DDT
Author:
Janice King Jensen
Office of Pesticide Programs (7506C)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
United States of America
Tel: 703-305-7706
Fax: 703-308-1850
E-mail: [email protected]
1
CONTENTS
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
See above page 1
2.0
INTRODUCTION page 4
2.1
Protocol Requirement
page 4
3.0
DDT PRODUCTION, USE, AND CONTROL ACTIONS
IN THE UN-ECE REGION page 5
3.1
Production page 5
3.2
Use page 5
3.3
Disposal page 5
3.4
Control Actions page 6
4.0
GLOBAL PRODUCTION AND USE OF DDT page 6
4.1
Global Production page 6
4.2
Global Use page 6
5.0
REVIEW OF THE AVAILABILITY AND FEASIBILITY
OF ALTERNATIVES TO DDT page 6
5.1
WHO Action Plan to Reduce Reliance on DDT page 6
5.2
Use of Combination Vector and Disease Management Strategies page 7
5.3
WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme page 7
5.4
Use of Chemical Pesticides page 8
6.0
OTHER INFORMATION page 9
6.1
Economic Analysis of Malaria Control in Sub-Saharan Africa page 9
6.2
GEF Projects to Phase-Out DDT in Mexico, Central America, & Africa page 9
6.3
World Bank Loans to India page 9
6.4
Guidance from WHO, UNEP, & FAO with the Global IPM Facility Activities on
Alternative Strategies for Sustainable Pest & Vector Management page 9
7.0
CONCLUSIONS
8.0
REFERENCES page 10
page 10
ATTACHMENTS
1.
LRTAP POPs Protocol Obligations for DDT page 12
2.
DDT Production and Use in the UN-ECE, responses from LRTAP Parties page 13
3.
The Stockholm Convention: Information on Global DDT Production and Use page 15
2
2.0
INTRODUCTION
This dossier reviews the availability and feasibility of alternatives to DDT. Most countries in the
UN-ECE region have ceased production and use of DDT, and malaria is not a significant health
problem in much of the region.
However, DDT continues to be a tool outside of the region for the control of malaria. DDT has
been used in the control of several diseases such as malaria, encephalitis, leishmaniasis, dengue,
typhus, and plague, but today the main use of DDT is for malaria control.
According to the WHO, malaria kills at least one million people each year, or about 3,000 people
a day. Almost 300 million people suffer from acute malaria each year. Forty percent of the
world’s population live in areas with malaria risk but nine out of ten cases occur in Africa south
of the Sahara. For additional information on malaria, see http://www.rbm.who.int.
2.1
Protocol Requirement
The Protocol to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) on
Persistent Organic Pollutants, or the POPs Protocol, requires Parties to eliminate the production
and use of DDT once there is consensus that suitable alternatives are available for public health
protection.
Parties are required to review, no later than one year after entry into force and periodically
thereafter, and in consultation with WHO, FAO, and UNEP, the availability and feasibility of
safer and economically viable alternatives to DDT, and, as appropriate, promote the
commercialization of safer and economically viable alternatives to DDT.
As the POPs Protocol has not yet entered into force (only nine of sixteen required states have
ratified as of June 15, 2002), this document should be considered a working draft.
The POPs Protocol also restricts the use of DDT as a chemical intermediate to produce the
pesticide dicofol, requiring the use be reassessed no later than two years after entry into force of
the Protocol. This reassessment is not part of this report as it will be addressed elsewhere.
For the complete text of the implementation requirements for DDT in Annexes I and II, see
attachment 1. For the full text of the POPs Protocol, see http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/
3.0
DDT PRODUCTION, USE, AND CONTROL ACTIONS IN THE UN-ECE
REGION
The information for this section comes from two sources: 1) three questionnaires sent to LRTAP
Parties in 2000 and 2001, compiled by the United States and included as attachment 2; and 2) the
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. For more information, see attachment 3
or http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/
3.1
Production
3
During the negotiations for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the
Russian Federation requested an exemption to produce DDT for disease vector control. No other
UN-ECE country requested to produce DDT.
3.2
Use
During negotiations for the POPs Protocol, the Russian Federation was the only UN-ECE country
that requested that it be allowed to use DDT to control encephalitis. This continued need has not
been reconfirmed. In their response to the 2001 UN-ECE Questionnaire, Georgia stated that the
use of DDT was banned. Georgia, however, reported that it is aware of, and attempting to
control, the unsanctioned use of DDT in coastal areas, military zones, and in certain facilities in
Georgia.
