Status of Pesticide Use In Nepal and Future Strategy for their Safe and Alternative Uses

Yubak Dhoj G. C., PhD

Program Director and National IPM Co-ordinator
01. Background
Nepal is predominantly an agricultural country. The economic scenario of Nepal is dominated primarily by this sector. In Nepal
the diverse agro-climatic conditions has necessitated different approaches to cultivation and also for crop protection. Numerous
biotic as well as abiotic agents cause losses to these crops, where insect pests and diseases involve in different crops at different
stages. One of the primary objectives of plant protection is to follow the principles "loose less feed more". While doing so both of
the strategies prophylactic as well as curative measures of pest control are apparent. Managing and controlling pesticides is to
ensure that the product is effective for the control of the target pest while causing little or no deleterious effect to man, non-target
organisms and the environment as a whole. As a measure for their protection, pesticide has becoming one of the important
weapons for several years. In this course, over use, mis -use and haphazard use are reported by several organizations and
individuals, which have been creating numerous problems for living beings including environment. Pesticide problems have been
reported to in many non-target organisms such as fishes, wild life, natural enemies, and residue has been detected in food grains,
fresh vegetables and milk. Pesticide misuse and overuse causes harmful effects on non-target organisms and adding extra burden
to Nepalese society in terms of pesticide related health expenses, environment pollution, crop losses due to pest resurgence and
spending extra costs both to farmer and country as whole (Thapa, 2003). Because of this situation, chemical pesticides are seen
one of the important culprits for environmental mishaps and their uses has been viewed very suspiciously. Despite of the bitter
reality of the hazards associated with the pesticides in Nepal, there is not much use of active ingredients (a.i.) as compared to other
Asian countries on the per hectare basis. Until now, it has been reportedly mentioned that, Nepal consumes on an average 142
g/ha of pesticides. However, the application of pesticides in cotton (2560 g/ha), tea (2100g/ha) and vegetables (1400g/ha) appears
excessive and without the consideration of applicators (farmers) and consumers.
In this scenario, the concerned stakeholders have to play a very proactive role in their judicious uses through various means. The
increasing focus on awareness through Farmers Field School (FFS), has to be supported with the development of alternative
means of pest control, which could be utilization of botanical and biopesticides as well as the use of indigenous knowledge and
technology (IKT) of the farmers. The greater emphasis of trainings through Farmers Field School (FFS) elsewhere in general and
particular in Nepal has given important impetus for capacity building at various level i. e. from farmers to the technicians. At the
same time, such messages should be conveyed along with the alternative means of pest control which in fact will be will be an
important cornerstone for reducing the uses of highly hazardous and even banned group of pesticides at farming communities. The
continuous use of hazardous use of chemical pesticides in protecting crop pest is not solely due to desire of the farming
communities but largely due to lack of unavailability of the safe chemical pesticides when they are needed. At the same time, use
of botanical and biopesticides are lacking despite of their demand and interest of the farmers. The underlying reasons of their
lower uses are unavailability when they are needed. One of the bitter realities that majority of the Nepalese farmers tend to use
highly hazardous chemical pesticides is due their broad-spectrum in nature, quicker effects and greater efficiency of killing living
organisims completely ignoring with their side effects.
Over a decade of FFS in Nepal, it has trained thousands of farmers and hundred of technicians, which however, is insufficient to
address increasing desires and need of the Nepalese farmers. One of the very basic reasons is to emphasis on capacity building
which in fact was inadequate sucess in reducing the continuous use of chemical pesticides. In present time, it has been
increasingly realized the necessity of supportive program. Considering these aspects, future strategies of IPM in Nepal should be
focused with the development of alternative means of pest control and up-scaling of the outcomes of FFS so far achieved. At the
same time, continuation of capacity building in the changing context and need is justifiable. In order to mitigate the effects of
chemical pesticides on non-target organisms, environment, ground water contamination, people of least developed countries like
Nepal needs to encourage and develop and promote alternative methods, which would be widely based with the use of indigenous
knowledge and technology (IKT) and traditional method of the plant diseases, insect pest management. The messages "us
chemical pesticides judiciously" is in fact inadequate and time has come to offer them alternative compounds which will be useful
in managing crop pests and diseases. Keeping in view the magnitude of the problem, Government should educate and advocate
the producer, pesticide whole-sellers, retailers, users and consumer for safe use of pesticide and forge the relations among
concerned stakeholders. Effective registration, licensing, quality control, food residue analysis and enforcement measures
including monitoring and testing should be initiated without delay in Nepal. It has becoming imperative in producing botanicals
and biorational compounds in the context of growing awareness about the deleterious effects of chemical pesticides through
strong coordination of public private partnership (PPP) concepts. Moreover, minimization of pesticides in the crop produce or
producing pesticide free products is also relevant in the context of the obligations expressed by the Government of Nepal in
various conventions and treaties.
Historical aspect of pesticide use in Nepal
In the world, the modern use of chemical pesticides dates back to 1867, when Paris Green was first used to manage Colorado
potato beetle. After that, various inorganic or plant originated pesticides came into existence. The successful discovery of the use
of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) by the Swiss scientist Paul Hermann Mller in 1939 opened the floodgates worldwide
for more and more pesticide synthesis and use, especially for the control of agricultural pests and vector-borne diseases.
The chemical pesticides introduced first time in Nepal was DDT and pyrethrum in 1950 from USA exclusively for Malaria control
for Gandaki hydropower project. Subsequently, in November 1952, DDT became the chemical pesticide to be introduced in Nepal
by Ministry of Health / His Majestys Government of Nepal (the then Government of Nepal). This marked the introduction of
pesticides in Nepal. Not only this but also in 1955, Paris green, Gammexene and nicotine sulfates were imported for the same

