Analysis of the Current Status and Future Development Trends in International Pesticide Management

As a specialized agricultural input, the production and use of pesticides have attracted widespread attention worldwide. However, given the rapid growth of the pesticide industry and the constant emergence of new challenges, coupled with evolving public understanding driven by scientific advances, pesticide management must also keep pace with the times.

This paper focuses on international trends in pesticide regulation that are relevant to China’s pesticide exports, with particular attention to developments in global pesticide registration and approval. It provides an overview of pesticide regulatory frameworks across key international organizations and select countries and regions, and offers a brief analysis of emerging trends in worldwide pesticide management. The aim is to serve as a reference for Chinese companies engaged in pesticide export and for professionals involved in pesticide regulation.

1 FAO and Pesticide Management

1.1 The FAO’s Pesticide Management Division and Its Basic Operational Framework

FAO is the abbreviation for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the earliest international organization established after World War II. In 1946, FAO signed an agreement with the United Nations, becoming a specialized agency within the UN system. Currently, FAO has the Plant Production and Protection Division (NSP), which comprises six units. The first of these is the Pest and Pesticide Management Unit (NSPCD). Its mission is to reduce reliance on pesticides and ensure their sound management through integrated pest management approaches, including developing pesticide standards, guidelines, and tools; protecting consumers and the environment from risks associated with pesticide use; and supporting national capacity-building in pesticide management as well as farmer field school programs.

The International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management was jointly developed by the FAO and the World Health Organization (WHO). Building on this framework, the FAO has prepared more than 46 technical guidelines and one pesticide registration toolkit to assist member countries in implementing science-based risk assessments and product registration. The FAO also supports the development of national capacities for pesticide management and fosters cooperation among regions.

FAO advocates the use of less hazardous, alternative methods to chemical pesticides for pest control and encourages developing countries to prioritize the identification of highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) and implement appropriate disposal measures. FAO also promotes and supports the implementation of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to achieve sustainable crop protection. To date, in 95 countries across Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia, and Eastern Europe, approximately 10 million farmers have received training in IPM practices through FAO and regional Farmer Field Schools.

1.2 Key Areas of Work of the FAO’s Plant Protection and Pesticide Management Unit (NSPCD)

The work of the NSPCD closely related to pesticide management can be summarized into six areas: (1) developing and revising the International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management; (2) intensifying efforts to manage and dispose of highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs); (3) formulating relevant management and technical guidelines and tools; (4) promoting global pesticide registration—by developing electronic registration tools—while emphasizing regional cooperation and development, strengthening capacity-building for registration, and advancing harmonization and standardization of registration procedures; (5) enhancing the management of pesticide waste, including the development of guidance manuals on waste management, such as the FAO Environmental Management Tool Kit for Obsolete Pesticides, and, in collaboration with the European Union, Japan, and other partners—supported by specific projects—implementing initiatives for the treatment of pesticide waste and empty packaging in line with the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal; and (6) establishing standards for pesticide residues as well as for active ingredients and formulated pesticide products.

2 WHO and Pesticide Management

2.1 WHO and Vector Control Insecticide Evaluation

Insecticides used for vector control (public health insecticides) were among the first product categories assessed by the WHO. Established in 1982, the WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES) was, in 2014, entrusted by the WHO with transferring responsibility for evaluating pesticide‑based vector‑control products to the Prequalification Programme. By June 2018, the transition of WHO vector‑control product evaluations from WHOPES to the Prequalification Programme had been completed. Since then, an evaluation process for vector‑control products has been launched, including pathways for new and innovative vector‑control products, and several measures have been implemented to support and advance this effort. Readers seeking a more in-depth understanding of these matters are encouraged to consult the relevant article published by Song Junhua.

