Quantification of obsolete pesticide stocks is difficult because of the wide distribution of pesticides and the remote location of many of the storage points. Nevertheless, it is widely accepted that inventories that include details of obsolete pesticide identities, quantities, condition, location and source are an essential prerequisite to any remedial action.
FAO has been foremost in the completion of inventories with a comprehensive programme of data-gathering covering Africa and the Near East. Inventories have now been completed for 53 countries in these regions and identify a total of more than 47 000 tonnes of obsolete pesticides. The FAO programme was expanded to Latin America in 1998 where 33 countries were invited to carry out inventories; five have been submitted to date. In these five countries 1 895 tonnes of obsolete pesticides have been identified. FAO is also currently expanding its programme to Asia where 21 countries will be invited to participate commencing in early 2001 (A. Wodageneh, pers. comm., 2000).
Experience gained from the FAO programme demonstrates clearly that data gathered through this process are indicative of the situation but not conclusive. In countries where disposal operations have taken place, more detailed inventories completed for shipment and destruction purposes generally identify much larger quantities of obsolete pesticides than the initial inventory, sometimes increasing totals by up to 50 percent.
In the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), where most countries are not FAO members, work to complete inventories of obsolete pesticides and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) has been supported by UNEP Chemicals, following the format developed by FAO. Elsewhere in Eastern Europe there is little coordination of work on obsolete pesticides matters. No inventory data have been published yet for these regions, but early indications suggest that very large stockpiles exist. Apochryphal reports suggest that about 70 000-100 000 tonnes of obsolete pesticides are held in these countries (UNEP, 1999e).
A number of additional bilateral programmes are supporting completion of obsolete pesticide inventories in some countries either as a stand-alone activity or as part of a wider programme. Examples include a Netherlands-funded programme in Pakistan being carried out by the German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) that has so far identified 917 tonnes of obsolete pesticides in 133 stores in Punjab. An additional 30-40 stores remain to be surveyed. According to W. Schimpf of GTZ (pers. comm., 2000) 317 tonnes from 13 stores will be disposed of shortly. Other programmes are a Danish-funded programme in five Eastern European countries for which no results are available (L. Lauritzen, pers. comm., 2000); a self-financed programme in Poland that has identified 60 000 tonnes (see paper by Stobiecki et al., for the 5th International HCH and Pesticides Forum, 1998); a World Bank/Finland-supported programme in Nicaragua; and a South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) programme in a number of Pacific countries that has identified 63 tonnes of obsolete pesticides, of which 10 tonnes are dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) (B. Graham, SPREP, pers. comm., 2000).
Accounting for the paucity of data from many regions and individual countries, estimates based on existing inventories and previous experience would indicate that virtually all developing countries and economies in transition hold obsolete pesticides stockpiles. Countries that previously operated centralized supply mechanisms tend to have larger stockpiles, often reaching tens of thousands of tonnes. In total it could be estimated that global obsolete pesticides stockpiles in developing countries and economies in transition amount to something in the order of 400 000-500 000 tonnes.
No pesticide type or chemical group is excluded from obsolete pesticide stockpiles. Although some stockpiles have been accumulating over periods as long as 40 years, new products are being added to the stockpiles continuously. Among the major contributors to obsolescence are product age and poor storage. Since these are continuous processes, products that remain unused beyond their expiry date and products that are poorly stored will become obsolete.
Ironically, some of the oldest pesticides are still usable for significantly longer periods than most newer pesticides. Products such as the organochlorine insecticides (aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene [HCB], mirex and toxaphene) remain active for many years. However, it is precisely this property that has led to the widespread banning of these chemicals and their inclusion in the list of POPs whose discontinued production and use are currently being negotiated under the proposed POPs Convention.
The table in Annex I lists POPs pesticides that have been identified in existing inventories separately. Where the entry for POPs is lacking or zero this may signify that POPs have not been identified rather than their absence. Nevertheless, existing data indicate that more than 20 percent of obsolete pesticide stockpiles consist of POPs pesticides. This is without doubt a factor of age since the majority of these products have been banned or restricted in the majority of countries for several years.
The next most important group of chemicals represented among obsolete stocks is probably the organophosphate insecticides. These were developed as less persistent alternatives to the organochlorines. Over the years the high toxicity of these products to humans has led to their replacement by synthetic pyrethroids in many industrialized countries. These are less toxic to mammals, and consequently safer for humans to use. However, synthetic pyrethroids are more expensive than organophosphates and in developing countries organophosphates remain in widespread use.
Organophosphates have a more limited shelf-life than organochlorines and can become physically and chemically altered with time. Therefore many organophosphates supplied in the 1980s and early to mid-1990s are now obsolete. Products more than two years old also need to be analytically tested to determine whether they remain viable for use. Until such testing is carried out, these products are classified as obsolete.
Other pesticide types included in obsolete stockpiles include carbamate and synthetic pyrethroid insecticides, the various fungicide and herbicide groups, and even some botanical and microbial products. Organometallic compounds, such as arsenic, mercury and tin-based chemicals are included in some inventories. Many of these have been banned for several years and are likely to be more than 30 years old.
Some inventories also include veterinary products, many of which are pesticides. However, many are also pharmaceuticals, which are categorized differently.
The FAO inventory for Africa and the Near East (FAO, 1999c) also includes many entries listed as unknown. These represent approximately 7 percent of entries numerically, which include unlabelled products or unpackaged mixed products.