3.3
Disposal
The only information on stockpiles of DDT in the UN-ECE region is included below:
Country
Tons of DDT
Notes/Reference
Estonia
5.8
Response to July 2001 questionnaire
Latvia
172
Included in Estonian response to July 2001 questionnaire
Lithuania
80
Included in Estonian response to July 2001 questionnaire
Moldova
0.3 & 654.1
Response to July 2001 questionnaire reported the
following: Inventory in year 2000, DDT stocks in
stockpiles contain 0.300 tons. All forms of DDT in
Vulcanesti pesticide dump site are 654.1 tons, including
technical DDT - 107.5 tons; DDT-5.5% - 187.7 tons; DDT
30% - 318.9 tons; DDT-75% - 22.6 tons; DDT 15% - 3.1
tons; and DDT Paste - 14.3 tons.
Poland
400
Response to 2000 questionnaire
3.4
Control actions
The specific control actions taken by UN-ECE countries are included in attachment 2.
4.0
GLOBAL PRODUCTION AND USE OF DDT
Although not specifically required for this review, additional information is provided on the
Stockholm Convention and global production and use of DDT.
The Stockholm Convention allows the production and use of DDT for disease vector control until
4
effective and affordable alternatives become available; encourages the development of safe,
effective, affordable and environmentally friendly alternatives; and establishes a DDT registry of
users and producers that will be publicly available. Beginning with the first meeting of the
Conference of Parties and every three years thereafter, Parties will, in consultation with the
WHO, evaluate the continued need for DDT for disease vector control on the basis of available
scientific, technical, environmental, and economic information
4.1
Global Production
China, India, and the Russian Federation have submitted requests to produce DDT for public
health purposes during the negotiations for the Stockholm Convention.
4.2
Global Use
To date, thirty-two countries have requested to use DDT for disease vector control in accordance
with the provisions for acceptable use during the negotiations for the Convention. These
countries are listed in attachment 3.
5.0
REVIEW OF THE AVAILABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES
TO DDT
This section provides a general discussion on various malaria control strategies that include, inter
alia, vector control, disease control, use of insecticide-treated bednets, malaria vaccines, and
other control measures. For detailed information on these topics, the reader should consult the
websites included in each section. The WHO, through its Roll Back Malaria initiative, has the
international mandate to assist countries to reduce their reliance on DDT.
5.1
WHO Action Plan to Reduce Reliance on DDT
Under its Roll Back Malaria initiative (RBM), the WHO has initiated a program to reduce
reliance on DDT, including the development of the WHO Action Plan for Reducing Reliance on
DDT. For more information, see http://www.rbm.who.int.
This program provides an international framework for coordinating action with respect to DDT.
RBM is developing a standard needs assessment methodology for use by national governments to
identify the managerial, technical, and financial requirements to improve malaria vector control
and reduce reliance on DDT. Based on these needs assessments, WHO will support countries in
the preparation of national action plans that establish integrated strategies for enhancing malaria
control while reducing reliance on DDT.
5.2
Use of a Combination of Vector and Disease Management Strategies
Numerous factors specific to individual countries contribute to the continued use of DDT and the
selection of vector control strategies. These include, inter alia, the incidence of malaria, vector
dynamics, level of mobilization of health and vector control services, and available resources.
Furthermore, vector control is only one component of malaria control. Direct medical
interventions, particularly disease detection and treatment, are also essential and, in some
5
situations, are more cost-effective.
In light of this country-specific variability, it is unlikely that one single strategy will be adequate
for controlling malaria. Therefore, the WHO supports the development and use of a combination
of vector and disease management strategies, called Integrated Vector Management, or IVM, for
public health pests, not simply the replacement of DDT with another indoor vector control
pesticide. For additional information, see http://mosquito.who.int/docs/ecr20.pdf and
http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/pdf/redelipops/redelipops.pdf
In place of DDT, countries have relied on other chemical insecticides, biological controls,
personal protective measures, and environmental management strategies. In some cases, these
can be effective alternative strategies. However, many countries do not have adequate resources
or capacity to conduct effective vector control programs using DDT or alternatives. Therefore,
additional tools are needed that are safe, affordable, cost-effective, appropriate under local
circumstances, and consistent with IVM. This will require concerted international action and
resources to support research and development as well as training activities. For information on
alternative vector control strategies, see http://www.who.int/dsa/cat98/vect8.htm#Vector Control.
