Bilateral donor agencies and the environment : pest and pesticide management

However, these countries" policies are disparate in terms of environmental soundness, and, in particular the policies of France and Japan have served at times to thwart the environmental objectives of Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. France devotes less attention to the environmental consequences of its assistance than the other donors, and its policy is implemented by too many institutions, none of which hold a leadership role. Japan is a generous supplier of pesticides to sub-Saharan Africa, undercutting policies of the UK, Germany, and the U.S. to encourage sparing use of pesticides and integrated pest management. Germany"s policy emphasizes thorough assessment of environmental impact, careful oversight of impacts during project implementation, and increased reliance on integrated pest management. The report suggests that Germany take a leadership role in coordinating other donor efforts. The United Kingdom adopts a case-by-case approach to the use of pesticides whereby project officers hold a great deal of autonomy. While this method can be very effective, support for pesticide research in the country, a necessary component of sound decision making, is dwindling. USAID may have the most stringent procedures for both environmental assessment and provision of pesticide, particularly for nonproject assistance. However, this policy, intended to be environmentally sound, may be having the opposite effect: the Agency is in danger of underusing pesticides, a valuable tool in agricultural development, and one that can be easily obtained from donors with less rigorous environmental guidelines. Includes 9-page list of references.