In addition to chemicals, obsolete stockpiles include contaminated equipment such as knapsack sprayers, empty pesticide containers and significant quantities of heavily contaminated soil where the contents of damaged containers have leaked out.
The condition of obsolete pesticide stockpiles varies from securely contained, well stored products that can still be used in the field (subject to analysis), to products that have entirely leaked from corroded or otherwise damaged containers into the surrounding environment.
Storage conditions can contribute significantly to product deterioration. In many instances products are stored in the open where they are exposed to great temperature fluctuations and other damaging conditions, which accelerate the deterioration of the pesticides as well as their containers. However, even where physical storage conditions are good, the length of storage and the nature of the products have resulted in container corrosion and product leakage. This is particularly prominent where organophosphate insecticides, which are acidic, have been stored for prolonged periods in steel drums that have corroded.
It is often difficult to ascertain the ownership of old stockpiles as a result of changes in ownership and in the status of organizations or the disappearance of owners. For example, state enterprises that have since been privatized, or organizations that no longer exist, do not retain responsibility for previously accumulated stockpiles of obsolete pesticides. In such cases stocks have become neglected and even basic storage conditions are not maintained. This results in more rapid deterioration and severe environmental contamination. The absence of secure storage in such situations also frequently leads to vandalism, theft of products and access by children and livestock who are exposed to the pesticides and contribute to wider environmental dispersal.
There are also many examples of inappropriate action being taken in the past to resolve obsolete pesticide problems. The most common and lasting example is burial of pesticides. In some cases buried pesticides are known to have leaked into surrounding soil, and sometimes into adjacent groundwater sources. In other cases entombment of the pesticides in concrete prevents easy access and monitoring of the condition of the stockpiles. However, burial or entombment is never considered to be a long-term solution because leakage is inevitable. Examples where burial or entombment has taken place and will require remedial action include Chad, Colombia, Poland, Senegal and Yemen.
There is virtually no developing country or economy in transition that does not have a stockpile of obsolete pesticides. Even countries that claimed to have no obsolete pesticides when the FAO inventory gathering process began are now admitting to holding significant stocks.
Obsolete pesticide stocks are distributed widely in countries where they exist. The largest stocks may be localized in a few stores from which pesticides are distributed around the country, but these stores are usually properly managed. In remote regions the quantities of pesticides in each place may be smaller, but they are also more likely to be poorly stored and handled because of a lack of training and resources.
In most developing countries subsistence agriculture occupies the majority of people and land. Disease vectors, such as malaria-transmitting mosquitos, know no geographical boundaries and affect even the most remote communities. In many countries, provision of pesticides, along with other agricultural inputs and medical supplies, is seen as an integral component of development programmes. There are therefore no limits to the geographical dispersal of pesticides. This is evident in Ethiopia, for example, where 420 stores containing obsolete pesticides have been identified throughout the country, and more are being found while a detailed inventory is being compiled. This situation is common in other countries.
The location of new pesticide stores is now subject to detailed guidelines such as those produced by FAO (FAO, 1996a). These guidelines are based on previous experience and past errors. Many obsolete pesticide stockpiles have been held in the same stores for decades, and these stores were constructed and sited without the benefit of guidelines or experience. As a result many are poorly constructed or positioned.
Agriculture tends to take place near water sources, be they natural or artificial irrigation schemes. Many stores are therefore now sited close to water. In an effort to protect and secure pesticides, rural dwellers may have built stores using traditional methods. The materials used, such as mud and straw with earth floors, are unable to contain spilled pesticides and generally absorb the chemicals. Many such stores now need to be demolished and the materials from which they were constructed should be disposed of as hazardous material because of the chemicals they have absorbed.
In the past, pesticide stores were constructed away from residential areas which, in most cases, have expanded with population growth and urbanization surrounding the sites of pesticide stores. It is therefore common to find pesticide stores containing obsolete stocks in densely populated areas. Frequently people and their livestock are found to be living near a pesticide store, edible crops growing on contaminated land, and contaminated water used for drinking and irrigation.
The major pesticide manufacturers are based in Europe, the United States and Japan. Most of these companies are represented by the Global Crop Protection Federation (GCPF) and henceforth in this report will be referred to as GCPF companies. A significant proportion of obsolete products originated from GCPF companies and their obsolescence has come about as a result of age, poor storage and poor handling. The proportion of obsolete stocks derived from GCPF companies varies among regions. In the CIS for example, very little is from GCPF producers, but in Latin America and some parts of Africa and Asia the proportion is high. The causes of obsolescence and accumulation are discussed in more detail under Causes of accumulation, on p. 6.
Pesticides that were produced in the CIS, Eastern Europe and other countries previously aligned to the former Soviet Union are still commonly found among obsolete stockpiles.
In recent years formulators and producers of "generic" (off patent) pesticides have multiplied and expanded, particularly in China and India, but also in other Asian and some Latin American countries. Generic pesticides are still produced and sold by GCPF companies in much larger quantities than those sold by developing-country-based non-GCPF manufacturers. The products distributed from these generic manufacturers tend to be based on older technology (e.g. organochlorine and organophosphate insecticides) and the products are often reported to be of low quality. Nevertheless they are frequently purchased in developing countries because they are cheaper than products sold by GCPF companies. These generic products are increasingly appearing in obsolete stockpiles.
A number of developing countries now have pesticide formulation plants where technical active ingredients are formulated and packaged for local marketing. These plants tend to be able to gear their production and marketing strategies, including details such as appropriate package sizes, to local market demands quite precisely. It is therefore unusual to find locally formulated products among obsolete stocks.
