VEGETABLE CROP PROTECTION PRACTICES AND POLICIES...

VEGETABLE CROP PROTECTION PRACTICES AND

POLICIES IN THE HUMIDTROPICS

VEGETABLE CROP PROTECTION PRACTICES AND POLICY

RELATED ISSUES IN THE RURAL AND PERI-URBAN AREAS OF

THE COCOA BELTS OF THE ASHANTI AND WESTERN REGIONS

OF GHANA

BY

DR. ELVIS ASARE-BEDIAKO

and

PROF. JOHN ANDOH MICAH

A DRAFT CONSULTANT REPORT SUBMITTED WORLD VEGETABLE CENTRE,

AVRDC

JANUARY 2014

i

TABLE OF CONTENT

Content Page

Title page 1

Table of content 2

List of abbreviations 3

Executive summary 4

Background information 7

Study approach and tools used 11

Presentation of results and discussion 16

Conclusions 44

Recommendations 45

Limitation of study 47

References 48

Appendices 53

ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AEAs Agricultural Extension Agents

AVRDC The World Vegetable Center

CEPS Customs Excise and Preventive Service

COCOBOD Ghana Cocoa Board

DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GADD Ghana Agro-Dealer Development project

GAPs Good Agricultural Practices

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GHS Ghana Cedis

GTZ German Technical Cooperation

GTZ German Technical Cooperation

ICPM Integrated Crop and Pest Management

IFDC International Fertilizer Development Center

IPM Integrated Pest Management

KII Key Informant Interview

MEST Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology

MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture

MRLs Maximum Residue Levels

Mt Metric tonnes

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NPAS Northern Presbyterian Agricultural Services

PPE Personal Protective Equipment

PPRSD Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate

TV Television

USAID United State Agency for International Development

WHO World Health Organization

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

One of the biggest problems confronting vegetable farmers in Ghana is disease and pests which ravage their crops. Chemical pesticide use is a common practice to control pests and diseases in vegetable cultivation in Ghana. The Ghanaian public is becoming increasingly concerned about the adverse long-term effects of pesticides on human’s health and the environment. The objective of the survey was to provide baseline information on farm level crop protection practices and policies, and to identify policy-level and institutional constraints and opportunities for the introduction of the integrated crop and pest management (ICPM) methods. The aim of the project is to achieve increased and sustainable agricultural production and farm incomes; that diseases and insect pest are managed in sustainable manner, and that the risks to human health and the environment associated with pesticide use are kept to an acceptable minimum. The study used participatory tools and techniques,

including in‐depth interview with vegetable producers, focus group discussion (FGD) with farmer groups, observational checklists on the selected communities and farmers fields, and key informant interview (KII) to collect data from vegetable farmers from three districts each of Ashanti and Western regions where cocoa is produced. Data collected were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics including partial budgeting and cost analysis. Microsoft EXCEL and SPSS programmes were used to process the data, and the report was generated with MS Word. Key findings of the survey revealed that:

• Vegetable producers in the cocoa growing areas of Western and Ashanti regions were predominantly male, aged 30 years old and above, with mainly Middle School or Junior High School education. They were mainly smallholder farmers that relied on family labour with household size ranging between 4 and 9 and worked the land using mainly hoe and cutlass.

• The farms sizes were mainly owned by the farmers themselves under customary land tenure systems.

• Two major farming systems were identified namely – mixed cropping system and mixed farming system. The mixed cropping system has the following crop arrangement: different vegetables only; vegetable, arable crops and cocoa; vegetable and arable crops; and vegetable and cocoa. The mixed farming system has the following combinations: vegetable, arable crops and animals; vegetables, arable crops, cocoa and animals.

• The most common vegetables produced in the two regions were tomatoes, pepper, garden eggs and okra, although cabbage and onion are cultivated by a few farmers. Carrots, amaranth, and beans, were found at a small scale in Ashanti region. The vegetable cropping systems were sole cropping, intercropping/mixed cropping or multiple cropping where different vegetables were cultivated on separate plots.

• Most farmers irrigated their crops with either, watering can or buckets or mainly relied on natural rainfall.

• Key constraints encountered in the production of vegetables were inadequate finance; pests and disease attacks; inadequate tools and equipment, and inadequate extension services.

iv

• Farmers mainly managed pests and diseases on their farms using pesticides, without appropriate personal protection equipment.

• There has been an increasing trend in the use of pesticide by farmers over the past five years, and there were high frequencies of pesticides applications within a cropping season.

• Farmers are misusing pesticides by not observing appropriate pre-harvest interval (spraying too close to harvest thus contaminating the crop before consumption); by entering the field too soon after spraying (no or short re-entry interval); over-applying the dosage; applying pesticides intended for cocoa or other cash crops; using unregistered pesticide, and mixing different chemical pesticides together.

• Farmers usually disposed of empty containers and waste water after washing sprayers on the field, disregarding any environmental and eventual health consequences.

• Farmers use pesticides without full understanding of the impact on human health and the environment. They also lack the appropriate knowledge on safe handling and use of pesticides.

• Female farmers and illiterates were more vulnerable to pesticide poisoning than literate male counterparts.

• The general indication was that it was more profitable to use pesticides in tomato and pepper production than not to use pesticides.

On policies regulating the handling and management of pesticide, the following are the key findings:

• The pesticide regulations do not require those who want to import, distribute,

manufacture, advertise, retail or sell pesticides to have any relevant experience,

training or qualification to do so. As a result actors in the pesticide business may not

be qualified.

• The main implementing agencies, EPA and PPRSD are at different ministries. EPA is

under the Ministry of Environment and Science whereas PPRSD is under the Ministry

of Food and Agriculture, and thus coordination of efforts has been difficult.

• Anecdotal evidence indicates that EPA and CEPS officials are not able to regulate the

registration process adequately, leading to compromises in enforcement, for example

bio-efficacy testing and clearance of unregistered pesticides.

• There is weak capacity in terms of number of pesticide inspectors and extension staff

as well as logistical support for surveillance operations.

• Training and capacity building of the major actors in the distribution and use of

pesticides has been inadequate.

v

• Further anecdotal evidence indicates that many pesticide dealers do not have licenses

to operate and are believed to be selling banned or restricted pesticides.

• The pesticide legislation in Ghana does not require manufacturers to advertise

maximum residue levels (MRLs) on their products.

• There is no regulation on the importation of implements for the application of

various types of pesticides.

It can be concluded from the aforementioned key findings that there is over-reliance and abuse of pesticide in the management of pests and diseases, with potential risk to human health and the environment. Also the government regulation on pestiticide handling and management and its implementation seem deficient. We therefore recommend integrated crop and pest management (ICPM) methods which require a judicious use of pesticides, to vegetable farmers. There is also an urgent need for the training of all vegetable farmers on proper handling and management of pesticide, as well as the education on the hazardous nature of pesticides. Also further subsidiary regulation may be required for proper implementation of the Pesticide handling and Management Act (EPA Act 490 Part Two).

1

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.1 Integration of Vegetable Production into Existing Farming System in Ghana

Agriculture is Ghana’s most important economic sector, employing about 60% of the national work force, mainly small landholders on a formal and informal basis (Gerken et al., 2001) and accounting for about 30.2 % of total GDP in 2010; the agriculture real GDP in 2010 had growth rate of 4.8% in 2010 (MoFA, 2011). About 90% of farm holdings are less than 2 hectares in size, although there are some large farms and plantations, particularly for rubber, oil palm and coconut and to a lesser extent, rice, maize and pineapples. The main system of farming is traditional. Most food crop farms are intercropped. Mono cropping is mostly associated with larger-scale commercial farms (MOFA, 2011). Agricultural crops, including yams, grains, cocoa, oil palms, kola nuts, and timber, form the base of agriculture in Ghana's economy. (Clark, 1994) Cocoa has historically been a key economic sector and a major source of export and fiscal earnings (Bulir 1998; McKay and Aryeetey, 2005). It is a major source of employment and hence source of livelihood for several farmers involved in its cultivation. In recent years, cocoa production more than doubled, from 395,000 tons in 2000 to 740,000 tons in 2005, contributing 28 percent of agricultural growth in 2006—up from 19% in 2001(Bogetic et al. 2007). While the poverty rate used to be 60.1 percent among cocoa farmers in 1991/92, it has declined significantly and is now 23.9 percent, or 112,000 cocoa-farming households (Coulombe and Wodon 2007). The poverty levels among the cocoa growing households can further be reduced if they diversify and complement cocoa production with other food crops. With increasing urban population there is an increasing demand for food. As a perennial tree crop, good cocoa cultivation fosters crop diversity and the integration of other food crops, especially plantain, oil palm, cassava, fruit trees, coconuts and vegetables in permanent association. Managing these associations is far more profitable on a per hectare basis, greatly aids family food availability and contributes to better environmental stewardship (Godfrey, 2013). Overall, cocoa farming is an integral part of a food security calculation and is reflected in the national agriculture priorities (Godfrey, 2013). With increasing pressure from the growing human population, only vertical expansion is possible by integrating appropriate farming components, requiring less space and time and ensuring periodic income to the farmer. The integrated farming system therefore, assumes greater importance for the sound management of farm resources to enhance farm productivity, reduce environmental degradation; improve the quality of life for poor farmers and to maintain sustainability (Al Mamun, 2011). By diversifying into high value products such as vegetables, farmers are able to offset any decline in income by relying on a single crop as their main source of livelihood. To the extent that diversification results in more intensive farming, it will also result in a higher average income for the farm family household. Smallholder cocoa farmers in many cocoa producing countries intercrop cocoa cash crops with cash crops. By choosing cash crops (vegetables), the farmers are able to supplement their incomes and to reduce their household food bills. In Ghana, it was reported that incomes from these cash crops could help the farmer to survive during the gestation period of the cocoa tree (Consultative Board on the World Cocoa Economy, 2010).

2

Vegetable production in the rural and peri-urban areas of cocoa belts of Ghana including Ashanti and Western Regions is a form of crop diversification and alternative source of income for the people. It thus plays an important socio-economic role as well as diversifying the diet and nutrition (Ntow et al., 2006). Tomato, eggplant, pepper, okra and in recent years cabbage are mainly grown in these areas. Within the cocoa belt in Ghana, these vegetables are normally grown in areas where cocoa does not thrive well e.g. marshy areas, or as intercrops during the early years of cocoa production before canopy closes. This maximises the use of the limited land resources, without having to expand area of production. Vegetable cultivation provides an excellent source of employment for both rural and urban dwellers as it takes place in many rural areas through truck farming and in the outskirts of towns and cities as market gardening and backyard gardening to supply fresh produce to the urban markets (Owusu-Boateng and Amuzu, 2013). Vegetables are the most important ingredients of the human diet for the maintenance of good health and prevention of diseases. Ghana exports large quantities of vegetables such as okra and chillies to European countries including Germany, Italy, Belgium and Switzerland (Gyau and Spiller, 2007) and hence a source of foreign exchange.

1.2 The Task

Vegetables are grown extensively in Ghana, and constitute a large portion of the diet of the average Ghanaian. Vegetables are essential for a healthy and balanced diet, as well as adding variety, interest and flavour to the menu. One of the biggest problems confronting vegetable farmers in Ghana is disease and pests which ravage their crops (Ntow et al, 2006). Vegetables, generally, attract a wide range of pests and diseases, and therefore require intensive pest management (Dinham, 2003). In Ghana, the increase in urban population and demand for food has resulted in the use of chemical pesticides for food production (Amoah et al., 2006). Chemical pesticide use is a common practice to control pests and diseases in vegetable cultivation in Ghana (Ntow et al., 2006; Owusu-Boateng and Amuzu, 2013). Pesticide use has increased over time in Ghana and is particularly elevated in the production of high-value cash crops and vegetables (Gerken et al. 2001).These pesticides are most of the time misapplied and which result in a reduction of agricultural production or its sustainability, adverse environmental and health effects, and negative effects on other economic activities (e.g. fisheries and tourism). In the case of vegetable production in the cocoa belts of Ghana, there is danger of either using pesticides meant for controlling diseases and pests on cocoa directly on vegetables or contamination of vegetables with pesticides applied on cocoa, when the cocoa are intercropped with vegetables. Also storing pesticides may lead to acute and/or chronic exposures, with adverse health consequences. It is reported by the World Health Organization (WHO) that 20% of pesticide use in the world is concentrated in developing countries posing danger to human health as well as the environment (Hurtig et al., 2003). Families residing in agricultural areas have been found to have noticeable levels of pesticides in their body systems (McCauley et al., 2001). These have been higher in homes that are located closer to fields (Quandt et al., 2004). Problems experienced by farmers during and after the application of pesticides have been reported by Northern Presbyterian Agricultural Services (NPAS, 2012). The most common problems include skin irritations, headaches, general body weakness, difficulty in breathing and

3

dizziness. A survey carried out by NPAS (2012) on 183 farmers in 14 villages in Upper East region of Ghana found that more than a quarter had recently suffered from directly inhaling chemicals and one fifth from spillage of chemicals on the body. It has also been reported that in late 2010, 15 farmers died from suspected pesticide poisoning in Upper East region (NPAS, 2012). Most of these deaths resulted from poor storage of pesticides, which seeped into food stocks. A study carried out in 2008 on analysis of pesticide contamination on farmers in Ghana found the presence of organochlorine pesticide residues, including DDT, in the breast milk and human blood of vegetable farmers (NPAS, 2012). Ghanaian farmers who use chemical pesticides to control insects and diseases on their crops are potentially exposed to pesticides through the skin, on the eyes or through inhalation or ingestion, with key risks being death, cancer, birth defects and damage to the nervous system (NPAS, 2012).

