A report by the Environmental Justice Foundation

DEATH IN SMALL DOSESCambodia’s pesticide problems and solutions

Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction -

Global Pesticide Production and Use -

An Overview of Cambodian Agriculture -

Pesticide Use in Cambodia -

Pesticides and Cambodian Law

Cambodia’s Pesticide Problem: Causes -

Cambodia’s Pesticide Problem: Dangers -

Alternatives & Solutions in Cambodian Agriculture -

Conclusions and Recommendations -

Glossary

References

AcknowledgementsThis report was written, edited and produced by the Environmental JusticeFoundation (Sylviane Nguyen-Vaucheret, Dr Mike Shanahan, JulietteWilliams and Steve Trent). Printed on % post-consumer waste paper.

Design by Dan Brown (dan.brown@ukf.net).

We wish to thank the following individuals who allowed us to use their images toillustrate the report, provided critical reviews of earlier drafts, or assisted in otherways: Andrew Bartlett, David Glover, Yech Polo, Nop Poeuv, Colin Poole,William Murray, Bert van Durren, Em Sorany, Ngin Chhay, Merle Shepard,Jim Puckett, Barbara Dinham, Rob Nugent, Rosie Sharpe, TheTraveladdicts, Jan Suszkiw, Ariel Javellana, Gary Jahn, Mark Bell, EugeneHettel, Devlin Kuyek, Roopa Mathew, Diane Young, Ivor Greer, John Heard,Mike Meaney, Vicki Parsons, Brain Taylor, Terry Whittaker, Peter Schrock,Kit Whitney, James Skaptason, Grant Singleton, Frank Spangler, BruceSharp, Mike Hooper, Pierre Mineau, Brad Scholz.

Special thanks go to Dr Yang Saing Koma and the staff of CEDAC whosepioneering studies’ findings on Cambodia’s pesticide problems and sustainablealternatives have been central to this report.

In thanking these individuals, we in no way imply that they or their organisations fullyendorse the report’s content.

Environmental Justice Foundation isa London-based non-governmentalorganisation. More information aboutEJF’s work and pdf versions of thisreport can be found atwww.ejfoundation.org. Comments onthe report, requests for further copies orspecific queries about EJF should bedirected to info@ejfoundation.org.

This document should be cited as:EJF. . Death in Small Doses:Cambodia’s Pesticides Problems andSolutions. Environmental JusticeFoundation, London, UK.

Acronyms used in this report

APCPA Asia-Pacific Crop Protection Association

ASEAN Association of South-East Asian Nations

CEDAC Centre d’Etude et de DeveloppementAgricole Cambodgien

CIAP Cambodia-IRRI-Australia Project

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific & IndustrialResearch Organisation

CTBS Community Trap Barrier System

DDT Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, apersistent organic insecticide

FAO The United Nations Food and AgricultureOrganisation

FFS Farmer Field Schools

GDP Gross Domestic Product

IPM Integrated Pest Management

IRRI International Rice Research Institute

IUCN International Union for the Conservationof Nature

LD50 Lethal Dose 50

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

PIC The Prior Informed Consent procedure ofthe Rotterdam Convention

POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants

RGC Royal Government of Cambodia

UNEP The United Nations EnvironmentProgramme

WHO World Health Organisation

WFP World Food Programme

PESTICIDE TOXICITY CLASSIFICATIONThe World Health Organisation classifies pesticides according to acute toxicity, using the LD50 (Lethal Dose 50%) benchmark. LD50denotes the amount of a chemical required to kill 50% of an exposed population of laboratory rats. There are two measures for eachproduct, oral LD50 (the product is given orally) and dermal LD50 (the product is given through the skin).

Oral LD50 Dermal LD50mg per kg body weight required to kill 50% of rat population

WHO category solids liquids solids liquids

Ia Extremely hazardous 5 or below 20 or below 10 or below 40 or belowIb Highly hazardous 5-50 20-200 10-100 40-400II Moderately hazardous 50-500 200-2000 100-1000 400-4000III Slightly hazardous Over 500 Over 2000 Over 1000 Over 4000

N.B. The terms “solids” and “liquids” refer to the physical state of the active ingredient being classified

● Much of Cambodian pesticide use is non-essential, especially in rice cultivation forwhich experts conclude that insecticides arefrequently not needed. Safer alternativesinclude Integrated Pest Management (IPM),rice-fish culture and organic farming.Elsewhere in Asia, IPM has realised -%reductions in pesticide use without impactingyield. Cambodian interest in organic farmingwas recently measured at % of interviewedfarmers.

● The Royal Government of Cambodia’sdemonstration of political will to tackle thepesticide issue by banning hazardouscompounds, and the findings of this report,show that genuine solutions and alternativesare available.

● This report recommends the adoption of theprecautionary principle based on reduced use,reduced risk and reduced dependence. Centralrequirements are increased education andresearch into alternatives and strongerenforcement of Cambodian law.TheCambodian Government, donor community,NGOs, agrochemical industry andCambodia’s neighbours,Thailand andVietnam, all have roles to play in amelioratingthe current situation.

● Cambodia’s economy, environment and foodsecurity would benefit in the long-term fromthe development of large-scale activeprogrammes to promote alternatives to currentpesticide uses.

● Pesticides have played a role in increasing cropyields and food security but, in contrast tomodern products marketed in the developedworld, many pesticides used in developingcountries like Cambodia fail to meetinternational quality standards.

● Agriculture, rice production in particular, is ofmajor importance to Cambodian food securityand society, and pesticide use in this sector hasaccelerated in recent years. Unregulatedimports have resulted in many chemicalsbanned by the Cambodian Government beingreadily available on the domestic market.

● Cambodia faces human and environmentalpesticide-related problems. Farmers and theirfamilies are being poisoned and food, watersupplies and ecosystems are being polluted.% of pesticide-using farmersinterviewed recently had experiencedsymptoms of poisoning.The ultimateconsequences of the inappropriate use of suchdangerous chemicals include humanmortalities and illness, and long-term damageto natural ecosystems and their productivity.

● Inappropriate pesticide use, including thetiming, frequency, concentration and type ofproducts used, is widespread. Safety measuresare often ignored or misunderstood.Thissituation is exacerbated by a lack ofappreciation of risks associated with pesticidesand inadequate labelling that is usually in Thaior Vietnamese and is incomprehensible to eventhe minority of rural users who are literate.

● The direct cost of Cambodian pesticide usehas been estimated at US$-million per year.

● Indirect costs of Cambodians’inappropriate pesticide useinclude negative impacts on foodsecurity, on public health, on theexport market, and on theburgeoning tourism industry.

● Current practice can encouragepests’ resistance to pesticides.Cambodian farmers arebecoming trapped on the‘pesticide treadmill’, usingincreasing volumes in order tocontrol perceived threats.

● Western agrochemicalcompanies’ product stewardshipprogrammes fall short of pledgesto promote safe use.Thecontinued supply of chemicalsseverely restricted in the West tocountries unable to ensure safeuse is ethically questionable.

executive summary

Dangerous pesticides, unwanted by the rest of the world, are posing serious threats toCambodian development targets.

© E

JF

This report has been researched, wri�en and published by the Environmental Jus�ce Founda�on (EJF), a UK Registered charity working interna�onally to protect the natural environment and human rights. Our campaigns include ac�on to resolve abuses and create ethical prac�ce and environmental sustainability in co�on produc�on, shrimp farming & aquaculture. We work to stop the devasta�ng impacts of pirate fishing operators, prevent the use of unnecessary and dangerous pes�cides and to secure vital interna�onal support for climate refugees. EJF have provided training to grassroots groups in Cambodia, Vietnam, Guatemala, Indonesia and Brazil to help them stop the exploita�on of their natural environment. Through our work EJF has learnt that even a small amount of training can make a massive difference to the capacity and a�tudes of local campaigners and thus the effec�veness of their campaigns for change.

A small price to pay for environmental jus�ce

If you have found this free report valuable we ask you to make a dona�on to support our work. For less than the price of a cup of coffee you can make a real difference helping us to con�nue our work inves�ga�ng, documen�ng and peacefully exposing environmental injus�ces and developing real solu�ons to the problems. It’s simple to make your dona�on today:

www.ejfoundation.org/donate

and we and our partners around the worldwill be very grateful.

Protecting People and Planet

£5 / $6 per month could help kids

get out of the cotton fields, end

pirate fishing, protect farmers from

deadly pesticide exposure, guarantee

a place for climate refugees

D spendUS$ billion annually onpesticides. However,approximately one-third ofthese pesticides (US$

million in value) do not meetinternationally accepted qualitystandards. Poor countries lacking ininfrastructure and human resourcesare being used as dumping grounds forsuch hazardous pesticides, many ofwhich are banned throughout much ofthe rest of the world because of theserious threats they pose to humanhealth and the natural environment.Cambodia is one such country.

Cambodia has emerged fromdecades of war and internal turmoil asone of the world’s poorest countriesand remains heavily reliant onagriculture.The largely ruralpopulation has embraced pesticideuse, yet the chemicals available areamong the most dangerous in theworld and are being applied with littleregard for suitability or safety. Ratherthan contributing to Cambodia’sdevelopment, current patterns ofpesticide use have grave implicationsfor the country’s future, posing risks topublic health, ecosystem functioning,food security, small and large-scaleeconomies, export markets, and the

tourism industry. Perhaps the greatesttragedy is that Cambodia does noteven need to use such great volumes ofthese pesticides.

In this report we provide abackground to global pesticideproduction and Cambodianagriculture.We highlight the extent ofdangerous pesticide use in Cambodiaand summarise the detrimental effectsthis practice has on humans andwildlife.We demonstrate thatpesticides are often an unnecessarycomponent of agricultural productionand that safer alternatives exist.Finally, we make recommendations forthe Cambodian Government, NGOs,the donor community and theagrochemical industry.We proposereductions in pesticide use,dependence and risk centred on theadoption of sustainable alternatives(such as Integrated Pest Management)in collaboration with increasedenforcement of existing legislation anda wide-reaching educationprogramme.Thus, we suggest astrategic framework by whichCambodia and other relevant partiescan work to safeguard the populationand natural environment withoutcompromising agricultural output,food security or development targets.

introduction

Cambodia remains heavily reliant on rice production for food security. Pesticide use has increased rapidly in the past two decadesendangering the sustainability of rice production itself as well as threatening public health, the environment, and, indirectly, the futureof Cambodian rice export markets and the burgeoning tourism industry.

© E

JF

THAILAND

LAOP.D.R.

VIET NAM

GULFOF

THAILAND

ChhakKampong

Saom

12°

14°

104° 106°

104° 106°

12°

14°

Tonle Sap

Bassak

Mekon

g

Ton le

Sap

Mek

on

g

Battambang

Sisophon

Sihanoukville

Takeo

Phnom ThbengMeanchey

Kratie

PreyVeng

Kampong Thom

Svay Rieng

SenmonoromPursat

KrongKoh Kong

Boung Long

Stung Treng

Ta Khmau

Siem Reap

Kampot

KampongSpeu

Kampong Cham

KampongChhnang

KAMPOT

KAMPONGSPEU

KOH KONG

PURSAT

BANTEAYMEANCHEY

SIEM REAP

ODDAR MEANCHEY

PREAH VIHEAR

KAMPONG THOM

KAMPONGCHHNANG

KAMPONG CHAM

RATANAKIRI

MONDOLKIRI

STUNGTRENG

TAKEO

KANDAL

BATTAMBANGKRONGPAILIN

SVAYRIENG

PREYVENG

SIHANOUKVILLE

KRATIE

PHNOMPENH

International boundaryProvince boundaryNational capitalProvince capital

CAMBODIA

0 30 10 2 0 40 mi

0 20 40 60 km

P are poisonous substances used to killanimals or plants considered pests by humans.Classes of pesticides and their targets include:insecticides (insects), herbicides (weeds),fungicides (fungi) and rodenticides (rodents).

Since the early s, pesticides have been an importantcomponent of agriculture in industrialised countries,increasing yields and contributing to food security.

Today, pesticides are increasingly used in developingnations hoping to achieve their own ‘green revolution’ tofeed growing populations and produce surpluses for export.Although industrialised countries dominate the globalpesticide market, sales in developing countries have tendedto increase year by year. By some estimates, developingcountries’ pesticide use doubled each decade from to.

In , global pesticide consumption reached .million tonnes in several hundred chemical formulationsand with estimated annual sales in agriculture of US$billion,. Despite sales downturns in and , thevalue of trade is expected to reach US$. billion by. Crop prices, weather conditions, exchange rates andpest outbreaks govern regional variations in demand. In, sales rose -% in North and Latin America, whilstthe Asia-Pacific region experienced an increase of .%,with total sales amounting to US$. billion.

Synthetic organic pesticides are largely made bytransnational agrochemical companies. An unprecedentedperiod of merger and corporate consolidation during thelast decade has reduced their number and, by , % ofpesticides sales were being made by only seven companies(see table),. All are based in the USA or Europe andoperate through local subsidiaries elsewhere.

As well as pesticides, these companies produce fertilisersand seeds and are increasingly involved in biotechnology,e.g. genetic modification of crops. For example, Monsanto’ssales increase in was primarily due to its herbicideRoundup (active ingredient: glyphosate), which accountedfor % of total sales. Roundup sales rose % in the USand Argentina and % worldwide due to increased sales of‘Roundup Ready’ (glyphosate-tolerant) geneticallyengineered crops and glyphosate-based no-till farmingpractices.

Monsanto reports that Roundup Ready soybean salesrose by %, to comprise % of US soybean acreagewhilst in Argentina the rise was %, with % of thecountry’s soy genetically modified to be glyphosate tolerant.Roundup Ready corn is currently grown in . million

global pesticide production and use

Natural products to synthetic organiccompounds: the evolution of insect control

● The most traditional method of protecting cropsfrom insect pests was – and remains – hand picking.Being labour intensive and tedious, farmers soughtalternatives from a very early date.

● The first recorded pesticide use is the Sumerians’use of sulphur compounds to protect their crops frommites and ticks around 2500 BC8.

● By 1200 BC, botanical insecticides were used inChina8.

● Regular insecticide use began c.1850 with the USAand Western Europe’s ‘first agricultural revolution’.International trade of mineral or botanical insecticides(e.g. arsenic, fluor compounds, nicotine androtenone) began and commercial spraying machinesappeared in 18808.

● In 1939, with the recognition of DDT’s insecticidalqualities, the first synthetic organic insecticides weremarketed and have since become the most commonlyused. Currently, four classes of synthetic organicpesticides are used:

Organochlorines (OCs) dominated Westernmarkets from the 1950s to 1965. The most famous,DDT, was first produced in 1873, though itsinsecticide properties were not discovered until19399. Most OCs have moderate acute toxicity tomammals10 and are highly persistent in theenvironment. They concentrate in fat tissues,accumulating and becoming more toxic as they moveup the food chain, thus posing a threat to species,including humans, at the top11.

Organophosphates (OPs) were discovered duringWorld War II by German scientists researching newtoxic gases12. This diverse group (less persistent in theenvironment than OCs) includes compounds rangingin toxicity from highly hazardous to mammals to someof the least toxic pesticides known10. Examplesinclude parathion and malathion.

Carbamates are more recently developed products(discovered in 1955), including aldicarb andpyrimicarb. Together with organophosphates they arepotential endocrine disruptors (they affect thehormonal system – see pages 21-22)13.

Pyrethroids are synthesised by copying a naturalmolecule (a Chrysanthemum pyrethrin), are active atvery small doses and usually have broad-spectrumeffects. Also termed ‘fourth-generation’ insecticides,pyrethroids are usually less toxic than earlierinsecticides and are allegedly more biodegradable14.

● The latest products are Insect Growth Regulators,few of which are presently available. These mimicinsect hormones active in moulting and are specific(active on some insects, e.g. caterpillars, but notothers), so present reduced risk to non-targetspecies10.

Global pesticide market share in 20005.

Region Share of Market N. America 29.6% Asia-Pacific 25.4% Western Europe 21.9% Latin America 12.8% Rest of the World 10.3%

hectares ( million acres), but Monsanto envisages apotential global market of million hectares ( millionacres).

In an increasingly globalised economy, agrochemicalcompanies have been able to access and develop marketsworld-wide. Market saturation and increased regulation ofchemical manufacture and use in the developed world haveboth factored in the expansion of new developing worldmarkets.

As well as increasing exports (US pesticides exportsalone rose by % between and ), agrochemicalcompanies have developed networks of local subsidiariesthat manufacture or import agrochemicals. In the Asia-Pacific region alone, Monsanto has offices in China,Malaysia, Singapore, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea,Thailand,Vietnam,Taiwan and the Philippines. Severalchemicals are seemingly ubiquitous. Since its introductionby Monsanto in , glyphosate has been registered foruse in countries.

Case study: banana production in LatinAmerica

Bananas are the fifth most valuable agriculturalcommodity in world trade after cereals, sugar,coffee and cocoa15. Most of the world’s bananasare grown for local consumption with littleexternal inputs (e.g. pesticides). However, 14% ofworld production is traded on the global marketand utilises increasing levels of inputs in order tomeet the high quality standards of thiscompetitive market15.

Banana exports represent an important source ofincome for many Latin American countries16.Ecuador, Costa Rica and Colombia alone accountfor 64% of world exports15. In these countriesbananas are grown in large monocultureplantations of up to 2000 hectares16.

Thanks to intensive production methods andmassive use of external inputs (pesticides andfertilisers), these banana plantations achieve highyields (50-80 tonnes/ha)16. In particular, thesecrops require increased amounts of fungicide tocombat Mycosphaerella fijiensis, a fungal diseasethat has become resistant to some fungicides17.

The expansion of Costa Rican banana productioncaused an increase in pesticide import cost of 50%between 1990 and 1994 (from US$56.2 million to$84.3 million)17. In 1993, the banana sectoraccounted for 57% of all pesticide sales in CostaRica, despite occupying under 10% of theagricultural area17. In 1995, IUCN calculated theaverage amount of pesticides used on bananasannually to be 44kg per hectare18.

In large plantations, pesticides are sometimessprayed by plane, an imprecise method capableof affecting neighbouring interests (the Escuelade Agricultura de la Region Tropical Humedaestimates that up to 15% of plane-sprayedfungicide is lost to wind drift and falls outside ofplantations15).

High pesticide concentrations used are alsoharmful to workers handling the fruit19. Between1980 and 1994, the number of poisoning casesdue to pesticides registered by Costa Rica’sNational Centre for Poisoning Control steadilyincreased from 593 to 1144. In 1994, 34% ofregistered cases were classified as ‘occupational’,43% ‘accidental’ and 19% ‘suicide attempts’17.Studies by the National University of Herediareveal that rates of pesticide poisoning are threetimes higher in banana regions than in the rest ofthe country16.

Instead of improving work conditions or reducingthe use of pesticides, the international companiesthat own plantations usually circulate the labourforce, hiring sprayers on 3 or 6 monthcontracts15,20.

By some estimates developing countries’ pesticide usedoubled every ten years from 1945 to 1995. In 2000, globalpesticide consumption reached 2.5 million tonnes in severalhundred chemical formulations.

