Sida's Helpdesk for Environment and Climate Change www.sidaenvironmenthelpdesk.se

Contact Daniel Slunge ; Daniel.Slunge@gu.se

Assessment of safeguarding systems for the use

of pesticides within Swedish financed

programmes in Tanzania

Final Report

December, 2015

Daniel Slunge, Helena Norin and Per Rosander

2

Executive Summary Increasing the agricultural productivity among small-holder farmers is an important

objective of several programmes in Asia and Africa supported by Swedish development

cooperation. In several of these programmes, increasing farmers’ access to agricultural

inputs, including pesticides, play an important role.

This study departs from a concern that paraquat and other hazardous pesticides were

used by farmers participating in Swedish supported programmes in Tanzania. Based on

a desk review and interviews in Tanzania and Sweden, the purpose of the present study

has been to review safeguard mechanisms for the use of pesticides in three Swedish

supported programmes in Tanzania and to provide input to methodological

development on how Sida can contribute to responsible use of pesticides in supported

programmes.

Key Findings

Large health and environmental risks from the largely unmonitored and uncontrolled

use of pesticides in Tanzania. Recent studies document that a large number of different

pesticides are used by small-holder farmers in Tanzania. The labelling of the pesticides

is often poor, the use of protective equipment low and systems for collection of disposed

pesticide containers are inadequate or lacking. While the legal framework for pesticides

management in Tanzania is to a large extent satisfactory, implementation is poor. This

results in poorly functioning market for pesticides with inadequate control on what

substances are put on the market, how they are labelled etc.

Several development organisations have elaborate guidelines and safeguards relating to

pest-management and pesticides. The FAO/WHO Code of Conduct on Pesticide

Management as well as DAC and IFC guidelines uses Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

as a point of departure. IPM represents a systematic approach where all available means

of protecting crops from pest are considered, and where pesticide application is the last

resort of measures rather than the initial option. Guidelines also specify pesticides that

should be avoided and require safe use of pesticides throughout the management cycle.

Sida´s current system for identifying and managing environmental risks has not been

sufficient to safeguard against health and environmental risks related to pesticides.

Assessments of health and environmental risks related to pesticide use were not

required as part of the appraisal process of the reviewed programmes in Tanzania.

Sida´s project committee or managers did not point to the need for such assessments

before the contribution was decided upon and no further studies or specific monitoring

of pesticide related risks during programme implementation were required.

The reviewed programmes do not monitor or address health and environmental risks

related to pesticides in a systematic way. Interviews conducted and documents

reviewed indicate that programme implementers in Tanzania do not have a good

3

understanding on how pesticides are promoted and managed by the many different

actors involved. There is a large focus on “safe use messaging” but systematic

monitoring of the adoption of safe use methodologies among famers is lacking. There is

a close collaboration with agrochemical industry organisations in the training of

farmers, which may explain that IPM is poorly represented in the reviewed programmes.

Recommendations

Clarify Sida’s position on the use and management of pesticides. One possibility is to

follow the requirements on pesticide use and management in the IFC performance

standard on environment and social sustainability. This includes promotion of IPM and

safe use of pesticides as well as restrictions on the use of certain pesticides.

Programme appraisal and selection. Make it mandatory for partner organisations to

conduct an assessment of health and environmental risks for programmes involving

pesticides. Involve expertize in the review of these assessments. Assure that there is a

plan to monitor and manage the identified health and environmental risks.

Contractual agreements with partner organisations. Include requirements about

monitoring and management of pesticide related risks in the contract with the

agreement partner. The agreement partner should make sure that fund grantees or

other supported actors adhere to the requirements on pesticide use and management in

the IFC performance standard on environment and social sustainability (or other

benchmark defined by Sida). Consider the possibility of including funds for capacity

development support for the management of environment and health risks in the

agreement.

Monitoring and management of health and environmental risks during programme

implementation. Partner organisations should presents a plan on how health and

environmental risks will be monitored and managed. The effects on women and children

should be given special attention. Desk reviews of training materials used by grantees;

surveys among farmers trained by grantees; and third party monitoring teams can be

effective means.

Supporting materials for Sida staff and partner organisations. Update Sida´s guidelines

on environmental impact assessment and develop supporting information on

environmental management systems for partner organisations.

Strengthen pesticide management policies and capabilities in partner countries.

Consider if partner organisations can include components in their programmes which

aim at strengthening government agencies and other actors involved in pesticide

management. Complement current programmes with support to government capacity to

regulate agrochemicals. Explore synergies between the funding to the Swedish

Chemicals Agency through the Global Programme and bilateral programmes.

4

CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 2

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 6

2 The use and management of pesticides in Tanzania ....................................................................... 7

2.1 Health and environmental risks ............................................................................................... 7

2.2 Regulatory framework ............................................................................................................. 8

2.3 Compliance .............................................................................................................................. 9

2.4 Data of pesticide use .............................................................................................................. 10

2.5 Are pesticides that EU has banned used in Tanzania? .......................................................... 11

3 International policies and measures for pesticide risk reduction .................................................. 13

3.1 Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) identification ............................................................. 13

3.2 The International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management ............................................. 13

3.3 Multilateral Agreements ........................................................................................................ 15

3.4 European Union legislation ................................................................................................... 16

3.5 Safeguards and guidelines used by development agencies ................................................... 17

4 Sida guidelines and capacity for management of health and environmental risk related to

pesticides ............................................................................................................................................... 20

4.1 Programme appraisal ................................................................................................................... 20

4.2 Programme implementation .................................................................................................. 21

4.3 Challenges faced by programme officers in assessing and managing pesticide risks ........... 21

5 Use and management of pesticides in three supported programmes in Tanzania ........................ 22

5.1 Coffee Farmers Alliances in Tanzania (CFAT) .................................................................... 22

5.2. African Enterprise Challenge Fund, Tanzania Agriculture Window (AECF TZAW) .......... 26

5.3 Agriculture Markets Development Trust (AMDT) ............................................................... 29

6 Conclusions and recommendations .............................................................................................. 31

6.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 31

6.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 34

References ............................................................................................................................................. 38

Annex 1 list of interviewees .................................................................................................................. 40

Annex 2: Pesticide substances banned by the European Union. ........................................................... 43

Annex 3 GEFs Minimum Standard on pest Management ..................................................................... 45

Annex 4. IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability 2012 .................... 46

Annex 5 Environment and climate change aspects inTRAC ................................................................ 47

Annex 6. Terms of references ............................................................................................................... 50

Annex 7 Selected Photos ....................................................................................................................... 55

5

1 Introduction Increasing the agricultural productivity among small-holder farmers is an important

objective of several programmes in Asia and Africa supported by Swedish development

cooperation. In several of these programmes, increasing the access of farmers to

agricultural inputs, including pesticides for pest-management, play an important role.

However, pesticides are toxic by design and the use of them are associated with

substantial health and environmental risks. A considerable proportion of them are

highly hazardous to health. Chronic toxic effects are often observed even at low

exposure levels, and many pesticides are also persistent in the environment. UNEP

estimates that around 200 000 people die each year from pesticide poisoning and that

the costs of injury1 due to pesticide poisoning among smallholders in 37 sub-Saharan

African countries amounted to USD 4.4 billion in 2005 (UNEP 2013). While inadequate

data makes these assessments difficult, they indicate that costs from improper use of

pesticides are substantial in low income countries.

In low income countries, highly hazardous pesticides may pose extra significant risks to

human health, due to lack of protective measures such as personal protective

equipment. In addition, while most high income countries have sophisticated systems to

evaluate the risks of individual pesticides, many low income countries lack similar

capacities.

In order to minimize the environmental and health effects from pesticides several

development organizations, including FAO, OECD DAC, IFC and US AID have elaborated

detailed guidelines for pest management. Sweden is often perceived as a frontrunner

concerning chemicals management in an international perspective. Sida has for many

years provided capacity development support for chemicals management. For example

through collaboration with organisations like UNEP and FAO and through bilateral (e.g.

Vietnam and Tanzania) and regional (e.g. South East Asia and Southern Africa) capacity

building initiatives on chemicals management. Most times this support has been

facilitated by the Swedish Chemicals Agency.

During a field visit to a Swedish supported agriculture project in Tanzania in 2014, Sida

staff noted that the herbicide Paraquat was used. Paraquat is considered one of the more

acutely toxic substances in agricultural use and was banned in Sweden already in 1983.

The substance has not been approved for use in the European Union over the last ten

years. Sida staff also noted that permanent use of the herbicide Glyphosate for weeding

was being promoted as a standard extension advice.

1 Defined as lost work days, outpatient medical treatment, and inpatient hospitalization

6

These findings triggered a discussion within Sida on the need for more robust guidelines

and monitoring procedures surrounding pest management practices in Sida supported

programmes. Hence, the Sida Helpdesk on Environment and Climate Change was

contracted to conduct a study on safeguarding systems for use of pesticides within

Swedish financed programmes in Tanzania2. The detailed objectives of the assignment

are listed in the Terms of Reference (Annex 6). In summary, the study team responded to

the following requests:

Increase knowledge of agricultural practices and extension advice relating to

pesticide use in Tanzania with particular focus on programmes supported by Sida.

Identify current safeguard mechanisms applied in Sida-supported programmes. This

should include actions on various levels and stages of project development, from

application to final reporting and follow up.

Identify practices that potentially should be discouraged having gender and child

perspectives in mind.

Recommend further safeguard mechanisms within Sida as well as in the supported

programmes. Provide input to the development of guidelines and methods on how

Sida can formulate and implement responsible use of pesticides in supported

programmes.

1.1 Methodology

The study was carried out through a literature review and selected interviews in

Sweden and Tanzania. The literature covered scientific papers and various reports on

health and environmental effects from pesticide use in small holder agriculture as well

as guidelines for pesticide management used by selected development agencies. Existing

pesticide regulations and practices in Tanzania were also reviewed.

The study involved a rapid appraisal of three Swedish supported programmes on

agricultural private sector development in Tanzania. Appraisal documents, annual

reports and e-mail conversations between partner organisation and Sida were reviewed.

A field study was carried out 17 November -1 December 2015 in Tanzania, during which

interviews were conducted with Sida staff at the Swedish Embassy in Dar es Salaam and

staff at different levels within the three supported programmes. A few interviews with

farmers were also conducted. Interviews were also held in Sweden with selected experts

2 A team was formed by Sida’s Helpdesk to carry out the assignment, consisting of Daniel Slunge, University of

Gothenburg (member of the core team of the helpdesk), along with two experts on chemicals management, Per

Rosander, Ecoplan, and Helena Norin, Enviroplanning. An external advisory group was established for the study

consisting of Andrea Rother, University of Cape Town; Lilian Törnqvist, Swedish Chemicals Agency; and

Mattias Jonsson, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Sida programme officers Åsa Bjällås (Stockholm)

and Josefin Bennet Fredriksson (Tanzania) coordinated the study at Sida. Valuable comments on the inception

report and the draft final report were provided by the external advisory group as well as by several program

officers at Sida. However, the authors of this report alone are responsible for its content and it does not

necessarily reflect the views of Sida.

7

on agriculture and environment at Sida and the Swedish Chemicals Agency (Annex 1

contains a list of interviewees).

Interviews were held in a semi-structured manner, using different interview templates

for different categories of interviewees. Preliminary findings from the field visit were

presented at a workshop at the Swedish Embassy on December 1.

It is important to note that based on the few interviews conducted with staff from the

three supported programmes, it is not possible to get a full understanding of how

pesticides are used or managed in the wide variety of supported actors and activities.

The findings in this report about the supported programmes should hence be seen as

indicative rather than conclusive.

2 The use and management of pesticides in Tanzania 2.1 Health and environmental risks

Inappropriate use of hazardous pesticides in Tanzania causes severe health and

environmental effects in particular to smallholder farmers, workers and their families.

Several studies have shown high frequency of acute pesticide poisoning among small-

scale farmers in Tanzania and other African countries (Lekei et al 2014; London et al

2002; Naidoo et al 2015). Lekei reported that more than 90% of the smallholder farmers

surveyed in the Arusha region had experienced pesticide poisoning (Lekei et al 2014).

There was a strong correlation between low educational level and high frequency of self-

reported acute poisoning. Farmers with less knowledge were also more likely to store

pesticides in residential homes, with additional risk of family members being poisoned.

The same study found that a larger number of different pesticides are used by small-

holder farmers, the labelling of the pesticides was often poor, the use of protective

equipment low and systems for collection of disposed pesticide containers were lacking

or inadequate.

A recent study in South Africa - with relevance to the Tanzanian situation - examined to

what extent agricultural workers' socio-cultural context (i.e. gender dynamics and social

status) influenced the use of protective measures and equipment (Andrade-Rivas 2015).

