Assessment of safeguarding systems for the use of...
Transcript of Assessment of safeguarding systems for the use of...
Sida's Helpdesk for Environment and Climate Change www.sidaenvironmenthelpdesk.se
Contact Daniel Slunge ; [email protected]
Assessment of safeguarding systems for the use
of pesticides within Swedish financed
programmes in Tanzania
Final Report
December, 2015
Daniel Slunge, Helena Norin and Per Rosander
2
Executive Summary Increasing the agricultural productivity among small-holder farmers is an important
objective of several programmes in Asia and Africa supported by Swedish development
cooperation. In several of these programmes, increasing farmers’ access to agricultural
inputs, including pesticides, play an important role.
This study departs from a concern that paraquat and other hazardous pesticides were
used by farmers participating in Swedish supported programmes in Tanzania. Based on
a desk review and interviews in Tanzania and Sweden, the purpose of the present study
has been to review safeguard mechanisms for the use of pesticides in three Swedish
supported programmes in Tanzania and to provide input to methodological
development on how Sida can contribute to responsible use of pesticides in supported
programmes.
Key Findings
Large health and environmental risks from the largely unmonitored and uncontrolled
use of pesticides in Tanzania. Recent studies document that a large number of different
pesticides are used by small-holder farmers in Tanzania. The labelling of the pesticides
is often poor, the use of protective equipment low and systems for collection of disposed
pesticide containers are inadequate or lacking. While the legal framework for pesticides
management in Tanzania is to a large extent satisfactory, implementation is poor. This
results in poorly functioning market for pesticides with inadequate control on what
substances are put on the market, how they are labelled etc.
Several development organisations have elaborate guidelines and safeguards relating to
pest-management and pesticides. The FAO/WHO Code of Conduct on Pesticide
Management as well as DAC and IFC guidelines uses Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
as a point of departure. IPM represents a systematic approach where all available means
of protecting crops from pest are considered, and where pesticide application is the last
resort of measures rather than the initial option. Guidelines also specify pesticides that
should be avoided and require safe use of pesticides throughout the management cycle.
Sida´s current system for identifying and managing environmental risks has not been
sufficient to safeguard against health and environmental risks related to pesticides.
Assessments of health and environmental risks related to pesticide use were not
required as part of the appraisal process of the reviewed programmes in Tanzania.
Sida´s project committee or managers did not point to the need for such assessments
before the contribution was decided upon and no further studies or specific monitoring
of pesticide related risks during programme implementation were required.
The reviewed programmes do not monitor or address health and environmental risks
related to pesticides in a systematic way. Interviews conducted and documents
reviewed indicate that programme implementers in Tanzania do not have a good
3
understanding on how pesticides are promoted and managed by the many different
actors involved. There is a large focus on “safe use messaging” but systematic
monitoring of the adoption of safe use methodologies among famers is lacking. There is
a close collaboration with agrochemical industry organisations in the training of
farmers, which may explain that IPM is poorly represented in the reviewed programmes.
Recommendations
Clarify Sida’s position on the use and management of pesticides. One possibility is to
follow the requirements on pesticide use and management in the IFC performance
standard on environment and social sustainability. This includes promotion of IPM and
safe use of pesticides as well as restrictions on the use of certain pesticides.
Programme appraisal and selection. Make it mandatory for partner organisations to
conduct an assessment of health and environmental risks for programmes involving
pesticides. Involve expertize in the review of these assessments. Assure that there is a
plan to monitor and manage the identified health and environmental risks.
Contractual agreements with partner organisations. Include requirements about
monitoring and management of pesticide related risks in the contract with the
agreement partner. The agreement partner should make sure that fund grantees or
other supported actors adhere to the requirements on pesticide use and management in
the IFC performance standard on environment and social sustainability (or other
benchmark defined by Sida). Consider the possibility of including funds for capacity
development support for the management of environment and health risks in the
agreement.
Monitoring and management of health and environmental risks during programme
implementation. Partner organisations should presents a plan on how health and
environmental risks will be monitored and managed. The effects on women and children
should be given special attention. Desk reviews of training materials used by grantees;
surveys among farmers trained by grantees; and third party monitoring teams can be
effective means.
Supporting materials for Sida staff and partner organisations. Update Sida´s guidelines
on environmental impact assessment and develop supporting information on
environmental management systems for partner organisations.
Strengthen pesticide management policies and capabilities in partner countries.
Consider if partner organisations can include components in their programmes which
aim at strengthening government agencies and other actors involved in pesticide
management. Complement current programmes with support to government capacity to
regulate agrochemicals. Explore synergies between the funding to the Swedish
Chemicals Agency through the Global Programme and bilateral programmes.
4
CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 2
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 6
2 The use and management of pesticides in Tanzania ....................................................................... 7
2.1 Health and environmental risks ............................................................................................... 7
2.2 Regulatory framework ............................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Compliance .............................................................................................................................. 9
2.4 Data of pesticide use .............................................................................................................. 10
2.5 Are pesticides that EU has banned used in Tanzania? .......................................................... 11
3 International policies and measures for pesticide risk reduction .................................................. 13
3.1 Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) identification ............................................................. 13
3.2 The International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management ............................................. 13
3.3 Multilateral Agreements ........................................................................................................ 15
3.4 European Union legislation ................................................................................................... 16
3.5 Safeguards and guidelines used by development agencies ................................................... 17
4 Sida guidelines and capacity for management of health and environmental risk related to
pesticides ............................................................................................................................................... 20
4.1 Programme appraisal ................................................................................................................... 20
4.2 Programme implementation .................................................................................................. 21
4.3 Challenges faced by programme officers in assessing and managing pesticide risks ........... 21
5 Use and management of pesticides in three supported programmes in Tanzania ........................ 22
5.1 Coffee Farmers Alliances in Tanzania (CFAT) .................................................................... 22
5.2. African Enterprise Challenge Fund, Tanzania Agriculture Window (AECF TZAW) .......... 26
5.3 Agriculture Markets Development Trust (AMDT) ............................................................... 29
6 Conclusions and recommendations .............................................................................................. 31
6.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 31
6.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 34
References ............................................................................................................................................. 38
Annex 1 list of interviewees .................................................................................................................. 40
Annex 2: Pesticide substances banned by the European Union. ........................................................... 43
Annex 3 GEFs Minimum Standard on pest Management ..................................................................... 45
Annex 4. IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability 2012 .................... 46
Annex 5 Environment and climate change aspects inTRAC ................................................................ 47
Annex 6. Terms of references ............................................................................................................... 50
Annex 7 Selected Photos ....................................................................................................................... 55
5
1 Introduction Increasing the agricultural productivity among small-holder farmers is an important
objective of several programmes in Asia and Africa supported by Swedish development
cooperation. In several of these programmes, increasing the access of farmers to
agricultural inputs, including pesticides for pest-management, play an important role.
However, pesticides are toxic by design and the use of them are associated with
substantial health and environmental risks. A considerable proportion of them are
highly hazardous to health. Chronic toxic effects are often observed even at low
exposure levels, and many pesticides are also persistent in the environment. UNEP
estimates that around 200 000 people die each year from pesticide poisoning and that
the costs of injury1 due to pesticide poisoning among smallholders in 37 sub-Saharan
African countries amounted to USD 4.4 billion in 2005 (UNEP 2013). While inadequate
data makes these assessments difficult, they indicate that costs from improper use of
pesticides are substantial in low income countries.
In low income countries, highly hazardous pesticides may pose extra significant risks to
human health, due to lack of protective measures such as personal protective
equipment. In addition, while most high income countries have sophisticated systems to
evaluate the risks of individual pesticides, many low income countries lack similar
capacities.
In order to minimize the environmental and health effects from pesticides several
development organizations, including FAO, OECD DAC, IFC and US AID have elaborated
detailed guidelines for pest management. Sweden is often perceived as a frontrunner
concerning chemicals management in an international perspective. Sida has for many
years provided capacity development support for chemicals management. For example
through collaboration with organisations like UNEP and FAO and through bilateral (e.g.
Vietnam and Tanzania) and regional (e.g. South East Asia and Southern Africa) capacity
building initiatives on chemicals management. Most times this support has been
facilitated by the Swedish Chemicals Agency.
During a field visit to a Swedish supported agriculture project in Tanzania in 2014, Sida
staff noted that the herbicide Paraquat was used. Paraquat is considered one of the more
acutely toxic substances in agricultural use and was banned in Sweden already in 1983.
The substance has not been approved for use in the European Union over the last ten
years. Sida staff also noted that permanent use of the herbicide Glyphosate for weeding
was being promoted as a standard extension advice.
1 Defined as lost work days, outpatient medical treatment, and inpatient hospitalization
6
These findings triggered a discussion within Sida on the need for more robust guidelines
and monitoring procedures surrounding pest management practices in Sida supported
programmes. Hence, the Sida Helpdesk on Environment and Climate Change was
contracted to conduct a study on safeguarding systems for use of pesticides within
Swedish financed programmes in Tanzania2. The detailed objectives of the assignment
are listed in the Terms of Reference (Annex 6). In summary, the study team responded to
the following requests:
Increase knowledge of agricultural practices and extension advice relating to
pesticide use in Tanzania with particular focus on programmes supported by Sida.
Identify current safeguard mechanisms applied in Sida-supported programmes. This
should include actions on various levels and stages of project development, from
application to final reporting and follow up.
Identify practices that potentially should be discouraged having gender and child
perspectives in mind.
Recommend further safeguard mechanisms within Sida as well as in the supported
programmes. Provide input to the development of guidelines and methods on how
Sida can formulate and implement responsible use of pesticides in supported
programmes.
1.1 Methodology
The study was carried out through a literature review and selected interviews in
Sweden and Tanzania. The literature covered scientific papers and various reports on
health and environmental effects from pesticide use in small holder agriculture as well
as guidelines for pesticide management used by selected development agencies. Existing
pesticide regulations and practices in Tanzania were also reviewed.
The study involved a rapid appraisal of three Swedish supported programmes on
agricultural private sector development in Tanzania. Appraisal documents, annual
reports and e-mail conversations between partner organisation and Sida were reviewed.
A field study was carried out 17 November -1 December 2015 in Tanzania, during which
interviews were conducted with Sida staff at the Swedish Embassy in Dar es Salaam and
staff at different levels within the three supported programmes. A few interviews with
farmers were also conducted. Interviews were also held in Sweden with selected experts
2 A team was formed by Sida’s Helpdesk to carry out the assignment, consisting of Daniel Slunge, University of
Gothenburg (member of the core team of the helpdesk), along with two experts on chemicals management, Per
Rosander, Ecoplan, and Helena Norin, Enviroplanning. An external advisory group was established for the study
consisting of Andrea Rother, University of Cape Town; Lilian Törnqvist, Swedish Chemicals Agency; and
Mattias Jonsson, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Sida programme officers Åsa Bjällås (Stockholm)
and Josefin Bennet Fredriksson (Tanzania) coordinated the study at Sida. Valuable comments on the inception
report and the draft final report were provided by the external advisory group as well as by several program
officers at Sida. However, the authors of this report alone are responsible for its content and it does not
necessarily reflect the views of Sida.
7
on agriculture and environment at Sida and the Swedish Chemicals Agency (Annex 1
contains a list of interviewees).
Interviews were held in a semi-structured manner, using different interview templates
for different categories of interviewees. Preliminary findings from the field visit were
presented at a workshop at the Swedish Embassy on December 1.
It is important to note that based on the few interviews conducted with staff from the
three supported programmes, it is not possible to get a full understanding of how
pesticides are used or managed in the wide variety of supported actors and activities.
The findings in this report about the supported programmes should hence be seen as
indicative rather than conclusive.
2 The use and management of pesticides in Tanzania 2.1 Health and environmental risks
Inappropriate use of hazardous pesticides in Tanzania causes severe health and
environmental effects in particular to smallholder farmers, workers and their families.
Several studies have shown high frequency of acute pesticide poisoning among small-
scale farmers in Tanzania and other African countries (Lekei et al 2014; London et al
2002; Naidoo et al 2015). Lekei reported that more than 90% of the smallholder farmers
surveyed in the Arusha region had experienced pesticide poisoning (Lekei et al 2014).
There was a strong correlation between low educational level and high frequency of self-
reported acute poisoning. Farmers with less knowledge were also more likely to store
pesticides in residential homes, with additional risk of family members being poisoned.
The same study found that a larger number of different pesticides are used by small-
holder farmers, the labelling of the pesticides was often poor, the use of protective
equipment low and systems for collection of disposed pesticide containers were lacking
or inadequate.
A recent study in South Africa - with relevance to the Tanzanian situation - examined to
what extent agricultural workers' socio-cultural context (i.e. gender dynamics and social
status) influenced the use of protective measures and equipment (Andrade-Rivas 2015).