The bodies responsible for the procurement of pesticides that have accumulated as obsolete stocks are diverse and numerous, but can be grouped into four categories:
The FAO Obsolete Pesticides Programme has defined six key factors that lead to the accumulation of obsolete pesticides in developing countries (FAO, 1995b). These are:
Much of the following explanation of these factors is derived specifically from Chapter 2 of the FAO document cited above (FAO, 1995b), which describes the causes of accumulation comprehensively. That information is updated and supplemented with new material in this report.
In many countries, where a range of products has been banned or withdrawn for health or environmental reasons, the fate of existing stocks is given scarce consideration. Stocks remain where they are stored and eventually deteriorate. This applies particularly to organochlorine compounds that are part of strategic stocks for locust control. A common example is the occurrence of dieldrin stocks in many African countries where migratory locusts cause problems. Dieldrin was banned from use in donor-supported locust control programmes in the late 1970s, but no provision was made for the depletion or removal of existing stocks. These have been stored since then, awaiting an appropriate solution. In some cases the pesticides have leaked from damaged containers and elsewhere they have been used illegally.
Insufficient storage capacity for pesticides. The authorities responsible for pesticide stocks often do not have sufficient storage capacity to store all their pesticides safely. Many stores are poorly constructed, have insufficient ventilation, are too hot and/or do not have concrete floors. Because of space constraints, pesticides are often not properly stacked, thereby reducing access to products and making it difficult to monitor the condition of containers. In many places, pesticides are stored in the open for prolonged periods. Poor storage conditions accelerate the degradation of pesticides and their containers. New products are sometimes stored inappropriately because obsolete products are occupying the limited storage space.
Inappropriate storage conditions. Some pesticides require specific storage conditions because of their physical-chemical properties. For example, solid formulations should be separated from liquids; corrosive agents should be kept away from metal containers; and oxidizing agents should be stored separately from flammable and combustible products. Advice and information on these matters are available from product labels, material safety data sheets (MSDS) and published guidelines. However, rural storekeepers in developing countries rarely, if ever, have access to such material and are unlikely to be trained in its interpretation. It is unlikely that existing storage facilities will allow such requirements to be accommodated. It is therefore common to find products inappropriately stored. This adds to the risk of damage to products and containers and acceleration of product deterioration.
Staff not trained in stock management. Storekeepers of major stores and those responsible for national stocks are often unfamiliar with the rules of good stock management (proper stacking, product segregation, principle of "first in - first out", etc.). Leakage and spills may not be cleaned up immediately because staff have not been trained in how to handle them, or because the necessary materials and protective equipment are unavailable. Contamination and improper stacking may affect the condition of other products and may impede the application of good stock management. Stock records may not be regularly updated and communicated to the central authority responsible for establishing the country's pesticide requirements, which in turn leads to over- or underordering of pesticides in subsequent seasons.
Poor distribution systems. Delays in processing imported pesticides and poor stock management at the first point of storage and distribution in a country can result in long delays before products reach their point of use. In many cases, products only reach their final destination shortly before or even after their date of expiry. Storekeepers and plant protection officers in remote areas may not be aware of this issue because of a lack of training or absence of information on product labels. Even where officials are aware of product expiry they are reluctant to turn away scarce and expensive supplies since no alternatives are available.
Inappropriate handling during transport. Drums and other packaging materials are often damaged through rough handling or in transport. When drums are battered, their inner and outer coatings may be damaged, which will accelerate corrosion and shorten their life. Unnecessarily long periods of exposure to direct sun during transit are another important factor that affects both the container and its contents.
Unavailability of analytical facilities. Because laboratory facilities for pesticide quality control are not available in most developing countries, it may be difficult to determine whether a pesticide can still be used after its indicated shelf-life has expired. Inadequate labelling and the absence of a date of manufacture/release on labels or on the container may complicate the matter. For this reason, there is often an understandable tendency to deviate from the principle of "first in - first out" and to use a newer product to be certain of its effectiveness; however, this practice leads to prolonged storage of older products.
Products that have been donated or procured are sometimes unsuitable for their intended use and will therefore remain in store and deteriorate. It should be noted that all the causes of obsolescence covered under this heading are addressed in the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (amended version) of 1990. Governments, procuring agencies and industry should be following this Code of Conduct, yet the evidence indicates that this is not so in many countries.
Inappropriate active ingredient or formulation. Examples of cases where products have been considered unsuitable include the following:
Impractical package size or poor container quality. Bulk quantities of pesticides are commonly supplied in 200-litre metal drums of liquid formulations or 25-kg, or larger, sacks of powder. For countries without good repackaging facilities this may create problems if the pesticides are intended for use by plant protection staff, extension staff or small-scale farmers. In order to transfer the contents of large drums into smaller packages, large quantities of small empty containers, a pump, labels, etc. are needed. These are often not available, or are insufficient, at the repackaging location. Consequently, pesticides may remain unused, or improvised measures may be taken that are dangerous to handlers or users.
Pesticides are sometimes delivered in containers of poor durability that soon start to leak. Once drums have corroded or leak, they can no longer be transported, which makes it considerably more difficult to use their contents. The same applies to torn bags and other damaged packaging.
If the container quality is not specified in tender documents, bidders may be tempted to reduce their price by compromising on the quality of containers.
Missing or incomplete labels. In some cases, pesticides are not used because the end user does not know the specifications of the product, or how to apply it, since labels are missing or incomplete, are illegible (as a result of rain, sunlight, leakage) or are in a language alien to the user.
