A political ecology of farmers’ exposure to pesticides in Ghana

Abstract

This paper presents a political ecology analysis of pesticide use in Ghana’s Brong Ahafo region; a region experiencing the growing uptake of pesticides by farmers. To do this, we pose two questions: (1) What ecological changes are farmers observing as a result of intensive pesticide use?; and (2) What are the bodily lived experiences arising from farmers’ exposure to pesticides? Data was collected through in-depth interviews, focus groups, and observations across four farming communities in the region. Adopting the analytical frame of political ecology, we demonstrate that intensive use of pesticides is adversely affecting local ecologies, with farmers’ identifying it as driving extinction of some crop varieties as well as killing soil microorganisms, making soil infertile. Farmers also describe experiencing headaches, body itching, dizziness, coughing, blurred vision, skin rashes and body weakness as a result of bodily exposure to pesticides. Our findings draw attention to the ecological and health problems associated with adoption of modern practices of farming in Ghana. We conclude by arguing that the ecological and bodily health impacts of pesticides in Brong Ahafo are best understood by situating them as both socially produced and historically determined.

Keywords:

• pesticides
• political ecology
• health
• Ghana

1. Introduction

Pesticides are chemicals—either naturally or synthetically derived—that are widely used to control pests, weeds and diseases as part of agricultural practices (Mattah et al., 2015). The term pesticide covers a wide range of compounds, including insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides and nematicides, amongst others (Tudi et al., 2021). Pesticides are extensively used in modern agriculture, often justified on the basis of their ability to enhance the quality and quantity of crop production, thereby contributing towards feeding the growing global population (Aktar et al., 2009). Demonstrating their widescale usage, estimates show that at least 2 million tonnes of pesticides are used worldwide each year (De et al., 2014). The top pesticide consuming countries in the world include China, the USA, Argentina, Thailand, Brazil, Italy, France, Canada, Japan and India (World Atlas, 2018).

Although the world’s largest consumers of pesticides are located in the Americas, Asia and Europe, farmers in Africa are increasing their use of pesticides for both pest and weed control (Demi & Sicchia, 2021). The increasing use of pesticides in Africa is largely driven by a range of global actors—including foreign investors and philanthro-capitalists—that are driving a second Green Revolution across the continent (Boafo & Lyons, 2021; Vercillo et al., 2020). Pesticides and other agri-inputs are primarily directed towards smallholder farmers in Africa, including on the basis of claims they may increase per capita production, thereby fostering food security and poverty reduction (Nyantakyi-Frimpong et al., 2016). The commercial agro-dealership development programme—an initiative of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)—is one of a number of initiatives that is driving the uptake of cheap pesticides and other agrochemicals in farming communities across Africa (Demi & Sicchia, 2021). Such initiatives, and alongside the proliferation of commercial agrochemical dealers at the local level, has ensured farmers in Africa have wide access to cheap pesticides (Demi & Sicchia, 2021).

In Ghana, the use of pesticides for weed and pest control has increased in recent years. Estimates indicate there has been a rise in the importation of pesticides from 610,000 litres in 2006, to 36,869,578 litres in 2013 – an exceptional 60-fold increase in just seven years (Ministry of Food and Agriculture MOFA, 2015). Since then, Ghana has been importing an average of 40 million litres of pesticides annually (Ministry of Food and Agriculture MOFA, 2019). Amongst farmers, the adoption rate has increased from 19% in 2006, to 50% by 2013, a figure that can be expected to be increasing (Grabowski & Jayne, 2016). In terms of application by crops, 73% and 61% of maize and yam farmers, respectively, are now reported as using pesticides for weed control (Ragasa et al., 2013). The average rate of application of pesticides on maize plots, in particular, is 9.2 litres per hectare; significantly higher than the rate of application on other crops (Ragasa et al., 2013).

The Brong Ahafo Region—the focus of our study—is one of two regions in Ghana with the highest rate of application for pesticides—an average of 10.3 litres per hectare (Ragasa et al., 2013). This rate of application is higher than the industry recommended rates (6–9 litres per hectare) (Grabowski & Jayne, 2016; Ragasa et al., 2013). The high rate of application of pesticides in the Brong Ahafo Region is tied to its status as the largest producer of maize, yam and cassava in Ghana (Ministry of Food and Agriculture MOFA, 2015). Despite pesticides appearing as the most widely used synthetic input among farmers in the Brong Ahafo Region, there has been little research that analyses the local level experiences and outcomes of increasing use of pesticides amongst farmers (a notable exception includes Ragasa et al., 2013).

