v

Executive Summary

Up to the year 2000 and beyond, the population of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is expected to growat a rate of more than 3% per year, while food production is likely to grow at a rate of 2% or lessper year. Closing this gap and increasing food production will require intensive agriculture basedon modern technologies, including fertilizers. Such changes are particularly crucial because manyregions of SSA are no longer land abundant.

Land scarcity is compounded by low soil fertility, resulting from the shortening or elimination ofthe fallow period without concurrent efforts to increase soil nutrients through fertilizer applicationor other soil management practices. Output per hectare will need to grow by raising theproductivity of land and labor. Increased use of fertilizer has a key role to play in this process.Because of the high labor intensity and low quality of organic fertilizer, restoration of soil fertilityincreasingly requires the use of inorganic fertilizer. SSA’s consumption of this critical input is verylow. In 1990, farmers in SSA used 8.4 kilograms per hectare of plant nutrients, far short of what isneeded to compensate for the harvested nutrients.

A stable policy environment conducive to change is absolutely critical for promoting growth infertilizer use. Such growth is especially important if small-scale farmers are to increase production,ensure food security, and protect the environment. Policy particularly needs to address the issueof subsidies. Although they will inevitably be removed in the long run, in the short and mediumrun they should be retained while policies address other important issues such as credit and theneed to support appropriate agricultural research, to develop and maintain infrastructure, and tofoster the development of a viable private sector—all of which will lead to increased fertilizer use.

1

Introduction

In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), populationgrowth will continue to outstrip growth in foodproduction for a long time to come unlessserious action is taken to accelerate agriculturalproductivity. Between now and the year 2000,population in SSA is expected to grow at a rateof more than 3% per year, while foodproduction is likely to grow at a rate of 2% orless per year. By the year 2000, the productionshortfall in SSA is estimated to increase toabout 50 million tons of grain equivalent—upfrom the current level of about 14 million tons(von Braun and Paulino 1990). The World Bank(1989) estimates that by the year 2020, Africawill have a food shortage of 250 million tons.Furthermore, the region will not have thenecessary foreign exchange to import suchlarge amounts of food, nor will the Africangovernments be able to count on enough foodaid to make up the difference. Even ifimporting food were financially viable, mostcountries in SSA lack the infrastructure (ports,roads, trucks, distribution networks, and so on)to handle it efficiently.

In general, low-input systems are characterizedby relatively low land productivity. In terms oflong-term sustainability and returns to landand labor, however, extensive low-inputsystems tend to be highly efficient. To growenough food to feed an increasing populationfrom these systems, farmers have to expandcultivated area, moving onto marginal lands of

Low Use of Fertilizers and Low Productivityin Sub-Saharan Africa

Wilfred Mwangi

lower quality; these lands tend to be easilydegraded (Matlon and Spencer 1984). Also,many parts of Africa are extremely land-scarce,despite the appearance of land-abundance(Binswanger 1986; Matlon 1987b; Binswangerand Pingali 1988). Intensification would reducethe need to cultivate marginal lands. Moreover,high-input systems would restore fertility viafertilizer (Matlon 1987a; Wong et al. 1991),especially in areas where nutrient depletion isthe major soil degradation problem.

Population increases and land scarcity indicatethat SSA’s food needs cannot be met throughthe low-input systems that are based largely ontraditional practices; instead, much more willbe required from farmers in terms of labor,knowledge, and skill (Borlaug and Dowswell1994). Furthermore, for the world as a whole, ashift from the currently known best practice forcompletely organic sources of nutrients wouldresult in a food shortfall of about 40% (Smil 1991).

This paper examines the factors related to thelow use of fertilizer and the resulting lowagricultural productivity in SSA. Theimportance of fertilizer and of improving soilfertility and agricultural research are outlinedfirst. Next, demand factors that influenceadoption decisions and the intensity offertilizer use are summarized. The subsequentsection focuses on supply constraints tofertilizer use and the privatization of supply.Infrastructure development and conclusionsare discussed in the final sections.

2

Inorganic Fertilizer Use

Fertilizer is a critical input for improvingproduction technologies and increasing cropyields. Over the past 25 years, chemicalfertilizers have been the primary means ofenhancing soil fertility in small-farmagriculture (Byerlee et al. 1994). Estimatessuggest that in Asia and Latin America,chemical fertilizers are responsible for 50-75%of the increase in the food crop yield over thepast two decades (Viyas 1983; Narayana andParikh 1987). Also, given present knowledge,the rapid rate at which food production mustincrease in developing countries, and severesoil degradation, farmers probably have littlechoice but to depend heavily on externalsources of nutrients in the foreseeable future(Desai 1990).