In spite of awareness raising activities, appropriate use of personal protective
equipment (PPE) remained low. Interestingly, teams comprised of mostly women had
the highest compliance rate. The authors concluded that given the complexity of PPE
compliance, especially in countries with several economic and social constraints,
exposure reduction interventions should not rely solely on PPE use promotion. Instead,
other control strategies requiring less worker input for effectiveness should be
implemented, such as substitution of highly hazardous pesticides, and altering
application methods.
8
Several studies find that women’s exposure to pesticides is often underestimated.
Women play a central role in small-holder agriculture but often receive less training on
for example pesticide management than men (London et al, 2002; Naidoo et al 2010).
Also children are exposed to pesticides when involved in retailing, working in the fields
or through inadequate storage or disposal of pesticides. Women and children may be
exposed to pesticide residues or secondary exposure through contaminated air and
water. Contaminated clothing is often washed with the rest of the family clothing
leading to exposure.
Table 1 outlines health and environmental risks and mitigation options at different
stages in the handling of pesticides.
Table 1. Risk and mitigation options in the use of pesticides.
Stage Risk scenario examples Risk mitigation options
(examples)
Pesticide trade Unregistered pesticides being sold,
largely uncontrolled retail chain
with low safety practices, lack of
PPE
Regulatory intervention,
enforcement including inspections
of pesticide firms, retailers, etc.
Banning the use of HHPs
Transport Risks of spillage, accidents, low use
of PPE.
Enforcement of safety rules for
transport
Storage Leakage from storage tanks, and
smaller packaging, Re-packaging,
Residential, in-door storage
exposing families
Discouraging indoor residential
storage, education on risk
associated with pesticides stored.
Use Worker applying pesticide product
not using protective equipment,
leakage, suicide agent
IPM promotion and training,
trainings on pesticide application
techniques and safety measures.
Disposal Highly toxic and obsolete
pesticides being stored, risk for
leakage, toxic contaminated
packaging causing pollution or
direct health risks if containers are
reused.
Improving waste disposal practices,
recollection of packaging for
destruction.
2.2 Regulatory framework
Several legislative Acts have been introduced in Tanzania to control pesticide use and
prevent damage.. The main legislations that regulate the production, import, export,
distribution, use and disposal, and Pesticide formulations are Tropical Pesticides
Research Institute (TPRI) Act (1979); The Pesticides Control Regulations of 1984; and
Plant Protection Act (PPA) of 1997 through the Plant Protection Regulations of 1999.
These cover all aspects of pesticide handling, formulation, manufacturing, packaging,
storage, importation, sale and disposal.
The main responsibility for approval and registration of Pesticides is under the Ministry
of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives, which has appointed the Tropical
Pesticides Research Institute (TPRI) to execute that duty through the Plant Protection
Regulations of 1999. Other responsibilities of TPRI include pesticide use directives,
9
permits, quality control of pesticides (formulation analyses) and training activities.
(Agenda 2006)
According to Tanzanian legislation, products are registered into three main categories:
i) Provisional: Pesticides registered for general use for two years. These are products
which have been approved for general use after successful local field trials. Apart from
positive bioefficacy, products in this category’ must have minimum adverse
environmental and toxicological effects. However, they are subjected to further
laboratory and field tests;
ii) Full: Pesticides registered for general use for five years (full registration). This
category consists of products upgraded from the Provisional Registration after being
used for at least three years without causing any serious environmental and
toxicological problems. Their formulations must have been analysed and approved in
the pesticide quality control laboratory. Products in this category can be imported,
formulated manufactured and sold in the country; and
iii) Restricted: Some products upgraded from experimental registration are placed in the
restricted registration category if they are very toxic, environmentally persistent and
bio-accumulative. The category also consists of technical materials with which active
ingredient content intended for use in formulation plants.
These Acts and regulations ensure that import, sale, use and disposal of pesticides are
conducted through allowed registration, permits and certificate. The pesticide
legislation sets requirements for each life-cycle phase of pesticides
(manufacturing/formulation, registration, importation, sale and distribution, use,
transportation and disposal). Also according to the national Law, all pesticide dealers in
Tanzania, including distributors of pesticides, must be licensed before they are granted
operational permits (Lekei 2015).
IPM is since 2013 part of the Tanzanian Agriculture policy, but has not yet been included
in legislation. (pers. comm., Diomedes Kalisa, Ministry of Agriculture.)
2.3 Compliance
On national level, compliance with regulation is reported as ‘moderate’; all pesticides
trading and storage places are certified, however not regularly inspected by the TPRI
inspectors. This is attributed by the low number of pesticides inspectors as well as
financial constraints to inspect each pesticide storage facility. The lack of regular control
contributes to a large extent to the presence of expired, adultery and illegal products in
the market (Agenda 2006).
At the village level, farmers, who own small plots of vegetables, seed beans, roses and
fruits, are the main clients of pesticides from retail shops. Pesticide retailers are
supposed to be permitted by TPRI after inspection and evaluation of the firms’ premises,
10
staff, chemicals, safety etc. It is also required that traders renew their permit with TPRI
and their business licenses annually.
When researchers from Agenda visited retailers in Arusha in 2006 to check compliance,
they accounted severe problems:
“It was not easy to trace all the Stockists due to the fact that there is no proper record of
these business, they are scattered all over the region and operate in un-registered premises
sometimes together with other merchandise. Stockists are selling pesticide in small
quantities directly to consumers. During the survey it was found out that most of the
farmers (particularly growers of fruit and vegetables) depend on the Stockists, because
they own small plots and do not have enough money to buy big containers of pesticides.“
“Unfortunately about 20 shops visited during the survey in Arumeru district were not
registered with TPRI but possessed the District Council business licence. More than half of
the respondents (traders/shop attendants) were not even aware that they were supposed
to be registered with TPRI before operating their business.”
The referred survey was carried out more than ten years ago, and things might have
improved since then. However, more recent surveys suggest that deficiencies are still
substantial. In a 2014 survey with visits to 75 pesticide retailers, various problems
regarding handling practices were noted (Lekei 2014). Deficiencies included; using
untrained sales attendants (58% frequency), repacking of pesticides (25%), unsuitable
protective Equipment (PPE) (15%) or no PPE at all (15%), pesticide containers with
inadequate or absent labelling (15%), and sale of unregistered pesticides (9 %). Most
products with inadequate or absent labelling had been repackaged or decanted and
were usually copper-based fungicides. However, also a number of organophosphates
(such as Pirimiphos-methyl, Profenofos, and Chlorpyrifos, as well as Endosulfan) were
found with such errors. 40% were WHO Class II pesticides and two cases involved Class
I agents.
2.4 Data of pesticide use
Data on pesticides (types and volumes) are not easily accessible. When requesting
statistical data from Tanzanian authorities (TPRI and Ministry of Agriculture), we were
referred to official lists dating back to 2007. An updated list is presumed to be published
in 2016. (TPRI, personal communication) In order to estimate pesticide use in the
country, the team therefore relied on secondary sources and a Gazette publication from
the Ministry of Agriculture showing data on pesticide products in 2011.
A recent survey identified a total of 1182 pesticide products registered in Tanzania,
representing a broad variety of active ingredients (Lekei 2014b). Most products are
used against insects and fungi. (see table 1). When ranked by imported volume,
fungicides dominated (58 %) followed by herbicides (21%).
11
Table 2:
No of pesticide products registered in Tanzania, based on function
Product by target pest N %
Insecticide 493 42
Fungicide 321 27
Herbicide 289 25
Other 80 6
Total 1182 100
Source: Lekei 2015
Most frequent chemical group were pyrethroids (27 % of products) and
organophosphates (16%) followed by triazoles (8%). Notably is that organophosphates
are one of the most common causes of poisoning worldwide. These neurotoxic
substances are frequently used intentionally in suicides in agrarian areas.
The majority of products met requirements for Full registration (83%), while 11% was
provisionally registered due to insufficient documentation. 64 products (5.5%) was
defined as Highly hazardous products, and hence categorized as Restricted products.
2.5 Are pesticides that EU has banned used in Tanzania?
In order to answer this question, we compared the list of products registered for use in
Tanzania with lists of substances banned or severely restricted in the European Union
legislation. Data was retrieved from EU Commission’s Pesticide Database (EU 2015) and
the Consolidated List of Pesticide Bans which is maintained by the Pesticide Action
Network (PAN 2015) 48 substances officially prohibited by the EU were included in the
comparison.
Our comparison focused on substances considered as HHP according to FAO/WHO
working group JMPM’s eight criteria, complemented with additional substances defined
by PAN as fulfilling the official HHP criteria.
For insecticides, the following was found for substances listed under “Full registration”
(= 5 years approval period) in 2011:
In total, 340 insecticide products were registered in Tanzania 2011, containing around
100 different active substances. Of these, approximately 15 are banned or not approved
for use (i.e, are absent from the current list of approved pesticides.) in the European
Union. Examples are given in table 3.
12
Table 3 Substances used in Tanzania that are not approved for use in EU
Acephate Constitutent in 8 registered products. Primarily used for
horticulture, such as cultivating roses and beans. The substance is
banned in the EU and in China. Banned in Sweden since 1992.
Amitraz Registered in one product used in horticulture and in several
products for protecting cattle and sheep. Amitraz is banned in the
EU and several Middle Eastern countries, plus Cambodia.
Azocyclotin Approved in Tanzania, and used mainly for horticulture (roses).
The substance is not approved for use in the EU (and has never
been used in Sweden.)
Bendiocarb One product approved, for use against mosquitos. Not approved
for use in the EU.
Carbaryl Approved for use in households and for some agricultural
purposes, e g cotton production. EU and four non-European
countries have banned the substance (among them Mozambique)
fenitrothion 19 products registered in 2011. Used in production of coffee,
corn, and in households. Banned in the EU. (Use in Sweden ended
before 1995 with exception of one product approved for rape
cultivation until 2007).
Diafenthiuron 4 products registered, for use in horticulture, (Roses, cabbage,
etc.). Banned by the EU.
diazinon 12 products registered, mostly for vegetables, and to some extent
also for coffee, sugarcane, and tobacco. Banned in the European
Union and Mozambique.
fenvalerate 3 registrations, for use in cotton, tomato production. Not
approved for use in the European Union.
13
3 International policies and measures for pesticide risk reduction Pesticide risk mitigation is a significant concern within the international community.
Several UN agencies – FAO, WHO, ILO, UNEP and others – are actively involved in
developing guidelines for pest management, including risk reduction measures for
pesticide use.
3.1 Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) identification
A central theme in many policies is the special attention on pesticides with highly
hazardous health and environmental properties. The FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on
Pesticide Management (JMPM) has provided a working definition for these. See box 1.
BOX 1 – Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs)
3.2 The International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organisation (WHO)
have established a voluntary Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, and have
invited governments and the pesticide industry to develop plans of action to reduce
risks by taking regulatory or technical action. The current version of the Code of Conduct
was agreed on in 2013 and brings forward IPM as a main strategy (FAO and WHO 2014):
Which are they?
JMPM defines pesticides with one or more of the following characteristics as HHPs:
Pesticide formulations that meet the criteria of classes Ia or Ib of the WHO
Recommended Hazard Classification
Pesticide active ingredients and their formulations that meet the following criteria of
GHS classification:
o Carcinogenicity Categories 1A and 1B
o Mutagenicity Categories 1A and 1B
o Reproductive toxicity Categories 1A and 1B
Pesticide active ingredients listed by the Stockholm Convention in its Annexes A and
B, and those meeting all the criteria in paragraph 1 of annex D of the Convention;
Pesticide active ingredients and formulations listed by the Rotterdam Convention in its
Annex III;
Pesticides listed under the Montreal Protocol;
Pesticide active ingredients and formulations that have shown a high incidence of
severe or irreversible adverse effects on human health or the environment.
How many are they?
86 of the 900+ active ingredients in use globally are classified by the WHO as being
Extremely Hazardous (Class 1a) or Highly Hazardous (Class 1b). When pesticides listed
under the Rotterdam, Stockholm, and Vienna conventions (the Montreal Protocol) are
added, approximately 120 pesticides are - according to FAO officials - widely agreed to be
highly hazardous to human health and the environment (Davis 20151).
However, there are many additional pesticides on the market that seems to fulfil the HHP
criteria. The non-governmental organisation PAN International identifies 141 substances
(rather than 120) to fall directly under the JMPM criteria. In addition, PAN elaborates an
extended list with in total 211 HHPs which all is considered as highly hazardous (PAN
2015).
14
”The new strategic framework for FAO has been reoriented to support sustainable
agricultural production as one of its strategic objectives. This new Code is an integral
component of this objective. In the area of pest and disease management this means using
Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which has successfully reduced pesticide use and
improved yields, food quality and incomes for millions of farmers.”
A main feature of this work is to take a systematic approach to agricultural practices,
through the concept of Integrated Pest Management (IPM). IPM means careful
consideration of all available plant protection methods and integration of appropriate
measures that discourage the development of populations of harmful organisms and
keep the use of plant protection products and other forms of intervention to levels that
are economically and ecologically justified and minimise the risks to human health and
the environment. IPM emphasises the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible
disruption to agro-ecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms.3
It is important to note that IPM does not disqualify the use of pesticides. It represents a
systematic approach where all available means of protecting crops from pest is
considered, and where pesticide application is the last resort of measures rather than
the initial option (figure 1).
