i

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF RWANDA

FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND AGRIBUSINESS

ACADEMIC YEAR 2011-2012

Memoire submitted to the Faculty of Agriculture for the

partial fulfillment of the award of “Bachelor’s degree of

science (BSc)” in Agricultural economics and Agri-

Business

By NIZEYIMANA Jean de Dieu

Supervisor: Fidèle NIYITANGA

Done at Huye, July, 2012

ACCESSIBILITY AND USE OF FERTILISERS

Case study of NPK, DAP AND UREA in Karongi district

ii

DECLARATION

I, NIZEYIMANA Jean de Dieu, hereby declare that this dissertation entitled ACCESSIBILITY

AND USE OF FERTILIZERS. A case study of NPK, DAP, and UREA in Karongi district

represent my own work and has never been submitted for any degree in this or any other

University.

NIZEYIMANA Jean de Dieu

Signature……………………………………………………….

Date……………………………………………………………..

Supervisor……………………………………………………….

Signature…………………………………………………………

Date……………………………………………………………...

iii

DEDICATION

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was made possible by the support and contribution from many individuals to whom I

am indebted and would like to express my gratitude. First, I would like to express my profound

gratitude to my supervisor Fidèle NIYITANGA, for his inspiring guidance and his assistance to

accomplishing this research.

I would like to extend my gratitude to the government of Rwanda for the granted bursary loan

through Rwanda Education Board and National University of Rwanda. My special thanks are

also expressed to all the teaching staff of the Faculty of Agriculture, particularly in the

department of Agricultural Economics and Agri- Business, for their knowledge package,

favorable learning environment and cooperation during our stay at National University of

Rwanda.

I say thanks to Mr Jean Baptiste NGIRINSHUTI and Phn Jean Damascene NSENGEYUKURI

for their financial support and constant encouragement during my studies and especially in the

achievement of this research. I extend my thanks to my closed friends, brothers and sisters the

deepest gratitude for their encouragement and support.

Lastly but not least, my appreciation and thanks are expressed to my aunt NYIRAMAKUBA

Odette, my colleagues MUHIRE Kean Manasseh, TUGIRINSHUTI Gabriel Janvier,

TUYISENGE Claude,NGIRUMPATSE Jean Claude ,Mr NSABIMANA Jean Damascene and

my fellow students for their support in one or other way; you have been nice to me and I wish

you all the best and God bless you all.

Jean de Dieu NIZEYIMANA

v

ABSTRACT

Rwanda is suffering from a structurally food deficit situation which has resulted in low levels of

production and, as a consequence, domestic production has not been able to meet food needs of

the population resorting to commercial imports and food aid which is unsustainable and which

should be avoided. For the above reason the Government of Rwanda (GoR) has launched a Crop

Intensification Program (CIP) to increase national agricultural productivity and meet food

security. The CIP towards crops production mainly involves 5 targets; one of them is” Supply

and use of agricultural inputs “.

This study was about to analyze the accessibility and use of fertilizer in Karongi district.

Questionnaire, observation, and documentary study were the tools used for data collection and

analysis of data from respondents. The researcher used those techniques to collect information

through taking a sample of 61 respondents from a population of 28765 farmers of Rubengera

sector. This selected sample represented the entire population and acted as a primary source for

this study. Secondary data was obtained from documents as well as other sources of data related

to the study.

Researcher has analyzed mainly two hypotheses stating that: (1) There is easy access and use of

fertilizers in Rubengera and (2) The farmers access the NPK, DAP and UREA at time and at

affordable price as well as at proximity areas. The results show that there is easy access and use

of fertilizers in Rubengera and the farmers access easily NPK, DAP and UREA at time and at

affordable price as well as at proximity areas and the use of fertilizer has contributed to the

increase of output of the farmers who are using fertilizers. The main problems have been

revealed by farmers and some strategies have been adopted to overcome those constraints.

After data collection, analysis and hypothesis testing , a clear picture of accessibility and use of

fertilizer in Karongi district was shown, because of opportunities of voucher program, Tubura

project and good governance (Local government), there is a hope of increase in agriculture

productivity

After carrying out this study some recommendations have been suggested, where we recommend

the local government to encourage farmers to work in cooperatives in order to attract many

vi

investors. For Tubura project, the farmers are claiming to pay a high fertilizer interest rate, so

this interest should be revised in order to remain with a big number of farmers.

LISTS OF ACRONYMS

AISCO : Agricultural Inputs Supply Corporation

AISE : Agricultural Inputs Supply enterprise

ARMD : Agricultural and Rural Markets Development

BCR : Commercial Bank of Rwanda

BK : Bank of Kigali

BNR : Banque Nationale du Rwanda

BRD : Rwanda Bank of Development

CATALIST: Catalyze Accelerated Agricultural Intensification for Social and

CIP : Crop Intensification Program

COMESA : Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa

DAP : Diammonium phosphate

EDPRS : Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy

EU : European Union

FAO : Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GDP : Gross Domestic Product

GOR : Government of Rwanda

ICHA : Impot sur le Chiffre d’Affaires

IFAD : International Fund for Agricultural Development

IFDC : An International Center for Soil Fertility and Agricultural Development

IFDC : International Center for Soil Fertility and Agricultural Development

ISAR : Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda

ISAR : Rwanda Institute of Agronomic Sciences

MDG : Millennium Development Goals

MINAGRI : Ministry of Agriculture

MINECOFIN : Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning

vii

MINICOM : Ministry of Commerce

NAP : National Agricultural Policy

NFS : National Fertilizer Strategy

NPK : Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium fertilizers

OCIR : Office des Cultures Industrielles du Rwanda

RPSF : Rwanda Private Sector Federation

SDFDS : Strategy for Developing Fertilizer Distribution Systems in Rwanda

SPAT : The Strategic Plan for Agricultural Transformation

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: The provenance of fertilizers ....................................................................................... 22

Table 2: Distribution of Respondents about knowledge of Voucher ........................................... 23

Table 3: Time distribution ......................................................................................................... 26

Table 5: Table Partition of respondents on Interest rate on fertilizer .......................................... 26

Table 6: Partition of respondents by constraints on fertilizer access and use .............................. 27

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Karongi District ......................................................................................................... 18

Figure 2: Sex Distribution of Respondents ................................................................................ 19

Figure 3: Distribution of Respondents by Education Level ........................................................ 20

Figure 4: Distribution of Respondents by Fertilizers use ............................................................ 21

Figure 5: Distribution of Respondents by type of Fertilizer........................................................ 22

Figure 6: Distribution of Respondents about Receiving Voucher ............................................... 23

Figure 7: Distribution of Respondents Seeking for Credit .......................................................... 24

Figure 8: Distribution of Respondents about .............................................................................. 24

Figure 9: Distribution of Respondents about fertilizers and Subsidy delivery............................. 25

x

TABLE OF CONTENT

DECLARATION ....................................................................................................................... ii

