917 8822
Fax: + 4122 797 3460
E-mail: nbesbelli@chemicals.unep.ch
CHEMICALS BRANCH, UNEP
Mr. Per Bakken
Head, Chemicals Branch, Division of
Technology, Industry and Economics
United Nations Environment Programme
11-13, Chemin des Anemones
CH-1219 Chatelaine, Geneva
Switzerland
Tel: + 4122 917 8183
Fax: + 4122 797 3460
E-mail: pbakken@chemicals.unep.ch
Mr. Cyrille Siewe
Scientific Affairs Officer
Chemicals Branch, Division of Technology,
Industry and Economics
United Nations Environment Programme
11-13, Chemin des Anemones
CH-1219 Chatelaine, Geneva
Switzerland
Tel: + 4122 917 8437
Fax: + 4122 797 3460
E-mail: csiewe@chemicals.unep.ch
Ms. Agneta Sundén-Byléhn
Senior Scientific Affairs Officer
Chemicals Branch, Division of Technology,
Industry and Economics
United Nations Environment Programme
11-13, Chemin des Anemones
CH-1219 Chatelaine, Geneva
Switzerland
Tel: + 4122 917 81 93
Fax: + 4122 797 3460
E-mail: asunden@chemicals.unep.ch
22
Mr. Nelson Manda
Programme Officer
Chemicals Branch, Division of Technology,
Industry and Economics
United Nations Environment Programme
11-13, Chemin des Anemones
CH-1219 Chatelaine, Geneva
Switzerland
Tel: + 4122 917 8932
Fax: + 4122 797 3460
E-mail: nmanda@chemicals.unep.ch
Mr. Kevin Munn
Programme Officer
Chemicals Branch, Division of Technology,
Industry and Economics
United Nations Environment Programme
11-13, Chemin des Anemones
CH-1219 Chatelaine, Geneva
Switzerland
Tel: + 4122 917 81 86
Fax: + 4122 797 34 60
E-mail: kmunn@chemicals.unep.ch
23
ANNEX III
Questions and issues addressed by the working groups.
Group 1 (Chair: Mr. Svenker Molander)
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
What are the data gaps and needs related to the factors (climate change, ecology)
in present practices for addressing local/national issues in risk assessment and risk
management decisions, their implementation and follow up? in developing
countries and countries with economies in transition?
Prioritize the needs.
Identify to which extent the needs and gaps in present practices may be addressed
through existing international and regional tools / resources and where further
work would be needed.
Identify how such work may be carried out, by whom, and what products /
outputs could be most useful for countries in addressing their needs.
What could be the future role of this group in addressing these needs?
Group 2 (Chair: Mr. Barry Solomon)
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
What are the data gaps and needs related to the socio-economic factors in present
practices for addressing local/national issues in risk assessment and risk
management decisions, their implementation and follow up?) in developing
countries and countries with economies in transition?
What are the predominant agricultural land use patterns and practice in
developing countries and countries with economies in transition?
What are the agricultural policies and subsidies in these countries?
What is the role of international agricultural trade in these countries?
Prioritize the needs.
Identify to which extent the needs and gaps in present practices may be addressed
through existing international and regional tools / resources and where further
work would be needed.
Identify how such work may be carried out, by whom, and what products /
outputs could be most useful for countries in addressing their needs.
What could be the future role of this group in addressing these needs?
24
ANNEX IV
Working Group reports
WORKING GROUP 1
Chair: Mollander
Reporting: Van Leeuwen
Factors affecting pesticide fate, exposure and effects on non-target organisms and
ecosystem services – climate, ecology and ectotoxicology
Questions proposed
The work of the group takes start from a review of the current international pesticides
risk assessment and risk management tools in order to meet the special needs and
circumstances of developing countries and countries in transition:
1) What are the data gaps and needs related to the factors (climate change,
ecology) in present practices for addressing local/national issues in risk
assessment and risk management decisions, their implementation and
follow up in developing countries and countries with economies in
transition
2) Prioritize the needs
3) Identify to which extent the needs and gaps in present practices may be
addressed through existing international and regional tools/resources
and where further work would be needed
4) Identify how such work may be carries out, by whom, and what products
/ outputs could be most useful for countries in addressing their needs
5) What could be the future role of this group in addressing these needs
Other questions coming from the group
1) Capacities needed
2) Quality assurance of the registration process (what are the minimal requirements,
who is responsible, who delivers the information, reporting format,
level/requirements of the registrant, etc)
3) Simple tools (how to do registrations in a relatively easy manner with easily
obtainable information) with simple forms with simple rules of thump or
extremely simple models. NB. In many countries RA is not used at all.
