작물보호제산업의 동향과 발전 방안 : 안전성 관리 개선 방안을 중심으로

전체 글

(1)연구보고서 R665-2 | 2012. 12.. 농림업 후방연관산업의 전략적 발전방안. 작물보호제산업의 동향과 발전 방안 안전성 관리 개선 방안을 중심으로. 강 창 용 한 혜 성. 선임연구위원 전문연구원.

(2) 연구 담당 강창용 선임연구위원 한혜성 전문연구원. 연구총괄, 제1장, 제2장, 제3장, 제4장, 제5장, 제6장 집필 조사․분석, 제2장, 제3장, 제4장, 제5장 집필.

(3) i. 머 리 말. 농업에서 작물보호제(농약)는 농작물을 병해충으로부터 예방하거나 구제 하여 생산성과 품질을 유지하는데 커다란 기여를 하였지만 독성으로 인한 위험성을 유발하는 양면성이 있다. 현실농업에서 작물보호제는 방제의 대부 분을 의존하고 있기 때문에 농산물의 생산을 위해서는 필수적인 식물의약품 이라고 할 수 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 최근 지속가능한 농업이 미래가치의 중심이 되면서 잔류 농약문제, 독성문제, 오남용으로 인한 사건․사고 등 부 정적인 부문이 대중매체를 통해 부각되어 작물보호제에 대한 시각은 재조명 받고 있다. 친환경적인 농업지향과 건강, 영향, 환경을 중요시하는 웰빙 소비트렌드를 반영하여 삶의 질을 향상시키기 위해서는 작물보호제의 위험성을 최소화함 으로써 안전성을 확보하는 것이 반드시 필요하다. 이 연구는 작물보호제의 안전성 증대를 위해서 작물보호제의 생산에서 사 용까지 안전성과 관련된 평가지표를 토대로 각 단계별 현안 이슈를 파악하 고 개선방안을 강구하고자 하였다. 아무쪼록 이 연구 결과가 작물보호제의 안전성을 개선하는데 활용하기를 바라며, 연구진행에 많은 도움을 주신 자문위원님, 농촌진흥청 농자재 산업 과, 한국작물보호협회, 현지 조사에 성심껏 협조해 주신 시험연구기관 관계 자, 농가, 생산업체 실무자 및 전문가분들께 감사드린다. 2012. 12. 한국농촌경제연구원장 이 동 필.

(4)

(5) iii. 요. 약. 연구의 배경 작물보호제는 인류가 정착생활과 작물재배 생활을 해오면서부터 사용한 오래된 농자재이다. 농업에서 작물보호제는 생산성과 품질 향상을 위해서 없어서는 안 될 요소이지만, 화학 농약의 경우 독성으로 인한 위험성이 유발 되는 문제점이 있다. 친환경적인 농업지향과 건강, 영향, 환경을 중요시하는 웰빙 소비트렌드를 반영하여 우리의 삶의 질을 향상시키기 위해서는 작물보 호제의 위험성을 최소화함으로써 안전성을 확보하는 것이 반드시 필요하다.. 연구방법 이 연구에서는 작물보호제의 생산에서 폐기까지 전생애주기(Life Cycle)에 걸쳐 안전성과 관련된 평가지표를 토대로 설문․평가 조사를 실시하였다. 먼저 작물보호제 시험연구기관을 대상으로 설문조사를 실시하여 운영 실태 와 문제점을 진단하였다. 이와 관련하여 추가적으로 기관별․규모별 특성이 다른 7개 시험연구기관을 선정하여 농촌진흥청 실사평가지표를 이용하여 전 문가 그룹 현장 평가를 실시하였다. 그 다음 천연식물보호제(생물농약) 업체 를 대상으로 분야별 기술평가와 사업타당성(BMO: Bruce Merrifeld-Ohe)을 분 석하였으며, 작물보호제 생산업체를 대상으로 AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process) 분석을 이용하여 향후 발전방향을 제시하였다. 또한 전문가 그룹의 현장평 가를 통해 작물보호제 라벨링의 문제점을 진단하고 농가들을 대상으로 IPA(Importance-Performance Analysis) 분석을 실시하여 문제점과 시사점을 도출하였다. 아울러 주요국의 다양한 제도, 정책을 검토하여 우리가 지향해 야 할 방안을 제시하였다..