DEDICATION .......................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................... iv

ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................v

LISTS OF ACRONYMS........................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. viii

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. ix

TABLE OF CONTENT ..............................................................................................................x

CHAPTER I GENERAL INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................1

I.1 Background ........................................................................................................................1

1.2 Problem statement and justification ...................................................................................4

1.3 Objectives .........................................................................................................................5

1.4 Hypothesis.........................................................................................................................5

1.5 Scope and delimitation of the study ...................................................................................5

1.7 Subdivision of the work .....................................................................................................6

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................7

2.1. Definition of key concept .................................................................................................7

2.2. Fertilizers policies and use in Rwanda ..............................................................................8

2.2.1. Fertilizers policy in RWANDA ..................................................................................8

2.2.2. Rwanda’s fertilizer challenge ................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 14

3.1. Data collection methods .............................................................................................. 14

3.2. Sample size and selection ............................................................................................... 14

3.2.1. Meaning and definition of sample size ..................................................................... 14

3.2.2. Sample size determination ....................................................................................... 15

3.2.3 Sources of Data......................................................................................................... 16

3.3. Research instrumentation ................................................................................................ 16

3.3.1. Questionnaire ........................................................................................................... 16

3.3.2. Documentation ........................................................................................................ 17

3.4. Data processing and analysis .......................................................................................... 17

xi

3.4.1. Data editing and coding ........................................................................................... 17

3.4.2. Data tabulation/charts and software used .................................................................. 17

CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................ 18

4.1. Description of research area: Rubengera ......................................................................... 18

4.2. Data and variables .......................................................................................................... 19

4.2.1. Type of data used in research ................................................................................... 19

4.2.2. Variables (dependent and independent variables) ..................................................... 19

4.4 Testing of hypothesis ....................................................................................................... 20

4.4.1 Distribution of respondents by fertilizers use ............................................................ 20

4.4.2 Fertilizer access ........................................................................................................ 21

4.4.2 Partition of respondents by type of fertilizer used ...................................................... 22

4.4.3 Knowledge of Voucher program ............................................................................... 23

4.4.4 Partition of respondents about receiving voucher .......................................................... 23

4.4.5 Partition of respondents about seeking for fertilizer credit ............................................. 24

4.4.7 Time distribution .......................................................................................................... 26

IV.5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ 28

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 30

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................ I

QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................................................ II

1

CHAPTER I GENERAL INTRODUCTION

I.1 Background

Fertilizer consumption in Rwanda has always been extremely low in both relative and absolute

terms. Interest in fertilizer in Rwanda can be traced back to the early 1970s when Institut des

Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda (ISAR) began to conduct fertilizer trials. During the early

1980s, FAO funded projects to test and promote fertilizer in the Butare and Gikongoro

prefectures; but there was no evidence of a national commitment to promoting widespread

adoption of inorganic fertilizers at that time. By the late 1980s, however, there were documented

signs of declining agricultural productivity. Interest in the potential role of inorganic fertilizer

began to grow and many projects that included fertilizer components were launched. During this

period, fertilizer used on food crops was generally NPK (primarily 17-17-17), representing 68%

of fertilizer imports by the Projet Appui au Programme National Intrants (APNI) from 1984-

1987. Phosphate fertilizers (DAP and TSP) represented 8% and urea 6% of APNI imports.

Fertilizers for industrial crops (NPKs such as 20.10.10) accounted for the remaining 19% of

imports during this period. Extensive use of 17- 17-17 was stimulated by donors’ (European and

Japanese) willingness to offer it as in-kind aid. Consequently, it became the fertilizer used in

official MINAGRI recommendations.

Aggregate national consumption from 1980 to 2001 rarely exceeded 5,000 tons per year.

Average consumption per hectare of cultivated land is generally estimated at < 4 kg. This

contrasts sharply with averages (ranging from 9-11 kg/ha during the last decade) for SubSaharan

Africa in general, which continues to have the lowest fertilizer consumption of any region in the

world. All fertilizer requirements in Rwanda are met through imports because the country has no

local production of fertilizers. Fertilizer imports evolved from 1,344 tons in 1995 to 9,039 tons in

2006. Prior to liberalization, the importation of fertilizer was assured by parastatals through

Kenya and Uganda. Between 1998 and 2005, fertilizer was entirely imported by the private

sector. As of November/December 2006, there were three types of fertilizer importers operating

in Rwanda: (a) importers supplying primarily to tea and coffee parastatals against confirmed

orders; (b) importers buying in small lots from neighboring countries to satisfy the local demand;

2

and (c) Government of Rwanda (GOR) importing in large quantities for distribution to all

categories of customers.

The Strategy for Developing Fertilizer Distribution Systems (SDFDS) in Rwanda builds on the

recommendations of the National Fertilizer Strategy developed for the Africa Fertilizer Summit

and embodied in the Abuja’s Declaration on Fertilizer for the African Green Revolution, to

effectively support the timely provision of quality fertilizer to farmers in a cost-effective manner

has been established (MINAGRI, 2007:5).

The key objectives of the SDFDS are (1) identify short- and long-term measures needed to

address supply and demand-side constraints limiting fertilizer use in Rwanda,(2) assign

responsibilities among the relevant stakeholders,(3) establish a time-frame for implementation of

the strategy, (4) identify performance indicators for assessing the impact of the actions on

national growth, food security and poverty objectives and (5) to estimate the cost of

implementing the strategy. Kelly et al. (2001a and 2001b) found that the most common reason of

not using inorganic Fertilizer in Rwanda is the lack of knowledge and the next most common is

the high fertilizer prices. The interpretation they give to the first reason is that farmers’

knowledge of the benefits and of how to use the fertilizers is not strong enough to stimulate use.

The second reason is more related to investment constraints than to fertilizer prices.

Kelly et al. (2001b), continue saying that if farmers do not know about the economic incentives

associated with fertilizer, there is a human capital constraint that needs to be lifted by improving

knowledge; if farmers do not purchase fertilizer because they do not have the financial capital,

there is a need to build financial capital through savings and credit programs; if farmers do not

purchase fertilizer because they do not have the physical capital to use it properly (anti-erosion

investments, animals to provide complementary manure, farming tools and equipment, etc.), the

constraint needs to be addressed for agro-economic potential to be translated into effective

demand. The Rwanda Bank of Development (BRD) has instituted in 2006 a Government

initiative, which entails providing loans to qualified farmers. Organizations for the purchase of

fertilizer at an interest rate of 8 percent, to encourage fertilizer use. Although the initiative has

resulted in improved access to credit for the acquisition of fertilizers for well-organized

3

producers, many farmers organizations still fail to meet the BRD’s terms and conditions for

obtaining loans. Besides, even when farmers have enough income to purchase fertilizer, it might

not be available at all or in sufficient quantity and good quality at the opportune time.

