| Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... |
For millions of African farmers, the value of a fertiliser subsidy is ultimately determined by practical questions: does the fertiliser arrive on time, does it reach the farmer who needs it, does it improve productivity, and does the system make it easier or harder for farmers to eventually access inputs through functioning markets?
These questions were at the heart of the AFIDA–ANAPRI Policy Dialogue, held on 12 August 2026. Evidence from Uganda, Senegal and Malawi showed that subsidies have helped expand access to agricultural inputs, but also highlighted persistent questions around targeting, productivity, soil health, fiscal sustainability and private-sector participation.
The discussion therefore went beyond whether fertiliser subsidies should simply be retained or removed. It focused instead on how agricultural support can be designed to deliver greater and more sustainable returns.
More fertiliser does not automatically mean higher productivity
Malawi provides a striking example. Fertiliser application has increased considerably over the years, reaching 55.8 kg per hectare, yet average maize yields have remained below two tonnes per hectare for two decades. Evidence presented during the dialogue pointed to declining soil organic carbon, continuous monocropping and weak crop response to nitrogen among the factors limiting productivity.
Uganda presents a similar caution. Its transition from direct input distribution towards a co-financed e-voucher system increased fertiliser use and created greater opportunities for private-sector participation. However, increased fertiliser use did not consistently translate into higher cereal yields or agricultural GDP.
The lesson is not that inorganic fertiliser does not matter, but that it cannot deliver its full potential in isolation. Sustainable productivity requires a broader soil health approach that combines appropriate use of inorganic fertiliser with organic inputs and other soil fertility management practices, alongside improved seeds, extension and farmer knowledge. The focus, therefore, should be on improving soil health and nutrient-use efficiency rather than simply increasing the quantity of inorganic fertiliser applied.
Who benefits also matters
Senegal’s experience brings the targeting question into sharper focus. Modelling presented by ISRA-BAME showed positive economy-wide effects from agricultural subsidies, including increased cereal and groundnut production and a positive contribution to GDP. Yet household-level analysis revealed that 73.25% of subsidy benefits accrued to households that were food-secure or only lightly food-insecure, compared with 6.48% for severely food-insecure households.
A programme can therefore generate aggregate economic benefits while still raising important questions about who receives the support and who captures the gains. Better targeting requires clarity about programme objectives. Supporting commercially oriented farmers to increase production may require a different approach from protecting highly vulnerable households.
Public support should help markets work
How fertiliser is delivered is equally important. Where governments dominate procurement and distribution, private suppliers may struggle to compete. Evidence from Malawi, for example, indicated that subsidised fertiliser displaced some commercial purchases. By contrast, experiences with e-vouchers demonstrate how public resources can work through existing suppliers, expanding farmer choice while creating opportunities for agro-dealers.
The panel discussion reinforced the importance of timely delivery, predictable financing, effective targeting, transparency and private-sector participation. It also highlighted the potential for time-bound support and graduation mechanisms, enabling farmers who become commercially viable to transition from subsidies rather than remain indefinitely dependent on them. Governance, accountability and farmer participation are equally important to ensuring that programmes respond to intended needs.
The objective should be to address genuine constraints facing farmers while progressively strengthening the markets and institutions needed to sustain access beyond the subsidy itself.
From subsidies to catalytic investments
The emerging issue is therefore bigger than fertiliser subsidies. It is about how scarce public agricultural resources are invested.
Some farmers will continue to require support. But well-targeted input programmes should form part of a broader investment approach that promotes integrated soil fertility management, including appropriate combinations of inorganic and organic inputs, while strengthening research and extension, infrastructure, finance, digital systems and competitive input markets.
African research institutions have an important role in informing these choices. Evidence presented by ANAPRI member centres in Uganda, Senegal and Malawi demonstrates the value of asking not only whether programmes work, but what works, for whom, under what conditions and at what cost.
The conversation will continue at the Pre-Conference Forum on “From Agricultural Subsidies to Catalytic Investments” on 26 October 2026 in Addis Ababa, through collaboration involving ANAPRI, the World Bank, FAO, AUDA-NEPAD and AFIDA. Stakeholders are also invited to contribute research and practical experiences through the Call for Evidence, Policy and Investment Insights.
Ultimately, successful agricultural support should be judged not simply by how much fertiliser is distributed, but by whether it raises productivity, strengthens markets and helps create the conditions for sustainable agricultural transformation.