Your online database of sustainable policy solutions

Control of Pesticides Act No. 33 (1980, amended in 1994, 2011, 2020) National Policy and Action Plan on Prevention of Suicide (1997)

An overview of the legislation implementing or amending the Control of Pesticides Act No. 33 of 1980 is available at the Act’s page of FAO, ECOLEX.

Pesticide self-poisoning is one of the most common global methods of suicide, accounting for an estimated total global burden of an astoundingly 14 million deaths between 1960 and 2018, the time period since the introduction of HHPs into rural agriculture. From 1950 to the 1990s, suicide rates in Sri Lanka increased eight-fold, reaching a peak of 47 deaths per 100,000 in 1995. During this time, Sri Lanka was known for having one of the world’s highest suicide rates and pesticide poisoning accounted for more than 2/3 of all suicides. Through a series of regulations on pesticides starting in 1984, with major impact starting in 1995, Sri Lanka’s suicide rate has been reduced by an impressive 70 percent. This remarkable achievement was influenced by the Pesticides Act and its integration into the National Policy, which explicitly supported the use of pesticide regulations to reduce suicides. Sri Lanka’s pesticide regulations have contributed to one of the greatest decreases in suicide rates ever achieved in the world. The Sri Lankan approach is simple, pragmatic, cost-effective and adequately implemented, and it shows how national HHP bans can reduce pesticide-specific and total suicide rates. The impacts of this approach include: a marked national reduction in deaths from pesticide suicides, particularly in poor rural villages and of children and young adults aged 17-25 years; establishment of a long-term policy and management system for suicide prevention and pesticide use, with engagement of key partners, to protect the population and environment; and providing an example and success story for the prevention of pesticide-related suicides in low- and middle-income countries. Since Sri Lanka’s initial pioneering efforts, Bangladesh, the Republic of Korea,  and other countries have also benefitted from introducing HHP bans and reduced their pesticide suicide rates. Sri Lanka has hence led the world in integrating suicides into pesticide policy, and in doing so have led the way to the future: The Sri Lankan experience has encouraged the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Management (JMPM) to produce guidelines for pesticide regulators on using pesticide regulations to prevent suicide, which cites Sri Lanka as best-studied country, and recommends the banning of HHPs as one of the most cost-effective approaches for suicide prevention. The South Asia region has the highest rate of suicide from pesticides in the world and Sri Lanka’s leadership in this area sets an important example for other countries in the region and throughout the world – shinning the light on a problem that is often swept into the corners. Due to its impressive socioeconomic and environmental impact, its holistic approach and its full respect for the Future Justice Principles, the Sri Lankan policies were recognized with the Future Policy Special Award 2021 in the category Highly Hazardous Pesticides awarded by the World Future Council, in partnership with the SAICM, UNEP, UNITAR, OECD, ILO and UNDP.

Our “Best Policies” are those that meet the Future Just Lawmaking Principles and recognise the interconnected challenges we face today. The goal of principled policy work is to ensure that important universal standards of sustainability and equity, human rights and freedoms, and respect for the environment are taken into account. It also helps to increase policy coherence between different sectors.  

Sustainable use of natural resources

• Ensures farmers use pesticides appropriately, minimizing effects on human health and the environment, reducing biodiversity loss.
• Is providing IPM education, which is sustainable and has a long-term impact

 Equity and poverty eradication

• Supports the right to life and to health; reduces deaths and protects health.
• Reduces accidental poisonings in animals and humans, especially of children.
• Reduces HHPs in food and the environment, benefiting all society, and reducing incidence of harm and disease, for present and future generations.
• Significant reduction in pesticide suicides, particularly in children and young adults, improving social justice, avoiding new poverty.

 Precautionary approach

• Applies the precautionary approach by establishing preventative measures at the source through the ban of HHPs.
• Banned pesticides are selected based on WHO criteria, Stockholm Convention, and local problems (Criterion 8 of the FAO/WHO’s criteria).
• Actively removes problematic pesticides, promotes agroecology.

