Around 1,000 companies in Bangladesh have been waiting for pesticide registration certificates and licences for two and a half years, with applications covering 4,603 products still awaiting decisions. Yet four chemical pesticide products from US-based multinational Corteva Agriscience Bangladesh Limited have received approval, raising questions among industry representatives about the transparency and consistency of the registration process.

The approvals were granted at the 91st meeting of the Pesticide Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC), held by the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) on 24 September. The same meeting also approved 45 biological pesticide products.

According to DAE records, the previous relevant meeting, the committee’s 88th session, took place on 16 May 2024. At that meeting, 160 chemical pesticides and two biological pesticides were approved. Industry representatives say the long interval between meetings has left applications from both domestic and international companies unresolved, restricting their ability to introduce new products to the market.

The companies concerned claim that laboratory testing has been completed for approximately 2,300 products, while field trials have been conducted for around another 2,300. Despite this progress, they allege that their applications have remained pending while Corteva’s four products were approved.

Industry raises concerns over delayed approvals

Pesticide businesses argue that timely registration is important as agricultural pests and diseases evolve, and some become less susceptible to products that have been used repeatedly. Advances in agricultural science have also led to the development of new active ingredients, known as molecules, and improved formulations intended to offer more effective pest and disease management.

According to industry representatives, prolonged delays in registering new products can restrict farmers’ access to alternative crop-protection solutions. Existing pesticides may not always provide satisfactory control where resistance has developed, making the availability of appropriately evaluated alternatives important.

However, they also acknowledge that new products must undergo the necessary assessment of efficacy, safety and environmental risks before being approved. Their principal concern is that the process should apply consistent standards to every applicant.

Among the domestic companies awaiting registration are ACI Formulations Limited, Petrochem (Bangladesh) Limited, Intefa, Setu Pesticides Limited, Larsen Chemical Industries (Private) Limited, Auto Crop Care Limited, Nocon Limited, Sadiq Agrochemicals Company Limited, Riceco International Bangladesh Limited, Corbel International Limited, National Agricare Import and Export, Mimpex Agrochemicals Limited, Padma Agro Sprayer Company Limited, Bandhan Genetics Limited, The Limit Agro Products Limited, Changes Crop Science Bangladesh Limited, Vertex Agro Industries and Babylon Agro and Dairy Limited.

Multinational companies, including Germany-based Bayer Crop Science and Switzerland-based Syngenta, are also among those reportedly awaiting decisions on their applications.

Kalbela spoke to officials from around two dozen companies, who said the delays had disrupted plans to launch new products, expand operations and invest in their businesses.

Registration involves substantial costs

Company officials say obtaining registration requires considerable expenditure beyond the government application fee.

According to them, the government fee is Tk 23,000 for each product. A new company must also pay Tk 40,000 to join the relevant industry association before applying for registration. Laboratory testing, field trials, experimental applications, importing samples or products from abroad, and preparing the necessary documentation can cost a further Tk 250,000 to Tk 300,000 per product, they claim.

With thousands of applications awaiting decisions, companies say significant sums have been tied up in the process without a clear indication of when their products will be approved.

They argue that allowing one foreign company’s applications to proceed quickly while leaving others unresolved risks undermining confidence in the regulatory system. Their complaint, they say, is not against foreign investment or multinational products, but against what they perceive as inconsistent treatment of applicants.

Four Corteva products receive approval

Documents relating to the decision identify four pesticide products approved for marketing under Corteva Agriscience Bangladesh Limited. The application records name DuPont Bangladesh Limited, while Dow AgroSciences India Private Limited is listed as the manufacturer and Corteva Agriscience LLC as the manufacturer of the technical ingredient.

The technical ingredient manufacturer’s address is recorded as 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268-1054, United States.

The four approved products and their proposed uses are as follows:

Solaris 11.7 SC: The product contains 11.70 per cent spinetoram as its active ingredient. Its proposed uses include controlling fall armyworm in maize, yellow stem borer in rice and fruit-boring pests in okra.

Galileo Way 18.76 SC: Containing 7.05 per cent picoxystrobin and 11.71 per cent propiconazole, the product is proposed for controlling sheath blight in rice.

Galileo Sensa 30 SC: This formulation contains 6.78 per cent picoxystrobin and 20.33 per cent tricyclazole. It is intended for managing rice blast disease.

