Pesticide Problems and IPM
—Implementation in Madagascar

With more than three quarters of its 12 million inhabitants working as peasants, Madagascar is an agrarian society. Rice is the most important crop, and the annual production of about 2 million tonnes—grown on 1.1 million hectares—is cultivated extensively, with yields varying between 1.5 and 3.5 t/ha.  Most is consumed locally.  After rice, the most important crops are cassava, sweet potatoes and corn.  The cash crops—cotton and sugar cane—attract the highest inputs of pesticides. By Alexander von Hildebrand.

Madagascar is undergoing a political transformation which is bringing dramatic changes in the agricultural sector. The new government is encouraging land privatisation, which may induce more intensive agricultural production and an increase in external inputs.  Government support for plant protection has played a relatively important role in Malagasy agriculture since the end of the 1940s.  This policy has mainly followed a conventional, chemical approach but important steps in implementing IPM have been taken. For the last ten years the Agricultural Research Institute and Plant Protection Direction have worked together on IPM, mainly for rice. 

Pesticide use 
The first chemical pesticides were used in the country in the 1940s, and approximately 35,000 tons were applied between 1947 and 1982, mainly on paddy fields, cotton, tobacco and sugar cane plantations. Government pesticide subsidies were stopped in 1985, but import volumes have remained significant, and foreign currency expenditure on pesticides has risen.  Annual average expenditure between 1980 and1982 amounted to US$4.5 million. Since 1986, an annual average of 540 tons have been imported. Up to 20% has reached the local market through donor contributions—mainly from Japan.  A 1992 locust control campaign attracted a German development agency (GTZ) donation of 19,000 litres of fenitrothion, USAID donation of 5000 litres of diazinon and 40,000 litres of lambda-cyhalothrin.
    Use on cash crops appears high. Cotton is treated 12-14 times a season at about 10 kg/ha of formulated pesticides. Pesticides account for nearly 20% of cotton production costs. Vegetables also attract intensive use, and several cases of insect resistance have been reported.
    Adulteration is a further problem, and a preliminary study by the national Pesticide Control Laboratory in 1994 indicated that more than 60% of pesticides commonly sold in the country are partly or completely altered.
    Because of the variety of pesticides on the market, and successful promotion by companies, farmers often use pesticides with little regard to safety. Farmers rarely have adequate information on the nature of pesticides or the risks involved. No study on the health, environmental and social impacts has been conducted, although pesticide contamination, poisonings and lethal accidents have been recorded at many different sites. Chemical control is widely considered the best plant protection method, although alternative methods are beginning to be promoted by government and non-governmental organisations.  The problems (see box) are common to many Third World countries.

Promoting IPM
An IPM project started in 1983, with research and development activities aimed at finding sustainable alternatives to chemical control.  This project, under the Directions of Agricultural Research and Plant Protection, co-financed by the Swiss Development Corporation (SDC), contributed decisively to ending a two year programme of widespread aerial spraying in 1985. Since then, the project has developed a strong knowledge base to enable wider application of IPM on paddy fields. Since 1989 the Director of Plant Protection, in with GTZ, has conducted a second IPM Project aimed at rationalising pesticide use on food crops, particularly vegetables, and developing alternatives to chemical locust control.  Insect growth regulators and microbial control have been introduced. SDC and GTZ also contributed to the installation in 1993 of a laboratory to control pesticide quality.

Legislation and registration
As a result of experience in IPM, and following recent IPM meetings, particularly one in Harare, Zimbabwe, in April 1993, the Minister of Agriculture signed a declaration on 24 August 1993 that IPM would be the official national plant protection strategy. This was ratified by the new government in March 1994. The necessary analysis of the implications has only now been initiated.
    Pesticide imports are governed by procedures under the phytosanitary law of 1986, two governmental decrees of 1986 and 1992, and seven separate enactments. Responsibility for the registration and enforcement is assigned to the Ministry of Agriculture, through the Plant Protection Direction. Regulations generally follow FAO guidelines, for example, storage and labelling facilities must comply with relevant guidelines;  pesticides can only be sold by registered and trained personnel; all stocks and sales should be recorded; non-registered pesticides cannot be distributed; quality control is conducted at registration and later at irregular intervals and the analytical costs are borne by the importer or distributor.
    The pesticide Registration Committee (RC) meets twice a year, and is made up of two representatives of each of the ministries of Agriculture, Livestock, Agricultural Research, Waters and Forestry, Health, Industry Commerce, Higher Education. It is organised into three sub-committees dealing with toxicology, ecotoxicology and biology. The President is the Director of Plant Protection.
    By November 1993, 300 commercial pesticides were listed with the RC—188 are approved and 112 have been extended a moratorium of two years to be either successfully registered or withdrawn from the market. The 188 registered commercial pesticides consist of different formulations of 94 active ingredients.
    Registered pesticides still include captafol, carbaryl, carbofuran, dichlorvos, endosulfan, fenitrothion, heptachlor, lindane, parathion and phosphamidon.  In November 1993, eight active ingredients were banned for use in Madagascar:  aldicarb, aldrin, camphechlor (toxaphene), chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, HCH (beta and delta isomers).  Three active ingredients are severely restricted: endosulfan, heptachlor, lindane. Most regulations were signed by the government in 1992 and 1993, and allow a two year moratorium before coming into effect.

Evaluating the legislation
The legislation has undoubtedly improved the prospects for implementing IPM. The Laboratory for Pesticide Quality Control analysed some 500 samples in 1993, and the results have encouraged further government action. However there are some key deficiencies:

• no sanctions for violation have yet been issued;

• there is no specific regulation on local production, re-processing, advertising, training, worker safety, criteria for banning or restricting pesticide use, residue limits and disposal;

• some banned and non-listed active ingredients continue to be sold (aldrin and DDT), which causes confusion;

• six inspectors have been appointed, and there are 50 technicians in post, but they need further resources to fulfil enforcement;

• there is a lack of coordination in implementing the decisions of the RC, and not all sectors are implementing them; 

• enforcement costs are high, and depend on external financial support:  there is no sustainable strategy to meet recurrent costs, although there is a proposal to finance enforcement costs through charges on pesticide analysis and a tax;

• findings and reports of international organisations are not fully taken into account.

The IPM-Action Plan
An IPM Action Plan (IPM-AP) was established in 1993 by a small delegation of plant protection specialists. It is intended as a guideline for further development, and as a strategic framework for government policy.  It identifies the three major constraints as a lack of government policy;  the lack of evaluation of IPM for major crops;  and the insufficient knowledge of IPM strategies among farmers, extensionists, researchers, NGOs, policy makers, private sector and the general public. By March 1994, some progress had been made, and the current status is set out below.

A national IPM policy
Beyond the impacts of its own national experience in developing IPM technology, the government has been influenced by recent IPM meetings and there is a strong trend towards implementing policies which promote sustainable agricultural production. An IPM Action Plan was established after an IPM meeting in Zimbabwe.  Implementation has begun, as have efforts to tighten the regulation of pesticides. Yet further support is needed. Expert consultations, access to documentation and participation in IPM meetings can assist in establishing an effective national IPM policy. 

Alexander von Hildebrand is the project manager of the Projet Protection Intégrée en Rizculture conducted by the the Centre for Agricultural Research and Rural Development (FOFIFA), the Directorate of Plant Protection (DPV) of Madagascar and the Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC).

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 25, September 1994, pages 12-13]