(6) iv. 연구결과 및 시사점 작물보호제의 안전성을 확보하기 위한 단계별 개선 방안은 다음과 같이 요약 할 수 있다. 첫째, 시험연구기관에 대한 자격요건을 강화하고 동시에 사후관리를 엄격 히 해야 한다. 이와 함께 시험연구기관의 등록 기준, 시험방법 등 시험기관 운영 및 평가에 대한 전반적인 표준지침을 마련하여 보급하여야 한다. 둘째, 작물보호제 생산업체들은 작물보호제의 안전성에 대한 인식은 비교 적 확고하다. 조사에 따르면, 업체들은 작물보호제의 안전성 확보를 위해서 천연식물보호제와 저독성 신약개발을 중요하게 인식하고 있는 것으로 나타 났다. 하지만 국내 기술수준은 선진국에 비해 열위에 있고 R&D 관련 비용 및 시간 투자에 대한 업체 부담이 크기 때문에 R&D 및 전문 인력 육성을 위 한 정부의 지원이 필요하다. 셋째, 국내에서 유통 판매되는 작물보호제는 업체별․용기별로 표시방법 이 천차만별로 나타났다. 현재 유통되어 판매되는 대부분의 제품들은 라벨 링의 형식뿐만 아니라 내용측면에서도 중요핵심 사항이 효율적으로 제공되 지 못하는 것으로 조사되었다. 따라서 라벨링 규격화와 함께 라벨의 내용도 개선할 수 있도록 표시 시스템을 체계화할 필요가 있다. 넷째, 정부는 농민들이 작물보호제의 위험을 인지하고 적절한 방법과 기 술을 습득하여 준수할 수 있도록 인센티브 제공, 홍보·교육을 통해 지속적인 훈련(Outreach & Training)이 이루어질 수 있도록 해야 한다. 다섯째, 농민들은 작물보호제 살포 시 인근 지역의 오염을 방지하기 위해 비산을 최소화할 수 있도록 작업해야 한다. 향후 항공방제가 일반화될 경우 를 대비하여 방제지역 및 방법 등에 대하여 규제와 지침을 마련해야 한다. 또한 소규모 사용(Minor Use) 등록을 자발적으로 유도할 수 있는 유인책을 확대하고 주요 선진국의 사례를 참고로 소규모 사용에 대한 법적 규제 강화, 각종 지원 정책이 뒷받침 되어야 한다. 마지막으로 작물보호제 사용 및 사용 후 관리단계에서는 빈 용기 및 잔류.

(7) v. 작물보호제 처리를 위한 체계적인 수거 시스템이 구축되어야 한다. 동시에 업체, 농민을 대상으로 수거의 필요성 인식 제고 등 안전성에 대하여 지속적 인 홍보와 교육이 필요하다..

(8)

(9) vii. ABSTRACT. A Study of Crop Protection Materials Industry Trends and Development Strategy - Focusing on Improving Safety Management Background of Research It is essential that crop protection materials help prevent diseases in farm products in order to maintain productivity and quality. There are two sides to chemical pesticides because they can cause pollution with high levels of toxicity. It is essential to secure the safety of crop protection materials for eco-friendly agriculture. The main goal of this research is to analyze the current issues related to crop protection materials, that is, from production to consumption, and then suggest management improvement plans for safe use and disposal of crop protection materials. Method of Research This study investigated test laboratories and manufacturing companies of crop protection materials including biological control agents. Questionnaire and field surveys of labeling experts, farmers, academic researchers and industry professionals were conducted. Also, an economic analysis was carried out using a variety of analytical methods such as Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP), Bruce Merrifield-Ohe(BMO), IPA(Importance-Performance Analysis), and the actual inspection guideline of Rural Development Administration. Research Results and Implications According to the research results, the improvement plans are as follows: First, crop protection materials test laboratories are in cutthroat competition against each other and the problem is that they are poorly managed.

