POLLINATORS POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION

THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
6.4.2.1.4 Reduce pesticide use (includes
Integrated Pest Management)
Developing and implementing cropping systems that entail
no or low use of pesticides, such as organic farming (see
section 6.4.1.1.4) may reduce use and thereby exposure
to pesticides. A major effort in conventional farming has
been to decrease pesticide use through the adoption of
integrated pest management (IPM). This entails a number
of complementing pest control strategies with larger
reliance on biological pest control and changed cultivation
practices that decrease the need to use pesticides and
to apply pesticides only when they are needed, i.e., when
other measures are insufficient and pest abundances
have reached the damage threshold (Desneux et al.,
2007; Ekström and Ekbom, 2011; USDA, 2014; http://
www.ipmcenters.org/). The cultivation practices involved
include crop rotation or mixed cropping, and field margin
management, with co-benefits for pollinators discussed
in section 6.4.1.1. Measures have to be balanced against
the risk of attracting pollinators to or near areas treated
with pesticides.
6.4.2.2 Legal responses
6.4.2.2.1 Registration
The requirement to register a pesticide before use is
a primary level and regulatory policy tool that in many
countries has as one aim: to limit use of bee-toxic pesticides
and implement pollinator-safe use of the pesticide. Pesticide
products are normally registered one by one, separately for
specific uses (e.g., seed dressing, by crop) and separately
in each country; but national registration can also be based
on internationally agreed procedures. A comprehensive
global overview of registration procedures and requirements
is not available. It is, however, safe to say that the principle
and strictness in the rules and procedures for a pesticide
registration vary enormously among countries. An indication
of this variation is given by the Environmental Performance
Index (EPI) that is updated annually since 2000 (http://epi.
yale.edu). It gives a country-based overall assessment of
environmental stress on human health and ecosystems
based on agricultural land use and policies, and includes
pesticide use and regulation.
Information about pesticide use is largely lacking and many
countries even lack sales statistics. The EPI therefore
instead scores the regulatory strength at the registration
of pesticides, and tracks plans by national governments
to phase out and ban a number of Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POP), including nine pesticides now obsolete
in agriculture. Ekström and Ekbom (2011) list the scored
capacity to regulate pesticides of 11 coffee-producing
countries in 2008. The scores range from 0 or 1 (e.g.,
Guatemala, Uganda, and Honduras) to around 20 (e.g.,
Brazil, Indonesia, Peru, and Vietnam), which is level with
the scores of countries with internationally recognized strict
registration rules (New Zealand 22, Sweden 22, US 19).
Other indications of the global variation in the regulation of
pesticide use through registration is given by a regional risk
assessment report for West Africa. It shows that pesticide
regulation in West African countries is weak and that 50% of
pesticide applications in Mali, and 8% of marketed pesticide
products in Niger are reported as unregistered and therefore
entirely lack risk assessments for pollinators (Jepson
et al., 2014). Panuwet et al. (2012) report illegal use of
pesticides, and weaknesses in the regulation and monitoring
of pesticides use in Thailand. More strict registration
rules not only include advanced risk assessments (with
ecotoxicological studies) and rules of use (through labelling),
but can also include responsibilities for the pesticide
producer to mitigate risks and monitor use after registration,
and allows for further restrictions of use should negative
impacts on the environment and non-target organisms
be observed (e.g., EC 2009, see especially Articles 6, 36
and 44). New, even more conservative, risk assessment
systems are being developed for the EU and US that include
measures of lethal and sub-lethal effects for several bee
species in addition to the honey bee (EFSA, 2013; Fischer
and Moriarty, 2014).
6.4.2.2.2 Labelling
The label provides instruction for use of the pesticide
and is considered an important tool to limit risk to nontarget
organisms and humans. Labelling is a regulatory
action that is generally part of the pesticide registration.
No comprehensive summary of labelling internationally
is available. A label may or may not include instructions
directly related to protecting pollinators, but many pesticide
labels include clear warnings about the potential risks
to pollinators. In a survey on registration procedures
including 20 OECD countries worldwide, all countries were
found to use label mitigation to reduce risk to pollinators
including approval restrictions (e.g., excluded crops, rate
restrictions), use restrictions (e.g., not to be used during
flowering), and advice for risk-reducing practices (e.g.,
avoid drift). Most countries (~80%) have a mechanism
for enforcing mandatory label mitigation measures and
restrictions, e.g., such that “do not” statements are legally
binding. Few countries have a formal mechanism for
determining the effectiveness of risk mitigation with labelling
(Alix, 2013; http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/riskmitigation-pollinators/),
which is typically based on incident
monitoring systems.
6.4.2.2.3 Compulsory training and education
Many countries require a licence (certification) for a person
to apply certain pesticides; this licence or certification is
385
6. RESPONSES TO RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES ASSOCIATED
WITH POLLINATORS AND POLLINATION