Fake agricultural inputs are holding back farmers

_______________

OPINION

By Jude Sebuliba

It is that time of the year when farmers are preparing their fields to plant for the second season of the year. The search for genuine inputs – seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides – is but a headache that many farmers must endure.

According to the Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS), 30% to 40% of seeds sold in Uganda are counterfeit. A Feed the Future survey found that over half of the seeds on the market are fake.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has stated that fake pesticides have been linked to productivity losses of up to 43%, while fake cassava cuttings have triggered production drops of 35% in affected areas.

Counterfeit vaccines and veterinary drugs have also contributed to animal deaths and increased disease vulnerability. Taken together, losses from fake inputs can shave as much as 30% off farmer earnings.

On paper, the country has enough policies and laws, advisory services, and even an Agriculture Police unit to address counterfeit input challenges. Their impact is wanting.

The persistence of fake inputs is due to weak enforcement, fragmentation, and underfunding. The Agricultural Chemicals Control (Amendment) Act 2024 dissolved the Agricultural Chemicals Board and merged its functions into the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF). Regulations lack real-time product tracking, strong penalties, and decentralised testing labs. Coordination gaps among responsible authorities leave space for fakes to move.

Significant gaps remain in enforcement and oversight. Uganda Revenue Authority estimates that roughly 30% of agro‑inputs enter the country illegally, bypassing inspection. Regional policy mismatches deepen the risk – a pesticide restricted in Uganda may still be legal in a neighbouring country. Compliance is also costly.

Certification fees and testing requirements are so high that smaller importers either cut corners or shift to informal channels, lowering quality assurance across the market. Enforcement muscle is equally thin.

A 2021 MAAIF report counted fewer than 150 inspectors to cover more than 2,000 official and unofficial entry and distribution points nationwide.

In addition, a survey by the Society of Chemical Industry shows serious capacity gaps among dealers; nearly half (46%) of agro‑input dealers are not registered with MAAIF, and about 40% have never been trained in the correct handling of agricultural chemicals.

Finally, according to an FAO survey, fewer farmers can accurately distinguish genuine from fake inputs. Cash constraints push many to buy cheaper uncertified products that are more likely to be adulterated. Farmer organisations, which could pool purchasing power, share knowledge, and pressure regulators remain underdeveloped, and membership hovers near 20% nationally.

To reduce counterfeit agricultural inputs, regulatory agencies such as MAAIF, UNBS, and the National Drug Authority need enough resources, well‑equipped laboratories, and adequate staff. Inspections should become routine rather than reactive, ensuring that counterfeit products are detected before reaching farmers. Offenders who deliberately sell fake inputs must face severe consequences, including hefty fines, license suspensions, and prosecutions that serve as strong deterrents.

A national digital traceability system should track agricultural inputs from production or import to the point of sale. Each batch of seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and veterinary drugs should carry a unique identifier that farmers and regulators can verify.

Every agro‑input dealer should be registered and re‑licensed periodically, with re‑licensing tied to completion of mandatory training programs. To build public trust, authorities should publish lists of certified dealers by district and make them easily accessible through radio announcements, parish notice boards, and mobile applications.

Seasonal public‑awareness campaigns should be rolled out through radio dramas, extension visits, demonstration plots, and peer‑led training. Farmers need simple tools to spot fake products, including checking packaging seals, batch numbers, language consistency, and official logos.

Investing in domestic production of seeds, fertilizer blends, and livestock vaccines under strict certification can reduce dependence on imports, which are more susceptible to counterfeiting. Incentives such as tax breaks, low‑interest loans, and targeted subsidies can encourage private‑sector investment in quality local manufacturing.

The writer works at the Economic Policy Research Centre