|
Cycle 7 (2018 Deadline)
Rapid assessment of the pesticide network and its influence on the use of pesticides in Cambodian agriculture
PI: Vichet Sorn (sornvi70@gmail.com), General Directorate of Agriculture
U.S. Partner: Rica Joy Flor, International Rice Research Institute (former partner Buyung Hadi, until March 2020)
Dates: November 2018 - August 2021
Project Overview
The increasing pesticide use in Cambodia is a widely acknowledged problem, with limited solutions. In the last decade, pesticides imported into Cambodia increased 285 times, implying a significant increase in pesticide use (CEDAC 2010, FAO 2012, Khun and Ngin 2014). The proposed research aims to understand the composition and characteristics of the network disseminating information and pesticide-based technologies. It also aims to bring out insights how this network functions to spread pesticides in Cambodia. Such insights about the pesticide network in Cambodia can be used to generate well-targeted interventions for pesticide policy, and inform extension efforts to ease the technological lock-in to support IPM.
The first objective of this project is to assess the pesticide network in Cambodia in terms of composition, function, and methods to bring information and products to Cambodian farmers. This will entail the identification of the stakeholders at the national, provincial, and community levels, as well as characterization of the linkages in the innovation system around pesticides and development of a better understanding of how they function to enable the spread of pesticides. The second objective is to examine the arrangements and practices in farming communities that maintain and encourage the practice of pesticide reliance. This will involve gaining a better understanding of community-level arrangements and practices that support the spread of information on pesticides and promote the accessibility of pesticide products and technologies to the farmers. To accomplish these objectives, the PI and his team will implement a stakeholder mapping of the pesticide network through representative stakeholders (e.g., legislative staff, national research agency officials, pesticide importers, distributors, retailers, farmers, local extension workers, NGO representatives, etc.). This will generate an overview of the network, its key players, and the important linkages around pesticides. Building from the data gathered, the team will interview the identified key stakeholders on the linkages, functions, and arrangements around pesticide importation and distribution (for both knowledge and products). In complement with those identified in the stakeholder map, they will include additional stakeholders to ensure there are representatives from national, provincial, and farming community levels. Lastly, the researchers will implement focus group discussions with community-level stakeholders (e.g. farmers, laborers, and women) in four Cambodian provinces on the practices and arrangements that enable pesticide access and use for farmers.
Although pointed out as a culprit, the pesticide network has up to now remained in a black box. Many ills are attributed to it, but not much is known, and seemingly nothing can be done. Understanding this network could have implications on the way alternative technologies such as integrated pest management (IPM) could be promoted. While there is pesticide legislation, the policy sector requires nuanced understanding of the pesticide network and how it actually functions, so that effective interventions can be implemented. Hence, this project should benefit not only research and extension for IPM but also policy towards curbing the misuse, overuse, and reliance on pesticides. Ultimately, such policies can help address the broader economic, health, and environmental problems faced by Cambodian farming communities.
Final Summary of Project Activities
This PEER project focused on three main objectives. The first was to assess the pesticide network in terms of composition, function, and effectiveness of its mechanisms for bringing products to farmers. This was accomplished through interviewing various stakeholders such as public sector officials; small, medium, and larger pesticide importing companies; pesticide dealers in provincial towns and districts; and farmers. The second main objective was to test commercially available management options for fall army worm (FAW), an effort that was conducted in two wet seasons: 2019 and 2020. The treatments for the 2019 wet season were (1) doing nothing as a control, (2) applying pesticides as per farmers’ standard practices (Emamectin Benzoate 4% followed by Emamectin Benzoate 5%), (3) applying pesticides as per recommendations from companies or literature (Chlorantiniliprole, followed by Emamectin Benzoate 5%, followed by Chlorantiniliprole), and (4) applying a bio-control agent (Beauveria bassiana applied three times). The research team replicated the experiment was replicated in the 2020 wet season and added another bio-control treatment (Beauveria bassiana applied only two times). The third objective involved regional consultation workshops organized to present and discuss the findings.