2.2 Collaboration between WHO and FAO

FAO and WHO have long enjoyed a close collaborative relationship. Jointly established by FAO and WHO are the following governing bodies: the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Management (JMPM), the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR)—which jointly evaluates pesticide residue studies and recommends maximum residue limits for pesticides in food—and the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Standards (JMPS), which sets standards for agricultural and public‑health pesticides. In addition, the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) has been established to develop and adopt maximum residue limits for pesticides in food and feed, thereby addressing current challenges in pesticide management and residue regulation.

3 OECD and Pesticide Management

On June 24, 1970, the Environment Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was established. In 1971, the OECD published its first report, “The Problem of Persistent Chemicals: The Environmental Impact of Pesticides and Other Chemicals.” Since then, meetings on chemical safety have been held almost annually. In 1992, the OECD launched the Pesticide Program, with the aim of helping OECD member countries harmonize their pesticide review procedures, share the burden of pesticide assessments, and reduce risks associated with pesticide use. Since 1992, the OECD’s Pesticide and Sustainable Pest Management Program has sought to enhance the efficiency of pesticide approval and registration by facilitating cooperation among national governments, enabling faster and more comprehensive risk assessments of individual pesticides. The OECD has also developed tools and methodologies to mitigate pesticide risks and has evaluated progress in this area.

Currently, the OECD’s pesticide‑management activities encompass two main areas: agricultural pesticides—chemical or biological products used to protect plants in agriculture and related sectors—and biocides, which include disinfectants for household and hospital use, wood‑preserving products, anti‑fouling agents for ships, and products for controlling insects, mice, or rats in domestic and industrial settings. In the realm of agricultural pesticide management, the OECD facilitates international cooperation among governments to assess and mitigate risks associated with these substances. It also encourages member countries to share information on pesticide registration and to develop tools for monitoring and minimizing the health and environmental risks posed by pesticides.

4 International Conventions and Pesticide Management

4.1 Rotterdam Convention

The Rotterdam Convention entered into force internationally on February 24, 2004, and became effective for China on June 20, 2005. At present, Annex III of the Convention, “Chemicals Subject to the Prior Informed Consent Procedure,” lists 52 chemicals—35 pesticide chemicals and 16 industrial chemicals, with one substance classified as both a pesticide and an industrial chemical. Thus, 67 percent of the chemicals on the Rotterdam Convention’s list are pesticide compounds. To export pesticides listed on the Rotterdam Convention (PIC) list, prior notification must be provided to the importing country, and its consent must be obtained.

4.2 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Stockholm Convention

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, commonly referred to as the Stockholm Convention, was adopted in Stockholm, Sweden, on May 22, 2001, and entered into force on May 17, 2004. The People’s Republic of China signed the Convention on May 23, 2001, and deposited its instrument of ratification on August 13, 2004. The Convention entered into force for China, including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, on November 11, 2004.

POP compounds are subject to three categories of regulation: Annex A (Elimination): Parties must take measures to eliminate the production and use of the chemicals listed in Annex A, which includes 16 pesticides—mostly older organochlorine formulations; Annex B (Restriction): Parties must adopt measures to restrict the production and use of the chemicals listed in Annex B, in accordance with any applicable acceptable purposes and/or specific exemptions set out therein; Annex B covers DDT, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, its salts, and perfluorooctanesulfonyl fluoride (pesticides/industrial applications); (3) Annex C (Unintentionally Produced Pesticides): Parties must take measures to reduce the unintentional release of the chemicals listed in Annex C, with the goal of continuing to minimize such releases and, where feasible, ultimately eliminating them; Annex C does not list specific pesticides.

At present, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) lists a total of 35 compounds, including 18 pesticides. With the exception of organochlorine insecticides, most of the newer classes of chemical pesticides widely used worldwide are not subject to regulation under the POPs regime. International conventions are legally binding on their parties, and all signatory states are required to comply.

