FREE FERTILISER, BUT FOR WHOM? Research Puts Uganda’s New Govt Farm Support Under Spotlight
The free fertiliser distribution programme was officially launched on Monday, August 31, 2026, at the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) headquarters in Entebbe.
KAMPALA — A new study of Kenya’s fertiliser subsidy programme has exposed a dilemma that could shape Uganda’s agricultural support policies: the farmers who need Government assistance most may not be the ones whose fields can generate the biggest increase in production from subsidised fertiliser.
The findings come at a time when Uganda is pursuing a fresh fertiliser distribution initiative aimed at restoring soil fertility, improving yields and boosting production in strategic agricultural value chains.
But the research raises questions about how Government should choose beneficiaries, how it can ensure the poorest farmers are not left behind and whether distributing fertiliser is enough to guarantee better agricultural outcomes.
The debate is particularly relevant to Uganda, where farmers have raised concerns about the terms of the fertiliser programme, the quantities allocated to individual growers, the formula used to distribute supplies across districts and the quality assurance of the products.
Some farmers have also questioned why a grower cultivating one or two acres may receive the same 50kg bag as another managing more than 10 acres.
A separate concern centres on conflicting official instructions over whether beneficiaries must contribute Shs54,000 per 50kg bag or receive the fertiliser at zero cost.
These concerns do not establish that Uganda’s programme has failed. However, they highlight the practical questions that the Kenyan research says governments must confront when designing and implementing agricultural subsidies.
THE KENYAN STUDY
The research paper, “Smart” Targeting of Fertilizer Subsidies in Kenya: Productivity, Welfare, and Soil Health, was published in 2026 by Hailemariam Ayalew, Faith Chepkemoi Kimaiyo, Michael Keenan and Carly Trachtman, researchers associated with the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
The researchers used survey data from 3,105 Kenyan maize-farming households, combined with soil-test information from individual farm plots, to examine who benefits from Kenya’s National Fertilizer Subsidy Program.
They assessed the programme against two different objectives: supporting the welfare of poorer households and increasing agricultural production.
The results revealed limited overlap between the farmers who would ideally receive assistance under the two objectives.
In other words, the poorest farmers are not necessarily those whose farms offer the greatest potential productivity gains from additional fertiliser. Equally, farmers with the strongest potential to increase production are not necessarily the households most in need of financial support.
This creates a difficult choice for policymakers.
If Government concentrates on farmers with the greatest potential to increase yields, it may direct more support towards growers with better production conditions and greater resources.
If it prioritises the poorest households, it may provide critical assistance to farmers who cannot afford inputs, even where the immediate increase in output may be smaller.
The study does not suggest that one objective should automatically take precedence over the other. Instead, it highlights the importance of deciding what a subsidy is intended to achieve and assessing whether the actual beneficiaries match that purpose.
WHO IS GETTING THE FERTILISER?
The researchers also examined how the existing Kenyan programme’s beneficiaries compared with households identified as ideal recipients under the welfare and productivity objectives.
They found that actual beneficiaries had limited overlap with either ideal group. Factors including mobile-phone ownership and knowledge of fertiliser recommendations were associated with the likelihood of receiving subsidies among households identified as potential beneficiaries.
The findings suggest that eligibility on paper is only one part of the process.
A farmer may qualify under the stated rules but still struggle to access support because of registration procedures, limited information or difficulties navigating the system.
The research therefore raises a wider question for subsidy programmes: are governments reaching the people they intend to support, or are administrative and practical barriers influencing who ultimately benefits?
For Uganda, that question matters because the effectiveness of a fertiliser intervention depends not only on the amount procured but also on whether the inputs reach the intended farmers under workable and transparent arrangements.
UGANDAN FARMERS’ CONCERNS
Ugandan farmers have already raised questions about the implementation of the country’s latest fertiliser intervention.
One concern is the payment requirement.
A July 16, 2026 communication from the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF), Maj. Gen. (Rtd) David Kasura-Kyomukama, to district officials described a 70 per cent Government subsidy, with farmers expected to contribute the remaining 30 per cent — stated as Shs54,000 for every 50kg bag.
