Importing Poison:

The ARIJ Investigation reveals continued disarray in pesticide markets across the West Bank and the Global South, uncovering the damage caused by regulatory negligence of harmful chemicals offloaded from Europe onto vulnerable countries.

A 2020 ARIJ investigation into malpractice in the West Bank pesticide market has uncovered severe illegalities that have yet to be resolved by local authorities. The Palestinian Authority continues to permit the importation of harmful pesticides banned or restricted by the European Union (EU).

ARIJ’s 2020 report uncovered the use of 13 different pesticides in the West Bank between 2018-2023 which the EU has either restricted or banned entirely, according to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) . “Banning an item in Europe doesn’t imply its harmfulness locally, as the reasons for it being prohibited there do not necessarily apply to us here,” West Bank official sources told ARIJ. .

Pesticides officially banned in EU markets since the beginning of this century are readily available to both small and large-scale farmers, who neglect to inquire into their effects, in several countries across the Global South including Palestine.t Neither the exporting or importing countries take any precautionary measures. This raises the question regarding why these products continue to be exported by European pesticide companies despite causing serious diseases and health risks.

Among pesticides banned in Europe and marketed in the West Bankis Mancozeb. Its use was prohibited locally in 2012, but the Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture’s Scientific Committee allowed its use again in 2017. US-based BASF, a global leader in the chemical production of pesticides and insecticides, and Swiss-based Agtech giant Syngenta sell it under a variety of names including Acrobat and Ridomil Gold MZ. The commercial fungicide can disrupt the function of human endocrine glands by offsetting hormonal balance, according to a report by The European Food Safety Authority, leading to itsre-banning in Europe in 2020. Despite scientific evidence that Mancozeb can impair both male and female reproductive function, it continues to be sold as a fungicide in the West Bank for use against potato and tomato blight.

The same applies to imidacloprid, a systemic insecticide that targets the central nervous system of insects, causing paralysis by binding to the receptors of their nerve cells and killing them within hours. . However, plants also absorb these agrochemicals, which is one of the reasons that multiple scientific studies have documented a decline in the number of environmentally-crucial pollinators such as bees. Consequently, European markets banned imidacloprid, and yet it continues to be sold and utilised in the West Bank under brand names like Confidor, as a revolutionary solution to termites, aphids and other insects that attack tomatoes, avocados, mangos, oranges and other crops.

Baskut Tuncak, former UN Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights,, criticises what he sees as “double standards” in the export of toxic pesticides to poor countries while banning them in rich countries: “When some of the richest countries in the world export these materials to low and middle- income countries, this goes beyond hypocrisy. It is an extremely regrettable practice and a political concession to industry. When laws are made to restrict the use of certain materials in Europe or North America, they are drafted in such a way to allow these materials to be made for export. You can’t use them internally, but you can manufacture them and ship them elsewhere.”

Laurent Gaberell, a researcher specialising in agriculture and food affairs at the Swiss non-governmental organisation (NGO) Public Eye, says: “This is a clear example of double standards and hypocrisy, because, if something it too dangerous to be used in Europe, it’s too dangerous to be used anywhere else.”

Laurent Gaberell, researcher specialising in agriculture and food affairs at the Swiss NGO Public Eye

There is no clearer evidence of this than the current situation in the Palestinian territories, where practically no oversight exists to empower and incentivize farmers in prioritising food safety. Director of the Pesticides Department in the Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture and member of the Scientific Committee, Salama Shabib, attributes poor supervision to a lack of resources: “We are just three employees here in the department, including me. Apart from us, there are 14 inspectors in each directorate in the ministry…just 14 for the entire West Bank. That’s not enough to do everything, since inspectors are responsible for shops and plant nurseries, for issuing health certificates, following up on committee decisions, certifying pesticides, and a hundred other things... so supervising farmers as well is a real problem.”

Samer Sawalha, the Ministry of Health’s representative at the Scientific Committee responsible for approving pesticides for use in the Palestinian territories, agrees with Shabib: “Monitoring pesticide use needs facilities, which we don’t have much of. Nor do we have the necessary logistical capabilities.”

Shabib said that the committee was in the process of re-evaluating pesticide usage to reconsider whether certain prohibitions will be required.

Sawalha said inadequate oversight can be overcome by educating farmers and monitoring the amount of pesticide used. This, he argues, is better than randomly banning pesticides.

Sawalha added that major pesticide companies pay millions to undergo and publish studies on the efficacy of any pesticide they produce, suggesting that the issue could be curtailed should farmers keep to specific dosages.

A 2021 monitoring report by the Financial and Administrative Control Bureau in the West Bank illustrated the differing standpoints taken by members of the Scientific Committee, concluding that the committee was ineffective due to a lack of procedural guidelines. The monitoring report also noted that the committee had not cross-referenced the pesticide guide with international research, failing to adequately evaluate the use and spread of harmful chemicals.