In late 1999 a law was passed requiring MINAGRI approval for all free distribution of fertilizers.

This law was in response to complaints by private traders that they could not compete effectively

in the fertilizer market if there continued to be free or subsidized distribution of fertilizers by

donors and NGOs. In May 2000 fertilizers were officially declared exempt from ICHA3 (15%)

and entry (5%) taxes making it possible for importers to market fertilizer at lower retail prices

(high prices are thought to be one of the key constraints to fertilizer uptake at the farm level).

Also in late 2000, the World Bank Agricultural and Rural Markets Development (ARMD)

project provided a line of credit at subsidized interest rates (9% rather than the market rate of

16%) to fertilizer importers. Removal of supply and demand-side constraints in the fertilizer

sector through policy improvement, demand stimulation and capacity building activities will

provide a favorable investment climate and adequate human capital for fertilizer distribution

system development. The resulting reduction in transaction costs and strengthened availability,

access and affordability of fertilizer in rural areas will constitute a stepping stone towards

sustainable intensification of agricultural, household food security and poverty reduction in rural

areas.

4

1.2 Problem statement and justification

The aim of agriculture is to contribute sustainably to the national economy increasing

productivity for self-feeding and for the market. Low soil fertility is a problem throughout most of

Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Moreover, the drastic reduction in fallow periods and the almost

continuous cropping without soil fertility restoration has depleted the nutrient base of most soils. By

the mid-late 1990s, all SSA countries were demonstrating a negative annual nutrient balance.

Countries that have the highest nutrient loss rates are the ones where fertilizer use is low and soil

erosion is high. These areas include the East African highlands and a number of countries in West

Africa.

Agriculture contributes about 30% of Rwandan GDP in current prices (as of 2005), employee

about 88% of the economically active population, and is the main earner of foreign exchange,

supplying up to 80% of export. However, the priority accorded to agricultural development

drives not only from its weight in the economy and the need to produce poverty, but also from its

very considerable potential for growth and modernization.

Under the seven Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a number of targets have been set for

Rwanda and the country is committed to reaching them by 2015(NISR&MINECOFIN, 2007).

However, the realization of the MDG1 is heavily dependent upon the growth of the agricultural

sector, given its importance in the economy of the country.

Agriculture is explicitly recognized in the EDPRS as being one of the four priority sectors of the

economy that will both stimulate economic expansion and make the greatest contribution to

poverty reduction. The overriding policy objective for the sector is for rural household incomes

to be increased in a sustainable manner and for the sources of income to be diversified while at

the same time, food security is to be strengthened. Agricultural production/productivity has to

increase for the attainment of such objectives. Key interventions under the EDPRS framework

will include increasing soil fertility, reducing soil erosion and improving land use, land

management and land administration.

Farmers are to receive intensive training in the optimal use of external inputs, improved seeds

and inorganic fertilizers in particular. Therefore this study aims at analyzing the accessibility of

fertilizers to farmers and the use of them by farmers.

5

1.3 Objectives

The general objective of the study is to analyze the accessibility and use of NPK, DAP and

UREA in Rubengera Sector. The study has the following specific objectives:

1. Evaluate if the farmers get fertilizers at time and in adequate conditions.

2. Determine the factors influencing the use of NPK, DAP and UREA by farmers.

3. Evaluate the role of local government and private sector in fertilizers ‘distribution.

4. Evaluate the constraints associated with the use NPK, DAP and UREA by farmers

5. Evaluate the understanding of farmers as far as the use of inorganic fertilizers is concerned.

1.4 Hypothesis

-There is easy access and use of fertilizers in Rubengera.

-The farmers access the NPK, DAP and UREA at time and at affordable price as well as at

proximity areas.

1.5 Scope and delimitation of the study

The scope of this research is limited to find out the accessibility and use of fertilizers case study

of NPK, DAP and UREA which are popular fertilizers in Rwanda. Our study has chosen to limit

our work on Rubengera sector’s farmers and has been taken as practical case because has a larger

number (96.9% of a whole population) of its population is involved in agricultural practices as

the main source of income, and we could not consider all sectors , because of financial and

material constraints. In terms of time the study period will start from 2008-2011, and according

to the sample size we will interview 61farmers from the cited sector.

6

1.6 Interest of research

A part from being compulsory for awarding the Bachelor‘s Degree in Agricultural Economics

and Agribusiness, this research will be conducted to explore whether and to what extent the

increase of use of NPK, DAP and UREA, particularly in rural areas is related to the lower level

of socio-economic status observed in rural households in Rwanda, by keeping in mind the scarce

resources available (land) and poor farming technology. Also this research will be undertaken at

Micro-level (small farmers) because many studies in literature review were conducted to

evaluate the use and accessibility of fertilizers at Macro-level (National or provincial level). The

findings, suggestions and recommendations from this research will also: (1) Helps policymakers

at National level to identify the relevant policies and program interventions that are most likely

to improve the use of NPK, DAP and UREA in rural area like Rubengera. (2) Enable policy

makers at District level to implement relevant policies basing on current situation in villages and

cells of rural areas. (3) Help investors to know where they should direct their investment. (4)

Will enables us to challenge some who still consider the fertilizers to be used by large scale

farmers and (5) be a documentary tool for students at various levels and other interested

academicians

1.7 Subdivision of the work

Our work is subdivided in four chapters. Chapter one, the researcher presents the general

introduction, chapter two is the conceptual and theoretical work, where key concepts are defined

and the researcher different methods of some countries of East Africa and presents also the case

of our country Rwanda used in fertilizer sector, chapter three is methodological approach, i.e

methods and techniques used in our research and the last chapter which is chapter four the author

presents the description of the area of the study, findings and analysis and end by conclusion and

some recommendation.

7

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Definition of key concept

(1) Fertilizers: Fertilizer is a substance added to soil to improve plants' growth and yield

(Nelson Tisdale, 1985)

(2) NPK: NPK stands for the 3 key components of the fertilizer which are Nitrogen which

promotes vegetation, Phosphorous which encourages root growth and Potassium which promotes

flower and fruit growth. It is a balanced fertilizer which is good for all round use in the garden.

NPK fertilizers can be produced in four basically (a) Ammonium phosphate/ammonium nitrate-

based NPK fertilizers, (b) Nitrophosphate-based NPK fertilizers ( mixed acid route),

(3)Nitrophosphate-based NPK fertilizers (ODDA-route) and (4) Mechanical blending of single

or multi-nutrient components (EFMA, 2000).

(3) DAP: Diammonium phosphate, (NH4)2HPO4, is manufactured by the reaction of ammonia

and phosphoric acid. Its nitrogen to phosphate ratio makes it an excellent direct application

product or one that blends well with other fertilizer materials to produce a variety of NPK

fertilizers (Dr. Bill Griffith, 2008).