(10) viii. and their management is unsystematic. Therefore, the government should strictly manage and provide policy support to the test laboratories. It is a matter of urgency that operating guidelines are provided and disseminated to them for widespread use. Second, the issue facing the manufacturing companies is that although their awareness of safety is rather high as they recognize the importance of developing new biological and low toxic pesticides, Korea's technology level is low compared to developed countries and the burden of developing new technologies is too high for them. They express that the government should provide aid for R&D and training of technical experts. Third, labeling of crop protection materials is incoherent among manufacturers and containers. In many cases, labeling was not properly carried out both in terms of form and content, and it does not provide important information efficiently. Thus, there is a need to reorganize the labeling system and standardize the labels. Fourth, the government should provide incentives and education programs to farmers and at the same time engage in PR activities so that they can better comply with the regulations. Fifth, farmers should strive to minimize the pollution of surrounding areas of their farms when they spray crop protection materials. Korea needs to prepare regulations and guidelines for airplane spraying before it becomes widely used. In addition, incentives should be expanded to induce farmers to report their use of the chemicals when using small amount. As in developed countries, the government should strengthen the regulations on small amount use of the chemicals and provide incentives and support. Finally, in order to relieve the inconvenience farmers experience during the management stage, a systematic collection system should be set up to pick up empty containers and dispose the residuals. In this regard, the government should take the lead and raise the awareness of farmers and manufacturers on the need to collect empty containers and dispose the residuals.. Researchers: Chang-Yong Kang, Hye-Sung Han. E-mail address: [email protected], [email protected]..

(11) ix. 차. 례. 제1장 서 론 1. 연구의 필요성과 목적 ·········································································· 1 2. 선행연구 검토 ························································································ 3 3. 연구 범위 ····························································································· 11 4. 주요 연구내용 ······················································································ 12 5. 연구방법 ······························································································· 13 제2장 작물보호제 산업의 동향과 안전성 문제 1. 작물보호제의 분류 ·············································································· 15 2. 작물보호제의 산업 동향 ····································································· 18 3. 작물보호제 정책의 변천 ····································································· 25 4. 농업에서 작물보호제 역할과 문제점 ················································ 27 제3장 유통이전 단계의 작물보호제 안전성 관리와 문제 1. 작물보호제 시험연구기관의 관리와 문제 ········································ 33 2. 천연식물보호제와 안전 작물보호제 개발문제 ································· 58 3. 라벨링(Labelling) 상황과 문제 ·························································· 80 제4장 작물보호제 사용･사용 후 안전성 관리와 문제 1. 작물보호제 구입과 준법자세(Compliance) ····································· 101 2. 최소비산(Drift Reduction) ································································ 111 3. 소규모 사용(Minor Use) ··································································· 116 4. 빈 용기 잔류농약 처리(Container Management) ··························· 125.

(12) x. 제5장 작물보호제 안전성제고를 위한 단계별 개선방안 1. 작물보호제 시장 분야별 전망 ························································· 139 2. 작물보호제 유통 이전 단계의 안전성관리 개선방안 ···················· 142 3. 작물보호제 사용･사용 후 안전성관리 개선방안 ··························· 149 4. 작물보호제 소비자가 제안하는 안전성 제고 방안 ······················· 156 제6장 요약 및 결론 ··············································································· 159 부록 부록 1: 미생물농약 제품의 OECD 미생물 오염검사 요구조건 제안(체내 에서 만들어지는 바큐로 바이러스 제외) ······························ 165 부록 2: 생체 내에서 만들어지는 바큐로 바이러스 기반 작물보호제 제품의 OECD 미생물 오염 검사 요구사항 ························· 167 참고 문헌 ··································································································· 169.

