Dangerous pesticide dealing in Cambodia
A 2002 report highlighted the threat to Cambodia’s people, food, water, wildlife and development targets from pesticides. A new report by a Cambodian group corroborates the conclusions and explains how pesticide traders compound the pesticide problem in Cambodia. Carl Middleton, Keam Makarady and Yang Saing Koma report.
 |
Bottles of Folidol (active ingredient Methyl Parathion, WHO class Ia) sold next to food and drink in a general store in Stung Trong market, Kampong Cham Province. |
Cambodia’s pesticide market has continued to expand over the last decade, a result of the liberalisation of Cambodia’s economy and accompanying deregulation. Cambodia has no pesticide manufacturing capacity of its own, and most available pesticides are imported illegally from Thailand and Vietnam. Some of the most popular pesticides, such as the organophosphates methyl parathion and mevinphos are extremely hazardous and are banned according to Cambodian law. A 2002 report by the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) concluded that inappropriate pesticide use in agriculture is widespread and that products are used by untrained and often illiterate farmers, who incur serious health consequences (PN 56 pp 6-7)(1).
Ongoing research
Funded by Oxfam America, Centre d’Etude et de Developpement Agricole Cambodgien (CEDAC) conducted questionnaire-based research between September 1999 and July 2002 to assess the current pesticide use situation in
Cambodia(2). In total, 109 pesticide traders were interviewed, together with 2230 farmers in a rapid assessment survey that evaluated the extent of pesticide use. Another 599 farmers took part in a detailed survey to determine the perceptions and practices of pesticide use amongst farmers that incorporated agrochemicals into their farming strategy. Nine provinces, identified to be potentially at elevated risk from pesticide use, were surveyed (see Table 1).
The role of pesticide traders
In Cambodia, specialist traders are found in larger towns that sell pesticides, together with seeds and chemical fertiliser. In smaller towns general stores sell pesticides typically alongside other products, including groceries and cosmetics. Of the 109 pesticide retailers interviewed, 10 were specialised stores and 99 were general stores. Farmers are more willing to trust the quality of pesticides purchased from specialised stores. It is often suspected that general stores dilute their stock and due to low turnover, some pesticides are older stocks. However, sometimes distance prohibits farmers from travelling to major towns to buy pesticides from specialised stores. In some cases, farmers do not have enough money to buy pesticides and local stores will often sell on credit, whereas specialised stores will not. Sometimes local stores will sell pre-mixed ‘pesticide cocktails’. The survey found that 97% of traders were selling more pesticides and were giving them more shelf space. Pesticide traders said they had no difficulty in acquiring pesticides and assumed that all pesticides were legal in Cambodia. All pesticide retailers were unaware of the 1998 sub-decree on Standards and Management of Agricultural Materials that lists pesticides that are banned or of restricted use in Cambodia.
| Table 1 Details of Interviewees per province | ||||
| Province | Districts visited | Markets surveyed | Traders surveyed | Provincial rural population |
| Battambang | 3 | 10 | 10 | 653,165 |
| Kampong Cham | 6 | 9 | 11 | 1,563,560 |
| Kampong Chhnang | 4 | 5 | 8 | 375,990 |
| Kampong Thom | 3 | 5 | 9 | 503,046 |
| Kandal | 9 | 33 | 41 | 1,016,861 |
| Kratie | 3 | 3 | 5 | 184,052 |
| Prey Veng | 4 | 4 | 9 | 890,988 |
| Pursat | 4 | 5 | 7 | 302,922 |
| Siem Reap | 4 | 5 | 9 | 576,636 |
| Total | 40 | 79 | 109 | 6,067,220 |
Inappropriate storage, labelling and advice
Most specialist stores displayed pesticide bottles in a sealed glass cabinet whereas most general stores display their pesticides openly. The sale of pesticides alongside other goods such as cosmetics, food and drink carries a very real risk of cross-contamination; such shops often smell strongly of pesticides. In one case pesticides were sold alongside medicine. Traders that owned glass cabinets said that toxic pesticide fumes had previously made them feel ill. Asked about their health, 35% of traders thought that their health had deteriorated since beginning to sell pesticides; 85% said that when they smelt pesticides they felt ill, for example with a headache.