However, the ministry’s distribution strategy also instructs officials to inform beneficiaries that the fertiliser is being distributed at zero cost and prohibits demands for payment in the initial phase.
The conflicting instructions have prompted farmers to seek clarification on the actual terms of the intervention.
The issue connects directly to the Kenyan research: the cost of participating in a subsidy scheme can affect who is able to benefit. If a farmer is required to contribute money, the requirement may be manageable for some households but difficult for those with limited cash.
That does not mean every contribution requirement is necessarily inappropriate. It means Government needs to make the terms clear and assess whether they are consistent with the programme’s objectives.
ONE BAG FOR A SMALL FARM — AND A BIGGER ONE?
Another concern is whether the quantities allocated to individual farmers reflect the size of their farms and the needs of their crops.
Some Ugandan growers have questioned why farmers cultivating one or two acres can receive the same 50kg bag as those managing more than 10 acres.
One coffee farmer told Red Pepper that he rejected a one-bag allocation because he considered it inadequate for his farm.
“If the system of distribution can’t be harmonized, then the project is dead on arrival,” the farmer said.
MAAIF’s distribution strategy requires beneficiary lists to include estimated acreage under the targeted crop, the number of bags allocated, the farmer’s location and identification details.
The ministry also reserves the right to review lists and adjust allocations based on available resources, crop-production records, previous Government support and quantities considered necessary.
Farmers therefore want to understand how the information collected about acreage translates into the final allocation.
The Kenyan study does not prescribe a specific number of bags per acre for Uganda. Its relevance is that fertiliser needs and potential returns can differ between farms. A transparent allocation system should explain how it accounts for those differences while also considering the need to support vulnerable households.
A uniform allocation may be administratively simple, but its suitability depends on the programme’s objectives, the crop involved, the farm’s conditions and the resources available.
DISTRICT ALLOCATIONS UNDER SCRUTINY
Farmers have also questioned how the fertiliser is divided among districts and whether the quantities reflect the distribution of the targeted crops.
MAAIF says its allocations are guided by crop-production records, acreage under each crop, registered Parish Development Model household coverage in crop-producing parishes and the Presidential Directive prioritising PDM beneficiaries.
The ministry’s schedules cover coffee, cocoa, tea and horticulture, with different quantities assigned to districts and suppliers.
However, comparing district totals without considering crop categories, acreage, production records and the applicable allocation criteria can give a misleading picture.
The key issue is whether the criteria are clear, consistently applied and supported by reliable information.
The Kenyan research offers a reason to examine that question carefully. Even when governments establish formal targeting arrangements, the people who eventually receive subsidies may not be those who would benefit most under the programme’s stated objectives.
For Uganda, publishing the basis for district allocations and explaining how district totals translate into individual beneficiary entitlements would help farmers and the public assess the process.
CAN SOIL TESTING HELP?
One of the Kenyan study’s recommendations is that integrating soil testing into fertiliser subsidy frameworks could improve targeting and better align the programme with agricultural objectives.
The reasoning is straightforward: soil conditions and nutrient requirements vary, meaning that the potential return from fertiliser may differ from one plot to another.
Soil information, combined with crop type, acreage and appropriate fertiliser recommendations, could help authorities identify where particular inputs are likely to be most useful.
For Uganda, this could strengthen decisions about the quantities and types of fertiliser distributed to different crop-growing areas.
But a productivity-based approach should not become an automatic reason to exclude poorer farmers. The Kenyan findings show that welfare and production objectives can point towards different beneficiaries.
Government would therefore need to be explicit about how it balances agricultural returns with social support, rather than assuming that a single targeting method will achieve both goals equally.
A SECOND IFPRI REVIEW
The Kenyan findings are reinforced by a separate IFPRI review, Targeting of Beneficiaries in Chemical Fertilizer Subsidy Programs: State of Knowledge and Evidence Gaps, by Carly Trachtman and Ruth Vargas Hill.
The review examined subsidy arrangements in low- and middle-income countries and found that programmes described as universal often have practical barriers that limit access.
