Eight East African countries have agreed on common rules for approving biopesticides, in a move that could make it easier for farmers to access biological alternatives to conventional pesticides.
The framework covers Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan and Somalia. It sets common requirements for testing products, submitting scientific data and registering them for use.
The aim is to reduce delays and costs for companies seeking approval in several countries, while helping farmers access more options to protect crops from pests.
Daniel Willy Kyalo, AATF’s senior manager for resource mobilisation and sustainability, said the framework had been developed with the East African Community (EAC) Secretariat and member states to address regulatory barriers that have slowed the adoption of biological crop-protection products.
“Regulation is where good science meets the farmer,” he said at a regional workshop in Cotonou, Benin, on 19 October, organised by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
“If the rules do not recognise a product, it will never reach the field, no matter how effective it is.”
Biopesticides use living organisms, plant extracts or chemical signals to control pests. They are being considered as alternatives to conventional chemical pesticides, but many countries have regulatory systems designed mainly for synthetic products.
“If the rules do not recognise a product, it will never reach the field, no matter how effective it is.”
Daniel Willy Kyalo, AATF’s senior manager for resource mobilisation and sustainability.
The framework provides common testing methods and allows scientific evidence submitted in one country to support registration applications in other participating countries.
It also includes provisions to protect confidential commercial information, establish standards for approved testing facilities and speed up authorisation during emergencies, such as outbreaks of Fall Armyworm.
However, the agreement will not automatically make the products available to farmers. Each country must incorporate the rules into its national legal system and ensure regulators have the laboratories, funding and specialist staff needed to assess applications.
Kyalo said practical testing procedures would be essential to ensure the rules were applied consistently.
Turning research into products
The potential benefits of effective regulation can be seen in Aflasafe, a biological product used to reduce aflatoxin contamination in maize and groundnuts.
Aflatoxin is a toxic substance produced by certain fungi. It can pose serious risks to human health and prevent agricultural products from meeting food-safety requirements in export markets.
Information presented at the workshop indicated that Aflasafe can reduce aflatoxin levels by 80% to 90%.
The product has been registered in Kenya, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal and Burkina Faso. In 2019, Kenya allocated Kshs 400 million to purchase it, equivalent to about a fifth of the country's fertiliser subsidy, according to information presented at the meeting.
The example shows how government procurement can help bring agricultural innovations to farmers once products have received regulatory approval.
“Farmers gain more tested and legally approved ways to protect crops and reduce losses,” Kyalo said.
The new framework could also help companies avoid repeating costly registration procedures in each market, making it easier to expand distribution across national borders.
AATF has supported efforts to strengthen regulations for biopesticides and biofertilisers in several African countries through the COMPRO II commercial products project, funded by the Gates Foundation and managed by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.
The initiative has worked in Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda.
For farmers, access to biological crop-protection products could offer additional ways to manage pests and reduce crop losses. For businesses, common rules could make investment in research, production and distribution more attractive.
But much will depend on implementation. Without adequate testing facilities, trained regulators and clear national approval procedures, companies could continue to face delays even after the adoption of regional standards.