Our paper contributes to this nascent literature by examining local level ecological and bodily health impacts associated with the adoption of pesticides in the Brong Ahafo Region. Through a political ecology approach, we pose two questions: (1) What ecological changes are farmers observing as a result of intensive use of pesticides?; and (2) What are the bodily lived experiences arising from farmers’ exposure to pesticides? Drawing from in-depth interviews, focus groups and observations with smallholder farmers, agrochemical dealers and government officials, we demonstrate the social and historical processes shaping this terrain. Our goal in this paper is to contribute to understandings of the social and ecological dimensions of smallholder agriculture, as well as the impacts of pesticide use on ecologies and human well-being.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows: In the next section, we begin with an overview of the political ecology approach that has informed our analysis. We then provide a historical context that has driven the uptake of modern inputs in the study area. Next, we introduce the case study setting located in Ghana’s transitional zone, before outlining the methods used in collecting and analyzing data. We then present our results, followed by discussion of the major findings. Based upon our findings, we make the core argument that ecological and health outcomes associated with the use of pesticides in Ghana’s Brong Ahafo Region are socially produced through Green Revolution decisions and interventions. The paper concludes by calling for non-conventional approaches to farming that prioritise farmers’ agency to innovate in response to changing agrarian regimes.

2. A political ecology approach

The paper adopts political ecology to analyse the ecological and bodily health impacts of pesticide use in the Brong Ahafo region of Ghana. This approach enables us to draw attention to the intersection between ecological and health implications of high-input agriculture. Political ecology is an analytical social theory framework that analyses the relationships between political, economic, and social factors and environmental and health issues (Boafo & Lyons, 2019; Kalipeni et al., 2017). It provides a framework for local level analysis of struggles that sit at the intersection of environment and society, that are also grounded in a national and global analysis (Bryant, 1998). The framework argues that understanding human—environment relations at local, regional, and global scales requires analyses of the relationships of patterns of resource use to political economic forces. Political ecology therefore provides an historical, political, economic and ecological approach to understand human and environment interactions (Boafo et al., 2019; Perreault et al., 2015; Schubert, 2005). This offers a framework to examine how different processes - across scales - shape environmental and livelihood outcomes, with a particular focus on development-related interventions (Robbins, 2012; Watts, 2016). The framework posits that social phenomena are best understood by situating them in broader social, historical, environmental, and economic contexts; as well as via consideration of multiple scales, ranging from the local to the global (also, see Kalipeni et al., 2017).

With reference to health, political ecology of health demonstrates how social, historical, economic, and political processes shape the structures and events of local areas that produce health outcomes. Situated within the interdisciplinary lens of political ecology, political ecology of health analyses human health within the context of broader social and economic dynamics (King, 2010). This approach encourages a focus on the socio-political determinants of health, including how colonial histories and neoliberal development policies shape health outcomes (Neely, 2015; Richmond et al., 2005). In addition, political ecology of health emphasises the ecological determinants of health (King & Crews, 2013). For instance, the approach argues that it is at “the nexus between social and ecological processes that human health is shaped, and only in understanding the interactions between them can human health be properly understood” (King, 2015, p. 349). Thus, human health outcomes are best understood within a broader socio-ecological context. Also, the health outcomes and socio-ecological context should be related to a variety of scales ranging from the local to the global.

The empirical application of a political ecology of health is growing. In one of the earlier applications of the concept, Richmond et al. (2005) showed how declining community health is shaped by reduced access to important environmental resources. In South Africa, Neely (2015) applied the concept to examine the double infection of HIV-AIDS and tuberculosis. Moreover, Nyantakyi-Frimpong et al. (2016) used political ecology of health to understand how the use of agrochemicals in urban Ghana is socially produced, and how this practice comes to affect the human body.

Building on these studies, we draw on the analytical frame of political ecology to understand both the ecological and health outcomes of pesticide use and exposure in Ghana’s Brong Ahafo region. We demonstrate that ecological and health outcomes are socially produced with a political context across multiple scales. In the next section, we review the histories of pesticides in the Brong Ahafo region including reviewing how colonial, postcolonial and contemporary Green Revolution interventions designated Brong Ahafo as a major food producer in Ghana, giving rise to the use of agrochemicals, and thereby producing adverse ecological and health outcomes.

3. History of pesticide use in the Brong Ahafo region

Fieldwork for this study was conducted in the Brong Ahafo Region of Ghana, in 2016. Subsequent to our fieldwork, in December 2018 – and after a referendum on the creation of new administrative regions—the single region was divided into three; Bono East, Bono and Ahafo regions. While we use Brong Ahafo to demarcate the location of this study, we acknowledge this refers to what is now known as three distinct regions. The Brong Ahafo region comprises a vast tract of land (39,5558 km²), and favourable agro-ecological characteristics for the development of both food and cash cropping. The region represents one of Ghana’s major food-producing zones, producing about 30% of Ghana’s staple foods, including maize, yam, cassava, beans, sorghum and cowpea, and, on this basis, is frequently referred to as the “food basket” of Ghana (Ghana Statistical Service 2014). The rise of Brong Ahafo as a major food producing region in Ghana has a historical antecedence dating back to the colonial period.

During the 1950s, the colonial government began developing infrastructure for food production in the Brong Ahafo as a response to the rising cost of food, alongside the maize rust epidemic of 1949–1953 (Amanor, 2010). This infrastructure included setting up experimental crop stations and largescale state farms. This project was disrupted however, when Ghana gained independence in 1957. It was later revived by the early postcolonial government, including via the re-introduction of the state farming model, as well as programmes that encouraged the use of agri-inputs—including high-yielding improved seed varieties and other capital-intensive inputs—as part of the modernisation and commercialisation of agriculture in Ghana.

