Workshop Proceedings
Southern African Pesticide Regulators Forum (SAPReF) Regional
workshop on risk reduction of Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs)
and technical assistance training for implementation of the
Rotterdam Convention
Holiday Inn - Rosebank, Johannesburg, South Africa
25-29th April 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SOUTHERN AFRICAN PESTICIDE REGULATORS FORUM (SAPREF) HIGHLY HAZARDOUS PESTICIDE
(HHP) WORKSHOP ................................................................................................................... 4
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 4
CONTEXT .................................................................................................................................. 5
OBJECTIVES OF WORKSHOP ....................................................................................................... 6
INTRODUCTION AND PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................ 7
DAY 1 – APRIL 25TH 2016: OPENING SESSIONS ............................................................................... 8
Welcoming Remarks .................................................................................................................................... 8
SAPReF Chair ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations - South Africa (FAO-SA) ................... 8
Guest of Honour .................................................................................................................................... 9
University of Cape Town (UCT) ........................................................................................................ 10
Swedish Chemical Agency (KemI)..................................................................................................... 10
Framing the Workshop.............................................................................................................................. 10
Workshop objectives, programme, housekeeping matters ............................................................ 10
Highly hazardous pesticides – Why do we worry and what can we do? ....................................... 12
The Mozambique pilot project: Reducing the Risks of HHP ......................................................... 14
Overview of country information relevant to the management of HHPs .................................... 16
Understanding Hazards vs. Risks ...................................................................................................... 18
Identification of HHPs: The criteria .................................................................................................. 21
Using the Pesticide Registration Toolkit to enable identification of HHPs ................................. 23
End of Day 1 Key Summary.................................................................................................................. 25
DAY 2 – APRIL 26TH 2016: IDENTIFICATION OF HHPS .................................................................. 26
Review of Individual Pesticides and Discussion on Methodology ........................................................ 26
Harmonized methodology for identification of HHPs in SAPReF? ............................................... 26
End of Day 2 Key Summary ....................................................................................................................... 27
DAY 3 – APRIL 27TH 2016: HHP USE SURVEY & RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS ................................ 28
HHP Use Surveys........................................................................................................................................ 28
HHP use survey – objectives and methods....................................................................................... 28
Methods of Risk Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 31
Risk assessment – options and methods for human health and environmental risk
assessment............................................................................................................................................ 31
End of Day 3 Key Summary ....................................................................................................................... 34
2
DAY 4 – APRIL 28TH 2016: RISK MITIGATION ...............................................................................35
Risk mitigation: options and constrains: Assessment of (non-chemical) alternatives ....................... 35
Risk mitigation – options and constraints ........................................................................................ 35
Assessment of alternatives – options and constraints..................................................................... 36
Regional coordination and collaboration for HHP risk reduction ..................................... 39
Rotterdam Convention: Implementation Article 5 under information exchange .............................. 39
Connecting it all with the Rotterdam Convention .......................................................................... 39
Implementing article 5 under information exchange and PIC procedure .................................... 41
Implementing article 6 for SHPF (Severely Hazardous Pesticide Formulations) ........................ 43
Addressing challenges identified by the countries and way forward ............................................ 45
End of Day 4 Key Summary ....................................................................................................................... 46
DAY 5 – APRIL 29TH 2016: PLAN DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 48
Developing Action Plans and Regional Strategy ..................................................................................... 48
FAO – Africa Solidarity Trust Fund Project...................................................................................... 52
SADC Regional Guidelines for the Regulation of Crop Protection Products in SADC
Countries (2011) – Need for review? .................................................................................................. 53
WORKSHOP RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 54
ANNEX 1: WORKSHOP AGENDA ..................................................................................................55
ANNEX 2 - LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AT SAPREF HIGHLY HAZARDOUS PESTICIDE WORKSHOP .......... 61
ANNEX 3 – TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP AND THE CONSULTANT FOR
THE REVIEW OF THE REGIONAL GUIDELINES FOR THE REGULATION OF PLANT PROTECTION
PRODUCTS IN SADC (2011) UPDATE WORKING GROUP.............................................................. 65
3
SOUTHERN AFRICAN PESTICIDE REGULATORS FORUM
(SAPREF) HIGHLY HAZARDOUS PESTICIDE (HHP)
WORKSHOP
BACKGROUND
The Southern African Pesticide Regulators’ Forum (SAPReF) was formed in 2011 and
current membership includes pesticide regulators and/or Designated National
Authorities (DNA) of the Rotterdam Convention, pesticide risk managers from diverse
backgrounds and disciplines from all the 15 SADC countries (Angola, Botswana,
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Madagascar,
Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and
Zimbabwe) as well as technical experts from key supporting institutions (Food and
Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), University of Cape Town (UCT),
Swedish Chemical Agency (KemI) and the SADC Secretariat). Currently there are over
100 members on the SAPReF platform registered and participating
as members,
administrators or observers. SAPReF seeks to achieve sound management of pesticides
and biopesticides used in agriculture, public health and domestic environments. Its
members also address policies and practices for sustainable pest management that aim to
reduce reliance on chemical pesticides. In 2014 SAPReF was endorsed as a subcommittee
of the SADC-SPS Committee under the Plant Protection Technical committee.
The priority areas identified in the SAPReF Strategic Action Plan that was elaborated in
July 2015 include regional projects and programmes to reduce risks posed by Highly
Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs), promotion of safer alternatives to toxic chemical
pesticides, strengthening of implementation of various multilateral environmental
agreements (MEAs) pertaining to sound pesticide management such as the Basel,
Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions, capacity building for sustainable pest and
pesticide management and harmonization of pesticide regulation procedures, to name a
few.
4
CONTEXT
In July 2015, FAO through 3 projects (Africa Solidarity Trust Fund, Rotterdam
Convention Secretariat and the EC funded project on strengthening implementation of
the Multilateral Environmental Agreements) supported a regional workshop for SAPReF.
The workshop objectives were to:



Elaborate a strategic action plan for SAPReF (2-5 years) to guide short and long term
activities as well as to be used for resource mobilization;
To provide some technical training to support implementation of the Rotterdam
Convention;
Strengthen regulatory capacity and promote better pesticide management.
During the Strategic Action planning workshop, countries neighbouring Botswana and
Mozambique had some side meetings to discuss the possibility to scale up the work done
to reduce risks posed by HHPs done in Mozambique to other neighbouring countries but
taking a regional approach. These discussions were followed up with a formal request
from SAPReF for financial and technical support for selected countries for risk reduction
of HHPs at national level and explore opportunities for a regional approach to eliminate
HHPs.
Appreciating that the key priority areas in the SAPReF Strategic Action Plan fall within
the scope of the EC funded project on Capacity-Building Related to Multilateral
Environmental Agreements in ACP Countries – Phase 2 (“ACP/MEAs 2”), SAPReF made a
formal request to FAO through the MEAs project for technical and financial support to
regional efforts to reduce risks from HHPs at national level and also to explore
opportunities for a regional approach to phase out HHPs. The request was granted and
culminated in the SAPReF HHP workshop held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 25th
to 29th April 2016 involving all the 15 SADC countries.
The goal of this workshop was to foster the regional harmonisation of HHP regulation by
providing national regulators with the technical skills and knowledge to develop
protocols for the identification and risk management of HHPs in line with the Rotterdam
Convention.
5
OBJECTIVES OF WORKSHOP
The workshop objectives were to:
 Discuss a regional strategy on HHPs;
 Capacity building on Rotterdam Convention implementation;
 Provide training to the participating countries in the protocol for identification;
 Discuss risk management of HHPs and to follow up on Rotterdam Convention
implementation activities as agreed in action plan 2015; and
 Develop national HHP risk reduction plans and strategies.
6
INTRODUCTION AND PARTICIPANTS
The Highly Hazardous Pesticide workshop for the Southern African Pesticide Regulators
Forum (SAPReF) was held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 25-29th July, 2016 with
technical and financial support from FAO through the GCP/INT/153/EC funded
Capacity-Building Related to Multilateral Environmental Agreements in ACP Countries –
Phase 2 (“ACP/MEAs 2”) and the Rotterdam Convention Secretariat. The workshop was
attended by 44 participants that included pesticide regulators and Designated National
Authorities (DNAs) for the Rotterdam Convention from all 15 Southern African
Development Community countries, collaborating partners such as UCT, KemI. The
Africa Institute (Regional Centre for the Basel and Stockholm Convention) and the SADC
Secretariat showed their support for the workshop. The full list of participants is in
Annex 1.
“Addressing pesticide use and identification of common issues in managing and reducing
pesticide risk in Southern Africa.”
7
DAY 1 – APRIL 25TH 2016: OPENING SESSIONS
Welcoming Remarks
The master of Ceremony for the Opening Session, SAPReF vice Chairman, Mr David
Kapindula facilitated self-introductions by all the participants.
SAPReF Chair
Loitseng Sebetwane
Loitseng Sebetwane, the SAPReF Chair, highlighted that the risk reduction of HHPs is
part of the SAPReF strategic plan drawn up during the Strategic Planning meeting held
in Harare, July 2015. He further went on to stress the importance of harmonisation of
HHP regulation amongst SADC member States. Mr Sebetwane went on to give
Mozambique as an example of a country that has begun the process of restricting HHPs
and that without the harmonisation of restrictions and regulations of neighbouring
States their efforts will be wasted.
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations - South
Africa (FAO-SA)
Tobias Takavarasha
The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO-SA) Representative
for South Africa, Dr Tobias Takavarasha welcomed all the participants and thanked
them for their attendance. Dr Takavarasha mentioned that Agriculture is one of
Southern Africa’s most important sectors, contributing to 8% of the SADC region’s Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) which rises above 28% when all middle income countries are
excluded. 61% of the region’s 277 million people living in rural areas, depending on
agriculture for their livelihood. Agriculture also employs over 80 percent of the rural
population, the majority of who are poor. He further mentioned that women make over
50% of rural populations and play an integral role in the production, harvesting,
processing, storage and marketing of food. As a result SADC member states are
committed to ensuring enhanced contribution to agricultural development and food
security by women, youth and other vulnerable groups by guaranteeing them access to
productive resources, services (including sustainable production techniques) and
social/economic opportunities.
Dr Takavarasha highlighted that with the exception of antipersonnel chemicals such as
war gases, pesticides are the only toxic chemicals that we deliberately release into the
environment, which, by definition are intended to cause harm to some living organisms.
He further emphasised that developing countries are facing growing domestic and
international concerns about pesticide use and associated risks due to the
8
environmental and health hazards they create from their expanding use and weak of
national regulatory agencies. There is a need to change pest management practices to
more sustainable approaches with reduced reliance on pesticides, and to strengthen
regulatory control on the distribution and use of pesticides to reduce risk of harm to
people and the environment. An efficiently regulated and managed pesticide registration
scheme is a prerequisite for ensuring that pesticides used in the country are effective for
controlling pests and will not cause adverse effects to humans and the environment. He
pointed out that FAO has for over 3 decades actively assisted governments, the private
sector and others manage pesticides better through international standards and
guidelines, legislation reviews, projects for sound life cycle management of pesticides,
phasing out Highly Hazardous Pesticides as well as provision of various pesticide
management tools.
Dr Takavarasha expressed pleasure in the growth of SAPReF and in its efforts to
strengthen and foster regional collaboration for sound pesticide management, conveying
the importance for SADC States to harmonize their pesticide regulatory management as
far as possible in order to stay competitive in the international marketplace, improve
trade and protect health of their populations and the environment against poor quality
and highly hazardous pesticides. He further went on to emphasising that through
regional collaboration, SADC countries have the opportunity to work together more
closely, share resources thus lowering the costs of pesticide registration, and coordinate
implementation of a number of international conventions related to pesticides such as
the Rotterdam, Stockholm or Basel Conventions. He concluded by thanking the
European Union for its support in building the capacity of ACP countries to better
implement the Multilateral Environmental Agreements relevant to sound chemical
management and to FAO for organizing the workshop and also expressed his sincere
gratitude to the Swedish Chemical Agency and the University of Cape Town for cofinancing the workshop.
Guest of Honour
Republic of South Africa Official
Mr Nkoane Madumise from the South African Department of Environmental Affairs
(DEA) welcomed all participants on behalf of the guest of honour. He further went on to
wish everyone a fruitful workshop.
9
University of Cape Town (UCT)
H-Andrea Rother - UCT Environmental Health Division
Associate Professor H-Andrea Rother highlighted that UCT is strongly committed to
capacity building for SAPReF and that the Advanced Post Graduate Diploma in Pesticide
Risk Management (DPRM) programme focusing on the life cycle is symbolic of the
collaboration with the Swedish Chemical Agency (KemI) and FAO to build capacity for
risk reduction of pesticides. Collaboration between supporting agencies and countries is
the key to risk reduction. UCT also plays a large role in knowledge translation between
SAPReF Member States and supporting organizations with the aim of increasing the
exchange and utilization of evidence-based research findings.