5 EU Pesticide Regulation

5.1 EU Pesticide Policy

Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union stipulates that the overarching objective of the EU’s environmental policy is to achieve “a high level of protection.” In the Sixth Environmental Action Programme of the European Community, adopted in 2002, the EU set out a pesticide policy aimed at “reducing the impacts of pesticides on human health and the environment, promoting the sustainable use of pesticides more broadly, and lowering the overall risks associated with their use, while meeting essential crop‑protection requirements.” The Seventh Environmental Action Programme of the European Community, adopted in 2013, further states: “to ensure that… the use of plant protection products poses no risk to human health and does not have unacceptable impacts on the environment, and that such products are used sustainably,” while also providing for the monitoring and review of relevant legislation.

5.2 EU Pesticide Legislation

EU pesticides were initially subject to unified regulation under Council Directive 91/414/EEC. In 2009, a new pesticide regulation—Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009—was adopted, replacing the earlier Council Directive. Under the EU’s regulatory framework, the term “pesticides” encompasses both plant protection products (PPPs) and biocidal products. Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 governs agricultural plant protection products; additionally, safeners and synergists used in such products are also brought within its scope. Plant protection products fall under the jurisdiction of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), whereas biocidal products—such as those used for public health purposes—are directly regulated by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) pursuant to the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR), namely Regulation (EU) No 528/2012. The regulatory and registration framework for biocidal products is broadly similar to that for plant protection products.

The EU’s pesticide regulatory framework comprises three main components: first, regulations governing the placing of plant protection products—including active substances—on the market; rules on the renewal procedures for active substances; provisions on the review and updating of active‑substance approvals; requirements for data submitted in support of active‑substance approval or amendment of approval conditions; and regulations establishing uniform principles for the evaluation and approval of plant protection products, adopted to implement Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Second, legislation on pesticide residues, notably Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, issued in 2005, which sets standardized criteria for assessing maximum residue levels of plant protection products in food across EU member states. Third, legislation promoting the sustainable use of pesticides, embodied in Directive 2009/128/EC, adopted in 2009, which establishes a policy framework for achieving the sustainable use of pesticides.

In addition, there are other legislative instruments. Some EU legislation not specifically targeting the pesticide sector is also relevant to pesticides. Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 on persistent organic pollutants was adopted to implement two international treaties—the Aarhus Protocol and the Stockholm Convention. Its aim is to phase out or prohibit, as soon as possible, the production, placing on the market, and use within the EU of persistent organic pollutants listed under the Stockholm Convention, thereby protecting human health and the environment from their harmful effects and minimizing their release into the environment. Regulation (EU) No 649/2012 on the export and import of certain hazardous chemicals regulates the trade in such substances and imposes notification obligations on companies exporting these chemicals to non-EU countries; it constitutes an EU measure to fulfill the Rotterdam Convention, promoting shared responsibility and international cooperation in the trade of hazardous chemicals. The Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC) designates pesticides as priority substances whose leakage, emissions, and losses must be reduced at the source. The Drinking Water Directive sets maximum permissible concentrations of pesticides in drinking water. Other relevant instruments include Regulation (EC) No 1185/2009 on pesticide statistics and Directive 2009/127/EC on machinery for the application of plant protection products.

5.3 Regulatory Classification of Pesticides in the European Union

Under the new Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, active substances (active ingredients) used in plant protection products are classified and managed as follows: (1) Conventional or chemical pesticides—this category also includes so‑called biochemical pesticides, although the EU regulatory framework never uses the term “biochemical pesticide”; (2) Microbial pesticides, including viruses; these are subject to separate regulation with the aim of accelerating the adoption of safer pesticides and reducing reliance on chemical pesticides, thereby supporting the European Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy; (3) Basic substances—active substances defined by specific criteria.

The EU’s new pesticide regulatory framework introduces the concepts of “low‑risk active substances” and “basic substances.” Only traditional or chemical pesticides, as well as microbial pesticide active substances, that pass EU‑level evaluation and meet the criteria for low‑risk active substances may be designated as such. Basic substances constitute a distinct category and are not required to be linked to low‑risk active substances.