© E

JF

Sales of the top seven agrochemical companies in 20006,7

Company (HQ base) 2000 sales (US$ millions) % change from 1999 Syngenta (Switzerland) 5,888 -2.6% Monsanto (USA) 3,885 +8.3% Aventis (France) 3,701 -0.6% DuPont (USA) 2,511 -3.1% Dow AgroSciences (USA) 2,271 -0.1% Bayer (Germany) 2,252 +12.8% BASF (Germany) 2,228 +39.1% N.B. Aventis sold Aventis CropScience to Bayer in October 2001

-

Like most innovations, new pesticides are protected in mostcountries by patents. Patents have two consequences.Firstly, they protect inventions by legally excludingunauthorised manufacture, use or sale. Secondly, patentsare technical documents fully describing how to make anduse the invention, thus stimulating further innovation.Patents have limited year life-spans (which, forpesticides, can be extended by years), after which theinvention becomes public property. Products whose patentshave expired can be made and sold by any company and aretermed ‘generic products’.

The agrochemical business demands long-term, veryhigh investments; to bring a new agricultural product tomarket costs US$- million and takes - years,.Thus, it is in the companies’ interests to maximise aproduct’s sales before its patent expires, and to continueselling it for as long as possible afterwards.

In developing countries, patent protection does notalways exist and demand is higher for cheaper genericproducts. So, new pesticides are usually developed forWestern markets whilst older, broad-spectrum products aretargeted towards the developing world. By , off-patentpesticides are expected to account for % of the globalmarket, with countries such as China, India and Brazil(with technical capacity and cheap labour) becomingcentres of production.

Recently, production of restricted substances has shifted tothe developing world. Currently, about companies makeor supply agrochemicals in South-East Asia.These aretransnational companies with branded products or genericproducers of patent expired chemicals. Among the former,- companies dominate and, in , just three – Bayer,Aventis and Novartis (now part of Syngenta) – had a %market share. Revenues are expected to rise % between and to US$. million.

Since , China has become the world’s second largestagrochemical producer,, with an estimated totalproduction that nearly doubled between and from , to , tonnes.The Shandong HuayangPesticide Group, for instance, claims to be the leadingmanufacturer of methyl-parathion in China and to be theonly producer of aldicarb in Asia.This reflects a generaltrend of increased production of pesticides (especiallygenerics) in Asia.

In order to maintain some degree of control over theburgeoning generics trade, transnational agrochemicalcompanies have obtained interests in local businesses. Forexample, Aventis (with a % market share in India)recently obtained a % stake in the Indian joint venture,Bilag Industries, one of the leading producers andexporters of pyrethroids in India.

The FAO and WHO recently warned that % of pesticidesmarketed in developing countries do not meet

Case study: the Indian pesticide market

Pesticide production in India began in 1952 with productionof BHC, an organochlorine insecticide.

India is now the second largest pesticide manufacturer inAsia (after China), ranking 12th globally33.

The Pesticide Manufacturers and Formulators Association ofIndia states that India has “one of the most dynamic genericpesticides industries in the world”, which has formed thebasis of an export sector that grew 20-25% in two to threeyears3,34.

Importers of Indian pesticides include the USA, UK, France,Germany, Netherlands, and Middle Eastern, Latin Americanand African countries35.

Until recently, lacking finances to develop and market newchemicals, Indian companies waited for patents to expire.They now produce more than 30 generic compoundsincluding (with WHO hazard classifications in parentheses):monocrotophos (Ib), endosulfan (II), dichlorvos (Ib),zinc phosphide (Ib), aluminium phosphide (Ia),paraquat (II), permethrin (II) and glyphosate (U)3.According to Greenpeace, India is also one of four countriesstill manufacturing DDT (with Italy, Mexico and China)36.

Currently, many companies, encouraged by the IndianGovernment, have begun developing infrastructure andestablishing laboratories and research and developmentcentres. The Indian pesticides industry predicts thedevelopment of new molecules within the next decade34.

Over 30 years since this Cambodianstamp was produced, pesticides are stillapplied in a dangerous manner, withoutprotective gloves or masks. Although DDTuse is presently prohibited or severelyrestricted in most countries, it is still easilyavailable in some developing countrieswith weak law enforcement. Worryingly, inCambodia, DDT is illegally sprayed oncrops.

© J

ames

Ska

pta

son

/ w

ww

.bu

gsta

mp

s.co

m

internationally accepted quality standards and “frequentlycontain hazardous substances and impurities that have alreadybeen banned or severely restricted elsewhere”. As legislationconcerning hazardous products and pollutants is becomingincreasingly restrictive in developed countries, manypesticides used in the past are now prohibited or severelyrestricted. In developing countries, however, such laws areabsent or more permissive, and dangerous pesticides canpersist on the market. For example, in , the IndianGovernment noted that the import and use of pesticidesbanned in some other countries are permitted.Consequently, concerns have been raised that thedeveloping world is becoming a ‘dumping ground’ forobsolete or hazardous products,.

In March , the US Environmental Protection Agencyissued a conditional registration aimed at reducing use of thepesticide – and suspected carcinogen – alachlor. In thesubsequent months US exports of alachlor almost trebled.

Legal loopholes facilitate Western companies’exploitation of developing world markets. For example,European legislation prohibits the export of end productsbanned in Europe but permits export of active ingredients,which can then be formulated into end products indeveloping countries.

Alternatively, corporate acquisitions enable patterns ofpesticide production and export that are unfeasible frombases in the West. For example, the Indian RPG LifeScience (formerly Searle (India) Ltd) recently sold itsagrochemical business to Italian giant ISAGRO, itself asubsidiary of Isagro Sp.A, a partial partner of both DowAgroSciences and Aventis CropScience. Industry observersnoted that ISAGRO “may consider using the Indian unit as amanufacturing base for certain products and to service the FarEastern and South Asian markets”. RPG’s existing portfolioincludes the widely-restricted monocrotophos andflucythrinate, both WHO Class Ib chemicals, andfenvalerate, a Class II chemical whose authorisation hasbeen withdrawn in the EU.

In , Novartis (now Syngenta) was congratulatedupon announcing that it was phasing out production ofmonocrotophos in response to mass poisoning of hawks inArgentina (see page ).The motivation for this move isunclear in light of the subsequently reported opening of aplant in China capable of producing tonnes ofmonocrotophos per year. In June , it was reportedthat all of the largest transnational corporations had openedor bought major facilities for production of hazardouschemicals in developing nations in the previous decade.

Trade in restricted and banned pesticides is difficult totrack but US shipments of monocrotophos alone (mostshipped under the trade name Azodrin) totalled over tonnes in and . Use of monocrotophos, anorganophospate classified by the WHO as ‘highlyhazardous’, is prohibited in the USA.

Close ties with importing purchasers, which may indeedbe subsidiaries, can allow exporters to bypass thecommercial offices of consulates and embassies – asreflected by this comment from the commercial consul inSao Paolo, Brazil, the largest importer of pesticides in LatinAmerica: “I’ve never had a request for assistance from a USexporter of pesticides in the three years I’ve been here”.

Use of Azodrin, (activeingredient: monocrotophos), isprohibited in the USA;however exports from US portstotalled over 500 tonnes in1995 and 1996. Althoughbanned, Azodrin is commonlyfound in Cambodian markets,labelled in Vietnamese.

© E

JF

been eaten by starving people.The re-building ofagricultural activities was hindered by theabsence of researchers and technicians, who hadfled the country or been killed. Consequently,Cambodia was forced in to import ,tonnes of rice to help feed the six millionsurvivors.

Between and , the International RiceResearch Institute (IRRI) re-introduced traditional Cambodian rice varieties toCambodia. Rice production steadily increasedfrom the early s due to increases incultivated area (in part through deforestation)and use of high yielding IRRI varieties andmethods. Food security remained a seriousproblem until , when the country achievedself-sufficiency for the first time in years, evenproducing a surplus , tonnes of milledrice. In , a record . million tonnes ofpaddy rice were produced (with a surplus of, tonnes).

Rice is cultivated largely in the centralMekong basin and delta and in the Tonle Sapfloodplain, with of the Cambodianprovinces accounting for % of totalproduction.The main rice harvest consists ofthe wet season (May-December) paddy rice,which is entirely rain dependent and accounts for-% of annual production. Althoughoccupying only % of the planted area, dryseason irrigated rice accounts for the remaining-%. Irrigated dry season rice yields andcultivated areas depend on rainfall levels duringthe previous wet season and on floods in theMekong basin.

In , other crops accounted for about %of the total area harvested. In areas with highpopulation densities, farmers tend to grow cropsmore profitable than rice. Consequently, suchprovinces are deficient in rice. Conversely,surpluses are produced in lower density areas.Typically, Kampong Cham province is the main

C has emerged from decades ofwar and internal conflict and now facesthe challenge of rebuilding. However,the country remains one of the poorestin the world, ranked in by the

Human Development Index as th of countries and with a per capita GDP ofUS$. Over one-third of the population livesbelow the poverty line, % of them in ruralareas, and % have no access to safe drinkingwater,. Food security is of prime importanceand rice, in particular, sustains the country. Forthese reasons, although pesticides are also usedin Cambodia to combat vectors of human disease(e.g. malarial mosquitoes), agriculturalapplications of pesticides are of special interest inthis report.This section, therefore, serves as anoverview of current agricultural practices inCambodia.

Agriculture is a mainstay of Cambodia’seconomy, contributing c.% of the GDP (estimate) and employing % of the labour forcein , when there were an estimated .-.million farming households among a millionpopulation,. Other growth areas are tourism (in, the service sector employed % of thelabour force and contributed % of the GDP)and the garment industry (employing % of thelabour force yet accounting for % of exports in),. Key agricultural products are rice,livestock, rubber, corn and vegetables, with riceand livestock alone accounting for % ofCambodia’s GDP.

Indeed, rice is the cornerstone of Cambodianfood security, utilising % of arable land in itsproduction and providing % of daily calorieintake-.The remainder of typical Cambodiandiets is comprised of fish, meat, tubers,vegetables and fruit.

Rice production, together with politicalstability, is central to the country’s recovery fromthe Khmer Rouge period. Agriculture is apriority in national development policy, aimed atincreasing food security, economic growth, ruralincomes, and developing export industries.However, agricultural development is constrainedby Cambodia’s poor infrastructure and thepresence of an estimated to millionlandmines, which limit access to approximately% of arable land. Cambodia has benefitedfrom economic stimulation since joining ASEANin .

Before , Cambodia was self-sufficient forfood and wood, and exported rice, rubber, fishand wood. In , when the Vietnamese armyentered Cambodia, the country’s rice productionhad shrunk to barely % of the . milliontonnes harvested in .The Khmer Rougeregime had left the country with badly-damagedinfrastructure, a drastically reduced labour force,and seed stocks of traditional rice varieties had

an overview of cambodian agriculture

Rice is the cornerstone of Cambodian food security,utilising 90% of arable land in its production andproviding 75% of daily calorie intake.

© S

AO

-UK

midges; whereas new varieties IR36 andIR42 are resistant.

Varietal control is also a good optionagainst stem borers (Scirpophagaincertulas, Chilo auricilius, C. suppressalis,Sesamia inferens) as some locally availablevarieties are partially resistant, e.g. IR36,IR42, IR66, IR72. No totally resistantvariety is yet available.

DiseasesTungro virus causes a rice disease thesymptoms of which are commonlyreported, but its vector, the greenleafhopper (Nephotettix spp.), is rare,suggesting misdiagnosis of nutrientdeficiencies, which also cause leafyellowing. Green leafhopper is a potentialpest itself but predation and parasitism(12-60%) keep populations at non-damaging levels.

Fungal diseases can occur but theirfrequency is very low, so it appears that nocontrol method is necessary.

RodentsThree main rat species have beenidentified in or near Cambodian rice-fields(Rattus argentiventer, R. exulans andBandicota indica). Rat outbreaks occur inrain-fed as well as in irrigated rice systemsand, in the 1990s, caused an averageannual loss of 3000 tonnes, enough tofeed 12,000 people each year. While 34%of farmers report rat problems, only 13%attempt control. A CIAP (Cambodia-IRRI-Australia Project) study in 1999 showedthat traps and baits do not seem to provideadequate control (and baits are alsopoisonous for cattle). Plastic barriers tendnot to be used as they are too expensivecompared to the losses caused by rats. Asa result, hunting and digging up burrows(especially when done during daytime) stillremain the safest, cheapest and mosteffective rat-control method in commonuse.

A new pest: the Golden Apple SnailIntroduced to Asia from South America forfood, the Golden Apple Snail (Pomaceaspp.) escaped from cultivation and arrivedin Cambodia in 1995. It is now a pest ofboth dry season irrigation and wet seasonrain-fed rice, feeding on seedlings. Controlis by hand-picking or rearing of fish orducks to feed on snail eggs – the snails canbe used as pig or duck food, or for humanconsumption when cooked. Pesticide(molluscicide) applications are also used insome provinces.

Rice pests18-23 vary depending on thenature of rice cultivation but include rats,birds, arthropods (mostly insects) and over60 weed species. Although over 200arthropod species occur in Cambodianrice fields, the majority, as in anyagricultural system, do not eat plants andare not pests. On the contrary, somebenefit crops through predation orparasitism of true pest species.

WeedsWeeds are problematic and difficult toeradicate in rain-fed rice systems sincefield water levels cannot be controlled.Presently, removal by hand is the mostefficient option. Competition between riceplants and weeds is especially strong inupland rice systems that regularly sufferdry conditions. Conversely, in irrigatedrice, water control allows a large reductionof weed problems. In any case thelevelling of fields could greatly improveweed-control and thus help increaseyields.

InsectsThe main pests of rain-fed rice are leaf-eating insects, the most common of whichare green semilooper caterpillars(Noctuidae: Naranga spp.). Althoughabundant, they usually have little impacton rice yields – rice plants can lose 50% oftheir leaf area during the first month aftertransplanting without any consequence foryield. Moreover, predators of greensemilooper exist in Cambodia: mainlysemi-aquatic bugs (e.g Microveliadouglasi; Veliidae) and spiders.

Another well-known rice-pest is thebrown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens).However, natural control by its predatorsis usually enough to keep it at non-damaging levels. Outbreaks occur whenthis balance is disrupted by pesticide useor dry weather conditions (manypredators are semi-aquatic). Slender ricebugs (Leptocorisa spp.) attack rice grainsand in outbreak years damage can besubstantial.

Similarly, grasshoppers become pestsonly after prolonged periods of drynesshave prevailed in the fields.

Conversely, gall midge (Orseoliaoryzae) populations build up under humidweather conditions, but natural control bywasp parasitism typically reaches 90% of agiven population – if a previous pesticidespray has not killed the parasitoids. SomeCambodian rice varieties (Kaun Trei andChangkom Kreal) are more sensitive to gall

cambodian rice pests

Below from top to bottom: GreenLeafhopper, Stemborer feeding,Rattus argentiventer

© I

RR

I©

G.

Sin

glet

on /

CS

IRO

© I

RR

I

producer of soybean, maize, vegetables, mungbean, groundnut and sesame, accounting for% of the non-rice cultivated area, while beingdeficient in rice by around , tonnes.

Since most rice production (-%) is rain-fed,yields are highly dependent on rainfall, which, inCambodia, can vary widely year to year.TheFAO/WFP estimates that major crop losses (ofrice and other crops) occur every - years dueto droughts or floods, the latter beingexacerbated by soil erosion associated withdeforestation. In , one of the worst floodsin recent history hit Cambodia first in July andagain, more significantly, in September, causingan estimated deaths (largely of children) anddestroying crops and infrastructure – anestimated , hectares of wet season ricewere affected.

In recent years, crop destruction due toadverse weather or pest outbreaks occurred earlyin the season, allowing replanting with earlymaturing rice varieties or recovery of the latematuring varieties during the end of the season(September-December). However, at a timewhen most families’ income from the previousharvest has already been spent, replanting is onlyan option for farmers wealthy enough to buy newseeds or those receiving international aid.

Poverty and indebtedness compel farmers tosell large parts of their rice production as soon asharvests are finished, inducing a reduction ofnational rice prices at this time of year andpreventing them from keeping staple stocks.Debts accrue as farmers borrow to hire labour orbuy agricultural inputs, as well as clothes, tools,etc. Debt may even force farmers to sell theirland – their only source of income – thuscontributing further to rural landlessness andpoverty.

Right: Four to six millionlandmines limit access toapproximately 40% of Cambodianarable land. They are alsoresponsible for further depleting alabour force already drasticallyreduced by Khmer Rouge regime:one in 236 Cambodians has beenseriously disabled by landmines.

Far right: Agriculturaldevelopment is constrained byCambodia’s poor infrastructure.After the wet season in particularmany roads are unusable,preventing farmers from sellingrice outside their commune.

© B

ruce

Sh

arp

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Year

Yiel

d (t

onne

s pe

r hec

tare

)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Year

Prod

uctio

n ar

ea (m

illio

n he

ctar

es)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Year

Ric

e pr

oduc

tion

(mill

ion

tonn

es)

© B

ruce

Sh

arp

Cambodian rice production trends(data from FAOSTAT)25

Despite recent success in reaching rice self-sufficiency according to recorded figures, foodsecurity is a serious issue in parts of the country,mainly due to variations in per capita productionbetween provinces (or even communes); of main rice-producing provinces, five are rice-deficient.With less than % of the ricegrowing communes (just % of the population)producing % of the national rice surplus, fooddistribution is a major issue and is hampered by atransport infrastructure that remainsrudimentary following years of strife. Mostrural roads are unusable during the wet seasonand, following the floods, food insecurityincreased in spite of total rice production beingon a par with that of (c. million tonnes).The poor infrastructure means that mills inneighbouring countries may be more accessiblethan domestic ones (particularly during floods),and rather than channel surplus rice to deficitareas, it is often more profitable to sell rice acrossthe border.

Although Cambodia’s official rice exports arelow (a few thousand tonnes of milled rice), itseems that smuggling of unmilled rice toThailand and Vietnam is considerable. Later inthe year, as the need arises, the rice is thenbought back from these neighbours.

The poor quality of Cambodian milling meansthat official exports realise low prices, furthercontributing to rural poverty.The recent building(in Kandal province) of a milling plant ofinternational standards, should improve thissituation.

In addition to food insecurity, malnutrition –caused by limited food supplies and low dietarydiversity – is prevalent, especially among womenand children under five.The UN estimates that% of children under five are stunted and up to% suffer severe malnutrition. For example,according to a survey by the Royal Governmentof Cambodia (RGC) and NGOs in ,Vitamin A deficiency is a serious public healthproblem in rural areas.Vitamin A deficiencyincreases susceptibility to infectious diseases(and, consequently, early death) in the underfives; it can also result in permanent blindness.

Although minor in terms of total production,staple crops other than rice (like greenvegetables, a source of Vitamin A) and fishing,when possible, are very important for balancinghouseholds’ diets. Most farming families keeplivestock but, rather than being eaten, pigs,ducks, chickens and eggs are usually sold for cashto buy family goods. Regardless, the main buyerof meat is the tourism industry. Larger animals(e.g. buffalos and cows) are used for farm workand are rarely consumed.The relativeimportance of livestock in agriculture does nottherefore reflect a protein source for rural people.Rather, fish provide the majority (%) of

Above: Despite having higher yields than wet-season rain-fed rice, irrigated rice accounts for only15-20% of total production. Primitive irrigationmethods and the limited extent of theirimplementation reduce food security in Cambodia.

