Safe use in Guatemala - are industry projects effective?

In 1991 the pesticide industry, through the Global Crop Protection Federation (GCPF), introduced the voluntary Safe Use Projects (SUPs) to address criticisms of pesticide use in developing countries. Peter Hurst visited a SUP in Guatemala and reports back.

Safe Use Projects
The pesticides industry designed SUPs in order to provide training for large groups of pesticide users and those who can influence how pesticides are used, including medical personnel, agricultural technicians and teachers. This voluntary initiative (VI) is used by the industry to demonstrate its commitment to applying new standards of 'product stewardship' along the life cycle or supply/use chain of their products-from manufacture to the end user and disposal -and throughout the industry as a whole.
    Introduced in three pilot countries at the beginning of the 1990s-Guatemala, Kenya and Thailand-the GCPF cites the SUPs as a prime example of how the pesticide industry is taking its commitment to sustainable development seriously by ensuring a central but sustainable role for chemical pesticides in the production of world food crops and commodities. The GCPF, with the support of transna-tional agrochemical companies, its regional organisations, and national trade associations and companies is now starting SUPs in other regions and countries of the world.

The heavy toll of pesticide use 
Guatemala was the pilot country in Latin America where the SUP began in 1991 and it is now in its third phase of 'sustainability'. It has many serious problems to deal with, resulting from overuse and misuse of pesticides.
    Agriculture (including horticulture and timber) is Guatemala's most important industry and export earner. A wide range of staple and cash or export crops is produced involving the use of considerable quantities of pesticides. For the last four decades, synthetic chemical pesticides have been used to boost crop production for export to feed a growing population. Yet as a new publication produced by the Guatemalan government's Pesticides and Health Project (Plagsalud)(1) states, "there is a limited knowledge in the country on the possible effects on populations exposed to pesticides and on the environment." This goes on to state that, "nevertheless, the technical knowledge needed for proper use of these products has not evolved at the same pace as their availability, which has resulted in indiscriminate use of these substances with serious health and environmental problems."(2)
    There are approximately 1.2 million farmers and agricultural workers in Guatemala. It is estimated that over 80% of farmers and agricultural workers come into direct contact with pesticides in the course of their work. A Plagsalud survey in three departments, Quetzaltenango, Retalhuleu and Suchite-péquez, of 3,000 farm and plots of land found that, on average, pesticides were used on 82% of them. Between 75 and 83% of the farms, and 68-98% of the plots of land, used pesticides(3).
    A high level of migrant labour is used in the southern coastal area, especially for coffee harvesting and sugar cane cutting. It is estimated that the number of migrant workers and their families can rise to 700,000 at the height of the season(4).
    Lack of statistics and database information mean that the precise quantities of pesticide used in the country are unknown. However, there is sufficient information on imports and products formulated in the country to establish trends. Imports of pesticide active ingredients to make formulated products are also considerable-3.5 million kg in 1994, and 2.8 million kg in 1997(5).
    Since 1978, insecticide use has fallen sharply mainly due to the cessation of cotton production whilst herbicide and fungicide use has increased sharply. Large quantities of fungicide are now used in the production of vegetables and fruit.
    However, insecticides remain important for many crops and groups of farmers and workers. The Plagsalud Guatemala survey in three departments showed that insecticides made up a higher proportion of total pesticide use than shown in the import statistics. On average, insecticides represented 48% of total pesticide use on the farms, and 66% on the plots of land(6).
    Eighty percent of insecticide imports are carbamates and organophosphates-the two most toxic groups-which affect nervous systems in humans and animals. Within these two groups, many individual products used are in the most toxic WHO classifications IA (extremely hazardous), IB (highly hazardous) and II (moderately hazardous).
    Existing studies in Guatemala have identified the main causes of adverse effects resulting from pesticide use in the country as:

• easy access to highly toxic pesticides

• inappropriate use and misuse of pesticides

• lack of training and public awareness of pesticide risks

• lack of effective compliance monitoring and enforcement of  pesticide requirement.