 Public participation, access to information and justice

• Endorses public transparency of information and disclosure through media, which has role in discussing suicide prevention and pesticide regulation.
• The Office of the Registrar of Pesticides is well known and contactable by all; information on processes is provided on its website, and all reports are available for review.
• Decisions are announced through publication in official government gazettes.

  Good governance and human security

• HHPs are banned at the source of production and importation; therefore, the mechanism is clear, simple and transparent.
• Specific institutions are identified to carry out all required functions. They work openly, encouraging resolution of conflict and reducing corruption.
• Government and academic researchers keep accurate data on suicides; results of bans reported back to the Ministries of Health and Agriculture.
• The Ministry of Agriculture monitors agricultural output

 Integration and interrelationship

• Pesticide regulation is central to these efforts; its consequences affect all aspects of human and animal health and the environment.
• By reducing death, chronic ill health, and overall environmental damage, yet finding alternatives options for farmers, it integrates social justice, economic stability and environmental protection.
• The Pesticides Technical and Advisory Committee has representation from multiple key agencies, resulting in synergies and mutual support.

 Common but differentiated responsibilities

• Acknowledges that rural farming households have been historically most affected by pesticide suicides.
• Takes into account the local reality, in particular the availability of resources, aiming to integrate efforts into pre-existing structures by using cross-disciplinary approaches where possible.
• Using the agriculture research and extension services, the Pesticides Act is able to find affordable alternatives that are available for small-scale farmers.

The problem of pesticide poisoning became clear to the Sri Lankan Government after a report on the high national number of cases in 1975-79. In 1978, over 1,000 deaths were due to pesticide poisoning, and in 1979 the national morbidity rate was 79 pesticide poisoning cases per 100,000 population. The suicides resulted from easy accessibility to HHPs, which were stored in, or in close vicinity to, the homes and common use areas of small-scale farmers. Additionally, these HHPs could be easily purchased from stores without any regulations in place. The subject rapidly entered into the political agenda of the country, and the government adopted the Pesticides Act in 1980, which allowed for the outlaw of hazardous pesticides classified through scientific evaluation. The first wave of bans entered into force in 1984, prohibiting the pesticides known to be related to suicide (parathion, methyl-parathion). From 1992 to 1995, further bans were placed on two specific HHPs, the organophosphorus insecticides methamidophos and monocrotophos. In 1994, the President of Sri Lanka set up a Presidential Commission to draft the National Policy to create a framework for efforts to reduce the national suicide rate, with its eventual implementation in 1997. The Department of Agriculture began to view the matter of pesticide-related suicides beyond the social perspective, and further focused its attention on tackling the root causes of the problem, in particular the clear linkage to the widespread availability of acutely toxic pesticides. In 1998, the Department noted a rise in deaths due to the organochlorine insecticide, endosulfan, and therefore placed an immediate ban on it. An additional regulatory ban of the pesticides dimethoate, fenthion, and paraquat took place between 2008 and 2011. The Pesticides Act has been regularly reviewed since its implementation in 1980; the National Policy, however, has not been updated since 1997. There have been administrative amendments made to the Pesticides Act, with the latest amendment in 2020, and additional Pesticide Management Plans published at intervals to provide more detailed information on current policies and to further build upon it. In particular, the Pesticide Management Plan of 2018 explicitly focuses on non-pesticide means of crop protection and Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Additionally, recent policy decisions have developed and highlighted the national emphasis on the protection of health and the environment. For example, 45 percent of the Office of the Registrar of Pesticide’s (ORoP) budget is now dedicated to minimizing the harmful effects of pesticides on human health and the environment. There is significant support from consumers for continuing the effective management of pesticides, due to concerns about contaminated products, the impact on the environment, and the health of farmers and farming communities. However, studies indicate that consumers do not feel empowered to identify pesticide-free, high-quality produce. While Sri Lanka is considered as having attained ‘high human development’ according to the the Human Development Index (HDI), the country still ranks poorly in terms of food security. In the past few years, Sri Lanka has made organic-compatible policy efforts that aim to phase out agrochemicals and promote organic fertilizers. In 2016, the former Sri Lankan President published an ambitious three-year agricultural plan to build a ‘toxin-free nation’, based on the principles of agroecology and which also included prohibiting agrochemicals. However, it was reported that the Presidential commitment has not yet translated into action. !UPDATE: The current Sri Lankan turmoil resulted in a number of (deliberate) misrepresentations in the media, mainly from pesticide advocates, who are blaming organics and agroecology its worst-ever food crisis and/or who mingle the recent ban on chemical inputs with impactful longtime established policies (which we recognized with the Future Policy Award 2021). Clarifications on this topic can be found, for example, IFOAM – Organics International and the Centre for Pesticide Suicide Prevention of the University of Edinburgh.