Figure 1 Integrated Pest Management Triangle
Source: After Meissle et al 2011
In absence of an IPM approach, pesticides might be used without considering
alternative, or complimentary, options. In addition, since there are economic incentives
for many companies (local retailers, pesticide producers, etc.) to increase pesticide sales,
3 As defined in EU Directive 2009/128/EC: Chapter 1, Art. 3, para. 6
15
it is necessary that mechanisms/policies are in place counterbalancing an un-controlled
market situation, where farmers get no access nor knowledge to alternative pest
management options.
One important aspect of transition from pesticide intensive farming to IPM is that the
introduction of IPM does not necessarily involve sophisticated information gathering
and decision-making. IPM can be introduced at any level of agricultural development.
For example, improvement of basic crop management practices, such as planting time
and crop spacing, can often be effective in reducing pest attack. Often, a useful beginning
can be made with relatively limited specialized information or management input. Later,
additional information, technologies, and mechanisms can be developed to enhance its
effectiveness.
Even though IPM has been the dominant crop protection paradigm promoted globally
since the 1960s, its adoption by developing country farmers is still low. When a large
number of professionals and practitioners around the world were asked to identify
reasons for the slow adoption of IPM, the five most frequently given answers were
(Parsa 2014):
- ”Insufficient training and technical support to farmers”
- ”Lack of favorable government policies and support”
- ”Farmers have low levels of education and literacy”
- ”IPM too difficult to implement compared with conventional management with
pesticides”
- ”Powerful influence of pesticide industry”.
3.3 Multilateral Agreements
A number of international agreements have been formed to enhance control measures
around pesticides, often along with promotion of IPM. Some of them are briefly
described below.
Technical assistance under the Rotterdam Convention complements FAO’s lead role in
sustainable pesticide management. The convention stipulates that export of a number of
hazardous chemicals can only take place with the prior informed consent (PIC) of the
importing Party after they are informed of the current registration status in the
exporting country. Some 70% of the chemicals covered by Rotterdam Convention are
pesticides. A developing country that is experiencing problems caused by a severely
hazardous pesticide formulation may report such problems to the Convention
Secretariat. All Parties receive summaries of these notifications and proposals on a
regular basis. When a chemical that is banned or severely restricted by a Party is
exported from its territory, that Party must notify each individual importing Party
before the first shipment and annually thereafter.
16
In addition, the use and production of 14 pesticides4 are prohibited or severely
restricted by the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants. Contracting
parties are requested to generate national Implementation Plans to reduce or eliminate
the listed pesticides.
3.4 European Union legislation
The main legislation regulating the approval of pesticides on the EU market is
Regulation EC/1107/2009 which is directly applicable in Member States. Based on the
predominance of health and environment protection over agricultural production, it sets
EU-wide requirements for the registration of pesticides. The legislation draws up a
“positive list” of substances that is approved for use. As a consequence, pesticides that
are not included on the list is not allowed anywhere in the member states. At present,
481 pesticide substances are listed as approved in EU’s official database. 789 are listed
as not approved, while an additional 41 substances are listed as “pending approval”.
In an international perspective, the pesticide legislation in EU is restrictive. Few, if any,
countries outside of Europe (including non-EU members such as Norway and
Switzerland) have such extensive lists of non-approved pesticides.
In addition to this, the EU has also explicitly banned approximately 48 pesticide
substances. The bans have been initiated for various reasons. Some substances are part
of restrictions that have been agreed multilaterally (e g through the Montreal Protocol,
and the Stockholm Convention) or because they are considered highly hazardous. Others
are based on other concerns, such as environmental fate of substances after use.
The 48 substances banned in the European Union are to a large extent HHPs. The active
substances banned by EU is listed in Annex 2.
Another EU legislative act related to pesticides is Directive 2009/128/EC. This
framework directive aim to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides “by reducing the risks
and impacts of pesticide use on human health and on the environment and by promoting
the use of IPM and of alternative techniques such as non-chemical alternatives.” It
obliges EU member states to establish necessary conditions for the implementation of
IPM (in particular information and tools for pest monitoring and decision making,
advisory services); and ensure that the general IPM principles are implemented by all
professional users.
4 aldrin, alpha hexachlorocyclohexane, beta hexachlorocyclohexane, chlordane, chloredecone, DDT, dieldrin,
endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, lindane, mirex, pentachlorobenzene, toxaphene.
17
3.5 Safeguards and guidelines used by development agencies
Several development agencies have established criteria or minimum standards for
pesticide use, to be applied in the appraisal process and during the implementation of
programmes and projects. These include:
The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Guidelines
DAC was a forerunner in promoting IPM. In the DAC guidelines for Aid Policies on pest
and pest management dating back to 1994, IPM is promoted as the preferred approach
to pest control. (DAC 1994) The guideline gives a comprehensive explanation to how aid
policies can include safeguards and control stations on pesticide use throughout the
funding lifecycle.
Global Environmental Fund (GEF). GEFs minimum standard on pest management
requires that donor agencies within the fund are to “...ensure that the environmental and
health risks associated with pesticide use are minimized and managed, and that safe,
effective, and environmentally sound pest management is promoted and supported“.
GEF also defines six minimum criteria, including promotion of IPM and to reduce the
reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides (GEFs criteria are included in Annex 3).
International Finance Corporation (IFC)5
IFC has established Environmental, health, and safety guidelines for perennial crop
production (IFC 2015). In these guidelines, agencies contributing to agricultural
development should consider feasible alternatives to pesticide use, such as to:
Provide those responsible for deciding on pesticides application with training in
pest identification, weed identification, and field scouting;
Rotate crops to reduce the presence of pests and weeds in the soil ecosystem;
Use pest-resistant crop varieties;
Use mechanical weed control and / or thermal weeding;
Support and use beneficial organisms, such as insects, birds, mites, and microbial
agents, to perform biological control of pests;
Protect natural enemies of pests by providing a favorable habitat, such as bushes for
nesting sites and other original vegetation that can house pest predators;
Use animals to graze areas and manage plant coverage;
Use mechanical controls such as traps, barriers, light, and sound to kill, relocate, or
repel pests.
Also, when it comes to measures involving pesticide use, a number of precautions are to
be undertaken, such as to avoid the use of pesticides that fall under WHO Hazard Classes
1a and 1b. Also WHO Hazard Class II should be avoided if the project host country lacks
restrictions on distribution and use of these chemicals, or if they are likely to be
5 IFC is the largest global development institution focused exclusively on the private sector in developing
countries. It is part of the World Bank Group.
18
accessible to personnel without proper training, equipment, and facilities to handle,
store, apply, and dispose of these products properly. The section about pesticide use and
management in the IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social
Sustainability is included in annex 4.
US Aid: All USAID activities are subject to evaluation via, at minimum, an Initial
Environmental Examination (IEE). Because of the risks presented by pesticides, the
USAID regulations require that a range of information items are addressed during the
appraisal of any programme (as part of the IEE) that includes assistance for the
procurement or use of pesticides. A special report, PERSUAP - “Pesticide Evaluation
Report (PER) and Safer Use Action Plan (SUAP)”, must be submitted with the IEE. The
Pesticide Evaluation Report (PER) section addresses informational elements required in
the Agency’s Pesticide Procedures. The Safer Use Action Plan (SUAP) puts the
conclusions reached in the PER into a plan of action, including assignment of
responsibility to appropriate parties connected with the pesticide program.
European Union (European Aid). A number of policy documents is navigating European
development support. One that is relevant to pesticides is the EU policy framework to
assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges.6 It states that support
to small-scale agriculture should “prioritise approaches that are sustainable and
ecologically efficient, respecting the diverse functions of agriculture. This means inter
alia optimising agri-inputs, integrated pest management, improved soil and water
management and stress-resistant crop varieties. However, in the more concrete
guidelines and standards that steer the granting process, pesticides are not mentioned.
4C, Common Code for the Coffee Community. 4C is an initiative to create a dialogue
about strategies and measures to address key issues and develop a common
understanding about “sustainability” for the mainstream coffee sector. The 4C Code of
Conduct discourages the use of pesticides listed in international agreements such as
Annex III of the Stockholm convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, Annex III of the
Rotterdam convention on prior informed consent and the Montreal Protocol on ozone
depleting substances. The Code of Conduct shortlists some control questions to be asked
during e.g. inspections.
Sustainable Agriculture Standard. This standard was developed by the Sustainable
Agriculture Network (SAN) for certifying products produced under what is considered
sustainable processes. The system is implemented jointly with local partners in various
countries and with the Rainforest Alliance global organization. Products grown on farms
that comply with the standards can use the Rainforest Alliance Trade mark.
6 COM(2010)127 final
19
In regards to pesticides, the standard forbids the use of substances listed by the
Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions, but also those “Banned and Severely Restricted”
in the U.S. and in the European Union.
On the other hand the standard accepts the use of WHO’s categories Ia, Ib and II active
ingredients if the use of personal protection equipment is controlled and the farmers do
not apply pesticides for more than six hours a day. Farm must demonstrate a plan for
eliminating the use of Class Ia and Ib pesticides, and for reducing the use of Class II
ingredients Farms must also demonstrate that:
No technically or economically viable alternatives exist for the type of pest or
infestation.
The pest or infestation has had, or would have had, proven significant economic
consequences that surpass the economic threshold for damage.
Measures are taken to substitute Class Ia, Ib and II active ingredients of pesticides.
In summary: Development agencies apply various approaches to pesticide management
in funded programs. Most of them include some sort of reference to IPM principles.
Some, e.g. US Aid, entail mandatory and detailed protocols for analyzing applications in
relation to pesticide use.
The DAC Guidance on pesticide use, launched already in 1994, is still one of the most
comprehensive and pedagogic documents available. Even though it has not been
updated for more than 20 years, it still represents a valuable blueprint for modern
policymaking.
When it comes to restrictions of specific pesticide use, guidelines differ substantially.
Several donors have policies disqualifying use of substances listed by the Stockholm and
Rotterdam conventions. Some, such as IFC, discourage the use of pesticides classified as
WHO Hazard Classes 1a and 1b; while other define perquisites for such substances, such
as the Sustainable Agriculture Standard, which tolerates use of WHO categories Ia, Ib
and II under the condition that “use of personal protection equipment is controlled”.
One standard, namely the Sustainable Agriculture Standard, prohibits use of “Banned
and Severely Restricted” pesticides in the U.S. and in the European Union, unless there is
an absence of alternatives, or that economic gains are surpassing the cost of damage.
None of the standards reviewed as part of this study use completely prohibits the use of,
for instance, pesticides banned in the EU.
20
4 Sida guidelines and capacity for management of health and
environmental risk related to pesticides The Swedish political priority on proactive chemicals management is reflected in the
Swedish Aid policy framework (2013) which states that “Sweden must also strengthen
countries’ ability to phase out and deal with hazardous substances and other dangerous
chemicals”.
4.1 Programme appraisal
At operational level, Sida uses the digital system TRAC for contribution management.
While there is no specific reference to chemicals or pesticides in TRAC, the digital
system does provide a number of general questions related to environmental risks of
specific contributions (see annex 5). In the in-depth relevance assessment the
programme officer shall answer the question “Environment/climate aspects have been
taken into account in the intervention setup”. If the answer to this question is no, the
Programme officer should, according to the help text in TRAC, consider to start a
dialogue with the partner and if needed, consider to add a dialogue objective in the
results register.
TRAC also states that “Contributions with a substantial part of private sector funding
and contributions that aim to engage private sector involvement in development
cooperation should use Sida Sustainability Screening Framework to assess strengths
and weaknesses in the partners’ performance relating to sustainability.” The
Sustainability Screening Framework is generic and does not include references to
chemicals or pesticides.
For further advice on environmental assessment and environmental integration in
projects and programmes, Sida programme officers are referred to Sida´s helpdesk on
environment and climate change and to the Guidelines for the Review of Environmental
Impact Assessments (Sida 2002). These guidelines contain checklists of key
environmental impacts linked to different sectors, including the mentioning of some
risks related to pesticide use in agriculture. However, the guidelines do not provide
specific advice or a position on what substances are not allowed in Swedish supported
programmes or how risks related to pesticide use should me managed.
Programme officers can also turn to Sida´s internal network on environment and climate
change for further support. Sida´s Project Committees (at embassies and headquarters)
shall assure that the assessments and suggested decisions put forward by the
programme officers are of good quality before decisions are taken. A project committee
can for example question why an environmental impact assessment has not been
undertaken in relation to a specific contribution.
21
4.2 Programme implementation
TRAC does not include any text about environmental risks during “Performance
Monitoring” or “Contribution Completion”. However environmental risks can be
included in the general monitoring of results and risk management.