In spite of awareness raising activities, appropriate use of personal protective

equipment (PPE) remained low. Interestingly, teams comprised of mostly women had

the highest compliance rate. The authors concluded that given the complexity of PPE

compliance, especially in countries with several economic and social constraints,

exposure reduction interventions should not rely solely on PPE use promotion. Instead,

other control strategies requiring less worker input for effectiveness should be

implemented, such as substitution of highly hazardous pesticides, and altering

application methods.

8

Several studies find that women’s exposure to pesticides is often underestimated.

Women play a central role in small-holder agriculture but often receive less training on

for example pesticide management than men (London et al, 2002; Naidoo et al 2010).

Also children are exposed to pesticides when involved in retailing, working in the fields

or through inadequate storage or disposal of pesticides. Women and children may be

exposed to pesticide residues or secondary exposure through contaminated air and

water. Contaminated clothing is often washed with the rest of the family clothing

leading to exposure.

Table 1 outlines health and environmental risks and mitigation options at different

stages in the handling of pesticides.

Table 1. Risk and mitigation options in the use of pesticides.

Stage Risk scenario examples Risk mitigation options

(examples)

Pesticide trade Unregistered pesticides being sold,

largely uncontrolled retail chain

with low safety practices, lack of

PPE

Regulatory intervention,

enforcement including inspections

of pesticide firms, retailers, etc.

Banning the use of HHPs

Transport Risks of spillage, accidents, low use

of PPE.

Enforcement of safety rules for

transport

Storage Leakage from storage tanks, and

smaller packaging, Re-packaging,

Residential, in-door storage

exposing families

Discouraging indoor residential

storage, education on risk

associated with pesticides stored.

Use Worker applying pesticide product

not using protective equipment,

leakage, suicide agent

IPM promotion and training,

trainings on pesticide application

techniques and safety measures.

Disposal Highly toxic and obsolete

pesticides being stored, risk for

leakage, toxic contaminated

packaging causing pollution or

direct health risks if containers are

reused.

Improving waste disposal practices,

recollection of packaging for

destruction.

2.2 Regulatory framework

Several legislative Acts have been introduced in Tanzania to control pesticide use and

prevent damage.. The main legislations that regulate the production, import, export,

distribution, use and disposal, and Pesticide formulations are Tropical Pesticides

Research Institute (TPRI) Act (1979); The Pesticides Control Regulations of 1984; and

Plant Protection Act (PPA) of 1997 through the Plant Protection Regulations of 1999.

These cover all aspects of pesticide handling, formulation, manufacturing, packaging,

storage, importation, sale and disposal.

The main responsibility for approval and registration of Pesticides is under the Ministry

of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives, which has appointed the Tropical

Pesticides Research Institute (TPRI) to execute that duty through the Plant Protection

Regulations of 1999. Other responsibilities of TPRI include pesticide use directives,

9

permits, quality control of pesticides (formulation analyses) and training activities.

(Agenda 2006)

According to Tanzanian legislation, products are registered into three main categories:

i) Provisional: Pesticides registered for general use for two years. These are products

which have been approved for general use after successful local field trials. Apart from

positive bioefficacy, products in this category’ must have minimum adverse

environmental and toxicological effects. However, they are subjected to further

laboratory and field tests;

ii) Full: Pesticides registered for general use for five years (full registration). This

category consists of products upgraded from the Provisional Registration after being

used for at least three years without causing any serious environmental and

toxicological problems. Their formulations must have been analysed and approved in

the pesticide quality control laboratory. Products in this category can be imported,

formulated manufactured and sold in the country; and

iii) Restricted: Some products upgraded from experimental registration are placed in the

restricted registration category if they are very toxic, environmentally persistent and

bio-accumulative. The category also consists of technical materials with which active

ingredient content intended for use in formulation plants.

These Acts and regulations ensure that import, sale, use and disposal of pesticides are

conducted through allowed registration, permits and certificate. The pesticide

legislation sets requirements for each life-cycle phase of pesticides

(manufacturing/formulation, registration, importation, sale and distribution, use,

transportation and disposal). Also according to the national Law, all pesticide dealers in

Tanzania, including distributors of pesticides, must be licensed before they are granted

operational permits (Lekei 2015).

IPM is since 2013 part of the Tanzanian Agriculture policy, but has not yet been included

in legislation. (pers. comm., Diomedes Kalisa, Ministry of Agriculture.)

2.3 Compliance

On national level, compliance with regulation is reported as ‘moderate’; all pesticides

trading and storage places are certified, however not regularly inspected by the TPRI

inspectors. This is attributed by the low number of pesticides inspectors as well as

financial constraints to inspect each pesticide storage facility. The lack of regular control

contributes to a large extent to the presence of expired, adultery and illegal products in

the market (Agenda 2006).

At the village level, farmers, who own small plots of vegetables, seed beans, roses and

fruits, are the main clients of pesticides from retail shops. Pesticide retailers are

supposed to be permitted by TPRI after inspection and evaluation of the firms’ premises,

10

staff, chemicals, safety etc. It is also required that traders renew their permit with TPRI

and their business licenses annually.

When researchers from Agenda visited retailers in Arusha in 2006 to check compliance,

they accounted severe problems:

“It was not easy to trace all the Stockists due to the fact that there is no proper record of

these business, they are scattered all over the region and operate in un-registered premises

sometimes together with other merchandise. Stockists are selling pesticide in small

quantities directly to consumers. During the survey it was found out that most of the

farmers (particularly growers of fruit and vegetables) depend on the Stockists, because

they own small plots and do not have enough money to buy big containers of pesticides.“

“Unfortunately about 20 shops visited during the survey in Arumeru district were not

registered with TPRI but possessed the District Council business licence. More than half of

the respondents (traders/shop attendants) were not even aware that they were supposed

to be registered with TPRI before operating their business.”

The referred survey was carried out more than ten years ago, and things might have

improved since then. However, more recent surveys suggest that deficiencies are still

substantial. In a 2014 survey with visits to 75 pesticide retailers, various problems

regarding handling practices were noted (Lekei 2014). Deficiencies included; using

untrained sales attendants (58% frequency), repacking of pesticides (25%), unsuitable

protective Equipment (PPE) (15%) or no PPE at all (15%), pesticide containers with

inadequate or absent labelling (15%), and sale of unregistered pesticides (9 %). Most

products with inadequate or absent labelling had been repackaged or decanted and

were usually copper-based fungicides. However, also a number of organophosphates

(such as Pirimiphos-methyl, Profenofos, and Chlorpyrifos, as well as Endosulfan) were

found with such errors. 40% were WHO Class II pesticides and two cases involved Class

I agents.

2.4 Data of pesticide use

Data on pesticides (types and volumes) are not easily accessible. When requesting

statistical data from Tanzanian authorities (TPRI and Ministry of Agriculture), we were

referred to official lists dating back to 2007. An updated list is presumed to be published

in 2016. (TPRI, personal communication) In order to estimate pesticide use in the

country, the team therefore relied on secondary sources and a Gazette publication from

the Ministry of Agriculture showing data on pesticide products in 2011.

A recent survey identified a total of 1182 pesticide products registered in Tanzania,

representing a broad variety of active ingredients (Lekei 2014b). Most products are

used against insects and fungi. (see table 1). When ranked by imported volume,

fungicides dominated (58 %) followed by herbicides (21%).

11

Table 2:

No of pesticide products registered in Tanzania, based on function

Product by target pest N %

Insecticide 493 42

Fungicide 321 27

Herbicide 289 25

Other 80 6

Total 1182 100

Source: Lekei 2015

Most frequent chemical group were pyrethroids (27 % of products) and

organophosphates (16%) followed by triazoles (8%). Notably is that organophosphates

are one of the most common causes of poisoning worldwide. These neurotoxic

substances are frequently used intentionally in suicides in agrarian areas.

The majority of products met requirements for Full registration (83%), while 11% was

provisionally registered due to insufficient documentation. 64 products (5.5%) was

defined as Highly hazardous products, and hence categorized as Restricted products.

2.5 Are pesticides that EU has banned used in Tanzania?

In order to answer this question, we compared the list of products registered for use in

Tanzania with lists of substances banned or severely restricted in the European Union

legislation. Data was retrieved from EU Commission’s Pesticide Database (EU 2015) and

the Consolidated List of Pesticide Bans which is maintained by the Pesticide Action

Network (PAN 2015) 48 substances officially prohibited by the EU were included in the

comparison.

Our comparison focused on substances considered as HHP according to FAO/WHO

working group JMPM’s eight criteria, complemented with additional substances defined

by PAN as fulfilling the official HHP criteria.

For insecticides, the following was found for substances listed under “Full registration”

(= 5 years approval period) in 2011:

In total, 340 insecticide products were registered in Tanzania 2011, containing around

100 different active substances. Of these, approximately 15 are banned or not approved

for use (i.e, are absent from the current list of approved pesticides.) in the European

Union. Examples are given in table 3.

12

Table 3 Substances used in Tanzania that are not approved for use in EU

Acephate Constitutent in 8 registered products. Primarily used for

horticulture, such as cultivating roses and beans. The substance is

banned in the EU and in China. Banned in Sweden since 1992.

Amitraz Registered in one product used in horticulture and in several

products for protecting cattle and sheep. Amitraz is banned in the

EU and several Middle Eastern countries, plus Cambodia.

Azocyclotin Approved in Tanzania, and used mainly for horticulture (roses).

The substance is not approved for use in the EU (and has never

been used in Sweden.)

Bendiocarb One product approved, for use against mosquitos. Not approved

for use in the EU.

Carbaryl Approved for use in households and for some agricultural

purposes, e g cotton production. EU and four non-European

countries have banned the substance (among them Mozambique)

fenitrothion 19 products registered in 2011. Used in production of coffee,

corn, and in households. Banned in the EU. (Use in Sweden ended

before 1995 with exception of one product approved for rape

cultivation until 2007).

Diafenthiuron 4 products registered, for use in horticulture, (Roses, cabbage,

etc.). Banned by the EU.

diazinon 12 products registered, mostly for vegetables, and to some extent

also for coffee, sugarcane, and tobacco. Banned in the European

Union and Mozambique.

fenvalerate 3 registrations, for use in cotton, tomato production. Not

approved for use in the European Union.

13

3 International policies and measures for pesticide risk reduction Pesticide risk mitigation is a significant concern within the international community.

Several UN agencies – FAO, WHO, ILO, UNEP and others – are actively involved in

developing guidelines for pest management, including risk reduction measures for

pesticide use.

3.1 Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) identification

A central theme in many policies is the special attention on pesticides with highly

hazardous health and environmental properties. The FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on

Pesticide Management (JMPM) has provided a working definition for these. See box 1.

BOX 1 – Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs)

3.2 The International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organisation (WHO)

have established a voluntary Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, and have

invited governments and the pesticide industry to develop plans of action to reduce

risks by taking regulatory or technical action. The current version of the Code of Conduct

was agreed on in 2013 and brings forward IPM as a main strategy (FAO and WHO 2014):

Which are they?

JMPM defines pesticides with one or more of the following characteristics as HHPs:

Pesticide formulations that meet the criteria of classes Ia or Ib of the WHO

Recommended Hazard Classification

Pesticide active ingredients and their formulations that meet the following criteria of

GHS classification:

o Carcinogenicity Categories 1A and 1B

o Mutagenicity Categories 1A and 1B

o Reproductive toxicity Categories 1A and 1B

Pesticide active ingredients listed by the Stockholm Convention in its Annexes A and

B, and those meeting all the criteria in paragraph 1 of annex D of the Convention;

Pesticide active ingredients and formulations listed by the Rotterdam Convention in its

Annex III;

Pesticides listed under the Montreal Protocol;

Pesticide active ingredients and formulations that have shown a high incidence of

severe or irreversible adverse effects on human health or the environment.

How many are they?

86 of the 900+ active ingredients in use globally are classified by the WHO as being

Extremely Hazardous (Class 1a) or Highly Hazardous (Class 1b). When pesticides listed

under the Rotterdam, Stockholm, and Vienna conventions (the Montreal Protocol) are

added, approximately 120 pesticides are - according to FAO officials - widely agreed to be

highly hazardous to human health and the environment (Davis 20151).

However, there are many additional pesticides on the market that seems to fulfil the HHP

criteria. The non-governmental organisation PAN International identifies 141 substances

(rather than 120) to fall directly under the JMPM criteria. In addition, PAN elaborates an

extended list with in total 211 HHPs which all is considered as highly hazardous (PAN

2015).

14

”The new strategic framework for FAO has been reoriented to support sustainable

agricultural production as one of its strategic objectives. This new Code is an integral

component of this objective. In the area of pest and disease management this means using

Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which has successfully reduced pesticide use and

improved yields, food quality and incomes for millions of farmers.”

A main feature of this work is to take a systematic approach to agricultural practices,

through the concept of Integrated Pest Management (IPM). IPM means careful

consideration of all available plant protection methods and integration of appropriate

measures that discourage the development of populations of harmful organisms and

keep the use of plant protection products and other forms of intervention to levels that

are economically and ecologically justified and minimise the risks to human health and

the environment. IPM emphasises the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible

disruption to agro-ecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms.3

It is important to note that IPM does not disqualify the use of pesticides. It represents a

systematic approach where all available means of protecting crops from pest is

considered, and where pesticide application is the last resort of measures rather than

the initial option (figure 1).