In the Brong Ahafo Region, two state farms were established in Wenchi and Branam. The state farm model relied upon the development of modern infrastructure that promoted the use of synthetic inputs, including pesticides, as well as the provision of mechanised ploughing services, alongside the construction of roads to facilitate market access (Amanor & Pabi, 2007). In combination, this brought significant changes in the traditional farming systems. Although the overthrow of the Nkrumah-led government in 1966 meant the state farming model was short-lived, farmers in the Brong Ahafo Region (and elsewhere in Ghana) were exposed—and many remained structurally tied—to agri-inputs, including pesticides (Amanor & Pabi, 2007).

Exposure to agri-inputs in the region was reinforced during the 1980s through the Sasakawa Global-2000 (SG-2000) programme, an initiative sponsored by the philanthropist Ryoichi Sasakawa in response to low productivity and food shortages (Sasakawa Africa Association, 2015). The programme was implemented in northern Ashanti, Brong Ahafo and the northern regions, and relied upon the uptake of modern inputs and methods of production. As well as training at least 1000 agricultural extension officers, it worked with commercial agro-input dealers to distribute inputs to farmers on loan, and supported the distribution of improved seed varieties to farmers alongside the privatisation of agricultural services (Amanor, 2013). Technical skills, including planting in rows, chemical fertiliser applications, and a regime of weeding and harvesting, were also taught to farmers via demonstration farms. In a programme promoting zero-tillage, SG-2000 worked with global agri-chemical company Monsanto to expand the uptake of pesticide use amongst farmers in Ghana; considered by some as the most successful initiative of SG-2000 (see Amanor, 2013).

More recently, there has been a renewed interest by donors, philanthropists, agribusiness and state actors in driving a new Green Revolution in Africa, leading to the liberalisation of agricultural input markets and the proliferation of commercial agrochemical dealers at the local level (Boafo & Lyons, 2021). Proponents of the new Green Revolution in Africa frame low productivity on the continent as a technical problem that requires technical solutions. They have argued that smallholder farmers can sustain agricultural growth through access to farm inputs, alongside financial and agricultural service supports, as well as access to markets (Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), 2017; Toenniessen et al., 2008). On this basis, sponsors of the new Green Revolution have established the necessary infrastructure to enable private agrochemical dealers to deliver high-inputs to smallholder farmers in rural areas in Africa (Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa AGRA, 2015). Reflecting this, the proliferation of agrochemical dealers has enabled smallholder farmers ready access to cheap inputs, including pesticides.

The Brong Ahafo region has been the focus of both historical and contemporary government and donor sponsored agricultural development interventions that introduced farmers to the use of pesticides and other agrochemicals (Amanor, 2009; Amanor & Pabi, 2007). The state farming model, SG-2000 and new Green Revolution interventions each continue to shape the uptake of modern inputs of production in the Brong Ahafo Region. This historical account enables us to understand how political and economic interests across different scales drive the use of agrochemicals in the Brong Ahafo Region. The region therefore provides a context-specific case to explore the lived experiences farmers’ exposure to, and use of, pesticides.

4. Study area

Fieldwork for this study was conducted across four communities in the Brong Ahafo Region; Wenchi, Amponsahkrom, Kintampo and Nyakoma (Figure 1). Wenchi and Amponsahkrom are located in the western part of the region, with populations of 42,300 and 2001, respectively (Ghana Statistical Service GSS, 2012). They are predominantly agrarian communities, with over 90% of residents engaged in farming. Wenchi is an administrative capital of the Wenchi Municipality, and provides a market center for several agrochemical shops and dealers. Wenchi is also one of two sites where the state farming model was deployed during the colonial and early postcolonial eras (see Section 3). The state farm in Wenchi has since been converted into the Wenchi Agricultural Station, where agri-inputs and so-called improved planting materials are trialled and demonstrated for farmers. Farmers from Amponsahkrom and other communities within the municipality also frequent the Wenchi Agricultural Station to gain exposure to different farming methods, including the use of pesticides and “improved” planting materials.

Figure 1. Kintampo North and wench municipalities, highlighting the study area.

Meanwhile, Kintampo and Nyakoma are located in the northern part of the Brong Ahafo region, with populations of 49, 046, and 500, respectively. Kintampo, in particular, serves as a transit point between the northern and southern parts of the country, and represents a key market centre for agricultural products. Farming and related activities are the predominant occupations in both Kintampo and Nyakoma. Like Wenchi, Kintampo is the administrative capital of the Kintampo North Municipality. It is also the base for several agrochemical shops and dealers, who supply agrochemicals to farmers from a number of local communities, including Nyakoma. Kintampo and its surrounding communities have been sites for various donor and government programmes aimed at introducing farmers to, and encouraging uptake of, agri-inputs. Wenchi, Amponsahkrom, Kintampo and Nyakoma—our four study sites—are also the site for significant maize production; a crop that has the highest rate of pesticide use in Ghana (Ragasa et al., 2013).

5. Research methods

This paper aims to increase understandings of farmers’ lived experience of pesticide use, as well as the attendant ecological and health impacts arising from exposure to pesticides. To collect data from the study communities, we adopted a qualitative case study approach (Strijker et al., 2020; Yin, 2003). This enabled us to generate deep insights into the ecological and bodily lived experiences of farmers in our study area.