Surprisingly, Sida does not have any specific guidelines or tools for assuring that health
and environmental risks are appropriately monitored and managed during the
implementation of a supported programme or project. Sometimes partner organisations
are recommended to establish an environmental management system for addressing
environmental risks in a systematic manner. But Sida has no guidelines on what such a
system should contain or how formal it should be.
If an environmental assessment has been conducted during the appraisal phase, the
resulting environmental management plan can be monitored during project
implementation. But this is not formalized in Sida´s systems.
4.3 Challenges faced by programme officers in assessing and managing pesticide
risks
When TRAC was introduced the “EIA rule” – stating that an environmental assessment
should be made for all supported programmes and projects – was abolished. This has
made it less clear for Programme officers on when it is necessary to demand that
partner organisations conduct an environmental assessment. Without good knowledge
on possible health or environmental risks from agricultural or private sector
development projects, it can be difficult for programme officers to make a correct
decision on whether an environmental assessment should be undertaken or not as well
as to evaluate and act upon the findings in environmental assessments.
The shift from working with large agricultural programmes managed by government
agencies to private sector development supports managed by challenge funds or other
institutional platforms has created additional challenges for environmental assessments.
The organisation supported by Sida may be a funder of other organisations which then
funds different projects. This chain of actors adds complexity to the appropriate scope of
environmental assessments and to which type of environmental impacts the supported
organisation is responsible for. In addition, the Programme officers at Sida managing
private sector development supports sometimes do not have the background knowledge
in natural sciences/agronomy that many of those traditionally managing agricultural
supports did. This makes it even more difficult to assess health and environmental risks
of pesticide use in supported programmes.
In comparison with the more rigid environment and social safeguard procedures of the
International Financial Corporation (IFC), GEF or the USAID (referenced above), Sida´s
system only refers to environmental risk in a very general sense. A lot of trust is put on
the programme officers’ ability to both identify and follow up potential risks in
22
supported projects and programmes. However, earlier evaluations of Sida´s work with
mainstreaming environment, gender and other issues into contributions have shown
that programme officers many times – despite an understanding that the issues are
important - have difficulties in complying with the many different requirements they
face (Uggla, 2007; ÅF, 2006). “Time is limited and as there are no formal rules and
regulations for how to handle the prioritization [between policies] each programme
officer will have to make up a personal set of priorities, leading to a situation where
similar issues are considered differently within Sida” (Uggla, 2007). Identified causes for
the lack of compliance with mainstreaming requirements included lack of clear targets
and priorities, very little learning between different parts of the organization and weak
monitoring and follow-up of compliance. The importance of the project committees as
well as managers in quality assurance and follow up in making environmental
integration a reality was particularly stressed.
5 Use and management of pesticides in three supported
programmes in Tanzania
5.1 Coffee Farmers Alliances in Tanzania (CFAT)
The Programme
CFAT aims to sustainably improve the living conditions of 25,000 coffee farmers in the
Mbeya and Arusha regions in Tanzania. Sida is supporting CFAT over the period 2013-
2015 with a total of 6,7 MSEK and will probably continue the support beyond 2015. The
Project is a Public Private Development project (PPDP) that is co-financed by donors and
the private sector through International Coffee Partners (ICP).
The Project is implemented by the foundation Hanns R. Neumann Stiftung (HRNS). Other
donors supporting CFAT include Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through Deutsche
Investitions- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft (DEG), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Royal
Norwegian Government through Conservation Farming Unit (CFU), Rabobank
Foundation in Mbeya Region, and Lavazza Foundation in Kilimanjaro.
The expected outputs of the SIDA/ICP contribution are:
500 Producer Organizations (POs) and 50 Depot Committees (DCs)/Rural Primary
Cooperative Societies (RPCSs) have been established or strengthened and are
offering defined services to their members.
Producer Organizations and Depot Committees/ Rural Primary Cooperative
Societies have become members of farmer Apex organizations, which have
developed effective business systems and efficient operational practices and
provide members with necessary services.
Farmers have improved farm management practices and rejuvenated their coffee
farms.
23
HRNS, the project implementer, is an organisation working with coffee issues in the
whole world. CFAT is working with coffee farmers in two regions in Tanzania, Mbeya
and Arusha. The projects started in Mbeya in 2006 with a pilot. CFAT supports farmers
to organize in Producer organisations (PO) to amongst other things gain bargaining
capacity and to be able to buy chemicals in bulk at a better price. The POs are set up at
village level and a lead farmer is appointed. There is also another level, Depot
committees, that sells the coffee for the farmers. This level serves more villages, since it
is set up by representatives from several POs. The POs cooperate with both
multinational and local manufacturers and distributors. The farmers targeted have been
sensitized and provided with the opportunity of accessing genuine inputs through
theses linkages between farmer groups and input suppliers. Farmer groups can order
inputs in bulk at a preferential price, which are then delivered directly to the farmer
group and distributed to their members.
CFAT has staff employed in Mbeya and in Arusha. The staff in Mbeya consists of mainly
agronomists, but also an officer for monitoring and evaluation as well as the manager
holding a PhD in rural development. There is no experts within environmental and
health issues.
Use of pesticides and associated health and environmental risks
Pesticides are used in coffee farming to control pests, fungi and weeds. Coffee cherry
borer and coffee leaf miner are the main pests. Coffee leaf rust, coffee berry disease and
Coffee wilt disease are common diseases in Tanzania. Common active ingredients used
in pesticides are Chlorpyrifos, Fenitrothion and Profenofos. Paraquat and Glyphosate are
commonly used in herbicides, and Cyproconazole and Hexaconazole are often used in
fungicides. An inorganic substance, Cupric Hydroxide is commonly used to control coffee
leaf rust. Even if Endosulfan is banned globally through the Stockholm convention it can
still be found at coffee farmers according to a spokesman from Ministry of agriculture.
Of the mentioned substances, Fenitrothion, Profenofos, Paraquat, and Hexaconazole are
not approved in EU. Chlorpyrifos and Cyproconazole are not approved for use in
Sweden, but in other EU countries. Glyphosate is widely used also in Sweden. The
pesticides are generally hazardous for the environment and health effects include
toxicity to reproduction (Cyproconazole) or acute poisoning (Endosulfan, Paraquat,
Chlorpyrifos, Fenitrothion, Profenofos, and Hexaconazole). Glyphosate has during 2015
been classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the World Health
Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer.
A risk when buying chemicals in bulk is that when the chemicals are re-packed, the
labelling and safety information on the original package is not repeated on the new
package and the farmer may not use the chemicals in a safe way. Another risk is that the
containers used for repacking can be confused with food containers.
24
The interviews conducted indicate that CFAT does not have any detailed knowledge on
what pesticides the individual farmers are using. No surveys or other types of
inventories were presented. Also the fact that paraquat was found during the
aforementioned Sida field trip in 2014, indicate that little attention has been paid by
CFAT to the use of hazardous pesticides among farmers. The farmers interviewed often
knew the brand names of the pesticides they were using, but not the names of the active
substances. During the field trip, three different farms were visited. Two of the farmers
interviewed used pesticides with profenofos as active substance. One of the farmers
showed us a package stored in his home with this pesticide. When asked to see his
protection equipment he showed an old pair of trousers and a coat with long sleeves,
and we were told that he should buy new gloves because the old ones were worn out.
Another farmer had a coat hanging in the living room that he wore during application on
pesticides. He wore the same gum boots during the interview that he wears when
spraying pesticides. The farmers however told that they cleaned their personal
protection equipment separately from other clothes.
To store pesticides in the home is a clear threat to health, both through risk of suicide,
unintentional intoxication and diffuse exposure through air. Also the disposal of empty
containers is a problem, the interviewed farmers bury or burn them. There was no
supplier taking back the empty containers for destruction or reuse.
Of the interviewed farmers, women in their families did not spray pesticides, but fetched
the water the pesticides should be mixed with and often cleaned the application
equipment and clothes used when spraying. The farmers interviewed knows that
children should not get into contact with pesticides. The only female farmer interviewed
had participated in trainings in pesticides application but had not practiced spraying yet.
She was seen as a role model by other women in the village, who often asked her for
advice. Traditionally, men do not weed. HRNS now try to teach men that “they can be
head of the house even if they are weeding”.
Promotion, guidelines and capacity for the use of pesticides
CFAT uses a training of trainers concept and there is a manual on pesticide use. The
manual is, however, very basic and the focus is on correct mixing, application and how
the pesticides work. The following information is given in the manual on safety:
• Store bottles and measuring vessels out of reach of children.
• Always read the container label before use
• Never eat or smoke while spraying
• If the sprayer develops a leak fix it immediately
• Pregnant women should not spray herbicides
• Bury empty bottles.
• Read and follow safety instructions on product label.
• Wash yourself and equipment with soap after spraying.
• Always wear protective gears while spraying herbicides.
25
During these trainings also personal protection equipment (PPE) is distributed to the
lead farmers, enabling them to show other farmers what PPE exists and how it can be
used.
According to interviewees at the country and regional management level of CFAT, the
programme provides technical know-how in Good Agricultural Practices, such as IPM,
including natural predators and natural methods as well as trainings on chemical inputs,
safe and proper storage. However, concerning IPM, no clear examples of training
materials or guidelines were provided.
According to interviews with the management level, HRNS makes random checks on
farmer’s level to see what pesticides are used, but as they have 50,000 farmers in their
network full control is impossible and HRNS doesn’t have the mandate to decide what
pesticides the farmers should use. In Mbeya region the farmers used to be part of 4C,
Common Code for the Coffee Community (see above), but since the scheme no longer
gave a price premium CFAT decided to leave the 4C. After this, CFAT intended to become
certified by the Rainforest Alliance, but has chosen not to proceed with this because of
high costs. However, the agronomists of HRNS are using the list of banned pesticides
from Rainforest Alliance in their trainings.
After Sida’s field trip where paraquat was discovered, there has been a discussion with
HRNS on alternatives to paraquat and HRNS has provided Sida with a list of alternatives.
To what extent this list is communicated to farmers is unclear. The few farmers
interviewed all use RoundUp as herbicide.
HRNS doesn’t have any specific advice for women on pesticides use. “Usually women are
not encouraged to conduct spraying. It they do, they are encouraged to do it when the
kids are at school, so the kids are not playing in the field.” The usual recommendations
on what chemicals to use covers both men, women and children.
Summary and recommendations
Our review indicate that CFAT has a good capacity to teach farmers agricultural
practices, but weak capacity on environmental and health risks related to pesticides.
While HRNS has shown interest and willingness to deal with the pesticides issue since
Sida brought up the question of paraquat there still seem to be a lack of understanding
of the risks involved. A point in case is that the draft environmental assessment - that
CFAT recently shared with Sida – states that “there are no negative environmental
impacts foreseen of the project”.
CFAT would benefit from a clearer understanding of the health and environmental risks
related to the programme as well as from a more systematic management of these risks.
Sida is recommended to:
26
- require CFAT to involve external experts in the assessments of health and
environmental risks related to the programme and in the development of a plan on
how to monitor and manage these risks. An alternative could be to employ such
experts as part of the CFAT programme.
- dialogue with CFAT about the role of IPM in the programme. Are there possibilities
for CFAT to collaborate with other partners in the training of farmers than Bayer? A
too close liaison with the agrochemical industry may distort the incentives for IPM
and result in a biased promotion of pesticides. As HRNS is working globally and one of
their main strategies is Environmental Technology, Environmental Research &
Organic Farming, Sida could discuss how HRNS can better include this also in their
work with CFAT.
- discuss how the effects on women and children from the use of pesticides can be
better included in the programme and especially in the trainings of farmers.
- discuss the possibilities to discourage the PO’s procurement of pesticides in bulk
which is then divided and repacked in the villages. There is a high risk that the safety
instructions are lost in the re-packaging and that unsuitable packaging such as food
containers may be used.
- consider specific funding for enhancing the capacity on health and environmental
issues within CFAT.
5.2. African Enterprise Challenge Fund, Tanzania Agriculture Window (AECF
TZAW)
The Programme
AECF is a challenge fund initiated by Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).
The fund is capitalized by multilateral and bilateral donors to stimulate private sector
entrepreneurs in Africa to innovate and find profitable ways of improving access to
markets and the way markets function for the poor, particularly in rural areas. The AECF
TZAW is a special fund of the AECF that is only open to agribusinesses investing in
Tanzania. TZAW was designed by DFID Tanzania in 2010 as a seven year initiative with
an initial budget of £5 million. The widest possible range of agribusinesses are eligible
for support7. Through TZAW, Sida supports 39 grantees in Tanzania during the period
2013-2019. The total contribution from Sida is 55 MSEK which correspond to 50 % of
the total funding of TZAW. This is the second round of Swedish support to TZAW. The
expected outputs of TZAW are:
Growth of the commercial agribusiness sector in Tanzania
Increase in commercial private sector investment and bank lending to agribusiness
and agricultural sector
7 including farming, plantation and ranching companies, out grower schemes, producers, manufacturers and
distributors of agricultural inputs - seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, tools and equipment, agro processors, traders,
merchants and other private sector service providers including market information, extension and other
agricultural services.