The approval of active substances for plant protection products is conducted uniformly at the EU level; only active substances approved by the EU may be used in the formulation registration applications submitted by plant protection product manufacturers in EU member states. To conserve resources, the EU has divided its territory into three regions—Southern, Northern, and Central—where agricultural and environmental conditions are identical or similar, enabling shared registration and review processes. For formulation registration, applicants must designate a lead evaluating country within the region corresponding to the country where the product is intended to be marketed, which will conduct the review of the registration dossier. Upon successful completion of the review, applicants may seek mutual recognition of their registration in other countries within the same region. In each target market, a lead evaluating country must again be designated.

5.4 Pesticide Risk Assessment in the European Union

The European Union also conducts assessments of health risks, environmental and ecological risks, as well as cumulative risk assessments. Under the framework of Europe’s first pesticide regulation—Council Directive 91/414/EEC—the EU did not apply stringent criteria for approving pesticides. Any pesticide could be authorized as long as it received a favorable vote from member-state representatives in the Standing Committee. The voting principle was “majority rules,” and decisions could be appealed if the proposal was rejected by the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE; prior to 2014 known as the Directorate-General for Health and Consumers, DG SANCO). According to the Stockholm Convention, a pesticide may still obtain EU approval even if it is classified as carcinogenic or fully PBT (persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic). However, under the new pesticide regulation—Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009—a more rigorous hazard‑based screening criterion has been introduced for determining whether an active substance is approved or renewed. This hazard‑based screening criterion prohibits the approval or renewal of active substances posing specific types of hazards. Any substance meeting one of these screening criteria can be rejected without further consideration of risk‑assessment results.

5.5 Promoting the Rapid Development of Microbial Pesticides

On May 20, 2020, the European Commission officially unveiled the “Farm to Fork Strategy: Towards a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System,” aiming to steer the EU toward a healthier, more sustainable food production system, strengthen the resilience of its food systems, safeguard public health, and protect the livelihoods of farmers and rural communities. Closely linked to the new Biodiversity Strategy, the two initiatives together form the cornerstone of the European Green Deal and serve as a key pillar of the EU’s post‑pandemic recovery plan, playing a vital role in bolstering the Union’s capacity to combat future health crises and revive its economy.

The “Farm to Fork Strategy” will, through regulatory measures and financial incentives, promote the sustainable use of pesticides, reduce pollution, develop organic agriculture, and support farmers, ranchers, fishers, and aquaculturists in transitioning to sustainable production. The European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) serve as key policy instruments for helping agricultural producers move toward sustainable food systems. The “Farm to Fork Strategy” will allocate €10 billion to research, development, and innovation in the areas of food, agriculture, fisheries, and aquaculture, thereby accelerating the green and digital transformation of the agricultural sector. Specifically, the strategy aims to achieve by 2030 a 50% reduction in pesticide use, a 20% decrease in fertilizer use, a 50% cut in the use of antibiotics in livestock and aquaculture, and an increase in the share of organically farmed land to 25%.

To this end, the European Union has revised its regulatory framework for the registration and management of microbial pesticides, aiming to expedite their market entry and reduce reliance on chemical pesticides. On February 8, 2022, EU member states adopted four implementing regulations that amend the existing rules governing microbial products. The new regulations are grounded in the specific biological characteristics of microorganisms and reflect the latest scientific advances. These revisions will facilitate the approval of microorganisms as active substances in plant protection products and the registration of formulations containing such active substances. The updated regulations are fully aligned with the European Green Deal and contribute to the implementation of the Farm to Fork Strategy.