Other efforts underway, spearheaded by the WHO, international donor agencies, and research
institutions include the development of malaria vaccines as well as new drug treatments, the
development of non-chemical vector control tools, the strengthening of health services and
technical capacity at the national level, and the promotion of insecticide-treated bednets. The
United States Agency for International Development has recently published an environmental
assessment on the use of insecticide-treated bednets in Sub-Saharan Africa. For more
information on bednets, see http://www.encapafrica.org/sectors/pestmgmt.htm and
http://www.afr-sd.org/SDPublications.htm
5.3
WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme
The WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme, set up in 1960, is a key international program which
promotes and coordinates the testing and evaluation of new pesticides proposed for public health
use. It functions through the participation of representatives of governments, the pesticide
industry, the WHO collaborating centers and university associations, associate laboratories as
well as other WHO Programs. Through this program, the WHO has identified several pesticides
that meet the WHO guidelines for malaria control. For additional information, see
http://www.who.int/ctd/whopes/index.html
5.4
Use of Chemical Pesticides
Several pesticides are routinely used for vector control in place of DDT. A cost-comparison of
DDT and alternative insecticides for malaria control was published in 2000 and is included
below.
6
1998-1999 cost comparison of insecticides for indoor vector control, excluding operational costs.
(Adapted from Walker, 2000)
Insecticide chemical name
(SP = synthetic pyrethroid)
Product cost range per house per 6 months
(US$) ratio based on number in bold
Cost ratio
(DDT = 1)
DDT
1.50 - 3.00
1
Malathion
3.20 - 6.40 (4.08)
1.4
Lamda-cyhalothrin (SP)
3.75 - 4.5 (4.51)
1.5
Cyfluthrin (SP)
2.20 - 5.50
1.8
Deltamethrin (SP)
3.20 - 8.00
2.7
Etofenprox
4.00 - 12.00 (8.00)
2.7
Bendiocarb
4.00 - 10.00 (8.00)
2.7
Permethrin (SP)
2.8 - 13.60
4.5
Fenitrothion
7.70 - 15.40
5.1
Propoxur
28.00 - 56.00
18.7
Though these pesticides offer alternatives to DDT, 1998 to 1999 global cost evaluations indicate
DDT to still be the least expensive on a cost per house sprayed basis. However, the most cost
effective insecticide in any given country or region must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
The decision to use DDT or another insecticide for vector control may be influenced by several
factors, particularly local efficacy and cost. The heavy use of a particular insecticide, either for
vector control or in agricultural areas where disease vectors breed, may cause vectors to develop
resistance to that insecticide. Insecticide resistance has led to the decline in efficacy of DDT
against malaria vectors in Central America and some regions of India. Conversely, the
development of resistance to synthetic pyrethroid insecticides in a vector species in South Africa
has prompted a return to the use of DDT. High costs and market access may also limit insecticide
choice.
6.0
OTHER INFORMATION
6.1.1
Economic Analysis of Malaria Control in Sub-Saharan Africa
Although it does not address DDT specifically, the Global Forum for Health Research in
conjunction with WHO published a report entitled An Economic Analysis of Malaria Control in
Sub-Saharan Africa. The report analyzes the cost-effectiveness and economic benefits of a
variety of malaria control interventions to countries in sub-Saharan Africa, for the purposes of
providing policy-makers with information on the interventions which represent the best value for
money. For information, see www.who.int/tdr/publications/tdrnews/news63/gfhrpublication.htm
7
6.2
GEF Projects to Phase-Out DDT in Mexico, Central America, and Africa
The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) has established mechanisms to promote international
co-operation and foster actions in providing additional grant and concessional funding to
developing countries. The GEF has funded preliminary work in Mexico and Central America to
phase-out DDT. A similar GEF project is being developed by WHO for countries in Africa. This
project has been submitted to the GEF for consideration. These projects will focus efforts on
developing alternative control strategies that are tailored to the needs of these regions.