The Ghanaian public and government have come to realise that the use of chemical pesticides by vegetable farmers to control pests and diseases in the country is increasing and if agricultural production is to be sustainable and safe to humans and the environment, then intensive farming systems should become less dependent on chemical pesticides (Okorley et al., 2002). While Ghana’s elite is becoming increasingly concerned about the adverse long-term effects of pesticides on the environment and the health of the country’s resources, little scientific research has been done to elucidate and address the issue. Currently, legislation regulating the use of pesticides in Ghana is Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1994 Part Two, which seeks to regulate importation, distribution, retailing and use of pesticides in Ghana. However, this regulation is not adequately implemented by the two government agencies responsible for pesticides surveillance and monitoring. These bodies are the EPA – whose Chemicals Control and Management Centre is directed by the Pesticides Registrar – and the Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate (PPRSD) - whose Pesticide Management Division supervises and trains inspectors and extension officers. Adequate measures are therefore required to promote the appropriate management of pests and pesticides. Proper management will ensure that increased and sustainable agricultural production and farm incomes are achieved; that diseases and insect pest are managed in sustainable manner, and that the risks to human health and the environment associated with pesticide use are kept to an acceptable minimum. This can be achieved through an introduction of integrated crop and pest management (ICPM) methods, including use of biopesticides (which are thought to be safe, non-phytotoxic, cheap, easily available and environmentally friendly). This is exactly what AVRDC seeks to do. It involves conducting a scoping/baseline study on farm level crop protection practices and policies to identify policy-level and institutional constraints and opportunities for the introduction of the integrated crop and pest management (ICPM) systems.

The specific objectives are to:

1. Assess the current situation of major identified farming systems vis‐a‐vis the potential for vegetable integration and/or diversification in the respective study sites of the

Humidtropics from the perspective of the socio‐political and economic conditions, standard poverty indices, power relations, information on most excluded groups and nature of exclusion, prevalent social/cultural practices, income and food and nutritional status among beneficiaries of the Humidtropics program.

2. Identify major vegetable crops grown and describe individual vegetables production system, rain fed, irrigated and supplemental irrigation, and production constraints of

4

each system. 3. Document and review the policy and regulatory environment on crop protection, with

respect to the horticultural sector with a focus on importation of pesticides and active ingredients approved for use in the vegetable sector.

4. Document local knowledge systems regarding undesirable vegetable crop protection practices, particularly on pesticide (mis)use and its associated health hazards.

5. Identify vegetable farmers’ crop protection practices (inclusive biopesticides and its possible combination with inorganic pesticides), constraints, and needs and opportunities for improvement to enhance safer vegetable production for consumers.

6. On the basis of secondary data and expert producer interviews, provide estimates of production and farm profitability using partial budgets of representative farms under varied representative grower crop protection practice regimes of 2 focus vegetables in the study area.

7. Describe how farm‐level vegetable crop protection practices and national policies have changed during the past 5 years and their effects on safer vegetable production or otherwise.

8. Identify mechanisms for integrated crop and pest management knowledge, awareness creation and training needs development, implementation and institutionalization.

9. Suggest entry points (including establishment and institutionalization of research for development platforms) aimed at policy advocacy on sound and enabling crop production/protection policies to enhance system productivity while ensuring safer vegetable production within intensified farming systems in both Ashanti and Western Regions.

5

2.0 STUDY APPROACH AND TOOLS USED

This section deals with sampling, development of the instrument, data collection and data analysis.

2.1 Sampling

The population of this study was vegetable farmers in the cocoa belts of Ashanti and Western regions. A multi-stage approach to sampling was adopted for the study. 2.1.1 Reconnaissance Survey

The research team made a weeklong visit to both Ashanti and Western regions for the purpose of familiarizing itself with the study area. Through interactions with Vegetable Growers’ Association, and officials from the regional directorate of Ministry of Food and Agriculture, secondary data such as most important vegetable growing areas in each region, were collected to guide the sampling plan as follows:

2.1.2 Choice of study Area/ Site selection

The following specific districts known for both cocoa and vegetable production in Ashanti and Western Regions of Ghana were purposively selected for the study. In the Ashanti Region the districts were Amansie East, Atwima Nwabiagya and Offinso North (Fig 1) whereas in the Western Region the districts were Bibiani - Anhwiaso - Bekwai, Sefwi Wiawso, and Prestea - Hunni Valley (Figure 2). These districts were selected purposely from each region to reflect importance, scale, diversity and technology levels in vegetable production.

2.1.3 Selection of villages /communities

Up to five communities from each district were selected for the study based on stratification which was informed by criteria including poverty and population density thresholds, access to pesticides and produce markets and other institutions, natural resources integrity, farming systems and agro-ecological potential, water access for irrigation, gender inequalities across different socio-cultural settings and other criteria such as access to amenities such as road network and other economic infrastructure. The communities selected from each district are indicated in Table 1. The sample size of respondent farmers was determined based on the percentage of total number of vegetable farmers in each region and district.

Table 1. Vegetable growers sampled from each district of Western and Ashanti Regions.

Region Selected districts Sample size

Ashanti Offinso North 118

Atwima Nwabiagya 81

Amansie East 53

Western Sefwi Wiawso 74

Bibiani-Anwiaso-Bekwai 61

Prestea-Hunni Valley 50

Total sample 437

6

Figure 1: Map of Ashanti region showing the district surveyed (shaded in brown colour)

Figure 2. Map of Western region showing the districts surveyed (shaded in red colour)

7

2.2 Instrumentation and data collection

The study used participatory tools and techniques for data collection, including in‐depth interview with vegetable producers, focus group discussion (FGD) with farmer groups, use of observational checklists on the selected communities and farmers fields, and key informant interview (KII) with officials from Environmental Protection Authority, Plant Protection Regulatory Services Division of Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Pesticide inspectors, as well as secondary data including review on Pesticides Control and Management Act (EPA ACT 490 PART II) and trend in pesticide imports over the last five years. Hence five survey instruments were developed and content validated for use in data collection, depending on the respondents. Ten enumerators were selected from the area and trained in the administration of data collection instruments.

In‐depth interview with vegetable producers:

Structured interview schedule with both open ended- and closed ended- questions was prepared and pre-tested to determine the ability of enumerators to administer it. The questions were written in English and administered in both English and local languages (Sefwi/Twi) depending on the location or farmer. The survey questionnaire was made up of five categories of questions which were based on household characteristics of respondent farmers (personal data, source of labour, income and land tenure system), their vegetable cropping systems, their perception of pesticides use, pest management options, and their knowledge about profitability in producing vegetables using pesticides (see Appendix 1).

Focus group discussions

Informal discussions with the help of a guide with mainly open ended questions (see Appendix 2), were held with farmer groups who were mainly farmer leaders, with 6 to 12 respondents per group. Two to three group were randomly selected from each of the four communities that were selected from each district, for the one-to-one interview of individual vegetable farmers, with help of the agricultural extension agents. At the group meetings the investigators gathered information on vegetable cropping systems, vegetables grown and their profitability, farmers perception of pesticide use, constraints in the use of pesticides, poverty indices etc. Ranking game Pesticide perceptions and health risks were assessed with the farmer groups through a modified ranking game described by Warburton et al. (1995) and Ntow et al. (2006). All participants were individually shown empty containers and/or labels of pesticides commonly available in the area. The containers and/or labels were shown one by one, and the names of the pesticides were read out to ensure that each participant knew what it was. They were asked which ones they recognised (but not necessarily used); the unfamiliar pesticides were removed and noted in the questionnaire. From the familiar containers and/or labels the respondents were asked which ones were thought to be generally effective in controlling

8

pests, hence dividing the containers and/or labels into two piles: ‘effective’ and ‘ineffective’. The ‘ineffective’ pile was removed and the ‘effective’ pesticides were ranked accordingly. Once the pesticides were ranked, respondents were asked to describe how effective each pesticide was on a scale of 1-5 (Table 2). Finally they were asked their reasons for ranking a particular pesticide as the most effective. In situations where pesticides were not available, farmers were asked to list the pesticides they use and rank them accordingly. Similarly, the pesticides were ranked according to hazard: farmers were asked to select and rank empty containers and/or labels of pesticides thought to be hazardous. Again they were asked to describe the pesticides on a scale of 1-5 (Table 2) and to provide reasons for ranking a particular pesticide as the most hazardous. The relationship between farmers’ perception of pesticide hazard and pesticides’ perceived effectiveness against pests was assessed by the χ2 test as was done by Ntow (2006). Table 2. Description of ranking levels used for pesticide ranking game

Effectiveness 1 Very effective: 75-100% insects killed 2 Effective: 50-75% insects killed 3 Small effect only: < 50% insects killed 4 No effect 5 Makes the insect problem worse Hazard 1 Extremely hazardous: likelihood of hospitalisation

or long-term illness 2 Moderately hazardous: likelihood of more than 2

days sick and need to see a doctor 3 Slightly hazardous: likelihood of dizziness or

vomiting or blurred vision or skin sores 4 Least hazardous: likelihood of some dizziness,

tiredness, or headache 5 No effects

Observational checklist

Using a checklist (Appendix 3), observations were made on the selected communities for socio-economic indices such as road access to the community, housing types, water delivery system, marketing facilities, educational facilities etc. Observations were also made on selected farmers’ fields for vegetable cropping system, pests and disease attacks, pesticide use and management, pesticide types, pesticide storage system, type of irrigation facilities, type of land preparation etc.

Key Informant Interview

One-on-one formal interview with open-ended questions including policy issues and challenges regarding pesticides importation, distribution, wholesaling, retailing and use by vegetable growers, were held with relevant officials from Environmental Protection

9

Authority (EPA), Plant Protection Regulatory Services Division of Ministry of Food and Agriculture, and Pesticide inspectors. Policy issues on pesticide regulation and monitoring were also covered.

Secondary Data

Data were also collected on Pesticides Control and Management Act (EPA ACT 490 PART II); a list of registered pesticides from EPA; pesticide imports data; Plant and Fertilizer Act 2010 (ACT 803); handbook on vegetable crop protection practices in Ghana and an extension guide on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices for the production of vegetables.

2.4 Data Processing and Analysis

Data from the study were analysed using descriptive statistics comprising means, frequency distributions and percentages; inferential statistics including chi-squared test; partial budgeting and cost analysis. Microsoft EXCEL and SPSS programmes were used to process the data, and the report was generated in MS Word. For farming system analysis, the farming enterprises in addition to vegetable production were identified, listed and discussed from the socio-political and economic perspective of the farmers. The potential for vegetable integration in the identified farming system were also examined. The major vegetables grown in each district/ region were identified and their production systems examined and compared among different regions/districts. The farmers’ perception on the use and management of pesticides and related health hazards were identified, listed and described. Other crop protection practices, in addition to the use of pesticides by the farmers were identified, and the potential for integrated pest management practices examined. For policy and regulatory environment with respect to pesticide importation in Ghana, the current Pesticide Regulation and Management Act (Environmental Protection Agency Act 490 Part Two) which regulates the importation, distribution, retailing and use of pesticide was critically examined. In respect of production and farm profitability in vegetable production by the farmers, partial budgets were prepared for two major vegetables in the study areas and comparisons made between regions/ districts.