Swedish Chemical Agency (KemI)
Lilian Törnqvist - KemI
Dr. Lilian Törnqvist a Senior Scientist within KemI emphasised that HHP regulation is
not only a regional issue but global one. She pointed out that it is currently a significant
topic on the European agenda, with countries within the European Union working
harmoniously to share information and regulations. Ms Törnqvist went on to highlight
that KemI will continue to support SAPReF with its efforts of harmonising registration
and procedures.
Framing the Workshop
Workshop objectives, programme, housekeeping matters
Francesca Mancini – FAO AGPMC
Dr Mancini a Pest and Pesticide Management Programme Specialist for the FAO
highlighted that this is a step wise approach to developing an action plan to build the
capacity to create their own in country plan.
The regional action plan will help to guide national plans, as countries have pores
boarders and require inter collaboration.
Dr Mancini broke down the layout of the workshop into: Basic theory, Identification
HHPs, Use of HHP surveys and Risk assessment methods, Risk mitigation and the
Development of an Action Plan.
She went on to outline the workshop strategy:
Day 1
 Why focus on HHPs
 Look at the Mozambique case study: what has happened, what has operated and
what they have achieved
 Overview of country information provided by participants
10

Understanding Hazard vs Risk: Criteria to identify HHPs and the Pesticide
registration tool kit
Day 2
 Identification of HHPs: review of individual pesticides and discussion on
methodology
 Hazard Mapping
Day 3
 HHP use survey: objectives and methods: Field survey and questionnaires
 Risk assessment methods: Overview of types/methods of performing risk
assessments
Day 4
 Risk mitigation: options and constrains: Assessment of (non-chemical) alternatives
 Rotterdam Convention: Implementation Article 5 for Notifications of Final
Regulatory Actions for Banned or Severely Restricted Chemicals. Information
exchange and PIC procedure;
 Rotterdam Convention: Implementing Article 6 for SHPF (Severely Hazardous
Pesticide Formulations) proposal
Day 5
 Developing the National HHP Action Plans
 Regional Strategy: SADC Regional Guidelines for the Regulation of Crop Protection
in SADC countries (2011) and FAO Africa Solidarity Trust Fund Project (ASTF
project)
There is a need for countries to communicate and that the first two conventions are
interlinked as they influence each other.
11
Highly hazardous pesticides – Why do we worry and what can we do?
Francesca Mancini – FAO AGPMC
“Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHP): means pesticides that are
acknowledged to present particularly high levels of acute or chronic hazards
to health or environment according to internationally accepted classification
systems such as WHO or GHS or their listing in relevant binding
international agreements or conventions. In addition, pesticides that appear
to cause severe or irreversible harm to health or the environment under
conditions of use in a country may be considered to be and treated as highly
hazardous.”1
Dr Mancini emphasised that we can not only depend on the above definition. HHPs are:
often are older generation, off-patent products that are relatively cheaply available;
frequently remain registered in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs) only; often
used in these countries not as per label instructions; and cause a lot of poisoning.
Francesca underlined that a lot of chemicals posing risks have been banned in high
income countries but are still being used in low- and –middle income countries.
Why regulate HHPs:
There are many costs involved with HHPs both direct and indirect, such as farmers
taking numerous days off due to exposer, cost to public health, loss of wildlife and
decontaminating the environment.
At global level the need to address HHPs is growing in line with Agenda 2020.
2006 – Council endorsed FAO participation in SAICM: progressive banning of HHPs.
2008 - (FAO/WHO) JMPM formulated 8 criteria for the identification of HHPs
2013 - The Code of Conduct was revised to include a definition of and specific reference
to HHPs
2014 – Strategy for Global Action on HHPs was prepared by FAO/WHO/UNEP in the
context of SAICM
2015 – The Africa Group at SAICM/ICCM4 explicitly asked for concrete action to address
HHPs
2016 – Guidelines on HHPs published – the whole w/shop is guided by the guidelines
Articles in the Code of Conduct referencing HHPs are: 3.6, 5.1.6, 6.1.1, 7.5, 9.4.1
1
FAO & WHO. 2014. The International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management. FAO/WHO. Pg.4.
12
HHPs Guideline Objectives are: to help national or regional pesticide regulators with
limited resources to design processes to address HHPS that follow 3 steps.
3 Steps of the Guideline: 1) Identify the HHPs through the 8 criteria; 2) Risk
Assessment of both exposure levels and need and make informed decision of the
impact/cost of removing the HHP from use; and 3) Mitigation - end use, restricting use,
change formulation, packaging or use, change or amend policy.
Countries that do not have strong capacity to effectively control the distribution and use
of pesticides in the country may instead wish regulate the import, manufacture and
distribution of HHPs at the “entry points” into the country (through the registration and
import control processes). Regional collaboration can assist strengthening the capacity of
HHP risk reduction. Regional decisions will impact on national decisions as cross border
activities affect each other.
UNEP has a special programme providing funding of up to USD500,000 for capacity
building and strengthening legislation. The call for proposals is currently open.
Question and Answer Section
Q: FAO is the international organisation trying to find safer alternatives to HHPs. What
is being done for aldicarb which is known to be a HHP?
A: Through the SAICM project and Mozambique FAO works at identifying HHPs
and finding alternatives. They often happen at different levels. In Mozambique
one of the chemicals we have looked at but not limited too is aldicarb. In
Mozambique we are next looking at enforcement of the restriction of these
products. GEF project is focusing on strengthening capacities through training
and tools.
A: aldicarb was banned in SA in 2012 because it was being misused. South Africa is
still finding data on suicides linked to aldicarb, this may be due to cross-border
trade illegally and lack of enforcement.
Q: Looking at the level of chemical risk HHP – how can one distinguish between
different formulations of one active ingredient identified as an HHP; is the risk the same
for all the formulations?
A: The methodology of identifying an HHP allows for the same ingredient
registered in different formulations to be assessed differently. This way informed
decisions can be made.
Q: Can we try and control the illegally traded aldicarb by identifying the sources?
A: Yes, we need a regional approach to stem the illegal trade of pesticides such as
aldicarb and methamidophos, which was banned as HHP in Mozambique but is
now being illegally imported into the country from neighbouring countries.
13
The Mozambique pilot project: Reducing the Risks of HHP
Khalid Cassam – FAO Mozambique
This was a project supported by SAICM and FAO.
Project Outline: 1) Identification of HHPs, 2) Conduct field surveys of identified HHPs
to assess actual use and exposure, 3) Develop and action plan to reduce this risk, 4)
Initiate implementation of action plans (priority risk reduction activities), and 5) Review
the results of risk reduction activities; and develop mid- and long-term policies,
programmes and projects to reduce the risk of HHPs in Mozambique
Methodology and Results
Step 1: Identification of HHPs:
 Pesticide products registered in Mozambique - 648 products, 194 active ingredients
were assessed
 Evaluated HHPs against criteria – reviewed all pesticides authorized in Mozambique
against the JMPM HHP criteria: i) WHO classes Ia & Ib; ii) GHS categories 1a & 1b for
carcinogenicity, germ cell mutagenicity and reproduction toxicity; iii) Stockholm
Convention: Annex A & B, and pesticides meeting criteria of Annex D; iv) Rotterdam
Convention: Annex III; v) Montreal Protocol; and vi) high incidence of severe or
irreversible adverse effects on human health or the environment.
 Listed HHPs and other pesticides “coming close” to HHPs (including non-registered
but used HHPs) – 59 products (2.6 a.i.) met the criteria and 54 products (16 a.i.) close
too or provided concerns
 Evaluated import statistics
 Shortlisted HHPs for field surveys
Step 2: Reviewed how products are used:
 Performed field surveys on use and exposure – quantities used and methods of
application
 Additional hazard and risk assessments
 Identified HHPs requiring risk reduction measures
Step 3: Risk reduction plans
 Shareholder meetings
 Developed 3 level action plan- Immediate, medium and long term action plans.
Step 4: Initial Implementation
 Initiate implementation of priority risk reduction activities
14
A year after the process began there have be complaints from pesticide companies
regarding 3 chemical: Paraquat, 2,4 – D, and Diuron, stating that alternatives are too
expensive and not easily available.
Question and Answer Section
Q: Can we not control the movement of banned HHPs by looking at the place of origin;
for example for Paraquat? Or the country they are coming from.
A: All countries have legislation and regulation however our borders are so wide
and cannot be control. So once we ban them the informal market begins to thrive
as they see this as a good business opportunity to get into the market as the
farmers need it. If one country bans the product and the next door neighbour
does not, it become redundant as the chemicals need to be smuggled from next
door. This is why we need regional collaboration and agreements where all
regional States communicate and ban/restrict the same products to eliminate
them from the region.
Q: When you talk about alternatives to products such as paraquat these are some of the
questions that had to be considered i.e., what about the prices and the systems in place
for regulation at the border? Alternatives are deemed to be expensive so people do not
want to use them.
A: For now the safer products are expensive because they are not used they are
not being sold. If you begin to use the products the price will go done. This is
something to think about.
A: To begin with; it’s not such a bad thing that pesticides are not so cheap.
However, when people compare costs of chemical pesticides and non-chemical
alternatives, they fail to take into consideration ‘externalities’ which are costs such
as man hours lost due to pesticide poisoning related illness, loss of ecosystem
services, pollution to groundwater and other natural resources. Through
demonstration, such as with IPM Farmer Field Schools, farmers can test for
themselves and see the full benefits of adopting safer alternatives
Q: What approach did Mozambique use? In some of the countries parents are initiating
their children into the use of agricultural pesticide use
A: It was a process of educating everyone on the hazards and risk posed by
pesticides and the benefits of proper regulation. So it is very important to do
awareness raising, which pesticides to use, how to use the pesticides and when to
use the pesticides. There is a need for farmers to learn to assess when to apply
pesticides because they usually see only a few pests and the want to use pesticides
on everything even when they do not have to.
We also worked closely with industry to aid in the elimination and restriction of
HHPs.
15
Q: 1) Did you face any resistance from industry? 2) Also there are a number of
populations involved in the risk to these pesticides, how aware are these population as
you have large country?
A: 1) We have one company with 80% majority of the pesticide market in the
country. For the company it is beneficial to comply with us so as they benefit by
overshadowing the smaller companies and illegal sellers. So, no there was no real
objection from the industry. 2) We made sure we educated stakeholders on the
risks, we provided training.
Overview of country information relevant to the management of
HHPs
Ivy Saunyama – FAO SFS Pesticide Risk Reduction Officer & SAPReF Coordinator
Harold van der Valk - FAO Consultant – Pest and Pesticide Management
Consultant (FalConsult)
Background
Ahead of the workshop, a questionnaire on pesticide management, including
implementation of the Rotterdam Convention was sent out to all the participants.
Responses were received from all the 15 SADC countries.
1. Registration organization
What is the organizational setup for pesticide registration in your country?
a. Which legislation provides the legal framework for pesticide registration (name
the key law(s) and/or regulation(s))?
Of the 15 SADC countries 13 have legislation to regulate/register pesticides.
b. For which different type of pesticides is registration required (agricultural,
public health, domestic, etc.)?
13 countries regulate Agricultural pesticides; 11 countries regulate Public
Health pesticides;
7 countries regulate Household pesticides; and 6 countries regulate
Veterinary pesticides.
c. Is it possible to ban/restrict the use of registered pesticides if they are already
identified as a HHP?
Answer: 13 out 15 countries have the provision.
YES – Angola, Botswana, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Zambia,
Zimbabwe, South Africa, Namibia (because registered products get
renewed annually), Seychelles (but it has to go through Minister of
Health), DRC (because registration has a validity of 2 years and during
16
renewing action can be taken), and Madagascar (allows the use after
revision).
For Tanzania some Regulations would be required.
NO – Lesotho and Swaziland (as they do not have an Act in place).
2. Decision making criteria: Are criteria already used to refuse registration of a
pesticide identical/similar to those used to identify HHPs?
WHO class 1, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, registration in country of
origin, >4 hazard pictograms.
3. Hazard Classification: What system of hazard classification of pesticides is being
used in the country? (e.g., WHO Classification of pesticides by hazard, GHS, national
system (specify classification criteria).
9 countries use the WHO classification system, 2 use GHS, 2 use a combination of
WHO and GHS, whilst 2 countries use their own national classification system.
4. Pesticide import/production: Which registered HHPs are imported/used in the
country?
9 countries have no import data and only 3 have data.
5. Incident reports/studies: Reported incidents with pesticides causing effects on
human health (farmers, vendors etc.) or the environment, over the last 5 years.
3 countries appear to compile incident/poisoning data
3 regulators receive reports but not systematically
6. Pesticide use studies/surveys: Can we evaluate exposure to HHPs from local
pesticide use practices?