Registration requirements, administrative hurdles and shortages can determine who receives subsidised fertiliser, even where the stated intention is to support all farmers. The researchers also found significant gaps in systematic information about which households benefit from these programmes.
The findings have implications for Uganda’s approach to agricultural support.
A programme may have well-defined rules and a broad policy ambition, but its results will depend on whether farmers can navigate the system and whether the intended inputs reach them.
Stricter eligibility requirements alone do not guarantee that the poorest or most productive farmers will be selected. The outcome depends on the criteria used, the quality of the information available and how the programme is implemented.
UGANDA’S FERTILISER PUSH
On August 31, 2026, Government launched a new fertiliser distribution initiative involving 173,913 bags procured from Itracom Fertilizers Uganda, for selected farmers in strategic value chains initially including tea, coffee and cocoa.
The intervention forms part of efforts to restore soil fertility and raise agricultural productivity.
Uganda has previously supported farmers through different input programmes. Under the Agriculture Cluster Development Project, implemented by MAAIF with World Bank support, an electronic voucher system introduced in 2018 enabled eligible farmers in selected areas and value chains to obtain subsidised inputs, including fertiliser and improved seeds, by contributing part of the cost.
By July 2021, the ministry reported that more than 420,000 farmers had benefited from that system, with inputs worth Shs81 billion distributed. Government contributed Shs54 billion while farmers provided Shs27 billion.
The scheme targeted selected value chains, including maize, beans, rice, cassava and coffee, and required beneficiaries to meet specified eligibility conditions.
Those arrangements demonstrate that Uganda has experience with input subsidies, but the Kenyan research highlights the importance of examining how such schemes work in practice, rather than relying on beneficiary numbers alone.
The latest intervention also places renewed emphasis on monitoring who receives the fertiliser, how much they obtain and whether the support delivers the intended results.
WHAT SHOULD SUCCESS LOOK LIKE?
The Kenyan research suggests that Uganda needs to be clear about how it will measure the success of its fertiliser intervention.
If the main objective is poverty reduction, monitoring should establish whether vulnerable households are receiving support and whether the assistance eases the constraints that prevent them from using agricultural inputs.
If the objective is higher production, assessments should examine whether fertiliser reaches suitable crops and farms, whether farmers apply it appropriately and whether productivity improves.
If the programme is intended to achieve both goals, Government needs measures that assess each objective instead of assuming that progress on one automatically means success on the other.
Reliable beneficiary records would be central to that exercise. They could show which farmers received inputs, the quantities distributed, the criteria used to select them and any contributions required.
Monitoring could then examine whether fertiliser was applied to the intended crops and whether changes in yields or farm incomes followed. Such assessments would need to account for other factors affecting production, including weather, seed quality, labour and farming practices.
THE BIG QUESTION
The Kenyan study is not evidence that Uganda’s fertiliser programme is targeting the wrong farmers. It is a warning against assuming that subsidy distribution automatically produces fair access or higher productivity.
Ugandan farmers’ concerns about payments, allocations and access bring that warning into sharp focus.
The central question is no longer simply how many bags Government has procured or distributed. It is whether the support reaches the people it is meant to help, in quantities appropriate to the programme’s objectives, and under clear rules that farmers can understand.
For policymakers, the challenge is to balance the need to support vulnerable households with the ambition to raise agricultural production.
For farmers, the expectation is that the criteria will be transparent, the distribution process accessible and the benefits measurable.
Ultimately, the success of Uganda’s fertiliser drive will depend not only on getting inputs out of stores, but on demonstrating that they are reaching the intended beneficiaries and delivering the welfare or productivity gains for which public resources are being committed.
GOT A HOT STORY? LET US KNOW!
Got breaking news, explosive secrets, or hard evidence?
Email us: redpeppertips@gmail.com
We accept tips, documents, videos, photos, and recordings—the more evidence you have, the better.
CONFIDENTIALITY IS OUR TOP PRIORITY. SOURCES ARE ALWAYS PROTECTED!
About Post Author