Figure 1 Integrated Pest Management Triangle

Source: After Meissle et al 2011

In absence of an IPM approach, pesticides might be used without considering

alternative, or complimentary, options. In addition, since there are economic incentives

for many companies (local retailers, pesticide producers, etc.) to increase pesticide sales,

3 As defined in EU Directive 2009/128/EC: Chapter 1, Art. 3, para. 6

15

it is necessary that mechanisms/policies are in place counterbalancing an un-controlled

market situation, where farmers get no access nor knowledge to alternative pest

management options.

One important aspect of transition from pesticide intensive farming to IPM is that the

introduction of IPM does not necessarily involve sophisticated information gathering

and decision-making. IPM can be introduced at any level of agricultural development.

For example, improvement of basic crop management practices, such as planting time

and crop spacing, can often be effective in reducing pest attack. Often, a useful beginning

can be made with relatively limited specialized information or management input. Later,

additional information, technologies, and mechanisms can be developed to enhance its

effectiveness.

Even though IPM has been the dominant crop protection paradigm promoted globally

since the 1960s, its adoption by developing country farmers is still low. When a large

number of professionals and practitioners around the world were asked to identify

reasons for the slow adoption of IPM, the five most frequently given answers were

(Parsa 2014):

- ”Insufficient training and technical support to farmers”

- ”Lack of favorable government policies and support”

- ”Farmers have low levels of education and literacy”

- ”IPM too difficult to implement compared with conventional management with

pesticides”

- ”Powerful influence of pesticide industry”.

3.3 Multilateral Agreements

A number of international agreements have been formed to enhance control measures

around pesticides, often along with promotion of IPM. Some of them are briefly

described below.

Technical assistance under the Rotterdam Convention complements FAO’s lead role in

sustainable pesticide management. The convention stipulates that export of a number of

hazardous chemicals can only take place with the prior informed consent (PIC) of the

importing Party after they are informed of the current registration status in the

exporting country. Some 70% of the chemicals covered by Rotterdam Convention are

pesticides. A developing country that is experiencing problems caused by a severely

hazardous pesticide formulation may report such problems to the Convention

Secretariat. All Parties receive summaries of these notifications and proposals on a

regular basis. When a chemical that is banned or severely restricted by a Party is

exported from its territory, that Party must notify each individual importing Party

before the first shipment and annually thereafter.

16

In addition, the use and production of 14 pesticides4 are prohibited or severely

restricted by the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants. Contracting

parties are requested to generate national Implementation Plans to reduce or eliminate

the listed pesticides.

3.4 European Union legislation

The main legislation regulating the approval of pesticides on the EU market is

Regulation EC/1107/2009 which is directly applicable in Member States. Based on the

predominance of health and environment protection over agricultural production, it sets

EU-wide requirements for the registration of pesticides. The legislation draws up a

“positive list” of substances that is approved for use. As a consequence, pesticides that

are not included on the list is not allowed anywhere in the member states. At present,

481 pesticide substances are listed as approved in EU’s official database. 789 are listed

as not approved, while an additional 41 substances are listed as “pending approval”.

In an international perspective, the pesticide legislation in EU is restrictive. Few, if any,

countries outside of Europe (including non-EU members such as Norway and

Switzerland) have such extensive lists of non-approved pesticides.

In addition to this, the EU has also explicitly banned approximately 48 pesticide

substances. The bans have been initiated for various reasons. Some substances are part

of restrictions that have been agreed multilaterally (e g through the Montreal Protocol,

and the Stockholm Convention) or because they are considered highly hazardous. Others

are based on other concerns, such as environmental fate of substances after use.

The 48 substances banned in the European Union are to a large extent HHPs. The active

substances banned by EU is listed in Annex 2.

Another EU legislative act related to pesticides is Directive 2009/128/EC. This

framework directive aim to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides “by reducing the risks

and impacts of pesticide use on human health and on the environment and by promoting

the use of IPM and of alternative techniques such as non-chemical alternatives.” It

obliges EU member states to establish necessary conditions for the implementation of

IPM (in particular information and tools for pest monitoring and decision making,

advisory services); and ensure that the general IPM principles are implemented by all

professional users.

4 aldrin, alpha hexachlorocyclohexane, beta hexachlorocyclohexane, chlordane, chloredecone, DDT, dieldrin,

endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, lindane, mirex, pentachlorobenzene, toxaphene.

17

3.5 Safeguards and guidelines used by development agencies

Several development agencies have established criteria or minimum standards for

pesticide use, to be applied in the appraisal process and during the implementation of

programmes and projects. These include:

The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Guidelines

DAC was a forerunner in promoting IPM. In the DAC guidelines for Aid Policies on pest

and pest management dating back to 1994, IPM is promoted as the preferred approach

to pest control. (DAC 1994) The guideline gives a comprehensive explanation to how aid

policies can include safeguards and control stations on pesticide use throughout the

funding lifecycle.

Global Environmental Fund (GEF). GEFs minimum standard on pest management

requires that donor agencies within the fund are to “...ensure that the environmental and

health risks associated with pesticide use are minimized and managed, and that safe,

effective, and environmentally sound pest management is promoted and supported“.

GEF also defines six minimum criteria, including promotion of IPM and to reduce the

reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides (GEFs criteria are included in Annex 3).

International Finance Corporation (IFC)5

IFC has established Environmental, health, and safety guidelines for perennial crop

production (IFC 2015). In these guidelines, agencies contributing to agricultural

development should consider feasible alternatives to pesticide use, such as to:

Provide those responsible for deciding on pesticides application with training in

pest identification, weed identification, and field scouting;

Rotate crops to reduce the presence of pests and weeds in the soil ecosystem;

Use pest-resistant crop varieties;

Use mechanical weed control and / or thermal weeding;

Support and use beneficial organisms, such as insects, birds, mites, and microbial

agents, to perform biological control of pests;

Protect natural enemies of pests by providing a favorable habitat, such as bushes for

nesting sites and other original vegetation that can house pest predators;

Use animals to graze areas and manage plant coverage;

Use mechanical controls such as traps, barriers, light, and sound to kill, relocate, or

repel pests.

Also, when it comes to measures involving pesticide use, a number of precautions are to

be undertaken, such as to avoid the use of pesticides that fall under WHO Hazard Classes

1a and 1b. Also WHO Hazard Class II should be avoided if the project host country lacks

restrictions on distribution and use of these chemicals, or if they are likely to be

5 IFC is the largest global development institution focused exclusively on the private sector in developing

countries. It is part of the World Bank Group.

18

accessible to personnel without proper training, equipment, and facilities to handle,

store, apply, and dispose of these products properly. The section about pesticide use and

management in the IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social

Sustainability is included in annex 4.

US Aid: All USAID activities are subject to evaluation via, at minimum, an Initial

Environmental Examination (IEE). Because of the risks presented by pesticides, the

USAID regulations require that a range of information items are addressed during the

appraisal of any programme (as part of the IEE) that includes assistance for the

procurement or use of pesticides. A special report, PERSUAP - “Pesticide Evaluation

Report (PER) and Safer Use Action Plan (SUAP)”, must be submitted with the IEE. The

Pesticide Evaluation Report (PER) section addresses informational elements required in

the Agency’s Pesticide Procedures. The Safer Use Action Plan (SUAP) puts the

conclusions reached in the PER into a plan of action, including assignment of

responsibility to appropriate parties connected with the pesticide program.

European Union (European Aid). A number of policy documents is navigating European

development support. One that is relevant to pesticides is the EU policy framework to

assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges.6 It states that support

to small-scale agriculture should “prioritise approaches that are sustainable and

ecologically efficient, respecting the diverse functions of agriculture. This means inter

alia optimising agri-inputs, integrated pest management, improved soil and water

management and stress-resistant crop varieties. However, in the more concrete

guidelines and standards that steer the granting process, pesticides are not mentioned.

4C, Common Code for the Coffee Community. 4C is an initiative to create a dialogue

about strategies and measures to address key issues and develop a common

understanding about “sustainability” for the mainstream coffee sector. The 4C Code of

Conduct discourages the use of pesticides listed in international agreements such as

Annex III of the Stockholm convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, Annex III of the

Rotterdam convention on prior informed consent and the Montreal Protocol on ozone

depleting substances. The Code of Conduct shortlists some control questions to be asked

during e.g. inspections.

Sustainable Agriculture Standard. This standard was developed by the Sustainable

Agriculture Network (SAN) for certifying products produced under what is considered

sustainable processes. The system is implemented jointly with local partners in various

countries and with the Rainforest Alliance global organization. Products grown on farms

that comply with the standards can use the Rainforest Alliance Trade mark.

6 COM(2010)127 final

19

In regards to pesticides, the standard forbids the use of substances listed by the

Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions, but also those “Banned and Severely Restricted”

in the U.S. and in the European Union.

On the other hand the standard accepts the use of WHO’s categories Ia, Ib and II active

ingredients if the use of personal protection equipment is controlled and the farmers do

not apply pesticides for more than six hours a day. Farm must demonstrate a plan for

eliminating the use of Class Ia and Ib pesticides, and for reducing the use of Class II

ingredients Farms must also demonstrate that:

No technically or economically viable alternatives exist for the type of pest or

infestation.

The pest or infestation has had, or would have had, proven significant economic

consequences that surpass the economic threshold for damage.

Measures are taken to substitute Class Ia, Ib and II active ingredients of pesticides.

In summary: Development agencies apply various approaches to pesticide management

in funded programs. Most of them include some sort of reference to IPM principles.

Some, e.g. US Aid, entail mandatory and detailed protocols for analyzing applications in

relation to pesticide use.

The DAC Guidance on pesticide use, launched already in 1994, is still one of the most

comprehensive and pedagogic documents available. Even though it has not been

updated for more than 20 years, it still represents a valuable blueprint for modern

policymaking.

When it comes to restrictions of specific pesticide use, guidelines differ substantially.

Several donors have policies disqualifying use of substances listed by the Stockholm and

Rotterdam conventions. Some, such as IFC, discourage the use of pesticides classified as

WHO Hazard Classes 1a and 1b; while other define perquisites for such substances, such

as the Sustainable Agriculture Standard, which tolerates use of WHO categories Ia, Ib

and II under the condition that “use of personal protection equipment is controlled”.

One standard, namely the Sustainable Agriculture Standard, prohibits use of “Banned

and Severely Restricted” pesticides in the U.S. and in the European Union, unless there is

an absence of alternatives, or that economic gains are surpassing the cost of damage.

None of the standards reviewed as part of this study use completely prohibits the use of,

for instance, pesticides banned in the EU.

20

4 Sida guidelines and capacity for management of health and

environmental risk related to pesticides The Swedish political priority on proactive chemicals management is reflected in the

Swedish Aid policy framework (2013) which states that “Sweden must also strengthen

countries’ ability to phase out and deal with hazardous substances and other dangerous

chemicals”.

4.1 Programme appraisal

At operational level, Sida uses the digital system TRAC for contribution management.

While there is no specific reference to chemicals or pesticides in TRAC, the digital

system does provide a number of general questions related to environmental risks of

specific contributions (see annex 5). In the in-depth relevance assessment the

programme officer shall answer the question “Environment/climate aspects have been

taken into account in the intervention setup”. If the answer to this question is no, the

Programme officer should, according to the help text in TRAC, consider to start a

dialogue with the partner and if needed, consider to add a dialogue objective in the

results register.

TRAC also states that “Contributions with a substantial part of private sector funding

and contributions that aim to engage private sector involvement in development

cooperation should use Sida Sustainability Screening Framework to assess strengths

and weaknesses in the partners’ performance relating to sustainability.” The

Sustainability Screening Framework is generic and does not include references to

chemicals or pesticides.

For further advice on environmental assessment and environmental integration in

projects and programmes, Sida programme officers are referred to Sida´s helpdesk on

environment and climate change and to the Guidelines for the Review of Environmental

Impact Assessments (Sida 2002). These guidelines contain checklists of key

environmental impacts linked to different sectors, including the mentioning of some

risks related to pesticide use in agriculture. However, the guidelines do not provide

specific advice or a position on what substances are not allowed in Swedish supported

programmes or how risks related to pesticide use should me managed.

Programme officers can also turn to Sida´s internal network on environment and climate

change for further support. Sida´s Project Committees (at embassies and headquarters)

shall assure that the assessments and suggested decisions put forward by the

programme officers are of good quality before decisions are taken. A project committee

can for example question why an environmental impact assessment has not been

undertaken in relation to a specific contribution.

21

4.2 Programme implementation

TRAC does not include any text about environmental risks during “Performance

Monitoring” or “Contribution Completion”. However environmental risks can be

included in the general monitoring of results and risk management.