5.1. Data collection

A non-random sampling technique—purposive sampling—was used to select farmers for inclusion in this study. Farmer participants were sought from across diverse age groups and gender, as well as across diverse ethnic groups. For instance, in Wenchi and Amponsahkrom, most participants belonged to the Bono ethnic group (indigenes of the Wenchi area) and Dagaabas, who are migrant farmers from northern Ghana. Meanwhile in Kintampo and Nyakoma, participants consisted of Mos (one group of indigenes from the area) and Konkombas, who are also migrant farmers from northern Ghana. While farm size varied, the majority of our participants were smallholders, with an average farm size of 3.5 acres. Migrant farmers who participated in this research did not have long-term land tenure security, and were therefore dependent upon short-term tenure arrangements such as sharecropping and land rental to access farmland from locals (indigenes).

Interviews were conducted with farmers, agrochemical dealers and government officials over six-months, between June and November 2016. A total of 45 interviews—comprising 39 farmers, 4 agrochemical dealers, and 2 agricultural extension officials—were conducted. We sought the assistance of agriculture extension officers to recruit eligible participants. Farmers were interviewed at their homes, or near to their farms. Although an interview guide was used to ensure that the interview process was consistent, participants were encouraged to tell their experiences related to the use of pesticides and other agrochemicals on their own terms. The interviews with farmers covered broad themes, including related to their socio-demographic background, drivers for the adoption of pesticides, as well as the ecological and bodily impacts associated with the use of pesticides. Interviews with agrochemical dealers and extension officers were aimed at understanding the role of marketing and distribution in driving the sale of agrochemicals, how they receive support from government and donors, and the effects of increasing use of agrochemicals.

Following the interviews, two focus groups were conducted to provide a platform for collective discussions and perspectives. The focus groups were conducted in Amponsahkrom and Nyakoma, with 10 and 9 discussants, respectively. The discussion—which included both women and men together—focused on emerging themes from the interviews, thereby enabling rigorous cross checking of information (Miles et al., 2014). The focus group discussions were conducted in an open and relaxed manner, providing space for discussants to share their views and experiences related to the use of pesticides. All interviews and focus groups were conducted in Akan, the dominant local language spoken in much of Brong Ahafo (and first language of lead author). On average, interviews and focus groups lasted one hour and were recorded with permission from participants and discussants.

Farm-based observations were also conducted at five farms across all of the selected study communities to observe farming activities, as well as cultural practices and social relations. As part of the farm visits, farming practices, including land preparation methods, planting, weed control, application of agrochemical and other practices, were observed.

5.2. Data analysis

Recorded interviews and focus groups were transcribed and translated into English. The transcribed texts were then compared several times against the recorded audio files to enhance accuracy in the data. Data analysis followed a thematic framework, with themes inductively derived bottom-up from the transcripts (Charmaz, 2000). The transcripts were coded manually by reading and comparing them several times. This helped in organising, distilling and sorting the data. While the individuals interviewed were not representative of the entire population, the sample size was sufficient for qualitative research, as saturation was reached with no new categories of information emerging from the data (Miles et al., 2014; Patton, 2014).

The emerging themes are presented in the following order, based upon the frequency of occurrence in the transcripts (a) intensification of pesticide use; (b) factors driving intensification of pesticide use; (c) farmers perceived ecological changes as a result of intensive use of pesticides; and (d) farmers exposure and bodily health effects associated with exposure to pesticides. To ensure rigor and trustworthiness in the findings, we maintained participants’ own words in the results with low use of inference descriptors (Baxter & Eyles, 1997). Overall, there was little difference across the four research communities related to the use of pesticides and its impacts on local ecologies.

6. Results

6.1. Intensification of pesticide use

Farmers in our sample were cultivating food and cash crops for both local and export markets. Food crops included maize, yam, cassava, beans, vegetables, amongst others, while the cash crops included cashew, mango, citrus and cocoa. Cashew and mango were the most popularly produced cash crops in the study communities. Farmers who participated in our study produced more than one crop and, in most cases, they produced both food and cash crops. The production of all these crops was tied to the application of pesticides; either for weed or pest control. For instance, mango and citrus farmers described using pesticides to control weeds and pests on their farms. These farmers described mango, in particular, as requiring intensive application of pesticides during its fruiting and maturing stages, including on the basis that it attracted a lot of pests and insects.

Farm-based observations and interviews with farmers both revealed that pesticides appeared as the most widely used synthetic input amongst farmers in the research communities. Demonstrating this, interview responses revealed that 38 out of the 39 farmers included in this study used pesticides for weed control on their farms. Farmers used pesticides in a way that they described as “intensive” and “indiscriminate.” For instance, pesticides were used all throughout agronomic practices, including from land preparation up until harvesting. During interviews and focus groups, farmers across the study communities narrated how they used pesticides to control weeds on farms:

Farmer, Kintampo:

When I want to farm maize, I apply pesticides after which I burn the weeds and hire a tractor to plough. After ploughing, I apply pesticides again before planting the maize. For yam, I apply the pesticides and when the weeds are dried, I cut down the smaller trees, after which I burn the dried weeds. The next thing is to raise mounds. By January, when the weeds are growing, I apply pesticides again, before planting the yam.