10

3. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

3.1 Household and farm characteristics of respondent farmers

Most household heads are in the age range of 30-49, with are mainly Middle School or Junior High School certificates (Table 2). This is an interesting result since farmers within this age group are very active and since they are literates, adoption of improved farming methods/ technology can be enhanced. This makes the prospects of an improved vegetable production very positive. However, 22.2% of the household heads are illiterates. This is not good for vegetable production since abuse of pesticide by vegetable farmers has been partly attributable to their high illiteracy levels. With most household sizes ranging from 4-9, family labour will be readily available for farming activities. There is an interesting pattern of consistent decrease in the number of farmers with farming experience from less than 10 years to 50-59 years, indicating that the number of people going into vegetable production is increasing. This is not surprising since the demand for vegetables are increasing recently with an increasing urban population. The size of farms of the majority of the respondents ranged from less than an acre up to 10 acres (Table 3). This indicates that the majority of respondents are smallholder farmers. It is reported that agriculture is predominantly on a smallholder basis in Ghana (MoFA, 2011). The area of land used for vegetable production by the majority of the respondents also ranged between 1 acre and 5 acres. Two broad tenure arrangements exist in Ghana: customary tenure and public land tenure. It is estimated that 80 percent of Ghana’s lands is held under customary land tenure systems (Sarpong, 2006). Land tenure for agriculture in Ghana consists of sharecropping (Sarpong, 2006), leasehold, and freehold which is also divided into customary law freehold and common law freehold (da Rocha and Lodoh, 1999). The most common form of land tenure for the respondents of the survey was freehold (customary land tenure system) where most of them (53.1%) own land for farming, followed by land renting (36.6%), leasehold (9.2%) and very few farmers practising shared cropping (1.2%).

11

Table 1. Household characteristics of respondent farmers

Variable Frequency Percentage

1. Age of head of household (years 10-19 2 0.5

20-29 36 8.4

30-39 116 27.0 40-49 153 35.7

50-59 89 20.7

60-69 33 7.7

Total 429 100.0

2. Education of head of household

No education 109 25.2

Primary 67 15.5

Middle/JHS 184 42.6

SHS 57 13.2

Tertiary 7 1.6

Non-formal 8 1.9

Total

432 100.0

3. Sex of head of household

Female 105 24.1

Male 330 75.9

Total

435 100.0

4. Household size

1-3 40 9.2

4-6 165 38.1

7-9 152 35.1

10-12 51 11.8

13-15 15 3.5

16-18 5 1.2

19-21 2 .5

> 21 3 .7

Total

433 100.0

5. Vegetable farming experience (years) < 10 174 40.3

10-19 125 28.9

20-29 76 17.6

30-39 42 9.7

40-49 10 2.3

50-59 5 1.2

Total 432 100

12

Table 3. Farm characteristics of the respondents

Total land sizes (acres) Frequency Percentage

< 1 9 2.6

1-5 162 47.5

6-10 100 29.3

11-15 30 8.8

16-20 18 5.3

21-25 9 2.6

26-30 2 0.6 > 30 11 3.2

Total 341 100.0

Land for vegetable production

< 1 37 8.6

1-5 333 77.6

6-10 47 11.0

11-15 5 1.2

16-20 3 0.7

21-25 4 0.9

26-30 - -

> 30 - -

Total 429 100.0

Land tenure system

Own land 225 53.1 Rent 155 36.6

Lease 39 9.2

Shared cropping 5 1.2

Total 424 100.0

3.2 Major farming systems identified

The major vegetable farming systems identified in the study are presented in Table 4.

Overall, the major farming systems were vegetables only (26.8%), followed by vegetable,

arable crops and cocoa (16.2%), vegetable and arable crops (17.4 %), and vegetable cum

cocoa (11.4%). This suggests that not all the farmers in these cocoa growing areas are

into cocoa production. Whilst some farmers have diversified into vegetable production,

others have integrated vegetables into arable or cocoa production in a mixed cropping.

Few however integrate vegetables with animal production with or without cocoa or arable

crops in a mixed farming activity. It is not surprising that a large number of the

respondent farmers grow vegetable alone or combine with arable crops as alternatives to

cocoa production. Vegetable production has important nutritional and socio-economic

role (Ntow et al., 2006), providing employment and income to several people (Owusu-

13

Boateng and Amuzu, 2013), in addition to nutrients for healthy growth for which demand

for vegetables are increasing with increasing urban population. Farmers in Ashanti region

who cultivate vegetables alone (36.3%) were more than those in the Western region

(13.3%), indicating that the former is a major vegetable producing area compared to the

former. Offinso North district in the Ashanti region, for instance, is a known leading

tomato producing centre in Ghana.

Table 4. Major vegetable farming systems identified in the study

Farming systems

Region

Total Western Ashanti

F % F % F %

Vegetables only 24 13.3 93 36.3 117 26.8 Vegetable, arable crops and cocoa 41 22.7 30 11.7 71 16.2

Vegetables, arable crops and other plantation crops

3 1.7 1 0.4

4 .9

vegetable, arable crops and animals 1 0.6 14 5.5 15 3.4

vegetable, arable crops, cocoa and other plantation crops

9 5.0 2 .8

11 2.5

vegetables, arable crops, cocoa and animals 28 15.5 10 3.9 38 8.7

vegetable, arable crops, cocoa, other plantation crops and animals

5 2.8 4 1.6

9 2.1

vegetables and arable crops 7 3.9 69 27.0 76 17.4

vegetables and cocoa 32 17.7 18 7.0 50 11.4

vegetables and other plantation crops 6 3.3 4 1.6 10 2.3 vegetables and animals 0 .0 4 1.6 4 .9

vegetable, cocoa and other plantations crops 21 11.6 5 2. 26 5.9

vegetable cocoa animals 3 1.7 1 .4 4 .9

vegetables, arable crops, other plantation crops and animals

1 .6 1

0.4 2

0.5

Total 181 100.0 256 100.0 437 100.0

3.2.2 Relationship between the farming system and amount of vegetables produced

In determining the associations between the farming systems and the amount of each of the major vegetables identified in the study, a chi-square test was carried out (Table 5). Results revealed a non-significant association between the farming systems and the amount of pepper produced (χ2 = 98.701; df = 104, P > 0.05), indicating that volume of pepper produced is independent of the farming system, whether diversification as an alternate crop to cocoa or an integration with other farming systems.

Table 5 also shows a significant association between the farming systems and the amount of tomato produced (χ2 = 227.76; df = 117; P < .001). This indicates that the farming systems

14

had an influence on the amount of tomato produced. Thus in deciding higher production of tomato, the farming systems need to be considered among other factors The chi-square analysis did not show significant association between the farming system and the amount of garden eggs produced (χ2 = 115.65; df = 108; P >.05). This implies that the amount of garden eggs produced was independent of the farming system adopted by the farmers. Garden eggs can therefore be produced either as an alternative crop to cocoa or other farming system or can be integrated into other farming systems. The chi-square analysis however revealed a significant association between the farming systems and the amount of okra produced (χ2 = 135.21; df = 99; P = .009). This suggests that the farming systems adopted by the farmers had an influence on the amount of okra produced. Thus for a high production of okra, farming system to be employed may be considered among other factors.

Table 5. Chi-square tests for major vegetable integration / diversification in various

farming systems

Pepper farming system

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 98.701 104 .628

Likelihood Ratio 93.198 104 .767

Linear-by-Linear Association

.883 1 .347

No of Valid Cases 262

Tomato farming system


Pearson Chi-Square 227.756(a) 117 .000



.696 1 .404

N of Valid Cases 284

Garden eggs farming system





.440 1 .507


Okra farming system





2.994 1 .084

15


Cabbage farming system


Pearson Chi-Square 39.202(a) 48 .813



.026 1 .871

N of Valid Cases 26

3.3 Production system of major vegetables grown and their production constraints

3.3.1 Production system of the major vegetables grown

Table 6 shows the production systems adopted by the respondent vegetable growers at the time of the survey. Most of the farmers at both Ashanti and Western regions produce more than one crop either through intercropping / mixed cropping or multiple cropping where different vegetables were cultivated on separate plots, as was confirmed during focus group discussions (see Table 7) and field observation. It has also been reported that most food crop farms in Ghana are generally intercropped (MoFA, 2011). The survey also revealed that in both Ashanti and Western regions, there are farmers who practice monocropping in one of the four major vegetables of tomatoes, pepper, garden eggs and okra. This was confirmed by the results from our field observations and our group meetings with farmers (FGD). It was also observed that most farmers in Sefwi Wiawso and Prestea- Hunni Valley districts in the Western region practice monocropping whereas majority of farmers in Ashanti, especially Offinso North and Amansie East districts practice both monocropping and intercropping (see Table 9). In addition, more farmers in the Ashanti region practice tomato sole cropping (24.9) than in Western region (10.5%). This is as expected because Offinso North district in the Ashanti region for instance, as a leading tomato producing centre in Ghana, produce tomato in large. Mono cropping is mostly associated with larger-scale commercial farms (MoFA, 2011). Table 6. Vegetable production systems

Vegetable production

system Western Ashanti Total

F % F % F %

Tomatoes only 18 10.5 62 24.9 80 19.0 Pepper only 4 2.3 7 2.8 11 2.6

Garden eggs only 7 4.1 12 4.8 19 4.5

Okro only 1 .6 13 5.2 14 3.3

Tomatoes and Pepper 19 11.0 37 14.9 56 13.3

Tomatoes and garden eggs 5 2.9 13 5.2 18 4.3

Tomatoes and okro 4 2.3 6 2.4 10 2.4 pepper and garden eggs 10 5.8 11 4.4 21 5.0

pepper and okro 1 .6 19 7.6 20 4.8

16

Garden eggs and okro 3 1.7 5 2.0 8 1.9

Tomatoes, Pepper and Garden eggs

26 15.1

17 6.8

43 10.2

Tomatoes, pepper and okro 6 3.5 9 15 3.6

Pepper, garden eggs and okro

5 2.9

27 10.8

32 7.6

tomatoes, pepper, garden eggs and okro

58 33.7

9 3.6

67 15.9

Tomatoes, garden eggs and okro

5 2.9

2 .8

7 1.7

Total 172 100.0 249 100.0 421 100.0

3.3.2 Vegetable crops grown, types of irrigation employed and production constraints Table 7 shows the major vegetables grown by the respondent farmers and the nature of irrigation facilities employed in their production. Tomato, chilli pepper, garden eggs, and okra are the major vegetables grown in all the areas surveyed, although cabbage and onion are cultivated by few farmers. In addition to the four key vegetables, which are cultivated in both Ashanti and Western regions, carrot, Amaranth, and beans were also found in Ashanti region, during our focus group meeting with farmers (Table 9).

In the production of each of these vegetables most farmers irrigate their crops with either, watering can or buckets (Table 7). Farmers who rely on natural rain for irrigation form the next majority. This is true of smallholder Ghanaian farmers whose crop production are predominantly dependent on natural rainfall as reported by Kyei-Barfour and Ofori (2007); and in case of intensive vegetable production watering can are commonly used. Farmers were asked to describe the key constraints they usually encounter in the production of each of the main vegetables. The key constraints identified are listed in Table 8. In all the various vegetable production systems, the major constraints identified were inadequate finance (39.6% - 68.4%) followed by pests and diseases attacks as in tomatoes or inadequate tools as in other crops whilst inadequate extension services were the least (15.6% - 22.4%) except tomato production where availability of land was the least challenge (25.8%). Inadequate credit facilities have been a major issue for Ghanaian farmers, especially smallholder farmers who usually lack the required collateral to secure credit from financial institutions. Hence they are not able to purchase improved tools for farm operations. This explains why farmers complained of inadequate tools and equipment as they do not have resources to acquire them. This is consistent with the report of MoFA (2001) which states that the main system of farming of smallholder Ghanaian farmers is traditional, where hoe

and cutlass are the main farming tools.

Pests and diseases attacks have been reported as one of the biggest problems confronting vegetable farmers in Ghana (Dinham, 2003; Ntow, 2006). It is therefore not surprising that pests and diseases were identified as a major constraint to the production of all the vegetables identified during the survey. When a farmer’s field was inspected at Sefwi Bekwai, it was observed that about 3-acre cabbage farm had been abandoned due to diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) infestation. This was corroborated by the results of the focus group discussion where farmers were asked to describe the pests and diseases which they usually encounter in their farms (Table 9).

