Following Nepal’s recent decision to ban two additional hazardous pesticides, Mark Davis examines the supportive role played by the country’s pesticide industry.
In December, Nepal announced new bans on two highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) – a significant achievement that demonstrates the country’s continued commitment to addressing the health risks caused by acutely toxic pesticides.
This builds on an earlier ban of eight pesticides in 2019, which has already shown promising results. Early evidence suggests that deaths have fallen by as much as 30%.
While the bans themselves are impressive, what also stands out is the involvement and support of Nepal’s pesticide industry – a rare example of private sector support on this issue.
The pesticide industry: a history of opposition
Historically, pesticide manufacturers and distributors are very averse to new restrictions on pesticides. Bans are seen as bad for business and pesticide companies generally put commercial interests before public health.
Globally, the pesticide industry has a reputation for actively working to block or weaken new regulations. This includes recent reports of industry interference in Canada to maintain registration of a controversial pesticide and record numbers of industry lobbyists attending UN biodiversity talks, where their influence is used to water down or delay regulations.
Industry representatives also work directly with government delegates to block the listing of harmful chemicals on Conventions that warn about chemical hazards, such as the Rotterdam Convention.
But Nepal’s experience appears to tell a different story. Rather than opposing the bans, the private sector has taken a more collaborative and positive approach, demonstrating a willingness to support actions that benefit public health.
So, how did this come to be? And what can be learnt from Nepal’s experience?
How the bans developed
The decision to ban the two pesticides – paraquat and chlorpyrifos – was ultimately made by the Pesticide Registration Board of Nepal at a meeting in July 2024. The Board has eleven members, including a private sector association representative, all of which agreed to the bans.
But the meeting was really just the final stage in the process. Behind the scenes, there had been months of preparation.
The Board meetings are organised by the Plant Quarantine and Pesticide Management Center (PQPMC). Months in advance, they had been supplied with key information and documents, outlining the need to ban these two pesticides. This included Centre for Pesticie Suicide Prevention (CPSP) study results on deaths caused by these pesticides, along with WHO and FAO guidelines.
Then, two months prior to the Board’s meeting, its Technical (sub-)Committee proposed a ban on these two pesticides.
Furthermore, earlier in the year the Plant Protection Society and the Plant Quarantine and Pesticide Management Centre of Nepal jointly hosted an International Symposium, which discussed harms associated with HHPs. The event was supported by CPSP and attended by key decision makers, including the Minister for Agriculture and Livestock Development, the Agriculture Secretary, and industry representatives.
The symposium featured a screening of CPSP’s film on Nepal’s earlier pesticide bans. The documentary highlighted the positive impacts of those bans, reinforcing the case for further regulatory action.
According to Dr Dilli Ram Sharma, former Director General at the Department of Agriculture and current member of the Pesticide Board, the film was instrumental in shaping the Board’s decision:
“During the Pesticide Board meeting, members recalled and discussed the issues highlighted in the film, particularly the use of hazardous pesticides for suicide in rural communities. I believe the film was instrumental in encouraging the Board to take further action and introduce new bans on chlorpyriphos and paraquat.”
Industry engagement and support
In parallel with efforts to have the bans included on the Board meeting agenda, discussions were also underway with industry stakeholders to address the hazards and risks posed by these pesticides.
This included frequent dialogue between officials in the Department of Agriculture and industry partners on the adverse effects of HHPs on human health and the environment. These conversations also encompassed discussions about regulation and potential bans.
As Dr Dilli Ram Sharma explained:
“During my tenure, I regularly engaged with industry partners to discuss the dangers of pesticides and the necessity of deregistration or bans. These conversations were frequent in different meetings and forum and took place over several years. By the time the Pesticide Board proposed these bans, the industry was fully prepared and supportive, enabling the bans to move forward smoothly.”
What can be learnt?
Nepal’s experience offers valuable insights, though its unique context may have played a role. As a relatively small country that does not produce its own pesticides, Nepal imports its pesticides from larger neighbours like India and China.
Its industry actors are formulators, importers, and sellers, rather than pesticide manufacturing companies. It therefore lacks the powerful pesticide industry lobby seen elsewhere.
Yet, there is still much to be learned from Nepal’s approach. It shows us that, instead of opposing change, the private sector can play a crucial role in helping to prevent harms from toxic pesticides.
This is exactly how it should be.
As we have written about previously, both states and industry actors both have an obligation under human rights law, and the International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, to protect citizens from the dangers of hazardous chemicals.
Nepal’s example should be celebrated and, where possible, replicated.
Find out more
NEWS: Nepal bans two highly hazardous pesticides
NEWS: CPSP facilitates mass spectrometry training for Nepal’s police forensic science laboratory
PUBLICATION: Intentional pesticide poisoning and pesticide suicides in Nepal
PUBLICATION: Suicide by pesticide ingestion in Nepal and the impact of pesticide regulation
VIDEO: Banning pesticides to prevent suicides in Nepal *content warning: self-harm and suicide*