Insufficient communication between aid agency and recipient country. In some cases, the quantity, active ingredient, formulation or packaging of donated pesticides is inappropriate for the intended use. Such mistakes generally occur because of a lack of detailed specifications in requests for pesticide donations and/or a lack of background information and justification. Developing countries are not the only ones responsible for this communication gap. Aid agencies can also be guilty of failing to obtain such information before processing requests for pesticide donations. This failure can be due to: insufficient communication with officials who are well informed about the country's pesticide needs, failure to request detailed information on the quantity of pesticides needed, or failure to evaluate pesticide orders placed by recipient countries.
The Japanese "KR2"agricultural aid programme, in particular, has been criticized for providing excessive quantities of pesticides and pesticides that the recipients already have in store. In this case, problems of communication are partly to blame.
Lack of product stewardship by donors and suppliers. Release of pesticides from customs and their transportation to point of use can be extremely slow in developing countries. Donors and suppliers of pesticides do not always take responsibility for ensuring that donated pesticides, or pesticides bought with agricultural development funds, are dealt with properly and efficiently in the recipient country. This continues to be a problem in Ethiopia, where pesticides provided by the Japanese KR2 programme sometimes arrive at stores in remote locations after or very close to their expiry date, and new supplies have been ordered while the current disposal operation is taking place. Similarly, European Community (EC)-donated pesticides delivered to Rwanda in 1995 were poorly stored (despite being held within the EC compound in Kigali), and have as a result been seriously damaged and are now contaminating the environment.
Fraudulent practices of unreliable suppliers. It has been recorded that pesticides banned in one country have been supplied to another without the recipient country understanding that the products were obsolete before receipt. Elsewhere, in order to keep costs as low as possible, suppliers of pesticides have purchased substandard products to meet contract specifications that did not adequately define product quality standards. There are examples of consignments being left unused because an unreliable supplier adulterated the product to increase profits and it was no longer suitable for the intended purpose.
This kind of practice is inevitable in a market where money can be made. Only strict tendering procedures, tight specifications and stringent quality monitoring can prevent such practices. Unfortunately donors do not always employ these practices strictly enough and developing countries do not have the resources to do so.
Inaccurate assessment of requirements. An assessment of pesticides needs is generally based on approximate estimates of the area to be treated. Insufficient consideration is often given to the actual agro-ecological conditions (e.g. variations in intensity of pest outbreaks, economic thresholds) and to factors that may limit the use of pesticides, such as the local application capacity (availability of spraying equipment, protective clothing and trained staff), storage facilities and the effectiveness of distribution systems. The ability of the envisaged users to pay for the product is another factor that is sometimes overlooked. In addition, there is a tendency to overestimate requirements in order to avoid shortages.
Centralized and up-to-date information on existing in-country stocks is sometimes not readily available or is incomplete, which complicates the assessment of additional requirements. In this case, the national authority responsible for the assessment of the country's yearly requirement of pesticides may not rely on these stocks and will keep them out of the equation when drawing up a list of products to be procured or requested from donors.
Lower than expected pest incidence. The extent of an expected pest outbreak is sometimes difficult to forecast. A lower pest incidence than expected may result in unused pesticide stocks. In the past, this was particularly true for outbreaks or invasions of migratory pests such as locusts. Countries that established large strategic pesticide stocks in preparation for possible upsurges or invasions often ended up with large quantities of unused products. Decentralizing such stocks further increased the risk.
The maintenance of strategic pesticide stocks in readiness for possible locust outbreaks is a strategy that continues in most countries affected by locusts. This strategy is endorsed by FAO and continues to be supported by some donors such as the EC and Japan. There appears to be a general lack of confidence in strategies that do not rely on strategic pesticide stocks. As a result, proposals including rapid mobilization of pesticides to deal with pest outbreaks and rotation of strategic stocks have not been tried.
FAO also coordinates activities to monitor and control migratory pests and, in particular, desert locusts. In this context monitoring efforts help to focus control efforts geographically and in time and thereby reduce the volumes of pesticides applied. Nevertheless the foundation of locust control programmes is still based on chemical pesticides, and affected countries continue to hold strategic pesticide stocks that have been, and continue to be, a major contributor to obsolete stockpiles. For example, Morocco currently has the largest stockpile of obsolete pesticides in Africa, which is almost entirely the result of strategic stocks of locust control pesticides. The Moroccan authorities and FAO defend continuation of this strategy despite the accumulation of obsolete stocks.
Other strategies have been proposed, including rapid mobilization of pesticides from producers, rotation of stocks, biological control agents and zero control. There has been little progress with any of these options other than recent FAO approval of the biological control agent Green Muscle, based on the fungal pathogen Metarhiziium anisopliae.
Overstocking of products with a short shelf-life. Most currently used pesticides have a two-year shelf-life. Tropical conditions characterized by excessive heat, high humidity and/or strong fluctuations in temperature may reduce this already short life span. During medium- or longer-term storage periods, these products degrade and become unusable. Overstocking of such products is a common cause of pesticides becoming obsolete.
Excessive donations. Aid agencies have sometimes provided pesticide donations far in excess of requirements. In several cases this has involved products manufactured in the home country of the aid agency or funding government (see the section on The cost of obsolete pesticide stocks, on p. 12).
