NRM&Agro/INNOV/9.2.6.doc
PROJECT CONCEPT PAPER
HEAL:
Health in Ecological Agriculture Learning
Prepared by the
The FAO Programme for Community IPM in Asia
May 2000
Project Summary
Duration 3 years
Location Regional, covering 7 countries in South and South-East Asia: Cambodia, Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam.
Organisations To be managed by the FAO Programme for Community IPM in Asia in collaboration with Pesticide Action Network, Asia & the Pacific.
Objectives: 1. To increase the capability of farmer groups in Asia to conduct local studies which will lead to a better understanding of the health effects of pesticide use;
2. To increase the capability of organisations which are organising IPM training programmes (including farmer associations, NGOs and government agencies) to initiate and support health studies carried out by farmers
3. To raise awareness of the process and outcome of farmer-managed health studies among consumer groups, environmental advocacy organisations and government policy makers.
Key activities Support for health studies managed by IPM farmers, inter-country exchanges of trainers, linking GOs and NGOs, documentation and advocacy.
Budget US$ $1,294,000
HEAL:
Health in Ecological Agriculture Learning
"...we have put poisonous and biologically potent chemicals indiscriminately into the hands of persons largely or wholly ignorant of their potentials for harm. We have subjected enormous numbers of people to contact with these poisons, without their consent and often without their knowledge. It is the public that is being asked to assume the risks that the insect controllers calculate. The public must decide whether it wishes to continue on the present road, and it can only do so when in full possession of the facts."
(Rachel Carson, ‘Silent Spring’, 1962)
The problems
Until the publication of ‘Silent Spring’ nearly 40 years ago, most of the public in the United States and Europe were unaware of the harmful effects of pesticides. This book was a turning point. It launched a public debate which continues today. As a result, many chemicals have been banned, particularly those defined by the World Health Organisation as extremely and highly hazardous (i.e. WHO Categories 1a and 1b). Extensive legislation has also been introduced to reduce or prevent exposure of farmers and consumers to toxic chemicals. Despite these developments, people in the countries of the North continue to be poisoned by pesticides in alarming numbers and the chronic long-term effects such as cancer and reproductive problems are of increasing concern.
Unlike in the North, the public in the countries of the South are still lacking “full possession of the facts”. Furthermore, a large part of the public is made up of the farmers who actually use these “poisonous and biologically potent chemicals”. Category 1a and 1b chemicals are widely available and they are applied unnecessarily to many crops on a routine basis. Protective clothing, on the other hand, is not available, affordable or practical in the tropics. Pesticides are often sold locally without any instructions or warning labels. If the containers do have label, there are few farmers who understand them or take any notice. It is common practice mix deadly cocktails of chemicals and spray them up to - and even after - the crop is harvested.
The consequences are appalling. According to figures compiled by the Pesticide Action Network, approximately three million people are poisoned and 200,000 die from pesticide use each year. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has reported that 14% of all occupational injuries in the agriculture sector of developing countries, and 10% of all fatalities, can be attributed to pesticides. In Thailand, the Health Symptoms Research Institute found that more than 18% of farmers were “seriously at risk due to high chemical content in their blood” as a result of spraying pesticides. Studies carried out by the International Rice Research Institutes concluded that the average health costs of using pesticides in the Philippines (including medical bills and the value of lost work) are more than $50 per farmer per year. In Indonesia, work by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has shown that more than 20% of pesticide applications result in clinical poisoning (three or more neurobehavioral signs and symptoms associated with pesticide poisoning).
These studies show that pesticide poisoning is a routine matter in rural areas of Asia. The problem is not limited to suicides or occasional accidents. Instead, occupational poisoning is happening all the time across the Region as a result of normal farming operation.
This is a cause of concern to many Asian Governments. A number of extremely and highly hazardous chemicals were banned in recent years in Vietnam, while in Thailand the Government has been trying to close down factories which were formulating pesticides without licenses. In India, the Government has allocated part of the national budget to promoting alternatives to chemical pesticides, and in Sri Lanka the President has personally established a high level committee to make recommendations aimed at reducing the incidence of pesticide poisoning.
These are important developments, but the ability of these Governments to institute and enforce legislative measures is hampered by the enormous commercial pressures which are pushing the continued use of pesticides. The world market for agrochemicals now exceeds $30 billion dollars per year, and more than $250 million is spent on advertising by agro-chemical companies in Asia. Production and marketing of some of the most dangerous chemicals is focusing on this Region following an increase in public concern and tighter regulations in America and Europe. China, for example, produced over 350,000 tons of pesticides in 1998. India produced approximately 90,000 tons of technical grade pesticides in the same period, including 12,000 tons of Monocrotophos which is a chemical in WHO category 1b.
In the light of these commercial pressures, it is apparent that it will take more that a few committees and some legislation to bring about a significant reduction in the harm being caused by pesticides. As Rachel Carson realised, public education is required to solve this problem. In Asia, as in the rest of the South, this education must involve both producers and consumers.
On-going activities
In the last two decades the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations has taken a leading role in developing and supporting training which helps farmers to learn about the ecology of their fields and, as a result, enables them to make and implement decisions which are safe, productive and sustainable. This ecological approach to plant protection is called Integrated Pest Management, or IPM. Not only does it involve minimising the use of pesticides, it also involves a wide range of other practices aimed at growing a healthy crop.
The learning approach which is promoted by FAO is based on the Farmers Field School (FFS). This involves weekly meetings by a group of farmers. Instead of listening to lectures or watching demonstrations, these farmers observe, record and discuss what is happening in their own fields from the time of planting to the time of harvest. This discovery-learning process generates a deep understanding of ecological concepts and their practical application. Since 1990 more than two million farmers have graduated from FFS. In recent years, IPM farmers have started organising themselves in order to carry out field experiments, train other farmers, and interact more effectively with government agencies. These developments have given rise to a new term, Community IPM.
