prevention and disposal of obsolete and unwanted pesticide ... · editing, design, graphics and...

FAO PESTICIDE DISPOSAL SERIES 6

FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations

ISS

N 1020-4695

Thirdconsultation meeting

Prevention anddisposal of

obsolete andunwanted

pesticide stocks inAfrica and

the Near East

6

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONSRome, 1998

Field documentGCP/INT/650/NET

FAO PESTICIDE DISPOSAL SERIES

Prevention anddisposal of

obsolete andunwanted

pesticide stocks inAfrica and

the Near EastThird

consultation meeting

© FAO 1998

The designations employed and the presentation of material in thispublication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever onthe part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city orarea or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiersor boundaries.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in aretrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechani-cal, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and extent of thereproduction, should be addressed to the Director, Information Division, Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla,00100 Rome, Italy.

Editing, design, graphics and desktop publishing:Publishing Management Group,

FAO Information Division

iii

Abbreviations

CDCCommonwealth Development Corporation

CILSSPermanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel

DANIDADanish International Development Agency

DGISDirectorate General International Cooperation

DLCO-EADesert Locust Control Organization for Eastern Africa

EUEuropean Union

GCPFGlobal Crop Protection Federation

GTZGerman Agency for Technical Cooperation

IFADInternational Fund for Agricultural Development

IFCSIntergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety

ILOInternational Labour Organisation

IMDGInternational Maritime Dangerous Goods Code

IMOInternational Maritime Organization

IPMIntegrated pest management

IRLCOInternational Red Locust Control Organization

iv

IRPTCInternational Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals

NGONon-governmental organization

NORADNorwegian Agency for Development

OECDOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

POPsPersistent organic pollutants

SDCSwiss Development Cooperation

SidaSwedish International Development Cooperation Authority

UNEPUnited Nations Environment Programme

UNIDOUnited Nations Industrial Development Organization

UNITARUnited Nations Institute for Training and Research

USAIDUnited States Agency for International Development

USEPAUnited States Environmental Protection Agency

WHOWorld Health Organization

v

Contents

iii

1

3

5

513

14

17

17

181920202121222222222223

25

2527

Abbreviations

INTRODUCTION

OPENING ADDRESS

Chapter 1

UPDATE ON FAO ACTIVITIES

Progress in pesticide disposal and related activitiesState of implementation of the FAO portfolio of disposal projectsProgress of involvement and discussions between FAO and the

agrochemical industry

Chapter 2

UPDATE ON THE ACTIVITIES OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

The Global Crop Protection Federation (GCPF)The German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ)

Pesticide Disposal ProjectDanish International Development Agency (DANIDA)Norwegian Agency for International Development (NORAD)United States Agency for International Development (USAID)Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC)Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)JapanBelgiumItalyUnited Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)Pesticides Trust

Chapter 3

COUNTRY REPORTS

United Republic of TanzaniaEthiopia

vi

Chapter 4

OUTCOME AND CONCLUSION OF THE THIRD CONSULTATIONMEETING

Framework for international collaboration in pesticide disposalAdministrative and organizational modalities for disposal operations

jointly funded by aid agencies and the agrochemical industryDisposal operations proposed for 1998-1999Conclusions and statements by participants

ANNEXES

Annex 1

List of participants

Annex 2

Programme

Annex 3

Framework for international collaboration in pesticide disposal

Annex 4

Benefits of incinerating hazardous wastes in cement kilns

Annex 5

FAO press release: problem of obsolete pesticide stocks deservesgreater attention by donor countries and industry

31

31

313232

35

41

43

47

53

1Prevention and disposal of obsolete and unwanted pesticide stocks in Africa and the Near East

Introduction

Old stocks of obsolete and unwanted pesticidescontinue to pose serious hazards to public health andthe environment. Contamination of soils and valuablewater resources is widespread. In general, developingcountries do not have the expertise, disposal facilitiesand funds to address the problem. Many countries turnto FAO for assistance.

FAO and other agencies have demonstrated thatobsolete pesticides can be destroyed in a safe andenvironmentally sound manner at manageable costs.Over recent years, a quantity of slightly over 1 300tonnes of obsolete pesticides has successfully beenremoved from countries in Africa and the Near East.An increasing number of agencies are expressinginterest in getting involved in such disposal operations.Recently, the agrochemical industry indicated that it isprepared to make financial contributions towardspesticide disposal. In Africa, a total of about 15 000tonnes of obsolete stocks have still to be disposed of.

Since 1994, FAO has operated a project, funded bythe Government of the Netherlands, for the preventionand disposal of obsolete pesticide stocks in Africa andthe Near East. The project has collected and compiledstock data from Africa and the Near East, reviewedand assessed disposal technologies, produced technicalguidelines and conducted pilot disposal operations, aswell as helped to facilitate and coordinate internationalefforts to scale up disposal operations. Under thisproject, regular donor consultations are beingorganized to enhance collaboration and coordinationin pesticide disposal. The First Consultation took placein December 1994 and the second in September 1996.

At the First Consultation, participating aid agenciesrequested FAO to prepare a project portfolio ofurgently needed disposal operations. An initialportfolio of 13 project briefs was presented at theSecond Consultation. Several of the proposed projectsare currently under execution or consideration. At theSecond Consultation, aid agencies indicated that theywould like to see a more prominent financialinvolvement of the agrochemical industry. FAOsubsequently started a process of talks with the GlobalCrop Protection Federation (GCPF) and will continueuntil tangible results have been achieved.

The objectives of the Third Consultation were to:review progress in implementation of the projectportfolio and update and expand the portfolio; discussadministrative and operational modalities for the jointfunding of disposal operations between donors and theagrochemical industry; prepare a target and fundingplan for disposal operations for the period up to theend of 1999; and offer participants the possibility ofexchanging information and experiences regardingrecently completed disposal operations and ofdiscussing collaboration in future disposal operations.


Opening address

The Consultation was opened by Dr M. Duwayri,Director of the FAO Plant and Protection Division(AGP).

On behalf of the Director-General of FAO, Dr JacquesDiouf, I wish to welcome you to the Third FAOConsultation on the Prevention and Disposal ofObsolete and Unwanted Pesticide Stocks in Africa andthe Near East.

FAO has been requested many times to helpcountries solve their problems with obsoletepesticides. Serious efforts started with the financialsupport of a two-year project by the Government ofthe Netherlands in July 1994. This was followed up bya second phase of three years, which began inNovember 1996. Such support has made it possibleboth to organize a number of Consultations and ExpertGroups and to undertake field activities. I once againtake this opportunity to express FAO’s deepappreciation to the Government of the Netherlands forits commitment and continued financial support. Wealso acknowledge the continuing support of donorsand agencies such as, in particular, the Government ofGermany which, through the German Agency forTechnical Cooperation (GTZ), has been involved indisposal operations in the FAO/GTZ joint disposaloperations that were completed in Zambia at thebeginning of 1997.

Although work has begun, a great deal still remainsto be achieved. Reversing the environmental damageand clearing up the pesticide waste situation in Africaand the Near East is no simple matter.

To date, the project has successfully completed threepilot disposal operations in Yemen, Zambia and theSeychelles, respectively. Zambia and the Seychellesare now free of obsolete pesticides. It is alsoencouraging that the governments of the threecountries have stated that they will do everythingpossible to avoid any accumulation in the future. Withadditional financial support from donors, the FAOprogramme will continue to act as a focal point forbringing together donor countries and organizationswith an interest in and commitment to alleviating theproblem in those nations that do not have the means,

the expertise or the facilities to overcome the problemby themselves. Collection of data, dissemination ofinformation, advising of governments, creation ofawareness and mobilization and sensitization of allconcerned, in particular the public, through the media,receive priority. Formulation of projects, preparationof technical guidelines and distribution of these viadirect mail, radio and Internet are primarycommitments of the project. Training of staff membersat plant protection organizations and of others workingin related areas and conducting awareness workshopsand seminars in individual countries or at a regionallevel, are also features that are addressed. However, allthese tasks can only be realized with the fullparticipation of governments in affected countries, thedonor community, international organizations, non-governmental organizations and industry.

As you must be aware, the issue is also discussed inother fora, such as the Basel Convention and theIntergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety. FAOkeeps in close contact with other organizations on thissubject through its cooperation in the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Managementof Chemicals in which the United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP), the InternationalLabour Organisation (ILO), FAO, the World HealthOrganization (WHO), the United Nations IndustrialDevelopment Organization (UNIDO), theOrganisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) and the United Nations Institutefor Training and Research (UNITAR) participate. Theissue is now high on the international agenda and itshould be sustained at that level until the ultimate goalis achieved. We are grateful to see so many of you heretoday to contribute to the solution of this problem.

An appropriate agenda should be established formeaningful cooperation and to decide on modalitiesfor disposal operations in the future. We already havesubstantial information on the magnitude of theproblem in some 42 countries, 37 in Africa and five inthe Near East. Of these, very few have been able todispose of their accumulated pesticides. At present, 17countries have been selected as a priority group to beincluded in a project portfolio for your discussions on

Opening address4

implementation of disposal in 1998 and 1999. Thetotal sum of cleaning up these countries is roughlyestimated at US$22 million. Although this is high, therisk to human health in these countries and the globalenvironmental damage are much higher. It would bedifficult for a single country or agency to come upwith immediate solutions but, by working together, itmay be possible to share the burden. If the situation isnot attended to, the costs will increase and the damagemay become irreversible. FAO is therefore looking fora positive response and commitment from theinternational community.

Africa and the Near East have provided the startingpoint. Environmental and health issues are at stake inall developing countries. It is therefore time for us tobegin to look beyond the horizon of these two regions.On several occasions a conservative estimate of about100 000 tonnes of obsolete pesticides has been said toexist in other developing countries. Unless action istaken on all fronts, the opportunities for overcomingthe pr` blem will be few and late. Looking atworldwide pesticide sales, the world has received hugenew consignments of pesticides worth overUS$29 000 million and $33 000 million in 1995 and1996, respectively. Although a low proportion ofpesticides sold may have reached developing countries,the pressure for accumulation of more and moreunwanted stocks in these regions cannot beunderestimated as many factors are favourable for it.

The problem is widespread and urgent. FAO willcontinue to follow the issue closely and will updateinformation on unwanted stocks, maintain databasesand keep donor countries constantly informed. Everypossible medium of communication and informationfacilities will be used. Maintaining a high degree ofawareness will be necessary to enhance commitmentto a concerted global effort to save our environmentfrom stocks of obsolete pesticides that are hazardousand dangerous to human health, wildlife, marine lifeand the environment in general.

The chemical industry, donors, internationalorganizations and recipient countries all share theresponsibility, but we are neither looking forscapegoats nor looking back to past actions unless tolearn from the experience. We must work together andhelp each other to avoid repetition of similar problemsin the future.

Once again, on behalf of FAO and the Director-General, I wish to express my thanks and appreciationfor your enthusiasm, for the efforts you have made to

attend this meeting and for your determination to findways to tackle the problem, to interact and play keyroles in this important undertaking.

The coherent information that you generate fromthis Consultation and the working agenda youformulate, the recommendations that you make andthe motivation and drive you create during the sessionwill undoubtedly provide the basis for the solution ofthe problem we are facing today more than ever before.

I wish you a very successful meeting and anenjoyable stay in Rome.


Chapter 1

Update on FAO activitiesA. Wodageneh

PROGRESS IN PESTICIDE DISPOSAL ANDRELATED ACTIVITIESBackgroundCountries in Africa and the Near East remaininundated with obsolete, unwanted and/or bannedpesticide stocks. Those affected continue to appeal forFAO assistance in addressing the problem. Similarrequests for assistance are also being received fromindividual countries in Asia, Latin America and theCaribbean.

The initial wave of requests, which began early inthe 1990s, led to the formulation of a two-year projectin 1994 with the financial assistance of theGovernment of the Netherlands. The project wasextended by a further period of three years to last untilOctober 1999. The focus so far has been on Africa andthe Near East, but pressure is mounting to includeother affected countries. However, action in thisdirection depends on additional donor support.

The aim will be to enhance large-scale operationsinvolving multidonor programmes for the disposal ofobsolete pesticide stocks. To date, surveys and inventorieshave been completed in 42 countries – 37 in Africaand five in the Near East. The colour-coded mapshown in Figure 1 and the revised survey figures givenin Table 1 show the levels and quantities of pesticidestocks. Surveys will continue in countries whereinformation is lacking and follow-up surveys will beconducted in countries where changes may haveoccurred since the original surveys were completed.

FAO maintains a data bank of obsolete stocksindicating information on sites affected, types andvarieties of pesticides involved, quantities in litres andkilograms, type of formulation, year acquired and,where possible, origin of the pesticides concerned.

Disposal operations completedTable 2 gives the up-to-date status of disposaloperations completed involving various agencies anddonors. It should be noted that disposal operationslisted are the results of efforts made by variousagencies and donor participation but that there was

little or no industry involvement. This implies thatindustry support towards disposal operations is notyet substantive, but discussions with the Global CropProtection Federation (GCPF) representing theindustry are expected to continue.

FAO pilot disposal operations. Three pilot disposaloperations were completed under FAO. The first wasin Yemen where a total of 262 tonnes of pesticideswere removed and destroyed in 1996. This wasreported in detail in FAO Pesticide Disposal SeriesNo. 5 (1997). The second and third FAO pilot disposaloperations were in Zambia and the Seychelles where360 tonnes and 12 tonnes, respectively, were removedand destroyed. Both operations were completed earlyin 1997. More detailed accounts of the operations inthese two countries follow.

ZambiaA total of 360 tonnes of obsolete pesticides wereremoved from Zambia. The weight at the weighbridge,at the site of destruction in the United Kingdom, gavea total of 355.89 tonnes as having been destroyed byincineration.

Highlights of the disposal operation in Zambia. Aftera countrywide survey in 1994, the total of obsoletepesticides in Zambia was estimated at only 126tonnes. However, a joint FAO/GTZ mission in 1995indicated the existence of an estimated total of 336tonnes. During the actual disposal operation (Marchto April 1997), the real total was found to be 360tonnes.

Main activities in Zambia. Zambia CooperativeFederation (ZCF). The focus of the disposal activitywas within the Lusaka industrial area or, specifically,the ZCF storage site. This was where the bulk of theobsolete pesticides in Zambia had been kept. Thestock had been left in a heap, in the open and underextremely substandard conditions. Only part of thestocks found in about 440 rusting open drums had

Update on FAO activities6

FIGURE 1Inventory of obsolete and unwanted pesticide stocks

been safeguarded by GTZ in late 1995. The waste atthis site was made up of a cocktail of pesticidescontaining lindane, endosulfan, carbaryl, DDT,atrazine, diazinon, hostathion-thiodan, captan,malathion and 2,4-D. The piles of waste wereunattended and had little or no security. The areawhere the pesticides were kept is a high water tablezone. Over the years, much of the pesticide hadgradually infiltrated a network of adjacent channelsand/or been blown away by wind or seasonal stormsinto the surrounding areas. It was understood thatmost of the heavily contaminated soil has been washedaway during the heavy rainy seasons (January to Aprilof every year). It was clear that the runoff from the sitehad ended up in the area, which is populated, or haddrained into seasonal streams subsequently ending upin main rivers. From this ZCF site a total of 303.388

tonnes of pesticides and heavily contaminated soilwere removed. The task of sifting through the debrisand recovering the pesticides and contaminated soilwas daunting.

Mazabuka Veterinary Research Centre. The secondmost affected site was the former Veterinary ResearchCentre, about 125 km south of Lusaka. At this site,two main locations were involved. At the first location,there were two open pits which were used as landfillor dumping sites mainly for DDT powder and largequantities of veterinary vials and expired veterinaryand other medical items. It seems that over the yearspeople had been throwing whatever waste they couldfind into the pits. The pits were neither demarcated bylaw nor licensed as landfill sites. They were on low-lying ground where the water table is high and werealmost adjacent to an irrigated sugar plantation. It is


therefore very likely that some of the DDT had leachedinto the groundwater, particularly as the site was opento rainwater which soaked the DDT. Next to the pitswas the second location, a huge warehouse whereDDT dust was kept in very scattered conditions overthe entire floor area. Both of these locations are withinthe compound of the Veterinary Research Centre, notfar from each other and, more significantly, next to apublic clinic. As the door of the wardhouse was leftunlocked, it was accessible to children playing hide-and-seek over several years. The site lacked even theminimum environmental and safety requirements. Atotal of 35.062 tonnes were removed from bothlocations. This total included a minor quantity ofstocks from Mazabuka town.