purpose of eradicating malaria. These pesticides were mostly provided by US Agency for International Development (USAID),
which sponsored programs through grant assistance primarily for the control of vector-borne diseases. After then, pesticides began
to use in agriculture sector also. The use of pesticides for plant protection has steadily increased, with the introduction of highyielding varieties of rice, maize,wheat and vegetables which led to the formation of the Agriculture Inputs Corporation in 1967 to
deal with agricultural inputs including pesticides. The different groups of pesticides introduced in Nepal in chronological order are
as: Organochlorines- 1950s; Organophosphates - 1960s, Carbamates- 1970s, Synthetic pyrethoids- 1980s (Manadhar, 2006).
Problems associated with pesticides
Both the misuse and excessive use of pesticides disturbs the natural ecosystems and creates environment pollution (air pollution,
water pollution and soil pollution). In addition to these they create adverse effect on public health, effect on wildlife and fishes,
pesticide residues in food grain, vegetables, and milk etc, detrimental effect on natural enemies, insect resistance to pesticide, pest
resurgence (pest falir-back), secondary pest outbreaks and incidental loss of life due to pesticide contamination or deliberately
intake etc. Pesticides related problems in Nepal are difficult to notice except poisoning cases which however, may have posed
long term effects to the non-target organisms, environments and human-beings. The problems are categorized mainly in following
sections.
Issues, challenges and area of improvement
There are some issues and challenges associated with the chemical pesticides which need to be addressed adequately;
1.
Pesticide misuse:

Use of pesticides even it is unnecessary

Improper selection of pesticides

Use of highly toxic and broad spectrum of insecticides

Overdose and frequent application of pesticides

Use of insecticide for killing fishes.

Use of pesticides for storing food grains and stuffs.

Dipping of vegetables like tomato and brinjal in pesticides to keep fresh and shiny.

Not following pre harvest waiting periods.

Throwing of empty pesticide containers in public areas etc.