FAO currently has three on-going IPM programmes in the Asia Region. The largest is the FAO Programme for Community IPM in Asia, based in Jakarta and supporting activities in 12 countries. The Intercountry Programme for IPM in Vegetables is based in Manila and active in 7 countries, while the Intercountry Programme for IPM in Cotton is based in Bangkok and active in 6 countries.
The health effects of pesticide use are a concern for all three projects and some health education has been included in IPM Field Schools for the last ten years. During the last three years, pilot activities have been carried out under the Community IPM Programme which provide farmers, both women and men, with a deeper understanding of health issues and their relationship to IPM. Farmer groups in Cambodia, Vietnam and Indonesia have been conducting studies within their own communities that include:
· Field observations of hazardous pesticide handling and user exposure.
· Interviews and simple examinations for any signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning: before, after and 24 hours after spraying.
· Household surveys to determine hazardous pesticide storage and disposal practices and occurrences of pesticide container recycling or repackaging.
· Analysis of the chemical families and WHO health hazard categories of the pesticides in use (and or available in local pesticide shops).
· Analysis of the numbers of pesticides (and types) mixed together in one tank for spray operations.
· Analysis of liters (or approximate grams) of pesticide exposure per season or year.
Through the experience of gathering, analyzing and presenting this data back to fellow farmers, a more fundamental understanding of the health as well as the ecological hazards of inappropriate pesticide use is gained. These studies motivate farmers to reduce the use of pesticides. The knowledge they gain also encourages them to intitiate or expand a number of community-based activities including farmer-to-farmer training and advocacy. Most recently, IPM farmers in Indonesia have started marketing pesticide-free rice and vegetables.
Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is a global coalition of citizen's groups and individuals who oppose the misuse and overuse of pesticides, and support the reliance on safe and sustainable alternatives. PAN links over 300 groups in 50 countries. Based in Penang, Malaysia, PAN Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP) is one of five regional offices.
On-going activities of PAN-AP include: lobbying at various meetings for the phasing out of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs); campaigning for improved implementation of the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure; involvement in the work of the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFGC), and maintaining a database of banned and restricted pesticides (which currently includes information about 265 chemicals and 13 countries).
A major achievement during the last 2 years has been the production of a series of Community Pesticide Action Kits (CPAKs), consisting of print and video materials in English and local materials. The CPAKs are intended as a tool for action and advocacy: by involving communities in gathering and using data about pesticide use, it not only supports education and empowerment, but can also link those communities to national and global campaigns.
Most recently, PAN-AP has launched the Asian Safe Food Campaign. This year, the Campaign tackles endocrine disruptors by exposing the threats posed by chemicals--particularly pesticides--that can disrupt the hormone systems of human beings and wildlife.
Strategy
The project will build on the success of the pilot activities organised in Indonesia, Cambodia and Vietnam which were conducted under the FAO Programme for Community IPM in Asia. These activities, as described above, involved community health studies carried out by groups of farmers who had graduated from IPM Field Schools. This approach is summarised by the acronym ‘HEAL’ – Health in Ecological Agriculture Learning.
As noted above, health education has been a minor part of IPM training programmes for the last 10 years. The recent community health studies have shown, however, that there is considerable potential for both deepening and broadening the learning process with respect to health. Human health and the local ecosystem both suffer as a consequence of pesticide use and the two issues can be addressed in a more balanced and integrated manner. This project will expose health issues to the level of attention and the methodology which has been widely and successfully applied to insect ecology. Community health studies, like IPM Field Schools, involve action research which develops critical thinking among the participants. Field observations are made and the data is analysed on a regular basis by the people who are most directly affected. As a result farmers are empowered to make decisions for themselves and gain greater control of their lives.
Building on the pilot HEAL activities involves three processes: scaling down, scaling out and scaling up. These processes are illustrated in the diagram on the next page. Each process leads towards the expansion and sustainability of HEAL activities managed by farmers.
The FAO programme for Community IPM will be responsible for managing the project because of its experience in organising the pilot activities and its extensive contacts with government agencies and NGOs in the Asia Region. PAN Asian and Pacific will also play a prominent part in the project because of its strengths in advocacy and lobbying, and also to benefit from the parallel work it has been doing in developing Community Pesticide Action Kits. PAN AP has collaborated with the FAO IPM Programme on a number of previous occasions and there are expected to be considerable synergies in bringing them together during the implementation of this project.
Location
The project will cover a total of seven countries. Three countries were already been involved in pilot activities (Cambodia, Indonesia and Vietnam) and four more countries have expressed an interest in starting similar activities (Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand).
Development Objective
To reduce the harm to human health which is caused by the use of agricultural pesticides in Asia.
Immediate Objectives
a) To increase the capability of farmer groups in Asia to conduct local studies which will lead to a better understanding of the health effects of pesticide use.
b) To increase the capability of organisations which are organising IPM training programmes (including farmer associations, NGOs and government agencies) to initiate and support health studies carried out by farmers.
c) To raise awareness of the process and outcome of farmer-managed health studies among consumer groups, environmental advocacy organisations and government policy makers.
Outputs and Activities
1. Scaling-down by creating a capability among farmer groups who have participated in pilot activities to carry out studies of the health effects of pesticide use on a sustained basis as part of community IPM programmes.
Indicator: by the end of the project, community health studies managed by farmers will be on-going in a total of at least 100 location (covering at least 5 out of the 7 participating countries).