IOMC is designed to be a cooperative undertaking among IGOs. Within the framework of their respective constitutional mandates, IGOs work together as partners to promote international work in the environmentally sound management of chemicals. The participating organizations are UNEP, the International Labour Organization (ILO), FAO, WHO, UNIDO, UNITAR and OECD.
The mandate of IOMC is coordination, with the scientific and technical work carried out through the existing structures of the participating organizations, either individually or jointly. As such, the activities and interests of IOMC member organizations described below are reflected in the work programme of IOMC. One result has been the creation of a subgroup concerned with obsolete pesticide issues, which commissioned this baseline study. IOMC has no activities of its own, but plays an important role in coordinating the activities of its constituent organizations.
The Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) discussed the issue of obsolete pesticides and chemicals at the Third Inter-Sessional Group meeting in Yokohama in December 1998 (ISG3). As a result, addressing obsolete chemicals was identified as one of 17 priority areas for discussion at the Forum III meeting in Brazil in October 2000. The document identifying these priorities states (IFCS, 2000):
"The identification, neutralization, and safe disposal of obsolete stocks of pesticides and other chemicals (especially polychlorinated biphenyl [PCB]) must be urgently facilitated particularly in developing countries and countries with economies in transition. As well, future stockpiling of other obsolete pesticides and chemicals must be prevented. With respect to the final disposition of chemicals, the Forum and IOMC organizations should promote the use of less polluting and safer technologies.
By 2004, IOMC Participating Organizations should have established relevant action plans for all regions, and at least two countries in each region should have commenced implementation of their National Plan with respect to disposal (New recommendation - Forum II, ISG-3)."
It therefore falls to IOMC members to support the implementation of these modest targets.
FAO, through its Obsolete Pesticides Programme, is acknowledged as the lead organization in matters related to the prevention and disposal of obsolete pesticide stocks in developing countries. The project has been running since 1994 and has been funded primarily by the Netherlands, with additional support from UNEP Chemicals for Latin American country inventories and from Japan for Asian country inventories.
FAO-led activities on obsolete pesticides include:
In addition, FAO has initiated the formation of a tripartite facility on obsolete pesticides which brings together FAO, representing the international community; GCPF, representing industry; and PAN-UK, representing NGOs. This group discusses barriers to progress and attempts to stimulate action on obsolete pesticides through the members' respective constituencies. FAO is also a key participant in the IOMC coordinating group on obsolete pesticides.
In the broader context of plant protection, FAO published and is in the process of updating the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. Many of the causes of accumulation of obsolete pesticides can be directly attributed to non-compliance with articles of the Code of Conduct. The updated version will address the issues of prevention and disposal of obsolete pesticides directly in several articles.
FAO also promotes IPM as the most acceptable form of pest management in agriculture through its own programmes and as a partner in the Global IPM Facility, which is based at FAO headquarters in Rome.
FAO also hosts the joint UNEP/FAO Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent. Compliance with this convention will help prevent unwanted pesticides arriving in developing countries. It will also reduce trade in the older, more hazardous pesticides that make up a high proportion of obsolete pesticide stockpiles.
Currently the main focus of UNEP Chemicals activities is the negotiation process leading to the POPs Convention, and activities relating to the implementation of requirements included in the draft Convention. Seventy-five percent of POPs chemicals are pesticides, and between 20 and 30 percent of quantified obsolete pesticide stockpiles are POPs. There is therefore significant overlap and interest in obsolete pesticides.
Principal activities relating to obsolete pesticides are:
UNEP Chemicals has also been instructed by IOMC/IFCS to look at stockpiles of chemicals other than pesticides and PCBs. Such stockpiles may not be designated as hazardous waste, but may be industrial by-products, unwanted chemicals or pure chemicals for use in industrial processes. Their management may have implications with regard to the management of obsolete pesticides.
In addressing POPs and other chemical management, UNEP is exploring possible funding sources that may also support obsolete pesticide management.
On the technical front, UNEP is investigating chemical destruction technologies and has compiled a list of existing PCB destruction facilities. UNEP is also compiling information on possible alternatives to POPs. Where these are pesticides, UNEP is assisting the lead organizations: FAO for agricultural pesticides; WHO for health pesticides.