Below: Half of Cambodian children under five arestunted and up to 20% suffer severe malnutrition.

© G

.B

izar

ri /

FA

O©

Fra

nk

Sp

angl

er /

Pan

oram

a P

rod

uct

ion

s

In , as a consequence of floods, migrationfrom rural areas toward the cities accelerated.The departure of young women to better-paidjobs in the garment industry, in particular,resulted in labour force shortage in agriculture

(about % of the garment industry’s workersare young women, the majority of them recentimmigrants from rural areas).The garmentsector has developed extremely rapidly since themid-s, leading to the Government adoptinga minimal legal wage for employees of thisindustrial sector (raised from US$ to $ permonth in July ), as well as rules on labourconditions.The minimum wage imposed isapproximately double the average Cambodianincome, making jobs in the garment industryvery attractive.

Cambodian animal protein. In particular,fermented fish paste is an important proteinsource. Recent declines in fish catches due tointensive fishing and ecological disruption(deforestation causing silting of lakes and riversand the loss of mangroves and flooded foreststhat are the reproductive sites of many fishspecies) does not contribute to improvement ofthe situation, but actively worsens it. From-, fishing lots around the Tonle Sap lakeand river caught only half of the fish species andfamilies, and one-third of the genera, recorded inearlier studies up to .

Another advantage of diversification ofagricultural activities is that it can help farmerscope with drops in rice production like thosecaused by the floods of September . Peopleliving near rivers and the Tonle Sap lake sufferedcomparatively less than those in lowland rain-fedor scrub areas, thanks to the fishing activitiesand cash crop production in the former.However, the inefficiency of the rice marketleads to low capital for farmers, preventing themfrom investing towards diversification orequipment.

Lack of manpower is another difficulty facedby the Cambodian agricultural sector. Deathscaused by the civil war and Khmer Rouge regimewere greater among men than women, seriouslydepleting the rural labour force.The number ofdisabled people is also high as a consequence ofthe war.

Many women have been left with theresponsibility of farms as well as householdmanagement (% of the population lived infemale-headed households in ).

Left: Greenvegetables and fishcan contribute toCambodian dietarydiversification.

Below: Fish provides75% of Cambodians’animal protein©

EJF

© E

JF

P has recently intensified inCambodian agricultural practice (see ). ACEDAC survey conducted in showed thatof farmers surveyed, % used pesticides. Ofthese % began using them in the s with the

rest beginning in the s.Insecticides and rodenticides (rat poison) are, by far, the

most commonly used pesticides in Cambodia. Herbicideuse is not yet common but practices in other countries inthe region suggest that usage is likely to increase.Herbicides are already available on Cambodian markets –many of them with glyphosate or .-D as activeingredients. Although fungicide use is extremely rare,products can easily be found.

Pesticides are used in greater volumes on vegetables (e.g. litres or kg per hectare per year) than rice ( litre or kgper hectare per year). However, because rice productiondominates (using % of productive land), pesticide use inrice culture is greatest in terms of total volume. An IRRIreport showed that, depending on the province, -% ofdry season and -% of wet season rice farmers usepesticides.

In , different pesticides (active compounds) wereavailable in Cambodia and within six years this had grownto at least compounds in different products, asignificant proportion (%) of which are classified byWHO as Class I: highly or extremely hazardous to humanhealth. In most provinces, the most commonly usedpesticides are all Class I chemicals: mevinphos,monocrotophos, dichlorvos and, especially, methyl-parathion, produced in Thailand by Bayer with the tradename Folidol. Persistent organic pesticides including DDTand chlordane are also available.

Since Cambodia does not produce pesticides, allproducts available are imports, which steadily increased anddoubled in value between and . Data are noteasy to obtain but as insecticides accounted for % ofofficial pesticide imports in , it is likely that they werealso predominant in other years.

Surveys of Cambodian markets reveal that mostpesticides come from Vietnam and Thailand (c.% andc.% respectively in Kandal Province). Product labelsindicate manufacture in these two countries by localcompanies or by production facilities of internationalcompanies – for instance, Bayer has a production site inThailand and a joint venture in Vietnam. Other productsare manufactured elsewhere (China, Japan, India, UnitedKingdom), but formulated and packaged in Thailand orVietnam. Some products, labelled in Vietnamese, forexample, bear the logo of Makhteshim Agan, a companyclaiming to be the “largest and most geographically diversegeneric manufacturer of agrochemical products” and that hasmanufacturing plants in Israel and Brazil.

Some pesticides on sale in Cambodia are banned in theircountry of origin. of products available in werebanned in Vietnam, whilst another are banned inThailand.This has led to fears that Cambodia is becominga dumping ground for unwanted and dangerouspesticides,.

pesticide use in cambodia

Methyl-parathion: tenfacts13-16

● A non-systemicorganophosphate insecticideand acaricide (kills parasiticmites).

● Kills insects by contact or viadigestive or respiratory action.

● WHO acute hazardclassification: Ia (extremelyhazardous). Acute toxicity: oralLD50 (rats) = 3 mg/kg.

● Highly toxic if inhaled oringested, moderate toxicity byskin adsorption. Human acutetoxicity symptoms: sweating,nausea, vomiting, dizziness,diarrhoea, pupil constriction,muscle cramps, excessivesalivation, laboured breathing,convulsions, andunconsciousness.

● Death may be caused byrespiratory failure or cardiacarrest.

● Repeated / long-term exposure affects humannervous system. Cholinesterase inhibition andcumulative effects are possible.

● Very highly toxic to birds and mammals.

● Moderately to very highly toxic to amphibians,fishes, crustaceans and molluscs.

● Degrades in lakes, rivers and sea but degradationrate data vary from 100% degradation within twoweeks to a half-life of 175 days.

● Banned or severely restricted in the USA, Tanzania,Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Korea,Japan, China and Cambodia. Included in theRotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consentdue to concerns about its impact on human healthunder conditions of use in developing countries.

Pesticides imports to Cambodia 1989-1999 (data fromFAOSTAT8)

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Year

Pest

icid

e im

port

s (U

S$10

00s)

The mostcommonly usedpesticides inCambodia are allWHO Class 1chemicals,including methyl-parathion, muchof which isproduced inThailand by Bayerwith the tradename Folidol7.

© E

JF

Tens of thousands of malaria cases, and hundreds of deaths, occureach year in Cambodia. In , died from dengue fever.TheWorld Health Organisation still endorses the use of DDT to controlthese diseases’ mosquito vectors but, in recognition of evidencelinking DDT to cancer, changed its policy to one of recommendingindoor use only in . DDT is a persistent organic pollutantcovered by the United Nations Environment Programme sponsoredStockholm Convention (POPs). As such, it is now illegal in Cambodia(see page ) yet remains available on the market. Safer syntheticpesticides (e.g.Temephos and new pyrethroids) are used toimpregnate mosquito nets and in standing water containers.

Illegal fishing using pesticides including Folidol (methyl-parathion) and Thodat (endosulfan) also occurs.

Finally, the use of pesticides (e.g. mevinphos and dichlorvos) tokeep insects away from dried fish has been reported.

The relatively recent increase in pesticide use in Cambodianagriculture is attributable to a number of factors.

Loss of Culture: The flow of information from generation togeneration was severely disrupted by the upheavals of recent decades.Thus, farmers active today do not necessarily know traditionalmethods of pest control.

Many farmers have relatively little experience and have not had thetime to develop knowledge of the need for pesticides, or their impacton health and non-target species. Indeed, the FAO found that those

“When I was in the field I felt dizzy and then I couldn’t walk. When I returned home I vomited… Ihave to use pesticides. There is no other alternative. I am a farmer”.

Pech Savoeun, Cambodian farmer7

Some highly (Ib) and extremely hazardous (Ia) pesticides available in Cambodia1,6,9

Active compound WHO class Trade names Chemical type Producer country#

brodifacoum Ia Brodifa Organobromine Vietnamcarbofuran Ib Furadan Carbamate Vietnamdichlorvos Ib DDVP, Dichlorvos, VP 50EC Organophosphate Thailand, Vietnamendrin O Endrin Organochlorine Thailandmethadathion Ib Supracide 40ND Organophosphate Vietnammethamidophos* Ib Fillitox, Giant, Methaphos, Monitor, Ovansu, Organophosphate Germany, Thailand,

Thom, U-T 70, Vindo Vietnam,Chinamethomyl Ib Lannate, Methomyl Carbamate Thailandmethyl-parathion* Ia Ankun-V, Folidol, Fosintol-phodetol, Foxentol, Organophosphate Thailand, Vietnam

Isodol D, Methaphos, Methylparathion, Parathet, Parathion-methyl, Suthon-M

mevinphos Ia Bosdin, Fitor, Kvinphos, Lockphos, Mevinphos, Organophosphate ThailandPhosdrin, Sudrin, Triphos,

monocrotophos* Ib Azodrin, Mobile 600, Tanchrodin, Worldcron, Organophosphate Thailand, VietnamApadrin

omethoate Ib Zony Organophosphate China phosphamidon* Ia XK-35EC Organophosphate Vietnampirimiphos-ethyl Ib Actellic 50EC Organophosphate Francezinc phosphide Ib USA tra-cantal, Zawa, Bek kham, Razor, Inorganic Thailand, China

Osotspa, Zinphos, Fobeka Vietnam

#note: these are countries of final formulation. Constituent chemicals may be manufactured elsewhere.*Also listed on Rotterdam Convention Prior Informed ConsentO = previously class I, now considered obsolete by WHO

Pesticides have thepsychologicalattraction of"modernity"; and arebelieved capable ofsolving any problemsfarmers might face.

© S

AO

-UK

farmers who had reduced pesticide usage in were the older, most experienced ones.

Demographic Factors: Rural manpowershortages resulting from migration to urbancentres have resulted in increased farm labourcosts.This, together with the low market price of(often illegally imported) pesticides, encouragespesticide use over traditional, labour-intensivemethods (e.g. rat hunting or hand-picking ofGolden Apple Snail).The situation iscompounded by the high proportion ( in ) ofCambodians seriously disabled by landmines.

Perception of pesticides: Pesticideconsumption is encouraged by agrochemicalcompanies’ burgeoning advertisement campaigns(it is estimated that the industry spends US$billion annually on advertising and marketing inAsia).The radical and rapid pesticide actionportrayed in adverts makes a very strongimpression on farmers, especially as the Khmertranslation of “pesticide” includes the word“medicine”. Some farmers increase productconcentrations used in the belief that pesticidesnot only control pests but also stimulatevegetative growth.

Overall, pesticides are seen as status symbolswith the psychological attraction of “modernity”,and are believed to be able to solve manyproblems farmers might face,.

Foreign Aid: Cambodian pesticide use has beenencouraged by international aid supplying freepesticides to stimulate modernisation andincrease productivity. Between and theFAO and several NGOs provided , metrictonnes of pesticides. In , a Japanese projectprovided , litres of free broad-spectrumpesticides – an action roundly criticised byenvironmentalists, the IRRI, and the FAO, undersuspicion that the ‘gift’ primarily served toestablish the Japanese chemical industry ratherthan assist poor Cambodian farmers.Regardless of whether or not pesticides wererequired or used effectively, such influxes havecontributed to a culture of pesticide-dependencein Cambodia.

Previous Pesticide Use: Paradoxically,pesticide use itself encourages further chemicalapplications. As shall be shown when detailingnegative impacts of pesticide use (pages -),such chemicals can kill natural predators (fish,frogs, insects) of pest species, and can encouragepest resistance and pest resurgence leading tooutbreaks, to which farmers respond with furtherspraying.

The impact of wildlife tradeRecent outbreaks of insects and rats in rice fields have been attributedby Cambodian authorities to “the dwindling number of sparrows, whicheat insects, and snakes, which eat rats”29. Snakes are hunted and soldto restaurants and snake blood mixed with rice wine is a popular – andexpensive – beverage. Roasted sparrows are a cheap, popular mealamong Cambodians, requiring 10-15 birds per person. Snake andsparrow hunters are increasing in number each year, since the activity ismore lucrative than farming29. At the peak of the wet season, 8500snakes per day are removed from the Tonle Sap for domesticconsumption (by humans and farmed crocodiles) or export to Thailand,Vietnam and China30. Other natural predators of rats targeted bywildlife poachers include wild cats and owls31. Besides impoverishingCambodian wildlife, diminishing predator numbers encourage pestoutbreaks, to which farmers respond with the use of pesticides.

“I never see any snakes or sparrows in the fields or the jungle, but I seemany of them in cages at Neak Leung or in front of the Royal Palace”29

—Hean Van Horn, Crop Protection Office, Cambodian Ministry ofAgriculture

In Cambodia, sparrows help control insect pest populations but arecaught and roasted to create a cheap, popular meal, requiring 10-15birds per person.

© M

ike

Mea

ney

/ m

ikem

ean

ey.c

om©

Th

e T

rave

lad

dic

ts /

ww

w.t

rave

lad

dic

ts.c

onn

ectf

ree.

co.u

k

Many snake species help control rat populations. At the peak ofCambodia’s wet season, 8500 snakes per day are removed from theTonle Sap for domestic consumption or export to Thailand, Vietnamand China.

route via which many hazardous pesticides enter thecountry, it seems likely that a situation will develop akin tothat in Indonesia, where there is “…a flawless approvalssystem for pesticides, but no monitoring program to police theiruse.Therefore, there is no way of checking that governmentlegislation is being obeyed”. Indeed, of pesticides foundin CEDAC’s Cambodian market survey, the Ministryof Agriculture bans eight and places in the ‘restricteduse’ category.

The RGC appears to be dedicated to tackling thepesticide problem and official institutions such as theBureau of Agricultural Material Standards were establishedin to enforce the law.They are currently working onhow to implement the sub-decree but lack of human andfinancial resources, in this area as in others, impede theGovernment’s actions despite its political will. Clearly,both financial and technical support from donor countriesand agencies would be valuable and cost-effective.

Until , Cambodia had no legislation specificallyconcerning pesticides, although the Law ofEnvironmental Protection and Natural ResourceManagement (Article ) covered the need to inventorypollutants being produced, imported, stored or released.Monitoring, record-keeping, pollution prevention andcontrol are to be covered by sub-decrees, represented todate by the April sub-decree on Water PollutionControl, which also provides water quality standards inAnnex for concentrations of pesticide pollutants.

The sub-decree on Standards and Management ofAgricultural Materials was the first legal instrumentmentioning pesticides, and is concerned with “the import,sale, labelling, packaging, quality, storage, disposal andmarketing of pesticides in Cambodia”. The sub-decreeprohibits the use and sale of pesticides classified by WHOas ‘extremely or highly hazardous to human health’ (ClassIa or Ib). As shown on pages -, many of theseproscribed chemicals are still in use in Cambodia.

Cambodia is a signatory to the Stockholm Conventionbanning Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Mostlypesticides, POPs pose special threats to human health andthe environment through their ability to persist andbiomagnify, increasing in concentration up the food chainand capable of transmission to offspring via the placenta ormilk.Two of the nine POP pesticides are available inCambodian markets: DDT and chlordane. Under theStockholm Convention, a health-related exemption hasbeen granted for DDT, which is still needed in manycountries to control malarial mosquitoes.This will permitgovernments to protect their citizens from malaria – amajor killer in many tropical regions – until they are able toreplace DDT with chemical and non-chemical alternativesthat are cost-effective and environmentally friendly.To date,Cambodia has not applied such exemptions.

A second relevant international instrument is theRotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent(PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals andPesticides in International Trade. Cambodia has yet to signthe agreement but is participating in the voluntary interimprocedure, which is aimed at reducing use of dangerouspesticides imported from other countries, and assistingdeveloping countries to develop strategies to deal with theissues surrounding hazardous pesticides.

Through the procedure Cambodia can publicisedecisions on whether or not it desires imports of the PICchemicals (those banned or severely restricted in membercountries), passing the onus to control trade to exportingcountries.

Having established their dedication to environmentalprotection, the greatest challenge facing the RoyalGovernment of Cambodia (RGC) is the enforcement of itslaws. Given the permeability of Cambodia’s borders, the

pesticides and cambodian law

Although Cambodian law prohibits use and sale of pesticidesclassified by WHO as Class 1 (extremely or highly hazardous tohuman health), they are widely available in pesticides shops andmarkets. Despite its political will, the Royal Government ofCambodia is impeded by a lack of human and financial resources.

© E

JF

Regent (a Rhône-Poulenc fipronil product)and Zeneca’s lambda-cyhalothrin are promotedas IPM-compatible pesticides but have beencriticised for their negative impacts on naturalcontrol and potential for promotion of severepest outbreaks in Vietnam. Furthermore, fipronilis harmful to crustaceans – a major concern asfloodwater links paddy fields with shrimp farms.

That Western agrochemical companiescontinue to market older more dangerouschemicals in Asia but not in the West is tacitlyacknowledged in the APCPA statement that:“The lack of adequate data protection in severaleconomically important Asian countries is withoutdoubt a serious barrier to introducing new, safer, moreeffective IPM-compatible molecules”.

C’ pesticide problem arises notonly because of the presence ofchemicals banned by the Governmentand regarded globally as hazardous tohuman and environmental health, but

also because of a suite of contributory factors.

Limited education and little access to relevantinformation has led to a culture of ignorance inCambodia regarding the dangers of pesticidesand means to minimise these.Typically, farmerslack even the most basic information such aswhich pesticides are appropriate for specificpests, what doses to use, which pesticide mixesare safe, and what the correct re-entry and pre-harvest periods are. An FAO survey showed thatonly % of vegetable farmers had receivedtraining from a technical field officer. % of farmers in a CEDAC survey learned to usepesticides from neighbours or traders, whothemselves are unaware of pesticide risks, havenot been trained and are often unable to readlabels. Nevertheless, traders are perceived to beknowledgeable, “similar to a doctor”.

The paucity of Cambodian farmers’ educationextends to lack of awareness about the necessityof (and alternatives to) pesticide use andignorance of whether insects on crops aregenuine pests, are benign or even beneficial.

Western companies continue to producepesticides regarded by the internationalcommunity to be of sufficient risk to humanhealth and the environment to be included on thePrior Informed Consent procedure or in WHOcategories Ia and Ib. Although many of thesepesticides are banned or restricted in the Westernworld, stockpiles remain and continue to beexported to developing countries, a process ofquestionable ethics, given the inability of manysuch recipient countries to ensure safe andeffective use.

Intrinsic consequences of corporate marketingstrategies are the increased use of and increaseddependence upon pesticides.Whilst such marketexpansion is naturally the aim of any commercialinterest, it may run counter to the aims ofIntegrated Pest Management strategies (seepages -), which emphasise the use of a suiteof methods (including chemicals whennecessary) to increase agricultural productivity inan ecologically sound and sustainable manner.

