FAO Pesticide Use Trends and Risk Indicators
As the global community shifts toward more sustainable food systems, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has refined its monitoring tools to track not just how many chemicals are applied to crops, but the broader impact of those chemicals.
The FAO Pesticide Use Trends and Risk Indicators serve as a vital dashboard for policymakers, providing a clear picture of agricultural intensification and its potential environmental footprint.
1. Defining the Indicators
The FAO utilizes three primary "intensity" indicators to contextualize pesticide data beyond raw tonnage. By normalizing use against land, economy, and population, these metrics allow for fair comparisons between small nations and agricultural giants.
| Indicator | Definition | Global Average (approx. 2023) |
| Use per Cropland Area | Total active ingredients applied per hectare of arable and permanent cropland. | 2.40 kg/ha |
| Use per Agricultural Value | Pesticide use relative to the gross production value (constant international dollars). | 0.90 kg/1000 I$ |
| Use per Capita | Total pesticide consumption divided by the total population. | 0.46 kg/person |
2. Current Global Trends (1990–2026)
Recent FAOSTAT data reveals a complex landscape of pesticide reliance. While some regions are successfully decoupling chemical use from yields, others are seeing rapid increases.
The Growth Factor: Global pesticide use has roughly doubled since 1990, reaching approximately 3.7 million tonnes of active ingredients.
The Herbicide Shift: There has been a significant shift in the "pesticide mix." Herbicides now dominate, accounting for roughly 50% of total use, while the shares of insecticides and fungicides have slightly declined in comparison.
Regional Leaders: * The Americas: Since the mid-90s, the Americas have been the largest users, driven by large-scale monoculture.
Asia: Asia remains a powerhouse in both use and exports, though some countries are beginning to implement stricter Integrated Pest Management (IPM) protocols.
Europe: Europe is the only region showing a notable downward trend in recent years, largely due to the EU Green Deal and stringent chemical regulations.
3. From "Volume" to "Risk"
The FAO is increasingly moving toward Risk Indicators rather than just "Use Indicators." A simple volume metric (kg/ha) doesn't account for the fact that 1kg of a low-toxicity biopesticide is vastly different from 1kg of a highly hazardous organophosphate.
The Risk Assessment Framework:
Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs): FAOSTAT now tracks the trade and use of pesticides listed under the Rotterdam Convention. Trends show a gradual reduction in the trade of these highly toxic substances as countries phase them out.
Dietary Risk Indicators: Using the JMPR (Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues) framework, the FAO monitors the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) and Acute Reference Dose (ARfD) to ensure residues in the food supply remain within safe limits.
Environmental Impact (EIQ): Many FAO-supported programs use the Environmental Impact Quotient, which weighs the risk to three components: the farmworker, the consumer, and the local ecology (bees, birds, and aquatic life).
4. Challenges and Data Imputation
One of the greatest hurdles for the FAO is data transparency. Many countries do not report precise application rates. To solve this, the FAO uses "Apparent Consumption" formulas:
This ensures that even when domestic use data is missing, trade flows can provide a proxy for a nation's chemical footprint.
Summary and Future Outlook
The 2026 data landscape suggests that while global pesticide use has plateaued in some developed markets, the "intensity" in developing regions continues to rise. The goal for the next decade is "more with less"—utilizing digital agriculture and biopesticides to lower the risk indicator values even if production volumes increase.
The true measure of sustainability lies in the Risk Indicator—the ability to protect crops without compromising the long-term health of the soil or the people.
Key Performance Indicators for Global Pesticide Management
In the context of the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for pesticide use are the metrics used to evaluate the success of national and global policies in reducing the reliance on hazardous chemicals while maintaining agricultural productivity.
The FAO uses these KPIs to monitor the transition toward Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and sustainable food systems under the framework of SDG Indicator 2.4.1 (Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture).
1. Core Quantitative KPIs (FAOSTAT)
These are the primary "Top-Level" KPIs used in annual FAO analytical briefs to track progress over time.
Pesticide Application Rate (kg/ha): Measures the intensity of chemical use per unit of cropland. A declining or stabilizing rate while yields increase indicates high performance in chemical efficiency.
Pesticide Use per Agricultural Value (kg/1000 I$): Tracks "Chemical Efficiency." The goal is to decouple economic growth in the agricultural sector from the volume of pesticides used.
Pesticide Use per Capita (kg/person): Evaluates the broad exposure potential of a country's population to agricultural chemicals.
Trade-to-Use Ratio: Compares imported/exported formulated products to domestic application, used to identify potential "leakage" or illegal trade of banned substances.