UNEP recognizes that the POPs Convention places the responsibility of dealing with POPs stockpiles and sources, and of finding replacements for existing POPs uses, at the country level. It is also intended that the convention will generate resources to support these activities. At the same time, while these areas of activity are a priority for UNEP Chemicals, the organization recognizes that its own priorities cannot be imposed on countries, which must be left to decide their own priorities for action. This stance closely mirrors that of UNITAR (see the section on UNITAR, on p. 20).
The OECD Pesticides Working Group is the key meeting-point of pesticide regulators in OECD countries. As such the group generates guidance, policy and creates opportunities for information and experience-sharing on matters relating to pesticide regulation.
The group discussed the issue of obsolete pesticide stockpiles at its meeting in November 1998. It became clear that some OECD countries had obsolete pesticide problems of their own, notably Poland; other OECD countries were supporting activities to prevent and dispose of stockpiles in developing countries; but many others were unaware of the problem. As a result of this, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) hosted a meeting on obsolete pesticides in September 2000.
The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) provides a forum for OECD countries to discuss matters relating to the scope and nature of their development contributions and policies. In this context DAC's Working Party on the Environment has produced a series of guidelines on aid and the environment (OECD, 1995). A section in these guidelines addresses obsolete pesticides and their disposal, and makes recommendations for recipient countries and aid agencies.
The health sector is a major user of pesticides. This fact is often overlooked in awareness-raising and processes related to the better management of pesticides. WHO proposes that national health authorities always be included in training and awareness-raising exercises dealing with obsolete pesticides. WHO acknowledges that it should work on awareness-raising with national health authorities, and that FAO should maintain the lead on obsolete pesticide inventory-taking and further action.
WHO is aware that DDT, one of the POP pesticides and a common feature of many obsolete pesticides stockpiles, is still used in many developing countries for the control of malaria vector mosquitos. WHO is leading efforts in the search for alternatives to DDT through its DDT Working Group, and the effective control of malaria through the Roll Back Malaria Programme. In the meantime, there is concern that sources of new DDT are limited and there is often no information on whether the new DDT meets WHO standards. However, WHO also wishes to prevent the transfer of DDT from obsolete pesticide stockpiles to active use in the health sector, without the most stringent controls, and to prevent long-term reliance on DDT in the health sector. The DDT working group has been advised to liaise with the pesticide industry and its representative organizations with regard to ongoing, high-quality DDT supplies while they continue to be needed. The Secretariat of the Basel Convention is concerned that DDT, which may be designated as waste, is being traded and transported between developing countries without adequate compliance with the requirements of the Basel Convention.
Destruction technology for obsolete pesticides, POPs and other hazardous materials is also of concern to WHO, partly because incinerators generate dioxins and furans, which harm health, and partly because the health sector generates hazardous clinical waste requiring disposal. According to WHO, dioxin levels in developing regions such as Africa are currently low. It is desirable that they remain so and, therefore, WHO is not advocating widespread installation of incinerators that might produce more dioxins. While it is preferable that waste be dealt with close to its source, WHO accepts that the lack of adequate facilities in developing countries means that waste needs to be exported for destruction in industrialized countries.
UNIDO has no activities specifically supporting prevention and disposal of obsolete pesticides. However, it does provide technical support for activities related to chemical production and use, and hazardous waste management in developing countries.
UNIDO will be the executing agency for the GEF-funded programme to demonstrate non-combustion technology for the destruction of POPs in developing countries. The project has been developed in collaboration with NGOs and will provide an important boost for technologies that might provide a solution to obsolete pesticide and POP destruction in developing countries. The scope of this project has been scaled down from the four to six countries that piloted the destruction of hazardous wastes, to two countries where only PCBs will be destroyed. Nevertheless, the piloting of non-incineration destruction technology in developing countries is an important precedent.
UNIDO supports hazardous waste management in developing countries, and has recently recruited an expert in this field. The thrust of UNIDO's approach is to minimize the production of waste by applying clean production methods and better controls. Where waste exists or continues to be generated, reuse and recycling are promoted. UNIDO advocates waste treatment close to the source, where possible.