17

Table 7. Types of irrigation used for the production of the major vegetables by the

respondent farmers

Irrigation system

Tomatoes (n=299)

Pepper (n=265)

Garden eggs (n=213)

Okra (n=173)

F % F % F % F % Rain fed 120 40.1 99 37.4 78 36.6 63 36.4

Watering can/bucket

182 60.9 151 56.9 126 59.2 99 57.2

Overhear irrigation

3 1.0 6 2.3 4 1.9 5 2.9

Drip irrigation 3 1.0 3 1.1 2 0.9 2 12

Irrigation canals 13 4.4 13 4.9 13 6.1 11 6.4

Table 8. Major constraints to the production of vegetables by the respondent farmers

Constraints Tomatoes Chilli pepper Garden eggs Okra

f % f % f % f %

Inadequate finance 299 68.4 265 60.6 213 48.7 173 39.6

Land availability 128 25.8 110 25.2 88 20.1 72 16.5

Poor market 123 28.1 113 25.9 98 22.4 69 15.8

Inadequate tools and equipment

278 63.6 250 57.2 202 46.2 164 37.5

Pest and diseases 283 64.8 250 57.2 198 45.3 159 36.4

High cost of labour 263 60.1 221 50.6 184 42.1 150 34.3

Inadequate extension service

128 29.3 98 22.4 94 21.5 68 15.6

Low productivity 238 54.5 209 47.8 178 40.7 137 31.4

Table 9 provides a summary of focus group discussion indicating vegetables produced, the cropping system and pests and diseases usually prevalent. The results here confirmed that of the farmers’ interview where garden eggs, tomatoes, pepper and okra were identified as the major vegetables produced, through either monocropping or mixed cropping (Table 6). The major pests described by the farmers were flea beetle on okra (major pest) and garden eggs (minor pest); diamondback moth (major pest) and aphids (minor pest) in cabbage; root knot nematode in tomato. Other pests commonly encountered and described by the farmers were insect larvae (caterpillars), whitefly, stem borers etc.

18

Table 9. Major vegetables, their cropping systems and their diseases/ pests identified

during meetings with farmer group

Region District/

Municipal

Vegetable

produceda

Cropping

system

Pestsb Diseasesc

Ashanti Offinso North Tomato, garden eggs, pepper,

Monocropping, intercropping, crop rotation, fallow

caterpillars, flee beetle, stem borers

Leaf curl, anthracnose, blight

Amansie East Garden eggs, pepper, cabbage, okra, tomato

monocropping, crop rotation

Whiteflies, grasshopper, nematode, flea beetle, aphids

Leaf curl

Atwima Nwabiagyad

Tomato, garden eggs,pepper, cabbage, carrot, okra, amaranth, cucumber

Intercropping, monocropping, crop rotation, fallow

caterpillars

Fruit drop, blight

Western Sefwi Wiawso Garden eggs, tomato, pepper, okra

Monocropping, crop rotation

Nematode, fruit borers, Caterpillars, flea beetle

Root knot

Bibiani-Anwiaso-Bekwai

Garden eggs, pepper, tomato, okra, cabbage

monocropping Nematode, fruit borers, Caterpillars, flea beetle

Root knots

Prestea-Hunni Valley

Pepper, garden eggs, tomato, okra

monocropping Whiteflies, grasshopper, Stem borer, caterpillar

Leaf curl

aVegetables are in order of importance in specified districts bThe pests were not identified in all the vegetables listed. cThe diseases were not identified on all the crops listed. dFocus group discussion held in one other community (Amadum Amankwame) of the Atwima Nwabiagya distict, revealed the following vegetables in order of importance: pepper, okra, garden eggs, cucumber, beans, and tomato

3.4 Farmers crop protection practices

Most of the farmers (96.9%) use pesticides in the management of pests and diseases in their farms (Table 10). The level of pesticide use among most of the respondent farmers (72.7%) during the past five years shows an increasing trend; with only few of them practising, organic production, mechanical, or cultural method of pest management. Gerken et al. (2001) has also reported of an increase in pesticide use over time in Ghana particularly in the production of high-value cash crops and vegetables. This over-reliance of pesticide in the management of pests and diseases by vegetable farmers in Ghana has also been observed by other scientists (Okorley et al., 2002; Ntow, 2008; Owusu-Boateng and Amuzu, 2013). The excessive use of pesticide in vegetable production in these regions could be attributable to susceptibility of the vegetable crops to pests and diseases as has been reported by the farmers in these study areas, and corroborated by Brempong-Yeboah (1992). According to Brempong-Yeboah (1992), pesticides are widely used by farmers to control

19

pests because of their effectiveness and their broad-spectrum and are applied at different application rates and frequencies (Brempong-Yeboah, 1992). Even though the use of synthetic pesticide has been effective in managing pests and diseases under the intensive production of vegetables, its side effects on human’s health and environment calls for a sustainable management approach which is non-toxic and environmentally friendly. Using the results of extensive field bioefficacy trials conducted in different locations in Ghana, Obeng-Ofori (2008) demonstrated the practical utilization of neem bio-pesticides for sustainable protection of vegetables (tomato, okra, cabbage, pepper, garden egg, cucumber) against pest infestation in Ghana. Unfortunately only an insignificant proportion of the farmers interviewed have ever used neem extract in managing pests and disease in their farms. Although some farmers practice other pest management methods such as the use of plant extract, mechanical, and cultural methods, together with the use of pesticide, they do seem to know that they are at least partially using integrated pest management (IPM) method. This is evidenced by the fact that only three farmers responded that they have ever been involved in IPM programme. It is however possible that these farmers are not applying the synthetic pesticides judiciously. It is quite worrying that only an insignificant number of the farmers (0.8%) had even heard of IPM which involves judicious use of pesticide together with other pest management methods. Even these farmers had abandoned the IPM practices with reasons that they are difficult to adopt, and labour intensive. Farmers also indicated that chemical pesticides are relatively cheaper and easily available.

Table 10 Crop protection practices among respondent farmers

Variable Total Respondents

F %

A. Do you use chemical pesticides in your farm?

Yes 406 96.9

No 13 3.1

Total 419 100

B. Do you use other pest management method apart from pesticide?

Yes 56 13.6

No (Pesticides only) 355 86.4

Total 411 100

C. Which pest management methods do you use apart from pesticides?

Organic production (Neem extract, wood ash) 13 3.0

Mechanical-physical technique (hand picking of pests) 47 10.8 Cultural method (farm sanitation, weeding, crop rotation) 8 2.1

Hand picking at pests and disease plants 1 0.2

D. What is the trend of your pesticide use during the past 5 years?

Decreasing 8 1.9

20

The same 69 16.4

Increasing 307 72.7

Irregular/erratic 38 9.0

Total 422 100.0

If you do not use pesticides at all, how do you manage pests on your

farm? (n=13)

Plant extracts 1 7.7

Farm sanitation (Weeding) 1 7.7 Use of wood ash 1 7.7

Cannot control pests and diseases 1 7.7

No apparent effort is made 5 38.5

E. Have you ever participated in an IPM programme?

Yes 3 0.8 No 356 99.2

F. Ever participated in any IPM project

No 356 99.2

Yes 3 .8

Total 359 100.0

G. If yes which institution organized the training (n=3)

Extension officer 1 33.3

International Cocoa Initiative 1 33.3

MoFA/ German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) 1 33.3

H. Are you still using IPM (n=3)

Yes - -

No 3 100.0

I. Why did you abandon the IPM (n=3)

Pesticides system is cheaper / easily available 2 66.7

Requires lots of labour 1 33.3

It’s difficult to practice 2 66.7 Other neighboring farmers did not participate 2 66.7

Table 11 shows the amount of pesticides imported into the country annually between 2008 and 20012. There was a general decline in the quantities of insecticides, fungicide and herbicides imported between 2008 and 2009. There was however fluctuations in the quantities of insecticides and fungicides imported between 2009 and 2012 whereas that of the herbicides showed a steady increase. This suggests that more farmers are using herbicides in their farming activities.

21

Table 11. Quantities of pesticides imported into Ghana between 2008 and 2012

Type of Pesticide

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

(Mt) ('000 Litres) (Mt) ('000

Litres) (Mt)

('000 Litres)

(Mt) ('000

Litres) (Mt)

('000 Litres)

Insecticides 273 3,269 60.43 3,388.28 40,666 3,028,724 832,807 4,772,537 543 4,206,393

Herbicides 1,429 6,102 998.15 8,981.10 323,580 13,161,585 854,338 30,272,177 991,236 14,578,588

Fungicides 1,561 179 325.93 947.656 242,926 697,913 595,878 52,010 1,759 1,852,275

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Accra, Ghana. Data on the amount of pesticides imported in 2013 was not available.

22

3.4.1 Vegetable crop protection practices and national policies

The national plant protection policy is Integrated Pest Management, IPM (1992). IPM is simply a strategy or system that combines all available methods to ensure the healthy growth of crops so that they produce high yields (Youdeowei, 2002). IPM is a systematic, farmer centred and holistic approach to produce healthy crops in a sustainable way, using all available crop protection options (cultural, physical, biological, chemical) with an emphasis on environmentally friendly and economically sound practices (Kofa-Boamah et al., 2005). The law regulating the plant protection policy is the Part One of the Plant and Fertilizer Act 2010 (ACT 803) which replaced the Prevention and Control of Pests and Diseases of Plants Act, 1965 (ACT 307). This Act provides for the efficient conduct of plant protection, to prevent the introduction and spread of plant pests, regulate the import and facilitates the export of plants and plant materials and provides for related matters.

There is established by this Act a Plant Protection Regulatory Services Directorate (PPRSD) of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture with the mandate and capacity to organize, regulate, implement and coordinate the plant protection services needed for the country in support of sustainable growth and development of Agriculture.

The goal of PPRSD is to contribute to sustainable reduction of crop losses caused by pests

and diseases, currently estimated at 30-50%, to about 10-15%, with substantially reduced use

of hazardous chemicals (Suglo, 2013). In line with this goal, the Crop Pests and Disease

Management Division of the PPRSD in conjunction with other stakeholders, develop Good

Agricultural Practices (GAPs) and guidelines for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) of food

crops, including vegetables.

The division carries out training and provides comprehensive diagnostic and identification

services of plant pests and diseases for stakeholders, monitors the pest situation in the

country, ensures effective control of plant pests, manages calamity pest outbreaks (e.g.

armyworms, grasshoppers etc), carries out classical bio-control measures (mass rearing and

release of bio-agents), and serves as secretariat for National Fruit Fly Management

Committee and National IPM programme (Suglo, 2013).

The division in conjunction with German Development Cooperation (GTZ) has developed

IPM practices for the production of vegetables (Youdeowei, 2002). This includes selection of

good seeds and other planting materials; selection of well-drained fertile soil for the nursery

and the farm; adoption of good nursery practices; practicing crop rotation; adoption of

appropriate planting distances; planting crops at appropriate time; early and careful weed

control; It also includes adopting good soil management practices; regular monitoring;

maintaining high levels of sanitation in the field; managing pests and diseases efficiently;

enhancing and protecting natural enemies; minimizing application of chemical pesticides;

adopting good harvesting method.

In conjunction with GTZ, the PPRSD has also developed Good Agricultural Practices

(GAPs) and crop protection recommendations for selected vegetables of cabbage, cucumber,

garden eggs, okra, onion, chilli pepper and tomato (Kofa-Boama et al., 2005).

23

Key informant interviews revealed that PPRSD and USAID have developed an IPM package

for tomato in tomato in Ashanti, Brong Ahafo and Upper East regions.

Even though IPM as a national policy has been in the system since 1992, it would seem that

the technologyis not being effectively used by farmers.

3.5 Farmer perceptions and pesticide use practices in vegetable production in Ghana

The frequency distribution of the responses pooled over all populations of vegetable farmers in the survey in respect of their perceptions and pesticide use is shown in Table 11. Most of the farmers (90.8%) obtain their pesticides from agrochemical input dealers mainly for pest control as they found them to be very effective. Only few of the farmers obtain pesticides for disease control, indicating that pests but not diseases are the major constraint to the production of the various vegetables. During the ranking game with the focus group they were able to classify the pesticide they use into effective and non-effective ones Farmers perception of the effectiveness of chemical pesticides in managing pests and diseases in vegetables might be a major contributing factor to their excessive use and hence their abuse or misuse, as has already been reported. In most cases (86.5%), it is the head of the household who decides on which pesticide to buy. Continuous use of same pesticide against a particular pest can lead to the development of resistance by the pest against the pesticide, thereby rendering the pesticide ineffective.

