Brazil, a pivotal player in the global agrochemical market, presents unique characteristics and trends in pesticide registration and market development. This article will explore how Chinese enterprises can strategically navigate this promising market through precise registration, channel management, and product strategies.

1. The Rise of Biological Pesticides and Opportunities for Chinese Enterprises

In recent years, Brazil has seen a significant increase in the registration and approval of biological pesticides, with approval cycles typically ranging from 1 to 2 years. However, despite this rapid growth in registered products, the market share of biopesticides remains considerably smaller than that of chemical pesticides, reflecting the latter's objective dominance in current agricultural practices.

While chemical pesticide standards are typically set by original manufacturers and followed by generic companies, biopesticides exhibit higher variability in product characteristics, application technology, and market promotion. Currently, the main players in the Brazilian biopesticide market include multinational corporations with biopesticide pipelines or those that have integrated biopesticide businesses through acquisitions, international companies specializing in biopesticides, and local Brazilian biopesticide firms.

From the perspective of Chinese enterprises, two key questions arise:

a) Do Chinese chemical pesticide companies possess the conditions to enter the Brazilian biopesticide market?

b) How should Chinese biopesticide companies seize opportunities in the Brazilian market?

For chemical pesticide companies, beyond addressing common challenges such as registration policies, application technologies, channel development, and subsidiary operations, it is crucial to prioritize two core issues: whether they possess competitive biopesticide products and if they have a team with relevant professional knowledge and talent.

Chinese biopesticide enterprises, particularly in the fields of microbial pesticides and biochemical pesticides (e.g., plant growth regulators), have developed a range of distinctive and advantageous products, demonstrating potential for developing the Brazilian market. However, plant-derived pesticides primarily focused on insecticidal and fungicidal functions still show disadvantages when competing with chemical pesticides. It is noteworthy that the current efforts of domestic biopesticide companies in expanding into the Brazilian market generally lag behind those of chemical pesticide enterprises, primarily due to:

a) Lack of local application technical data and stable partners in Brazil;

b) Relatively weak foreign trade operations and registration capabilities;

c) Insufficient GLP study data that comply with international norms;

d) Project delays or failed registration applications due to lack of experience.

2. Combination Formulations and Integrated Pest Management Strategies

From a foreign trade and supply chain perspective, competition for single-ingredient products in the Brazilian market has become intense. Many Chinese companies have independently obtained formulation registration certificates and achieved sales, while international giants are also procuring small-package products from China for sale in Brazil. However, from the perspective of Brazilian agrochemical companies, their supply chain encompasses the entire process, including sales forecasting, planning, orders, procurement, logistics, distribution, after-sales service, financial control, inventory management, and customer complaint handling. For example, specifying a local formulation processing plant during registration is often based on considerations for after-sales needs such as product recall, rework, or repackaging. For brand-focused businesses, localized or regionalized formulation supply remains the mainstream strategy.

Regarding active ingredient registration strategies:

If a certain ingredient (especially herbicides and some insecticides) accounts for more than half of the original manufacturer's sales structure as a single product, generic companies should prioritize registering single-ingredient products.

If the sales proportion of a single ingredient (especially fungicides and some insecticides) is low (e.g., below 20%), generic companies should consider registering formulations consistent with the original manufacturer's typical combination schemes.

Developing innovative combination formulations—including new formulations, new ratios, new targets, crop extensions, or new application methods—requires systematic application technology research, bioassays, efficacy trials, and market cultivation, along with corresponding investment in human, material, and financial resources. Chinese companies must first familiarize themselves with local Brazilian plant protection knowledge and can learn from the development strategies of second-tier multinational companies, such as combining a neonicotinoid from original manufacturer A with a pyrethroid from original manufacturer B.

3. Challenges of Developing Novel Agrochemicals

Developing novel agrochemicals requires careful consideration of:

a) Finding suitable local partners;

b) Allocating sufficient resources to complete reliable and standardized GLP studies and field trials to verify product safety and efficacy.

Enterprises starting with off-patent pesticides often find it challenging to fully meet the high standards for novel agrochemical development in terms of resource investment (e.g., GLP study experience).

4. Structure and Value of Distribution Channels

a) Understanding Brazilian agrochemical distribution channels requires distinguishing between dealer networks, cooperative systems, and direct sales to key accounts. These three models are relatively independent yet overlap, similar in essence to channel structures in China, Europe, the Americas, Japan, and South Korea;

b) The role played by channels in the value chain must be fully recognized and respected.

5. Registration, Regulation, and Trial Requirements

a) Brazilian regulatory agencies are attempting systematic regulatory oversight of market product quality, traceability, and compliance (e.g., formulation consistency) by strengthening management of products like glyphosate and 2,4-D;

b) The efficiency of the first stage review for technical equivalence registration has significantly improved, while the second stage review is becoming a new bottleneck;

c) In some cases, legal proceedings can serve as an effective auxiliary tool during the formulation registration process;

d) When commissioning field trials in Brazil, the registration holder should conduct on-site inspections of trial institutions to ensure trial quality and data reliability.