6 Pesticide Regulation in the United States

6.1 History of Pesticide Regulation in the United States

The United States is among the first countries worldwide to establish regulations governing pesticides. In 1906, the U.S. Congress enacted the first federal statute, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 1910, the Federal Insecticide Act was promulgated; this legislation covered only insecticides and fungicides and primarily emphasized quality assurance in pesticide trade. Beginning in 1936, the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) was compiled, comprising 50 titles that encompass all federal regulations. Title 40 contains environmental regulations, commonly referred to as 40 CFR, with the sections most relevant to pesticides falling between 150 and 189. These sections set forth registration procedures, dossier requirements, data protection, and other provisions related to pesticide registration. In 1938, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was amended to include pesticide residues within its regulatory scope for the first time, empowering the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish maximum residue limits for pesticides in food. In 1947, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was enacted, replacing the 1910 Federal Insecticide Act and introducing, for the first time, a requirement for pesticide registration. It specified the content of registration applications and labeling requirements, becoming a pivotal piece of pesticide legislation that has since undergone numerous revisions. In 2004, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) was formally approved, establishing distinct registration categories, review timelines, and associated fees for different types of pesticides. To date, PRIA has been revised four times, from PIRA 1 through PIRA 4 (2018).

Other regulations related to pesticide oversight include the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA, 2002), first enacted in 1938 and subsequently amended numerous times. This act empowers the EPA to establish maximum residue limits for pesticides in food. Additionally, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 mandates biological assessments of pesticides that may impact endangered species, with the aim of developing risk‑mitigation measures. Furthermore, individual U.S. states maintain their own state laws governing the state registration of pesticide products already registered at the federal level.

6.2 U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)

In the United States, pesticide registration and management are administered by the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), which is part of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The OCSPP’s mission is to protect human health and the environment from the risks posed by pesticides and toxic chemicals. Documentation related to U.S. pesticide registration can be obtained from the OPP.

The OPP comprises the Bio-pesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD), the Registration Division (RD), the Anti-Microbial Division (AD), the Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (PRD), the Special Review and Registration Division, and other divisions. The Registration Division is further subdivided into the Insecticide–Rodenticide Section, the Fungicide–Herbicide Section, the Anti-Microbial Section, and the Registration Support Section.

Some products may be exempt from registration (federal exemption does not equate to state exemption), including insect pheromones used solely in insect traps, food items employed as pest attractants, natural cedarwood products used to repel arthropods other than fleas or to prevent mold, and low‑risk pesticides, among others.

6.3 Types of Pesticide Registration in the United States

FIFRA specifies the categories of pesticide registration and approval in the United States as follows: (1) Standard Registration: Under Section 3 of FIFRA, the EPA may register pesticides for use throughout the United States. (2) Experimental Use Permits (EUPs): Pursuant to Section 5 of FIFRA, the EPA may authorize manufacturers to conduct field trials of pesticides under development. (3) Emergency Exemption: In accordance with Section 18 of FIFRA, when an emergency pest or disease situation arises, state and federal agencies may permit the use of unregistered pesticides within a specific geographic area for a limited period. (4) State‑Specific Registration: Under Section 24(c) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, states may register a new pesticide product for any intended use, or register a federally registered product for additional uses, provided there is a clear “local special need” and compliance with the maximum residue limits prescribed by the FFDCA, or with exemptions from such limits or other authorizations.

7 Pesticide Regulation in Brazil

Brazil is one of the most stringent and representative countries in the developing world with regard to pesticide regulation. On July 11, 1989, Law No. 7,802 was enacted—subsequently amended—and it serves as the cornerstone of Brazil’s modern pesticide management framework. This law comprehensively regulates a wide range of activities, including the research, testing, production, repackaging, labeling, transportation, storage, marketing, commercial advertising, application, import, export, disposal and packaging management, registration, and classification of pesticides, making it a relatively comprehensive regulatory regime. In addition to registering active ingredients, Brazil has implemented concrete oversight measures for other constituents of pesticides—such as inert ingredients, additives, and specific raw materials used in the synthesis of technical-grade products—as well as for pesticide‑packaging recycling and the mandatory registration of manufacturing facilities’ locations.