Under some agricultural input supply programmes lasting a number of years, the provision of pesticides is automatic until notice is given to stop. This system, which depends on feedback, does not always work effectively. In some cases, it has led to an accumulation of pesticides when demand dropped and supply was not adjusted.
Examples are known of unsolicited pesticide donations, where pesticides were offered to a developing country by a donor country having excessive or unwanted pesticides. Since developing countries may be concerned that refusing a gift could be considered undiplomatic, or may believe the gift to be useful, these donations were accepted but in some cases were never used and were simply added to obsolete pesticide stockpiles.
See the section on Insufficient communication between aid agency and recipient country, on p. 8.
Removal of subsidies. Many countries are reducing or removing subsidies from pesticides. The rationale behind the adjustment of pricing policies is both technical and economic. Direct and indirect subsidies on pesticides are not desirable because they stimulate overuse and over-reliance on pesticides and frustrate the introduction of integrated pest management (IPM) or other sustainable production systems.
Moreover, structural adjustment programmes require the removal of subsidies from agricultural inputs so that market forces will determine the extent of pesticide use. This often causes a sudden drop in demand for pesticides because farmers can no longer afford them. As a result, stocks may remain in store longer than planned and are at increased risk of becoming obsolete.
Poor coordination among aid agencies. Insufficient coordination among aid agencies providing pesticides, especially for locust and other migratory pest control operations, has been a major factor in causing excess donations of pesticides. Recipient governments do not usually have any guarantee that the required pesticides will be provided by the donor agency first contacted. In emergency situations, this may lead to simultaneous requests for assistance being made to several agencies, with the hope that at least one will react in time. In the end, the requested amount may be received from more than one donor. Given this undesirable situation, FAO is actively seeking to enhance donor coordination in emergency situations, at both the international level and the national level in recipient countries.
Administrative procedures within aid agencies. Slow processing of requests for pesticides in some cases has meant that the pesticides have arrived too late. Project or programme funds are often allocated for spending within a certain period. Consequently, timing for the procurement of pesticides is sometimes determined by budgetary factors, rather than by actual requirements. This means that recipient countries may be pressed to accept pesticide supplies on a "now or never" basis, which in many cases conflicts with the principle of providing pesticides only when they are actually needed.
Several aid agencies have not yet assigned responsibility for the appraisal and processing of requests for pesticides to a specific technical office within the agency. Instead, the country desk concerned processes such requests. There may be little coordination among country desks, or between country desks, technical departments and procurement departments. Without a specifically designated technical office to appraise requests for pesticides, it may be difficult to build up an institutional memory to avoid repetition of mistakes.
Pesticide manufacturers, distributors and traders commonly find themselves in situations of conflicting interest. On the one hand they seek to promote and sell their own pesticides, and on the other are asked for advice on pest control strategies. This frequently occurs where extension services are under-resourced and overstretched and farmers are desperate for advice. The information given by pesticide companies is free, while crop consultants and agronomists charge for their advice.
Agrochemical companies, or their local agents, often take the initiative in advising plant protection services and other large-scale users on their pesticide requirements. Sometimes such advice forms the basis for requests to donors. However, assessments may be in excess of actual requirements. Moreover, the recommended product may not necessarily be the most appropriate for reasons such as those outlined in the section on Unsuitable products and packaging, on p. 7.
Large sums of money are involved in pesticide supplies. As a result, a variety of hidden interests may play a role in decisions concerning pesticide procurement or donations. Often these interests are not strictly related to the best technical solution to pest problems. Companies may use a range of aggressive marketing methods that result in procurement of quantities in excess of actual requirements, or of low-quality or otherwise inappropriate products. Some individuals involved in pesticide procurement may have personal financial interests.
Donor countries may place increased emphasis on the supply of pesticides because of the spin-off for the national pesticide industry, thereby increasing the risk of donations being supply- rather than demand-driven.
Supply-driven donations of pesticides are more likely to become obsolete because their nature and quantity are not necessarily linked to actual needs in the recipient country but may be based solely on what is available from the donor. Tied aid may restrict the range from which products can be selected because the producers in the donor country may not make the most appropriate products for conditions in the recipient country.
Such hidden factors often complicate a sound technical approach to pest and pesticide management and should be identified and addressed in policy decisions.
Storage and handling of pesticides, even when products are in good condition, present significant hazards to those working with the pesticides, the public at large and the environment. Adherence to good practice guidelines such as those produced by FAO and GCPF can minimize risks by eliminating exposure, or reducing it to a minimum.
In the case of obsolete pesticide stocks, the hazards are greater, and the control of personal or environmental exposure can be much more difficult. As a result, the risks to health and the environment are greater and, unfortunately, in many cases are realized.
The poor condition and inappropriate location of many obsolete pesticide stockpiles are described in the section on Description of pesticide stocks, on p. 3. The problems arising from these conditions are summarized in the following sections.
The effects of POPs on health and the environment range from acute toxicity to intergenerational endocrine disrupting effects. POPs are bioaccumulative and once in the environment cannot be removed. POPs are also transported by climatic and environmental processes over long distances. They tend to move from warmer climate regions, where most obsolete pesticide stockpiles are held, to colder climates, even as far as the poles where they accumulate in the fatty tissues of humans and wildlife at the top of food chains.
Extensive monitoring of POPs' body burdens, effects on health and movement in the environment is being carried out in Canada, northern Europe and the United States. Little or no work has been carried out in the tropics where POP insecticides have been extensively used and now form a significant proportion of obsolete pesticide stockpiles. The POP insecticide DDT also continues to be stored and used in several tropical countries for the control of malaria vectors.
