TWN Info Service on Sustainable Agriculture
29 August 2026
Third World Network
www.twn.my
Dear Friends and Colleagues
Agroecological Approaches to Pest Management Work Better Than Synthetic Pesticides in Africa
Drawing on more than 80 peer-reviewed, field-based studies conducted across Africa over the past 15 years, this briefing paper and accompanying evidence compendium constitute the most comprehensive synthesis to date of real-world evidence on pest management beyond synthetic pesticides.
These documents show outcomes achieved under genuine farming conditions across diverse agroecological contexts. The evidence shows that biological and agroecological approaches are already delivering effective pest control, stable yields, and significant ecological and livelihood benefits—often matching or outperforming chemical-based regimes. The strongest and most consistent evidence comes from system-level strategies—such as classical biological control, diversified cropping systems, and integrated pest management.
Across Africa, farmers are demonstrating that agroecological systems can equal or outperform chemical-dependent farming while delivering wider social and ecological benefits. There is a need for a decisive shift in public policy, research investment, and regulatory frameworks—away from input substitution and toward system-based, agroecological approaches recognised and supported as public goods.
With best wishes,
Third World Network
______________________________________________________________________
Item 1
BEYOND PESTICIDES: AFRICA’S EVIDENCE SHOWS A DIFFERENT FUTURE FOR FOOD AND FARMING
African Centre for Biodiversity
Beyond-Pesticides_compendium_briefing-paper_fin.pdf
28 May 2026
PRESS RELEASE
Johannesburg, South Africa
This major new briefing paper and accompanying evidence compendium challenge one of the most entrenched assumptions in global agriculture: that synthetic pesticides are essential to food security. Grounded in African farming realities, this database of publications decisively demonstrates that this assumption no longer holds.
Drawing on more than 80 peer-reviewed, field-based studies conducted across Africa over the past 15 years, these publications constitute the most comprehensive synthesis to date of real-world evidence on pest management beyond synthetic pesticides. Rather than relying on theory or isolated pilot projects, they document outcomes achieved under genuine farming conditions across diverse agroecological contexts. The evidence shows that biological and agroecological approaches are already delivering effective pest control, stable yields, and significant ecological and livelihood benefits—often matching or outperforming chemical-based regimes.
Published by the African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), Beyond pesticides: Why system-level alternatives work in Africa – and why they are not scaling and the Compendium of sustainable pest management alternatives for Africa demonstrate that Africa is not facing a shortage of viable solutions. Instead, the central finding is a systemic failure to recognise, support, and scale approaches that are already proven to work.
The strongest and most consistent evidence comes from system-level strategies—such as classical biological control, diversified cropping systems, and integrated pest management—that restore ecological function, reduce production risks, and deliver multiple co-benefits for farmers and landscapes. Yet despite this robust and growing body of evidence, pesticide use continues to expand, driven by policies, research priorities, and regulatory frameworks that entrench and privilege chemical inputs while marginalising ecological solutions.
Crucially, the publications move the debate beyond the familiar question of whether alternatives to pesticides are effective. Instead, they confront a more difficult and consequential issue: why proven approaches remain marginal despite working. The analysis shows that continued pesticide dependence is not a technical inevitability, nor a failure of farmers to adopt better practices. It is the result of institutional lock-in, whereby input-driven extension models, misaligned research incentives, and regulatory systems undervalue ecological public goods while externalising social and environmental costs.
Across Africa, farmers are demonstrating that agroecological systems can equal or outperform chemical-dependent farming while delivering wider social and ecological benefits. In Kenya, push-pull systems have increased maize yields while sharply reducing striga, stem borer and fall armyworm damage; in Ethiopia and Uganda, composting, crop rotation, mixed cropping, and biological pest control have strengthened soils, reduced pest pressure, and lowered input costs; and in Malawi, Tanzania, and Zambia, diversification through intercropping, mulching, and local seed use has improved resilience to drought and pests while reducing reliance on commercial agrochemicals. In South Africa, the evidence shows that ecological pest management and diversified farming can sustain production while protecting biodiversity, water, soil life, and farmworker health.