(4) UREA: Synthetic urea is produced commercially from ammonia and carbon dioxide. Urea is

widely used in the agriculture sector both as a fertilizer and animal feed additive, which makes

the production of urea considerably high in comparison to other fertilizer (Curtis J. Overdah et

al, 2002)

8

2.2. Fertilizers policies and use in Rwanda

2.2.1. Fertilizers policy in RWANDA

All fertilizer requirements in Rwanda are met through imports because the country has no local

production of fertilizers. Fertilizer imports evolved from 1,344 tons in 1995 to 9,039 tons

in 2006 (MINAGRI, 2007:2). Prior to liberalization, the importation of fertilizer was

assured by parastatals through Kenya and Uganda. Between 1998 and 2005, fertilizer was

entirely imported by the private sector.

As of November/December 2006, there were three types of fertilizer importers operating in

Rwanda: (a)Importers supplying primarily to tea and coffee parastatals against confirmed orders

(b) Importers buying in small lots from neighboring countries to satisfy the local demand and (c)

Government of Rwanda (GOR) importing in large quantities for distribution to all

categories of customers.

There was good evidence, however, of fertilizer import growth in 2000. BNR records showed

imports of approximately 6500 tons for 2000–an encouraging sign. At least seven firms were

involved in these fertilizer imports during 2000. The GOR made three policy decisions in late

1999 and early 2000 believed to have contributed to this growth in private sector imports

(Murekezi, 2000: 3-4). In late 1999 a law was passed requiring MINAGRI approval for all free

distribution of fertilizers. This law was in response to complaints by private traders that they

could not compete effectively in the fertilizer market if there continued to be free or subsidized

distribution of fertilizers by donors and NGOs. Economic Development and Poverty

Reduction Strategy, the National Agricultural Policy, and the Strategic Plan for

Agricultural Transformation.

The SDRFS( Strategy for Developing Fertilizer Distribution Systems in Rwanda) puts forward

three priority actions to improve fertilizer distribution systems in Rwanda and increase the

availability, accessibility and affordability of fertilizer to farmers. These actions are: (a)

Develop Enabling Policy, Regulatory, and Investment Environments for Fertilizer Market

Development with the objective of creating a private sector-led fertilizer sector by reducing risks,

uncertainties, and transactions costs prevailing in the fertilize In May 2000 fertilizers were

9

officially declared exempt from ICHA (15%) and entry (5%) taxes making it possible for

importers to market fertilizer at lower retail prices. Also in late 2000, the World Bank

Agricultural and Rural Markets Development (ARMD) project provided a line of credit at

subsidized interest rates (9% rather than the market rate of 16%) to fertilizer importers. This line

of credit was just beginning to be used during the third quarter of 2000 (Valerie A. Kelly et al,

2001:3).

The GoR has taken in account the Strategy uses the Abuja’s Declaration on Fertilizer for

the African Green Revolution. These recommendations also coincide with the Government of

Rwanda’s objectives for the agricultural sector, as articulated in its Vision 2020, the r sector

(b) Strengthen the Capacity of the Private Sector to Supply Quality Fertilizer in a Cost-

Effective Manner With objective of improving the availability of fertilizer in rural

households by developing traders’ capacity to supply quality inputs and (c) Stimulate the

Demand for Fertilizer with objective of strengthening farmers’ incentives and capacity to use

fertilizer (MINAGRI, 2007:23).

2.2.1.1 Rwanda and fertilizers privatization

From 1994 to 1998, the Rwandan government distributed fertilizers to farmers at no charge due

to the emergency the country faced in the aftermath of genocide. In 1998, the government

initiated privatized fertilizer importation and distribution. However, the private sector lacked the

capacity to implement a timely and sustainable agro-input supply system. Fertilizer adulteration

was also a problem. In addition, except for the tea and coffee sectors, fertilizer demand was low.

In 2006, the government resumed nationalized procurement and importation of fertilizers, but

left distribution and retailing of agro-inputs in the control of the private sector. From 2006-2009,

fertilizer use in Rwanda increased significantly.

Now, the government seeks to transfer responsibility for fertilizer procurement and importation

to the private sector as well. For this shift to occur a professional network of private sector agro-

dealers must be created and a sustainable fertilizer supply and distribution system must be in

place.

10

USAID and IFDC are providing technical and business assistance through PReFER training

programs to develop and professionalize agro-dealers across Rwanda. IFDC identifies policies

that support the private sector’s involvement in the fertilizer market and also contribute to the

development of a sustainable supply system. This effort is expected to stimulate fertilizer

demand and will support the project’s objectives through agricultural intensification and market

development of farm output. Primary project objectives include:

Transition the fertilizer procurement and distribution supply chain from government control to a

competitive private sector by 2015.

Identify and adopt key policies and specific stakeholder roles for a smooth transition of the

fertilizer sector from government to private sector control.

Improve the operational efficiency and cost-effectiveness of fertilizer supply chains.

Increase the number of well-trained entrepreneurs/firms and retail market networks by 2012.

Improve access to, and management of, trade credit in the fertilizer supply chain.

This five years projects (2010-2015) works in close collaboration with the Rwandan government

in general and with the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry in particular, the

CATALIST project (funded by the Netherlands’ Directorate-General for International

Cooperation) and the Rwanda Agro-Dealer Development project (funded by the Alliance for a

Green Revolution in Africa). The following studies were launched and implemented prior to

defining the privatization strategy of the fertilizer sector:

The Supply Chain of Fertilizer in Rwanda. The study analyzed the fertilizer distribution chain in

Rwanda at the start of the project.

Analysis of the Consumption of Fertilizers by Farmers in Rwanda between 2005 and 2010. The

study analyzed the growth of fertilizer consumption (a six-fold increase in five years) and the

unique motivations of farmers to use fertilizer.

11

Study on the Business Environment and Recommendations to Attract the Private Sector to the

Fertilizer Market. The study analyzed the role of the private sector in the current fertilizer

environment. This includes working on an exit strategy for the Government of Rwanda (GoR)

while simultaneously providing an enabling environment for the private sector.

In addition to these preliminary studies, a study of the pathways used by the coffee and tea

sectors was also carried out to understand the organization of the purchase and supply of

fertilizer in these market areas (www.ifdc.org).

2.2.2. Rwanda’s fertilizer challenge

In Rwanda, the main crops fertilized include tea, potato, rice, wheat, and maize. The main types

of fertilizers used are NPK 17-17-17 on potato, maize, fruits, and vegetables; NPK 25-5-5 on tea;

NPK 20-10-10 on coffee; urea on maize, rice, and wheat; and DAP on maize, rice, and wheat

(MINAGRI, 2007:1). IFDC (2007: viii) found that less than 5% of farmers use fertilizer and less

than 2% use improved seeds.

