3A: ROLE OF POLICE AS ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCERS

The group established that with the different cultures represented, the word POLICE had to be taken in its broadest sense and include traditional national, state/provincial and municipal police forces as well as environmental police and some components of the armed services. The group also recognized that regardless of the country or region, a common theme prevailed: Police and Environment Personnel are strange bedfellows. The role of the Police being to bring a defendant before the Courts and the role of Environment Personnel being to solve the environmental problem.

The barriers to cooperation between the Police and the Environment Personnel are: the different cultures, the different priorities (the same applies to prosecution) the sharing of information which is impeded by the people themselves, the organization/system and in some instances by the law. A proper training strategy should help overcome most of these barriers.

The groups concluded that any criminal enforcement action requires that the evidence you presented in a manner acceptable to the court and that this role can best be played by police who are "investigation specialists."

3B: ILLEGAL TRANSFRONTIER MOVEMENTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE (INTERNATIONAL LINK TO BASEL CONVENTION): ESTABLISHING THE NETWORK/CONTACT DATABASE

Facilitators: Brad May and Silvia Nonna
Rapporteur: Peyton M. Sturges

This session had two questions raised by the facilitators: How can we improve networking in the control and monitoring of Illegal Transfrontier Shipments of Hazardous Wastes and to what extent can INECE contribute to this effort? The group identified several themes, including the need to encourage informal exchanges of information and information sharing, the desire to harmonize the definition across countries and regions of the terms used to describe hazardous wastes and recycled products; the need to encourage further training of inspectors and further education of the public; and the challenges posed by overlapping treaties and regulatory requirements.

Most members of the group had experienced problems involving inadequate control of hazardous waste shipments, whether PCBs, contaminated soils, lead wastes, or various substances masquerading as useful materials or beneficially recyclable materials. Several recounted how special problems can arise with "transit" shipments, where waste transportation modes or waste ownership changes as the waste moves or is transformed through complete or partial treatment. Although the Basel Convention is the broadest most significant legal baseline in this arena, it cannot solve transfrontier shipment problems in a vacuum. The dearth of confirmed cases of illegal shipments entered by the administrative body established under the convention, as well as the fact that some major waste producers are not a party to the convention, suggest more needs to be done to utilize networking capabilities, both formal and informal, to raise the degree of compliance.

The group concluded that INECE can play a significant role on the information harmonization and dissemination fronts, as well as contribute to training needs of customs authorities and, because of its informal networking expertise. In addition, proven capabilities of INECE might lend themselves to additional projects involving creation of various data bases, including one covering confirmed and settled cases that might even incorporate data from non-signatory countries, and a INECE member sources network. It was even suggested that a database of cases could provide sufficient information to allow its use in risk analysis and in developing illegal shipment profiles.

3C: DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINABLE REGIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE NETWORKS; ELEMENTS AND EXAMPLES

Facilitators: Daniel Sabsay, Argentina (FARN) and Ignacio Gonzalez, North America (CEC)
Rapporteur: Davis Jones, North America (EPA)

Discussion:
Robert Glaser began the discussion by describing some key elements he has found to be crucial to forming a successful regional network. First, you must start networking between people with common interests and find devoted individuals to start the work. Those individuals must create the policy support and find followers. The next steps are:
1. Develop common denominators
2. Establish a Secretariat
3. Get country profiles of each country in the network
4. Establish exchange programs - create opportunities for inspectors or other staff to get to know each other socially; informally network is important.
5. Look for projects that connect countries, transborder pollution, etc.
6. Show products to interested managers and get funding for continued operations
These steps worked during the creation of IMPEL and are being used in the creation of BERCEN, the network of Baltic States.

Terry Shears spoke further of the IMPEL experience. They initially overcame skepticism by developing a useful product. Their first results included documents on minimum criteria for inspections. This product was subsequently adopted as a standard for the European Union, and now, IMPEL has to implement through training and reports on commonalities between countries.

