This call to action communique by the Alliance for Action on Pesticide in Nigeria (AAPN) is an outcome of a 1-day documentary screening and panel discussion on pesticide double standards and improving pesticide regulation in Nigeria. The communique presents key observations and a call to action from international governments, specifically in the EU, UK and USA to stop the double standard in the global trade in pesticide-active ingredients that are either banned or not approved in their countries due to health or environmental concerns but are nevertheless exported out of poor and developing countries with lesser pesticide regulation, and poor health capacities. This hypocritical export of highly hazardous pesticides that are banned in Western counties by international agrochemical corporations with blind eyes from their governments who enjoy tax returns and remittances, should be stopped. The document while calling for new pesticide legislation for Nigeria that focuses on safety and farmers’ rights, cautions the Nigerian government to be watchful of the wolf-in-sheep clothing lobbyist of these international agro-chemical companies, who are pressing for bills to open the Nigerian agricultural market to a pesticide dumping ground- selling the illusion of pesticide safety. The communique calls for the support of nature-based sustainable agricultural practices like agroecology, IPM, and a gradual phasing out of pesticides in the category of extremely hazardous and highly hazardous pesticides from Nigeria and West Africa.

1. COMMUNIQUE & CALL FOR ACTION:
Documentary Screening and Public Discussion on Double Standards in the
International Trade of Highly Hazardous Pesticides and Poor Pesticide
Regulation in Nigeria
Preamble
The Alliance for Action on Pesticide in Nigeria (AAPN) is a coalition of over 40 civil society
organizations, academia, independent scientists and media professionals, who are committed to
phasing out all highly hazardous pesticides (HHP), obsolete and adulterated pesticides from Nigeria
and West Africa. AAPN seeks to achieve this through evidence-based advocacy, public
sensitization, training and strengthening of institutions on pesticide hazards, and the promotion of
more sustainable farm systems, and healthy and safer foods.
This call to action communique by AAPN is an outcome of a 1-day documentary screening and
panel discussion on pesticide double standards and improving pesticide regulation in Nigeria. The
event was held in Abuja on the 2nd August 2022, at Bolton White Hotel. The goal of the meeting is
to:
 To end the double standard that exists in the global trade in pesticide-active ingredients and
products. The issue at hand regards pesticide products and active ingredients that are either
banned or not approved in the EU due to health or environmental concerns but that are
nevertheless exported out of the EU by agrochemical corporations and are then sold in other
regions of the world.
 To encourage sustainable agricultural practices and to stop supporting conventional
monoculture that furthers the dependence on hazardous pesticides.
 To fill gaps in regulations and management of pesticides, highlighted by this call to action,
for improved legislation and regulation of pesticides for the protection of the Nigerian people
and their environment.
The event was attended by over 95 physical participants and 45 online participants. Over 50% of
the participants are women. The participants include representatives from the relevant MDAs - The
Federal Ministries of Agriculture and Rural Development, Health, Industry, Trade and Investment,
Environment, Budget and National Planning, Office of the Secretary General of the Federation,
NESREA, NAFDAC, FCCPC, Nigeria Customs Services, SON, and NAQS. Members and staffs of
the National Assembly were also present, specifically those in Agricultural Production and Services
in the House of Representatives, and the Clerks in the Senate and House of Representatives on
the Agricultural committee. International and local NGOs, CSOs – Pesticide Action Network Europe,
HBS Brussels Office, Third Circle Kenya, Action Aid Nigeria, HOMEF, etc, farmers associations –
SWOFON, NAIWA, AFAN, FECAN, etc, agro-dealers associations - NAIDA, academia, agricultural
practitioners in organic and conventional farming, media and research groups and think tanks.