6.3
World Bank Loans to India
In a separate effort, the World Bank has provided a substantial loan to India to strengthen its
malaria control program that will include the promotion of selective vector controls, including
non-chemical methods and reduced chemical applications. As India presently uses more than half
of the total DDT produced annually, this project may have a significant impact on DDT use
overall. For information, see http://www4.worldbank.org/sprojects/Project.asp?pid=P010511
6.4
Guidance from WHO, UNEP, and FAO with the Global IPM Facility on Alternative
Strategies for Sustainable Pest and Vector Management
With nine of the twelve substances included in the Stockholm Convention on POPs being
pesticides, WHO, UNEP and FAO with the Global IPM Facility have jointly developed guidance
on alternative strategies for sustainable management of disease vectors and pests including
termites, to assist countries in reducing and eliminating the use of persistent organic pesticides.
This guidance focuses on the importance of integrated management approaches and inter-sectoral
collaboration instead of simple replacement of POPs pesticides with another chemical and
clarifies problems associated with approaches that solely rely on chemical control measures.
Other activities include the establishment of a UNEP/FAO/Global IPM Facility Expert group
termite biology and management that has produced one report and developed web-pages
addressing aspects of alternative management approaches for control of termites within the
agricultural and construction sectors. Further information can be obtained at
http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops
7.0
CONCLUSIONS
DDT is not produced or used by most countries in the UN-ECE region, nor is malaria a
significant health problem in the region at this time. However, based on global information from
the Stockholm Convention, China, India, and the Russian Federation have submitted requests to
produce DDT for public health purposes and 32 countries have requested to use DDT for disease
vector control.
Several pesticides are routinely used for vector control in place of DDT. Cost data indicate that
DDT is the least expensive on a cost per house basis. However, the most cost-effective
insecticide in any given country or region must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Insect
resistance, high cost and market access may limit insecticide choice.
8
In place of DDT, some countries have relied on other chemical insecticides, biological controls,
personal protective measures such as insecticide-treated bednets, and environmental management
strategies. Disease control interventions, particularly early diagnosis and treatment of malaria, are
essential and, in some situations, are more cost-effective than vector control programs.
For the purposes of the review required in Annex 1 of the LRTAP POPs Protocol, safer and
economically viable alternatives to DDT continue to be needed for public health protection from
diseases such as malaria.
8.0
REFERENCES
FAO, 2002. Information submitted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the Stockholm Convention at the
sixth session, UNEP/POPs/INC.6/INF/24.
http://www.chem.unep.ch/sc/documents/meetings/inc6/englishonly/INC6_INF24.pdf
Global Forum for Health Research, 2000. Economic Analysis of Malaria Control in Sub-Saharan
Africa, by Catherine Goodman, Paul Coleman, Anne Mills, Global Forum for Health Research,
published in conjunction with the World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
http://www.who.int/tdr/publications/tdrnews/news63/default.htm
Morner,J, R. Bos, M. Fredrix, 2002. Reducing and Eliminating the use of Persistent Organic
Pollutants, Guidance on alternative strategies for sustainable pest and vector management, coproduced by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the World Health
Organization, the United Nations Environment Program, and the Global IPM Facility, Geneva,
Switzerland. http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/pdf/redelipops/redelipops.pdf
Najera, J.A. and M. Zaim, 2001. Malaria Vector Control, Insecticides for Indoor Residual
Spraying, WHO/CDS/WHOPES/2001.3, Geneva, Switzerland.
http://www.who.int/dsa/cat98/vect8.htm#Vector Control
UNECE, 2000.The 1998 Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants, replies to questions 37-49 in
the 2000 questionnaire, prepared by the UN-ECE secretariat from submissions by the Parties,
Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2000/eb/eb.air.2000.1.add.1.e.pdf
UN-ECE,2001. The 1998 Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants, replies to question B of the
2001 questionnaire, prepared by the UN-ECE secretariat from submissions by the Parties,
Geneva, Switzerland.
UN-ECE, 1998. Protocol to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
(LRTAP) on Persistent Organic Pollutants. http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/
UNEP, 2000. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the United Nations
Environment Program, Geneva, Switzerland. www.chem.unep.ch/pops
UNEP, 2001. Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Stockholm Convention on Persistent
Organic Pollutants, revised list of requests for specific exemption in Annex A and Annex B and
9
acceptable purposes in Annex B, Stockholm, Sweden, 22-23 May 2001.
http://www.chem.unep.ch/sc/documents/meetings/dipcon/25june2001/inf1rev3/k0122169.doc
USAID, 2002. Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Insecticide-Treated Materials in
USAID Activities in Sub-Saharan Africa, United States Agency for International Development,
Washington, DC. http://www.afr-sd.org/SDPublications.htm
Walker, K., 2000. Cost-comparison of DDT and alternative insecticides for malaria control,
Medical and Veterinary Entomology, 14, 345-354.
