By Dr Timothy Njagi
Crop protection is a sensitive topic among stakeholders in Kenya. The debate is largely shaped by concerns over safety— impacting humans, animals, wildlife, and the environment—versus the urgent need to manage escalating pest and disease threats. This has resulted in two highly polarised camps. However, it is crucial to consider the valid concerns raised by both sides and engage in an objective, balanced discussion that advances the agricultural sector.
Kenyan Context In recent years, the agricultural sector has encountered significant challenges, with the most pressing being the adverse effects of climate change, unpredictable weather patterns, and a rise in pest and disease outbreaks. The latter has grown more frequent and severe, as shifting weather conditions accelerate the proliferation and spread of vectors. In response, pesticides have become a crucial tool for mitigating these shocks and building resilience, particularly against emerging pests and diseases. Kenya relies heavily on pesticide imports, which account for roughly 90 percent of total demand. The primary types of imported pesticide products are herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, representing about 80 percent of imports.
While the growing prevalence of pest and disease outbreaks has driven the use of insecticides and fungicides, herbicide use is largely motivated by the need to combat resilient weeds that threaten to overtake farms. Additionally, the rising cost of agricultural labour and inconsistent labour supply during
peak seasons have contributed to the increased adoption of herbicides as labour-saving solutions. Data on pesticide use in Kenya is scanty. High-value crops such as cash crops and horticulture crops are likely to have higher use rates due to the opportunity costs. Besides these, key crops that are heavily mechanised such as barley, wheat, and maize are likely to see higher use of pesticides as this is easily compatible with the laboursaving choice.
However, available data shows that pesticide use per ha is low, estimated at less than a kilo per hectare. While this use rate is at par with use rates for countries in the region, it pales in comparison to Europe where the use rate averages 4 kilos per hectare for countries with low use rates such as France, Spain, and Germany to 10 kilos per hectare for countries with high use rates such as the Netherlands and Belgium.
Gaps in the safe use and disposal of pesticides
Stakeholders agree that farmers, especially smallholders, must safely use and dispose of pesticides. Development partners, the private sector, and the government have developed guidelines for this. However, as explained below, there are gaps in the adoption of these practices. The agrochemical industry operates under a self-regulatory framework that has proven effective to a large extent and is recognised as a best practice within the private sector.
However, more credible incentives are needed to bring in players not part of this system. The industry association is responsible for managing the mechanism, which includes collecting data on pesticide usage, promoting safe application and disposal practices, and engaging in policy discussions that impact the industry. The association conducts training for agro-dealers and service providers and promotes the recycling of pesticide containers to ensure proper disposal.
Its members adhere to a strict code of conduct that emphasises product quality and regulatory compliance. Additionally, the association has led quality assurance campaigns and successfully marketed itself to farmers, becoming well-regarded for offering high-quality products. It encourages members to display both the association’s logo and that of the regulator on their products as a mark of quality.
However, not all stakeholders involved in importing and selling pesticides are association members. Furthermore, members who are expelled from the association for misconduct can continue their operations unless officially banned by the regulator. A more critical issue is the failure to provide essential public goods, particularly extension and advisory services. These services are vital for farmers, especially smallholders, to understand which products to use, when to use them, and, most importantly, how to use them safely and effectively. The collapse of public extension systems, which many farmers once depended on, has created a significant gap in knowledge transfer.
While the private sector has attempted to fill this void, the results have been less than ideal. In a model where agro-dealers have become the primary source of information on pesticides, conflicts of interest are likely to abound. First, farmers are generally unwilling to pay for knowledge upfront, making it challenging to sustain private advisory services or attain uniformity that is required, for instance, in managing pests and diseases. Second, private companies are likely to be biased, promoting their own products rather than offering unbiased advice. For example, companies may increase profit margins for agro-dealers, who then push their products, compromising the objectivity of recommendations made to farmers.
A good example stems from the FAW infestation, where at the height of the infestation, farmers were applying cocktails of pesticides as the recommended ones were ineffective in controlling the pest. Although county governments and the private sector are now promoting service providers, these providers are typically paid on commission, which subjects them to the same bias risks as agro-dealers. Moreover, the lack of reliable extension and advisory services has contributed to poor adoption of safe pesticide use and disposal practices, which further undermines long-term sustainability in farming. Accurately unbiased information is critical for improving farm productivity and environmental safety. Besides extension, public investments in research and development (R&D) are very low.
This is evident in the low production of pesticide products locally. It is important to highlight that Kenya was the top producer of natural pyrethrin, one of the key raw materials for insecticides and herbicides. At present, biopesticide products have been developed; however, the scale of production, availability, and access to farmers remains low. There is need to emphasise that the availability of biopesticides would still not address misuse arising from lack of knowledge and experimenting. The lack of investments in R&D is further complicated by attitudes towards certain technologies. For instance, local researchers have developed weed, pest and disease-resistant varieties. However, the adoption of these varieties remains low.
The low adoption is due to lack of knowledge among farmers, misinformation, especially about certain technologies such as GM technologies, lack of capital for technology developers and farmers. For example, BT cotton, which significantly minimises the need to use pesticides, has been largely affected by misinformation about the technology. Third, policy incoherence has led to the misuse of pesticide products. While agricultural products intended for export must meet stringent production standards, such as Global GAP, local and regional markets lack comparable regulations. This discrepancy means that farmers who invest in safe pesticide use gain no price advantage in local markets, discouraging the widespread adoption of best practices. Although there is a niche market for organic produce—grown without chemicals or inorganic fertilisers—it remains small, and comprehensive standards for different commodities are still under development. This market relies on self-regulation among its stakeholders, limiting its broader impact. Besides, the market only caters for consumers willing to pay higher prices and is not a model that can be used to ensure food security for the country and continent.
Additionally, the integrated nature of the East African Community (EAC) and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) highlights the need for harmonised pesticide policies. Standardising regulations and strengthening the capacity to enforce them uniformly across member countries are essential to promoting safe and sustainable agricultural practices throughout the region.
What does an objective debate look like?
An objective debate on enhancing the safe use and disposal of pesticides is crucial for protecting human health, the environment, and agricultural productivity. To move forward, all stakeholders—farmers, regulators, industry representatives, and environmental advocates—must engage in a balanced discussion that considers both the risks and the benefits of pesticide use.
For instance, how do we ensure farmers safely use and dispose of pesticide products with minimal harm to human, animal and environmental health? How do we develop local standards on what is preferable to our agroecological environment and production systems?
How do we track pesticide use and its effects? This removes the debate on relying on what other countries have passed. This was evidenced in the debate on whether or not to ban glyphosate products. Locally, the debate was based on the fact that this is banned in Europe.
Now that Europe has given the green light to use glyphosate products for another 10 years, where does that leave those pushing for the ban? In addition, there is need to strengthen the regulatory frameworks, promote education and awareness on proper pesticide handling, and incentivise sustainable farming practices.
Exploring innovative solutions like eco-friendly alternatives, developing them to scale, and improving recycling systems for pesticide containers can contribute to long-term environmental safety. A well-rounded debate, driven by scientific evidence and the diverse experiences of all parties, is essential for developing effective, practical policies.
Dr Timothy Njagi Njeru is a development economist and research fellow at Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development.