A grassroots approach to curbing agrochemical misuse in Uganda

By Tutilo Mudumba

The ongoing persistent rains that started late February mark Uganda’s crop growing season. In Eastern Uganda, like the rest of the country, the crops are getting the second and third round of weeding for the early planters. Along every winding village road, one cannot help but notice a knapsack-wielding farmer headed to spray crops. Over the past couple of days, I have interested myself with learning what it is the farmers are spraying, the cause of the spraying intervention, and the prescription or dosage.

Now, Eastern Uganda is straddled on the eastern side by the largest water-catchment area in Uganda, peaked by Wagagai. Mount Elgon has brought fertile waters into the flood plains of eastern Uganda beyond the greater Bukedi region forever. On the slopes of this dormant volcano are commercial plantations of Arabica coffee interspaced with maize and occasional wheat farms.

Further down in all directions, you meet vast plains known for producing some of Uganda’s finest grains and cereals. Sugar canes in the Lake Victoria basin closer to Jinja district mark the end of influence of the Mount Elgon Massif. Uganda is a net food crop exporter for all local staples with the exception of rice. The region remains a significant contributor to the country’s food basket, with its rich soils and streams nourishing a large share of national production.

The knapsack-bearing farmers of eastern Uganda have been growing in number over the years. In an unprecedented move for the area, some farmers have started spraying millet and rice in addition to the other ‘must-be-sprayed-if-you-are-to-get-something’ crops. One elder I talked to said this has never been witnessed before. I followed Mwima-wa-Musimami to his garden last week. We arrived to about a half-acre lot of groundnut garden at early vegetative growth stage. His garden is nestled in a mosaic of smaller gardens that included millet-groundnut-soya bean-cassava-sim-sim.

Along the way, Mwima intimated that he had been given the ‘combination’ of ‘chemicals’ to mix and spray by the local agro-dealer in the village center. With no personal protective equipment, he got to the task. First emptying the chemicals into the empty knapsack before adding what could have been 16 or 20 liters of water, and off he went. First, on the edge of the garden with the outlet extending into the neighbor’s sim-sim garden whenever he tried to catch his outermost crops.

When he disappeared into the distance, waving his pump left then right between the rows of maize, I looked at the pile of discarded sachets and tins and could identify some two meant to target insects, another was for fungi, and yet another for termites. The other discarded empty sachet held chemicals for aiding flowering. All shaken and sprayed at the same time over a garden which had no visible signs of pests or other infestation.

By the time he had covered his entire garden, three more farmers had also come to their gardens to spray. All but one of the new entrants had just one chemical added to the knapsack; the others had at least three. One of the farmers had ‘seen’ another spraying and bought the same stuff since they were growing the same kind of crop. The others had been advised by the agro-dealer on what to buy from the comfort of the shop.

Over the course of a month, I have encountered more than 150 farmers with knapsacks containing more than two chemicals headed to spray in my village. It is likely that this pattern is repeating in several areas in Eastern Uganda at this time of the year.

The government of Uganda recognizes agriculture as the backbone of the economy. In fact, agriculture is the largest employer in the informal sector. The unwarranted use of chemicals is a serious threat to our livelihood and immediately our health. Given that we all interact with food in some way, what chemicals are used on our food at all stages should be of great concern.

After all, what use is it to set a standard at the restaurant when the producers are unattended and clearly at liberty to add things that could poison us later on? Agricultural chemicals, if misused, can be an invisible killer taken in small doses but building up in what scientists call residual effect and getting you when you least expect it (chronic effects). Besides the obvious health risks, our foreign markets have set limits and standards.

For instance, the European Union will not take food crops with even the slightest measure of contamination from banned compounds. My village farm managers may not be keen or even aware of what the EU list of banned chemicals is; however, aggregators and exporting groups would have an easier life and even make more profit if they didn’t have to worry about the sources of goods if we all started to notice and care about what we are spraying. The easiest point to police their use is before they are applied, as any other check is more costly, since entire consignments may be discarded.

The extension services that were running at the districts helped farmers access modern and often better ways of farming. I know that we also had improved inputs extended to our village shops. The services have significantly reduced or altogether ceased with the recent government restructuring. But even then, with a few hands at work, most farmers are often left at the mercy of profit-chasing agro-dealers forever recommending ‘better combinations’ of chemicals to be applied at ever-increasing regularity.

