Bethlehem- Ma’an- Investigation by Firas al-Tawil and Mahmoud al-Sabki- Despite the revelations of an ARIJ investigation in 2020 about the chaos of the pesticide market in the West Bank, and the subsequent official monitoring report the following year, the reality has not changed; from the lack of oversight and the absence of awareness. In light of this reality, the Palestinian Authority still allows the import of pesticides banned or restricted in the European Union.
The investigation documented the import of 13 types of pesticides banned or severely restricted in the European Union in the period between 2018 and 2023, according to data from the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), on the grounds that “what is banned in Europe does not mean it is banned locally, and what prompted its ban there does not necessarily apply to us,” according to the description of official authorities in the West Bank.
Pesticides officially banned in the European Union markets since the beginning of this century are easily availab
le to small and large farmers – who are unaware of their effects – in the markets of several countries in the Global South, including Palestine, without precautionary measures from the exporting or importing countries; Which raises questions about the reasons for the continued export of these pesticides by European pesticide companies, despite their danger to human health, as they cause some serious diseases.
Among these pesticides banned in Europe and sold in the West Bank is the pesticide “Mancozeb”, which was banned locally in 2012, but the Palestinian Scientific Committee re-authorized its use in 2017. The companies “Pasif” and “Syngenta” sell it under different names, such as “Acrobat” and “Ridomil Gold MZ”. This substance causes endocrine disruption in humans, because it changes the hormonal balance, according to a report by the European Food Safety Authority, which led to its ban in 2020 in Europe. Despite scientific evidence warning of the damage caused by “Mancozeb” to the reproductive function of m
en and women, it is sold in the markets of the West Bank as a fungicide against pests of potato and tomato crops.
Export Notifications to the West Bank – Palestine (2018 – 2023)
Source: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
The same applies to another pesticide called “Imidacloprid”, which belongs to a group of insecticides that act on the central nervous system of insects, causing paralysis that kills them within a few hours. However, plants also absorb these agricultural chemicals, and they are one of the reasons for the decline in the numbers of pollinators such as bees, according to several scientific studies. For this reason, it has been banned in European markets, but it is marketed in the West Bank under trademarks such as “Confidor”, as the best solution against bugs, aphids, and other insects that attack tomato, avocado, mango, orange, and other crops.
2.9 million liters of agricultural pesticides were imported into the West Bank between 2021 and August 2023, according to the Ministry of Agriculture.
The value of pesticide imports in 2021 amounted to $23 million, according to the OEC website for global statistics.
Double standards!
Baskut Tuncak, the former UN special rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances and waste, criticises what he sees as a ‘double standard’ in dealing with the export of toxic pesticides to poor countries, while banning them in rich countries. ‘When some of the richest countries in the world export these substances to low- and middle-income countries, it is beyond hypocrisy,’ he says. ‘It is a very unfortunate practice, a political concession to industry. When laws are written to restrict the use of certain substances within Europe or North America, they are written in a way that allows them to be manufactured and exported. You cannot use them domestically, but you can manufacture them and ship them somewhere else.’
Laurent Gabriel, a researcher specialising in agriculture and food at the Swiss organisation Public Eye, says: ‘There are double standards and clear examp
les of hypocrisy, because what is too dangerous to use in Europe is also too dangerous to use anywhere else.’
There is no better evidence of this than the current situation in the Palestinian territories, where oversight is almost non-existent and raising farmers’ awareness is not a priority. The director of the Pesticides Department at the Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture, Salama Shabib, attributes this to a lack of capabilities: ‘We have three employees in the department, including me… and an inspector in each directorate affiliated with the ministry is added to us, and their number is 14 in the entire West Bank… This number does not meet the purpose; because the inspector is responsible for the shops, nurseries, issuing health certificates, following up on committees, stamping pesticides, and 100 other tasks… Oversight becomes a problem.’
