Content uploaded by Akeem Abiade Tijani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Akeem Abiade Tijani
Content may be subject to copyright.
© Kamla-Raj 2006 J. Hum. Ecol., 19(3) 183-190 (2006)
Pesticide Use Practices and Safety Issues: The Case of Cocoa
Farmers in Ondo State, Nigeria
A. A. Tijani
Department of Agricultural Economics, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile- Ife, Nigeria
E-mail:aatijani@yahoo.com
KEYWORDS Pesticides. Cocoa. Pesticide Risk. Regulatory Incentives. Nigeria
ABSTRACT This study investigates pesticides in common use in cocoa agriculture, dangers associated with their use and established
regulatory incentive (if any) that protect farmers and farm workers against pesticide risk. The study was conducted in Idanre local
government area of Ondo state, Nigeria. A total of fifty farmers, fifty farm workers and thirty two pesticide marketing agents were
interviewed using structured questionaire. The commonly used pesticides identified are Gammalin 20, Aldrex 20, Perenox, Cacaobre
Sandoz, copper sulphate, Basudin, Thionex and Unden. Result reveals that most of these pesticides are classified as ‘highly’ or
‘moderately’ hazardous by the world Health Organization and have been banned or restricted in many economically advanced
countries. Contrary to this most of the marketers claimed that the pesticides are registered in Nigeria and do not present acute
health hazards to users, by-standers, livestock, wild-life, and environment in general. Analysis shows that farmers are not taking
the necessary precautions to prevent hazards associated with their use. Farmers and farm workers suffer from discomforts ranging
from headaches, tiredness, vomiting and nausea to skin problems such as skin burn and itching after using these pesticides.
Although the Federal government of Nigeria through the Federal Environmental Protection Agency recognizes the problems of
pesticides use and has put in place legal and administrative procedures to protect users as well as the nation’s environment from the
adverse effects of pesticides, work on effective monitoring, enforcement or implementation of their procedures and mechanisms is
not being pursued with the seriousness required.
INTRODUCTION
Cocoa farmers use a wide range of pesticides
to limit losses from pests and diseases in cocoa
agriculture. Prominent among these are: Copper
sulphate(a fungicide popular in the treatment of
black pod infection; Benzene Hexachloride
(BHC)(an insecticide for control of cocoa
mirids);.Aldrin/Dieldrin or Aldrex 40 (to control
mealy bugs); Carbamate Unden.( an insecticide
which is effective in controlling cocoa mirids in
West African countries)( Berger and Aro,1977).
Others are Kokotine, Apeco, Perenox, Arkotine,
Didimac 25, Basudin and Brestan.
Pesticide use is associated with risk and can
be hazardous if not handled properly. Cocoa
farmers using pesticides containing Aldrin,
Gamma BHC, Cuprous oxide, Copper sulphate,
Paraquat dichloride etc. face constant exposure
to these pesticides (Fajewonyomi, 1995).
According to Takagi et al. (1997), risks asso-
ciated with pesticide use can be divided into two:
i. Risk associated with human beings: i.e.,
toxicity categorized as acute toxicity, chronic
toxicity, carcinogenicity, tetratogenicity and
biological concentration. Human exposure to
pesticides is an important health and social issue
as it usually results in serious health problems
such as epilepsy, stroke, respiratory disorders,
cancer, leukamia, brain and liver tumours,
convulsions etc. Death has been known to occur
in some places as a result of exposures to these
pesticides.
ii. Risk associated with the environment:
This manifests in the disturbance of the
ecosystem, principally in the form of pollution
of river water, groundwater, drinking water, soil
and air, reduction of fish and wildlife popula-
tions, destruction of natural vegetation etc.
(Pitmentel et al.,1980)
Cocoa farmers and farm workers may have
come into contact with pesticides during the app-
lication process or when entering recently treated
areas.
There is a high probability that pesticide use
and pesticide – induced side effects (costs) will
grow more rapidly in developing countries as a
whole than in the developed ones (Yudelman et
al., 1998). This is because of weak regulations
banning the importation and use of dangerous
chemicals and the inactivity or absence of
government and non - government environ-
mental control agencies.
Despite the fact that the Dirty Dozen pesti-
cides are banned, severely restricted or unregis-
tered in many countries and despite their having
been listed as hazardous by the World Health
Organisation (WHO), Fajewonyomi (1995)
184
A. A. TIJANI
stated that many of them are still widely
promoted and applied especially in developing
countries where weak controls and dangerous
work conditions make their impact even more
devastating.
