Publications /  Annual Report 2001

Pesticide poisoning: Tradeoff analysis forges new consensus on the need for change New research tools and approaches are helping CIP to broaden its impact. The use of models for tradeoff analysis in Ecuador's El Carchi Province is a case in point

A persuasive tool Developed during the 1990s by researchers in the USA, Canada, the Netherlands and the Andes, tradeoff analysis can be defined as the science of helping people to make difficult decisions in their management of natural resources, balancing diverse and sometimes conflicting objectives. "Essentially, it's a modeling exercise wrapped up in a participatory research process," says CIP economist Charles Crissman, a member of the team that conceived the idea. The process begins with an invitation to stakeholders - typically a mix of farmers, scientists and policy makers - to identify the priority issues affecting development and the resource base in their area. This leads to a definition of indicators that can throw light on the potential effects of resource management and economic and policy options. The stakeholders formulate hypotheses as to the nature of the tradeoffs involved in each of the options and how these might change if a different course of action were followed. Scientists then design and conduct research to verify the hypotheses. They determine the modeling and data requirements, assemble the necessary disciplinary expertise, collect and analyze the data and then plot the results to form the tool that is the centerpiece of the process: a graph comparing the key indicators. This typically consists of two curves, one showing the current situation and the other the likely outcome of the action taken.

"With its clear graphics, based on empirical data, the tradeoff model can be a highly persuasive tool," says Crissman. "But it has to be derived as part of a participatory process. Only then will its users feel ownership of it." The final and most important step in the process is to present the results of the analysis for consideration and discussion by a larger set of stakeholders, including local people and national leaders. The aim is to broaden and deepen awareness as a basis for improved decision making.

Tradeoff analysis was first developed and applied in Ecuador's El Carchi Province, where it has made a valuable contribution to the search for solutions to the serious human health problem of pesticide poisoning.

El Carchi: Healthy solutions

Overexposure to pesticides is rampant in the intensive production systems of the El Carchi hills, where farmers grow potato and other crops to satisfy demanding national and export markets. Potatoes may be sprayed up to 12 times in a single season, as farmers follow the advice given by chemical company salesmen to apply products regularly, "just in case" pests should appear. Two of these products, methamidophos and carbofuran, are so toxic that their use is restricted in the developed world.

In the late 1980s, observers began to detect growing ill health among El Carchi's farmers, who suffered a range of symptoms known to be pesticide-linked, including headaches and nausea, breathing difficulties and eye and skin problems. Other suspicious symptoms were neurological and motor disorders, although these were thought to be limited to a few cases after prolonged exposure.

Researchers responded by adapting integrated pest management (IPM) schemes to meet El Carchi conditions and needs. IPM components such as improved potato varieties with resistance to late blight and simple traps to kill the Andean potato weevil were combined with better agronomic practices and weekly scouting to detect emerging pest or disease problems. Their use wouldn't eliminate pesticides altogether, but it would allow farmers to reduce the number of applications, particularly of the two most toxic products. Trials in farmers' fields showed that with the IPM interventions, growers could maintain or even increase production while reducing costs, thereby boosting profitability considerably.

Despite these findings, moving from the trials to widespread adoption proved difficult. Farmers still felt that cutting back on pesticides was a risk they couldn't afford to take. They saw the chemicals as a safety precaution without which they might lose their whole crop and hence the bulk of their year's income. Another reason for non-adoption was the fact that the apparent disadvantages of applying pesticides - a headache or a feeling of nausea - seemed short-term and bearable in comparison to the risk of loss of livelihood. "If you are strong, you can tolerate the poison," as one farmer put it.

So what could be done to persuade the farmers? CIP and its partners adopted a threefold strategy. They introduced farmer field schools to help extend IPM in the farming community, they mounted a broad-based campaign of public education and they undertook new initiatives to create a more conducive policy environment.

Raising farmers' awareness — be they adults or children — about integrated pest management will help them escape the tragedy of pesticide poisoning. Farmer field schools offer an excellent forum for sharing this knowledge.

New evidence, new consensus

To obtain empirical data on the health impact of pesticides, Donald Cole, a human health epidemiologist from Canada's University of Toronto, was invited to conduct a detailed study in El Carchi, working with local health organizations.

The results of the study were shocking. Pesticide poisoning was shown to be far more widespread and severe than had previously been suspected. We now know that in El Carchi the presence of pesticides is so pervasive that most of the rural population is affected. Although it is the men of the household who tend to do the spraying, they typically store pesticides in or near the family home, mix them in open drums and apply them using faulty equipment and without wearing protective clothing, often failing to wash properly afterwards. Their wives and children, therefore, are contaminated in numerous ways in and around the home.

Standard tests of the kind used by the World Health Organization suggest that about 60 percent of the at-risk population has already suffered significant damage, including disrupted motor skills and psychological effects such as depression, listlessness and impaired decision making. "If this were to happen in a developed country, compensation would be on the agenda," says Cole.

Pesticide leaching versus production value These "tradeoff curves" indicate that farmers using heavy chemical input (base) can reduce pesticide leaching while protecting their profits by switching to ipm

But if the study was shocking, it also revealed that the potential economic benefits of reducing pesticide poisoning were even greater than had been thought. As expected, there is an immediate gain as farmers save money by cutting back on the pesticides they buy. But in addition, the low productivity found on farms where pesticides have long been in use suggests a second benefit, one that will accrue more gradually. "Farmers who are ill make poor management decisions and don't have the energy to work well," says Cole. "If pesticide exposure declines and the health of the farming population recovers, so too should its productivity and efficiency."

Whether this second benefit will be felt by the current farming generation or the next remains uncertain, because little is known about whether or not the effects of poisoning can be reversed. Long-term users may well have crossed a threshold beyond which a full return to health becomes impossible.

Despite this uncertainty, the study revealed a genuine win-win scenario. The higher yields made possible through better decision making and more productive labor can more than make up for any losses that might be caused by the reduced use of pesticides. The study fully vindicated the El Carchi team's efforts to promote IPM in the farming community, suggesting that more resources should be devoted to these activities. And it revealed the scope for policy interventions to reduce farmers' incentives to use the most toxic products, which are currently the cheapest on the market.

It is in this last area that tradeoff analysis has delivered its most striking results in El Carchi. The data from the health study were fed into the tradeoff model, creating a convincing tool for promoting policy initiatives. In 1999, the El Carchi team presented the results of its analysis at a provincial stakeholders meeting attended by 105 people from government, the chemical industry, NGOs and local communities. The group formulated what has since become known as the El Carchi Declaration, a statement of the principles that should apply to pesticide use in Ecuador. "Tradeoff analysis helped build the consensus that led to the declaration," says Crissman.

Since the meeting, the government has set up a national committee to oversee implementation of these principles. Building on the El Carchi Declaration, the committee has drafted a national plan covering tax and pricing policies, options for reducing and eliminating the most toxic chemicals, promotion of IPM packages and education of the next farming generation.

Pesticides have brought benefits to El Carchi's farmers, but they have also exacted a terrible price in human health. Tradeoff analysis is proving a powerful weapon in the fight to reverse this tragedy.