10 November 2026, Brasília: Brazil’s domestic crop protection manufacturers have asked the government’s foreign trade chamber to raise import tariffs on formulated pesticides to as much as 35%, intensifying a dispute within the industry over how to respond to a surge of lower-cost imports, mainly from China and India.
The requests were filed in October with Camex, Brazil’s Chamber of Foreign Trade, by Sindiveg, the industry association representing crop protection manufacturers operating in the country, including multinational producers with local plants. The filings cover six tariff categories of formulated pesticides. Four of the six currently carry no import duty at all, while the other two face rates generally in the 7.2% to 12.6% range. Products named in the filings include fungicides such as azoxystrobin, tebuconazole, prothioconazole and mancozeb, insecticides including bifenthrin and chlorfenapyr, and herbicides in the 2,4-D, 2,4-DB and MCPA family.
Separately, Abifina, an association representing Brazil’s fine chemicals producers, asked for duties of up to 10% on fipronil, glufosinate-ammonium and tebuthiuron, and up to 8% on triclopyr, for a 12-month period. CTIA, the government’s agricultural inputs advisory committee, rejected Abifina’s request. The same committee backed a counter-proposal from Aenda, a group representing generic pesticide importers, to cut the existing 7.2% duty to zero on bifenthrin, chlorfenapyr, deltamethrin and lambda-cyhalothrin sold in packages of up to 7.5 kilograms. Gecex, Camex’s tariff-setting executive committee, will make the final call on all the pending requests, and no decision had been issued as of the filings.
Behind the push is a sharp shift in where Brazil’s pesticide supply comes from. China’s share of the import value across the six affected tariff categories climbed from 10.5% in 2020 to 48.8% this year. Imports in those categories totaled 2.79 billion dollars between January and September 2026, with 1.36 billion dollars of that coming from China alone. Sindiveg has argued that domestic manufacturers have operated under unfavorable tariff treatment for close to two decades and that the proposed increase is a legitimate trade measure to protect local manufacturing capacity and supply security. Patent expiries on a number of established crop protection products have also opened the door to cheaper generic competition from overseas producers.
Supporting data filed alongside the tariff request illustrates the scale of the shift in specific product lines. Imports of fungicides under one tariff code tracked by Brazilian customs rose 109% between the twelve months to June 2023 and the twelve months to June 2026, while the average import price for that category fell 42% over the same stretch. A separate code covering 2,4-D, 2,4-DB and MCPA herbicides saw import volumes climb 64%, with average prices down 51%. Industry data cited in the filings estimated that imported products accounted for roughly 71% of Brazil’s pesticide volume in 2024, with about 85% of the products currently used in the country now off patent.
Industry Split Over Import Reliance
The tariff push has divided Sindiveg’s own membership. Two of its member companies, Tecnomyl and Alta Defensivos, announced they would leave the association after disagreeing with the push against imported generics, reducing Sindiveg’s roster from 22 member companies. Both companies rely substantially on imported active ingredients and finished formulations for their Brazilian sales, and argued that cost shifts onto importers and, ultimately, farmers are not the right way to build domestic capacity.
Daniel Dias, chairman and co-founder of Agriconnection, a Brazilian pesticide importer and distributor, said raising tariffs on imported formulated products would not, by itself, reduce the country’s dependence on foreign inputs. He argued that Brazil’s domestic manufacturing base does not currently have enough capacity to meet demand from the country’s farmers, meaning a tariff increase would mainly raise costs for growers rather than quickly shift production back onshore.
No effective date has been set for any of the pending tariff changes. The CTIA panel had been expected to take up the broader dispute in early November as part of its ongoing review of the competing requests from manufacturers, importers and fine chemicals producers, alongside farm groups watching the proceedings for any effect on input costs ahead of the next planting season.
Global Agriculture is an independent international media platform covering agri-business, policy, technology, and sustainability. For editorial collaborations, thought leadership, and strategic communications, write to pr@global-agriculture.com