Whilst the agrochemical industry voicessupport for IPM efforts in South-East Asia, ithas been suggested that their marketing strategieshinder attempts to develop and implement safeand sustainable alternatives.

cambodia’s pesticide problem: causes

50% of Cambodia’s population is under 15 and many areactive in agriculture. 48% of farmers recently asked allowedchildren to apply pesticides. The heat discourages the use ofoveralls, boots, gloves and masks and such protection is tooexpensive for most farmers. Pesticides are thus often in contactwith the applicants’ skin, eyes or mouth, leading to serious risksof poisoning.

© G

.B

izar

ri /

FA

O

A large proportion of pesticides on sale inCambodia is imported from Vietnam andThailand and is thus labelled in a language andscript incomprehensible to even the minority offarmers who are literate. A CEDAC studyrevealed that only of pesticide traders saidthey could read foreign labels on pesticides theysold, whilst .% of the pesticides were labelledin a foreign language.This exacerbates theproblems outlined above and leaves usersignorant of which chemicals they are using, whatapplication regime is recommended and what thedangers are.This is exemplified by farmers’treatment of fungal attacks on coffee withmonocrotophos and mevinphos, both insecticidesand thus ineffectual.

“The labelling often written in improper language fails to provide data on the active ingredient,application, date of manufacture and safe handling of the chemical”

FAO/WHO press release10

“SPC’s (Saigon PesticidesCompany) products are characterizedby their high quality and consistency,good in appearance and safe in use, andto be widely used throughout country”11

—Corporate information of the SaigonPesticide Company, whose WHO ClassIb products DDVP (dichlorvos),Azodrin (monocrotophos) and Monitor(methamidophos) are widely availablein Cambodia – with only Vietnameselabelling.

Goodlabelling:Althoughmethamidophosis also banned,these bottles arelabelled inKhmer, illustratetarget crops anduse clearersafety symbols.

Bad labelling:This WHO ClassIa pesticides islabelled inEnglish, notKhmer, lacks anexpiry date anduses symbolsthat are difficultto interpret.

© C

ED

AC

© C

ED

AC

Producers of some pesticides sold in Cambodia without Khmer labelling12

Product WHO class Company Instructions language

Folidol (methyl-parathion) Ia Bayer Thai

Mevinphos (mevinphos) Ia Cyanamid Thai

Phosdrin (mevinphos) Ia Shell Thai

DDVP (dichlorvos) Ib TIGIPESCO (Vietnam) Vietnamese

DDVP (dichlorvos) Ib Saigon Pesticide Company (Vietnam) Vietnamese

DDVP (dichlorvos) Ib VIPESCO (Vietnam) Vietnamese

Furadan (carbofuran) Ib VIPESCO (Vietnam) Vietnamese

Ovansu (methamidophos) Ib Bayer Thai

Giant (methamidophos) Ib Sanonda (China) English, Vietnamese

Monitor (methamidophos) Ib Saigon Pesticide Company (Vietnam) Vietnamese

Azodrin (monocrotophos) Ib VIPESCO (Vietnam) Vietnamese

Azodrin (monocrotophos) Ib Saigon Pesticide Company (Vietnam) Vietnamese

Lannate (methomyl) Ib DuPont Thai

Regent (fipronil) II Rhone-Poulenc (now Aventis) Chinese, Vietnamese

Thiodan (endosulfan) II Hoechst (now Aventis) Vietnamese

Thiodan (endosulfan) II Techno Agricultural Supplying Co. Vietnamese

Padan (cartap) II Takeda (Japan) Vietnamese

Sumicidin (fenvalerate) II Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd Vietnamese

Diazinon (deltamethrin) II Asiatic Agricultural Industries Pte Ltd (Singapore) English

Decise (deltamethrin) II AgroEvo (Hoechst) (now Aventis) Vietnamese

Cyrin (cypermethrin) II Searle (India) Ltd (now ISAGRO, Italy) Vietnamese

Pegasus (diafenthiuron) III Novartis (now Syngenta) Vietnamese

Glyphosate U Monsanto Vietnamese

‘ ’

If evidence from Cambodia’s neighbours isindicative, it would appear that even ifinstructions are printed in Khmer, and can beread, they will not necessarily be understood orrespected. A study by German technical aidagency GTZ and the University of Hannoverrevealed that, “Thai farmers apply higher thanrecommended concentrations, do not pay attention tolabels, wear no protective clothing and do not respectrecommended intervals between spraying andharvest”. Similarly, in Vietnam, whilst % offarmers were able to read pesticide instructions,only % understood and followed them.

Instructions targeted to temperate zoneconsumers are simply not realistic in theCambodian context.The heat discourages theuse of overalls, boots, gloves and masks and suchprotection is too expensive for most farmers.Only % of farmers interviewed in a FAOstudy changed their clothes after spraying andone-half did not wash their hands. Lockablestorage (beyond reach of children and animals) isuncommon and pesticides are often kept nearcooking areas,. Used pesticide containers aredisposed of without caution, frequently discardedin fields, ponds or near houses. Furthermore,tools used are often old and in poor condition. InIndonesia – a country with similar problems – itwas found that nearly half the spray equipment

(tanks, valves, lances) leaked onto the sprayers’hands and down their necks and backs.

Ignorance or disrespect of good practice isreflected by a CIAP survey conducted in ,which demonstrated that % of farmers mixedpesticides in the same containers used fordrinking water. Even at the traders’ level, riskawareness is minimal. Of pesticide shopsvisited by CEDAC in , over half did notseparate pesticides from cosmetics, food, drinks,and medicine; the situation remained a yearlater.

“During one season I spray - times, which is tanks of pesticide in one go. I mix three different typesof pesticide.This makes the crop grow better and lookmore attractive. I can read but cannot understand thelabels on the bottles and packages of pesticides. SinceI began to use pesticides I notice that my health hasdeteriorated.”

Mrs Srey Ya, vegetable farmer,Kien Svay district, Kandal Province

According to a Government report, % ofCambodian farmers believed that pesticides hadno effect on human health, % thought thatsickness was possible and none envisaged a riskof death. Even when health risks are accepted,many believe that danger only exists if pesticidesare ingested orally, rather than via the skin orinhalation. Said farmer Keo Chouk, , “If youdon’t drink [the pesticide] you will never die. If youare careful, you will never have a problem”.

Even when signs of pesticide poisoning areshown, farmers do not always make the

“Since I began to use pesticides I notice that my health has deteriorated.”Mrs Srey Ya, vegetable farmer, Kien Svay district, Kandal Province

Lockable storage, beyond reach of children andanimals, is uncommon in rural Cambodian houses.Pesticides are often kept near cooking areas,sometimes among food items.

© R

ach

el R

inal

do

The Magnificent Seven?The seven companies (Aventis CropScience, BASF,Bayer, DowAgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto andSyngenta) dominating agrochemical production are allbased in Europe or the USA, where some of the strictestchemical control legislation exists.

The seven companies dominating agrochemicalproduction are all based in Europe or the USA, where someof the strictest chemical control legislation exists. Amongtheir products are chemicals banned or severely restricted inthe West but which are marketed to developing countrieswhere inappropriate use is rife.

Ascertaining which companies are producing whichchemicals and where is difficult. Some of the companies’websites, for example, list only a selection of theiragrochemical portfolio – generally the most modern,patented-protected products.

During the writing of this report, each of the big sevenwas approached with requests to provide lists of all of theiragrochemical products and the sites of their manufactureand formulation. With the exception of DuPont, all declinedto reply.

connection. Some have blamed “bad magic” forhealth problems that are symptoms of pesticidepoisoning. A child who collapsed whilst sprayinginsecticide on rice was said to have “fell asleepimmediately” by his family, who expressedsurprise that he was so exhausted from the work:applying insecticide directly from a bucket to theplant with the help of straws. Such exposure ofchildren to harmful chemicals is widespread.Indeed, % of farmers in a recent survey saidthat they allowed children to apply pesticides.

A recent FAO study suggested awareness isimproving – % of vegetable farmers associatedill health with pesticide use. However, badpractice persists and farmers aware of healthrisks may consider them minimal relative to thelost harvest they fear will follow a cessation ofpesticide use.Vegetable farmers also believepesticides make their crops look healthy andtherefore increase their market value.

Many dangerous pesticides (those in WHO ClassIa and b) are officially banned under

Cambodian law (see page ) but remainavailable. % of vegetable farmersquestioned by FAO researchers used Class a orb chemicals.Weak law enforcement contributesto the continued market presence of thesedangerous chemicals.

Variable pesticide quality, encouraged by lack ofcontrols over what is sold, confuses farmers anddiscourages good practice. For example, fakeversions of well-known branded products arewidely available. A CIAP survey of ratpoison revealed that one product wascompletely fake and another was only % zincphosphide, though labelled as %. Safe use ofsuch pesticides is almost impossible as farmersconsider them ‘weak’ on the basis that they donot work as expected. During the next use ofthe same type of chemical, doses might beincreased, but if the next product is moreconcentrated, over-application will result,increasing risks to humans and theenvironment.

“I can read but cannot understand the labels on the bottles and packages of pesticides.”Mrs Srey Ya, vegetable farmer, Kien Svay district, Kandal Province

Safe use?The Asia-Pacific Crop Protection Association(APCPA), provides regional representation of theagrochemical industry (members include Aventis,BASF, Bayer, Dow AgroSciences, FMC, DuPont,Monsanto, Syngenta and Sumitomo). APCPAmembers endorse the Safe Use Initiative, a systemof product stewardship in Asia19.

According to the Bayer website ”Productstewardship does not end at the factory gate. AtBayer, environmental and safety aspects of aproduct are critically examined for the entire life ofthe product”20. However, Bayer is the manufacturerof Folidol (methyl-parathion), the most commonlyused pesticide in Cambodia, although banned bythe Government. Much of Cambodia’s Folidol islabelled in Thai and, as such, instructions for safeuse are unintelligible to most users. This can hardlybe considered safe for the product’s “entire life”(see also page 22 on Peru). Although the industryhighlights the fact that fake Folidol is on sale inCambodia, independent sources question thesignificance of the counterfeits as a proportion ofthe total15.

Japan’s Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd boasts onits website that “The safe, environment-friendlyagrochemicals created at these laboratories aremaking a significant contribution to Japaneseagriculture, and are also exported worldwide”21.Indian workers report poisoning and death fromhandling Padan (a cartap pesticide) for Takeda22.Padan is available in Cambodia but all instructionsare in Vietnamese.

Cambodian farmers, who are often unable to read the labels, do notknow basic precautions related to the use of pesticides. Food containersare used for mixing pesticides. This can lead to confusion and seriousdomestic accidents, especially for children.

© E

JF

Oral contamination affects bothsprayers and consumers, whereas thetwo other modes of contaminationaffect mainly farmers. Althoughingesting pesticide is the mostdangerous, breathing and adsorptionthrough the skin are probably themajor causes of occupationalpoisoning cases among farmers inCambodia as they are usually unawareof these particular risks.

Direct drinking of large quantitiesof pesticides is very rare and usuallyhappens in connection with suicideattempts. Accidental oralcontamination usually results whenfarmers eat, drink or smoke whilespraying or do so just after sprayingwithout washing their hands (for somepesticides, like methyl-parathion, verysmall quantities can induce poisoning).

As many Cambodian farmers areunfamiliar with the concept of pre-harvest period, pesticides may beapplied up to the day of harvest,

resulting in high levels of residues infood products, and potentially causingconsumer poisoning. A growingconcern is contamination of drinkingwater through use of the samecontainers to mix pesticides and totransport drinking water, or by directpollution of water systems.

A major cause of farmers’ poisoningis pesticide inhalation caused byspraying without protective masks(pieces of cloth are sometimes usedbut they usually have minimalprotective effect). Adsorption ofpesticides through the skin is the leastacknowledged mode of contamination.It is not unusual for farmers to mixpesticides with bare hands, or to walkbarefoot in fields.These routes ofcontamination are very difficult toprevent as Cambodian conditionsmake wearing of protective clothes andmasks impractical.

Pesticides can be dangerous forhuman health in two ways: acute

C faces both humanand environmental pesticide-related problems, all of whichare exacerbated by limitedappreciation of the risks

associated with pesticides.

An estimated three million reportedcases of pesticide-associated acutepoisoning occur annually, resulting in, deaths, % of which occurin the developing world, althoughthese countries account for only %of global pesticide use.

Contamination can occur via threemain routes:

● oral (ingestion)

● inhalation

● through the skin (adsorption)

Why are pesticides dangerous for humans?The diversity of pesticide compounds makes it difficult to generalise, but insecticides – with the exception of the most recentones – all tend to act in the same way: targeting insects’ nervous systems, specifically the ‘synapses’. Synapses are spacesbetween nerve cells, across which chemical molecules transmit nervous information.

Each insecticide can affect different synaptic molecules, but a given insecticide does not affect all potential target molecules.What makes insecticides particularly toxic for humans is the fact that human and insect nerve cells work, at a basic level, in thesame way. So the nerve cell targets of the insecticides are present – and can be affected – in the human body. Usually, however,insecticides must reach nerve cells and so undergo modifications – mainly in the digestive system, which differs greatly betweeninsects and humans. Insecticide compounds thus tend to be activated specifically by insect metabolism, and neutralised byhuman metabolism. Despite thistendency, many pesticides are stilldangerous for human health.

For example, parathion is activated ininsect bodies to give paraoxon, amolecule 100 times more toxic toinsects. Mammals cannot make thistransformation, but parathion is stilltoxic to them through differentreactions.

Such actions on the nervous systemcan result either in immediate toxiceffects or on longer-term disruptions(delayed neuropathies).

cambodia’s pesticide problem: dangers

Right: Many farmers believe thatdanger only exists if pesticides areingested orally, rather than via theskin or inhalation. It is not unusual forfarmers to mix pesticides with barehands, or to walk barefoot in fields.This Cambodian farmer’s hands showsymptoms of direct pesticideexposure. ©

CE

DA

C

human development and inreproduction, such ‘endocrinedisruption’ can affect humans asembryos or children. However,consequences may only appear later inlife, and include learning difficulties,behavioural and reproductiveaffectations (e.g. accelerated puberty,infertility), and increased susceptibilityto cancer.

One well-known effect of somepesticides is their disruption ofcholinesterase, an enzyme functioningin the transmission of informationacross synapses between nerves.Cholinesterase disruptors preventnerves from working correctly. Inparticular, this can affect brain nerves,responsible for the release ofhormones, hence affecting thereproductive system. Cholinesterasedisruption thus results in bothimmediate symptoms and longer-termeffects. Immediate symptoms resemblethe symptoms of acute toxicity.Theycan, however, be mistaken withsymptoms of common illnesses indeveloping countries: heat prostration,exhaustion, hypoglycaemia,pneumonia, etc. Many pesticides fromthe organophosphate and carbamatefamilies are known cholinesterasedisruptors.

Other long-term effects areteratogenic (inducing embryomalformation), mutagenic (inducinggenetic or chromosomal mutations)and carcinogenic (inducing cancer).Pesticides are tested for these effects,but their slow emergence is hard toreveal in tests. If effects are found atsmall doses though, pesticides are notcommercialised.

A recent () report from the FAOCommunity IPM programmeprovided strong evidence of pesticidepoisoning among Cambodian farmers,the majority of whom were usingchemicals classed as moderately toextremely hazardous to human health(WHO classifications Ia, Ib, II). Of pesticide-using farmersinterviewed, % had experiencedsymptoms of poisoning (dizziness,headaches, night sweats, shortness ofbreath, chest pains, red eyes,unconsciousness) during or afterspraying. % reported vomiting, asign of moderate poisoning afterspraying, whilst % had experiencedunconsciousness, indicative of seriouspoisoning.

According to a CEDAC report, in, at least one farmer died frompesticide poisoning and several becameseriously ill. In Siem Reap in ,seven Cambodians died and became sick after eating normally non-toxic tetradontus fish. Hong SunHuot, Cambodian Minister of Healthsaid, “According to the results of ourlaboratory tests, there were high levels ofpesticides in the fish”. This explanationwas later disputedb, and the role ofpesticides in this case remains unclear.

It is likely that pesticide poisoning isunder-reported in Cambodia, wheresymptom recognition and associationwith pesticides have only recentlydeveloped. In Thailand, in the earlys, there were reported to be about cases of occupational pesticidepoisoning annually.

poisoning and chronic effects. Acutepoisoning has the most striking effectsand can lead to immediateincapacitation and death. Chronicpoisoning is usually less dramatic,appearing gradually, thus making theconnection with pesticide moredifficult to establish and to explain tothe victim.

Pesticides’ acute toxicity ismeasured by the Lethal Dose (LD), the amount of the productthat would result in the death of half apopulation of laboratory rats.Themost toxic pesticides have the lowestLD (very small doses can kill). Forexample, methyl-parathion has an oralLD of mg per kg of body weight;nicotine and DDT both have oralLD of mg per kg; malathion hasan oral LD of mg per kg.

Acute poisoning symptoms dependboth on the toxicity of the product andon the quantity absorbed.They arenumerous and range from dizzinessand nausea to breathing difficulties,convulsions, increased blood pressureand changes in heart rate (that canlead to coma or death),.The samesymptoms can sometimes be observedafter repeated exposure to pesticides(chronic toxicity). Delayed effects(including loss of feeling and needle-like pain in the extremities) cansometimes be observed to weeksafter an important exposure (tomethamidophos, for example).

Long-term effects are harder toevaluate and data for a given pesticidevary between sources. One generalconcern is pesticides’ effect onhormones. Since hormones areespecially important in early stages of

A warning from Peru9

A scenario bearing striking similarities to thatcurrently observed in Cambodia exists in Peru andserves as a stark warning of the potential for harmposed by pesticides. According to a recent pressrelease from Pesticide Action Network9, 24Peruvian children died following ingestion ofBayer’s Folidol (methyl-parathion), which hadcontaminated powered milk supplies. Althoughthe pesticide was labelled in Spanish, it wasmarketed to Andean farmers, many of whomspeak only Quechua and are illiterate.Furthermore, the packaging lacked pictogramswarning of health hazards, instead showingimages of healthy carrots.

prevalence as pesticides being “not asstrong as in the past”.This is termedthe “pesticide treadmill”, a classicvicious circle that leaves farmers inthrall to dangerous pesticides whilstpromoting further resistance.

Pesticides, particularly broad-spectruminsecticides widely used in Cambodiatoday, often fail to differentiatebetween target and non-target species.As well as killing pest species, otherinsects, including natural enemies ofpest insects, are killed. However,differences in reproductive strategiesoften allow pests to recover faster thantheir predators.The absence of naturalcontrol agents can then lead toexplosions of pest populations.

For example, insecticide spraysagainst brown plant-hoppers eliminatethe adults – and their predators – butplant-hopper eggs are safely laid insiderice plants and hatch a few days later,giving rise to a second generation that,in the absence of predators, willproliferate even more than the firstone. Such pest resurgence hasoccurred on a range of Asian cropsincluding fruit, rice, cotton, vegetables,cocoa and oil palm. As long ago as, FAO researchers presented datafrom Cambodia that showed thatpesticide applications threatened ricecrops by killing off natural enemies ofpest insects, allowing the pests toproliferate in their absence.

The emergence, in tandem, ofpesticide resistance amplifies theproblem of reliance on chemicals forpest control. In Thailand it has been

Another major environmental concernis pests’ resistance to some pesticides.Far from being restricted to thedeveloping world, this occurs virtuallyeverywhere pesticides are used (anestimated arthropod species areresistant to one or more pesticides).