Use of date expired pesticides

2.
Pesticide residue in food grains and vegetables
3.
Aggressive marketing strategy by pesticide dealers and retailers
4.
Treatment of pesticide like medicine
5.
Illegal trans-boundary movement or trade of pesticides
6.
Low public awareness
7.
Adulterated or substandard products
8.
Disposal of obsolete pesticides
9.
Alternatives to pesticides not readily available
10.
Lack of awareness and availability of biopesticides and biorational compounds
11.
Difficulty in registration of bio pesticides and marketing
12.
Low quantity of import of sex pheromones, botanical and bio pesticides
13.
Inadequate diagnostic services to plant pests and disease related problem
14.
Lack of standards for IPM products and institutions for their certification
15.
Weak regulatory and poor monitoring system
16.
Poor coordination and cooperation among the research, extension and teaching institutions in plant protection
17.
Need to amendment of Pesticide Act and Pesticide Regulations
18.
Lack of experts in pesticide toxicology
Problem on human health and environment
Systematic studies are lacking to monitor the effects of pesticides on human health and the environment because of the lack of
serious data gaps observed due to lack of capability in monitoring data related to health, environmental contamination and specific
incidents. However there is little information on environmental contamination, poisoning cases and the presence of several
pesticides in crop and vegetables.
Though, environmental levels of pesticides were not reported but a survey conducted in 1995 in Nepal revealed that chemical
pesticides such as aldrin were used for fishing baits in rivers, streams and ponds. These chemicals kill the fish, which after
surfacing are collected by fisherman. Fisherman even place pesticides (Endosulfan) into rivers, and streams in order to catch fish
in an easy way. A study on pesticide pollution in Nepal revealed that 52% of the respondents in the study area had lack of
knowledge of the environmental effects of chemical pesticides.
It is unfortunate that the consumption of pesticide is high in developed countries but the pesticide related poisoning cases are
apparently more in developing countries. The increasing tendencies of choosing toxic pesticides, unnecessary and excessive uses,
lack of alternatives, awareness and the discomfort of using protective clothing increase poisoning risks in agricultural workers
might have caused their continuous uses. At the same time, Nepal has weak monitoring systems for data collection on poisoning
cases and irregular system for monitoring the health of the workers involved in handling the pesticides. Similarly, the pesticide
residue limits set by the food standardization committee (FSC) is underused or unused in many instances. At the same time, the
country lacks the standard limit of the pesticide residue on various products and on the human health based on the mean residue

limit (MRL). Until now, there is no functional and accredited laboratory in the country where pesticide residue analysis can be
operated, which has virtually caused the residue related problem more than expected in various crop produce. This situation may
be alarming in case of vegetable produce, receiving greater number of spraying.
The current trends of increase in volume of pesticides use seems very high so national average value of pesticide consumption of
142 g/ha needs to be revised. On an ecological basis, the highest average percentage of land using pesticides is the Terai (12%),
followed by the hills (4.9%) and finally the mountains (0.7%), mostly on crops like rice, maize, wheat, potato and vegetables
(Kansakar et al., 2002). In a recent study carried out by Plant Protection Directorate (PPD, 2010) eighteen samples of vegetables
(7 samples of potato, 6 samples of brinjal, and 5 samples of tomato) were analyzed at the private laboratory. The residue level in
potato was recorded from 0.45 to 4.8 ppm (Mancozeb), N.C (Endosulfan), 0.017 ppm (Methyl Parathion). Likewise, the residue
level in tomato was found from 1.48 to 8.6 ppm (Mancozeb), N.D to 0.042 ppm (Cypermethrin) and N.D (Dimethoate). Samples
of brinjal were not found to be contaminated with pesticide residue (Deltamethrin, Fenvalerate, Cypermethrin, Chlorpyrifos and
Methyl Parathion). The Department of Food Technology and Quality Control (DFTQC) also revealed the status of pesticide
residue on 106 samples of different food commodities with no contamination with Organochlorine (DDT and BHC) and Organophosphorous (Parathion, Methyl parathion and malathion) pesticides. These results show, there is greater level of speculation or
exaggeration of the uses of chemical pesticides more than the MRL of the body, which however, has to be scrutinized by PPD
with fresh report.
Pesticide poisoning is a major public health problem in the developing countries. Although some hospital based data are available
