Table of Contents

ECONOMIC VIABILITY
EFFICACY OF THE POPS ALTERNATIVE IN ITS INTENDED AREA OF USE
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTABILITY OF THE POPS ALTERNATIVE
AVAILABILITY OF THE ALTERNATIVE
SAFETY OF THE ALTERNATIVE TO APPLICATORS AND CONSUMERS
RESOURCES FOR EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES

<<Chapter 5

VI. PROCESS FOR SELECTING/TESTING STRATEGIES

In order to select the best alternatives to POPs for the management of termites, an evaluation of the available alternatives must be conducted. This evaluation should include the following considerations:

Economic viability of the POPs alternative . –The strategy must be affordable for the target population. Although initial costs will often be higher, on a long-term basis the costs of the alternative strategy must be acceptable.

Efficacy of the POPs alternative in its intended area of use. – Assessment of the efficacy must be conducted against local or similar pest species of termite and under local or similar environmental conditions to be relevant.

Environmental acceptability of the POPs alternative. – The alternative must not cause environmental problems, such as contamination of water or food crops, toxic effects on non-target organisms, or cause the creation of hazardous waste.

Availability of the alternative. – The alternative must be available in commercially significant quantities.

Safety of the alternative to applicators and consumers. – The alternative must be safe for the workers who will be applying it or otherwise implementing the management measure, and safe for the general public when used in or around the protected agricultural crops or structures.

Resources for evaluation of the alternative. – Resources may be available for conducting such evaluations. Information on some of these sources can be obtained through UNEP Chemicals.

Each of these areas for consideration is discussed in more detail below.

Economic viability.

A change to alternatives to POPs is likely to require higher economic investments than if the use of POPs is continued, and there is likely to be an economic incentive to continue to procure the POP material. However, if potential damages to the environment and health, costs for regulatory controls and waste management and other indirect costs are taken into account, the real long-term cost of continuing the use of POPs is likely to be much higher than if counting only the direct costs. Comparisons made in Thailand, Germany and the USA have demonstrated indirect costs that are equal to, or even higher than, the direct costs of pesticides.

Providers of termite protective services and users of these services can be informed that, although the alternatives may cost more than the POPs they are replacing, they can still be affordable and are still a good investment when compared to the cost of replacing structural components or crop-loss. Governments may want to consider seeking temporary financial supports for POPs alternatives to encourage their adoption and familiarization of the termite protection providers or users with these alternatives.

An evaluation of the direct costs of a commercially available alternative can be readily conducted by determining the cost of the alternative in areas where it is currently in use and extrapolating those costs to the area of interest. Consideration must be given to relevant trade or import policies that might increase the cost. It is also very important to make certain that any materials imported can be properly used so that, in a case of an alternative pesticide, environmental and health problems can be avoided.

In many circumstances, changes to building design and practice, the use of physical barriers, or the combination of different termite management systems may provide cost effective alternatives.

Efficacy of the POPs alternative in its intended area of use.

Determination of the efficacy of the alternative strategy may be an involved process. It should not be assumed that a particular management tool may be efficacious in a given area because it is efficacious in another area. Determination of efficacy for a specific application is best done using a controlled scientific experiment under the application conditions, i.e. in the environment (climate, soil), against the species, and on structures or crops representative of the area of intended use. Conduct of these experiments requires an investment of adequate personnel and funds. Demonstration of efficacy necessitates tests that cannot be accomplished in a short period of time and may have to run for several years. Preferably, efficacy testing of a number of alternatives should be established as an ongoing project, not necessarily on a country-by-country basis, but on a regional basis. The size of the region will be determined by the communality of pest problems and environmental conditions. A couple of funds have been established for the implementation of the Stockholm Convention and may be approached for support.

Prior to conducting region or country-specific efficacy assessments, existing efficacy data should be reviewed. Such data are available in a number of countries. A partial list, with links to data sources is given below. It should be noted that these data are generated under differing study conditions, using differing methods, and standards for acceptance. Most of the existing data are developed for efficacy against structure destroying termite species.