Pesticide resistance occurs bynatural selection.Whilst pesticides killmost insects, individuals with randommutations conferring reducedsensitivity to insecticide molecules aremore likely to survive spraying andreproduce. Some of their offspring willinherit this resistance and, as long aspesticide application continues, theproportion of resistant individuals willincrease. Resistance can spread rapidlyas insects have short generation timesand large numbers of offspring.

For example, the brown plant-hopper (Nilaparvata lugens), a pest ofrice, became resistant to methyl-parathion in Vietnam in andTaiwan in . Resistance to thisinsecticide elsewhere in Asia issuspected, but confirmatory surveyshave yet to be conducted. In total, thebrown plant-hopper is resistant to pesticides across South-East Asia.

Cambodian farmers’ responses topesticide resistance include mixingseveral insecticides to obtain “morepowerful” products.This is adangerous undertaking, as the toxicityof the mixtures may be greater thanthat of constituent chemicals – the so-called ‘cocktail effect’. Farmers alsoreact by increasing the quantity andfrequency of pesticide application,misinterpreting increased insect

observed that brown plant-hopperoutbreaks do not precede pesticide use– they follow it.

Negative pesticide effects are notlimited to farmers and insects in thevicinity of their application, but arealso manifested through thecontamination of the widerenvironment, particularly of watersystems and food chains.Consequently, environmental pesticide

“I have never seen such hazardous pesticides used in any country in such a hazardous fashion”Helen Murphy, Medical Epidemiologist, speaking of Cambodia36

Left: This parasitic wasp islaying its eggs in a pestcaterpillar, which will die as aresult. Such natural enemiesare beneficial to farmers butare killed by broad-spectrumpesticides, making pestresurgence more likely.

Right: Arthropod speciesresistant to at least onepesticide (global data)14,15

© S

cott

Bau

er /

US

DA

-AR

S

Already endangered by wildlife trade,birds can be poisoned by pesticidesthrough direct contamination or byfeeding on contaminated insects in thefields.

© P

eter

Sch

rock

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1938 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998Year

Num

ber o

f spe

cies

concentrating in fat tissues thesepersistent pollutants ‘escape’ metabolicdegradation and concentrate up thefood chain. Meat-eaters, includinghumans, at the top of the food chainthus face increased risks.The effectsof persistent organic pesticides varybetween species and concentrations,but include direct mortality throughdisruption of the nervous system. Lesstoxic effects, often observed in birds,include egg-shell thinning,feminisation of embryos and reducedlevels of hormones concerned withegg-laying. Although sub-lethal, theseeffects still contribute to populationdeclines.

Although carbamates andorganophosphates do not persist in thesame manner as organochlorines,many are highly toxic to birds,mammals, fishes, reptiles, and insects,acting by interfering with neurologicalprocesses common to these disparatetaxa. Again, effects vary betweenspecies, pesticides and concentrationsbut include rapid death (see box); inthe USA, mammals and thousands ofbirds of over species have died as aresult of pesticide exposure. Otherless obvious neurological andhormonal effects of pesticides onwildlife include appetite suppressioncontributing to starvation, decreasedcold tolerance, disruption of parentalcare and increased susceptibility topredation. In the USA, methoprene,an insect growth regulator used to

pollution further impacts humans bythe contamination of water suppliesand food products.

Water contamination can be direct,if spraying occurs near the watersystem, but more commonly occurswhen pesticides are carried away fromfields by rain or soil erosion.Contamination also results from thepractice of abandoning pesticidepackages, since they often retain somechemical that eventually enters theenvironment. Finally, washing ofspraying equipment is a source ofpollution.

Once in the environment, pesticidescan be broken down by sunlight,water, or micro-organisms (e.g.bacteria). However, althoughpesticides usually break down into lessharmful compounds, in some cases thenewly formed compounds are moretoxic than the initial pesticide.Furthermore, not all pesticidesdegrade in the environment, and some(termed persistent organic pollutants,e.g. DDT, endrin) can remainunchanged for very long periods.

In Cambodia, higher levels ofpersistent organochlorines, includingDDT, have been recorded infreshwater than marine species of fishand mussels, indicating that pollutionoriginated in inland watersheds.Concentrations of such pesticides infish tissues, for instance, can be tens tohundreds of thousands times greaterthan in the surrounding water. By

Case studies: effects ofpesticides on wildlifeResearch from Cambodia is lackingbut data from elsewhere indicate therisks posed by chemical pesticidesused today in Cambodia today.

endosulfan (WHO Class II) runofffrom cotton fields killed over240,000 fish in Alabama (USA) in1995 – the pesticide was appliedaccording to label instructions27.

monocrotophos (Ib) is responsiblefor extensive mortality of Swainson’sHawk (Buteo swainsonii) inArgentina, with as many as 20,000birds dying in winter 1995-628.

DDT (II) is one of a cocktail oforganophosphates implicated in thedeaths of hundreds of fish-eatingbirds, largely pelicans but also rarestorks, in Lake Apopka, Florida(USA) in the late 1990s29.

brodifacoum (Ia) has killed largepredatory birds, including owls andhawks, that have eaten rats targetedby the poison30

cypermethrin (II) sprayed onBangladeshi vegetables in 1999caused over 5000 sparrows to diethe following day, having eatenpoisoned insects31.

diazonin (II) is blamed fornumerous cases of mass poisoningof geese (up to 700 in a single kill) inCanada and the USA, with deathcoming within minutes of swallowingsprayed grass32.

carbofuran (Ib) used to control fleabeetles caused the deaths of severalthousand Lapland Longspurs in asingle Canadian field in 198432.

phosphamidon (Ia), nicknamed‘purple death’, resulted in heavymortality and massive reductions ofkinglets and several warbler speciesin Canada between 1963 and 197732.

Other specific compoundsresponsible for pesticide-relatedwildlife mortality include:chlorpyrifos (II), dimethoate (II),methyl-parathion (Ia), andmethamidophos (Ib)23.

All of these pesticides remainavailable on the Cambodianmarket

Cambodian water-birds, like this globally threatened Painted Stork, are especiallyprone to pesticide exposure because of contaminated food and water.

© T

erry

Wh

itta

ker

food poisoning when, in turn, they areconsumed by humans.

-

As well as public health concernsrelated to direct and indirect pesticidepoisoning, continued pesticide use inCambodia will have other socio-economic impacts.

Current agricultural pesticide use isa costly approach, not reflected byincreases in yield. As such, itimpoverishes farmers and leaves themdependent on external inputs.According to CEDAC, methyl-parathion retails at US$- per litre

and FAO states that rice farmers use- litres per hectare, depending onthe type of cultivation.Thus, forsome farmers, pesticide costs equateto almost % the per capita GDP. AnIRRI study showed that there is no neteconomic benefit of pesticide use intropical rice cultivation. In vegetablefarming, higher pesticideconcentrations (up to litres / ha)are used. Although most family-levelvegetable farmers have only about .hectares in production, suchconcentrations are extremelyexpensive especially since it has beenshown that pesticide use can bereduced by over % from currentpractice in vegetables without loss inyield.

Beyond direct costs, pesticidepresence in paddy fields prohibitstraditional rice-fish culture (see page), a potential means of increasedincome for rice farmers. Each year,Cambodian floodplain rice fields fillwith fish that, along with crabs,

control fleas and mosquitoes has beenlinked to frog deformities (extralegs). Birth defects noted in birdsinclude crossed bills, missing eyes andclubbed feet. As with persistentorganochlorines, these sublethal effectsnonetheless contribute to populationdeclines.

By disrupting the natural ecosystembalance, pesticides can have furtherindirect effects on wild species. Forexample, in the UK, sharp declines inUK bird populations have been linkedto pesticide use, not through directpoisoning, but through elimination ofplant and insect food sources.Similarly, as stressed earlier, pesticidepoisoning of natural enemies of pestspecies can allow them to proliferateand cause greater problems foragriculture.

Dr Yang Saing Koma, ExecutiveDirector of CEDAC, believes thatdeclines in numbers of some birdspecies from around the Tonle Sap arepartly due to pesticide poisoning. Inrecent years, mung bean farmers inSiem Reap province are estimated tohave applied tonnes (activeingredient) of a pesticide cocktail ofDDT,Thiodan (endosulfan) andFolidol (methyl-parathion) on fieldsthat, in the wet season, are submergedand thus capable of polluting the TonleSap.

Besides accidental contamination ofthe environment from pesticides usedon farmland, pesticides are purposelyused around Tonle Sap to kill fish andgame for human consumption.Animals thus contaminated usuallycontain high levels of pesticides intheir tissues.They can cause serious

shrimps, edible insects and frogs,represent a valuable protein source forrural people.The use of pesticides killsthese animals and denies rice farmersaccess to the dietary supplement.

Fish constitutes an integralcomponent of typical Cambodiandiets, providing around % of animalprotein. In an environment alreadydestabilised by fishing and loggingpractices, water pollution by pesticidesis one more element that could lead todramatic disruption of the Cambodianecosystem and contribute to increasedimbalance in rural diets.

Pesticide residues limit the potentialfor export to countries with strictcontrols on food safety.This concern issaid to have triggered the Indonesiandecision to improve its residuesmonitoring programme, whilstproviding an incentive to increasecontrol of domestic pesticide use.Similarly,Thailand has recentlydeveloped a pesticide residuemonitoring system for market producedestined for human consumption. InCambodia, local consumers are alsoexpressing concern about pesticideingestion through food consumption.A major problem is that farmers spraycrops a few days before harvests.Thus,pesticide concentrations on produce(especially fruit and vegetables) arestill very high when they are sold atmarket and eaten.

Pesticide residues therefore have thepotential not only to endanger thefuture of Cambodian exports but alsoto impact the domestic market, thusaffecting the urban population andpotentially tarnishing the image of theburgeoning tourism industry.

© E

JF

Left: Pesticide packagesabandoned near fields are animportant source ofenvironmentalcontamination.

Right: A major problem isthat farmers spray crops afew days before harvests.Thus, pesticideconcentrations on produce(especially fruit andvegetables) are still veryhigh when they are sold atmarket and eaten.

© E

JF

Human uses

● Rural population of 3.4million40, 38% of whom livebelow the poverty line42.

● Many subsistence fishersand 60% of Cambodia’scommercial catch37.

● Centuries old riceproduction and otheragriculture.

● Burgeoning tourist industryvisiting nearby Angkor Watand bird-watching sites.

Natural riches

● 500 fish species (179endemic to the lake)40,45.

● 225 bird species.Internationally significantbreeding grounds for rarebirds, e.g Bengal Florican(Houbaropsis bengalensis),Greater Adjutant (Leptoptilosdubius)46.

● 190 plant species inflooded forest40.

● Rare turtles and endemicTonle Sap water snakeEnhydris longicauda47,48.

● UNESCO Man andBiosphere Reserve40.

The Tonle Sap lake, the largest in SE Asia, is thedominant geographical feature of the Cambodianlandscape, expanding to cover 13,000 km2 in the wetseason40. The lake and its 80,000 km2 catchment areof considerable cultural and economic importance tothe communities that live close to its shore, and tothose more distant who benefit from its abundantfisheries and agricultural output – in total, half ofCambodia’s population are thought to draw gain fromthe catchment40. However, dangers posed bypesticides loom on the horizon. The potential forsevere human and environmental impacts in the TonleSap area reflect wider pesticide-related problemsfacing Cambodia as a whole. Tonle Sap’s uniquehydrology (wet season reverse flow of the river) andconnection with the Mekong basin may contribute topollutants being distributed far from their source41.

Pesticide input

● 1.3 million litres of pesticides used in Tonle Sapcatchment in 200035.

● Most chemicals used are illegal and classed as highlyor extremely hazardous to human health (WHO class I)35.

● An estimated 10 tonnes of DDT & methyl-parathionhave run-off from 2000 ha of mung bean crops in recentyears34.

● Pesticides including endosulfan and methyl-parathionare illegally used to kill fish16,43.

● Pesticides are used to protect dried fish from insects44.

● Most users remain ignorant of potential for harm.

Dangers posed bypesticides

● Acute and chronicpoisoning of farmers.

● Wildlife poisoning anddeath.

● Pest outbreaks caused byabsence of predatorsinadvertently targeted bypesticides.

● Poisoning of human foodsupply of rice and fish.

● Impacts on domestic andexport food markets, and onthe tourist industry.

● Long-term and long-distance impacts due tobioaccumulation of toxins,considerable water flow andtransport of polluted food.

tonle sap: a disaster waiting to happen?

© E

JF

© E

JF

population is not high enough to seriouslyaffect harvests”.

After insects, the major peststargeted by pesticides in Cambodia arerats. In contrast to insects, rat damageseems to be of real importance, “one ofthe biggest threats to a growing rice crop”,according to CSIRO expert Dr GrantSingleton.

Alternatives to chemical control arebeing developed and include CSIRO’sCommunity Trap Barrier System(CTBS), which uses a small, early cropto lure rats into a central trapping areaand is cost-effective in situations wherelosses are expected to exceed %.CTBS is only effective when used atthe community level and although

It is now known that pests of rice donot affect yield to the extent previouslythought and experts conclude that“insecticides are usually not needed inrice”. Reflecting this, elsewhere in theregion, increases in pesticideapplication have not been matched byproportionate increases inproductivity.

Furthermore, it seems that manyinsecticide applications areinappropriate, targeting the wronginsect or being applied at the wrongtime.This is the case for up to % ofpesticides sprayed in the Philippines,for instance. In Thailand, most ricefarmers spray their crop in the firstmonth after planting, yet theseapplications are unnecessary. On thecontrary, they can kill pests’ predators,thus allowing subsequent pestoutbreaks.

Studies in Vietnam and thePhilippines revealed that leaf-feedinginsects were commonly targeted,accounting for % and % ofinsecticide use in each country, butthat spraying was out of proportion topest abundance. Although, leaf-feeding insects are conspicuous tofarmers, rice can tolerate losing up to% of leaf area withoutcompromising yield. A joint IRRI /Cantho University (Vietnam) studyconducted in in Vietnam’sMekong Delta convinced rice farmersthat spraying insecticides against leaf-folders is unnecessary. Consequently,half the region’s farmers stopped usingpesticides against this pest and somewere even testing whether they alsoreally needed other pesticides.

An IRRI study of rice production inthe Philippines concluded that, whenhealth costs are included in aneconomic analysis, pesticide use isdetrimental to both rice productivityand farmers’ health. Given thesimilarities between rice production inthe above countries and Cambodia, itis likely that a large proportion ofinsecticide used in Cambodian riceproduction is unnecessary.

Indeed, recommending against theintroduction of insecticides toCambodia in the early s, staff ofthe Japan International VolunteerCenter, FAO and IRRI warned that:“in most Cambodian rice paddies the pest

initial costs are relatively high (US$- per unit in Indonesia and Vietnam),materials can be re-used and shared.Other non-chemical approachesinclude avoiding staggered harvests incropping areas, use of extended fallowperiods, and ensuring field bunds arelow to deter nesting.

In non-rice agriculture, conclusionsabout the need for pesticides are lesseasy to draw.This is in part because,compared to rice, considerably lessresearch has been conducted into croppests and protection. Furthermore, thediversity of non-rice products meansthat a more diversified approach tocrop protection is required.This is ofconcern given the agrochemicalindustries’ recent prediction thatvegetable production will increase by% per annum in all South-East Asiancountries.

In some circumstances, pesticideuse is an attractive means of pestcontrol for farmers. However, thedirect and indirect costs of usingpesticides should always be comparedto the benefit they bring. Asmentioned earlier, another hidden costof pesticide use is the residual effect onfood products and their subsequentloss in value, particularly for productsdestined for export. Such costs aremajor incentives for farmers andgovernment to turn to Integrated PestManagement or organic farming (seebelow).Without suggesting thatpesticides should be abandoned, theiruse should always remain a last resort,when the cost of loss induced by pests’outbreaks justify it.

alternatives and solutions in cambodianagriculture

© S

AO

-UK

Although targeted by Cambodianfarmers’ pesticides, research fromVietnam has shown that spraying againstrice leaf-folders is unnecessary

© I

RR

I

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) isdefined in the FAO Code of Conductas “the careful integration of a number ofavailable pest control techniques thatdiscourage the development of pestpopulations and keep pesticides and otherinterventions to levels that areeconomically justified and reduce/minimiserisks to human health and theenvironment. IPM emphasises the growthof a healthy crop with the least possibledisruption of agro-ecosystems, therebyencouraging natural pest controlmechanisms”.

Essentially, IPM is a system of pestcontrol using a suite of biological,chemical, cultural, and temporalmethods in concert and in anenvironmentally sound and sustainablemanner.

In order that farmers learn thesetechniques, FAO and the CambodianDepartment of Agronomy initiated“Farmer Field Schools”. In FFS,farmers meet weekly and learn torecognise pests, predators andparasites, to decide when pesticide useis necessary, and to use pesticidessafely. In addition they learn aboutseed selection, soil fertility, watermanagement and other aspects of cropproduction.

Importantly, teaching occurs in thefield, through a participatory process,and is often conducted by farmers who

IPM: Indonesia’s successstory20,21

In 1986, in response topesticide-inducedresurgence of brown plant-hopper, President Suhartobanned 28 pesticides in 57products and IPM becamenational policy for riceproduction.

Indonesia saved overUS$100 million a year byphasing out an 85%pesticide subsidy between1986 and 1989.

IPM Farmer Field Schools(FFS) were initiated – nearly1 million farmers have beentrained in Indonesia.

Nearly every village in rice-growing areas has a FFSgraduate.

IPM-trained farmers usesignificantly less pesticide.

IPM farmers achieve equalor higher yields, and greaterprofits.

Across the country,pesticide use has halvedand yields have risen by10%.

Health costs of pesticidepoisoning have fallen sinceIPM’s introduction.

have previously received such training(Trainers’Training Scheme).Thus,farmers can gain the confidencerequired to make their own decisionsback on their own farms.

To date, over , farmers (/female) have attended rice IPM FFSand over have completed furthertraining and now organise FFS in theirown areas.

This is a self-sustaining system, andfarmers can pass on the knowledgewithout any external help.Paradoxically, the fact that farmerslearn from each other is the mainreason that misconceptions aboutpesticides exist, as there has been noprevious access to reliable informationsources. Now, once the basics of safe,environmentally-friendly pest controlhave been gained by some farmers,they can be passed on to others in thesame way. Farmers have more faith intheir neighbours who share theirproblems than in outsiders who arenot part of their community.

For IPM to work farmers must “beable to identify problems, have access toappropriate control measures and have theconfidence to make appropriate choices”.Field schools help solving the first andlast points, but government and NGOsplay a central part in providingappropriate control measures, byconducting field experiments.

Focuses of IPM methods in riceproduction include:

“Insecticides are usually not needed in rice”Dr P. Matteson, FAO1

In Farmer Field Schools, farmers learn to recognise pests, predators and parasites andthat most pesticide use indiscriminately kills all of these species.