To ensure professionalism and fairness, three federal agencies under the Brazilian government—namely the Ministry of Agriculture (MAPA), the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) under the Ministry of Health, and the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) under the Ministry of the Environment—jointly oversee pesticide registration. These three entities collaboratively develop guidelines and data requirements for pesticide registration, risk‑management protocols, maximum residue limits and pre‑harvest intervals, as well as technical standards for labeling and package inserts. They also establish official methods for sampling and analyzing pesticide residues in plant‑derived products, animal‑derived products, water, and soil. Furthermore, when international organizations issue warnings about pesticide risks, these agencies are responsible for initiating domestic re‑evaluations of registered pesticides. ANVISA conducts toxicological assessments and hazard classifications for proposed registrations, while IBAMA performs environmental impact assessments and hazard classifications.

Brazil employs an equivalence‑based registration system for products containing the same active ingredient. In the registration of chemical pesticide formulations, products are generally categorized into two types: PF, which refers specifically to formulations based on a new active ingredient, and PF/PTE, which denotes formulations derived from the same active ingredient. Most companies seek registration for PF/PTE products—whether identical or differentiated—that are formulated using the same active ingredient. Registration must first be obtained at the federal level, after which state‑level registration is pursued in the jurisdictions where the product is intended to be marketed. Registration procedures, fees, and documentation requirements may vary across states, and the review timelines can also differ. The regulation and registration of biopesticides in Brazil follow the same framework as chemical pesticides; there is no separate regulatory regime specific to biopesticides.

8 Current Status of Global Pesticide Regulation

The International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management provides a framework for the regulation of pesticides in agriculture and public health, aiming to promote the adoption of best practices in pesticide legislation, use, and management. However, progress in this area has been slow, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

The WHO and FAO jointly conducted a global survey to assess the current state of pest management in the agricultural and public health sectors. The questionnaire was divided into three sections and distributed to relevant authorities. The first section addressed the registration and regulation of pesticides for agriculture and public health; the second focused on pesticide use in agriculture; and the third examined the application of pesticides in public health, particularly in the control of vector-borne diseases. Each section of the questionnaire was sent to 194 countries, with 56 countries responding to the first section (a response rate of 29%), 52 countries responding to the second section (a response rate of 27%), and 94 countries responding to the third section (a response rate of 48%).

8.1 Findings on Pesticide Legislation and Regulation

The survey results indicate that 95% of responding countries—53 out of 56—have pesticide legislation. However, in 40% of these countries (32/53), such legislation does not cover public‑health insecticides. Furthermore, 65% of countries lack specific regulations for highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), such as bans or restrictions on their use. One third of countries do not have guidance on pesticide registration procedures and data requirements, a gap particularly pronounced in Africa. The FAO’s Pesticide Registration Toolkit is beginning to provide critical support to registration reviewers. Most countries assess the types of data submitted by applicants for registration, but only some require the submission of locally generated data. Few countries incorporate the FAO’s guidelines on the regulation of highly hazardous pesticides into their registration decisions. In 34% of responding countries (19/56), registration capacity is very limited, with no more than 0–5 personnel dedicated to registration—a situation especially common in low‑income and small states. Several regions report extensive subregional cooperation on registration, sharing procedures and data. A substantial proportion of countries, particularly in Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean, do not regulate pesticide retailing or advertising; 40% of respondents (19/48) report that the public can readily access substandard pesticide products. In most African countries, national pesticide laboratories and adequate analytical capacity are lacking. The report also reveals that, among responding countries, 36%–50% of pesticides imported for emergency use bypass quality control, especially donated pesticides. A significant number of countries lack legal provisions governing the safe storage (44%), transport (53%), and disposal (49%) of all pesticides. While 47% of responding countries (26/55) conduct substantial oversight of pesticide‑related legislation enforcement, monitoring and enforcement remain weakest in the African region. Finally, the survey highlights major gaps across regions in the collection and use of data on pesticide poisoning cases, particularly in Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean.