Papworth and Paharia (1978) stated that
since pesticides by their very nature are toxic
and can be hazardous to users if not handled
properly, their regulation through registration
is of great value to developing countries. It is
not the increasing use of pesticides that warrants
regulation through suitable legislations but the
tendency, through ignorance, for overuse, misuse
or abuse of pesticides. Snelson (1978) stated that
registration’ as used in this context implies the
acceptance by a statutory authority of extensive
document proof submitted in support of all
claims for efficacy and safety made for the
proposed product.
Registration enables authorities to exercise
control on use levels claims, labeling, packaging
and advertising and thus to ensure that the
interest of end users are well protected. After
discovering that application of pesticides causes
severe contamination of vegetables with residues
in HoChin Minh city, Vietman, Nguyem et al.
(1998) suggested that instruction sessions should
be organized by the local authorities to show
farmers how to correctly apply pesticides on their
vegetable fields, set up demonstration field using
insecticides correctly, distribute leaflets on
accurate and safe use of insecticides on
vegetables to all vegetable growers, run broadcast
from the city broadcasting outfit to educate
farmers about safe and accurate application of
pesticides to protect their own health and that of
consumers.
Wetterson (1988) reported that a number of
governments and companies within the
agrochemical industry provide little, if any,
health and safety information on pesticides
beyond a label, which reaches pesticide users in
the field. In some countries, the labels may be
in a language not understood by the users who
may not be literate.
Davis et al (1992) modeled three regulatory
incentive systems that may induce farmers to
protect farm workers from pesticide-related
hazards. These are ex post regulation via a tort
– liabilities and workers compensation system
respectively and ex ante regulation (fines) by
administrative agencies.
Kolstad et al. (1990) define ex ante policies
as those that affect an activity before an
externality is generated and ex post policy as
one that regulates an externality only after it has
been generated and harm has occurred.
The first ex post incentive is experience rated
workers’ compensation. The single ex ante struc-
ture considered is administrative agency regu-
lation. Result indicate tort liability and adminis-
trative agency regulation as practiced provide
relatively insignificant incentives while a
workers’ compensation system if fully experience
rated may offer a more effective incentive.
Widespread but poorly regulated and unsafe
use of pesticides in developing countries such
as Nigeria coupled with the absence of adequate
worker education and effective regulatory
measures has led to concern about the impact of
these pesticides on public health and in particular
the exposure and poisoning of farmers and farm
workers. For these farmers and farm workers,
the consequences of the pesticide treadmill are
high indeed as many of them cannot read
pesticide warnings and instructions. Living
accommoda-tion for farm workers are often poor,
lacking in toilet and washing facilities, and
situated close to the field, thereby exposing them
to the hazards of pesticides.
Only limited research has been done on
farmer and farm worker safety issues in Nigeria.
Research on regulatory incentive systems that
may induce government and manufacturers of
pesticides to protect farmers and farm workers
from pesticides related harm is particularly
sparse.
Thus a study of this kind is necessary to
update the findings of previous works notably
that of Fajewonyomi (1995) so as to curtail haza-
rds faced by farmers and other farm workers
through the overuse, misuse or abuse of
pesticides.
This study results will go a long way in
assisting farmers, agricultural workers and other
users of pesticide as well as government policy
makers to find ways of ameliorating or minimi-
zing the health hazards faced by these occupa-
tional group whose contributions to the nation’s
economy are so significant.
The objective of this study is to investigate
all the pesticides in common use in cocoa agri-
culture, the possible dangers associated with their
use and established regulatory incentives (if any)
that protect farmers and farm workers against
pesticide risk.
185
PESTICIDE USE PRACTICES AND SAFETY ISSUES: THE CASE OF COCOA FARMERS
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study is conducted in Ondo state in
Southwestern Nigeria which is the largest cocoa
producing state in the country; hence a majority
of the inhabitants are involved (directly or
indirectly) in cocoa farming.
Interviews for the farmers and farm workers
were carried out in Idanre Local Government
area because of the prominent position it occupies
in the production of cocoa in the state. Idanre
local government area is made up of more than
400 out of which twenty – two villages were
purposively sampled for this study. However,
simple random technique was used in selecting
the farmer and farm worker respondents. The
pesticide-marketing respondents are located in
various towns of the state such as Idanre, Akure,
Ondo and Owen. A total of fifty farmers, fifty
farm workers and thirty-two pesticide marketing
agents were interviewed.