WHO, 1997. Vector Control, Methods for use by individuals and communities, prepared by Jan
A. Rozendaal, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
http://www.who.int/dsa/cat98/vect8.htm#Vector Control
WHO, 2000. Action plan for the reduction of reliance on DDT in disease vector control,
WHO/SDE/WSH/01.5. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
http://www.rbm.who.int
WHO, 2000. WHO Expert Committee of Malaria, WHO Technical Report Series 892, World
Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. http://mosquito.who.int/docs/ecr20.pdf
WHO, 2000. Malaria, a global crisis. Fact sheet 1: The problem. World Health Organization,
Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.rbm.who.int
WHO, 2002. WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme. http://www.who.int/ctd/whopes/index.html
World Bank, 1997. Malaria control project in India (project number P010511), World Bank,
Washington, DC, USA. http://www4.worldbank.org/sprojects/Project.asp?pid=P010511
10
Attachment 1
LRTAP POPs Protocol Obligations for DDT
(For the full text of the POPs Protocol, see http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/)
Annex I -- Substances Scheduled for Elimination
Substance
DDT
Implementation Requirements
Elimination
of
Conditions
Production
1. Eliminate production within one year of consensus by the
Parties that suitable alternatives to DDT are available for public
health protection from diseases such as malaria and encephalitis.
2. With a view to eliminating the production of DDT at the
earliest opportunity, the Parties shall, no later than one year after
the date of entry into force of the present Protocol and
periodically thereafter as necessary, and in consultation with the
World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, and the United Nations
Environment Programme, review the availability and feasibility
of alternatives and, as appropriate, promote commercialization of
safer and economically viable alternatives to DDT.
None, except as identified in annex II.
CAS: 50-29-3
Use
Annex II -- Substances Scheduled for Restrictions on Use
Implementation Requirements
Substance
DDT
CAS: 50-29-3
Restricted to uses
Conditions
1. For public health
protection from
diseases such as
malaria and
encephalitis.
2. As a chemical
intermediate to
produce dicofol.
1. Use allowed only as a component of an integrated pest
management strategy and only to the extent necessary
and only until one year after the date of the elimination
of production in accordance with annex I.
Use
None, except as identified in annex II.
2. Such use shall be reassessed no later than two years
after the entry into force of the present Protocol
11
Attachment 2
DDT Production and Use in the UN-ECE
DDT Responses from LRTAP Parties 1
Compiled by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, February 2002
Country
Production
Use
Republic of Armenia
Austria
banned in 1970
banned in 1992
banned in 1970
banned
Belgium
banned
banned for use in agriculture in 1974, non-ag use banned in 1976.
Republic of Bulgaria
no production
banned by 1990
Canada
no production
no use
Czech Republic
no production
no use
Croatia
Banned
banned
Denmark
Banned
use banned in 1995
Estonia
banned in 1968
last used in 1971
Finland
no production
banned in 1976
Georgia
no production
although officially banned, small scale use continues for
Atraditional@ Soviet uses of DDT in coastal areas, military zones,
and facilities. Georgia is attempting to control this use.
