The Fair Trade Advocacy Office has welcomed the European Union’s steps towards banning a growing number of hazardous pesticides within the EU to strengthen health and the environment. However, hazardous substances banned in European agriculture continue to be produced by EU-based companies and exported to developing countries. This poses serious health threats to farmers, farmworkers and the environment in producing countries, as well as for European consumers when traces of those substances are found in products available in the EU market.

This “toxic double standard” exposes farmers, ecosystems and consumers worldwide to substances that European policymakers have already deemed too dangerous for their own fields.

A new report commissioned by the Rethinking Value Chains collective, “Feasibility of elimination of EU-forbidden pesticides in smallholder farms in Africa: case studies from Kenya and Ghana”, looks into case studies in Kenya and Ghana and presents clear findings:  eliminating these pesticides is both necessary and feasible, but it must be done responsibly, with proper support for farmers and without leaving loopholes that perpetuate the toxic trade.

The report’s strength lies less in abstract debates about the technical feasibility of banning certain pesticides and more in its grounded picture of what a rapid phase-out could mean in practice for mixed smallholder systems and weak enforcement contexts. Against this background, current policy discussions in the EU, including the proposed Food and Feed Omnibus and debates around pesticide trade rules, risk undermining progress if they fail to address the core issue: Europe must stop exporting pesticides that it has already banned at home. 
 
Based on the findings of this report, the Fair Trade Advocacy Office highlights several key considerations.

A hazard-based import approach without global responsibility is unjust and ineffective

The report emphasises the ‘whole farm reality’ through which smallholder farmers source pesticides for their entire farms, without distinguishing between exports crops designed for international supply chains, which has implications for EU regulations which focus only on residue limits for specific export crops rather than addressing the broader pesticide supply system. 

Without access to viable and affordable alternatives, this can lead to the burden of compliance falling disproportionately on farmers in producing countries, which face stricter requirements to access the EU market, while the hazardous products still remain available locally, imported or produced by companies linked to Europe.  

The report illustrates this challenge with the example of a cocoa farmers’ association in Ghana’s Western Region that brings together around 2,450 smallholder farmers cultivating an average of two hectares each and exported cocoa worth approximately, €3 million to the EU during the 2024-2025 cycle.

These farmers rely on pesticides available on local markets to manage pests across their farms, but some pesticides which are approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) are not approved by the EU, posing a risk that banned active ingredients could be detected in cocoa shipments, potentially leading to rejected consignments and income losses for farmers.

The FTAO believes that tightening import residue requirements without parallel action on EU pesticide exports risks disproportionately impacting vulnerable small-scale farmers, increasing the risk of exclusion from EU markets and undermine long-term poverty reduction and sustainability efforts.  

Fair Trade calls for a binding EU export ban with phase-out support 

The key policy message of this report is that hazardous pesticides should be phased-out only with a realistic transition that considers local realities. 
Smallholder farmers in the Global South are operating in different contexts from those in Europe in terms of climate conditions, pests and availability of alternatives.  

For instance, Ghana’s Environmental Protection Agency recognises that pesticide bans can depend on local environmental conditions and agricultural realities. In some cases, substances banned in Europe may still be used elsewhere due to differing ecosystems or pest management needs. However, the situation is fundamentally different when it comes to highly hazardous pesticides.  

The FTAO has reiterated that the reduction in approved chemical active substances for use in plant protection products in the EU must be accompanied by measures and safe solutions for farmers to protect crops against pests and climatic pressures that may not exist in the EU. Against this background, the Fair Trade Movement has been urging the EU to adopt a comprehensive, just transition approach, centred on:

• A binding export ban on all HHPs meeting EU hazard-based cut-off criteria
• A realistic, multi-year phase-out timeline;
• Dedicated financial and technical support for third countries to shift to safer pest management.
• Supporting  agroecology and sustainable alternatives

The report also highlights encouraging developments in producer countries. In June 2025, the Kenyan government announced the withdrawal of 77 harmful pesticides from the market. However, the lack of access to sustainable alternatives and support for agroecology has led to policy recommendations in Kenya from the Route to Food Initiative to suggest combining the pesticides withdrawal with the promotion of safer alternatives including Integrated Pest Management, biopesticides and agroecology.

Smallholder farmers need meaningful support to access alternatives. That is why the FTAO has welcomed initiatives aimed at accelerating access to biocontrol solutions and low-risk active substances, while supporting the broader transition to more sustainable plant protection practices.  

Solutions must also be made accessible to producers in third countries through technical assistance, knowledge sharing and international cooperation.

The Fair Trade Movement is calling for substantial EU investment in:

• Agroecological practices and Integrated Pest Management;
• Research and field-level deployment of biological and low-risk alternatives;
• Training and extension services accessible to smallholders.
  
  

A shared responsibility for global sustainability

The report indicates that Kenya is one the main African destinations for EU-banned pesticides, and among the top give countries exporting food with residues of EU-banned pesticides. The Kenyan government announced that a revised Pest Control Products Bill will strengthen oversight of pesticide registration. The government will also support farmers with training and promote safer alternatives through integrated pest management strategies.  
The FTAO supports this and reiterates that sustainable pesticide reduction must be fair and coherent with EU development, human rights and trade commitments. The Commission should prioritise supporting EU and non-EU smallholder producers in shifting toward resilient, low-input farming systems that safeguard both crop yields and natural ecosystems.  

While the EU has taken steps to protect health and the environment within its borders, a coherent approach requires addressing the continued export of pesticides banned in Europe and supporting farmers’ transition towards safer alternatives.  

The EU now has an opportunity to ensure that regulatory simplification is accompanied by strong safeguards and global transition measures, so that high protection standards do not result in unfair trade outcomes. While also considering that a full export ban on hazardous pesticides, accompanied by proper phase-out times and support for accessing alternatives, would be fairer and more effective in avoiding the production of these pesticides altogether. 

About the study:

This study has been commissioned by the Rethinking Value Chains Collective, funded by the Fondation Charles Léopold Mayer pour le progrès humain, and coordinated by Banana Link, ReAct and the Fair Trade Advocacy Office.