Researchers and policy makers widelyrecognize the importance of fertilizers inaccelerating the growth of food production inSSA (Bumb 1988). Mellor et al. (1987) givefertilizers the first functional priority foraccelerating food production in the region.They suggest that, even with existingtechnologies, a 15% annual growth rate infertilizer consumption is both possible and ofgreat potential significance. However, givenmuch of the evidence presented elsewhere inthis paper, such increases do not seem feasiblewithout large changes in infrastructure,institutions, and policies. Furthermore, basedon the experience of other developing worldcountries, where aggregate fertilizerconsumption has increased far more rapidlythan in SSA, such expansion rates will not beeasy to achieve in an economically efficientfashion (Heisey and Mwangi, forthcoming).

Farmers in SSA use very low levels of fertilizer(Table 1). Average use in 1990 was 8.4 kg offertilizer nutrients per ha of arable land and

land under permanent crops. In that same year,the world average was 93 kg; for developingcountries, the average was 81 kg (Gerner andHarris 1993). Fertilizer use in SSA does notcome close to compensating for harvestednutrients (Vlek 1993).

Slightly more than half of the fertilizer is usedon cereals, particularly maize. Although thearea of the other two important cereals (milletand sorghum) is also large, very little of thisarea is fertilized, and when it is, applicationrates are low (Gerner and Harris 1993). Ingeneral, fertilizer use has shifted from cashcrops to cereals, particularly maize, over thepast 20 years (Heisey and Mwangi,forthcoming).

Improving soil fertility

Shifting cultivation and fallowing have beenthe traditional method of maintaining soilfertility and replenishing nutrients in SSA(Blackie and Jones 1993; Blackie 1994a; Spencer1994). However, due to increased populationpressure in most areas, fallowing hasdisappeared from the system in some areas andis declining in others. The shortening of fallowcycles—without adequate replenishment of soilnutrients through the use of organic andinorganic inputs—has caused yields to declineover time (Ehui et al. 1994).

In SSA, grain yields average about a third ofthose in East Asia. Differences in land qualityare part of the reason, but so too is SSA’s lowfertilizer use—less than one-fifth of East Asia’saverage (World Development Report 1992).Given the low levels of fertilizer use in SSA andthe demonstrated contribution of fertilizers toincreasing crop yields and land productivity,the increased use of fertilizers has greatregional potential for boosting food productionand promoting agricultural development.

3

1 Although these are probably the best available estimates of net nutrient depletion, they are still not highly reliable.

Table 1. Fertilizer consumption in sub-Saharan Africa (kg/ha)a

Country 1979/80 1991/92

Benin 1 6Botswana 1 1Burkina Faso 3 7Burundi 1 <1Cameroon 5 3Central African Republic <1 <1Chad — 3Congo 1 1Cote d’Ivoire 17 10Ethiopia 3 7Gabon <1 1Ghana 7 3Guinea 3 3Guinea Bissau 1 2Kenya 17 39Lesotho 14 17Madagascar 3 3Malawi 19 45Mali 7 7Mauritania 11 7Mauritius 56 60Mozambique 8 2Namibia — —Niger 1 <1Nigeria 4 13Rwanda <1 1Senegal 12 7Sierra Leone 5 1Somalia <1 —Sudan 3 7Tanzania 9 15Togo 5 9Uganda — <1Zambia 11 12Zimbabwe 44 53

Sub-Saharan Africa 12 14

a Application rates per actual cropped area may be higher.Source: World Development Report (1994).

that will promote the adoption and increaseduse of fertilizers by small-scale farmers(Baanante and Thompson 1988).

Low fertilizer use results in declining soilfertility; it also increases soil degradationthrough nutrient mining (Byerlee et al. 1994;World Development Report 1992). For theforeseeable future, “the environmentalconsequences of continued low use offertilizers” through nutrient mining andincreased use of marginal lands “are moreinevitable and devastating than thoseanticipated from increased fertilizer use”(Dudal and Brynes 1993; Matlon and Spencer1984; World Development Report 1992).