2. AAPN hereby puts forward this communique and call for action, having considered these troubling
realities as highlighted.
Key Observations
International Double Standard on Pesticides
1. Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) and pesticides that are banned or withdrawn in Europe,
the UK, and other developed countries, are exported to poor counties with weak pesticide
regulatory frameworks. These banned products on entering the country are registered and
used by farmers in Nigeria. 65% of pesticides used by farmers in four states of Nigeria are
categorized as HHPs and 55% are withdrawn from the European market as they show chronic
human health effects (reprotoxic, neurotoxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or endocrine disruptive)
or severe environmental effects (bee and fish toxicity, leaching potential, persistent)1.
2. A recent survey by the AAPN and the Small Women Holder Farmers Associations of Nigeria
(SWOFON) shows that the major pesticide brands used by surveyed small-scale farmers in
Nigeria have active ingredients that are already banned internationally. 50% (6 of 12) of the
most common active ingredients in the surveyed pesticide brands are cancer-causing. This is
aside from other health threats to humans and the entire biodiversity.
3. Currently, there is no database on the use of pesticides in the country, or of poisoning
incidences related to their use. Analytical facilities for definite diagnosis are either too
expensive or nonexistent. Over 98% of sprayed insecticides and 95% of herbicides reach a
destination other than their target species, including non-target species, air, water and soil. In
soils, pesticide residue can move from the surface when they are dissolved in runoff water, or
percolate down through the soil, and eventually reach the groundwater.
4. NAFDAC list of banned pesticides is outdated and needs updating. From 2008 until date
Nigeria through NAFDAC has only banned 30 pesticides2. The then Director General of
NAFDAC, Dr Dora Akunyili, placed a ban on 30 pesticides in 2008 after multiple food
poisonings and deaths in Bekwarra LGA of Cross River State3. On the website of NAFDAC,
only the same old 30 pesticides are listed. All other public notifications of NAFDAC on banned
pesticides seem not to be included in the list of banned pesticides, creating uncertainty about
their actual status.
5. There is no pesticide policy or legislation in Nigeria that effectively regulates the use and entry
of pesticides (especially pesticides, that are banned elsewhere and HHPs). There are also
large and confusing overlaps in pesticide regulation and supervision in Nigeria. The Federal
Ministry of Environment, FMARD, NESREA and NAFDAC all seem to have related mandates
regarding pesticide approvals. These agencies all seem to be struggling for dominance instead
of working in synergy.
6. The companies producing pesticides claim that their products are safe if they are used
correctly, and marketing approval is based on the supposition of ‘safe use. This statement
1
https://ng.boell.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/Time%20for%20a%20Detox_25%2010.pdf
2
NAFDAC Website (Accessed June 2022):
3
AgricBusiness Global (May 19 2008): Nigeria Bans 30 Pesticides After Deaths. https://www.agribusinessglobal.com/markets/africa-middle-east/nigeria-bans-30-pesticides-
after-deaths/ (Also see: PANNA.Org (2008): NAFDAC Bans 30 Agrochemical Products: https://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/imported/files/NigeriaBansPesticides.pdf)

3. however is very far from the reality in Nigeria and other countries of the Global South. In many
cases, the necessary protective equipment is either unavailable, too expensive, or impractical
due to the climatic conditions. Many farmers in Nigeria are not aware of the effects, as they
hardly received training that discloses the full toxicity risk of HHPs. Furthermore, some farmers
are unable to understand the information listed on the packaging regarding the application of
the products. Both the supervising authorities as well as the companies are aware of this1.
7. According to a study in 20204, 385 million people worldwide suffer from acute pesticide
poisoning every year, compared to an estimated 25 million cases in 19905. This means that
approximately 44 per cent of the people who work in agriculture worldwide 860 million farmers
and farm workers suffer from poisoning every year, most of them from the Global South. In
Nigeria, pesticide-related incidents and deaths appear to be on the rise6.
8. Over the last 5-7 years, Nigeria’s food export to the
EU and America have continuously been rejected
and banned due to the high pesticide residues. Since
2015, Nigeria’s food export of beans, sesame seeds,
melon seeds, dried fish and meat, peanut chips and
palm oil has been banned from entering Europe and
the USA because they exceeded the maximum
residual limit (MRL) for pesticides (mostly of the ones
banned in Europe). The Office of the Presidency
through the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development (FMARD) and other supporting
Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs)
realized that this continuous rejection is a problem
and initiated the Zero Food Rejection Initiative. The
“Zero Reject’’ initiative involves training and
4
Boedeker, W., Watts, M., Clausing, P. et al. The global distribution of acute unintentional pesticide poisoning: estimations based on a systematic review. BMC Public Health 20, 1875
(2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09939-0
5
BMC Public Health: The global distribution of acute unintentional pesticide poisoning: estimations based on a systematic review
6
Punch Newspaper (28 August 2021): Food poisoning: How bacterial, chemical contamination, unsafe food handling cause children, adults’ death. https://punchng.com/food-
poisoning-how-bacterial-chemical-contamination-unsafe-food-handling-cause-children-adults-death/

