some level of control over the import of hazardous chemicals. Yet, while Thailand
has restricted 14 out of the 29 pesticides and severely hazardous pesticide
formulations on the PIC list, Vietnam has restricted the use of only one PIClisted chemical. The total number of pesticides banned for use in agriculture in
Vietnam increased slowly from 20 in 1992 to 29 in 2010, while the use of additional
15 chemicals is restricted to specific purposes.
Enforcement of existing regulation is; however, a problem in both countries. The
number of companies and retailers dealing in pesticides has increased dramatically,
especially in Vietnam, and a nationwide inspection conducted by the Vietnamese
Plant Protection Department in 2000 reported that 23 % of the pesticide retailers
had no official permission to run their business, 87 % did not have the required
certificate on technical pesticide knowledge and 50 % had no adequate facility for
storing pesticides (Huan and Anh 2002). In addition, a large amount of cheaper
pesticide illegally enters the country from China, and this might particularly affect
the northern mountainous regions. To bring the import and distribution of pesticides
under control, the government tried in 2001 to create a state monopoly on the
import and distribution of pesticides but this has been rather unsuccessful so far.
4.5.2 Possible Increases in the Efficiency of Pesticide Use
Fears that restrictions on pesticide use will reduce food production and harm food
security are not usually based on empirical analysis. Pesticides contribute to higher
crop yields only indirectly by limiting the adverse yield effects of pests. In the
absence of empirical analysis, the debate about pesticide use is prone to the
influence of ideology and commercial interests. With the objective of contributing
to this debate, Grovermann et al. (2012) quantified the economic costs and benefits
of pesticide use and accordingly the levels of pesticide overuse for the Mae Sa area
in Thailand using farm-level survey data.
The cost of pesticide use was split into financial costs for farmers – the purchasing
price of pesticides, and economic costs incurred by society – the external costs not
transmitted on to farmers through input prices. These included the effects of
pesticides on ecosystems and the health of applicators and pickers as well as
consumers ingesting pesticide residues. Using an actual cost method, in 1996
Jungbluth estimated the external cost of agricultural pesticide use in Thailand to
be 5.5 billion baht (8.3 billion baht at 2010 prices). It is; however, not possible to
use this figure to allocate a specific external cost to an individual pesticide or active
ingredient used by farmers in the Mae Sa area. Praneetvatakul et al. (in press);
therefore, used the Pesticide Environmental Accounting (PEA) tool, which
estimates external costs based on observed amounts of pesticide use, and which
can therefore estimate the external costs of a particular cropping cycle (Leach and
Mumford 2008).
The marginal benefits of pesticide use were estimated using a production function
approach, in which the value of agricultural output per hectare and per month was
regressed on labor, irrigation water, fertilizer and pesticide use, as well as other
4 Agricultural Pesticide Use in Mountainous Areas of Thailand and Vietnam. . .
167
has restricted 14 out of the 29 pesticides and severely hazardous pesticide
formulations on the PIC list, Vietnam has restricted the use of only one PIClisted chemical. The total number of pesticides banned for use in agriculture in
Vietnam increased slowly from 20 in 1992 to 29 in 2010, while the use of additional
15 chemicals is restricted to specific purposes.
Enforcement of existing regulation is; however, a problem in both countries. The
number of companies and retailers dealing in pesticides has increased dramatically,
especially in Vietnam, and a nationwide inspection conducted by the Vietnamese
Plant Protection Department in 2000 reported that 23 % of the pesticide retailers
had no official permission to run their business, 87 % did not have the required
certificate on technical pesticide knowledge and 50 % had no adequate facility for
storing pesticides (Huan and Anh 2002). In addition, a large amount of cheaper
pesticide illegally enters the country from China, and this might particularly affect
the northern mountainous regions. To bring the import and distribution of pesticides
under control, the government tried in 2001 to create a state monopoly on the
import and distribution of pesticides but this has been rather unsuccessful so far.
4.5.2 Possible Increases in the Efficiency of Pesticide Use
Fears that restrictions on pesticide use will reduce food production and harm food
security are not usually based on empirical analysis. Pesticides contribute to higher
crop yields only indirectly by limiting the adverse yield effects of pests. In the
absence of empirical analysis, the debate about pesticide use is prone to the
influence of ideology and commercial interests. With the objective of contributing
to this debate, Grovermann et al. (2012) quantified the economic costs and benefits
of pesticide use and accordingly the levels of pesticide overuse for the Mae Sa area
in Thailand using farm-level survey data.
The cost of pesticide use was split into financial costs for farmers – the purchasing
price of pesticides, and economic costs incurred by society – the external costs not
transmitted on to farmers through input prices. These included the effects of
pesticides on ecosystems and the health of applicators and pickers as well as
consumers ingesting pesticide residues. Using an actual cost method, in 1996
Jungbluth estimated the external cost of agricultural pesticide use in Thailand to
be 5.5 billion baht (8.3 billion baht at 2010 prices). It is; however, not possible to
use this figure to allocate a specific external cost to an individual pesticide or active
ingredient used by farmers in the Mae Sa area. Praneetvatakul et al. (in press);
therefore, used the Pesticide Environmental Accounting (PEA) tool, which
estimates external costs based on observed amounts of pesticide use, and which
can therefore estimate the external costs of a particular cropping cycle (Leach and
Mumford 2008).
The marginal benefits of pesticide use were estimated using a production function
approach, in which the value of agricultural output per hectare and per month was
regressed on labor, irrigation water, fertilizer and pesticide use, as well as other
4 Agricultural Pesticide Use in Mountainous Areas of Thailand and Vietnam. . .
167