Poisonings and under-reporting
Estimates of pesticide poisonings in Guatemala vary dramatically(7). The Guatemalan Institute of Social Security (IGSS) estimated 1,100 acute poisonings occurred in 1993 (IGSS serves less than 30% of the economically active population). In 1997, official data from IGSS and the Ministry of Health and Social Assistance (MSPAS) showed 460 cases of pesticide poisoning which received medical attention.
    However, as stated in the Plagsalud report, "it is known that under-reporting is great. It has been estimated that for each case of acute poisoning attended in medical institutes, (8) cases are not reported". Furthermore, research data from Plagsalud shows that for each person seeking medical assistance, 4-6 cases are treated on the farm or in the home. If this is true, the real number of poisonings in Guatemala in 1997 can be estimated to be around 30,000 cases."8
    According to a report prepared for the World Bank(9), there were 11,000-30,000 poisoning cases annually, based on estimates of under-reporting of pesticide illnesses. The majority of poisonings were due to the insecticides, methamidophos and methomyl (WHO Category IB and both on the PIC-list) and the herbicide, paraquat.
    A Plagsalud's community-level study of pesticide poisonings in three farming communities, with a total population of 120,000, on Guatemala's Pacific coast found 70 cases in a  six month period. A national estimate based on this study would compare to the figures in the World Bank study.
    For chronic and delayed effects of the high exposure to pesticides, no data whatsoever are available(10).

Independent assessment of SUP
Industry claims SUP is helping to tackle problems associated with pesticide use. There has, however, been little objective evaluation of these claims. The visit to Guatemala sought to:     

• evaluate the effectiveness of the SUP in raising minimum global, health, safety and environmental standards of pesticide use

• determine the degree of trade unions and worker involvement in the SUP, or potential for such in the future

• determine whether there has been independent verification of the SUP.

Raising standards
Training needs in the country are high given the large number of farmers and farmworkers (permanent and migrant), the wide range of often highly toxic pesticides used, and the high levels of pesticide poisoning.
    Through the SUP, the pesticide industry has made a concerted effort to improve pesticide health, safety and environment (HSE) training standards for selected/targeted groups in Guatemala, and to build in an element of sustainability in this work.
    The initial finance and resources were provided by multinational pesticide companies operating through GCPF, and working in co-operation with Agrequima , the national pesticide trade association. Agrequima has now taken over management and operation of the SUP.
    The industry says it has trained large numbers of users-326,000 farmers from 1991 to mid-1994, for example. An internal industry audit carried out by a leading Honduran agricultural college before phase two began in mid-1994, claimed knowledge and awareness amongst users had increased, and significant changes in their attitudes and behaviour were  detectable.
    The type of 'training' provided has varied from classroom sessions for groups such as schoolteachers and primary school students, to on-farm talks for farmers and institutional training for government personnel especially in agricultural support services.
    What has not been provided is intensive, longer term training, which  seems to be completely absent from the training programme. The type of approach adopted by, for example, FAO Farmer Field School Training in integrated pest management (IPM) is absent in the SUP.  This type of training requires a higher level of financial and human resources than the industry has provided for the SUP in Guatemala. The Global IPM Facility (of which the FAO is a sponsor) estimates that such Farmer Field School Training costs, as a minimum, an average of $200 per participant(11).
    The government is not fulfilling its obligation, as laid down in national pesticide laws, to ensure that employers provide statutory training for pesticide users. Effectively this leaves the SUP as the only training programme in the country. Yet as a UNEP report states, "voluntary codes cannot be effective without a sound government regulatory and policy framework and public involvement."(12) The idea of voluntary initiatives is not to replace statutory provision but to complement it.
    In order to succeed the SUP must be repeated with refresher training. Yet the second and third phases of SUP have seen a large drop in numbers trained. From about 40,000 farmers per annum in the first phase of the project, for example, to 6-7,000 per annum in subsequent phases. The global industry, in reducing its financial contribution to the Guatemalan SUP, has been looking for other non-industry sources of finance to sustain this programme. A pesticide levy is one such method, but aid agencies, such as USAID, have also been approached to provide funds. It is important that the pesticide industry continues to pay its share in reducing the risks associated with the products it sells. If aid agency finance were to help with pesticide user training in Guatemala, it might be more appropriate, for example, to boost direct government agency training scheme capacity for end users, rather than to supplement industry finance.