The current use of agro-chemicals at the grassroots is worrisome and bears irreversible implications for human and environmental health that will not be addressed by traditional top-down approaches alone. We need a fire-fighting approach that directly addresses the issue at hand, that is, the near-reckless use of agro-chemicals by farmers whose good intentions of improving their yields are undermined by lack of know-how and limited alternatives.

Threatening to and closing the gates on our contaminated crops and setting up traceability databases, among other high-level measures, is commendable and will stop some agro-chemicals from reaching our European markets, addressing foreign health needs, but it does not hit home. And yet, where it matters most, in our rural homes already burdened by poverty and other third-world problems, one can see that these sorts of interventions can only move the needle in the medium to long term, as communities get better and slowly increase their knowledge of international trade rules.

Unfortunately, that will be too late. What we need is an immediate response to stop the misuse and address the irreversible threats to local health and safe food bare minimums that cannot wait.

There are places all over the world that have mastered the art of mitigating agrochemical misuse. We know the Europeans, with their relatively advanced policy and law enforcement systems and border controls, need only ‘ban’ and ‘regulate’ access and utilization to effectively safeguard their farms. We are not very good at policy enforcement, and our borders remain largely porous. The government set a June 2026 deadline for the phased withdrawal of 18 agrochemicals from agro-dealer outlets.

Of these, 9 have been completely banned, and 9 others have been restricted to specific uses. Some of the chemicals on this list were previously permitted for use within Uganda despite widespread knowledge of their hazardous nature and bans in most of the Western world. So, this intervention is coming late and is being enforced at high levels, making it difficult to bring immediate change at the grassroots.

To put this in perspective, our neighbours have taken far more drastic measures. Kenya has banned 77 pesticides and restricted over 200 others, while Tanzania has banned 805 agrochemicals. In comparison, Uganda’s action on 18 chemicals, though a step forward, appears modest and leaves many hazardous substances still in circulation. Civil society organizations have cited these examples to argue that a more comprehensive approach is needed.

What we need is an approach that makes it second nature to recognize and safely use agro-chemicals in our villages. The easiest way is tightening the flow of agro-chemicals beyond the agro-dealer’s permission. Village-based monitoring frameworks would be ideal in the control and safe use of agro-chemicals. I argue that given the danger posed and widespread negative effect of improper use of agro-chemicals, I would take it further and say we should centralize agrochemical storage and ban household storage of agro-chemicals.

This way, access and application can be limited to qualified, well-protected individuals. Storage can be within the villages but at furnished places with demonstrable capacity to follow safeguards and afford the storage requirements. All these places would remain accessible to all but regulated with user registrations and coordinated follow-up monitoring visits by certifiers.

Government would have its work half done, as there would be an opportunity to infuse knowledge centrally on local issues and how to solve them. Where agrochemicals are recommended, this need would be communicated at these village stores with no over-the-counter sale of drugs without permission from the certifier (say, a government agriculture officer). Approved purchase of the drugs would enable one to register as a user at the zone and be assigned a spray service provider if the farmer was not certified to handle agrochemicals themselves. But all agrochemicals kept centrally.

Sounds weird until you learn that it is already happening in Eastern Uganda. We can take lessons from indoor residual spray teams that have PPE and spray tools storage at sub-counties and council offices. The reality is that agrochemical application has similar, if not worse, effects on human and environmental well-being, given that it is applied on our food, and should be given a higher level of scrutiny.

The issue would be certification of high enough numbers of farmers to ensure smooth operation. To certify agrochemical storage and use amongst the wider populace, how about we have mandatory village-based exposure and trainings organized by farmer groups and subsidized by the agro-dealers and chemical suppliers as part of all agrochemical licensing and approval processes? This can be under the watchful eye of government-approved specialists and other qualified NGO extension service providers.

This way, we have local knowledge of incoming chemicals and alternatives for every season or year, with some form of local policing for unauthorized or unwarranted use. The incentives for farmer participation are obvious: one, they would know what is permissible and how to use it, ensuring better marginal returns and assured protection from safe use. And on top of that, we would all be assured that our plate not only have enough salt but is free of contaminants that might come for us or our children in future.

The author is a Farmer and Director of Busolwe Farm, Butaleja. Email: [email protected]
Tel: 0782365070