© G

.B

izar

ri /

FA

O“The FAO Inter-countryProgramme for theDevelopment andApplication of IPM in Rice inSouth and South-East Asiahas achieved a significantreduction in pesticide useand has led to 50-100%reductions of insecticideuse, without reductions inyield; cropping has becomemore sustainable and moreprofitable.”—FAO. Summary of FAOCapacity Building Efforts inPesticide Management14

fields are levelled (average yieldsobtained were . tonnes per hectareversus . tonnes per hectare inuneven fields, though in some levellingtrials, yields of . tonnes per hectarewere attained).

Seed quality: Farmers should payattention to the cleanliness of theirseeds. Many seed stocks contain weedseeds (either in seeds set aside byfarmers from previous years or incommercial seeds). Clean seeds couldincrease yield by up to %.

Pesticide timing: Kenneth Fisher,deputy director-general for research atIRRI in , advised that simplicityin the implementation of IntegratedPest Management techniques is ofgreat importance. For example,simple, but very effective, advice thatcan be given to farmers is to wait atleast days after sowing beforespraying any insecticides: most insectsdisappear on their own within thisperiod. Not using pesticides early inthe season allows the establishment inrice fields of predatory spiders, cricketsand beetles, and also, depending onrice system, fishes and frogs that alsoeat pests, and are potential proteinsources.

Biological control: The use ofnatural enemies of pest species canpartially obviate the need for chemicalpesticides. Predators and parasitesincluding Trichogramma wasps,lacewings and nematodes can bereared in low-tech insectaries near tothe fields in which they are to bedeployed. Release of bio-controlagents may be more applicable invegetable than rice cultivation sincethe long history of the latter meansthat a rich complement of naturalpredators or parasites usually existsalready.

Resistant varieties: New high-yielding rice varieties (IR) have beendeveloped and some show resistance topest species (see page ). However, inCambodia, consumers and producersprefer traditional varieties for theirtexture and flavour and retailersinterviewed in Phnom Penh andBattambang stated that customerswould avoid IR rice unless it is heavilydiscounted.

Rice-field ecology: Farmers learnthat respect of wildlife living in ornearby the fields helps control pests –that frogs, toads, fishes, birds, andespecially spiders and certain insectsfeed on insect pests, and that snakesfeed on rats. Farmers learn to identifydifferent species, understand theirfeeding habits and life cycles, be awareof factors affecting populationdynamics, and appreciate crops’ abilityto recover from damage.Thus, theylearn that predators such as ladybeetles, wolf spiders and mirid bugscan control herbivorous insect pests.

There is, of course, a conflict ofinterest for the rural populationbetween hunting larger animals thatcan represent a very valuable source ofcash income when sold on Cambodianmarkets, and protecting them to helpcontrol rice pests and thus improvetheir staple food harvest. Often in suchsituations, farmers prefer the short-term solution. Arguably, if Cambodianfarmers were more aware of therelations between rice pests and theirpredators, the unsustainable trade inwildlife might decrease.

Weed control: Farmers learn thatattention should be given to weedproblems as soon as possible to givefarmers alternative tools before thetemptation of herbicide becomes areality and results in the sameproblems as insecticides androdenticides pose today. It is easier toteach farmers how to fight weedswithout chemicals than to have toconvince them later to give upherbicides.

Weeds cause an estimated yield lossof -% in Cambodian rice fields.Water management in irrigated rice isa very efficient way of controllingweeds. Many Cambodian farmers donot have this option as most riceproduction is rain-dependent and evenin irrigated systems water resources arelimited. However, a better preparationof the field, particularly a goodlevelling of the soil could lead to greatimprovements in weed-control. It hasbeen estimated that % ofCambodian rain-fed rice fields areuneven, with an average difference inheight between highest and lowestparts of mm (range: - mm).A CIAP three-year trial showed thatyields can more than double when

Above: Using insect zoos, IPM farmerslearn the life cycles of pest and beneficialinsects.

Below: In terms of quantity per hectarevegetable production uses considerablymore pesticides than rice. The FAO hasrecently shifted its IPM focus away fromrice and towards vegetable production.

© G

.B

izar

ri /

FA

O©

EJF

Case study: IPM of diamondbackmothLarvae of the diamondback moth(Plutella xylostella) are major pests ofcabbages and their relatives.

They are resistant to all pesticidesin Thailand, Malaysia, and thePhilippines26.

Parasitic wasps (Cotesia plutellae)have been used as biocontrol agentsin conjuction with Bt (biologicalinsecticide) sprays in Cambodia’sKien Svay district, Kandal Province.Little damage appeared in fieldswithout chemical insecticideswhereas those sprayed withpesticides were heavily damaged bythe moth27.

In another study, net barriers overcabbage plants reduced peak larvaedensities from 80.9 to just 3.4 perplant, and doubled yield25.

(through changes in its nervoussystem), it often becomes resistant toall other insecticides with the sametarget molecule. Some plants, havingco-evolved with insect pests for a verylong time, have developed other formsof defence. For example, in thePhilippines, the makabuhay vine(Tinospora rumphii) burns insects usinga chemical that concentratessunlight. In rice cultivation,makabuhay can be ground up andapplied directly or in solution tocontrol stemborers and leafhoppers.

The neem tree (Azadirachta indica)is another source of botanicalpesticide, and has been used in Indiasince . Neem use declined withthe advent of DDT, but hasexperienced a modern resurgence inresponse to the need for ecologicallysound, ethical pest managementproducts, which are biodegradable andnot harmful to humans and theenvironment.

Neem’s insecticide properties havebeen well studied and its componentsare even found in commercialformulations in India. Rather thankilling insects outright, neem kernels

IPM has also been used in Cambodianvegetable production, although on asmaller scale compared to rice – theobvious reason being that rice is by farthe major Cambodian crop. However,in terms of quantity per hectare,vegetable production uses considerablymore pesticides than rice. FAO hasrecently shifted its IPM focus awayfrom rice and towards vegetableproduction.To date, farmers(half female) have been trained invegetable IPM and governmentstaff have been trained to continueproviding further FFS teaching.

In the / dry season, theNational IPM Programme inCambodia conducted a pilot FFS for mung bean farmers on the TonleSap shore. Crops grew well withoutthe use of hard pesticides (twoapplications of Bt were used, ratherthan five applications of a cocktail ofmethyl-parathion, DDT andendosulfan), and yields were slighterhigher than those of non-IPM farmers.The project’s success led to theextension of FFS to all mungbean farmers with a planned local bio-pesticide industry using nativepathogens as an alternative tochemicals.

Other IPM methods used invegetable production include use ofearly trap crops (which lure egg-layinginsect pests and are then destroyed),biological control using naturalenemies, use of biological insecticide(Bt) and use of barrier nets to excludelow flying insects. In Sri Lanka, IPMprogrammes have resulted in the dropin the number of pesticidesapplications on cabbage fields from to .

Alternatives to the use of syntheticpesticides are “natural” pesticides, likeinorganic or botanical pesticides (theonly ones allowed for organic farmingin Europe). Although some are aspoisonous as synthetic pesticides, mostare much less dangerous and arecheaper.

Furthermore, as almost all syntheticinsecticides target insect nervoussystems, when a pest population buildsup resistance to one insecticide

affect insects’ behaviour andphysiology in various ways including asa repellent, feeding and ovipositiondeterrent, growth regulator, sterilantand impairer of egg hatching.Multiple modes of action reduce thelikelihood of insects developingresistance to neem extracts. As well as- insect species, neem extractshave been demonstrated to reduceimpacts of pest nematodes, snails andfungi.

In the Cambodian context, neem iseffective against field pests of paddyrice (e.g. stem borers and leaf hoppers)and vegetables (e.g. diamondbackmoth) as well as pests of storedproduce, for which % is lost to pestsworldwide.

Further biological pesticides utilisenatural insect diseases caused byviruses, bacteria, fungi and protozoa.The most widely used is ‘Bt’, a toxinproduced from the bacterium Bacillusthuringiensis and applied as aninsecticide spray. Although the chemicalis less toxic and environmentallyharmful than most synthetic products,there are still doubts about the long-term safety of Bt.

The neem tree (Azadirachta indica) is a source of botanical pesticide, used in Indiasince 1930. Rather than killing insects outright, neem products affect insect behaviourand physiology in various ways to deter damaging effects.

© S

.Hen

ne

/ M

orga

n D

esig

n I

nc.

/ N

eem

Tre

e F

arm

s

striatus) and rats are reported to preyon reared fish and may increase costsby requiring greater fingerlingnumbers.

Besides helping balance rural dietsand providing a potential source ofincome, fish cultivation benefits riceproduction, constituting a naturalcomponent of the field ecosystem. Fishfeed on worms, snails, insects, algaeand soft weeds, although some farmerssupplement this diet with insects orrice bran. Among the naturallyoccurring prey are rice pests (includingleaf-hoppers, stem-borers and aphids).Predation by fish can play animportant role in controlling GoldenApple Snails. Common carp, Cyprinuscarpio, eat large numbers of juvenilesnails.

Although fish predation does notappear to provide as immediate acontrol of insect pests as insecticidesdo, the effect comes without furtherdisturbing the ecosystem and theresulting fish production largelycompensates for the pest damage.

The drying out and re-flooding ofrice fields stimulates some weeds’germination. As rice-fish culturerequires farmers to regulate fields’water levels, a degree of weed control

-

Fish tend to colonise rice fieldsnaturally, representing an importantsource of protein for the ruralpopulation. Under certain conditions,an alternative to non-sustainablecapture methods is the ‘cultivation’ offish together with rice.This ‘rice-fishculture’, is a year old South-EastAsian tradition, which has declinedfollowing increased populations,dwindling fish stocks, and use ofpesticides, which are toxic to fish.

Besides pesticide absence, rice-fishculture requires certain fieldconditions, and is therefore notpossible throughout Cambodia.However, CIAP has successfullyadvocated this system in Svay Riengprovince, where rice-fish culture ispossible in both wet and dry seasonrice.

In rice-fish culture, refuge areas arecreated in or adjacent to fields for fishto move into in case fields dry up.Fingerlings are purchased as soon asthe ponds are flooded and are nursedin nearby ponds before introductioninto fields (usually about days afterrice has has been transplanted).Predators like snakehead fish (Channa

is achieved, reducing the need forremoval by hand.

Fish not only feed on the pests andweeds, but they turn them into naturalfertiliser through the deposition offaeces.This increases the uptake ofnutrients such as phosphorus andnitrogen by the rice.

In some instances, rice yields haveimproved up to -% afterimplementation of rice-fish culture.Arguably, this is due to better watermanagement and increased focus onthe rice field, but even if rice-fishculture’s only benefit is to promoteIntegrated Pest Managementtechniques, it is a very promisingsustainable system. Its cost is lowerthan the equivalent price for pesticidesand fertilisers and it has theadvantage of providing a proteinsource to rice farmers. Since rice-fishculture is not applicable throughoutCambodia, research programmes onwhere, and under what conditions, itcan be used should be undertaken.

Organic farming requires exclusive useof botanical and inorganic, rather thansynthetic, pesticides. Like IPM,organic farming requires goodknowledge of the field ecosystem,particularly the relationships betweenpests and other species present (e.g.fish, frogs, spiders, non-pest insects)and natural contributions to soilfertility (manure and compost, but alsofaeces from animals, like fish, living inthe fields). In a CEDAC survey ofnearly one thousand farmers, % ofinterviewees expressed interest inorganic farming because it wascheaper than buying chemicals whilst% cited health reasons.

A further advantage of the organicapproach is that organic producecommands higher prices oninternational markets. Organic ricesells for up to three times the price ofnon-organic Vietnamese or Thai rice.This means a better-paid crop forfarmers of riel/kg (US$.)instead of riel/kg (US$.).Individual initiatives in this directionhave recently been backed by theMinistry of Commerce, whichexempted organic products fromexport licence charges.

“My father never used chemical pesticides, and he never lost a crop.” Hem Savoeun, Cambodian organic farmer34

Organic farming avoids the problems caused by chemical pesticides. Interest in thisalternative was recently measured at 70% of Cambodian farmers.

© E

JF

● Recognise that rats, rather than insects,currently pose the greatest threat to riceproduction and, consequently, food securityand that resources should be targeted towardsaddressing this problem.

● Support Cambodian efforts to enforce relevantlegislation.

● Endorse a massive farmer training programmeaimed at raising risk awareness and inspiringgood practice.

● Acknowledge indirect costs of Cambodianpesticide use such as impacts on domesticfood security, on public health, on the exportmarket and on the burgeoning tourismindustry.

● Participate in the establishment of a PesticidesWorking Group to coordinate efforts toaddress the issues described herein.

The Cambodian Government

Profligate use of dangerous pesticides has the potentialto seriously impact Cambodian food security, publichealth and development targets.The RoyalGovernment of Cambodia should:

● Fully accede to the Rotterdam Convention’sPrior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure,thereby officially identifying to theinternational community those chemicals notdesired in Cambodia, and placing the onus onexporter countries to behave more responsiblywith chemicals they themselves may havebanned or restricted.

C leaves thepeople and environment of Cambodiain a parlous state. Outdated chemicals,unwanted by the rest of the world arebeing imported and used by farmers,

almost wholly unaware of their potential forharm.The results of recent studies highlight thedeleterious effects of pesticide misuse on humanhealth and ecosystem stability.These earlyindicators presage long-term effects, yet to berevealed by the limited research conducted in thisnascent democracy.

The Royal Government of Cambodia’srecognition of the pesticide issues detailed in thisdocument, and its moves to make legal provisionsto rectify them, are laudable. It is essential thatthe international community and the industrialconcerns active in South-East Asia support thesemoves and further action required to safeguardCambodian interests.

Whilst recognising that pesticides can be ofgreat benefit during major pest outbreaks, andthat safe, modern chemicals can contribute toIPM schemes, they are not being usedappropriately at the current time.Thus, wefavour the adoption of the precautionaryprinciple based on:

● reduced use

● reduced risk

● reduced dependence

This will rely primarily upon increasededucation, research, financial support andstronger governance. In short, the CambodianGovernment, with the assistance of bi- andmulti-lateral donors, NGOs, and theagrochemical industry, should strive to encouragethe same standards as are accepted in the West.To this end, we make the following general andspecific recommendations.

General Recommendations

In light of the information presented in this report, allrelevant parties should:

● Acknowledge the valuable uses, limitationsand dangers pesticides have to play inCambodian crop protection.

● Recognise that current patterns of pesticideuse in Cambodia pose threats to human healthand the natural environment, and that thereexists both the need and the potential meansto rectify this situation.

● Oppose and combat the presence in Cambodiaof pesticide formulations banned by aGovernment presently unable to control illegalimports.

conclusions and recommendations

The production of rice itself – the major staple food – is jeopardised bycurrent pesticide practice in Cambodia. Residues in food products are also ofgreat concern for human health and can have long-term effects.

© C

DR

I

departments in order to better enforce presentlegislation and to have a greater role in futuremonitoring, education and management ofpesticides issues.

● Develop mass media (especially radio andtelevision) campaigns to deter farmers fromunnecessary pesticide practices, such as veryearly and very late season spraying.

● Impose a moratorium on pesticideadvertisements, particularly on television.Thisis especially relevant for as long as bannedchemicals remain widely available and untilfarmers’ awareness of threats posed bypesticides improves.

● Increase training of medical staff in therecognition of pesticide-induced symptomsand in the ability to inform victims of the risksassociated with pesticide misuse.

● Increase education about the importance ofwild species in maintaining ecosystemfunctioning, and follow this up with greatercontrol of the trade in wild-caught species.

● Join the intergovernmental Asian ProductivityOrganisation in order to benefit from itshuman resource development, technicalassistance and information disseminationprogrammes.

● Further restrict use of pesticide chemicals notcovered by the existing domestic sub-decreecontrolling WHO Class I pesticides. Inparticular, chemicals such as endosulfan needto be better controlled.

● Ensure that the ‘farmer first’ principle isapplied by facilitating the availability of allrelevant information on pesticide issues toagricultural workers.

● Take steps to collect and dispose of allobsolete pesticide stock safely.

● Introduce economic measures to discouragemisuse of pesticides (e.g. taxation ofpesticides, subsidies for conversion to rice-fishculture, bounties for captured rats).

● Introduce a system of market inspection forpesticide residues in produce for humanconsumption, as occurs in Thailand.

● Improve enforcement of domestic legislationbanning WHO class I pesticides. Central tothis are inspections at borders and markets,and action against those infringing the newlaw.

● Officially encourage Integrated PestManagement in rice and vegetable cultivation.

● Establish a central office (or designate anexisting one) under the Ministry ofAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to co-ordinate all efforts to tackle the pesticideproblem described herein, includingorganisation of the various Integrated PestManagement and educational schemes alreadyestablished.

● Facilitate regular public health andenvironmental research to quantify andmonitor pesticide levels and their effects onhumans and the environment.

● Establish a national poison surveillance centreto monitor incidences of illness related topesticide exposure.

● Prohibit use of the word thnam [medicine] todescribe pesticides, in reflection of theirpotential to harm human health.

● Require that individuals and organisationsinvolved in pesticide trade be licensed, andencourage farmers to buy pesticides only fromlicensed vendors.

● Build capacity and inter-ministerialcooperation in all relevant ministries and

Education programmes highlighting the naturalbalance between pests and their natural enemies, andoffering other alternatives to the use of pesticides – likesound water management or the rice-fishing system –can result in high yields of healthy crops.

© P

eter

Sch

rock

● Support alternative livelihood schemes such asthe move to rice-fish culture and organicfarming.

● Direct funding towards research into andsupport of biological control insectaries andeco-labelling schemes for organic produce.

● Target additional funding towards landmineclearance in order to increase the area of landavailable for agricultural production.

● Research the benefits of irrigation projectsaimed at increasing dry season lowland riceproduction.

● Conduct and support further research on theextent of pesticide pollution, the source ofCambodian pesticides, and the impacts ofpesticide use on human health and theenvironment. All such research should involvefull sharing of information with the RoyalGovernment of Cambodia and should includecapacity-building components such thattraining and equipment are provided to allowrelevant ministries and local organisations(NGOs and university) to continue a researchprogramme in the long-term.

● Facilitate the transfer of relevant technologiesto support increased productivity.

The Agrochemical Industry

The decision of some larger concerns to phase outproduction of old organophosphates is to becongratulated. It is in the interests of the agrochemicalindustry to protect its market and to back up itscommitment to product stewardship with increasedefforts to ensure customer safety.The agrochemicalcompanies should:

● Ensure that pesticide packaging has clear,concise instructions, using obvious symbols forthe illiterate and images of the target species.In view of the cross-border movement ofchemicals, the addition of basic Khmerinstructions would be a low cost gesture thatwould assist in informing users of risks andgood practice as well as strengthening productstewardship.

● Increase efforts to make safer new chemicalsavailable at affordable prices. In parallel,companies should begin to phase outproduction of the most dangerous chemicals,reducing their pesticide portfolios to thoseproducts permitted for use in theirheadquarter countries.