5 countries have conducted studies on pesticide use practices
The other countries did not report such surveys
7. Rotterdam Convention: Concrete actions, since the workshop in June 2015, to
implement the Rotterdam Convention?
2 Countries are not yet a party to the convention; and 9 countries have not
reported any actions
17
Understanding Hazards vs. Risks
H-Andrea Rother - UCT Environmental Health Division
All pesticides have a hazard but they each pose a different level of risk.
The difference between Hazards and Risks?
Hazards: are anything that may cause harm
Risk: is the chance that the hazard may cause harm.
Pesticide Hazard & Risk
Hazards: mostly based on acute toxicity from WHO hazard classification;
laboratory data
Chronic effects are not reflected on the labelling.
WHO hazard classification looks only at acute toxicity–.
GHS looks at both acute and chronic toxicity.
It is important to look at how the data is extrapolated. Data from research with animals
and extrapolated to humans the most usual animals are mice.
Risks: Are context specific such as climate conditions, the health status of
applicators/workers, and in some situations culture (when not being allowed to
wear trousers/pants and so can be more exposed to pesticides).
Risk vs Hazard Assessment
Hazards assessment: The process of identifying the inherent dangers/toxicity of the
product
Risk assessment: The identification and comparison of exposures to hazards and the
putting in place of control/risk reduction measures.
Pesticide Risks/Exposure Implications
 Short and long term health effects (acute & chronic)
 Health status of workers’ or the public (malnourished, TB infected, HIV positive)
 Exposure to multiple pesticides at work and/or home)
The Ways Pesticides Enter the Body
1) Through the skin (dermal); 2) Through the mouth (oral/ingestion); 3) Through the
lungs (respiratory); and 4) Through the eyes (ocular)
Issues influencing the effect of the pesticide exposure are: 1) Routes of exposure, 2)
Concentration and type of pesticide exposed to, 3) Duration of exposure, 4) Frequency of
exposure, and 5) Exposure scenario’s. and these need to be considered during
assessments of hazards.
18
Examples of Pesticide of Concerns
Glyphosate, malathion, diazinon (Category 2A) - Extensively used. A list of health effects
associated with glyphosate are listed within Table 1.
Table 1. 15 Health Effects research has linked to glyphosate
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADHA)
Alzheimer’s Disease
Anencephaly (birth defect)
Autism
Birth defects (hypospadias, heart
defects)
Brain cancer in children
Breast cancer
Cancer
Celiac disease & gluten intolerance
Chronic kidney diseases
Colitis
Depression
Diabetes
Heart disease
Hypothyroidism
Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Liver disease
Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS)
Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
Parkinson’s disease
Pregnancy problems (infertility, miscarriages, still
births)
Obesity
Reproductive problems
Respiratory illnesses (chronic)
Multiple Pesticide Use in Context
When talking about pesticides you need to be specific on the context. What exactly they
are being used for, i.e. eradication of mosquitos, rodent infestation elimination. A more
inclusive list of the most common uses of pesticides is detailed within Table 2.
Table 2. Common Uses of Pesticides
Agriculture
Crops; horticulture; weed control;
chicken feed fly control
Borders
Mosquito control on airplanes,
phyto-sanitary
&
foot/mouth
disease control
Domestic
Home & garden use; lice shampoo;
paints, hand wash
Forestry
Treated timber; alien invasive
vegetation removal
Leisure areas
Hotels, golf courses
Laboratories
Research; export residue testing
Public Health
Malaria; community pest control
Public spaces
Schools, hospitals, office buildings, public buildings
(supermarkets, restaurants) landfills; weed control on
pavements
Transport
Land & sea movement of pesticides; treated boat hulls
Veterinary purposes
Livestock; domestic pets; foot & mouth disease
Unregistered uses
Street pesticides; self-harm; problem animals;
homicides; warfin in street drugs
Migratory Pest Control
Quelea birds; locusts
Rother, H-A SAMJ (2012)
19
The low risk beliefs reflected in high exposure risk behaviours
 Using pesticides with no, limited or incorrect PPE (increasing absorption)
 Reusing containers for food & water storage; decanting into common drink bottles
 Re-entry too soon in sprayed area (e.g., IRS)
 Exposed when health status low (immune compromised; malnourished; allergies)
Pesticide Culture increasing exposures: The existence of a “culture of pesticide use”
in SA (Rother 2008)
Pesticide Risk Reduction Approaches: Hierarchy of Control (HOC) [Diagram
below]
Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting
workers. Two representations of this hierarchy are as follows:
Diagram 1. Hierarchy of Control
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) (2015) Hierarchy of controls: Overview. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hierarchy/
Quality Systems Toolbox () Hierarchy of Controls. Quality
Systems. Available at:
http://www.qualitysystems.com/support/pages/hierarchyof-controls
Conclusion: 1) you need to understand which HHP criteria is for risk and which for hazard,
2) identify exposure risks in your country through many sources, and 3) Use 8 criteria to
identify risk
Question and Answer Section
Q: Where did the HOC originate from? Was it created for pesticide usage?
A: The HOC was created for use in occupational health, to identify and mitigate
against occupational hazard, thus it can be used with regards to pesticide usage. With
all pesticides especially HHPs the most effective method of mitigation is the
elimination of the pesticide (hazard). If that is not possible or feasible due to the
need of the pesticide, it is preferable to look for a substitute that is less harmful and
can replace the hazard. However, in most low resources countries we focus on
20
administrative control (behaviour) and the use of PPE to protect the workers using
pesticides, but these measure are difficult to control as they are dependent on the
actions of the workers.
So with continued referral to the HOC regulators can find the best ways for hazard
control.
Identification of HHPs: The criteria
Harold van der Valk - FAO Consultant – Pest and Pesticide Management Consultant
(FalConsult)
In the International Code of Conduct (2013) HHPs are acknowledged as pesticides that
“present particularly high levels of acute or chronic hazards to health or environment
according to internationally accepted classification systems such as the World Health
Organization (WHO) or the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of
Chemicals (GHS) or their listing in relevant binding international agreements or conventions.
In addition, pesticides that appear to cause severe or irreversible harm to health or the
environment under conditions of use in a country may be considered to be and treated as
highly hazardous.”
HHP criteria
 Present criteria identifying HHPs were defined in 2008
 FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Management (JMPM)
Pesticides are classified as HHPs when:
1. Pesticide formulations that meet the criteria of Classes Ia or Ib of the WHO
Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard;
or
2. Pesticide active ingredients and their formulations that meet the criteria of
carcinogenicity Categories 1A and 1B of the Globally Harmonized System of
Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS);
or
3. Pesticide active ingredients and their formulations that meet the criteria of
mutagenicity Categories 1A and 1B of the GHS;
or
4. Pesticide active ingredients and their formulations that meet the criteria of
reproductive toxicity Categories 1A and 1B of the GHS;
or
5. Pesticide active ingredients listed by the Stockholm Convention in its Annexes A and
B, and those meeting all the criteria in paragraph 1 of Annex D of the Convention;
or
21
6. Pesticide active ingredients and formulations listed by the Rotterdam Convention in
its Annex III;
or
• Pesticides listed under the Montreal Protocol;
or
• Pesticide active ingredients and formulations that have shown a high incidence of
severe or irreversible adverse effects on human health or the environment.
Criteria 1 : WHO class Ia & Ib
Data sources: LD50 values
Criteria 2, 3 & 4: GHS Category 1A & 1B for “CMR”
• GHS Part 3 = Health Hazards
• GHS developed for all chemicals; not just pesticides.
• GHS increasingly required for labelling of chemicals in international (and national)
trade.
Criteria 5: Stockholm Convention
Pesticide active ingredients listed by the Stockholm Convention in its Annexes A and B,
and those meeting all the criteria in paragraph 1 of annex D of the Convention
Annex A: Chemicals to be eliminated (Data sources: Stockholm Convention web site)
Annex B: Chemicals to be restricted (Data sources: Stockholm Convention web site)
Annex D: Screening criteria for POPs (Data sources: Pesticide registration dossier &
Reputable pesticide property databases)
Criteria 6: Rotterdam Convention
Pesticide active ingredients and formulations listed by the Rotterdam Convention in its
Annex III (Chemicals subject to the prior informed consent procedure)
Criteria 7: Montreal Protocol
Pesticides listed under the Montreal Protocol (methyl-bromide)
Data source: UNEP Ozone Secretariat web site
Criteria 8: High incidence of adverse effects
Pesticide active ingredients and formulations that have shown a high incidence of severe
or irreversible adverse effects on human health or the environment.
• At discretion of national regulatory authorities
HHP identification: Would be of great benefit to all countries, the environment and
populations for different countries to have the same HHP identification. Harmonisation and
working together would bring the best results.
22
There are other HHP identification criteria
 CropLife International = FAO/WHO criteria minus: Annex D of the Stockholm
Convention + Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention + High incidence of adverse
effects, due to non-recommended uses
 Pesticide Action Network International = FAO/WHO criteria plus: GHS acute
inhalation Category 1 & 2 + Potential endocrine disruptor + 2 out of 3 of: very
persistent, very bio-accumulative, very toxic to aquatic organisms + Highly toxic to
bees (US-EPA)
FAO & WHO recommend the present Guidelines on Highly Hazardous Pesticides
(2016)
Using the Pesticide Registration Toolkit to enable identification of
HHPs
Harold van der Valk - FAO Consultant – Pest and Pesticide Management Consultant
(FalConsult)
Toolkit home page: http://www.fao.org/pesticide-registration-toolkit
Toolkit application page: http://www.fao.org/pesticide-registration-toolkit/tool/home/
In developing countries pesticide registration authorities tend to have extremely limited
resources such as: Personnel (time), Specific expertise, Finances and Access to external
information/specialists.
Reinventing the wheel (in particular if it has been well invented) is a waste of resources. Thus
if a chemical/pesticide has been evaluated in resource-rich countries it is of benefit to SADC
countries to use that information as a guide.
History of the Toolkit
Development of the Toolkit started in early 2014
• FAO HQ coordinating unit
• Working groups of topic experts
– Advice on contents of specific modules
– So far: Residues, Occupational risk assessment, Registration by analogy, Pollinators
& beneficials, Efficacy, Surface- & groundwater risk assessment
• Toolkit developers
– FalConsult, Envista Consultancy, FAO IT Division
• Peer review (ad hoc) by registrars and experts
23
Objective of the Toolkit
• Make existing information relevant for pesticide registrars available “at fingertips”
• Provide guidance about key registration procedures and methods in an interactive
manner
• Assist registrars in informed decision making
• Create a basis for training and capacity building of pesticide registration authorities
Pesticide Registration Toolkit
What is the Toolkit (and what not)
• Decision support system for pesticide registrars in developing countries
• Web-based registration handbook intended for day-to-day use by those involved in the
registration of pesticides
• Not an automated system for the evaluation of pesticides. But it supports and
facilitates informed decision-making by registrars
• Focussed
Registration Tools [not pesticide-specific]
Processes and procedures (underlined are Toolkit modules of particular interest for
HHP risk reduction)
• Get advice on what registration strategy to follow
• Get advice on steps in the registration process
• Assess data requirements and testing guidelines for the evaluation of a specific type
of pesticide for a particular use.
• Access evaluation methods for the various aspects of the pesticide registration
dossier
• Get advice on risk mitigation measures
• Get advice on decision making principles and procedures
Links to Information Sources [pesticide-specific] (underlined are Toolkit modules of
particular interest for HHP risk reduction)
• Existing registrations through national databases/lists
• Restrictions and bans by international conventions
• Scientific reviews by reputable international and national bodies
• Hazard classifications and labels
• Pesticide properties databases with information on individual pesticides
• Maximum residue limits (MRLs)
• Pesticide specifications
24
End of Day 1 Key Summary
Reporting team







It is important to consider pesticide externalities when weighing the price of pesticides.
‘The price of a pesticide does not necessarily reflect the cost a pesticide.’ It is a myth that
“alternatives are really more expensive than HHPs….”
Lack of or outdated legislation has led FAO and other development partners to offer
technical and financial support for the development and update of pesticide legislation
so that it covers sound life cycle management of pesticides. Sound pesticide legislation
forms the cornerstone of any risk reduction measures for HHPs.
There is currently a window of opportunity to obtain funding of up to USD500,000 for
capacity building and strengthening chemical management (including HHPs) from
UNEP/SAICM. FAO would be willing to support HHP risk reduction work, especially for
a regional HHP risk reduction strategy.
To safeguard the strides Mozambique has made on HHPs, and any other national
efforts, neighbouring countries should collaborate and as far as possible take a regional
approach to reduce HHP risks (e.g. aldicarb & methamidophos being smuggled into
Mozambique from neighbouring countries). Aldicarb – a nematicide that is widely used
as a rodenticide across Southern Africa – one HHP that requires a regional approach due
to the rampant illegal importations and uses. “We need a regional agreement on HHPs
and beyond national HHP risk reduction plans, may even go as far as having a common
regional pesticide list.” The background information submitted by all 15 SADC countries
indicates there are preconditions relevant for HHP risk reduction, especially if
information is shared and we work together.