Surprisingly, Sida does not have any specific guidelines or tools for assuring that health

and environmental risks are appropriately monitored and managed during the

implementation of a supported programme or project. Sometimes partner organisations

are recommended to establish an environmental management system for addressing

environmental risks in a systematic manner. But Sida has no guidelines on what such a

system should contain or how formal it should be.

If an environmental assessment has been conducted during the appraisal phase, the

resulting environmental management plan can be monitored during project

implementation. But this is not formalized in Sida´s systems.

4.3 Challenges faced by programme officers in assessing and managing pesticide

risks

When TRAC was introduced the “EIA rule” – stating that an environmental assessment

should be made for all supported programmes and projects – was abolished. This has

made it less clear for Programme officers on when it is necessary to demand that

partner organisations conduct an environmental assessment. Without good knowledge

on possible health or environmental risks from agricultural or private sector

development projects, it can be difficult for programme officers to make a correct

decision on whether an environmental assessment should be undertaken or not as well

as to evaluate and act upon the findings in environmental assessments.

The shift from working with large agricultural programmes managed by government

agencies to private sector development supports managed by challenge funds or other

institutional platforms has created additional challenges for environmental assessments.

The organisation supported by Sida may be a funder of other organisations which then

funds different projects. This chain of actors adds complexity to the appropriate scope of

environmental assessments and to which type of environmental impacts the supported

organisation is responsible for. In addition, the Programme officers at Sida managing

private sector development supports sometimes do not have the background knowledge

in natural sciences/agronomy that many of those traditionally managing agricultural

supports did. This makes it even more difficult to assess health and environmental risks

of pesticide use in supported programmes.

In comparison with the more rigid environment and social safeguard procedures of the

International Financial Corporation (IFC), GEF or the USAID (referenced above), Sida´s

system only refers to environmental risk in a very general sense. A lot of trust is put on

the programme officers’ ability to both identify and follow up potential risks in

22

supported projects and programmes. However, earlier evaluations of Sida´s work with

mainstreaming environment, gender and other issues into contributions have shown

that programme officers many times – despite an understanding that the issues are

important - have difficulties in complying with the many different requirements they

face (Uggla, 2007; ÅF, 2006). “Time is limited and as there are no formal rules and

regulations for how to handle the prioritization [between policies] each programme

officer will have to make up a personal set of priorities, leading to a situation where

similar issues are considered differently within Sida” (Uggla, 2007). Identified causes for

the lack of compliance with mainstreaming requirements included lack of clear targets

and priorities, very little learning between different parts of the organization and weak

monitoring and follow-up of compliance. The importance of the project committees as

well as managers in quality assurance and follow up in making environmental

integration a reality was particularly stressed.

5 Use and management of pesticides in three supported

programmes in Tanzania

5.1 Coffee Farmers Alliances in Tanzania (CFAT)

The Programme

CFAT aims to sustainably improve the living conditions of 25,000 coffee farmers in the

Mbeya and Arusha regions in Tanzania. Sida is supporting CFAT over the period 2013-

2015 with a total of 6,7 MSEK and will probably continue the support beyond 2015. The

Project is a Public Private Development project (PPDP) that is co-financed by donors and

the private sector through International Coffee Partners (ICP).

The Project is implemented by the foundation Hanns R. Neumann Stiftung (HRNS). Other

donors supporting CFAT include Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through Deutsche

Investitions- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft (DEG), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Royal

Norwegian Government through Conservation Farming Unit (CFU), Rabobank

Foundation in Mbeya Region, and Lavazza Foundation in Kilimanjaro.

The expected outputs of the SIDA/ICP contribution are:

500 Producer Organizations (POs) and 50 Depot Committees (DCs)/Rural Primary

Cooperative Societies (RPCSs) have been established or strengthened and are

offering defined services to their members.

Producer Organizations and Depot Committees/ Rural Primary Cooperative

Societies have become members of farmer Apex organizations, which have

developed effective business systems and efficient operational practices and

provide members with necessary services.

Farmers have improved farm management practices and rejuvenated their coffee

farms.

23

HRNS, the project implementer, is an organisation working with coffee issues in the

whole world. CFAT is working with coffee farmers in two regions in Tanzania, Mbeya

and Arusha. The projects started in Mbeya in 2006 with a pilot. CFAT supports farmers

to organize in Producer organisations (PO) to amongst other things gain bargaining

capacity and to be able to buy chemicals in bulk at a better price. The POs are set up at

village level and a lead farmer is appointed. There is also another level, Depot

committees, that sells the coffee for the farmers. This level serves more villages, since it

is set up by representatives from several POs. The POs cooperate with both

multinational and local manufacturers and distributors. The farmers targeted have been

sensitized and provided with the opportunity of accessing genuine inputs through

theses linkages between farmer groups and input suppliers. Farmer groups can order

inputs in bulk at a preferential price, which are then delivered directly to the farmer

group and distributed to their members.

CFAT has staff employed in Mbeya and in Arusha. The staff in Mbeya consists of mainly

agronomists, but also an officer for monitoring and evaluation as well as the manager

holding a PhD in rural development. There is no experts within environmental and

health issues.

Use of pesticides and associated health and environmental risks

Pesticides are used in coffee farming to control pests, fungi and weeds. Coffee cherry

borer and coffee leaf miner are the main pests. Coffee leaf rust, coffee berry disease and

Coffee wilt disease are common diseases in Tanzania. Common active ingredients used

in pesticides are Chlorpyrifos, Fenitrothion and Profenofos. Paraquat and Glyphosate are

commonly used in herbicides, and Cyproconazole and Hexaconazole are often used in

fungicides. An inorganic substance, Cupric Hydroxide is commonly used to control coffee

leaf rust. Even if Endosulfan is banned globally through the Stockholm convention it can

still be found at coffee farmers according to a spokesman from Ministry of agriculture.

Of the mentioned substances, Fenitrothion, Profenofos, Paraquat, and Hexaconazole are

not approved in EU. Chlorpyrifos and Cyproconazole are not approved for use in

Sweden, but in other EU countries. Glyphosate is widely used also in Sweden. The

pesticides are generally hazardous for the environment and health effects include

toxicity to reproduction (Cyproconazole) or acute poisoning (Endosulfan, Paraquat,

Chlorpyrifos, Fenitrothion, Profenofos, and Hexaconazole). Glyphosate has during 2015

been classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the World Health

Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer.

A risk when buying chemicals in bulk is that when the chemicals are re-packed, the

labelling and safety information on the original package is not repeated on the new

package and the farmer may not use the chemicals in a safe way. Another risk is that the

containers used for repacking can be confused with food containers.

24

The interviews conducted indicate that CFAT does not have any detailed knowledge on

what pesticides the individual farmers are using. No surveys or other types of

inventories were presented. Also the fact that paraquat was found during the

aforementioned Sida field trip in 2014, indicate that little attention has been paid by

CFAT to the use of hazardous pesticides among farmers. The farmers interviewed often

knew the brand names of the pesticides they were using, but not the names of the active

substances. During the field trip, three different farms were visited. Two of the farmers

interviewed used pesticides with profenofos as active substance. One of the farmers

showed us a package stored in his home with this pesticide. When asked to see his

protection equipment he showed an old pair of trousers and a coat with long sleeves,

and we were told that he should buy new gloves because the old ones were worn out.

Another farmer had a coat hanging in the living room that he wore during application on

pesticides. He wore the same gum boots during the interview that he wears when

spraying pesticides. The farmers however told that they cleaned their personal

protection equipment separately from other clothes.

To store pesticides in the home is a clear threat to health, both through risk of suicide,

unintentional intoxication and diffuse exposure through air. Also the disposal of empty

containers is a problem, the interviewed farmers bury or burn them. There was no

supplier taking back the empty containers for destruction or reuse.

Of the interviewed farmers, women in their families did not spray pesticides, but fetched

the water the pesticides should be mixed with and often cleaned the application

equipment and clothes used when spraying. The farmers interviewed knows that

children should not get into contact with pesticides. The only female farmer interviewed

had participated in trainings in pesticides application but had not practiced spraying yet.

She was seen as a role model by other women in the village, who often asked her for

advice. Traditionally, men do not weed. HRNS now try to teach men that “they can be

head of the house even if they are weeding”.

Promotion, guidelines and capacity for the use of pesticides

CFAT uses a training of trainers concept and there is a manual on pesticide use. The

manual is, however, very basic and the focus is on correct mixing, application and how

the pesticides work. The following information is given in the manual on safety:

• Store bottles and measuring vessels out of reach of children.

• Always read the container label before use

• Never eat or smoke while spraying

• If the sprayer develops a leak fix it immediately

• Pregnant women should not spray herbicides

• Bury empty bottles.

• Read and follow safety instructions on product label.

• Wash yourself and equipment with soap after spraying.

• Always wear protective gears while spraying herbicides.

25

During these trainings also personal protection equipment (PPE) is distributed to the

lead farmers, enabling them to show other farmers what PPE exists and how it can be

used.

According to interviewees at the country and regional management level of CFAT, the

programme provides technical know-how in Good Agricultural Practices, such as IPM,

including natural predators and natural methods as well as trainings on chemical inputs,

safe and proper storage. However, concerning IPM, no clear examples of training

materials or guidelines were provided.

According to interviews with the management level, HRNS makes random checks on

farmer’s level to see what pesticides are used, but as they have 50,000 farmers in their

network full control is impossible and HRNS doesn’t have the mandate to decide what

pesticides the farmers should use. In Mbeya region the farmers used to be part of 4C,

Common Code for the Coffee Community (see above), but since the scheme no longer

gave a price premium CFAT decided to leave the 4C. After this, CFAT intended to become

certified by the Rainforest Alliance, but has chosen not to proceed with this because of

high costs. However, the agronomists of HRNS are using the list of banned pesticides

from Rainforest Alliance in their trainings.

After Sida’s field trip where paraquat was discovered, there has been a discussion with

HRNS on alternatives to paraquat and HRNS has provided Sida with a list of alternatives.

To what extent this list is communicated to farmers is unclear. The few farmers

interviewed all use RoundUp as herbicide.

HRNS doesn’t have any specific advice for women on pesticides use. “Usually women are

not encouraged to conduct spraying. It they do, they are encouraged to do it when the

kids are at school, so the kids are not playing in the field.” The usual recommendations

on what chemicals to use covers both men, women and children.

Summary and recommendations

Our review indicate that CFAT has a good capacity to teach farmers agricultural

practices, but weak capacity on environmental and health risks related to pesticides.

While HRNS has shown interest and willingness to deal with the pesticides issue since

Sida brought up the question of paraquat there still seem to be a lack of understanding

of the risks involved. A point in case is that the draft environmental assessment - that

CFAT recently shared with Sida – states that “there are no negative environmental

impacts foreseen of the project”.

CFAT would benefit from a clearer understanding of the health and environmental risks

related to the programme as well as from a more systematic management of these risks.

Sida is recommended to:

26

- require CFAT to involve external experts in the assessments of health and

environmental risks related to the programme and in the development of a plan on

how to monitor and manage these risks. An alternative could be to employ such

experts as part of the CFAT programme.

- dialogue with CFAT about the role of IPM in the programme. Are there possibilities

for CFAT to collaborate with other partners in the training of farmers than Bayer? A

too close liaison with the agrochemical industry may distort the incentives for IPM

and result in a biased promotion of pesticides. As HRNS is working globally and one of

their main strategies is Environmental Technology, Environmental Research &

Organic Farming, Sida could discuss how HRNS can better include this also in their

work with CFAT.

- discuss how the effects on women and children from the use of pesticides can be

better included in the programme and especially in the trainings of farmers.

- discuss the possibilities to discourage the PO’s procurement of pesticides in bulk

which is then divided and repacked in the villages. There is a high risk that the safety

instructions are lost in the re-packaging and that unsuitable packaging such as food

containers may be used.

- consider specific funding for enhancing the capacity on health and environmental

issues within CFAT.

5.2. African Enterprise Challenge Fund, Tanzania Agriculture Window (AECF

TZAW)

The Programme

AECF is a challenge fund initiated by Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).

The fund is capitalized by multilateral and bilateral donors to stimulate private sector

entrepreneurs in Africa to innovate and find profitable ways of improving access to

markets and the way markets function for the poor, particularly in rural areas. The AECF

TZAW is a special fund of the AECF that is only open to agribusinesses investing in

Tanzania. TZAW was designed by DFID Tanzania in 2010 as a seven year initiative with

an initial budget of £5 million. The widest possible range of agribusinesses are eligible

for support7. Through TZAW, Sida supports 39 grantees in Tanzania during the period

2013-2019. The total contribution from Sida is 55 MSEK which correspond to 50 % of

the total funding of TZAW. This is the second round of Swedish support to TZAW. The

expected outputs of TZAW are:

Growth of the commercial agribusiness sector in Tanzania

Increase in commercial private sector investment and bank lending to agribusiness

and agricultural sector

7 including farming, plantation and ranching companies, out grower schemes, producers, manufacturers and

distributors of agricultural inputs - seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, tools and equipment, agro processors, traders,

merchants and other private sector service providers including market information, extension and other

agricultural services.