● Increase efforts to reduce quantities of fakechemicals being produced in Thailand andVietnam.The onus is on the transnationalcompanies to protect their brand image and

The Donor Community & NGOs

The scale of Cambodia’s pesticide problem requiresthat solutions facilitate the further spread of betterpractice across the whole country, rather than simplyproviding site-specific solutions.Approaches takenmust be sustainable and undertaken with long-termvision.Thus considerable applied research will be anecessary component of genuinely valuable projects.Two priorities are education and capacity building.The donor community and NGOs should:

● Recognise that like Cambodia’s HIV, malariaand tuberculosis crises, pesticide-relatedproblems are widespread, directly or indirectlyaffecting a large proportion of the workforce,and present serious public health concernsthat urgently need to be addressed.

● Ensure commitment to long-term, sustainableprojects and to co-ordination between projectsinitiated by different agencies.

● Support central and local government andNGOs, with a view to strengthening the role ofcivil society in pesticide control.

● Increase funding for rural educationprogrammes following the model of IPMFarmer Field Schools in order to educatefarmers about pests, beneficial insects, goodpractice when using pesticides, andalternatives to pesticide use.

● Support capacity building within the relevantMinistries, e.g. in training pesticidesmonitoring and law enforcement staff.

● Promote education about the impact ofpesticides on the natural environment andabout threats to human health posed byconsuming pesticide-tainted food or by directcontact.

Drawing insects and learning their ecology in Farmer FieldSchools helps farmers appreciate which species are pests, andwhich are beneficial.

© R

.N

uge

nt

/ F

AO

The USA & EU Member States

The European Union and United States of America,through their highly developed legislation and ascentres of operation of market leaders in theagrochemical industry, set the global standards forsafe use of pesticides.These Western nations should:

● Contribute substantial further developmentaid targeted toward the development ofsustainable agricultural practices aimed atimproving long-term food security anagricultural productivity.

● Eliminate the hypocrisy of banning exports ofend products not permitted for use in memberstates, whilst permitting start products (activeingredients) to be exported for formulationwithin developing countries, where they areoften used in a dangerous manner.

● Increase efforts to monitor exports andenforce existing legislation on the movementof restricted pesticides.

they should cooperatewith the RGC todetermine the sourceof fake pesticides witha view to ending theirsupply to Cambodia.

● Increase transparencyand accountability byidentifying allsubsidiaries and allchemical products inpublic, readilyaccessible lists (i.e. onthe internet).

Cambodia’sNeighbours

Many of the pesticidesCambodia has identified asbeing undesirable continueto arrive in the countryfrom adjacent countries, inspite of some being bannedthere.The governments ofThailand and Vietnamshould:

● Be prepared to controlpesticide exports thatCambodia decides tostate, under the PriorInformed Consentsprocedure, are not desired.

● Realise that as Cambodia’s economy matures,so will its agricultural export market.Thus it isin the interest of its neighbours to be aware ofthe ‘circle of poison’, the danger of chemicalsformulated in Thailand and Vietnam butbanned for use there returning to thesecountries in agricultural produce importedfrom Cambodia.The Thai and Vietnamesegovernments should be prepared to limitwhich chemicals can be produced in theircountries.

● Under the requirements of the RotterdamConvention PIC procedure, and in acceptanceof the fact that pesticides formulated inThailand and Vietnam reach Cambodianmarkets, ensure adequate labelling of allproducts containing PIC chemicals, regardlessof whether or not Cambodia consents to theirimport.This includes insisting that domesticproducers include instructions in Khmer.

Cambodia is going through a re-building period. The international community has a responsibilityin helping this young country develop its agricultural sector in an efficient, safe and environmentallysound way.

© E

JF

attainment and real gross domestic product per capita(United Nations Development Programme).

Inorganic pesticides: Inorganic pesticides aretypically derived from minerals that occur as naturaldeposits. Examples of inorganic pesticides (many ofthem forbidden in most countries) are: sulphur, boricacid, fluoride or arsenic compounds.

Insecticide: Pesticide used against insects.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM): Defined byFAO as “the careful integration of a number ofavailable pest control techniques that discourage thedevelopment of pest populations and keep pesticidesand other interventions to levels that are economicallyjustified and reduce/minimise risks to human healthand the environment. IPM emphasises the growth ofa healthy crop with the least possible disruption ofagro-ecosystems, thereby encouraging natural pestcontrol mechanisms”.

Lethal Dose : Pesticides’ acute toxicity is measuredby the Lethal Dose (LD), the amount of theproduct that would result in the death of half apopulation (%) of lab-rats.There are two measuresfor each product, oral LD (the product is givenorally) and dermal LD (the product is giventhrough the skin).The most toxic pesticides have thelowest LD (very small doses can kill).

Molluscicide: Pesticide used to control molluscs(snails, slugs, etc.).

Natural enemies:The natural enemies of a givenanimal are all organisms that harm it in one way oranother.They include predators and parasites.

Neem: Azadirachta indicia (Meliaceae), an Asian treespecies with insect repelling properties that isbecoming increasingly popular as a source of‘botanical pesticides’.

Nicotine: An extract of tobacco, Nicotiana tabacum. Asa botanical insecticide it is authorised in organicfarming by European legislation, but its high acutetoxicity leads to restrictions in use and it may soon beoutlawed in European agriculture.

Organic farming: Farming system that, in the case ofarable production, excludes the use of any syntheticorganic pesticide. As a consequence only botanical orbiological pesticides are authorised, but preference isusually given to non-chemical pest controltechniques.

Oviposition: Laying of eggs (by insects).

Parasitoid: Insects whose larva develops inside a host-insect, feeding on its tissues and resulting in its death.This last characteristic makes the behaviour ofparasitoids closer to that of a predator than of aparasite per se. Many parasitoids are wasps(Hymenoptera).

Pest: Organism considered harmful to humanactivities. Agricultural pests include insects, mites,fungi, etc. living at the detriment of crops andresulting in reduced yields.

Poverty line: Definitions vary but, in the Cambodiancontext, the World Bank definition of US$ perperson per day serves as the level of income belowwhich a state of poverty exists.

Precautionary principle: Essentially, the avoidanceof factors promoting risk, before damage can bedone. Following the Rio Conference on theEnvironment and Development, the principle wasadopted in the Rio Declaration, which states “in orderto protect the environment, the precautionaryapproach shall be widely applied by States accordingto their capability.Where there are threats of seriousor irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certaintyshall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmentaldegradation”.The European Commission states thatthe principle “covers those specific circumstanceswhere scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusiveor uncertain and there are indications through

Acaricide: Pesticide used to control pest mites.

Active ingredient: Pesticides comprise two types ofingredients: the active ingredient is the chemical thataffects the targeted pest. Other ingredients’ make theactive ingredient work more efficiently, by improvingcontact with the plant or the pest, for example.

Arthropods: Biological classification groupingcrustaceans, insects, spiders, etc (literally: animalswith ‘articulated limbs’).

Good practice: Includes the officially recommendedor nationally authorized uses of pesticides underconditions necessary for effective and reliable pestcontrol. It encompasses a range of levels of pesticideapplications up to the highest authorized use, appliedin a manner that leaves a residue, which is thesmallest amount practicable.The FAO’s“Guidelines on good practice for ground and aerialapplication of pesticides” gives somerecommendations on pesticide use, with particularregards to each step of the process: “what to use”,“before applying the pesticide”, “while mixing thepesticide and during application”, “after application”,etc. At each step, they describe what action should betaken to ensure the safest possible use of thechemical.

Bio-pesticides: Pesticides whose active ingredients arebiological agents.The most famous ones are ‘Bt’-based products. Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, abacterium that induces disease in insects throughtoxin synthesis. Bt products contain either wholebacteria or just their toxins.

Botanical pesticides: Botanical pesticides areextracted from plants containing active compoundsthat have poisonous properties against a pest. Someof the most famous botanical insecticides arenicotine, rotenone, pyrethrins and neem extracts.

Broad-spectrum action: describes the action of apesticide that acts upon a wide range of organisms asopposed to specific or selective products or narrow-spectrum action pesticides that only affect veryspecific organisms (e.g. broad-spectrum insecticidesmay kill very different insects, like aphids andbeetles).

Cholinesterase: An enzyme of the nervous system. Itsrole is to eliminate the acetylcholine that accumulatesin synapses when nervous information passes betweennerve cells. Information travels along nerve cells aselectrical signals, but between cells is a gap (thesynapse) where electrical information is transformedinto chemical information. Here, molecules includingacetylcholine are the vectors of nervous information,released from the first cell and then recaptured onreceptors in the second. If acetylcholine accumulatesin the synapse, there is a “jamming” of information.The role of a destructive enzyme like cholinesterase istherefore central to functioning of the nervoussystem.

Endocrine disrupting effect: Pesticide’s effect onhormone release or action, usually via actions onnerve cells located in the brain that control the releaseof hormones. Such effects can have long-termconsequences.

Fungicide: Pesticide used to control fungal diseases.

Generic product: Product whose patent has expiredthat can thus be manufactured by companies otherthan the one that first discovered it.

Half-life: Length of time after which half of thequantity of a product has degraded. It indicates thetime a substance will remain in the environment.

Herbicide: Pesticide used to control weeds.

Human Development Index: A measure of acountry’s average achievements in three basicdimensions of human development: longevity,knowledge and standard of living.The variables usedto calculate the index are life expectancy, educational

preliminary objective scientific evaluation that thereare reasonable grounds for concern that thepotentially dangerous effects on the environment,human, animal or plant health may be inconsistentwith the chosen level of protection”.

Pre-harvest period: Period of time it is recommendedto observe between the last spraying of a pesticideand harvest. It ensures that the harvest will contain aslittle pesticide residue as possible, so it can beconsumed without danger.

Re-entry period: Period of time necessary for apesticide to decompose, so that its concentrationbecomes low enough to allow people to re-enter thefield without risk of contamination.

Resistance (Pest resistance to pesticides):When apesticide is used repeatedly against a pest, this pestcan become resistant to this type of pesticide. Suchresistance occurs by natural selection.Whilstpesticides kill most insects, individuals with randommutations conferring reduced sensitivity to insecticidemolecules are more likely to survive spraying andreproduce. Some of their offspring will inherit thisresistance (for some pests, that produce clones it caneven be all offspring) and, as long as pesticideapplication continues, the proportion of resistantindividuals will increase. Resistance can spreadrapidly as insects have short generation times andlarge numbers of offspring.

Resistance (varietal resistance to a pest): As a plantand its natural enemies (diseases, fungi, insect) haveevolved together, some plant varieties have acquiredpartial or total resistance to these pests.The processinvolved is natural selection through a selectivepressure from the natural enemies on the lesssensitive plant types. As a result many local ricevarieties, for example, are resistant to local diseases orinsects, whereas imported varieties usually lack thesedefence mechanisms.

Rice-fish culture: -year old traditional SE Asianagricultural system combining aquaculture and riceproduction. It gradually declined, but is currentlyregaining interest from Asian countries as a complete,sustainable production system.

Rodenticide: Pesticide used to control rodents (rats,mice, etc.).

Rotenone: A botanical insecticide allowed underrestriction in European organic farming. It isextracted from Derris spp., Loncho-carpus spp., Cudespp., or Terphrosia spp.

Synapse: Gap between two nerve cells, where nervousinformation from the first cell is translated from anelectrical signal into a chemical signal to cross the gapand be passed on to the second cell.

Synthetic organic insecticides: Do not exist in thenature but are man-made.They are referred to as“organic” since they are carbon-based chemicals.

Systemic / non-systemic insecticide: A systemicinsecticide is a chemical that is first absorbed by theplant, and then kills organisms that feed on its tissues.Conversely, non-systemic insecticides require directcontact with the insect (insects living inside planttissues like rice stem borer larvae are not affected bythis type of product).

Transplanting (of rice): A common practice in Asianrice culture is to sow the rice first in nursery beds.The partly-grown seedlings are transplanted later intopaddy fields.

Variety: A group of organisms within a species, whichdiffers slightly from the remainder of the species.Varieties are the result of selective breeding (naturalor artificial). Crop varieties are also referred to ascultivars.

Weed: Any unwanted plants that grow in a field.Theycan be wild plants as well as previous or neighbouringcrops.Weeds reduce yields by competing with cropsfor resources (water, sunlight, and nutrients).

glossary

referencesN.B. Unless otherwise stated, all internet pages cited were viewed

on November .

Introduction1 FAO/WHO. . Amount of poor-quality pesticides sold in

developing countries alarmingly high. Press release. February .

Global pesticide production and use1 Fengsheng He & Shuyang Chen. . Health impacts of

pesticide exposure and approaches to prevention. Asian-Pacific Newsletter of Occupational Health and Safety.ILO/FINNIDA. March .

2Worldwatch. . Stepping off the Toxic Treadmill. PressRelease. November .

3 Pradeep P. Dave. . Agrochemical scenario on global andnational levels. http://www.pmfai.org

4 Agrow. . Global agrochemical market down again.Agrow World Crop Protection News: March

5Pesticides Action Network Updates Service. . Globalagrochemical sales down. March .http://www.panna.org

6 Agrow. . World Crop Protection News. January, March and April . In: PANUPS. . Top sevenagrochemical companies in . May .http://www.panna.org

7 Devlin Kuyek. . Lords of poison: the pesticide cartel.Seedling. June . http://www.grain.org/publications

8 Dent, D. History of pest management. Pest ManagementResource Center.http://www.pestmanagement.co.uk/culture/histrory.html

9POPs producers –POPs pesticides. http://www.greenpeace.org10 Koehler, P.G. & Belmont, R.A. . What are

pesticides?.Technical information – Pesticides. School IPM.http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu

11 Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET). .Bioaccumulation. Toxicology Information Briefs. September

12 Hough, P. . The global politics of pesticides. EarthscanPublications Ltd. London. p.

13 Lyons, G. . Endocrine disrupting pesticides. PAN-UK.http://www.pan-uk.org

14 Hoechst AG. . Joint venture of agreement of AgrEvoand Bilakhia finalised. Press Release. July .

15 Chambron, A-C. . Bananas:The “green gold” of theTNCs. UK Food Group. http://www.bananalink.org.uk

16 Banananlink. Regions supplying the banana trade, LatinAmerica. http://www.bananalink.org.uk/trade/for_exp.htm

17 Agne, S. & Waibel, H. . Pesticide policy in CostaRica. Pesticide News: . June .

18International Union for the Conservation of Nature.. Evaluation of the Social and Environmental Impact ofthe Banana Expansion in Sarapiqui,Tortuguero, andTalamanca. In: Chambron, A-C. . Bananas:The “GreenGold” of the TNCs. UK food group.http://www.bananalink.org.uk

19 Dufumier, M., Labrousse, R. & Losh, B. . Lesplantations des zones tropicales humides: caracteristiqueset perspectives. Plantations, recherche, developpement: Volume, Numero . March-April

20 Dinham, B. . Paraquat and occupational hazards,Pesticides News: . June

21 Foundation for Advancements in Science and Education(FASE). . Exporting risk – US hazardous trade -. Pesticides News: . June

22 http://www.monsanto.com23 Begemann, B., Deaton, R., Dow, A., Fischhoff, D.,

Fuchs, R., Hoerner, D., Mullins,W. & Perlak, F.TheImportance of Intellectual Property to ProductDevelopment. The business of Agriculture.http://www.farmsource.com

24 Frost & Sullivan. . SEA Agrochemicals Market.Agrolinks: -. September

25 Thiers, P. . Pesticides in China. Global pesticidecampaigner:Volume , Number . March .http://www.panna.org

26 Grimes, A. . Insight on booming Chinese market.Pesticides News: . March

27 Pesticides Action Network Updates Service (PAN-UPS).. Pesticides on the rise in China. May .http://www.panna.org

28 http://huayang.ebigchina.com29 Anju Ghangurde. . Aventis CropScience vice-

chairman Unni joins Hikal Chemicals board. The financialexpress. May . http://www.financialexpress.com

30 FAO/WHO. . Amount of poor-quality pesticides sold indeveloping countries alarmingly high. Press release. February .

31 Pesticides – banned elsewhere, used in India. TheFinancial Express, Mumbai, India. December

32 World Resource Institute (WRI). . Intensification ofagriculture – Chemical Inputs. http://www.igc.org/wri/wr--/agrichem.htm

33 Saiyed, H.N., Bhatnagar,V.K. & Kashyap, R. .Impact of pesticide use in India. Asian-Pacific Newsletter.March

34 Pradeep P. Dave. . India – a generic pesticides giant.Chemical Engineering World.http://www.exicom.org/cew/mar/dave.htm

35 Santillo, D., Johnston, P., Stringer, R. & Edwards, B.. A catalogue of gross contamination; Organochlorineproduction and exposure in India. Pesticides News: . June

36 http://www.greenpeace.org37 Television Trust for the Environment (TVE). . Toxic

Trail documentary.TVE. http://toxictrail.org 38 RPG Life sells agrochem business to Italy’s ISAGRO.

The Financial Express, Mumbai, India. July .39http://www.rpglifesciences.com/aproduct.htm40 Mineau, P. . Praise for Novartis’ Decision. Pesticide

Impacts on Wildlife. (http://www.pmac.net/wildimp.htm).41 http://www.pesticideinfo.org42 Thurston, C. . Making the world safe for pesticides.

Foreign Service Journal: November .

An overview of Cambodian agriculture1 Mougin,T., Fontaine, D. & Brun, J-M. .Vietnam,

Cambodge – L’espoir apres la tourmente. Peuples enmarche, mensuel de la solidarite internationale : Numero .March . Ed. Peuples solidaires et Terre des hommes France.

2CIA. . The World Factbook – Cambodia.http://www.cia.gov

3 http://www.Mekong.net/Cambodia/facts.htm4 UNDP. Cambodia Key Facts.

http://www.un.org.kh/undp/cambodia.html 5 The World Bank Group. . The World Bank and

Cambodia. May . http://www.worldbank.org/eap6 UNDP. . UNDP Cambodia – Poverty Reduction.

http://www.un.org.kh/undp7 O’Brien, N. . Agricultural resources. In:

MOE/UNDP/ETAP. . Environment: concepts and issues– A focus on Cambodia. UNDP/ETAP reference guidebook. Edited by Noelle O’Brien

8 Sarthi Acharya. . Poverty reduction in Cambodia –Some reflections. Cambodia development review: Volume ,Issue . April-June

9 Chea Huot, Pon Dorina and Sok Hach. . Economywatch – Domestic performance. Cambodia developmentreview:Volume , Issue . April-June

10 FAO/WFP crop and food supply assessment mission toCambodia. . Special report on Cambodia. December

11 IRRI. Cambodia’s long journey back.http://www.irri.org/hunger/cambodia.htm

12FAO/WFP crop and food supply assessment mission toCambodia. . Special report on Cambodia. February

13 http://www.landmines.org14 Services d’Expansion Economique de Phnom Penh.

. Presentation macro-economique du Cambodge etperspectives. April . Ambassade de France auCambodge. http://www.dree.org/cambodge

15 Boun Suy Tan. . Le Cambodge au parlement francais –Developpement – Agriculture. Agence Universitaire de laFrancophonie.http://www.bibliotheque.refer.org/collcbdg/agri.htm

16 IRRI. A few case history. http://www.irri.org17 Cambodia-IRRI-Australia Project.

http://www.bigpond.com.kh/users/CIAP/18 Jahn, G.C., Bunnarith, K., Sophea, P. & Chanty, P. .