4. sensitization rallies for farmers and traders against indiscriminate use of agrochemicals in
production, post-harvest handling and storage of agricultural commodities.
9. The EU Member States, the UK, China, India and other countries are failing to meet their moral
obligation to ban the export of highly hazardous pesticides. Instead, they have constantly
prioritized the interests of agribusiness over the protection of local and global health, and that
of the environment. While humans and the environment are increasingly and rightly protected
from highly hazardous pesticides in their own countries, the danger they pose is recklessly
accepted with no regard for the countries importing them. This is unacceptable: the health
hazards are the same for everyone on the planet regardless of geographical scope.
10. The EU is still responsible for exporting highly toxic pesticides that have been removed from
their market to low- and middle-income countries, and countries with less strict regulation.7 A
recent study by Public Eye and Greenpeace Unearthed revealed that 41 banned pesticides
were notified for export from the EU in 2018 predominantly from 7 countries. The EU benefits
from the use of these dangerous substances elsewhere, at the cost of human health, the
environment and export opportunities for Nigerian farmers.
11. The United Kingdom is one of the biggest exporters of toxic banned pesticides to poorer
countries. Toxic pesticides banned for use in the UK are exported to countries with less
stringent regulations, using loopholes in international trade rules. The UK approved the export
of more than 32,000 tonnes of banned pesticides in 2018, according to the environmental
campaign group Greenpeace. The shipments were among 81,615 tonnes of banned "crop
protection products" planned by British and other European companies that year.8
7
Public Eye, Unearthed Greenpeace investigation, 2020; https://www.publiceye.ch/en/topics/pesticides/bannedin-europe
8
BBC News (2020): UK 'operates double standards' on banned pesticides. By Justin Rowlatt, Chief environment correspondent. Published 10 September 2020.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54093926

5. 12. Under the Farm to Fork Strategy, the EU has committed to set policies that support an
ecological transition of the European food and agricultural system. Objectives for 2030
include a reduction of 50% of the use and risk of chemical pesticides by 50% by 2030,
a reduction of nutrient losses by at least 50% to use of 20% fewer fertilizers, and
reaching 25% of agricultural land under organic farming. The Strategy also contains
references to third countries to promote a global transition to sustainable agri-food systems.
The Strategy is currently being fleshed out into concrete legislative pieces but has gotten
under attack due to Russia’s war against Ukraine. Doubling down on environmental efforts
would send out the wrong message to African governments.
13. In 2020, the European Commission’s Chemicals Strategy included for the first time a
commitment to stop the export of hazardous chemicals banned in the EU. A first legal draft is
to be expected by 2023.
14. In the EU, only France has a national law that provides
for a ban on the export of pesticides banned in France
from 2022. Judges in France rejected a legal challenge
by major pesticide manufacturers stating that -
“restrictions to entrepreneurial freedom are
justifiable given the damage to human health and
the environment". Switzerland has banned the export
of five particularly toxic pesticides since 2021, with other active ingredients to follow. Tunisia,
Mexico and the Palestinian National Authority have imposed a ban on imports of pesticides
that are forbidden in the exporting or producing country itself.
15. In 2021, Germany announced its intention of putting a legal stop to such exports in the future.
The ‘Coalition government agreement states: “We will make use of the legal possibilities to
prohibit the export of certain pesticides that are not permitted in the EU for reasons of human
health protection. We promote food security and access to clean drinking water through
sustainable agro-ecological approaches and knowledge and technology transfer, especially in
the field of smallholder agriculture”.
16. United Nations experts have considered highly hazardous pesticides a global human rights
concern for a long time: Pesticides endanger the right to live in dignity, the right to bodily
integrity, and the right to a healthy environment9.
17. The executive council of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO Council) indicated
as early as 2006 that certain pesticides cannot be used in countries in the Global South without
causing damage, and recommended a gradual ban on highly hazardous pesticides10.
Community rights and farm workers’ safety are threatened by their high exposure to highly
hazardous pesticides. Farm workers in Nigeria are mostly casual labourers and unorganised,
and their subsequent lack of legal protection and health insurance leaves them even more
vulnerable.
18. Developing safer alternatives is the goal of the Strategic Approach to International Chemical
Management (SAICM), which aims to reduce the usage of highly hazardous pesticides.
9
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF/G1701785.pdf?OpenElement
10
AO (2006): Report of the Council of FAO, 131st Session, Rome, 20-25 November 2006 (CL 131/REP)