As pesticides decompose they form by-products, many of which have toxic properties. Some by-products of decomposition are more toxic than the original poison. While little information is available to storekeepers and users on the hazards of pesticides in developing countries, virtually none is available on the breakdown products of stored pesticides. Once this process of decomposition begins, the products are effectively unidentified and need to be handled as such. The assumption needs to be made that all unidentified products belong to the highest hazard category for the purposes of handling, transport and disposal.
In the process of decomposition, pesticides can change their physical state, liquids crystallize to solids or solids liquefy. Many pesticide decomposition processes form gases where the volume is greater than the original product. This can lead to high pressure being generated in the containers, which sometimes explode, or the contents shoot out when opened. This can make handling more difficult and can significantly alter the behaviour of the chemicals in the environment.
The most obvious consequence of open or damaged containers is spillage of the contents. The released pesticides find their way into surface waters as a result of runoff; into groundwater as a result of leaching through soil; and into soil on which they have been spilled. They can thus contaminate other materials.
Where pesticides are stored in the open, people who happen to be working, living, passing by or playing in the vicinity will be exposed to them and may suffer acute or chronic health effects. There are many examples of children playing, livestock grazing, people working, cooking, drawing water and growing food around dumped and leaking pesticides.
Where there are obsolete pesticide stocks it is common to find containers from the original pesticide suppliers that were unlabelled when supplied; products that have been transferred from their original, leaking containers into new, unlabelled containers; illegible labels; labels in foreign languages; and labels lacking basic information. In all such cases the products must be assumed to belong to the most hazardous class of products and need to be managed as such.
Obsolete pesticide stocks may be in poor condition and might be contaminating the environment and harming health. However, the movement of these products without appropriate safeguards can aggravate the situation.
The Table below summarizes the types of exposure presented by existing stocks of obsolete pesticides and describes the potential compounding effects of moving these pesticides without appropriate precautions.
Quantification of the externalities of pesticide use is difficult and complex. In general terms such an analysis must include the cost of obsolete stock creation, management and disposal. Without attempting to put actual prices on these externalities, the following paragraphs identify the factors that should be included in considering the cost of obsolete pesticide stocks.
Capital costs are invested in the procurement of pesticides, which subsequently became obsolete. There is the "opportunity cost", i.e. the funds spent on the pesticides were unavailable for other purposes. Since the pesticides were not used, the investment was clearly wasted and could undoubtedly have been more effectively used in other ways.
Proper transportation of pesticides in accordance with international law (for transboundary and marine transport) and best practice is more costly than transportation of unregulated goods. These methods were probably applied in bringing the pesticides to their ultimate destination and, again, these high shipping costs were wasted since the pesticides were not used.
Ironically, in many cases, it is the inefficiency of the pesticide distribution system that has led to pesticides becoming obsolete even before, or very soon after, they arrive at their ultimate destination because their expiry date has passed.
Pesticide storage incurs costs. In many cases donor or government money has been invested in the construction of new pesticide stores to accommodate stocks, which then became obsolete. Obsolete pesticides taking up storage space in scarce stores have sometimes led to new pesticide stocks being stored inappropriately elsewhere, for example, outside. This in turn accelerates the deterioration of new pesticides and may render them obsolete before they are used.
Obsolescence as a result of unsuitability of the product or its packaging (see the section on Unsuitable products and packaging) means not only that the investment in purchase, transportation and storage of the original pesticides was wasted, but that the pest problem, for which the pesticides were intended, had to be solved by other means, incurring costs, if indeed the problem was solved at all.
On the assumption that obsolete pesticides were purchased to deal with a pest problem, they need to be replaced with other control tools or pesticides. There are clearly costs associated with this.
Problems resulting from obsolete stocks and their movement
Current environmental hazard from obsolete pesticide stocks |
Potential compounding effects of movement |
Leakage of pesticides to soil and dispersal in soil through capillary action and soil microfauna |
Movement and transfer of pesticides from one container to another could generate additional leakage and increase the area contaminated |
Leaching of pesticides to groundwater through contaminated soil |
Disturbance of pesticides and their movement could increase the area contaminated and cause additional leaching to groundwater sources beneath the contaminated area. Exposure of pesticides during periods of |
Surface water contamination by surface runoff, wind dispersal or animal transport. For example, stores sitting on floodplains, which periodically |
Disturbance of pesticides could cause additional pesticides to enter surface water through surface runoff or air movement. Exposure of pesticides during periods of rainfall could increase surface water contamination |
Dispersal of pesticides by air through volatilization or wind dispersal of pesticide dusts or pesticide-contaminated soil particles |
Additional exposure of pesticides to air during repackaging processes could lead to increases in volatilization and wind dispersal. Exposure of pesticides during periods of intense solar radiation, high temperatures or high winds could increase contamination |
Contamination of vegetation through uptake of pesticides in soil and surface contamination of plants. Contaminated vegetation may be crop plants, food sources for people, livestock or wildlife |
Increased release of pesticides to air, water and soil during their movement could result in additional exposure of vegetation to pesticides and, hence, additional contamination |
Direct or indirect toxic effects on the human population, livestock and wildlife resulting from exposure to pesticides that have been released into the environment. Pesticides that can also enter the food chain and contaminate several organisms The toxic effects of exposure could be short-term and acute, or long-term and chronic |
Additional releases of pesticides to the environment could result from their disturbance and movement thereby increasing the potential for organisms to be exposed to pesticides |
Looting and pilfering of obsolete stocks leading to banned, dangerous and unidentified pesticides to be used |
Possible increased vulnerability of stocks being moved. Greater numbers of people employed on clean-up projects having access to the stocks, with the risk of removal of chemicals for use or sale |
Acts of war may result in additional dispersal of stocks when storage areas are attacked or damaged inadvertently |
If pesticides are being repackaged and moved during a time of conflict, dispersal may be increased |
Explosion and fires may occur spontaneously in stores where there are decomposing pesticides. Fires starting elsewhere and spreading may also damage stores |
Movement, mixing and opening of containers may result in explosions or fires |
Natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods can lead to widespread dispersal of stored pesticides |
If pesticides are being repackaged and moved during a time of natural disaster, dispersal may be increased |
The existence of pesticide stocks and the investment made in their procurement often act as a deterrent to investment in research and development or procurement of pest management techniques or materials that may be more sustainable and cost-effective than synthetic chemical pesticides.
