Number of questions: [9]
 |
Posted on 03/03/2007 19:37:04 |
Betlem,
thanks for that very comprehensive reply and more so appreciating the complexity of the DDT issue. Keep up the good work since I think as you may realize lack of good information and gaps in responses and the lack of a professional to deal comprehensively with the questions on DDT or other sustainable development issues has led to alot of misunderstanding about the direction, priorities and strategies of the various UN agencies and international governments and whose interests they are serving. May I know how far the discussion on the UNEP and WHO decision taking tool has gone? and the role malaria endemic countries are playing in this discussions?
NB
If you can direct me to anyone working on indoor air monitoring for long term exposures of DDT from in door air spraying I will appreciate.
|
|
Wanami Wafula (from United States of America)
|
|
Concerning the discussion between UNEP, WHO and other partners with regards to the decision taking tool: A concept has been agreed upon and will be submitted for funding very soon. Three malaria endemic countries are involved in this project.
For a contact working on indoor air monitoring as per your request, I suggest to contact WHO (through their Web site).
|
|
Posted on 03/03/2007 15:31:56 |
Dear Sir,
My son is presently preapring a report on the environmentsl and poluution caused by the July 06 war on lebanon.
We have tried without success to search the net to find any consistent study with datas and graphics which explain the efects of this war on the air pollution and lebanese health apart from the marine disaster due to the oil spread in the mediterranean sea.
Your assisatnce is highly appreciated if you can help us succeed in making our report to be rich and consistent.
Best Regards
Andre Abi-NAssif
|
|
Andre Abi Nassif (from Lebanon)
|
|
Dear Andre Abi Nassif,
Although not fitting in my 'topic of the day', I remember that UNEPs Post Conflict Branch has recently completed a report which could be of help to you.
Please check the following link:
http://www.UNEP.org/pdf/Lebanon_PCOB_Report.pdf
Good luck with your report !
|
|
Posted on 03/03/2007 14:05:25 |
|
I am puzzled by the certainty displayed by scientists about the role of carbon emissions in global warming. I understand that as the polar ice-cap recedes at the South Pole, dead leaves have been found underneath. In other words, there were once forests there. Conversely, the fjords of Norway were scooped out by glacial action in the distant past. If, therefore, the polar ice-caps have expanded and retracted through natural causes in the distant past, what kind of controlled experiments are climate scientists able to conduct in order to distinguish between natural and man-made climate change? I am not a sceptic, I just want to know the facts.
|
|
Edmund Burke (from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
|
|
|
Although the issue you raise is a very interesting and important one, the topic is too far away from my topic of today. I suggest you contact UNEP through the [contact] link mentioned at the bottom of the UNEP webpage. Your question will be forwarded to a climate change specialist.
|
|
Posted on 03/03/2007 06:01:08 |
Betlem,
thanks for your quick response, I just want to disagree on your position to the effect that DDT was not banned, I meant it was by developed countries ( USA banned its us on June 14th 1972 after almost 30 years of research on DDT). What do you thing is the biggest weakness of the Stockholm Convention on POPs? And what do you thing should be done for countries that are being told by their developed counter parts that if they use DDT they will have their food exports stopped. Isn't WHO or UNEP or the Stockholm committee on POPs at least responsible to give some direction here or do you think restricted use as per the guidelines is good enough basically asking these countries to be responsible and not violet trade agreement in the name of malaria control? Since this seems like a gun given to developing countries in malaria endemic regions to shoot their toes off.
|
|
wanami Wafula (from United States of America)
|
|
The issue of DDT use in malaria vector control is a complex issue linked to political, economic, health, social and environmental aspects. As such, there is no single or simple solution available. Per consequence is forcing a ban on DDT use on developing countries not a suitable way forward.
A big weakness of the international community is that it seems not yet possible to develop target countries in a sustainable way to such a level that these countries can afford suitable and sustainable alternatives to protect the health of their population against vector borne diseases.
Food safety is a responsibility for each individual country. As you correctly state, countries have the risk that their food exports will be affected if they apply chemicals which are not to be used in agriculture.
UNEP in collaboration with WHO is embarking on a promising initiative leading to a decision taking tool for malaria vector control for governments. With this tool governments can decide which approach to be used in malaria vector control. Each approach has directly related institutional, economic, social, health and environmental consequences. It is hoped for that this decision taking tool will assist countries in selecting the optimal approach for resolving a complex problem.