During investigations in the northern Jordan Valley,known as the “Palestinian Vegetable Basket”, ARIJ found that farmers were not taking any preventive measures when spraying crops with pesticides, and did not abide by the quantities recommended by manufacturers.

Uncontrolled use of pesticides in the Palestinian Jordan Valley

The European Parliament's regulation on the marketing of pesticides (EC 1107/2009) is one of the strictest legislations globally. However, Laurent Gaberell says it only covers the use of these pesticides in Europe and not their exportation to other countries and regions. This, he says, enables companies to continue manufacturing harmful pesticides for export to countries that still allow their use, including those in North Africa.

In the abovementioned report by Baskut Tuncak, former UN Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights, Tunack joined 35 other experts on the UN Human Rights Council to underscore the need to stop wealthy countries from offloading their banned toxic chemicals to poor countries with lenient legislations.

“The European Union continues to export toxic pesticides and industrial chemicals, and in low- and middle-income countries this is leading to widespread violations of the human right to life, dignity and freedom from cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment,” stated Tunack in his report.

Anja Hazenkamp, Vice-Chair of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety of the European Parliament

According to a World Health Organisation report there are more than a thousand types of pesticides in use around the world to prevent food crops being damaged or destroyed by a variety of invasive insects. Yet each of these pesticides has different properties and produces toxic effects to varying degrees.

A report published by watchdog NGOs Greenpeace and Public Eye revealed that about 82,000 tons of highly dangerous pesticides were sold outside the EU in 2018. These pesticides had been banned in EU countries because of “the unacceptable risks they pose to human health and the environment.”

The report stated that the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, and Spain accounted for more than 90% of these exports, while three quarters of the 85 countries who imported these banned pesticides were in the low- or middle-income bracket, where toxic materials are permitted despite risks.

Upon contacting the EU Commission, ARIJ was told that the legislative body was considering mechanisms to safeguard against the production and exportation of hazardous chemicals banned within the E.

The Commission also made clear that the EU was proactively encouraging the phasing-out of pesticides no longer approved in the EU, pushing instead for the global use of low-risk substances and alternatives to pesticides by launching debates on the matter on an international level.

The Commission went on to say that imposing a ban on exports from the EU did not mean third world countries would automatically stop using prohibited pesticides but may continue to import them from elsewhere. Convincing these countries not to use such pesticides was therefore crucial.

“The objective of this (Rotterdam) Convention is to promote shared responsibility and cooperative efforts among parties to the international trade of certain hazardous chemicals in order to protect human health and the environment from potential harm.”

A March 2014 legislation by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) necessitates prior consent for any trade in certain hazardous chemicals banned or severely restricted in the EU. According to the ECHA, the legislation dictates obligations on the part of companies seeking to export these chemicals to countries outside the EU, or to import them into countries within the union.

The Rotterdam Convention website states that prior approved consent (PIC) is the practical implementation of the convention within the EU, and promotes shared responsibility and cooperation in the international trade of hazardous chemicals. It also states that PIC protects human health and the environment by providing importing countries with information regarding the safe storage, transportation, application and disposal of hazardous chemicals.

Before shipping their pesticides abroad, exporters based in EU countries must notify the national authority, which then informs the ECHA , of the quantities involved. Export notifications are public declarations that clarify the volume of international trade in these banned chemicals, according to European commercial laws. .

Tuncak pointed out that the Rotterdam Convention has been weaponized and misused as a “shield” to be used by companies and states. He says that the convention has failed to work as it was supposed to for the last 15 years.

Baskut Tuncak, former UN rapporteur on human rights, hazardous substances and waste

When Palestine and other importing countries make decisions on whether to illegalize or import pesticides banned in Europe, they often opt to allow them in due to different standards between exporting and importing countries. Duaa Abdullah, a member of the Scientific Committee, suggests: “Under the Rotterdam Convention, I recently received entry notices for ten pesticides registered in Palestine.” She adds that these pesticides are currently being assessed and decisions on them are pending.

On the question of allowing pesticides into the West Bank that have been banned in Europe, Abdullah says: “Not every pesticide banned in Europe is necessarily banned here, since health and environmental standards are different... Do we have an alternative? Over there, they have bee farms, water resources, and the sea.”

Sawalha agrees with Abdullah on the difference in standards between Europe and Palestine: “There are many pesticides banned in Europe for reasons that don’t apply to us and which don’t worry me... They are banned there because they affect the water and aquatic life. We don’t have lakes, rivers and streams here, so why should I ban them? In the West Bank there is no sea, no fish for me to be concerned about.”

