Proceedings of the Asia regional workshop on the

3. Regional overview, pesticide policy and
monitoring guidelines
3.1 Regional overview and analysis <strong>of</strong> country reports
by Gerd Walter-Echols and Piao Yongfan
The country reports in <strong>the</strong> previous chapter reflect a great diversity within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Asia</strong> region in
terms <strong>of</strong> pesticide management. The questionnaire annex that was submitted by <strong>the</strong> country
delegates allowed for a systematic comparison <strong>of</strong> selected pesticide management aspects, similar to
<strong>the</strong> proposed monitoring <strong>of</strong> Code implementation as stipulated in Article 12 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> revised version.
The <strong>workshop</strong> questionnaire, however, contained only about 40 questions as compared to <strong>the</strong>
110 questions in <strong>the</strong> draft monitoring guidelines. About 30 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questions were identical. This
allowed <strong>the</strong> <strong>workshop</strong> participants to practice Code monitoring, to better understand <strong>the</strong> purpose and
procedure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposed monitoring guidelines and to see how <strong>the</strong>ir answers affect <strong>the</strong> overall
outcome.
The answers from <strong>the</strong> questionnaires were entered into a database and <strong>the</strong> results were
reported in <strong>the</strong> “Questionnaire Summaries” at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> each country report in <strong>the</strong> previous chapter.
In addition, <strong>the</strong> answers were analyzed with regard to <strong>the</strong> overall situation <strong>of</strong> Code implementation in
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Asia</strong> region.
Not all country delegates were able to answer all <strong>the</strong> questions. It became clear from this
exercise that most countries do not have a single institution that is knowledgeable about all aspects <strong>of</strong>
pesticide management, but this information is scattered over several institutions. This situation is
likely to hinder a comprehensive assessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> benefits and risks <strong>of</strong> pesticides and <strong>the</strong>
development <strong>of</strong> appropriate policies. It makes <strong>the</strong> proposed monitoring <strong>of</strong> Code implementation
difficult as it would require a collaborative effort between multiple partners in order to yield
meaningful results. If this effort is not made, <strong>the</strong> proposed future monitoring <strong>of</strong> Code
implementation would yield incomplete, misleading or incorrect answers. The results from <strong>the</strong>
<strong>workshop</strong> questionnaire reflect <strong>the</strong> same difficulties and <strong>the</strong>y may differ significantly from <strong>the</strong> actual
situation. Therefore, <strong>the</strong> <strong>workshop</strong> questionnaire survey was a useful exercise to make participants
aware <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se problems.
- 191 -