Discussant, FGD, Amponsahkrom:

Every farmer has his own way of applying the pesticides. For instance, I can even mix up to four different pesticides. I can mix pesticides and ammonia for my maize farm. With this, my crops get fertilized and also kill the weeds for a long time.

Discussant, FGD, Nyakoma:

Because of the pesticides we are now able to farm large acreages. The work we used to do in two weeks in the past, we are able to do in a day with the pesticides. I am able to apply pesticides to about a one-acre farm before midday. What’s important is the availability of water. When I get to my farm at 6am, by 11.30am, I will be able to apply pesticides to a one-acre farm.

Indeed, most of the farmers confirmed they used an excessive quantity of pesticides to enhance the farms’ efficacy. Also, farmers revealed mixing different types of pesticides as a strategy to increase efficiency. Some farmers, for example, described adding ammonia to the pesticides to increase the quantity of pesticide. Ammonia, which is used as a plant nutrient, also has the efficacy to kill weeds. Moreover, ammonia is cheaper and thus adding it to pesticides provided a way to increase the quantity of pesticides available to control weeds.

Although farmers were adopting these practices as a means of reducing cost and enhancing the potency of pesticides, many were also aware that mixing two or more chemicals without prescription could have health and ecological implications. While farmers understood mixing chemicals was “illegal”, and on this basis many farmers described it as an unacceptable or non-recommended practice, others still resorted to it out of desperation. Similarly, Nyantakyi-Frimpong et al. (2016), in their work with urban farmers in Ashaiman, Ghana, described the common practice of mixing two or more agrochemicals - or pesticide cocktailing - to increase their efficacy. Mattah et al. (2015), too, observed farmers in the Greater Accra region mixing different pesticides. This “cocktail” of pesticides, farmers believed, delivered increased potency for fast control of weeds and pests (Mattah et al., 2015).

There are two categories of pesticides widely used in the communities included in our research, namely nonselective and selective pesticides. Nonselective pesticides refer to those formulated to control both broadleaf and grass weeds, while selective pesticides are formulated to control specific weeds or weed categories. During visits to farms, it was observed that farmers used nonselective pesticides to control all forms of weeds. These were often sprayed on the field to kill all types of weeds during land preparation, and before planting was done. Nonselective pesticides available on the market in selected communities for this research included Glyphosate (Roundup), Drexel, Weed-King, Force-up, Sarosate, Sunphosate, and Paraquate. Glyphosate,¹ however, was the most commonly used nonselective pesticide amongst farmers across all four communities.

Selective pesticides were used to control particular weeds under crops. Examples of selective pesticides used across the communities included Herbextra, Atrazine, Nico-King, Nico-Force, Nico-Plus and 2, 4-D. Each of these pesticides was used to control weeds under particular crop types. For instance, 2, 4-D was used to control broadleaf weeds under monocot (grassy) crops, including maize, rice, sugarcane, millet and sorghum. As a result, broadleaf crops—such as cassava, yam and cocoyam—could not be planted alongside grassy crops—such as maize, millet and sorghum. The adoption of pesticides was therefore shifting farmers away from traditional mixed cropping systems.

The intensive use of pesticides by farmers in the selected study sites was therefore occurring alongside the shift away from traditional farming systems, including the use of mixed cropping and other ecological practices that support soil health and biodiversity (also see, Lizarazo et al., 2020). Rather, the increasing uptake of monoculture farming systems is associated with the depletion of soil nutrients and alongside decreasing varieties of bacteria and microorganisms, all of which are vital for maintenance of soil fertility (also see Marais et al., 2012).

Importantly, too, the majority of farmers interviewed were unable to read or understand the labels on pesticides. Rather, they described relying on extension officers, agrochemical dealers and their colleagues to explain pesticide handling and dose rates. However, not all farmers had access to extension services, and the majority of agrochemical dealers in the research communities were not certified chemists. As a result, many farmers described decision making as reliant upon their prior experiences as well as intuition and guess work.

Given most farmers were unable to read pesticide labels, they also coined local generic names to describe them. Farmers often referred to nonselective pesticides as ‘condemn’– a slang word to denote the ability of nonselective pesticides to kill all types of weeds. Meanwhile, they referred to selective pesticides as “select”, a short form of selective. Importers of pesticides, mostly agrochemical companies in Ghana, also often rebranded pesticides to give them local names. For instance, “Adwuma wura” was a locally branded imported nonselective pesticide. The name literally means owner of work, in Akan language, but also signifies that the pesticide is potent and works effectively. Localising the names of pesticides appeared to provide a strategy by which agrochemical manufacturers and dealers were able to drive their use amongst farmers.

