Abstract
Consequent upon the
institution of liberal policies by the Government of Pakistan in
1980s, aimed at transferring the import and sale of chemical
pesticides to the private sector, numerous companies entered the
country’s pesticide market. Easy imports, low prices and
availability of a variety of pesticides were distinct advantages of
these liberal policies. On the other hand, Agriculture Extension
lacked the capacity and necessary expertise to monitor such a long
range of pesticide products available in the market, reflecting
imperfect competition and a high level of windfall profits. As a
result, the sale of substandard pesticides is a common problem of
farming community. Besides, overuse and misuse of pesticide by
untrained farmers increased the health and environmental risks
especially in the prime cotton growing districts. The status of
pesticide industry in Sindh province was critically reviewed in the
study, in the light of international experiences. Using survey
method, 263 stakeholders (19 key respondents and 244 sample
respondents) were interviewed during 2003-04. Knowledge of farmers
and extension agents about proper selection, usage and safe handling
of pesticides was assessed. Recommendations were developed regarding
registration, monitoring and evaluation of pesticides and extension
education programs for capacity building of farmers and extension
agents. The status review revealed that the public sector has been
able to train critical manpower (18% PhDs) in plant protection.
Research on new active pesticide ingredients could not, however, be
undertaken due mainly to non-availability of operational funds,
advanced training, and appropriate equipment. The on-going public
sector research program dealt with IPM related-technology and
testing of efficacy of pesticides. Use of IPM techniques was found
limited to research stations due mainly to poor extension services.
Therefore, pesticide was the sole source of cotton pest control by
majority of farmers. Three legal instruments for pesticide
registration were in vogue; namely Form1, Form 16, and Form 17.
Prerequisite for Form 1 is to test efficacy of pesticides for two
consecutive years at two research stations while Form 16 and Form 17
are liberal schemes; and do not need any research trials. Due to
easy registration, 47 and 36 percent of the pesticides are
registered in Form 16 and 17 respectively. Only 17 percent
pesticides are registered in Form 1.
Square root regression model was developed on the import of
pesticides in the country. Estimates of the proposed model revealed
steeper growth trend than that of ordinary regression model; and it
was much higher than agricultural productivity growth trend. Directorate
General, Agriculture Extension, is responsible for monitoring and
evaluation of pesticides. According to information provided by
District Officers (Agriculture), the accused Dealers of adulteration
and supply of substandard pesticides were penalized with minor fines
due to specific legal and administrative shortcomings; while
according to section 21/2b of Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance,
provided for imprisonment of not less than six months and not more
than two years, with fine which may extend to five hundred thousand
rupees. Majority of the stakeholders including District Officers
(Agriculture), Sales Executives, and Pesticide Dealers were
dissatisfied with the present monitoring and evaluation system for
pesticides. District Officers did not get due cooperation from
police in lodging FIR and protocol in courts during hearing of
pesticide cases. Sales Executives stated that the process of drawing
samples was targeted and marred with corruption of the highest
order. All Pesticide Dealers were of the opinion that pesticide
companies be named in FIR when samples are declared unfit by the
laboratories; because the companies supplied sealed pesticides and
should be held responsible for any adulteration at their end.
Local companies offered high profit margins (up to 30%) and
incentive schemes including lotteries and foreign tours to the
Dealers who, in addition, charged exorbitant interest rate of 30 to
40 percent per annum from the farmers while giving pesticides on
loan. Unlike local companies,
multinationals offered normal profit margins (up to 15%) to Dealers,
supplied quality pesticides and imparted effective training programs
for the capacity building of Contact Farmers and Pesticide Dealers.
Total sale amount of insecticides in Sanghar, Nawabshah, and
Naushahro Feroze districts was estimated to be Rs. 471.73 million in
2003-04. Top five insecticides in terms of weight were
methamidophos (29%), endosulfan (12%), cypermetherin (9%),
imidacloprid, (8%), and fenpropthrin (7%). The above ranking
reflected the persistence of old groups of pesticides i.e.
organophosphate, organochlorine and synthetic parathyroid in the
market; while the recent literature revealed that cotton insect
pests had developed resistance to these groups. Non-Contact
Farmers’ knowledge was recorded to be significantly low (41%)
regarding proper selection, usage and handling of pesticides; while
corresponding averages scores for Contact Farmers, Field Assistants,
and Pesticide Agents were 75, 57, and 97 percent respectively. Low
level of knowledge of Non-Contact Farmers established the need for
their training to mitigate health and environmental risks associated
with the misuse of pesticides. Non-Contact Farmers’ channels of
knowledge were landlords and Pesticide Dealers while Contact Farmers
directly received information from representatives of pesticide
companies. Role of public sector extension in disseminating proper
information about pesticide was limited owing to institutional
problems such as poorly motivated staff, inadequate operational
funds, and lack of relevant technology.
Private sector extension targeted large and progressive farmers to
minimize the per unit costs. Non-Contact Farmers had to rely on
Pesticide Dealers who had limited knowledge and profit maximization
motives.Based upon the research findings, it was recommended that
APO-71 may be reviewed and liberal pesticide registration schemes be
rationalized. Monitoring and evaluation system of pesticides may be
redesigned by appointing attorneys and introducing training programs
and incentives for Chemists and Inspectors. Well designed extension
education programs may be made mandatory for registration of
companies. Alternate methods of pest control may be encouraged in
the process. Agricultural extension activities such as the farmers’
field schools on IPM may be fully supported so as to optimize
pesticide import bills, curtail health and environmental risks
associated with the over/misuse of pesticides, and manage quality
cotton production in the wake of trade globalization.
Download Full Thesis |

1935 KB
|