2. Risk-Based KPIs (Quality & Safety)
Modern FAO assessments move beyond volume to evaluate the hazard level of the products being used.
HHP Phase-out Rate: The percentage of Highly Hazardous Pesticides (as defined by the Rotterdam Convention) successfully removed from national registries.
Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) Score: A composite KPI that aggregates the risk to three specific groups:
Farmworker Risk: Exposure during mixing and application.
Consumer Risk: Potential residues in the food chain.
Ecological Risk: Toxicity to non-target organisms (bees, birds, fish).
Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) Compliance: The percentage of food samples that meet international Codex Alimentarius safety standards.
3. Implementation & Capacity KPIs
These KPIs measure the effectiveness of FAO-led programs, such as Farmer Field Schools (FFS).
IPM Adoption Rate: The percentage of total cropland managed under Integrated Pest Management protocols rather than conventional calendar-based spraying.
Farmer Training Reach: The number of smallholders trained in "Judicious Use" and non-chemical pest control methods.
Regulatory Robustness: A binary or tiered KPI measuring whether a country has implemented the International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management.
Summary of Global KPI Targets (2026 Strategy)
| KPI Category | Desired Trend | Indicator of Success |
| Volume | Stable or Decreasing | High productivity with lower chemical inputs. |
| Hazard | Steep Decrease | Rapid reduction in the use of WHO Class 1a/1b chemicals. |
| Safety | Increasing | Higher % of crops passing residue testing for export. |
| Education | Increasing | Higher enrollment in Farmer Field Schools. |
Key Organizations and Governance in Global Pesticide Monitoring
Monitoring pesticide use and its associated risks is a collaborative effort led by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), but it relies on a multi-layered network of international agencies, regional bodies, and national statistical offices.
1. Primary International Lead Agencies
These organizations provide the global standards, legal frameworks, and toxicological data required to calculate risk indicators.
FAO Statistics Division (ESS): The central hub for global data. They manage FAOSTAT, collect data through the annual "Pesticides Use Questionnaire," and develop the methodologies for "Apparent Consumption" and use-intensity indicators.
World Health Organization (WHO): Collaborates with the FAO through the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Management (JMPM) and the JMPR (Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues). The WHO provides the toxicological classifications (e.g., Class Ia/Ib) that define "Hazardous" vs. "Non-Hazardous" chemicals.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): Partners with FAO/WHO to manage the lifecycle of chemicals and wastes. They are particularly active in the management of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).
2. Regulatory & Treaty Secretariats
These bodies oversee the binding international agreements that track and restrict the trade of specific high-risk pesticides.
Rotterdam Convention Secretariat: Monitors the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure for hazardous chemicals. FAO risk indicators specifically track pesticides listed under this convention to measure the success of global phase-outs.
Stockholm Convention Secretariat: Focuses on eliminating Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), many of which are older, legacy pesticides.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development): The OECD Working Group on Pesticides works closely with the FAO to harmonize data collection methods among developed nations, ensuring that indicators are comparable across different economic zones.
3. Regional Partners & Data Providers
These organizations act as "aggregators," collecting detailed local data and feeding it into the global FAO system.
Eurostat (European Union): Provides the most detailed regional data in the world. The FAO often uses Eurostat’s Harmonised Risk Indicators (HRI) as a benchmark for developing similar tools in other regions.
Regional Plant Protection Organizations (RPPOs):
APPC: Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission.
CILSS: Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel (Africa).
ASEAN: Coordinates pesticide regulatory harmonization in Southeast Asia.
4. Stakeholders in Data Accuracy
The quality of FAO indicators depends on cooperation with the private sector and civil society.
Pesticide Industry Associations (e.g., CropLife International): While the FAO uses official government data, industry associations often provide data on global sales and production volumes that help validate "Apparent Consumption" calculations.
Civil Society & NGOs (e.g., PAN - Pesticide Action Network): These groups act as watchdogs, providing "on-the-ground" data regarding environmental incidents and human poisoning, which helps the FAO identify where risk indicators might be underestimating actual harm.
Summary of Roles
| Entity | Key Role in Indicators |
| FAOSTAT | Data hosting, imputation, and global trend analysis. |
| WHO / JMPR | Setting the toxicity thresholds ($LD_{50}$) for risk weighting. |
| National Govts | Primary reporting of domestic use and sales data. |
| Rotterdam Convention | Identifying the specific "High-Risk" list for monitoring. |
Leading Countries in Pesticide Use and Management (2026 Update)
Global pesticide data, as reported by FAOSTAT, distinguishes between countries that use the highest total volume and those with the highest application "intensity" (kg per hectare). As of early 2026, the following nations lead across different FAO indicator categories.
