Volume 7, Issue 6, December Issue - 2019, Pages:554-568 |
Authors: Bazoma BAYILI, Richard OUEDRAOGO, Sylvain ILBOUDO, Lamine POODA, Macaire BONKOUNGOU, Jean Fidele BATIONO, Jean Bosco OUEDRAOGO, Georges Anicet OUEDRAOGO |
Abstract: Chemical pesticides are systematically used against pests in conventional cotton growing. However, their use is known to be associated with health and environmental risks. Current study aimed to characterize pesticides and both crop producers and pesticide retailers practices. To this end, a survey and documentary research were carried out in the cotton zone around the biosphere of the Bala’s hippopotamus pond, Burkina Faso. The results of study revealed that 87.5% of the pesticides retailers do not have agreement for pesticides selling. Further, more than 95% of the farmers wear their usual rural outfits to apply pesticides and 60.4% of them are not educated. The re-entry time into the treated fields was at most 24 hours for the majority of producers. Empty packaging is incinerated, abandoned in the wild or reused. About 50% of the producers experienced acute pesticide poisoning. The pesticide supply chain involves major distributors, retailers and pesticide users. Except LADABA, the 27 pesticides encountered at the producers, were identified at the retailers. Most of the used pesticides are mainly class III. In addition, 34.15% and 14.81% of pesticides from retailers and cotton producers are not allowed for use by the Sahelian Pesticides Committee (CSP). Some of these pesticides were composed of banned active substances (endosulfan, atrazine and paraquat). Of the products used, imidacloprid, paraquat and spirotetramate are CMR active substances; deltamethrin and flubendiamide are endocrine disruptors. The regulation and continuous promotion of good practices for the use of pesticides approved from less toxic active substances should be favored in order to protect health and the environment. |
[Download PDF] |
Full Text: 1 Introduction In Burkina Faso, cotton farming accounts for an average of 65% of households' cash income and contributes around 4% to national GDP and more than 28% to the country's agricultural GDP (MECV, 2011). However, cotton crop is confronted with the strong attacks of numerous pests including Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera -Noctuidae), Diparopsis watersi (Rothchild) (Lepidoptera - Noctuidae), Earias spp. (Lepidoptera - Noctuidae), greenfly Aphis gossypii (Glover) (Homoptera - Aphididae) and defoliating caterpillars including Haritalodes derogata (Fabricius) (Lepidoptera, Pyralidae) (Achaleke & Brévault, 2010; Badiane et al., 2015). The high pest pressure causes huge cotton crops losses which reached up to 70% of total yields (Traoré, 2008). To cope up with these losses farmers used pesticides for seed (insecticides and fungicides), soil (herbicides, nematicides and fungicides), and foliar treatments (insecticides, herbicides and fungicides) (Ouédraogo et al., 2011; FAO, 2015). In 2009, the proportion of global pesticide sales for cotton was 6.2%, compared to 29.7% for fruits and vegetables, 17% for cereals, 9.6% for soybean and 9.3% for maize (FAO, 2015). While in case of Burkina Faso, among the used pesticides, 90% of the pesticides are used in cotton production (PAN UK, 2018). Several pesticide formulations have been identified in Burkina Faso in the cotton zone. The main chemical groups of pesticides which used in cotton growing areas of Burkina Faso are Neonicotinoids, Pyrethroids and Organophosphorus (Badiane et al., 2015). As per survey conducted in 2015, total 216 pesticide formulations was identified from the main cotton production area of the country, but 52% of these pesticides were not authorized by the current registration system (Conventionde Rotterdam, 2016). As per the nature, physicochemical, biochemical and toxicological properties of pesticides, these can lead to major risks for human health (Saravi & Shokrzadeh, 2011) and environment (Calvet et al., 2005). In addition, genetically modified cotton was introduced in Burkina Faso about ten years ago (2008-2016) (Sawadogo, 2016). Its abandonment marks the return to the intensive conventional culture whose multiplicity of treatments could induce a high level of human and