Why Pesticide Use is Increasing Rapidly in Africa

The booming business with cheap, generic pesticides is leading to a rapid increase in the use of chemicals in tropical agriculture. In Africa, some experts even speak of a “pesticide flood”. As a result, environmental organizations and scientists (see also here, here) are becoming increasingly concerned about damage to health and the environment, especially where pesticides are barely regulated and controlled. But why are pesticides so attractive to many farmers? And what strategies are there to limit the dangers of pesticide use?

Pesticides have been an integral part of commercial agriculture in Europe and North America since the beginning of the 20th century, and in Asia and Latin America since the “Green Revolution”. In Africa, pesticide use has so far been well below the global average (see map “Pesticide use”), but this is changing rapidly (see Figure 1). One reason for this are the changing pesticide markets.

In recent years, large agrochemical companies have emerged in China and India, which have been competing for market share with Western companies such as BASF, Bayer, Dupont and Syngenta with cheap, generic pesticides ever since active pesticide ingredients such as glyphosate lost their patent protection. In 2020, Europe was overtaken by China as the largest pesticide exporter (see Figure 2). At the same time, demand for pesticides is increasing, partly due to the growing demand for fruit and vegetables in urban areas, rising labor costs for manual weed control and the emergence of invasive pests such as the fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda), the tomato leafminer (Tuta absoluta) and migratory locusts as a result of climate change.

Nevertheless, many small farmers value pesticides. This is shown by a field study conducted by our institutes in Zambia. In a total of 18 group discussions, only 3 out of 136 participants said that pesticides had a negative impact overall (taking into account all advantages and disadvantages). What makes pesticides very attractive? In particular, the reduction in the risk of crop failure and post-harvest losses as well as the reduced physical labour and time required. Herbicides relieve the burden on women in particular, who sometimes spend weeks laboriously weeding in addition to running the household and looking after children. In Burkina Faso, weed killers are therefore also referred to as “mothers little helper”.

Our study in Zambia shows that the negative effects of pesticides are often classified as a necessary evil, especially as many of the effects only occur indirectly and with a time delay. The following quotes give an impression:

Even highly dangerous pesticides (such as dichlorovos, monocrotophos or aluminum phosphide) are sometimes offered in simple plastic bags “like biscuits”. Often, the products sold are counterfeit or expired and repackaged products. Laboratory analyses from a study in Mali show that 45% of herbicides contain too little active ingredient, i.e. they have been diluted. Another problem is that fresh food is often sprayed shortly before or even after harvest in order to extend its shelf life. In Zambia, there was recently a case in which over 200 people had to be hospitalized after eating pesticide-contaminated lettuce.

Many of the problems described are due to misguided incentives resulting from the lack of availability of information on pesticide quality, contamination and risks. They could be corrected by regulatory intervention. In order to improve the framework for pesticide use, restrictive legislation, its consistent implementation, training measures (for users and dealers) and alternatives to the use of highly toxic pesticides – either more harmless active ingredients or biological or mechanical measures – are required.

Regulation is either lacking or not being implemented

Although almost all countries in the world now have pesticide legislation, the laws are often incomplete. For example, there is hardly a country that has not signed the Rotterdam Convention on the elimination of particularly hazardous substances. Nevertheless, pesticides with very high acute (eco)toxicity, such as organophosphates, paraquat, phosphides or carbamates, which are banned in the EU, are often still permitted. In Zambia, too, various highly toxic pesticides are officially registered. However, our research shows that many processes, such as the registration of dealers and pesticides, are not strictly regulated. Details of implementation have not been converted into regulations for implementation.

An even bigger problem exists in the implementation of laws: Authorities in Zambia and elsewhere have too few resources and staff to carry out inspections and monitoring in sometimes remote areas. Routine inspections at border crossings or of traders and food markets take place only sporadically. Environmental and health impacts are also not routinely recorded, e.g. in case statistics in hospitals, but only on the basis of complaints. Even when inspections are carried out, there is a lack of laboratories for chemical quality analyses.

The shortcomings described are not limited to Zambia. A global survey by the World Health Organization (WHO) shows, for example, that more than half of the countries surveyed do not have guidelines for pesticide registration. The WHO study also shows that the quality of pesticide regulation correlates with economic performance and that African countries therefore have significantly fewer regulations than Asian or Latin American countries, for example. More than 70 percent of African countries neither have requirements for the regulation of counterfeit or highly toxic pesticides nor for the monitoring of environmental effects and pesticide residues on and in food.

The need to convince policy makers

In order to improve pesticide regulation in Africa, it will be important to convince policy makers and interest groups that it is worthwhile both to strive for stricter regulation and its implementation and to promote knowledge, skills and alternatives. This will require additional research into the true social and environmental costs of alternative substances and processes, as well as evidence of their practicality. International organizations, donor countries and the research community have an important supporting role to play in developing and testing new approaches and processes and facilitating exchange at national and international level. At the same time, civil society can increase political pressure on decision-makers. It should also be involved in legislative and registration procedures.

Innovative, low-threshold implementation models by private, state and civil society actors could also make enforcement more efficient. One example would be to make activities such as the collection of containers mandatory, as well as the provision of protective equipment at a reduced price and training courses for pesticide dealers and users. At the local level, village communities and farmer organizations could define rules for usage, monitor dealers and document any negative effects.