In general, soil fertility is on a downwardspiral, with inputs of nutrients (from organicand inorganic sources) into sedentaryagriculture insufficient to reverse the trend.Estimated rates of net nutrient depletion arehigh, exceeding 30 kg of nitrogen (N) and 20 kgof potassium (K) per hectare of arable land peryear in Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria,Rwanda, and Zimbabwe (Stoorvogel et al.1993).1

From 1988 to 1990, fertilizer use in Ghanaaveraged about 11,000 nutrients tons; 90,000nutrient tons were removed by various crops.The implications for Ghana are clear: depletionof soil nutrients is becoming a seriousconstraint to soil fertility and crop productivity.Moreover, the level of depletion suggests thatlarge amounts of fertilizers are needed tomaintain soil fertility (Bumb et al. 1994).

Declining soil fertility has been identified asone of the most significant constraints toincreasing food production in SSA. This is trueeven in the highlands of eastern Africa

Furthermore, increased and efficient fertilizeruse can help reverse the declining trends in percapita cereal production experienced in manySSA countries, without having adverseenvironmental consequences (Bumb 1991). Butthis potential can only be realized throughsound government policies and investments

4

(traditionally the region’s most productiveand fertile lands) due to human populationpressure and intensification in land use(Waddington and Ransom 1995). Adequateand timely fertilizer applications will not onlysupply necessary nutrients and improve cropyields, but will also provide relatively higheramounts of crop residue, which can be used asorganic matter to improve soil health andprevent soil degradation (Bumb 1991). Wonget al. (1991) have also urged the promotion ofjudicious fertilizer use in West Africa, usewhich, they contend, will enhance agriculturalproduction while protecting the fragileenvironment.

Byerlee et al. (1994) contrast the relatively highadoption of improved maize by farmers(improved varieties and hybrids now cover33-50% of the maize area in Africa) with thelack of resource management technologies formaintaining soil fertility and increasing laborproductivity. But when fertilizer is notapplied, adoption of improved maize is oftenassociated with only marginal gains inproductivity under smallholder conditions.For example, in an extensive program of on-farm demonstrations in Malawi, hybrid maizegrown without fertilizer gave grain yields ofonly around 1.6 t/ha in seasons of nearnormal rainfall (Jones and Wendt 1994;Conroy and Kumwenda 1994), and on somedepleted communal lands in Zimbabwe,hybrid maize will yield nothing withoutfertilizer (Waddington and Ransom 1995).

In some ecologies, continuous cropping ofmaize has led to degraded soil structure andmicronutrient deficiencies, which, in turn,have led to a long-term decline in yields evenwhere chemical fertilizer is used at relativelyhigh levels (IITA 1991). Thus, it is important toseek a balanced approach to improving soilfertility, an approach that combines both

organic and inorganic source of nutrients(Byerlee et al. 1994).

The efficiency of chemical fertilizers and thelong-term sustainability of yields can often beincreased by adding organic matter frominternal nutrient sources (e.g., green manuresand farmyard manures), by employing reducedtillage techniques, and by alley crops (Spencerand Polson 1991; Matlon 1990; Low andWaddington 1991; Borlaug and Dowswell1994). The review of the considerable literatureon long-term fertility trials conducted in SSAhas indicated the long-term yield benefits ofcombining organic and inorganic soilamendments (McIntire et al. 1992). Successfulintensification will need to combine such soilmanagement with greater use of inorganicfertilizers, which provide about 40% of thenutrients for the world’s crops (WorldDevelopment Report 1992). This is particularlycritical in arid areas where, in most cases,organic material has virtually disappearedfrom the soil due to extraction anddecomposition. The use of fertilizers incombination with organic materials and soilconservation measures can increase the lowyields of food grains common in these areas.

However, as observed earlier, SSA lacksresource management technologies formaintaining soil fertility and increasing laborproductivity. And even where research andextension systems have recommendedimproved soil and crop managementtechnologies, adoption by small farmers hasbeen virtually nil (Spencer 1994; Ehui et al.1994). In general, low producer prices for cropsand livestock in SSA have discouraged farmersfrom investing in natural resource conservationmeasures (Larson and Bromley 1993).

As Vlek (1993) has rightly observed, however,“. . . failing to enhance fertilizer use in SSA

5

might actually lead to an environmentaldisaster, as it will cause stagnation in economicdevelopment with millions of farmers tradingtheir exhausted and irreversibly degradedlands for still remaining problem lands, leavingbehind a denuded landscape.”

Farm-level studies show that technologieswhich employ green manure crops,composting, and animal manures to increasesoil fertility in smallholder agriculture havelargely been rejected because of the high labordemands and the variable quality of theproduct. There are also problems in producingthe quantity of manures and composts neededto have a noticeable affect on soil fertility(Blackie 1994; Jones and Wendt 1994).

