Poverty and Pesticide Use Evidence from Vietnam Susmita Dasgupta Craig Meisner DECRG-IE, The World Bank

Pesticide consumption (metric tons) Pesticide consumption has more than doubled in the past decade Source: FAO, 2004

Alarming Composition / Application of Pesticides In 2000, a nation-wide survey by PPD found: 2,500 kg of banned pesticides (Methamidophos, DDT and others). 4,753 liters and 5,645 kg of illegally imported/ counterfeit pesticides. In 2000, another survey in the South found: 96.6% of the farmers over-use pesticides. 95% of the farmers pour residual spray into canals/ ditches/ re-apply it on other plants/ over-apply it to the same crop to get rid of it.

Limited Secondary Data on Health Effects Hospital admission records trace 840 poisonings to pesticides in 53 cities and provinces in 1999. The WHO estimates that there are 50 cases of poisoning for every case reported and registered.

Hypotheses of Interest Whether the use of hazardous pesticides is more prevalent among poor farmers than in the general farming population. Whether overuse and misuse of pesticides is more prevalent among poor farmers than in the general farming population. Whether poor farmers have less access to information on risk, training for safe handling of pesticides and protective measures than the general farming population. Whether health impairments, that may be attributed to pesticide use, are disproportionately higher for poor farmers.

Collaborators in Vietnam University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City (Contact: Dr. Nguyen Huu Dung ) The Centre of Occupational and Environmental Health, Vietnam Association of Occupational Health (Contact: Dr. Khuc Xuyen )

World Bank PEN Study on Pesticide Use in Vietnam 2004

Sample Poverty Distribution Poverty Classification Number Percent Poor (<=1,200,000 VND) 79 13.1 Non-Poor 524 86.9 Poverty line based on per capita income: VND 80,000 per month for island areas and rural mountainous areas, VND 100,000 per month for rural plain areas, and VND 150,000 per month in urban areas (as per the definition stated in the PRSP)

Pesticide Use: Amount Mean pesticide application, risk-weighted amount and number of applications by poor/non-poor (kg) *** - Statistically significant at 1% level of significance ** - Statistically significant at 5% level of significance

Pesticide Use: Class Mean application of WHO Ia & b and common pesticide classes by poor/non-poor (kg) *** - Statistically significant at 1% level of significance

Summary and Conclusions-I The poor are currently using smaller amounts of pesticides (as well as on a per hectare basis). In terms of risk-weighed pesticides, on average the poor are using more, however this difference is statistically insignificant. By weighting a pesticides’ active ingredient by its degree of lethality (or by the LD50 value) and categorizing this measure according to the WHO risk classification system, the poor are using a greater percentage of WHO Ia & Ib pesticides on average, however this difference was not statistically significant. The non-poor are using a statistically greater amount of organophosphates and pyrethroids.

Overuse of pesticides Poor farmers have a significantly lower probability of overusing pesticides.1 Other variables that contributed to the determination of overuse were farm size (+), income (+) and the proportion of WHO class II (+) pesticides used in production. Overuse was also found to be more prevalent in the provinces of An Giang and Cantho. 1 - Overuse was defined as the reported dose amount over the label then summed across all pesticides used. It was then coded as =1 for positive amounts, 0 otherwise.

Misuse of pesticides Do farmers use any pesticides recommended for other crops, on rice? Non-poor farmers tended to misuse more often; significant at the 5% level of significance.

Prevalence of basic training on safe handling and application of pesticides by poor/non-poor Poor and non-poor farmers had no significant difference in training amount.

Use of protective clothing while using pesticides (%) Non-poor farmers use more protective measures and this is statistically significant at the 5% level.

Stated reasons for not wearing the protective clothing by poor/non-poor (%) Shoes Hat Glasses Mask Shirt Trousers Gloves Reasons Poor Non- poor Not available 19.3 16.5 51.2 40.7 32.9 25.2 16.2 0.0 5.0 19.2 17.8 Uncomfortable 16.9 23.8 31.7 39.6 34.2 41.4 54.1 52.5 100.0 45.0 80.0 68.0 41.1 45.4 Inappropriate 48.2 42.6 2.4 7.0 12.3 12.7 10.8 20.0 4.0 13.7 13.0 Unnecessary 12.0 10.1 12.2 8.5 16.4 13.5 8.0 19.1 Other 3.6 6.9 4.1 4.2 5.4 8.3 10.0 6.8 4.7 Total Sample size (n=) 79 524

Prevalence of Environment-Friendly Pest Control Measures by poor/non-poor Non-poor farmers were more likely to adopt alternative pest control methods; significant at the 1% level.

Summary and Conclusions-II Poor farmers have a significantly lower probability of overusing pesticides. Non-poor farmers are more likely to misuse. There is no difference in the level of training among the poor and non-poor. Non-poor farmers use more protective measures while handling pesticides. Non-poor adopted more environment-friendly pest control methods.