1. Top Consumers by Total Volume (Mt)
These countries are the "Heavy Hitters," where large-scale industrial agriculture for crops like soy, corn, and cotton drives massive total consumption.
China: Consistently the global leader, China accounts for roughly 40% of world pesticide use. However, recent data shows a plateau in volume as the government implements "Zero Growth" chemical policies.
Brazil: Driven by its massive soy and sugarcane exports, Brazil’s consumption has risen sharply over the last decade, often rivaling or exceeding the United States in specific categories like fungicides.
United States: Focuses heavily on herbicides (e.g., glyphosate) for herbicide-tolerant genetically modified (GM) crops.
Argentina: Similar to Brazil, its reliance on no-till farming and GM soy places it among the top four global users.
2. Top Countries by Intensity (kg/ha)
Total volume is often a function of geography. The Intensity Indicator reveals where chemicals are applied most densely. High intensity is often found in small nations with high-value, high-risk crops (fruits, vegetables, and flowers).
| Country | Application Rate (approx.) | Primary Drivers |
| Maldives | ~50.0+ kg/ha | Extremely high intensity due to limited, concentrated agricultural land. |
| Trinidad & Tobago | ~25.0 kg/ha | Intensive tropical crop cycles. |
| Costa Rica | ~22.0 kg/ha | Intensive banana and pineapple production. |
| Japan | ~11.0 kg/ha | Highly intensive rice and vegetable farming with strict quality standards. |
| Israel | ~12.0 kg/ha | Advanced greenhouse and precision agriculture. |
3. Leaders in Risk Reduction & Policy
While some lead in use, others lead in the FAO Risk Indicators, showing a decoupling of yield from chemical hazard.
The European Union (as a bloc): Lead by countries like Denmark and France, the EU is the only major region showing a consistent long-term downward trend in pesticide hazard. The Sustainable Use Regulation (SUR) serves as a global benchmark for risk-based monitoring.
United Kingdom: Since 1990, the UK has reduced the total weight of active ingredients applied by nearly 60%, even as yields have remained competitive.
India: While its per-hectare use is relatively low (~0.5 kg/ha), India has emerged as a leader in legislative reform, recently passing the Agricultural Pest Act 2026, which fast-tracks biopesticide registration and bans several Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs).
4. The "Efficiency" Leaders (kg / I$)
This FAO KPI measures how many chemicals are used to generate $1,000 of agricultural value.
Low Intensity/High Value: Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (e.g., Ethiopia, Sudan) use very little pesticide per dollar of value, but often face lower yields.
High Efficiency: Countries like The Netherlands have high per-hectare use but extremely low use relative to the economic value of their high-tech horticultural exports, demonstrating a different form of efficiency.
Summary of the 2026 Landscape
The "Leading Country" depends on the metric:
Volume: China & Brazil.
Density: Small Island Developing States & Costa Rica.
Sustainability: EU Member States & United Kingdom.
Growth: Oceania (fastest-growing region by percentage).
.jpg "FAO - Leading Improvement Countries in Pesticide Management")
Leading Improvement Countries in Pesticide Management (2026)
In 2026, the global agricultural landscape has seen a distinct shift. While total pesticide use remains high in major exporting nations, the FAO has identified a select group of countries that are improving their Risk Indicators at an accelerated pace. These "Fastest Improvers" are defined by their rapid phase-out of hazardous chemicals and the integration of nature-based solutions.
1. Mexico: The 2025–2026 Regulatory Breakthrough
Mexico has emerged as the global leader in regulatory speed. After more than 30 years of stagnant pesticide policy, the government enacted a landmark shift to modernize its national registry.
The Milestone: In September 2025, a presidential decree was signed to ban 35 Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) in a single phase. This was the first major prohibition of this scale since 1991.
The Targeted Substances: The ban specifically targets persistent organic pollutants and acutely toxic chemicals, including Aldicarb, Carbofuran, Chlorpyrifos-methyl, and Endosulfan.
The 2026 Strategy: As part of the "Second Stage of the Fourth Transformation," the Ministry of Agriculture is now revoking all related permits for production, import, and distribution, while fast-tracking lower-risk alternatives for small-scale farmers.
2. Vietnam: Regional Leader in Biopesticides
Vietnam has become the primary driver for "Green Food Systems" in Southeast Asia, rapidly shifting from a high-input model to one focused on "multi-value agriculture."
Regional Harmonization: In early 2026, Vietnam launched a major ASEAN initiative to standardize the regulation and approval of biological pesticides across the region.