Reasons for such use rates include the unavailability of quality agri-inputs at the right

time in rural areas, their costs, farmers’ purchasing power, inadequate extension services,

and the weakness of the private sector. The constraints of fertilizers in Rwanda are at two

sides, demand side and supply side as cited in MINAGRI (2007:2). The constraints of inorganic

fertilizers are on both sides; Demand side and supply side as some are cited below:

12

Demand side constraints

In Rwanda, farmers’ demand for fertilizers is extremely weak, as it is essentially constrained by

inadequate incentives and lack of financial capacity to invest in fertilizer. Inadequate incentives

stem from the minimal profitability of fertilizer use because:

Fertilizer use effectiveness is low since the quality and quantity of information available

on fertilizer (dosage; application rate) is inadequate and most farmers are unable to afford

or access the comprehensive package of complementary practices needed to get the most out

of the fertilizer (e.g., improved seeds).

The cost of getting fertilizer to the farm gate at the right time is excessively high, as several

communities are completely isolated with no access to roads.

Access to output markets is not guaranteed and output prices are generally low and variable

because there’s limited effective output marketing.

In addition, farmers’ purchasing power is extremely weak. In any given year, 30 to 50 percent of

farming households in Rwanda fail to produce a marketable surplus. Adding to this is a dearth of

access to credit for the acquisition of fertilizer and other inputs because farmers’ knowledge of

lending institutions and loan application procedures is inadequate; the agricultural sector is often

considered insolvent and is seen as a high-risk sector (IFDC, 2007:72).

Supply- Side Constraints

Generally, the farm-gate price of fertilizer is determined by the world price of fertilizer, cost of

procurement, storage, transport and marketing, the degree of competition in the fertilizer market

and the quantity of fertilizer demanded. The implication for Rwanda, whose demand has no

impact on the world price for fertilizer, is that the country is essentially a price-

taker(IFDC,2007). Therefore, the fluctuations and increasing trend in energy prices over the last

few years and the ethanol boom are all translating into large variations and a generally-increasing

trend in the price of fertilizer. Such effects are directly passed on to Rwanda’s fertilizer

importers, who for the large part, critically lack information on world market conditions

affecting fertilizer prices and are therefore severely constrained in their bargaining position with

overseas suppliers.

13

An examination of the fertilizer distribution system in Rwanda indicates that its performance and

functioning remains weak due to the followings:

Low, irregular and dispersed demand for fertilizer.

Lack of Access to finance.

High Marketing Costs.

Lack of market information systems.

Heavy institutional constraints.

Inadequate knowledge and lack of business skills.

Uncertain Policy Environment

14

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

3.1. Data collection methods

(1) Primary Data collection: Primary methods of data collection methods were used to obtain

relevant information on the research topic. This method involved questionnaires and interviews

guide for all respondents to facilitate deeper discussion and deeper assessments of the situation at

hand (Williamson et al.1982: 173).

(2) Secondary data collection: under this technique, relevant existing documents, reports, journal

and other documents related to the topic were critically consulted to cross check the real facts

about the topic.

3.2. Sample size and selection

3.2.1. Meaning and definition of sample size

There are billions of people on the planet and even more plants, insects and animals. To measure

all of them would be virtually impossible because of the impossibility of measuring entire

populations, statisticians collect representative random samples. Estimations based on these

random samples, depending on their size, supply information that can be extended to larger

populations based on the laws of probability.

Other than the difficult task of measuring every member of a population, availability, time and

money prevent scientists from measuring everyone.

According to Scott (1998), a sample refers to “a part of the population that is selected to respond

to the survey”. According to Manheim and Rich(1995:108), a sample population is one in which

every major attribute of the population from which a sample is drawn present roughly in the

same proportion or frequency with which those attributes occur in that larger population.

15

3.2.2. Sample size determination

There is different ways of determination of the sample size. According to Arkin and cult (1963),

to determine the sample size, some researchers suggest 10% of the entire population, as a

population estimate, which it conformed to, should be representative of the whole population.

Determination of Sample size (the formula used is for William. G Cochran, 1977)

2

2 )1(*)(*

c

ppzss

2

2

05.0

)0416.01(*0416.0*96.1ss 61.265

Where:

Ss: Sample size

Z= z value (1.96 for 95% confidence interval)

P =percentage picking a choice 4.16%

C = confidence interval 5%

Correction for finite population

pop

ss

SsNewSS

11

13.61

27873

1265.611

265.61

newSs

Where pop: Population (27873 farmers)

Then, the sample size taken under this research is 61 farmers.

16

To select the sample households for conducting the field study, systematic Random Sampling

and Simple Random Sampling were used as sampling techniques. From the entire sector, only

three (3) cells were selected randomly. Then, Researcher randomly selected households to make

a representative sample.

Cell randomly selected N of farmers

KIBILIZI 21

GACACA 20

MATABA 20

Total number of farmers 61

Source: Secondary Data

3.2.3 Sources of Data

Bailey (1978:29) defines source as one of the materials a researcher uses for collecting

information during investigation. Source of data are both primary and secondary.

(1) Primary Data collection: Primary methods of data collection methods were used to obtain

relevant information on the research topic. This method involved questionnaires and interviews

guide for all respondents to facilitate deeper discussion and deeper assessments of the situation at

hand (Williamson et al.1982: 173).

(2) Secondary data collection: under this technique, relevant existing documents, reports,

journal and other documents related to the topic were critically consulted to cross check the real

facts about the topic.

3.3. Research instrumentation

3.3.1. Questionnaire

A questionnaire is a set of questions designed to elicit information from respondents.

(Williamson et al.1982). The questionnaire included questions formulated around the topic of

research was designed in English and is carried out by ourselves to the proposed respondent to

gain needed information.

17

3.3.2. Documentation

According to Butlolph (1989)”political scientists turn to the written records when the political

phenomenon that interests them cannot be observed by questionnaire, interview and discussion.

“Under this heading, different books, journal, reports and other related documents were carefully

examined so as to gain more needed information around the research topic”.

3.4. Data processing and analysis

Data analysis and processing is a method of statistical control through which scores as dependent

variable are adjusted to scores or related variable (Grinnel and Williams, 1990). Data processing

means the transformation of the respondent’s information (views) into meaningful quantitative

analysis or manipulating the number in order to arrive at the findings. After collecting data from

field, responses have been entered in computer using SPSS software and analyzed using the

same software, the figures presented in this research have been obtained using excel in order to

make them attractive.

3.4.1. Data editing and coding

After the collection of data from the field the next step is to make data entry in a computer so as

to be edited in order to remove accurately the possible errors and Mistakes. Data editing helps to

ensure the accuracy, consistency, relevance, uniformity for acquiring the correct information to

be processed.

While coding responses got from respondents are attributed different codes such as: bad. Good,

very good, fair, agree, disagree, strongly agree, female, male, single, married, etc. This is always

made for reducing the data from a tailed response to very meaningful information.