International Red Locust Control Organizationcentre. The third affected site was a store at Ndola (acopper-mining town) owned by the International RedLocust Control Organization for Central and SouthernAfrica (IRLCO-CSA) about 440 km north of Lusaka.The pesticide stock involved was mainly Dinitro-o-Cresol (DNOC) and large quantities of contaminatedempty containers. Here the operation was not verydifficult, as most of the DNOC had been safeguardedby GTZ a few years previously.

Kitwe and Nchanga farms. The fourth and fifth siteswere Nchanga and Kitwe, about 500 km north ofLusaka, where a total of 1.05 tonnes of variouspesticides was collected.

Mpongwe and Luanshya farms. The sixth andseventh affected sites were Mpongwe and Luanshyafarms, from where a total of 2.34 tonnes of differenttypes of pesticides were removed.

TABLE 1

Obsolete pesticides in Africa and the Near East:surveys undertaken

No. of No. of Total Total AgenciesCountry affected different disposed of involved in

sites pesticides (tonnes) (tonnes) disposal

Africa

Benin >7 ±21 245

Botswana >4 >20 255

Burkina Faso 24 57 54

Burundi 2 5 58

Cameroon 20 10 225

Cape Verde 1 12 23

Central Afr. Rep. >15 14 238

Congo 7 1 2

Congo Dem. Rep. 5 11 591

Equatorial Guinea 22 17 146

Eritrea 29 58 223

Ethiopia ±200 >200 1 152

Gambia ±10 ±22 21

Ghana 24 15 50

Guinea-Bissau >5 9 9

Kenya 33 49 56

Madagascar 4 14 76 70 GTZ

Malawi >16 69 127

Mali >28 >14 142

Mauritania 13 11 57 200 GTZ/Shell

Morocco 25 ±170 2 265

Mozambique 48 ±150 443 160 GTZ

Namibia 1 1 245

Niger ±15 29 52 60 USAID/GTZ/Shell

Sao Tome/Principe 1 3 3

Senegal 8 ±21 274

Seychelles >1 37 0 12 FAO/DGIS

Sierra Leone 5 17 7

South Africa several ±30 613

Sudan 44 ±80 657

Swaziland 2 35 9

Tanzania,United Rep.1 several 800 57 Only DNOC: GTZ

Togo 12 41 86

Tunisia 21 > 5 882

Uganda several various 211 50 Only dieldrin: FAO

Zambia 6 ±51 0 360

Zanzibar several ±100 0 280 DGIS

Near East

Iraq 16 5 232

Lebanon several several 189

Qatar 1 7 5

Syrian Arab Rep. >13 13 323

Yemen 20 ±130 130 262 FAO/DGIS/KfW

Total 11 176 1 511

Note: Last updated in March 1998 (inventory data are revised on a continuousbasis).1 Inventory in progress.

TABLE 2

Disposal operations completed

Year Country Product(s) Quantity Agencies(tonnes) involved in disposal

1991 Niger Dieldrin 60 USAID/GTZ/Shell

1993 Uganda Dieldrin 50 FAO/UNCDF

1993 Madagascar Dieldrin 70 GTZ

1994 Mozambique DDT/monocrotophos 160 GTZ

1995 Zanzibar Various products 280 DGIS

1996 Yemen Various products 260 FAO/DGIS/KfW

1996 Tanzania DNOC 57 GTZ

1997 Zambia Various products 360 FAO/DGIS/GTZ

1997 Seychelles Various products 12 FAO/DGIS

1997 Mauritania Dieldrin 200 GTZ/Shell

Total 1 511 1

1 7 percent of total estimated in Africa.


Centralization and shipment. The ZCF storage sitewas chosen as a central location for centralization ofthe pesticides. All pesticides from the different siteswere brought to the ZCF site and repackaged. As mostof the pesticide stock (84 percent) was at ZCF inLusaka, it was chosen as a temporary central depot forall obsolete stocks prior to shipment to a designateddestination in Europe. This decision was made forconvenience and management purposes.

A total of 25 shipping containers were required forall the stocks removed from the different sites. Stockswere loaded by types and classes of pesticides and inaccordance to the International Maritime DangerousGoods Code (IMDG) requirements. The means oftransport were rail to Dar Es Salaam, nearly 2 000 kmaway, and thereafter sea via the Suez Canal to theUnited Kingdom.

The quantities involved and the relative location ofeach of the affected sites are given in Table 3 andshown on the outline map of Zambia in Figure 2.

The SeychellesPesticides in the Seychelles fall mainly under theresponsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture andMarine Resources (MAMR). Types or varieties ofpesticides imported for use include insecticides,fungicides, herbicides, mollucicides and rodenticides.A committee referred to as the Input Committee makesdecisions about the purchasing of pesticides. Importedpesticides are stored in the main store at Grande Anse,referred to as the Farmers’ Requisite (Supply) Store.Distributions of pesticides to farmers are made at thisand other specific centres.

Distribution centres include: Grande Anse,immediately next to the main store; Anse Boileau; Vald’Endor; Union Vale; Amitié (located in the secondmain island of Praslin); and a centre on the thirdisland of La Digue, although this has been privatizedand is apparently no longer operational. In Figure 3,arrows show the locations of distribution centres inthe Seychelles.

A total of 12 tonnes of obsolete stocks were removed,most of which had been kept on the main island, Mahé.For a small country such as the Seychelles, which isentirely surrounded by sea and completely marine-oriented, a cocktail of abandoned obsolete stocks wasdangerous to human health, marine life and theenvironment. It was therefore fortunate that theGovernment of the Netherlands provided financialsupport to remove the entire obsolete stock.

Disposal activities involved. The main disposalactivity was at Grande Anse where a total of sixdifferent types of stores were involved. The storeswere regarded as being “dead” because all sorts ofmaterials considered bad, toxic or old were thrownthere, including completely incompatible pesticidesand other chemicals that were kept together. It was amiracle that an outbreak of fire did not take place.

The stocks from various stores were all repackagedcarefully in appropriate UN-approved containers andremoved. Subsequently, the stores were cleaned anddecontaminated. In addition, a few stocks werecollected from farmers’ stores, research stations, theplant protection institute in Mahé and the Ministry ofHealth.

Global concernAlthough the world is inundated with obsoletepesticides, as Figure 4 shows, annual worldwide salesof pesticides are sharply on the rise.

It is impossible to find countries that are free fromthe negative effects of obsolete, unwanted or bannedpesticides or from pesticide misuse and abuse. Theimpact on the environment and the risk to humanhealth in developing countries are invariably seriousand complicated. Although larger quantities ofpesticides are used in developed countries, the damagethey do is far greater in poor countries. This is becauseof basic unawareness of the inherent danger ofpesticides, lack of facilities for both storage anddisposal, aggressive pesticide sales and distribution,lack of appropriate legislation or enforcement of thelaw, uncoordinated or excessive donations, lack ofresources, etc.

Most developing countries have large quantities ofleftover stocks, which are neither usable nordisposable locally. It is not uncommon to findpesticides stored in populated areas, close to water

TABLE 3

Obsolete pesticide removals in Zambia

Site Quantity(tonnes)

ZCF storage and Lusaka town 303.388

Mazabuka Veterinary open pits and warehouse 35.062

Ndola (IRLCO-CSA storage site) 18.436

Kitwe and Nchanga 1.054

Mpongwe and Luanshya 2.335

Total 360.275


Indian

Oc e a n

SeychellesParslin Island

St Anne Island

Round Island

CertIsland

MoyenneIsland

LongIsland

AnonymeIsland

ConceptionIsland

ThérèseIsland

Glacis

De QuincyVillage

Beau Vallon

Pascal Village

La Misere

CascadeSeychelles International Airport

Pointe au Sel

Anse Royale

Quarte BornesTakamaka

Baie Lazare

Victoria

MorneSeychelloiseNationalPark

St Anne MarineNational Park

Union Vale

Grande Anse

Anse Boileau

Val d’Edor

Amitié

11.887 tonnes of pesticides removed

pesticide distribution,

sales and removal centres

FIGURE 2Pesticide disposal in Zambia

FIGURE 3Distribution centres in the Seychelles


sources, with food items or in the proximity ofchildren or disabled people. Incidents in a number ofcountries resulted in people either falling seriously illor dying from eating seeds treated with unwanted andhighly poisonous pesticides. This is a commonoccurrence in many countries although most incidentsremain undocumented.

A cocktail of 30 tonnes of pesticides buried in theearly 1980s within the confines of an irrigation schemeat Surdod State Farm in Yemen is currently estimatedto have grown to more than 100 tonnes as a result ofdispersion and infiltration of groundwater. Althoughthe management of the farm at the time of the pesticideburial was under senior staff from one of the developedcountries, the very idea of burying was both ill-conceived and ill-advised. Such a practice should beprohibited in developing countries because it is neitherpractical nor applicable.

FAO’s estimate of obsolete pesticides in Africaremains at 20 000 tonnes. An earlier estimate for other

developing countries was close to or a little over100 000 tonnes, but current indications suggest thatthis figure should be much revised upwards. Obsoletepesticides in Ukraine alone stand at 22 000 tonnes.This is higher than the estimate of 20 000 tonnes forAfrica. India and China produce large quantities of anassortment of pesticides and large quantities ofobsolete pesticides are likely to exist. A total of 7 000tonnes of obsolete lindane pesticide has been left inthe open in Afghanistan for which nothing could bedone because of the ongoing civil strife in that country.Several countries in central Asia are suspected ofhaving obsolete stocks in excess of 5 000 tonnes each.The existence of such quantities in individualcountries suggests that the total figure will surpass theinitial estimate of 100 000 tonnes several times.Moreover, there are large quantities of heavilycontaminated floor material, soil and empty containersthat are no less toxic than the pesticides themselves. Itis not uncommon to use empty pesticide containers

FIGURE 4Worldwide sales of pesticides (1995 and 1996)

4 527

2 997

2 630

2 493

2 472

2 360

2 210

2 000

1 989

1 5411 450

0

3 284

1995 sales% increase '95 vs 94

1996 sales% increase '96 vs 95

0

0

2 472

2 363

2 344

2 322

2 373

2 068

1 962

1 910

1 125

0US$ millions 500 1 000 1 500 2 000 2 500 3 000 3 500 4 000 4 500 5 000

Ciba-Geigy

Novatris

Monsanto

Zeneca

AgrEvo

Du Pont

Bayer

DowElanco

Cyanamid

BASF

Sandoz

11.2%

4.5%

11.1%22.8%

12.3%11.3%

14.6%6.4%

8.9%6.5%

21.7%1.2%

14.6%5.7%

13.1%1.9%

19.4%4.1%

12.4%8.4%

12.4%

Rhône-Poulenc


for domestic purposes such as for storage, hauling ordrinking-water storage. Most pesticide vendingcompanies and individuals advise people to burypesticide containers in their backyards and, as a result,many small countries with small farm holdings in, forexample, the Near East are littered with emptypesticide containers.

Obsolete pesticide stocks include all kinds ofhazardous pesticides such as various organochlorinecompounds (dieldrin, HCH and DDT) and highlypoisonous organophosphates (parathion, methyl-parathion, dichlorvos, monocrotophos, etc.).

Storage conditionsMost stores are substandard. Open storage is commonwhere the intensity of direct sunlight quicklydeteriorates pesticides and containers alike. Stores areusually located in sensitive and populated zones withlittle or no security to protect human health. State-owned stores are subject to pilferage ormismanagement and few or no records are kept.Empty pesticide drums are often considered to be ofhigh economic value and authorities fail to control orstop the sale or distribution of them on the market.Thus, contaminated containers almost always findtheir ways into private houses for domestic uses.

In tropical countries, where climatic conditions arehot and humid, the deterioration of drums is muchfaster and, consequently, widespread leakage andcontamination are not uncommon. There are exampleswhere drums “balloon up” because of high internalpressure. Subsequently, weak points such as seamsgive way and pesticides leak and spill profusely.Pesticide vendors, either knowingly or otherwise, failto provide containers designed to withstand harshtropical conditions. Banned pesticides that have beenleft in stores for up to 25 years have leaked on to thefloors of stores. The liquid portion of high-vapourpesticides usually evaporates and less volatilepesticides seep into the soil or the outside of stores byoozing or trickling even through brick walls. Duringdisposal operations in Yemen, where hundreds oftonnes of pesticides had leaked in a single store, alayer of solidified pesticides several inches thick wasfound bonded to the surface of the floor. Scraping andremoval of this waste from the floor was a verydifficult task, which took several weeks. Had it notbeen for heavy-duty machines, the operation wouldhave taken several months or would have remainedimpossible to tackle.

Environmental hazardsObsolete pesticides in developing countries have thepotential to cause global contamination far from thepoint source of contamination where they are kept.Contaminated groundwater and drainage channels runinto international waters, lakes or seas. The maincause of pollution of the Aral sea, for example, wasdrainage from a series of large state cotton farmswhich were under irrigation schemes in differentcountries several hundred kilometres away. The Nileriver, which crosses the Sudan and Egypt, receiveshuge quantities of drainage water from large irrigatedcotton farms that receive several pesticide spraysduring each crop season. This is an indication of theeffects that one country can have on another and thepotential global environmental impact cannot beoverruled. Pesticides that are at present kept indeveloping countries are likely to end up in theenvironment elsewhere.

Examples of near-disasters have been witnessed inYemen, Zambia, Zanzibar, the Seychelles and otherplaces. Most of the pesticides involved date back 25years or more. A small fraction of these near-disastershave been avoided as a result of financial supportprovided by a few donor agencies.

Causes of accumulation of obsolete pesticidesThe banning of pesticide introductions into certaincountries, poor storage and lack of store management,unawareness, overstocking, inadequate assessment ofneeds, difficulties in forecasting outbreaks of pests,inappropriate formulations and containers supplied bypesticide distributors, excessive or uncoordinateddonations, etc. have all contributed to accumulation inone way or another. In many respects, all of thesedrawbacks still continue and the situation is thereforebeing further aggravated.

Disposal optionsDisposal options are limited. Landfilling or burial ofpesticides in developing countries, where the majorityof the people are unaware of the risks and wheredesignated landfill sites are lacking or not respected,are not recommended. The only reliable option fordisposal is at a high temperature in dedicatedincinerators operating at no less than 1 150°C. In onecase, very large quantities of dangerous pesticides,which a few years ago leaked into soil in one of themember countries, were safeguarded by FAO. A highsolid wall was erected around the perimeter of the


affected site and guards were assigned to patrol nightand day. This was a temporary measure until a betteroption of disposal could be found. Unfortunately, theguards, who were provided with guns, were caughtdigging the contaminated soil and selling it to peoplein urban areas for the control of domestic pests suchas fleas and bed bugs.

Cement kiln. The use of cement kilns for disposal hasbeen suggested as an alternative to dedicatedincinerators, because a temperature of 2 000°C can beachieved in cement kilns. Unfortunately, most cementkilns in developing countries are substandard, lack thenecessary attachments to control toxic emissions andare thus unfit as they are. However, if cement kilnswere upgraded, the necessary control devices providedand cement producers convinced of the benefits, theymay potentially be useful for disposal not only ofobsolete pesticides but also of other toxic wastes ingeneral. Liquid pesticides can be used as part of theenergy supply and thus can be fed into the incinerationsystem in combination with fuel. The co-firing ofpesticides with fuel could achieve temperatures andresidence times that are sufficient to destroy thepesticides. As countries gradually develop and becomeindustry-oriented, they should begin to look into suchoptions. In most developed countries, particularly inScandinavia, cement kilns are widely used. It ishowever, unlikely that the disposal of pesticide drumscan be achieved in cement kilns. Unless recyclingfacilities are available, the disposal of contaminatedcontainers will continue to pose serious problems.

New technology. Plasma pyrolysis (electric arc-basedincinerator) is a relatively new option of disposal andis neither versatile nor commendable at this stage.