(13) xi. 표차례 제1장 표 1-1. 안전성 관련 단계별 주요 요소 ·············································· 12 표 1-2. 주요 추진 사항 ········································································· 14 표 1-3. 단계별･분야별 설문조사 내용 및 방법 ································· 14 제2장 표 2-1. 작물보호제의 정의 ··································································· 16 표 2-2. 천연식물보호제의 정의 ···························································· 18 표 2-3. 작물보호제 생산과 출하 ·························································· 19 표 2-4. 작물보호제의 단위면적당 사용량 ··········································· 19 표 2-5. 작물보호제 수출입 현황 ·························································· 20 표 2-6. 주요국 작물보호제 수출입현황(2010년) ································ 21 표 2-7. 세계 상위기업 작물보호제 매출액순위 및 R&D투자비교 (2008년) ····················································································· 22 표 2-8. 신규 작물보호제 합성 성공률(Hit Rate) ······························· 23 표 2-9. 분야별 기술수준 비교(2012년 현재 기준) ···························· 24 표 2-10. 작물보호제 선진국의 기술 수준(100%) 대비 국내 수준 비교 ··· 24 표 2-11. 무방제에 따른 생산액 및 손실액 추정 ································· 27 표 2-12. 무방제 시 추정 수확감소율 ···················································· 28 표 2-13. 농작물 생산 시 작물보호제(일반 화학 농약)의 필요성 여부 ······ 28 표 2-14. 유형별 작물보호제 사고 ························································ 29 표 2-15. 2010년 대비 골프장 작물보호제 사용량 비교 ····················· 30 표 2-16. 작물보호제 오남용으로 인한 오염 요인 ······························· 31 제3장 표 3-1. 시험연구기관의 지정취소 규정 ··············································· 35.

(14) xii. 표 3-2. GLP 관련 농촌진흥청고시 ······················································ 36 표 3-3. 시험분야별 지정 시험연구기관(Non-GLP) 현황 ··················· 36 표 3-4. GLP 시험연구기관 현황 ·························································· 36 표 3-5. 설문 참여 기관 유형 ······························································· 38 표 3-6. 시험연구기관 사업 참여 동기 ················································ 39 표 3-7. 인력배치 현황 ··········································································· 40 표 3-8. 분야별 책임자 현황 ······························································· 40 표 3-9. 시험연구기관 시설과 장비의 현황(2011년 기준) ················· 41 표 3-10. 운영관리 자체평가 ··································································· 43 표 3-11. 시험연구기관 운영 시 애로요인 ············································· 43 표 3-12. 작물보호제 안전성증대를 위한 단계별 중요도 평가 ··········· 44 표 3-13. 시험단계 시 안전성 저해 요인 ·············································· 45 표 3-14. 일반시험연구기관이 GLP 등록을 안 한 이유 ······················ 45 표 3-15. 우수시험연구기관(GLP)의 애로요인 ······································ 46 표 3-16. 운영단계평가: 운영책임자 ······················································· 48 표 3-17. 운영단계평가: 시험책임자 ······················································· 49 표 3-18. 시설기준 평가 ··········································································· 50 표 3-19. 장비기준 평가 ··········································································· 51 표 3-20. 표준작업지침서 평가 ······························································· 52 표 3-21. 시험계획서 ················································································ 53 표 3-22. 시험물질 및 대조물질 평가 결과 ··········································· 53 표 3-23. 시험의 실시 ·············································································· 54 표 3-24. 시험의 결과 보고 ····································································· 55 표 3-25. 기록과 재료의 보관과 유지 ···················································· 55 표 3-26. 기관 유형별 시험연구기관 평가 결과 ··································· 56 표 3-27. 시험연구기관 전문가 현장 평가 결과 요약 ·························· 57 표 3-28. 작물보호제와 천연식물보호제의 주요 특징 비교 ················ 59 표 3-29. 세계 작물보호제 시장 전망 ···················································· 61.