6. Nevertheless, there is still no globally binding legal framework that addresses pesticides in their
full scope – from production to use to disposal, and with strict deadlines for phasing out HHPs.
19. International agreements are mostly voluntary: In addition to national approvals and application
requirements, two voluntary frameworks and four binding international conventions regulate
the trade and management of pesticides. Some of them are:
a. The International Code of Conduct for Pesticide Management (Code of Conduct)—The code
applies to all pesticides and contains voluntary codes of conduct for the trade and handling of
pesticides. Article 3.4 on the export of pesticides states that governments of pesticide
exporting countries should, to the extent possible, ensure that good trading practices are
followed in the export of pesticides, especially with those countries that have not yet
established adequate regulatory schemes11
.
b. The Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM)—Based on a
voluntary agreement, the SAICM aims to minimize the negative effects of chemicals on health
and the environment by 202012
. A follow-up agreement on the management of chemicals and
waste for the SAICM is to be adopted at a conference in October 2020.
c. The ILO Convention on Occupational Safety and Health (ILO Convention 155)13
—This
convention defines various aspects of a cohesive policy to ensure occupational health on a
national level. The policy covers safety at workplaces regarding the use of machinery and
chemical substances, including pesticides. The convention is ratified by states and is binding.
d. Rotterdam Convention that had been in effect since February 2004. The pesticide-active
ingredients listed in the annexe to the convention—and which are thereby recognized as being
particularly hazardous—may only be exported from the EU if the importing countries are
informed in advance and agree to import them14
.
Only a few of the HHPs and pesticides banned in Europe are listed under international
regulations.
20. It is a lucrative business for international agrochemical groups to trade active ingredients that
are forbidden in the EU. It is estimated that in 2018, Bayer, BASF, Corteva, FMC, and
Syngenta—the five corporations that make up CropLife, the largest international agrochemical
lobby group—made 35 per cent of their pesticide sales from highly hazardous pesticides
including pesticides banned in their country of origin.
11
https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/I3604C/
12
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8464/-Strategic%20approach%20to%20international%20chemicals%20management-
2006SAICM_publication_ENG.pdf?sequence=3&amp%3BisAllowed=
13
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C155
14
http://www.pic.int/Portals/5/News/PIC_chemicals.pdf

7. 21. Whenever the question is raised about why corporations bring certain active ingredients onto
the market in the Global South that are not approved in the EU, they usually argue that different
crops and different climates require different active ingredients to fight against weeds or insects
pests. In Nigeria, not enough priority is given to find more sustainable pest control strategies.
22. Organic practices and agroecological farming more
broadly do not receive adequate government support
through agricultural programmes, policies, and budgeting.
Extension workers aside being in short supply are more
inclined to offer farmers toxic pesticides to address their
pest issues and not organic or nature-based pest control
methods. Extension workers seem to be ignorant about
organic pest management approaches and agroecology.
Key Recommendations & Call for Action on
International Organizations and Development Partners
1. In order to end the double standards of the international trade in pesticide active ingredients,
there needs to be, among other things, a global ban on the production, storage, and trade of
highly hazardous pesticide active ingredients, that is legally binding under international law.
The FAO and WHO should publish a list of highly hazardous pesticide active ingredients, to be
drawn up on the basis of their own criteria and regularly updated. This would form the basis for
a global ban—binding under international law—on the production, storage, and trade of the
active ingredients listed there.
2. In view of the documented human rights violations, the assumption that pesticides are being
used “safely” proves illusory. In order to protect people and the environment from the
consequences of the application of pesticides, legal regulations must therefore be tightened.
3. The EU and countries that continue to export highly hazardous pesticides that have been
banned in their markets should halt the production and sales of such pesticides, thereby ending
their unethical policy of double standards. Whether in their pure form or as a component of
pesticide products, active ingredients which are either banned in the EU or classified as highly
hazardous by the WHO and/or EU categories should not be allowed to be traded by companies
operating in Germany, UK and the EU.
4. To date, there are no binding regulations at the EU level that could prevent the export of active
ingredients that are banned within the EU. The European Commission’s draft chemicals
strategy should reinforce the commitment to prevent the export of hazardous chemicals
banned in the EU. It is important that the strategy includes a ban on the production and export
of as many highly hazardous pesticide active ingredients as possible and that this is
implemented promptly, with care taken to close any loopholes for agrochemical corporations.
5. The Sustainable Use of Pesticide Directive should be published soon to support the reduction
of pesticide use in the EU. This would set the right message for Nigeria.