At a moment of accelerating biodiversity loss, pollinator decline, climate instability, and rising pressure on farmer livelihoods, the implications are profound. Africa’s food systems depend on healthy soils, functioning ecosystems, and biological diversity—conditions that pesticide-dependent agriculture steadily erodes. The evidence presented makes clear that transitioning away from pesticides is neither an abstract sustainability ambition nor a distant future goal. It is a present-day necessity for safeguarding food sovereignty, ecological resilience, and the well-being of current and future generations in Africa and globally.
“The evidence from Africa exposes a fundamental misconception in global agriculture,” explains ACB director Mariam Mayet. “Productive and resilient food systems do not require escalating chemical use. They require ecological integrity, functional biodiversity, and policies that support farmers to work with nature rather than against it. Moving beyond pesticide-dependent farming is no longer optional. It is essential for protecting pollinators, ecosystems, and the future of food systems in Africa and worldwide.”
The briefing and compendium call for a decisive shift in public policy, research investment, and regulatory frameworks—away from input substitution and toward system-based, agroecological approaches recognised and supported as public goods. The future of farming, the publication concludes, will be shaped not by more powerful chemicals, but by whether societies choose to act on the evidence already before them.
Click here to download the briefing and here to access the compendium.
———————————————————————————————–
Item 2
Briefing Paper
BEYOND PESTICIDES: WHY SYSTEM-LEVEL ALTERNATIVES WORK IN AFRICA—AND WHY THEY ARE NOT SCALING
By Sasha Mentz-Lagrange
African Centre for Biodiversity
Beyond-Pesticides_compendium_briefing-paper_fin.pdf
28 May 2026
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This briefing paper accompanies the Compendium of Sustainable Pest Management Alternatives for Africa,1 which synthesises evidence from nearly 90 studies conducted between 2010 and 2025. Together, these documents demonstrate that Africa is not short of effective alternatives to synthetic pesticides. On the contrary, a wide range of biological and agroecological approaches are already delivering substantial pest suppression, yield gains, and ecological benefits across diverse farming systems under real-world conditions. The central challenge is no longer whether alternatives exist, but whether the institutional, policy, and investment conditions required to support a transition away from pesticide dependence are being put in place.
The strongest and most durable evidence emerges from classical biological control programmes, which have achieved large-scale, self-sustaining pest regulation across the continent while generating significant economic and livelihood benefits. Push–pull systems and fruit fly Integrated Pest Management (IPM) likewise stand out as integrated, system-based approaches that combine high field performance with documented farmer uptake and multiple co-benefits. Across the compendium, field studies frequently report pest reductions exceeding 60% and yield increases of 50% or more, often matching or surpassing the performance of synthetic pesticides while strengthening ecological functioning within farming systems.
Despite this robust evidence base, the compendium reveals a persistent gap between demonstrated effectiveness and wider adoption. While the majority of studies confirm field-proven performance, far fewer examine economic viability, scaling pathways, or sustained farmer uptake. Most research remains concentrated in experimental or pilot settings, with limited attention to costs, labour requirements, delivery mechanisms, regulatory readiness, or institutional support. This disconnect has constrained the policy relevance of existing research and contributed to the continued framing of pesticides as indispensable, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
Importantly, the compendium shows that the most successful alternatives are not standalone products designed to substitute for chemical inputs, but system-level approaches that restore and mobilise ecological processes. Interventions that improve soil health, enhance habitat complexity, and strengthen biodiversity consistently outperform narrow, input-based solutions, while delivering additional benefits such as fodder production, resilience to climate stress, and reduced production risks. These findings highlight that reducing pesticide dependence is less a technical problem than a systemic one, demanding redesign at the whole-farm and landscape levels rather than mere input substitution.
