La Región Andina se está recuperando de su programa de pesticidas directo al agricultor. En un intento por brindar un acceso más amplio a productos fitosanitarios asequibles, la comunidad andina, comenzando con Perú, ha estado revisando las políticas de un país a la vez para permitir que las personas y asociaciones importen directamente de los productores y las empresas importadoras / exportadoras con procedimientos mínimos de registro. o controles de cumplimiento. Los resultados han sido catastróficos.
Fernando de la Puente, vice president of Interloc, a formulator of pesticides in the Andean region, explains that chemical companies have invested millions of dollars and years of their time creating their businesses around the traditional rules of pesticide import. “Now, with a very simple process, growers and associations are allowed to import directly from China. It is unfair competition,” he explains. “The growers are buying mostly from traders, and, on some occasions, we have seen that they have imported pesticides that do not have the same active ingredients.”
Richard Franklin, executive director of CropLife in the Andean Region, says that the environmental impact could take a serious toll. “The quality of the pesticides, the fate of the used containers and residue on exports are all of grave concern,” he says, “and for a 10% to 15% savings on production costs, the risk far outweighs the benefit.”
The first country to adopt a direct-import method was Peru, which enacted Agricultor-Importador-Usuario, (AIU) or “grower-importer-user” in 2002. Before this, Franklin describes the Andean Region as having a “unique and harmonized system of registration and controls that included manufacturing, commercialization, and import.” The government, however, looking to boost the agriculture industry, believed that saving growers the cost of registration could create a boom in production.
Fernando Vera Hernández, presidente de la federación latinoamericana de asociaciones nacionales de protección de cultivos, explica que a lo largo de los años, ha habido varios esfuerzos por parte de la Comunidad Andina de Naciones (CAN) para convencer al gobierno de que detenga el permiso de importación directa por parte de los agricultores.
Así, AIU fue oficialmente revocada en Perú y todos los registros creados bajo ella fueron cancelados en 2011. Pero la importación directa de plaguicidas siguió adelante a pesar de los cambios en la legislación.
La Región Andina toma nota
Other countries in the region began to notice the cost savings and lack of paperwork direct import involved. The Colombian Agriculture Institute, for example, enacted a resolution that established requirements for becoming registered as an importer of pesticides for “personal use.”
The issue de la Puente and other industry leaders have with legislation allowing direct import of pesticides is that while CAN’s legislation had health and environmental guidelines with a checks-and-balances system, the new legislation does not. In addition, de la Puente states that although he knows that the environmental and health ministers in Colombia are against any further implementation of an AIU-type allowance, the Colombian Agricultural Institute seems to be in favor.
Ecuador has also indicated an interest in the commercialization of direct import of pesticides, explains Vera. “Because of this, unions are trying to speed up the negotiations with the government through the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture, and Fisheries in Ecuador to get approval.”
Bolivia, the final piece of the Andean puzzle, has not implemented any legislation related to the direct import of pesticides. Although Vera says discussions involving the director of the National Agricultural Health and Food Safety have taken place, nothing has been approved because the Bolivian authorities do not want to disrupt what they consider to be a “strong registration system.”