Terry continued by saying that networks can't be inwardly focused. It is not enough to produce reports for the members of the network. Rather you must advertise to a wider audience and make the products of the network useful to a wide range of users. Daniel Geisbacher reinforced the need for support and funding to start a network and questioned how it could be done without outside support.

Pavel Srember said that strengthening of networks can be achieved by sharing information. How have existing networks facilitated that exchange without releasing confidential information? Robert Glaser agreed that confidentiality between countries can be difficult, but is a necessity for an honest flow of information. However, everyone must understand that there will be some restrictions on information due to confidentiality concerns.

Daniel Sabsay stressed that the network must find transferability in their work. Robert replied that the country profiles should include an assessment of the member countries' needs so that the network can focus on transferable products that respond to the needs of the member countries.

Sladana Miocic discussed the importance of starting a secretariat. The network should be careful selecting the individuals that will staff the secretariat. The network should clarify goals and objectives early on to avoid frustration and confusion. It should also be advertised; if it is not well known that you are in the process of starting a network and secretariat, it is very hard to generate support. In addition, you need a clearly defined purpose and mission to show to supporters or potential supporters.

Maria Di Paola asked how to maintain a network once it is started? What is important to keep network alive? Waltreud Petek replied that the network must be beneficial for the participants in order to survive. To demonstrate the benefits, the network must involve the right people, including multiple people from each country to spread the interest. The work must not overburden individuals, but spread work so that more people are involved. Create results that directly benefit each country. An example in Europe occurred when a company complained that other countries treated the company better and threatened to leave. IMPEL discussion showed otherwise, and that the governments required the same standards in whichever country. The managers where then able to argue back to the company and show that the company would be treated equitably across the region. The network should look for activities that will engage lots of people, such as the work on cement kilns that drew people from all over Europe. A regional network can also help helps compare requirements among nations to ensure that no one country offers economic advantage, a particular necessity in the European Union.

The European situation does not always apply worldwide. For example, the Council of Environmental Cooperation (CEC) represents the network for North America. The borders of USA, Canada, and Mexico are not as open, and there is not so much interchange possible since each country sacrificed some autonomy to join the European Union. Nonetheless, the CEC was set up with strong, principles of cooperation and a network was formed from that framework and was built with some expectation of sustainability

Joseph Milewski asked what resources are required to maintain a network. Terry Shears replied that he is the only IMPEL staff. But human resources are more important than money and can be drawn from member countries' staff. People's time and enthusiasm are more important than funds. The network has no budget - the member countries supply the rotating staff and fund specific projects as they see fit.

Marie Di Paola stated that in Latin America, particularly South America, different characteristics make the development of a sustainable network more difficult. Dissimilar situations, both economic and institutional make regional harmonization difficult despite a common language and culture. Chile and Bolivia are associated countries but vastly different. However, everyone recognizes the need to create a level playing field in the region. There is a need to determine what profile they want for MERCUSOL? Is the goal to develop a common market similar to NAFTA, or to solely focus on environmental issues only? Is MARCOSUR just about interaction? Now it is just at the governmental level, and does not include NGOs.

In May, they will hold a meeting and will explore existing ways of interacting to optimize relationship and work in Latin America. However, they need more analysis and a common environmental protocol. No current decision have been made and they are beginning to take baby steps. Robert Glaser added that the south looks north for economics. But, the northern countries are saying no to trade without environmental protections. An excellent use for regional networks is to create a push for countries to improve their environmental management in preparation for trade with other regions.

Jeff Garver suggested that the development of cooperation on enforcement and environmental protection can flow directly from economic integration. There are similar challenges linking the United States and Mexico, but certain principles have emerged. There is a recognition of sovereignty concerns and that states have to make their own laws internally. But there must be mechanisms for cooperation in some areas and work on common approaches.

Beatrice Olivastri asked if regional networks are set up to deal with new/evolving issues such as the Cartagena protocol for trafficking genetically modified organisms. Are there international/regional solutions? The movement of species in its nature inter-state, but there do not appear to be regional efforts to control this cross-boundary issue. NGO's can be better suited than government to keep up with emerging issues.