6.2. Factors driving intensification of pesticide use

There appeared to be two main factors driving the use of pesticides across all four research communities. First, pesticides were described as easily available and accessible as a result of the proliferation of local agrochemical dealers. Farmers indicated that they could easily access pesticides and other agrochemicals from agrochemical dealers in the study communities. Observation revealed that there is at least one agrochemical shop in each of the four study communities. In Wenchi and Kintampo, which are district capitals, we found a number of agrochemical shops of different sizes. A farmer in Wenchi said in an interview “there are agrochemical shops and dealers everywhere in the town, so it is easy for us to get the pesticides.”

The proliferation of local agrochemical dealers in the study communities has occurred alongside the deployment of a Green Revolution agenda, with support from government and donors to agrochemical dealers to assist with the distribution of modern inputs to farmers (also see Nyantakyi-Frimpong et al., 2016; Vercillo et al., 2020). While government and donors may not directly promote the use of pesticides, their activities in sponsoring the development of commercial agrochemical dealers ensures access to cheap pesticides and other high-inputs at the local level. The proliferation of cheap pesticides is also premised on the assumption that the high cost of agrochemicals in Ghana disincentivises farmers from using them (AGRA, 2017). Therefore, the provision of cheap agrochemicals to farming communities incentivises their use.

The second reason farmers frequently stated as the basis for pesticide use was that hired (human) labour had become scarce and expensive. They described the seasonal nature of farming as creating labour shortages, thereby increasing the cost of human labour. Some farmers also attributed the scarcity and high cost of human labour to the introduction of cheap pesticides, which they argued had almost completely displaced manual labour for weed control. A farmer said during interview;

Farmer, Wenchi:

We use a large quantity of pesticides here. I have stopped using cutlass for land preparation and weed control on my farm. The pesticides are cheaper and very accessible compared to human labour. In fact, you will not even get labour to weed your farm with cutlass.

The view that pesticides were cheaper than hired human labour was also championed by business interests, including agrochemical dealers. As a marketing strategy, agrochemical dealers promoted the use of pesticides as an efficient and cheap option for weed control (including compared to human labour). Demonstrating this, one agrochemical dealer explained that he started marketing his products, particularly pesticides, by moving from one village to another informing farmers about the importance of pesticides as a labour-saving technology. The findings from our research are consistent with Ragasa et al. (2013), who found that farmers across major farming communities in southern Ghana were using pesticides for weed control as a result of the influx of cheap pesticide formulations from China, and alongside the high cost of human labour for weed control. Similarly, Mattah et al. (2015) found that the use of pesticides was high amongst rice farmers in the Greater Accra region as a result of the high cost and non-availability of farm labour in the urban areas.

6.3. Perceived ecological changes as a result of pesticide use

The use of agrochemicals for weed control was widely described as affecting the local ecologies across the communities. The use of pesticides was described by farmers as causing the destruction of certain edible fungi varieties. Cocoyam and mushroom, as well as some medicinal herbs, for example, were each described as facing extinction due to the use of pesticides. Cocoyam are herbaceous perennial plants that are grown primarily for their edible roots, although the leaves are also edible (see also, Acheampong et al., 2014). The roots are used in the preparation of local delicacies in Ghana. The leaves are popularly used for the preparation of stew and soup, and are considered the most nutritious edible plant leaves in Ghana (Acheampong et al., 2014). Cocoyam often grows on fallow land. Moreover, mushrooms often grow wild, and are widely used in the preparation of local soup and delicacies. Farmers have observed over the years that mushrooms, cocoyam and medicinal herbs are disappearing, and explained this as tied to the increased use of agricultural chemicals. This concern surfaced repeatedly during interviews and FGD with farmers across all the research communities.

Farmer, Wenchi:

We have adopted pesticides about 10 years ago and it’s not helping us because we have lost some of our food crops like cocoyam and mushrooms. If you apply pesticides to your land, definitely, there will not be cocoyam and mushrooms. So, the pesticides have a lot of ecological impacts.

Agrochemical-dealer, Kintampo:

The pesticides are causing the extinction of cocoyam, wild mushroom and medicinal herbs. For instance, cocoyam could be on the land for 15 years after planting it for the first time, but the pesticides are killing the crop.

Closely related to the extinction of cocoyam and mushroom was the observation by farmers that pesticides also kill soil microorganisms, as well as earthworms. Drawing on many years of farming experience and observation, farmers widely endorsed the view that pesticides were destroying soil fertility by killing soil microorganisms that are responsible for transforming organic matter into plant nutrients. In particular, farmers described observing earthworms, that were often visible during the rainy season, as disappearing. They attributed this to intensive use of pesticides across their communities. Farmers recounted their observations during interviews and focus groups:

Farmer, Kintampo:

The pesticides kill soil microorganisms and also the colour of the soil here has changed. Before, the soil looked very black but since we started using pesticides, the soil has turned whitish. The pesticides have changed the colour of the soil.

Farmer, Wenchi:

The pesticides kill soil microorganisms and have changed the colour of the topsoil from black to whitish.

Discussant FGD, Nyakoma:

There are organisms living in the soil that make the soil fertile, so when we apply the pesticides, all these organisms die and the soil becomes very fragile and soft. Because of that there are new weeds that grow on the land, and I think, these new weeds breed pests, requiring the use of more pesticides.