(15) xiii. 표 3-30. 작물 유형별 세계 천연식물보호제 수요 ······························· 61 표 3-31. 유형별 세계 천연식물보호제 시장 ········································· 62 표 3-32. 천연식물보호제 농촌진흥청 등록 현황(2011년 12월 말) ···· 63 표 3-33. 국내 미생물 원재 등록 현황 ·················································· 64 표 3-34. 작물보호제 사업 운영 시 가장 큰 애로요인 ························ 68 표 3-35. 선진국 대비 천연식물보호제의 기술 수준 비교 ·················· 69 표 3-36. 미생물의 단계별 기술 수준 평가 결과 ································· 70 표 3-37. R&D 투자 목적 ········································································ 70 표 3-38. 작물보호제의 안전성 제고를 위해 가장 중점을 두어야 할 R&D 분야 ················································································· 70 표 3-39. 작물보호제 생산 시 안전성에 대한 관심도 ·························· 71 표 3-40. 작물보호제의 안전성 제고를 위한 요인별 중요도 평가 결과 72 표 3-41. 천연식물보호제의 안전성 제고를 위한 단계별 관리 평가 결과 73 표 3-42. 천연식물보호제의 필요성 ························································ 74 표 3-43. 농민들이 선호하는 작물보호제 ·············································· 74 표 3-44. 천연식물보호제의 시장 확대를 저해하는 요인: 생산업체 의견 ··········································································· 75 표 3-45. 천연식물보호제와 합성농약의 특성 비교 결과 ···················· 76 표 3-46. 천연식물보호제의 시장 확대를 위협하는 요인: 전문가 의견 ·············································································· 77 표 3-47. 천연식물보호제 사용 시 애로점: 농가의견 ·························· 77 표 3-48. BMO 분석 평가결과 ································································ 79 표 3-49. 캐나다 검토 패널의 용어 관련 자문 내용 ···························· 82 표 3-50. 영국 위험성 표현의 예시 ························································ 86 표 3-51. 라벨 검토 팀의 주요 활동 ······················································ 88 표 3-52. 세계작물보호협회 라벨링 관련 중요 사항 ···························· 89.

(16) xiv. 표 3-53. 라벨 형식관련 평가 결과 ························································ 91 표 3-54. 포장지 앞면 표시사항 평가 ···················································· 93 표 3-55. 라벨내용 평가 결과 ································································· 94 표 3-56. 우리나라 작물보호제 라벨링의 문제점 ································· 96 표 3-57. IPA 결과의 시사점 ·································································· 98 제4장 표 4-1. 농민들의 작물보호제 사고 원인 ··········································· 107 표 4-2. 인체의 안전성을 저해하는 작물보호제 사고 원인 유형 ····· 107 표 4-3. 농민들이 안전성과 관련된 권고사항을 준수하지 않는 이유 ···· 108 표 4-4. 작물보호제 관련 교육 기관 ·················································· 109 표 4-5. 작물보호제 교육 관련 내용 ·················································· 109 표 4-6. 농가교육 관련 조사 결과 ······················································ 110 표 4-7. 판매처나 교육기관에서 제시한 권고사항을 준수하지 않은 이유 ·· 110 표 4-8. 작물별 주요 살포기 이용 비중 ············································ 114 표 4-9. 작물보호제 살포 시 방제하고자 하는 대상 이외 기타 장소로 살포되는 비율(%) ··································································· 115 표 4-10. 작물보호제 살포 시 안전성을 위한 조치 평가 결과 ······· 115 표 4-11. 작물보호제 살포 시 농작업자와 환경의 안전성 저해 요인 ····· 116 표 4-12. 농약 직권등록시험 추진현황(2012. 4. 30. 현재) ··············· 118 표 4-13. 직권등록 작물 ········································································· 119 표 4-14. 캐나다 해충관리규제국의 소규모 사용 관련 프로그램 ····· 123 표 4-15. 폐기물 부담금 산정기준 ························································ 128 표 4-16. 연도별 작물보호제 용기 발생 및 수거량 ··························· 128 표 4-17. 2010년도 수거･처리 사업 예산 현황 ··································· 129 표 4-18. 작물보호제 빈 용기 보관처 ·················································· 130 표 4-19. 작물보호제 용기의 최종 처리 방법 ····································· 130 표 4-20. 사용 후 남은 작물보호제 처리방법 ····································· 131.

