India’s Pesticides Reform Must Govern Risk Before Yield
The success of Pesticides Management Bill hinges more on safety assessments, institutional checks, and farmer protections than speed and scale
A background note can be accessed here: DAFW’s Pesticides Management Bill-2025
Shahnaz Shaikh: Founder and CEO, AI-GENIX International Pvt. Ltd.
SDG 3: Good Health and Well-Being | SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare | Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers
The Bill introduces new institutional roles for pesticide registration, safety evaluation, and disposal standards, while agriculture productivity imperatives remain strong. What governance architecture is necessary to prevent conflicts between yield objectives and public-health or environmental safety under the new regime?
Managing tensions between productivity goals and public-health or environmental safety under the Pesticides Management Bill, 2025 requires a governance design that embeds safeguards upstream rather than treating them as corrective checks. The foundation should be clear, formal coordination among the Ministries of Agriculture, Health, and Environment, with joint committees or co-signatory arrangements for high-risk approvals. This ensures that no single mandate, particularly yield enhancement, dominates decision-making.
Equally critical is the sequencing of mandates. Human-health and ecological risk assessments must be completed before commercial or yield considerations enter the process. Independent scientific review boards or audit panels can further reduce the risk of regulatory capture and reinforce evidence-based decisions.
Transparency is another pillar: public disclosure of risk assessments and structured inter-ministerial data sharing improve accountability and trust. Within this architecture, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) should be embedded into registration conditions, labelling norms, and extension services. When linked to digital traceability, IPM shifts governance from narrow compliance toward long-term ecological resilience while still supporting agricultural productivity.
By mandating a National Register of Pesticides, digital tracking of manufacture and sales, and a deemed-registration route for generics, the Bill aims to curb spurious products and speed up approvals. What risks could arise from this digital turn, and how should policy balance traceability with fair competition and access?
The Bill’s digital turn – through a National Register of Pesticides, end-to-end tracking of manufacture and sales, and deemed registration for generics – offers clear benefits in curbing spurious products and accelerating approvals. However, it also introduces new risks that policy must manage carefully.
Compliance costs associated with digital systems may disproportionately burden small and medium manufacturers, potentially shrinking competition. Data-quality failures – such as inaccurate or incomplete entries – could undermine traceability itself, creating blind spots rather than transparency. There is also a structural risk of market concentration, as firms with greater digital capacity may crowd out affordable generics. For farmers, especially in low-connectivity regions, exclusive reliance on digital platforms could weaken access to grievance redressal and product verification.
Balancing traceability with access requires tiered compliance norms, targeted support for smaller firms, independent data audits, and transparency in deemed-registration decisions. Hybrid grievance systems – combining digital tools with local service centres – are essential for inclusion. Within this ecosystem, IPM complements traceability by reducing chemical dependence through biological controls, crop rotation, and threshold-based application practices.
The Bill for the first time proposes training and safety standards for those handling hazardous pesticides, alongside stronger penalties. What institutional investments and enforcement strategies are critical to ensure these protections are effectively implemented rather than remaining aspirational across India’s diverse agricultural contexts?
Translating the Bill’s new training requirements, safety standards, and penalties into real protection depends on sustained institutional investment and credible enforcement. Inspection systems must be expanded with adequately trained and equipped field staff, supported by a wider network of accredited regional laboratories capable of timely quality and residue testing. Digital infrastructure should reinforce, not replace, physical enforcement by enabling accurate, real-time monitoring through the National Register.
States play a central role and must be resourced to conduct inspections, enforce localised restrictions or bans, and respond to region-specific risk profiles. Independent oversight mechanisms, such as external scientific review or audit boards, remain essential to prevent regulatory capture and uneven implementation.
At the field level, extension services are the bridge between regulation and practice. They must educate farmers and handlers on safe use, storage, disposal norms, and grievance pathways, while also promoting alternatives. Advanced IPM tools – including AI-based pest management technologies and mobile advisory platforms – can reduce hazardous exposure and chemical reliance without compromising yields, making safety standards operational rather than aspirational.
Author:
Views are personal.