There is an assumption among many donors and national authorities that chemical pesticides form the mainstay of pest control strategies and that other systems such as IPM, integrated vector management (IVM), traditional indigenous methods and organic agriculture are unproven, unscientific or unreliable. This is increasingly demonstrated to be untrue based on actual experience and research. In fact, reliance on chemical pesticides has been shown to be unsustainable economically and environmentally, especially in relation to pest management where pest resistance and resurgence often result.
The existence of obsolete pesticide stocks is often seen as an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of pesticide use rather than an unacceptable cost and barrier to the effective development and implementation of alternatives.
Poor storage and leakage of obsolete pesticides result in greater human exposure and environmental contamination than would normally be the case. Clearly there are heavy costs associated with people becoming ill as a result of exposure. Chronic illness, reproductive problems and birth deformities bear high long-term costs for individuals and communities. Environmental contamination is prohibitively expensive to remedy. In some cases the technical resources do not exist even if money were available. Where contamination is carried beyond national boundaries, the costs arising from the resulting health and environmental consequences are extremely high.
A major theme of the current development efforts directed by many multilateral and bilateral development agencies is the alleviation of poverty and sustainable development. Neither of these fundamental goals is fully achievable where obsolete pesticide stocks exist. As long as these chemicals continue to contaminate water sources, agricultural land and air, the basic needs of poor communities cannot be effectively provided.
Drilling wells in contaminated aquifers and constructing irrigation schemes on contaminated lakes and rivers are bad practices. Cultivating food crops or grazing livestock on contaminated land are also unacceptable.
Measures, therefore, need to be taken at the start of sustainable development programmes to remove obsolete pesticides stockpiles in order to prevent further contamination and to demonstrate that these stockpiles are unacceptable in the context of sustainable development.
Disposal of obsolete pesticides currently costs between $3 and $5 per kilogram or litre of pesticide or contaminated material. The cost varies with the location, condition and type of waste and the methods used for its destruction. On the basis of global estimates totalling 250 000 tonnes of obsolete pesticides, about $1.25 billion would be needed to destroy all stocks.
Obsolete pesticides are classed as hazardous waste. Extensive training and sophisticated safety and handling equipment are needed to deal with obsolete pesticides safely and adequately. In industrialized countries entire industries are built on the removal, transport and disposal of hazardous waste, whereas in developing countries little expertise and few appropriate facilities exist for its management. The problem is compounded by inadequate infrastructure, the wide dispersal of obsolete stocks and their deteriorated condition, as described in the sections on Estimated size and geographical distribution of obsolete pesticide stocks, and Description of pesticide stocks, on p. 3.
The options available for the management or destruction of obsolete pesticides in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner are extremely limited. They are described in some detail in the FAO provisional guidelines on the disposal of bulk quantities of obsolete pesticides (FAO, 1996b). The technical, economic and political complexities are discussed in several papers by Greenpeace and the United Kingdom Pesticide Action Network (PAN) (Greenpeace International, 1998; UNEP, 1999e). Briefly the technology options are:
A small pilot study coordinated by a coalition of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), supported by UNDP and implemented by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) is about to commence trial use of a new non-incineration technology for the destruction of hazardous materials in developing countries (J. Weinberg, pers. comm., 2000). This may lead to the development of viable options for future use.
In the majority of cases where obsolete pesticides from developing countries have been destroyed, they have been repackaged and shipped to Europe for incineration in a dedicated hazardous waste facility. This route is currently viewed as the only available and viable option by FAO, which is the lead organization on obsolete pesticides.
The removal and destruction of obsolete pesticides is expensive. Developing countries do not have the necessary resources and are therefore dependent on external funding. Donors are often reluctant to fund such activities because they are not considered to contribute to development (see the section on Barriers to development).
Many donors base their funding programmes on long-term development programmes that are negotiated in advance. There is generally little or no capacity for rapid mobilization of funds for purposes other than emergency aid.
Developing countries often choose not to prioritize their obsolete pesticides problem for development assistance for fear of diverting development money away from other projects. It is therefore not built into development programmes in advance and funding is not allocated for solutions.
The majority of donor funding to support obsolete pesticides disposal has come from donor agencies that were not responsible for supplying large quantities of pesticides. In many cases the donors of pesticides that are now obsolete can be identified, but these donors have not generally contributed to disposal efforts.
The international community could put pressure on donors whose donated pesticides have become obsolete to maintain their responsibility for these products and fund their disposal.