but there are no large scale or nationwide study done on the scale of poisoning problem in Nepal. For proper evaluation of
poisoning pattern, an extensive study has to be conducted in different specialty care, regional, zonal, district hospitals as well as
primary care center, health post and sub-health posts so that intervention programs like poison prevention, mental health
awareness and restriction on the sale and use of toxic pesticides can be implemented.
In Nepal, even though there are general and specialized hospitals, majority of cases are handled in peripheral levels of health care
units such as health Post and District Hospital. Treatment of poisoning cases is based on individual level. However, there are no
standard protocols for handling such cases immediately after arriving in the emergency ward. Therefore a concrete plan and
program to safe guard the health of the public has become mandatory in the area of toxicology. Establishment of Nepal Poison
Information Center (NPIC) is a positive step towards this direction. It has been providing tailor made management information to
health care professional and preventive information to general public
During 2002, the Nepal Drug and Information Center answered 3012 incoming calls that consisted of 2083 human exposures, 18
animal exposures 876 non exposure poison or drug information and 35 medical information 80% (1658) and 20% (412) calls were
from hospitals and general public respectively. 4.27% (89) deaths among 2083 calls and aluminium phosphide followed by
organophophates were the most commonly involved in those deaths. Over 65% (1368), 31% (660) and o.72% (15) calls were
concerning suicidal, accidental and occupational patients respectively. Over 54% (1141) cases involved agricultural agents
followed by drugs (23%), household agents (15%), plants (4%), and bites/sting (2%). Among the agricultural agents, insecticide
leads the cases, 61% (694) followed by rodenticide, 27% (312).
The trends in pesticide use and trade
Most pesticides used in Nepal are imported from India, some from China and other countries on the basis of a registration
distribution of pesticide in Nepal is conducted only in the form of finished products. Nepal is included under the category of the
least developed country (LDC) which has limited use of pesticide per capita and /or on the hectare basis indicating the lowest uses
in comparison to other countries. However, the scenario might be different based on the crops and locations. It is because;
pesticide use however is much more intensive in areas and crops having greater access and potentiality of the markets and
monetary returns. The use is higher in areas with intensive commercial farming of vegetables, fruits, tea, rice and cotton. Under
the present scenario, as reported by many of the organizations and individuals, judicious and prudent use of pesticide by the
Nepalese farmers is largely disregarded. All the available pesticides are not only repeatedly used but also carelessly used. As there
is an open and porous border with India, there is a considerable, but unknown quantity of pesticide trade between farmers close to
the border has been common. Illicit import/illegal import, smuggled pesticides and trans-boundary issues are of serious concerns
to Nepal which needs to be addressed in multilateral approach with neighboring industrialized countries in prevention of potential
infiltration of banned /unregistered pesticides.
Pesticide consumption data of District Agriculture Development Offices (DADOs) from few of the districts, show excessive use
of pesticides is common in commercial production area i. e. mainly vegetables. The data reveal that Districts like Kavre, Morang,
Chitwan, Siraha, Sindhuli, Dhading, Makawanpur, Parsa, Bara, Rautahat, Kaski, Dang, Banke, Kailali, and Kancharpur, having
the commercial vegetable production area use more pesticides as compared to other districts. However, some districts (which d ata
is not available) like Jhapa, Ilam, Sarlahi, Kathmandu valley, Nawalparasi, Rupandehi, Kapilvastu etc. seems to use high
pesticides, whose data are however, unavailable at present. PPD has to work more towards this aspect.
The study based on interview during IPM training in Eastern Terai such as Dhanusa and Siraha districts revealed the real picture
of pesticide use in general, and also exclusively on vegetables. Use of pesticides on rice, potato and vegetables were ranked as
first, second and third, respectively. Endosulfan was the most popular pesticide used, followed by Phorate and Monochrotophos.
In Siraha, brinjal was the crop to receive the highest frequency of pesticide followed by cauliflower, bitter gourd and potato. The
most common pesticide used was methyl parathion (WHO-IB) where 67 per cent of farmers spray more than 8 applications in a