Unfortunately, this is what is being practised by most of the vegetable farmers (77.4%) in the communities surveyed. The large acreage of cabbage farm that were found to be abandoned at Sefwi Bekwai during field observation could be at least partly be attributed to ineffectiveness of various pesticides used. It was observed that this cabbage farmer had applied four different types of insecticides with the aim of varying them. It was discovered however, that these different insecticides have the same active ingredient. Even though over half of the farmers (56.8%) had received training on safe handling and application of pesticide yet a large number of them (43.2%) had received no training. This is still worrying because these vegetable producers are still applying pesticide whose wrong application can endanger themselves, the consumer as well as the environment. It appears that even those who claim to have received training are still misusing and abusing the pesticides. For instance a large number of farmers apply the pesticide either at the sight of a pest or according to crop calendar, which are not a good agronomic practice. Besides, most farmers do not wear any protective clothing when spraying, and also dispose of empty cans in the farms or use the containers for storing food items such as salt and palm oil, and as containers for kerosene. This practice which is a shocking revelation appears to be common among farming communities in Ghana. NPAS (2012) has also reported a widespread re-use of containers for storing food or water for humans or livestock. Majority of the farmers (57.4%) mix one type of pesticide whereas others (42.6%) mix different types of pesticides, mainly by shaking the sprayer (47.8%) or using a stick (43.8%). Even though only 6.2% of the farmers mix the pesticides with their bare hands, it is still very worrying since they are directly exposed to the hazards of the pesticides. Mixing of pesticides was encouraged by the farmers’ desire to have rapid knockdown of pests or the economics of managing both pests and diseases at a single spraying operation. This idea is however,

24

questionable (Medina, 1987), at least as practised (Ntow et al., 2006), because the combinations used could be indiscriminate and incompatible resulting in ineffectiveness of the pesticides to manage the pests and diseases. This finding agrees with that of Biney, (2001) who attributed the increase in incidences of insect pest infestation of tomato in Ghana to the practice of using indiscriminate combinations of pesticides, particularly of insecticides. Only 15.6% of the respondents fully protect themselves during spraying operations; others either wear partial protective clothing (38%) or do not wear any protective clothing at all (46.4%) and come into direct contact with the pesticides. This may partly explain why majority of the respondents said that the pesticide solutions come into contact mainly with their hands, face and feet, resulting in poisoning. Itching, headache, weakness and dizziness are the commonly types of pesticides poisoning reported by the respondents. It has been reported that the most common symptoms of pesticide poisoning among Ghanaian farmers include skin irritations, headaches, general body weakness, difficulty in breathing and dizziness (Ntow et al., 2006; NPAS, 2012). A survey of pesticides use among farmers in the Northern regions also revealed that most farmers fail to use any protective equipment while virtually no farmers use all the recommended equipment (NPAS, 2012). It is reported that Ghanaian farmers who use chemical pesticides to control insects and diseases on their crops are potentially exposed to pesticides through the skin, on the eyes or through inhalation or ingestion, with key risks being death, cancer, birth defects and damage to the nervous system (NPAS, 2012). In respect of pesticide application procedures, the knapsack was the most popular spraying equipment used (88%), though a few farmers did use motorised sprayers/mist blowers (3.%) and hand held applicators (4.3%) .Lack of capital was the main reason why farmers were not able to buy required equipment such as motorised sprayer and hence tended to use the knapsack sprayer. We discovered during focus group meeting that some farmers who do not have access to a sprayer or own one even use a brush, broom or leaves tied together to splash pesticides from a bucket. This was not surprising, since over 17% of respondents did not own a sprayer. Consequently, users are clearly exposed to the pesticide, especially as most of the farmers do not wear protective clothing when spraying. It is encouraging that most farmers own a sprayer, yet the use of the knapsack sprayer in itself presents some danger to the user, since according to Ntow et al. (2006), it is prone to leakage, especially as the sprayer ages. Matthews et al. (2003) have identified causes of leakage from the knapsack and have emphasised the need to provide better-quality equipment at an acceptable cost that will be more durable in a hot and humid tropical environment such as Africa. This is corroborated by a PPRSD official who said that leakage from a sprayer is an important source of pesticide poisoning, as there is no policy regulating importation of these sprayers, and hence poor quality but expensive ones are found in the Ghanaian market. Most farmers are adopting good practice of spraying in the wind direction and also do not eat or smoke thereby preventing the respective potential dermal and oral contamination with the pesticide. However, majority of the respondents do not display warning signs after spraying so as to prevent public or any member of the household from entering a treated field. This is not surprising because majority of the farmers even re-enter a treated field within 24 hours. This could be a major reason why pesticide poison is common among farmers in Ghana. With regard to pre-harvest interval, it is very disturbing that most farmers harvest their produce within 7 days after spraying pesticide, and even more shocking when some harvest

25

their produce at the same day when spraying was done, thereby endangering the lives of consumers. Residues of Chlopyrifos (Dursban), lindane, endosulfan, Karate and DDT were detected beyond consumption levels, in samples of vegetable from major markets from Kumasi, Accra and Tamale (Amoah et al., 2006). Darko and Akoto (2008) assessed contamination levels and health risk hazards of organophosphorus pesticides residues in vegetables. They discovered that health risks were associated with levels of pesticides exceeding the recommended doses in tomatoes and eggplant. Death due to consumption of contaminated vegetables has been reported in the country. In early December 2010, the then Upper East Regional Minister, Mark Woyongo, announced that 12 farmers had died after eating food infected with pesticides, and that a further 63 had been treated and discharged from hospital (Anon, 2010). Personal communication with some consumers indicates that they are very skeptical in consuming vegetables such as cabbage and okra which they claim are contaminated with pesticides. Even though majority of the respondents appear to store pesticides at unaccessible place after procurement, a large number of them store them in their bedrooms, which exposes them to toxicity through inhalation of the pesticides. Storing pesticides may lead into acute and/or chronic exposures, with adverse health consequences (Ngowi et al., 2007). The pesticide can seep into food stock and hence contaminate it. NPAS (2012) believe that about 15 people who died after consuming food contaminated with pesticide partly resulted from poor storage of pesticides, which seeped into food stocks. The commonest way of disposing of empty pesticide containers (59.8%) and waste water from the sprayer (79.2 %) among the respondent farmers was by throwing them on the field. During field inspection, pesticide containers were found. in the field (Figures 3a and 3b) , and in some farms the containers were found closed to water bodies causing pollution of the water bodies which are sources of livelihood for human communities and support varied animal and plant life. The accumulation of these chemical pollutants in the tissues of non-target fauna and flora, which ultimately accumulate in the food chain, may restrict the consumption of valuable food resources such as fish (Ntow et al., 2006).

Table 11. Distribution of patterns of pesticide use and management in a sampling (N =

437) of vegetable farmers in the cocoa growing areas in Ashanti and Western regions of

Ghana

Variable Total Respondents F %

A. Where did you get your pesticides from? Agro-chemicals 397 90.8

Open market 7 1.6

Friends 17 3.9

MoFA 31 7.1

NGO 1 .2 COCOBOD 1 .2

26

B. Reason for choice of pesticide Recommended 126 28.8

Pest control 280 64.1

Group action 6 1.4

Effectiveness 162 37.1

Availability 25 5.7 Don’t kill the plants 1 .2

Disease control 8 1.9

C. Who decides which pesticides to buy? Farmer 359 86.5

Spouse 20 4.8

Family 5 1.2 Change agents 31 7.5

Total 415 100.0

D. Do you always buy the same brand of pesticides Always the same 328 77.4

Change regularly 31 7.3 Change sometimes 65 15.3

Total

424 100.0

E. Have you ever received training on safe handling and application of pesticides? Yes 248 56.8

No 187 43.2

Total

435 100

F. Farmers’ Knowledge of Pesticide Application Rates Pesticide dealer 54 20.1

Fellow farmer 48 17.8

AEAs 149 55.4

Media (Radio, TV, Newspaper) 22 8.2

Pesticide label 6 2.2

COCOBOD 5 1.9

NGOs 6 2.2

School 2 0.7

Government 1 0.4

Total

269 100

G. Timing of Pesticide Application Presence of pests / diseases 229 52.2

Degree of pest infestation / disease infection 30 6.9

Crop calendar / Date of transplanting 197 45

Advice from AEAs 1 0.2

H. Do you mix different kinds of pesticides?

Yes 186 42.6

27

No 251 57.4

Total 437 100

I. How do you mix pesticides?

With bare hands 25 6.2

With stick 178 43.8

Shaking the sprayer 194 47.8 Wear hand gloves and goggle 9 2.2

Total 406 100

J. Kind of protective cover or PPE used

No PPE 193 46.4

Partial protective cover 158 38.0

Full protective cover 65 15.6 Total 416 100

K. What direction do you spray?

With the wind 283 76.1

Against the wind 6 1.6

Perpendicular 33 8.9 Don’t consider the wind 50 13.4

Total 372 100

L. Do you eat or smoke while spraying?

Yes 8 1.8

No 429 98.2

M. Sign to indicate to people field has being sprayed

with pesticide

Sign board 27 6.6

Red flag 24 5.9

Empty pesticides bottle 31 7.6

None 327 80

Total 409 100

N. Farmer re-entry interval (days)

0.00 23 5.7

1.00 192 47.6

2.00 37 9.2

3.00 92 22.8

4.00 16 4

5.00 7 1.6

6.00 4 1

7.00 29 7.2

9.00 1 0.2

10.00 1 0.2

14.00 1 0.2

Total 403 100

28

O. Pre harvesting interval (in days)

0.00 6 1.4

1.00 2 0.5

2.00 2 0.5

3.00 34 8.1

4.00 33 7.9 5.00 55 13.2

6.00 17 4.1

7.00 214 51.2

8.00 15 3.6

9.00 4 1.0

10.00 11 2.6

11.00 1 0.2 12.00 1 0.2

14.00 16 3.8

21.00 5 1.2

30.00 2 0.5

Total 418 100.0

P. Storage of pesticide after procurement

Under lock and key 102 81.6

A place accessible to all households 1 0.8

In a bed room 22 17.6

Total 125 100.0

Q. Disposal of empty Disposal of empty Disposal of empty Disposal of empty pespespespesticide containersticide containersticide containersticide containers

Incineration 52 13.1 Burying 100 25.3

Throw away on farm 237 59.8

Throw away in town or village 7 1.8

Total 396 100.0

R. Sprayer Use and Maintenance

Type of sprayer used

Knapsack sprayer 388 92.4

Motorized sprayer/Mist blower 13 3.1

Hand held applicator 19 4.5

Total 420 100.0

Own a sprayer Yes 350 82.7

No 73 17.3

Total 423 100.0

Do you wash sprayer after use?

Yes 335 76.7

No 102 23.3

29

Total 437 100

Disposal of the waste water

On the field 346 79.2

In nearby stream 7 1.6

At home 14 3.2

In the septic tank 2 0.4 At nearby bush 24 5.4

Bury waste in a hole 1 0.2

Spray over the waste 1 0.2

In a nearby pot 1 0.2

Total 396 100.0

S. Farmers knowledge of pesticides hazards

On a scale 1-10, how much risk do you think you are

exposed to when using pesticides

1 19 5

2 35 9.3

3 29 7.7

4 65 17.2

5 47 12.4

6 56 14.8

7 20 5.3

8 70 18.5

9 4 1.1

10 33 8.7

Total 378 100

Does pesticide solution come into contact with body

part?

Yes 115 27.8 No 299 72.2

Total 414 100.0

Which part of your body does pesticide solution come

into contact with?

Hand 235 53.8

Feet 145 33.2

Back 210 48.1

Face 14 3.1 Lower abdomen, waist and thighs 4 .8

Any part 1 .2

Change clothes right after spraying?