Sources of efficacy data on termite management materials and strategies can be found at:

US - contact http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
Australia (National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals, Standards Australia, Australian Building Codes Board)

The design and conduct of efficacy studies requires consideration of multiple factors, including:

termite species of concern
type of termite management system or material
environmental conditions (climate incl. seasonal changes; soil type)
time duration for test
frequency of inspections and measures for the maintenance of termite pressure over the experimental period
criteria for demonstration of efficacy.

Demonstration of efficacy depends on the establishment of an agreed upon end-point for the efficacy study. For example, in the United States, before soil-applied termiticides for management of subterranean termites (Reticulitermes, Heterotermes, Coptotermes) can be registered for use, it has to be demonstrated that they provide 100% protection of test blocks of wood in surrogate concrete slab test units for five years in four geographically separate test areas.

Another example, in Australia, is that termite resistant and physical barriers are required to keep termites out of structures for at least 3 years. For baiting systems, Australian Standard AS3660.3 (Assessment Criteria for Termite Management Systems) states:

"For systems that claim colony eradication, field assessments shall demonstrate the system’s ability to eradicate infestation, define performance in terms of time to eradication and define the mode of action, where there is a known central nest. Eradication shall only be claimed if there is physical evidence of the irrecoverable collapse of the termite colony and where no central nest can be located. In addition, eradication shall only be claimed if there is a complete cessation of termite activity by the target colony at the sites of known infestation and at monitoring baits, for an appropriate period. An appropriate period shall not be less than 9 months for slow-acting toxicants such as insect growth regulators and not less than 3 months for conventional insecticides. Mature and vigorous colonies, representative of real world infestations, shall be used for all field assessments. At least half of the data shall be derived from tests against colonies infesting structures.”

Governments or regional organizations considering adoption of a POPs alternative should establish an efficacy standard for each type of alternative – e.g. baiting systems, wood treatments, or biologicals prior to testing.

Environmental acceptability of the POPs alternative

Determination of the environmental acceptability of some alternative strategies can be done by evaluating data developed during registration of commercially available pesticides. Tables 1 to 9 lists those materials for which this information should be available, either through the relevant government agency or through the product manufacturer.

Very important issues to be addressed when considering environmental acceptability of pesticides are:

Persistence
Biodegradability
Non-target effects/species specificity

Information on these properties can be obtained for many of the alternatives from the countries where these materials and products have already been evaluated and registered for use. This information should be made available and could be utilized to also evaluate their environmental acceptability in the context of termite management.

Availability of the alternative.

Any viable alternatives to POPs must be available in commercially significant quantities if it is to compete with currently available POPs. Assessment of availability can be made by surveying suppliers or manufacturers of alternative materials. In some cases concerns about intellectual property rights will have to be resolved prior to introduction of alternatives to new areas. Other issues may include the business environment and regulatory requirements in a given country.

Safety of the alternative to applicators and consumers

When choosing an alternative it is necessary to consider the safety of the workers who will be applying the alternative or otherwise implementing the management measure, as well as the safety of the general public when an alternative is used in and around the agricultural crops or protected structures. As with environmental acceptability data, safety information can be obtained for many of the alternatives from the countries where these materials and products have already been evaluated and registered for use. In most cases the same contacts for the environmental data can be used for safety information.

Resources for evaluation of the alternatives

The Stockholm Convention recognizes that developing countries and countries with economies in transition will require access to funding and technical assistance to meet their obligations under the Convention.
Arrangements will be put in place to promote the transfer and adoption of technologies. An internal mechanism is defined and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is the principal entity on an interim basis (see www.pops.int). Countries under the Convention are required to develop and implement national plans for implementation of its obligations and can get assistance through GEF to develop such plans. The administered jointly by the The World Bank and UNEP also supports projects aimed at the phase-out of the use of POPs. Further information on there and other sources can be found at www.chem.unep.ch/pops .