Ehui et al. (1994) report that the benefits inimproved soil quality, fertility, and crop yieldsare limited by the low output response ofinputs such as manure, crop residues, andanimal power. These inputs are alsoinsufficient to replace the major nutrientsmined from the soil by crop production.

Although it is acknowledged that improvedorganic techniques of nutrient supply willcontribute to soil health and productivity(Kumwenda et al., forthcoming), relying onlyon the efficient recycling of nutrients availablein depleted soils will not generate the foodproduction increases required in SSA(Janssen 1993).

Agricultural research

Future increases in food production must comeprimarily from higher yields per unit of landrather than from land expansion. Agriculturalresearch must therefore continue to develop

yield-enhancing production technologiestargeted to specific agroecologies, especially onfood crops. Research must also build toleranceof, or resistance to, pests and adverse climaticconditions.

However, despite recent studies showing highrates of return to research that has producednew technologies (Oehmke and Crawford 1993)and to the extension systems that helpedintroduce such technologies to farmers(Bindlish and Evenson 1993), investment inresearch is declining. This trend must bereversed if SSA is to meet its food needs. Along-term research strategy will requiresubstantial public-sector involvement, which inturn will require higher, not lower, investmentsin agricultural research (Heisey and Mwangi,forthcoming).2

In most areas of SSA, declining soil fertility is amajor limiting factor to food production.Policies that support long-term agriculturalresearch are crucial to developing a fertilizersector capable of overcoming this problem.Implicit in the often-repeated injunction that“the right fertilizer be available at the righttime in the right place” is the assumption thatthe “right fertilizer” is known. Agriculturalresearch is the foundation upon which suchdeterminations are made.

Soil fertility and fertilizer research shouldreceive high priority and research on organicsources of nutrients must be encouraged andstrengthened. Some have argued thatcontinued research investment should bedirected toward the low-potential and problemareas of SSA in order to arrest soil degradationand promote efficient types of extensivefarming; however, fertilizer should probably

2 The high returns to research referred to are for varietal improvement research, not research on fertilizer or, morebroadly, resource management. Returns to these are generally much lower.

6

fertilizer use. So far, limited research hasshown that by using better agronomic andmanagement practices and improved fertilizerproducts, many farmers can achievesignificantly higher crop output from the samelevel of nutrient use (Bumb 1991).

It is important to emphasize that the process ofdeveloping research recommendations, makingthem consistent with policy, and turning theminto more effective (and often morecomplicated) extension advice is far fromsatisfactory for most countries in SSA (Heiseyand Mwangi, forthcoming).

Factors Influencing Farmers’Adoption and Intensity

of Fertilizer Use

Demand and supply factors are hard toseparate when evaluating farmers’ decisions toadopt fertilizer and their subsequent decisionsabout application rates. For example, many ofthe key influences discussed in the adoptionliterature (farm size, access to credit,membership of cooperatives, contact withextension, access to outside information,availability of inputs, distance to markets) maybe related at least as much to supply sideconstraints as to farmer demand (Mwangi1995). Furthermore, in Kenya and some othernations, fertilizer consumption tends to behigher where input supply networks are welldeveloped. In some cases, however, it isdifficult to establish whether poorly developedinput supply channels are demand-driven(arising from factors such as unattractivereturns, lack of credit, and poor technicalknowledge) or supply-driven. In this

3 The real problem is the wide performance gap between station-based and on-farm trials of new technologies. Thefigure of 20 tons per hectare, for instance, is well beyond the capacity of most small farmers to produce and/ortransport.

not play a major role in strategies for low-potential areas, particularly those for whichincreasing soil organic matter would beproblematic under any circumstances(Vleck 1993).

In Malawi, research into alley cropping maizewith Leucaena leucocephalla has demonstratedthat organic fertilizers can increase maizeyields, although the biggest yield increase wasobtained when both inorganic and organicfertilizers were applied together (Jones andWendt 1994). Experiments conducted by IFDCand ICRISAT at Sadore and Gobey in Nigerhave demonstrated that the addition of up to20 t/ha of manure could result in as muchmillet production as when chemical fertilizersare used. However, managing such quantitiesof organic materials is labor-intensive andrequires tools not now possessed by thepeasant farmer (Bationo and Mokwunye 1991).Bationo and Mokwunye have alsodemonstrated that the addition of crop residueplus fertilizer increased millet yields 15-foldover the control.3

Lynam and Blackie (1991) underlined theimportance of crop and resource managementresearch to overcome seasonal laborconstraints, while conserving the soil base andenhancing soil fertility over the long run. Theycontend that this type of research will assume amajor role in increasing the productivity andsustainability of maize-based croppingsystems. However, such research is very site-specific and more detailed micro-level researchwill be needed to define appropriate strategiesfor each location (Lele et al. 1989). Moreresearch is also needed on the efficiency of

7

subsection, we focus on factors influencingdemand for fertilizer; in the next subsection, weturn to supply factors.

