Fake and poor-quality seeds, fertilizers and pesticides are costing African farmers their harvests and their income, so GFN asked farmers across our network to share what they are seeing on the ground. Here is what 18 farmers from nine countries told us, and how GFN plans to help. Survey led by – Patience Koku, Nigeria, Global Farmer Network Regional Lead: Africa Ag and Ruramiso Mashumba, Zimbabwe, Global Farmer Network Regional Lead: Africa Ag
Executive summary
Fifteen of the 18 GFN farmers surveyed (83%) have bought agricultural inputs they believe were fake or poor quality. All who answered the training question want GFN training on how to spot counterfeit inputs.
- Seeds and fertilizer are the main problems. Seeds were named 11 times, fertilizer 4 times and pesticides or other chemicals twice. One farmer estimates that most fertilizer in their local market is fake.
- Trusted channels are not protecting farmers. Twelve of 18 buy from registered agro-dealers, and “buy only from a trusted dealer” is by far the most common safeguard (14 farmers).
- The cost is lost harvests and lost money. Farmers reported poor germination 10 times, lost money 9 times and poor crop growth or yield 8 times.
- Most cases go unreported. Of 15 affected farmers who answered, 8 did not report it, including 3 who did not know where or how.
- Farmers see it as a serious issue. Ten of 18 rate the problem serious or very serious in their country.
The findings point GFN toward three actions: farmer training on detection, clear country-level reporting routes, and advocacy for stronger seed and input regulation and enforcement.
Background and method
GFN ran an online survey of farmers in its African network on fake, counterfeit and poor-quality seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and other inputs. Twelve responses came in through an online form between 14 September and 5 October 2026, and up to 6 more farmers answered the same questions as WhatsApp polls in the GFN Africa Regional group.
- Respondents: 18: 12 online form, 6 WhatsApp poll
- Countries (form): 9: Kenya (2), Uganda (2), Zambia (2), Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Zimbabwe
- Profile (form): 7 farmer and agribusiness professionals, 5 farmers
- Questions: Experience, inputs affected, where farmers buy, impacts, verification, reporting, seriousness, training interest, and an open story
The WhatsApp polls give anonymous counts per question, and 4 to 6 people voted on each. Results below show form, WhatsApp and combined counts. Respondents are not named in the farmer stories.
Key findings
1. Most farmers have been affected, many repeatedly
Bought inputs believed fake or poor quality?
- Yes, several times: 7 (form), – (WhatsApp), 7 total
- Yes, once or twice: 3 (form), – (WhatsApp), 3 total
- Yes (frequency not asked): – (form), 5 (WhatsApp), 5 total
- No, never: 2 (form), 1 (WhatsApp), 3 total
In the form, affected farmers came from 8 of the 9 countries. Seven of the 10 affected form respondents had been hit several times.
2. Seeds dominate, but fertilizer and chemicals matter too
Input with problems
- Seeds: 9 (form), 2 (WhatsApp), 11 total
- Fertilizer: 0 (form), 4 (WhatsApp), 4 total
- Pesticides and other chemicals: 0 (form), 2 (WhatsApp), 2 total
Fertilizer was the input most often named in the WhatsApp poll. Form respondents also described fake fertilizer and a pesticide that failed in their open answers, even though they only ticked seeds. Crops mentioned include maize, tomato, okra, vegetables, alfalfa and lablab.
3. Registered dealers are not a guarantee
Where farmers buy inputs
- Registered agro-dealer or input shop: 8 (form), 4 (WhatsApp), 12 total
- Local market or informal seller: 5 (form), 3 (WhatsApp), 8 total
- Manufacturer or authorized distributor: 1 (form), 2 (WhatsApp), 3 total
- Cooperative or farmer organization: 0 (form), 0 (WhatsApp), 0 total
In the form, 6 of the 10 affected farmers buy from registered agro-dealers. One farmer warned that fakes turn up even in trusted agro-dealer shops. No one buys through a cooperative, a channel GFN could help strengthen.
4. Fake inputs cost farmers their crop and their money
Impact
- Poor germination: 7 (form), 3 (WhatsApp), 10 total
- Lost money: 5 (form), 4 (WhatsApp), 9 total
- Poor crop growth or yield: 5 (form), 3 (WhatsApp), 8 total
- Had to buy replacement inputs: 3 (form), 0 (WhatsApp), 3 total
- Crop damage or failure: 1 (form), 1 (WhatsApp), 2 total
The harm can spread beyond one farm. One agribusiness respondent supplied farmers with tomato seed that turned out to be the wrong variety, and those farmers lost their crop.
5. Farmers rely on trust more than verification
How farmers check inputs before buying
- Buy only from a trusted or authorised dealer: 9 (form), 5 (WhatsApp), 14 total
- Check packaging, labels and seals: 3 (form), 2 (WhatsApp), 5 total
- Check registration or certification: 3 (form), 1 (WhatsApp), 4 total
- Use a verification or QR code: 4 (form), 0 (WhatsApp), 4 total
- Trust the seller: 3 (form), 1 (WhatsApp), 4 total
- Ask other farmers: 3 (form), 0 (WhatsApp), 3 total
Only 4 farmers use verification codes, and none in the WhatsApp poll. The main safeguard is the seller relationship, which finding 3 shows is not enough.
6. Most affected farmers did not report the problem
Reported the fake input?
- Yes: 4 (form), 3 (WhatsApp), 7 total
- No: 2 (form), 3 (WhatsApp), 5 total
- Did not know where or how: 3 (form), – (WhatsApp), 3 total
Counts cover affected farmers only. Without reports, regulators and seed companies cannot trace or act on fake products.
7. Farmers see a serious problem and want training
Ten of 17 rate the problem in their country as serious or very serious: 6 in the form (3 very serious, 3 serious) and 4 in the WhatsApp poll. Elsewhere, 3 said moderate, 1 minor, 1 not serious and 2 did not know. All 16 who answered the training question, 12 in the form and 4 on WhatsApp, want GFN training or information on identifying counterfeit inputs.
Farmer voices
The open responses show how fake inputs play out on the farm. Quotes are lightly edited for spelling.
- Seed that will not grow. Farmers describe maize seed that germinated poorly, and alfalfa and lablab that struggled to germinate even under the right conditions.
- A pilot that saved a farm. One farmer bought okra seed from a recommended local seller to test before scaling up. About 70% did not germinate, and the rest grew unevenly, with some stunted and some bearing no fruit. “I was grateful it was a pilot.”
- Lost yield, lost income. A maize grower reported that the yield was too small and the income very low.
- Losses passed down the chain. A seed supplier received tomato seed of the wrong variety, supplied it to farmers, and those farmers lost their crop.
- Pesticides that do nothing. One farmer applied a fake pesticide several times without effect.
- Fertilizer as a national problem. One respondent said fertilizer fraud is worse than seed fraud, estimating that “90% of fertilizer in the market are fakes” and calling it a national problem.
- No safe shop. “These fake agricultural inputs are even found in trusted agro-dealers’ shops.”
- Poor growth, dismal harvest. A WhatsApp respondent suspects their seed was fake after weak plant growth and very low output. “I think the seeds were not genuine. Their performance was dismal.”
Proposed next steps for GFN leads
- Launch a farmer training module on spotting fake inputs. Demand is unanimous. Cover packaging, labels and seals, certification marks, QR and scratch-code verification, and simple germination tests before planting at scale with support from GFN Stakeholders.
- Advocate for stronger regulation and enforcement. Use farmer stories in GFN op-eds.
- Amplify farmer voices. Turn the strongest stories into GFN profiles and short videos to raise public awareness.