UNIDO is wary of advocating the use of any specific technology for waste destruction. Most existing technologies, such as incineration or landfill, are seen as potentially polluting or temporary solutions. Its programmes are therefore based on waste minimization and there is hope that the non-combustion technologies may offer a solution.
As a technical agency, UNIDO does not finance programmes but can help countries that are prioritizing environmental and waste management issues to develop proposals for integrated packages to raise donor funds. A number of integrated pollution control programmes are being implemented. These will inventory waste sources, produce a manual of best practices and train authorities. These programmes primarily focus on industrial waste streams, but need not exclude pesticides.
To promote cleaner and safer pesticide production, UNIDO has supported the creation of the Regional Network on Safe Pesticide Production and Information for Asia and the Pacific (RENPAP). This network with its training, research and development activities could play an important role in prevention of future obsolete pesticide accumulation.
UNIDO is also supporting the production of botanical pesticides such as neem, which has the potential to generate income and replace imported chemical pesticides in marginal areas. Biopesticide production is also promoted, as are the development and use of safer pesticide application technology.
UNIDO has also created a network of clean production centres in collaboration with UNEP in 19 countries worldwide. These provide local technical advice on clean production issues. Since the advice provided by individual centres is not centrally coordinated or linked to a central policy, it is possible that local advice could contradict central policy. A current example relating specifically to pesticides is local UNIDO support for a pesticide formulation plant in Ethiopia producing endosulfan, which is a highly toxic organochlorine insecticide.
UNITAR has no activities devoted specifically to obsolete pesticides. It is, however, a member of IOMC and is aware of the obsolete pesticides issue and the work being done.
A key activity of UNITAR, which relates indirectly to obsolete pesticides, is the development of national profiles to assess the national infrastructure for the management of chemicals (UNITAR, 1996). These national profiles are prepared through a participatory process involving all stakeholders in the country. The Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) encourages their preparation and, to date, 70 have been completed.
The important benefit of national profiles is that they encompass all chemicals management issues and highlight gaps and priorities for action. In some cases obsolete pesticides are identified as a priority, but in many countries other issues of chemical management take higher precedence over obsolete pesticides. External agencies should be aware of the setting of national priorities and avoid imposition of their own, although awareness-raising for particular issues is appropriate and may result in changes in prioritization. Similarly, external agencies should refer to the national profile as a starting-point for all action associated with chemical management.
On the basis of the national profile, a country is able to develop an action plan. This should be transparent and have clear targets, and can be used to mobilize resources. UNITAR can assist with this process and is developing guidelines.
The Basel Convention deals with the control of transboundary movement of hazardous waste as well as their environmentally sound management and minimization. Obsolete pesticides clearly fall within the scope of the Convention. As part of its activities, the Secretariat of the Basel Convention (SBC) responds to problems identified by countries and relating to hazardous waste, and the issue of obsolete pesticides has been raised by numerous developing countries, particularly in Africa. In this regard, African parties to the Basel Convention request assistance and advice in the case of transboundary movement of obsolete pesticides, as well as when considering disposal of obsolete pesticides in an environmentally sound manner. An area of interest to the parties to the Basel Convention concerns the export of obsolete pesticides considered hazardous wastes in the exporting country for reuse in importing countries.
There are some similarities between obsolete pesticides and other hazardous wastes such as PCBs and used oils. Dealing appropriately with obsolete pesticides is likely to benefit the appropriate management of other wastes.
The Conference of Parties of the Basel Convention has given SBC a mandate to help solve obsolete pesticide problems in developing countries. Current SBC activities relating to obsolete pesticides include:
Three stages of management are required relating to the problem of obsolete pesticides to which SBC can contribute on the basis of its expertise:
Some countries, having identified the problem of obsolete pesticides, have made it a priority for action and allocated resources of their own to dispose of the stocks in an acceptable manner. The largest contributor to this type of operation has been South Africa, which recently disposed of 603 tonnes of its own waste and waste from Namibia and Swaziland. Jamaica and Qatar also funded the clearance of their obsolete pesticide stocks using their own funds.