Yvan Lafleur stressed that as networks are formed, they should maintain their focus. Many groups spread their resources too widely and begin to tackle issues beyond enforcement. Problems may be regulatory or legislative and there is no role for enforcement; regional enforcement networks cannot do everything. There must be networks at other levels and dealing with other issues, but all networks must flow down to operational level.

According to Ignatio Gonzalez, the CEC enforcement group has institutionalized the network. It is more than just networking and has formed permanent working groups, and an annual agenda which includes a review of ongoing projects and identification of environmental concerns for integrated work. During the development of the annual agenda, common environmental problems in each country are identified and the workgroups decide how to cooperate on those problems. In this way, new problems are brought to table and the group decides how to best address. Projects are then delegated to various task forces to implement. The overarching enforcement working group reviews and oversees the projects, and prioritizes between projects where resources are limited.

Antonio Benjamin turned the conversation to the role of INECE in developing Regional networks. He said that the group was discussing two different aspects of the same problem and the answers are different. First, How can INECE regionalize outreach? There is no other way than to work with regional institutions already in place. INECE does not have the resources to reinvent existing work or organizations, so we must work with existing institutions such as MERCASUR or the parties to the Amazonian treaty. The institutions must be willing to work with INECE and support co-proposals that carry more clout than proposals from single organization

We should also look at how we ourselves work more in network. There is no global answer for entire world. There are different levels of development, ease of travel, etc. However, there is a common recognition of the importance of enforcement in region. With this in mind, INECE should approach existing organizations to incorporate enforcement into their mission rather than creating a separate network. This also has benefits because policy makers need to hear about enforcement, and if we are part of their organization we can more easily. Maria Di Paola agreed that existing institutions are the policy makers, and they don't have a knowledge base about enforcement. We should sell the idea as a positive aspect of their work that they need.

Antonio Benjamin contrasted the development of NAFTA to current trade agreements such as the ANDEAN treaty and agreements being developed in Africa. NAFTA was a fairly mature agreement to which environmental enforcement was added as an afterthought. It may be working well, but it could be better incorporated into the terms of the agreement. As the rest of the world is developing similar agreements, INECE can help get enforcement issues into the agreements earlier in the process and in a more coordinated way.

Maria Comino asked how existing networks deal with divergent cultures and languages. For example, in the Asia/Pacific region, there are three continents with multiple languages leading to huge communication problems. Sub-Regional groupings may be effective, but integrating them up to region and further up to INECE is very difficult. Terry Shears responded that if you can find and use one common language, it helps tremendously. (English or other) INECE uses English, but the NIS countries use Russian. They are developing a glossary and translations to commonly define terms to standardize the discussions.

Yvan Lafleur agreed that language has been a major issue in the CEC. In North American, if the network only uses English, lose Mexicans. If the meetings are held in Spanish, you loose both the Canadians and the Americans. Now they are working in all three languages (but not always for meetings). All publications are in three languages. This is very difficult in three languages, could it become impossible with more? Any network should push for translation of all information into all relevant languages.

Networks need to decide how to include all stakeholders including NGO's and industrial groups. Whether they are included in the membership or not, they should be part of the formation of the scope and design of the network, since it does directly affect them. Aid banks should also be involved to take advantage of their experience enforcing environmental management systems and checking on the due diligence of a company or project. Banks are now doing checks on environmental and social issues prior to issuing loans. They must make decision on level of risk in company and beginning to collaborate with the various ministries of environment to find out if company has risk. Banks often offer training to problematic companies. This is one example of collaboration between private sector and public.