Non-involvement of trade unions 
Major groups of users are not covered by SUP. Training for waged agricultural workers using and/or exposed to pesticides is completely lacking. This is a serious omission as many of the estimated 10,000 to 30,000 annual poisonings occur amongst these groups. Trade unions were completely unaware of the SUP, let alone involved.  This is an issue that must be addressed.

Independent evaluation of SUP?
Industry (and to a limited degree, government) provides what evaluation of the SUP exists but it is not an objective or open system. No performance indicators have been developed to measure the achievements of the SUP. Furthermore, industry has not publicly released the full text of its SUP audits, such as that by the Honduran agricultural college in 1994.
    Industry should have an interest in such independent evaluation. Through the voluntary Responsible Care (RC) programme, national chemical industry trade associations in co-operation with the International Council of Chemical Associations have (or plan to introduce) independent audit and evaluation of national RC programmes. The company creators of RC invited the public to 'track us, don't trust us'. In response to this pledge the national chemical associations in Canada and the US, for example, have independent chemical site audits-with trade unions, non-governmental organisation (NGO) and community representatives. Many national trade associations in Europe are now following suit.
    Without such audits the industry is more vulnerable to the charge that a voluntary initiative such as the SUP, is nothing more than a way for industry to promote its own interests by continuing to sell its pesticides whilst hiding behind the facade of sustainability.

Conclusion
The efforts of the industry to raise pesticide user HSE standards need to be recognised. However for such efforts to be sustainable in the future, they must reach other major user groups with high exposure and involve independent evaluation so that genuine lessons can be learned. This will mean the pesticide industry has to discuss the SUP programme with new groups such as trade unions, small farmers' organisations and NGOs.
    The SUP in Guatemala would benefit from being placed in the context of a wider ranging, government-led strategy. Under actual conditions of use in Guatemala-as in other developing countries-it will be impossible to reduce poisonings and contamination unless many of the highly toxic materials are replaced and a government-led strategy is in place to reduce pesticide use and risks, and to promote IPM and other less chemical-intensive pest management technologies. Such a strategy must include involvement of the other stakeholders in the rational management of pesticides.

References
1. Plagsalud Guatemala: Control of the Risks Associated with the Use of Pesticides in Guatemala, a project run by the Guatemalan Government, the Pan-American Health Organisation and DANIDA, the Danish international aid agency. 
2. Campos M and Finkelman J., Situacion Actual del Uso y Manejo de Plaguicidas en Guatemala. PLAGSALUD project, 1998, p 8.
3. Ibid.
4. Ministerio de Salud Pública, Instituto Guatemalteco de Seguridad Social & Organización Panamericana de la Salud, Investigación para la caracterización del fenómeno laboral migratorio en el departamento de Escuintla, Guatemala, 1998.
5. Op. cit. 1. p 13.
6. Op. cit. 1. p 17.
7. DANIDA, Pesticide Problems in Nicaragua and Guatemala, and Opportunities for their Reduction, Copenhagen, 1998, p 29, 4.2.1.
8. Plagsalud, Control of risks associated with pesticide use in Guatemala. Executive summary, May 1998, p 2, DANIDA/Pan American Health Organisation.
9. Zahedy, Zancy, Pesticide Use in Guatemala-Impacts, Causes, and Proposed Solutions, Ministry of the Environment, Guatemala, 1994, p. 15.
10. Op. cit. 8, p3.
11. Pers. Comm.,  Peter Kenmore, Director, Global IPM Facility, Rome, 28 June 1998.
12. UNEP, Voluntary Industry Codes of Conduct for the Environment, Paris, Industry and Environment Office, 1998, Technical Report No 40, p 4.

Copies of the IUF Case Study: The Global Pesticide Industry's Safe Use and Handling Training Project in Guatemala can be obtained from: IUF, Rampe du Pont Rouge 8, CH-1213 Genève/Petit Lancy 2, Switzerland, Fax: + 41 22 793 2238, iuf@iuf.org,  www.iuf.org

Peter Hurst is the Health, Safety and Environmental Coordinator with the International Union of Food and Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers Associations (IUF).

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 43, March 1999, pages 8-9]