environmental exposure. Like most CILSS countries, the control and management of agricultural pesticides in Burkina Faso is governed by LAW N° 026-2017/AN (Assemblée Nationale, 2017). This law refers in particular to the strict conditions of distribution and sale of pesticides on the national market and advocates that employment in farming must be done according to good agricultural practices. Despite these legal management mechanisms, studies have shown that the distribution and supply chain of pesticides to producers remains partly fraudulent (Sory, 2011; Son et al., 2017). In addition, pesticide distribution practices would influence the conditions of their use by producers at the local level, and have an impact on human health and the environment. Proposed study is a part of global approach of risk analysis related to pesticides used in agriculture, based on an understanding of the practices of crop producers and sellers in the rural areas around the biosphere of the Bala’s hippopotamus pond in Burkina Faso. 2 Materials and Methods 2.1 Study framework and study population The study was conducted at the biosphere of the Bala’s hippopotamus pond located in southwestern Burkina Faso about 60 km from Bobo-Dioulasso. Belem (2008) raised the risk of environmental degradation due to the high anthropization. Eco-chemical risks associated with contamination of the pond by pesticides used on the watershed have also been suspected (Soleri, 2013). Indeed, the Satiri is an important cotton region of SOFITEX, involving the circulation and massive use of various pesticides. Thus, the pesticide dealers of Kadomba, Satiri, Bala and Tiarakô villages are attended in current study (Figure 1). All pesticide dealers encountered in the village markets were included in the study with their consent. While the cotton producers of the Tiarako, Sokourani and Bala villages, who have continuously produced cotton from last 3 seasons, including the 2018-2019 campaign, were sampled. The sample of producers was formed on the basis of 20 associations of 513 cotton producers, of which 139 producers were randomly selected. A minimum sample size of 82 producers was determined according to Rea & Parker (2014) from the following formula: n=Za2×[p1-p]NZa2×[p1-p]+(N-1)MEp2 where N stands for population size, ?ME?_p^2 for sampling error (10%), p for the true proportion set as 0.5 and Za is equal to 1.96 for 95% confidence level. 2.2 Surveys Cross-sectional surveys based on personal interviews were conducted from 1 June to 15 September 2018 with pesticides retailers while in case of cotton producers survey was conducted from 25 September to 10 October 2018. An individual semi-structured questionnaire was designed and administered in the form of a semi-structured interview to 8 retailers and sampled producers. For retailers, field trips have been planned to list all products used during the campaign. The information collected from the socio-professional characteristics of the cotton producers and pesticides retailers, the commercial pesticide specialties, the marketing / use mode, the pesticide supply system, etc. Also, the questionnaire administered to cotton producers included a section on reported cases of poisoning. 2.3 Characterization of pesticides The characterization of pesticides was made for commercial specialties and active substances by documentary research. Thus, the positive global list of pesticides approved by the Sahelian Committee for Pesticides (CSP) was used to know in particular the registration status and the use of pesticides. WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard (WHO, 2010) used to determine “WHO toxicity class” of pesticides, is given in table 1. Carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) and endocrine disruptor status of the pesticide active substances inventoried were determined from the Pesticide / Biopesticide Properties Database (PPDB / BPDB). 2.4 Data analysis The pesticide characteristic data and the distributor survey data were manually processed before being entered and analyzed with Excel 2013 software. Further producers' practices were analyzed with SPSS v20 software. Descriptive statistics focused on simple frequencies and averages. Producer practices were analyzed by comparison with good agricultural and phytosanitary practices published in the International Code of Conduct for the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (FAO/OMS, 2014). 