5 May 2008
column
Kampala — The decision by the Government of Uganda to use DDT in combating Malaria is imprudent because it will cause irreversible damage to both human helath and the environment. DDT will also cost Uganda's economy dearly and therefore should be halted. On April 25 2008, Uganda joined the rest of the world to commemorate World Malaria Day.
Uganda Network on Toxic Free Malaria Control (UNETMAC) appreciates the effort of the government of Uganda and her development partners such as; United States Agency for international Development (USAID) and Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in combating the global scourge of Malaria. UNETMAC shares a deep concern about the catastrophic public health tragedy that Malaria inflicts on the African continent and Uganda in particular.
However, UNETMAC believes that in order to address this challenge, the government and her development partners should support Malaria control programs that are effective and sustainable. UNETMAC is greatly worried about the fact that, there is a significant shift of the allocation of resources towards DDT indoor residual spraying (IRS). Whereas DDT IRS can be useful for Malaria control in certain specific local contexts, UNETMAC finds this approach extremely worrisome due to the long-term environmental and human health impacts associated with DDT exposure.
For example, Low exposure to DDT negatively affects the development of the human embryo and even at low doses, causes hysposdias. Low exposure to DDT leads to a dramatic drop in sperm density and motility causing infertility. DDT also causes reduced breast milk and breast cancer. DDT leads to pre-tern births which lead to the production of premature babies, reduced babies' sizes, low weight, miscarriages /spontaneous abortions and infant deaths. Low exposure to DDT also leads to phagophilic behaviour in children, a reduction in their IQ, significant neuro-development delays as revealed by different epidemiological studies. Our country still faces health care challenges such as lack of access to adequate health care facilities and a number of primary killer diseases. Spraying toxic chemicals such as DDT in peoples' houses is thus not helpful either.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) promised to use DDT IRS in accordance with the World Health organization (WHO), the Stockholm Convention and the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) guidelines. According to WHO, DDT IRS can only be used for vector disease control in countries where there are no locally safe (less toxic), effective and affordable alternatives.
The Stockholm Convention, to which Uganda is a signatory, emphasizes giving attention to alternatives that will allow an ultimate elimination of DDT. The Convention stresses that a country should only use DDT as the last resort and for only a short period. As such, it expects countries using DDT to develop work plans of how they will eventually phase out DDT use. The Convention goes ahead and explains that before a country starts using DDT; sensitization of the general public should be done through various media, about the use and possible negative consequences of DDT on both human health and the environment. This should be done before, during, and after spraying. The same Convention further notes that for a country to use DDT, it should have the capacity in terms of skilled personnel, resources, institutional and infrastructure.
The MOH was mandated by NEMA to form a multi-sectoral monitoring team which was to be established before starting spraying DDT and this team should be facilitated by the MOH to conduct its work and should report back to NEMA every after four months. Though the monitoring team was formed and inaugurated, it is not operational. The team members have not been given any terms of reference; appointment letters and any financial resources to enable them do their work.
NEMA also recommended that sensitization of the public in the area where DDT is to be sprayed should be done at least three months before. In all these guidelines, DDT IRS should be voluntary and should not be forced on people. The recent visit of UNETMAC in the districts of Oyam and Apac which are currently being piloted for DDT IRS reveals shocking results. The MOH has failed to comply with the procedures. For example although some of the district officials and LC111 chairpersons were sensitized about the Malaria problem, the local people were not told anything about the precautions to avoid dangers of DDT.
No single education communication material was identified in the two districts and therefore a reflection of lack of sensitization. The local people do not have any knowledge on DDT IRS use. Although the Research Triangle International (RTI) was hired by the MOH to conduct the DDT IRS exercise, it recruited about 1500 people of less expertise in handling toxic chemicals. Spraying is even done in peoples' houses without letting people remove their household items. At the same time, the sprayers are threatening the local people that they will never be allowed to receive any services from health centres incase they refuse their houses to be sprayed. It is also very unfortunate that DDT IRS is being politicized since those who reject it are branded as people in the opposition.
The two districts of Oyam and Apac are most known for organic farming. There are over 50,000 certified organic farmers who have already lost their business in the above districts. The investers who have been purchasing the organic products have vowed never to buy anything from those two districts for a period of 20 years. Is the government ready to compasate these people?
What about the investors whose investment is ending instantly?
Uganda is regarded as a country gifted by nature and a second leading exporter of organic products in Africa; Moreover, in a situation where there is global food shortage, we believed that this is the right time for Uganda to utilize the chance to grow and increase organic food exports. UNETMAC advises the government and development partners to "invest more into DDT alternatives, such as;- developing an anti- Malaria vaccine, developing a technology that interferes with the life-cycle of the microbe and/or the vector and most importantly investing in Uganda's health care system in order to improve the health of Ugandans for now and the future". The government should opt for programmes that are pro-people and environmentally friendly.
Several country examples highlight the effectiveness of community-based, integrated Malaria control programs. Vietnam reduced Malaria deaths by 97% and Malaria cases by 59% in 1991 when it switched from trying to eradicate Malaria using DDT to a DDT-free Malaria control program, involving early diagnosis, distribution of drugs and mosquito nets along with widespread health education organized with village leaders.
Mexico shifted away from DDT use with an integrated approach that combined early detection of Malaria cases, prompt medical treatment, community participation in notification of Malaria cases, cleaning of sites where mosquitoes breed, and low-volume chemical control with pyrethroid and other less toxic pesticides. A related program in central Kenya is focusing on reducing Malaria by working with the community to improve water management, sanitation, cleaning up of cities, using biological controls, and distributing mosquito nets in affected areas.
Now therefore, we the undersigned organizations under the umbrella of Uganda Network on Toxic Free Malaria Control (UNETMAC) advise that, the Ugandan governmentand her development partners should set an example for a 21st century approach to Malaria control that saves lives and protects future generations from the harm of dangerous chemicals such as DDT. We demand that the spraying of DDT be stopped immediately and that the resources to spray DDT be used to provide alternatives to DDT such as mosquito nets, and that, these alternatives be provided to the general public free of charge. We are even willing to contribute partly to this noble cause.
1. Pro-biodiversity Conservationists in Uganda (PRO BICOU)
2. Bo Weevil BV (U) Ltd
3. Shares Uganda Ltd
4. Export Promotion of Organic Products from Africa (EPOPA)
5. National Organic Agricultural Movement Uganda (NOGAMU)
6. Dunavant Uganda Limited
7. Agro-Eco Partners in Organic Growth
8. Lango Organic Farming Promotion (LOFP)
9. Bio Consult Ltd
10. Historic Buildings Conservation Trust (HBCT)
11. National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE)
12. Agency for Environment and Wetlands (AEW)
13. New Horizons
14. Climate and Development Initiatives (CDI)
15. Prisons Outreach Ministries (POM)
16. Crusade for Environmental Awareness
17. Focused Innovations on Environmental Protection (FIEP)
18. Agency for Integrated Rural Development (AFIRD)
19. ESCO Uganda
20. Free Planet International (FPI)
21. Life Concern (LICO)
22. Citizens for a Better environment Uganda (CIBEU)
23. Conservation Trust
24. Environmental Conservation for Managing Lake
Victoria Resources - (ECOVIC- Uganda Chapter)
25. Mbarara Development Agency
26. Environmental Teachers Association (ENVITA)
27. Grants Project Consult (GPC Limited)
28. Kikandwa Environmental Association (KEA)
29. Uganda Coalition for Sustainable
Development (UCSD)
30. Integrated Environmental Concern (IECU)
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 New Vision. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