4) Identification of gaps and needs
5) Differences between developing countries and developed countries
6) Data requirements
7) Policy instruments
8) What can we learn/use from high quality RA’s done in developed countries or
international organizations and how can we use that in developing countries and
countries with economies in transition. More specifically:
25
a. what can we use?,
b. what is different such as protection aims, data/methodologies,
circumstances (i.e. soil type, crops type, temperature, humidity,
topography, wind, type of agriculture such as small scale, large scale,
hydroculture, specific natural habitat) leading to different exposure
situations) and the differences in flora/fauna/pest species that need to be
controlled. Other dosing regimes such as quantities used and frequencies
of use are also important. Formulations and compositions of the product
may also differ (impurity profiles) Assumptions about how people apply
the pesticides may also be wrong and differ greatly (other equipment or no
personal protecting equipment (ppe), overdosing/ application, illiteracy
etc.).
c. and what should be assessed/adapted (following simple methodologies)
9) Could we not regionalize some of the assessments schemes in a tiered manner or
could not we ask de manufacturers to provide tiered levels of information and
assessments following tiered approaches that can be modified by the countries for
which registrations are required in a very easy manner
Preliminary conclusions
1) We have identified exposure as one of the most important factors which can
differ between countries/regions/crops. It must be possible to develop a simple
tiered system (consisting of forms and simple exposure models) that can be
applied in the developing countries or countries with economies in transition that
will address environmental end points.
2) It is not difficult to modify existing exposure models into (very) simple models
or into an exposure toolkit for the estimation of exposure concentrations in
different media (soil, water, groundwater, sediment, air) for different
(exposure)scenarios along the lines of control banding like what has been done for
industrial chemicals (see e.g. ILO Toolkit). The tools can be adapted to the
specific needs of the countries/regions/crops and for different climatic and
ecosystem scenarios.
3) Countries need to agree on the information requirements per tier. A multistakeholder approach with the developing countries is necessary to do this.
4) We agreed that further regional collaboration on pesticide registration is an
important issue and can save a lot of resources, i.e. preventing duplication by
sharing the burden was advocated.
5) Reduce animal testing if it is not really necessary. We agreed on the fact that
for pesticide registration a lot of ecotoxicity data are already provided and that, in
general, it is not necessary to ask for further ecotoxicity data, unless specific
highly sensitive ecosystems are at risk. For example to ask for another fish tests
26
on an indigenous species in case already 3 or 4 different internationally agreed
fish species have been tested adequately will not reduce uncertainty to a great
extend. Multi-stakeholder collaboration to achieve this is key.
6) It is important to make information available on incidents and accidents with
pesticides in the registration process, such as fish kills. There should be a system
established for reporting on incidents and accidents. It is necessary to share this
information among countries and to use this in the registration, de-registration and
re-registration process.
7) We agreed on the fact that we need clear regulations for pesticides, where clarity
is provided on who participates in the registration process, who provides the
information, how information is processed
8) Education and training is important too, not only for the risk assessors (how to
handle the tools and minimum quality requirements of the risk assessors) but also
for the regulators and all other people who apply the pesticides and implement
and enforce the pesticide legislation
9) Legislation is only as strong as its implementation and enforcement. Adequate
resources must be available and remain available. This must be a clear political
priority and politicians need to be sensitized.