The data were collected in December 2000
using structured questionnaires. For farmers and
farm workers who are illiterate, the questions
were translated into Yoruba language for them
to understand and all the required information
was recorded on copies of the questionnaire
during interviews.
Meetings preceded the administration of the
questionnaire with secretaries of the farmer’s
cooperative unions in each village or region to
explain the rationale for the study and to solicit
the cooperation and responsiveness of their
members. The pesticides marketing agents’
questionnaire was administered by locating them
through their contact addresses around the state.
The Federal Environmental Protection
Agency zonal office at Ibadan was contacted for
information on Government efforts regarding the
monitoring and regulation of pesticide
production, importation, distribution, use and
disposal in effort to protect users as well as the
Nigerian environment from the adverse effect
of pesticides.
From both categories of respondents (farmers
and farm workers), data were collected on type
of pesticide used, sources of information about
pesticides, training in the proper use of
pesticides, belief in the washing of clothes after
spraying, storage of pesticides as well as disposal
of empty containers.
Furthermore, information was collected on
the kinds of symptoms encountered during or
after spraying, treatment for each kind of
symptom as well as the incentive system or
compensation being offered by manufacturers to
farmers and by farmers to farm workers to protect
them from pesticides.
From the pesticide-marketing agents,
information sought includes their experience in
pesticide marketing - kinds of pesticides
(registered or unregistered) and spraying
equipment marketed. Others are information
contained on pesticide labels and whether these
marketing agents encourage pesticide users to
practice pesticide use precautions, as well as
efforts and incentive/compensation to protect
farmers and farm workers against any hazard
associated with pesticide usage.
The data were analyzed using descriptive
statistics (frequency distribution, percentages,
proportion, mean and modes).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section which discusses the major
findings from the three categories of respondents
- farmers, farm workers, marketers of pesticides
and the Federal Government of Nigeria
regarding the safe use of pesticides is divided
into three sub – sections namely:
i. Socio – economic characteristics of farmers
and farm workers
ii. Characteristics of pesticide marketers
iii. Efforts of the federal and state
governments of Nigeria regarding the protection
of pesticide users as well as the Nigerian
environment from pesticide hazards
Socio-economic Characteristics of Farmers
and Farm Workers: Majority of the farmers and
farm workers are male. Only 6 (12%) of the
farmers interviewed are female while the
remaining 44(88%) are male. Sex distribution
of the farm workers indicates that more women
(24%) are involved in other farm works relative
to pesticide application. More of the male farm
workers are involved in pesticide application on
cocoa farms compared to the female. The mean
and modal ages for farmers are 51 and 57 years
respectively while comparable figures are 48 and
45 years for farm workers.
Literacy level is related to levels of awareness
and practice for the pesticide use precautions.
72% of the farmers interviewed are literate while
the remaining 28% are not. Of the 36 farmers
that are literate, 63.9% claimed they can read or
186
A. A. TIJANI
write in Yoruba language while the remaining
13.9% read or write in English language only.
82% of the farm workers are literate, but only
56% of these can read or write either in English
or Yoruba or both. This low level of education
reported by both farmers and farm workers must
have contributed immensely to their low level
of awareness and their unsafe use of pesticides
in their cocoa farm operations.
About 58% of the farmers had over 20 years
experience in cocoa farming. However the
frequency (36%) is lower for farm workers. This
shows that though most of the farmers and farm
workers had little or no formal education they
make up for this inadequacy by the skill they
have acquired over a long period in cocoa
farming.
The mean farm size is 3.32 hectares while
the modal class is 0-2 hectares; hence most of
the farmers are small holder producers.
Majority of the farmer respondents (88%)
employ labourers/farm workers in their cocoa
production. Of the 44 farmers that employ
labourers/ farm workers, 61.44% offer them
accommodation. The mean number of hired
hands on a farm is 3. The farmworker
respondents indicated that they perform different
kinds of work on the cocoa farm, however
majority are involved in cocoa spraying.