27
Increased private sector incentives to invest and innovate in the agribusiness sector
due to wider adoption and dissemination of innovative business models and
technologies and improved market systems
AGRA is the agreement partner and KPMG was procured to implement the full AECF
programme including the window AECF TZAW in Tanzania. The supported business
relates to agriculture in many different ways. Extension services, agro-processing, input
supply, marketing and primary production are some of them.
To get an example of a TZAW financed project, SeedCo was visited during a field trip to
Arusha. The interview was held at SeedCo’s office and a demo plot was also visited.
SeedCo is an international company selling treated seeds. The project supported by
TZAW is establishing growth point contracts. This includes having an agreement with a
lead farmer in a village that can have a demonstration plot for Good Agriculture Practice
with inputs from SeedCo and their partners YARA and Bayer. Formerly Syngenta was
part of this but left as they have conflicting interests with SeedCo. The growth point
contract get a consignment on inputs and sells to the farmers in the village. The lead
farmer gets part of the price the farmers pay for the products. SeedCo together with
YARA and Bayer provides training to farmers on application. SeedCo sells treated seeds.
Use of pesticides and associated health and environmental risks
During the field visit and the interviews with KPMG staff, it was difficult to get a
comprehensive view of the extent the companies having support from TZAW use or
promote the use of pesticides in Tanzania. However, it seems likely that many of the
supported projects involve pesticides.
KPMG proposed the field visit to SeedCo as they knew that the topic of pesticides was
relevant for SeedCo. SeedCo relies on the agrochemical companies YARA and Bayer for
the training on application of fertilizers and pesticides. The pesticides Chlorpyrifos and
fludioxonil are used for the treatment of maize seeds. Chlorpyrifos is not approved for
use in Sweden, but in other EU countries. Fludioxonil is approved for use in the EU but is
considered a candidate for substitution in the EU pesticide database due to its
environmental effects (persistency, bioaccumulation and/or toxicity).
Promotion, guidelines and capacity for the use of pesticides
During Sida´s programme appraisal in 2012, Sida’s helpdesk was consulted to give the
Embassy a second opinion on the environmental screening of AECF TZAW that had been
conducted by DFID. The helpdesk concluded that the procedures in place appeared to be
sufficient for managing environmental and climate risks and opportunities. However, a
concern was that AECF relies on the capacity of independent assessors, the fund
manager and the investment committee to properly assess risks in advance and to
monitor implementation. Questions were raised about the capacity of these actors to
perform these tasks. TZAW was judged to rely to a large extent on applicants to raise
28
environmental risks and opportunities by answering very generic questions (no specific
mentioning of pesticides) during both the application and the implementation phase.
The interviews conducted confirm the impression that AGRA and AECF TZAW do not
have in house capacity to assess health and environmental risks of the projects that they
support. Even though environmental factors constitute one of the scoring factors when
assessing different proposals, business and financial risks, not environmental risks, are
in focus. Pesticide related risks appear not to be much discussed within AGRA or KPMG.
It could not be confirmed if the earlier suggestion to include environmental experts on
the investment committee has been implemented. There were no indications that
suggestions by members of the investment committee had led to any changes or
modifications when it comes to pesticides being promoted or used in different
programmes. However, since Sida has brought up the concerns around paraquat,
pesticide issues have received some attention. One positive development is that
environmental questions (including pesticides) have recently been included in the
application system of AECF TZAW for the new, third, round of applications.
Summary and recommendations
AECF TZAW has a very general system for assessing environmental risks related to the
projects they support. It relies heavily on the competence among the investment
committee, the fund manager and independent assessors.
Sida is recommended to:
- Include requirements about monitoring and management of pesticide related
risks in the contract with AGRA, the agreement partner of AECF TZAW. AGRA
should make sure that fund grantees adhere to the requirements on pesticide use
and management in the IFC performance standard on environment and social
sustainability. This includes promotion of IPM and safe use of pesticides as well
as restrictions on the use of certain pesticides.
- Require that potential grantees that cannot fulfill the IFC performance standard
will not be funded by AECF TZAW. Having chemical expertise in the investment
committee and independent assessors as well as relevant screening questions for
applicants can be effective means.
- Require that KPMG, the fund manager, presents a plan on how health and
environmental risks will be monitored and managed. The effects on women and
children should be given special attention. Desk reviews of training materials
used by grantees; surveys among farmers trained by grantees; and third party
monitoring teams can be effective means.
- Require that KPMG investigates if the projects/grantees currently funded by
AECF TZAW are in line with the IFC performance standard. Gaps should be
identified and a plan for addressing such gaps should be developed.
- Consider the possibility of including funds for capacity development on health
and environmental aspects for grantees.
29
- Discuss with KPMG how the effects on women and children from the use of
pesticides can be better included in the work of TZAW, especially in the trainings
of farmers.
5.3 Agriculture Markets Development Trust (AMDT)
The Programme
Agriculture Markets Development Trust (AMDT) is an intervention that is in the process
of taking off. The AMDT is co-founded by Sida, Irish Aid, DANIDA and SDC. The aim of
AMDT is to support better coordination between value chain development initiatives,
enhance and improve the understanding of agricultural market systems, improve
productivity and market access for micro, small and medium enterprises; and thereby
more effectively contribute to reducing poverty in Tanzania. AMDT will provide
strategic advice to key value chain actors and facilitate strategic values chain
interventions. The first sectors to focus on are proposed to be sunflower and maize.
Use of pesticides and associated health and environmental risks
Use of pesticides in sunflower and maize cultivation is common. AMDT does not yet have
the full picture, but interviewees are aware that pesticides can have severe effects on
health. Counterfeit pesticides are also a known problem. Other environmental aspects
AMDT foresee that are related to their future contributions include water use, climate
change and soil depletion. Concerning processing of agricultural products there might be
environmental pollution, effluent disposal and water pollution. Disposal of packaging
material is another problem.
Promotion, guidelines and capacity for the use of pesticides
AMDT have identified gender and environment as two major cross cutting issues. The
strategy on women and youth is still not written. They foresee some difficulties with this
as they work in different parts of value chain and there may be a difference in risks for
hired labour and family members. AMDT has identified the need to develop capacity for
gender audits, including environmental and health effects. As they do not have internal
capacity for this, AMDT will contract another organization for this purpose.
Summary and recommendations
As AMDT is in the start-up phase there is a good possibility to incorporate
environmental risks and opportunities in the programme design. AMDT staff has some
awareness about pesticide related risks, although expert knowledge is lacking.
Several of the recommendations above for AECF TZAW are also applicable in the case of
AMDT. In addition Sida should:
- Require that AMDT conducts an assessment health and environmental risks,
including pesticide related risks, of their programme.
- Require that AMDT has an environmental management system in place in order
to systematically monitor and manage the identified risks. This should also cover
30
a plan assuring that relevant competence on health and environmental issues is
found within AMDT.
- Dialogue with AMDT on how IPM can be promoted.
31
6 Conclusions and recommendations The largely unmonitored and uncontrolled use of pesticides in Tanzania and several
other countries where Sida is supporting agricultural development present significant
risks to human health and the environment. However, the magnitude of the
environmental and health effects from pesticide use is not fully recognized in many
developing countries and several studies find that especially women’s and children´s
exposure to pesticides is often underestimated.
Sweden is often perceived as a frontrunner concerning chemicals management in an
international perspective. Through the Swedish Chemicals Agency, Sweden has built an
internationally recognized capacity for proactive chemicals management. Sida is funding
several international capacity development programs for improved chemicals and
pesticide management.
Starting from a concern that hazardous pesticides were used by farmers participating in
Swedish supported programmes in Tanzania the purpose of the present study has been
to review safeguard mechanisms and capacity for sound pesticide management within
Sida and three supported programmes and to provide recommendations for
improvement. Based on our review we draw the following conclusions.
6.1 Conclusions
International Good Practice on Pest Management 6.1.1
International Good Practice highlights the importance of Integrated Pest Management.
The FAO/WHO Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management as well as DAC and IFC
guidelines have IPM as a point of departure. IPM does not disqualify the use of
pesticides. It represents a systematic approach where all available means of protecting
crops from pest is considered, and where pesticide application is the last resort of
measures rather than the initial option.
Incentives for adoption of IPM practices need to be carefully analysed. Despite the
promotion of IPM by development agencies over several decades, the actual adoption of
IPM by developing country farmers is still low. Market failures (health and
environmental costs not reflected in the market price of pesticides) in combination with
government subsidies to agrochemicals can partly explain this low adoption, but the
knowledge and labour requirements needed for effective IPM also play a role.
Several development organisations have elaborate guidelines and safeguards relating to
pest-management and pesticides. Development agencies apply various approaches to
pesticide management in funded programs. Most of them include some sort of reference
to IPM principles. Some, e.g. US Aid, entail mandatory and detailed protocols for
analyzing applications in relation to pesticide use during programme appraisal and
implementation.
Most guidelines also specify pesticides that should be avoided, but the threshold for
32
avoided use varies. Most guidelines specify that pesticides that fall under WHO Hazard
Classes 1a and 1b should be avoided. For example IFC guidelines also specify that WHO
Hazard Class II pesticides should be avoided if the project host country lacks restrictions
on distribution and use of these chemicals, or if they are likely to be accessible to
personnel without proper training, equipment, and facilities to handle, store, apply, and
dispose of these products properly.
The DAC Guidance on pesticide use, launched already in 1994, is still one of the most
comprehensive and pedagogic documents available. Even though it has not been
updated for more than 20 years, it can still be a valuable resource for development
agencies.
The Tanzanian legal framework on pesticide management 6.1.2
The legal framework for pesticides management in Tanzania is to a large extent
satisfactory, but a gap exists between substances allowed in EU and Tanzania. In a rapid
review of pesticide products registered in Tanzania 2011, 15 active substances not
approved for use in the European Union were identified.
Regulations are poorly implemented. There is inadequate capacity to enforce
regulations, for example controlling that retailers are licensed. This results in poorly
functioning market for pesticides with inadequate control on what substances are put
on the market, how they are labelled etc. The informal black market for pesticides in
Tanzania is prolific.
Management of health and environmental risks related to pesticides in supported 6.1.3
programmes
The reviewed programmes do not monitor or address health and environmental risks
related to pesticides in a systematic way. Neither the Coffee Farmers Alliances in
Tanzania (CFAT) implemented by Hanns R. Neumann Stiftung (HRNS), nor the African
Enterprise Challenge Fund, Tanzania Agriculture Window (AECF TZAW), have sufficient
systems in place to monitor what chemicals farmers actually use, or health and
environmental effects related to pesticide use. Both organisations need to enhance their
capacity within health and environment, with special attention to reduce short and long
term risks also for women and children.
The reviewed programmes focus on “safe use” rather than Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) and collaborate closely with the agrochemical industry organisations. While
business organisations like SeedCo, YARA and Bayer have an incentive to conduct
training on safe use of their products there is no market incentive in place for trainings
on integrated pest management, which reduces the demand for pesticides.
The reviewed partner organisations lack in house expertise on health and
environmental risks. Interviews and documents reviewed indicate that partner
organisation has inadequate systems for assuring that there is sufficient knowledge
33
among different staff functions on environment and health risks related to pesticide use
in the supported programmes.
The new forms of support to agricultural development creates additional challenges for
safeguarding against pesticide related risks. The organization supported by Sida is often
a funder of other organisations which then funds different projects that involves many
different actors. This chain of actors adds complexity about the appropriate scope of
environmental assessments and about which type of environmental impacts the
supported organization is responsible for. Interviews indicate that it is unclear what the
organisations see as their mandate or responsibility when it comes to health and
environmental impacts. Or as one interviewee stated: “We cannot control which
pesticides the 50 000 farmers in our network in Tanzania are using”. This points to the
need to make clear agreements with partner organisations about which environmental
aspects should be monitored and managed and how this should be done.
Sida’s safeguard system 6.1.4
Health and environmental risks in the reviewed programmes were not sufficiently
addressed during Sida’s appraisal. Assessments of health and environmental risks
related to pesticide use were not required as part of the appraisal process of the
reviewed programmes in Tanzania. Sida´s project committee or managers did not point
to the need for such assessments before the contribution was decided upon and no
further studies or specific monitoring of pesticide related risks during programme
implementation were required.
Monitoring of health and environmental risks is ad hoc rather than systematic. Since
pesticide related risks were not identified during the appraisal of the CFAT or AECF
TZAW no systematic monitoring of how these risks are managed have been undertaken.
Rather, the ad hoc discovery of paraquat during a field visit triggered substantial follow-
up efforts. The increased awareness of pesticide related risks has led to integration of
pesticide related risk in the appraisal of the new support to AMDT.