There needs to be awareness raising to stimulate and encourage adoption of safer and
sustainable practices/alternatives foe HHPs. There is optimism that even pesticide
marketers will adjust to the demand for safer alternatives. Mozambique reported on
good cooperation from industry; stakeholder consultations are of key importance.
Criterion 8: While complicated, it is very important to understand local conditions of
use and also give regulators some liberty of assessing risks under local use context….e.g.
Certain WHO Class II pesticides can locally be HHPs. There need to constantly
reference to the ‘hierarchy of control’ as we work on HHP risk reduction strategies.
Recommended criteria for identifying HHPs – FAO/WHO HHP Guidelines.
Mauritius is an example of a country that has taken several successful measures on
pesticide risk reduction.
25
DAY 2 – APRIL 26TH 2016: IDENTIFICATION OF HHPS
Review of Individual Pesticides and Discussion on Methodology
Harmonized methodology for identification of HHPs in SAPReF?
Lilian Törnqvist - KemI
Since early 1990’s, active substances have been evaluated at European Union (EU) level.
Within the EU decisions on the approval and non-approval (ban) of active substance are
done at EU level. About 900 active substances were originally on the market; however
around 640 of those evaluations did not have the support from industry or incomplete
dossier.
Approval process includes: 1) The risk assessment has shown that a representative product
can be used with ”acceptable risk” to human health and the environment, 2) Approvals
might include extensive risk mitigation measures, and 3) Possibility to approve active
substances without a full risk assessment due to lack of data, if likely that the risk
assessment would show ”acceptable risk”.
About 500 (currently 478) active substances have been approved within the EU. The active
substances include chemical substances, micro-organisms and viruses.
Non-approval process includes: 1) “Unacceptable risk” to human health and/or the
environment, and 2) Withdrawal of the substance from the review process involves the
Knowledge of “unacceptable risks” and identification of large data gaps
67% of PPPs have been removed from the market in the EU as of 2009, with 26% approved
and 7% not approved after review. The review process has been made easier in the EU due to
harmonisation of regulation and due to work sharing. For resource limited areas work
sharing could help relieve the pressures in regulation.
26
End of Day 2 Key Summary
Reporting team
An incident occurred in Pakistan where 23 people died from HHP, exemplifying the need for
HHP identification and restriction.
HHP identification requires the review/classification of individual HHP using different
sources such as:
o Pesticide Property DataBase (PPDB)
o European Union endpoint
o US-EPA Ecotox database
o eChemPortal
 To populate a spreadsheet: Determination of whether the pesticide is HHP or not the
following can be used:
o Dossier toxicity data
o Database toxicity data
o Carcinogenicity
o Mutagenicity
o Reproductive toxicant
o Listing in the Stockholm Convention (Persistency in water, soil, sediment – Annex
D)
o Listing in the Rotterdam Convention
o Listing in the Montreal Protocol
o High incident of adverse effects (Local area incidents)
 The European Union (EU) has been evaluating pesticides since 1990. EU substance
registration process involves stakeholder departments being involved in the decision
making, with the European Commission determining the decision. The approval
duration is 10 years – Member state authorisation.
 There are guidance documents on how to access information from the EU registration
process (What is needed in order to register a pesticide in the EU and the processes one
has to go through).
 Practical Exercise on mapping the exposures to HHP where different scenarios were
used: 1) Large scale farming, 2) Retail, 3) Airport, 4) Quelea, 5) Small Scale Farming, and
6) Informal market.
27
DAY 3 – APRIL 27TH 2016: HHP USE SURVEY & RISK ASSESSMENT
METHODS
HHP Use Surveys
HHP use survey – objectives and methods
Ivy Saunyama – FAO SFS Pesticide Risk Reduction Officer & SAPReF Coordinator
It is vital for use to keep in mind the definition of what HHPs are. The impacts they may
have on the environment and on the population at large. This will aid in the designing of
process to address HHPs. There are three basic steps to the design process. The objective of
the session was to introduce the participants to some of the tools being used in countries in
Southern Africa (already used in Mozambique and adapted for current use in Botswana).
3 steps in designing a process to address HHPs
Step 1: Identification (of HHPs in use)
o Using the WHO/FAO JMPM Criteria (with Criteria 1-7 having reference lists &
related guidance that can be found on the internet…detail in Annex 1 and
Annex 2 – the FAO Pesticide Registration Toolkit)
o As Criterion 8 is more complex & depends on the actual situation in individual
countries there are a few indicators that could be considered such as: 1)
Surveillance indicates relatively high incidences of poisoning or environmental
impact; and 2) Surveillance indicates relatively high incidences of poisoning or
environmental impact, .e.g. PPE is not available, products being grossly used
in manners for which they are not approved. In such cases, targeted surveys
should be conducted to establish whether the use of a product qualifies under
Criterion 8
Step 2: Assessment
This step involves the assessment of the risks that the identified products are posing
to human health and the environment under the local conditions of use and to
review the needs for these products, taking into consideration available alternatives
= Risk Assessment.
The countries already in the process of addressing HHPs are Mozambique and
Botswana. Mozambique followed the sequence in order and Botswana is
performing the HHP survey in parallel with Step 1.
Risk Assessment – Exposure context
Pesticide exposure may be increased by local circumstances such as: the availability
of prescribed PPE, the availability of appropriate application equipment, poor
28
storage pesticides, limited ability to maintain and safely clean and store application
equipment, and inadequate knowledge on pesticide use and risks they cause.
The needs assessment serves to establish to what extent the product is actually
needed for its current uses, what specific benefits it provides and whether effective,
less hazardous alternative pest management approaches or products that pose less
risk might be available.
A needs assessment involve the following: 1) Stock-taking of the uses of identified
HHPs and the reasons why they are being used, 2) Identification of possible
alternatives that are effective and pose less risk, and might substitute for HHPs, and
3) Review of the need for identified uses of HHPs taking into consideration the
available alternatives and economic aspects.
This information can be gained from surveys.
Botswana is currently conducting a combined HHP and Knowledge, Attitudes and
Practices (KAP) survey. The objective of the survey is to develop a communication
strategy to raise awareness n pesticide hazards, risks and even safer alternatives key
to HHP risk reduction and generating data for HHP criterion 8, risk assessment
under local conditions of use, needs assessment. The questionnaire being used has
been adapted from the one developed for HHP work in Mozambique. The
questionnaire being used in Botswana has been specifically designed to capture data
for the KAP study as well as for Criterion 8.
Data collection methods - Surveys using questionnaires, focus group
discussions and in-depth interviews and/or key informant interviews
Step 3: Mitigation
Identifying measures to reduce the risks of HHPs, including alternatives (pesticide
and non-pesticide), phase-out, or continued use with (severe) restrictions.
The Botswana survey questionnaire was reviewed and discussed by the participants and a
list of their suggestions/comments and responses are below in Table 1.
29
Table 1. Suggestions/Comments for Sections of the Questionnaire
Suggestions/Comments
Response
Section A: Farmer Background
Is religion important in the Yes, it will help with developing communication strategies and
questionnaire?
may also help us understand certain attitudes and practices
regarding pest and pesticide use in the local context.
You have missing information We will add it to the questionnaire as it is only in the consent
such as contact details on the form. However the information on the questionnaire will be
consent form
coded to limit confidential information getting into the wrong
hands
Can
we
translate
it
the Yes, you can as long as you do not change the meaning. In
questionnaire to our local Mozambique the people in the field wrote the questions in the
language?
local language. In the Seychelles, for similar work they translate
the whole questionnaire into the local language ahead of the
surveys to avoid the administering of different versions of the
questions by the enumerators.
Is there any further way to It depends on the enumerator. A more experienced enumerator
compress
the
background will know how to complete some background questions. A lot of
information so as not tire the the background information will provide information for later
farmer?
communications strategies.
How do you qualify who is the
It would be best to enquire from the first person you meet what
right person to be asked the
their role on the farm or property is before you go on an ask
questionnaire too, as you may
them the more complicated and detailed questions.
spend a lot of time asking a
person who will then tell you they
don’t know anything about
Section E – Pesticide Products
This section has to be very country specific. You will need to adjust questions according to your
context. We have asked the enumerators to take photos of the labels in order to assist with
populating the table and also to have a collection of the different labels.
As an enumerator it is a struggle
to ask about people’s ages and
other personal details. Is there a
reason we have to ask these
details as they do not want to tell
us?
Section G – KAP Additional
G01 and G03
We ask the information so that we know how to get back to the
people we interview and to draw conclusions for the studies; the
background information is useful for interpretation of the
information collected.
This is country specific as you have different people responsible
for pesticide control
When you say applicator in the This is country specific. The applicator refers to people hired
answer series, who do you refer specifically for applying pesticides.
to?
There seem to be numerous
overlapping questions i.e. G20
says the same as C25; and G12
and G3
Section H – Future Intervention
This section is very specific to the communication strategy.
There is a need to harmonise
Section’s C and H.
30
Methods of Risk Assessment
Risk assessment – options and methods for human health and
environmental risk assessment
Harold van der Valk - FAO Consultant – Pest and Pesticide Management Consultant
(FalConsult)
The definition of hazard and risk are revisited using the Code of Conduct (2014) definitions.
Hazard – the inherent property of a substance, agent or situation having the potential to
cause undesirable consequences (e.g. properties that can cause adverse effects or damage to
health, the environment or property).
Risk – the probability and severity of an adverse health or environmental effect occurring as
a function of a hazard and the likelihood and the extent of exposure to a pesticide.
Methods of Evaluating Adverse Effects on Human Health and the Environment
The adverse effects of chemicals including pesticides on human health and the environment
can be evaluated on the basis of the hazard or the risk. This is when hazard assessments and
risk assessments are performed.
Hazard assessments are based on intrinsic properties of the pesticide, irrespective
of exposure (dose) rate
(e.g. LD50, ADI, DT50-soil)
 Hazard Assessments are easier, faster, less data need but they are less precise and
often overprotective
Risk assessments are based both on the properties of the pesticide and on the level
and probability of exposure (e.g. risk quotient, toxicity-exposure ratio)
 Risk Assessments are more precise providing better risk estimate under local use
conditions. However they require more data especially exposure. They are also
more complex requiring more human resources. This is why most countries
perform hazard assessment and not risk assessment.
Although both assessments can be used, the risk assessment is the preferred approach in
pesticide registration (“the dose makes the poison”) – however, hazard assessment is used for
some aspects.
31
Levels of Risk Assessment
There are different levels to the risk assessment: 1) Hazard assessment, 2) Qualitative risk
assessment, 3) Bridging and existing risk assessment (semi-qualitative), and 4) Full local risk
assessment (quantitative).
The amount of data, time, resources and complexity required as you move from 1 to 4
increase but means the method is more precise.
Hazard assessments involve the following principles: 1) Toxicity evaluation, 2)
Hazard classification, 3) Circumstances in which a hazard may be expressed, and 4)
Potential hazard concerns
The outcome from performing a hazard assessment should the identification of the
extent to which the pesticide is a hazard and through which methods of exposure.
Decision-Making: Through the use of a hazard assessment alone, countries may: 1)
Refuse registration of the pesticide if it clearly hazardous, 2) Register the pesticide
with or without mitigation measure if the pesticide is deemed to a very low hazard
and is likely acceptable for use, and 3) Conduct a risk assessment if it is not clear if
the pesticide is acceptable for use.
1. Qualitative risk assessment
Principle: 1) Outcome of the hazard assessment, and 2) Qualitative description of
exposure (i.e. knowledge of local practices, hazard/risk mapping, use surveys, etc.)
Example of a qualitative risk assessment:
 Pesticide X poses a high hazard to human health through occupational,
bystander/residential and dietary exposure
 Pesticide applicators do not wear PPE: occupational exposure to pesticide X is
therefore high
 Occupational risk of pesticide X is likely to be high
Decision-Making: Through the use of a qualitative risk assessment alone, countries
may: 1) Refuse registration of the pesticide if it likely to pose a high risk, 2) Register
the pesticide with or without mitigation measure if the pesticide is likely to pose low
risk, and 3) Conduct a risk assessment if it is not clear if the pesticide is acceptable for
use.
2. Bridging and existing risk assessment (semi-qualitative)
Principle: An existing risk assessment conducted in another (reference) country is
bridged (“extrapolated”) to the situation under review in your own country/region.
32
There is no need to reinvent the wheel if a “reputable and well-resourced
regulatory authorities evaluate the risk of pesticides”. We need to think of “How can
one make use of these evaluations, when having to evaluate the risk of a pesticide for
a local situation?”
3. Full local risk assessment (quantitative operator risk assessment)
Predicted exposure:
 Few, if any, product-specific operator exposure studies will be available at


registration ➔ rarely any measured exposure data
Predictive exposure models are used instead
Exposure models are using databases containing the results from operator
exposure studies conducted in the field, with different types of equipment and
methods of application.