Mobile incinerator. The use of mobile incinerators isnot cost-effective for the vast majority of situations.Generally, small incinerators are not suitable for thedestruction of bulk quantities of pesticides. In addition,they have to be attended and supervised constantly bytrained staff to avoid accidental emission and pollution.

Long-term storage. Repackaging pesticides andkeeping them in stores until a disposal option can befound is unsatisfactory. Long-term storage is a doubleexercise which is neither cost-effective norenvironmentally sound. Once pesticides aretransferred, new UN-approved containers or others

soon start reacting with the pesticide itself (which isacid), leading to deterioration and leakage. Therefore,this method does not work. However, for pesticidesbased on heavy metals for which methods of disposalare lacking (even in developed countries),immobilizing them and storing them on sites such asdisused ammunition banks is recommended. However,under such conditions, the stored pesticides shouldregularly be monitored to avoid the likely chance oftheir causing serious environmental danger.

Alternatives. Because of the high cost of disposal(US$3 000 to $4 500 per tonne or more) andcomplications involved in repackaging, administrationand transhipment, continued efforts should be madeto investigate alternative technologies andmanagement methods for the disposal of obsoletepesticide stocks in developing countries.

Guidelines. Technical guidelines on the disposal ofbulk quantities of obsolete pesticides in developingcountries, prepared by FAO, UNEP and WHO, give asummary of high-temperature disposal and otheroptions. FAO is also planning to prepare guidelines onthe disposal of small quantities of pesticides and onthe treatment of contaminated soil.

Inventory of obsolete pesticide stocksAs indicated in Table 1, FAO has completed theinventory of obsolete pesticide stocks for a total of 42countries. If action for disposal is not taken within twoyears following the initial date of the survey, a revisedinventory is usually required because the countriesinvolved request further assistance, undeclaredquantities of obsolete pesticides are found, etc.

Financial supportDonors are unlikely to offer further financial supportunless the industry commits itself to participate andcollaborate in disposal operations.

Project portfolio for disposal operationsFAO has prepared a project portfolio, which includes18 countries. Thirteen countries have been on the listsince 1996: Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, the Gambia,Mali, Mauritania, the Niger, Senegal, Eritrea,Ethiopia, the Sudan, Madagascar, Mozambique andthe Seychelles. In 1998, Botswana, the UnitedRepublic of Tanzania, Ghana, Benin and Togo wereadded to the list. The total sum proposed for disposal


in these countries is US$24 million. A total of US$6million of this is to go on a proposal of theGovernment of Denmark for capacity building inwaste management in Mozambique.

In addition to the 18 countries mentioned, SouthAfrica has signed up with a disposal company todispose of a total of 613 tonnes of obsolete pesticideswithout external donor support. FAO provided onlyminimal advice early in April 1998 and will overseethe operation to ensure that appropriate disposalstandards are maintained.

Although donor countries have preferences forsupport, it is clear that, unless the chemical industrymakes a financial contribution, donors may notconsider supporting pesticide disposal operations.Other organizations also concur to this condition. Inorder to move forward and start disposal operationson a definite basis, the chemical industry shouldtherefore consider making a definite and substantialcommitment of financial support as soon as possible.

International opinion supporting disposaloperationsGuidelines for aid agencies, published in 1995 byOECD, Development Assistance Committee (DAC),Pest and Pesticide Management, recognizes theimportance and urgency of the problems associatedwith obsolete pesticides in developing countries. Allaid agencies are therefore called upon to assistdeveloping countries in preventing furtheraccumulation and in conducting disposal operationsof stocks already accumulated.

The European Union, understanding the importanceof the issue of environmental hazards associated withobsolete pesticides in developing countries, has alsoindicated its policy to assist in the disposal of obsoletestocks and to maintain a sound environment in itsagreement with countries in Africa, the Caribbean andthe Pacific.

Although the problem deserves widespreadrecognition, so far only few aid agencies have actuallyprovided funds for coordination or limited disposaloperations. It should be noted that the problem cannotbe solved without large-scale action and collaboration.

As well as in Africa and the Near East, developingcountries elsewhere are not covered in matters ofcoordination, survey and inventory taking. Recently,UNEP offered a sum of US$50 000 in support toenable surveys to be conducted in at least tencountries, five in South America (Brazil, Argentina,

Paraguay, Ecuador and Colombia), two in CentralAmerica (Guatemala and Nicaragua) and three in theCaribbean (Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and SaintLucia). There is no programme for countries in Asiayet. The type of survey to be conducted in the countriesmentioned will be simple and will not involve in-depth studies, otherwise far higher expenditure thanUNEP’s sum of US$50 000 would be necessary foreach individual country.

A concerted effort by the international donorcommunity and the pesticide industry is the way toeliminate a large proportion of obsolete pesticidestocks. In view of this, discussions will have tocontinue with all parties concerned, including thepesticide industry, to work out modalities forcontributions to pesticide disposal.

FAO guidelinesFAO has produced three basic guidelines in the FAOPesticide Disposal Series. These are: No. 2, Preventionof accumulation of obsolete pesticide stocks; No. 3,Pesticide storage and stock control manual; and No.4, Disposal of bulk quantities of obsolete pesticides indeveloping countries. All of these are available in fourlanguages: English, French, Arabic and Spanish. Mosthave been and are being distributed free to membercountries, organizations, research centres, universities,etc. They are also available, or being made available,on the Internet to be read, copied, downloaded ordistributed. Other guidelines are being developed andinclude Treatment of contaminated soil and Disposalof small quantities of obsolete stocks.

A CD-ROM is also being developed containing allthe guidelines on obsolete stocks, brochures and otherrelevant information. It will be distributed as soon asa licensing agreement on support software has beenreached.

STATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FAOPORTFOLIO OF DISPOSAL PROJECTSMr H. van der Wulp reported on the state ofimplementation of projects for Burkina Faso, CapeVerde, Ethiopia, Eritrea, the Gambia, Mali,Mauritania, Mozambique, the Niger, Senegal, theSeychelles and the Sudan (Table 4).

By the end of 1997, six disposal operations wereongoing or under preparation (Table 5).

In addition to the countries mentioned in Table 5,the countries in Table 6 have requested assistance fordisposal operations.


PROGRESS OF INVOLVEMENT AND DISCUSSIONSBETWEEN FAO AND THE AGROCHEMICALINDUSTRYAt the Second Consultation in 1996, donorrepresentatives stated that they would want to seefinancial contributions from the agrochemical industryto future disposal operations. FAO and the GlobalCrop Protection Federation (GCPF) were requested todiscuss the possibilities and modalities for suchinvolvement.

GCPF represents the major agrochemicalcompanies and established an International ProjectTeam on Obsolete Stocks to coordinate suchinvolvement. Since the Second Consultation, therehave been several meetings between FAO and theGCPF team to discuss the financial involvement ofthe industry in pesticide disposal. The initialpositions of individual agrochemical companiesvaried with some companies being more willing tocontribute than others. It appeared difficult todiscuss involvement in general terms on the basisof abstract situations. Therefore, a practical case-by-case approach was chosen, addressing concretesituations in specific countries.

In June 1997, FAO and GCPF in principle agreed onan initial agenda for GCPF involvement in pesticidedisposal. As a starting point, the agenda focused oneight countries, although industry involvement wasnot to be restricted to these countries. Other countriescould be included if a donor expressed interest in aspecific country.

TABLE 4

State of implementation of FAO disposal projects

State of implementation Country

Disposal operation completed Seychelles, Mauritania (partial)

Disposal operation ongoing Mozambique

Disposal operation under preparation:Funding in principle agreed The GambiaDetailed inventory completed Madagascar, SenegalDiscussion on funding progressing

Detailed inventory completedDiscussion on funding initiated Mali

Initial inventory completed Ethiopia, Eritrea

Initial attempt to raise funding for Cape Verde, Mauritania,detailed inventory and disposal Burkina Faso, the Nigeroperation failed1

No progress2 The Sudan

1 In 1996, FAO assisted CILSS in preparing a project proposal for a disposalprogramme for CILSS. The EU had indicated interest in funding such a proposalbut, as a result of various administrative problems faced by CILSS and DG VIII ofthe Commission of the EU, the proposal has not yet entered the appraisalprocedure.2 Lack of donor financial support did not allow rigorous follow-up in the Sudan.

TABLE 5

FAO disposal operations under preparation(end 1997)

Country Quantity Progress in preparations(tonnes)

Gambia 20 Full inventory and preparatory visitcompleted by FAO and GCPF. Funding fordisposal operation in principle agreed byCDC and GCPF.

Madagascar 50 (estimate) Full inventory under execution withassistance of GTZ and SDC. GCPF isinvestigating the possibility for industryfunding of a disposal operation.

Mali 150 (estimate) Partial inventory completed by GTZ andBellona with funding from StrommeFoundation. Shell pledged to contribute todisposal costs.

Mozambique 250 Funding for incineration in adapted localcement kiln approved by DANIDA. Projectimplementation initiated.

Senegal 180 + 110 Full inventory completed by FAO. Funding ofdisposal operation for 180 tonnes underdiscussion with the government, EU andGCPF. Reformulation of 110 tonnes ofcarbaryl in principle agreed by USAID andRhône Poulenc.

Tanzania 800 (estimate) Full inventory under execution withassistance of DGIS. DGIS and DANIDAexpressed interest in jointly funding adisposal operation if industry also makes acontribution. GCPF confirmed willingness ofindustry to do so.

The initially selected countries were: Botswana,Madagascar and Malawi in southern Africa; theGambia, Senegal and Mauritania in western Africa;and Ethiopia and Eritrea in the Horn of Africa.

The countries were selected on the followingcriteria:

• activities/discussion/request already initiated;• urgency factor;• relatively large proportion of products originatingfrom GCPF member companies;

• appropriate balance between small and largeprojects.

The agreed general procedure for industryinvolvement in disposal operations is that, upon therequest of FAO or an aid agency, GCPF will solicitcontributions from involved member companiestowards the disposal of products manufactured bythose companies. The level of contribution will bedetermined on a case-by-case basis and may vary fromcompany to company. Although the industry does notwant to commit itself, the trend emerging from specificcases discussed so far is that GCPF member companieswould make a baseline contribution of US$1 000 pertonne of product manufactured by the companyconcerned, provided that the product is definitelyobsolete. Individual companies may contribute more.


Companies would cover the full disposal costs forobsolete products owned by the company concerned.Furthermore, FAO would expect companies to takefull responsibility for any stocks that were delivered inviolation of national legislation.

In addition, as a special case, the industry wasrequested to fund disposal operations fully for fourcountries where almost all obsolete products originatefrom GCPF member companies. Adoption of thesedisposal projects would be regarded as catching upwith the many earlier projects that were fully fundedby donors. The countries proposed for this specialprocedure were Botswana, the Gambia, Madagascarand Malawi.

It was also agreed with GCPF that disposal

TABLE 6

Countries requesting assistance for disposaloperations

Country Quantity Progress in preparations(tonnes)

Botswana 211 Initial inventory completed

Eritrea 231 Initial inventory completed

Ethiopia 1 152 Detailed inventory including samplingprogramme completed by the government

operations should be done in a coordinated mannerand that GCPF should prevent individual companiesfrom rushing in to “remove” their own products aheadof planned disposal operations.

The industry also offered technical advice on thepossibilities of reusing or reformulating unwantedproducts.

Summary of progress made on individual projectsGCPF companies have agreed to fund a disposaloperation for the Gambia (in combination with aCommonwealth Development Corporation-[CDC]funded activity to remove obsolete pesticides from aformer CDC demonstration farm) and are discussingtheir contribution to Madagascar. In Malawi, themajority of obsolete stocks have been removed,reformulated or finished. The disposal operation forBotswana was shelved because it could not beconfirmed that the majority of obsolete products inBotswana actually originated from GCPF membercompanies. In addition, the industry pledged financialcontributions to disposal operations for Senegal andMali and indicated that similar contributions wouldbe made to operations for Tanzania, Ethiopia andEritrea.


Chapter 2

Update on the activities ofother organizations

THE GLOBAL CROP PROTECTION FEDERATION(GCPF)Mr P. Natkanski reported that it had been confirmedby the coordinator of the GCPF International ProjectTeam on Obsolete Stocks that, following the SecondConsultation, GCPF carried out a survey among itsmember companies to assess the level of commitment,both financial and technical, that would be offered inrelation to this project. Replies from the surveyresulted in the following GCPF position:

• GCPF is committed to providing help andassistance with obsolete stocks identified in theFAO inventory.

• Assistance includes the provision of technical andfinancial resources for those stocks manufacturedby GCPF member companies.

• The levels of help and assistance are to be decidedon a case-by-case basis and will be an individualcompany decision.

• The GCPF project team on obsolete stocks will actin a facilitating role between industry and otherinterested parties.

GCPF company members’ own waste would clearlybe their own responsibility.

It was highlighted that GCPF is involved in thefollowing specific projects.

MadagascarThe industry, the German Agency for TechnicalCooperation (GTZ), the Swiss DevelopmentCorporation (SDC) and the local authorities fromMadagascar are the major stakeholders in thisoperation. The GTZ inventory has indicated 80 tonnesfor disposal, 30 tonnes of which will be removed backto Japan by the original manufacturers.

The total disposal costs have been estimated atUS$200 000, of which $50 000 have so far beencommitted by GCPF member companies.

MalawiApproximately 120 tonnes of obsolete stocks have

been identified, of which only 8 tonnes remain fordisposal. The majority of the stocks have been used,repackaged or reformulated. However, there has beensome degree of confusion between GCPF membercompanies, FAO and the Malawi Government as tothe exact fate of some of the identified stocks (seebelow).

The GambiaThis project is funded by GCPF member companiesand supplements an operation carried out by theCommonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) toremove old products from one of their demonstrationfarms. All the necessary funds have now been raisedand the contract for the removal and disposal iscurrently being drawn up. It was anticipated that workwould begin in September 1998.

SenegalThis project is being dealt with in two stages; thereformulation of carbaryl (Rhône-Poulenc) and thedisposal of the remaining obsolete stocks. Thereformulation is being funded jointly by Rhône-Poulenc and the United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID), although work is currentlysuspended until an environmental impact study hasbeen carried out. For the remaining stocks awaitingdisposal, GCPF member companies have committedthe cost of incineration and FAO is seeking the balanceof funds from the donor community.

Other GCPF operationsThe GCPF Representative also confirmed that thecompanies consulted so far had, in principle, agreed tooffer technical and financial assistance to disposaloperations for Eritrea, Ethiopia and the UnitedRepublic of Tanzania. The financial assistance wouldbe similar to the assistance pledged for Senegal andMali (about US$1 000 per tonne, which roughly coversthe average incineration costs). Such a contributionwould be available for products that definitely require

Update on the activities of other organizations18

disposal and originate from the GCPF companiesconcerned.

FAO appreciated the efforts of the GCPF coordinatorto involve individual companies in making financialcontributions to pesticide disposal. However, FAOexpressed grave concern about the way obsolete stocksin Malawi had been removed from the list of obsoletepesticides. It was agreed that FAO, GCPF and theGovernment of Malawi would meet in Malawi toreview the situation at the end of March. FAO insistedthat there should be full transparency regarding futureactivities involving obsolete stocks listed in the FAOinventory. GCPF emphasized that the confusionillustrates the need for effective and continuouscommunication between all interested partiesthroughout the life of a project.

THE GERMAN AGENCY FOR TECHNICALCOOPERATION (GTZ) PESTICIDE DISPOSALPROJECTThe GTZ Pesticide Disposal Project, financed by theGerman Ministry of Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (BMZ), has been in existence since 1991.Members of the project are W. Schimpf, D. Guntherand G. Vaagt, who reported to the Consultation.

Every disposal operation is a step-by-step processlinked to the solution envisioned, the chemicalsconcerned and the situation of the country. It is alwaysimportant to transfer expertise on disposal techniquesand to consider carefully the costs associated witheach operation. The incineration of DNOC in a cementkiln in Tanzania was reported at the Second FAOConsultation in 1996. Since then, two major operationshave taken place, in Zambia and Mauritania. GTZbelieves that it is important to link disposal operationswith preventive measures to avoid the accumulation ofobsolete pesticides in the future. It is important topromote and facilitate cooperation in the field ofpesticide disposal and to involve all stakeholders.Shared responsibility among the owners of thepesticides, the supplier, the producer and others shouldbe accepted and put into practice. The two recentprojects in Zambia and Mauritania are good examplesin this respect.