Nature-Based Solutions (NBS): In partnership with the FAO, Vietnam implemented smart farming models in 2025 across provinces like Bac Lieu and Nam Dinh. These models prioritize Biological Control Agents (BCA) over synthetic chemicals, specifically in the rice and fruit export sectors.
Performance Metric: Vietnam is leading in the registration of next-generation agricultural inputs, aiming to reduce dependence on synthetic chemicals while meeting stringent international residue standards for global trade.
3. Kazakhstan: IPM and Digital Transformation
Kazakhstan is recognized as Central Asia’s fastest improver, successfully decoupling its grain production from intensive chemical use through digital and ecological innovation.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Success: Following a high-level FAO workshop in 2025, Kazakhstan demonstrated that IPM strategies—combining biological and physical management—could reduce chemical pesticide use by up to 70% in pilot orchards and vegetable fields.
National Food Atlas 2026: The government launched a digital platform to monitor food production and pesticide risk in real-time. This system allows for precise mapping of pest outbreaks, enabling "spot-spraying" rather than the traditional calendar-based blanket applications.
Health Integration: By aligning agricultural policy with school nutrition standards, the country is incentivizing small farmers to adopt chemical-free practices to supply a growing domestic market for healthy produce.
4. United Kingdom: Sustained Long-term Reduction
While the global volume of active ingredients has increased by roughly 90% since 1990, the UK is a standout for long-term improvement in its pesticide footprint.
The 60% Decrease: By early 2026, the UK confirmed a sustained 60% reduction in the total weight of pesticide active substances applied compared to 1990 levels.
National Action Plan 2025: The updated plan focuses on "Judicious Use," where pesticides are used only as a last resort. This has resulted in the UK maintaining high yields while significantly lowering its environmental risk indicators compared to other industrialized nations.
Summary of 2026 Improvement Highlights
| Country | Key Achievement | Primary Driver |
| Mexico | Most pesticides banned in a single year (35 molecules). | Presidential decree and HHP phase-out strategy. |
| Vietnam | Leading ASEAN biopesticide harmonization. | Nature-based solutions (NBS) and export-driven safety. |
| Kazakhstan | 70% use reduction in pilot IPM sites. | Digital monitoring (National Food Atlas) and IPM. |
| United Kingdom | 60% total volume reduction since 1990. | National Action Plan (NAP) and precision application. |
Projects in Leading Improvement Countries (2025–2026)
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) operates through specific "Technical Cooperation Projects" (TCP) and "Global Environment Facility" (GEF) partnerships to drive these national improvements. In 2026, several flagship projects are actively reshaping how pesticides are managed on the ground.
1. Vietnam: Nature-Based Solutions (NBS)
Vietnam is currently implementing project TCP/RAS/3907, which focuses on building climate-resilient agriculture through ecological alternatives to chemicals.
Smart Farming Models: These are being scaled in Bac Lieu and Nam Dinh (2025–2026). The project integrates ducks into rice fields to control pests and weeds naturally, combined with pheromone traps to disrupt pest mating cycles.
Biological Toolkits: The project promotes "Trichoderma" (a protective fungus) and predatory mites to replace synthetic fungicides and miticides.
Result: Farmers in pilot communes have reported a 30% increase in net profit due to a 29% reduction in material costs (seeds, fertilizers, and chemicals).
2. Kazakhstan: Lifecycle Management of Pesticides
Kazakhstan is a key participant in the regional GEF-funded project "Lifecycle Management of Pesticides and Disposal of POPs" (GEF ID 5000), which spans Central Asia and Türkiye.
IPM National Strategy: In January 2026, a major seminar in Almaty introduced a new national framework to reduce chemical reliance.
Farmer Field Schools (FFS): Intensive training in Baiseit (April–June 2025) equipped farmers with pheromone traps and digital weather stations to transition away from "calendar spraying" (spraying on a set schedule) to "threshold spraying" (only when pests are detected).
Contamination Cleanup: In May 2025, FAO conducted specialized training in Pavlodar on managing sites contaminated by obsolete, legacy pesticides (POPs).
3. Mexico: The Rotterdam Convention Realignment
Following the 2025 ban of 35 hazardous pesticides, Mexico’s focus in 2026 is on enforcement and scientific capacity building.
Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) Workshop: In late 2025, a regional training hub was established in Mexico City. It trains regulators from across Latin America to use the FAO Pesticide Registration Toolkit.
Agroecological Investment Chains: Through the Hand-in-Hand Initiative, the FAO is supporting $211 million in investments for the "South-Southeast" region. These projects aim to double crop yields in corn and beans using "low-chemical technological packages" designed for smallholders.