Samer Sawalha, a member of the scientific committee responsible for approving pesticides permitted in the Palestinian territories, agrees with Shabib, saying: ‘Overs
ight requires capabilities, and we have weak capabilities, in addition to the lack of logistical capabilities.’
However, Shabib, a member of the scientific committee representing the Ministry of Agriculture, revealed that the scientific committee is in the process of reviewing and evaluating all pesticides used, and making decisions to allow or ban their use.
However, Sawalha (the committee representative for the Ministry of Health) believes that weak oversight can be overcome by educating farmers and monitoring the amount of pesticides used, which – in his view – is better than randomly banning pesticides.
According to Sawalha, major pesticide companies pay millions to conduct studies to examine the efficiency of any pesticide they produce, and here the farmer must adhere to the dose.
The disparity in the positions of the members of the scientific committee was indicated by a supervisory report issued by the Financial and Administrative Control Bureau in the West Bank (a government ministerial institutio
n) at the end of October 2021; as it concluded that the committee’s work was ineffective due to the lack of a procedures manual regulating its work, and the failure to update the pesticide manual in line with global studies and research, in addition to the failure to evaluate the pesticides in circulation, which allows the spread of internationally banned pesticides, as they contain harmful substances.
On the ground, farmers do not follow any preventive measures when spraying crops with pesticides, and do not adhere to the quantities recommended by the manufacturing companies, as documented by the investigation through tours in the northern Jordan Valley called “Palestine’s Vegetable Basket.”
The Palestinian Scientific Committee is concerned with the following:
Determine the types of pesticides allowed for circulation and the methods of their use.
Evaluation and re-registration of pesticides in the Palestinian territories.
Establishing a mechanism to monitor and control the quality of agricultural pestic
ides in circulation.
Study any topics presented to it by the relevant authorities and issue directives regarding them.
Palestinian Financial and Administrative Control Bureau
‘The weakness of the guidance and awareness process on the safe use of pesticides, and the limitation of the guidance process to specific agricultural areas without including all governorates, may affect the health of citizens and the safety of agricultural products, and the environment represented by soil and groundwater.’
Profit only!
The European Parliament’s Pesticide Marketing Regulation (EC 1107/2009) is one of the strictest in the world, but Laurent Gabriel argues that it only covers use in Europe, regardless of export outside Europe. This has essentially allowed companies to continue making the pesticides, exporting them to countries that still allow their use, including North African countries, Gabriel says.
In a report by Baskut Tuncak, the former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances and wastes,
he and 35 other experts at the Human Rights Council argue that rich countries must stop exporting their banned toxic chemicals to poorer countries, where laws are less stringent.
‘The EU continues to export these pesticides and toxic industrial chemicals, resulting in widespread violations of the human rights to life, dignity and freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in low- and middle-income countries,’ the report adds.
‘Heavily promoted pesticides are a global human rights concern, and their use can have very serious consequences for the enjoyment of the right to food, and are responsible for an estimated 200,000 deaths each year from acute poisoning, 99% of which occur in developing countries.’
Source: Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food
Death trade
According to a report by the World Health Organization, there are more than a thousand types of pesticides used around the world to ensure that food crops are not damaged or destroyed by pests. Each of these pesticides ha
s different properties and varying toxic effects.
A report published by the environmental organizations Greenpeace and Public Eye, two non-governmental organizations, revealed that about 82 thousand tons of highly hazardous pesticides were exported in 2018 outside the European Union; these pesticides were banned in the EU countries due to the “unacceptable risks they pose to human health and the environment.”
The report stated that the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium and Spain account for more than 90 percent of these exports, and three-quarters of the 85 countries that import these banned pesticides are low- or middle-income countries, where the use of these materials is permitted despite their risks.
European Commission Response
We contacted the EU Commission, which responded that it is currently examining various options to ensure that hazardous chemicals banned within the EU are not produced and exported, including reviewing legislation.