Training is always needed, either for the disposaloperations or for preventive measures (e.g. in storemanagement) and is the essential element of technicalcooperation between developing and industrializedcountries. Disposal operations have to followinternational standards.

In GTZ’s experience, the following are key elementsand issues to be considered in a disposal operation:

• Pesticide disposal is an element of pesticidemanagement, which includes the avoidance offuture obsolete stocks.

• Preventive measures must become an integral partof disposal operations. It is GTZ’s experience thatthis is possible.

• For obsolete stocks, there needs to be sharedresponsibility among all stakeholders, includingthe current owner, the supplier and the producer.This principle has been applied effectively andsuccessfully in GTZ’s disposal operations.

• Transparency in the preparation and the execution ofdisposal operations is important for the application ofshared responsibility and for communication withthe public. This creates a network of interestedparties with a common starting point.

ZambiaThe following steps demonstrate the procedures andthe years indicate the duration of a disposal operation:

• identify wastes and ownership (1993/94),including requests for financial assistance tovarious agencies and countries, including FAO,Germany, Finland, and the EU;

• conduct a nationwide inventory (1994);• stabilize sites and provide safeguards for obsoletestocks (1995);

• develop memoranda of understanding between theEnvironmental Council of Zambia (ECZ), FAOand GTZ (1995);

• develop the project, clarify funding, select thecontractor and conduct preparatory measures (1996);

• collect, repackage, remove, transport and incineratewastes (1997);

• complete incineration (1998).The following were key issues for Zambia:• The “Clean Country” approach was realized. Afterthe Zanzibar operation, this was the first time thata large country was cleaned.

• There was the successful application of the BaselConvention; when Tanzania did not respond to theZambian request, the Basel Secretariat intervenedand approved the transboundary transport.

• There was joint financial support from the FAOTechnical Cooperation Programme (TCP) and thegovernments of the Netherlands and Germany.

• There was successful cooperation between twoimplementing agencies (FAO and GTZ).


• There was the initiation of preventive measures bythe Emergency Co-ordination Unit (ECU),strengthening chemical management in the country.

MauritaniaThe following steps were followed in the dieldrindisposal operation in Mauritania:

• conducting of a nationwide survey of the obsoletedieldrin stocks in the stores of the Plant ProtectionService of Mauritania (1993);

• repackaging and safeguarding of the dieldrinstocks (1994);

• development of a formal request from Mauritaniato the German Government regarding the disposalof the obsolete dieldrin (1995). (This requestcovered only 200 tonnes of dieldrin, not all of theobsolete pesticides in the country.);

• development of the German project proposalincluding conditions for requesting the country tobecome a signatory to the Basel Convention(1995);

• signature of the project agreement and selection ofthe disposal contractor (1996);

• signature of the Basel Convention (1996);• Mauritania’s formal request to the GermanGovernment for assistance with improving thenational pesticide management of the MauritaniaPlant Protection Service;

• signature of an agreement with the original producerof the dieldrin, Shell Company (1996/97);

• removal, transport and incineration of 186 tonnesof dieldrin and approximately 80 tonnes of solidmaterial (1997);

• complete incineration (1997).The following were key issues for Mauritania:• Preventive measures were linked with disposaloperations.

• The original producer showed a responsibleattitude and covered more than the incinerationcosts of wastes.

• There was transparent management of the financialcontribution of the Shell Company, with fundsused to support preventive measures in Mauritania.

DANISH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTAGENCY (DANIDA)Mr H. Nøhr said that DANIDA is operating inMozambique with the Ministry of Agriculture andFisheries. The budget amounts to approximatelyUS$6 million and involves a large component of

capacity building for future management of localhazardous waste.

The project will collect more than 540 tonnes ofobsolete pesticides that are inadequately stored atapproximately 60 sites all over Mozambique andtransfer them to a central site in Maputo. Nearlyhalf of these pesticides are hazardous to use orcollect, i.e. they are illegal to use, degraded or inleaking packaging, and will be processed andincinerated safely in a cement kiln. The obsoletepesticides with a market value will be sold by tenderor auction. The winning company or companieswill export the pesticides or repackage and labelthem according to the Mozambican pesticidesregulation before they are remarketed inMozambique. According to the environmentalassessment (EA) of the winning technical proposal,the implementation of the project will eliminate thehuman health r isks caused directly by theinadequate storage of obsolete pesticides. Theimplementation plan covers five tasks: i) collectionof obsolete pesticides in good packaging; ii)remarketing of saleable pesticides; iii) extraction ofhazardous, obsolete pesticides; iv) elimination ofhazardous pesticides and pesticide packaging; andv) independent supervision and quality assuranceof the whole operation. The first four tasks will beconducted under the management of a Danishturnkey consultant. Task ii) involves a tender, andthe tender winning company or companies willremarket the pesticides in accordance with theMozambican and Danish pesticide regulations, orexport them to another country in the region. Taskiv) involves a national partnership for hazardouswaste management formed during mobilization withthe aim of promoting project sustainability, e.g. theownership of the waste station at the Matola site istransferred to the partnership during mobilization.Task v) will be conducted by a project supervisionenvironmental audit team. A Mozambican task forcewill assist the entire operation. Involvement of localpartners in project monitoring and quality assurancewill enhance the local capacity to deal withenvironmental issues, thus supporting theestablishment of a safe system for the future storageof pesticides, and for hazardous waste managementin general. The project is an environmentalrehabilitation activity. It relates to the DANIDAsupport to the Pesticide Section at the Departmentof Plant Health.


NORWEGIAN AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONALDEVELOPMENT (NORAD)Mr S. Utne reported that, during the last year, NORADhas had close consultations with FAO, which are nowleading to a US$10 million operation for integratedpest management (IPM) run by FAO in Asia. NORADhas also recently decided to support the FAO GlobalIPM facility. FAO approached NORAD to join in thedisposal programme for obsolete pesticides in Africa.However, collection of information will be necessaryon the basis of which future decisions on possiblecooperation on the disposal of obsolete pesticides willbe made.

So far, NORAD has been involved in monitoringpesticide residues in certain areas of Kenya andMadagascar. The findings of this analytical work wereof great interest.

NORAD has been very reluctant to finance theimport of pesticides as commodity assistance. Verysmall quantities of pesticide have been given on veryfew occasions; basically assistance was given to twolocust operations many years ago and a few deliveriesof red copper fungicides have been made to Kenya andNicaragua.

NORAD is very careful to avoid the harmful supplyof pesticides and, therefore, there is no critical pressureto instigate clearing operations. However, if the needsarise, NORAD might investigate the possibilities forNordic cooperation.

There has been some contact between FAO and aNorwegian research institute working on hazardouswaste incineration in cement kilns in Norway, andFAO has requested a specialist from SINTEF to sharehis experience.

Technical information about the possibility of usingcement kilns for incineration of hazardous waste isattached as Annex IV.

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONALDEVELOPMENT (USAID)UkraineMr R.C. Hedlund reported that USAID encourages thedisposal of obsolete pesticide stocks in Ukrainethrough an Environmental Policy and TechnologyProject.

Stockpiling of (obsolete) pesticides in Ukrainestarted during the 1960s and, in the early 1970s,measures were taken to consolidate the storage of oldpesticides at specifically designated facilities.According to current official statistics, there are

10 700 tonnes of stockpiled pesticides in Ukraine,stored in 109 state-owned facilities and onapproximately 4 000 collective farms, stock companiesand in rural communities. A recent study by theMinistry of Environmental Protection and NuclearSafety (MEPNS) estimates that the total amount ofstockpiled obsolete pesticides in Ukraine isapproximately 22 000 tonnes. The amount ofstockpiled pesticides in each oblast (administrativeregion) ranges from 30 to 1 000 tonnes and, at anygiven site, from 0.1 to 500 tonnes.

During the stockpiling of obsolete pesticides, manywere consolidated into containers as mixtures.Documentation on which pesticides were combinedand in which containers is vague. In addition, there isreason to believe that, in some cases, chemicalreactions have occurred over time, resulting in newby-products of unknown quantity, character andhazard.

At present, the determination of organizational andtechnological conditions concerning the disposal ofstored obsolete and/or prohibited pesticides isconstrained by the absence of objective data regardingtheir potential threat to the environment and publichealth. Another major constraint is the lack of thenecessary information to make decisions onprioritizing the stockpiled facilities for remediationefforts and selecting the most cost-effective, efficientand safe means of disposal.

From 11 to 13 June 1997, USAID sponsored aworkshop on stockpiled obsolete pesticides. A total of45 people participated. One of the key accomplishmentsof the workshop was the revision and approval of adraft pilot inventory programme action plan to assistin identifying funding through the international donorcommunity and/or other agencies for implementationof the recommendation.

The Danish Environmental Protection Agency hasexpressed interest in supporting the implementationof such a project in Ukraine and is now in the processof project preparation.

In 1997, besides these initiatives, the UkrainianGovernment undertook responsibility for the disposalof obsolete pesticide stored at a facility in the villageof Vilshanytsia in Kyiv oblast. The budget (planned)was the equivalent of about US$300 000. This actionis still under way.

In February 1998, the Cabinet of Ministers held ameeting devoted to the problem of toxic wastehandling and disposal. The issue of stockpiled obsolete


pesticides was on the agenda. The report of thismeeting is not yet available.

Central AmericaMs J. King Jensen reported that, since 1991, USAIDand the United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (USEPA) have provided technical assistanceon pesticide regulatory issues to Central America. Theoriginal project was based on “circle of poison”concerns of the United States public and the desire ofthe Central American countries to export agriculturalcommodities to the United States. The scope of theproject was expanded to include pesticide disposalactivities. Although some dates are tentative, thefollowing information summarizes current plans:

• Pilot of training course (May 1997). USEPA, incoordination with two regional organizations,presented the course “Pesticide Disposal inDeveloping Countries” for the first time inHonduras in May 1997. This provided a realistictest of the course under developing-countryconditions. The course material is based on thethree FAO technical guidelines on bulk disposal,prevention and storage. Forty-two technicalspecialists from the private sector and the health,environmental and agricultural ministries of sevenCentral American countries participated in thispilot workshop. In addition to presenting anoverview of disposal options, the course started theprocess of developing regional expertise and atechnical network for future disposal work.

• Training course (September 1998). The course wasto be offered a second time in El Salvador inSeptember 1998. Countries will be asked to comewith their inventories of obsolete stocks. Threecountries have preliminary inventories. Whereneeded, participants from the May course willassist with the completion of the inventories. Threeexperts from the May course will be co-facilitatorswith USEPA.

• Portfolio of disposal project proposals in CentralAmerica (December 1998). Hosted by USEPA’sregional counterparts, a meeting is planned forDecember 1998, in a Central American country, todevelop a regional portfolio of proposals forpesticide disposal operations. These proposals willprovide background information, including anestimate of costs, to enable donor agencies, banksand private industry to decide on the degree of theircommon interest and financial support for actions

to dispose of obsolete pesticides in CentralAmerica.

• Donor and private-sector meeting on fundingdisposal projects (March 1999). With USEPAassistance, regional counterparts will sponsor ameeting with representatives from donor agencies,development banks and private industry to reviewthe portfolio of disposal proposals and identifyfinancial assistance that would be available forimplementing some of the projects. Workingregionally or individually, countries will then beable to implement their national disposal plans.

Mr J.P.E. Des Rosiers of USAID indicated that thecurrent possibilities for USAID funding of pesticidedisposal operations in Africa are limited. However, thismay change as the issue attracts increasing attention.

SWISS DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION (SDC)Mr I. Marincek reported that interest had beenexpressed in the issue of obsolete pesticide disposal,which is fairly new to SDC. The meeting was a usefulorientation on this subject. The importance of obsoletestocks was recognized and a constructive approachfrom SDC regarding future assistance can be expected.The need for networking and the exchange ofinformation was stressed and the importance of acoordinating role for FAO was confirmed.

SDC recently contributed to the funding of aninventory of obsolete pesticides in Madagascar, whichis being implemented by GTZ. The inventoryidentified 157 tonnes of unwanted pesticides, of which43 tonnes need to be incinerated, 22 tonnes can bereworked/reused and 92 tonnes still need to beevaluated. Final figures, a disposal plan and a roughbudget were expected by April 1998 in Crop Protectionof Novartis. A financial commitment of stakeholdersis expected by June 1998.

(Note. In June 1997, GCPF in principle agreed toinvestigate the possibility of full industry funding if thevast majority of obsolete products turn out to originatefrom GCPF member companies. If there are manyother products, or if full industry funding would notbe feasible for other reasons, then SDC would berequested to provide supplementary funding.)

SWEDISH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTCOOPERATION AGENCY (Sida)Mr A. Hook reported that, apart from some supportwithin the framework of its bilateral support toTanzania and its National Environment Managing


Council (NEMC), Sida, so far, has not been involvedin pesticide disposal activities.

Sida has however found the FAO project of interestand will therefore consider supporting the projectduring 1998/99 pending the forthcoming projectproposal.

Although Sida did not make any long-termcommitments, it will stress the importance ofpreventive measures, such as national capacitybuilding as an integrated part of disposal activities, toavoid future problems with obsolete and unwantedpesticide accumulation.

JAPANThe representative of the Government of Japanexpressed his interest in the issue of obsoletepesticides, but indicated that the Government of Japanwas at the stage of collecting information and thattherefore he was not in a position to make an officialstatement.

BELGIUMMr M.Trybou and Mr P. de Bruycker stated that theBelgian delegates were very pleased to attend thismeeting. It is however clear that they attended asobservers; the main goal of their participation was toachieve a better understanding of the problem itselfand of its magnitude. On the basis of the informationgained, they will start discussions with organizationsconcerned back in Belgium about the role thatBelgium can play in solving the problem of obsoletepesticide stocks.

The representatives were impressed by themagnitude of the problem, especially in the Africancountries, and were convinced of the need for technicaland/or financial aid. They will therefore startdiscussions with senior officials on how a potentialparticipation can fit into the policies and priorities ofthe federal and regional governments. FAO will beinformed about the way things should proceed.

The importance of prevention measures wasunderlined. Prevention leads to a long-term solution.The disposal of the present obsolete pesticides isnecessary, but it should be seen as a short-termsolution. Prevention is an ongoing process.

ITALYMr L. Fontana-Giusti, representing the Government ofItaly, expressed his interest in the issue of obsoletepesticides and indicated the willingness of his

government to take part in further discussions onspecific disposal projects.

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME(UNEP)Mr J. Willis reported that UNEP is grateful to FAO forits initiatives in the clean-up of obsolete pesticides inAfrica and the Near East. UNEP and FAO have beenworking together on issues of common interest such asthe guidelines on pesticide disposal. UNEP would liketo continue to be a partner in efforts to address theproblem of obsolete pesticides under the leadership ofFAO. Because of the global nature of the problem,UNEP encourages FAO to work in other parts of theworld as well. To facilitate this, UNEP has providedUS$50 000 to FAO to initiate inventory work in LatinAmerica. In addition to obsolete pesticides, theIntergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety hasrequested that UNEP considers the problem of thedisposal of industrial chemicals. As UNEP prepares tolead negotiations for a global control instrument forpersistent organic pollutants (POPs), to be concludedby the year 2000, it is important to recognize thatobsolete pesticides form a link to POPs in theenvironment and that they need to be disposed of.UNEP encourages FAO to continue in its catalytic rolein this very important area.

INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURALDEVELOPMENT (IFAD)Ms M. de Wit reported that IFAD’s EnvironmentalPrinciples and Criteria (GC 13/L.1990) states that“The Fund shall reduce the use of chemical pesticidesto the fullest extent practicable and shall promote theuse of alternative or supplementary methods of pestcontrol, such as the use of biological control andintegrated pest management (IPM) in its projects.Whenever it is necessary to use chemicals in itsinvestment projects, the Fund shall ensure the properapplication, storage and disposal of agriculturalchemicals.”