Sida´s system for identifying and managing environmental (including pesticide related-)
risks is of a general character and relies on knowledgeable and alert programme
officers. The “help texts” in the contribution management system TRAC give good advice
on aspects to bring up to follow Swedish thematic policies and to identify environmental
and other risks. However, in order to identify risks, programme officers as well as
project committees need to know the issues at stake. Earlier evaluations of
environmental integration at Sida also highlight the difficulties faced by programme
officers in complying with the many different requirements they face. This underlines
the importance of the project committees as well as managers in quality assurance and
follow up of pesticide related risks.
Sida lacks updated environmental requirements, guidelines and supporting materials:
Sida has generic guidelines for the review of environmental impact assessments. They
34
have not been updated since they were published in 2002 and are not well known by
programme officers. The guidelines do not provide specific advice or a position
pesticides not allowed in Swedish supported programmes or how risks related to
pesticide use should me managed. Hence, Sida has no specific guidelines on pest-
management such as those of the IFC or USAID.
In addition, there are no formal guidelines for the environmental assessments that Sida
in some cases require partner organisations to undertake or formal
requirements/benchmarks on how partner organisations should monitor and manage
environmental risks (e.g. through implementing an environmental management
system).
6.2 Recommendations
This section discusses how Sida can further strengthen its work with safeguarding
health and environment in programmes involving pesticides. It also briefly discusses
how Sida can strengthen pesticide management policies and capabilities in partner
countries and contribute to international policy development
Clarify Sida’s position on the use and management of pesticides 6.2.1
R.1. Define environmental and health requirements for programmes involving
pesticides.
Partner organisations as well as Sida staff need to know Sida´s requirements. Sida
should develop a formal position on health and environmental requirements in Swedish
supported programmes involving pesticides. Such requirements could include:
- R.1.a. Swedish supported programmes should include active promotion of integrated
pest management. This would be in line with established good international practice.
Just focusing on safe use of pesticides is not enough as this risks leading to an
overuse of pesticides.
- R.1.b. A statement on what products and substances that partner organisations
should actively discourage farmers from using. One possibility is to follow the
requirements on pesticide use and management in the IFC performance standard
on environment and social sustainability, i.e. that substances that fall under WHO
Hazard Classes 1a and 1b should be avoided and that WHO Hazard Class II
pesticides should be avoided if proper handling cannot be guaranteed (see
above). This would in practice disqualify the use of Hazard class II pesticides in
many of the Sida supported programmes. However, if proper handling can be
guaranteed the promotion and use of substances like paraquat (a hazard class II
pesticide)could be allowed.
Another possibility would be to use the list of substances which Sweden or the
European Union has banned. This would in theory be a tougher requirement on
35
partner organisations than the IFC standard and would adhere to the requirement of
policy coherence in the Swedish Policy for Global Development (PGU). However, it
would be more difficult to implement this requirement in practice since there are no
existing guidelines from other development agencies based on this requirement. If
Sida accepts the IFC requirements it would facilitate the provision of multi-donor
support to agricultural development programmes.
Programme appraisal and selection 6.2.2
R.2. Make it mandatory for partner organisations to conduct an assessment of health and
environmental risks for programmes involving pesticides. The assessments should show
how the programme will comply with Sida´s requirements (see above). It should analyze
how the programme monitors and manages risks through the whole chain of pesticide
management (storage, application, disposal etc). Special attention should be given to
how women and children may be affected by pesticide related risks. Also the
organisation’s capacity to manage the identified risks should be assessed. Sida should
provide partner organisations’ with clear guidelines on what the assessment should
include.
R.3. Involve expertize in the review of the assessments of health and environmental
risks conducted by the partner organization. Sida’s helpdesk or local experts should be
involved to assure that the assessment has been conducted in an appropriate way. For
larger programmes a desk review may need to be complemented by field visits.
R.4. Assure that there is a plan to monitor and manage the identified health and
environmental risks. The assessment should result in a clear plan with activities and
indicators. This plan may form part of the overall plan and log frame of the programme.
Contractual agreements with partner organisations 6.2.3
R.5. Include environment and health aspects in contractual agreements with partner
organisations. This should include how environment and health risks related to
pesticide use should be monitored and managed.
R.6. Consider the possibility of including capacity development support for the
management of environment and health risks in the agreement.
R.7. Consider the possibility of including specific funding for third party monitoring or
evaluations of risk management practices of project implementers. This may be
especially important for larger private sector funds involving chains of actors in
agricultural development.
Monitoring and management of health and environmental risks 6.2.4
R.8. Monitor outcomes at farmer´s level. Through surveys among farmers the effect of
training programmes on farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices related to IPM and
36
safe use practices can be measured. This is important since there is often a gap between
trainings and actual adoption of the suggested practices.
R.9. Third party monitoring. Consider complementing reporting from partner
organisations with independent third party monitoring.
Supporting materials for Sida staff and partner organisations 6.2.5
In addition to the position paper on pesticides suggested above, Sida should develop the
following supporting tools:
R.10.Update Sida´s guidelines on environmental impact assessment and make it into a
webbased tool that assists partner organisations to understand Sida´s requirements on
assessment of health and environmental risks. A webbased tool would facilitate regular
updates and linkages to lists with substances that should be avoided.
R.11. Develop guidelines and supporting information on environmental management
systems. Partner organisations should be able to clearly show how they monitor and
manage health and environmental risks. This may be specified in an environment (and
social) management plan. Lines of responsibilities and how it is assured that there is
enough knowledge to manage risks should also be specified.
Capacity development and training of Sida staff 6.2.6
R.12. Basic training on health and environmental risks for different sectors (including
risks related to pesticides) should be included in the introductory training for new Sida
staff
R.13. Specific trainings on IPM and safe use of pesticides should be provided to Sida staff
working with agricultural development programmes. This could be conducted within
the thematic networks on agriculture and private sector development.
R.14. Stimulate knowledge exchange between different programmes involving
pesticides. Sida´s thematic specialists on agriculture and private sector development
could keep a record of the programmes involving pesticides and arrange specific
meetings to share lessons learned. Specific support to programme officers managing
programmes that involves pesticides could also be provided (e.g. reviews of the training
materials on IPM and safe use used in the programmes; reviews of partner
organisations’ environmental management systems). This support could possibly be
provided in collaboration with the helpdesk on environment and climate change.
Strengthening pesticide management policies and capabilities in partner countries 6.2.7
In order to improve pesticide management in Swedish partner countries the capacity to
enforce regulation on what products and substances are allowed on the market is
essential. Hence, safeguards need to be complemented by upstream initiatives.
37
R.15. Support government capacity to regulate agrochemical market and promotion of
IPM.
The Swedish Chemicals Agency and international agencies such as FAO have gained
important experiences from collaborating with different governments on
chemicals/pesticide management, including the promotion of IPM. Sida could analyse
the possibilities of expanding this type of support in selected countries
R.16. Provide catalytic support to change processes
Sida could also stimulate partner organisations to include components in their
programmes which aim at strengthening government agencies and other actors
involved in pesticide management. One recent example is the Swedish support to
Musika in Zambia which has initiated several collaborative projects with the Zambian
environmental management agency (ZEMA). Musika also initiated a Rapid appraisal of
the agrochemical sector in Zambia which involved many crucial actors and resulted in
the formation of a Working Committee on Agrochemicals involving ZEMA as well as
private sector organisations and CSO.
Supporting research and international policy development 6.2.8
Sida should also continue to support research and international policy development for
improved pest management. Initiatives could include:
R.17. Update OECD DAC guidelines on pest management as part of the work on green
growth.
Increasing agricultural productivity is at the heart of most growth strategies in many
African countries. Pesticides play an important role, but for growth to be labeled ”green”
they should be managed correctly. It would hence be timely to update the DAC
guidelines from 1994 as part of DAC work on green growth. Sida could highlight the
need for this.
R.18. Explore synergies between the funding to Swedish Chemicals Agency through the
Global Programme and bilateral programmes. If KemI could collaborate with the
authorities managing pesticides in Tanzania, Zambia and other countries where there
are Swedish financed programmes involving pesticides there could be important
synergies. If funding for KemI’s support could come from the Global Programme rather
than bilateral programmes that could possibly decrease transaction costs involved.
38
References
Andrade-Rivas 2015
Andrade-Rivas F and Rother HA: Chemical exposure reduction: Factors impacting on South African herbicide sprayers' personal protective equipment compliance and high risk work practices; Environ Res. 2015 Oct; 142:34-45
Davis 2015 Davis, G.: Highly Hazardous Pesticides: Finding Alternatives and Reducing Risk by 2020, Guest Article, Chemicals and waste policy and practice, 2015.
FAO and WHO 2014
The International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, 2014.
GEF 2015 Agency Minimum Standards on Environmental and Social Safeguards, Minimum Standard 5 Pest Management;
GEF 2015 Policy SD/PL/03, Global Environmental Facility, Updated Feb 2015
IFC 2015 Environmental, health, and safety guidelines for perennial crop production, International Financial Organisation, November 2015.
Lekei 2012 Establishment of a comprehensive surveillance system for acute pesticide poisoning in Tanzania. Ph. D thesis, University of Cape Town.
Lekei 2014 Lekei EE, Ngowi AV, London L. Pesticide retailers’ knowledge and handling practices in selected towns of Tanzania. Environmental Health. 2014;13:79.
Lekei 2014b Lekei EE et.al.: Characterization and Potential Health Risks of Pesticides registered and used in Tanzania. African Newsletter on Occupational Health and Safety, 24 (3). ISSN 1239-4386
Lekei 2014c Farmers’ knowledge, practices and injuries associated with pesticide exposure in rural farming villages in Tanzania. BMC Public Health 2014 14389.
London et al. London L, de GS, Wesseling C, Kisting S, Rother HA, Mergler D. 2002. Pesticide usage and health consequences for women in developing countries out of sight, out of mind? Int J Occup Environ Health. 2002 Jan-Mar;8(1)46-59.
Meissle 2011 Meissle M, Romeis J, Bigler F. Bt maize and integrated pest management--a European perspective. Pest Manag Sci. 2011
Naidoo 2010 Naidoo S, London L, Rother H-A, et al.; Pesticide safety training and practices in women working in small-scale agriculture in South Africa, Occup Environ Med (2010)
Parsa 2014
Parsa et.al: Obstacles to integrated pest management adoption in developing countries, PNAS 2014 111: 3889-3894.
Sida 2002 Sustainable development. Guidelines for the Review of Environmental Impact Assessments, 2002.
UD 2013 Ministry for foreign affairs 2013. Results strategy for Sweden’s international development cooperation in Tanzania 2013 – 2019.
UNEP 2009 Existing sources and approaches to risk assessment and management of pesticides,
particular needs of developing countries and countries with economies in transition,
UNEP Chemicals Branch, DTIE , 2009.
UNEP 2011 Investing in Natural Capital: Agriculture, in: Towards A Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication.
http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ger/GER_2_ Agriculture.pdf
UNEP 2012 Tanzania–UNEP SECE experts meeting to review the UNEP guidance documents – Ecosystem services, water pollution and water scarcity” & “socioeconomic factors and analysis for pesticides management; Evaluation report, Dar-es-salaam, Tanzania, April 2012
UNEP 2013 Costs of Inaction on the Sound Management of Chemicals, United Nations
39
Environment Programme, 2013.
USAID 2004 USAID/AFR guidance preparing PERSUAPs for pesticide programmes in Africa.
March 15, 2004.
USAID 2014
USAID/AFR guidance: preparing PERSUAPs for pesticide programs in Africa, January 2014
Reviewed documentation about the three programmes in Tanzania
CFAT
Basis for Decision on Contribution. Embassy of Sweden. 2013-08-02.
CFAT progress report 2015 for activity year 2014(revised)
PPT Presenting the programme and its implementing partner HRNS(1302_HRNS Projects TZ 1)
Agreement (HRNS will conduct an EIA during their extended period of the programme, during the spring
2016)
1406 Paraquat and alternatives CFAT
1407 HRNS CFAT TZ_Herbicide Training Manual4C Code of conduct. Approved by the 4C Council in
December 9th, 2014. Version 2.0
AECF TZAW
Appraisal of intervention, final. Sida, 2014-03-28
Tanzania Agribusiness Window Portfolio Report 2014
AECF Tanzania Agribusiness Window Annula Report July 2014 to June 2015.