But Palestinian agricultural engineer Saad Dagher, a specialist in environmental agriculture, calls such justifications “hollow” and is taken aback by the claim that these chemicals are banned in Europe because the climate there is different: “It’s a weird but intriguing idea that our climate should make these pesticides less hazardous to health and the environment than the climate of Europe".

In May 2020, the EU launched its “Farm to Fork” (F2F) strategy, a commitment to promoting a global transition to sustainable food systems within its borders and abroad. The main aim was to maintain healthy food for EU citizens without consideration of continued exportation of banned pesticides to poorer countries.

However, pesticide companies work through CropLife International ) to lobby against restrictions of their products. . Laurent Gaberell, the researcher specialising in agricultural and food affairs, says: “They rely on studies submitted and funded by these global companies, which have no interest in revealing harmful side effects of pesticides. That is also the reason behind the continued presence of various toxic pesticides within the European market.

Agrochemical giants Bayer, BASF, Corteva, Syngenta and FMC are among the largest pesticide producers across the world. Despite being in competition with each other, these companies are collaborating to intensify their lobbying efforts.

Tunack says these companies have the means to exert pressure: “It is a powerful lobby group… no doubt about that. As a result the agrochemical industry has become incredibly profitable and powerful.”

Michèle Rivasi, member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the French Green Party (EFA), says that the pesticide lobby is circumventing the law and manufacturing its products outside Europe to sell them to countries outside the EU: “There are always these devious methods used by the pesticide lobby. They say, “It’s not us, it’s the governments of these (importing) countries that approve the use of banned pesticides.”

Michèle Rivasi – Member of European Parliament for the French Green Party

According to Gaberell, the pesticide lobby deflects blame by arguing that banning certain pesticides would exacerbate unemployment in Europe and destroy the European chemical industry, which is already struggling in a tense international economy. . Pesticide producers continue to claim that now is not the right time to put new obstacles in the way of the chemical industry in Europe.

CropLife International is a tool used by patrons of the pesticide industry to “wash their hands of the effects of their environmental and health toxins.” (may I ask why this is in quotes please and who is the source that said it?) A quick glance at CropLife’s board of directors reveals that its chairman is the president of BASF while its members include CEOs of FMC, Syngenta and Corteva, a board member of Bayer and the head of its Crop Sciences Division, and the executive and administrative officer of Japanese agrotech company Sumitomo Chemical.

A CropLife International report argues that highly dangerous pesticides should not be taken completely off the market. “Regardless of the harmful effects of these pesticides, they exist and are in use because they are an important tool to reduce crop losses and to support farmers’ livelihoods,” the report states.

The report recommends the use of these pesticides when there is no viable alternative. Without them, the report argues that farmers would be limited from producing adequate quantities of food for a growing population and from making enough income to support their families. Tunak says such claims are manipulative tactics of intimidation.

CropLife International denies being a source of highly dangerous pesticides in developing countries: “It must be recognized that most of the highly dangerous pesticides in the developing world are produced and sold by companies that are not members of CropLife International, ” it states on its website.

Gaberell responds by saying: “We managed to establish years ago that they (CropLife) are making a lot of money by selling these banned dangerous pesticides. And we estimate that they derive between 25 to 40 percent of their sales from so-called high-risk pesticides.”

We contacted CropLife for comment on the accusations made against it. But, as of the date of publication of this report, we have received no response.

Tunack calls on the need for political will: “If there is a solution to the problem of the lucrative trade in hazardous pesticides, it will be a political one.”

Gaberell sees the EU as principally responsible due to it supplying markets around the world with pesticides already proven as hamrful.

French Green Party MEP Michèle Rivasi, meanwhile, says that Europe should be concerned about people's health, whether they are inside or outside Europe, without employing double standards.

On the Palestinian side, Samer Sawalha, believes that the solution lies in only importing pesticides from countries that have a developed registration system, selecting the most effective and least harmful pesticides, and focusing on raising awareness among farmers through the Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture.

Meanwhile, Salama Shabib, irector of the Pesticides Department at the Ministry of Agriculture, says that the Scientific Committee is in the process of drafting a new guide to pesticides permitted for use in the Palestinian territories. This is part of a new mechanism that will require importing companies to provide a certificate showing the pesticide has been registered in the country of origin “so that we do not bring in pesticides that are banned in the country where they are made.”

Despite the danger they pose, many types of pesticides banned in Europe are still finding their way into a number of Arab countries under a European legal system that turns a blind eye to the export of these toxins.

Given the failure to amend laws governing the export of dangerous pesticides beyond Europe’s borders, pesticide companies are continuing to make billions of dollars at the expense of the health and environment of vulnerable populations already struggling under the weight of numerous humanitarian, political and economic challenges. t. Moreover, there is yet to be thorough, data-driven investigation into the ramifications of these pesticides on these vulnerable populations.

This report was completed with support from ARIJ