There are various different ‘Operator Exposure Models’ already in use around the
world. These models may differ due to exposure scenarios, protection factors by
personal protective equipment (PPE), lack of PPE, dermal absorption and body
weight default values and exposure estimates from the underlying database. Below
are examples of the different models available:
Europe: a) EFSA Calculator, b) Agricultural Operator Exposure Model (AOEM), c)
German model, d) UK Predictive Exposure Model (POEM), and e) Southern
Greenhouse model.
North America: a) Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate
Reference Table (PHED, AHETF, …)
Pesticide industry (CropLife International): a) CropLife OpEx Tool, (includes theUSEPA Occupational Pesticide Handler Surrogate Reference Table and theGerman
model)
Organisations: WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme – Generic Risk Assessment Models
(Exposure models for public health pesticides (disease vector control)
33
End of Day 3 Key Summary
Reporting team








The FAO criteria for identifying HHP’s were revisited, with a focus on 8th criterion
(Conditions for Local Use). It is difficult to really reach a decision based on obvious
evidence, however there is a need to: 1) get a grip on health surveillance information
though not conclusive; 2) get in the mood of picking also the academic information
from learning institutions; and 3) get used to using survey tools in the way Mozambique
and Botswana are.
Mozambique used risk assessments and Botswana are beginning to use them in
combination with HHP identification with KAP. From Mozambique it was learnt that:
o There is a need for active involvement of stakeholders
o Information on field use is required when evaluating risks
o Poisoning and Health surveys should be carried out in rural area too
o Survey methodologies, questionnaires or focus groups
HHP use survey group work; to get a feel at the work and agree on a regional minimum
data requirement for needs assessment. We needed to make sure that enumerators are
trained well and understand the importance & the task before them, enumerators need
to be backed up and supported continuously, that their intelligence can also be
depended upon to also make observations that answer some questions without
necessarily pronouncing the questions.
Hazard assessment; easy to do but less precise and tends to be over protective
Risk assessment; more precise, better risk estimation under local conditions of use for
pesticides, however might be complex and requires more human resources than we can
generate as individual countries.
There is a need to bring together the two assessments (risk and hazard) and appreciate
the pros and cons of doing either one of the assessments.
There are different stages to risk assessments:
o Hazard assessment: toxicity evaluation on the basis of the dossier
o Qualitative risk assessment: gives a more comprehensive and logical reasoning for
us to make decisions
o Bridging assessment: extrapolation of data from other usually trusted sources for
comparison
o Full local risk assessment: includes quantitative and qualitative assessments of
information based on local conditions
The FAO toolkit can be used to facilitate risk assessments.
34
DAY 4 – APRIL 28TH 2016: RISK MITIGATION
Risk mitigation: options and constrains: Assessment of (non-chemical)
alternatives
Risk mitigation – options and constraints
Harold van der Valk - FAO Consultant – Pest and Pesticide Management Consultant
(FalConsult)
Mitigation in risk management is performed in order to ensure that the risk of the (highly
hazardous) pesticide is acceptable for local conditions of use
By referring back to the HOC there is the opportunity for identifying options for risk
mitigation of HHPs
 End use (and substitute: lower risk pesticide or non-pesticide alternative)
 Change formulation or packaging
 Restrict use (users, crops, locations, etc.)
 Impose engineering controls (deflectors, closed cabins, etc.)
 Change use practices (training, awareness)
 Increase PPE requirements
The Pre-conditions for effective mitigation measures are that they: 1) should have been
demonstrated, or is likely, to be effective under local conditions, 2) should be feasible for the
pesticide user (e.g. the farmer), and preferably not compromise pesticide product efficacy, 3)
should be affordable for the pesticide user, 4) the expected reduction of risk should outweigh
the cost of the measure, 5) should be possible to communicate the measure to the user in an
relatively easy and effective manner (e.g. though the label or the extension services), 6)
should have a reasonable possibility of enforcement, and finally 7) should be possible to
make a quantitative estimate of the efficacy of the measure so that its effect can be
incorporated into the risk assessment.
Examples of Measures limiting human exposure
Require specific personal protective equipment
o Questions to ask: Effective? Available? Affordable? Realistic?
Increase pre-harvest intervals, to protect agricultural workers
o Realistic for pest control & harvest time?
Examples of Measures limiting environmental exposure
Apply a no-spray or no-crop buffer zone between the treated area and the off-crop area
o Questions to ask: Field size? Yield loss? Enforceable?
35
Do not apply during crop flowering, to protect pollinators
o Questions to ask: But what if the pest attacks the flowers?
Whenever a risk mitigation measure is required or recommended as part of registration, it
should be assessed whether this measure can be realistically implemented under the
proposed conditions of use. This is the responsibility of the registration authority.
In the Pesticide Registration Toolkit, there is currently a Feasibility check tool in the
development stag. The objective of the tool is to list several measures and procedures for
mitigating of human health risks and environmental risks. As part of this tool there is an
Inventory of risk mitigation measures (in development), that aims to assist in limiting
human health risks and limiting environmental risks. For each measure within the inventory
there are: 1) a summary description, 2) estimated risk reduction potential, 3) possible
negative effects of the measure, and 4) Pre-conditions for effective implementation.
Assessment of alternatives – options and constraints
Ivy Saunyama – FAO SFS Pesticide Risk Reduction Consultant & SAPReF Coordinator
The approach to pesticide risk reduction as described in the FAO Guidelines on Pest and
Pesticide Management Policy Development [2010] comprises three main steps:
1. Reduce reliance on pesticides: Determine to what extent current levels of pesticide use
are actually needed and eliminate unjustified pesticide use. Make optimum use of nonchemical pest management practices in the context of sustainable intensification of crop
production and integrated vector management.
2. Select pesticides with the lowest risk: If use of pesticides is deemed necessary, select
products with the lowest risk to human health and the environment from the available
registered products of those that are effective against the pest (insect, disease, weeds
etc.).
3. Ensure proper use of the selected products: Ensure proper use of the selected products
for approved applications and in compliance with national regulations and international
standards.
A needs assessment involves the following:
 Stock-taking of the uses of identified HHPs and the reasons why they are being used.
 Identification of possible alternatives that are effective and pose less risk, and might
substitute for HHPs.
 Review of the need for identified uses of HHPs taking into consideration the available
alternatives and economic aspects.
36
Availability of Alternatives
Myth: HHPs need to remain available because there would be no good alternatives
Why this misconception?
 User habits or advice based on limited knowledge or by persons with interests
in the pesticide products.
FACT
In the majority of cases, there are alternatives that pose less risk. These may include:
• suitable bio-pesticides or non-chemical pest management approaches;
• less hazardous chemicals;
• different formulations that pose less risk.
• IPM/IVM and other agro-ecologically based production systems
Sustainable Crop Production Intensification
 Sustainable crop intensification involves “techniques
that produce more output from the same area of land while reducing negative
environmental impacts and enhancing natural capital and the flow of environmental
services”
 FAO’s model of ecosystem based agriculture, Save and Grow presents a new
paradigm of production that is highly productive and environmentally
sustainable.
 Save and Grow incorporates CA, healthy soils, improved crop varieties, efficient use
of water and IPM.
The Code of Conduct defines IPM as the careful consideration of all available pest control
techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that discourage the
development of pest populations and keep pesticides and other interventions to levels that
are economically justified and reduce or minimize risks to human and animal health and/or
the environment. IPM emphasizes the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible
disruption to agro-ecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms.
An ecosystem-based IPM approach to pest management uses inputs such as land, water, seed
and fertilizer to complement the natural processes that support plant growth including
pollination, natural predation for pest control, and the action of soil microorganisms that
allow plants to access nutrients.
NB. There needs to be a word of caution about some versions of IPM. Some definitions
of IPM which promote calendar spraying, take no note of effects on natural enemies or agroecological approaches…e.g. promotion of use of Endosulfan has been promoted as part of
IPM by the pesticide industry in China.
37
A needs assessment involves the following:
• Stock-taking of the uses of identified HHPs and the reasons why they are being
used.
• Identification of possible alternatives that are effective and pose less risk, and might
substitute for HHPs.
• Review of the need for identified uses of HHPs taking into consideration the
available alternatives and economic aspects.
Approaches in Identification of Alternatives
Look at crop protection methods in other countries with similar agro-ecological conditions
that have banned use of particular HHPs – info.
On availability and viability of such alternatives
There may be exceptions for continued use of HHPs made where there are no good
alternatives e.g. restricted use BUT the exceptions should be temporary whilst alternatives
are being identified.
Economic Aspects
The economic aspects to be considered with respect to alternative are the: 1) effects of
pesticide residues on the value of the produce, 2) residues of HHPs likely to render produce
unsuitable for consumption or export – income risk to farmers, 3) Consistent production
following IPM may attract a premium on the price of the crop/produce, 4) Costs of HHPs tend
to be under-estimated because of lack of information on health and environmental impacts,
which may represent significant public costs while their benefits are over-estimated.
Question and Answer Section
Q: Are there Myths about Alternatives to HHPs?
A: ‘Alternatives to HHPs are more expensive and farmers could not afford the
alternatives and be deprived of affordable pest management options.’
A: Another Myth is below
What to consider in order to understand the full costs of HHPs
Directs costs: costs of pesticides, PPE, application equipment
Indirect costs: health costs for the applicators, loss of labour time due to
pesticide poisoning related illness; long term health effects; public costs incl.
long term health costs to farming communities and consumers +
environmental costs associated with water contamination and loss of
biodiversity.
38
Regional coordination and collaboration for HHP risk reduction
Harold van der Valk - FAO Consultant (FalConsult)

o
o
o
o
o
The key aspects of a regional HHP coordination and collaboration are:
At very high political level of support – A SADC resolution on HHPs
harmonized data sources for HHP criteria
Regional HHP list
common templates for the conditions of use survey research tools
harmonized approaches to promotion of safer alternatives to HHPs (e.g. common
IPM database for local adaptation; harmonized registration of biopesticides;
regional database of poisoning incident reports
Rotterdam Convention: Implementation Article 5 under information
exchange
Connecting it all with the Rotterdam Convention
Nadia Correale – RC Secretariat
Overview of the Rotterdam Convention
Origins: Born from a need to protect countries lacking adequate infrastructures to manage
hazardous chemicals in international trade. The Convention is to strengthen weak
pesticide management which result in: Improper use of pesticides, inadequate storage
and control, environmental damage, serious ill health, and the collection of obsolete
stockpiles and expensive clean-up operations.
It is important to link pesticide management to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) as these are the goals and targets globally for the next 15 years. Dangerous chemicals
are mentioned in the SDGs numerous times in the key targets:



39
Goal 2:
o 2.3: double the agriculture productivity
and incomes of small scale farmers
o 2.4: ensure sustainable food production
Goal 3:
o 3.9: sustainably reduce the number of
deaths and illnesses from hazardous
chemicals and air, water, pollution and
contamination
Goal 6:
o 6.3: improve water quality by reducing
pollution, eliminating dumping and



minimizing release of hazardous
chemicals and materials…
o 6.5/6.6: water resources management,
protect water-related ecosystems …
involving local communities…
Goal 8:
o 8.5/8.8: decent work for all, women and
men, migrants and youth…, promote
safe and secure working environment
Goal 10:
o 10.2/10.3: empower and promote the
social, economic and political inclusion
of all…, ensure equal opportunity
including by eliminating laws, policies
and practices and promoting legislation,
policies…
Goal 12:
o 12.2: ensure sustainable management
and efficient use of natural resources
o 12.4: achieve environmental sound
management of chemicals and wastes
throughout their life cycle,
in
accordance with agreed international
frameworks and significantly reduce
their release to air, water and soil in
order to minimize their adverse impacts
on human health and the environment
 Goal 14:
o 14.1: prevent and significantly reduce
marine pollution of all kinds…
 Goal 15:
o 15.9:
Integrate
ecosystem
and
biodiversity values into national and
local planning, development processes,
poverty reduction strategies and
accounts
o 15.9:
Integrate
ecosystem
and
biodiversity values into national and
local planning, development processes,
poverty reduction strategies and
accounts
 Goal 17: Capacity building 17.9: enhance
international support for implementing
effective and targeted capacity building in
developing countries to support national
plans to implement all SDGs …
Objectives of the Rotterdam Convention
Rotterdam Convention aims: To promote shared responsibility among Parties in the
international trade of certain hazardous chemicals in order to protect human health and the
environment from potential harm. The Convention contributes to the environmentally sound
use of such chemicals:
 by facilitating information exchange about their characteristics
 by providing for a national decision-making process on their import and export
 by disseminating these decisions to Parties
Hazardous Pesticides in the scope of RC
 BANNED PESTICIDES: Article 5 notification of nationally banned and severely restricted
chemicals for human health and environment reasons based on a risk evaluation
 POTENTIAL UNWANTED PESTICIDES:
Article 6 severely hazardous pesticides
formulations (SHPF) causing adverse effects under local conditions of use
 Hazardous Pesticides-ANNEX III – subject to PIC procedure: 47 chemicals and DGDs
available
40
Key Players: Designated National Authorities (DNAs), Conference of the Parties (COP),
Chemical Review Committee (CRC), Secretariat
How does RC operate at global level?