cropping cycle, and 25 per cent farmers sprayed the crop 4-6 times a cropping cycle. These reports indicate the frequency of
pesticide application is excessive with some banned group of chemical pesticides.
There are examples of similar types of communications with farmers (Kavre district, one of the hill districts of central region),
where a crop like tomato is sprayed 6-7 times with Endosulfan against tomato fruit worm (Helicoverpa armigera) and more than
5-6 times with Dithane M-45 against late blight in a single cropping season. Similarly apple and citrus to protect from insects and
disease need calendar wise spraying of insecticide and fungicides. Eggplant is sprayed frequently by Endosulfan against shoot and
fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis). Recently information showed that Phorate (WHO-IB) was purchased from the Agrovet
(pesticide dealers) by a farmer for use in flowering cucurbits. Phorate is heavily used by farmers in rice fields before and after
transplanting to guard against insect attack. There are many examples of pesticide use and misuse indicating the urgent programs
for their mitigation.
Government provisions on the import of pesticides
There is a regulatory infrastructure established for the management of pesticides in Nepal. It covers all handling and use aspects of
pesticides. The importers wishing to market and sell pesticides must submit an application dealing with the use of pesticides,
toxicity and the correct use of pesticides in agriculture and health sector from the health point of view. No pesticide may be
imported into the country without the appropriate certificate of importation issued by Registration Authority. At present there is
Pesticide Registration and Management Section within the Directorate of Plant Protection.
The persistent organic pollutants (PoPS) chemical pesticides have been banned for agriculture and public health from 9th April,
2001 and also hazardous pesticides have been phased out from the use since 9th April, 2001. At present, prohibition on the use of
Quinalphos, Ethion, Monocrotophos and Phorate in the tea field is being campaigned and implemented from 9th, May, 2005
because these pesticides are highly toxic.
The pesticides to be imported, distributed, traded and used should be friendlier and less hazardous to health and environment more
emphasis has been given to use organic pesticides as an alternative of chemical pesticides to control crop pests. Development and
use of some microbial and botanical pesticides which are eco-friendly has opened a new arena for bio-pesticides in Nepal. The
best known form of bio -pesticide is the Bacillus thuriginsis (Bt), however, other microbial based biopesticides such as NPV
(nuclear poly hederosis virus) fungi based (Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana) are also been used accidentally and
occasionally in Nepal. The efficacy and potentiality of producing green muscardine fungus, M. anisopliae has been reported for
the first time in Nepal (G. C., 2007). Eco-friendly formulations are also being used currently and their value in IPM has been
widely accepted as the best alternatives to pesticide application. PPD has already been conducting or is regularly lunching training
programs to educate the concerned personnel regarding their values in pest management; however, the introduction of
biopesticides from foreign country should be very cautious. Sometimes, their introduction may disseminate the un-necessary
transmission of the disliked problems. While registering such compounds, it is utmost important for studying the efficacy through
bioassay with enough base of the research data. Unlike stringent regulation of the developed countries in import and export of the
pesticides and biopesticides, there is weak enforcement and technical capabilities and expertise in Nepal. Further, there is a need
to strengthen the scientific and technical base for health and environmental risk assessment with ample support of research
organizations like Nepal Agriculture Research Council (NARC).
Status and trend of import of pesticides
Pesticide worth NRs 0.5 millions were imported in 1970s. However, an import of pesticides increases to NRs 10 millions in 1983
and NRs 42 million in 1989. And import data of those pesticides reveals that insecticides were the major component of 60%
followed by fungicides (30%) and others (10%) (Manandhar, 2006). In 2007, the total pesticides in active ingredient have been
found 347494.56 kg worth of 272.7 million Nepalese rupees.
An import of pesticides in active ingredient was 108427.19 kg in 1999 and reached as high as 196056.98 kg in 2000 after that it
decreased in fluctuating trend till 2006 and suddenly increased to 347494.55 kg in 2007. This was due to tremendous increase in
fungicides import. Most of the times insecticide in active ingredient have been second major components of pesticides followed
by fungicides ranging from 17.35% (2007) to 49.52% (2005) of total pesticide imports. Organophosphates accounts highest
among insecticides ranging from 29% (2007) to 82% (2003). There is in increasing but fluctuating trend on import of mixed
pesticides. Amount in active ingredient of botanical based insecticides accounts only 0.01% of total insecticide imports. Fungicide
have been the major component in terms of active ingredients in most of the times with exception in 2003 and 2005 (where
insecticide exceeds it) ranging from 31.30% (2003) to 68.31% (2007) of total pesticide imports.
Bio-pesticide was first imported in quantifiable amounts since 2004. However, amount of biopesticides accounts less than 0.1% of
total pesticide import in active ingredients. Pesticide import trend shows that amount of botanical based insecticides accounts only
around 0.01% and 1% of total insecticide imports in active ingredients and money value in Nepali currencies, respectively.
Similarly, amount of biopesticides occupies less than 0.1% of total pesticide import in active ingredients but in terms of mo ney
value it ranges from 0.31% (2004) to 1.84% (2005). There are four trade names and only one common name (Azadirachtin; Neem
based) for botanical pesticides. However, in case of biopesticides there are nine trade names that includes fungus based 4 (t wo
common names) and five bacteria based (two common names).
Bacteriacide and acaricide accounts less than 1% of total pesticide import. Herbicides import in ai have been found in fluctuating
trend ranging from 1.89% (2007) to 8.40% (2005) of total pesticides. Similarly, rodenticide shows fluctuating trend imports in

