安第斯地区正在摆脱其直接面向农民的杀虫剂计划。为了提供更广泛的价格实惠的作物保护产品，安第斯社区，从秘鲁开始，一直在一次修改一个国家的政策，以允许个人和协会直接从生产商和进出口公司进口，只需最少的注册程序或合规检查。结果是灾难性的。
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.
拉丁美洲国家作物保护协会联合会主席费尔南多·维拉·埃尔南德斯 (Fernando Vera Hernandez) 解释说，多年来，安第斯国家共同体 (CAN) 一直在努力说服政府停止对农民直接进口的补贴。
因此，秘鲁正式撤销了 AIU，并于 2011 年取消了根据其创建的所有注册。但尽管立法发生了变化，但直接进口农药仍在继续。
安第斯地区注意到
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.”