Table 3-4. Asia's export share by product, 1980-91 to 2000-01.

Source: Aksoy and Beghin, 2006.
     Thus the spread of Green Revolution-type agriculture throughout most developing countries was accompanied by a rapid rise in pesticide use (Rosset et al., 2000). Along with the CGIAR, the agricultural research and development agen­cies and universities of many countries focused on breeding seeds to increase plant uptake of nitrogen, so as to boost yields, which frequently required increasing pesticide use to control pest outbreaks.
     However, promising increases of yield were offset by rising costs associated with increased use of chemical inputs. In the Central Plains of Thailand, yields went up only 6.5%, while fertilizer use rose 24% and pesticides jumped by 53%. In West Java, profits associated with a 23% yield increase were virtually cancelled by 65% and 69% increases in fertil­izers and pesticides respectively (Rosset et al., 2000).
     While multinational chemical companies based in the US or Europe account for the bulk of worldwide produc­tion and sales, local pesticide industries have also expanded, growing rapidly in countries favoring high input agriculture. For example, the pesticide industry in India is now the fourth largest in the world and second largest in the Asia-Pacific region after China. Estimates of its total market value vary between US$850 million and US$911 million. According to the Pesticides Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India, there are around 55 basic producers and 300 pesti­cide formulators, as well as numerous small-scale manufac­turers. Around 200-odd generic pesticide products are made in India (CSE, 2001).
     Pesticide manufacturers are the most direct drivers of pesticide use, acting on their own as well as through public agencies. They have increased pesticide sales through ex­tensive marketing, advertising, supply to extension agen­cies or workers and local or district leaders and through partnerships.
     Policy drivers include decisions by many developing

countries to focus on export-led agricultural growth, which is typically accompanied by high pesticide use. Many gov­ernments also focused on increasing yield through adoption of Green Revolution technologies. Extension workers and government media channels like television and radio with high penetration into rural areas have been used to dissemi­nate pesticide application related information. States shifted to a more "science-led" rather than farmer-led agriculture and also linked farmers' access to credit and capital to their acceptance of Green Revolution packages of seeds, fertilizers and pesticides. National quotas, priorities and directives for farmers were established in many regions (e.g., wheat and sugarcane in India, rice in Indonesia). National government research and extension systems removed farmers' decision-making power through direct state intervention in pest man­agement via calendar spraying regimes and enforced control methods (Meir and Williamson, 2005).
     Technological drivers include both public and private research and development of new technologies in seeds, ma­chinery, fertilizers and pesticides. Institutional arrangements that contributed to the development of Green Revolution technologies included the international research community (e.g., CGIAR), the national agricultural research systems (NARs), academic institutions, research stations and the pri­vate sector. International donor agencies and bilateral agen­cies have also indirectly supported the spread of pesticides by supporting shifts towards Green Revolution technologies and/or have supplied pesticides directly in agricultural aid packages (Shiva, 1991; US AID, 2004).
     International financial institutions such as the World Bank have contributed directly to increased pesticide de­pendence, traditionally providing them in fixed packages of inputs that farmers are required to use by the terms of their contract (Ishii-Eiteman and Ardhianie, 2002), or in­directly, by imposing structural adjustment conditions on borrower countries that require shifts towards high value export crops that result in increased pesticide dependence (Hammond and McGowan, 1992; Korten, 1995; Oxfam America, 1995; McGowan, 1997); by promoting intensi­fied production without offering training in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and leaving pest control advice up to pesticide companies (Hamburger and Ishii-Eiteman, 2003) or by providing emergency rehabilitation or reconstruction loans that encourage or promote increased pesticide use (Karel, 2004).
     Recent external reviews of World Bank lending have found that a majority of projects likely to affect pesticide use failed to provide plans for introducing or implement­ing IPM in a meaningful way and were considered more likely to increase farmers' dependence on pesticides (To-zun, 2001; Karel, 2004). Past reviews also acknowledge the Bank's difficulty in implementing its IPM policy, but suggest that compliance is likely to improve in future (Liebenthal, 2002; Sorby, et al., 2003). The World Bank's "poor record of compliance" with its pest management policy has been linked to its practice of "actively open(ing) the door" to pes­ticide companies through programs geared towards mod­ernizations of agriculture, liberalizations and privatizations (FAO, 2001). Nonetheless, other UN agencies like the FAO have helped the move towards IPM, providing examples of how developing countries have been able to adopt AKST