Novixid 3.41 OD: The product contains 1.31 per cent florpyrauxifen-benzyl and 2.10 per cent penoxsulam. Its proposed use is to control various weeds in rice fields.

The products cover pest control in maize and okra, disease management in rice, and weed control in paddy cultivation. Their approval means they can proceed under the applicable registration and import conditions, subject to the requirements specified in their certificates.

Certificates valid for three years

According to the relevant registration documents, each of the four certificates remains valid for three years from the date of issue. Applications for renewal must be submitted at least 30 days before expiry.

The certificates also include permission to import the products from their respective countries of origin. The supplied documents list the local manufacturer’s name and address as ‘not applicable’ in all four cases, while identifying companies in India and the United States in connection with manufacturing.

The documentation has prompted questions among industry representatives about how the products were assessed and whether the relevant requirements were applied consistently. The information available in the report, however, does not establish that the approved products bypassed any mandatory testing or safety requirements.

Allegations of intervention in the approval process

A source familiar with the matter claimed that an important US representative responsible for relations in Bangladesh contacted the director-general of the Department of Agricultural Extension regarding the registration and approval of Corteva’s products. According to the source, efforts to process the applications became more active following that communication.

The claim could not be independently verified from the information provided. No detailed account was available establishing the nature of the communication or whether it influenced the committee’s decision.

The four products were approved during the tenure of Nahid Amin, then additional director of the DAE’s Plant Protection Wing. He was approached for comment but declined to make a statement.

The central question for the agricultural sector is whether the registration process applies the same standards to domestic and foreign applicants. These include assessments of product efficacy, safety, environmental risks and quality control. Companies awaiting approval say clearer information is needed about why their applications remain unresolved and what requirements, if any, they have yet to fulfil.

The DAE’s published citizen charter outlines a registration process involving applications, assessment and recommendations by the Plant Protection Wing, and the issuance of registration certificates. The department also maintains a list of registered pesticides.

However, the companies concerned say they have not received a satisfactory explanation for the delays, including which stage their applications have reached or why decisions remain outstanding. The available information also does not provide the laboratory reports or field-trial results for Corteva’s four products, making it difficult for outsiders to assess the precise basis on which the approvals were granted.

DAE director-general refers questions to PTAC chairman

DAE Director-General Md Abdur Rahim told Kalbela that he was aware of the committee meeting and the issuance of the certificates, but referred questions about the details to the PTAC chairman.

‘A PTAC meeting was held. I know that the company was issued certificates, that is all. The PTAC chairman will be able to provide the details,’ he said.

Saiduzzaman, chairman of Mimpex Agrochemicals Limited and president of the Bangladesh Crop Protection Association (BCPA), said the government wanted to reduce the use of chemical pesticides and increase the adoption of biological alternatives to help make domestically produced food safer.

He said chemical pesticide products had been approved alongside biological products at the recent meeting. The association had also raised the issue of pending applications with the DAE director-general and the PTAC chairman, he added.

According to Saiduzzaman, officials had assured the association that applications would be approved in sequence. He said an earlier sub-PTAC meeting had indicated that another meeting would take place within 15 days, but that meeting had not been held.

A BCPA member, speaking to Kalbela, acknowledged that PTAC meetings had not taken place for an extended period and that many companies’ products remained unapproved. The member described the situation as unequal treatment but said the final decision rested with the government.

Keeping domestic companies waiting for extended periods could, the member argued, hinder the development of local industry and Bangladesh’s efforts to become more self-reliant in agricultural inputs.

K. S. M. Mostafizur Rahman Shyamal, managing director of National Agricare, said the government was prioritising biological pesticides, but warned that a country could not achieve self-sufficiency by relying on imported products alone.

Domestic companies needed government support to grow from small operations into competitive businesses, he said. Without such support, it would be difficult for them to survive in an increasingly competitive international market. He added that support for local enterprises could help strengthen domestic production and contribute to wider economic development.

The dispute highlights two connected challenges for Bangladesh’s agricultural sector: ensuring that pesticide approvals are based on robust scientific assessment, and maintaining a transparent, predictable process for every applicant. Publishing clear information about pending applications, assessment requirements, testing results and expected decision timelines could help address industry concerns.

For farmers, timely access to effective crop-protection products matters, but speed cannot replace rigorous safety checks. A registration system that combines consistent standards with accountable decision-making would help protect agricultural productivity, safeguard public health and support the development of domestic businesses.