Conclusion:
Maria Di Paola concluded that we have more questions than answers in developing networks. While trying to build or enhance enforcement and compliance is a big job, and we are always dealing with how to handle scope. What are the concepts that we need to consider when we design scope of network, who are the actors, what are the main issues, and what are the goals? Some key factors for sustainable networks are:

• The scope and goals should be focused, well defined, and widely publicized
• All key stakeholders should be involved with developing the scope, even if they are not to become "members" of the network
• The network should focus on common elements and needs among the states
• It should develop products that generate interest among members
• The products must be well advertised to increase participation
• The scope and membership should be flexible enough to shift as member's needs change
• All participating countries must contribute, in some part, to the network's success

3D: INTERNATIONAL TARGETING ON ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME/ACTIVITIES

Facilitators: Mr. Greg Lisdin, US Department of Justice, and Mr. Roy Watkinson, Environment Agency of England and Wales
Rapporteur: Mr. Neil Emmott, Environment Agency of England and Wales
Workshop Goals: To consider: 1) measures to build national capacity to investigate domestic violations and crimes, as needed to fulfill national obligations under MEAs; 2) interagency cooperation between environment and customs ministries to control imports and exports; 3) international cooperation to address common problems including transborder pollution spillover from one nation to another; 4) damage to ecosystems shared by two or more nations; and 5) illegal trafficking across national borders. Participants were asked to reflect on the different stages, states and mechanisms for working in this area. This was to provide a basis for comparison of what tools and systems are available from bodies such as UNEP, identification of gaps, and consideration of possible priorities for INECE.

Summary:
a) Motivation for compliance with MEAs
The group noted that the following four issues affect the level of motivation for implementation of MEAs:

• The construction of the MEA in question. Some agreements are "rich", for example in the sense that they may include a funding mechanism to help parties to comply. Others, however, are "poor", e.g. the Basel Convention, with little provision for compliance assistance. In addition, some MEAs include a specific enforcement element, such as CITES, whereas others, such as Basel, do not.
• Shared international interest. In respect of some MEAs, the prevention and punishment of violations will be of interest to countries beyond just the one where the violation is detected. For example, CITES violations will normally be of concern in the country of origin, which will be concerned about its loss of wildlife, plus the country of destination, which is concerned to prevent illegal trade. In contrast, in the area of pollution from ships, there will clearly be concern on the part of the country affected by the pollution, but not necessarily from the flag state.
• The level of peoples' concern about the topic of the MEA. In this regard a measure such as CITES may have an advantage over the Basel Convention as wildlife is a more public-friendly topic compared to hazardous waste shipments.
• Economic issues. There is generally a need to have a better understanding of the economics of non-compliance. The costing of illegal activity affecting the environment is still at a very early stage. If the topic were better understood, there may be a greater incentive to secure compliance and counter illegal activities, and also a greater ability to focus on priority areas. There is also concern that profit from illegal activity goes partly to support other criminal activities, such as drug trafficking and terrorism. So greater knowledge of and focus on this topic would inform enforcement activities and also persuade policy-makers of the need for more action.

b) Access to technology
Identification of illegal activities is often dependent on access to technology. For example, the USA has a forensic laboratory for analysis of samples associated with suspected incidences of illegal trade in products derived from wildlife. Similar resources do not exist in other countries, although access to the US facility is possible.

c) Training of enforcement staff
Training cannot be too theoretical if it is to be successful Illustrations of real investigations, prosecutions, etc. should be built into training programs.

d) The role of NGOs
Positive examples of NGOs supporting MEAs were cited. For example, the Environmental Investigation Agency placed an advertisement for a fictional company requesting the supply of CFCs. This led to a number of offers which, if taken up, would clearly have involved illegal trade.

e) Coordination and communication
Effective enforcement is usually reliant on a free-flowing exchange of information. The Secretariats of MEAs, and organizations such as UNEP, need to be clear who they should be interacting with at the national levels. Increasing collaboration with INTERPOL is also required.

Conclusions and Recommendations:
The workshop considered measures to build national capacity to investigate domestic violations and crimes, as needed to fulfill national obligations under MEAs, and related matters. By and large, all of the tools and techniques for criminal enforcement already exist and are being employed in conventional criminal enforcement. The question is: what are the barriers to this being replicated in environmental crime? Is there just insufficient interest? Is, for example, global trade a greater priority. Or is it simply a question of resources that needs to be tackled?