10) Nine principles for developing reliable registrations have been proposed: 1)
GLP quality assurance, 2) core essential data requirements, 3) animal use and
welfare, 4) mutual acceptance of data, 5) tiered approaches, 6) dialogue with
regulators, 7) responsibility data call in, 8) harmonisation of standards, 9) sciencebased decision making. Roles and responsibilities need to be defined.
11) We should include the environment (and not only human health) in the Joint
Meetings on Pesticides process and we need a separate expert group for
environmental data.
12) We further need to discuss the issue of de-registration and re-registration
13) We also need to address how to deal with pesticides which have been withdrawn
from the market in the developed countries (e.g. in the EU) but are used or may be
used in the developing countries and countries with economies in transition. This
brings in the need to define a clear core data set for the environment for
registration of these data-poor pesticides.
14) Further harmonization of pesticide management and assessment activities in
different international bodies remains essential in the coming years.
27
Group 2
Chair: Barry Solomon
Reporting: Hans Løkke
Q1: No clear predominance of agricultural land use patterns and practise was identified
across countries. Small family farms are predominating in some countries (India, China).
In other countries extensive, large farms dominate.
High rate of pesticide use in cash crops like cotton, sugar canes, rice, fruits, flowers, soya
beans. Export crops are under international control.
Small farmers and big farmers do no face the same problems. Problems in dense
populated areas with intensive production is different from areas with extensive farming.
Q2 & Q3: Market mechanisms govern the use of pesticides and how they are applied,
fulfilling international standards for product quality, e.g. MRLs. In many developing
countries extension services are eroded due to changes in the economic systems as
suggested by the World Bank.
Lots of investments from foreign countries in Africa to increase food production (food
security) and bionergy. FAO Summit in Rome 2007 on Food Security including issues on
climate change and bioenergy.
Q4: Social factors are predominant in many parts of the World. Based on religious or
traditional reasons, some farmers believe that burning renovates the soil or that local low
yield seeds are better than modern high yield seeds. Local sociological studies are
needed to understand such communities.
Recommendation: Awareness on the implication of killing non-target organisms
acting as natural enemies. Awareness on the need for protection of preserved nature
areas. Understand the benefit for tourism.
It is a potential problem that when new methods or inputs are introduced, it may be
difficult to return to former practise. Examples: The more pesticides they use, the better,
or the use of banned PBT pesticides are believed to be better than new and more safe
compounds. Old sustainable, but not necessary efficient farming systems may be lost
after one generation (30 years).
Recommendation: There is a need for teaching on alternative plant protection
products or alternative sustainable methods. In addition there is
More differentiation of toxicological and ecotoxicological threshold values across the
World are needed, for example the targets and non-targets may be very different. Also
indicators for production may be adjusted across countries.
Recommendation: Guidelines for assessment of externalities are needed.
28
There is a strong responsibility from industries in marketing pesticides in developing
countries and countries with transitions economies in relation to correct and safe use of
high quality pesticide products. However, there is also a need for independent extension
services to cope with obsolete pesticide use.
Enforcement
In the registration of pesticides, the enforcement part is essential. The enforcement is
poor to nonexistent in some countries. There is a lack of instruments to refuse import of
low quality products.
Recommendations: Training of the farmers and quality control of pesticide
formulations are needed. Safe handling of empty pesticide containers (organised
collection, deposits paid and returned to users – Comments: only possible in dense
populated areas, may be hazardous for children).
Obsolete pesticides. Illegal import is a great problem. Such products are sold by small
trade companies.
Recommendations: Inventoring the status of outdated pesticides, black markets and
illegal products of such compounds, and making national strategies for solving the
problems. A UNEP guideline on inventorying and making strategies may be useful.
Effective and independent chemical inspection services are needed. Also use of
pesticides out of purpose should be inspected. For all registrered pesticide products,
the quality should meet international standards.
Provision for technological support to developing countries and countries with economies
in transition.
Mismanagement of pesticides:
No use of safety equipment. Children go spraying. No care of environment and pollution
of food and drinking water (surface water and drinking water).
29