Germany
banned in 1972, amended in
1986
banned in 1972, amended in 1986
Greece
Banned
banned
Italy
no production
banned in 1978
Kazakhstan
no production
no use
Latvia
no production
banned in 1967
Cyprus
France
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Republic of Moldova
never produced
use in agriculture banned in 1970
Monaco
no production
no use
The Netherlands
Norway
production banned
no production
banned
banned in 1989
Poland
produced in 50', 60's, no
current production
use in agriculture banned in 1991
Slovenia
no production
banned in 1975
Spain
no production
banned in 1994
Sweden
no production
banned in 1970, except forestry use that was banned in 1974
Switzerland
Banned
banned
United Kingdom
Banned
banned over period from 1964-1984
no production
banned over period from 1972-1989
Republic of Macedonia
Russia
Slovak Republic
Ukraine
USA
12
European Community
Luxemburg
Romania
1
These responses are from three questionnaires sent to LRTAP Parties in 2000 and 2001 respectively. The
responses from the 2000 questionnaire are on the web at:
http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2000/eb/eb.air.2000.1.add.1.e.pdf
13
Attachment 3
The Stockholm Convention Information on Global DDT Production and Use
On May 23, 2001, over 90 countries signed the Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants at a diplomatic
conference in Stockholm, Sweden. For the text of the Stockholm Convention, see
http://www.chem.unep.ch/sc/documents/convtext/convtext_en.pdf
The Stockholm Convention will require all Parties to eliminate or restrict the production, use and/or releases of
specified POPs. All of the intentionally produced POPs except DDT are slated for elimination of production and
use. In recognition of the humanitarian need to use DDT for disease vector control, the Convention allows its use
for this purpose while encouraging the development of effective and economically viable alternatives.
China, India, and the Russian Federation have submitted specific exemptions to produce DDT for public health
purposes. Thirty-two countries have registered to use DDT for disease vector control, an acceptable purpose under
the Convention. In addition, three countries (Brazil, China, and India) have requested a specific exemption to use
DDT as an intermediate in the production of dicofol. For information, refer to
http://www.chem.unep.ch/sc/documents/meetings/dipcon/25june2001/inf1rev3/k0122169.doc
Country
Stockholm Convention: Specific Exemption or Acceptable Purpose
Algeria
Use of DDT for vector control according to part II of Annex B
Bangladesh
Use of DDT for vector control
Brazil
Use of DDT in production of dicofol (contained in dicofol as a contaminant)
Cameroon
Use of DDT for disease vector control in accordance with part II of Annex B and in line with
WHO guidelines
China
Production and use of DDT as an intermediate
Production and use of DDT for disease vector control
Comoros
Use of DDT for disease vector control in accordance with part II of Annex B
Costa Rica
Use of DDT for disease vector control in accordance with part II of Annex B
Côte d=Ivoire
Use of DDT for disease vector control in accordance with part II of Annex B and in line with
WHO guidelines
Ecuador
Use of DDT for disease vector control in accordance with part II of Annex B
Eritrea
Use of DDT for disease vector control/public health services in accordance with WHO
guidelines
Ethiopia
Use of DDT for vector control for public health purposes in accordance with part II of Annex
B
India
Production of DDT for use in vector control and as an intermediate in the production of
dicofol.
Use of DDT for vector control and in production of dicofol (contained in dicofol as a
contaminant (maximum concentration 0.1%))
Islamic
Republic of
Iran
Use of DDT for public health purposes in accordance with WHO guidelines
Kenya
Use of DDT in public health for vector control according to WHO guidelines
Madagascar
Use of DDT for vector control according to part II of Annex B ( expiration /review: 10 years)
Malawi
Use of DDT for malaria control
Mauritius
Use of DDT for disease vector control in accordance with part II of Annex B
Morocco
Use of DDT for vector control
14
Mozambique
Use of DDT in the public health sector in accordance with WHO guidelines.
Namibia
Use of DDT for disease vector control
Papua New
Guinea
Use of DDT for disease vector control in accordance with part II of Annex B
Republic of
Korea
Use of DDT as a de minimis contaminant in dicofol (max. conc. 0.1%)
Russian
Federation
Production of DDT for disease vector control in accordance with part II of Annex B
Use of DDT for disease vector control in accordance with part II of Annex B
Saudi Arabia
Use of DDT for vector control for public health purposes in line with the WHO guidelines
South Africa
Use of DDT for disease vector control in accordance with part II of Annex B
Sudan
Use of DDT for vector control in public health in line with the WHO guidelines
Swaziland
Use of DDT in the public health sector for malaria control
Togo
Use of DDT for vector control in line with WHO guidelines
Uganda
Use of DDT for disease vector control/public health purposes in accordance with WHO
guidelines
United
Republic of
Tanzania
Use of DDT for public health protection
Venezuela
Use of DDT for public health purposes in accordance with WHO guidelines
Yemen
Use of DDT for vector control in line with the WHO guidelines
Zambia
Use of DDT for disease vector control in accordance with part II of Annex B
Zimbabwe
Use of DDT for disease vector control in accordance with Part II of Annex B
15