Further to the above, what can INECE do in this area? The following possibilities were noted:

• provide information and education on what enforcement tools are available and how they can be used
• develop materials for case studies and best practice studies
• facilitate resource sharing and training
• build networks
• contribute to greater knowledge on the scale of environmental crime and its economic implications
• look into the activities of multinationals that transgress around the world
• develop innovative ways of funding enforcement programmes.

3E: ENFORCING DOMESTIC PROGRAMS THAT IMPLEMENT INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS (MEAs)

Several themes surfaced during the discussion. The first, focusing on the Convention for International Trade of Endangered Species, highlighted the difficulties that signatories have at the ground level in implementing international treaties. Such difficulties arise due to lack of communication between the legislators who create regulations to implement the agreements and the enforcers who carry out the task. Notably, the NAFTA signatories have had more success dealing directly with other officials from the neighboring country than in carrying their work out through their top-level government officials. Conflicts with domestic laws and regulations as well as with other international commitments creates obstacles that make implementation exceedingly difficult or, at times, impossible. The lack of communication between the policy makers and those who carry out enforcement results in a failure to implement MEAs.

Although countries suffer from difficulties in implementation, it is noteworthy that the success Uganda has enjoyed from effective coordination at the ground level has contributed to the formation of international agreements based on these positive results. Also, success is somewhat greater with bilateral agreements and internal projects. In these areas, national regulations are carried out with greater communication and understanding throughout the various levels of government and at the borders as a result of greater collaboration and prioritization among decision-makers and enforcers.

Conclusions & Recommendations:
Participants raised various key recommendations for ways that INECE can contribute in the area of implementing MEAs. One area needing support is training and capacity building in environmental agreements and issues. The groups who could benefit from such training include judges and other members of the judiciary, legislators, customs agencies, and members of civil society. Additionally, INECE should explore ways to enable a private right of enforcement for individuals and NGOs, as well as increased access to justice and information. Finally, it was also recommended that INECE champion a robust indicators project to provide information and support training programs that would assist with needs of developing countries.

Questions Presented by Facilitators:
1. Who are the key actors or stakeholders?
2. What are the priority information needs?
3. What are the existing institutional and electronic information networks?

Key Points, Attributed to Specific Individuals (for use in follow-up discussions with specific individual participants):
1. Intersectoral dialogue within the national government is essential since responsibility for pesticide regulation is often dispersed among the health, environment, agriculture, and transportation sectors
2. Pesticide use is often subsidized through lending institutions (national and international) and government policies (Olga Corrales)
3. All stakeholders involved in pesticide regulation and use need to be engaged in national pesticide activities
4. Recognition that there is an international market in pesticides, foods, and migration of farmworkers (Marcia Mulkey)
5. Need to promote the adoption of alternative sustainable agricultural practices (e.g., organic farming, integrated pest management, use of biopesticides, etc.) by recognizing the economic opportunities and benefits to human health and the environment (O. Corrales)
6. Training activities should build on previous efforts and include academic institutions (Marco Gonzalez)
7. Commodity prices can affect decisions made at the farm level. A drop in price can motivate users to adopt integrated pest management approaches that do not rely on costly pesticides. In contrast, it can also result in users switching to older, more toxic pesticides that are cheaper than the newer pesticide formulations (M. Gonzalez, M. Mulkey)
8. Non-agricultural pesticides, while not a current focus in many countries, should be addressed by the pesticide regulatory and user community (Roberto Morales)
9. General consumers who either use pesticides or are affected by pesticides (i.e., through residues on food) need information in order to make informed decisions and participate in the policy making process (Marcela Ramirez)
10. Weak governmental institutions in Central America require greater participation from the public in order to address the social-economic impact of pesticide use (Helio Zamora)

