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

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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 )

7. World Bank PEN Study on Pesticide Use in Vietnam 2004

8. 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)

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

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

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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.