3 Results 3.1 Sociodemographic Characteristics The pesticide retailers encountered (8 in total) were male with an average of 6 years in the sale of pesticides. Among the studied retailers, only one had an approval for pesticides sale. In addition, 87.5% of retailers had no knowledge of the CSP and 75% did not have any updated list of products approved by the CSP. Further, only one had safety data sheets in his store and a first aid kit containing medication. In case of producer, all crop producers were male with an average age of 39 years old. Among these, the youngest one is 18 years old and the oldest one is 60 years old. In case of educational status, 60.4% of the sellers were illiterate, 23% had education only up to primary school level while 16.5% had secondary school level education. Almost half of the producers (45.3%) had more than 20 years of pesticide used experience (Figure 2). 3.2 Pesticide supply sources Pesticide distributors generally obtained their supplies from whole sellers and phytopharmaceutical companies (such as SOLEVO, Saphyto, BaryAgrochem, Prophyma, Senefura, Af-chem, GNESSIN Establishment) in Bobo-Dioulasso. Cotton producers obtain almost all pesticides from retailers in local markets and insecticides from SOFITEX (Table 2). 3.3 Cotton producers and pesticides retailers training level Thirty seven percent (37.5%) of the retailers received training on the safe management of pesticides, provided by the International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC), Plant Protection and Packaging Direction (DPVC), the Agricultural Inputs Wholesalers and Retailers Association of Burkina Faso (AGRODIA), African Society of Phytosanitary Products and Insecticides (SAPHYTO) and SOLEVO. As for cotton producers, 69.6% received training on a various set of themes related to the pesticides use (Figure 3). 3.4 Sale of pesticides Among the studied seller respondents, 50% retailers are associated with the selling of food and other consumer products such as corn, coffee, rice along with the pesticides in the same shop. Two surveyed retailers said producers returned to them purchased pesticides. All retailers gave on choice information regarding the risks and use of pesticides to the producers. No seller was selling Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). 3.5 Use and management modes of pesticides The choice of pesticides to be used is made by 63.3% of the cotton producers themselves but some time it depends on the choice of technical services providers (59.4%) to the producers (Figure 4). Producers are rarely on the use of conventional PPE in pesticide treatment operations (Figure 5). Almost all producers (95.7%) used their usual field clothing during treatment sessions and rarely (2.2%) they use suitable suits made for pesticides application (Figure 6). Also, 27.5% of the producers used combination of certain pesticides to treat crops. |
Achaleke J, Brévault T (2010) Inheritance and stability of pyrethroid resistance in the cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Central Africa. Pest Management Science 66:137-141. doi: 10.1002/ps.1843. Assemblée Nationale (2017) LOI N°026-2017/AN portant contrôle de la gestion des pesticides au Burkina Faso, Pp. 29. Badiane D, Gueye MT, Coly EV, Faye O (2015) Gestion intégrée des principaux ravageurs du cotonnier au Sénégal et en Afrique occidentale. International Journal of Biological Chemical Sciences 9: 2654-2667. Belem M (2008) Les galeries forestières de la Réserve de la Biosphère de la Mare aux Hippopotames du Burkina Faso: caractéristiques, dynamique et ethnobotanique, Thèse de doctorat d’Etat,Université de Ouagadougou, Pp. 208. Belhadi A, Mehenni M, Reguieg L, Yakhlef H (2016) Pratiques phytosanitaires des serristes maraîchers de trois localités de l’Est des Ziban et leur impact potentiel sur la santé humaine et l’environnement. Revue Agriculture 1(S): 09-16. Bull S, Fletcher K, Boobis AR, Battershill JM (2006) Evidence for genotoxicity of pesticides in pesticide applicators: a review. Mutagenesis 21: 93–103. Calvet R, Barriuso E, Bénoit P, Charnay MP, Coquet Y (2005) Les