In September this year, FAO hosted a meeting of major aid donors, technical experts, the pesticide industry and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The aims of the meeting were: to encourage donors and industry to contribute to solutions to the problems of obsolete pesticide stocks; to provide an update on the activities of FAO and other organisations in this area; and to discuss future strategies and developments.
Prevention better than cure
FAO is taking a clear line that prevention is better
than cure and has demonstrated this by publishing guidelines for prevention of
accumulation of obsolete stocks and guidelines for stock management before those
for disposal of existing obsolete stocks. The recommendations of the
consultation meeting also include measures for developing a level of
conditionality between externally aided disposal operations and chemical
management capacity in a country.
How big is the problem?
For the first time figures based on detailed
inventories of obsolete pesticide stocks have been collected and published by
FAO. The inventory of obsolete, unwanted and banned pesticides in Africa and the
Near East catalogues all known stocks and includes details of the active
ingredients and formulations, and the supplying companies names where they are
known.
20,000 tonnes of obsolete pesticide stocks have been
identified in this inventory with an estimated world total of at least 100,000
tonnes. African and other delegates to the consultation meeting agreed that
20,000 tonnes was likely to be an under-estimate of up to 50% of the final
total.
Many of the stocks are stored in the open or in inappropriate
stores including some adjacent to drinking water sources or irrigation schemes
or in urban residential areas. Many of the containers are leaking or corroded,
and many of the pesticides are among the most toxic or persistent formulations
produced. Banned organochlorines such as dieldrin, aldrin, chlordane and
heptachlor and highly toxic organophosphates such as parathion, ethoprophos,
dichlorvos and monocrotophos make up a high proportion of the stocks.
Industry's contribution
Publication of the inventory it seems, was the trigger
needed to involve industry in the disposal programme. Immediately before the
consultation meeting, representatives of several pesticide companies met with
FAO to discuss their involvement in the project. At the consultation, industry
lobbyists from the Global Crop Protection Federation (GCPF), formerly GIFAP,
outlined their members' reaction to the publication of the inventory as follows:
The inventory would be circulated to all GCPF members;
Companies would outline their intentions, which could include funds, technical assistance or the provision of facilities to assist in the disposal of obsolete and unwanted pesticide stocks from Africa and the Near East. These intentions were to be provided to GCPF by the end of October or early November 1996;
GCPF would assemble a co-ordinated industry response to FAO.
The actions of pesticide manufacturers and suppliers have been major contributors to the accumulation of obsolete stocks. These have included the supply of inappropriate, wrongly formulated, banned, obsolete or inappropriately packaged pesticides. Current cost estimates for providing solutions based on existing technologies are US$3-4000 per tonne. A solution for Africa and the Near East will cost between US$60-120 million. Contributions from industry towards a solution in Africa should not be seen to absolve it of its responsibilities in other regions of the world.
NGO encouragement to industry
The Pesticides Trust [now PAN UK] with the support of Greenpeace
International, PAN partners and other NGOs has written to GCPF. The letter
called for pesticide manufacturers to contribute towards disposal efforts being
co-ordinated by FAO. It also asked industry not to undertake disposal activities
without co-ordinating them through FAO. There is some concern that companies
finding their products listed in the FAO inventory will act to remove them while
leaving other obsolete products in place.
The letter also asked that industry contributions to disposal
efforts in Africa and the Near East should not absolve it of its
responsibilities in other regions. Also, prevention of the accumulation of
obsolete pesticide stocks should be given highest priority.
At the time of writing FAO had had no response regarding the
level and form of contributions that industry would make towards disposal
efforts. A response to the NGO letter briefly acknowledged all the points
raised.
Who else is helping?
The provision of scarce aid money for disposal
operations is not particularly appealing to donors. They would prefer to see
their money being used for development purposes. However, there is little doubt
that this legacy of past poor practice needs to be addressed, and several donors
have acknowledged this.
The Dutch government has supported FAO's project on
disposal for the past two years and has committed itself to continuing this
support for a further 2-3 years. The Dutch have also funded disposal operations
from Zanzibar.
The German technical aid agency GTZ has gained experience in
disposing of obsolete pesticide stocks from Madagascar, Niger, Mozambique and
Mauritania. Proposals have been prepared for disposal operations in Morocco,
Yemen, Brazil, Albania, El Salvador/Nicaragua and Zambia. Ongoing activities are
taking place in Benin, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Zambia and Sudan.
The US Environmental Protection Agency has prepared a
training course for developing countries on disposal of obsolete pesticide
stocks. This is in advanced draft stage. US AID has supported a number of
'triangulation' operations where countries holding pesticides they deem to
be obsolete are transferred to other countries which can use them. This is
appropriate in some situations but is clearly not a solution for banned
pesticides or deteriorated stocks.
The European Commission is about to fund disposal operations
in Africa for the first time and is likely to be an important contributor in the
near future.
Technical solutions
Current methods
The FAO guidelines on disposal are based on currently available technology with
some reference being made to developing technologies. The introduction to the
guidelines states that they will be updated when new technologies which are cost
effective and can be safely used in developing countries become available.
At present the most commonly used disposal method is
repackaging and transportation to a northern country for high temperature
incineration. In the majority of cases this has resulted in the British company
ReChem providing a turnkey project which deals with the pesticides from their
current storage site to their ultimate disposal.