It should be noted that each country that has benefited from donor assistance to dispose of obsolete stocks is also expected to make contributions in kind to the operation in the form of customs exemptions, personnel, office facilities, vehicles and similar resources.
Denmark has supported the use of a cement kiln for the destruction of obsolete pesticides in Mozambique. Consultants advising the Danish development agency DANIDA recommended this course of action. The incineration programme was also integrated as an element in a wider project that included refurbishment of the cement kiln at Matola in Mozambique.
International and local environmental NGOs objected to the proposed incineration plan and protested to the Danish and Mozambique governments. As a result of the international opposition, the project was halted for re-evaluation and for new decisions to be made with public consultation.
The Finnish development agency (FINIDA) contributed $824 000 towards the removal and destruction of pesticides from Nicaragua in 1998. The project was carried out by the Finnish disposal company Ekokem, which shipped the waste for incineration at Ekokem's facility in Finland.
The Agency for German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) ran a pilot programme on obsolete pesticides from 1991 to 1999 (GTZ, 1999). During this period GTZ expertise was provided to 25 projects where surveys, detailed inventories or actual disposal operations were carried out.
Prominent among these projects were the removal of 60 tonnes of dieldrin from the Niger in 1991, 70 tonnes of dieldrin from Madagascar in 1993, 160 tonnes of DDT and monocrotophos from Mozambique in 1994, 200 tonnes of dieldrin from Mauritania in 1997 and 360 tonnes of mixed products from Zambia, which left the country completely free of obsolete pesticides.
In addition, GTZ pioneered the use of a cement kiln for the destruction of obsolete pesticides in a developing country when 57 tonnes of dinitro-o-cresol (DNOC) were incinerated in the United Republic of Tanzania in 1996. A number of factors coincided to make this trial use of a cement kiln possible. These included the existence of a modern facility; a large stock of DNOC, which is a non-chlorinated pesticide with a high calorific value making it suitable as a co-fuel in a cement kiln; and willingness on the part of the kiln operators to participate in the trial. However, while important lessons were learned from this experience, it has not necessarily served to provide a model for similar operations, since the circumstances were unique. The cost was significantly higher than it would have been for export and destruction of the waste in Europe. The high cost was mainly related to the relatively small amount of waste incinerated and the prohibition on the import of waste from other countries for destruction in the Tanzanian cement kiln.
The Netherlands has been a key supporter in matters relating to obsolete pesticides. It has funded the FAO obsolete pesticides programme since its inception in 1994, and has also funded several national disposal programmes including those in Ethiopia, Seychelles, the United Republic of Tanzania and Zanzibar, Yemen, and Zambia. The Netherlands also funded a detailed inventory of stocks in the United Republic of Tanzania and is currently funding a similar exercise in Pakistan.
The bilateral support for national programmes was made easier by the autonomy given to embassies of the Netherlands in those countries to allocate funds to such projects. This differs from the more common situation in which development programmes need to be negotiated in advance, as described in the section on Funding, on p. 14.
In 1999, the Netherlands reduced the number of countries that are supported by bilateral development programmes in order to make better use of limited capital and labour, and to increase the effectiveness and quality of aid delivered. This change potentially excludes a number of countries with obsolete pesticide stockpiles that are currently seeking funding. Nevertheless, the Netherlands continues to acknowledge the importance of obsolete pesticide prevention and disposal and will continue to support FAO work in this area, as well as country/regional programmes.
Norway has participated in a number of FAO-coordinated consultations, UNEP workshops and a task force mission to Ethiopia. The country's primary contribution has been expertise in the use of cement kilns for the destruction of hazardous waste including obsolete pesticides. This technology is used extensively in Norway, and Norwegian experts have suggested using modern adapted cement kilns in developing countries to destroy obsolete pesticides (K.H. Karstensen in FAO, 1998). (See also the section on Technology, on p. 13.)
The Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) has recently approved funding to Viet Nam for training, completion of a detailed inventory and site assessment, and development of an action plan to deal with the obsolete pesticide stockpiles (K.H. Karstensen, pers. comm., 2000).
The Swedish development agency SIDA supported the task force visit to Ethiopia in 1998 that prepared the detailed proposal for the Ethiopian disposal project, which SIDA has also made a commitment to fund in part.
