Prime
Fertiliser deficits must be handled decisively
Workers at Kawanda spread manure in a vegetable garden. Photo/File
What you need to know:
The issue: Fertlisers
Our view ...firstly, show the farmers that it is smart to invest in fertiliser. Secondly, put in place a mechanism that will dedicate itself to verifying the authenticity of agro-inputs in the country.
In the first week of May, African leaders had a meeting of minds during the Africa Fertiliser and Soil Health Summit in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi. The Nairobi Declaration, published on May 9, made clear that the leaders are patently aware of the fact that “the need for regional cooperation on the issue of fertiliser and soil health is greater than ever before…”
Indeed, the reality, which the African Union concedes to, is that the vast bulk of African farmers have been condemned to eking out a living from badly depleted soils. To replenish the nitrogen in their soils, the continent’s food insecure farmers have tended to rely on manure from their animals as a natural fertiliser. As a result, while the global average of fertiliser use stands at 135kg per hectare, Africa lags behind at a scarcely believable 18kg per hectare. The prayers of African farmers that their plants take root in barren soil each growing season have, unsurprisingly, not been answered.
We wholeheartedly identify ourselves with the Nairobi Declaration in admitting to the positive impact authentic fertiliser has on yields and livelihoods. The body of evidence capturing the positive economic returns from authentic fertiliser is rich.
The government has to decisively deal with what is by all measures a double whammy—not only is urea fertiliser in scant supply, but also unscrupulous agro-dealers are on the prowl. This has, perhaps unintentionally but not unsuccessfully, compounded the country’s food insecurity problem. It will continue to thread through with unintended consequences if state actors do not become more proactive.
The action points for the Ugandan government then are simple: firstly, show the farmers that it is smart to invest in fertiliser. Secondly, put in place a mechanism that will dedicate itself to verifying the authenticity of agro-inputs in the country. Thirdly, improve farmers’ access to credit such that they pursue options that vastly improve farm productivity.
Last mile access to inorganic fertiliser can easily increase farmer’s yields in a single growing season. The impact of such an outcome on food security cannot be understated. Because of this, the Ugandan government should seriously consider a tax regime that does not improve farmer take-up of fertiliser. The cost of fertiliser in Uganda was at one point 10 times higher than international prices.
Critics continue to blame a tax regime that goes after agricultural inputs in the name of widening the tax base. Supply chain disruptions occasioned by the pandemic and geopolitical tensions have also not helped matters. These taxes and supply bottlenecks invariably compel us to ask: why does the Ugandan government not build plants that produce inorganic fertiliser? Why should we continue importing it?
The government could perhaps explore public-private partnerships to address this telling deficit as is belatedly being done with the phosphates factory in Tororo.
Our commitment to you
We pledge:
- To be accurate and fair in all we do.
- To be respectful to all in our pursuit of the truth.
- To refuse to accept any compensation beyond that provided by Monitor Publications Ltd. for what we do in our news gathering and decision-making.
Further, we ask that we be informed whenever you feel that we have fallen short in our attempt to keep these commitments.