27

Increased private sector incentives to invest and innovate in the agribusiness sector

due to wider adoption and dissemination of innovative business models and

technologies and improved market systems

AGRA is the agreement partner and KPMG was procured to implement the full AECF

programme including the window AECF TZAW in Tanzania. The supported business

relates to agriculture in many different ways. Extension services, agro-processing, input

supply, marketing and primary production are some of them.

To get an example of a TZAW financed project, SeedCo was visited during a field trip to

Arusha. The interview was held at SeedCo’s office and a demo plot was also visited.

SeedCo is an international company selling treated seeds. The project supported by

TZAW is establishing growth point contracts. This includes having an agreement with a

lead farmer in a village that can have a demonstration plot for Good Agriculture Practice

with inputs from SeedCo and their partners YARA and Bayer. Formerly Syngenta was

part of this but left as they have conflicting interests with SeedCo. The growth point

contract get a consignment on inputs and sells to the farmers in the village. The lead

farmer gets part of the price the farmers pay for the products. SeedCo together with

YARA and Bayer provides training to farmers on application. SeedCo sells treated seeds.

Use of pesticides and associated health and environmental risks

During the field visit and the interviews with KPMG staff, it was difficult to get a

comprehensive view of the extent the companies having support from TZAW use or

promote the use of pesticides in Tanzania. However, it seems likely that many of the

supported projects involve pesticides.

KPMG proposed the field visit to SeedCo as they knew that the topic of pesticides was

relevant for SeedCo. SeedCo relies on the agrochemical companies YARA and Bayer for

the training on application of fertilizers and pesticides. The pesticides Chlorpyrifos and

fludioxonil are used for the treatment of maize seeds. Chlorpyrifos is not approved for

use in Sweden, but in other EU countries. Fludioxonil is approved for use in the EU but is

considered a candidate for substitution in the EU pesticide database due to its

environmental effects (persistency, bioaccumulation and/or toxicity).

Promotion, guidelines and capacity for the use of pesticides

During Sida´s programme appraisal in 2012, Sida’s helpdesk was consulted to give the

Embassy a second opinion on the environmental screening of AECF TZAW that had been

conducted by DFID. The helpdesk concluded that the procedures in place appeared to be

sufficient for managing environmental and climate risks and opportunities. However, a

concern was that AECF relies on the capacity of independent assessors, the fund

manager and the investment committee to properly assess risks in advance and to

monitor implementation. Questions were raised about the capacity of these actors to

perform these tasks. TZAW was judged to rely to a large extent on applicants to raise

28

environmental risks and opportunities by answering very generic questions (no specific

mentioning of pesticides) during both the application and the implementation phase.

The interviews conducted confirm the impression that AGRA and AECF TZAW do not

have in house capacity to assess health and environmental risks of the projects that they

support. Even though environmental factors constitute one of the scoring factors when

assessing different proposals, business and financial risks, not environmental risks, are

in focus. Pesticide related risks appear not to be much discussed within AGRA or KPMG.

It could not be confirmed if the earlier suggestion to include environmental experts on

the investment committee has been implemented. There were no indications that

suggestions by members of the investment committee had led to any changes or

modifications when it comes to pesticides being promoted or used in different

programmes. However, since Sida has brought up the concerns around paraquat,

pesticide issues have received some attention. One positive development is that

environmental questions (including pesticides) have recently been included in the

application system of AECF TZAW for the new, third, round of applications.

Summary and recommendations

AECF TZAW has a very general system for assessing environmental risks related to the

projects they support. It relies heavily on the competence among the investment

committee, the fund manager and independent assessors.

Sida is recommended to:

- Include requirements about monitoring and management of pesticide related

risks in the contract with AGRA, the agreement partner of AECF TZAW. AGRA

should make sure that fund grantees adhere to the requirements on pesticide use

and management in the IFC performance standard on environment and social

sustainability. This includes promotion of IPM and safe use of pesticides as well

as restrictions on the use of certain pesticides.

- Require that potential grantees that cannot fulfill the IFC performance standard

will not be funded by AECF TZAW. Having chemical expertise in the investment

committee and independent assessors as well as relevant screening questions for

applicants can be effective means.

- Require that KPMG, the fund manager, presents a plan on how health and

environmental risks will be monitored and managed. The effects on women and

children should be given special attention. Desk reviews of training materials

used by grantees; surveys among farmers trained by grantees; and third party

monitoring teams can be effective means.

- Require that KPMG investigates if the projects/grantees currently funded by

AECF TZAW are in line with the IFC performance standard. Gaps should be

identified and a plan for addressing such gaps should be developed.

- Consider the possibility of including funds for capacity development on health

and environmental aspects for grantees.

29

- Discuss with KPMG how the effects on women and children from the use of

pesticides can be better included in the work of TZAW, especially in the trainings

of farmers.

5.3 Agriculture Markets Development Trust (AMDT)

The Programme

Agriculture Markets Development Trust (AMDT) is an intervention that is in the process

of taking off. The AMDT is co-founded by Sida, Irish Aid, DANIDA and SDC. The aim of

AMDT is to support better coordination between value chain development initiatives,

enhance and improve the understanding of agricultural market systems, improve

productivity and market access for micro, small and medium enterprises; and thereby

more effectively contribute to reducing poverty in Tanzania. AMDT will provide

strategic advice to key value chain actors and facilitate strategic values chain

interventions. The first sectors to focus on are proposed to be sunflower and maize.

Use of pesticides and associated health and environmental risks

Use of pesticides in sunflower and maize cultivation is common. AMDT does not yet have

the full picture, but interviewees are aware that pesticides can have severe effects on

health. Counterfeit pesticides are also a known problem. Other environmental aspects

AMDT foresee that are related to their future contributions include water use, climate

change and soil depletion. Concerning processing of agricultural products there might be

environmental pollution, effluent disposal and water pollution. Disposal of packaging

material is another problem.

Promotion, guidelines and capacity for the use of pesticides

AMDT have identified gender and environment as two major cross cutting issues. The

strategy on women and youth is still not written. They foresee some difficulties with this

as they work in different parts of value chain and there may be a difference in risks for

hired labour and family members. AMDT has identified the need to develop capacity for

gender audits, including environmental and health effects. As they do not have internal

capacity for this, AMDT will contract another organization for this purpose.

Summary and recommendations

As AMDT is in the start-up phase there is a good possibility to incorporate

environmental risks and opportunities in the programme design. AMDT staff has some

awareness about pesticide related risks, although expert knowledge is lacking.

Several of the recommendations above for AECF TZAW are also applicable in the case of

AMDT. In addition Sida should:

- Require that AMDT conducts an assessment health and environmental risks,

including pesticide related risks, of their programme.

- Require that AMDT has an environmental management system in place in order

to systematically monitor and manage the identified risks. This should also cover

30

a plan assuring that relevant competence on health and environmental issues is

found within AMDT.

- Dialogue with AMDT on how IPM can be promoted.

31

6 Conclusions and recommendations The largely unmonitored and uncontrolled use of pesticides in Tanzania and several

other countries where Sida is supporting agricultural development present significant

risks to human health and the environment. However, the magnitude of the

environmental and health effects from pesticide use is not fully recognized in many

developing countries and several studies find that especially women’s and children´s

exposure to pesticides is often underestimated.

Sweden is often perceived as a frontrunner concerning chemicals management in an

international perspective. Through the Swedish Chemicals Agency, Sweden has built an

internationally recognized capacity for proactive chemicals management. Sida is funding

several international capacity development programs for improved chemicals and

pesticide management.

Starting from a concern that hazardous pesticides were used by farmers participating in

Swedish supported programmes in Tanzania the purpose of the present study has been

to review safeguard mechanisms and capacity for sound pesticide management within

Sida and three supported programmes and to provide recommendations for

improvement. Based on our review we draw the following conclusions.

6.1 Conclusions

International Good Practice on Pest Management 6.1.1

International Good Practice highlights the importance of Integrated Pest Management.

The FAO/WHO Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management as well as DAC and IFC

guidelines have IPM as a point of departure. IPM does not disqualify the use of

pesticides. It represents a systematic approach where all available means of protecting

crops from pest is considered, and where pesticide application is the last resort of

measures rather than the initial option.

Incentives for adoption of IPM practices need to be carefully analysed. Despite the

promotion of IPM by development agencies over several decades, the actual adoption of

IPM by developing country farmers is still low. Market failures (health and

environmental costs not reflected in the market price of pesticides) in combination with

government subsidies to agrochemicals can partly explain this low adoption, but the

knowledge and labour requirements needed for effective IPM also play a role.

Several development organisations have elaborate guidelines and safeguards relating to

pest-management and pesticides. Development agencies apply various approaches to

pesticide management in funded programs. Most of them include some sort of reference

to IPM principles. Some, e.g. US Aid, entail mandatory and detailed protocols for

analyzing applications in relation to pesticide use during programme appraisal and

implementation.

Most guidelines also specify pesticides that should be avoided, but the threshold for

32

avoided use varies. Most guidelines specify that pesticides that fall under WHO Hazard

Classes 1a and 1b should be avoided. For example IFC guidelines also specify that WHO

Hazard Class II pesticides should be avoided if the project host country lacks restrictions

on distribution and use of these chemicals, or if they are likely to be accessible to

personnel without proper training, equipment, and facilities to handle, store, apply, and

dispose of these products properly.

The DAC Guidance on pesticide use, launched already in 1994, is still one of the most

comprehensive and pedagogic documents available. Even though it has not been

updated for more than 20 years, it can still be a valuable resource for development

agencies.

The Tanzanian legal framework on pesticide management 6.1.2

The legal framework for pesticides management in Tanzania is to a large extent

satisfactory, but a gap exists between substances allowed in EU and Tanzania. In a rapid

review of pesticide products registered in Tanzania 2011, 15 active substances not

approved for use in the European Union were identified.

Regulations are poorly implemented. There is inadequate capacity to enforce

regulations, for example controlling that retailers are licensed. This results in poorly

functioning market for pesticides with inadequate control on what substances are put

on the market, how they are labelled etc. The informal black market for pesticides in

Tanzania is prolific.

Management of health and environmental risks related to pesticides in supported 6.1.3

programmes

The reviewed programmes do not monitor or address health and environmental risks

related to pesticides in a systematic way. Neither the Coffee Farmers Alliances in

Tanzania (CFAT) implemented by Hanns R. Neumann Stiftung (HRNS), nor the African

Enterprise Challenge Fund, Tanzania Agriculture Window (AECF TZAW), have sufficient

systems in place to monitor what chemicals farmers actually use, or health and

environmental effects related to pesticide use. Both organisations need to enhance their

capacity within health and environment, with special attention to reduce short and long

term risks also for women and children.

The reviewed programmes focus on “safe use” rather than Integrated Pest Management

(IPM) and collaborate closely with the agrochemical industry organisations. While

business organisations like SeedCo, YARA and Bayer have an incentive to conduct

training on safe use of their products there is no market incentive in place for trainings

on integrated pest management, which reduces the demand for pesticides.

The reviewed partner organisations lack in house expertise on health and

environmental risks. Interviews and documents reviewed indicate that partner

organisation has inadequate systems for assuring that there is sufficient knowledge

33

among different staff functions on environment and health risks related to pesticide use

in the supported programmes.

The new forms of support to agricultural development creates additional challenges for

safeguarding against pesticide related risks. The organization supported by Sida is often

a funder of other organisations which then funds different projects that involves many

different actors. This chain of actors adds complexity about the appropriate scope of

environmental assessments and about which type of environmental impacts the

supported organization is responsible for. Interviews indicate that it is unclear what the

organisations see as their mandate or responsibility when it comes to health and

environmental impacts. Or as one interviewee stated: “We cannot control which

pesticides the 50 000 farmers in our network in Tanzania are using”. This points to the

need to make clear agreements with partner organisations about which environmental

aspects should be monitored and managed and how this should be done.

Sida’s safeguard system 6.1.4

Health and environmental risks in the reviewed programmes were not sufficiently

addressed during Sida’s appraisal. Assessments of health and environmental risks

related to pesticide use were not required as part of the appraisal process of the

reviewed programmes in Tanzania. Sida´s project committee or managers did not point

to the need for such assessments before the contribution was decided upon and no

further studies or specific monitoring of pesticide related risks during programme

implementation were required.

Monitoring of health and environmental risks is ad hoc rather than systematic. Since

pesticide related risks were not identified during the appraisal of the CFAT or AECF

TZAW no systematic monitoring of how these risks are managed have been undertaken.

Rather, the ad hoc discovery of paraquat during a field visit triggered substantial follow-

up efforts. The increased awareness of pesticide related risks has led to integration of

pesticide related risk in the appraisal of the new support to AMDT.

