|
PESTICIDE
HAZARDS
A new report on pesticide problems
and regulatory concerns in Costa Rica, Tanzania
and Vietnam recommends steps towards
improved control and reduction of pesticide use.
Prepared jointly by scientists, regulators in
developing countries, NGOs and trade unions, it was
addressed to the Swedish International Development
Co-operation Agency (Sida). Barbara Dinham
and George Ekström report.
Donor
agencies have a crucial role to play in supporting
governments, civil society and the international
community to reduce pesticide hazards in developing
countries. The report will encourage donors to play
a more active role. The authors recommend specific
actions to support national capacity building, and
provide contact details for partnerships.
30 years and no change?
Concerns raised over pesticides in developing
countries thirty years ago are as much a reality
today as then. Hazardous pesticides are still used
with little or no protection. Application equipment
is inadequately maintained, faulty or not even
available. Most users have no access to washing
facilities or, in the event of accidents, medical
services. Illiteracy is still high in many rural
areas and good reading skills are needed to
interpret complex label instructions – even if they
are written in the local language.
Governments in developing countries need to invest
more in the skills required to interpret scientific
and technical data and use it to make sound local
risk assessments and to implement regulations.
Resources for awareness raising are equally crucial:
most users of pesticides in developing countries not
only have a limited perception of the risks, but
also a high acceptance of risk due to competing
priorities essential for survival.
|
Estimated annual
pesticide consumption by population groups |
|
Country and
population group |
Population
(000) |
Total
pesticide consumption
(tonnes a.i.) |
Average
pesticide consumption(2) |
Costa Rica
Total
population
Agricultural workers
Banana plantation workers |
3,000
256
35 |
5,520
5,520
2,223 |
2
22
64 |
|
Vietnam:total
population |
74,000 |
27,500 |
0.4 |
|
Tanzania:
total
population |
27,000 |
9,3601 |
0.3 |
Sweden
Total
population
Certified pesticide sprayers
Non-agricultural population |
8,700
32
8,600 |
2,019
1,772
297 |
0.2
55
0.03 |
|
US:
Total
population |
255,000 |
500,000 |
2 |
|
World:
Total
population |
6,000,000 |
2,600,000 |
0.4 |
|
1 1989-1992
average 2 (kg / a.i. per person per year) |
Identifying
problem pesticides
Several mechanisms exist for identifying problem
pesticides. According to the Pesticides Manual,
the most comprehensive compilation of technical data
of pesticides on the market, 759 pesticides active
ingredients are currently available(1). Of these,
595 have been assessed by the World Health
Organisation (WHO) for acute toxicity: 33 have been
classified as extremely hazardous to human health
(WHO Class Ia)(2), 48 as highly hazardous (Class Ib),
118 as moderately hazardous (Class II), and 239 as
slightly hazardous (Class III). The FAO recommends
that acute hazard categories Ia, Ib and preferably
II, should not be used in developing countries. The
European Union has classified 149 pesticides as
‘dangerous to the environment’(3).
Two international processes have identified
certain hazardous pesticides. The Rotterdam
Convention on Prior Informed Consent (PIC), agreed
by governments in 1998, included 22 (now 24)
pesticides which are either widely banned or
severely restricted, or which cause problems under
conditions of use in developing countries(4). A
treaty on ‘persistent organic pollutants’ (POPs)
which is currently being negotiated(5) includes nine
pesticides (and three other chemicals). A
widely-supported ‘Dirty Dozen’ campaign, launched in
1985 by the Pesticide Action Network (PAN), named
most of these pesticides, and included a further two
(aldicarb and paraquat).
Bans – a
complex picture
Most countries now operate a pesticide registration
scheme, or a ‘positive list’ of pesticides allowed
to be used, although as mentioned above,
implementation frequently presents problems. A
general perception prevails that many pesticides are
banned in Europe, North America or other
industrialised countries, and then exported to
developing countries. In fact, a relatively small
number of pesticides are completely banned. The
analysis of the regulatory actions taken in Costa
Rica, Tanzania and Vietnam and the European Union
against the 39 pesticides identified as most
targeted, indicates a more complex picture. For
example:
- aldicarb is
banned in Tanzania and not registered in
Vietnam, but still registered in 10 EU countries
and in Costa Rica;
- monocrotophos,
parathion and parathion methyl are registered in
many European countries, but are all banned,
severely restricted or not registered in
Tanzania, Vietnam and Costa Rica;
- chlorobenzilate,
chlorpropham, fluoroacetamide, 2,4,5-T are still
registered in some EU countries, but banned or
not registered in Tanzania, Vietnam and Costa
Rica;
- aldrin,
chlordane, DDT, EDB, dieldrin, heptachlor, HCH
are banned in the EU, Costa Rica and Vietnam,
but Tanzania allows restricted or severely
restricted use of these products.
