Still dependent on traditional farming practices, countries like India and China must evaluate how a move to ban Endosulfan by the Stockholm Convention will augur for them, especially when it has no substitutes
This week will see a milestone in the journey of the debated pesticide Endosulfan, the use and benefits of which have been argued the world over. The Stockholm Convention is now estimated to seal the fate of the active ingredient used globally for more than half a century. The premise of this ban will be the persistence of Endosulfan in the environment. It is being enlisted as a persistent organic pollutant (POP) although the World Health Organization classifies Endosulfan as ‘moderately hazardous.’ This development is estimated to ensure its global eradication. Developing nations with similar stakes in the outcome of the Convention for agriculture, such as China and India silently mull what the future will holds for them in the absence of Endosulfan.
A group of 172 nations will partake in this decision, even as a fraction of them are significant users of Endosulfan, or benefit from it at all. Of the 60 countries to have banned the pesticide, 27 are EU members. Nations that have been indirectly compelled to ban the pesticide include among others, 21 African countries that depend heavily on European exports. Recent global news reports have suggested that the move to enlist Endosulfan as a POP at the Convention is only a legal offensive in eliminating its global use for replacement with patented substitutes. But if this assertion is considered far-fetched and dismissed, the issue that still needs considerable thought is what farmers in developing nations like India and China will use as alternatives in light of such a ban.
The US Environmental Protection Agency has stated that Endosulfan ‘poses unacceptable risks to agricultural workers and wildlife’ and has linked the pesticide to cancer and long-term impact on the immune and reproductive systems. Countering this view, the Shanghai Daily reported that Mr. Chen Zongmao, a professor at Tea Research Institute and Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences states that extensive soil residue tests performed by them found no problems at all. In India, these results have been corroborated by several government committees, such as those led by Mr. OP Dubey, CD Mayee and Dr. Achyutan, among numerous independent studies. China has benefited from Endosulfan’s use on cotton since 1994, as well as on wheat, tea, tobacco and apples, among other fruits since 1998.
In China, Endosulfan is sold for the extremely affordable price of 25–32 yuan (USD 3.84–4.91) per litre. As per Mr. Li Maoqing, a quality control director at Jiangsu Anpon Electrochemical Co Ltd, a ban on the pesticide could therefore hurt Chinese cultivators to the tune of almost 100 million yuan (USD 15 million) per year. Since analysis in Europe and America have been conducted on Endosulfan’s effects on birds, rabbits and fish, their assessment is impractical for China where it is used largely on crops like tea which are not exported. In the past, several tests have already suggested that Endosulfan degrades much faster in tropical climates; but this scientific truth has been omitted from common knowledge on the issue.
Endosulfan has been manufactured, used and exported by Europe for 55 years and has since caught on in developing economies such as India, China, Argentina and Brazil due to its precise pest control relevance in these climates. In fact, Italy consented to Endosulfan use during a pest attack on their hazelnut crops in 2008 due to lack of an appropriate alternative pesticide to tackle the problem. China’s Tea Research Institute and Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences is already looking at developing its alternatives for the tea industry. But Mr. Li asserted that such a product is projected to be five times costlier than Endosulfan.
If health and ecology were really prime concerns for the ban of Endosulfan, it is strange that suggested alternatives are harsher. Neonicotinoids, which are blamed for causing massive honeybee deaths and degrading the natural ecological balance, are among the substitutes suggested for Endosulfan. Alternatives could be found in organic farming, but its only drawback lies in scalability of use when it comes to feed billions. With inadequate replacements in place, developing countries like China, India and Argentina must now decide whether the risk from Endosulfan can outweigh the risks of food shortage and additional cost burdens on farming.