About 96% of the farmers use pesticide on
their cocoa farms. The eight pesticides being
used by the farmers and farm workers during
this study are classified either as “highly
hazardous” or “moderately hazardous” (UNEP/
ILO/WHO, 1992). Greater percentage of the
farmers uses Gammalin 20 because it is rated by
the World Health Organisation (WHO) as being
moderately hazardous.
Use of Gammalin 20 is closely followed by
the use of Copper sulphate, Basudin and Aldrex
40. All these pesticides belong to a group of
pesticides popularly listed as the “Dirty Dozen”
(Pesticide Action Network, 1993) and have been
banned, severely restricted or unregistered in
some countries in view of their known hazards
to human and environmental health.
46% of the farmers and 44% of the farm
workers using pesticides obtained knowledge of
pesticide application from extension agents in
the area. The rest of the farmers obtained their
knowledge from parents (31%), other farmers
(18%) and relations (42%). As high as 56% of
the farm workers obtained theirs through their
employer and relations. There is however, the
likelihood that knowledge might be distorted if
it is received from other farmers or farm workers
and relations and not the experienced extension
agents.
Cocoa pesticides are packaged in bags,
plastics containers and metal containers. A
majority of the pesticides are packaged in metal
and plastic containers. Unfortunately most
farmers wash and rinse these metal and plastic
containers for other purposes such as storing
palm oil, food grains etc.
98% and 96% of the farmer and farm workers
respectively say pesticide instruction and
warnings are written in English. As a result of
this, farmers who cannot read or write in English
have it read to them. Few pesticides have their
instructions written in Yoruba whereas majority
of the farmers can only read or write in Yoruba.
Other languages in which instructions and
warnings are written include French and Arabic.
64% of the farmers and 58% of the farm
workers had training in pesticide application or
use of spraying equipment, principally through
other farmers in the case of farmer respondents
and from employers in the case of farm workers.
About 90% of the farmers service their spraying
equipment regularly. Of these, 42.9% (21
respondents) handle it themselves while 30.6%
(15 respondents) employ the services of spraying
equipment repairers. Most of the farm workers
interviewed service the spraying equipment
themselves. It was noted that farmers and farm
workers who service the spraying equipment
themselves do so without wearing protective
apparels (such as gloves, boots e.t.c.). Some blow
the spray nozzle with their mouth in attempts to
dislodge the objects causing the blockade. This
practice exposes them to poisonous doses of
pesticide
Majority (87.5%) of the farmers kept their
pesticides in stores. 8.3% kept theirs in the
bedroom while the rest kept them in bedrooms,
the sitting rooms or kitchens.
Storing or keeping pesticides in any place
other than stores located on farms or far away
from living areas exposes users and non-users
(most especially children) to hazards associated
with these pesticides. Farmers indicated that they
disposed of pesticide container by burying (25%),
burning (10.4%) throwing into refuse heaps
(2.1%) and selling to buyers (25%), however
majority of them (35.4%) washed their pesticide
187
PESTICIDE USE PRACTICES AND SAFETY ISSUES: THE CASE OF COCOA FARMERS
containers for other uses such as storing palm
oil. Such practice poses health hazards to the
farmer and his family because several traces of
these pesticides could still be found in the
containers after washing. Similar methods of
disposal are indicated by the farmworker
respondents.
About 80% of both farmers and farm workers
indicated that they experience discomforts such
as such as headaches, tiredness vomiting, nausea,
and skin problems (itching and skin burn) after
spraying. 57.5% of farmers who health
experience discomforts after spraying reported
the symptoms to the marketers of these
pesticides. 37.1% of the farmers claimed that
the marketers showed little or no concern about
provision of incentive or compensation after
reporting unusual symptoms resulting from
pesticide use.
70% of the 39 farm workers experienced
discomforts after spraying indicated that their
employers did not offer them compensation when
these symptoms are reported. 30% however said
that they are given compensation in form of
money grants and provided protective clothing.
The proportion of farmer respondents that wore
protective materials, gloves, boots and goggles
when applying or mixing pesticides, were 68%
56%, 54% and 40% respectively while compara-
ble figures for farmworker respondents were
64%, 52% 36% and 18%. These proportions
were low considering the enormous hazards they
face if they ignore these precautions. Some
respondents said they do not put on goggles and
boots because they will not be able to see well
nor do they wear boots which would be heavy
and uncomfortable.