pesticides dans le sol : conséquences agronomiques et environnementales. Éditions, France Agricole. Convention de Rotterdam (2016) Utilisation Des Pesticides Agricoles Dans Trois Régions À L’ouest Du Burkina Faso Et Evaluation De Leur Impact Sur La Sante Et L’environnement : cas des Régions de la Boucle du Mouhoun, des Cascades et des Hauts-Bassins. Rapport d’étude réalisé par l’institut de recherche en science de la santé, direction régionale de l’ouest (IRSS/DRO)/ Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et Technologique (CNRST), Burkina Faso, Pp. 100. Décosse F (2013) « Entre « usage contrôlé », invisibilisation et externalisation. Le précariat étranger face au risque chimique en agriculture intensive. Sociologie du travail 55: 322-340. Devez A (2004) Caractérisation des risques induits par les activités agricoles sur les écosystèmes aquatiques. Thèse de doctorat : École Nationale du Génie Rural des Eaux et des Forêts (ENGREF), HydroSciences Montpellier (HSM). Fan L, Yang HNX, Qin W, Bento CPM, Ritsema CJ, Geissen V (2015) Factors affecting farmers' behaviour in pesticide use: Insights from a ?eld study in northern China. Science of the Total Environment 537: 360–368. FAO (2015) Measuring Sustainability in Cotton Farming Systems. Towards a Guidance Framework. Report prepared by the ICAC Expert Panel on Social, Environmental and Economic Performance of Cotton Production with the FAO Plant Production and Protection Division. ISBN 978-92-5-208614-7. Rome, Italie, available on http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4170e.pdf. FAO (2018) Mise en œuvre de la convention de Rotterdam à travers une collaboration régionale en Afrique de l’ouest : l’exemple des pays du comité permanent inter-Etats de lutte contre la sécheresse dans le sahel (CILSS), Pp. 24. FAO/OMS (2014) Code de conduite international sur la gestion des pesticides. ISBN 978-92-5-208548-5. Rome, Italie, Pp. 58. Fayomi B, Lafia E, Fourn L, Akpona S, Zohoun T (1998) Connaissance et comportement des utilisateurs de pesticides au Bénin. African Newsletter 2: 40-43. Footprint PPDB (2018) The Footprint Pesticide Properties Data Base. Available on https://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/iupac/atoz.htm accessed on November 30, 2018. Garrigou A, Baldi I, Dubuc P (2008) Apports de l’ergotoxicologie à l’évaluation de l’efficacité réelle des EPI devant protéger du risque phytosanitaire : de l’analyse de la contamination au processus collectif d’alerte. Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé, Pp. 21. Gomgnimbou APK, Savadogo PW, Nianogo AJ, Millogo-Rasolodimby J (2009) Usage des intrants chimiques dans un agrosystème tropical : diagnostic du risque de pollution environnementale dans la région cotonnière de l’est du Burkina Faso. Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and Environment 13: 499-507. Hanshi JA (2001) Use of pesticides and personal protective equipment by applicators in a Kenyan district. African News letter on Occupational Health and Safety 11, number 3: 74–76. Khan DA, Shabbir S, Majid M, Ahad K, Naqvi TA, Khan FA (2009) Risk assessment of pesticide exposure on health of Pakistani tobacco farmers. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology.DOI: 10.1038/jes.2009.55. Khooharo AA, Memon RA, Mallah MU (2008) An empirical analysis of pesticide marketing in Pakistan. Pakistan Economic and Social Review 46: 57-74. Luna JK (2019) The chain of exploitation: intersectional inequalities, capital accumulation, and resistance in Burkina Faso's cotton sector. The Journal of Peasant Studies 46: 1413-1434, DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2018.1499623. 