8.2 Findings of the Survey on the Management of Agricultural Pesticides

Sixty-nine percent of countries (35/51) reported having a national integrated pest management (IPM) policy, yet most have implemented IPM only in specific locations. Notably, in the African region, 8 out of 17 responding countries indicated they lack a national IPM policy. Two-thirds of countries face significant challenges related to pesticide resistance in agriculture, but fewer than one-third possess adequate resources to manage such resistance. Regarding personal protective equipment (PPE), 31% of responding countries (16/51) reported that PPE is available for agricultural pesticide application but is not used; this issue is particularly prevalent in Africa. The most frequently cited reasons for not using PPE are cost, discomfort, and insufficient awareness of health risks. Furthermore, 14% of responding countries (7/51) reported that pesticide applicators in agricultural settings lack access to PPE. Among the responding countries (36/52), 69% require users of agricultural chemicals to hold a license or certification. Two-thirds of responding countries lack guidance on the safe disposal of surplus pesticides and empty pesticide containers, while half lack mechanisms for collecting these containers. Of the responding countries, 58% and 26%, respectively, have established systems for monitoring pesticide residues in food (feed) and in the environment. Most countries recognize the maximum residue limits (MRLs) set forth in the FAO Codex Alimentarius; additionally, 29% of responding countries (15/51) have their own national MRL standards. Twenty percent of responding countries (9/45) reported major incidents of environmental contamination by pesticides within the past three years, yet only one-third have mechanisms in place for collecting data on environmental pollution. More than half of the responding countries encounter challenges in implementing the Rotterdam Convention, particularly in Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean region. The most common difficulties involve notifying final regulatory actions and submitting import responses.

8.3 Findings on Pesticides Used in Public Health

Fifty-two percent of responding countries (48/93) have national policies on integrated vector management. Among those with such policies, 79% (43/71) report implementing IVM nationwide, and 74% of responding countries (69/93) have established national vector control units. Following capacity-building efforts in malaria control, the African region demonstrates the strongest capacity for insecticide resistance monitoring, whereas the European region has the lowest. Forty-one percent of responding countries have developed strategies for managing insecticide resistance in vectors; approximately 82% use insecticide susceptibility (75/91) as a criterion for selecting pesticide products; and 82% (59/72) base their product selection on residual activity. Around 61% of responding countries (54/89) have procurement guidelines for vector-control insecticides; 33% of respondents (30/90) adopt procurement practices aligned with those of other countries; and 58% of responding countries (53/92) require post‑purchase management commitments and quality‑control requirements. Procurement by ministries of health is generally conducted through public tenders that incorporate quality standards. By contrast, public tendering and explicit quality criteria are less common in procurements by other agencies. Many responding countries report difficulty estimating the volume of insecticides purchased for vector control, particularly during emergencies. Among the responding countries, 40% (36/89) and 55% (50/91) at the central and subnational levels, respectively, lack adequate storage facilities for vector-control insecticides. Many also face shortages of trained warehouse personnel and standardized procedures for the safe transport of pesticides. Furthermore, only 38%–46% of responding countries have established guidelines for handling vector-control insecticides and empty containers. Significant gaps persist in training for decision‑makers and implementers of vector-control activities, particularly regarding vector management and pesticide stewardship. Two-thirds of responding countries (61/91) lack certification programs for applicators of vector-control insecticides; 61% (57/93) do not have quality‑control plans for application equipment; and 30% (28/92) have no exposure‑monitoring protocols for pesticide applicators.

This report recommends that countries, particularly developing nations, reassess their legal frameworks for pesticide regulation to ensure they cover public‑health pesticides and highly hazardous pesticides. Legislation should also address provisions related to the import of unregistered pesticides for emergency use, the management of highly hazardous pesticides, licensing for pesticide production and retail sales, pesticide advertising, and the safe storage, transport, and disposal of pesticides. Furthermore, the legislation should incorporate the key obligations arising under the Rotterdam Convention.