Yes 310 74.9

No 104 25.1

30

Total 414 100

Hazard cases among farmers

Headache 114 26.1

Dizziness 51 11.7

Vomiting 6 1.4 Weakness 106 24.3

Itching 281 64.3

Stomach pain 7 1.6

Unconsciousness 7 1.6

Burning sensation 14 3.1

Catarrh 11 2.5

Itching of eyes 4 0.8 Body pains 1 0.8

Nausea 1 0.2

Figure 3a: Insecticides containers found in a cabbage farm at Sefwi Bekwai

Figure 3b: Fungicide container found in tomato field at Akumadan 3.5.2 Frequency of farmers’ application of pesticides on vegetable crop fields

31

The frequency of application of the pesticide varies depending on the crop (Table 12). Majority of the farmers follows routine application which varies from once a week to once every month. Tomato for instance with 90 days cropping season, the rate of application varied from three times to over 12 times per growing season among the farmers interviewed. This high application rate will increase the cost of production judging from the high cost of insecticides. Besides, continuous application of the same type of pesticide against a particular pest, can lead to the likelihood of the pest developing resistance against the pesticide. This could explain why some farmers reported of ineffectiveness of the pesticide in controlling pests and diseases in their farms. However, when the farmers were asked the reasons for the high application rate, they complained of high pest and disease attack and the need to ensure total control. Others also mentioned the customers’ preference for high quality and unblemished produce as reason for the high frequency of application. In a similar study, Thomas (2003), mentioned consumer taste (unblemished, cosmetically perfect produce with extended shelf and storage life) and produce yield as factors which increase the use of fungicides and insecticides by farmers.

Table 12. Frequency of application of pesticides to the main vegetables produced in the

study area

Frequency of application

Tomato Okro Garden eggs Pepper Cabbage

F % F % F % F % F %

Once every month 65 23 34 17.9 23 11.2 67 25.1 3 10

Once every three weeks

150 53.2 64 34 74 36 119 44.6 12 40

Once every two weeks

49 17.4 37 19.6 50 24.4 41 15.4 8 26.7

Once a week 5 1.8 12 6.3 19 9.3 8 3 2 6.7

More than once a week

13 4.6 42 22.2 39 19.1 32 11.9 5 16.7

Total 282 100.0 189 100.0 205 100.0 267 100.0 30 100.0

3.5.3 Types of pesticides applied in vegetable production

A total of 43 pesticides were found in use in vegetable farming in the Ashanti and Western regions of Ghana. The pesticides consisted of 7 fungicides, 9 herbicides and 30 insecticides (Table 13). It is important to note that one insecticide, Carbofuran acts as both insecticide and nematicide. The class of pesticides commonly used by vegetable farmers in the surveyed area was insecticide (61.7%), followed by fungicide (32.7) and herbicides (5.5%). On the contrary, in a similar work conducted in Ghana by Ntow et al. (2006) herbicide was found to be the most commonly used pesticide (44%), followed by insecticide (33%) and fungicide (23%). This supports the respondents’ earlier response that pesticides were chosen mainly for the control of pests. The classification of these pesticides by the type of pests they control, active ingredient, chemical group and WHO Hazard Category is presented in Table 13. Three out of 7 fungicides used by the farmers are not registered by EPA, and those registered are strictly for cocoa and / or coffee, and belong to WHO Hazard Category III, which is highly hazardous. This is quite serious and requires immediate action to save humans’ health and the environment. Generally, farmers were using insecticides, fungicides and herbicides which are not cleared for use on crops or they are applying pesticides which are not registered for vegetable production. This is quite worrying situation, due to the potential health hazards

32

they can cause. Farmers should therefore be trained and advised to desist from using unregistered and unapproved pesticide. But as one official from PPRSD who is also a pesticide inspector said during our interaction, “the farmers have been told about the consequences of pesticide abuse but they are just refusing to heed to the advice”. During the farmers’ interview and the focus group discussion, it was clear that most of them know that some pesticides are not for vegetables yet some farmers are applying them because they claimed they were effective, disregarding their potential risk to themselves and the environment. For instance Akatemaster (Bifenthrin) which is fully registered for cocoa pests only are commonly used by vegetable farmers because they claimed it was very effective. Results from the pesticide ranking game during group meeting with farmers and the individual farmer’s interviews showed that the farmers have fair ideas about hazards such as headache, dizziness, body weakness, etc when they apply pesticides. They however, thought they are normal, without fully understanding the overall consequences on their health. This agrees with Mathew (2008) who reported that farmers use pesticides without full understanding of the impact on human health and the environment.

Table 13. Types of pesticides used by the respondents

Common Name Active Ingredient

Registratio

n status Crops

Hazar

d Class

Fungicide (32.7%)

Champion Copper Hydroxide FRE Cocoa and Coffee III Funguran-OH Copper Hydroxide FRE Cocoa III Cobox Copper Oxychloride UNREG Kocide Cupric Hydroxide FRE Cocoa III Dithane Mancozeb UNREG Ridomil Gold Metalaxyl-M + Cuprous oxide FRE Cocoa III Topsin Thiophanate methyl UNREG

Herbicide (5.5%)

Condemn UNREG Agrazine Atrazine PCL Various Crops II Adwumapa Glyphosate FRE Vegetables and Cereals III Adwumawura Glyphosate FRE Vegetables and Cereals III Roundup Glyphosate FRE Various Crops III Sunphosate Glyphosate PCL Various Crops III Weed-out Glyphosate FRE Various Crops III Gramoquat Paraquat dichloride FRE Various Crops II Gramozone Paraquat dichloride UNREG

Insecticide (61.7%)

Poison UNREG Buffalo Acetamiprid FRE Vegetable and Fruits III cocoprid Acetamiprid FRE Cocoa II Golan Acetamiprid FRE Vegetables and Fruits III Phostoxin Aluminium Phosphide FRE stored grains Ib Akate Master Bifenthrin FRE Cocoa II Multifos Chlorpyrifos UNREG Conpyrifos Chlorpyrifos ethyl FRE Vegetables and Cereals II dursban Chlorpyrifos ethyl FRE Various Crops II Sunpyriphos Chlorpyrifos ethyl UNREG Termicot Chlorpyrifos ethyl PCL Various Crops II Polythrine C Cypermethrin FRE Vegetables II DDT DDT BANNED Akatesuro Diazinon PCL Cocoa II Attack Emamectin benzoate UNREG Control Emamectin benzoate FRE Vegetables II

33

Confidor Imidacloprid FRE Cocoa II Consider Imidacloprid FRE Vegetables II bossmate Lambda Cyhalothrin UNREG Clear Lambda Cyhalothrin FRE Vegetables III Kombat Lambda Cyhalothrin UNREG Karate Lambda Cyhalothrin FRE Vegetables II Lambda Lambda Cyhalothrin FRE Vegetables II

K-optimal Lambda Cyhalothrin + Acetamiprid FRE Vegetables II

Bypel Perisrapae Granulosis Virus +Bacillus thuringiensis PCL Cabbage IV

Actellic Pirimiphos-methyl FRE Various Crops III Super Agro Blaster Pyrethrum FRE Stored produce II Actara Thiamethoxam FRE Banana III

Insecticide/Nematicide (0.1%) Furadan Carbofuran FRE Various Crops II

NOTE: PCL= Provisional registered list; FRE= Fully registered list;

UNREG = Unregistered

3.5.4 Relationships between pesticide hazards and gender, education and age of the

farmers

The susceptibility of male and female farmers to the hazards of pesticides differed among the farmers interviewed (Table 14). In respect of the common symptoms of pesticide poisoning such as headache, dizziness, vomiting and stomach pains, females were found to be more vulnerable than males. However, male farmers were as susceptible as their female counterparts with respect to itching which is the most common symptom reported by both genders. This explains why pesticide application is usually carried out by males. Female farmers should therefore desist from carrying out the spraying operations. Generally, farmers with no formal or non-formal education were more susceptible to the hazards of pesticides as they complained of more symptoms of poisoning than those who has received formal education (Table 15). This finding at least partly agrees with Asante and Ntow (2009) who reported that workers exposed to pesticides are often illiterate, and lack training, equipment, and the necessary safety information.

In respect of the age and symptoms of pesticide poisoning, there appears to be no clear cut pattern among the farmers of the various age groups (Table 16). However, only young farmers within the age group of 10-19 years had body pains. This indicates the vulnerability of young farmers to pesticide poisoning. Care should however be taken not to overemphasise this result as only few farmers (2%) were within this age group. It was also observed that farmers with all the age distribution reported more of itching than the other symptoms.

Table 14. Relationship between pesticide poisoning and gender

Symptoms of pesticide poisoning

Female (n=105)

Male (n=330)

F % F %

Headache 35 33.3 79 23.9

34

Dizziness 25 23.8 26 7.9

Vomiting 3 2.9 3 0.9

Weakness 34 32.4 72 21.8

Itching 65 61.9 215 65.2

Stomach pain 1 1.00 6 1.8

Unconsciousness 3 2.9 4 1.2

Burns 0 0.0 14 4.2 Body pains 2 1.9 2 0.6

Catarrh 2 1.9 8 2.4

Eye irritation 0 0.0 4 1.2

Nausea 0 0.0 1 0.3

Sneezing 0 0.0 1 0.3

Table 15. Relationship between pesticide poisoning and educational background of the

farmers

Table 16. Relationship between pesticide poisoning and educational background of the

farmers

Hazard

Age distribution of farmer

20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 Total

Poisoning

Educational background of farmer

No Formal

Education (f=109)

Non Formal (f=8)

Primary (f=67)

Middle/JHS (f=184)

SHS (f=77)

Tertiary (f=7)

Headache 25.7 50.0 19.4 29.3 16.9 28.6

Dizziness 9.2 50.0 9.0 12.5 10.4 57.1

Vomiting 1.8 25.0 3.0 0.5 1.3 28.6

Weakness 24.8 12.5 26.9 26.6 10.4 28.6

Itching 71.6 50.0 67.2 66.8 36.4 57.1

Stomach pain 1.8 25 3.0 1.1 1.3 100.0

Unconsciousness 2.8 12.5 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0

Burns 5.5 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.6 0.0

Body pains 0.0 50.0 3.0 1.1 0.0 0.0

Catarrh 0.0 12.5 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0

Eye irritation 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.6 0.0

Nausea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0

Sneezing 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

35

10-19 (f=2)

(f=36) (f=116) (f=153) (f=89) (f=33) (n=429)

headache 0.0 19.4 25.9 27.5 30.3 15.2 25.9

dizziness 0.0 16.7 11.2 9.2 14.6 12.1 11.7

vomiting 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.3 2.2 3.0 1.4

weakness 0.0 30.6 23.3 22.2 29.2 18.2 24.2

itching 50.0 77.8 59.5 66.0 65.2 60.6 64.6

stomach pain 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.6

0.0 0.0 1.6

unconsciousness 0.0 5.6 0.9 0.0 2.2 6.1 1.6

Burns 0.0 2.8 2.5 3.3 3.4 3.0 3.0

Body pains 100.0

0.0 0.9 1.3 3.0 1.4

Catarrh 0.0 0.0 32.5 3.3 1.1

0.0 2.1

Eye irritation 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.3 1.1

0.0 0.9

Nausea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.2

Sneezing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.2

3.6 Production and farm profitability of tomato and pepper under varied crop

protection regimes The profitability of producing tomato and pepper with or without the use of pesticides is shown in Table 17 Considering tomato enterprise, it was realized that yield per acre for pesticide users was almost twice that obtained from non-pesticides users. This can be attributed to the fact that pesticides users were able to control pest infestation and disease infection. Given the prevailing market price, pesticide users were able to realized greater revenue than non-pesticides users. This translated into higher profit per acre for pesticides users than non-pesticides users. As noted in Table 17, total cost per acre was higher for pesticides users than non-pesticides users. It can be concluded that pesticide use was very high or cost of pesticides and it application were too high, thus increasing production cost to farmers. Nevertheless comparing profit per acre for pesticides users and non-pesticides users, it can be concluded that, it is more profitable to use pesticide in tomato production in order to realized high yield which at a favourable market price for output will yield higher profit for the farmer. In the case of pepper enterprise, pesticides users obtained a higher profit than non-pesticides users. The use of pesticides to check the effect of pests and diseases contributed to higher yield per acre by reducing loss in yield per acre caused by pest and disease attacks. Even

36

though total cost per acre was higher for pesticides users than non-pesticides users, it was more cost effective to use pesticides in pepper production. This is justified by the revenue obtained. Revenue per acre as noted in Table 17 was higher for pesticides users than non-pesticides users. The additional profit generated from pesticides application serve as motivation for pesticides users to adapt to pesticide use in production.

