Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
treatment), post-application wildlife mortality was not appreciably reduced (likely because the toxic-
ity of the product masked any effectiveness of the repellent substance). This study had as its basis the
very real fact that so few mitigative methods have thus far been successful, as noted in specifi c cases.
It is also quite noteworthy that several of the most damning studies reported in Chapter 8 were actu-
ally conducted by the manufacturer (in this case FMC), under agronomic and operational conditions
that could be described as 'idealised', in the sense of seldom being encountered in standard agricultural
practice. While such mortality is largely deemed unacceptable in the 'developed' world (as demonstrated
by the fact that many countries have now banned carbofuran use), developed world manufacturers
continue to export this extremely toxic compound to developing nations. And now manufacturers in
developing nations are also producing and exporting it.
9.2 Overall recommendations and the way forward
Section 9.1 identifi ed and discussed the two quite distinct but interrelated issues that have emerged
from this topic, which are that: carbofuran is fundamentally unsafe to wildlife, and that most intentional
poisonings using carbofuran stem from some form of human-wildlife confl ict. Regulatory and policy
efforts aimed at restricting access to, and use of, carbofuran are ongoing (refer to Section 9.2.6), and
have spanned the better part of 40 years. However, such efforts serve to restrict the use of this particular
compound only, and do not address the issue of wildlife poisoning itself. The following general recom-
mendations are therefore offered, in an attempt to signifi cantly reduce incidents of carbofuran-related
wildlife mortality and to generate further awareness regarding the human health risks posed while
attempts to remove it from most or all agronomic uses shown to be inherently unsafe are underway:
1. Address and mitigate the root causes of human-wildlife confl ict.
2. Increase grassroots educational initiatives.
3. Enhance analytical capacity and increase sampling, testing and monitoring efforts.
4. Conduct studies in important but currently under-represented fi elds.
5. Coordinate international conservation and monitoring efforts.
6. Address outstanding policy and accountability issues.
9.2.1 Address and mitigate the root causes of human-wildlife confl ict
Human-wildlife confl ict is a key driver behind many instances of wilful wildlife poisoning with
carbofuran. This confl ict arises as a result of competition for increasingly limited habitat and envi-
ronmental resources. Confl ict that is 'leisure-based' (i.e., stemming from recreational rather than
subsistence-based hunting activities, for example) is also of ongoing concern. Until the socioeco-
nomic factors that pit people against wildlife, especially in developing countries, are fully addressed,
such forms of confl ict, and the ensuing incidences of poisoning, will persist. While many of the case
studies presented (e.g., in Chapters 3 and 6) indicate that carbofuran is a 'poison of choice' globally
and that the product offers many advantages as a poison, Chapters 4 (India) and 5 (Europe) suggest
that it is one among a larger list. Hence, if the availability of carbofuran is restricted, other products
will almost certainly be used instead. This does not in any way mean, however, that it is futile to
deal with the use of carbofuran as a poison, or that its manufacturers should be absolved of their
responsibilities.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search