Various proportions of the farmer respon-
dents follow post-spraying health protection
operations: 68% washed clothes after spraying,
60% did not use empty containers for food or
water, 90% did not allow children to play with
pesticide containers and 62% did not wash
clothes used in spraying among other clothes;
comparable proportions of farmworker respon-
dents are 72% 62%, 88% and 48% respectively.
Low proportion of the farmers (44%) and of
farm workers (34%) followed the instruction on
the direction of wind to face when spraying
chemical pesticide. Reasons given for this by
some respondents are that this information was
not on the label and as such it was not considered
necessary. 78% each of the farmers and farm
workers said they do not eat or drink while
spraying. The rest who eat or drink while
spraying do so to generate energy when they are
feeling tired.
Characteristics of the Marketers: The mean
year of experience in pesticide marketing is 20
years and the modal range is 10-19 years.
Marketing of knapsack sprayer shows the highest
frequency followed by hand sprayer. This
indicates that knapsack sprayer is the commonest
kind of spraying tool demanded and used by
cocoa farmers.
Pesticides commonly handled by marketing
agents are Gammalin 20, Aldrex 20, Perenox,
Cacaobre Sandoz, Copper sulphate, Basudin,
Thionex and Unden. Majority of the marketing
agents interviewed markets Gammalin 20 closely
followed by Copper sulphate. In addition to
belonging to the list of the “Dirty Dozen” (PAN,
1993), Watterson (1988) reported that toxic
poisoning symptoms of Gammalin 20 include
eye, nose and throat irritation, headaches,
nausea, blueness of lips, skin irritation and
aplastic anemia. Ordinary occupational use of
Copper sulphate can cause itching, eczema,
conjunctivitis (on contact with eye) and
pneumoconiosis. High levels cause kidney and
liver damage. This demonstrates lack of concern
by relevant government agencies for the health
of our rural populace, cocoa farmers and farm
workers.
57% of the marketing agents said there is
restriction on the sale, and use of some of the
cocoa pesticides marketed by them. Majority
(87.5%) claimed that Gammalin 20 is fully
registered while lower percentages were recorded
for Perenox and Thionex and Unden. All the
marketers interviewed indicate identification,
that is, trade name, category of pesticide
(whether insecticide, nematicide, fungicides
e.t.c.) but majority (59.4%) did not indicate
hazards associated with pesticides. Lowest
percentage of 40.6 was recorded in the label
content indicating the hazards, which the
pesticide presents.
93% of the respondents interviewed write
instructions and warnings on pesticide labels in
simple sentence which can be easily understood
by the users. 65.6% of the respondents claimed
that users read and adhered strictly to these
instructions and warnings. While the rest
indicated ignorance about it.
In respond to the question about what the
188
A. A. TIJANI
marketers are doing to safeguard the health of
their customers, 46.9% of the respondents
indicated that they made efforts in this direction
against the 53.1% that did not. The activities of
the marketers therefore need be looked into by
the government or its regulatory agencies to
ensure that safety measures are taken to protect
farmers\operators from harms caused by
pesticides.
Only 25% of the respondents offered
incentive or compensation to users harmed as a
result of exposure to pesticides when properly
used. This is in the form of money grant or
provision of drugs or protective materials or less
hazardous alternatives.
Efforts of the Federal and State Government
of Nigeria Regarding the Protection of Pesti-
cide Users and the Nigerian Environment from
Pesticide Hazards: Information available at the
Federal Environment Protection Agency
indicated that the Federal Government of Nigeria
recognizes the problems of pesticides use and
has put in place legal and administrative
procedures aimed at regulating and monitoring
pesticide manufacture, importation, distribution,
use and disposal so as to protect users as well
the nation’s environment from the effects of these
pesticides. These include:
Guidelines on Pesticide Management:
Guidelines were developed to assist importers,
transporters, formulators, marketers,
distributors, users and the general public to adopt
the principles of environmental and friendly use
of pesticides. Under this guideline standards are
set to ensure that pesticide use are compatible
with the overall goals of bequeathing a clean
and safe environment to Nigerians.
The National Chemical Tracking Progra-
mme: The programme is aimed at monitoring
and control of hazardous chemicals (pesticides
inclusive). They are expected to be monitored
from importation to local production, storage,
transport, sale and distribution, use/handling and
disposal in order to minimize dangers to human
health and the environment. Under this
programme, chemicals (pesticides inclusive)
imported into the country should undergo
physical examination, sampling and laboratory
analysis for authenticity prior to release.
