Malaria is one of the world's most serious tropical diseases and imposes very significant economic costs on some of the poorest nations on earth. This study estimates the direct and indirect costs of malaria to South Africa and examines the issues surrounding the use of DDT as an anti-malaria insecticide.
Early records of malaria cases by Europeans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries show that malaria was a severe inhibitor of economic development and caused large economic costs. The current malarial areas in South Africa today are about one fifth of the size they were at the beginning of the 20th century. The historical success in controlling malaria is due in very large part to the use of DDT in malaria vector control.
In recent years, however, there has been a sharp rise in the number of malaria cases in South Africa, and indeed throughout Southern Africa. This rise is due to a number of factors, such as high rainfall in recent years, increased migration and a reduction in the use of DDT in vector control. The rise in malaria cases imposes heavy costs on the local and national economies. The economic cost (direct costs include the costs of care and control of malaria, and indirect costs include the losses in productivity and lost future earnings from death) of malaria in South Africa is conservatively estimated to be around R124 million (US$20 million) in 1997/98. Malaria in selected Southern African countries could cost as much as US$1,000 million, or 4% of GDP in 1998. In South Africa, malaria usually occurs in rural areas with agricultural and labour intensive industries. The incidence of malaria in these areas has severe economic impacts and as in the past, continues to hamper economic development
For a number of reasons, DDT is being phased out of the malaria control programmes in South Africa. Numerous environmentalist organisations have lobbied strongly for the banning of DDT, despite the success of the insecticide in saving lives and preventing disease in developing countries. While DDT is not an ideal insecticide, it does have numerous advantages over the alternative insecticides and has a proven track record. Although DDT is currently used by a number of Southern African countries in malaria control programmes, the UNEP Governing Council is pressing for the banning of DDT and eleven other persistent organic pollutants (POPs).
The potential banning of DDT highlights a trend whereby environmental pressure from mostly developed countries imposes standards on developing countries where they are neither accepted nor appropriate. While there are alternatives to DDT, these are all more expensive and frequently more complicated to use than DDT. The banning of DDT would not only remove an important anti-malaria weapon, but will result in countless deaths and very significant economic costs (perhaps as much as US$480 million) on countries that can ill afford it. Hope this helps! Mark