Traders were asked how they learnt about the application of pesticides:
- 58% said by talking to farmers who regularly buy pesticides from their shop
- 26% said from promotional programmes made by pesticide companies or middlemen
- 16% said middlemen and farmers.
Sixty-four per cent of retailers felt they could provide sound advice to farmers on how to use pesticides for a specific pest problem. However, 91% were unable to understand the label. In Cambodia, 95% of pesticide bottle labels are not written in the national language, Khmer. Vietnamese and Thai constitute 90% of the labels. The result is that neither traders nor farmers can read information on safety precautions, application method and target pest. According to Cambodian law, all pesticide bottles should be labelled clearly and understandably in Khmer.
It should also be noted that farmers are not always willing to take advice direct from the trader. As the traders have not received professional training, the quality of advice must be treated with suspicion, and most likely leads to the recommendation of broad spectrum pesticides that are applicable to many insects (pest and beneficial) including the target insect, yet at the same time inflict significant environmental damage as well as risk farmer health.
| Table 2 Extent of pesticide use among interviewed farmers | |||
| Crop | A | B | C |
| Vegetables | 689 | 100 | 98 |
| Mung bean | 155 | 100 | 95 |
| Water melon | 107 | 100 | 95 |
| Tobacco | 85 | 95 | 90 |
| Dry season rice | 695 | 85 | 95 |
| Wet season rice | 545 | 52 | 40 |
Extent and types of pesticide use
The rapid assessment questionnaire of farmers determined that 67% of those interviewed used pesticides on at least one of their crops (Table 2). Cash crops (vegetables, mung bean, cowpea, dry season rice, watermelon and tobacco) were particularly identified. Wet season rice, although often incorporating pesticides, was significantly less intensive.
In total 110 pesticides, as identified by the name of the pesticide active ingredient, were found to be available under 423 trade names. Insecticides were by far the most frequently used. Of these pesticides, according to the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) circular 598 released in December 2003, 101 product names are banned and 46 product names are restricted. Furthermore, 39 product names were not listed in the circular. In other words, 33% of pesticides available on the Cambodian market place are present illegally. Using the World Health Organisation (WHO) classification scheme: 9.5% of products contained extremely hazardous (class Ia) active ingredients; 23% were highly hazardous (class Ib); 41.6% were moderately hazardous (class II); and 25.8% were slightly hazardous (class III). The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) Code of Conduct, suggests a prohibition of the import, sale and purchase of ‘highly toxic and hazardous products, such as those included in WHO classes Ia and
Ib’(3).
Pesticide traders were asked to identify the pesticides they sold in greatest quantities. By far the most popular were the organophosphate insecticides methyl parathion and mevinphos, both of which are WHO class Ia. These were followed by the insecticide methamidophos (Ib) and the herbicide 2,4-D (II). Other popular pesticides, as identified by farmers are dichlorvos and monocrotophos, (Ib), and abamectin (III). The popularity of such highly hazardous pesticides, compounded by the poor safety precautions adopted, is reason for serious concern and warrants immediate action.
The persistent organic pollutants (POPs), DDT and chlordane, were available on the Cambodian market. DDT and chlordane are identified in the Stockholm Convention on POPs as pesticides of serious consequence persisting in the environment, posing long-term risk to human and ecosystem health. The Cambodian government has signed the Stockholm Convention (but not yet ratified it) and is the recipient of a US$0.5 million grant from the Global Environment Facility to implement a national POPs elimination plan.