Standing Committee on National Chemicals
Management Control Actions: The committee
was set up to advise government on pesticide
import. In taking decisions, it considers the
concern of various stakeholders and the safety
status of the chemicals in Nigeria. The committee
is charged with the responsibility of recommen-
ding national control actions on importation of
chemicals and pesticides.
National Inventory of Obsolete Pesticide
Stocks: The Federal Ministry of Environment
in collaboration with relevant stakeholders
recently completed a national survey of obsolete
pesticide stocks in Nigeria as first step towards
the prevention of future stockpiling of obsolete
pesticides.
Pollution Abatement in Industries and Faci-
lities Generating Wastes Regulations of 1991:
This regulation imposes restrictions on the
release of toxic substances and stipulates require-
ments for monitoring of pollution to ensure that
permissible limits are not exceeded.
The Chemical/Pesticides Registration
Programme: The programme requires all impor-
ters of potentially toxic industrial chemicals,
agricultural chemicals and ozone depleting
chemicals to apply for an annual import permit.
The hazardous substances being controlled under
this programme are mainly those used in large
volumes for industrial, agricultural, spill clean
up and or commercial purposes which usually
end up in wastes discharged into the environ-
ment. The application and discharge of this
category of substances affect the quality of air,
water and land thereby exposing humans,
animals, plants, and microbes to risk.
Public Enlightenment and Training Progra-
mmes: The Federal Ministry of Environment and
other regulatory bodies organize periodic train-
ing workshops to catalyze and the coordinate
activities related to pesticide management, and
educate relevant sectors in pesticide usage and
handling thereby protecting public health and
the environment through increased awareness
of pesticide associated risks and strategies for
managing them.
Efforts to revise the pesticide regulations as
well as work on how to effectively enforce and
implement the programmes mentioned above are
in progress.
At the Oyo State Environment Protection
Agency (OYOFEPA), there is no specific regu-
lation, action, legal or administrative pro-cedures
and mechanisms to protect users as well as the
environment from the hazards associated with
pesticide use except a section in the agency’s
edict which says “No person shall use Gamma-
189
PESTICIDE USE PRACTICES AND SAFETY ISSUES: THE CASE OF COCOA FARMERS
llin 20 or any herbicide, pesticides, insecticides,
explosive or any other chemical to kill aquatic
animals or for any other purposes in rivers, lakes
and streams” (Oyo State Environment Protection
Agency, 1999).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The foregoing has shown that the major
pesticides used by farmers and farm workers in
the study area in combating the effects of pests
and diseases on their cocoa farms include:
Gammalin 20, Aldrex 40, Perenox, Cacaobre
Sandoz, Copper sulphate, Basudin, Thionex and
Unden. Analysis shows that farmers are not
taking the necessary precautions to prevent
hazards associated with their use. Farmers and
farm workers suffer from discomforts ranging
from headaches, tiredness, vomiting, and nausea
to skin problem such as skin burn and itching
after using these pesticides. The low level of
education of users coupled with lack of formal
training in pesticides use and the fact that some
of these pesticides do not carry labels and
information from their manufacturers in the
language of these end users expose the farmers
and farm workers to the hazards.
Majority of the farmers reported that the
marketers of these pesticides offer them no
incentive or compensation to protect them from
pesticides hazards. Majority of the farm workers
reported that their employers (farm owners) show
little or no concern about the provision of
incentives or compensation to protect them from
the hazards of these pesticides.
Result also reveals that most of the cocoa
pesticides in use are classified as “highly’ or
‘moderately’ hazardous by the World Health
Organization and have been banned or restricted
in many economically advanced countries.
Contrary to this, most of the marketers claimed
that the pesticides they market are registered in
Nigeria and do not present acute health hazards
to users, by-standers, livestock, wildlife, and
environment in general. Few of the pesticide
marketers also coordinate efforts to plan, prepare
and disseminate educational materials to protect
farmers, farm workers and other users against
any hazard associated with pesticide use.
The Federal Government of Nigeria through
the Federal Environmental Protection Agency
recognizes the problems of pesticide use and has
put in place legal and administrative procedures
to protect users as well as the nation’s environ-
ment from the adverse effects of pesticides. These
include Guidelines on Pesticide Management,
The National Chemical Tracking Program, The
Chemical /Pesticide Registration Programme,
the Standing Committee on National Chemicals
Management Control Actions, National Inven-
tory of Obsolete Pesticide Stocks as well as train-
ing and enlightenment programmes on pesticide
use. Work on effective monitoring, enforcement
or implementation of these procedures and
mechanisms is not being pursued with the
seriousness required.