Paraquat discussion w Sida HQ and AECF
AMDT
Appraisal of intervention, final. Sida, 2015-07-07
Agricultural Markets Development Trust Establishment plan 2014, March 2014
40
Annex 1 list of interviewees Sida
Person Position Place Date
Ola Möller Lead Specialist Agriculture
Telephone interview
November 11, 2015
Johanna Palmberg Lead specialist Environment and Climate
Telephone interview
November 13, 2015
Maria van Berlekom
Head of Development Cooperation
Swedish embassy, Dar es Salaam
November 18, 2015
Josefin Bennet Fredriksson
Programme officer handling CFAT
Swedish embassy, Dar es Salaam
November 18, 2015
Jwani Jube Programme officer handling AECF TZAW and AMDT
Swedish embassy, Dar es Salaam
December 1, 2015
Stephen Mwakifwamba
Environmnetal specialist and energy
Swedish embassy, Dar es Salaam
December 1, 2015
Victor Mollel Land rights Swedish embassy, Dar es Salaam
December 1, 2015
CFAT
Person Position Place Date
Ina Wengrzyk Country Manager Tanzania, HRNS (Hanns R. Neumann Stiftung)
Usa River November 27, 2015
Webster Miyanda Field Operations Manager South, HRNS Mbeya
Mbeya November 24, 2015
Lized Cope Senior Agronomist, HRNS Mbeya
Mbeya November 23, 2015
Lagae Mwenura POT – Mbeya Rural, HRNS Mbeya
Mbeya November 23, 2015
January Rubuga CA Coordinator, HRNS Mbeya
Mbeya November 23-24, 2015
Baraka Kajange Agronomist, HRNS Mbeya
Mbeya November 23, 2015
Blaga Zlateva MAE Coordinator Mbeya November 23-24, 2015
Jimmy Kalonga and Zena Jimmy
Farmer family Coffee farm outside Mbeya
November 23, 2015
Anania Kagdbela and Tabhita Anania
Farmer family Coffee farm outside Mbeya
November 23, 2015
41
Ester Mwaulezi Female farmer Coffee farm outside Mbeya
November 24, 2015
AECF TZAW
Person Position Place Date
Bolek Stawicki AGRA AECF Nairobi Skype Interview November 19, 2015 Aly Breedlove KPMG –AECF
Country Representative Tanzania
Dar es Salaam November 19, 2015
Justice Rutenge KPMG - AECF Monitoring, Learning and Communications Manager- Tanzania
Dar es Salaam and Arusha
November 19, 2015 and November 26, 2015
Daniel Mwambugi SeedCo – Zonal Sales Manager Arusha
Arusha November 26, 2015
AMDT
Person Position Place Date
Michael Kairumba Technical Director Dar es Salaam November 20, 2015 David Mabula Market Systems
Manager Dar es Salaam November 20, 2015
Martin Mgallah Market Systems Manager
Dar es Salaam November 20, 2015
Ralph Engelmann M4P Advisor Dar es Salaam November 20, 2015
Other interviewees
Person Position Place Date
Ingela Andersson Head International Unit, Swedish Chemicals Agency
Swedish Chemicals Agency
October 21, 2015
Anna Fransson Sr Advisor International Unit, Swedish Chemicals Agency
Swedish Chemicals Agency
October 21, 2015
Lilian Törnqvist Sr Advisor International Unit, Swedish Chemicals Agency
e-mail and telephone interview
November 15, 2015 and December 4, 2015
Prof. Samuel Mangele, , GCLA
Chief government chemist, Government Chemists
Dar es Salaam November 20, 2015
42
Laboratory Agency, Tanzania
Sabanitha L. Mtega Director, chemicals Management Dept., Government Chemists Laboratory Agency, Tanzania
Dar es Salaam November 20, 2015
Diomedes Kalisa Plant Health Services, Ministry of Agriculture
Dar es Salaam November 19, 2015
Emanuel Halinka Plant Health and Protection Officer, Ministry of Agriculture
Mbeya November 24, 2015
Olais Seenga Agrodealer, Obo Investment Ltd
Mbalizi November 24, 2015
Beatrice Agrodealer, Beatrice Agrovet
Arusha November 26, 2015
Dr Elikama Lekei Ag. Registrar of Pesticides and Head of the Pesticides and Environmental Management Division
e-mail December 1, 2015
43
Annex 2: Pesticide substances banned by the European Union. Their appearance on HHP lists (JMPM and PAN interpretation, respectively)
Row Labels Defined as HHP
(JMPM) Defined as HHP (PAN)
1,3-dichloropropene 1 1
Acephate 1
Alachlor 1 1
Amitraz
Atrazine 1
benfuracarb 1
Butralin
Cadusafos 1 1
Carbaryl 1 1
carbofuran 1 1
carbosulfan 1
chlorates (Mg, Na, K)
chlorfenapyr 1
chlorthal-dimethyl
chlozolinate
di-nitro-ortho-cresol / DNOC 1 1
Diazinon 1
dichlobenil
Dicloran
Dicofol
dimethanimid
diniconazole-M
Dinoterb 1 1
diphenylamine
endosulfan - see footnote * 1 1
fenitrothion 1
Fenthion 1
fentin hydroxide / triphenyltin hydroxide 1 1
flufenoxuron 1
flurprimidol
methamidophos 1 1
methyl parathion 1 1
Naled 1
oxydemeton-methyl 1 1
parathion-ethyl 1 1
Phosalone
procymidone 1 1
propachlor 1 1
Propanil
propargite
44
propisochlor
pyrazophos 1
quintozene / PCNB / pentachloronitrobenzene
Tecnazene
Thiodicarb 1 1
Trichlorfon 1
Trifuralin 1
Grand Total 16 29
45
Annex 3 GEFs Minimum Standard on pest Management Source GEF 2015
Criteria
Established policies, procedures, and guidelines require the Agency to ensure that the
environmental and health risks associated with pesticide use are minimized and
managed, and that safe, effective, and environmentally sound pest management is
promoted and supported.
Minimum Requirements
Promote the use of demand driven, ecologically-based biological or environmental pest
management practices (referred to as Integrated Pest Management [IPM] in agricultural
projects and Integrated Vector Management [IVM] in public health projects) and reduce
reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides. Include assessment of pest management
issues, impacts and risks in the EA process. The Agency requires that, in the context of
projects that it supports, pesticides are procured contingent on an assessment of the
nature and degree of associated risks, taking into account the proposed use and
intended users. The Agency also does not allow the procurement or use of formulated
products that are in World Health Organisation (WHO) Classes IA and IB, or
formulations of products in Class II unless there are restrictions that are likely to deny
use or access to lay personnel and others without training or proper equipment8.
The Agency also does not allow the procurement or use in its projects pesticides and
other chemicals specified as persistent organic pollutants identified under the
Stockholm Convention.
Follow the recommendations and minimum standards as described in the United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) International Code of Conduct on the
Distribution and Use of Pesticides (Rome, 2003) and its associated technical guidelines
and procure only pesticides, along with suitable protective and application equipment
that will permit pest management actions to be carried out with well defined and
minimal risk to health, environment and livelihoods.
Support policy reform and institutional capacity development to (a) enhance
implementation of IPM- and IVM-based pest management, and (b) regulate and monitor
the distribution and use of pesticides. Disclose draft mitigation plans in a timely manner,
before appraisal formally begins, in a place accessible to key stakeholders including
project affected groups and CSOs in a form and language understandable to them.
Guidance on Applicability/Inapplicability
Any Agency that implements projects in the areas of sustainable land management
(including sustainable forest management), agricultural production and pest
management, or public health vector control will need to meet this standard. Agencies
for which this safeguard is found inapplicable will not be permitted to implement
projects in these areas.
8 Reference WHO’s “Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification”
(IOMC, 2000-2002).
46
Annex 4. IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social
Sustainability 2012 Performance Standard 3Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention,
Section on Pesticide Use and Management
14. The client will, where appropriate,
formulate and implement an integrated
pest management (IPM) and/or integrated
vector management (IVM) approach
targeting economically significant pest
infestations and disease vectors of public
health significance. The client’s IPM and
IVM program will integrate coordinated
use of pest and environmental information
along with available pest control methods,
including cultural practices, biological,
genetic, and, as a last resort, chemical
means to prevent economically significant
pest damage and/or disease transmission to
humans and animals.
16. The client will design its pesticide
application regime to (i) avoid damage to
natural enemies of the target pest, and
where avoidance is not possible, minimize,
and (ii) avoid the risks associated with the
development of resistance in pests and
vectors, and where avoidance is not possible
minimize. In addition, pesticides will be
handled, stored, applied, and disposed of in
accordance with the Food and Agriculture
Organization’s International Code of
Conduct on the Distribution and Use of
Pesticides or other GIIP.
15. When pest management activities
include the use of chemical pesticides, the
client will select chemical pesticides that are
low in human toxicity, that are known to be
effective against the target species, and that
have minimal effects on non-target species
and the environment. When the client
selects chemical pesticides, the selection
will be based upon requirements that the
pesticides be packaged in safe containers, be
clearly labeled for safe and proper use, and
that the pesticides have been manufactured
by an entity currently licensed by relevant
regulatory agencies.
17. The client will not purchase, store, use,
manufacture, or trade in products that fall
in WHO Recommended Classification of
Pesticides by Hazard Class Ia (extremely
hazardous); or Ib (highly hazardous). The
client will not purchase, store, use,
manufacture or trade in Class II (moderately
hazardous) pesticides, unless the project has
appropriate controls on manufacture,
procurement, or distribution and/or use of
these chemicals. These chemicals should not
be accessible to personnel without proper
training, equipment, and facilities to handle,
store, apply, and dispose of these products
properly.
47
Annex 5 Environment and climate change aspects inTRAC The review is based on the text in the document “TRAC helptext normal” received from
Sida.
Stage Plan Appraisal
Page 4
If possible environmental impacts from supported activities need to be analysed and
handled further, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an established tool to
define risks and possible positive impacts on environmentally sustainable development.
The scope and size of the EIA depend on type of activities and differs from case to case.
Read more
Link to Environmental Assessment (EIA) tool
Page 5
Indepth Relevance Assessment
Additional support
Environment/Climate Guidelines for environmental impact assessment. Sida´s helpdesk
for Environment and Climate integration. Network for Environment and Climate Change.
Page 11
Take into account how the development problem and the intervention relates to the
specific context where it is going to be implemented and consider if you need to pay
specific attention to any aspect due to factors like corruption, ongoing or possible
conflicts, lack of security, political and social instability, environment/climate
conditions, access to or control over natural resources or HIV prevalence. To take the
context into account can mean to identify openings and possibilities for the intervention
to have positive side effects and directly or indirectly contribute to improvements like
decreased level of corruption, improved environment, and strengthened resilience. It
can also imply to identify and hopefully avoid possible negative consequences. These
factors will often be identified in a previous context analysis, power analysis or
environmental impact assessment (EIA).
Page 14
Does this contribution include private sector collaboration in the form of Public Private
Development Partnerships, Challenge Funds managed by Sida or Drivers of change?
Help Contributions with a substantial part of private sector funding and contributions
that aim to engage private sector involvement in development cooperation should use
Sida Sustainability Screening Framework to assess strengths and weaknesses in the
partners’ performance relating to sustainability. The screening framework uses a
management approach to assess the partners’ management of economic, social and
environmental sustainability. Later in the appraisal process you will be asked to upload
the screening tool and make an assessment of sustainability based on the screening
results.
48
Stage Appraise and Agree on Contribution
Page 27
Environment/climate aspects have been taken into account in the intervention setup.
Help When answering this question you shall assess if environment and climate has
been taken into account and been integrated into the design of the intervention. This
means visualizing if and how the collaboration partner has made an environmental
impact assessment (EIA) and through this has
Described possible positive or negative environmental impacts from the proposed
activities;
Proposed measurements to avoid negative environmental impacts or to enhance the
positive environmental impacts.
Important aspects to consider are if
Environmental or climate conditions that may affect the implementation of the
intervention are analysed. Examples of this can be how climate change affects rain
patterns / draught/floods or the effects of air and water pollution on people´s health.
Possible positive and negative environment effects caused by the intervention are
highlighted. By identifying possible positive impacts the justification for/relevance of
the intervention can be strengthened. Examples of this can be increased resilience in
ecosystems/ improved food safety or decreased discharge of greenhouse gases. Negative
effects should be analysed in terms of risk, and
dealt with accordingly.
Environment or climate aspects are reflected in the design of the intervention as well as
in expected results, indicators, activities, resources and methods.
In some cases the environmental aspects are few or easily managed and your relevance
assessment can hence be rather brief.
If the answer to this question is no, consider to start a dialogue with the partner and if
needed, consider to add a dialogue objective in the results register.
Read more Sida Environment Helpdesk http//sidaenvironmenthelpdesk.se/
Page 29
Environment and climate
When doing your indepth relevance assessment it´s important to think through the
possible risk of causing unintended negative consequences to the environment and
climate.
The three pillars of sustainable development environmental, social and economic, are
closely interlinked and necessary to consider in all development work. The most obvious
risk is that the proposed intervention will lead to negative effects on the physical
environment. However, when looking at the risk of doing harm to the environment and
contributing negatively to climate change it is important to bear in mind that this risk
might imply possible consequences not only to the physical environment but also to
human health (like for instance pollution, worsening sanitary conditions or the risk that
49
infectious diseases or bilharzia, malaria or HIV/Aids will be spread) and economic
opportunities. Many individuals and local communities often directly depend on the
natural resource base and sound environment for health and income. For example, a
question to ask could be if the contribution in any way negatively affects the living
conditions, livelihoods, land rights and/or the capacity of the local population to spread
risks or handle crises?