SIDA has published a report calling on donors to play a greater role in supporting capacity building in developing countries for better pesticide management to reduce the hazards from pesticides. This includes a call for more support for a range of specific activities including disposal of obsolete pesticide stocks (SIDA, no date).
USAID has contributed to the disposal of 60 tonnes of dieldrin from the Niger, to the reformulation of 86 000 litres of carbaryl in Senegal, and to the disposal project in Ethiopia.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has been active in awareness-raising and support for international activities relating to obsolete pesticides and has developed a training package on inventory-taking, targeting Latin American countries. The organization also contributes information, advice and materials gained from its extensive domestic experience of dealing with hazardous wastes and pesticides. EPA hosted the OECD/FAO/UNEP Workshop on Obsolete Pesticides in September 2000.
Examples of World Bank activities in the field of POPs and obsolete pesticides include: GEF funding for a UNEP-implemented regionally based assessment of persistent toxic substances; establishment of a POPs trust fund to encourage the involvement of developing countries in the elimination or phasing out of POPs; and efforts to help phase out DDT use for malaria control. The World Bank is open to financing the disposal of obsolete pesticide stocks if borrowers want to incorporate pesticide disposal components in projects. However, countries seem to have preferred to look for grant money rather than use loan or credit funds.
World Bank financing of pesticide disposal operations has so far been limited. An example of its involvement is in Honduras, where it initiated and managed several activities to address contamination when hurricane Mitch flooded stores that contained toxic waste. Activities included disposal of 250 tonnes of toxic waste, largely obsolete pesticides, and monitoring of contamination. This initiative was funded from a Netherlands Trust Fund. The World Bank also financially supported a disposal operation carried out by Finland in Nicaragua, and is contributing towards cleaning up ground contamination in Yemen resulting from the burial of pesticides on a World Bank/IFAD-sponsored farming project during the 1980s.
The Asian Development Bank is known to have supported environmental assessment and disposal activities for some obsolete pesticides in Nepal. Some 114 tonnes of pesticides are thought to have been burned in cement kilns, while other pesticides were spread on land or buried in landfills during the mid-1990s. Proposals for the remaining 80 tonnes of pesticides include local incineration, land application and landfill. UNDP has also contributed to this project. It is not known to what extent, if any, FAO or other guidelines have been followed.
The African Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank are not known to have had any involvement in obsolete pesticide matters.
The Global Crop Protection Federation (GCPF) represents 12 major pesticide manufacturing industries and several regional industry organizations, which in turn represent pesticide producers and traders in their regions. GCPF members are committed to a process of product stewardship that effectively means implementation of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. Dealing with obsolete pesticides is seen by industry as "part of its commitments to the principles of product stewardship" (GCPF, 2000).
GCPF has a project team that coordinates industry activities on obsolete pesticides. The industry position on obsolete pesticides is posted on the Internet at www.gcpf.org/ and states:
"If a company owns a product, the responsibility for the product clearly remains with that company. In contrast, responsibility of purchased stocks lies with the present owner. GCPF member companies are willing to help find appropriate solutions for products they originally manufactured or supplied."
The GCPF statement also includes commitments on the part of member companies that include the following:
GCPF companies and regional industry associations have contributed to a number of inventories and disposal operations, and have made commitments to other projects that are being developed or are currently running. A list of projects with indication of industry involvement also appears on the Web site mentioned above.
Most NGO activity in this area is focused on awareness-raising and generating action to solve problems caused by obsolete pesticides in developing countries.
There is widespread concern among environmental NGOs about the polluting effects of destruction technologies currently in use. Incinerators, even the most sophisticated installations operating in Europe and the United States, are believed to emit dioxins and products of the incomplete destruction of hazardous chemicals, including some of the unaltered waste in the incinerators. Most IGOs consider incineration to be the only acceptable method for destruction of obsolete pesticide stocks from developing countries and therefore the stand of these NGOs puts them in potential conflict with current practice. The concerns of the environmental NGOs are well documented in a paper produced by Greenpeace (Greenpeace International, 1998).