IFAD is committed to ensuring environmental duediligence in the context of its operations, and adoptedAdministrative Procedures for EnvironmentalAssessment in the Project Cycle (PB 94/03) inSeptember 1994. Since adoption of PB 94/03, allIFAD-initiated projects are subject to environmentalscreening and scoping and, where necessary, proactiveenvironmental assessment. To assist environmentalscreening and scoping and to facilitate prevention of


pesticide-related environmental problems PB 94/03includes three Operational Statements (OS) onPesticides. OS 9 Pesticides outlines the criteria forenvironmental screening and scoping of IFAD projectspromoting pesticide application and describes thepotential environmental impacts involving pesticides.OS 11 Pesticide Storage and Stock Managementprovides checklists to assist project designers inverifying the need for pesticides and the properselection of pesticides. It also outlines the requirementsfor pesticide ordering and improved stock managementand storage. OS 12 Selecting Pesticides for Use inIFAD Projects outlines restrictions and guidance onthe following lists: pesticides in the WHO classes 1A“extremely hazardous” and 1B “highly hazardous”;pesticides banned by the World Bank; pesticidesknown to cause adverse health impacts; and pesticidesbanned or restricted in some Asian countries.

A President’s Bulletin on Sustainable PestManagement is in the advanced stage of preparation.

PESTICIDES TRUSTMr M. Davis reported that the Pesticides Trust is anon-governmental organization (NGO) working toeliminate the hazards from pesticides and promotingsustainable development. Its primary roles are in thegathering and dissemination of information, research,policy development and the promotion of strategiesthat reduce reliance on pesticides. It is independent ofgovernment, funders, members or other external bodiesand is networked globally, primarily via the PesticidesAction Network.

The Pesticides Trust has been involved in the FAO-led initiative for the disposal of obsolete and unwantedpesticides in Africa and the Near East since itsinception in 1994. It commends FAO for the crucialrole it is fulfilling in leading the development ofsolutions to the vast stocks of obsolete and unwantedpesticides, and welcomes the opportunity to contributeto this process. However, the Pesticides Trustrepresentative came to this Third Consultation with anumber of concerns, which he believed the assemblyshould be aware of and should consider.

FundingDisposal operations are expensive and require inputfrom external sources. Some donor agencies have beenmore forthcoming than others in supporting this work.The Pesticides Trust called upon all agencies thatsupport development in regions where obsolete

pesticides exist to give priority to funding solutions tothis worsening problem.

It is perhaps a sad irony that developed countrieswill become more willing to participate in disposalefforts as the issue of persistent organic pollutants(POPs) gains prominence.

The issue of bilateralism must also be taken intoaccount. Countries receiving development aid mustthemselves consider prioritizing the treatment ofobsolete pesticide stocks in funding programmes.

Industry’s willingness to contribute to the provisionof solutions is welcomed. However, the PesticidesTrust holds that the baseline contribution, set atUS$1 000 per tonne for pesticides identified asbelonging to GCPF member companies, is too low. Itrepresents only 20 to 30 percent of the overall cost ofpesticide disposal; the remaining 70 to 80 percentgenerally being contributed by national donor agenciesusing taxpayers’ money.

It is the fund-raising process that is delayingsolutions to obsolete pesticides problems. Since thelast Consultation, two years ago, 4 percent of estimatedstocks in Africa and the Near East have been dealtwith. At this rate it will take 50 years to clear Africaand that is far too long.

OperationsAll disposal and treatment efforts must be coordinatedthrough FAO in order to ensure that appropriatesolutions are implemented and that solutions areholistic and not partial. Agencies should not supportthe implementation of low-cost options that useanything but the highest levels of technology and themost stringent standards of protection for health andthe environment. Disposal operations must bemonitored for quality control, adherence to nationaland international regulations, codes of practice andguidelines. There must be no “back-door” disposalefforts by bodies seeking quick solutions to specificproblems. There must be full coordination andtransparency in all efforts to solve obsolete pesticideproblems including disposal, reuse or reformulation.

In short, standards of work in Africa and otherdeveloping regions should not be lower than those inthe developed nations.

PreventionCountries benefiting from external assistance to solveproblems of obsolete pesticides should ensure thatmeasures to prevent the future accumulation of such


stocks are put in place. Donors should also ensure thatagreements directed at the provision of solutionsinclude a requirement for prevention measures to be inplace. Disposal should not be seen as an ongoing orrepeatable operation. Improvement of chemicalmanagement capacity and measures for the preventionof accumulation of pesticide stocks should be seen aspriorities for all countries and in particular those thatcurrently hold obsolete and unwanted pesticide stocks.

The supply of pesticides now and in the future mustalso include measures to prevent stock accumulation.The pesticide industry must provide stewardship fortheir products to the point of use and beyond. Donorsthat fund pesticide supplies must ensure thatprevention measures are in place. Within the realms ofits work on obsolete pesticides, FAO has developedguidelines on the prevention of accumulation of stocksand these should be followed in pesticide procurementand supply.

The obsolete pesticide problem is not only ahistorical one; inappropriate practices and poormanagement are still contributing to the problem and

the Pesticides Trust Representative pressed that theConsultation Meeting should be aware of an exampleof such poor practice, in the hope that such practiceswill cease and solutions for existing obsolete pesticidestocks will be implemented in the near future.

In 1995, the European Union supplied 230 tonnes ofthe fungicide mancozeb to Rwanda. The product wasformulated using poor-quality active ingredient. Onsupply it was stored improperly and caught fire. Forover two years the damaged and contaminatedpesticides in an unstable state remained unprotectedand untreated. In 1997, an expert assessment of theproblem proposed a solution. Experienced hazardouswaste handling contractors were approached and adetailed proposal was prepared. However, before itcould be implemented a contract for disposal wasgiven to an unknown local engineering contractor withno record and, as far as was known, no knowledge ofthe handling of hazardous waste. A major internationaldonor has therefore been responsible for theinappropriate supply of pesticides and for mishandlingin the treatment of obsolete pesticides.


Chapter 3

Country reports

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIAMr F.M.T. Mpendazoe registered his appreciation tothe chairperson for the opportunity of presenting theTanzanian situation regarding obsolete and unwantedpesticides and chemical wastes. He then went on tothank Sida, GTZ and the Government of theNetherlands for the financial and technical supportthey have given to the Government of Tanzania inaddressing the problem of pesticide wastes.

Obsolete and unwanted pesticides are a greatproblem in Tanzania. In 1990, Sida supported apreliminary study on pesticide wastes in the coffee andcotton growing areas of some regions in Tanzania.This study, which was carried out by governmentofficials, found huge quantities of pesticide wastes onmost farms.

The findings of the study indicated the need for acomprehensive study (inventory) to gather more dataand information on obsolete pesticides and chemicalwastes. A full-scale project was therefore launched in1997 when the Government of Tanzania receivedfinancial support from the Government of theNetherlands. Tanzania has since discovered more than800 tonnes of obsolete pesticides and 40 tonnes ofveterinary wastes comprising vaccines and drugs.

These volumes of chemical wastes have accumulatedover 30 years. Over 1 000 sites have been inspectedincluding regional and district stores, cooperativeunions and large estate farms. Over 250 sites hadpesticide wastes and, at most of these sites, thesituation was found to be serious, with manycontainers leaking and bags torn and in a deplorablestate. Water sources are under threat of contaminationand human health is obviously at risk.

The accumulation of obsolete pesticides was causedmainly by the government subsidy given to farmersand aid donations. Some obsolete pesticides have beenbanned but are still kept in stores (e.g. DDT) and thebanning of products has also contributed to thestockpile of obsolete pesticides. For example, DDThas been banned for agricultural use for some yearsand its use for malaria control was stopped in 1998.Unfortunately, about 200 tonnes of DDT remain and it

is hoped that this will be disposed of soon. In addition,in the past pesticide donations have often been inexcess of requirements. The government, donors andagrochemical companies have made mistakes. Muchhas been learned from these mistakes and futuredonations will almost certainly be properly managed.There will be better assessment of actual requirementsand dialogue between recipients and suppliers.

The clean-up campaign cannot be consideredcomplete unless efforts are made to ensure that neitherpesticides nor chemicals are left to accumulate in thefuture. In light of this understanding, the Governmentof Tanzania is making efforts to prevent the re-occurrence of the problem after the ongoing clean-upproject. These efforts include:

• A review of the existing legislation and institutionsthat address management of pesticides has beenundertaken with the aim of ensuring that there issufficient infrastructure to register pesticides and,therefore, safe use. The legislation will alsoregulate the storage and management of pesticides.

• The Government has abandoned the programmeon subsidy to farmers, and distribution is now leftto the private sector. The Government is nowconcentrating on regulation and control ofdistribution.

• The National Environmental Management Council(NEMC), which is the government bodyresponsible for environmental issues in Tanzania,in collaboration with other institutions, isenhancing the awareness of users on chemicals andpesticides. It is against this background thatNEMC, in May 1996, organized a nationalworkshop on environmentally sound managementof chemicals, including pesticides, the mainobjective of which was to solicit concrete proposalson how to abate the threats posed by chemicals. Inaddition, with the assistance of Sida and incollaboration with the Government ChemistLaboratory, NEMC prepared the National Profileon Chemical Management, an authoritativedocument that will serve as a basis for future effortsto strengthen the national system for the

Country reports26

management of chemicals through the involvementof all concerned bodies.

In Tanzania, awareness has grown and the chemicalpollution problem is a national issue. However, thelegal and institutional framework for the managementof pesticides is not well developed. Nevertheless,Tanzania has ratified both the Basel and BamakoConventions on the Transboundary Movement ofHazardous Wastes and their Disposal.

The various types of waste stock identified in theongoing clean-up project include variousorganochlorine pesticides which are known to bepersistent organic pollutants (POPs), notably DDT,dieldrin and aldrin.

With financial and technical assistance from theGovernment of the Netherlands, NEMC is currentlypreparing a disposal plan for the identified wastes. Asthe result of a lack of disposal facilities in the country,some portion of the wastes will be transported fortreatment and disposal abroad. However, if any of theproducts can be incinerated locally, then that would begiven priority in order to cut down disposal costs. Forinstance, in 1996, Tanzania successfully burned65 000 litres of DNOC with technical assistance fromGTZ. DNOC was introduced to Tanzania in 1951 forthe purpose of controlling red locust in the country.

In an effort to alleviate disposal problems, NEMChas prepared terms of reference for a feasibility studyto investigate the possibility of using the country’sexisting cement kiln for incinerating some of thechemical wastes. Two Scandinavian cement kilnexperts will soon be invited to participate in thisfeasibility study.

Tanzania requires assistance with its pesticidedisposal activities. The total cost for the destruction ofthe wastes identified during the ongoing inventory isestimated at US$2.5 to 3 million. Appreciation wasexpressed for the assistance provided by FAO inhelping with the identification of potential donors andin soliciting a financial contribution from theagrochemical industries. On behalf of the Governmentof Tanzania, a request for assistance was formalized.There have been initial negotiations with theGovernment of the Netherlands and DANIDA whoexpressed interest in jointly funding the operation,provided that contributions from chemical companieswere forthcoming, and it is to be hoped that theirinitial interest will be confirmed by their commitments.

Mr J. Betlem then presented the following relevantdetails of the inventory coordinated by NEMC.

In recognition of the potential dangers of hazardouschemicals to human health and the environment, in1997, NEMC in collaboration with variousgovernment institutions started a nationwideprogramme to assess the dangers of stored wastepesticides and veterinary waste in mainland Tanzania.

The programme was funded and technically assistedthrough the Government of the Netherlands with abudget of approximately US$300 000 for a one-yearperiod. It enables NEMC to:

• visit all locations and record the situation at eachlocation, including storage conditions, directenvironmental and health risks and proposals forimmediate short-term action to eliminate or reducethese risks;

• establish sources, types, quantities, locations andowners of all pesticide wastes and veterinary wastesin the country;

• obtain information on the handling of chemicalwaste, including final disposal methods (both inand outside Tanzania);

• evaluate the feasibility of using a cement kiln forincineration of waste in Tanzania.

The inventory started with a ten-day training courseon the handling of chemical wastes (includingstrategies on how to find stocks, strategies on how toapproach store owners, intensive training on how tocarry out a nationwide inventory, sample taking, safetyaspects and first aid). The training was attended bysenior government staff from the following sevenGovernment of Tanzania institutions:

• the National Environment Management Council(NEMC);

• the Department of the Environment (DOE);• the Government Chemist Laboratory;• the Ministry of Agriculture;• the Ministry of Industries and Trade;• the Ministry of Labour and Youth Development(Factories Inspectorate);

• the Tropical Pesticide Research Institute (TPRI).At the end of the training, 12 senior government staff

were nominated to form the core team for the inventory.The field inventory started in March 1997 and wasexpected to continue until the end of April 1998. Bythen, the whole of mainland Tanzania will have beencovered (the Zanzibar islands were subject to achemical waste disposal operation during the years1995 and 1996; 300 tonnes of obsolete pesticides andother waste were collected, repackaged and shipped tothe United Kingdom for final destruction).


Several field teams participated in the inventory,carrying laptop computers with reference materials,extensive field equipment and personal protection kits.

By February 1998, over 1 200 sites had beeninspected and obsolete products had been found inover 250 of these sites. More than 1 000 products wererecorded as obsolete pesticide or veterinary waste,mounting up to a total of over 800 tonnes. In mostcases, it was very obvious that the product wasobsolete. Samples were taken if there was any doubt.Some stocks had been in the country for over 30 years.Product and site information, including photographs,were assembled on a CD-ROM which was expected tobe available by June 1998.

NEMC is currently preparing a plan for therepackaging and collection of waste. It is envisagedthat the government itself will, in principle, carry outpart of the collection. External technical assistancewill be required for the packaging of products fromsites with large numbers of different products in smallquantities, the collection of products with multiplehazards (dust/vapour); and the clean-up of heavilycontaminated sites.

ETHIOPIAMr Y. Tetemke welcomed the opportunity to participatein the FAO Third Consultation on the Prevention andDisposal of Obsolete and Unwanted Pesticide Stocksin Africa and the Near East. On behalf of the EthiopianGovernment, the people and the Ethiopian delegationhe expressed his gratitude and thanks to FAO for itseffort and commitment in having initiated aprogramme directed at finding solutions to the issuesand problems surrounding obsolete pesticides.

Agriculture is the mainstay of the Ethiopianeconomy. It provides employment for 85 percent ofthe population, generates 46 percent of gross domesticproduct (GDP) and produces 90 percent of the foreignexchange earnings. However, agricultural productionis very low despite its dominant role in the nationaleconomy. The causes of low agricultural productivityare perhaps as diverse as the country’s agro-ecologicalzones and cropping systems. The major biologicalcauses are agricultural pests. Annual pre- and post-harvest losses are estimated to be up to 40 percent.

In view of the need to increase food production andto alleviate the suffering of the country’s many sickand hunger-stricken, policy objectives included,among other aims, the import of pesticides, fertilizersand related chemicals either through donations or by

means of direct purchases. Several government andnon-governmental organizations (NGOs) wereinvolved in importing such products. While some ofthe materials were used in time for the purpose forwhich they were intended, unfortunately, a large stockof pesticides was left in stores or in the open for anumber of years. Most such stocks subsequentlybecame obsolete and have now resulted in a seriousproblem.

Nature and scopeObsolete pesticides have accumulated in Ethiopia forthe last 30 years. Although the Pesticide Decree of1991 was enacted recently, remaining stocks haveremained a serious threat to the public. There is a totalof 1 152 tonnes of obsolete pesticides and 100 tonnesof contaminated equipment and soil in 256 major andminor sites in the country. The stocks are found in thepremises of government offices, state farms and someenterprises. Because of a lack of storage facilities andpoor store management, most metallic containers arerusty and leaking, plastic and paper containers are tornand hence large quantities of pesticides are foundspilled in almost all stores in the country.