23p. MECV (2011) Analyse économique du secteur du coton, liens pauvreté et environnement. Burkina Faso, Ministère de l’Environnement et du Cadre de Vie (MECV). Projet Initiative PauvretéEnvironnement (IPE), Rapport final, août 2011, 60p. Nonga HE, Mdegela RH, Lie E, Sandvik M, Skaare JU (2011) Assessment of farming practices and uses of agrochemicals in Lake Manyara basin. Tanzania African Journal of Agricultural Research 6: 2216-2230. Norkaew S, Siriwong W, Siripattanakul S, Robson M (2010) Knowledge, attitude, and practice (kap) of using personal protective equipment (PPE) for chilli growing farmers in huarua sub-distfuct, mueang district, ubonrachathani province, Thailand. Journal of Health Research 24: 93- 100. Ouédraogo M, Tankoano A, Ouédraogo ZT, Guissou IP (2009) Etude des facteurs de risques d’intoxications chez les utilisateurs de pesticides dans la région cotonnière de Fada N’Gourma au Burkina Faso. Environnement, Risques & Santé 8: 343-347. Ouédraogo M, Toé AM, Ouédraogo TZ, Guissou PI (2011) Pesticides in Burkina Faso: Overview of the Situation in a Sahelian African Country, Pesticides in the Modern World -Pesticides Use and Management. Intech Open, DOI: 10.5772/16507. pp 36-48. PAN UK (2018) Pesticide Concerns in Cotton. Available at https://www.pan-uk.org/cotton/ accessed on July 21, 2019. Rea ML, Parker AR (2014) Designing and Conducting Survey Research A Comprehensive Guide, Fourth Edition. Available on https://eva.udelar.edu.uy/pluginfile.php/876387/mod_resource/content/0/Louis%20M.%20Rea%2C%20Richard%20A.%20Parker-Designing%20and%20Conducting%20Survey%20Research_%20A%20Comprehensive%20Guide-Jossey-Bass%20%282014%29.pdf. Accessed on June 15, 2018. Rotterdam Convention (2016) Rotterdam Convention Website and Stockholm Convention Website: http://www.pic.int/Countries/ Statusofratifications/tabid/1072/language/en-US/Default.aspx. http://chm.pops.int/Countries/StatusofRatifications/PartiesandSignatoires/tabid/4500/Default.aspxs accessed on July 21, 2019. Samuel O (2018) Proposition et validation de critères de détermination de délais de réentrée pour les pesticides utilisés en pépinières forestières. Centre de toxicologie du Québec. Bulletin d'information toxicologique 12: 2. Saravi SSS, Shokrzadeh M (2011) Role of Pesticides in Human Life in the Modern Age: A Review, Pesticides in the Modern World - Risks and Benefits. Intech Open DOI: 10.5772/18827. 12p. Available at https://www.intechopen.com/books/pesticides-in-the-modern-world-risks-and-benefits/role-of-pesticides-in-human-life-in-the-modern-age-a-review access on June 15, 2018. Sawadogo MFWE (2016) Biotechnology Cotton in Burkina Faso: Trajectory of an Innovation in a Development Context. ISTE OpenScience – Published by ISTE Ltd. London, UK, Pp. 15. Soleri R (2013) Etude de la pression phytosanitaire exercée sur différents lacs du Burkina Faso par méthode d’échantillonnage passif. Mémoire de stage de Master 2ème année Mention : Contaminants Eau Santé, Université de Montpellier 2, sciences et techniques, France. 50 p. Son D, Somda I, Legreve A, Schiffers B (2017) Pratiques phytosanitaires des producteurs de tomates du Burkina Faso et risques pour la santé et l’environnement. Cahiers Agricultures 26: 250-255. Sory S (2011) Etude du marché des herbicides dans la production du riz: cas des sitesde Bagré, Barna, Bazon et Niena-Dionkélé. Mémoire d'Ingénieur, IDR/UPB, BoboDiou1asso, Burkina Faso, 63p +annexes. Toé MA, Ouédraogo M, Ouédraogo R, Ilboudo S, Guissou IP (2013) Pilot study on agricultural pesticide poisoning in Burkina Faso. Interdisciplinary Toxicology 6: 185–191. Traoré O (2008) Les succès de la lutte intégrée contre les ravageurs du cotonnier en Afrique de l’Ouest. Communication à la 67ème réunion plénière de l’ICAC. Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), 16-21 November 2008, Pp.11. UTZ (2015) Liste des pesticides prohibés et liste des pesticides sous surveillance, Version 1.0. 19p. Weng CY, Black C (2015) Taiwanese farm workers’ pesticide knowledge, attitudes, behaviors and clothing practices. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 25: 685-696. WHO (2010) The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2009. 78p. available at https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44271/9789241547963_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y accessed on November 13, 2019. Youness M (2013) Impact de la formulation et du mélange de deux pesticides (mésotrione et tébuconazole) sur leur biodégradation et la croissance de microorganismes. Université Blaise Pascal - Clermont-Ferrand II, 2013. Français, Pp. 289. Yuantari GCM, Van Gestel AMC, Van Straalen MN, Widianarko B, Sunoko RH, Shobib NM (2015) Knowledge, attitude, and practice of Indonesian farmers regarding the use of personal protective equipment against pesticide exposure. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment187:142.
|