Table 17. Partial budget showing the comparative profitability of producing tomato

and pepper with and without pesticides

Variable Tomato Pepper

Pesticides users

Non-pesticides

users

Pesticides users

Non-pesticides

users

Yield/acre 10.029 5.647 18.791 12.7142

Price/unit (GHS) 45.000 45.000 35.000 35.000

Total cost/acre 247.816 102.706 304.860 247.429

Total revenue/acre (GHS) 451.288 254.118 655.961 445.000

Profit/acre (GHS) 203.472 151.412 351.101 197.571

Percentage profit levels 45.09 59.58 53.52 44.40

Note:

Crop Unit of measurement Price per unit quantity (GHS)

Tomatoes Crate 45 (average)

Pepper Basket 35 (average)

3.7 Review of government policy and regulatory environment on crop protection with a

focus on importation of pesticides and mandate active ingredients approved for use

in the vegetable sector

Ghana’s primary legislation regulating the use of pesticides is the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1994 (Act 490 Part Two), which is a merger of Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1994 (Act 490) and the Pesticides Control and Management Act, 1996 (Act 528) which have been repealed. The pesticide control and management Act 490 Part Two states that “A person shall not import, export, manufacture, distribute, advertise, sell or use a pesticide unless the pesticide has been registered by the Agency in accordance with this Act. The two main bodies responsible for pesticides surveillance and monitoring are the EPA – whose Chemicals Control and Management Centre is directed by the Pesticides Registrar – and the Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate (PPRSD) of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, whose Pesticide Management Division supervises and trains inspectors and extension officers.

37

Assistance of a customs officer is required in the enforcement of this Act by preventing the importation of a pesticide where the importation is contrary to this Act. The EPA provides the Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS) with a list of licensed importers and a list of registered and banned pesticides. The commissioner of CEPS keeps records of imported pesticides and, at the regular periods directed by the EPA, submits copies to the Agency. The Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (Management) Law of 1993 regulates all imports into Ghana including chemicals and gives CEPS officers the power to search people and seize prohibited chemicals. For effective management of pesticides, the Act establishes Pesticide Inspectors who currently are mainly the staff of PPRSD at various regions. The pesticides inspectors have the following mandates: (a) inspect an equipment used or to be used in applying pesticides;

(b) inspect the storage or disposal facilities or areas used for the storage or disposal of pesticides; (c) inspect land actually, or reported to be, exposed to pesticides;

(d) investigate complaints of injury to human beings and animals, or damage to land and pollution of water bodies resulting from the use of pesticides;

(e) take samples of pesticides applied or to be applied; (f) monitor the sale and use of pesticides; (g) examine and take copies of a licence or any other documents required by this Act or the Regulations.

The EPA regularly urges pesticide distributors to comply with the licensing regulation and organises various regional workshops to train pesticide inspectors, agro-input dealers and extension officers to better understand and enforce the legal framework for the management of pesticides. To reduce the pesticide misuse by farmers, EPA occasionally organises training workshop for the farmers on the proper handling and management of pesticides.

Despite these welcome mechanisms, the legislation is not being implemented adequately, due to a number of reasons and The capacity for regulation has also not kept pace with the liberalization of the pesticides market that the government has been so keen to encourage. The following observations were made during our interactions with key players in the pesticide chain.

• The regulation itself has no entry requirements in terms of educational qualification and experience for those who want to import, distribute, manufacture, advertise, retail or sell pesticides. As a result, those who have money are able to have their way through without going through proper process of registration, hence a lot of unregistered pesticides in the market. The increase in pesticide imports into Ghana in recent years is matched by an increase in the number unregistered pesticides. Surveys conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2007 showed that around 30 per cent of pesticides on sale were either unlicensed or smuggled. Officials of EPA still estimate that at least 10-15 per cent of all imports are illegal, either brought in by unlicensed dealers or involving expired or adulterated goods (NPAS,

38

2012). Some imports arrive in bulk and are repackaged into small containers, often carrying inadequate or misleading labelling. It was revealed during our interview of pesticide dealers in Kumasi that some of the importers and distributors did not know

the active ingredients of the pesticides they sell. There is high illiteracy among some of the pesticide dealers, leading to all sorts of abuse of the pesticides. As vegetable growers obtain pesticides directly from the agro-input dealers whom most of them are illiterates, the farmers whom most are also illiterates may apply wrong chemicals or wrong application rates for a particular pesticide.

• The main implementing agencies, EPA and PPRSD are at different ministries. EPA is under the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology (MEST) whereas PPRSD is under the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA), and thus conflict some of the policies. It is possible that some pesticide cleared for use at the MEST may be banned by MoFA. Besides, there are no specific regulations on pesticides used on vegetables. In addition, PPRSD, who does surveillance and monitoring, does not have the capacity to prosecute or punish offenders.

• Anecdotal evidence from the survey indicates that EPA and CEPS officials are not

able to regulate the registration process adequately, leading to compromises in for

example bio-efficacy testing and clearance of unregistered pesticides.

• There are only one to two pesticide inspector(s) in each of the ten regions. The PPRSD says the inspectors who are now pesticides and fertilizer inspectors do not focus just on pesticides but also on fertilizers, seeds and plants, among other areas. The EPA lacks the capacity to work in the rural areas, a major problem when unregistered dealers sell directly to farmers by visiting villages. Interactions with some of the inspectors from Western and Ashanti regions revealed serious challenges in their surveillance operations in terms of staffing, funds, logistics and security. They claimed that logistical support for surveillance are not regularly provided Report from NPAS (2012) indicates that the Ghanaian government is spending only around 300,000 Ghana Cedis a year on pesticide surveillance and training in the EPA and PPRSD. . Besides, when they arrest unscrupulous agro-imput dealers who sell unregistered or fake pesticide, the law agency do not prosecute them; and when they seize expired, fake or unregistered pesticides, they find their way back to the market. These unregistered pesticide dealers sometimes threaten the lives of the inspectors and or resist arrest, making surveillance very ineffective.

• Even though EPA in conjunction with PPRSD trains the key players in the pesticides industry, viz- importers, distributors, retailers and farmers, yet the training is not very regular, and as one inspector put it, the content of the training sometimes does not meet the requirement for effective management of the vibrant pesticide market. The inspector asserts that when the training is sponsored by a non-governmental organisation (NGO), the content is to satisfy the objective of the NGO. For instance the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, funded by the Gates Foundation, and the US-based IFDC, have a $2.5 million project (the Ghana Agro-Dealer Development project, or GADD) training over 2,000 agro-dealers in business skills and safe handling of inputs. Some aspects of this training are surely useful, but are within a programme that is pushing for ever-greater use of chemical pesticides, or

39

emphasises on business development instead of pesticide management. Meanwhile, commitment from the government in such training workshop is very minimal.

• Many pesticide dealers do not have licenses to operate and are believed to be selling banned or restricted pesticides. In Kumasi metropolitan area alone, there are several dozen registered agro-dealers but several unregistered ones too. These unregistered dealers do not only sell directly to farmers by visiting the villages but also set up stalls in urban markets. They are unlikely to have the requisite knowledge to correctly inform farmers about the safe use of pesticides. Yet many farmers now rely on agro-dealers for such advice rather than extension officers. Information from some of the dealers suggests that there are unscrupulous dealers involve in faking, mislabelling and adulteration of pesticides; the worst case is when some sell any substance as pesticides to unsuspected farmers. One dealer in Kumasi testified to the fact that a farmer brought pesticide to his shop which he claimed was bought from a dealer which he could not trace. When the pesticide was checked it was found to be just an ordinary blue but not a pesticide.

• There is no regulation on the importation of specific applicators to use; no regulations on the right nozzle for say herbicide, fungicide and insecticide; and this can constitute a serious abuse of pesticide by farmers.

• Unlike other countries, the pesticide legislation in Ghana does not allow the advertisement of maximum residue levels (MRLs) in the various vegetables and other crops on the pesticides. An official from EPA, Accra, gave reason as due to lack of facilities to do residue analysis in the country. This could be the cause of pesticide poisoning which have recently been experienced in Ghana. It also makes it difficult for proper monitoring of pesticide in the market especially the presence of banned chemicals. Residues from six banned or restricted chemical pesticides - DDT, endosulfan, lindane, aldrin, dieldrin and endrin – have been found in food samples in recent academic studies (NPAS, 2012). Interestingly, testing for pesticide residues on export crops such as cocoa is routine and stringent. Yet when it comes to domestic consumption of food by Ghanaians, no such stringency exists. All export-oriented cash crop farmers have been trained in the safe use of pesticides, but most of those producing food for Ghanaian families have not ((NPAS, 2012).

• A pesticide and fertilizer inspector who is also a pesticide dealer claimed that the serious abuse of pesticide is due to an excessive profit by all players in the pesticide value chain. As a result people will find any way possible to bribe their way through, right from importation to retailing to farmers, leading several unregistered dealers, adulteration, faking and mislabelling. Some restricted pesticides such as Akatemaster meant for controlling pests on cocoa, is not for sale but distributed by COCOBOD. However, such pesticide find its way to the market, and officials from COCOBOD are alleged to be responsible for its sale; and even when they are confiscated by inspectors, they eventually go back to the market through the conivance of the inspectors, security agency (police), COCOBOD officials. As one input dealer from Kumasi put it, there is a syndicate behind the pesticide business- from politicians, to regulators to the dealers – making implementing of current regulation ineffective.

40

CONCLUSIONS

Vegetable producers in the cocoa growing areas of Western and Ashanti regions were predominantly male, aged 30 years old and above, with mainly Middle School or Junior High School education. They were mainly smallholder farmers that relied on family labour with household size ranging between 4 and 9 and worked the land using mainly hoe and cutlass. Farm sizes ranged from less than an acre up to 10 acres, and were mainly owned by the farmers themselves under customary land tenure systems (freehold). Two major farming systems were identified namely –mixed cropping system and mixed farming system. The mixed cropping system has the following crop arrangement: different vegetables only (26.8%), vegetable, arable crops and cocoa (16.2%), vegetable and arable crops (17.4 %), and vegetable and cocoa (11.4%). The mixed farming system has the following combinations: vegetable, arable crops and animals; vegetables, arable crops, cocoa and animals. The most common vegetables produced in the two regions were tomatoes, pepper, garden eggs and okra, although cabbage and onion are cultivated by few farmers. Carrots, amaranth, and beans, were found in small scale in Ashanti region. The vegetable cropping systems were sole cropping, intercropping / mixed cropping or multiple cropping where different vegetable were cultivated on separate plots. The chi-square analysis revealed a significant association between the volume of tomato and okra produced but non-significant association between the farming systems and the amount of pepper and garden eggs produced. Most farmers irrigate their crops with either, watering can or buckets or mainly rely on natural rainfall. Key constraints encountered in the production of vegetables were inadequate finance, pests and diseases attacks, inadequate tools and equipment and inadequate extension services. Farmers mainly controlled pests and diseases in their farms using pesticides, with high frequency of application without appropriate personal protection equipment. There has been an increasing trend of the use of pesticide by farmers for the past five years, and there were high frequency of pesticides applications within a cropping season. Most farmers are not observing appropriate re-entry interval, thereby exposing them to dermal and inhalation toxicity. Some farmers go back to their farms the same day as they applied pesticides. Most farmers are also not observing appropriate pre-harvesting interval. Some farmers even harvest their produce the same day that they applied the pesticide. This leads to high residues of the pesticide in the vegetables, beyond what is safe for consumption, leading to poisoning of the consuming public. Some vegetable farmers are using unregistered pesticides as well as those registered strictly for cocoa. This makes it unsafe for the public to consume such treated vegetables. Farmers usually disposed of empty containers and waste water after washing sprayers on the field, disregarding any environmental and eventual health consequences.

41

Farmers use pesticides without full understanding of the impact on human health and the environment. They also lack the appropriate knowledge on safe handling and use of pesticides. On the vulnerability of gender, age and education to pesticide poisoning, it was revealed that,

female farmers were more susceptible than male farmers; the illiterates were more susceptible

than those with formal education, and young farmers up to 19 years are more susceptible than

those above 19 years.

On the farm profitability, it was more cost effective to use pesticides in tomato and pepper production. Even though total cost per acre was higher for pesticides users than non-pesticides users, revenue per acre was higher for pesticides users than non-pesticides users. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on farmers’ crop protection practices and pesticide use, the following recommendations are to be considered for effective handling and management of pesticides:

• Integrated pest management (IPM) packages that have been developed for vegetable production should should as a matter of urgency be disseminated to vegetable farmers.