quantity ranging from 0.70% (2002) to 10.73% (2007) of total pesticide import. Pesticide import of other than above pesticides
including pesticide use for public health purposes ranges from 0.78% to 10.44% of total pesticide import.
Almost 289 pesticide trade products are registered in Nepal at present. Majority of them are insecticide (173), fungicide (62),
herbicide (24), rodenticide (9), biopesticide including botanical pesticide (13) and others (8). There are total number of 76
common name pesticides are registered that includes insecticide -36, fungicide -17, rodenticide -3, herbicide -24, biopesticide -6
and others -6. AIC stopped bulk purchasing of pesticides since 1995, then this tasks has been taken up by the private wholesalers
and retailers, began to bloom in most of the districts of Nepal. Now there are 6372 pesticide retailers who have been registered
and 6772 resellers have received training and got certificate for safe use of pesticides and storage management. Four firms/
companies have been registered for commercial pesticide applicators.
Government initiatives on banning POPS pesticides
The Government of Nepal has banned fourteen pesticides such as DDT, Aldrin, Dieldrin, Heptachlor, Toxaphene, Mirex, Endrin,
Chlordane, BHC, Lindane, Phosphamidon, Organomercury compounds, Methyl parathion and Monocrotophos. Among these first
eight pesticides are considered to be POPs. Officially their import, uses are strictly illegal, however, it is pity of seeing their
availability and uses in some parts of the county indicating the needs of strong enforcement through coordinated approach of the
related line agencies. Moreover, awareness program and alternative provisions for the possible stockpiles of date expired and
obsolete pesticides are essential prior to the imposition of enforcement.
Future thrusts on plant protection in Nepal
Several reports and farmer experiences suggest, there has been un-intentional use of unwanted chemical pesticides in many places
leading to several levels of hazards to the human beings and on the environment. Considerable areas of Nepal use pesticide
deliberately as a means for controlling pests and diseases because of the lack of other alternatives. The necessity of these
compounds has to be minised for several reasons and by several means. PPD has considered this aspect as one of the foremost
important aspect to be dealt. Considering this aspect, forthcoming program are directed in this area, which are described as below.
Most of the producer and consumer of Nepal are unknown about the hazardous effect of pesticide in human health and
environment in one hand and lack of alternative measures of pest control in another hand. At the same time, the country's physical
situation has not well supported for checking up of the illegal entry of the chemical pesticides. Moreover, there is weak
enforcement in imposing the rules and regulations on the entry as well as sale of banned group of chemical pesticides. The most
important aspect which is lacking in the country is unavailability of residue analysis facilities and existence of central laboratories.
Looking into the existing situation, Plant Protection Directorate (PPD) has given increasing thrust for moving in a coordinated
ways while considering the aspiration of the farmers, consumer, pesticide sellers, and policy makers to the upstream beneficiaries.
The below explained points however, can be taken as the shopping lists among the numerous alternatives. PPD has focused its
upcoming programs in this direction, which will be cornerstone in this area.
1. Enhance awareness programs to the wider audience
There has been increasing concerns about hazardous of pesticides, which however, is still limited mainly among the literate and
elites. Information is still lacking among the considerable number of farm families because of the illiteracy and level of their
understanding. Besides, there are other hidden facts; pesticides are deliberately used because of the lack of alternatives. Despite of
the facts, pesticides has been used more than their desired level, which has caused several levels of hazards and environmental
mishaps. Awareness could be the first weapon in reducing un-necessary and deliberate use of chemical pesticides, which can be
raised by various means and stakeholders. Now a day, consumer awareness has been considered more effective than the
applicators and on the other area of agents. Therefore, they should be presented in a various ways targeting both with the literate
and illiterate mass. Thus study materials as well as hearing means could be two options widely. Even in this case, they can be
further classified as audio and visual aids, which are mass media.
2. Measures to mainstream alternative pest management techniques, such as IPM and development of biorational and
biopesticide compounds as alternatives over chemical pesticides
This could be one of the options towards reduction of the pesticides in managing agricultural crop pests. Future program are
therefore, directed towards this aspect, where pest management with alternative methods will be enhanced with the reliance of
natural biocontrol agents as well as use of bio and botanical pesticides. Production of natural enemies and biopesticides has been
started since this year. Regional Plant Protection Laboratory (RPPL) has been directed for the production of at least some
biocontrol works in their respective labs. Similarly, biopesticide production on the basis of public private partnership (PPP) basis
has been initiated. Initially, PPD will demonstrate their production and private organizations will carryon production and
marketing aspect of the biopesticides. The transfer of technology from lab to land is necessary therefore; enhanced collaboration
will be done with research, teaching, extension counterparts and private counterparts. In this direction following activities will be
launched in future program;
o