Sida´s system for identifying and managing environmental (including pesticide related-)

risks is of a general character and relies on knowledgeable and alert programme

officers. The “help texts” in the contribution management system TRAC give good advice

on aspects to bring up to follow Swedish thematic policies and to identify environmental

and other risks. However, in order to identify risks, programme officers as well as

project committees need to know the issues at stake. Earlier evaluations of

environmental integration at Sida also highlight the difficulties faced by programme

officers in complying with the many different requirements they face. This underlines

the importance of the project committees as well as managers in quality assurance and

follow up of pesticide related risks.

Sida lacks updated environmental requirements, guidelines and supporting materials:

Sida has generic guidelines for the review of environmental impact assessments. They

34

have not been updated since they were published in 2002 and are not well known by

programme officers. The guidelines do not provide specific advice or a position

pesticides not allowed in Swedish supported programmes or how risks related to

pesticide use should me managed. Hence, Sida has no specific guidelines on pest-

management such as those of the IFC or USAID.

In addition, there are no formal guidelines for the environmental assessments that Sida

in some cases require partner organisations to undertake or formal

requirements/benchmarks on how partner organisations should monitor and manage

environmental risks (e.g. through implementing an environmental management

system).

6.2 Recommendations

This section discusses how Sida can further strengthen its work with safeguarding

health and environment in programmes involving pesticides. It also briefly discusses

how Sida can strengthen pesticide management policies and capabilities in partner

countries and contribute to international policy development

Clarify Sida’s position on the use and management of pesticides 6.2.1

R.1. Define environmental and health requirements for programmes involving

pesticides.

Partner organisations as well as Sida staff need to know Sida´s requirements. Sida

should develop a formal position on health and environmental requirements in Swedish

supported programmes involving pesticides. Such requirements could include:

- R.1.a. Swedish supported programmes should include active promotion of integrated

pest management. This would be in line with established good international practice.

Just focusing on safe use of pesticides is not enough as this risks leading to an

overuse of pesticides.

- R.1.b. A statement on what products and substances that partner organisations

should actively discourage farmers from using. One possibility is to follow the

requirements on pesticide use and management in the IFC performance standard

on environment and social sustainability, i.e. that substances that fall under WHO

Hazard Classes 1a and 1b should be avoided and that WHO Hazard Class II

pesticides should be avoided if proper handling cannot be guaranteed (see

above). This would in practice disqualify the use of Hazard class II pesticides in

many of the Sida supported programmes. However, if proper handling can be

guaranteed the promotion and use of substances like paraquat (a hazard class II

pesticide)could be allowed.

Another possibility would be to use the list of substances which Sweden or the

European Union has banned. This would in theory be a tougher requirement on

35

partner organisations than the IFC standard and would adhere to the requirement of

policy coherence in the Swedish Policy for Global Development (PGU). However, it

would be more difficult to implement this requirement in practice since there are no

existing guidelines from other development agencies based on this requirement. If

Sida accepts the IFC requirements it would facilitate the provision of multi-donor

support to agricultural development programmes.

Programme appraisal and selection 6.2.2

R.2. Make it mandatory for partner organisations to conduct an assessment of health and

environmental risks for programmes involving pesticides. The assessments should show

how the programme will comply with Sida´s requirements (see above). It should analyze

how the programme monitors and manages risks through the whole chain of pesticide

management (storage, application, disposal etc). Special attention should be given to

how women and children may be affected by pesticide related risks. Also the

organisation’s capacity to manage the identified risks should be assessed. Sida should

provide partner organisations’ with clear guidelines on what the assessment should

include.

R.3. Involve expertize in the review of the assessments of health and environmental

risks conducted by the partner organization. Sida’s helpdesk or local experts should be

involved to assure that the assessment has been conducted in an appropriate way. For

larger programmes a desk review may need to be complemented by field visits.

R.4. Assure that there is a plan to monitor and manage the identified health and

environmental risks. The assessment should result in a clear plan with activities and

indicators. This plan may form part of the overall plan and log frame of the programme.

Contractual agreements with partner organisations 6.2.3

R.5. Include environment and health aspects in contractual agreements with partner

organisations. This should include how environment and health risks related to

pesticide use should be monitored and managed.

R.6. Consider the possibility of including capacity development support for the

management of environment and health risks in the agreement.

R.7. Consider the possibility of including specific funding for third party monitoring or

evaluations of risk management practices of project implementers. This may be

especially important for larger private sector funds involving chains of actors in

agricultural development.

Monitoring and management of health and environmental risks 6.2.4

R.8. Monitor outcomes at farmer´s level. Through surveys among farmers the effect of

training programmes on farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices related to IPM and

36

safe use practices can be measured. This is important since there is often a gap between

trainings and actual adoption of the suggested practices.

R.9. Third party monitoring. Consider complementing reporting from partner

organisations with independent third party monitoring.

Supporting materials for Sida staff and partner organisations 6.2.5

In addition to the position paper on pesticides suggested above, Sida should develop the

following supporting tools:

R.10.Update Sida´s guidelines on environmental impact assessment and make it into a

webbased tool that assists partner organisations to understand Sida´s requirements on

assessment of health and environmental risks. A webbased tool would facilitate regular

updates and linkages to lists with substances that should be avoided.

R.11. Develop guidelines and supporting information on environmental management

systems. Partner organisations should be able to clearly show how they monitor and

manage health and environmental risks. This may be specified in an environment (and

social) management plan. Lines of responsibilities and how it is assured that there is

enough knowledge to manage risks should also be specified.

Capacity development and training of Sida staff 6.2.6

R.12. Basic training on health and environmental risks for different sectors (including

risks related to pesticides) should be included in the introductory training for new Sida

staff

R.13. Specific trainings on IPM and safe use of pesticides should be provided to Sida staff

working with agricultural development programmes. This could be conducted within

the thematic networks on agriculture and private sector development.

R.14. Stimulate knowledge exchange between different programmes involving

pesticides. Sida´s thematic specialists on agriculture and private sector development

could keep a record of the programmes involving pesticides and arrange specific

meetings to share lessons learned. Specific support to programme officers managing

programmes that involves pesticides could also be provided (e.g. reviews of the training

materials on IPM and safe use used in the programmes; reviews of partner

organisations’ environmental management systems). This support could possibly be

provided in collaboration with the helpdesk on environment and climate change.

Strengthening pesticide management policies and capabilities in partner countries 6.2.7

In order to improve pesticide management in Swedish partner countries the capacity to

enforce regulation on what products and substances are allowed on the market is

essential. Hence, safeguards need to be complemented by upstream initiatives.

37

R.15. Support government capacity to regulate agrochemical market and promotion of

IPM.

The Swedish Chemicals Agency and international agencies such as FAO have gained

important experiences from collaborating with different governments on

chemicals/pesticide management, including the promotion of IPM. Sida could analyse

the possibilities of expanding this type of support in selected countries

R.16. Provide catalytic support to change processes

Sida could also stimulate partner organisations to include components in their

programmes which aim at strengthening government agencies and other actors

involved in pesticide management. One recent example is the Swedish support to

Musika in Zambia which has initiated several collaborative projects with the Zambian

environmental management agency (ZEMA). Musika also initiated a Rapid appraisal of

the agrochemical sector in Zambia which involved many crucial actors and resulted in

the formation of a Working Committee on Agrochemicals involving ZEMA as well as

private sector organisations and CSO.

Supporting research and international policy development 6.2.8

Sida should also continue to support research and international policy development for

improved pest management. Initiatives could include:

R.17. Update OECD DAC guidelines on pest management as part of the work on green

growth.

Increasing agricultural productivity is at the heart of most growth strategies in many

African countries. Pesticides play an important role, but for growth to be labeled ”green”

they should be managed correctly. It would hence be timely to update the DAC

guidelines from 1994 as part of DAC work on green growth. Sida could highlight the

need for this.

R.18. Explore synergies between the funding to Swedish Chemicals Agency through the

Global Programme and bilateral programmes. If KemI could collaborate with the

authorities managing pesticides in Tanzania, Zambia and other countries where there

are Swedish financed programmes involving pesticides there could be important

synergies. If funding for KemI’s support could come from the Global Programme rather

than bilateral programmes that could possibly decrease transaction costs involved.

38

References

Andrade-Rivas 2015

Andrade-Rivas F and Rother HA: Chemical exposure reduction: Factors impacting on South African herbicide sprayers' personal protective equipment compliance and high risk work practices; Environ Res. 2015 Oct; 142:34-45

Davis 2015 Davis, G.: Highly Hazardous Pesticides: Finding Alternatives and Reducing Risk by 2020, Guest Article, Chemicals and waste policy and practice, 2015.

FAO and WHO 2014

The International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, 2014.

GEF 2015 Agency Minimum Standards on Environmental and Social Safeguards, Minimum Standard 5 Pest Management;

GEF 2015 Policy SD/PL/03, Global Environmental Facility, Updated Feb 2015

IFC 2015 Environmental, health, and safety guidelines for perennial crop production, International Financial Organisation, November 2015.

Lekei 2012 Establishment of a comprehensive surveillance system for acute pesticide poisoning in Tanzania. Ph. D thesis, University of Cape Town.

Lekei 2014 Lekei EE, Ngowi AV, London L. Pesticide retailers’ knowledge and handling practices in selected towns of Tanzania. Environmental Health. 2014;13:79.

Lekei 2014b Lekei EE et.al.: Characterization and Potential Health Risks of Pesticides registered and used in Tanzania. African Newsletter on Occupational Health and Safety, 24 (3). ISSN 1239-4386

Lekei 2014c Farmers’ knowledge, practices and injuries associated with pesticide exposure in rural farming villages in Tanzania. BMC Public Health 2014 14389.

London et al. London L, de GS, Wesseling C, Kisting S, Rother HA, Mergler D. 2002. Pesticide usage and health consequences for women in developing countries out of sight, out of mind? Int J Occup Environ Health. 2002 Jan-Mar;8(1)46-59.

Meissle 2011 Meissle M, Romeis J, Bigler F. Bt maize and integrated pest management--a European perspective. Pest Manag Sci. 2011

Naidoo 2010 Naidoo S, London L, Rother H-A, et al.; Pesticide safety training and practices in women working in small-scale agriculture in South Africa, Occup Environ Med (2010)

Parsa 2014

Parsa et.al: Obstacles to integrated pest management adoption in developing countries, PNAS 2014 111: 3889-3894.

Sida 2002 Sustainable development. Guidelines for the Review of Environmental Impact Assessments, 2002.

UD 2013 Ministry for foreign affairs 2013. Results strategy for Sweden’s international development cooperation in Tanzania 2013 – 2019.

UNEP 2009 Existing sources and approaches to risk assessment and management of pesticides,

particular needs of developing countries and countries with economies in transition,

UNEP Chemicals Branch, DTIE , 2009.

UNEP 2011 Investing in Natural Capital: Agriculture, in: Towards A Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication.

http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ger/GER_2_ Agriculture.pdf

UNEP 2012 Tanzania–UNEP SECE experts meeting to review the UNEP guidance documents – Ecosystem services, water pollution and water scarcity” & “socioeconomic factors and analysis for pesticides management; Evaluation report, Dar-es-salaam, Tanzania, April 2012

UNEP 2013 Costs of Inaction on the Sound Management of Chemicals, United Nations

39

Environment Programme, 2013.

USAID 2004 USAID/AFR guidance preparing PERSUAPs for pesticide programmes in Africa.

March 15, 2004.

USAID 2014

USAID/AFR guidance: preparing PERSUAPs for pesticide programs in Africa, January 2014

Reviewed documentation about the three programmes in Tanzania

CFAT

Basis for Decision on Contribution. Embassy of Sweden. 2013-08-02.

CFAT progress report 2015 for activity year 2014(revised)

PPT Presenting the programme and its implementing partner HRNS(1302_HRNS Projects TZ 1)

Agreement (HRNS will conduct an EIA during their extended period of the programme, during the spring

2016)

1406 Paraquat and alternatives CFAT

1407 HRNS CFAT TZ_Herbicide Training Manual4C Code of conduct. Approved by the 4C Council in

December 9th, 2014. Version 2.0

AECF TZAW

Appraisal of intervention, final. Sida, 2014-03-28

Tanzania Agribusiness Window Portfolio Report 2014

AECF Tanzania Agribusiness Window Annula Report July 2014 to June 2015.

