Revisiting Uganda’s Inorganic Fertilizer Supply Chain

Swaibu Mbowa

MAAIF

Agricultural Input Quality in Uganda – New Research, Private Sector Solutions & Policy Directions Protea Hotel, 16 September 2015

Are Farmers in Uganda able to Access & Use inorganic Fertilizer of the Right Quality?

Outline of Presentation

•Methodology•Study Finding

Moisture contentRe-packaging effectsNutrient content

•Conclusions •Way Forward

Regions -2 Districts Purposively Selected Based on Level of Fertilizer Use: Central [Kampala; Masaka]Eastern [Mbale; Kapchorwa]Northern [lira; Gulu]Western [Kisoro; Masindi]

Importers/WholesalersRandomly Picked 4 Firms (Kampala)

Retailers (Agro-input Dealers)

3 shops per district

Category MAAIF Registered UNADA members Unregistered (illicit)

Methodology

Targeted Commonly used Fertilizers:

UreaDAP NPKMOP CAN

Samples procured by disguised research team from each category: MAAIF registered

UNADA MembersUnregistered (Illicit)

Transported to Laboratory at MAK immediately & Stored

in safe place awaiting analysis

A Follow-up Team visits similar shop(s) for additional

information

Methodology Cont……

Study Findings - Results

Moisture Content

Recommeded

Importer Retailer (Stockist)

Re-packed (Retail)

1.5

1.85 1.92

2.18

Figure 1: Recorded Average Moisture Content of fertilizers

Mois

ture

Con

ten

t (%

)

Acceptable Range of 0.5-1.5% [Draft Fertilizer Control Regulations, 2012].

Weight of Bulky Samples(50kg Bag) Permissible ±0.5 kg

weight range

Importer Retail

49.8 50.0 48.4 43.4

52.0 54.4

Range Weight of 50 kg Fertilizer Bags

Mean Min Max

Moisture & Weight Compliancy

Importers Illicit MAAIF UNADA -

20

40

60

80

100

33 35

20 32

Proportion of Compliant Bulky(50kg) Samples

Supply Chain Actor

Perc

enta

ge (

%)

6 of the 12 bulky Samples from

Importers were Compliant

CAN

DAP

DAPDAP

DAP

MOP

NPK

NPK

NPK

Urea

Urea

Urea

01

23

4M

ois

ture

Con

ten

t (%

)

48 49 50 51 52

Weight (Kg)

IMPORTED FERTILIZERS

Nutrient Content Value indicated on the Label Compared with Analytical

Content

Nitrogen Content in Urea & DAP

KamMas

MasMbaKap

Gul

KamMas

MasMbaKap

Gul

ImpImpImpImp

Reta

iler (

Smal

l 1-2

kg p

...Re

taile

r (50

Kg

...Im

port

ers (

50kg

...

45.745.3

34.746.5

40.242.541.7

52.4

046.2

4646.647.245.645.4

46.6

0

42.541.7

43.842.2

43.3

06

45.847.8

4645.8

5547.8

0

41.744.444.145.7

42.543.3

14.2

047.8

43.545.4

464647.8

44.6

044.2

4646.7

Urea

MAAIF UNADA ILLICIT

% N KampalaMasaka

KisiroMasindi

MbaleKapchorwa

Lira Gulu

KampalaMasaka

KisiroMasindi

MbaleKapchorwa

Lira Gulu

Importer-MImporter-NImporter-OImporter-Q

Reta

iler

(50 K

g b

ag)

15.0

15.4

8.5

17.3

15.8

11.8

-

2.4

14.2

17.3

17.3

16.9

15.8

14.2

-

7.1

17.3

19.3

11.0

17.3

-

12.4

7.1

20.6

9.1

15.7

18.7

-

20.1

6.3

19.7

16.2

52.8

-

19.4

16.5

21.5

7.9

17.5

18.1

-

18.2

17.2

18.0

18.7 DAP

MAAIF UNADA ILLICIT% N

Acceptable Min Range: Urea - 45-46% DAP - 18%

KMKiMMKLG

KMKiMMKLG

II

ImIm

Reta

iler

(50

Kg

bag

)

15.8

10.2

18.9

12.6

16.5

11.8

12.6

0

14.8

8.5

3.6

0

0

13.4

10.2

17.3

15

0

12.1

8.5

4.8

7.3

0

8.7

13.4

10.2

13.4

0

14.6

7.9

9.7

10.9

0

9.4

7.3

6

8.9

NPK 17:17:17

MAAIF UNADA ILLICIT

Nitrogen Content in NPK 17:17:17

& CAN

Masaka

Masindi

Kapchorwa

Gulu

Masaka

Masindi

Kapchorwa

Gulu

Importer-N

Importer-Q

Ret

ailer

(50 K

g b

ag)

19.7

9.4

8.5

12.1

2.4

11.5

18.9

13.6

0

10.3

9.7

0

11.1

0

8.7

0

CAN

MAAIF UNADA ILLICIT% N

Acceptable Min Range: NPK 17:17:17 –

17% CAN - 26%

Conclusions:• A farmer purchasing a 50kg fertilizer bag from an Agro-

input dealer across the country is likely to pick a bag:below or above the threshold weight (of 49.5 kg); & with moisture levels above the recommended threshold range

(between 0.5-1.5percent).

• The inconsistencies in nutrient content are more prevalent with DAP, NPK and CAN fertilizers.

• It is difficult to underpin the most critical level where fertilizer quality is tampered with because deviations in quality were widespread along the entire supply chain.

• Re-packaging fertiliser is justifiable on grounds that it enables small-holder farmers to access fertiliser. However, the practice leads to

Moistening; and loss of nutrient like nitrogen in the fertilizer.

Way Forward• Possibility of Re-packaging (1-2kg packs) to be

undertaken by fertiliser manufacturer (like sugar)! Has cost implications?

• The fertiliser inspection department at MAAIF needs to be strengthened enough to impose controls & regulations along the fertiliser supply chain.

• The three fertiliser policy documents: Fertiliser Policy, Regulations, and Strategy

• Adopted by MAAIF’s TPM need to be approved & operationalized by government

Summary of Findings• Existing gaps in the regulatory and control system inhibit

enforcement of proper handling and storage of fertilizers by key players.

• Key players include: importers, wholesalers, and retailers in the fertilizer supply chain.

• The effect: farmers are not guaranteed access to fertilizer of the right quality.

• Fertilizer samples procured from both MAAIF registered Agro-input dealers and illicit trading shops revealed that low quality fertilizers in terms of moisture content and weight are on the Ugandan market.

• The fertilizer quality inspection department in MAAIF should be strengthened in order to enable it to impose controls and regulations along the entire fertilizer supply chain.

Farmers being helped by Men in Uniform need Quality

Fertilizer among other key inputs to increase

agricultural Productivity in Uganda

The “Rain-fed revolution” has Failed

Let us try the “Green Revolution”

THANK YOU FOR

LISTENING