Papers Presented or Discussed:
1. Background information on the U.S.-Mexico Pesticide Inspector Exchange Program that has resulted in the training of over 60 pesticide inspectors in both countries
2. Fact sheet on the USEPA - UNEP Chemical Information Exchange Program which will provide training to chemical managers in Central America and Mexico in using the Internet to access needed information and in promoting a regional exchange of information on pesticides

Summary of Discussion
With the majority of participants representing the Central America region and the United States, discussions focused on the establishment of a Pesticide Forum for Central America. After all participants shared their experiences and interests regarding pesticides, four short presentations were given on existing regional programs. Marco Gonzalez provided a summary of CCAD's pesticide related activities, Adele Cardenas (EPA) described the accomplishments of the U.S.-Mexico Pesticide Inspector Exchange Program, Roberto Morales summarized USAID's regional environment program, and Keith Chanon (EPA) presented information on the EPA-UNEP project to train chemical managers in the region on using the Internet to access chemical information.

Substantive discussions addressed the wide-range of pesticide issues of importance in Central America. Due to the need for understanding these issues regarding pesticides, time was not sufficient for discussing the detailed requirements of a functioning Pesticide Forum. Rather, the group agreed to first focus on identifying the important stakeholders that are involved or affected by the use of pesticides in the region and to identify the priority information needs of the region.

As pesticide issues span across the environment, health, and agriculture sectors and affect numerous stakeholder groups, it is clear that compliance and enforcement activities are an important component to overall pesticide management. Nonetheless, a number of other priorities surfaced that demonstrate the complexity of regulating pesticides and educating users and the general public about their risks as well as the benefits that can be attained through investments in sustainable alternatives. Having identified the important stakeholders and the priority information needs of the region, additional efforts are needed to further define the scope and operationalization of the Pesticide Forum.

Key Stakeholders Involved in Pesticide Activities
· Non-governmental organizations
· Academia
· Industry
· Commodity groups
· Farmworkers
· Community organizations
· International organizations
· General consumers

Priority Information Needs of the Central American Region
1) Information on alternative sustainable agricultural practices (i.e., organic agriculture, integrated pest management, non-synthetic pesticides);
2) Market information required for domestic sales and export of foods;
3) Information and guidelines for inspections;
4) Farmworker safety information; and
5) Information for developing enforceable regulations.

Participants also identified numerous issues and challenges in strengthening overall pesticide management practices and for promoting the adoption of alternative sustainable agricultural practices.

Information on Alternative Sustainable Agricultural Practices
While Central America hosts some small-scale projects to promote the development and use of alternative sustainable agriculture practices that do not rely solely on synthetic pesticides, the group recognized that large-scale efforts to promote alternatives and the exchange of technological information is needed. To facilitate this cultural transformation, information exchange and awareness raising activities are needed to highlight the environmental, health, and economic benefits associated with sustainable practices. This education effort must target all stakeholder entities, including government and the general public. A central function of the Pesticide Forum could be to provide information on the wide range of alternative practices available to farmers within the region.

Market Information Required for Domestic Sales and Export of Foods
The multi-dimensional market in pesticides involves the international trade of pesticides as products, the international trade in foods containing pesticide residues, and the international migration of farmworkers who apply pesticides in more than one country. These aspects directly and indirectly impact pesticide use practices. The international trade in pesticide products necessitates national capacity to monitor and enforce import and export controls. National and international food safety standards necessitate enforceable domestic regulations. Lastly, the migration of farmworkers requires that countries collaborate in educating and training this population group to assure their protection and that of their families.

A central aspect of the international market in pesticides involves the price of agricultural commodities and strategies for gaining market share. The market price of pesticides will likely influence the management practices chosen by the farmer. As commodity prices fall, the farmer may seek alternative pest control strategies that are less costly. This can either result in the farmer adopting non-chemical control methods or reverting to using older, lower cost pesticides that may pose greater risks to the environment. Also, in some countries, government subsidies and policies of financial lending institutions encourage pesticide use.