Key Provisions: PIC procedure and Info exchange; and Chemicals in PIC Procedure
PIC procedure: increases the transparency in the trade of hazardous chemical and reduces the
vulnerability of abuse.
1) COPs lists a chemical in Annex III & approves a DGD; 2) DGD is circulated to facilitate parties
making informed decision; 3) Parties submit import response for each chemical; 4) Secretariat
circulates all import responses to all Parties through the PIC Circular; and 5) Exporting Party
takes measures to comply with import decisions.
Info exchange: enables member Governments to alert each other of potential dangers by the
exchange of information on severely restricted and/or banned chemical
1) PIC circular; 2) Export notification; and 3) Information to accompany export
Chemicals in PIC Procedure: 1) Final regulatory actions taken on a chemical by at least one
country each, from two PIC Regions; and 2) Reviewed by CRC in accordance with Annex II
The Overall Benefits of the Rotterdam Convention
The main benefits of the RC are:
 Shared responsibilities – among exporting and importing Parties
 Early warning system - PIC Circular provides information
 Informed decision-making – DGD for each chemical.
 Export notification – reminds, informs
 Info accompanying export
 Technical assistance
Implementing article 5 for Notifications of final regulatory action.
Information exchange and PIC procedure
Nadia Correale – RC Secretariat
The RC is a legally binding international instrument that provides rights and benefits to Parties
and at the same time creates obligations for them without which the Convention couldn’t
function.
Notifications of final regulatory action are the means by which Parties inform the Secretariat of
their national actions the purpose of which is to ban or severely restrict a chemical for human
health and/or environmental reasons.
41
Convention does not specify:
 how to regulate chemicals or
 how to make a regulatory decision → national decisions!
Convention does require
 that final regulatory decisions to ban or severely restrict a chemical to protect human health
or the environment be notified to the Secretariat
Key Provisions under the Rotterdam Convention
Article 2 – Definitions: Banned Chemical and Severely Restricted Chemical
Article 2 defines a Banned Chemicals as: a chemical all use of which within one or
more categories have been prohibited by final regulatory action, in order to protect
human health or the environment.
It includes a chemical that has been refused approval for first-time use or has been
withdrawn by industry either from the domestic market or from further consideration
in the domestic approval process and where there is clear evidence that such action
has been taken in order to protect human health or the environment
Article 2 defines a Severely restricted chemical as: a chemical virtually all use of
which within one or more categories have been prohibited by final regulatory action
in order to protect human health or the environment, but for which certain specific
uses remain allowed.
It includes a chemical that has, for virtually all use, been refused for approval or
been withdrawn by industry either from the domestic market or from further
consideration in the domestic approval process, and where there is clear evidence
that such action has been taken in order to protect human health or the environment.
Article 5 - Procedures for banned or severely restricted chemicals: Responsibilities of
Parties and Process followed
Article 5 details the responsibility of Party States in the following ways:
o For existing national regulatory actions in this regard the DNA is to notify the
Secretariat when the Convention enters into force for that country
o For new regulatory actions in which the DNA is to notify the Secretariat
within 90 days
o DNA completes a “notification of final regulatory action form”
- the signed and dated form is submitted to the Secretariat
- must contain the information set out in Annex I, where available
•
Annex I - Information Requirements for Notifications made pursuant to Article 5
The requirements in the Notification Process are as follows: 1) Parties are expected to
takes a final regulatory action to ban or severely restrict a chemical, 2) DNA
42
completes a notification form and sends to the Secretariat, 3) Secretariat verifies that
the notification is complete e.g. meets the information requirements of Annex I and
requests supporting documentation, 4) Summary of the notification is published in
the PIC Circular
The benefits of the notification are that:
Information exchange, alerts other parties of a potentially hazardous chemical (PIC
Circular)
- Summary of new notification published in Appendix I
- List of complete notifications published in Annex V
May lead to consideration by the CRC and a possible recommendation for listing in
Annex III
Notifying Party is to send Export Notifications for such chemicals
Implementing article 6 for SHPF (Severely Hazardous Pesticide
Formulations) proposal
Nadia Correale – RC Secretariat
This article is not an obligation for States but a great opportunity for developing countries and
countries with economy in transition to propose the inclusion of a pesticide formulation in
Annex III and to inform global community about their specific problems with pesticide
formulation related to conditions of use.
Under Article 2, the formulation for severely hazardous pesticides is defined as chemicals
formulated for pesticide use that produces severe health or environmental effects observable
within a short period of time after single or multiple exposure, under conditions of use.
Article 6 outlines the Procedures:
 Country experiences problems with a specific pesticide formulation under conditions of
use in its territory.
 DNA submits a proposal to the Secretariat based on the data collected at field level.
 Secretariat verifies that the information requirements of Annex IV, part 1 have been met.
o Summary is published in the PIC Circular (Appendix II)
 Secretariat collects additional information (Annex IV part 2)
There are 5 Key Criteria that can be used:
Criteria 1: Reliable evidence that common or recognised patterns of use within the Party
led to the incidents (Reflects differing level of regulatory control of pesticides among
countries, many common or recognized uses in developing countries do not appear on
labels or in extension guides)
43
Criteria 2: Relevance to other States with similar conditions (climate, conditions and
patterns of use)
Criteria 3: Existence of handling or applicator restrictions that may not be reasonably or
widely applied in States lacking the necessary infrastructure (Link to Article 6 the
‘problems… under conditions of use ’, and identify similar formulations may be used in
developed countries with requirement for extensive protective measures. In many
developing countries such protective measures are not practical or are not available)
Criteria 4: The significance of reported effects in relation to the quantity of the
formulation used
Criteria 5: Intentional misuse is not an adequate reason
Within countries, action should be taken from the field level to national level in the following
steps: 1) Collecting survey data on risky practices and common exposure routes, 2) Collaboration
and involvement of the Designated National Authority (DNA) and key stakeholders, and 3)
SHPF proposal based on the health/environmental incidents reported at field level can draw
global attention on a problem with a specific pesticide formulation.
Wider prospective action can begin at the national level with the goal of global awareness. Here
Parties to the RC Convention identify Problems with a pesticide formulation under conditions of
use to draw up proposals to be submitted to the Convention Secretariat. These proposals may be
may draw upon technical expertise from any relevant source e.g. NGOs and incident report
forms (environmental and human health) developed to facilitate preparation of a proposal.
Examples of these actions are those from: 1) African Lusophone countries “Measuring Impact:
from data collection to national decision process”, and 2) Georgia how from 2014-2015:
Protecting farmers and vulnerable groups from pesticides poisoning and 2016: Supporting
evidence-based pesticide regulation and risk reduction, with a focus on vulnerable groups
It is vital to consider the Challenges States may face. These challenges are:
 Lack of legal/policy framework in support to the collection of data
 Poisoning incidents not well documented (hospitals, etc.)
 Anecdotal information on poisoning incidents exists
 DNA for Rotterdam Convention not communicating with the fields, farmers and ministries
 Limited knowledge of the process to submit proposals
 Not good familiarity with the forms
44
Addressing challenges identified by the countries and way forward
Nadia Correale – RC Secretariat
Notifications of final regulatory action are the means by which Parties inform the Secretariat of
their national actions the purpose of which is to ban or severely restrict a chemical for human
health and/or environmental reasons.
There are numerous challenges to be considered during the notification process:
• limited knowledge of the process of notifications
• what is a risk evaluation under RC
• no clear link to exposure under prevailing conditions for the notifying country
• how to use bridging information
• familiarity with the form
• DNAs changing after training
45
End of Day 4 Key Summary
Reporting team
Conclusions acquired from – Hazard evaluation, Occupational Risk assessment models,
occupational risk assessment for Lannate (Methomyl) – reflected more less similar outcome.
Products to be rejected or restricted for use under conditions that it will be applied by tractor
and not knap sack sprayer as recommended. *Emphasis on: (i) exposure exceeding 100% based
on the measurements presented is harmful and (ii)Importance of Dossier evaluations during
registration.

Risk mitigation
Risk Mitigations are: Measures of actions that should be taken to reduce the risk for
human health or the environment. The measures to be taken are: 1) De registration, 2)
Restriction, 3) Change formulation, 4) Change package, 5) Engineering control etc.
Preconditions for effective risk mitigation: To be effective, Available, Affordable, Cost
effective, To be supported by enforcement
Measures that can limit human exposure – Increase Preharvest Interval (PHI), Promote
Comfortable Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
Discussion – Issue of the need to have biological pesticides (as alternatives)

Assessment of alternatives - Options and constraints
Objectives – To emphasize the need for alternatives to the HHP which are to be removed
from use (Non chemical)
Provided Definition for IPM/IVM – According to International code of conduct (Article 2:
Page 4) - Integrate different control options, Use interventions justifiable to human
health/ environment
Economic aspects on the use of alternatives: - Alternatives should cost effective – not too
expensive for users, little or no residues on crop, promotion of export trade, safety to
consumers etc.
Misconception on IPM: Promotion of IPM as calendar spraying, Industry promoting
Endosulfan as IPM product.
Exercise: Group to identify possible alternatives for HHP in their respective countries
(Non chemical) – To be presented today.

Rotterdam Convention
Emphasis: For protecting human health and environment, Legally binding, currently has
155 parties
Objective: To promote shared responsibilities in chemical information to protect human
health / environment
Implementation of the Convention – Addressing some SDGS Key targets directly or
indirectly – e.g. Sustain food production, Reduce death, Improve water quality, etc.
46
Key players: were mentioned – DNA, COP, Secretariat, CRC and each one has different
responsibility.
Benefit of convention: - Help to manage chemicals, Avoid unwanted chemicals, Raise
awareness on bans, Facilitate export notification
Opportunity: Technical support was declared to be available for developing countries in
the implementation of the convention
Severely hazardous pesticide formulations
Countries are encouraged to submit SHPF proposal if they experience problem with a specific
formulation that cause adverse effects on human health and environment. Country are
encouraged to collect information based on data collected at field level.
47
DAY 5 – APRIL 29TH 2016: PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Developing Action Plans and Regional Strategy
National HHP Risk Reduction Plans
This is vital to ensure active regulation of pesticides. Successful plans should include (for each
step):
• Activities such as the ‘Pesticide registration authority to reviewing all registered
pesticides and identifying HHPs
• Main actors (Pesticide registration authority) and other stakeholders (SAPReF: who can
define sources to be used for HHP criteria; National Ministries/NGOs: who can provide
incident reports)
• Their tasks and responsibilities
• Also indicate which activities (or part of activities) should best be conducted at the
regional (SAPReF/SADC) level)
• Time frames that are specific and realistic
• Coordination mechanism(s) (where relevant)
• Outreach and communication approaches such as Policy Briefs and Newsletters to
informing Pesticide registration authority to review all registered pesticides and identify
HHPs
Regional HHP Risk Reduction Strategies
When developing a regional plan it is vital to clearly indicate the activities to be carried out
solely at National Level and those solely at Regional Level.
The participants discussed a possible strategy for risk reduction of HHPs which identifies the
roles of the various main actors, at national, regional and international level. This strategy is
shown schematically in Figure 1.
Three levels of intervention have been identified in the strategy:
 National: Main actor: pesticide regulatory authorities; other actors: relevant government
ministries, private sector, NGOs, other stakeholders.
 Regional: main actors: SAPReF and the SADC Secretariat; other actors: other regional
entities active in pesticide management
 International: Main actors: FAO, Rotterdam Convention, WHO, UCT.
The following steps in the HHP risk reduction process are included in the strategy:
1. Build awareness & ensure buy-in
The first step is building awareness among stakeholders involved in distributing and using
HHPs, and ensuring the buy-in for tackling risk reduction by these stakeholders as well as by
high-level policy makers.
This is done through seminars and meetings at the national level. This activity is facilitated by
a regional policy brief on HHPs to be elaborated by SAPReF. The SADC Secretariat, in
48
collaboration with SAPReF, should also draft a Resolution for adoption by SADC Members, on
the importance of HHP risk reduction, with the aim to provide political backing for national
activities.
2. Identify HHPs.
The identification of HHPs is done at the national level, through a review of registered
pesticides.
However, the data sources that are to be used to assess whether a pesticide meets the HHP
criteria need to harmonised regionally, by SAPReF, to ensure that the identification is done in
a similar manner throughout the region.
International organizations may provide technical assistance, where needed and requested.