(17) xv. 표 4-21. 빈 작물보호제 용기 최종 처리 시 분리배출 방법 ············ 131 표 4-22. 빈 작물보호제 용기의 손질 방법 ········································· 132 표 4-23. 빈 작물보호제 용기 처리 시 애로요인 ····························· 132 표 4-24. 농가들의 빈 작물보호제 용기의 수거 및 처리사업을 저해하는 요인 ························································································ 133 제5장 표 5-1. 국내 작물보호제 시장 전망 ·················································· 139 표 5-2. 국내 천연식물보호제 시장 전망 ··········································· 140 표 5-3. 천연식물보호제 시장의 분야별 전망 ··································· 141 표 5-4. 천연식물보호제의 시장 확대를 촉진시키는 요인 ·············· 141 표 5-5. 작물보호제 안전성 확보를 위한 시험연구기관의 역할 ····· 142 표 5-6. 작물보호제 안전성 확보를 위한 정부의 역할 ···················· 143 표 5-7. 천연식물보호제 시장 확대를 위한 평가항목 내용 ············ 145 표 5-8. 천연식물보호제 시장 확대를 위한 전략적 우선순위 분석결과 ·· 145 표 5-9. 생산･이용기술 개발 분야의 우선순위 분석 결과 ·············· 146 표 5-10. 관련 제도 및 정책 개선에 대한 우선순위 분석 결과 ······· 146 표 5-11. 천연식물보호제 상품 경쟁력 제고에 대한 우선순위 분석 결과 ·· 147 표 5-12. 작물보호제 라벨링 개선을 위한 정부의 역할 ···················· 149 표 5-13. 비산방지에 있어서 중요한 요소 ··········································· 152 표 5-14. 주요국의 소규모 사용 관리제도 비교 ································· 154 표 5-15. 작물보호제의 사용 후 처리를 위한 개선방안 ···················· 155 제6장 표 6-1. 주요국의 라벨링 제도 비교 ·················································· 161.

(18) xvi. 그림 차례. 제2장 그림 2-1. 미국 EPA에 의한 농약 분류 ·············································· 17 그림 2-2. 작물보호제의 발달과정 ························································ 25 그림 2-3. 우리나라 농산물에 대한 작물보호제 오염 불안도(2010년) ··· 32 제3장 그림 3-1. 시험연구기관 운영 실적 비교(2011년 기준) ····················· 38 그림 3-2. 시험연구기관이 수행 가능한 시험연구 분야 ···················· 39 그림 3-3. 운영비 비교 ··········································································· 41 그림 3-4. 표준작업지침서 및 별도 내부규범 보유여부 ···················· 42 그림 3-5. 향후 우수시험연구기관(GLP) 등록 의향 ··························· 46 그림 3-6. 시험연구기관 시설 사진 ······················································ 58 그림 3-7. 천연식물보호제 농가 인지도 결과 ····································· 73 그림 3-8. 천연식물보호제 시장 사업매력도 평가 비교 ···················· 78 그림 3-9. 일본 작물보호제 라벨관련 기관의 역할 ···························· 83 그림 3-10. 일본의 권장, 금지 그림문자 ··············································· 84 그림 3-11. 사진으로 본 작물보호제 제품별 라벨링 문제점 정리 ····· 97 그림 3-12. 라벨링에 대한 농민 IPA 분석결과 ···································· 99. 제4장 그림 4- 1. 작물보호제 사고 경험 유무 ············································ 108 그림 4- 2. 작물보호제와 관련된 교육 경험 유무 ···························· 110 그림 4- 3. 작물보호제 비산과 위험성과의 관계 ····························· 113.

(19) xvii. 그림 4-4. 농약 직권등록 절차도 ························································ 119 그림 4-5. 영농폐기물 수거･처리 체계 ·············································· 126 그림 4-6. 영농 폐농약용기 수거･처리 절차 ····································· 126 그림 4-7. 호주의 쓰레기 관리 프로그램 종류와 내용 ···················· 135 그림 4-8. 독일 수거산업 ····································································· 137 그림 4-9. 독일 PAMIRA 표시 마크 ·················································· 137. 제5장 그림 5-1. 분무 완충 지대 ··································································· 151 그림 5-2. 작물보호제 안전성제고와 관련된 IPA 분석결과 ············ 157 그림 5-3. 작물보호제 안전성 제고 방향 ··········································· 158. 제6장 그림 6-1. 작물보호제 안전성 제고를 위한 단계별 개선방안 ········· 162.

(20)