Bank, 1998a). Subsequent external and internal reviews of World Bank lending and project monitoring noted weak implementation of the Bank's IPM policy (Tozun, 2001; Ishii-Eiteman and Ardhianie, 2002; Hamburger and Ishii- Eiteman, 2003; Sorby et al., 2003; Karel, 2004) hampered by lack of trained staff and an organizational culture and incentive system favoring loan approval over project quality (Liebenthal, 2002). Recent analyses of written policy and project design documents suggest compliance may be improving (Karel, 2004; World Bank, 2005d) and a detailed guidebook to support implementation of the Bank's IPM policy has been produced.

Significant international treaties (Box 2-9) are now in force that seek to minimize and eliminate hazards associated with pesticide use. Multistakeholder initiatives such as the Africa Stockpile Program have harnessed the energies of diverse stakeholders in reducing the hazards and risks of pesticides. Together these policy responses and international agreements, informed by scientific evidence and public participation, have enabled decisive and effective transitions towards more sustainable practice.

Civil society responses. Civil society has emerged as a powerful force in the movement towards ecological pest management, in Northern as well as Southern countries (e.g., India, Thailand, Ecuador, Philippines and Brazil). CSOs and independent researchers (as well as FAO, ILO, WHO and some governments) have called for a rights-based approach to agricultural development, that explicitly recognizes agricultural workers' and rural communities' rights to good health and clean environments (Robinson, 2002; Fabra, 2002; Reeves and Schafer, 2003). NGOs working with social justice, environmental and health causes have contributed to national and international treaties and agreements on chemicals management, sustainable agriculture and food safety. Development NGOs (Thrupp, 1996), social movements such as the Brazilian Landless Workers' Movement (Boyce, et al., 2005) and farmer-NGO-scientist partnerships such as MASIPAG in the Philippines, CLADES in Latin America (Chaplowe, 1997a) and the Latin American Scientific Society of Agroecology (Sociedad Cientifica Latino Americana de Agroecologia or SOCLA) are implementing ecological pest management as a means towards achieving sustainable development goals. Like other development actors, NGOs have limitations in terms of impact, resources, capacity and performance; and accountability mechanisms have been weak (Chaplowe, 1997b). Nevertheless, important contributions to ecological pest management have resulted from NGO efforts (Altieri and Masera, 1993; UNDP, 1995; Chaplowe, 1997b; Altieri, 1999), although scaling up to achieve widespread impact, in the absence of broader policy reforms, remains difficult (Bebbington and Thiele, 1993; Farrington and Lewis, 1993; Farrington et al., 1993).

Market responses. There has been a notable rise in certification and labeling regimes to meet consumers' demand for information about the origins of foods and methods of production. Food retailers are responding by insisting on observance of legal MRL requirements and using pesticide residue data as marketing material. Food industry actors have focused on minimizing or eliminating pesticide use

to meet consumer preferences and regulatory requirements and reduce business costs. Some agrifood companies and the US$30 billion food service company Sysco (Hammerschlag, 2007), food processors (e.g., tomato paste, coffee, cacao/chocolate) and some food retailers (Williamson and Buffin, 2005; EurepGap, 2007) have taken steps to source produce from suppliers-including thousands of small-scale producers-using IPM and organic methods. Labels identifying organic or low-pesticide production methods and other successful market-oriented collaborations (IATP, 1998) have encouraged growers to adopt these practices. Local food systems also offer a small but growing alternative to conventional crop production and distribution (Williamson and Buffin, 2005) (see 2.3.3).

Response from pesticide manufacturers. The multinational agrichemical industry has responded to global concerns about pesticides by developing less hazardous, lower dose and more selective pesticides, improved formulations, new application technologies and resistance management strategies (CropLife, 2003; Latorse and Kuck, 2006; Syngenta, 2006). These efforts can significantly reduce pesticide pressure on the environment, particularly in larger farm operations that can afford specialized equipment. Some pesticide manufacturers have formed Resistance Action Committees to assist advisors and growers in implementing pesticide resistance management practices (Jutsum et al., 1998). The Danish chemical company, Cheminova, submitted plans to FAO in 2006 to voluntarily phase out highly hazardous WHO Class I pesticides from developing countries by 2010 (FAO, 2006a). At the same time, public health specialists and development NGOs have criticized multinational pesticide companies for lobbying against stronger public health regulations, for failing to comply with national laws and the FAO Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (Dinham, 2007), and in some cases for refusing to voluntarily withdraw recognized highly hazardous active ingredients-including WHO Class 1 pesticides and acutely toxic organophosphate pesticides-in developing countries (Rosenthal, 2003, 2005; Sherwood et al., 2005; Wesseling et al., 2005). Competitive pressure from local generic pesticide manufacturers that continue to produce off-patent pesticides can be a factor (EJF, 2002; Pawar, 2002).

     Industry actors have developed their own IPM programs (Dollacker, 2000; CropLife, 2006). Many of these are built around continued or relatively small reductions in use of a company's pesticide products (Sagenmuller, 1999; Dollacker, 2000; Ellis, 2000; CropLife, 2003, 2005ab). One explanation for this is that a company's need to maintain economic returns on its investments renders them less likely to encourage substantial shifts towards pest management strategies that would significantly reduce reliance on their products (CGIAR TAC, 2000; FAO, 2001a; Murray and Taylor, 2001; Sherwood et al., 2005).

     Some newer products developed by private firms show potential to strengthen IPM efforts (for instance, synthetic pheromone products to be tried in the context of "pushpull" strategies in Europe). Other programs describe the integration of crop productivity and biodiversity conservation efforts (Dollacker and Rhodes, 2007). Independent assess-