Distribution and sale of pesticides in Tanzania is currently regulated under the Plant Protection Act (1997)1 and the Plant Protection Regulations (1997)2. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security is the custodian of the law and the Minister has a mandate to appoint a competent research institute to implement some of the functions. The requirements of engaging in pesticides business are clearly stipulated in the legislation. These include registration of the firms by the Registrar of pesticides before obtaining a trading license from a business licensing authority. The licensing of pesticides retail shops is supposed to be done after ensuring that the shop owners or supervisors are trained in pesticide safety, the shops have relevant information or documents which can enable them to state the source of the pesticides on sale, and the shop premises have adequate and appropriate pesticide storage, display, and safety equipment facilities2.

Pesticide retailers are also required by law to keep records of the type of pesticide, quantity acquired, purpose of use, batch number, and any other information which may be necessary for purposes of pesticides control. The information is to be reported periodically to the Registrar, maintained for at least five years, be made available to the inspector, and, kept in the database in the offices of the Registrar and Inspector in-charge.

Most pesticides distributed and sold by retailers in the country are imported. The requirements and process of pesticides importation are clearly spelled out in the Act and regulations. According to the said Act and its regulations, it is illegal to import any pesticide which is not registered in the country for general use. In addition, specific labelling requirements for a pesticide to be registered and consequently marketed in the country also appear in the legislation. For example, the Tanzanian label is supposed be in both English and the national Kiswahili languages for easy understanding by the end users.

The legislation also requries that all importers be registered by payment of appropriate fees. The reason for registering these importers is to enable regulatory authorities to keep track of the fate of imported pesticides. Furthermore, any firm intending to import a pesticide must apply for and be issued with an importation permit for registered and approved pesticides from the Registrar of Pesticides. 

Non-compliance, a major problem
Despite the functioning of a legal framework coupled with stringent penalties (ranging from approximately US$2000 to US$10,000), the prevailing situation indicates the lowest level of compliance by most retailers. Non-compliance has been acknowledged and documented by regulatory authorities. Infringements include the presence of unregistered, unlabelled, repackaged, decanted and expired pesticides in the market3,4. Furthermore most shops are attended by unskilled personnel without personal protective equipment. The situation has not changed substantially in some parts of the country, specifically the border regions. Despite inspectors having well defined roles and powers, enforcement has been ineffective largely due to inadequate resourcing. Concerted efforts by both regulators and retailers are needed to curb the situation. Based on a joint meeting with stakeholders, a strategy to achieve compliance through a non-regulatory approach, the Retailers Participatory Approach (RPA), was devised. RPA has been tried in some parts of the country and its countrywide application will depend on its effectiveness in this pilot phase. 

What is RPA?
The idea behind RPA is that people like to be involved in affairs affecting their lives. In other words, it is participatory and non-regulatory. The retailers have been considered in this model because they are the ones who have been violating both the current and the former (TPRI Act, 1979)3 pesticides legislation in the country by repackaging, decanting and selling unregistered and unlabelled pesticides. This has been either due to lack of information and awareness of pesticides legislation and of potential risks associated with handling pesticides, or due to economic forces (poverty alleviation or profit gain). Furthermore most retailers are close to the end users (small scale farmers) and therefore their contribution and skills in the whole process of crop production and safety need to be seriously recognized and addressed. It is believed that their participation will be a more effective approach to addressing problems of pesticides distribution sale and safety in the country.

The RPA was tried for the first time in January 2005 in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. The criterion in selecting the trial regions is that there was prior information from pesticide manufacturers through their representatives on gross violation of the law. In addition, these regions are growing diverse crops including maize, Irish potatoes, coffee and vegetable crops. Therefore their contribution in the agricultural sector is substantial. In July 2005, RPA was also tried in the central part of the country. 
RPA is implemented in three closely interrelated steps:

Results
The rapid survey in the Southern Highlands revealed that more than 25 (about 5% of the total number of pesticides approved for general use) different formulations of unregistered pesticides were in the market in the Southern Highlands alone. These have been imported illegally from Zambia, Mozambique, Malawi, Kenya, South Africa, India, and Uganda. Other cases that were prevalent included shops without permits, packages with improper labels (some in Portuguese language), untrained supervisors, non-use of personal protective equipment and repackaged pesticides. Spills on floors and tables were evident. Non-compliance with the requirements set out in the Act and its regulations were also observed in all of the 15 shops visited in the central part of the country. Cases of selling unregistered, repackaged, decanted, expired and unlabelled pesticides were observed. Most shops were attended by unskilled and unprotected personnel. These are potential risks to both shopkeepers and customers. So far about 40 retail pesticides shop owners have participated and the target is to try RPA in most agricultural areas with high intensity pesticides application.

The causes of persistent problems were identified by the participants. These included registered pesticides being not affordable by small scale farmers (as expected because of cost implications of the registration process), some approved pesticides being imported in big containers leading to repackaging for small scale farmers. Socio-economic motives have prevailed over human health and environmental safety considerations.

However, participants came up with voluntary agreements, mainly adherence to the requirements of the law (not selling unregistered, unlabelled, repackaged), close cooperation with regulatory authorities and making sure that the shops are managed by personnel trained in safe handling and effective use of pesticides. Also participants saw a need to be trained in safe handling and effective use of pesticides close to their business as a cost effective approach. The impact of RPA will be evaluated and measured in terms of reduced cases of non-compliance. 

Lessons for regulatory authorities 
The Tanzania regulatory authorities need to accept that the legislation has not been effective in curbing the illegal pesticides business in the country. The regulatory scheme has been in place for almost twenty years, but the current situation indicates that the contribution of other stakeholders has been ignored. Their voices could make a difference in improving the regulatory approaches and strategies. The aim is to create a sense of self control through participation in the process. RPA need to be tried in other parts of the country.

The roles of the regulatory authority in instituting the provisions of the law remain important. There are health and environmental concerns of decanting and using illegal pesticides. In addition, substandard pesticides may be ineffective in controlling target pests thereby reducing production and increasing poverty. The disposal of ineffective pesticides imported illegally might be a problem and is costly for government. But also the government is losing revenue through illegal importation and evading taxes.
Meanwhile, there is a need for:

References
1. Plant Protection Act, No. 13, 1997.
2. Plant Protection Regulations, 1999.
3. TPRI Act, 1979.
4. M Macha and A Rwazo, Pesticides Exposure and Hazards at Work places in Tanzania, Proceedings of the 15th Annual Scientific Conference of the Tanzania Public Health Association, 11-15 November 1996, pp 36-39.
5. M Macha, A Rwazo and H Mkalanga, Retail sale of pesticides in Tanzania: Occupational and human health considerations, African Newsletter on Occupational Health and Safety, 11:2, August 2001 pp 40-42.Alcheraus

Rwazo is Head of Pesticides and Environmental Management Centre at the Tropical Pesticides Research Institute (TPRI) and Habib Mkalanga is Pesticides Inspector at TPRI, P O Box 3024, Arusha, Tanzania, alyefao@yahoo.co.uk, hmkalanga@yahoo.com