The Pesticides Act ensures that only pesticides of the highest quality and least hazard to human health and the environment are available, and has been used in particular to ban HHPs. The Pesticides Act was established to: 1) set up governing bodies; 2) provide for licensing of pesticides; 3) regulate their import, packing, labelling, storage, formulation, transport, sale, and use; 4) appoint a licensing authority for pesticides; 4) form a pesticide formulary committee; and 5) address all related matters. The objectives of the National Policy are to: 1) reduce access to lethal methods by restricting availability of pesticides and other lethal substances, phasing out lethal pesticides, encouraging formulations not favorable for ingestion, and promoting biological methods; 2) promote research on reducing lethality of pesticides; 3) educate the public on less harmful use(s) of pesticides; 4) create a culture that discourages suicide; 5) ensure survival after poisoning; and 6) remove legal barriers to correct handling of those at risk. Its purpose is to encourage intergovernmental partnerships, promote a focus on the management of problems, and extend the scope of suicide beyond a societal issue. When enacted, the initial focus was on preventing suicides and reducing the harmful impacts of HHPs on the population and environment.

Implementation of the Act began with setting up the Office of the Registrar of Pesticides (OroP) in 1983, with responsibility to set regulations and standards for pesticides. The Office registers pesticides, certifies pesticide dealers, and monitors for pesticide quality. During registration, pesticides are tested in field trials to produce recommended crop/pest combinations to manage pest resistance. In the case of bans, alternatives are already identified, allowing replacement by less hazardous pesticides on each occasion. Farmers are informed about alternatives through government agriculture extension services and training programmes conducted by ORoP, jointly with extension services of Sri Lanka. Fast-track registration of safer, IPM-compatible pesticides is offered as an incentive for less hazardous alternatives. Within the context of IPM, biological control of pests has been promoted by a national campaign by the Department of Agriculture since the 1990s, supporting the establishment of Farmer Field Schools and actively funding IPM efforts. Agricultural extension services and local/international NGOs advise farmers on alternative methods of pest control. Such approaches have also been included in the training provided in agricultural colleges. The National Policy similarly envisaged reducing access to HHPs by encouraging biological methods of pest control. The Pesticides Act established processes that enabled the enforcement of banning orders for the removal of HHPs in Sri Lankan agriculture. To support evidence-based decisions, the government adopted the WHO classification of HHPs in 1992. Furthermore, WHO Hazard Class I pesticides have been banned, together with several problematic Class II pesticides since 1998. In addition, further pesticides listed by the Stockholm Convention have been banned. HHP bans were implemented in collaboration and consultation with university-based agriculture researchers as well as with government agriculture extension services. The effects of the Pesticides Act are presented by ORoP at bi-monthly meetings to its Pesticide Technical and Advisory Committee. All decisions are announced through publication in official government gazettes. Any person who fails to comply with the Pesticides Act or any of its regulations can be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years. Sanctions are enforced, including confiscation and destruction, import and sales prohibitions, using both administrative and legal actions. In 2019, the Registrar of Pesticides (RoP) reported 111 compliance verification inspections on pesticide shops with at least five enforcement actions. In the same year, 13 investigations were undertaken, resulting in fines totaling 700,000 LKR being enforced in courts of law. There is a modest budget (USD 70,000) for ORoP through which it supports the implementation of the Act. It also receives external funds from the UNEP, the World Bank and FAO for specific projects; costs for preventing suicides through pesticide regulation fall within these figures. The costs for suicide prevention fall within the budget of the Ministry of Health and are not explicitly reported. The National Policy promoted intergovernmental partnerships for the use of regulatory actions in order to help create a better understanding of suicide and to recognize the significant societal problem of pesticide-related suicides. However, stakeholders have reported challenges with sustaining the initial excellent effects; these difficulties include sustaining political will and support for pesticide regulation and suicide prevention, particularly now that the issue’s significance is lower in national priorities as a result of its success in bringing down numbers. The government regularly reviews the National Policy as part of the Suicide Prevention Task Force’s work. The Sri Lankan Medical Association and academic researchers in public health have played a key role in the monitoring work. This has allowed for the generation of local, scientifically-sound data to identify the pesticides responsible for suicides.

