How Is Europe Colluding in Exporting Banned Pesticides to the West Bank?

The pesticide market in the West Bank remains in disarray, marked by insufficient oversight and widespread ignorance of the dangers these chemicals pose.

Despite several accusations and investigations, The Palestinian Authority continues to permit the import of pesticides that have been banned or severely restricted in the European Union.

Between 2018 and 2023, the West Bank imported 13 types of pesticides banned or heavily restricted in Europe, according to data from the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Local authorities justify these imports by arguing that European bans do not necessarily apply to local conditions.

Banned Pesticides

Pesticides banned in Europe have found a ready market in countries like Palestine, where they are available to farmers—both small-scale and large—who often lack awareness of their risks.

This raises serious questions about why European companies continue to export these hazardous substances despite clear evidence of their dangers, including links to severe health issues.

One such pesticide, Mancozeb, banned in the EU due to its endocrine-disrupting effects, was reauthorized for use in the West Bank in 2017 after being initially banned in 2012.

Sold under various brand names like “Acrobat” and “Ridomil Gold MZ,” Mancozeb remains a popular fungicide despite its known risks to human reproductive health.

Another pesticide, imidacloprid, banned in Europe due to its harmful impact on pollinators like bees, is still sold in the West Bank under names like “Confidor.” Despite its dangers, it is marketed as an effective solution against pests on crops such as tomatoes and avocados.

Former UN Special Rapporteur Baskut Tuncak condemned the double standard that allows toxic pesticides to be exported to poorer countries while banning them in wealthier nations.

He calls it “a deeply unfortunate practice” and a “political concession to industry,” pointing out the hypocrisy in laws that permit these substances to be manufactured and exported, even if they are banned domestically.

Local oversight is minimal, with just 14 inspectors covering the entire West Bank, a situation that Salama Shabib of the Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture attributes to a lack of resources.

While efforts are underway to review and potentially ban harmful pesticides, the lack of robust oversight and farmer education remains a significant challenge.

Farmers often ignore safety precautions and recommended dosages when applying these chemicals, exacerbating the risks posed by pesticides that are banned elsewhere but still widely used in Palestine.

Hazardous Substances

The European Parliament's Pesticide Marketing Regulation (EC 1107/2009) is among the most stringent globally, but its reach ends at Europe’s borders. This allows companies to produce pesticides for export to regions like North Africa, even when those chemicals are banned within the EU, according to Laurent Gabriel.

A report by 35 experts from the Human Rights Council emphasized the urgent need for wealthy nations to halt the export of banned toxic chemicals to poorer countries where regulatory frameworks are weaker.

Their report condemns the EU for continuing to export these hazardous substances, leading to widespread violations of human rights in low- and middle-income nations.

Globally, over 1,000 types of pesticides are used to protect crops, each with varying levels of toxicity, according to the World Health Organization.

A report by Greenpeace and Public Eye revealed that in 2018 alone, 82,000 tons of highly hazardous pesticides were exported from the EU. These chemicals were banned in Europe due to their unacceptable risks to human health and the environment.

The report noted that the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, and Spain accounted for over 90% of these exports, with most going to low- and middle-income countries.

The European Commission has acknowledged the problem and is considering options to prevent the production and export of banned chemicals within the EU.

However, they caution that a ban on exports does not guarantee that other countries will cease using these pesticides, as they might simply source them elsewhere. Therefore, persuading these nations to abandon such dangerous substances is crucial.

The Rotterdam Convention, aimed at promoting shared responsibility in the international trade of hazardous chemicals, requires that companies exporting banned substances from the EU notify importing countries about the quantities and risks involved.

However, Tuncak argues that the convention has become a "shield" for companies and states, failing to serve its intended purpose over the past 15 years.

In places like Palestine, where environmental and health standards differ from Europe’s, banned pesticides continue to be imported.

Palestinian officials, like Duaa Abdullah, defend this practice by pointing out the absence of certain environmental factors, such as large bodies of water, that might otherwise necessitate stricter controls.

Critics, however, argue that such justifications are dangerously misguided, emphasizing that the local climate does not make these chemicals any less hazardous.

Lobbying Strategy

In May 2020, the European Union launched its Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy, a bold plan aimed at fostering sustainable food systems globally, not just within Europe’s borders.

The strategy seeks to ensure healthy food for European citizens while ostensibly promoting similar standards abroad. However, critics argue that the EU's approach contains a stark contradiction: while it tightens regulations at home, it continues to allow the export of banned pesticides to poorer countries.

The pesticide industry, represented by CropLife, a consortium of major agrochemical companies, has aggressively lobbied against this strategy.

Laurent Gaberell, a researcher specializing in agriculture, notes that these companies often rely on self-funded studies that downplay the risks of their products, ensuring that even the most toxic pesticides remain on the market.

The power of this lobby, which includes industry giants like Bayer, BASF, Corteva, Syngenta, and FMC, cannot be underestimated.

These companies, despite being competitors, have united to amplify their influence in policy circles.

Tuncak points out that this industry has become "incredibly profitable and powerful" due to its lobbying efforts.

Michèle Rivasi, a member of the European Parliament for the French Green Party, highlights how the pesticide lobby circumvents EU regulations by manufacturing banned products outside Europe and selling them to countries with laxer laws.

The lobbyists, she says, deflect blame by arguing that it is the importing countries that ultimately approve the use of these hazardous substances.

CropLife International, the industry's global mouthpiece, defends its practices by claiming that banning these pesticides would harm European employment and cripple the chemical industry.

They argue that without these chemicals, global food security would be threatened, a claim Gabriel dismisses as a fear-mongering tactic designed to protect profits.

Despite CropLife's denials of involvement in the distribution of highly hazardous pesticides in developing countries, evidence suggests otherwise.

Gaberell estimates that between 25 percent and 40 percent of the consortium's sales come from these dangerous products.

In response to these allegations, the European Commission has hinted at possible legislative changes to curb the export of banned pesticides, but such measures have yet to materialize.

Meanwhile, countries like Palestine continue to import these hazardous chemicals, often under the justification that their local environmental conditions differ from those in Europe.