Around 1,000 pesticide companies in Bangladesh have been waiting for registration certificates and licences for approximately two and a half years, with applications covering 4,603 products still awaiting decisions. Against this backdrop, the approval of four chemical pesticides from US-based multinational Corteva Agriscience Bangladesh Ltd has raised questions among industry representatives about the pace, transparency and consistency of the registration process.
The Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) approved the four products at the 91st meeting of the Pesticide Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) on 24 September. The same meeting also approved 45 biological pesticides. However, businesses say applications from numerous domestic and international companies have remained unresolved for an extended period, despite substantial investment in product testing and documentation.
According to DAE information cited in the report, the previous PTAC meeting at which pesticide registrations were approved was held on 16 May 2024. At that 88th meeting, 160 chemical pesticides and two biological pesticides received approval. The long interval between the meetings has contributed to complaints that the registration process has slowed significantly.
Industry representatives say laboratory testing has been completed for around 2,300 of the 4,603 products awaiting decisions, while field trials have been completed for approximately another 2,300. They argue that the authorities have yet to provide a clear explanation of why so many applications remain pending while Corteva’s four products have received approval.
Delays raise concerns over farmers’ access to new products
Pesticide technology continues to evolve, with new active ingredients and formulations being developed to address crop pests and diseases. Some pests can also develop resistance to products used repeatedly, reducing the effectiveness of existing treatments. Industry representatives therefore argue that timely access to newer products is important for farmers seeking to protect crops and maintain yields.
They contend that prolonged delays in registration could restrict the range of pest-control options available to farmers. Older pesticides may not provide satisfactory control in every situation, particularly where resistance has developed. However, the approval of new products must also be supported by appropriate assessments of effectiveness, human safety and environmental risks.
Companies awaiting registration say the uncertainty is affecting their ability to introduce new products, expand operations and plan investments. They also argue that a transparent process, with consistent assessment criteria and predictable timelines, would help businesses understand the status of their applications.
Domestic companies whose products are awaiting approval include ACI Formulations Ltd, Petrochem (Bangladesh) Ltd, Intefa, Setu Pesticides Ltd, Larsen Chemical Industries (Pvt) Ltd, Auto Crop Care Ltd, Nacon Ltd, Sadik Agrochemicals Company Ltd, Riceco International Bangladesh Ltd, Corbel International Ltd, National Agricare Import and Export, Mimpex Agrochemicals Ltd, Padma Agro Sprayer Company Ltd, Bandhan Genetics Ltd, The Limit Agro Products Ltd, Changes Crop Science Bangladesh Ltd, Vertex Agro Industries and Babylon Agro and Dairy Ltd.
International companies with pending applications include Germany-based Bayer CropScience and Switzerland-based Syngenta, among others. Their inclusion underlines that the reported backlog extends beyond domestic manufacturers.
Registration costs add to business pressure
Kalbela spoke to officials from around two dozen companies involved in the sector. They said the delays were obstructing product launches, business expansion and investment plans, despite the money already spent on the registration process.
According to the officials, the government fee for registering each pesticide product is Tk 23,000. They also said a new company must pay Tk 40,000 to join the relevant industry association before it can apply for a registration certificate.
Additional expenses include laboratory testing, field trials, experimental applications, importing products or samples from abroad and preparing the necessary documents. Company representatives estimated these costs at approximately Tk 250,000 to Tk 300,000 per product.
The companies argue that leaving applications unresolved for years creates financial pressure because the costs have already been incurred, while the products cannot be marketed without the required approvals.
Some industry representatives have described the different pace of decision-making as unfair to applicants that have been waiting for an extended period. They maintain that the approval of products from a foreign company, while numerous other applications remain pending, raises questions about whether all applicants are being treated consistently.
These are allegations made by industry representatives. Establishing whether the registration process has involved preferential treatment would require a review of the relevant applications, testing records, assessment criteria and decisions.
Four Corteva products receive approval
Documents relating to the approvals identify four pesticides for marketing under Corteva Agriscience Bangladesh Ltd. The application records also refer to DuPont Bangladesh Ltd as the applicant name, Dow AgroSciences India Pvt Ltd as the manufacturer and Corteva Agriscience LLC as the manufacturer of the technical ingredients.