The problems with this particular solution include the
undesirability of intercontinental transportation of toxic waste products and
the environmental contamination caused by ReChem operations in the UK.
ReChem is the only toxic waste disposal contractor which is
currently offering a turnkey service for pesticide waste from developing
countries. This is extremely significant as it means that ReChem is consistently
winning open tenders despite interest from other companies in other countries.
As a result ReChem is gaining yet more experience and holds a virtual monopoly
on this service.
Campaigners in the UK complain that other countries make it
more difficult for waste to enter while the UK has more lax controls. It seems
that this is not the case, since other countries such as the Netherlands would
like to win these lucrative contracts. The reason they do not win contracts
including those funded by their own governments, is that they are unable to
provide repackaging and transportation services as well as incineration. Donors
and their agents prefer to work with a single contract rather than having to
manage several contracts for different stages of the disposal process.
New destruction technology
The possibility of using new disposal technology in
the developing countries has also been suggested as an alternative to
transportation and incineration. Evolving techniques such as Gas Phase
Hydrogenation, Molten Metal Technology and Electrochemical Oxidation appear to
be at advanced stages of development or in early commercial use.
Before this technology is shipped for use in developing
countries its success needs to be demonstrated in developed countries on a full
range of pesticides and formulations (solid as well as liquid); its safety needs
to be proven; cost effectiveness needs to be demonstrated; the necessary
infrastructure needs to be in place including power supplies, water, input
supplies; the necessary skills need to be available.
Donors, third world governments and agencies such as FAO are
understandably sceptical about new technologies. It is possible to criticise
current practices, but while viable alternatives are not in place the effects of
a campaign against shipment for incineration need to be considered fully. To
campaign for a halt to shipment of waste to northern countries means that
solutions will be delayed. The stage is set now for money to be raised and
disposal operations to be activated. This situation may not last, and certainly
if funders believe that they will be putting money into a controversial project,
they are likely to pull out.
A possible way to accelerate the adoption of new technology
may be to convince a company with proven destruction technology to establish a
turnkey service in Africa based on their operation of the equipment and a
collection service for the waste.
Temporary solutions
Obsolete pesticides stocks could be transferred to new
containers for temporary storage until a better destruction method is put in
place. This is unacceptable to many players in the arena for two main reasons:
Repackaging is technically challenging and expensive. It would use hard-to-come-by money for a partial solution in the hope that a better solution will be found for which more money will need to be raised. Money put into disposal is already considered 'wasted' since it is not being used for development. To expect this sort of money to be given twice for similar operations is unrealistic. Similarly development organisations want to use their resources for development, not for long term waste management and disposal.
New containers can deteriorate and also require appropriate storage facilities. Many of the current severe toxic waste problems arose through lack of adequate storage, stock management and physical degradation of containers. A temporary solution based on repackaging may offer temporary respite, but it is likely to lead to the same problems arising in the not very distant future.
Linking with POPs
A great deal of interest has been generated recently
about the issue of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Specifically, northern
countries have become increasingly concerned about the movement of POPs through
the environment and landing in their countries where they were never, or are no
longer used.
Many POPs are in use, or lie as obsolete stocks in developing
countries. Some of the obsolete pesticides held in these countries are POPs, but
not all. If actions are to be initiated to dispose of POPs it would make sense
to link them with the disposal of obsolete pesticides.
However, since not all obsolete pesticides are POPs, and not
all POPs are pesticides, initiatives would need to be targeted at all toxic
waste products. Such an approach would support the idea of establishing
destruction technology which is able to deal with all types of toxic waste in
the developing countries, and would make it more cost effective. However, if
this were to delay current activities targeted at the disposal of pesticides, it
would be difficult to justify. The co-ordination of disposal operations for the
different types of waste may also be difficult to coordinate between local
government agencies and donor agencies.
Next steps
On the assumption that funds will be allocated by
donors and industry, FAO as the co-ordinating body must prepare the ground for
disposal activities to be carried out. This includes preparing criteria for the
prioritisation of countries or sites for operations. Countries where disposal
operations take place must also demonstrate that mechanisms are in place to
prevent similar problems from developing in the future.
There must also be frameworks in place which facilitate good
management of disposal projects. These must ensure that cumulative experience of
similar operations is built upon, and that all aspects of disposal operations
are independently evaluated. The sensitivity of toxic waste transportation and
disposal cannot be overestimated, and all necessary precautions must be taken to
ensure that the operations achieve their aim of solving a problem in the
developing world-but not at the expense of creating problems elsewhere.
New technologies and alternative options for the management
or disposal of obsolete pesticides should be explored rather than simply relying
on existing options. Any solutions which can avoid long range transportation of
toxic waste, can reduce costs or can benefit the economies of developing
countries would be better than current methods.
While current efforts are focused on Africa and the Near
East, other regions are also blighted with obsolete pesticide stocks. The survey
of stocks should be expanded and efforts continued to provide solutions in other
regions.
The obsolete pesticides problem requires urgent solutions
now. The problem will not disappear quickly and it will take several years to
dispose of existing obsolete stocks. We must also ensure that the activities of
the pesticides industry, donors and national authorities are permanently changed
so that similar problems do not arise in the future.
Mark Davis is National Projects Officer
at the Pesticides Trust [now PAN UK].
[This
article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 34,
December 1996, page 8]