• Research should be intensified on various botanicals or plant extracts effective in managing pests and diseases in vegetables. Research should also be carried out on the packaging of these botanicals into commercial products, which will be accessible and affordable to the farmers. Examples neemol is a commercial neem oil extract, formulated in India.

• As a matter of urgency, government and other stakeholders need to train vegetable farmers on use and safe handling of pesticides.

• With the magnitude of pesticide misuse and abuse by both vegetable farmers and retailers, government should develop service centres to offer pesticide spraying services to farmers.

For effective implementation of regulation of pesticide handling and management Act, the following recommendations should be considered.

• In order to regulate expertise level and management of pesticide use, prospective dealers need to be certificated.

• The agencies involved in the registration, certification and surveillance of pesticide use (EPA and PPRSD) should have lines of authority clearly identified to prevent conflict.

• The pesticide registration process should be streamlined and government should equip the agency with requisite laboratory manned by expert scientists who will be responsible for carrying out the bio-efficacy test.

• The capacity of PPRSD to carry out pesticide surveillance activities and general plant protection should be enhanced.

• Actors and stakeholders of the pesticide industry should be equipped with relevant knowledge.

42

• It is recommended that there should be routine evaluation of hazards and effectiveness of pesticides in use.

• It is also recommended that there should be legislation on Minimum Residue Level in pesticides to be used on vegetables.

• Government should establish the capacity to do routine testing of residue levels in vegetable and other crops, as well as establish a health screening programme to routinely conduct tests on sample of vegetable farmers.

LIMITATION OF THE STUDY/ DATA CONSTRAINT

The following constraints were encountered during our data collection and analysis:

• Estimating population of vegetable farmers to establish sampling frame was difficult because reliable data was not available.

• Time constraint especially in data processing and report writing.

• Extreme difficulty in getting secondary data from key institutions.

43

REFERENCES

Al Mamun S., Fouzia Nusrat F. and Debi MR. 2011. Integrated Farming System: Prospects in Bangladesh. J. Environ. Sci. & Natural Resources, 4(2): 127-136 Amoah P et al, 2006. ‘Pesticide and Pathogen Cotamination of Vegetables in Ghana’s Urban Markets’, International Water Management Institute/KNUST/Water Research Institute, Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol.50, 2006 Anon.2010.‘Ghana: Twelve die after poisonous food’, 4 December 2010, www.afriquejet.com Asante KA, Ntow WJ. 2009. Status of Environmental Contamination in Ghana, the Perspective of a Research Scientist. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research - Water Research Institute (CSIR WRI), P.O. Box AH 38, Achimota-Accra, Ghana. Biney PM. 2001. Pesticide use pattern and insecticide residue levels in Tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum) in some selected production systems in Ghana. Mphil Thesis, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana, 127 pp (2001). Bogetic ZM, Bussolo X, Ye D, Medvedev Q, Wodon, and D. Boakye. 2007. Ghana’s growth story: How to accelerate growth and achieve MDGs? Background paper for Ghana’s Country Economic Memorandum, World Bank, Washington D.C. Brempong-Yeboah CY. (1992). Report: Workshop on vegetable production on the Accra plains of Ghana. Crop Science Department, University of Ghana, Legon. Bulir A. 1998. The price incentive to smuggle and the cocoa supply in Ghana, 1950–96. Clark N L. 1994. "Agriculture" (and subchapters). A Country Study: Ghana (La Verle Berry, editor). Library of Congress Federal Research Division (November 1994 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Ghana. Consultative Board on the World Cocoa Economy (Cbwce) .2010. Inventory of diversification practices on cocoa farms, CB/22/4. Twenty-second meeting London, Monday, 13 September 2010 Coulombe Q, Wodon H. 2007. Poverty, livelihoods, and access to basic services in Ghana. Background paper for Ghana’s Country Economic Memorandum, World Bank, Washington D.C. da Rocha BJ, Lodoh CHK.1999. Land Law and Conveyancing in Ghana, Accra, Ghana Dinham B. 2003. Growing vegetables in developing countries for local urban populations and export markets: problems confronting small-scale producers. Pest Manag Sci. 59: 575- 582 (2003).

44

Godfrey M. 2013.Cocoa and Food Security. World cocoa foundation, North America. http://cocoasustainability.com/2011/11/cocoa-and-food-security/ Gerken A, Suglo JV, Braun M. 2001. Pesticide policy in Ghana. MoFA/PPRSD, ICP Project, Pesticide Policy Project/GTZ, Accra, 2001, pp 185 Gyau, A. and Spiller, A. (2007). The role of organizational culture in modelling buyer seller relationships in the fresh fruit and vegetable trade between Ghana and Europe, African

Journal of Business Management 1(8):218-229. Hurtig AK, San Sebastián M, Soto A, Shingre A, Zambrano D, Guerrero W. 2003. Pesticide use among farmers in the Amazon basin of Ecuador. Arch Environ Health; 58(4):223–228. doi:10.3200/AEOH.58.4.223. Kyofa-Boamah M, Blay E, Braun M, Kuehn A (eds). 2005. Handbook of crop protection in Ghana. Vol. 5: Good agricultural practices and crop protection recommendations for selected vegetables (cabbage, cucumber, garden eggs, okra, onion, chilli pepper,tomato). Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate PPRSD (MoFA) /German Technical Cooperation (GTZ). Pokuase, Accra, Ghana.162p. Matthews GA 2008. Attitudes and behaviors regarding use of crop protection products- A survey of more than 8500 smallholders in 26 countries. Crop Protection, 27: 834-846 McCauley L, Beltran M, Phillips J, Lasarev M, Sticker D. 2001. The Oregon migrant farmworkers community: an evolving model for participatory research. Environ Health Perspect 109:449–455. McKay, A., and Aryee E.. 2004. A country case study on Ghana. Operationalising Pro-Poor Growth work program: A joint initiative of the French Development Agency (AFD), Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ): German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) and KfW Development Bank, U.K. Department for International Development (DFID), and the World Bank. Available online at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/news/files/propoorgrowthcasestudies.asp. Medina, C.P., Pest Control Practices and pesticide perceptions of Vegetable farmers in Loo Valley, Benguet, Philippines. In: Management of Pests and Pesticides: Farmers’

Perceptions and Practices, ed by Tait J and Napompeth B, Westview Press, London, pp 150-157 (1987). Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA). 2011. Agriculture in Ghana. Facts and Figures. Statistical, Research and Information Division, Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Accra. Ngowi,AVF, Mbise TJ,, Ijani ASM, London L, Ajayi OC. 2007. Pesticides use by smallholder farmers in vegetable production in Northern Tanzania. Crop Prot.; 26(11): 1617–1624. Northern Presbyterian Agricultural Services (NPAS) 2012. Ghana’s pesticide crisis: The need for further Government action. Northern Presbyterian Agricultural Services And Partners. Ghana. pp 50.

45

Ntow WJ. 2001. Organochlorine pesticides in water, Sediment, crops and human fluids in a farming community in Ghana. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 40(4): 557-563 Ntow WJ, Gijzen HJ, Kelderman P, Drechsel P. 2006. Farmer perceptions and pesticide use practices in vegetable production in Ghana. Pest Manag Sci. 62:356-365. Obeng-Ofori D. 2008. Sustainable management of pests of vegetable crops in Ghana with neem bio-pesticidesfor food safety and environmental protection. Proceedings, Workshop on Agriculture and Economic Development in Sub-Sharan Africa. International Institute for the Advanced Study of Cultures, Institutions and Economic Enterprise (IIAS), Accra, Ghana

Okorley EL, Zinnah MM, Bampoe EA. 2002. Promoting participatory technology development approach in integrated crop protection among tomato farmers in Anyima in the Kintapo district of Brong Ahafo region, Ghana. AIAEE 2002 Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference Durban, South Africa, pp 337-343. Owusu-Boateng G, Amuzu KK. 2013. A survey of some critical issues in vegetable crops farming along River Oyansia in Opeibea and Dzorwulu, Accra-Ghana. Global Advanced Research Journal of Physical and Applied Sciences 2 (2):24-31

Quandt SA, Arcury TA, Rao P, Snively BM, Camann DE, Doran AM. 2004. Agricultural and residential pesticides in wipe samples from farmworker family residences in North Carolina and Virginia. Environ Health Perspect.112:382–387. Sarpong GA. 2006. Improving tenure security for the rural poor- Ghana country case study- towards the improvement of tenure security for the poor in Ghana: Some Thoughts and Observations. FAO, Rome Sinnadurai S. 1971. Vegetable production in Ghana. ISHS Acta Horticulturae 33: II Eastern Africa Horticultural Symposium http://www.actahort.org/ Suglo V. 2013. Plant Protection and Regulatory Services. Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Accra, Ghana. Available at http://mofa.gov.gh/site/?page_id=85. Accessed on 31st January 2014. Thomas MR, 2003. Pesticide usage in some vegetable crops in Great Britain: real on-farm applications. Pest Manag Sci 59: 591-596. Warburton H., Palis FG, Pingali PL. 1995. Farmer perceptions, knowledge and pesticide use practices. In: Impact of pesticides on farmer health and the rice environment, ed by Pingali PL and Roger PA, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Massachusetts, pp 59-95. Youdeowei A. 2005. Integrated pest management practices for the production of vegetables. Integrated pest management extension guide 4. Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate / German Development Cooperation (GTZ), Accra, Ghana. 49p.

46

APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Non gvernmental organisations involve in crop protection

NAME OF NGO

LOCATION ACTIVITIES INVOLVED IN

CONTACTS OPERATIONAL RADIUS

E – MAIL

PROMAG Sefwi Wiawso (Western Region)

Sustainable agriculture

0208366265 Sefwi wiawso district, bibiani ahwianso bekwai district

Promag _ [email protected]

USAID Kumasi (Ashanti Region)

IPM on tomato and cabbage

Mr Michael Osei

Ashanti. Brong Ahafo, Upper East Regions

[email protected]

Appendix 2. Selected agrochemical companies in western region of Ghana

Name of company Location Contact person Telephone

number

Email

Lizisims Agro chemicals

Sefwi Bekwai

02448685325 [email protected]

Nyonkodo Agro chemicals

Sefwi Bekwai

0268318305 [email protected]

Ofie Agro chemicals

Takoradi Mr Theodore. Akkufo

0208111505

Appiah A-C Takoradi Mr Emmanuel Appiah

0208285392

God is King Bibiani John Ofori 0243818848

Akuafo Adamfo Bibiani Debora Ababio 0242085158

Jesus Cares Agrochemicals

Sefwi Wiawso

Prosper Armah 0278955676

God is Good Agrochemicals

Sefwi Wiawso

Isaac Botwe 0242673809

Kaakyire Badu Agrochemicals

Dwinase Emmanuel Adomako

0244120865

Christo Ventures Hunni Valley

Christopher Sam 024494653

Wo Bre Rennye Kwa Agrochemicals

Hunni Valley

Emmanuel Ahoah 0275443446

47

Appendix 3. Selected agrochemical companies in western region of Ghana

Name of

company

Location Contact person Telephone

number

Email

K. Badu Agrochemicals Ltd Co Ltd

Kumasi Mr Agyemang Sarfo 0208122719 0322080803

[email protected]

Abnark Agro Services

Kumasi Mr Joseph Sarfo 0249184605

NABS Agrosellers Kumasi Nana Amponsa Baakupim

0244661452

Chinese Woman Agro chemicals

Kumasi Ama Nyantakyiwa 0208110823

Unique Agrochemicals

Nkawie Mr Yaw Owusu Donkor

0244810325 0207414476

AgriTech Services Nkawie Mad Lydia Brantuo 0208633313

Tuffuor Agrochemicals

Nkawie Mr Dominic Tuffuor 0208605106 0277678950

Africo Agro Chemicals

Akumadan Kingsley Amoah 0240165432

Hannah Boakye A-C

Afrancho Hannah Boakye 0243188085

Yuda mu Gyata Agro chemicals

Akomadan Kwame Naba 0246208598

Nana Boamah A-C

Bekwai Nana Boamah 0205230771

Amansie Store Bekwai Kwasi Oppong 0242062550 Agya Owusu A-C Kokofu Eric Owusu 0242738147

.

VEGETABLE CROP PROTECTION PRACTICES AND POLICIES...

Documents

Transcript of VEGETABLE CROP PROTECTION PRACTICES AND POLICIES...