3.4.2. Data tabulation/charts and software used

This is a method of presenting the data provided by the respondents into tables, including the

number of occurrence of responses to particular questions (frequency).Data for more than one

variable should be also displayed on bar charts so as to make some comparisons.

After editing, coding and tabulating data, given software is used for data processing and analysis.

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and Microsoft-Excel were used for data

processing and analysis in this research.

18

CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Description of research area: Rubengera

Situated in the Western Province of Rwanda, Karongi District, Rubengera is the mountainous

region and containing Kibilizi market, one of the big markets in Karongi district. Rubengera

shares the border with Rutsiro District in the North, Rugabano sector in East, Bwishyura and

Gitesi Sector in South and Lake Kivu in West. With the new administrative basic structure, the

sector is made up 8 cells and counts the total population of 28765 (Secondary data, 2011). The

sector economy relies on agriculture and animal husbandry for 96.9 %( secondary data, 2011).

Agriculture and animal husbandry are practiced according to traditional methods.

Source: Author

Figure 1: Karongi District

19

4.2. Data and variables

4.2.1. Type of data used in research

The unit of analysis taken under the research is household. To this end, 61 farmers were

surveyed along this research and were interviewed. The research contains a wealth of

information collected at the individual and household level; it also includes information on

education and sex distribution.

4.2.2. Variables (dependent and independent variables)

Recall that the main emphasis of this research is to evaluate accessibility and use of fertilizer

particularly NPK, DAP and UREA taken as the case of study. Also the sensitivity of correlation

between fertilizers use and change of the production of the farmers in Rubengera sector was also

explored in this research. The dependent variable is the use of fertilizers measured in terms of

accessibility of fertilizers, fertilizers availability, and access on credits, time delivery and other

related factors identified in this research.

4.3 Data analysis and presentation

4.3.1 Distribution of respondents by sex

The results in the following figure show the distribution of respondents by sex where the

researcher meet all categories of sex, among them 31% presents the females and 69% of all

respondents were males.

Figure 2: Sex Distribution of Respondents

Source: Author

69%

31%

Sex Distribution of Respondents

male female

20

4.3.2 Distribution of respondents by education level

The results in the following figure show education level of respondents where 45% present

respondents with primary education, 23%, secondary education, 15% vocational and 15%

presents respondents without education.

Figure 3: Distribution of Respondents by Education Level

Source: Author

4.4 Testing of hypothesis

Under this effort was made to test the research findings with respect to the hypothesis stated in

the first chapter. The objective was to verify if the findings were in line with the stated

hypothesis so that it can be accepted .To proving this the researcher still analyzed the collected

data basing on the respondent’s views. This was calculated in percentages and frequencies there

by enabling the researcher to test the hypothesis.

4.4.1 Distribution of respondents by fertilizers use

The results in the following figure present the distribution of respondents by fertilizers use, it is

clear that 95% of respondents joined are using chemical fertilizers and 5% are not using it. This

is encouraging number because we should expect the increase of the production through use of

chemical fertilizer and this number is using as well as they find the interest than whom that do

not use it.

15%

47%

23%

15%

Distribution of Respondents by Education Level

none

primary

secondary

vocational

21

The results are justified by the fact that the farmers of Rubengera sector are incited by TUBURA

project and voucher program and the researcher was mainly interested with those farmers.

Figure 4: Distribution of Respondents by Fertilizers use

Source: Author

4.4.2 Fertilizer access

The results in table below demonstrate where the farmers find the fertilizers from, as it is shown

37.7% get the fertilizer from private trader (agro-dealer), 1.6% from cooperatives, 55.7% from

TUBURA and 4.9% from other. There is a connection between Tubura and Agro-dealer because

agro-dealer has agreements with the project to deliver the fertilizer on voucher, the farmers with

voucher present the paper and they get fertilizer.

The results in the following table helped us to confirm easy access of fertilizer, because the

farmers are free to choose where they should take it. If the farmers use fertilizer from Tubura

project, they go as a group and get it easily on credit contrary to agro-dealer where they present

voucher offered by MINAGRI and get it at half price.

95%

5%

Distribution of Respondents by Fertilizers use

yes no

22

Table 1: The provenance of fertilizers

Source: Author

4.4.2 Partition of respondents by type of fertilizer used

The results in the following figure show that 43% of the respondents use DAP and UREA, 51%

are using both NPK, DAP and UREA, 5% and 1% are using NPK and UREA respectively. The

share of 43% of respondents who are using DAP and UREA is explained by the fact that the

cited fertilizers are in voucher program and is offered on half price.

Figure 5: Distribution of Respondents by type of Fertilizer

Source: Author

5%

1%

43% 51%

Distribution of Respondents by type of Fertilizer

NPK

UREA

DAP and UREA

both NPK,DAP and UREA

Provenance of fertilizer Frequency Percent

Other 3 4.9

private traders(Agro

dealer)

23 37.7

Cooperatives 1 1.6

Tubura 34 55.7

Total 61 100.0

23

4.4.3 Knowledge of Voucher program

The results in the following table present the distribution of respondents about knowledge of

voucher for fertilizers, 98.4% of them know it, and only 1.6% never knows it.

Table 2: Distribution of Respondents about knowledge of Voucher

Do you know

voucher

Frequency

Percent

Yes 60 98.4

No 1 1.6

Total 61 100

Source: Author

4.4.4 Partition of respondents about receiving voucher

Figure 6: Distribution of Respondents about Receiving Voucher

Source: Author

93%

7%

Distribution of Respondents about Receiving Voucher

yes

no

24

Even if above 98% know voucher program, some of them said “we have heard it on radio” so it

is not surprising to present 93% only are receiving voucher and 7% are not receiving it. The

share of 93% who receive voucher on fertilizer is explained by the fact that the farmers have

known it, according to the results presented in provenance of fertilizer, we mentioned Tubura

and Agro dealer; both deliver fertilizer according to the voucher regulations.

4.4.5 Partition of respondents about seeking for fertilizer credit

Below two figures present the distribution of respondents about seeking credit and distribution of

respondents about receiving credit on fertilizers respectively. As presented and found from our

research the farmers who sought for credit have received it, it is clear that 57.4% received credit

as the same number asked for it and 42.6% did not receive credit as the same number didn’t seek

it. Here we should ask ourselves “why everyone who asks for credit receives it?”

This question helped us to prove our hypothesis which state that “There is easy access and use of

fertilizers in Rubengera”. Basing on the results presented describing the farmers who seek for

credit and the farmers who get it, the results permit us to confirm our hypothesis.