The prolonged storage of the large stock has resultedin contamination of new arrivals. Almost all obsoletestocks in the country have accumulated over more thanten years. Most such stocks were stored in the openand hence the majority have lost their labels makingthem difficult to identify. Most pesticides do not showthe date of manufacture, manufacturer, expiry date andother relevant issues. There are reports of looting andmisuse of the old stock and it is therefore a concernthat timely measures be taken. Leakage and spillageare contaminating the little available storage space andthe risk associated with groundwater is also animportant consideration.

Causes of accumulationMost of the stock found in Ethiopia was acquired fromdonations for migratory pest control or purchased bygovernment agencies for state farm use. Thegovernment-owned state farms took few or no properprecautionary measures on the pesticides theyacquired. This could be attributed to the centralizedeconomic policy of the last three decades. As therewas no legislation of any kind to monitor the importand use of pesticides, poor quality and improperlypacked and labelled pesticides were imported into thecountry. The absence of proper prior consultation for

Country reports28

the pesticides resulted in the import of highly persistentpesticides. Fluctuations in use of the availablepesticides caused by incidences of pest outbreaks andvariations of climate have also contributed to the longerperiod of storage resulting in deterioration of availablestock. Overcrowded storage and poor management ofpesticides have further aggravated the problem.

Government concern on obsolete stockActing on the basis of the causality reports on theobsolete stock in the country, the Government fundeda project to carry out a survey to assess the types,quantities and locations of the obsolete stock in orderto determine the methods of disposal and the fundingrequired. As stated earlier, a total of 1 152 tonnes ofobsolete pesticides (493 tonnes of liquid and 659tonnes of solid formulation) were found scattered over256 different sites.

The majority of the stocks includes pesticides thatare highly toxic and dangerous, such as theorganochlorines and organophosphates, which areenvironmentally hazardous and seriously dangerous tohuman and animal health (Table 7). Nearly 50 percentof the stocks are either internationally banned or highlypoisonous. Out of the total stocks, 70.5 percent (or812.5 tonnes) belong to the group of insecticides(Table 8). A list of major pesticides is presented inTable 9.

Taking note of the estimated total stock of obsoletepesticides, at present Ethiopia has the second-largeststock of obsolete pesticides of any country in Africa.The situation being so desperate and urgent, obsoletepesticides have become a matter of high priority andone of the major issues among the list of nationalconcerns requiring quick action. A strategy to disposeof the obsolete stock was determined during the project

period and the only suitable option for the 117 differenttypes of pesticides was to ship the stock to a countrywith a fixed incinerator. The overall cost required wasa little over US$4 million which is obviously beyondthe resources of the country. The Government hastherefore presented the issue to donors to assist in thedestruction of the existing stock.

In addition, the environmental threat and the risk to

TABLE 7

Major pesticide groups in Ethiopia

Type Litres Kg Total

Carbamate 26 064.00 32 380.00 58 444.20

Coumarin 0.00 14 876.60 14 876.60

Inorganic 0.00 30 247.00 30 247.00

Mixed pesticides 32 750.00 37 555.00 70 305.00

Organochlorine 47 816.40 210 457.42 258 273.82

Organophosphate 142 923.00 12 511.00 155 434.00

Unknown 78 073.00 228 710.00 306 783.00

Total 327 626.40 566 737.22 894 363.62

TABLE 8

Pesticide categories in Ethiopia

Category Litres Kg Total

Avicide 337.0 0.0 337.0

Chemical 2 643.0 1 756.5 4 399.5

Emulsifier 160.0 81.0 241.0

Fungicide 8 014.0 26 266.0 34 280.0

Fertilizer 0.0 7 825.0 7 825.0

Herbicide 14 803.0 7 499.2 22 302.2

Insecticide 356 372.4 456 138.8 812 511.2

Nematicide 85.0 0.0 85.0

Rodenticide 0.0 59 097.7 59 097.7

Unknown 109 938.0 100 609.0 210 547.0

Total 492 352.4 659 273.2 1 151 625.6

TABLE 9

Major pesticides in Ethiopia

Type Litres Kg Total

Carbaryl 26 064.00 32 380.20 58 444.20

Chlordane 0.00 34 893.00 34 893.00

Coumatetralyl 0.00 14 876.00 14 876.00

DDT 11 380.00 47 775.50 59 155.50

Diazinon 26 801.00 3 836.00 30 637.00

Dieldrin 24 290.00 3 055.00 27 345.00

Dimethoate 30 472.00 0.00 30 472.00

Endosulfan 11 571.40 0.00 11 571.40

Fenitrothion 22 178.00 0.00 22 178.00

Gusathion 17 221.00 0.00 17 221.00

Heptachlor 0.00 20 353.50 20 353.50

Lindane 575.00 104 380.42 104 955.42

Malathion 17 853.00 8 675.00 26 526.00

Mixed pesticides 32 750.00 37 555.00 70 305.00

Pirimiphos methyl 1 600.00 170 475.00 172 075.00

Thiometon 28 398.00 0.00 28 398.00

Unknown 76 473.00 58 235.00 134 708.00

Zinc phosphide 0.00 30 247.00 30 247.00

Total 327 626.40 566 737.22 894 363.62


human life are also greater in Ethiopia than in many ofits neighbouring countries.

These are the results of past activities that have beeninherited and now pose real and serious problems;action can no longer be delayed or passed on to thenext generation or administration. The Government ofEthiopia is committed and is keen to find ways andmeans not only to dispose of all waste identified asobsolete pesticides but also to avoid furtheraccumulation in the environment.

ConclusionsThe problem of obsolete pesticides is serious inEthiopia. The large stocks of obsolete pesticides thatremain in the country under poor storage facilities andinadequate management make these pesticides unsafeif left for long. So far, there are records of looting,leakage and misuse and hence immediate action needsto be taken. The Government is currently taking allnecessary precautions to avoid further leakage, spillageand looting, and new stores are being constructed tostore the pesticides safely. However, measures for safestorage will not by themselves solve the problem if thepesticides are left for much longer.

The problem of pesticide waste is widespread,serious and very urgent. Unless something positive isdone quickly, the environmental loss and the damageto human health will be incalculable and irreversible.The magnitude of the problem is immense and fardeeper than can be imagined, the task of cleaning upthe waste is complicated and dangerous, the necessaryfinances are beyond the reach of the poor nation anddisposal facilities and expertise are lacking, makingthe assistance and support of the donor community,organizations and the industry, including theguidelines, guidance and advice provided by FAO,crucial.

Those working with pesticides live at the edge ofdanger and routine activities have become precariousto them and to the public at large. Most pesticidestocks are located in urban areas and, because of this,people are in constant threat whether they stay indoorsor go out. The most threatened are children who areusually weak, unaware and curious to play with orhandle things. Pesticides must be removed in order tocreate new working conditions that are safe andnormal.

In view of the importance and urgency of thepesticide problem being faced, Ethiopia welcomes theassistance and advice of the international donor

community to dispose of the huge stock that currentlythreatens the life and livelihood of its population. Italso requests manufacturing companies to be involvedin the destruction of the waste accumulated in thecountry and hopes that everyone will understand theurgency of the problem and come to Ethiopia’sassistance. The country needs to have the commitmentand pledges of the donors represented at the ThirdConsultation. Once Ethiopia has the necessary supportto solve the problem, it will be determined to setexamples of prudence, to keep the environment cleanand to use alternative means of pest control other thantotally relying on pesticides.

Finally, the representative thanked FAO for all theassistance so far provided and hoped that suchassistance would continue.


Chapter 4

Outcome and conclusion of theThird Consultation Meeting

FRAMEWORK FOR INTERNATIONALCOLLABORATION IN PESTICIDE DISPOSALMr van der Graaff, Chief, Plant Protection Service,FAO introduced the agenda item. A draft text outliningFAO’s concept of a Collaborative Programme onDisposal of Obsolete Pesticides had been distributedfor comments. The purpose of the document was toprovide further guidance to FAO regarding its role inpesticide disposal. In addition, the document wasmeant to provide a wider and generally acceptedframework for individual projects and studies onprevention and disposal of obsolete pesticides. Such adocument had been requested by various parties thatrequired a tool to initiate or facilitate internaldiscussion on pesticide disposal activities.

Summary of comments made on the draft documentThe meeting requested more emphasis on prevention.Many delegates reconfirmed that prevention should bean integrated part of disposal operations. GTZproposed the establishment of a small working groupto develop further the elements for policies onpreventing accumulation of obsolete pesticides.

Several other participants requested more attentionfor networking and interagency collaboration andcoordination. Mr van der Graaff and Mr Willis,Director of UNEP Chemicals, briefed the meeting onongoing interagency activities under the aegis of theInter-Organization Programme for the SoundManagement of Chemicals which includes theinteragency working group on obsolete pesticidesactivities in this area, which were initiated in theIntergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety and itsinputs in discussions on the development of apersistent organic pollutants (POPs) Convention. Aninteragency working group was established tocoordinate the increasing roles of various UN agencies:UNEP is involved because of the Basel Conventionand industrial waste; UNIDO may become involvedwhere the local capacity for disposal has to beestablished; and WHO is involved because of the

public health risks of obsolete stocks of pesticides andthe discussion on POPs. Mr Willis confirmed that,under the leadership of FAO, UNEP wanted tocontinue to be a partner in an international programmeon the prevention and disposal of obsolete pesticides.

FAO was requested to help ensure high standards fordisposal operations. It was suggested that this couldinvolve the development of a more formal auditingsystem.

Several delegates requested FAO to broaden itsproject on prevention and disposal of obsoletepesticides to include other regions of the world. Mrvan der Graaff explained that FAO would be pleased tobroaden this project provided that such globalizationwas supported by the necessary funding. UNEPpledged US$50 000 to enable FAO to initiate aninventory of obsolete pesticides, and possibly otherhazardous waste, in Latin America.

FAO was requested to continue its coordinating roleand to initiate and facilitate disposal operations andthe collection and distribution of information. Otherrelevant parties were requested to share informationwith FAO, which in turn was requested to circulatesuch information and to provide as much transparencyas possible regarding ongoing and planned activities.One delegate suggested that FAO should considerissuing an e-mail newsletter to provide a six-monthlyupdate on developments. FAO was also requested toprepare and submit concrete proposals for priorityfunding opportunities.

The Secretariat revised the draft text in accordancewith the comments made. The revised version isattached in Annex 3.

ADMINISTRATIVE AND ORGANIZATIONALMODALITIES FOR DISPOSAL OPERATIONSJOINTLY FUNDED BY AID AGENCIES AND THEAGROCHEMICAL INDUSTRYThis issue was discussed very briefly. It had been puton the agenda because new modalities are to be foundfor merging public and private funding if one disposal

Outcome and conclusion of the Third Consultation Meeting32

operation is funded from different sources. However,it was acknowledged that there is a large variation insituations and that this issue could best be addressed instakeholder meetings for specific operations.

As an example, the GCPF representative explainedthe administrative arrangement that had recently beenmade for joint funding of an operation for the Gambiaby the agrochemical industry and the CommonwealthDevelopment Corporation; the overall cost for aturnkey operation was estimated together with thedisposal contractor. This cost was then divided amongthe stakeholders according to the volume of waste.Each stakeholder then agreed to obtain a “letter ofcredit” from their bank for the sum agreed. An“umbrella contract” covering all the stakeholders anddetailing the amounts contained in the letters of creditwas drawn up by the contractor. This contract alsodetails the procedures for repackaging, transportingand disposing of the waste. The letter of credit will becalled in once the waste has been disposed of. Inpractice, payment will be made after the “certificatesof destruction” have been issued to the stakeholders.To protect the liability of the stakeholders anindependent consultant has been appointed to overseethe work of the disposal contractor during theoperations in the Gambia.

DISPOSAL OPERATIONS PROPOSED FOR1998-1999Mr van der Wulp, FAO consultant, introduced theupdated portfolio of project briefs with proposals forthe disposal of obsolete pesticides from selectedcountries. Several of the existing 1996 entries (Mali,Senegal, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Madagascar) had beenupdated. New entries included Botswana and Tanzania,while project briefs for Ghana, Togo and Benin areunder preparation. The new portfolio was distributed.Details were provided regarding ongoing talks on thefunding of specific projects and on fundingopportunities for interested donors.

The opportunity was provided to interested agenciesto explore possibilities for involvement andcooperation with others. These discussions wereinformal and took place after the formal closing of themeeting.

CONCLUSIONS AND STATEMENTS BYPARTICIPANTSIn their concluding remarks participants thanked FAOfor organizing the meeting. The importance of

opportunities to exchange information and discusscollaboration was underlined. Agencies thatparticipated for the first time in an FAO Consultationon the Prevention and Disposal of Obsolete andUnwanted Pesticide Stocks acknowledged theimportance of the problem of obsolete pesticide stocks,indicated their interest in getting involved in futureactivities to address this problem and said that theywould discuss possibilities for such involvementwithin their respective agencies.

The meeting was formally closed by Mr van derGraaff, Chief of the FAO Plant Protection Service(AGPP).

After the formal closing, opportunity was providedfor informal talks among aid agencies, donors andgovernments regarding the specific projects proposedby FAO.

33Disposal of bulk quantities of obsolete pesticides in developing countries

Annexes

List of participants34


BELGIUM

De Bruycker, P.Technico-commercial ManagerINDAVER n.v.Poldervlietweg2030 AntwerpBelgiumTel. (32 3) 5684941/2Fax (32 3) 5684998E-mail: [email protected]

De Montjoye, J.Permanent Representative of Belgium

to FAOVia Omero 800197 RomeItalyTel. (39 06) 3203903Fax (39 06) 3203992

Trybou, M.Ingénieur, Administration de la qualité des

matières premières et du secteur végétalMinistère des classes moyennes et

de l’agriculture - DG430 Boulevard S. Bolivar1000 BruxellesBelgiumTel. (32 2) 2083845Fax (32 2) 2083866E-mail: [email protected]

Annex 1

List of participants

DENMARK

Nøhr, H.Technical Advisor/EnvironmentMinistry of Foreign AffairsDANIDA2 Asiatisk PladsDK1448 Copenhagen KDenmarkTel. (45 3) 392000Fax (45 3) 1540533E-mail: [email protected]

ETHIOPIA

Kabeto, L.B.Head, Crop Production and ProtectionTechnology and Regulatory DeptMinistry of AgricultureP.O. Box 32151Addis AbabaEthiopiaTel. (251 1) 183671Fax (251 1) 512984E-mail: [email protected]

Tetemke, Y.Senior Pesticide ChemistMinistry of AgricultureP.O. Box 32151Addis AbabaEthiopiaTel. (251 1) 183671Fax (251 1) 512984E-mail: [email protected]


GERMANY

Dollacker, A.Obsolete stocks team memberGCPFBayer AG, PF-BPA/ÖA-MFGebäude 610051368 LeverkusenGermanyTel. (49 2173) 383719Fax (49 2173) 383156E-mail: [email protected]

Heuel-Rolf, B.Senior Planning OfficerBMZ/GTZP.O. Box 518065726 EschbornGermanyTel. (49 6196) 791428Fax (49 6196) 797173E-mail: [email protected]

Vaagt, G.Project Team LeaderBMZ/GTZP.O. Box 518065726 EschbornGermanyTel. (49 6196) 791082Fax (49 6196) 797180E-mail: [email protected]

ITALY

Fontana-Giusti, L.Permanent Representative of Italy to FAOPiazza Margana 1900186 RomeItalyTel. (39 06) 6788252Fax (39 06) 6796352

JAPAN

Endo, Y.Alternate Permanent Representative of

Japan to FAOEmbassy of JapanVia Quintino Sella 6000187 RomeItalyTel. (39 06) 487991Fax (39 06) 48799413E-mail: [email protected]

Matsuo, S.ChairmanInternational Cooperation /International

Affairs CommitteeJapan Crop Protection AssociationNihonbashi Club Bldg5-8.1 Chome Nihonbashi-MuromachiChuo-KuTokyoJapanTel. (81 3) 32410215Fax (81 3) 32413149E-mail: http://www.jcpa.or.jp/

Ohashi, T.Alternate Permanent Representative of

Japan to FAOEmbassy of JapanVia Quintino Sella 6000187 RomeItalyTel. (39 06) 487991Fax (39 06) 48799413