o
o
o
o

Comparative demonstration on pesticide and alternative method should be done in the pocket areas in large number in
collaboration with DADO's programme to minimize the pesticide use in relation to profit and pesticide residue
analysis.
Awareness and use of sex pheromone lures, bio pesticides and botanical pesticides as per possible in the pocket areas.
Documentation and dissemination of indigenous pest management methods in wider scale.
Functional collaboration with national research systems for the effective backup to IPM program in Nepal.
Mass rearing/ production of minimum one BCA in each RPPL.

3. Strengthening pesticide legislation and regulation

The pesticide act and regulations are to be amended as per the present needs and context. Government of Nepal has expressed its
consent for organic agriculture and banning of obsolete pesticides during various treaties and conventions. Therefore, more has to
be done through enforcement of the legislations and regulations.
o

Need of regular monitoring by Pesticide Inspector and staffs of PRMD and PPD in agrovets, pesticide retailers, and
formulators especially in pocket areas related districts.

Pesticide act and rule must be revised. For time being, the main hindrance of enforcement of pesticide law by pesticide
inspector are:
i. Where to store and transport the seize pesticides by the Inspectors (no provision of budget and logistic support for this).
ii. Life security
iii. No provision of security support staffs.

4. Strengthening enforcement capacity of the working staff

Capacity building is one of the vital steps for the effective launching of the programs, therefore, this will be continued in the
needy area. Much of the focus will be laid on the area of biointensive agriculture for catering the needs of farming communities
and working staffs. Exposure visits, tours, training to in country and abroad trainings will be emphasised.
5. Strengthening of import controls
In order to promote the entry of safe pesticides in Nepal, control mechanisms will be enhanced in the boarder areas with Nepal.
The illegal entry may be harassed through effective quarantine measure and imposition of the government rules and regulations.
6. Strengthening pesticide quality control and residue monitoring
Until now there is no accredited pesticide residue monitoring laboratory in the country. Therefore, central laboratory will be
established and strengthen to their fullest capacity. This will fuel to the laboratories in the regional levels, where the later will
support to the requirement of DADOs and farming communities.
The residues present in the crop products are mainly related within the Department for Food Quality Testing and Quality Control
(DFTQC) whereas periodic monitoring of the residues in the plant samples will be carried out within the pesticide residue
monitoring program laboratory of PPD. In this aspect exploration of the facilities already available in the Pesticide Registration
and Monitoring Section, National Plant Quarantine Program (NPQP), Regional Plant Protection Laboratory and Plant Protection
Directorate (PPD) has been started, however, there is no Central Plant Protection Laboratory, that would assist to the regional
programs. For its establishment, arrangement of the lab and equipments is necessary and requested to PACT office. Initially, it is
found that, there has been shortage of the space (room) for the establishment and running of the pesticide residue monitoring lab.
Similarly, there is lack of trained manpower, which would run this facility comfortably and independently, even short course
training was received. This step by no means is expensive and well planning and provision of the funds are necessary. At this
stage, preliminary assessment of the laboratory facilities, manpower and possible expenses should be assessed and arranged. In
nutshell, following are some of the important points to be considered,

For residue monitoring in the crop samples, there must be provision to run existing Gas Chromatography (GC) which is
currently been lodged at Pesticide Residue Management Section. For its running minor repairmen and training to the staff is
necessary. Provision of regular budget for its running should be envisioned.

Side by side, analysis may be carried out in private sectors (such eg. NESS), FTRD, NARC until full fledge establishment
and functioning of the central laboratories. As the pesticide residue data do not reveal the high level of pesticide residue in
most of the cases, the following basis should be incorporated for sample collection;
o Crop basis
o Season basis
o Pocket basis
o Per unit area basis

Pesticide residue monitoring laboratory should be established within the premises of central laboratories. This can be established
in the PPD complex, for this another separate working yard has been proposed in the budget of this fiscal year. Refresher training
is important at least to the person who has been Master degree in science or agricultural fields. Women support staff of the
medium level of degree are normally appropriate in running laboratory. Detail about the smooth running of the laboratory and its
administration should be lead by PPD. In order to provide the effective diagnostic services for plant protection in Nepal, there
must be one separate central laboratory in Kathmandu with its full fledge mandate, which has been proposed in annex 1.
7. Strengthened guidance and control of importers, formulators, distributors and retailers
8. Development of strategy for the collection and management of empty pesticide containers and unwanted pesticides
9. Formulation pesticide ad IPM policy in the country level
10. Communications and training programme for users