The ecological impacts of pesticides were widespread across the research communities. One government agricultural officer in charge of crops at Wenchi municipality explained that the use of Glyphosate, in particular, was adversely affecting soil ecologies in the municipality, including killing soil microorganisms. He stressed that Glyphosate was banned in many countries on the basis of its ecological impacts, and stressed that soils were becoming infertile as a result the excessive use of pesticides:

Agricultural officer, Wenchi:

Glyphosate has been banned in many countries because it destroys the ecologies. For instance, if farmers use Glyphosate on their farms, it kills soil microorganisms, making the soil infertile.

The findings presented here demonstrate that farmers and other local stakeholders identify pesticide use as driving adverse ecological implications, including the loss of biodiversity. In a related way, documented evidence elsewhere (see for example International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 2002; Shiva, 1993) also shows the misuse of agrochemicals as part of the first Green Revolution killed beneficial insects and plant varieties in Asia. In particular, the policy-led promotion of high-input technologies during the Green Revolution intensified the use and misuse of pesticides in a way that affected local ecologies. Thus, the repeated application of agrochemicals for pest and weed control, as well as for fertilisation of the soil, eventually led to increasing toxicity and a sharp decline in soil fertility and crop productivity in many Green Revolution regions (Holt-Giménez, 2017; Sonnenfeld, 1992).

6.4. Bodily health effects from exposure to pesticides

A fourth prominent theme that emerged from our fieldwork related to the bodily health effects associated with exposure to pesticides. During the interviews and focus groups, the majority of farmers that used pesticides described experiencing bodily symptoms which they believed were tied to exposure to pesticides. Demonstrating this, farmers reported experiencing headaches, body itching, dizziness, coughing, blurred vision, skin rashes and body weakness, all of which they attributed to exposure to pesticides. These symptoms were largely attributed to “indiscriminate” use of pesticides, which they believed was tied to a lack of adequate information about the hazards associated with handling and use of pesticides. Farmers recounted their exposure to pesticides during interviews and focus groups:

Discussant (FGD, Amponsahkrom):

When I place the knapsack spray on my back, I get wet after spraying the pesticides. I will then take off my shirt and continue spraying. After spraying, I realize the pesticides get into my joints and make me weak. Indeed, the pesticides are poisonous. The pesticides have weakened me already, I am thinking of how to get treatment but young people should be careful with the pesticides.

Farmer, Wenchi:

I had skin rashes after spraying my farm with pesticides. I went to the hospital and it was confirmed that it is because of the pesticides.

Farmer, Kintampo:

Pesticides got on my face because I was not wearing a face mask during the application. I then realized my face started swelling upon returning home. So, after one week, I couldn’t eat because all my face was sore. I was helped to the hospital, where I received treatment. My sickness trended in the whole community until the District Chief Executive came to my aid by paying my hospital bills. It has been 8 years but my eyes are still discharging fluid.

Although farmers in the study communities were increasingly integrated into the global pesticide market, they lacked access to training and equipment to ensure applications were done safely. Farmers risked exposure during handling and application, as well as storage and disposal of empty containers. Farmers resorted to the use of manual or simple farm tools such as knapsack sprayers, buckets, brushes, and brooms in the application of pesticides. This exposed them to many health risks. Indeed, the health and bodily effects of pesticides are widespread across farming communities in the Brong Ahafo region. To confirm the bodily lived experiences of farmers across the research communities, the first author visited their farms to observe and get firsthand information of how farmers applied pesticides. Indeed, none of the farmers observed wore protective gear during the application of pesticides to their farms. It was also common to find empty containers of pesticides everywhere on the farms. The common reasons for this given by farmers were that they lacked the resources to procure protective gear, or training on proper handling of pesticides.

Our findings align with existing research on the health impacts for farmers exposed to agrochemicals in Ghana. Dzobo (2016), for instance, found that farmers in the Offinso North District of Ghana complained about body weakness, sexual weakness, chronic cough and depression as symptoms of chemical poisoning. Similarly, Nyantakyi-Frimpong et al. (2016) found that urban farmers in Ashaiman, Ghana experienced headache, body itching, dizziness, coughing, blurred vision, skin rashes and body weakness. Our findings as well as those of existing research are backed by scientific studies, with research into organophosphate pesticides reported as causing negative consequences on proper functioning of the nervous system (Pandit et al., 2011; Yurumez et al., 2007).

7. Discussion

The overall aim of this paper was to understand how the intensification of pesticide use is producing ecological and health outcomes in farming communities in Ghana. To do this, we posed two questions: (1) What ecological changes are farmers observing as a result of intensive pesticide use?; and (2) What are the bodily lived experiences of human exposure to pesticides? To answer these questions, we spoke to farmers who shared their lived experiences of exposure to pesticides, and other relevant stakeholders who shared their views on pesticide use in farming communities in Ghana. Based on responses from the farmers and other actors, our analysis highlights two themes. First, our study highlights how politics shapes farming practices, which in turn produce ecological outcomes. The second finding revolves around how health outcomes are socio-politically produced. Our work therefore contributes to political ecology scholarship by demonstrating how colonial, postcolonial, and contemporary Green Revolution narratives and interventions across different scales drive the intensification of pesticide use, thereby producing adverse ecological and health outcomes at the local level (King, 2015; King & Crews, 2013; Neely, 2015; Nyantakyi-Frimpong et al., 2016; Robbins, 2012).

