​Presentation on "Fertilizer policies and Implications for African Agriculture: A Review" by Gashaw T. Abate​, Research Fellow MTID, IFPRI

1. Fertilizer Policies and Implications for
African Agriculture: A Review*
Gashaw T. Abate
International Food Policy Research Institute
*Citations are not included in the PPT to conserve space, please refer the paper for citations.

2. Co-authors
Kibrom Abay David Spielman

3. Fertilizer use in Africa lag significantly behind other
regions of the world
• In 2017, Africa accounted for only 3.3%
of the global fertilizer use in Agriculture
• Intensity of application (23kg/ha) is about
eightfold lower than the rates in Asia
(185kg/ha)
• However, aggerate fertilizer use and
application rates have increased in Africa
• Fertilizer use: 4.1 (2002)  6.5 (2017)
(million, mt) == 3.5% annual growth rate
• Application rate: 17.7 (2002)  23.3 (2017)
(kg/ha) == 2% annual growth rate
23
95
81
135
185
123
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
Kilograms(kg)offertilizernutrientsper
hectare(ha)ofcropland
Quantities(in'000metrictons(mt))
Consumption (agricultural use) Application rate (kg/ha)

4. Fertilizer application rates considerably varies across
countries
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Kilograms(kg)offertilizernutrients
perhectare(ha)ofcropland
Mali Kenya Malawi Zambia
Burkina Faso Ghana Senegal Nigeria
Tanzania Ethiopia Côte d'Ivoire

5. • Access and supply related factors: unavailability of fertilizer at all or fertilizer not supplied at
the right time and place and in the right formulation
• Liquidity and credit constraints: fertilizer purchase require cash on hand (difficult to
accumulate), assets that can be liquidated (immiserating), or access to credit (in short supply)
• High cost of fertilizer: African farmers pay the highest price for fertilizer anywhere in the world,
which make it simply unaffordable/unprofitable (specially in remote areas and production zones
with low crop response rate)
• Risks/uncertainties and other behavioral factors (i.e., information asymmetry (e.g., on
quality); present-biased behavior (discourage saving); aspiration failures; etc.)
→Most of these factors are surmountable with the deployment of appropriate
public policies and investments
Socioeconomic and behavioral factors contribute to the
low adoption/application rate of fertilizer in Africa

6. • CAADP call for increasing ag productivity by focusing on the provision of improved inputs
• The Abuja Declaration called member states to promote the use of fertilizer via targeted
subsidies
• The Malabo Declaration affirmed the need to improve access to quality and affordable modern
inputs through the provision of “smart” protection to smallholder agriculture
• Regional initiative by Economic Communities: harmonization of fertilizer policy & regional trade
• While these declarations are instrumental in providing overarching frameworks for fertilizer
promotion, their impacts remain mixed
• Inspired some countries to update or reformulate their fertilizer polices
• Progress toward meeting most of the resolutions is inadequate
Concrete policies/declarations/regulations on fertilizer
promotion exist at the continent & regional levels

7. 1) State-led fertilizer (marketing) policy
• Place the state at the center of fertilizer procurement, pricing, distribution
• Associated with (near-)universal subsidies on fertilizer price
• Some evidence of increased fertilizer use, but came with high fiscal cost, market distortion,
rent-seeking behavior
2) Market-led fertilizer policy
• Followed from the structural adjustment programs that many African countries signed on to
• The market-led policy vary across country both in terms of depth/breadth and level of
implementation
• As a result, the evidence base is mixed and sometimes controversial
→Currently, the most important question is “why such policies are insufficient to
achieve ag productivity” than “how to design and implement fertilizer polices”
About ⅓ of countries in Africa have a coherent fertilizer
policies…can be categorized into two broad typologies

8. • Poor (inadequate) implementation (e.g., inefficient targeting of subsidies)
• Absence of complementary polices/investments
• Fertilizer policies alone are not sufficiently effective to increase productivity
• Complementary policies related to investment in extension, breeding, road, irrigation, markets, and
other rural infrastructure; private sector participation, etc.
• Most policies overlooked basic scientific issues relating to soils and agronomy
• E.g., Generic and “blanket” fertilizer recommendations are common in Africa, despite considerable
spatial variability in soil properties (i.e., contribute to the low return and application rate)
Commonly cited shortfalls of existing fertilizer policies
in relation to increasing ag productivity

9. • While most fertilizer polices focus on reducing farmgate fertilizer prices and
increasing application rate, the evidence on its effectiveness is mixed
• Call for further improvements in the modalities and targeting of these policies (e.g.,
smart/innovative subsidies)
• Low and variable fertilizer application rate in Africa low and variable
returns for fertilizer use
• Investment in complementary inputs (e.g., improved seeds) & infrastructures (e.g., irrigation,
road, market, etc.) could help make fertilizer more profitable and appealing to farmers
• “Blanket” fertilizer recommendation in the presence of spatial variability in soil
properties likely contributing to the low return and application rate
• Call for site-specific recommendation to increase returns and ensure sustainable intensification
• Revitalizing extension systems to promote the adoption of integrated soil fertility management
practices
In summary . . .