Bananas – the slippery road to sustainability
Banana multinationals and their practices on large-scale plantations have been criticised by environmental and human rights organisations and trade unions for many years. The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation first investigated conditions in Costa Rican plantations in 1996. Thomas Lustig assesses whether campaigns and recently introduced certification schemes have improved the situation.
 |
A recent fish kill in Gochen canal in the banana area of Costa Rica, February 2005. Photo: Carlos Arguedas, SITRAP, Costa Rica |
Alarm bells have been ringing about the negative impacts of large-scale banana production – disappearing rainforests, polluted water, impoverished soils, destruction of coral reefs, and turtles choking on plastic banana packing – in addition to people suffering ill-health from pesticides and exploitation through unjust working conditions and low wages. A number of companies in the banana industry and retail sector have responded by seeking ways to improve production and to guarantee certain standards. A number of certification and labelling schemes have been created which vary considerably in terms of the environmental and social
requirements(1).
Costa Rica is the world’s second largest exporter of bananas. Of the top five banana companies controlling 75% global exports, Dole, Chiquita and Del Monte all own plantations there, while Fyffes buys Costa Rican bananas. Three large national companies and several smaller ones also produce a considerable share of the country’s exports. Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) visited conventional banana plantations and organic producers in Costa Rica in 2004 to evaluate whether current production methods have become more compatible with sustainable development. This article summarises changes in practice and efforts to minimise pesticide use over the last decade. More details are available in SSNC’s new
report(2).
Pesticides used on bananas
Costa Rican plantations are dependent on large inputs of pesticides to maintain the high yields needed in today’s competitive banana market.
Fungicides are used against the aggressive fungal disease black sigatoka which can severely affect production by damaging leaves. It has been given the opportunity to spread in today’s intensive monoculture cultivation methods and continual aerial spraying of fungicides is seen as the only solution. Nematicides are used against nematode worms which attack the roots of banana plants. Insecticide-impregnated bags are placed around the developing fruit to prevent blemishes from insect bites, and herbicides are used to prevent weed growth.
Examples of pesticide use at two different multinational plantations illustrate the prevailing practices in 2003. Example Farm 1 used at least 48 kg active ingredient (a.i.) per hectare (see table) with most applied in 39 aerial sprayings of fungicides including mancozeb and tridemorph products that are possibly carcinogenic. On other plantations there were up to 60 aerial sprayings per hectare.
Changes in pesticide use
Earlier studies of banana production in Costa Rica have cited different figures for total pesticide use. These suggest that the overall use of pesticides has not declined during the past decade. However, there are positive trends. Example Farm 1 no longer uses the extremely poisonous herbicide paraquat (although other companies do).
Bacillus thuringiensis and soapy water now commonly replace more dangerous products.
Example Farm 1 has replaced chlorothalonil fungicide with tridemorph which is less toxic for the environment, but can have effects on human reproduction. Many farms have reduced their use of herbicides and sprays to maybe six times a year instead of twelve, and with less toxic products. Some have gone completely to manual methods and grow ground-cover plants instead. Formerly it was very common to keep the land completely free of vegetation using herbicides. In Example Farm 1 glyphosate is used regularly, but not in areas close to the drainage ditches, in order to maintain vegetation cover which can reduce erosion and soil sedimentation in the channels. Other farms have sprayed herbicides directly into the ditches in order for the water to drain away more rapidly. Nematicides are applied into the soil and leach out into drainage ditches, but some plantations avoid applying nematicides on the two closest rows of banana plants next to the large ditches.
An employee interviewed at Example Farm 1 was sweating profusely behind his protective mask, apron, thick clothing, rubber gloves and boots. On his back he had a 20 litre backpack full of herbicide. On the ropeway hung a ready mixed barrel of herbicide. A simple plug made from banana stem was used as a cork for the barrel, but it leaked! This incident illustrates well that safety in the handling and use of pesticides is no greater than the weakest link.
For the extremely toxic nematicides Example Farm 1 hires the services of an external company. Three times a year, for one week, a team of five people sprays the entire plantation. The most environmentally-friendly way to avoid problems with nematodes is crop rotation, allowing several years to pass between planting the same crops. When monocultures are allowed year after year very toxic pesticides are difficult to avoid. The risk of leaching to surface and ground water is high since nematicides are water soluble. High ground water, intensive rain and flooding are characteristic of the banana zones. In 2003 terbufos was prohibited in the EU. Ethoprofos and fenamiphos also pose serious health and environmental risks and some EU member states have prohibited their use. Banana companies are aware that this could affect their exports but monoculture necessitates the use of these pesticides.
Overall, it appears that spraying on Example Farm 1 has improved. Often the farm tries to delay the use of pesticides until a certain amount of specific pest damage is observed. Previously the entire plantation was sprayed even though only part of the crop was under attack. But despite this 48 kg a.i. per hectare is higher than the average of 44kg for 1995. The main reason appears to be increased pressure from nematodes and fungal diseases.
On Example Farm 2, a further 20 aerial sprays against fungal diseases are carried out, that is a total of 60 times. One of the fungicides, chlorothalonil, is very toxic for aquatic organisms. On this plantation they use other pesticides that are being strongly questioned within Europe.
Usage trends and food residues
Use of pesticides on banana plantations in Costa Rica was estimated at 44 kg a.i. per hectare, per year in
1995(3). A UNEP study estimated 39 kg in 1998-99(4), while in another it varied between 42-57kg during 1997-2001, on plantations which were all environmentally
certified(5). All the information SSNC has received indicates that the total use of pesticides per hectare has increased during the last decade, despite all the efforts to control it. The underlying reason seems to be the increased presence of nematodes and black sigatoka.