THE NETHERLANDS

Kos, C.K.W.Alternate Permanent Representative of the

Kingdom of the Netherlands to FAOVia delle Terme Deciane 600158 RomeItalyTel. (39 06) 5740306/5742326Fax (39 06) 5744927


NORWAY

Karstensen, K.H.Research DirectorSINTEFEnvironmental Technology and AnalysisP.O. Box 124 BlindernN-0314 OsloNorwayForskningsveien 1Tel. (47 22) 067300Fax (47 22) 067648E-mail:[email protected]

Utne, S.Technical AdvisorNORADTollbugata 31P.B. 8034 DeptN-0030 OsloNorwayTel. (47 22) 314400Fax (47 22) 314509E-mail: [email protected]

SWEDEN

Ekström, G.Technical Cooperation OfficerNational Chemical Inspectorate – KEMIP.O. Box 1384S-171 27 SolnaSwedenTel. (46 8) 7305700Fax (46 8) 7357698E-mail: [email protected]

Höök, A.Senior Programme OfficerAgriculture and Rural Development DeptDept for Natural Resources and

the EnvironmentSidaS-105 25 StockholmSwedenTel. (46 8) 6985334Fax (46 8) 6985653E-mail: [email protected]

SWITZERLAND

Jehle, C.Managing Director, Pesticides ServicesMuff + Partner AGBinzenholzstr. 4515704 EgliswilSwitzerlandTel. (41 62) 7750441Fax (41 62) 7750436E-mail: [email protected]

Marincek, I.Permanent Representative of Switzerland

to FAOViale Aventino 8900153 RomeItalyTel. (39 06) 5756293Fax: (39 06) 5756321

Wettstein, K.Issue Management and CommunicationsNovartis Crop ProtectionR-1004.757, P.O. BoxCHJ-4002 BaselSwitzerlandTel. (41 61) 6977102Fax (41 61) 6978858E-mail: [email protected]

TANZANIA, UNITED REPUBLIC OF

Betlem, J.Project LeaderNational Environment Management

Council (NEMC)P.O. Box 63154Dar es SalaamTanzaniaTel. 811335712Fax 2555134603E-mail: [email protected]


Mpendazoe, F.M.T.Acting Director-GeneralNational Environment Management

Council (NEMC)P.O. Box 63154Dar es SalaamTanzaniaTel. 811335689Fax 2555134603E-mail: [email protected]

UNITED KINGDOM

Davis, M.The Pesticides TrustEurolink Centre49 Effra RoadLondon SW2 1BZUnited KingdomTel. (44 171) 2748895Fax (44 171) 2749084E-mail: [email protected]

Natkanski, P.ChairmanGCPF Obsolete Stocks Project TeamEnvironmental ManagerZeneca LtdFernhurst, HaslemereSurrey GU27 3JEUnited KingdomTel. (44 1428) 655729Fax (44 1428) 655758E-mail: [email protected]

UNITED STATES

Des Rosiers, J.P.E.Environmental OfficerUSAID G/ENV/ENGRonald Reagan BuildingWashington DC 20523-3801United StatesTel. (1 202) 7121873Fax (1 202) 2163227E-mail: [email protected]

Hedlund, R.C.Pesticides Management AdvisorUSAID G/EGAD/AFSRoom 2.11-103 RRBWashington DC 20523-2110United StatesTel. (1 202) 6632516Fax (1 202) 6632552E-mail: [email protected]

Jensen, J.K.Senior Environment ChemistOffice of Pesticide Programs (7506C)USEPA401 “M” St. SWWashington DC 20460United StatesTel. (1 703) 3057706Fax (1 703) 3056244/3081850E-mail: [email protected]

INTERNATIONAL FUND FORAGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT (IFAD)

de Wit, M.Technical Advisory DivisionIFADVia del Serafico 10700142 RomeItalyTel. (39 06) 54592031Fax (39 06) 5191702E-mail: [email protected]

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENTPROGRAMME (UNEP)

Willis, J.B.DirectorUNEP ChemicalsGEC, 15 Chemin des Anémones1219 Châtelaine GEGenevaSwitzerlandTel. (41 22) 9799183Fax (41 22) 7973460E-mail: [email protected]


FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO)

van der Graaff, N.Chief, Plant Protection ServicePlant Production and Protection DivisionFAOViale delle Terme di Caracalla00100 RomeItalyTel. (39 06) 57053441Fax (39 06) 57056347E-mail: [email protected]

van der Wulp, H.FAO ConsultantJ. van Brakelplantsoen 12253 TD VoorschotenThe NetherlandsTel. (31 71) 5322537Fax (31 71) 5322739E-mail: [email protected]

Wodageneh. A.Coordinator, Chief Technical AdvisorObsolete Pesticides, Prevention and

Disposal Africa and the Near EastPlant Protection ServicePlant Production and Protection DivisionFAOViale delle Terme di Caracalla00100 RomeItalyTel. (39 06) 57055192Fax (39 06) 57056347E-mail: [email protected]


Annex 2

Programme

Monday 2 March 1998

9.00-9.30 amRegistration of participants

9.30-9.45 amOpening of the ConsultationM. Duwayri, Director, FAO Plant Production and Production Division

9.45-10.15 amElection of Chairman and RapporteurAdoption of Agenda

10.15 am-12.30 pmIntroduction and update on activities: FAOProgress in pesticide disposal and related activitiesA. WodagenehVideo of disposal operations for the Seychelles and ZambiaReport and lessons learned from operations in the Seychelles and ZambiaA. WodagenehState of implementation of FAO portfolio of disposal projectsH.P. van der WulpProgress on involvement of agrochemical industryH.P. van der Wulp; P. Natkanski

12.30-2.00 pmLunch break

2.00 pmUpdate on activities: other agenciesGTZ G. VaagtDANIDA H. NøhrNORAD S. UtneUSAID R.C. Hedlund; J. JensenSida A. HöökSDC I. Marincek; K. WettsteinJapan Y. EndoBelgium M. TrybouItaly L. Fontana-GiustiUNEP J.B. WillisIFAD M. de WitPesticides Trust M. Davis

Programme42

Tuesday 3 March 1998

9.00-9.30 amCountry report TanzaniaF.M.T. Mpendazoe; J. Betlem

9.30-10.30 amCountry report EthiopiaL. Batemo Kabeto; Yibrah Tetemke

10.30-11.30 amFramework for international collaboration in pesticide disposal policy statement byFAON.A. van der Graaff

11.30 am-12.00 noonGeneral discussion on administrative and organizational modalities for disposaloperations jointly funded by aid agencies and the agrochemical industryIntroduced by N.A. van der Graaff

12.00 noon-12.30 pmDisposal operations proposed for 1998-1999Introduced by H.P. van der Wulp

12.30-2.00 pmLunch break

2.00-2.30 pmBrief discussion on possibilities for cooperation in funding

2.30-3.00 pmConclusion and statements by participants

3.00-3.30 pmClosing remarks by N.A. van der Graaff

3.30 pmInformal continuation to discuss funding possibilities for portfolio projects


COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMME ON PREVENTION AND DISPOSAL OFOBSOLETE PESTICIDES

IntroductionOld stocks of obsolete and unwanted pesticides pose a severe threat to human healthand the environment in developing countries. FAO estimates that Africa alone hasabout 15 000 to 20 000 tonnes of obsolete pesticides. Generally, these are leftoverpesticides that can no longer be used because they have deteriorated as a result ofprolonged storage or because their use has been banned while they were still kept instorage. In addition, there are heavily contaminated stores and large quantities ofcontaminated soil, material and empty containers. Obsolete pesticide stocks includelarge volumes of organochlorine compounds that are highly persistent in theenvironment, such as DDT, dieldrin and HCH, as well as highly toxicorganophosphorus compounds (WHO Classes 1A and 1B).

Most of the stocks are kept in substandard stores and are in a deplorable state.Large numbers of containers are leaking. Many stores are located in urban areas ornear water bodies. Groundwater, irrigation water and drinking-water are at risk.Urgent action is required to address this alarming situation.

The main causes of accumulation of obsolete pesticides are: inadequate storagefacilities and poor stock management; overstocking of pesticides, often as a resultof excessive donations; unsuitable products (not effective or of the wrongformulation) or unsuitable packaging (inappropriate size; not durable); and banningof pesticides that are still kept in storage. Particularly in Africa, a large proportionof obsolete pesticides are leftover pesticides that countries obtained under aidarrangements.

At present, for obsolete products that can no longer be used and that cannot easilybe reformulated, the preferred disposal method is high-temperature incineration. Ingeneral, developing countries have neither the facilities nor the funds to ensure thatobsolete pesticides are incinerated in a safe and environmentally sound manner. Nordo they have the expertise to prepare disposal operations. FAO members thereforerequested the Organization for advice and assistance in addressing their problemswith obsolete pesticide stocks.

In response to such requests, FAO and various bilateral agencies have successfullyexported obsolete pesticide stocks from a number of countries to Europe for safe andenvironmentally sound destruction in a hazardous-waste incineration plant.

The need for an international effort to address this alarming situationThe total costs of removing obsolete pesticides from Africa alone are in the regionof US$80 million. Such costs cannot be met by the countries concerned. Aidagencies are prepared to contribute but insist that the agrochemical industry alsomakes a financial contribution.

Annex 3

Framework for internationalcollaboration in pesticide disposal

Framework for international collaboration in pesticide disposal44

FAO regards the problem of obsolete pesticides in Africa and other developingregions as an international environmental problem that requires coordinatedinternational assistance.

The problem has built up over a 30-year period and reflects the evolution ofproducts and the history of their use. Every phase has left its mark in the form of acertain category of obsolete products. Past mistakes have been recognized, lessonshave been learned and measures are being taken to prevent repetition, but largevolumes of obsolete pesticides remain as a heritage of practices that were onceconsidered sound, but have now become outdated.

Every government, agency or company that has been involved in pesticide supplyover the last 30 years is likely to have contributed in one way or another to thepresent problem. Because of this, and because of the international dimensions of theenvironmental problems caused by these stocks, FAO sees it as a joint responsibilityof governments, international organizations, donors, aid agencies and agrochemicalcompanies to help solve the problem.

In addition, there is an urgent need for policies to prevent further accumulation ofobsolete pesticides. Such policies should be established at both the receiver and thesupplier levels. Many developing countries need assistance to improve their stockplanning procedures and product management capabilities.

The magnitude of the problem, and the funds and work involved to help solve it,require a coordinated framework for assistance to ensure the effective use ofresources. FAO hopes to offer such a framework with this collaborative programme.

Consultations on the prevention and disposal of obsolete pesticidesSince 1994, FAO has collected and compiled stock data from Africa and the NearEast, reviewed and assessed disposal technologies, produced technical guidelinesand conducted pilot disposal operations. Consultations have been organized to raisebroad attention for this issue and to increase the number of disposal operations. Atthe First Consultation in 1994, donor representatives requested FAO to encourageand enhance coordination among parties involved or interested in addressing theproblem of obsolete pesticide stocks. In this respect, FAO was requested to preparea portfolio of urgently needed disposal operations. The portfolio was presented atthe Second Consultation in 1996 and updated for the Third Consultation in 1998.Disposal operations are now under implementation or consideration for several ofthe countries included in the portfolio.

FAO will continue to update the portfolio and inform interested donors of fundingopportunities. The portfolio contains project briefs for disposal projects in countriesthat have severe problems with obsolete stocks, give high priority to the issue andhave requested assistance. Aid agencies, donors or companies can also proposecountries if they want to fund a disposal operation in a specific country and if theyare looking for partners. The funding of disposal operations for individual countriesor groups of countries on a case-by-case basis appears to be the most practicalapproach. For each case, an effort will be made to strike an appropriate balancebetween public and private funding.

The role of FAOIn response to requests from member countries, aid agencies and internationalorganizations, FAO seeks to play a coordinating and facilitating role in activities toaddress the problem of obsolete pesticides in developing countries. At the ThirdConsultation in 1998, FAO’s role was specified as follows.


Collect and compile information on:• stock inventory data, storage sites, environmental and health hazards, etc.regarding obsolete pesticide stocks in developing countries;

• disposal technologies;• planned and ongoing disposal operations;• lessons learned from completed operations.Disseminate this information to relevant actors.Initiate and facilitate disposal operations by:• preparing project briefs and other documentation for inclusion in the portfolio ofurgently needed disposal operations;

• assisting in the identification of donors for specific disposal operations andliaising with the agrochemical industry to solicit their financial and technicalassistance. Communication with agrochemical companies takes place throughthe Global Federation for Crop Protection (GCPF);1

• facilitating communication between governments and other stakeholders,particularly with regard to practical implementation aspects and governmentcontributions.

Enhance international collaboration and coordination among entities involved orinterested in contributing to pesticide disposal activities by:

• once every 18 months, organizing a meeting on pesticide disposal for all partiesinvolved in this international effort. The purpose of these meetings is to reviewprogress, exchange experiences, review new disposal methods, identify newpriority countries and discuss cooperation on pipeline projects;

• bringing up the issue in international fora whenever relevant and coordinatinginteragency collaboration in this respect.

Ensure high safety standards for disposal activities and offer technical advice orassistance where necessary by:

• in collaboration with other relevant UN agencies, regularly reviewing theavailable disposal methods and advising as to the suitability of these options;

• preparing technical guidelines on relevant subjects;• providing technical advice on all aspects of pesticide disposal operations,including the selection of contractors, contractual arrangements and governmentcontributions;

• offering technical services, such as assistance in project preparation andmonitoring of field operations.

Promote the development and implementation of policies and measures to preventfurther accumulation of obsolete pesticide stocks by:

• evaluating the effectiveness of strategies and policies to prevent furtheraccumulation of obsolete pesticide stocks;

• identifying existing causes of accumulation and assist the actors concerned infinding solutions to reduce the risk of accumulation;

• developing training packages and organizing workshops on prevention.Implementation of disposal operations. Actual implementation of disposal

operations is not regarded as a primary task of FAO and will, as much as possible,

1 It is realized that not all supplying companies are covered by GCPF. In particular, brokers and other sourceswould not be reached. However, in the longer term, FAO anticipates that the demonstrated willingness ofcompanies to take back leftover products or to help dispose of these products will become an importantcriterion for the selection of companies to supply pesticides under aid arrangements.

Framework for international collaboration in pesticide disposal46

be left to parties willing to conduct such operations. Generally, the funding partywill enter into a direct contract with a specialized disposal contractor. However,where a donor wants to contribute to pesticide disposal but does not want to executea disposal project, FAO may execute such a project under a Trust Fund arrangement.

Further international policy supportSeveral important international fora provide broad policy support for internationalassistance to help solve the urgent problem of obsolete pesticides in developingcountries.

In 1995, the OECD Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) publishedGuidelines for aid agencies on pest and pesticide management. OECD/DACrecognizes the importance of the problem of obsolete pesticides and has givenobsolete pesticides a prominent place in these guidelines. The internationalcommunity is called upon to assist developing countries in preventing furtheraccumulation of obsolete pesticide stocks and in providing technical and financialassistance to disposal operations to eliminate the present obsolete stocks.The Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS), which was established toimplement the relevant section of UNCED Agenda 21, made obsolete pesticides atopic of special concern. IFCS urges the international community to help preventunnecessary release into the environment of the many obsolete stocks of pesticides.In a follow-up meeting, relevant UN agencies agreed to coordinate their involvementin this issue.

International momentum is gathering towards a phasing out of persistent organicpollutants (POPs). POPs are now broadly acknowledged to cause serious immuneand metabolic effects, neurological defects, reproductive anomalies and cancer.They remain in the environment for long periods and accumulate in food chains. Aninitial list of priority substances was drawn up during an international conference onthe subject held in Washington DC in 1995. The list contains various pesticides ofwhich large obsolete quantities exist in developing countries. Disposal of thesepesticides will prevent their release into the environment.


The following information about cement kilns was provided by NORAD/SINTEF.

Introduction and backgroundNORCEM is the sole cement producer in Norway and operates at present twocement plants, one in the south and one in the north of the country. Both plants haverecently been modernized at a cost of about US$200 million and have a capacity ofapproximately 1.6 million tonnes of cement per year.