Training and capacity building will be highly useful to various levels of people as seeing believes and people learn by doing. The
participants will have opportunity to learn by themselves or they will be graduated by the expert's people. Following program will
be focused in these aspects.
11. Observation visits
The peoples' feeling may be changed towards positive aspect by allowing them with the opportunity for exposure visits in such a
area, where some remarkable works are done. For this, the best alternatives will be done as exchange visits of the farmers from
one district to the other area, where these activities are known as presentable. The group leader members of the group may join
such exposure visits, so that compulsion can be done upon the return.
12. Mobile plant clinic
Until recently, pest and disease problems are tackled bascially with the use of chemical pesticides. Mostly application goes
blanket without proper diagnosis which is on the basis of experiences or guestimate. In other words, most of such actions goes
without proper diagnosis resulting into the unwanted mixing of poisons in the environment. In order to mitigate this practice,
proper diagnosis techniques can be ensured with the means of plant clinics. As a pilot phase of the program, PPD has been
running this program in few of the Districts. Recommendation of the control measures will be based on the proper diagnosis of the
biotic or abiotic problem. Therefore, the unnecessary and unwanted use of pesticide will be reduced to a great extent. It is also
logical to conduct in our situation as there are human clinics as well as animal clinics but in Nepal no plant clinic exists in the
country, which in fact should be well taken by the policy makers and practicioners.
13. Lunch campaign based plant protection project
Sometimes, the pest and diseases outbreak occurs unexpectedly, which needs emergency services. However, there are other
regular instances that, most of the pests and disease occur due to fluctuation or unbalanced climatic relations and death of the
natural enemies. In this case, farmers often tend to go in pesticide use without considering natural factors. Therefore, intensive and
integrated means of pest control will be mobilized based from principally to the practice.
Facilities for carrying out of the laboratory activities is utmost important within the access of Plant Protection Directorate (PPD)
where the use of equipments and human resources could be shared on pool basis. Until now, no such facility exists in the country,
however, activities related to this area has been done in isolation with the Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Nepal and
Science and Technology and couple of other private organization.
Laboratory which would allow for running of gas chromatography (GC), laminar flow hood, autoclave, cooling and heating
facilities as controlled by AC and incubators should be established. For regular power supply, electric generator is necessary. In
addition to this, such kind of laboratory should be equipped with distillation sets, microscopes, reagents, glass wares for satisfying
the requirement for plant and pesticide sample diagnosis. At the same time, it has to be equipped with the facility for clinical
diagnosis of plant, soil and seed samples with regard to biotic and abiotic causes.
Separate room should be allocated having ample space with assured supply of water. Running of this lab can be done by
establishing separate laboratory concepts (Annex 1), however, until the provision of manpower and budget with separate identity,
PPD may administer such lab coordinating with its Regional Plant Protection Laboratories, Pesticide Registration and
Management Sections and Plant Quarantine Programs.
14. Emphasis of bio-intensive IPM FFS and its link to organic agriculture
Priority must be given in commercial production areas where pesticide use is high for field school conduction and prepare farmer
to farmer (Fto F) from those areas. The better learning of FFS should be replicated to the organic production of some of the
income generating crops. As the principles of IPM and OPM prevail in similar way, therefore, it is important to go these programs
hand in hand.
15. Pesticide use survey/ study
The existing pesticide consumption data i.e. 142 g/ha need to revise because this data is very old and do not reveal for crop
specific, season specific and location specific. Therefore, intensive survey or study should be done in national level. At the same
time, the status of pesticide use and misuse on the crop-wise and district-wise would be necessary. PPD will focus its future
programs in this direction.
16. Coordination and monitoring activity
16. 1 DADO level
o Regular meeting at "District level pesticide management committee"
o Monitoring of pesticide use in pocket areas within disciplinarians of DADO and District Agriculture Development
Committee.
o Program collaboration with DDC, VDC and other local NGO for awareness, minimum and safe use of pesticide, IPM
FFS and other programmes.
o Pesticide use data collection and forward to RPPL, PRMD, and PPD.
o Coordinate with local news paper and local FM
16.2 Regional level

o
o
o
o

Monitoring, supervision, and technical backstopping to the districts by RPPL, RAD and IPM RCC.
District pesticide use data compilation.
Coordination with other organizations
Coordinate with regional news paper and regional FM

16. 3 Central level

o Monitoring, supervision, and technical backstopping to the districts by PRMD, PPD and DOA.
o National level coordination with other organizations.
o Coordinate with importers, wholesalers for promotion of bio -pesticides and botanical pesticides.
o Policy making