Pest management in Rice. In: CIAP. . Rice production inCambodia. Edited by H. J. Nesbitt

19 Professor Merle Sheperd, Clemson University: personalcommunication.

20 Holmes, B. . A natural way with weeds. NewScientist:Volume , Issue . May

21 CIAP IPM Program. .Working with farmers tomanage rats. CIAP bulletin. September

22 http://www.ipmnet.org/IPMnet_NEWS/news.html23 ACIAR. . Non-chemical control of rodents in lowland

irrigated rice crops. ACIAR research notes: . September. http://www.aciar.gov.au

24 FAO/WFP crop and food supply assessment mission toCambodia. . Special report on Cambodia. February

25 FAOSTAT. http://www.fao.org26 Pen Chantra. . Cambodian children deficient in

Vitamin A, at risk of serious illness. Archive News VisionArticles – Asia. May .http://www.wvi.org/wvi/archives/asia.htm#Cambodia

27 Sik Boreac. . Constraints on the rice marketingsystem. Cambodia development review:Volume , Issue .April-June

28 McKinney, M. . Rice milling plant may helpfarmers reach world markets. The Cambodia Daily. May

29 FAO. Fact Sheet Cambodia – Women in agriculture,environment and rural development. FAO Regional Office forAsia and the Pacific.Thailand.

30 Services d’Expansion Economique de Phnom Penh.. Le marche des produits carnes au Cambodge.Ambassade de France au Cambodge.http://www.dree.org/cambodge

31 Ahmed & al. . Socio-economic Assessment ofFreshwater Capture Fisheries of Cambodia. MRC.

32 The Library of Congress. . Cambodia – Diet.http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html

33 Monirith et al. . Organochlorine contamination infish and mussels from Cambodia and other Asiancountries. Water Science and Technology : -.

34 Calvert, B. . New market could change the wayfarmers do business. The Cambodia Daily. May

35 NGO statement to the consultative group meetingon Cambodia – Gender. http://www.bigpond.com.kh

36 Grosbois, C. . L’industrie de la confection auCambodge. Services d’Expansion Economique de PhnomPenh. Ambassade de France au Cambodge.http://www.dree.org/cambodge

Pesticide use in Cambodia1 CEDAC. . Pesticide pollution in the Tonle Sap

catchment. Project progress report (September -August ). September . CEDAC, Phnom Penh.

2 Holmes, B. . A natural way with weeds. New Scientist:Volume , Issue . May

3 Jahn, G.C., Bunnarith, K., Sophea, P. & Chanty, P. .Pest management in Rice. In: CIAP. . Rice production inCambodia. Edited by H. J. Nesbitt

4 FAO/WFP crop and food supply assessment mission toCambodia. . Special report on Cambodia. February

5 Bal, P. & Polo,Y. . Study on pesticide use in Cambodiaand use habit of Cambodian farmers. Royal University ofCambodia, Phnom Penh and GRET.

6Yang Saing Koma et al. . The Situation of Pesticide Usein the Tonle Sap Catchment. CEDAC, Phnom Penh.

7 Television Trust for the Environment (TVE). . ToxicTrail documentary.TVE. http://toxictrail.org

8 FAOSTAT, http://www.fao.org9Yang Saing Koma, Keam Makarady & Lang Seng Horng.

Pesticide Market in Cambodia. Market Survey in KandalProvince. CEDAC / Oxfam-America internal document.

10 http://www.bayer.com11 http://www.main.co.il12 Bou Sarouen. .The greening of Cambodian

farming begins. Phnom Penh Post: Issue /. September- October .

13 Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET). .Pesticide Information Profiles. Oregon State University

14 FAO. . Methyl parathion. http://www.fao.org15 Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK). –Methyl

parathion, http://www.pan-uk.org16 WHO/ IPCS/ ILO. . International Chemical Safety

Cards – Methyl Parathion17 Webster, J. . Malaria control in complex emergencies.

Malaria Consortium, July .18 World Health Organisation.

http://www.wpro.who.int/themes_focuses/theme/focus/themes_focusdengue.asp

19 http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/indxhtms/ifcsall.html#20 Loring, D. . Struggling to keep Cambodia off the

pesticide treadmill. Global Pesticide Campaigner:Volume ,Number . December .

21Review of the Fishery Conflict in Stung Treng. NGO Forum.22 Insecticides on foods in market. Charet Khmer:Volume .

# . - October 23 Sodavy, P., Sitha, M., Nugent, R. & Murphy, H. .

Farmers’ awareness and perceptions of the effect of pesticides ontheir health. Field Document, FAO Community IPMProgramme. April

24 http://www.landmines.org25 Specht, J. . Pesticides in Cambodia – A Compilation for

Agriculturists, Local and Expatriate Staff Working forAgriculture in Cambodia. Lutheran World Service andIntegrated Rural Development Project Kandal/Takeo.Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

26 Dr Yang Saing Koma. Centre d’Etudes et deDeveloppement Agricole Cambodgien. pers. comm.

27 Scoville, O.J. . Rebuilding Kampuchea’s Food Supply28 Mallet,V. . Poisoned chalice. The Financial Times.

March 29 Kay Kimsong. . Predator drop means pest,

pesticide trouble. The Cambodia Daily. March .30 Stuart et al. . Homalopsine watersnakes: the harvest

and trade from Tonle Sap, Cambodia. Traffic Bulletin :.http://www.traffic.org/bulletin/watersnakes.html

31 Global Witness. . Going Places: Cambodia’s Future onthe Move. Briefing Document. March .

Pesticides & the Cambodian law1 http://www.camnet.com.kh/moe/index.htm2 CIAP. . Cambodia’s first pesticide law. CIAP Bulletin:

Volume , Issue . May .3 UNEP. . Governments Give Green Light to Phase Out

of World’s Most Hazardous Chemicals. Press Release. May

4 CEDAC. . List of Pesticides Available in Kandal andPhnom Penh (by Trade Name). Centre d’Etude et deDeveloppement Agricole Cambodgien, Phnom Penh.

5 Shaw, I. . Regulation and monitoring of pesticides inIndonesia. Pesticides News: . June .

6 Kay Kimsong. . Predator drop means pest, pesticidetrouble. The Cambodia Daily. March .

7 Dr Yang Saing Koma. Centre d’Etude et deDeveloppement Agricole Cambodgien. Pers. comm.

Cambodian pesticide problem: causes1 Sodavy, P., Sitha, M., Nugent, R. & Murphy, H. .

Farmers’ awareness and perceptions of the effect of pesticides ontheir health. Field Document, FAO Community IPMProgramme. April

2 Bou Saroeun. .The greening of Cambodian farmingbegins. Phnom Penh Post: Issue /. September – October .

3 http://www.apcpa.org/IPM.asp4 http://www.pan-international.org/campaignsEn.html5 Johnson, S. & al. . Some Ecological Effects of Fipronil

and Lambda-cyhalothrin in Vietnamese Rice Fields. Impact ofIntegrated Pest Management Programs in Rice Growingregions of Tropical Asia, -, DANIDA, Denmark.

6 Asia-Pacific Crop Protection Association. IntellectualProperty Rights and Regulatory Affairs.http://www.apcpa.org/IPR.asp

7Yang Saing Koma, Keam Makarady & Lang Seng Horng.Pesticide Market in Cambodia. Market Survey in KandalProvince. CEDAC / Oxfam-America internal document.

8 CEDAC. . Pesticide pollution in the Tonle Sapcatchment. Project progress report (September -August ). September , CEDAC, Phnom Penh.

9 Specht, J. . Pesticides in Cambodia – A Compilation forAgriculturists, Local and Expatriate Staff Working forAgriculture in Cambodia. Lutheran World Service andIntegrated Rural Development Project Kandal/Takeo.Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

10 FAO/WHO. . Amount of poor-quality pesticides sold indeveloping countries alarmingly high. Press release. February .

11 http://www.vietfarm.com/cooperate.htm12Yang Saing Koma, Keam Makarady, Lang Seng Horng &

Ly Bun Thai. . Profile of selected pesticides available inCambodia. CEDAC / Oxfam America

13 Jungbluth, F. . Pesticide facts in Thailand. PesticideNews: . March

14Wheeler, C. . Investigating the impacts of pesticideuse in the Mekong Delta. IDRC Reports. InternationalDevelopment Research Center. February .

15 Television Trust for the Environment (TVE), . ToxicTrail documentary,TVE, http://toxictrail.org

16 CIAP. . Upland and deepwater rice practices. CIAPBulletin:Volume , Issue . June .

17 Kay Kimsong. . Predator drop means pest,pesticide problem. The Cambodia Daily. March .

18 Proceedings of the PAC Meeting, April -,. Davao,The Philippines.

19 http://www.apcpa.org/SafeUs.asp20

http://www.bayer.com/en/unternehmen/unternehmenspolitik/umwelt/produkte.html

21 http://www.takeda.com22 http://www.getipm.com/articles/letters/india-

workers.htm23 CIAP IPM Program. .Working with farmers to

manage rats. CIAP Bulletin. September

Cambodia’s pesticide problem: dangers1 WHO/UNEP Working Group. . Public Health Impact

of Pesticides Used in Agriculture.World Health Organization.Geneva.

2 PAN AP. . Annual Report(http://www.poptel.org.uk/panap/).

3 Specht, J. . Pesticides in Cambodia – A Compilation forAgriculturists, Local and Expatriate Staff Working forAgriculture in Cambodia. Lutheran World Service andIntegrated Rural Development Project Kandal/Takeo.Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

4 PAN-UK. . Methyl parathion. http://www.pan-uk.org5 Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET). .

Carbofuran. Oregon State University6 Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET).

Methamidophos. Oregon State University7 Lyons, G. . Endocrine disrupting pesticides. PAN-UK.

http://www.pan-uk.org8 Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET). .

Cholinesterase inhibition, Oregon State University9 PAN-UK. . Legal action filed against Bayer in the

pesticide poisoning deaths of children in the Peruvian Andes.Press Release. October .

10 Sodavy, P., Sitha, M., Nugent, R. & Murphy, H. .Farmers’ awareness and perceptions of the effects of pesticides ontheir health. FAO Community IPM Programme FieldDocument. April

11 Kay Kimsong. . Predator drop means pest,pesticide trouble. The Cambodia Daily. March .

12 Reuters, Phnom Penh. July .12b Phelim Kyne & Bou Sarouen. .Tracing thetoxin: rumors, fear and puffer fish. Phnom PenhPost. September .13 Girard, D. . In the tangerine grove. IDRC Reports:

Volume . International Development Research Council.14 Michigan State University. . The database of

arthropods resistant to pesticides.http://www.cips.msu.edu/resistance/rmdb/index.html

15 Georghiou, G. & Lagunes-Tejeda, A. . TheOccurrence of Resistance to Pesticides in Arthropods:An Indexof Cases Reported through . Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations. Rome.

16 Loring, D. . Struggling to keep Cambodia off thepesticide treadmill. Global Pesticide Campaigner:Volume ,Number . December .

17 Mallet,V. . Poisoned chalice. The Financial Times. March .

18 Williamson, S. . Pesticide effects on natural enemies.Pesticides News: . June .

19 Jungbluth, F. . Pesticide facts in Thailand. PesticideNews: . March .

20Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET). .Movement of pesticides in the environment. Oregon StateUniversity

21 Monirith, I. & al. . Organochlorine contaminationin fish and mussels from Cambodia and other Asiancountries. Water, Science and Technology : .

22 Cox, C. . Pesticides and birds: from DDT to today’spoisons. Journal of Pesticide Reform : -.

23 Glaser, L.C. Wildlife mortality attributed to organo-phosphate and carmabate pesticides.http://biology.usgs.gov/stt/noframe/u.htm

24Mezquieda, M. . Larvicide linked to frog deformities.The Wilton Villager, Connecticut, USA. September.

25 Van der Gaag, N. . Crossed bills and broken eggs.New Internationalist: . May .

26 PAN-UPS. . Sharp decline in UK bird populations.Sept . http://www.pmac.net/ukbirds.htm

27 PAN-UPS. . Endosulfan responsible for Alabama fishkill. Pesticide Action Network North America UpdatesService. February .

28 http://www.hawk-conservancy.org/priors/swainson.htm29 CNN. . Chemicals killing Florida birds, fish.

February . http://www.cnn.com30 http://www.fbbfs.org/poisoning.html31 UBINIG. . Sparrows massacred by pesticide in

Bangladesh. http://www.TWN.org.sg

32 Canadian Wildlife Service. . Pesticides and Wild Birds.http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/hww-fap/pesticides/pest.html

33 Bou Saroeun. . Pesticides killing great lake. PhnomPenh Post: Issue /. - May .

34 Whitten, M. . A role for small-scale farmers andrural communities in reducing the entry of persistentorganic pollutants (POPs) into the environment.Proceedings of Regional Workshop on the Management ofPersistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), Hanoi,Vietnam. UNEP. March .

35Yang Saing Koma & al. . The Situation of PesticideUse in the Tonle Sap Catchment. CEDAC, Phnom Penh.

36 Television Trust for the Environment (TVE), . ToxicTrail documentary.TVE. http://toxictrail.org

37 Ahmed & al. . Socio-economic Assessment ofFreshwater Capture Fisheries of Cambodia. MRC.

38 Shaw, I. . Regulation and monitoring of pesticidesin Indonesia. Pesticides News: . June

39 Bou Saroeun, .The greening of Cambodianfarming begins. Phnom Penh Post: Issue /. September – October .

40 Nou Bonheur. . Tonle Sap Ecosystem and Value.Technical Coordination Unit. Ministry of Environment.Cambodia.

41 Chea Sina. .Today’s Tonle Sap water quality statusand its tendency in future. Kumnit Khmer Journal: . July-September .

42 CSES. . Cambodia Socio-Economic Survey, PhnomPenh and UNDP, Cambodian Human ResourceDevelopment Report .

43 Review of the Fishery Conflict in Stung Treng. NGOForum.

44 Insecticides on foods in market. Charet Khmer:Volume # . - October .

45 Rainboth. . Fishes of the Cambodian Mekong. FAO,Rome, Italy.

46 UNDP-GEF. . Tonle Sap Conservation Project DraftInception Report.

47Seang Tana & al. . Overview of turtle trade inCambodia. In: Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshopon Conservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoisesin Asia. Chelonian Research Foundation.

48 Stuart & al. . Homalopsine watersnakes: the harvestand trade from Tonle Sap, Cambodia. Traffic Bulletin :.http://www.traffic.org/bulletin/watersnakes.html

Alternatives and solutions in Cambodianagriculture

1 Matteson, P.C. . Insect Pest Management in TropicalAsian Irrigated Rice. Annual Review of Entomology : -.

2 Date from FAOSTAT (http://www.fao.org) use at:http://www.geocities.com/kmp_ph/reso/polpest/polpest.html#figure

3 Pearce, F. . Deadly sprays worse than useless. NewScientist:Volume , Issue . November .

4 Heong, K.L., Escalada, M..M. & Mai,V. . Ananalysis of insecticide use in rice – case studies in thePhilippines and Vietnam. International Journal of PestManagement : -.

5 Jahn, G.C., Bunnarith, K., Sophea, P. & Chanty, P. .Pest management in Rice. In: CIAP. . Rice production inCambodia. Edited by H. J. Nesbitt

6 Mackenzie, D. . Seeing is believing for Asia’s ricefarmers. New Scientist:Volume , Issue . August

7 Rola, A.C. & Pingali, P.L. . Pesticides, Rice Productivityand Farmers’ Health:An Economic Assessment. IRRI/WRI,Washington DC.

8 Challenging Japan’s pesticide aid. Global PesticideCampaigner.Volume , Number .

9 ACIAR. . Non-chemical control of rodents in lowlandirrigated rice crops. ACIAR research notes: . September. http://www.aciar.gov.au

10 Frost & Sullivan. . SEA Agrochemicals Market.Agrolinks: -. September

11 FAO. In prep. International Code of Conduct on theDistribution and Use of Pesticides (revised version). FAO,Rome, Italy.

12 Specht, J. . Pesticides in Cambodia – A Compilation forAgriculturists, Local and Expatriate Staff Working forAgriculture in Cambodia. Lutheran World Service andIntegrated Rural Development Project Kandal/Takeo.Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

13 http://www.communityipm.org/countries/Cambodia.htm14 FAO. . Summary of FAO Capacity building efforts

in pesticide management.(http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/agricult/agp/agpp/pesticid/Manage/Capacit.htm)

15 Bou Saroeun. . Getting farmers to teach each other.Phnom Penh Post: Issue /. February– March

16 Jones, K. . IPM in developing countries – The SriLanka experience. Pesticides News: . March

17 IRRI. Cambodia’s long journey back.http://www.irri.org/hunger/cambodia.htm

18 Holmes, B. . A natural way with weeds. NewScientist:Volume , Issue . May

19 CGIAR. . New rice techniques promise up to percentless water usage. Consultative Group on InternationalAgricultural Research Press release. May

20 FAO. . IPM-trained farmers in Indonesia escape pestoutbreaks. Press Release. November . ww.fao.org

21 Bellamy, R. . EEPSEA Case Study: Integrated PestManagement in Indonesia:The cost of chemicals. InternationalDevelopment Research Center (IDRC)

22 Loring, D. . Struggling to keep Cambodia off thepesticide treadmill. Global Pesticide Campaigner,Volume ,Number , December .

23 Cambodian Development Resource Institute. .Constraints on the rice marketing system. CambodianDevelopment Review (). April-June .

24 Whitten, M. . A role for small-scale farmers andrural communities in reducing the entry of persistentorganic pollutants (POPs) into the environment.Proceedings of Regional Workshop on the Management ofPersistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), Hanoi,Vietnam. UNEP, March .

25AVRDC. . Annual Report . Asian VegetableResearch and Development Center,Tainan,Taiwan.

26 http://www.neemfoundation.org27 Professor Merle Sheperd. Clemson University. pers.

comm.28 Eberlee, J. . A natural path to pesticide: botanical

pesticides in Thailand. IDRC Reports, InternationalDevelopment Research Center,http://www.idrc.ca/books/reports/index.html

29 http://www.stii.dost.gov.ph/tekno/Book__.htm30 Swadener, C. . Bacillus thuringiensis (B.T.). Journal

of Pesticide Reform (): -.31 http://www.IRDC.ca32 Gregory R. & Guttman H. . Capture and culture rice-

field fisheries in Cambodia. In: CIAP. . Rice production inCambodia. Edited by H. J. Nesbitt

33 Peter Newton. . Fishing in the rice paddy.International Development Research Center, Ottawa,Canada. July . http://www.IDRC.ca

34 Bou Saroeun, .The greening of Cambodianfarming begins. Phnom Penh Post: Issue /. September – October .

35 Bou Saroeun. . Hi-tech rice mill eyes exportmarket. Phnom Penh Post: Issue /. April – May.

36 McKinney, M. . Rice milling plant may helpfarmers reach world markets. The Cambodia Daily. May.

Environmental

Justice

Foundation

5 St Peter’s St

London N1 8JD

UK

tel: 44 (0) 20 7359 0440

fax: 44 (0) 20 7359 7123

info@ejfoundation.org

www.ejfoundation.org

non-profit company no. 03853159