4. India: Green-Ag and Rice-Wheat Transformation
India’s improvement is driven by two large-scale projects reaching their peaks in 2026.
Project Green-Ag (GCP/IND/183/GFF): Ending in March 2026, this project has worked in five states to integrate biodiversity conservation into high-intensity agriculture, specifically targeting the reduction of chemical runoff into forest landscapes.
Sustainable Rice-Wheat Systems: A follow-up project (GCP/IND/184/GFF) is active through 2028 in Punjab and Haryana. It focuses on "Direct Seeded Rice" (DSR) and precision application to reduce the fungicide and herbicide load in India's breadbasket.
Summary of Active Project Goals (2026)
| Country | Key Project Code | Primary Goal for 2026 |
| Vietnam | TCP/RAS/3907 | Scaling nature-based solutions (NBS) in the Mekong Delta. |
| Kazakhstan | GEF ID 5000 | Implementing the National Strategy on IPM and cleaning legacy sites. |
| Mexico | Rotterdam/ERA | Institutionalizing Environmental Risk Assessment for new registrations. |
| India | GCP/IND/183/GFF | Finalizing biodiversity-friendly "Green-Ag" protocols. |
Future Horizons: Pesticide Use Trends and Risk Indicators (2026–2030)
As we approach the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) deadline, the global community is transitioning from measuring agricultural success by chemical volume to measuring it by Hazard Decoupling. The next five years will be defined by a rapid shift in how the FAO and national governments track and mitigate the risks associated with crop protection.
1. The Rise of "Bio-Rational" Indicators
By 2030, the global biopesticides market is projected to reach approximately $15–$17 billion, growing at a rate of nearly 13% annually. This surge will fundamentally change the composition of FAO indicators.
Hazard Weighting: Traditionally, 1kg of a harsh chemical and 1kg of a low-risk biopesticide were weighted equally in total volume statistics. Future indicators will use Toxicity-Adjusted Weighting, meaning biological products will contribute significantly less to a country's "Risk Score."
The Microbial Wave: Microbial products (bacteria, fungi) already account for nearly 50% of the biopesticide market. New FAO sub-indicators are expected to specifically track the ratio of Biological vs. Synthetic inputs to reward countries moving toward regenerative practices.
2. Digital Agriculture and "Precision" KPIs
The integration of AI, drone technology, and satellite monitoring is moving us from "blanket application" to "precision intervention."
Spot-Spraying Efficiency: In high-tech regions like the EU and North America, Variable Rate Technology (VRT) and drones are projected to reduce pesticide volumes by 30–50% by 2030.
Dynamic Risk Mapping: Instead of annual retrospective data, the FAO is supporting "Dynamic Indicators." These allow for real-time risk assessment based on local weather and pest migration patterns, enabling "just-in-time" intervention rather than calendar-based spraying.
3. Global Policy Drivers: The "50% by 2030" Targets
Major international frameworks are now setting the pace for the decade, creating a "top-down" push for better indicator performance.
| Policy Framework | 2030 Target | Impact on Global Indicators |
| Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework | Target 7: Reduce overall risk from pesticides by at least half. | Pushes for more sensitive Ecological Risk Indicators (pollinators/soil health). |
| EU Farm to Fork Strategy | 50% Reduction in use and risk of chemical pesticides. | Drives the removal of hundreds of active ingredients from global export markets. |
| ASEAN Strategic Plan | FAF-SP 2026–2030 | Prioritizes "Harmonized Bio-regulations" and standardizes residue limits across Southeast Asia. |
4. Improving Data Accuracy (GloPUT)
A major trend for 2026–2030 is the correction of data underreporting. Recent global studies (like the GloPUT database) suggest pesticide use in low-income countries has historically been underestimated.
From Trade to Farm-Level Data: The FAO is moving away from "Apparent Consumption" (Imports minus Exports) and toward digital Farm-Level Surveys. This ensures that the indicators reflect actual application in the field rather than just market movement.
Social-Ecological Metrics: Future reporting will include "Dependency Metrics"—evaluating why farmers remain "locked-in" to high-chemical use despite knowing the health risks, helping to design better transition policies.
Conclusion
The evolution of the Pesticide Use Trends and Risk Indicators marks a turning point in global agriculture. We are moving away from an era defined by the sheer volume of chemical inputs toward one defined by precision and safety.
By 2030, the most successful agricultural nations will not be those with the highest yields, but those that have successfully decoupled growth from toxicity. Through the adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), digital monitoring, and biopesticides, the goal of halving global pesticide risk is becoming a measurable reality. The indicators we use today are no longer just statistics—they are the roadmap for a resilient and non-toxic food future.