A global ban on some
pesticides is urgently required, but will inevitably
move slowly and cover a limited number (at present
only the nine POPs pesticides may find agreement for
a global ban and phase out on production and use)
and even among these some exemptions may apply.
Developing countries need good information about
regulatory actions taken by governments with more
resources to assess pesticides. It is important that
they receive help in developing the capacity to
implement regulation – including the ability to
prevent import of pesticides which they have banned
– and access to more and safer alternatives.
Lower usage
– higher exposure
The approximate annual pesticide consumption by
selected population groups in Costa Rica, Tanzania,
Vietnam, compared with that in Sweden and the US is
shown in the table. Statistically speaking, the
average pesticide consumption in each country may
seem similar: Sweden (0.2 kilogram per person per
year), Tanzania (0.3) and Vietnam (0.4). The
exposure to pesticides, however, may vary widely
from one country to another and, within a given
country, from one population group to another.
Although developing countries account for only
about 25% of pesticide consumption globally, use is
growing rapidly. Their markets are generally
dominated by insecticides, which have a higher acute
toxicity than herbicides(6). Detailed information on
pesticide use in developing countries is scarce. FAO
has initiated a Database on Pesticide Consumption(7)
but its development is at a very early stage.
Support
country priorities
The priorities identified by Tanzania and Vietnam in
their National Profiles(8,9) include:
- development of
legal instruments and non-regulatory mechanisms
(e.g. a national environmental policy);
-
inter-ministerial co-ordinating mechanisms;
-
awareness-raising activities;
- financing for
improved management;
- maintenance of
analytical instruments and laboratories.
The report provides
contacts in bodies responsible for pesticide
activities in each country, including those with
responsibility for: approval and registration of
pesticides; applied research; establishing national
standards for maximum pesticide levels in food;
monitoring residues in food; quality control of
pesticide products; and liaison with international
initiatives. All three countries have a Poisons
Centre(10,11). A national association of pesticide
manufacturers and importers has been established by
industry in Costa Rica and Tanzania. Only Tanzania
has a POPs focal point. By identifying specific
contacts in each country, the report aims to
facilitate discussions between stakeholders and
policy makers in Costa Rica, Tanzania and Vietnam,
and to pave the way for twinning and other
collaborative arrangements between stakeholders in
these countries and Sweden.
Initiatives for
donor support
Without a basic legal, administrative infrastructure
and a national funding mechanism, it is impossible
for governments to control the distribution and use
of pesticides in their countries, to guarantee
safety to users within the country, to promote
appropriate alternatives, and to meet international
trade standards. However, the resources to monitor
and implement regulation are equally crucial.
Based on the situation on the ground in Costa
Rica, Tanzania and Vietnam, the recommendations in
the report provide a comprehensive analysis of areas
where development agencies could help to strengthen
capacity in developing countries.
A key recommendation is to view each country’s
needs as a process, working with stakeholders
through a National Forum. The National Profiles,
following guidance established by the UN Institute
for Training and Research (UNITAR) provide a good
basis for action.(12) They are based on national
consultations and identify country priorities
including capacity building, training, visits of
domestic or foreign experts, twinning and exchanges,
facilitating Internet and E-mail access, and access
to vital information.