Figure 7: Distribution of Respondents Seeking for Credit

Figure 8: Distribution of Respondents

about receiving Credit on Fertilizers

Source: Author

57.4% 42.6%

1 2

Distribution of Respondents about Seeking for Credit

yes no

yes no

57.4% 42.6%

Distribution of Respondents about Receiving Credit on Fertilizers

Series1

25

4.4.6 Fertilizers and subsidy delivery

The results in the following figure presents view of respondents on fertilizer delivery where 85%

agree with the deliverance and 15% are against the way the fertilizer is delivered. On voucher

program, if a farmer has 0.5 ha is given 50Kg of DAP, 25Kg of UREA and 7Kg of maize. In this

part we would like to know the view of farmers on conditions are delivered.

Figure 9: Distribution of Respondents about fertilizers and Subsidy delivery

Source: Author

15%

85%

Distribution of Respondents about fertilizers and Subsidy delivery

Other timely

26

4.4.7 Time distribution

The following table is showing the time spent by the farmers to get to where they get fertilizer.

The below table demonstrates the time spent in minutes where the mean time used is 26.67

minutes which is about 27 minutes, the mode is 30 minutes, maximum is 50 minutes and the

minimum time is 5 minutes. The time is estimated when the farmers are walking on foot. This is

justified by the fact that the agro-dealer is located in the center of Rubengera Sector and this is

the same for the farmers who are receiving fertilizer from Tubura. This has helped us to prove a

part of our hypothesis “The farmers access the NPK, DAP and UREA at proximity areas”.

Table 3: Time distribution

Values Time in minutes

Mean 26.67

Mode 30

Minimum 5

Maximum 50

Source: Author

4.4.8 Partition of respondents on interest rate on fertilizer

Table 4: Table Partition of respondents on Interest rate on fertilizer

Source: Author

Perception of

Respondents on Interest

rate

Frequency Percent

Other 6 9.8

Agree 35 57.4

Indifferent 10 16.4

Disagree 10 16.4

Total 61 100

27

The results in above table present distribution of respondents on interest rate on fertilizer, where

57.4% agreed with this interest rate, 16.4% are indifferent, 16.4% disagree and the rest 9.8% of

them have nothing to say on this question. The interest rate which is paid by the farmers on

fertilizer is 15% when they get it from Tubura project.

4.4.9 Distribution of respondents by constraints

The results in the following table present the distribution of respondents on fertilizer access;

26.2% didn’t give response on this question, 18% have their main constraint as funds, 6.6%

worry about distance to the market, 29.5% have revealed a high price of fertilizer, 3.3%

complain on the time delivery and 14.8% have their particular constraints.

Table 5: Partition of respondents by constraints on fertilizer access and use

Observations Frequency Percent

Not Responded 16 26.2

Funds 11 18.0

Long distance to market of input 4 6.6

High price of fertilizer 18 29.5

Lack of knowledge on proper use 1 1.6

Not available on time 2 3.3

Other 9 14.8

Total 61 100.0

Source: Author

28

IV.5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion

Agriculture contributes about 30% of Rwandan GDP in current prices (as of 2005), employee

about 88% of the economically active population, and is the main earner of foreign exchange,

supplying up to 80% of export. However, the priority accorded to agricultural development

drives not only from its weight in the economy and the need to produce poverty, but also from its

very considerable potential for growth and modernization. Under the seven Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs), a number of targets have been set for Rwanda and the country is

committed to reaching them by 2015(NISR&MINECOFIN, 2007). However, the realization of

the MDG1 is heavily dependent upon the growth of the agricultural sector, given its importance

in the economy of the country. This research has as the main objective to analyze the

accessibility and use of NPK, DAP and UREA in Rubengera Sector and following specific

objectives: (1) Evaluate if the farmers get fertilizers at time and in adequate conditions (2)

Determine the factors influencing the use of NPK, DAP and UREA by farmers (3) Evaluate the

role of local government and private sector in fertilizers ‘distribution (4) Evaluate the constraints

associated with the use NPK, DAP and UREA by farmers (5) Evaluate the understanding of

farmers as far as the use of inorganic fertilizers is concerned.

After discussion of findings, the results have permitted us to approve our two hypotheses: (1)

There is easy access and use of fertilizers in Rubengera and (2) The farmers access the NPK,

DAP and UREA at time and at affordable price as well as at proximity areas, this has been

confirmed by the way the farmers obtain fertilizers through TUBURA and Agro-dealer, as it has

mentioned above the fertilizer is delivered timely on credit through TUBURA accompanied with

technical assistance and through Agro-dealer with voucher or without voucher.

Through the fertilizers use the farmers have improved their production as should be shown by

respondents when the farmers are asked how is the production since they begun using fertilizer,

all respondents confirmed that it has been increased.

29

Recommendations

The local government should encourage the farmers to create cooperatives in order to be

assisted and to meet and attract the investors. The cooperatives should interest the traders to

enter in this sector and create the competition and the farmers will have to choose from many

actors or they will have right to negotiate with beneficiaries before they impose them the

price or other charges.

The work done by this Tubura project is valuable and is very significant for the farmers but

the way the fertilizer is paid still being difficult. For the farmers, interest of 15% is high even

if the project provides technical assistance should decrease the interest rate for encouraging

the rest of the farmers who are not using fertilizer. Agriculture will be developed through the

development of the use of agricultural input.

This research reveals that there is opportunity to invest in agriculture sector especial in

providing fertilizer or other agricultural input. Farmers are willing to move from traditional

agriculture to modern agriculture or from production agriculture to market oriented

agriculture; this should be good opportunity to gain and improve the Rwandan agriculture

through our daily business and intervene in training farmers for better use of fertilizers.

30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Books

1. Freeman, H A and Kaguongo, W (2003). Fertilizer market liberalization and private

retail trade in Kenya. Food Policy, 28 (5-6). pp. 505-518.

2. Freeman, H. A. & Omitti, J. M. (2003). Fertilizer Use in Semi-arid Areas of Kenya:

Analysis of Smallholder Farmers' Adoption Behavior under Liberalized Markets.

Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, pp. 23.

3. Jayne, T. S., Nyoro, J. & Yamano, T., (2004). Interlinked Credit and Farm

Intensification: Evidence from Kenya.

4. Omamo S. W. (2003). Fertilizer Trade and Pricing in Uganda. Journal of Agricultural

Economics

5. Omamo, S. W. & Mose, L. O., (2001). Fertilizer Trade under Market Liberalization:

Preliminary Evidence from Kenya. Durban 2003

6. Spielman, D. J., Byerleer, D., Alemu, D., & Kelemework, D., 2010. Policies to

Promote Cereal Intensification in Ethiopia: The Search for Appropriate Public and

Private Roles.

7. Takashi Yamano and al, (2010). Fertilizer Policies, Price, and Application in East

Africa, pp.75.