NGO efforts to promote alternative destruction methods for hazardous chemicals are yielding results with the initiation of the pilot project for non-combustion destruction technologies for POPs in developing countries (see the section on UNIDO, on p. 19).
The first disposal operation for obsolete pesticides consisted of the removal of 50 tonnes of dieldrin from the Niger in 1991. To date, about 3 000 tonnes of obsolete pesticides have been disposed of from 14 countries at a cost of almost $14 million. Additional money has been spent in preparation for operations that have not yet taken place. This works out at an average of significantly more than $5 000 per tonne of the obsolete pesticides that have actually been disposed of. Thirty-five countries that have carried out inventories still await clean-up operations and, of the countries where operations have taken place, 12 still have stocks that require disposal. In addition, nine African countries have not yet completed inventories.
Good progress has been made in completing preliminary inventories in most African and Near Eastern countries. Several regional workshops were held throughout the region to raise awareness and stimulate action. This progress has been achieved through the efforts of the FAO obsolete pesticides programme whose primary focus for six years has been Africa and the Near East. Other regions have received less attention until recently because of lack of resources.
FAO is the main focus of all work on obsolete pesticides. The obsolete pesticides programme in FAO consists of a single chief technical adviser. The status of the obsolete pesticides programme is that of an externally funded project, which is not an integral element of FAO work. Elevation of the status of the project is subject to the approval of the FAO Biennial Conference of Parties in November 2001. If external funding for the obsolete pesticides project cannot be secured, the project may have difficulty continuing.
UNEP Chemicals gives some support to the FAO project. In addition, UNEP Chemicals, with FAO guidance, coordinates the taking of inventories and awareness-raising in the Russian Federation. Obsolete pesticides are seen as an extension of the POPs issue, since many obsolete pesticides are POPs. It is hoped that the POPs Convention and financial mechanisms built into it will help to generate substantial funds, which could help in dealing with obsolete pesticides. Obsolete pesticides are an extension of pesticide management issues, and their domain is firmly within FAO, as is acknowledged by UNEP Chemicals and all other organizations referred to here.
Germany and the Netherlands have been the major contributors to efforts towards the prevention and disposal of obsolete pesticide stocks. The Netherlands recently reduced the number of countries with which it is working bilaterally, and hence potentially the number of countries in which disposal and prevention projects can be funded. Similarly, Germany's GTZ has ended its obsolete pesticides programme and is now able only to offer its technical expertise where other agencies pay for their services.
Total financial contributions from all bodies towards the prevention and disposal of obsolete pesticides amount to almost $25 million. This includes funding for the FAO programme, and activities other than actual disposal. The number of contributing organizations is limited to ten, of which most contribute minimal amounts that are strictly restricted in scope to certain countries or types of activity. For example, South Africa contributed $2 million towards cleaning up its own obsolete stocks and those in neighbouring, closely aligned states; GCPF only contributes towards the destruction of attributable products; Shell (not a GCPF member as it no longer produces pesticides) has only contributed towards the destruction of its own products.
At present, efforts to identify and dispose of existing obsolete pesticide stockpiles and prevent the accumulation of new ones are grossly inadequate. The FAO coordinating programme itself is too small and insecurely funded to make significant progress, and there are insufficient funds and technical resources to dispose of significant quantities of obsolete pesticides.
The table in Annex I gives some indication of the financial resources needed to dispose of identified obsolete pesticide stocks. The table assumes a disposal cost across the board of $3 per kg or litre of waste. This could rise or fall depending on a variety of factors such as condition and location of the waste.
Money alone will not immediately solve all obsolete pesticides problems. Currently there is a shortage of expertise to handle this type of waste in developing countries. It will take time for additional resources to become available where they are needed, and that time could be usefully exploited for the training of additional personnel for fieldwork, project management, monitoring and other tasks.
It is possible that the expertise and initiatives of other organizations may be exploited in various ways. For example, while the activities of UNITAR and UNIDO in developing countries do not specifically relate to obsolete pesticides in isolation, the expertise they provide and the stakeholders involved in their processes could help with more efficient implementation of programmes for the prevention and disposal of obsolete pesticides. Better coordination among agencies could therefore help to deal with obsolete pesticides more efficiently and effectively.