The Commission explained that
the EU is also proactive in promoting the phase-out of pesticides that are no longer approved in the EU, and promoting reduced-risk products and pesticide alternatives worldwide, by bringing this discussion to the international community.
The Commission added that an EU export ban does not automatically mean that third countries will stop using these pesticides; they may continue to import them from elsewhere. Convincing these countries not to use such pesticides therefore remains crucial.
Rotterdam Convention Trap
‘The objective of this (Rotterdam) Convention is to promote shared responsibility and cooperative efforts among Parties in the international trade of certain hazardous chemicals in order to protect human health and the environment from potential harm,’ according to the convention.
According to the European Chemistry Agency, the Prior Informed Consent Regulation, which entered into force in March 2014, regulates trade in certain hazardous chemicals that are banned or severely restricted in the E
uropean Union. It imposes obligations on companies wishing to export these chemicals to countries outside the EU or import them into the EU.
The Prior Informed Consent (PIC) is an implementation of the Rotterdam Convention within the EU, and promotes shared responsibility and cooperation in the international trade of hazardous chemicals. It also protects human health and the environment by providing importing countries with information on how to safely store, transport, use and dispose of hazardous chemicals, according to the convention’s website.
Before shipping their pesticides abroad, exporters based in an EU country must notify the national authority, which then informs the European Chemistry Agency, of the quantities to be exported. Export notifications are public data showing the volume of international trade in these banned chemicals, according to European export rules.
Baskut Tuncak, the former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances and wastes, points out that the Rotterdam
Convention has become a ‘shield’ used by companies and states, and that it has not worked as it was supposed to for more than 15 years.
When the ball is thrown into the importing countries’ court to make decisions to ban or import pesticides banned in Europe, they often allow them (including Palestine) to enter, because the standards differ between exporting and importing countries. This is what Duaa Abdullah, a member of the Scientific Committee of the Palestinian Environment Quality Authority, pointed out, saying: ‘According to the Rotterdam Convention, I recently received notifications to import ten pesticides that are registered in Palestine,’ noting that these pesticides are being studied and decisions are being made regarding them.
Regarding allowing pesticides banned in Europe to enter the West Bank, Abdullah says: ‘Not necessarily every pesticide banned in Europe is banned locally, as health and environmental standards are different… Is there an alternative? They have bee farms, water sources and se
as.’
Sawalha shares Abdullah’s opinion on the difference in standards between Europe and Palestine: ‘There are many pesticides banned in Europe for reasons that do not apply to us, and I am not interested in them… They are banned because of their effect on water bodies and aquatic life. I do not have lakes, rivers or streams, so why would I ban them here? In the West Bank, there are no seas or fish for me to worry about.’
However, Palestinian agricultural engineer Saad Dagher (who specializes in environmental agriculture) described these justifications as ‘sterile,’ and expressed his surprise at the claim that the ban in Europe is due to the difference in climate: ‘It is strange and interesting, as if the climate of our country makes these pesticides less dangerous to health and the environment than the climate of Europe.’
One to three out of every 100 agricultural workers worldwide suffers from acute pesticide poisoning, and adolescents are often the victims, according to the 2004 Pesticide Poisoning in C
hildren Report, published by the United Nations Environment Programme.
pesticide emperors
In May 2020, the EU launched its Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy, which outlines a commitment to promote a global shift to sustainable food systems – not only within its borders but also abroad – with the aim of ensuring healthy food for European citizens first and foremost, while not exporting banned pesticides to poorer countries.
But pesticide companies, through the CropLife group (which includes the largest pesticide companies), have been promoting the dire consequences of this strategy. ‘They rely on the study presented and financed by these companies, which do not care about showing any problem, and that is also why there are still so many toxic pesticides on the European market,’ says Laurent Gabriel, a researcher specialising in agriculture and food affairs.
The agrochemical companies Bayer, BASF, Corteva, Syngenta and FMC are among the world’s largest pesticide companies. Despite their competition, these compani
es are working together to intensify their lobbying efforts.