Paraquat discussion w Sida HQ and AECF

AMDT

Appraisal of intervention, final. Sida, 2015-07-07

Agricultural Markets Development Trust Establishment plan 2014, March 2014

40

Annex 1 list of interviewees Sida

Person Position Place Date

Ola Möller Lead Specialist Agriculture

Telephone interview

November 11, 2015

Johanna Palmberg Lead specialist Environment and Climate

Telephone interview

November 13, 2015

Maria van Berlekom

Head of Development Cooperation

Swedish embassy, Dar es Salaam

November 18, 2015

Josefin Bennet Fredriksson

Programme officer handling CFAT

Swedish embassy, Dar es Salaam

November 18, 2015

Jwani Jube Programme officer handling AECF TZAW and AMDT

Swedish embassy, Dar es Salaam

December 1, 2015

Stephen Mwakifwamba

Environmnetal specialist and energy

Swedish embassy, Dar es Salaam

December 1, 2015

Victor Mollel Land rights Swedish embassy, Dar es Salaam

December 1, 2015

CFAT

Person Position Place Date

Ina Wengrzyk Country Manager Tanzania, HRNS (Hanns R. Neumann Stiftung)

Usa River November 27, 2015

Webster Miyanda Field Operations Manager South, HRNS Mbeya

Mbeya November 24, 2015

Lized Cope Senior Agronomist, HRNS Mbeya

Mbeya November 23, 2015

Lagae Mwenura POT – Mbeya Rural, HRNS Mbeya

Mbeya November 23, 2015

January Rubuga CA Coordinator, HRNS Mbeya

Mbeya November 23-24, 2015

Baraka Kajange Agronomist, HRNS Mbeya

Mbeya November 23, 2015

Blaga Zlateva MAE Coordinator Mbeya November 23-24, 2015

Jimmy Kalonga and Zena Jimmy

Farmer family Coffee farm outside Mbeya

November 23, 2015

Anania Kagdbela and Tabhita Anania

Farmer family Coffee farm outside Mbeya

November 23, 2015

41

Ester Mwaulezi Female farmer Coffee farm outside Mbeya

November 24, 2015

AECF TZAW

Person Position Place Date

Bolek Stawicki AGRA AECF Nairobi Skype Interview November 19, 2015 Aly Breedlove KPMG –AECF

Country Representative Tanzania

Dar es Salaam November 19, 2015

Justice Rutenge KPMG - AECF Monitoring, Learning and Communications Manager- Tanzania

Dar es Salaam and Arusha

November 19, 2015 and November 26, 2015

Daniel Mwambugi SeedCo – Zonal Sales Manager Arusha

Arusha November 26, 2015

AMDT

Person Position Place Date

Michael Kairumba Technical Director Dar es Salaam November 20, 2015 David Mabula Market Systems

Manager Dar es Salaam November 20, 2015

Martin Mgallah Market Systems Manager

Dar es Salaam November 20, 2015

Ralph Engelmann M4P Advisor Dar es Salaam November 20, 2015

Other interviewees

Person Position Place Date

Ingela Andersson Head International Unit, Swedish Chemicals Agency

Swedish Chemicals Agency

October 21, 2015

Anna Fransson Sr Advisor International Unit, Swedish Chemicals Agency

Swedish Chemicals Agency

October 21, 2015

Lilian Törnqvist Sr Advisor International Unit, Swedish Chemicals Agency

e-mail and telephone interview

November 15, 2015 and December 4, 2015

Prof. Samuel Mangele, , GCLA

Chief government chemist, Government Chemists

Dar es Salaam November 20, 2015

42

Laboratory Agency, Tanzania

Sabanitha L. Mtega Director, chemicals Management Dept., Government Chemists Laboratory Agency, Tanzania

Dar es Salaam November 20, 2015

Diomedes Kalisa Plant Health Services, Ministry of Agriculture

Dar es Salaam November 19, 2015

Emanuel Halinka Plant Health and Protection Officer, Ministry of Agriculture

Mbeya November 24, 2015

Olais Seenga Agrodealer, Obo Investment Ltd

Mbalizi November 24, 2015

Beatrice Agrodealer, Beatrice Agrovet

Arusha November 26, 2015

Dr Elikama Lekei Ag. Registrar of Pesticides and Head of the Pesticides and Environmental Management Division

e-mail December 1, 2015

43

Annex 2: Pesticide substances banned by the European Union. Their appearance on HHP lists (JMPM and PAN interpretation, respectively)

Row Labels Defined as HHP

(JMPM) Defined as HHP (PAN)

1,3-dichloropropene 1 1

Acephate 1

Alachlor 1 1

Amitraz

Atrazine 1

benfuracarb 1

Butralin

Cadusafos 1 1

Carbaryl 1 1

carbofuran 1 1

carbosulfan 1

chlorates (Mg, Na, K)

chlorfenapyr 1

chlorthal-dimethyl

chlozolinate

di-nitro-ortho-cresol / DNOC 1 1

Diazinon 1

dichlobenil

Dicloran

Dicofol

dimethanimid

diniconazole-M

Dinoterb 1 1

diphenylamine

endosulfan - see footnote * 1 1

fenitrothion 1

Fenthion 1

fentin hydroxide / triphenyltin hydroxide 1 1

flufenoxuron 1

flurprimidol

methamidophos 1 1

methyl parathion 1 1

Naled 1

oxydemeton-methyl 1 1

parathion-ethyl 1 1

Phosalone

procymidone 1 1

propachlor 1 1

Propanil

propargite

44

propisochlor

pyrazophos 1

quintozene / PCNB / pentachloronitrobenzene

Tecnazene

Thiodicarb 1 1

Trichlorfon 1

Trifuralin 1

Grand Total 16 29

45

Annex 3 GEFs Minimum Standard on pest Management Source GEF 2015

Criteria

Established policies, procedures, and guidelines require the Agency to ensure that the

environmental and health risks associated with pesticide use are minimized and

managed, and that safe, effective, and environmentally sound pest management is

promoted and supported.

Minimum Requirements

Promote the use of demand driven, ecologically-based biological or environmental pest

management practices (referred to as Integrated Pest Management [IPM] in agricultural

projects and Integrated Vector Management [IVM] in public health projects) and reduce

reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides. Include assessment of pest management

issues, impacts and risks in the EA process. The Agency requires that, in the context of

projects that it supports, pesticides are procured contingent on an assessment of the

nature and degree of associated risks, taking into account the proposed use and

intended users. The Agency also does not allow the procurement or use of formulated

products that are in World Health Organisation (WHO) Classes IA and IB, or

formulations of products in Class II unless there are restrictions that are likely to deny

use or access to lay personnel and others without training or proper equipment8.

The Agency also does not allow the procurement or use in its projects pesticides and

other chemicals specified as persistent organic pollutants identified under the

Stockholm Convention.

Follow the recommendations and minimum standards as described in the United

Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) International Code of Conduct on the

Distribution and Use of Pesticides (Rome, 2003) and its associated technical guidelines

and procure only pesticides, along with suitable protective and application equipment

that will permit pest management actions to be carried out with well defined and

minimal risk to health, environment and livelihoods.

Support policy reform and institutional capacity development to (a) enhance

implementation of IPM- and IVM-based pest management, and (b) regulate and monitor

the distribution and use of pesticides. Disclose draft mitigation plans in a timely manner,

before appraisal formally begins, in a place accessible to key stakeholders including

project affected groups and CSOs in a form and language understandable to them.

Guidance on Applicability/Inapplicability

Any Agency that implements projects in the areas of sustainable land management

(including sustainable forest management), agricultural production and pest

management, or public health vector control will need to meet this standard. Agencies

for which this safeguard is found inapplicable will not be permitted to implement

projects in these areas.

8 Reference WHO’s “Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification”

(IOMC, 2000-2002).

46

Annex 4. IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social

Sustainability 2012 Performance Standard 3Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention,

Section on Pesticide Use and Management

14. The client will, where appropriate,

formulate and implement an integrated

pest management (IPM) and/or integrated

vector management (IVM) approach

targeting economically significant pest

infestations and disease vectors of public

health significance. The client’s IPM and

IVM program will integrate coordinated

use of pest and environmental information

along with available pest control methods,

including cultural practices, biological,

genetic, and, as a last resort, chemical

means to prevent economically significant

pest damage and/or disease transmission to

humans and animals.

16. The client will design its pesticide

application regime to (i) avoid damage to

natural enemies of the target pest, and

where avoidance is not possible, minimize,

and (ii) avoid the risks associated with the

development of resistance in pests and

vectors, and where avoidance is not possible

minimize. In addition, pesticides will be

handled, stored, applied, and disposed of in

accordance with the Food and Agriculture

Organization’s International Code of

Conduct on the Distribution and Use of

Pesticides or other GIIP.

15. When pest management activities

include the use of chemical pesticides, the

client will select chemical pesticides that are

low in human toxicity, that are known to be

effective against the target species, and that

have minimal effects on non-target species

and the environment. When the client

selects chemical pesticides, the selection

will be based upon requirements that the

pesticides be packaged in safe containers, be

clearly labeled for safe and proper use, and

that the pesticides have been manufactured

by an entity currently licensed by relevant

regulatory agencies.

17. The client will not purchase, store, use,

manufacture, or trade in products that fall

in WHO Recommended Classification of

Pesticides by Hazard Class Ia (extremely

hazardous); or Ib (highly hazardous). The

client will not purchase, store, use,

manufacture or trade in Class II (moderately

hazardous) pesticides, unless the project has

appropriate controls on manufacture,

procurement, or distribution and/or use of

these chemicals. These chemicals should not

be accessible to personnel without proper

training, equipment, and facilities to handle,

store, apply, and dispose of these products

properly.

47

Annex 5 Environment and climate change aspects inTRAC The review is based on the text in the document “TRAC helptext normal” received from

Sida.

Stage Plan Appraisal

Page 4

If possible environmental impacts from supported activities need to be analysed and

handled further, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an established tool to

define risks and possible positive impacts on environmentally sustainable development.

The scope and size of the EIA depend on type of activities and differs from case to case.

Read more

Link to Environmental Assessment (EIA) tool

Page 5

Indepth Relevance Assessment

Additional support

Environment/Climate Guidelines for environmental impact assessment. Sida´s helpdesk

for Environment and Climate integration. Network for Environment and Climate Change.

Page 11

Take into account how the development problem and the intervention relates to the

specific context where it is going to be implemented and consider if you need to pay

specific attention to any aspect due to factors like corruption, ongoing or possible

conflicts, lack of security, political and social instability, environment/climate

conditions, access to or control over natural resources or HIV prevalence. To take the

context into account can mean to identify openings and possibilities for the intervention

to have positive side effects and directly or indirectly contribute to improvements like

decreased level of corruption, improved environment, and strengthened resilience. It

can also imply to identify and hopefully avoid possible negative consequences. These

factors will often be identified in a previous context analysis, power analysis or

environmental impact assessment (EIA).

Page 14

Does this contribution include private sector collaboration in the form of Public Private

Development Partnerships, Challenge Funds managed by Sida or Drivers of change?

Help Contributions with a substantial part of private sector funding and contributions

that aim to engage private sector involvement in development cooperation should use

Sida Sustainability Screening Framework to assess strengths and weaknesses in the

partners’ performance relating to sustainability. The screening framework uses a

management approach to assess the partners’ management of economic, social and

environmental sustainability. Later in the appraisal process you will be asked to upload

the screening tool and make an assessment of sustainability based on the screening

results.

48

Stage Appraise and Agree on Contribution

Page 27

Environment/climate aspects have been taken into account in the intervention setup.

Help When answering this question you shall assess if environment and climate has

been taken into account and been integrated into the design of the intervention. This

means visualizing if and how the collaboration partner has made an environmental

impact assessment (EIA) and through this has

Described possible positive or negative environmental impacts from the proposed

activities;

Proposed measurements to avoid negative environmental impacts or to enhance the

positive environmental impacts.

Important aspects to consider are if

Environmental or climate conditions that may affect the implementation of the

intervention are analysed. Examples of this can be how climate change affects rain

patterns / draught/floods or the effects of air and water pollution on people´s health.

Possible positive and negative environment effects caused by the intervention are

highlighted. By identifying possible positive impacts the justification for/relevance of

the intervention can be strengthened. Examples of this can be increased resilience in

ecosystems/ improved food safety or decreased discharge of greenhouse gases. Negative

effects should be analysed in terms of risk, and

dealt with accordingly.

Environment or climate aspects are reflected in the design of the intervention as well as

in expected results, indicators, activities, resources and methods.

In some cases the environmental aspects are few or easily managed and your relevance

assessment can hence be rather brief.

If the answer to this question is no, consider to start a dialogue with the partner and if

needed, consider to add a dialogue objective in the results register.

Read more Sida Environment Helpdesk http//sidaenvironmenthelpdesk.se/

Page 29

Environment and climate

When doing your indepth relevance assessment it´s important to think through the

possible risk of causing unintended negative consequences to the environment and

climate.

The three pillars of sustainable development environmental, social and economic, are

closely interlinked and necessary to consider in all development work. The most obvious

risk is that the proposed intervention will lead to negative effects on the physical

environment. However, when looking at the risk of doing harm to the environment and

contributing negatively to climate change it is important to bear in mind that this risk

might imply possible consequences not only to the physical environment but also to

human health (like for instance pollution, worsening sanitary conditions or the risk that

49

infectious diseases or bilharzia, malaria or HIV/Aids will be spread) and economic

opportunities. Many individuals and local communities often directly depend on the

natural resource base and sound environment for health and income. For example, a

question to ask could be if the contribution in any way negatively affects the living

conditions, livelihoods, land rights and/or the capacity of the local population to spread

risks or handle crises?