Following from above, the following is
suggested:
i. Extension services need be greatly
improved by both public and private agencies to
increase necessary awareness among pesticide
users so as to encourage right practice for the
safe use and handling of chemicals and pesticides
by educating them on the risks involved in the
wrong use of these poisonous materials.
ii. Intensification (by the Federal Environ-
ment Protection Agency) of efforts aimed at
pesticide registration and control with a view to
categorizing them according to their safety status
and banning hazardous ones from use. Strict
enforcement of these regulations through appro-
priate law enforcement agencies should also be
initiated and maintained.
iii. Chemical and pesticide manufacturers/
marketers must be compelled to exhibit instruc-
tions and warnings on pesticide labels in the
commonly understood languages of the end
users. (e.g. English, Hausa, Igbo Yoruba, Pidgin
English)
iv. Government effort in protecting pesticide
users should include appropriate regulations that
compel manufacturers or their marketing agents
to offer incentive or compensation to users
harmed as a result of exposure to pesticides when
properly used. ‘Properly used’ in this context
means that users read and adhere to warnings
and instructions on pesticide labels. Such effort
should also include the establishment of regu-
latory incentives or compensation that compel
or induce farmers or employers of farmwokers
to protect farm workers from pesticide related
harm. Davis et al (1992) stated that such policy
or regulation could be ex post regulation via tort
liabilities and workers compensation system
respectively and ex ante regulation (fines) by
administrative agencies.
190
A. A. TIJANI
REFERENCES
Berger, J. and Aro, J.O.: Unden: A New specific Insecticides in
cocoa and other crops, pp 448-453, In : Fifth International
Cocoa Research Conference Proceedings. Cocoa
Research Institute of Nigeria, Ibadan, Nigeria (1975).
Davis, J.U. Caswell, J.A. and Harper, C.R.: Incentives for
protecting farmers and farm workers from pesticides.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74: 709-
917 (1992).
Fajewonyomi, B.A.: Knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP)
of farmers regarding the use of pesticides: A case study of
a cocoa farming community in south- western Nigeria.
Ife Journal of Agriculture, 16 &17: 98-198 (1995).
Kolstad, C.D., Ulen, T.S. and Johnson, G.V.: Expost liability
for harm Vs ex ante Safety regulations: substitute or
complements? American Economic Review, 80: 888-891
(1990).
Nguyem T., Bui, T. and Nguyem, D.: Reduction of pesticides
residue contamination on vegetable by Agro- Extension
work. ALIAR Proceedings Series, 85: 318-322
(1980).
Oyo state Environmental Protection Agency.: Edit No.1 Oyo
State of Nigeria Gazette, 24(4): A7-A9 (1999).
Papworth, D.S and Paharia, K.D: Value of pesticides registration
regulation to developing countries. Plant Protection
Bulletin, 26: 101-109 (1978).
Pesticides Action Network: Demise of the Dirty Dozen. San
Francisco, California (1993).
Pimentel, D. Andow, D, Dyson-Hudson, R.O., Gallahan, D.,
Jacobson, S., Irish, M., Kroop, S., Moss, A. and Vinzant,
B.: Environmental and social cost of pesticide: A
preliminary assessment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 34: 127-140 (1980).
Snelson, J.T: T he need for and principle of pesticide registration.
Plant Protection Bulletin, 26: 93-100 (1978).
Takagi, K., Kazuhiro, O., Ileji, M. and Masako, A.: Use,
Research and Development of pesticides in relation to
sustainable agriculture in Japan. Japan Agricultural
Research Quarterly, 31: 13-20 (1997).
United Nations Environment Program/ International Labor
Organization / World Health Organization: The WHO
Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazards
Guideline for Classification (1992-1993).
Wetterson, A.: Pesticides Users’ Health and Safety Handbook.
An International Guide. Grower Publishing Company
Limited, England (1988).
Yudelman, M., Ratta, A. and Nygaard, D.: Pest –management
and Food Production. Food, Agriculture and Environ-
ment Discussion paper 25, IFPRI, Washington D.C.
(1998).