Page 57
In some contributions it will be relevant to use a set of other risk areas. You can select to
activate certain of these risk areas if needed. Please note that it is optional to use these
risk areas, and these risk areas shall be used carefully and only if there is future
uncertainty/ risks linked to these areas
OR3 Risk of doing harm Environment and Climate – to be used if there is a risk that the
intervention may cause harm on the environment and climate
Stage Performance Monitoring No info about environment and climate change
Stage Contribution Completion No info about environment and climate change
Chemicals or pesticides are not mentioned in TRAC except for a reference to the
"Regional Agricultural Chemicals Programme" in South East Asia which is used as a
general example of how to describe an intervention.
50
Annex 6. Terms of references Att: Sida Environmental Helpdesk, Oct1 2015
Requested assignment: Assessment of the use of pesticides within Swedish
financed programmes in Tanzania
People living in poverty are often directly dependent on natural resources such as forests, land, rivers
and seas, and are therefore hit particularly hard by environmental pollution and the effects of
climate change. They are also the ones directly affected physically by the use of chemicals in
agriculture.
Environment and climate change is one of Sweden´s top-priorities within its development
cooperation. In the aid policy framework, the government has set up a special milestone for
improved environment, limited environmental footprint and enhanced resilience to environmental
effects, climate change and natural disasters.
All of Sida’s initiatives and all sectors of development cooperation shall integrate environment-
including climate aspects. Efforts are assessed both on the basis of their sensitivity to
environmental/climate change, and how they can contribute to environmentally sustainable
development. The expected development prospects are balanced against the risks of adverse
environmental impacts.
Sida shall identify and make visible different conflict of goals that might occur, and develop
suggestions on how they should be handled in the best way.
ASSIGNMENT BACKGROUND
During a field trip in the spring of 2014 the herbicide Paraquat was found to be used in two of Sida’s
programs in Tanzania, one of which further is about climate smart (and environmentally friendly)
agriculture. In addition, permanent use of herbicide round-up for weeding was being promoted as a
standard extension advice.
Paraquat requires a special label with a skull and the letter T+ for chemicals that can seriously
damage a person’s health in small doses and might be fatal. Paraquat claims most of its poison
victims among farm workers and farmers who are not protected when they spray the herbicide, since
they have no access to the kind of protective clothing that manufacturers recommend. Most often
farm workers simply don’t know enough about the risks or cannot afford protective clothing, safety
goggles, and masks that would shield them from the poison spray. Also wearing heavy protective
clothing in the tropics may be impractical or impossible for users.
Paraquat is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world but it is the most highly acutely toxic
herbicide. Paraquat has been banned in EU. But in a number of developing countries like Tanzania,
plantation workers and small farmers spray Paraquat to kill weeds. In Tanzania the most commonly
used herbicides are Glyphosate (common name round-up) and Paraquat. The two herbicides are
51
common to farmers in Tanzania because they are relatively cheap compared to the other types of
herbicides and they are locally available.
After the finding and informed dialogue, the implementing partner started promoting the use of
alternative herbicides, and discouraged farmers from using Paraquat. However, while not as harmful
as Paraquat, the pros and cons of a permanent use of herbicides (such as round-up) for weeding, in
the context of environmentally sustainable agriculture, need to be considered.
Following this incident, the question has arisen on how much knowledge we as donors have about
the environmental impact within our portfolio and that we lack a firm grip on how to position
ourselves when it comes to the rules and regulations locally, the guidelines Sida has - or should
have - on the use of various agro-chemicals within development cooperation and how to manage
and follow-up on these aspects in programs we manage. For this reason The Embassy of Sweden
intends to conduct a study to obtain increased understanding of the current situation as such within
the portfolio – with focus on where in the “decision chain” (including among the recipient
organisations) decisions of their use/promotion are made - and to develop a systematic approach on
how Sweden and Sida can ensure that use of harmful pesticides are not promoted in an inadequate
manner. Besides identifying the strategic entry-points and measures (within the Embassy as well as
among the recipient organisations in our programmes in Tanzania the study should contribute to a
broader learning process and to methodological development within Sida on how to manage and
follow up health and environmental impacts related to agro-chemical use in Swedish supported
programmes and further define what our standards should be, in accordance to international
standards but also from a realistic approach when targeting poor smallholder farmers. We need
further guidance on processes of pre-assessing and follow-up in programs and with partners’ internal
approaches and follow-ups.
Focus will be on three contributions within the Embassy’s current portfolio;
Coffee Farmers Alliances in Tanzania (CFAT) aims to sustainably improve the living conditions of
25,000 coffee farmers in Tanzania representing with their families about 125,000 people in total
during the period 2012-2015. Sida is supporting CFAT over the period 2013-2015 and will probably
continue the support beyond 2015. The Program is a Public Private Development project (PPDP) that
is co-financed by donors and the private sector through International Coffee Partners (ICP) and the
programme is implemented by the foundation Hanns R. Neumann Stiftung. The project components
within the Sida-ICP partnership constituting a part of the overall CFAT project are: organizational
development, productivity enhancement, quality improvement and establishment of better
marketing options for smallholder farmers. The partner is also implementing the globally Sida
supported programme Coffee & Climate hence these overhanging issues are of even further interest.
African Enterprise Challenge Fund, Tanzania Agriculture Window (AECF TZAW). AECF is a challenge
fund capitalized by multilateral and bilateral donors to stimulate private sector entrepreneurs in
Africa to innovate and find profitable ways of improving access to markets and the way markets
function for the poor, particularly in rural areas. The AECF TZAW is a special fund of the AECF that is
only open to agribusinesses investing in Tanzania. The widest possible range of agribusinesses are
eligible for support, including farming, plantation and ranching companies, out grower schemes,
producers, manufacturers and distributors of agricultural inputs - seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, tools
and equipment, agro processors, traders, merchants and other private sector service providers
52
including market information, extension and other agricultural services. The Embassy support 39
grantees in Tanzania and the programme period is 2013-2019.
Agriculture Markets Development Trust (AMDT) is an intervention that is in the process of taking
off. The AMDT is co-founded by Sida, Irish Aid, DANIDA and SDC and aim to support better
coordination between value chain development initiatives, enhance and improve the understanding
of agricultural market systems, improve productivity and market access for micro, small and medium
enterprises; and thereby more effectively contribute to reducing poverty in Tanzania. AMDT will
provide strategic advice to key value chain actors and facilitate strategic values chain interventions.
The first sector to focus on is yet to be decided.
All three programmes have (or will have) several levels of decision-making, with sub-contracting or
grant giving as key feature. Hence appropriate routines, safeguards etc. need to be in place at all the
different levels. The study could be seen primarily as a “Strategic Pesticides Assessment (SPA)”,
addressing the routines, guidance and safeguards related to pesticide promotion and use within the
planned and supported programmes
OBJECTIVES The objective of this assignment is:
To increase the knowledge at the Embassy and Sida on what agricultural practices and extension advice regarding pesticide use generally, as well as those particularly known to be associated with significant health and environmental risks, that is being promoted in Tanzania with main focus on the Sida funded programmes, including to what extent various pesticides (herbicides, fungicides and insecticides) are being actively promoted within the Sida funded programmes, and the quality and applicability of technical advisory services provided to distributors and to farmers through the Swedish funded programmes
The objectives above include identifying practices that potentially should be discouraged having gender and child perspectives in mind.
To increase the knowledge at the Embassy and Sida on the current safe guard mechanisms - at the different levels in the “decision chain” - within the planned and supported programmes (of the different actors and levels) in place to provide information and follow up on pesticide use in the supported programs.
Make strategic recommendations on if and how safeguard mechanism within Sida as well as in the supported programmes, should and/or could be further strengthened, including regarding practices and extension advise that could be questionable. Measures proposed must be strategic and different for different levels to be relevant: from e.g. routines/practices regarding selection of grantees (and follow-up mechanisms of grant receivers), to the hands-on extension advise/promotion by the direct distributors
Provide input to the development of guidelines and methods on how Sida can formulate and
implement responsible use of pesticides in supported programs; what to expect within the
programmes taken into account legal and regulatory framework of the country of operations, our
standards as a donor and also the realistic expectations when targeting poor small holder farmers.
53
ACTIVITIES
• Very briefly outline the institutional and regulatory framework for pesticides in Tanzania and the relevant stakeholders involved, including identification of any gaps in comparison with international good practice as expressed in the International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management (FAO and WHO 2014) as well as EU regulations.
• Briefly describe what agricultural practices and extension advice regarding pesticide use that is being promoted in Tanzania, and to what extent various pesticides (herbicides, insecticides and fungicides) are being actively promoted.
• Assess and document the extent of the promotion and use of pesticides, within the relevant Swedish bilaterally funded programs in Tanzania. When, what type and how much pesticides are being promoted and/or used and how? Are the pesticides used in accordance with national legislation and the International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management? Is the use of pesticides combined with pest monitoring and non-chemical pest/disease/weed management methods? What is the quality and applicability of training and advisory services provided to distributors and farmers through the programmes? To what extent are environmental health concerns particularly of women and children understood and addressed?
• Describe and analyse the structure, different actors and levels within the three programmes, and identify entry-points and procedures/measures for (strategic decision-points) regarding pesticides use of the different actors and levels. In AECF this will for example include the role of AGRA (agreement partner), AECF/KPMG (the Fund Manager), grantees, other collaborating partners, distributors etc.
• Assess to what extent and how the different actors and levels within the above mentioned programmes are managing (or are planned to manage in the case of AMDT) the health and environmental risks related to pesticide use.
• Assess the adequacy of current procedures, guidelines and competence in place within Sida regarding appraisal and follow-up of agricultural programmes in relation to pesticide use.
• Synthesise and analyse the findings and develop recommendations at micro and macro level for the Embassy and Sida on possible measures and safeguards to take.
PROPOSED METHODOLOGY The Sida Environmental Helpdesk is asked to do a mapping of practices, guidance and safeguard
mechanisms of the implementing partner organisations, possible sub grantees, and different groups
in the chain of implementation including of smallholder farmer agrochemical users within on-going
and planned relevant Swedish financed programs in Tanzania. Starting with a desk study and further
interview responsible authorities, Program Officers within the partner organisations and visit
designated project sites to meet distributors and end-users. Further, gender and children aspects
should be mainstreamed in this study, both in terms of sources of information and in the
documentation of potential differences in access of information and effects on health on women and
men and children.
EXPECTED DELIVERABLES
54
1. A draft inception report (after 3-5 of days of work) containing:
a. An overall methodology of how the assignment will be conducted.
b. A list of proposed key informant interviewees
c. A draft survey instrument
2. A draft report incorporating (timeline to be suggested by helpdesk):
a. An executive summary
b. A description of the methodology used in the study and the sources of information (including list of all study participants and documentary material reviewed)
c. A succinct presentation of the findings from the study
d. Recommendations to the Embassy of Sweden/Sida on how to best minimise and mitigate unsustainable pesticide use in supported programmes including need for further development of guidelines, safeguards etc. at Sida
3. An oral presentation of the draft report at a seminar at the Swedish Embassy.
4. A final report
LEVEL OF EFFORT AND TIMING
The level of effort is as follows: 27 days
It is expected that the assignment will be initiated in October and completed before the end of
2015.
THE ROLE OF THE SWEDISH EMBASSY The Swedish Embassy in Tanzania will facilitate the implementation of the assignment through:
Sending relevant information available at the Embassy about programmes and projects to be reviewed as well as any studies or other documents that the Embassy have access to that may add value to the assignment
Providing contact information to persons within the programmes as an entry point to identify additional interviewees
Providing oral and written comments on the inception report and the draft report
55
Annex 7 Selected Photos
The coffee farmers Jimmy Kalonga and Zena Jimmy outside Mbeya
AgroCron contains profenofos, a pesticide not approved for use in Europe. Profenofos is an
organophosphate insecticide used to kill the coffee cherry borer and other insects. Profenofos
is considered as a highly hazardous pesticide due to its’ toxicity for both people and wildlife.
It accumulates in the food web and is a neurotoxicant as well as a cholinesterase inhibitor.
56
Jimmy shows us his personal protection
equipment, which is stored in his home.
Jimmy and Zena and their best coffee plant
Coffee farmers Anania Kagdbela and Tabhita
Anania. Mbeya regioin.
CFAT demonstration plot for coffee in
Mbeya region
57
SeedCo’s maize seeds are treated with
Chlorpyrifos, Fludioxonil and Metalaxyl-M,
all of them substances which are toxic or
dangerous to the environment. The seeds are
coloured green to signal that they should not
be eaten.
Olais Seenga in his pesticide shop in Mbalizi,
Mbeya region. All kinds of pesticides
including pesticides explicitly banned in the
EU such as atrazine and fenitrothion. Also
paraquat is sold here.