Page 57

In some contributions it will be relevant to use a set of other risk areas. You can select to

activate certain of these risk areas if needed. Please note that it is optional to use these

risk areas, and these risk areas shall be used carefully and only if there is future

uncertainty/ risks linked to these areas

OR3 Risk of doing harm Environment and Climate – to be used if there is a risk that the

intervention may cause harm on the environment and climate

Stage Performance Monitoring No info about environment and climate change

Stage Contribution Completion No info about environment and climate change

Chemicals or pesticides are not mentioned in TRAC except for a reference to the

"Regional Agricultural Chemicals Programme" in South East Asia which is used as a

general example of how to describe an intervention.

50

Annex 6. Terms of references Att: Sida Environmental Helpdesk, Oct1 2015

Requested assignment: Assessment of the use of pesticides within Swedish

financed programmes in Tanzania

People living in poverty are often directly dependent on natural resources such as forests, land, rivers

and seas, and are therefore hit particularly hard by environmental pollution and the effects of

climate change. They are also the ones directly affected physically by the use of chemicals in

agriculture.

Environment and climate change is one of Sweden´s top-priorities within its development

cooperation. In the aid policy framework, the government has set up a special milestone for

improved environment, limited environmental footprint and enhanced resilience to environmental

effects, climate change and natural disasters.

All of Sida’s initiatives and all sectors of development cooperation shall integrate environment-

including climate aspects. Efforts are assessed both on the basis of their sensitivity to

environmental/climate change, and how they can contribute to environmentally sustainable

development. The expected development prospects are balanced against the risks of adverse

environmental impacts.

Sida shall identify and make visible different conflict of goals that might occur, and develop

suggestions on how they should be handled in the best way.

ASSIGNMENT BACKGROUND

During a field trip in the spring of 2014 the herbicide Paraquat was found to be used in two of Sida’s

programs in Tanzania, one of which further is about climate smart (and environmentally friendly)

agriculture. In addition, permanent use of herbicide round-up for weeding was being promoted as a

standard extension advice.

Paraquat requires a special label with a skull and the letter T+ for chemicals that can seriously

damage a person’s health in small doses and might be fatal. Paraquat claims most of its poison

victims among farm workers and farmers who are not protected when they spray the herbicide, since

they have no access to the kind of protective clothing that manufacturers recommend. Most often

farm workers simply don’t know enough about the risks or cannot afford protective clothing, safety

goggles, and masks that would shield them from the poison spray. Also wearing heavy protective

clothing in the tropics may be impractical or impossible for users.

Paraquat is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world but it is the most highly acutely toxic

herbicide. Paraquat has been banned in EU. But in a number of developing countries like Tanzania,

plantation workers and small farmers spray Paraquat to kill weeds. In Tanzania the most commonly

used herbicides are Glyphosate (common name round-up) and Paraquat. The two herbicides are

51

common to farmers in Tanzania because they are relatively cheap compared to the other types of

herbicides and they are locally available.

After the finding and informed dialogue, the implementing partner started promoting the use of

alternative herbicides, and discouraged farmers from using Paraquat. However, while not as harmful

as Paraquat, the pros and cons of a permanent use of herbicides (such as round-up) for weeding, in

the context of environmentally sustainable agriculture, need to be considered.

Following this incident, the question has arisen on how much knowledge we as donors have about

the environmental impact within our portfolio and that we lack a firm grip on how to position

ourselves when it comes to the rules and regulations locally, the guidelines Sida has - or should

have - on the use of various agro-chemicals within development cooperation and how to manage

and follow-up on these aspects in programs we manage. For this reason The Embassy of Sweden

intends to conduct a study to obtain increased understanding of the current situation as such within

the portfolio – with focus on where in the “decision chain” (including among the recipient

organisations) decisions of their use/promotion are made - and to develop a systematic approach on

how Sweden and Sida can ensure that use of harmful pesticides are not promoted in an inadequate

manner. Besides identifying the strategic entry-points and measures (within the Embassy as well as

among the recipient organisations in our programmes in Tanzania the study should contribute to a

broader learning process and to methodological development within Sida on how to manage and

follow up health and environmental impacts related to agro-chemical use in Swedish supported

programmes and further define what our standards should be, in accordance to international

standards but also from a realistic approach when targeting poor smallholder farmers. We need

further guidance on processes of pre-assessing and follow-up in programs and with partners’ internal

approaches and follow-ups.

Focus will be on three contributions within the Embassy’s current portfolio;

Coffee Farmers Alliances in Tanzania (CFAT) aims to sustainably improve the living conditions of

25,000 coffee farmers in Tanzania representing with their families about 125,000 people in total

during the period 2012-2015. Sida is supporting CFAT over the period 2013-2015 and will probably

continue the support beyond 2015. The Program is a Public Private Development project (PPDP) that

is co-financed by donors and the private sector through International Coffee Partners (ICP) and the

programme is implemented by the foundation Hanns R. Neumann Stiftung. The project components

within the Sida-ICP partnership constituting a part of the overall CFAT project are: organizational

development, productivity enhancement, quality improvement and establishment of better

marketing options for smallholder farmers. The partner is also implementing the globally Sida

supported programme Coffee & Climate hence these overhanging issues are of even further interest.

African Enterprise Challenge Fund, Tanzania Agriculture Window (AECF TZAW). AECF is a challenge

fund capitalized by multilateral and bilateral donors to stimulate private sector entrepreneurs in

Africa to innovate and find profitable ways of improving access to markets and the way markets

function for the poor, particularly in rural areas. The AECF TZAW is a special fund of the AECF that is

only open to agribusinesses investing in Tanzania. The widest possible range of agribusinesses are

eligible for support, including farming, plantation and ranching companies, out grower schemes,

producers, manufacturers and distributors of agricultural inputs - seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, tools

and equipment, agro processors, traders, merchants and other private sector service providers

52

including market information, extension and other agricultural services. The Embassy support 39

grantees in Tanzania and the programme period is 2013-2019.

Agriculture Markets Development Trust (AMDT) is an intervention that is in the process of taking

off. The AMDT is co-founded by Sida, Irish Aid, DANIDA and SDC and aim to support better

coordination between value chain development initiatives, enhance and improve the understanding

of agricultural market systems, improve productivity and market access for micro, small and medium

enterprises; and thereby more effectively contribute to reducing poverty in Tanzania. AMDT will

provide strategic advice to key value chain actors and facilitate strategic values chain interventions.

The first sector to focus on is yet to be decided.

All three programmes have (or will have) several levels of decision-making, with sub-contracting or

grant giving as key feature. Hence appropriate routines, safeguards etc. need to be in place at all the

different levels. The study could be seen primarily as a “Strategic Pesticides Assessment (SPA)”,

addressing the routines, guidance and safeguards related to pesticide promotion and use within the

planned and supported programmes

OBJECTIVES The objective of this assignment is:

To increase the knowledge at the Embassy and Sida on what agricultural practices and extension advice regarding pesticide use generally, as well as those particularly known to be associated with significant health and environmental risks, that is being promoted in Tanzania with main focus on the Sida funded programmes, including to what extent various pesticides (herbicides, fungicides and insecticides) are being actively promoted within the Sida funded programmes, and the quality and applicability of technical advisory services provided to distributors and to farmers through the Swedish funded programmes

The objectives above include identifying practices that potentially should be discouraged having gender and child perspectives in mind.

To increase the knowledge at the Embassy and Sida on the current safe guard mechanisms - at the different levels in the “decision chain” - within the planned and supported programmes (of the different actors and levels) in place to provide information and follow up on pesticide use in the supported programs.

Make strategic recommendations on if and how safeguard mechanism within Sida as well as in the supported programmes, should and/or could be further strengthened, including regarding practices and extension advise that could be questionable. Measures proposed must be strategic and different for different levels to be relevant: from e.g. routines/practices regarding selection of grantees (and follow-up mechanisms of grant receivers), to the hands-on extension advise/promotion by the direct distributors

Provide input to the development of guidelines and methods on how Sida can formulate and

implement responsible use of pesticides in supported programs; what to expect within the

programmes taken into account legal and regulatory framework of the country of operations, our

standards as a donor and also the realistic expectations when targeting poor small holder farmers.

53

ACTIVITIES

• Very briefly outline the institutional and regulatory framework for pesticides in Tanzania and the relevant stakeholders involved, including identification of any gaps in comparison with international good practice as expressed in the International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management (FAO and WHO 2014) as well as EU regulations.

• Briefly describe what agricultural practices and extension advice regarding pesticide use that is being promoted in Tanzania, and to what extent various pesticides (herbicides, insecticides and fungicides) are being actively promoted.

• Assess and document the extent of the promotion and use of pesticides, within the relevant Swedish bilaterally funded programs in Tanzania. When, what type and how much pesticides are being promoted and/or used and how? Are the pesticides used in accordance with national legislation and the International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management? Is the use of pesticides combined with pest monitoring and non-chemical pest/disease/weed management methods? What is the quality and applicability of training and advisory services provided to distributors and farmers through the programmes? To what extent are environmental health concerns particularly of women and children understood and addressed?

• Describe and analyse the structure, different actors and levels within the three programmes, and identify entry-points and procedures/measures for (strategic decision-points) regarding pesticides use of the different actors and levels. In AECF this will for example include the role of AGRA (agreement partner), AECF/KPMG (the Fund Manager), grantees, other collaborating partners, distributors etc.

• Assess to what extent and how the different actors and levels within the above mentioned programmes are managing (or are planned to manage in the case of AMDT) the health and environmental risks related to pesticide use.

• Assess the adequacy of current procedures, guidelines and competence in place within Sida regarding appraisal and follow-up of agricultural programmes in relation to pesticide use.

• Synthesise and analyse the findings and develop recommendations at micro and macro level for the Embassy and Sida on possible measures and safeguards to take.

PROPOSED METHODOLOGY The Sida Environmental Helpdesk is asked to do a mapping of practices, guidance and safeguard

mechanisms of the implementing partner organisations, possible sub grantees, and different groups

in the chain of implementation including of smallholder farmer agrochemical users within on-going

and planned relevant Swedish financed programs in Tanzania. Starting with a desk study and further

interview responsible authorities, Program Officers within the partner organisations and visit

designated project sites to meet distributors and end-users. Further, gender and children aspects

should be mainstreamed in this study, both in terms of sources of information and in the

documentation of potential differences in access of information and effects on health on women and

men and children.

EXPECTED DELIVERABLES

54

1. A draft inception report (after 3-5 of days of work) containing:

a. An overall methodology of how the assignment will be conducted.

b. A list of proposed key informant interviewees

c. A draft survey instrument

2. A draft report incorporating (timeline to be suggested by helpdesk):

a. An executive summary

b. A description of the methodology used in the study and the sources of information (including list of all study participants and documentary material reviewed)

c. A succinct presentation of the findings from the study

d. Recommendations to the Embassy of Sweden/Sida on how to best minimise and mitigate unsustainable pesticide use in supported programmes including need for further development of guidelines, safeguards etc. at Sida

3. An oral presentation of the draft report at a seminar at the Swedish Embassy.

4. A final report

LEVEL OF EFFORT AND TIMING

The level of effort is as follows: 27 days

It is expected that the assignment will be initiated in October and completed before the end of

2015.

THE ROLE OF THE SWEDISH EMBASSY The Swedish Embassy in Tanzania will facilitate the implementation of the assignment through:

Sending relevant information available at the Embassy about programmes and projects to be reviewed as well as any studies or other documents that the Embassy have access to that may add value to the assignment

Providing contact information to persons within the programmes as an entry point to identify additional interviewees

Providing oral and written comments on the inception report and the draft report

55

Annex 7 Selected Photos

The coffee farmers Jimmy Kalonga and Zena Jimmy outside Mbeya

AgroCron contains profenofos, a pesticide not approved for use in Europe. Profenofos is an

organophosphate insecticide used to kill the coffee cherry borer and other insects. Profenofos

is considered as a highly hazardous pesticide due to its’ toxicity for both people and wildlife.

It accumulates in the food web and is a neurotoxicant as well as a cholinesterase inhibitor.

56

Jimmy shows us his personal protection

equipment, which is stored in his home.

Jimmy and Zena and their best coffee plant

Coffee farmers Anania Kagdbela and Tabhita

Anania. Mbeya regioin.

CFAT demonstration plot for coffee in

Mbeya region

57

SeedCo’s maize seeds are treated with

Chlorpyrifos, Fludioxonil and Metalaxyl-M,

all of them substances which are toxic or

dangerous to the environment. The seeds are

coloured green to signal that they should not

be eaten.

Olais Seenga in his pesticide shop in Mbalizi,

Mbeya region. All kinds of pesticides

including pesticides explicitly banned in the

EU such as atrazine and fenitrothion. Also

paraquat is sold here.