The private sector is another potential source of funding. GCPF has made a commitment to provide support for the disposal of obsolete pesticides that are attributable to its member companies. Generally this commitment translates to payment of the destruction costs which amount to approximately 25-30 percent of the total disposal cost. In some cases GCPF companies have paid all the removal and destruction costs for some chemicals, but in others no contribution has been made. There are ongoing efforts to standardize the process of industry participation in disposal projects.
Private funding sources, such as foundations or industry other than pesticide manufacturers, have not been approached, and pesticide manufacturers, other than GCPF companies, make no contribution to disposal.
A lack of awareness of the scale and significance of obsolete pesticide problems results in the inability to prioritize action on the part of governments and donors. This is reflected in action plans developed with the assistance of the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) that do not prioritize obsolete pesticides, and helps explain why there are relatively few requests to donors for assistance in implementing solutions.
Awareness-raising may need to be redirected to national focal points responsible for developing plans of action on chemical management and to those responsible for development funding.
Little or no technical capacity exists in developing countries for the handling and safe disposal of obsolete pesticides. Experience of this type of work in developing countries is also limited to a few companies in industrialized countries. Existing companies can handle the current small scale of disposal work. In fact, there is overcapacity and some companies are struggling to maintain viable businesses. Disposal prices are low as a result of supply exceeding demand.
Should the scope of disposal work for obsolete pesticides and POPs increase significantly, it may be that a lack of expertise and technical capacity will be generated and prices may rise as a result of demand exceeding supply.
This could be an argument in support of development of expertise in developing countries for the handling and management of hazardous chemical waste. For example, the establishment of roving field teams trained and equipped to repackage waste and clean contaminated sites in preparation for international shipment and disposal.
Lack of alternatives to chemical pesticides. Agricultural production and health protection systems that rely solely on intensive chemical inputs, such as those developed and promoted in the 1960s and 1970s, are widely acknowledged by IGOs, development agencies and donors as being economically and environmentally unsustainable. Current emphasis is on development of an integrated approach using a range of tools to control pests, of which chemical pesticides may form a component. One outcome of such an approach is a reduced reliance on chemical pesticides.
IPM and IVM systems are slower to implement than chemical control regimes since the systems are relatively complex and require institutional support, practitioners to be trained and, in many cases, research. There is no pre-existing distribution infrastructure for IPM and IVM techniques such as exists for pesticide supply.
In certain situations pesticides are seen as the control methods that are most effective and/or cheapest and are therefore often used in preference to non-chemical options. This is particularly common in migratory pest and disease vector control.
Farmers, extension officers and health officials also lack confidence in non-chemical pest management techniques that have not been successfully demonstrated in their countries. They therefore commonly resort to chemical use despite such problems with pesticides as pest resistance and resurgence, health and environmental problems, cost and externalities. These problems are often well researched and documented in the developed countries but not in developing ones. Evidence of these problems is not readily available to advisers and users of pesticides in developing countries, and proven alternatives to pesticides are often unavailable.
Although alternatives to chemical pesticides exist, support is needed for research and implementation to increase confidence in their effectiveness and their availability.
Aid systems. Tied aid on the part of donors often requires the purchase of specific products. Agricultural production and pest management using IPM or similar systems need investment in training and research rather than procurement of products. Tied aid is therefore a disincentive for use of alternatives to pesticides.
Pesticides continue to be supplied to developing countries under conditions that have led to obsolescence, and may continue to do so. Bulk supplies, large containers, inappropriate formulations, slow distribution and poor storage conditions all contribute to obsolescence.
Not all donors and development organizations are sufficiently aware of obsolete pesticides and other problems associated with pesticide use in developing countries. Awareness-raising programmes should be directed to these organizations.
There continues to be a lack of coordination among donor and development agencies and within some of the larger organizations. Pesticide donations are sometimes made in contradiction of policies supporting IPM or other sustainable development programmes. Examples include the EC where food security units supply pesticides and pesticides are procured for locust control, while the EC development directorate promotes IPM.
There is an expectation from donors that countries receiving aid for the disposal of obsolete pesticide stocks will take steps to ensure that future accumulation of obsolete pesticides will be prevented. Such steps can include agricultural policies supporting IPM, regulation of pesticides, tightening of import controls, improved storage and distribution and other similar measures.
These prevention measures can easily be undermined in many countries because they are new, unproven and hence fragile. When such countries are offered grants to buy agricultural inputs with an encouragement to spend some of the grant on pesticides, it is possible that pesticides will be bought in excess of actual needs and stockpiles will accumulate and possibly become obsolete.
Pesticide distribution. Pesticide distribution in developing countries is often slow and inefficient. Import controls and pesticide regulation are also often inadequate, mainly as a result of lack of resources. There is commonly lack of coordination between government departments and agencies responsible for pesticide ordering and supply, and corruption sometimes influences decisions.
Pesticide companies may be making efforts to improve pesticide distribution and product stewardship, but progress is slow. Pesticides are often sold inappropriately and there are few controls. For example, products are smuggled across borders to avoid taxes or because they are cheaper, and then sold with foreign language labels; traders sell products for use on crops for which they are not approved; expiry dates on labels are commonly ignored; excessive quantities of pesticides are sold, sometimes on the basis of advice to use excessive dose rates.
Pesticides provided to developing countries are increasingly supplied from others where controls are less stringent than those originating from GCPF companies.
The result of these and other examples of malpractice and lax controls is inefficient and excessive pesticide distribution which, in part, results in the continued accumulation of obsolete stocks.