8. 6. The EU and international development agencies should put all efforts into the support of
resilient agricultural production, emphasizing the need for more agroecological strategies to
ensure food sovereignty in Nigeria. The use of HHPs and pesticide that are banned elsewhere
in the world should not be recommended in any of the development projects. Agricultural
development projects should not have any links to the pesticide industry. International
development partners should ensure full disclosure to farmers, civil society organisations
(CSOs) and all other relevant stakeholders of the associated risk in the use of all inputs within
their programmes to promote the practice of the precautionary principle, transparency and
traceability.
7. The German government needs to issue a regulation under the Pesticides Act prohibiting the
export of active ingredients that are not approved in the EU. The German government needs
to advocate for a global ban on highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) as defined by PAN. The
German government needs to establish much greater transparency. Information on all active
ingredients and pesticides exported from Germany to third countries should be publicly
available. This includes publishing the companies that export the active ingredients and
pesticides.
8. Bayer, BASF, and other agrochemical corporations need to cease the export of HHPs
(according to the PAN definition) to Nigeria and other countries of the Global South. Companies
under Croplife and others need to remove all highly hazardous pesticides on the PAN list from
their global product portfolios as soon as possible.
9. Higher level of transparency around the global trade in pesticide active ingredients. In the
future, detailed information should be made available regarding the origin, quantity, and
destination for pesticide products and active ingredients that are exported by companies. This
requires detailed information on the quantity of the active ingredient, the company exporting it,
the country of destination, and the company there that processes the component.
Agrochemical companies should also be required by law to provide information on any trade
in active ingredients by their subsidiaries outside their home country. This includes all active
ingredients produced by the companies in another EU country or outside the EU.
10. The ECOWAS though having a harmonized regional pesticide rule to govern pesticide
registration, is rather docile on the threat posed by the pesticide double standards from the EU
and other countries exporting HHPs and ban pesticides to the region. There is a need for the
ECOWAS to take a strong position and push statements to the EU and other pesticide
exporting countries to halt the export of HHP and banned pesticides to the region.

9. Key Recommendations & Call for Action on:
Nigerian Stakeholders
(Federal Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs), Legislators and Citizen Groups)
1. The Nigerian government needs to ban the import, trade and use of HHPs
(as defined by PAN) and pesticides not approved in countries and regions
with high regulatory standards such as the EU.
2. The Nigerian government should begin to develop pesticide policies and
legislation that ensure that the most toxic pesticides are prohibited,
pesticide use is generally reduced and that nature-based alternatives
(such as agroecology) are promoted
3. The Nigerian government should review the
mandates of the relevant MDAs – FMARD, Federal
Ministry of Environment, Federal Ministry of Health,
Federal Ministry of Science and Technology, and their
implementing departments and agencies, including NAQS, FMARD-FISS, NAFDAC, NESREA
etc. This is to ensure proper division of labour and synergy in their roles in pesticide regulation
and food safety. The current overlap among these MDAs (appreciating the need for check and
balance to ensure precaution) is not only compromising effective pesticide regulation but is
now tagged as an excuse to repel the role of key agencies to deliver a safer pesticide regime
(see pesticide council bill).
4. NAFDAC should update and publish its 14-year-old list of banned pesticides, and
develop and implement a phase-out plan for all registered but highly hazardous
pesticides in Nigeria. It should equally establish, maintain and publish a list of
registered pesticides in Nigeria. Countries like Kenya practice this already.
5. NAFDAC, FMARD, NIRSAL and CBN should engage
and inform all listed vendors, manufacturers and
importers of agrochemicals about the negative impact
of HHPs on Nigeria’s public health and environment.
CBN, Bank of Agriculture (BOA), Bank of Industry
(BOI) and FMARD should mandate agrochemical
dealers in their anchor-borrower programmes to
remove all HHPs from their programmes and encourage them to supply more organic inputs
such as biopesticides, organic fertilizers etc.
6. The House of Representative Committee on
Agriculture should continue to open up the space for
public participation and engagement in the
development of pesticide legislation for Nigerians.
The Committee should ensure that any legislation on pesticides is first in the interest of
safeguarding the health of Nigerians and our environment, rather than maximizing the profits
of agro companies.
7. The National Assembly and the office of the Presidency should
approve budgetary provisions to fund the meetings of the
National Chemical Management Committee to improve inter-
ministerial collaborations to end the poor management of HHPs
and other highly toxic chemicals across the sectors.