Sri Lanka has implemented four regulatory bans that directly address the issue of pesticide suicides, respectively in 1984, 1995, 1998, and 2008-11. These bans resulted in 36 pesticides being phased out. According to WHO in 2005, the country had banned Class 1a and Ib pesticide products. The majority of pesticides allowed in Sri Lanka are WHO Class II or III. Between 2002 and 2016, the number of Class II pesticide products was reduced by 29 percent through bans and the rejection of issuing import licenses, and the number of Class III and IV products increased by 91 percent and 41 percent respectively. As of 2018, a total of 41 pesticides have been banned and their use was prohibited; also the use of 11 insecticides has been restricted. Whilst the overall pesticide use has not been reduced (1990: 1,571 tons; 2018: 2,260 tons), the HHP bans markedly reduced pesticide-related suicides. It is not that people are no longer harming themselves; instead, the moderate to severe pesticide-poisoning cases that cause death have decreased. More people now survive spontaneous acts of pesticide poisoning. After the ban of fenthion, dimethoate and paraquat between 2008 and 2011, suicide rates were reduced by 50 percent. Most impressively, the overall national suicide rate has dropped by 70 percent over the last two decades. The bans saved about 93,000 lives over 20 years at a direct government cost of less than USD 50 per life. Additionally, two million farming households are benefitting from increased chemical safety. By providing information on alternatives to banned pesticides, Sri Lanka has managed to maintain agricultural productivity and to provide support for farmers; this is shown by the lack of any negative impacts on agricultural yields noted after either the 1995 and 1998 bans or after the 2008 to 2011 bans. Furthermore, it has helped prevent the illicit black-market trade of pesticides.

Self-poisoning with pesticides causes up to one in five of the world’s suicides. Similar regulatory action in Bangladesh, the Republic of Korea and other countries indicated that many suicide deaths can be prevented by bans on specific pesticides, while at the same time there is no evidence that such bans have adversely affected crop yields. The Sri Lankan experience has encouraged WHO and FAO to produce joint guidelines for pesticide regulators on using pesticide regulations to prevent suicide (which cites Sri Lanka as best-studied country), and recommends the banning of HHPs as one of the most cost-effective approaches for suicide prevention. Sri Lanka was a forerunner in implementing the FAO and WHO International Code of Conduct for the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. Subsequently, in 2007, the Registrar of Pesticides was invited to join the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Management to share his experience.  Likewise, the Sri Lankan experience has been presented at fora within WHO and FAO to provide information exchange for other countries. Research performed in Sri Lanka on agriculture and pesticides are regularly presented regionally, including consumer views on pesticides in food, increasing transferability of Sri Lanka’s experience with regulation and consumers.