|
|
Posted on 02/03/2007 22:40:52 |
Betlem,
I am a graduate Student in Cleaner Production and Population Prevention and I was personally not surprised on discovering how irresponsibility the international community was to reintroduce a banned POP. First, some countries were making significant efforts in pursuing more environmentally benign and sustainable strategies to malaria control like insecticide treated nets (ITNs) and spraying of pyrethrum derivates. How has DDT reintroduction affected these positive efforts, is there any evaluation? secondly, poor countries have never been given a chance to clearly evaluate and decide on issues without external interests being fulfilled first and most of this countries have always been fertile in situ laboratories for developed countries in situ experimentation that their tax payers wouldn't allow in their countries, this up to very recently. And while I appreciate measures put in place to control DDT use, how will WHO and other monitors to ensure that DDT does not eventual pollute everything including the only sources of income; the EU already been in conflict with countries around the Lake Victoria like Uganda about fish exports to the EU market if Uganda uses DDT, where was the EU when DDT was re-allowed, a part from this in some of this countries that are half the time in turmoil or some remote areas are run by unrecognized groups who are may be rebels or cross-border criminals, if they can access to very sophisticated arms, what will stop them from getting and using DDT irresponsibly, WHO policy? What about long term in door air exposures in houses that have been sprayed ( this is my main area of interest)
Wanami
MA
USA
|
|
Wanami Wafula (from United States of America)
|
|
Dear Wanami,
Your reaction includes several statements which I prefer to comment on before I reply to your question.
First, DDT has never been banned but its use has been limited. As such, ‘reintroduction or re-allowing of a banned POP’ is not the case. See further my reply to Joanne below.
I cannot say whether the initiatives in order to further promote and introduce alternatives to DDT in many countries are influenced by the limited use of DDT by other countries.
In order to better monitor the use of DDT as such that the chemical is only applied according to WHO guidelines and only for vector control use, currently various activities are in preparation. These involve several UN Agencies and other institutions.
Even countries that currently use DDT according to the WHO guidelines are obliged as party to the Stockholm Convention to further restrict the DDT use and look for sustainable alternatives.
UNEP with other partners, and co-funded through GEF, continue to support these countries in this process.
DDT use for vector control in the health sector cannot be stopped on the short term: No affordable and sustainable alternatives are available and in many countries the institutional setting is not prepared for suitable alternatives.
However, through intersectoral collaboration at all levels for an extended period of time, I am convinced that ultimately and on the longer term the use of all POPs (including DDT) will be stopped.
I share your concern about in door air exposures in houses that have been sprayed with DDT.
|
|
Posted on 02/03/2007 09:00:31 |
Dear mr. Betlem,
I believe that obsolete pesticides issues are of great concern for the global environment. Seen the upcoming UN reform, do you expect that UNEP in future will pay more attention to the work you are currently doing?
|
|
Veneeta (from Netherlands)
|
|
Dear Veneeta,
Indeed, obsolete pesticides and more specifically Persistent Organic Pollutants, are of great concern and pose major and increasing threats to human health and the global environment.
This is recognized by the international community and various international Conventions and arrangements are in place and will be continuously adapted to remain up-to-date with the latest developments in science.
As such it can be expected that there will remain a large and guiding role for UNEP in this field in future.
|
|
Posted on 02/03/2007 08:02:41 |
|
The World Health Organization recently endorsed the use of DDT to control the spread of malaria. What is UNEP's position, in view of the potential negative environmental impact?
|
|
Joanne (from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
|
|
The use of DDT in malaria vector control by the World Health Organization has since long been a part of the Global Malaria Programme of the WHO. As part of this Programme, DDT can be applied for Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) only and under strict conditions.
The use of DDT is as well permitted for countries which are Party to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) when locally safe, effective and affordable alternatives are not available to the Party in question.
However certain registration procedures should be followed prior to application of DDT in the country. Parties to this Convention are as well required to meet certain conditions.
Seen the above, the use of DDT in malaria vector control is nothing new.
However, for several reasons, the dependency on pesticides in vector control should be reduced. One of the reasons is increased awareness about the fact that POPs pose major and increasing threats to human health and the environment.
UNEP, in close collaboration with WHO, is involved in the implementation of several larger, regional and GEF co-funded projects to develop and demonstrate alternative approaches to the application of DDT in malaria vector control. This first project (covering 8 countries in Central America and Mexico) will present its findings soon and it can be stated already that it is very well possible to reduce the number of deathly malaria cases through alternative approaches without the use of pesticides.
|
|
Posted on 02/03/2007 05:11:23 |
|
In what ways is the Gender Aspect important in your area of expertise, especially in terms of equity and equality?
|
|
Jane Smith (from Kenya)
|
|
The issue of a healthy environment is important for all of us, regardless gender.
In certain cases, it might be important to know more about your target group in order to deliver a specific message. For example: If women groups are producing vegetables in a village and the aim of the intervention is to avoid that wrong pesticides are applied in the vegetable gardens, it is logic to approach the women.
However, if the distribution of pesticides is in the hands of men, you better start a dialogue with these men as well.
During project development these issues should be taken into account.
|
|
Posted on 02/03/2007 05:09:24 |
|
What strategies do you propose for educating policy-makers in your area of specialization ?
|
|
Centre for Environment Education (from India)
|
|
The aim of involving government (and non-government) institutions in the development and implementation of new approaches related to for example alternatives to DDT in vector disease control is to develop the new approaches together with them. As such, the ownership of the intervention is fully with the respective governments and other involved institutions.
Governments should learn through experience which approaches fit them best according to their specific conditions.
UNEP, and more specifically the Division of GEF Coordination with GEF co-funding, assists for example countries in developing and executing demonstration projects, from which policy makers can learn.
|
|
