Cotton farmers at risk from pesticides
http://www.theindependent.co.zw/
October 12, 2012 in Business
Cotton farming has been a vital cog in Zimbabwean agriculture. It has
dominated the local agricultural industry for almost a century.
Report by Peter Makwanya
Any talk of farming at any level, by any one, evokes images of cotton and
the successes it brought about. There has been quite a number of players who
came into the Zimbabwean cotton industry, trashed the environment and
disappeared.
Cotton-growing companies in Zimbabwe and the world over have serious
shortcomings on issues of environmental and business ethics.
Concerns such as land use, exploitation of workers and the use of
pesticides, environmental and health implications cannot continue to be
mystified. Conventional cotton farming is adversely destroying the
environment and affecting the health and well-being of thousands of farmers
in Zimbabwe.
Ethics in general refer to personal code of conduct based on respect for
oneself, others and the surroundings. From the environmental point of view,
ethics can be defined as a discipline that analyses issues regarding people’s
moral obligations to future generations with respect to the environment.
A deeper analysis on the conduct of cotton companies in Zimbabwe reveals
that they pay lip service or have a palliative approach to the fundamentals
of ethical considerations. By failing to adhere to environmental ethical
obligations, they have also failed not only themselves but their ethical
business practices.
Cotton companies cannot claim to be ethical if they violate the basic rights
of farmers, ignore health, safety and environmental standards.
These are the issues that have a heavy bearing on the sustainable
livelihoods of the farmers they claim to have at heart.
For centuries, cotton companies have been quietly pocketing enormous profits
from exploiting the unsuspecting rural farmers. The question is: For how
long are they going to play tomfoolery with farmers? For how long are they
going to continue deceiving farmers with their glib?
Research by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Health Programme (WHO), provides a
shocking account that between 1% and 3% of agricultural workers around the
world suffer from acute pesticide poisoning, with at least one million
requiring hospitalisation each year. These figures equate to between 25
million and 77 million cotton farmers around the world.
Why cotton? The reason is that cotton amounts to 16% of global pesticide
release; more than any other crop in the world. Cotton farming is also
considered the “dirtiest” due to the heavy use of insecticides, the most
hazardous type of pesticides to human and animal health.
To cotton companies (this is not assumed knowledge) already have
comprehensive information regarding this. As such, what are they doing about
it? Do they have insurance cover for their beloved farmers or is there any
cotton company-owned hospital that treats people suffering from suspected
poisoning from cotton cultivation related diseases?
Zimbabwe is one of the 16 African countries that use not “extremely
hazardous” but “highly hazardous” cotton chemicals. It is therefore clear
that in Zimbabwe there are people suffering from chronic effects of
long-term pesticide exposure, which include impaired memory and
concentration, severe depression and confusion. This is long-term in the
sense that, toxic agro-chemicals first applied 50 years ago now pollute the
country’s land, air, food and drinking water.
This means that cotton chemicals that were applied in 1962 are beginning to
have their effects felt now. These chemicals are causing substantial damage
to humans and the environment.
Women and children, who mostly participate in cotton cultivation, are prone
to dangers of pesticides because of their vulnerability. Hazardous cotton
pesticides are known to contaminate rivers and are a threat to fresh water
resources. About 99% of the world’s cotton farmers live and work in
developing countries, where there are low levels of safety awareness, no
access to protective apparatus, illiteracy and chronic poverty.
Zimbabwe, because of its status as a country “that is failing to develop”
can be classified as part of the 99%. It is common knowledge that Zimbabwean
rural cotton farmers often store pesticides in their bedrooms or near
foodstuffs. As a result, reports of suicide cases have appeared in numerous
editions of the print media.
Due to poverty, carelessness or ignorance, some rural communities end up
using these pesticide containers for water storage. The situation becomes
more dangerous when drinking water is not treated, as is the case with the
majority of Zimbabwean rural communities.
Research shows that hazardous pesticides applied to cotton can potentially
contaminate both cottonseed oil and cottonseed derivatives in animal feeds.
In simple terms, it means the hazardous chemicals can affect the whole food
chain; therefore, human beings, animals and the environment are not spared.
It is also clear from the environmentalists’ point of view that ethical
practices are normally resisted by some sectors of the society, including
cotton companies.
Events of the 2012 cotton marketing season, where farmers got a shocking raw
deal from cotton companies, which announced buying prices when cotton was
overdue for sale, is not sustainable. Buying prices should be announced in
advance so that farmers who intend growing cotton may do so out of choice
and economic considerations.
Cotton farming is a high-risk job which is very exploitative. This past
farming season we have in Zimbabwe witnessed thousands of the rural poor
working for little, or no reward at all.
In fact, they have been relegated to the dustbin of the farming discourse.
Sometimes we witness cases of misplaced priorities by these cotton
companies, where a company sponsors rugby, which is considered an elitist
sport in Zimbabwe, while ignoring construction of roads in the rural areas
where the cotton is grown.
The rural constituencies have served these cotton companies in good faith,
but they have to destroy the environment in order to construct make-shift
roads so that cotton companies can have easy access to their loot.
Some communities do not have basic educational facilities such as decent
classrooms. Children learn under freezing conditions in winter and in
sweltering and suffocating heat come summer while their major and only
important stakeholder is watching.
There are also capable and scholarship-deserving students from these
impoverished communities who fail to go to universities, not because they
are dull, but due to lack of funding. They have been dumped and loathed by
the exploitative cotton companies.
Indeed, it is not cotton companies’ sole responsibility to undertake these
social obligations, but these same rural constituencies have nurtured cotton
companies to what they are today.
To reduce environmental damage and compromising the health of their major
stakeholders, cotton companies must engage in research to find out which
organic cotton species are suitable for sustainable farming, depending on
available variables. The advantage of growing organic cotton is that it does
not require the use of pesticides and fertilisers.
Organic cotton farming does not poison the environment or the people
involved in the production. If cotton companies in Zimbabwe have proved
through research that organic farming is not suitable in our situations,
then they must ensure that agro-chemical companies sell recommended
pesticides only. They should allow the selling of pesticides bearing the
labels of manufacturing countries and companies. The chemical products
should have genuine eco-friendly certifications.
Farmers need to have constant training, awareness and education programmes
in chemical handling and better pest management techniques. Protective
equipment should be readily available and affordable too. The brush and
bucket spraying technique is highly contagious, so in that regard sprays
should be cheap as well.
Lastly, ethical business practices are eco-friendly and sustainable as they
regulate the behaviour of all businesses that operate in the supply-chain
such as contractors, suppliers, distributors and sales agents.
Makwanya is a climate change communicator who writes in his own capacity and
can be contacted on: [email protected] or [email protected]