Demand factors

The demand for fertilizers is derived from thedemand for agricultural products. The factorsthat affect and determine agriculturalproduction and the demand for fertilizers maybe classified as (1) climatic variables, (2) soilcharacteristics, and (3) economic and socialvariables. In conjunction with the knowledgeand experience of farmers, these factors affectdecisions about the use of resources foragricultural production (crops and croppingsystems) and the use and management offertilizers and other variable inputs (Baananteand Thompson 1988).

Low use of fertilizer has been partly attributedto weak or nonexistent crop responses,partially because of variable rainfall, poor soilquality, an absence of irrigation, and a lack ofimproved crop cultivars (McIntire et al. 1992).Under rainfed conditions, maize in Africa tendsto be more fertilizer responsive than othercereals, with the possible exception of rice(Heisey and Mwangi, forthcoming). This isundoubtedly one of the reasons maizeproduction appears positively linked withfertilizer consumption.4 The “agronomicefficiency” (fertilizer use efficiency) for maizeranges from 5 to 25 kg grain or more per 1 kgnutrient. A cursory examination of responsedata for maize in other developing countries(India, Mesoamerica) reveals no markeddifference from African response data (Heiseyand Mwangi, forthcoming).

Economics of fertilizer use — The economicsof using chemical fertilizer on maize is highlysite-specific, depending on land pressure,agroclimatic variables, fertilizer costs, andfarm gate maize prices (Byerlee et al. 1994).Anderson (1992) has hypothesized that most ofthe recommended technologies, includingchemical fertilizer use, are not more profitablethan existing practices, given the constrainedresources of affected farmers.

In Malawi, a recent program of 110 on-farmdemonstrations over two years in one districtfound that it is economical for food-deficithouseholds to use fertilizer on local maize,although fertilizer use on hybrid maize atrecommended doses provided even higherreturns (Table 2); Malawi has the highestN:grain price ratio in Table 3. If the fertilizersubsidy were removed, however, fertilizinglocal maize varieties would not beeconomically efficient.5 Even for hybrid maize,returns to fertilizer use are less than the 100%rate of return usually assumed to be theminimum required for small-scale farmers toadopt this type of technology widely (Table 2).A similar situation has been observed for maizein Tanzania, where for farmers the profitabilityof fertilizer use is low, especially in interiorlocations where the high cost of transportreduces effective maize prices and increases theprice of chemical fertilizers (Lele 1992).

An important consideration for those withsmall farms and little cash is the possible risk ofusing fertilizer. But in favorable growingconditions like those of Malawi, risk is not animportant factor in many farmers’ decisions toaccept or reject the seed-fertilizer technology

4 That relative responsiveness is not the only factor determining fertilizer consumption is well illustrated by Ethiopia,where teff—the cereal least responsive to fertilizer—receives the highest aggregate amount of fertilizer, partiallybecause it is a relatively high-value crop with a somewhat more stable market (Makken 1993).

5 The fertilizer subsidy has been removed, and for 1995/96, fertilizer cost has gone up 300%.

8

(Smale et al. 1991). However, in marginalproduction areas with a high yield risk ofdrought, the yield risk of fertilizer use increasessubstantially. Results from marginal maize-growing areas of Kenya, where soils are highlydegraded, indicate that rainfall risk is probablya key factor in the low rate of fertilizeradoption (McCown et al. 1992).

Price instability and input supply problemsoften pose a greater risk for fertilizer users thanyield risk per se (Byerlee et al. 1994). In general,price instability leads to lower investment innew technologies such as those that employfertilizer (Timmer 1993). It has also beenobserved that uncertainty in the profitability offertilizer represents a serious disincentive tofertilizer adoption and use on staple crops(Vlek 1990).6

Availability — Although the factors affectingfertilizer availability are often referred to as non-price factors, they can be accommodated withina pricing framework by noting that in effect theyraise the shadow price of fertilizers to farmers. Amajor constraint to technology adoption inmuch of Africa is the physical unavailability oruntimeliness of inputs. On whether fertilizer useis limited more by supply or demand, Pinstrup-Andersen (1993) notes that in most casesfarmers’ limited access to the right kind offertilizer at the right time was probably just asimportant a constraint as price. One study offarmers’ reasons for not following the extensionrecommendations developed through adaptiveon-farm research in Zambia found that in 44% ofthe cases inputs simply were not available (Lowand Waddington 1991).