The evidence base remains unevenly distributed across crops, pests, and geographies. Research remains concentrated in a handful of countries and cropping systems—most notably maize-based systems in East and Southern Africa—while significant gaps persist in West and Central Africa, as well as horticulture, legumes, mixed farming systems, and emerging pest threats. Weak regulatory frameworks for biological inputs, underdeveloped supply chains, and input-driven extension models continue to act as structural barriers to wider uptake.
Overall, the compendium challenges the assumption that Africa lacks viable pathways beyond pesticide-dependent agriculture. Instead, it shows that effective alternatives exist but remain marginalised by research priorities, policy frameworks, and support systems that favour short-term input-intensive solutions. Accelerating a transition beyond pesticides will require coordinated investment in scaling and economic validation, reoriented extension and learning systems, enabling regulatory environments for biological control, and recognition of certain ecological pest management approaches as public goods.
What works in one context will not automatically translate to another. Effective transition pathways must therefore be differentiated, evidence based, and aligned with the realities of diverse farming systems. Treated as such, biological and agroecological pest management offers a credible, practical, and urgently needed foundation for reducing pesticide dependence while protecting livelihoods and ecosystem health, and safeguarding long-term food system resilience across Africa.
KEY FINDINGS
Biological and agroecological alternatives deliver effective pest control under real farming conditions
Across the reviewed literature, a wide range of biological and agroecological approaches demonstrate substantial pest suppression, yield gains, and ecological benefits in on-farm settings. Several interventions—including classical biological control, push–pull systems, fruit fly IPM, and neem-based botanicals—achieve levels of pest reduction and yield performance comparable to those of synthetic pesticides, while strengthening ecological functioning within farming systems. This confirms that effective alternatives to pesticide-dependent pest management are already available across diverse African contexts.
Constraint to transition not technical performance, but weak evidence on economics, scaling, and farmer uptake
While a large proportion of studies demonstrate field-proven effectiveness, far fewer examine affordability, labour requirements, delivery mechanisms, or sustained adoption by farmers. This persistent gap between proof of efficacy and evidence of real-world feasibility limits policy relevance and continues to justify pesticide-centred approaches, despite mounting field evidence that alternatives can work. The challenge, therefore, lies less in developing new solutions than in validating and supporting those that already exist.
System-level approaches consistently outperform standalone products
The most effective and durable alternatives documented are not isolated biological inputs but rather integrated, system-level approaches that restore ecological processes, such as soil health, habitat complexity, and functional biodiversity. Interventions such as push–pull and diversified cropping systems generate multiple co-benefits beyond pest control, including improved resilience, fodder production, and soil fertility. These findings indicate that meaningful reductions in pesticide dependence require
Uneven evidence base reflects research investment patterns rather than a lack of viability
Research on alternatives is strongly concentrated in maize-based systems in East and Southern Africa and on a limited set of major pests. Significant gaps remain in West and Central Africa, particularly in horticulture, legumes, mixed farming systems, and emerging pest threats. This unevenness reflects historically skewed research priorities, not an absence of workable alternatives, underscoring the need to redirect research and validation efforts toward under-represented regions and systems.
Transition pathways are context-specific but demonstrable
Successful alternatives differ in their readiness, institutional requirements, and suitability across farming systems. Classical biological control, push–pull, and fruit fly IPM represent the most advanced pathways, combining robust field evidence with documented uptake and durability. Other approaches remain in earlier stages of development but show potential when supported by farmer training, adaptive learning, and enabling policy environments. No single solution fits all contexts, but the evidence clearly demonstrates that multiple viable pathways exist beyond reliance on pesticides.
Findings challenge the continued framing of synthetic pesticides as indispensable
The evidence reviewed shows that Africa’s primary constraint is not a lack of effective alternatives, but the absence of coordinated investment, supportive policies, and extension systems to enable their wider adoption. Transitioning beyond pesticides is therefore less a question of technological innovation than of restructuring the systems that govern research, regulation, and farmer support.