The scourge of pesticides

fertilisers and chemicals for his field.

The chemicals are mainly pesticides and insecticides that will win him the battle against crop diseases, defects and blights.
He just cannot afford not to buy fertilisers and the chemicals as they are the keys to productivity, he has known this fact the better part of his life in Domboshava where his parents raised and taught him, thanks to growing and selling maize, tomatoes and vegetables.

There is a new dynamic in Nyakurwa’s industry.
Being a holder of a small-scale farm, which he benefited under the land reform programme in 2000, his use of fertilisers and chemicals has increased phenomenally from his days back in the communal lands.

He is also deploying the same in producing wheat and maize.
However, beyond the productivity, the profits and the farmer’s joy lurk the increasing environmental, health and economic problems.
Zimbabwe is an agro-based economy and agriculture is practised from subsistence to commercial scales.

The bane of the practice today, though, seems to be the increasing volumes of chemicals being used on the fields posing serious dangers that could cost Africa in particular and the world in general billions of dollars.
Other activities such as mining and manufacturing are contributing to the build-up of chemicals.

The United Nations has crafted a term for the scourge — chemical intensification.
According to a report released last month by the United Nations Environmental Programme’s Global Chemicals Outlook, “chemical intensification of economies in developing countries means greater risk of exposure to hazardous substances.”
“These risks are compounded by the steady shift in the production, use and disposal of chemical products from developed countries to emerging and developing economies, where safeguards and regulations are often weaker,” says UNEP.

The report reveals that the estimated costs of poisonings from pesticides in sub-Saharan Africa now exceeds the total annual overseas development aid given to the region for basic health services, excluding HIV/Aids.
Between 2005 and 2020, says the report, the accumulated cost of illness and injury linked to pesticides in small-scale farming in sub-Saharan Africa could reach US$90 billion.

Key environmental concerns include pesticide and fertiliser contamination of rivers and lakes while run-off from fertilisers and pesticides is contributing to a growing number of oxygen-poor “dead zones” in coastal waters in relevant countries.
“Poisonings from industrial and agricultural chemicals are among the top five leading causes of death worldwide, contributing to over one million deaths annually and 14 million Disability Adjusted Life Years,” says the report.

The scope of unintended industrial accidents involving chemicals continues to grow rapidly, adding.
It notes that of the estimated 140 000 chemicals (agricultural and industrial) on the market today, only a fraction has been thoroughly evaluated to determine their effects on human health and the environment.

The report says poor management of volatile organic compounds is responsible for global economic losses estimated at US$236,3 billion.
Exposure to mercury results in health and environmental damage estimated at US$22 billion.
The damage caused by acute water pollution to commercial fisheries in China has been estimated at US$634 million during the period of one year.
One thing is unfortunate

“Poor management of chemicals is incurring multi-billion dollar costs worldwide — most of which are not borne by manufacturers or others along the supply chain, but instead by social welfare systems or individuals,” says UNEP.

Management
UNEP states that sound chemicals management can reduce these financial and health burdens, while improving livelihoods, supporting ecosystems, reducing pollution and developing green technology.

UNEP Executive Director Mr Achim Steiner posits that reducing hazards and improving chemicals management — at all stages of the supply chain — is, thus, an essential component of the transition to a low carbon, resource efficient and inclusive Green Economy.”

Dr Maria Neira, WHO Director for Public Health and Environment, has been quoted as saying that effective long-term management of chemicals and wastes lays the foundations for a thriving Green Economy, for ensuring a healthier environment, and for a fairer distribution of development benefits across society.

The Global Chemicals Outlook lays out other specific recommendations for countries, corporations and civil society to accelerate progress towards the 2020 goal, and ensure the sound management of chemicals. These include:

Developing coherent approaches and assessments for monitoring exposure to chemicals as well as environmental and health effects.

Analysing further the economic cost caused by exposure to chemicals and related effects.

Adopting and implementing legal instruments that define the responsibilities of the public and private sector for chemicals control.

Further generating and making public an appropriate baseline of health and environmental effects for chemicals in commerce.

Civil society organisations should participate actively in decision-making on chemicals safety at all levels.

Safe for now?
However, local experts say Zimbabwe could be safe for now.
Professor Sheunesu Mpepereki posits that fertiliser and chemical use in Zimbabwe, as in Africa, is still too low as to pose serious environmental threat.
“Fertiliser use here is still far below than what is actually required for food production in the face of population growth,” he told The Herald. “The threat to the environment is not as big as in Europe.”

He said: “The chemical threat that Africa is facing today is the dumping of toxic waste by America and European countries as what happened in Nigeria and Sierra Leone. The use of fertilisers and chemicals is so low that it is unlikely to impact the environment in the foreseeable future.
“The bigger problem we have in Zimbabwe is that of effluent flowing into rivers.”
Prof Mpepereki further argues that, at the moment, the food insecurity in Zimbabwe and Africa could be alleviated by the use of more chemicals to enhance productivity.

“This is not to advocate for the indiscriminate use of fertilisers and chemicals,” which could harm the environment, said Prof Mpepereki.
Another expert, Johnson Muzarurwi, is alert to the benefits of chemicals as well as the dangers associated therewith.
He told The Herald in an interview that the use of agro-chemicals was desirable, but within certain parameters.

“The usage of synthetic chemicals is important and it is also important how you use them. We urge farmers to scout their fields, identify the economic threshold of using the chemicals and use the least amount of chemicals.

“The problem with some farmers is that they lack the adequate technical knowledge relating to chemical and biological control and use of the appropriate methods,” the agronomist said.
He said the chemicals in use in Zimbabwe are subjected to tests to ascertain, among other things, environmental impact, before they are used.