1. 1. BBC (2019). Which countries have banned pesticides used in suicide? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49662340
   2. Chowdhury et al. (2018). Bans of WHO Class I Pesticides in Bangladesh – suicide prevention without hampering agricultural output. International Journal of Epidemiology. Volume 47: Issue 1; pp. 175-184. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29024951/.
   3. Commonwealth Legal Information Institute. Sri Lanka Consolidated Acts: Control of Pesticides Act (No. 33 of 1980); Sect 4: Penalty for contravention of this Act. commonlii.org/lk/legis/num_act/copa33o1980275/s24.html .
   4. Department of Agriculture, Government of Sri Lanka. (2018): Performance Report 2018 – Office of the Registrar of Pesticides. https://www.parliament.lk/uploads/documents/paperspresented/performance-report-department-of-agriculture-2018.pdf.
   5. Guyana Times (2017). Suicide prevention: strategies that work. Editorial. https://guyanatimesgy.com/suicide-prevention-strategies-that-work/ .
   6. FAO and WHO (2016). International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management: Guidelines on Highly Hazardous Pesticides. http://www.fao.org/3/i5566e/i5566e.pdf.
   7. Panel of Experts on Pesticide Management (2007). Report of the 2nd Session. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/Code/JMPM_2006_Report.pdf.
   8. FAOSTAT, Data on pesticide use: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RP
   9. Foodtank (2017). The Struggle for ‘Toxin-Free’ Sri Lankan Farming. https://foodtank.com/news/2017/12/sri-lankan-food-production/
   10. Government of Sri Lanka (2018). Pesticide Management Plan: Climate Smart Irrigated Agriculture Project. Adopted from the Agriculture Sector Modernization Project. http://agrimin.gov.lk/web/images/csiap%20pmp.pdf.
   11. Government of Sri Lanka. Department of Agriculture (2018). Performance Report 2018 – Office of the Registrar of Pesticides, p. 196. https://www.parliament.lk/uploads/documents/paperspresented/performance-report-department-of-agriculture-2018.pdf.
   12. Government of Sri Lanka. Department of Agriculture. List of banned and or severely restricted pesticides in Sri Lanka with the year of implementation and the year of legal declaration. https://www.doa.gov.lk/SCPPC/images/ROP/Tabel.pdf. Newer list: https://www.doa.gov.lk/SCPPC/images/ROP/Banned__some_severely_restricted_pesticides_in_Sri_Lanka.pdf
   13. WHO and FAO (2019). Preventing suicide: a resource for pesticide registrars and regulators. http://www.fao.org/3/ca6027en/CA6027EN.pdf
   14. Government of Sri Lanka. Department of Agriculture. Seed Certification and Plant Protection Center Gannoruwa. Office of the Registrar of Pesticide. https://www.doa.gov.lk/SCPPC/index.php/en/institute/30-orp-2 .
   15. Government of Sri Lanka. Ministry of Plantation & Ministry of Agriculture (2020). Pest Management Plan: Agriculture Sector Modernization Project. http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/es/130431468335432903/pdf/Pest-Management-Plan.pdf .
   16. Gunnell et al. (2007). Impact of pesticide regulations on suicide in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Epidemiology. Volume 36: Issue 6; pp. 1235-42. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17726039/.
   17. IFOAM-Organics International (2017). Global Policy Toolkit on Public Support to Organic Agriculture: https://www.ifoam.bio/sites/default/files/2020-05/policy_toolkit_main_report.pdf;
   18. Jeyaratnam et al. (1982). Survey of pesticide poisoning in Sri Lanka. Bulletin of the WHO, Volume 60, Issue 4: pp. 615-9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6982784/ .
   19. Karunarathne et al. (2020). How many premature deaths from pesticide suicide have occurred since the agricultural Green Revolution?. Journal of Clinical Toxicology. Volume 58: Issue 4; pp. 227-232. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31500467/.