According to Tuncak, these companies have leverage: ‘It’s a powerful lobby… There’s no doubt, and as a result, the agrochemical industry has become incredibly profitable and powerful.’
For her part, Michela Rivasi, a member of the European Parliament for the French Green Party (EFA), says that the pesticide lobby is circumventing the law, manufacturing its products outside Europe and selling them to countries outside the EU: ‘There are always devious ways that the pesticide lobby uses, saying it’s not us, it’s the governments of those [importing] countries that approve the use of banned pesticides.’
According to Laurent Gabriel, this lobby is using the classic argument, saying that banning these pesticides would affect employment within Europe and would destroy the European chemical industry, which is already in a difficult situation given the global context; therefore, it is not the right moment to create new obstacles for the chemical industry
in Europe, as they claim.
Detoxification
CropLife International is a vehicle for pesticide barons to ‘wash their hands of their environmental and health toxicity.’ Looking at CropLife’s board of directors, its chairman is the chairman of BASF, and its members include the CEO of FMC, the CEO of Syngenta, the CEO of Corteva, a board member and head of the crop science division of Bayer, and the CEO and chief administrative officer of Japan’s Sumitomo Chemical Co. A
CropLife International report suggests that highly hazardous pesticides should not be taken off the market directly. ‘Despite their harmful effects, they exist and are used because they are an important tool that reduces crop losses and supports farmers’ livelihoods,’ the report states.
The report recommends using these pesticides only when there is no viable alternative; without them, farmers are less able to produce enough food for a growing population and less likely to earn enough income to support their families.
Baskut Tuncak points out th
at this lobby unfairly uses the fear-mongering strategy, saying: ‘If we don’t have these chemicals, we will face incredible food insecurity and we will lose our livelihoods.’
CropLife International denies on its website that it is a source of highly hazardous pesticides in developing countries, stating: ‘It must be acknowledged that the majority of highly hazardous pesticides in the developing world are produced and sold by companies that are not members of CropLife International.’
Laurent Gabriel responds: ‘We were able to show years ago that they (CropLife) make a lot of money by selling these banned hazardous pesticides, and we estimate that they make between 25 and 40 percent of their sales through so-called highly hazardous pesticides.’
We contacted CropLife for comment on the allegations against it; we had not received a response by the time of publication of the investigation.
What is the solution?
Baskut Tuncak, former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Hazardous Substances and Waste, poin
ts out the need for political will: ‘If there is a solution to the problem of the lucrative trade in hazardous pesticides, it will be political.’
Laurent Gabriel, a researcher specializing in agriculture and food affairs, holds the European Union responsible for supplying markets around the world with these pesticides.
Michela Rivasi, a member of the European Parliament for the French Green Party (EFA), says that Europe must care about people’s health, both in Europe and abroad, without using double standards. On the
Palestinian side, Samer Sawalha, a member of the Scientific Committee in the West Bank, believes that the solution lies in importing pesticides only from countries with an advanced registration system, and choosing the most effective and least harmful pesticides, in addition to emphasizing awareness-raising among farmers through the Ministry of Agriculture.
Salama Shabib, Director of the Pesticides Department at the Ministry of Agriculture, said that the Scientific Committee is preparing a ne
w guide for pesticides permitted for use in the Palestinian territories, under a new mechanism; It requires importing companies to bring a pesticide registration certificate in the country of origin “so that we do not introduce pesticides banned in the country of manufacture.”
Despite their danger, many types of pesticides banned in Europe still find their way to many Arab countries, through a European legal system and legislation that turns a blind eye to these poisons exported abroad.
With the failure to pass amendments to the law on exporting dangerous pesticides outside European borders, pesticide companies continue to reap billions of dollars at the expense of health and the environment, at a time when there are no clear statistics on the effects of these pesticides in poor countries.
This investigation was conducted in cooperation between ARIJ and Afak Environment and Development (a Palestinian environmental magazine).
Source: Maan News Agency