Farmer’s experiences
Farmers, particularly young farmers, perceive pesticides as indispensable to agriculture and appear to use them for the immediate cure of pest problems with little regard to health and environmental consequences, and with limited knowledge of their application. They do not use adequate protective clothing and commonly apply ‘chemical cocktails’ of highly hazardous pesticides believing this will increase efficacy, resulting in significant occupational exposure to multiple pesticides. Most farmers have experienced signs or symptoms of acute poisoning that they attribute to pesticide use. All farmers knew that pesticides were bad for their health.
General population exposure to pesticides may be significant. Pesticides, particularly in vegetable production, are applied almost right up to the day of sale, consequently leaving an inadequate period for pesticide residues to reduce to levels recommended as suitable for consumption.
Lack of stewardship
Pesticide manufacturers and import companies are not implementing sufficient stewardship of their products. Corporate social responsibility is notable only by its absence in the day-to-day lives of farmers. Many pesticides remain available illegally and farmers remain ill-informed and ill-equipped to minimise the hazards associated with pesticide use.
Costs and volumes of use
Based on the results of the CEDAC field survey, together with 2001 agricultural statistics, for the nine provinces studied it is calculated that approximately 2,230,000 litres of pesticide formulation products are applied every year amounting to an equivalent total expenditure of about US$13,370,000. CEDAC estimates that, taking into account provinces and crop types not studied, the total expenditure on pesticides by farmers throughout Cambodia is somewhere in the region of US$20,000,000. This figure does not account for hidden costs, such as health costs including medical treatment, days lost working due to illness from pesticides, loss of agricultural productivity due to pest resistance, government costs associated with monitoring and regulating pesticides, and farmer education campaigns. Non-monetary costs of pesticides that are notoriously difficult to quantify include: environmental degradation, soil and water contamination, and damage to ecosystems and biodiversity.
The way forward
- A broad-based campaign should be initiated to increase awareness of pesticide issues amongst Cambodia’s farming population using the mass media and training programmes. Plenty of scope exists for the development of farming strategies that reduce dependence on pesticides or even eliminate pesticide use altogether.
- The Cambodian government should enforce regulations to reduce the presence of banned pesticides and work towards their elimination.. Agencies of the government should work closely with pesticide traders to ensure regulations are adhered to. In particular, accession to the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (PIC) by the Cambodian government would provide a powerful means of controlling undesired pesticides before they enter Cambodia.
- Pesticide manufacture and importation companies should take their responsibilities in product stewardship seriously, for example providing pesticide bottle labels written in Khmer in a format understandable to farmers and taking a more active role in preventing the illegal trade of pesticides between Cambodia and neighbouring countries.
- Research into more benign forms of agriculture, such as Integrated Pest Management and ecological agriculture, should be conducted to identify the most beneficial strategies for Cambodian farmers.
- A media campaign should be conducted to raise awareness of pesticide issues amongst consumers.
- The overall aspiration of all stakeholders should be to phase out and ultimately eliminate the use of WHO class Ia and Ib pesticides in Cambodian agriculture as recommended by the FAO for developing countries, focusing as a priority on the pesticides methyl parathion, mevinphos, methamidophos, monocrotophos and dichlorvos, which are currently most popular in Cambodia. Consistent with Cambodia’s commitment to the Stockholm Convention, POP pesticides should be eliminated. In the longer term WHO class II pesticides should be phased out in developing countries.
References
1 Death in Small Doses: Cambodia’s Pesticide Problems and Solution, Environmental Justice Foundation, London, 2002.
2 Pesticide use and consequence in Cambodia, CEDAC, March 2004.
3 FAO, International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, Rome, 2003.
Carl Middleton is an Environmental Scientist, Mr Keam Makarady is Program Officer and Dr Yang Saing Koma, Director, at CEDAC, No 39 St. 528 S/K Boeung Kak 1, Khan Toul Kork, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Email: cedactrg@camnet.com.kh
[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 65, September 2004, pages 4-5]