Government analysis of pesticide residues in bananas sold in Sweden from 2000-2002 showed that residues were found in 44-51% of fruit. The post-harvest fungicides imazalil and thiabendazole were consistently found each year as well as fungicides from aerial spraying, while insecticides from plastic bags were recorded in 2000. All residues were below or around Maximum Residue Levels.
| Active ingredient | Problem targeted | a.i in kg/ha | No of applications |
| Herbicides glyphosate |
Weed control |
2.21 |
6.5 (every 8th week) |
| Nematicides terbufos ethoprofos fenamiphos |
Nematode worms |
4.65 4.65 4.65 |
1 1 1 |
| Fungicides mancozeb (Dithane) mancozeb (Vondozeb) azoxystrobin tridemorph difenoconazole agricultural oil imazalil thiabendazole |
Black sigatoka disease Post-harvest diseases |
6.8 18 0.12 6.68 0.67 207 no data no data |
39 aerial applications of fungicide mixtures Continuous at fruit packing stage |
| Insecticides Chlorpyrifos Bacillus thuringiensis (biopesticide) |
Insects feeding on flowers Insects feeding on leaves |
No data No data |
Continuous in plastic bags around bunches When needed |
Biodiversity impacts
Few independent investigations have been made to determine the banana sector’s effect on water or biodiversity. The most visible evidence comes from mass pollution incidents. Massive fish kills have occurred, for example in January 2003 when fish and birds and reptiles feeding on them were killed along a 12km stretch of the River Pacuare. The discharge was traced back to an airport owned by Dole, at which a 25,000 litre container of fungicides had burst. Official investigations concluded the company had been careless in supervision and staff training and the case is currently in court. For most pollution incidents, however, it is very difficult to find evidence or establish responsibility.
Continual, low level effects on wildlife and coastal ecosystems are harder to assess. Researchers have found a number of fungicides in surface water from packing departments and from aerial spraying. Insecticide residues from plastic bags are commonly found in surface water and in sediment. In Tortuguero National Park, researchers found lethal levels of the nematicides cadusafos and ethoprofos. Species that are already under threat are further stressed or
killed(6).
The risk that turtles in the sea choke on the blue plastic bags has been radically reduced. Impregnated plastic bags are collected and sent away for recycling by many of the companies. But recurrent flooding can result in entire banana plants and their plastic bags ending up in the sea. The problem now is to do something useful with the plastic.
Organic production
The only producers of organic bananas in Costa Rica are indigenous BriBri smallholders cultivating bananas within traditional rainforest multicropping. They use no insecticides and no plastic bags so fruit is blemished but this is not a problem as their produce is destined for puree for babyfood. They manage sigatoka using the shadow technique, planting bananas where they receive sunlight for only half the day, which helps to reduce leaf damage. Although providing an important income for indigenous communities there are limited resources for marketing this produce. The large conventional companies seem averse to even trying organic cultivation.
In contrast, in the Dominican Republic organic production has been well established since the mid-1990s and they are the largest exporters of
organic banana. Organic production is mainly monoculture. The large-scale example farm visited, which is fair trade certified, also rears dairy cattle and uses their manure for the banana groves. Black sigatoka is less problematic here due to the much drier climate and is controlled in this case by 8-10 aerial sprayings of copper sulphate and carbonic acid. The organic certification imposes tough limits on the amounts of copper used. Untreated plastic bags only partly protect the bunches so thrips are controlled with botanical extracts including garlic. Some companies use a biological pesticide against nematodes while others live with the problem as control may cost more than damage caused to plants. Products using natural acids and waxes protect fruit post-harvest although aluminium sulphate is used to remove latex stains.
SSNC continue to recommend organic bananas as a much more sustainable alternative for environmentally conscious consumers but note that the sustainability of the Dominican Republic system can be improved further. One of the key obstacles to major change in current banana production is global overproduction and the dramatic price wars, driven by competition between producer companies and between retailers. This generates serious conflict of interest between trying to achieve the short-term, lowest possible price and maintaining minimum environmental and health standards. Organic producers have also been badly squeezed by price cuts. Today’s environmental certification schemes tend to set criteria at the level of existing good practice. If the best available techniques mean using up to 50kg pesticides per hectare then this becomes the norm for certified conventional bananas. SSNC believes that this is unacceptable. If bananas were to become a little more expensive, it would be worthwhile for global society if it safeguards ecosystems and people’s health and livelihoods. The responsibility lies not only with companies, certifiers and consumers but also with governments and the international community to counteract the price wars that lead to unsustainable production.
1. Mattsson E, Comparison of standards for sustainable cultivation of bananas, Grolink AB,report for Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, 2004.
2. Lustig T, The search for the perfect banana, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Stockholm, 2004, available at http://www.snf.se/pdf/rap-eng-theperfectbanana.pd
3. Banana companies: a corporate responsibility survey. Stock at Stake.CONSEUR,Brussels, 2003.
4. Reduccion del escurrimiento de plaguicidas al mar Caribe. Informe nacional Costa Rica/GEF/110099-04,UNEP,2000.
5.Vurdering av Chiquitas bananproduktion ift.certificeringskriterierne for Better Bananas Project. DK RhodeNissen, Nepenthes, Denmark,2002.
6. Castillo L, Pesticide impact of intensive banana production on aquatic ecosystems in Costa Rica, Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, Sweden,2000.[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 68, June 2005, pages 14-15]