Continuing Issues in the Limitations of Pesticide Use in Developing Countries

  • Kishor Atreya
  • Bishal K. Sitaula
  • Fred H. Johnsen
  • Roshan M. Bajracharya
Articles

Abstract

The rationale for pesticide use in agriculture is that costs associated with pesticide pollution are to be justified by its benefits, but this is not so obvious. Valuing the benefits by simple economic analysis has increased pesticide use in agriculture and consequently produced pesticide-induced “public ills.” This paper attempts to explore the research gaps of the economic and social consequences of pesticide use in developing countries, particularly with an example of Nepal. We argue that although the negative sides of agricultural development, for example- soil, water, and air pollution; pest resistance and resurgence; bioaccumulation, bio-magnification; and loss of biodiversity and ecosystem resilience caused by the use of pesticides in agriculture, are “developmental problems” and are “unintentional,” the magnitude may be increased by undervaluing the problems in the analysis of its economic returns. Despite continuous effort for holistic system analyses for studying complex phenomena like pesticides impacts, the development within the academic science has proceeded in the opposite direction that might have accelerated marginalization of the third world subsistence agricultural communities. We hypothesize that, if these adversities are realized and accounted for, the benefits from the current use of pesticides could be outweighed by the costs of pollution and ill human health. This paper also illustrates different pathways and mechanisms for marginalization. In view of potential and overall negative impacts of pesticide use, we recommend alternative ways of controlling pests such as community integrated pest management (IPM) along with education and training activities. Such measures are likely to reduce the health and environmental costs of pesticide pollution, and also enhance the capabilities of third world agricultural communities in terms of knowledge, decision making, innovation, and policy change.

Keywords

Benefit-cost analysis Developing countries Interdisciplinary Integrated pest management Marginalization Pesticides 