WHO is specifically asked to provide access to (pesticide) poisoning incident databases, to
facilitate the identification of HHPs and subsequent risk assessment.
After national identification of HHPs, SAPReF will compile the national lists in a regional
database and make this available to the other Member Countries.
3. Take stock of use
National pesticide regulatory authorities review the import and production statistics of
identified HHPs. Whenever possible, pesticide (HHP) use surveys will also be conducted to
get a good insight in the national use conditions of pesticides in general and HHPs in
particular.
SAPReF will develop a regional template for the use surveys, to facilitate the work of the
national institutions, based on previous experiences in Botswana and Mozambique.
4. Assess needs
At the national level, alternatives to HHPs will be identified, among others through a national
inventory of effective IPM and IVM methods. International organizations will provide
technical support where needed and requested, including capacity building on IPM and IVM.
National inventories of IPM and IVM methods, and other alternatives for HHPs, will be
compiled by SAPReF and made available to the other Member Countries, to facilitate national
HHP risk reduction planning.
Furthermore, SAPReF, in collaboration with the SADC Secretariat, will develop harmonized
guidance on the registration of biopesticides (and possibly other biological control agents), to
facilitate registration of alternatives to HHPs.
5. Evaluate risks
For selected HHPs (e.g. products that continue to be required, but for which alternatives are
not readily available), national regulatory authorities will conduct locally-specific risk
assessments.
49
To facilitate this process, SAPReF will commission a regional review, to be conducted by UCT,
of national pesticide incident reports and studies, and make it available to all Member
Countries.
International organizations may provide technical support, where needed.
6. Select mitigation measures
Based on the outcome of the steps above, national pesticide regulatory authorities will select
locally feasible risk mitigation measures for the identified HHPs that are in use in the
country. The SADC Resolution adopted under Step 1 will provide political support for
regulatory authorities to be able to propose and enforce such mitigation measures.
7 & 8. Due to time constraints during the workshop, steps 7 and 8 could not be
discussed in much detail. They will need to be worked out at a later stage.
It is noted that the steps in the strategy logically follow onto each other. However, several of
the steps can be initiated simultaneously, and the lack of a full completion of one step does
not necessarily mean that the next step cannot be started (e.g. steps 1, 2 & 3; and steps 4 & 5
may be conducted, at least in part, simultaneously, to gain time).
50
Figure 1. Strategy for HHP risk reduction in SADC member countries
Source: van der Valk, Harold (2016)
51
FAO – Africa Solidarity Trust Fund Project
Joyce MulilaMitti & Ronia Tanyongana - FAO SFS
The Project is funded by the Africa Solidarity Trust Fund (ASTF) and is managed by FAO in
partnership with SADC. It began in 2014 and will conclude in 2017. There are eight SADC
countries currently implementing the project. These countries are: Angola, Botswana, Namibia,
Madagascar, Mozambique, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
The overall goal of the Africa Solidarity Trust Fund Project is to “Strengthening controls of food
safety threats, plant and animal pests and diseases for agricultural productivity and trade in
Southern Africa.” ASTF aims to contribute to increased agricultural productivity and facilitate
regional and international trade for improved food and nutrition security in the SADC region;
and to ensure full compliance of the agreed international norms of the Sanitary and
Phytosanitary (SPS) measures.
The project focuses on Food Safety, Plant health, Animal Health, Forestry and Fisheries,
supporting activities aligned to the new strategic and priority programmes of FAO, and funds
Africa-led and/or owned initiatives in the framework of the African Unions CAADP.
The activities that the ASTF is involved are varied and include but are not limited to:
Plant Health and Forestry: Promotion of IPM approaches in all pest and disease
management programmes, Baseline studies to assess gaps, constraints and needs at regional
and country level and Regional Capacity Building activities cascading down to national
capacity building activities at different levels up to value chain operators
Animal Health: Implement a regional training for trainers on animal health Good
Emergency Management Practices (GEMP) and develop an integrated (animal health/food
safety) risk analysis framework and regional guidelines for commodity based trade (CBT) in
deboned beef
Fisheries: Provide technical support and build capacity for implementing bio-toxin and
hazardous chemical monitoring techniques on bivalve harvesting area
Food Safety: Creation of awareness on food safety issues including pesticide exposure risks
and support to enactment and ratification of national and international policies and
regulations for National Food Safety Management
Opportunities for Collaboration
1. Regional Workshops Support to participants
2. Collaboration on activities that have a common objective e. g. Activities that promote
Integrated Pest Management
52
3. Support to countries that are processing ratification for international conventions that
address pesticide risk reduction management
4. Recommendation for priorities and estimated budgets of activities
5. Coordination at National level and creation of linkages with the project national
coordinators
SADC Regional Guidelines for the Regulation of Crop Protection Products
in SADC Countries (2011) – Need for review?
 Starting points
- We need to change the name from “Regional Guidelines for the Regulation of Plant
Protection Products in SADC Member States” - the name of the document to include all
pesticides and not just plant protection products (public health, veterinary agriculture,
household, environment, etc.).
- To include text that countries must align their law to the guidance document but do not
have to follow it word for word.
- Needs to be in-line/aligned with the new code.
- Document has to be in-line with the registration tool kit.
- HHP text should be included.
 Needs to be cognisant of the OECD guidance documents – mutual acceptance of data
 Needs to include SAPReF as it doesn’t mention it anywhere.
 A great opportunity for the inclusion of the “Full Life Cycle”
 Issues and questions: i) what is useful and should keep; ii) what’s useless and should throw
away; and iii) what is missing?
 SAPReF should set up a registration database and decide on the mechanisms to put in place
to ensure harmonisation
The terms and conditions developed for the working group selected are within Annex 3 – Terms
of reference for the technical working group and the consultant for the review of the regional
guidelines for the regulation of plant protection products in SADC (2011) update working group.
53
WORKSHOP RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
SAPReF to establish a working group to review the SADC Regional guidelines for the
regulation of plant protection products
2. SADC Member Countries develop national action plans to reduce the risks posed by highly
hazardous pesticides (HHPs), based on the outline elaborated by the Meeting
3. SAPReF to establish a working group to further develop a regional strategy for HHP risk
reduction, along the lines agreed by the Meeting.
4. FAO, The Rotterdam Convention Secretariat, WHO, KEMI and UCT continue to provide
support to SADC Member Countries for HHP risk reduction.
5. The SADC Secretariat to engage with SADC Member Countries with the aim to create highlevel national support for the reduction of health and environmental risks posed by HHPs
and for the development of national action plans.
54
ANNEX 1: WORKSHOP AGENDA
SAPReF HHP Workshop Agenda
Holiday Inn - Rosebank, Johannesburg, South Africa
April 25th – 29th, 2016
Date
Sunday,
April 24th
Time
All day
Day 1
April 25th
Activity
Session
Chair/Presenter
Arrival in Johannesburg, South Africa
OPENING SESSION
Master of ceremony:
0830 – 0900
Registration
0900 – 0905
Welcoming Remarks – SAPReF Chair
Loitseng Sebetwane
0905 – 0915
FAOR South Africa
Tobias Takavarasha
0915 – 0925
Guest of Honour – RSA Official
TBA
0925 – 0930
University of Cape Town (UCT)
Andrea Rother - UCT
0930 – 0935
Swedish Chemical Agency (KemI)
“Addressing pesticide use and identification of common issues in managing and reducing pesticide risk in Southern Africa.”
All
Lilian Törnqvist
Date
Time
Activity
Session
Chair/Presenter
0935 – 1015
Introduction of participants
All
1015 – 1030
Workshop objectives, programme, housekeeping matters
1030 – 1100
GROUP PHOTO; TEA & COFFEE BREAK
Francesca Mancini
Session Chair:
1100 – 1130
Highly hazardous pesticides – Why do we worry and what can we do?
1130 – 1200
The Mozambique pilot project
1145 – 1230
Overview of country information relevant to the management of HHPs
1230 – 1400
LUNCH
1400 – 1430
Understanding Hazards vs. Risks
1430 – 1500
Identification of HHPs: The criteria
1530 - 1600
TEA & COFFEE BREAK
1600 - 1700
Using the Pesticide Registration Toolkit to facilitate the identification of HHPs.
1700
Francesca Mancini
Khalid Cassam
Ivy Saunyama/ Harold
van der Valk
Andrea Rother
Harold van der Valk
Harold van der Valk
CLOSURE OF THE DAY
Day 2
April 26th
Session Chair:
0830 – 0845
Summary of key findings of yesterday
Reporting team
0845 – 1030
Identification of HHPs: review of individual pesticides
Group work
Harold van der Valk
All
56
Date
Time
Activity
Session
Chair/Presenter
1030 - 1100
TEA & COFFEE BREAK
1100 – 1130
Identification of HHPs: review of individual pesticides
Group work continued
All
1130 - 1230
Identification of HHPs: review of individual pesticides
Plenary discussion
Harold van der Valk
1230 – 1400
LUNCH
Session Chair:
1400 – 1500
Identification of HHPs: review of national lists of registered pesticides
Group work
All
1500 – 1530
Identification of HHPs
Plenary discussion
Harold van der Valk
1530 – 1600
TEA & COFFEE BREAK
1600 – 1700
Harmonized methodology for identification of HHPs in SAPReF?
Discussion
1700
Lilian Törnqvist
CLOSURE OF THE DAY
Day 3
April 27th
Session Chair:
0830 – 0845
Summary of key findings of yesterday
Reporting team
0845 – 0915
HHP use survey – objectives and methods
Ivy Saunyama
0915 – 1030
HHP use survey
Group work
1030 – 1100
TEA & COFFEE BREAK
57
Date
Time
Activity
1100 – 1130
HHP use survey
Group work continued
1130 – 1230
HHP use survey
Plenary discussion
1230 – 1400
LUNCH
Session
Chair/Presenter
Ivy Saunyama
Session Chair:
1400 – 1430
Risk assessment – options and methods for human health and environmental risk
assessment
Harold van der Valk
1430 – 1445
Using the FAO Pesticide Registration Toolkit to facilitate risk assessments
Harold van der Valk
1445 – 1530
Risk assessment – methods
Group work
Harold van der Valk
1530 – 1600
TEA & COFFEE BREAK
1600 – 1700
Risk assessment – methods
Plenary discussion
1700
Lilian Törnqvist
CLOSURE OF THE DAY
Day 4
April 28th
Session Chair:
0830 – 0845
Summary of key findings of yesterday
Reporting team
0845 – 0930
Risk mitigation – options and constraints
Harold van der Valk
0930 – 1030
Assessment of alternatives – options and constraints
Ivy Saunyama
Session Chair:
58
Date
Time
Activity
Session
Chair/Presenter
1030 – 1100
TEA & COFFEE BREAK
1100 – 1130
Regional coordination and collaboration for HHP risk reduction
Harold van der Valk
Session Chair:
1130 – 1200
Connecting it all with the Rotterdam Convention
Nadia Correale – RC
Secretariat
1200 – 1230
Implementing article 5 under information exchange and PIC procedure
Presentation followed by group work
Nadia Correale – RC
Secretariat
1230 – 1400
LUNCH
1430 – 1500
Implementing article 5 under information exchange and PIC procedure
Group work continued
Plenary discussion
1500 – 1530
Implementing article 6 for SHPF (Severely Hazardous Pesticide Formulations)
Presentation followed by group work
1530 – 1600
TEA & COFFEE BREAK
1600 - 1630
Implementing article 6 for SHPF (Severely Hazardous Pesticide Formulations)
Group work continued
Plenary discussion
1630 – 1700
Addressing challenges identified by the countries and way forward
Discussion
Nadia Correale – RC
Secretariat
1700 – 1710
Survey on implementation of Code of Conduct
Harold van der Valk
1710
CLOSURE OF THE DAY
59
Nadia Correale – RC
Secretariat
Date
Time
Day 5
April 29th
Activity
Session
Chair/Presenter
The way forward
Session Chair:
0830 – 0845
Summary of key findings of yesterday
Reporting team
0845 – 0915
Development of a HHP risk reduction action plan
Harold van der Valk
0915 – 0930
FAO – Africa Solidarity Trust Fund Project
Ronia Tanyongana
0930 – 1030
Development of a HHP risk reduction action plan
Group work
All
1030 – 1100
TEA & COFFEE BREAK
1100 – 1130
Development of a HHP risk reduction action plan
Plenary discussion
1130 – 1230
SADC Regional Guidelines for the Regulation of Crop Protection Products in SADC
Countries (2011) – Need for review?