We found that farmers in the farming communities of the Brong Ahafo are increasingly adopting pesticides for weed control. Our findings further suggest there are factors that shape the intensive use of pesticides in the selected farming communities. These factors revolve around the proliferation of cheap pesticides, and high cost and nonavailability of human (hired) labour. In the case of the farming communities included in our research, our findings show that there is also a proliferation of agrochemical dealers who sell cheap pesticides to farmers. The proliferation of agrochemical dealers and increased use of pesticides in farming communities in Ghana is shaped by colonial, postcolonial and contemporary agriculture policies that aim to drive a Green Revolution through access to farm inputs (AGRA, 2017). The Green Revolution infrastructure enables private agrochemical dealers to deliver high-inputs to smallholder farmers in rural areas in Ghana (AGRA, 2015). This has enabled an influx of cheap pesticides into farming communities, incentivising their use by farmers. Our findings are consistent with a number of other studies (Demi & Sicchia, 2021; Dzobo, 2016; Mattah et al., 2015). For instance, they align with Mattah et al. (2015), who found that farmers in the Greater Accra region of Ghana increasingly applied pesticides for both weed and pest control as a result of the high cost and nonavailability of labourers. Similarly, Ragasa et al. (2013) found that pesticide use was prevalent in Southern Ghana as a result of the influx of cheap pesticides and higher costs of labour. On the contrary, Nyantakyi-Frimpong et al. (2016) found that the intensive use of pesticides amongst urban farmers in Ashaiman was shaped by deep structural factors, such as insecure land tenure and lack of control over productive resources. Other factors that drove increasing use of pesticides in Ghana included climatic variations and damage caused by pests (Ntow et al., 2006; Yeboah, 2013).

Another major finding from our study relates to the ecological impacts of intensive use of pesticides. The study revealed that certain edible plants and soil microorganism were under threat of extinction as a result of the intensive application of pesticides. The resulting effects of this includes soil infertility and low crop productivity. Overall, these findings demonstrate how ecological outcomes are socially produced. In a sense, the findings speak powerfully to the political ecology literature, which shows how economic, social, and historical factors converge in complicated ways to produce negative ecological outcomes (Perreault et al., 2015, Schubert, 2005; Robbins, 2012). Thus, our study demonstrates how historical, social and economic factors across different scales shape land use practices, thereby producing negative ecological outcomes.

From the findings presented, there is evidence that suggests the problem with the use of pesticides extends beyond physical and environmental concerns. More precisely, there are social and health elements embedded in everyday lived experiences amongst farmers. These include exposure to pesticides and bodily lived experiences of farmers. The study found bodily health challenges caused by the use of, and exposure to, pesticides. The health challenges include blurred vision, body itching, skin rashes, coughing and shortness of breath. Overall, these findings demonstrate how health outcomes are socially produced through colonial, postcolonial and contemporary Green Revolution decisions and interventions. Our findings contribute to the burgeoning scholarship on political ecology of health by demonstrating how historical contexts and social factors across multiple scales produce negative health outcomes (King, 2015; King & Crews, 2013; Neely, 2015). Our study therefore advances the argument that human health must be understood within the context of social and ecological processes (Jepson et al., 2014; King, 2015).

8. Conclusions

This paper has presented evidence from a case study in the Brong Ahafo Region of Ghana, where farmers are increasingly adopting intensive applications of pesticides. This is driving a convergence of social, health and ecological outcomes. While there has been considerable uptake of pesticides by farmers in the region, this decision should be understood as primarily tied to the proliferation of cheap agrochemicals in farming communities of Brong Ahafo (AGRA, 2015; Amanor & Pabi, 2007). Yet the adoption of pesticides is, at the same time, driving negative ecological and health outcomes. We have demonstrated the link between historical, social and economic processes, and ecological and health outcomes. Based on these findings, we therefore conclude that ecological and health outcomes are socially produced, beyond the conventional narratives that attribute ecological and health outcomes to physical and biological factors, respectively.

Based on our findings, we recommend the urgent need to reconsider current dominant narratives that promote high-input agriculture in Ghana. While the adoption of pesticides may help farmers circumvent the high cost of human labour, the long-term ecological and health impacts require serious attention from state and non-state actors. Promotion of non-conventional and agroecological approaches through biological weed control methods may also allow farmers to shape their own livelihoods, including by leaving room for local-level innovations in response to changing ecological and labour regimes. Given the importance of the Brong Ahafo Region to Ghana’s national food system, such an approach will ensure sustainable agriculture and local level food security, while at the same time support with positive ecological and health outcomes.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all participants in this research. This paper draws upon data collected as part of PhD fieldwork by James Boafo, and sections of it are therefore also part of the PhD thesis submitted to the University of Queensland, Australia. The authors acknowledge the University of Queensland for funding support for the conduct of this research through the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

1. Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide, which is used to kill weeds (eg. broadleaf weeds and grasses). Glyphosate was first manufactured by Monsanto under the trade name Roundup until its patent expired in 2000.