The researchers found that there are no companies producing chemical pesticides in Cambodia; all pesticides are imported. Pesticide importing companies must first complete a business registration with the Ministry of Commerce (MoC) and then complete a process with the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF) if they wish to import any pesticide products, to ensure they have the capacity to handle pesticide products, including having a warehouse outside the city limits. This process is managed through the Department of Agricultural Legislation (DAL), which then coordinates with the National Agricultural Laboratory (NAL), the agency mandated to test the products in the laboratory, and the Department of Plant Protection, Sanitary, and Phyto-Sanitary (DPPSPS), which implements field tests for the product. The results go to DAL, which makes its ruling and issues any permits approved. After receiving a permit from DAL, the company imports pesticides and distributes them to its dealers and retailers in the provinces. Meanwhile, the Provincial Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (PDAFF) is mandated to make inspections and enforce pesticide policies at the level of wholesale dealers and retailers in the provinces.
Based on the results of interviews with 57 small, medium, and large pesticide companies, the PEER team found that these companies sold an average of six different types of products, including herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, bactericides, rodenticides, molluscicides, biological control agents, fertilizers, growth regulators, traps, and other small agricultural equipment. All companies sold insecticides and 96% sold herbicides; they also cited these as the products in greatest demand. Notably, only 6% sold bio-control agents or products safe for organic farming. These companies on the average sold 28 different brands (ranging from 5 to 100). Most of the importers sourced their products from China. The companies had a clear understanding of the processes to start operations and to register products. Many have mentioned the ease with which they can navigate the processes, especially after going through them a few times. The process is clear, from business permits, product samples and dossiers submitted to DAL for registration, further testing through GDA, permit acquisitions for warehousing and importing, and creation of labels conforming to the standards. A few companies (4%) mentioned difficulties, in particular because they did not know the processes, wanted better communications with the government agencies, or felt the processes were expensive. About 3% of the companies interviewed go through agents or local partners to facilitate the registration process. For all, the entire registration process takes two to four months, with the resulting permit valid for three years. For most companies, it means that every two years they have to go through the registration process. The respondents mentioned that if the process were streamlined, it could result in cheaper products.
The results of the team’s experiment on commercially available management options for FAW showed lower plant infestation damage scores for the pesticide treatments compared with the control (do nothing) and treatment with Beauveria bassiana. However, in the 2019 wet season experiment, the treatment T3 with Beauveria bassiana obtained the highest yield with doing nothing having the lowest yield among the four treatments applied. In the 2020 wet season, the yield from Treatment 2 (Chlorantraniliprole followed by Emamectin benzoate followed by Chlorantraniliprole) had the highest yield, while treatments with Beauveria bassiana (2 or 3 times) showed yields not much higher than doing nothing. Further details on the experimental protocol and results are available from the PI through the email address shown above.
In conclusion, this research has found a dense network of pesticide industry actors in Cambodia. These are governed by a policy process for pesticide registration, importation, sale, and use mandated by the country’s pesticide law. Specific actors have functions, and the connections between national level importers and national government agencies support the local level actors. These local level actors include dealers and sales staff, as well as retailers and farmers, and they facilitate product distribution. Given these arrangements and the constraints being experienced by companies and regulators, there is a huge gap in bringing new products to market, such as more sustainable organic or biological control products. In the case of the recent FAW outbreak, the network was informed and ready with recommendations for pesticides. The PI Mr. Sorn and his colleagues also found that many of the products were either ineffective or hazardous. The PEER team held five dissemination meetings in July and August 2021 to brief PDAFF officials in Banteay Meanchey, Battambang, Takeo, Kampong Cham, and Kampong Chhnang provinces, as well as a final consultative meeting with public and private sector stakeholders in Phnom Penh on August 26. During these events, they shared not only their technical findings but also recommendations for the pesticide industry to enable greater adoption of sustainable options. At the time of his final report in November 2021, Mr. Sorn was involved in discussions within the government (MAFF) to devolve responsibility regarding permits for wholesale and retail pesticide sales in the provinces to the Provincial Administration to be included in the single-window services the agency offers. The responsibility for monitoring and training pesticide sellers would remain with PDAFF. This division of tasks could improve the permit issuance process, as well as compliance monitoring for the pesticide law. This initiative is currently under review by several government agencies.
Back to PEER Cycle 7 Grant Recipients
|
|
|
|
