The fight against locusts could be taken to a regional level: Kazakhstan is initiating the creation of a common CIS agreement on pest control. However, against the backdrop of recent controversies surrounding the potential appropriation of budget funds by a narrow circle of companies, the new initiative looks rather ambiguous.
The Ministry of Agriculture has published for public discussion a draft agreement on cooperation between CIS countries to prevent the development of locust pests. The document, which is planned to be adopted in the fourth quarter of 2025, provides for joint actions by phytomonitoring services, minimising risks of crop damage and protecting human health during treatments.
However, in light of recent investigations by the FBRK editorial team into how the fight against locusts turned into a feeding trough for a narrow circle of companies, the new agreement looks rather ambiguous. After all, this is not just about coordinating efforts, but about expanding the insecticide market across the entire post-Soviet region.
It is worth recalling that recently our editorial team reported on how the growth in synthetic drug production in Kazakhstan may correlate with the increase in procurement of anti-locust chemicals.
We also wrote about how a group of interconnected companies led by Toregeldy Kalmuratov has effectively monopolised pesticide supplies. Satti Tulik LLP, Pestitsidy LLP, AgroKhimServis LLP appear to have created a whole ecosystem for appropriating budget funds allocated for locust control.
And the attempt by the State Inspection Committee in the Agro-Industrial Complex (AIC) to implement a "single supplier" system, according to FBRK sources, failed by mid-2025 due to the catastrophically low quality of pesticides. Incidentally, it appears the committee thought it prudent not to publicise this failure.
The CIS agreement provides for the coordination of plant protection services of all member states, which could potentially lead to the unification of approaches to procurement and the standardisation of preparations. In this scenario, Kazakhstani companies with experience in appropriating anti-locust budgets could position themselves as key suppliers for the region.
However, a logical question arises: why unite an entire region if, according to official data, the locust problem in Kazakhstan practically does not exist?
In June 2025, the capital's court fined journalist Kirill Pavlov 78,640 tenge (20 MCI) under Article 456-2 of the RK Code of Administrative Offences for spreading false information. The Ministry of Agriculture accused the founder of FBRK and author of the Telegram channels "Kazakh Chuvash" and "Pavlov Analytics" of providing an inaccurate account of the locust situation. On 4 July, the Astana Court of Appeal left the fine unchanged.
Simultaneously, information appeared that over 90% of the areas had been treated for locust pests. When the FBRK editorial team contacted the Ministry of Agriculture with a question about the calculation methodology for this indicator, instead of an explanation, officials literally duplicated the same figure: "90% of the projected volume of treatments".
A curious spectacle. Journalists are fined for analysing the locust situation, the ministry reports 90% effectiveness of treatments without providing a coherent explanation for this figure, and simultaneously initiates a regional agreement to combat a problem that officially supposedly does not exist.
Either the situation is truly under control — so why involve the neighbours? Or the problem is more serious than is publicly acknowledged — so why fine those who write about it?
Perhaps the public should closely monitor the implementation of the agreement and who turns out to be among its main beneficiaries. After all, turning environmental problems into a profitable business is a well-known scheme. And the FBRK editorial team will continue to monitor its development.