10 years of FAO Code fails to reduce hazard problems

Few codes of good practice can point to the universal acknowledgement  achieved by the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides in receiving almost. Barbara Dinham of the Pesticides Trust [now PAN UK] reports on the problems of implementation.

Adoapted at the 1985 FAO Conference, the Code has been accepted by governments and industry. It is held in high regard by NGOs and is a benchmark in national and international law and regulation addressing pesticide issues. An FAO survey conducted for the tenth anniversary of the Code which shows that health and environmental problems have not significantly improved is therefore all the more disappointing and points to the need for more rigorous action.

Survey findings
When adopting the Code in 1985, the FAO Conference asked governments to monitor observance, and lengthy questionnaires were circulated in 1986 and 1993, enabling a comparison of progress. A full analysis of the 144 questions in the second questionnaire will be completed during 1995, but initial observations indicate some disturbing results(1).

• In Africa, Latin America and Asia practices do not yet "approach the level of pesticide management observed in developed countries."

•  "Health hazards remain a major preoccupation and improvement on this point generally appeared to be limited."

•  "The effect of pesticides on the environment was only studied in a few developing countries and in a minority of developed countries. The reported situation was substantially worse than in 1986, which may reflect the increased awareness of the importance of the subject."

•  "Although there appears to be some progress on quality, formulation, packaging and labelling, much remains to be done on these issues by industry which does not presently follow products to its end-users."

On a positive note, there has been significant progress on pesticide legislation and regulations relating to availability, distribution and use and only a few countries now have no pesticide legislation. The difficulty remains in implementation, where government resources are "modest to insufficient". In spite of the regulatory framework, the differences in the situation in Latin America in 1986 and 1993 were disappointingly small. Africa remains the region with almost minimal pesticide management capacity, and has received little external assistance on pesticide management.
    The report suggests a number of actions to address the problems. In particular, more should be done to "help developing countries within the principles of integrated pest management, sustainable development and improvement of the quality of life." Lack of knowledge of alternative methods of pest management is a major problem, and support for these, including funding for IPM, is a priority. FAO suggests that assistance to Africa to improve pest and pesticide management is urgently required, while not neglecting other regions.
    Finally, the report points out that the Code should be regarded as a dynamic text, which should now be reviewed, taking account of technical, economic and social problems. The FAO Council meeting of June 1995 agreed a five year timetable for review.

Progress on PIC
The FAO survey indicated that almost all countries have found the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure-adopted into an amended Code in 1989-useful. The PIC procedure allows governments to consent to or prohibit the import of pesticides which have been banned, severely restricted, or withdrawn from use for health or environmental reasons. There are now 127 governments participating to the extent that they have appointed a 'designated national authority' (DNA) as the country co-ordinator for the PIC procedure.
    Nevertheless, there have been frustrations with the slow implementation of PIC and some governments believe that the voluntary nature of the Code may be partly responsible for the difficulties. FAO and UNEP have taken steps to develop a Convention covering the PIC procedure which they operate jointly and set a timetable for negotiations over 1995-96. These negotiations may allow the scope to be broadened. However at the UNEP Council meeting in May, the Danish and Malaysian governments were over-ruled in a move to have the Convention include a ban on the export of chemicals banned in the exporting country.
    The Secretariats are slowly resolving some of the initial problems in implementing PIC, and the pace may quicken. Many countries have dragged their feet in setting up decision making structures which recognise the role of the DNA and which have the authority to take decisions to 'permit' or 'prohibit' the import of pesticides in the PIC procedure. A shortage of simple information explaining the purpose and structure of PIC to DNAs has not helped, and a good brief overview is now available to fill this gap (2). Training in operating PIC is very important, and while some DNAs have attended workshops run through a UNEP/UNITAR programme, there have been no workshops in Africa. UNEP has not allocated any further funds for the UNITAR training programme. Until recently, FAO has had problems raising funds for training but has now secured European Union support for workshops in Africa.
    One difficulty has been that government information on their control actions is frequently slow in coming, and ambiguous as regards the legal status. This means that only 12 pesticides are included-defined as the date a decision guidance document (DGD) on a chemical is circulated to governments. The secretariat has now identified others, and a meeting of the FAO/UNEP joint group of experts on PIC (3) in March 1995, confirmed that 12 of these (11 pesticides) meet the criteria for PIC, and prioritised six (all pesticides). A further problem has been the slow pace of incorporating pesticides not banned, but causing problems under conditions of use in developing countries into the PIC procedure. However five of these have now been identified and their DGDs will be expedited. The expert group gave highest priority to bringing identified compounds into the PIC procedure.
    The negotiations over a legally-binding instrument, and a meeting planned by the European Commission (DGXI) in July, will provide opportunities to raise the need for stronger measures-as underlined by the findings of the FAO Survey. A paper prepared by the Pesticides Trust [now PAN UK] and Consumers International for the March 1995 meeting of the joint expert group is available (4).

References
1. FAO, Review of the Implementation of the International code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, COAG/95/8, January 1995.
2. FAO/UNEP Joint Programme for the operation of PIC, Prior Informed Consent: A brief overview of what it is and how it operates, 1995.
3. FAO/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on PIC, 8th meeting, 7-10 March 1995, Geneva, draft report.
4. Dinham, Barbara and Macfarlane, R., Informed Consent-A discussion paper on strengthening its effectiveness, February 1995.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 28, June 1995, pages 6-7]