   20. Kathriarachchi et al. (2019). Suicide Prevention in Sri Lanka: Recommendations for Action. Policy Document: Sri Lanka Medical Association (SLMA) Expert Committee on Suicide Prevention. SLMA. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347973480_Suicide_Prevention_in_Sri_Lanka_Recommendations_for_Action_Sri_Lanka_Medical_Association_SLMA_Expert_Committee_on_Suicide_Prevention.
   21. Knipe et al. (2014). Suicide in Sri Lanka 1975–2012: age, period and cohort analysis of police and hospital data. BMC Public Health 2014, 14:839. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-839.
   22. Knipe et al. (2017). Preventing deaths from pesticide self-poisoning – learning from Sri Lanka’s success. Lancet Global Health. Volume 5: Issue 7; E651-E652. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(17)30208-5/fulltext.
   23. Knipe et al. (2017). Suicide prevention through means restriction: Impact of the 2008-2011 pesticide restrictions on suicide in Sri Lanka. PLOS ONE. 12(4): E0176750. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0172893.
   24. Manuweera et al. (2008). Do targeted bans of insecticides to prevent deaths from self-poisoning result in reduced agricultural output?. Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 116; No. 4: p. 492-495. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.11029/.
   25. Marambe, B. & Herath, S. (2019). Banning of herbicides and the impact on agriculture: the case of glyphosate in Sri Lanka. Weed Science. Volume 68: Issue 3; p. 246-252. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337402351_Banning_of_Herbicides_and_the_Impact_on_Agriculture_-_The_Case_of_Glyphosate_in_Sri_Lanka#pf7 .
   26. Ministry of Economic Development, and The World Bank (2013). Pest Management Plan: Second Community Development and Livelihood Improvement Project. http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/416161468303014589/pdf/E21470v20EA0P00C0disclosed040160130.pdf.
   27. Roberts et al. (2003). Influence of pesticide regulation on acute poisoning deaths in Sri Lanka. Bulletin of the WHO, Volume 81, Issue 11: pp. 789-798. https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/81/11/en/robertswa1103.pdf.
   28. Van den Berg et al. (2002). Participatory IPM in Sri Lanka: A Broad-Scale and an In-Depth Impact Analysis. Report prepared for the FAO Programme for Community IPM in Asia (GCP/RAS/172/NOR). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242539699_Participatory_IPM_in_Sri_Lanka_A_BroadScale_and_an_In-Depth_Impact_Analysis .
   29. Weerasinghe et al. (2020). Emerging pesticides responsible for suicide in rural Sri Lanka following the 2008-2014 pesticide bans. BMC Public Health. 20: Article Number 780. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32450831/ .
   30. Weligamage (2011). Mismatch of farmer practices and consumers’ attitudes: The use of chemical pesticides in vegetable production in Sri Lanka. Presented at the 7th Asian Society of Agricultural Economists’ Conference, Vietnam. AgEcon Search. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/290409 .
   31. WHO (2019). Draft menu of cost-effective interventions for mental health. WHO Discussion Paper. https://www.who.int/mental_health/WHO_Discussion_Paper_Draft_Menu_of_cost-effective_interventions_for_mental_health.pdf?ua=1 .
   32. WHO and FAO (2019): Preventing suicide: a resource for pesticide registrars and regulators. http://www.fao.org/3/ca6027en/CA6027EN.pd; https://www.who.int/publications-detail/preventing-suicide-a-resource-for-pesticide-registrars-and-regulators.
   33. International Program on Chemical Safety (2019). The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification. www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard/en/.
   34. !UPDATE: The current Sri Lankan turmoil resulted in a number of (deliberate) misrepresentations in the media, mainly from pesticide advocates, who are blaming organics and agroecology its worst-ever food crisis and/or who mingle the recent ban on chemical inputs with impactful longtime established policies (which we recognized with the Future Policy Award 2021). Clarifications on this topic can be found, for example, IFOAM – Organics International and the Centre for Pesticide Suicide Prevention of the University of Edinburgh.