6 But despite this problem, fertilizer use on cereals has increased, particularly for maize.

Table 2. Effect of price policy on the profitability of alternative maize technologies in 110on-farm demonstrations, Lilongwe, Malawi, 1990 and 1991

Local maize Hybrid maizewith fertilizer with fertilizer

Fertilizer applied (kg nutrient/ha) 55 145

Yield increase observed overunfertilized local maize (kg/ha) 750 2400

————Marginal rate of return (%)c————

Subsidized input pricesa

Maize-deficit householdsb 133 237 Maize-surplus householdsb 64 136

Unsubsidized input prices Maize-deficit householdsb 79 145 Maize-surplus householdsb 27 72

Source: P. Heisey (personal communication), based on data provided by the FAO/Ministry of Agriculture FertilizerProgram. Reported in Byerlee et al. (1994).

a Subsidy of 25% on fertilizer and about 40% on hybrid seed.b The price of maize in households that purchase maize is about 40% above the farm gate selling price.c Marginal rate of return on input expenditures. A return above 100% is usually assumed to be necessary for

widespread farmer adoption.

9

Price policies and credit — Many countries inSSA have promoted fertilizer use through priceand/or credit subsidies. The high cost offertilizer in SSA is the main justification formaintaining subsidies. Other reasons includecompensating for low output prices,uncertainty about the profitability of fertilizer,promoting adoption, making fertilizer morereadily available to small farmers (thusfulfilling an equity goal), and the high cost ofcapital in informal markets (Byerlee et al. 1994;Pinstrup-Andersen 1994; Vlek 1990).

Shalit and Binswanger (1985) have outlinedthree theoretical cases for fertilizer subsidies.The best theoretical case is to promote thelearning of a new technology that will in timebe socially profitable. Compensation for anexport tax (more likely to apply to cash crops)is another theoretical argument. Yet another isthat if there is a policy goal of food self-sufficiency, fertilizer subsidies may be moreeffective than output price subsidies; givenother policy goals, fertilizer subsidies mightseem somewhat less attractive.

Some policy analysts would contend that otherarguments, such as compensating for the highcost of capital, are best addressed by improvingfinancial intermediation, not by subsidizingfertilizer. It is also debatable whether highprices are best countered by subsidies or bytrying to address the underlying causes of thehigh prices. Perhaps a middle ground would beto look at both alternatives as important, withtheir relative roles changing over time. Otherarguments might also be geographicallyspecific. For example, temporary fertilizersubsidies would seem more justifiable forMalawi than for Nigeria.

In recent years, governments in SSA have beenpressured by the World Bank, IMF, and otherdonors through structural adjustment

programs (SAPs) to remove fertilizer subsidies.In countries where such actions have beentaken, overall national demand for fertilizershas been substantially weakened, at least in theshort run (Vlek 1990).

Waddington and Ransom (1995) indicate thatfor most countries in the region, SAPs haveeliminated price subsidies and reduced theavailability of credit for inorganic fertilizerinputs and seed. This creates a great deal ofuncertainty for farmers and for the researchand extension services that support them.However, it also creates new opportunities(such as potential availability of a wider rangeof micronutrient fertilizers). Nevertheless, theshort- to medium-term consequences of SAPsare that smallholder farmers will apply evenless N and phosphorus (P) fertilizers and willuse less hybrid maize seed because of real priceincreases at the farm gate.

In Nigeria, Smith et al. (1994) indicate thatremoving the fertilizer subsidy is expected toreduce the profitability of maize, while reducedfertilizer use levels will necessitate majorchanges in soil maintenance practices in aproduction system that relies heavily onfertilizer for maintaining soil fertility. InSenegal the reduction in fertilizer subsidies hasled to declining demand for fertilizer(Shepherd 1989). In Malawi and Cameroon,some contend that removing the subsidy willreduce fertilizer use by women farmers, whoseuse of fertilizers is already low (Gladwin 1992).

In Ghana, removing fertilizer subsidies in theabsence of credit and remunerative outputprices has resulted in falling demand for theinput (Kwandwo Asenso-Okyere 1994). Astudy from Nigeria, where fertilizer issubsidized heavily, showed that chaotic anduntimely supply was one of the most salientreasons for non-adoption (Daramola 1989). In