Other recommendations include:
- assisting
governments to take preventive action in
relation to pesticide residues in food and
drinking water;
- supporting
surveys of the standard of spray equipment in
use and the capacity to maintain equipment(13);
- assisting risk
assessments on priority pesticides;
- improving the
technical capacity to monitor residues;
- supporting
pesticide reduction through less hazardous
alternatives, such as IPM, including supporting
initiatives of the Global IPM Facility and other
agencies which implement farmer participatory
IPM training;
- supporting the
development and implementation of a strengthened
International Code of Conduct on the
Distribution and Use of Pesticides;
- supporting
implementation of the Rotterdam Convention,
including establishing support for the
Designated National Authority (DNA) to take
import decisions(14); and the forthcoming
Convention on POPs;
- supporting
initiatives for the disposal of obsolete stocks
of pesticides, where funds are urgently required
to help pay for clearance of
globally-threatening legacies, and to prevent
future accumulation;
- supporting the
establishment or strengthening of National
Poisoning Surveillance Systems and Poisons
Centres;
- addressing the
constraints on the telecommunications systems in
order to improve links to rural areas and access
to the Internet.
Conclusion
This collaborative report expresses a frustration
with the lack of improvement at field level over the
last 30 years, in spite of important national and
international initiatives which improve knowledge of
the regulatory approaches.
The key recommendation is to suggest that
government agencies (including public and
occupational health, environment, and agriculture),
research institutes, civil society and the
international community (UN agencies, donors,
pesticide industry) contribute to the work of a
National Forum for action on pesticide hazards. In
turn, the National Forum would form a liaison body
with external centres such as the FAO, WHO, IFCS,
international public interest NGOs, and other
knowledgeable and experienced institutes. The report
urges development agencies, and in particular Sida,
to increase their allocation of resources to deal
with pesticides problems and to promote the
alternative approaches which would help reduce
dependence on pesticides.
Multistakeholder
Collaboration for Reduced Exposure to Pesticides in
Developing Countries: Recommendations to Sida with
Particular Reference to Costa Rica, Tanzania and
Vietnam. Editor George Ekstrom (KEMI – National
Chemicals Inspectorate, Sweden): contributors
Jonathan Akhabuhaya (Tropical Pesticides Research
Institute, Tanzania), Luisa Castillo (Central
American Institute for Studies on Toxic Substances,
Costa Rica), Barbara Dinham (Pesticide Action
Network UK), George Ekstrom, Nguyen Huu Huan
(Pesticides Control Center in the South, Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development, Vietnam), Peter
Hurst (International Union of Food and Agricultural,
Workers, Switzerland), Sven-Erik Pettersson (Swedish
Farm Workers Union, Sweden), Catharina Wesseling
(Central American Institute for Studies on Toxic
Substances, Costa Rica), Sweden, June 2000. The
report is available on the PAN UK website
(www.pan-uk.org).
- References
1. CDS Tomlin (Ed), The Pesticide Manual – A
World Compendium, Eleventh edition, British Crop
Protection Council, 1997.
2. The WHO Recommended Classification of
Pesticides by Hazard, and Guidelines to
Classification 1998-1999, WHO/PCS/98.21, Geneva,
1998.
3. European Council Directive (67/548/EEC), and
subsequent amendments.
4. Rotterdam Convention, UNEP/FAO,
www.fao.org/pic, 1998.
5. UNEP Chemicals Newsletter 3(3), 1999.
6. World Resources Institute, Intensification of
Agriculture;
www.igc.apc.org/wri/wri/wr-98-99/agrichem.htm#trends.
7. http://www.fao.org/waicent/FAOINFO/economic/
pesticid.htm.
8. National Infrastructure for Management of
Chemicals, Version 1, February 1997:
http://rea.ei.jrc.it/iomc/tanzania2/index.htm.
9. National Profile on Chemical Management in
Vietnam, May 1997.
10. Yellow Tox: World Directory of Poisons
Centres 1998, www.intox.org/yellowtox.html.
11. Poison Control Centre database:
http://medweb.nus.sg/PID/PCC/centre.html.
12. www.unitar.org/cwm/np/npcpf.htm.
13. Contact: Theodor Friedrich at FAO, Email
theodor.friedrich@fao.org.
14. Under the voluntary PIC procedure many
countries nominated a Designated National
Authority but were not able to take import
decisions.
Barbara Dinham is
Programme Director at PAN UK. George Ekström works
for the, National Chemicals Inspectorate (KEMI),
P.O.Box 1384 S-171 27 Solna, SWEDEN. | |
POISONED PROFITS
THE TOXIC ASSAULT ON OUR CHILDREN
|
|
.gif)
