Agroecology experts discuss movement of agricultural products across EAC borders
Mariam Babu, chairperson of the Busia Women Cross-Border Traders’ Cooperative Society, praised the introduction of certificates of origin at the Busia One Stop Border Post, saying they enhance traceability and facilitate trade across the EAC.
Grain sold at the cross border market in Busia Kenya. (Photos by Jonathan Driliga)
By Jonathan Driliga
Journalists @New Vision
________________
Alice Omwenga, a Kenyan cereal trader at the Busia cross-border market in Kenya, says she can distinguish agroecological products from conventional or synthetic agricultural products by observing the size of the grains supplied to her.
“I usually look at the size of the grains of the cereals. The smaller the size of the grain, the more agroecological the product could be, whereas non-agroecological products are bigger in size,” Omwenga explained.
However, like Omwenga, many traders at cross-border markets on both the Kenyan and Ugandan sides hold similar perceptions.
Just as legal experts argue that “ignorance of the law is no defence in courts of law,” agroecologists warn that failure to clearly differentiate between agroecological and conventional agricultural products could result in serious health complications.
Difference between agroecology and conventional agriculture
Agroecology and agroecological farming mainly focus on sustainable, environmentally friendly practices that work with natural ecosystems, promoting biodiversity, soil health and efficient water use.
Conventional agriculture, on the other hand, often relies on chemical inputs such as synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, monoculture farming and intensive irrigation, which can negatively impact both human health and the environment.
Synthetic agricultural products and cancer risks
Synthetic agricultural products have been linked to potential cancer risks, although the relationship is complex and depends on several factors. Some synthetic chemicals used in agriculture, such as pesticides and fertilisers, may be carcinogenic or increase cancer risk.
To address these risks, experts from across East Africa continue to engage in discussions to ensure that farmers, governments and the international community prioritise agroecological farming in order to produce safe and healthy food to meet the world’s growing demand.
Sunday Bob George, from the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF).
Under the auspices of the Eastern and Southern Africa Small Scale Farmers Forum (ESAFF) and the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), the two institutions convened a national multi-stakeholder meeting on intra-EAC agroecological produce and agroecological value web actors’ workshop in Bugiri district on August 20, 2025.
Prior to the workshop, agroecological value web actors visited Busia cross-border markets in both Uganda and Kenya to gain insight into the opportunities and challenges traders face.
Rationale of the Busia field visits
Following AFSA’s validation of the intra-EAC agroecological trade study, promoters of agroecological products argue that Uganda holds strong potential to lead agroecological trade in the region.
According to AFSA, Uganda’s market for organic and agroecological produce is growing at 10 to 15 per cent annually, driven by consumer demand for healthy, chemical-free foods and sustainable practices.
Experts note that Kampala and other major urban centres account for over 65 per cent of domestic demand.
However, challenges such as poor infrastructure, unharmonised standards, lack of recognition for grassroots certification systems such as Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS), and weak policy coordination continue to hinder progress.
These problems result in household-level post-harvest losses of up to sh900,000 (USD 240) and national economic losses of more than sh500 billion (USD 130 million) annually.
Breach of food safety standards
In addition to difficulties in distinguishing agroecological from non-agroecological products, traders in Busia expressed concerns about food adulteration with sand, stones and other impurities, the lack of moisture meters to test food products, and challenges in tracing the origin of adulterated produce.
Status of cross-border trade
Middy Amule, the trade information desk officer at the Busia border market in Uganda, appealed to the government to emulate Kenya’s model of strengthening farmer cooperatives to improve food safety standards.
“The Kenyan farmers buy and sell through cooperatives to avoid the issue of adulteration of produce. Allowing traders to buy from the farm gate creates room for adulteration because some farmers and traders are profit-oriented and do not care about quality, which compromises consumer safety,” Amule emphasised.
She also called on the Ugandan government to enforce strict policies against adulteration to ensure the safe movement of agricultural products across EAC member states.
Capacity constraints hinder agroecological trade
Africa Kiiza, a consultant at AFSA, raised concerns about the aggregation of products at cross-border markets. He explained that aggregation occurs when traders mix agroecological and synthetic products to increase volume and maximise profit.
According to Kiiza, data collected from 35 traders in four cross-border markets across Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania showed that agroecological integrity is often lost during aggregation.
“When we traced the products from farms, we realised that the agroecological aspect was lost during aggregation. For example, farmer A produces agroecological products but mixes them with products from farmer B,” he said.
At the Mpondwe border market on the Uganda–DR Congo border, Kiiza noted that simulated data from 35 traders indicated that more than 100,000 tonnes of agroecological rice are traded every year.
“With agroecology, a farmer incurs zero costs on fertilisers and pesticides. If the government integrated agroecology into the Parish Development Model, it would greatly promote sustainable farming, especially among the rural poor,” he suggested.
Need for agroecological labelling
Kiiza also proposed the creation of an agroecological label on all agroecological products to enable accurate data collection for policy and decision-making.
“The forthcoming agroecological strategy of the government of Uganda, now under cabinet review, could include labelling for all products in the agroecology value chain,” he recommended.
Kenyan soils overdosed with fertilisers
David Erulu, joint chairperson of the cross-border traders at the Busia market in Kenya, raised concerns about Kenyan farmers’ lack of awareness of agroecological practices.
“There is urgency to convince Kenyan farmers, whose soils have been overused and lost fertility due to excessive fertiliser application, to adopt agroecology. Synthetic products have adverse health effects. Kenyan farmers should borrow a leaf from Ugandan farmers and embrace agroecology for sustainable agriculture,” Erulu said.
He also called for modern equipment at the Busia cross-border market laboratory to test moisture levels in produce such as maize, ensuring aflatoxin-free products.
Agroecology promotes sustainable agriculture
Hakim Balireine, board chair of ESAFF and AFSA, urged stakeholders and governments to adopt sustainable farming systems that safeguard human wellbeing.
“We want food for people to eat, but the question is: Is the food safe for human consumption? Is the farming system friendly to the protection of the ecosystem?” Balireine asked.
He stressed that with a rising global population and growing food demand, attention must shift to food systems that prevent harmful practices in the agricultural value chain.
Government of Uganda supports agroecology
The Ugandan government is in advanced stages of approving its National Agroecology Strategy.
Sunday Bob George, from the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF), who was a keynote speaker at the workshop, said the government’s goodwill is evident in the establishment of an agroecological village in Kitagwenda district.
He recommended mainstreaming agroecology in key government policies and agricultural programmes.
Bob also highlighted Uganda’s advantage of “virgin soils” that support agroecological farming, urging farmers to exploit this favourable environment for sustainable agriculture.
Meanwhile, Nancy Mugimba, national coordinator of ESAFF Uganda, cautioned that food scarcity could cause insecurity if farmers fail to prioritise food production.
“We are here to share ideas on how to trade in healthy foods across East African borders. Is the problem of adulteration at the production stage, at the middleman’s level, or at the end of the production cycle?” Mugimba asked.
Mariam Babu, chairperson of the Busia Women Cross-Border Traders’ Cooperative Society, praised the introduction of certificates of origin at the Busia One Stop Border Post, saying they enhance traceability and facilitate trade across the EAC.
She added that a storage facility has been set up at the border post to help small-scale traders store their goods for up to one month as they seek funds to clear them.
While cross-border traders acknowledge the urgent need to promote agroecological trade across the EAC, two questions remain: how can profit-driven middlemen in the agricultural value chain be persuaded to prioritise healthy food? And how can governments, policymakers and civil society ensure agroecology is mainstreamed into farming practices?
These questions demand urgent answers.