10. 8. The Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD)
should work closely with the Nigeria Agricultural Quarantine Service
(NAQS) towards opening the draft and review process of the
Integrated Pest Management Policy Plan (formally headed by NASQ)
and ensure that CSOs, smallholder farmers, consumer groups,
academia and organic practitioners are part of the process of developing the policy.
9. Farmer’s associations and farmer clusters should work towards self-
regulation of pesticide usage among their members. Farmers’
associations should increase the awareness of highly hazardous pesticide
brands among their members. They should have a list of pesticides that
are unlikely to cause any acute hazard. They should encourage and
demand organic pesticides, Biopesticides, while also supporting their
members to learn more sustainable, healthy farm systems like multi-
cropping systems, organic farming, agroecology, use of land preparation
strategies and mechanical weeders for weed control (which can be large and small machines).
10. Farmer at all levels should mobilize and seize the opportunity of the
forthcoming national election to engage with political candidates on
the spread of toxic pesticides, and secure political commitments to
promote nature-friendly biopesticides, the improvement of pesticide
regulation in Nigeria and the promotion of sustainable agriculture.
Politicians, farmers and electorates should refrain from the offer and
acceptance of highly hazardous pesticides.
11. Communities, farmer associations, labour groups and concerned CSOs affected by pesticide
exposure should consider litigation as a way to demand justice for environmental and human
health damage, and as a pathway to claim compensation from agrochemical companies and
their sponsors who encourage the use of highly toxic pesticides without continuous monitoring
of application, provision of safety kits or availing users licenced pesticide applicators.

11. This call to action is endorsed by members of
the Alliance for Action on Pesticides in
Nigeria (AAPN), which includes:
1. ActionAid Nigeria
2. All Farmers Association of Nigeria (AFAN)
3. Association of Organic Agriculture Practitioners of Nigeria (AOAPN),
4. Barns Connect
5. Be-the-Help Foundation
6. BFA Food and Health Foundation
7. Caritas Nigeria
8. Cal-Maji Foundation
9. Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria
10.Centre for Environmental Education and Development (CEED)
11.Coalition Against Paraquat (CAP)
12.Development Initiative for Change and Empowerment (DICE)
13.Ecosystem-Basedased Adaptation for Food Security Assembly UN-AU Program on
Sustainable Agriculture using Organic Solutions.
14.Environmental Right Action (ERA)
15.ENARMAC Nigeria
16.Ever Greening Foundation
17.Farm and Infrastructure Foundation (FIF)
18.Federation of Agricultural Commodity Associations of Nigeria (FACAN)
19.Friends of the Earth Nigeria (FoEN)
20.Giolee Global
21.Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF)
22.Heinrich Boell Stiftung Nigeria
23.International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)
24.Independent Researchers, Academia, Medical Laboratory Scientists & Public Health
Analysts.
25.Justice, Development and Peace Commission (JDPC)
26.Nigerian Women Agro Allied Farmers Association (NIWAAFA),
27.National Association of Nigeria Traders (NANTS)
28.Potatoes Farmers Association of Nigeria (POFAN)
29.Sustainable Research and Action for Environmental Development (SRADeV Nigeria)
30.Small Women Holder Farmers of Nigeria (SWOFON),
31.Trade Network Initiative (TN)
32.T.R.E.E Initiative,
33.The National Organic Livestock and Crops Industry Value Chain Programme,
34.Women Empowerment Program (WEP)
35.Other individual experts and professionals…
Donald Ikenna Ofoegbu
Co-coordinator AAPN
Prog. Manager HBS Nigeria
Chris Kaka
Co-coordinator AAPN
Prog. Manager TNI Nigeria