International consumer demand can also drive decisions at the farm level. Specifically, the growing demand for pesticide free produce and expectation that growers follow sustainable agricultural principles introduces new market forces. To attract this growing consumer sector, farmers will inevitably need to adopt sustainable agricultural practices. Certification schemes (e.g., organic certification) will undoubtedly influence the decisions of growers in their choice of using certain types of pesticides.

The Pesticide Forum should play a role in providing growers with up-to-date information on market trends and requirements as well as information needed to develop regionally harmonized regulations.

Information for Developing Enforceable Regulations
Enforceable regulations are critical for assuring the safe use of pesticides. In Central America, there is an undeniable need for technical information that will assist countries in establishing and implementing effective regulations. In this area, the Pesticide Forum can be used for disseminating needed information in addition to facilitating the harmonization of approaches to pesticide regulation throughout the region. The experience and input from the compliance and enforcement community will greatly improve the effectiveness of newly established regulations.

Information and Guidelines for Inspections
A critical tool for the compliance and enforcement of pesticide regulations is the use of inspections. Inspections of farms and pesticide manufacturing and formulating facilities will help assure compliance. Therefore, information and training for inspectors will strengthen capacity in the region. A possible activity that can be facilitated through the forum is the expansion of the U.S.-Mexico Pesticide Inspector Exchange Program. The program would enable inspectors from Central America to receive training in Mexico and the U.S.

Farmworker Safety Information
As a sub-population that can incur high levels of pesticide exposure, it is important to provide farmworkers with proper education and training on the safe handling and use of pesticides. In this area, the Pesticide Forum can provide basic information and training resources. For example, information and materials from existing training programs in Costa Rica, Guatemala, and the joint U.S.-Mexico Worker Protection Program can be shared and disseminated through the forum.

From the workshop discussions, it is clear that pesticides present a complex set of issues and problems that cannot be addressed through any single means. Changes must be made at the government, industry, grower, and consumer levels. While enforceable legal requirements are an important element, in the context of Central America the group emphasized the need to promote a cultural shift toward the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. This will require the participation of all stakeholder entities.

The Pesticide Forum should become a valuable tool for facilitating the adoption of alternative pest control strategies. The participants of the workshop recognized that further work is needed to define the scope and design of the forum and committed to participate in the continual design and development of the forum.

Brief Summary
With the majority of participants representing the Central America region and the United States, discussions focused on the establishment of a Pesticide Forum for Central America. After all participants shared their experiences and interests regarding pesticides, four short presentations were given on existing regional programs. Marco Gonzalez provided a summary of CCAD's pesticide related activities, Adele Cardenas (EPA) described the accomplishments of the U.S.-Mexico Pesticide Inspector Exchange Program, Roberto Morales summarized USAID's regional program, and Keith Chanon presented information on the EPA-UNEP project to train chemical managers in the region on using the Internet to access needed information.

Substantive discussions on the Pesticide Forum addressed the wide-range of pesticide issues of importance in Central America. First, participants focused on identifying the important stakeholders that are involved or affected by the use of pesticides in the region. These include government, non-governmental organizations, academia, industry, commodity groups, farmworkers, community organizations, international organizations, and general consumers. Second, participants identified the priority information needs and substantive issues that should be addressed. These include: 1) information on alternative sustainable agricultural practices (i.e., organic agriculture, integrated pest management, non-synthetic pesticides); 2) market information required for domestic sales and export of foods; 3) information and guidelines for inspections; 4) farmworker safety information ; and 5) information for developing enforceable regulations. Participants also identified numerous challenges in strengthening overall pesticide management practices and for promoting the adoption of alternative sustainable agricultural practices.

Lastly, the group agreed that additional work and consultation is required in order to prioritize and narrow the issues for inclusion in the Pesticide Forum and to establish links with existing regional networks. Moreover, the operational design of the forum and its integration into the INECE network needs to be addressed. Participants agreed to participate in future consultations that are required to develop the Pesticide Forum.