NORCEM started to incinerate liquid hazardous wastes in 1980. The backgroundfor NORCEM’s involvement in the development of waste destruction in cementkilns was mainly owing to the following reasons:

• the cement industry and, in particular, plants with wet process kilns were lookingat opportunities to reduce fossil fuel costs following the so-called oil crisis in the1970s;

• the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment was seeking options for disposaloperations according to sound environmental practices.

As a result of this situation, NORCEM and the government, through the StatePollution Control Authority, jointly started test burning of liquid hazardous wastesin a wet kiln in 1979/80. This plant was replaced by a dry process in 1985 and, as aresult of concerns about possible operational difficulties with the shifting from a wetprocess to a dry process kiln – in particular problems arising from the presence ofhalogens (chlorine) in the fuel – it was decided to carry out new tests.

In addition, it must be added that the Dalen plant, where tests were carried out, issituated close to the village of Brevik and public concern about possible emissionsand accidents with the proposed waste destruction facility further triggered the needfor new and extensive measurements.

As a consequence, NORCEM together with SINTEF has carried out thoroughtests with the burning of liquid, solid and gaseous hazardous wastes in cement kilns.

The plant for hazardous-waste destruction in Brevik was engineered by NORCEMResearch and Development. It was successfully commissioned in 1987 and has beenin continuous operation since then.

Aim of the studyThe tests carried out by NORCEM and SINTEF as a result of concerns aboutpossible operational difficulties with the shifting from a wet process to a dry processkiln involved the following:

• waste preparation and feeding;• combustion and process control;• mass balances and distribution pattern of heavy metals and chlorine;• environmental, safety and health aspects;• product quality.

Annex 4

Benefits of incinerating hazardouswastes in cement kilns

K.H. Karstensen

Benefits of incinerating hazardous wastes in cement kilns48

Waste policy and legislation in the European UnionThe European Union’s (EU) action programmes on the environment have set outcertain basic lines of policy for the EU to act on in relation to waste management.These are:

• waste prevention;• waste recycling and reuse;• safe disposal of non-recoverable residues.The rationale for this policy was simply that comprehensive, medium- and long-

term strategic thinking and the setting of general priorities must determine wastemanagement. The concept put forward is that the EU must be self-sufficient for thetreatment and disposal of all forms of waste in order to achieve sustainabledevelopment. The following principles, which should all lead to waste minimization,are identified as:

• direct reduction of waste streams;• optimization of environmentally sound treatment and disposal;• reduction of movements;• liability.

European situation – secondary fuelsThe cement industry’s prime objective is to produce a high-quality product that canmeet the challenges of other competing building materials. At the same time, thecement industry must meet the emission standards as defined by the CouncilDirective on the Incineration of Hazardous Wastes, issued by the EuropeanCommission.

The Directive allows the incineration in plants not solely destined for the purposeof incineration of hazardous wastes, e.g. those used by the cement industry. Withinthe range of 10 to 40 percent of hazardous waste as additional fuels in cement kilnsfor example, the emission limit values shall be in proportion to the hazardous wasteused, whereas below 10 percent and above 40 percent, the emission limit valuesshall be the same as for dedicated incinerators.

The reason for establishing the rule of 10 to 40 percent is, according to thelawmakers, that it is difficult to measure the real efficiency of hazardous waste destructionof all the pollutants at levels below 10 percent, because of the considerable dilutioneffect in a cement kiln. When the fuel is more than 40 percent waste product, theoperation is regarded by the lawmakers as being one of waste destruction.

Trial burn planIn the United States a trial burn of the incinerator is required to demonstrate thecompliance of the unit with operating standards. The trial burn operating conditionswill then be written into the permit if the incinerator complies with these standards.

The trial burn is conducted in accordance with a detailed trial burn plan preparedby the applicant and submitted with the rest of the application. The trial burn isunique to incineration facilities. It documents all important design and operatingfeatures of the unit and establishes the basis for future facility operation.

The trial burn plan consists of five principal elements:• waste analysis;• engineering description of the unit;• sampling and analysis procedures;• test schedule and protocol;• control information.


Waste analysis. A thorough waste analysis is required as part of the trial burn plan.Information regarding the presence and concentration of all relevant constituents, aswell as routine variations in these constituents and in overall waste composition,must be included in this characterization. These data will be used to place limits onthe composition of the waste that can be fed to the incinerator; therefore, they mustreflect accurately the range of waste feed composition that the facility is likely toprocess.

The ash (or non-combustible) content of the waste must be determined to specifypermit conditions for allowable variations in the waste feed. Measurement ofcarbon, hydrogen, sulphur, nitrogen, phosphorus and oxygen concentrations and thewater content of the waste feed is needed to calculate air requirements and toevaluate the proposed excess air rates. Measurement of organically bound chloridesis necessary to determine potential emissions of gaseous hydrogen chloride and toestablish permit conditions for allowable variations in waste constituent quantities.

Engineering description of the unit. The trial burn plan must include anengineering description of the incinerator system. Information such as incineratorcomponent dimensions, design rates of air and waste feed, auxiliary fuel systemsand descriptions of continuous monitoring devices should also be submitted in thissection.

Sampling and analysis procedures. The sampling and analysis procedures,including those for monitoring process operations, waste and supplemental fuel feedrates, and stack gas composition with respect to POHCs, particulate and HCl,should be noted. These sampling and analysis methods must be in accordance withpublished procedures and must be sufficient to allow calculation of the rate ofPOHCs in the system.

Test schedule and protocol. A trial burn schedule and protocol must document thedates and duration of the trial burn, the quantity of waste feed to be burned and theplanned operating conditions for each performance test.

Control information. Procedures for stopping the waste feed, shutting down theincinerator and controlling emissions in the event of an equipment malfunction orother emergency are to be included in the plan. The set points for each operatingparameter used with this system must be specified. These are the levels that wouldactivate feed cut-off. These operating limits will be written into the permit and mustbe sufficient to allow the operator some flexibility in unit operation.

Assessment of incinerator performanceKey parameters that influence or determine the destruction and removal efficiencyof hazardous compounds during high-temperature incineration are the following:temperature, residence time, turbulence/mixing, oxygen availability, thermal stabilityand exit gas cleaning.

Features of cement kilnsChlorinated waste streams are neutralized by the alkali present in the cementclinker; conversely, the chlorine component in chlorinated waste can supply thechlorine necessary in the process to reduce the alkali content.

Investment in capital equipment is minimal because the cement kilns are alreadyin place.

Organic wastes with a significant heating value, such as waste oils, will allow fuelsavings for a cement kiln. Fuel costs can run as high as 65 percent of the operatingcosts of a cement kiln.


Ash from destruction of the waste is absorbed in the clinker. Heavy metals tend tobe trapped within the clinker as trace contaminants.

There is a very high thermal inertia within the kiln. The mass of clinker processedthrough the system tends to eliminate the possibility of rapid swings in temperatureor other changes in the process. The process requires thermal stability to ensureproduct quality.

The cement process requires that temperatures in the kiln be maintained at1 450oC. These temperatures will destroy all organic wastes.

Air emissions control equipment is already in place for the collection ofparticulates. In dry processes CaCO

2 is fed counter-currently of the exit gases and

functions as a scrubber.The cement kiln operates under negative pressure. This is a requirement for kilns

used as hazardous-waste incinerators, which must be maintained at a negativepressure to prevent emissions.

Cement kilns compared with dedicated incineratorsIn comparing combustion in a cement kiln with other methods of disposal that areconsidered not harmful to the environment, the following points become apparent:

• Incineration of these wastes is normally done at a flame temperature of 1 200oCto 1 500oC while cement kiln flame temperatures are 2 000oC or higher. For theproduction of cement clinker these temperatures are necessary, and so there is noneed for the constant monitoring of temperatures that is required when burningin a dedicated incinerator.

• The retention time in a cement kiln flame envelope is considerably longer thannormally found in a dedicated incinerator.

• To prevent operating difficulties, such as kiln rings, in a cement kiln the amountof chlorine is restricted to approximately 0.6 percent relative to clinker.

• There is always a high quantity of lime in the cement kiln to react with hydrogenchloride and thus prevent emission of this compound to the atmosphere.

• Burning of wastes in a cement kiln saves fossil fuels, which are used to ensurecombustion of these in a dedicated incinerator.

• Beneficial use is obtained in a cement kiln of persistent and toxic wastematerials, which normally require disposal.

Wastes utilized in trial burns in cement kilns in NorwayIn the Dalen plant: waste oil(s), liquid organic hazardous wastes (PCB and TCE)shredded tyres and car parts and solid hazardous waste (mixed with sawdust).

In the Kjøpsvik plant: solid refuse-derived fuel (RDF), liquid organic hazardouswastes (TCE – mainly as a chlorine source), gaseous CFCs and plastics.

Main resultsWaste preparation and feeding. The plants for waste preparation and equipment forintroduction of liquid, solid and gaseous wastes function very well. Liquids andgases are fed through the main burner (or primary air duct) and solids in theprecalciner/preheater.

Combustion and process control. The combustion and the process control functionvery well, even for low calorific value wastes and solid wastes.

Mass balances and distribution pattern of heavy metals and chlorine. Massbalances have revealed special distribution patterns for volatile heavy metals andprocess limitations for selected heavy metals and for chlorine in the Dalen plant.


This is caused mainly by the internal recycling of CKD/EPS dust.Environmental, safety and health aspects. The present plants have been burning

up to 15 000 tonnes of hazardous wastes and 30 000 tonnes of waste oil per yearwithout any incidents. Emissions into the air are low for all pollutants and are alsoindependent of whether there is waste burning or not.

Product quality. Extensive physical and chemical testing has revealed a goodproduct quality, which is far better than the quality criteria. Heavy metals will beretained in the clinker, but the concentration will be within the normal range ofvariations.

Benefits of burning hazardous wastes in cement kilnsThe following are benefits of burning hazardous wastes in cement kilns:

• recovery of energy;• reduction of production costs;• DRE that is as good as it is in a dedicated incinerator, i.e. comparable residencetime, temperature, turbulence and gas “scrubbing” in an alkaline environment;

• no residues to dispose of;• lower total emissions (of CO

2) in Norway;

• solution of the “hazardous waste problem” – utilization of existing technology;• conservation of non-renewable fossil fuels;• environmentally sound and as effective as a dedicated incinerator;• utilization of long experience with waste handling;• lower destruction costs.

Concerns in the use of cement kilns for waste disposalA number of concerns must be addressed in the use of a cement kiln for wastedisposal. Process design features and institutional factors can affect the use of acement kiln. Typical of these considerations are the following:

• The location of the waste feed must be carefully considered. If waste is introducedat the low-temperature end of the kiln, volatiles may be released too soon,without sufficient residence time to completely burn out. If waste is placed in thekiln too close to the product discharge, there may be insufficient contact time toensure homogeneous mixing of waste residual; clinker and product quality maydeteriorate.

• Excess chloride degrades cement quality. An excessive level is difficult to predictand must be determined by tests on the actual waste stream.

• Conventional cement kilns are run with very little operator attention required.Hazardous waste requires continuous operator attention to feed and productquality control, which represents an increase in the cost of operation.

• The storage and feeding of hazardous wastes at a cement kiln requires thatextensive personnel safety procedures are implemented. This represents anotherincrease in the cost of operation of the facility.

In balance, the use of existing cement kilns has been found to be effective in thedisposal of hazardous waste and there is a potential for cost savings.

Important issues in waste utilizationThe following are key issues that have to be considered in relation to the use ofalternative fuels and/or alternative raw materials in the cement industry:

• existing directives and regulations, i.e. licence conditions;• environmental, safety and health aspects;


• public opinion;• product quality aspects;• process implication;• costs.In addition, the following process and quality considerations should be taken into

account:• heating value and water content;• content of chlorine, sulphur and heavy metals;• waste composition, i.e. treatment and introduction.The following are the licence conditions:• differentiate between waste oil (WO) and hazardous organic wastes (HOW);• waste composition (general classification);• content of organic chlorine, PCB and lead (different for WO and HOW);• feeding amounts (tonnes per year and tonnes per hour);• process and temperature conditions;• storage safety.

ConclusionsFor nearly ten years, NORCEM has utilized different types of liquid and solidwastes as a co-fuel in its precalciner/preheater kilns. High calorific value wastessuch as solvents and paints have been incinerated without incidents of any kind.Extensive studies have revealed that this is a sound environmental practice thatreduces, by up to 40 percent, the need for non-renewable fossil fuels (i.e. coal) incement production and the Norwegian need for destruction of organic hazardouswastes.

Based on these findings, the Ministry of the Environment in November 1995decided not to build a dedicated incinerator for hazardous wastes in Norway. Insteadthe Ministry decided to utilize the advantages of the existing cement kilns, which arethe high temperature, long residence time, turbulence, oxidizing conditions andefficient scrubbing of the exit gases with the raw materials containing high amountsof limestone.


Rome, 4 March 1998: Huge amounts of obsolete and unused pesticides continue tothreaten human health and the environment in many developing countries, the UNFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warned today following the conclusion ofa two-day expert consultation on pesticide disposal. FAO urged the internationalcommunity to increase its efforts to solve “this environmental tragedy”.

The meeting listed priority countries where it said clean-up operations shouldbegin soon. These include the Gambia, Madagascar and the United Republic ofTanzania. Several donor countries indicated their interest in funding such operations.

It is estimated that there are more than 100 000 tonnes of obsolete pesticide stocksin developing countries, of which Africa has about 15 000 to 20 000 tonnes.“Leaking and corroding metal drums filled with obsolete and dangerous pesticidesdot urban and rural landscapes of developing countries,” said FAO expert AlemayehuWodageneh. “If stocks are located in urban areas or near water bodies, which is oftenthe case, groundwater, irrigation and drinking-water are at risk.” Enormous stocks ofpesticide waste also exist in Eastern Europe and parts of the former Soviet Union.

Particularly in Africa, large proportions of obsolete pesticides are leftovers fromearlier foreign assistance programmes. They can no longer be used because they arenow banned or they have deteriorated as a result of prolonged storage.

According to FAO, in Africa and the Near East only 1 511 tonnes have beendisposed of in ten countries (the Niger, Uganda, Madagascar, Mozambique,Zanzibar, Yemen, Tanzania, Zambia, the Seychelles and Mauritania).

Among the highly toxic and persistent pesticides identified were aldrin, DDT,dieldrin, endrin, HCH, lindane, malathion and parathion.

Total costs to remove obsolete pesticides from Africa alone are estimated atUS$80 million. Most of the money spent on disposal of pesticides in Africa wasfinanced by the Netherlands, Germany and FAO. Denmark recently committed $6million for pesticide removal and capacity building. Until now the agrochemicalindustry contributions have been very limited, but they are expected to grow in thenear future.

“Aid agencies are prepared to contribute, but do not wish to cover all costs withouta substantial contribution from the agrochemical industry,” FAO stressed.

During the meeting, industry representatives indicated their commitment tofinance, on a case-by-case basis, up to 30 percent of disposal costs. The industry saidit would help to clean up pesticide waste in countries such as Senegal (275 tonnes),Madagascar (75 tonnes) and the Gambia (21 tonnes).

The preferred way to dispose of obsolete pesticides is high-temperatureincineration. Safe incinerators are rare in developing countries, and pesticides arerepackaged and shipped to a country with a hazardous waste destruction facility. Inthe past, waste was shipped to Europe.

Annex 5

FAO press release: problem of obsoletepesticide stocks deserves greater

attention by donor countries and industry

FAO press release: problem of obsolete pesticide stocks deserves greater attention by donor countries and industry54

Unless prevention occurs, FAO warned, it is likely that the accumulation ofhazardous pesticides in the environment will continue unabated. Worldwide sales ofpesticides increased substantially in both 1995 and 1996.

According to FAO, the main causes for the accumulation of pesticides are:• pesticides that have been banned while in storage;• inability to forecast pest outbreaks and excessive donations;• poor assessment of pesticide requirements;• inadequate storage facilities and poor stock management;• ineffective or wrong pesticide formulations;• aggressive sales practices.FAO called upon its members to apply integrated pest management (IPM) and to

reduce the use of pesticides, where this is possible.

D/W9143E/1/10.98/1000

prevention and disposal of obsolete and unwanted pesticide ... · editing, design, graphics and...

Documents