References

  1. Abhilash, P. C., & Singh, N. (2009). Pesticide use and application: An Indian scenario. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 165, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ADB. (1999). The growth and sustainability of agriculture in Asia. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ajayi, O. C. (2000). Pesticide use practices, productivity and farmers’ health: The case of cotton-rice systems in Cote d’lvoire, West Africa. Hanover, Germany: University of Hanover. Pesticide Policy Project, Special Issue Publication Series No 3.Google Scholar
  4. Antle, J. M., Cole, D. C., & Crissman, C. C. (1998). Further evidence on pesticides, productivity and farmer health: Potato production in Ecuador. Agricultural Economics, 18, 199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antle, J. M., & Pingali, P. L. (1994). Pesticides, productivity, and farmer health: A Philippine case study. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76, 418–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atreya, K. (2007a). Pesticide use in Nepal: Understanding health costs from short-term exposure. SANDEE Working Paper No. 28. Kathmandu, Nepal: South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics.Google Scholar
  7. Atreya, K. (2007b). Farmers’ willingness to pay for community integrated pest management training in Nepal. Agriculture and Human Values, 24, 399–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Atreya, K. (2008). Health costs from short-term exposure to pesticides in Nepal. Social Science and Medicine, 67, 511–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowles, R. G., & Webster, J. P. G. (1995). Some problems associated with the analysis of the costs and benefits of pesticides. Crop Protection, 14, 593–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. New York, USA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  11. Cone, M. (2006). Silent snow: The slow poisoning of the Arctic. USA: Grove Weidenfeld Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Cuyno, L. C. M., Norton, G. W., & Rola, A. (2001). Economic analysis of environmental benefits of integrated pest management: A Philippine case study. Agricultural Economics, 25, 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devi, I. P. (2007). Pesticide use in the rice bowl of Kerala: Health costs and policy options. SANDEE Working Paper No. 21. Kathmandu, Nepal: South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics.Google Scholar
  14. Dung, N. H., & Dung, T. T. (1999). Economic and health consequences of pesticide use in paddy production in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Singapore: Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA).Google Scholar
  15. Ecobichon, D. J. (2001). Pesticide use in developing countries. Toxicology, 160, 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. EPA. (2000). Handbook for non-cancer health effects valuation. Washington DC: EPA Science Policy Council, US Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  17. FAO. (2002). Land and Agriculture from UNCED, Rio de Janeiro 1992 to WSSD, Johannesburg 2002: A compendium of recent sustainable development initiatives in the field of agriculture and land management. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  18. FAO. (2004). The ethics of sustainable agricultural intensification. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  19. Freeman, A. M. (1993). The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and method. Washington, DC, USA: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  20. Frey, R. S. (1995). The international traffic in pesticides. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 50, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ghatak, S., & Turner, R. K. (1978). Pesticide use in less developed countries: Economic and environmental consideration. Food Policy, 3, 136–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gupta, P. K. (2004). Pesticide exposure-Indian scene. Toxicology, 198, 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Høyer, K. G., & Naess, P. (2008). Interdisciplinarity, ecology and scientific theory: The case of sustainable development. Journal of Critical Realism, 7(2), 5–33.Google Scholar
  24. Jaga, K., & Dharmani, C. (2003). Global surveillance of DDT and DDE levels in human tissues. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 16(1), 7–20.Google Scholar
  25. Jha, R. K., & Regmi, A. P. (2009). Productivity of pesticide in vegetable farming in Nepal. SANDEE Working Paper No. 43-09, Kathmandu, Nepal: South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics (SANDEE).Google Scholar
  26. Kishi, M., Hirschhorn, N., Djajadisastra, M., Satterlee, L. N., Strowman, S., & Dilts, R. (1995). Relationship of pesticide spraying to signs and symptoms in Indonesian farmers. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 21, 124–133.Google Scholar
  27. Konradsen, F., van Der Hoek, W., Cole, D. C., Hutchinson, G., Daisley, H., Singh, S., et al. (2003). Reducing acute poisoning in developing countries-options for restricting the availability of pesticides. Toxicology, 192, 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maumbe, B. M., & Swinton, S. M. (2003). Hidden health costs of pesticide use in Zimbabwe’s smallholder cotton growers. Social Science and Medicine, 57, 1559–1571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McIntyre, D., Thiede, M., Dahlgren, G., & Whitehead, M. (2006). What are the economic consequences for households of illness and paying for health care in low-and middle-income country contexts? Social Science and Medicine, 62, 858–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meghani, Z. (2008). Values, technologies, and epistemology. Agriculture and Human Values, 25, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paoletti, M., & Pimentel, D. (2000). Environmental risks of pesticides versus genetic engineering for agricultural pest control. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12, 279–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pimentel, D. (2005). Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides primarily in the United States. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7, 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pontius, J., Dilts, R., & Bartlett, A. (Eds.). (2000). Ten Years of IPM Training in Asia: From farmer field schools to community IPM. Jakarta: FAO Community IPM Program.Google Scholar
  34. Rahman, S. (2003). Farm-level pesticide use in Bangladesh: Determinants and awareness. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 95, 241–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Raven, P. H., Berg, L. R., & Hassenzahl, D. M. (2008). Environment. USA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Robbins, P. (2004). Political ecology: A critical introduction. India: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Romero, C., & Rehman, T. (2003). Multiple criteria analysis for agricultural decisions. Netherland: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  38. Saith, A. (2007). Millennium Development Goals and the dumping-down of development: Goals set for the poor, goalposts set by the rich. International Institute of Asian Studies Newsletter, 45, 12–13.Google Scholar
  39. Sauerborn, R., Adams, A., & Hien, M. (1996). Household strategies to cope with the economic costs of illness. Social Science and Medicine, 43, 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shah, B. P., & Devkota, B. (2009). Obsolete pesticides: Their environmental and human health hazards. The Journal of Agriculture and Environment, 10, 51–56.Google Scholar
  41. Travisi, C. M., Nijkamp, P., & Vindigni, G. (2006). Pesticide risk valuation in empirical economics: A comparative approach. Ecological Economics, 56, 455–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van den Berg, H. (2004). IPM farmer field schools: A synthesis of 25 impact evaluations. The Netherland: Wageningen University.Google Scholar
  43. van den Berg, H., & Jiggins, J. (2007). Investing in farmers—the impacts of farmer field schools in relation to integrated pest management. World Development, 35, 663–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van der Hoek, W., Konradsen, F., Athukorala, K., & Wanigadewa, T. (1998). Pesticide poisoning: A major health problem in Sri Lanka. Social Science and Medicine, 46, 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. WCED. (1987). Our common future. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. WHO. (2006). Preventing disease through healthy environments: Towards an estimate of the environmental burden of disease. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  47. WHO. (2007). The World Health Report 2007—a safer future: Global public health security in the 21st century. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  48. Wilson, C. (1998). Cost and policy implications of agricultural pollution with special reference to pesticides. Department of Economics (p. xi + 266). Scotland, UK: University of St Andrews.Google Scholar
  49. Wilson, C. (2000). Environmental and human costs of commercial agricultural production in south Asia. International Journal of Social Economics, 27, 816–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilson, C. (2003). Empirical evidence showing the relationships between three approaches for pollution control. Environmental & Resource Economics, 24, 97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilson, C., & Tisdell, C. (2001). Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs. Ecological Economics, 39, 449–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. World Bank (WB). (2007). World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC: The World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yanggen, D., Cole, D. C., Crissman, C., & Sherwood, S. (2004). Pesticide use in commercial potato production: Reflections on research and intervention efforts towards greater ecosystems health in northern Ecuador. EcoHealth, 1(Suppl. 2), 72–83.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kishor Atreya
    • 1
  • Bishal K. Sitaula
    • 1
  • Fred H. Johnsen
    • 1
  • Roshan M. Bajracharya
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of International Environment and Development StudiesNorwegian University of Life SciencesÅsNorway
  2. 2.Aquatic Ecology CenterKathmandu UniversityKathmanduNepal

Personalised recommendations