Ivy Saunyama
Chiluba Mwape
1230 – 1400
LUNCH
1400 – 1500
Recommended strategy for HHP risk reduction in SADC member countries
Plenary discussion
Loitseng Sebetwane
1500
CLOSURE OF THE WORKSHOP
SAPReF, SADC, FAO
1510
TEA & COFFEE BREAK
60
ANNEX 2 - LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AT SAPREF HIGHLY HAZARDOUS PESTICIDE WORKSHOP
Country/Organization
Name of participant
Organization
Email Address
Telephone
1
Angola
Paula Cachacha
Ministry of Agriculture
[email protected]
+244-921-544-152
2
Botswana
Loitseng Sebetwane
Ministry of Agriculture
[email protected]
3
Botswana
Thato Sengwaketse
Ministry of Health
[email protected]
4
Botswana
Collen Mbereki
Ministry of Agriculture
[email protected]
Democratic Republic of
Congo (DRC)
Democratic Republic of
Congo (DRC)
Christian Ernest Kiaku
Tebila
Ministry Agriculture and
Rural Development
Ministry Agriculture and
Rural Development
7
Lesotho
Sekhonyana Mahase
8
Lesotho
9
5
+267-392-8768
+267-392-8745
+267-317-0531
+267-7149-8566
+267-392-8745
+267-7536-4577
[email protected]
+243-9900-744-553
[email protected]
+243-8152-927-37
Ministry of Agriculture
[email protected]
[email protected]
Rorisang Mantutle
Ministry of Agriculture
[email protected]
+266-2232-4827
+266-6302-2361
+266-2232-4827
+266-5884-0271
Madagascar
Arsonina Bera
Ministère de
l'Environnement et des
Forêts
10
Madagascar
Désiré Rabakoarijao
Ministry of Agriculture
11
Malawi
Caroline Theka
Ministry of Environment
12
Malawi
Misheck Soko
Ministry of Agriculture
13
Mauritius
Rakeshwar Goorah
Ministry of Health
14
Mauritius
Shradanand Permalloo
Ministry of Agriculture
[email protected]
+230-466-6434
Samson Cuamba
National Environmental
Control Quality Agency
(AQUA), Ministry of Land,
Environment and Rural
Development (MITADER)
[email protected]
[email protected]
+258-1823-338805
6
15
Mozambique
Risasi Mutiri
61
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
+261-340-562-036
+261-331-120-975
+265-995-501-006
+265-471-4719/312
+230-213-4644
Fax: +230-213-4645
Ministry of Agriculture
and Food Security
Ministry of Agriculture,
Water and Forestry
Ministry of Agriculture,
Water and Forestry
[email protected]
[email protected]
+258-8284-25370
[email protected]
+264-612-087-463
[email protected]
+264-612-087-469
Samuel Brutus
Ministry of Agriculture
[email protected]
Seychelles
Julita William
Ministry of Health
[email protected]
21
South Africa
Nkoane Madumise
22
South Africa
Precious Mkula
23
South Africa
Brenda Maphanga
24
South Africa
Gordon Khauoe
25
Swaziland
Bianca Dlamini
26
Swaziland
Phindile Dlamini
27
Tanzania
Elikana Lekei
28
Tanzania
Jeniva Kumuhabwa
29
Zambia
Cliff Ngwata
30
Zambia
David Kapindula
Ministry of Environment
[email protected]
31
Zimbabwe
Kenneth Chipere
Ministry of Agriculture
[email protected]
32
Zimbabwe
Nzira Lukwa
National Institute of
Health Research
[email protected]
16
Mozambique
Anastacio Luis
17
Namibia
Paulina Pashukeni
Shilunga
18
Namibia
Ndeshihafela Haindongo
19
Seychelles
20
Department of
Environmental Affairs
(DEA)
Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry
(DAFF)
Department of
Environmental Affairs
(DEA)
Department of
Environmental Affairs
(DEA)
+248-461-1475
+248-256-6136
+248-252-6835
+248-438-8056
[email protected]
+27-12-399-9801
+27-76-079-8474
[email protected]
+27-12-319-7301
[email protected]
+27-12-399-9769
+27-72-815-8189
[email protected]
+27-12-399-9769
Ministry of Environment
[email protected]
+268-2404-1719
Ministry of Agriculture
[email protected]
+268-2404-2731
[email protected]
+255-756-833-135
Tropical Pesticides
Research Institute (TPRI)
Ministry of Agriculture,
Livestock and Fisheries
Zambia Environmental
Management Agency,
Ministry of Environment
62
[email protected]
[email protected]
+255-754-845-846
+260-212-621-048
+260-211-254-130
+260-977-822-306
+263-773-526-507
+263-4-704-542/3
+263-4-253-975/-8
33
FalConsult
Harold van der Valk
FalConsult
[email protected]
34
FAO
Francesca Mancini
FAO - AGPMC
[email protected]
35
FAO
Nadia Correale
FAO - Secretariat of the
Rotterdam Convention
[email protected]
+39-3495-9570-48
36
FAO
Joyce MulilaMitti
FAO SFS
[email protected]
+233-203-360-643
37
FAO
Ivy Saunyama
FAO SFS
[email protected]
+263-772-250-368
38
FAO
Ronia Tanyongana
FAO SFS
[email protected]
39
FAO
Khalid Cassam
FAO-Mozambique
[email protected]
+258-82-307-1000
40
FAO
Rutendo Tinarwo
FAO SFS
[email protected]
+263-77-294-2100
41
KemI
Lilian Törnqvist
KemI
[email protected]
00-96-765-061-160
42
UCT
Hanna-Andrea Rother
[email protected]
+27-21-406-6721
43
UCT
Nanziwe Khumalo
[email protected]
+27-7853-743-85
44
Africa Institute
Koebu Khalema
[email protected]
+27-12-399-9863
UCT Environmental Health
Division
UCT Environmental Health
Division
Africa Institute
63
+31-183-500410
64
ANNEX 3 – TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE TECHNICAL
WORKING GROUP AND THE CONSULTANT FOR THE REVIEW OF
THE REGIONAL GUIDELINES FOR THE REGULATION OF PLANT
PROTECTION PRODUCTS IN SADC (2011) UPDATE WORKING
GROUP
1.0 Background
SADC member states under the Food Safety – Capacity Building on Residue Control Project,
developed Regional Guidelines for the Regulation of Plant Protection Products in SADC
Countries to assist them to strengthen the regulatory framework for registration and quality
control of crop protection products at national and SADC regional level.
The guidelines follow the recommendations provided by the FAO and WHO International
Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management (FAO and WHO, 2014). The SADC guidelines list
the obligations of member State national governments. The main objective was to ensure
that national governments meet these obligations for the purposes of food security and
safety, human and environmental health and international trade in food commodities. To
overcome these constraints in the SADC region and to make the best possible use of
expertise and resources, member states agreed that crop protection products (including
public health pesticides, industrial herbicides and small householder packs) policies,
legislation, registration and control be harmonized in the region. This includes registration
procedures, requirements, guidelines, import and export control, compliance to the
requirement that only registered and correctly labelled products may be sold, quality
assurance and the accreditation of premises, distributors and applicators.
Southern Africa Pesticides Regulatory Forum (SAPReF), since 2014 is a technical subcommittee under the SADC plant protection technical committee. SAPReF is therefore
responsible for all pesticides issues, with all member states represented. SAPReF has noted
some shortfalls in the current SADC guidelines of 2011 and has been tasked to review and
update to include the new Code of Conduct and also properly aligned to the relevant
conventions and standards.
SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT
The aim of the assignment is to review the current Guidelines for Regulating Plant
Protection Products in light of the observed deficiencies and then initiate the process of
harmonization and domestication within SADC. SAPReF will form a Technical Working
Group (TWG), which will guide and oversee the implementation of the whole task, from
review of the guideline, including national consultation with member states to
domestication. This will be through the SADC secretariat, responsible for Sanitary and
Phytosanitary issues. Presented here are the two TOR’s, for the Working Group and the
consultant who will oversee the review of the guideline updating process. It is expected that
the guidelines will provide for the:
• Protection of the health of human beings, animals and plants.
• Safeguard of the environment.
• Implementation of secure, safe, efficient, humane and ethical methods of controlling
pests.
• Transparency in trade of agricultural products within and outside the SADC region.
• Raising of public awareness on pesticides.
•
Development of a legal framework for the management and control of pesticides,
including MRLs.
•
An inclusive guideline that would also effectively cover Highly Hazardous Pesticides
(HHPs) and non-crop pesticides e.g. pesticides used in public health and vectors
2.0 Purpose/Aim
The purpose of this review is to produce a more inclusive, harmonized and up-to-date
guideline for regulating pesticides in the SADC member states in order to safeguard human,
plant life and the environment while also ensuring products from the region are accepted in
international markets as safe; and to bring in-line with international conventions, Codes and
standards
3.0 Procedure
To update the Regional Guidelines for the Regulation of Plant Protection Products in SADC
(2011) and to promote a process for future domestication of these guidelines throughout all
the SADC member States.
Step 1:
SAPReF Steering Committee (EXCO) to work with funders of this project to
draw up a contract for the consultant
Step 2: Appoint a consultant
ToRs for the consultant
Step 2.1 To identify relevant, useful, redundant and missing elements of the
guidelines (and change the title) in consultation with EXCO.
Step 2.2 Make a presentation of the findings to the technical working group,
including cooperating technical partners and produce a final draft.
Step 2.3 To incorporate in the guideline SAPReF and its role, as a focal point for
SADC in pesticides related issues in the region.
Step 2.4 To ensure the guidelines are inclusive of all pesticides, as defined by the
FAO/WHO Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, therefore referred
66
Step 2.5
Step 2.6
Step 2.7
Step 2.8
Step 2.9
to as “Regional Guidelines for the Regulation of all Pesticide Products in
SADC Member States.”
To align the guideline with the FAO/WHO official guidelines under the
International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management.
To spearhead the discussion within the region on domestication of the
guidelines
Elaborate harmonized pesticide registration requirements and the modality
for implementation in the region.
Make a presentation of the final draft for validation to/by SAPReF.
Produce an agenda and the concept for the national workshops
Step 3: Set up a Technical Working Group
ToRs for the Technical Working Group
The technical working group, whose composition is as listed below and the chair who will
be appointed by SAPReF, is expected to have the following Terms of Reference:
Step 3.1
Step 3.2
Step 3.3
Step 3.4
Step 3.5
Step 3.6
Step 3.7
To guide and monitor the process of reviewing the guidelines based on the
stipulated timelines
From time to time review progress made by the consultant
Participate in the review
Arrange for presentation of the drafts and the participation of all relevant
stakeholders.
Present the guideline document to SADC for its member states’ adoption
and domestication.
Facilitate the process of national consultations
The working group in collaboration with the consultant will establish the
final version of the guidelines for review by EXCO to be sent to SADC.
4.0 Membership of the TWG
4.1 The working group will comprise of each Member State. Attendance is limited to one
member per State for the working group.
 Angola
 Mozambique
 Botswana
 Namibia
 Democratic Republic of Congo
 Seychelles
(DRC)
 South Africa
 Lesotho
 Swaziland
 Madagascar
 Tanzania
 Malawi
 Zambia
 Mauritius
 Zimbabwe
67
4.2 Technical experts may be drawn from:
 Swedish Chemical Agency (Keml)
 University of Cape Town (UCT)
 Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations(FAO)
 World Health Organisation (WHO)
4.3 National Consultations on Guidelines
5.0 Governance
5.1 The activities of the working group will be overseen by the SAPReF Steering Committee.
5.2 The Chair of the working group may recommend to the SAPReF Steering Committee
Board to suspend the membership of a particular member to attend two consecutive
meetings of the working group without proper justification.
5.3 The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), Swedish
Chemical Agency (KemI), University of Cape Town (UCT), and World Health
Organisation (WHO) will provide technical guidance and support for the update and
domestication of the guidelines.
6.0 Meetings
The working group will meet at regular intervals at least once a month, with each meeting
lasting at least one and half hours. Extraordinary meetings may be called when required.
To minimize costs, the TWG will conduct most of its meetings virtually and will be conducted in
English only.
7.0 Funding
The working group will develop a project proposal for funding for both the review and
domestication of the guidelines.
68
Time Frame
Due DATE
TASK
29 April, 2016
EXCO to appoint TWG chair and group members
15 May 2016
TWG to develop a work plan and budget. Chair submit to EXCO (online
meeting; secretarial support from UCT/Nanzi) 1st week of May (meeting)
15 July, 2016
EXCO and funder to appoint consultant
30 August, 2016
Consultant to develop draft document and present to TWG
15 September, 2016
TWG to review draft document and submit comments to consultant
30 September, 2016
Consultant to produce the second working draft to EXCO
7 October, 2016
EXCO to review and send comments to consultant
15 October, 2016
Consultant to produce third draft
30 November, 2016
SAPReF members to hold national consultations with third working draft of
guideline
15 December, 2016
Consultant incorporates findings and comments from national workshops in
conjunction with the TWG and develop final draft and submits to EXCO for
final endorsement
20 December, 2016
EXCO endorses final guideline and send to all SAPReF members
SAPReF members to endorse the final guidelines
SAPReF chair to submit the guidelines for SADC approval
69