The survey results reveal substantial variations across regions in pesticide legislation and management. Ten qualitative indicators were established for each of three domains—pesticide legislation and regulation, agricultural pesticide use management, and vector‑borne disease control pesticide management—and the average scores for these ten indicators were compared across the three sections of the questionnaire for each region, thereby identifying regional differences. Details are provided in Table 1.

A comparison of survey results across regions reveals significant disparities in pesticide regulation. The African region scored lowest, followed by Southeast Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean. In terms of agricultural pesticide management, the African region ranked lowest, with the Eastern Mediterranean next; the European region recorded the highest score. Regarding pesticide management for vector control, the African region ranked second only to the Western Pacific, placing it among the higher-scoring regions, while the European region scored the lowest.

9 Summary and Outlook

Although pesticide management practices vary across countries, according to FAO’s recommendations on pesticide legislation, national pesticide regulations typically encompass the following areas: (1) general provisions; (2) administrative oversight; (3) registration; (4) import and export; (5) administrative licensing; (6) packaging and repackaging; (7) labeling; (8) use; (9) advertising; (10) storage, transportation, and disposal; (11) data collection and monitoring; (12) incident reporting; (13) enforcement and inspection; (14) violations and penalties; (15) miscellaneous matters; and (16) additional considerations, including binding international agreements such as the Rotterdam Convention (PIC), the Stockholm Convention (POPs), the Basel Convention, and the Montreal Protocol, as well as non‑binding international instruments like the FAO/WHO International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, the FAO Codex Alimentarius maximum residue limits for pesticides, and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). Other factors include regional registration harmonization, domestic legal frameworks such as constitutional provisions, supplementary legislation like environmental laws, and national policies such as industrial strategies. Given the diverse circumstances of individual countries, regulatory content may differ or emphasize distinct priorities.

Because pesticide production and processing are concentrated in a small number of countries—particularly those with active‑ingredient manufacturing capacity—the regulatory oversight of these activities is not a priority in most nations. By contrast, provisions governing the import and export, registration, sale, storage, transport, labeling, and use of pesticides are essential components of pesticide legislation in the majority of countries. Additionally, the regulation of highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), the disposal of obsolete pesticides, and compliance with international conventions are also critical considerations.

The author argues that the future trend in global pesticide regulation will be a convergence of “stricter” and “more accessible.” As science and technology continue to advance, our understanding of pesticides—including biopesticides—has deepened considerably. It is foreseeable that registration requirements will become increasingly comprehensive and nuanced; for instance, in recent years, an growing number of countries have paid close attention to whether pesticides exhibit endocrine‑disrupting properties. Currently, both the United States and the European Union have made endocrine disruption a key criterion for approving or rejecting pesticide registrations. Pesticides with endocrine‑disrupting effects are categorically denied registration in the EU; for example, the renewal of the active substance mancozeb was rejected, effectively leading to its phase-out from the EU market, partly due to its endocrine‑disrupting profile. Similarly, in 2022, the EU revised its registration requirements and evaluation criteria for microbial pesticides. While the aim was to expedite the market entry of such products, the standards for microbial safety were not relaxed; indeed, scrutiny of microbial metabolites has been tightened. These more stringent requirements exert a particularly strong influence on the development and registration of new pesticides.

As pesticide registration requirements become increasingly stringent, efforts are also being made to streamline these requirements and reduce the burden on applicants. For example, in the assessment of chemical equivalence for active ingredients, if chemical equivalence cannot be established, applicants may submit data generated using alternative methods to meet the requirement for toxicological information on impurities, thereby minimizing the need for animal testing. The mutual recognition of registrations and the sharing of registration review processes currently being implemented across different regions worldwide, along with the adoption of equivalent‑product registration schemes, all aim to ease the administrative burden on applicants and conserve societal resources.

Source: Modern Pesticides Issue 4, August 2023