The documents give a US address for Corteva Agriscience LLC at 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268-1054.
The four approved products and their proposed uses are as follows:
Solaris 11.7 SC: The product contains spinetoram at 11.70 per cent. 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: This formulation contains picoxystrobin at 7.05 per cent and propiconazole at 11.71 per cent. It is proposed for controlling sheath blight in rice.
Galileo Sensa 30 SC: The active ingredients are picoxystrobin at 6.78 per cent and tricyclazole at 20.33 per cent. The product is intended to control rice blast disease.
Novixid 3.41 OD: The formulation contains florpyrauxifen-benzyl at 1.31 per cent and penoxsulam at 2.10 per cent. It is proposed for controlling various weeds in rice fields.
The products target different agricultural problems, including insect pests, fungal diseases and weeds. Their registration allows them to be marketed subject to the conditions specified in the relevant certificates and applicable regulations.
Certificates valid for three years
According to the registration documents, the four certificates remain valid for three years from their respective dates 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 countries of origin. The field for the name and address of a local manufacturer is marked “not applicable” on all four certificates, according to the documents supplied. Companies based in India and the United States are identified in connection with the products’ manufacture.
The documents therefore distinguish between the Bangladeshi entity associated with marketing and the overseas companies involved in manufacturing the formulations or their technical ingredients.
Alleged contact over the approval process
A source familiar with the matter alleged that a senior US representative responsible for Bangladesh contacted the Director General of the DAE regarding the registration and approval process for Corteva Agriscience Bangladesh Ltd. According to the source, activity to expedite the applications followed that contact.
The allegation has not been independently substantiated in the information available for this report. It should not be treated as an established account of how the approvals were secured.
The four products were approved during the tenure of Nahid Amin, then an additional director of the Plant Protection Wing. He was approached for comment but declined to provide a statement.
The central question raised by the companies is whether the same registration requirements, testing standards and administrative procedures are being applied consistently to all applicants. They have called for greater clarity about the basis on which the four products were approved and the reasons other applications remain unresolved.
The DAE’s published citizen charter describes a registration process involving a prescribed application, assessment and recommendation by the Plant Protection Wing, followed by the issue of a registration certificate. The department also maintains a list of registered pesticides.
However, the information cited in the report does not provide a detailed breakdown of the pending applications, identify the stage reached by each product or explain which requirements remain outstanding. Nor does it set out the laboratory reports and field-trial findings associated with the four Corteva products.
Publishing this information could help clarify whether applications are delayed because of incomplete documentation, outstanding tests, technical concerns or administrative backlogs. It would also allow applicants to understand what remains necessary for their products to be considered.
DAE says detailed information rests with PTAC leadership
DAE Director General Md Abdur Rahim told Kalbela that he was aware the PTAC meeting had taken place and that a company had received certificates. He referred further questions to the committee’s chairman.
“I know that the PTAC meeting took place and that the company was issued certificates. The PTAC chairman will be able to provide the details,” he said.
Saiduzzaman, chairman of Mimpex Agrochemicals Ltd and president of the Bangladesh Crop Protection Association (BCPA), said the government wanted to reduce reliance on chemical pesticides and increase the use of biological alternatives to help make food production safer.
He said the latest meeting had approved several chemical pesticide products alongside biological pesticides. The association had also raised the issue of pending applications from domestic companies with the DAE Director General and the PTAC chairman, he added.
According to Saiduzzaman, the authorities had said approvals would be issued in sequence. He also claimed that an earlier sub-PTAC meeting had indicated another meeting would take place within 15 days, but that this had not happened.
A BCPA member, speaking to Kalbela, acknowledged that PTAC meetings had not been held for a prolonged period and said many companies were still waiting for product approvals. The member described the situation as unequal treatment and argued that keeping domestic manufacturers waiting could hinder the country’s efforts to develop a more self-reliant agricultural inputs sector.
K. S. M. Mostafizur Rahman Shyamal, managing director of National Agricare, said the government was prioritising biological pesticides. He argued, however, that a country could not become self-sufficient if it relied excessively on imported products.
Domestic companies need government support to grow and compete in international markets, he said, adding that assistanc