8. Valerie A. Kelly et al, (2001). Agricultural Intensification in Rwanda : An Elusive Goal

Fertilizers use and Conservation Investments

9. Valerie A. Kelly et al, (2001). Fertilizers consumption in Rwanda : Past Trends, Future

Potential, and Determinants

10. Valerie Kelly and Anastase Murekezi, 2000. Fertilizer response and profitability in

Rwanda

11. Valerie Kelly et al, (2001). Agricultural Intensification in Rwanda: An Elusive Goal

Fertilizer Use and Conservation Investments

12. Wallace, M.B., (1997). Fertilizer Use and Environmental Impacts -- Positive and

Negative: A Review with Emphasis upon Inorganic Fertilizers in Africa. Winrock.

13. William G. Cochran (1977). Sampling Technique. John Wiley & Sons Ltd

31

II. REPORTS AND JOURNALS

1 IFDC (2007). Roadmap for the CATALIST Project to Strengthen Input Market in

Rwanda , Alabama 2007

2 Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Resources, (April 2007). Strategy for Developing

Fertilizers Distribution Systems in Rwanda, Kigali 2007

3 National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (2001). Statistical Yearbook 2001

Edition, Kigali 2001

4 NISR (2011). Statistical Yearbook 2011 Edition, Kigali 2011

5 One Acre Fund (2011). Semi- Annual Performance Report May 2011 – October

2011, Rwanda 2012

6 PSTA II (2009). Final report, Kigali 2009

III. ELECTRONICS REFERENCES

1 FAOSTAT (2011). Retrieved May, 10, 2012 from

http://faostat3.fao.org/home/index.html#SEARCH_DATA

2 IFDC (2012). Privatization of Rwanda’s Fertilizer Import and Distribution System.

Retrieved July 18, 2012, from http://www.ifdc.org/Projects/Current/PReFER

3 One Acre Fund Report (2010). Semi-Annual Performance Report May 2010 –

October 2010. Retrieved July, 2012, from

http://www.oneacrefund.org/files/reports/OneAcreFund_SixMonthReport_Fall2010.p

df

32

a

I

APPENDIX

II

QUESTIONNAIRE

ACCESSIBILITY AND USE OF FERTILISERS:

PERIOD 2008-2011

FARMERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

FARMER INFORMATION IDENTIFICATION

Name of

respondent

........................................................................................................................

Relation to the household (1=self; 2=spouse; 3=son; 4 =daughter; 5=sister; 6= brother; 7= other

(specify)

Sex Level of schooling

Male

None

Female

Primary: 1.....6

Secondary 1.....6

Cell

1= Kibilizi 2=

Gacaca 3=

Mataba

Post- Secondary

Vocational training

1. For how many years have you been in farming activities? Years

2. Do the land you cultivate yours? 1= yes; 2= No

3. Do you use the mineral fertilizer on your farm? 1= yes; 2= No (If no, go to the

question5)

4. Why do you use mineral fertilizer on your lands (more than one response is possible)? 1=

To increase productivity ; 2= to improve soil fertility; 3= agro-dealers told me it’s good; 4=

sector’s technicians recommended; 5= it is good for my health; 6= Because of the low price

of fertilizer; 7= Because the fertilizers are subsidized by MINAGRI; 8=Because fertilizer is

III

free from MINAGRI 9= Because fertilizer is as Gifts/aid or grant (free) from NGOs; 10=

other (specify)

................................................................................................................................................

5. Why don’t you use mineral fertilizer? (can be more than one response) 1= Lack of

knowledge about how to use fertilizer; 2= It is not profitable; 3= It damages the soil; 4=

my soil is already fertile; 5=Fertilizer prices are too high; 6=It is not available on time; 7=

can not find the needed fertilizer in the market); 8= It damages the waters and is not good

for the health;9= fertilizer changes the taste of crops; 11=other reasons (specify):

................................................................................................................................................

6. Should you estimate the quantity of below fertilizers used in previous years?

2008 2009 2010 2011

Quantity(Kgs) Quantity(Kgs) Quantity(Kgs) Quantity(Kgs)

NPK DAP UREA NPK DAP UREA NPK DAP UREA NPK DAP UREA

7. Have you ever heard voucher or coupon for buying fertilizer? 1= yes; 2= No

8. If yes to question 7,have you receive voucher? 1=yes 2=no

9. Who provided you with the vouchers?

1=MINAGRI 2= Service providers (specify); _______

3=NGO (specify) _______ 4=Other (Specify)___________

10. Do you receive subsidy (coupon or voucher) from MINAGRI (or government) to purchase

fertilizer? 1= yes; 2= No

11. If yes to question 10, Which of the following describes your experience with the fertilizer

subsidy scheme?

1=Delivery is timely 2= The fertilizer came too late

IV

12. If no to question 10, explain why you do not receive subsidy? 1=small land; 2= can afford /

not poor; 3=not in land use consolidation program; 4= my land is bigger than 0.5 ha;

5=others (specify):

................................................................................................................................................

13. Indicate the types of fertilizer that most used in your crops? (1= DAP; 2= NPK 3= Urea;

4=others (specify):

................................................................................................................................................

14. From whom do you obtain the mineral fertilizer? 1= From private traders; 2= From

farmers associations; 3= From cooperatives; 4= MINAGRI under voucher system;

5=MINAGRI without voucher; 6= NGOs; 7= Other (please specify):

................................................................................................................................................

14. Comparing to before using fertilizers, was your production change? 1=yes, 2=no

15. If yes to question 14 how? 1=increase; 2=decrease;

16. If no to question 14 why? 1=poor quality; 2=come late; 3=other

specify…………………………………………………………………….

17. How far do you travel (actual or average distance in kilometers) to where you get your

fertilizer from (supplier)? (Estimated kilometers or time taken to walk from farm to where the

supplier is located in minutes, Even if farmer is not using fertilizer ask distance from the

nearest fertilizer seller).

..........................................................................................................................................

18. Have you sought credit since last year to pay for mineral fertilizer? 1= yes; 2= No

19. If yes to question 18, did you receive it? 1= yes; 2= No

20. If no to question 18, why? 1=No collateral/ nta ngwate; 2= I did not seek for credit; 3= I do

not know how to apply for credit; 4= Too expensive to pay for proposal writing; 5= Interest rate

too high; 6= Uncertainty and risk with production; 7=others:(specify)

............................................................................................................

21. Which of the following describes your perception about credit facilities? Fill with the

following:

V

1=Agree 2=Indifferent 3=Disagree

a) You have access to credit

b) Use of credit/loan helps you in buying fertilizer

c) The interest rates for credit/loan are friendly

22. What are the main constraints you face in obtaining fertilizer? 1= Funds (cash or credit; 2=

Access or distance to input and output markets; 3=High price of fertilizer; 4= Lack of knowledge

on proper use of fertilizer; 5= low quality fertilizer; 6=size of the bags; 7=not available on time;

8=other (specify)

................................................................................................................................................

23. What are your suggestions to overcome the above constraints?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

Thank you for your time and collaboration

VI