Access and Use of Fertilizers in Rwanda

i

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF RWANDA

FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND AGRIBUSINESS

ACADEMIC YEAR 2011-2012

ACCESSIBILITY AND USE OF FERTILISERS

Case study of NPK, DAP AND UREA in Karongi district

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

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……………………………………………………………...

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)

z 2 * ( p ) * (1  p ) 1.96 2 * 0.0416 * (1  0.0416)
ss  ss   61.265
c2 0.052

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

Ss 61.265
NewSS  newSs   61.13
ss  1 61.265  1
1 1
pop 27873

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.

Sex Distribution of Respondents
male female

31%

69%

Figure 2: Sex Distribution of Respondents

Source: Author

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.

Distribution of Respondents by Education
Level

15% 15%
none
primary
23%
secondary

47% vocational

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.

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.

Distribution of Respondents by
Fertilizers use
5%

yes no

95%

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.

22

Table 1: The provenance of fertilizers

Provenance of fertilizer Frequency Percent
Other 3 4.9
private traders(Agro 23 37.7
dealer)
Cooperatives 1 1.6
Tubura 34 55.7
Total 61 100.0
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.

Distribution of Respondents by type of
Fertilizer
1%
5%

NPK
UREA
51% 43% DAP and UREA
both NPK,DAP and UREA

Figure 5: Distribution of Respondents by type of Fertilizer
Source: Author

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 Percent
voucher
Frequency
Yes 60 98.4
No 1 1.6
Total 61 100
Source: Author

4.4.4 Partition of respondents about receiving voucher

Distribution of Respondents about
Receiving Voucher

7%

yes
no

93%

Figure 6: Distribution of Respondents about Receiving Voucher
Source: Author

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

Distribution of Respondents Distribution of Respondents about
about Seeking for Credit Receiving Credit on Fertilizers
yes no

57.4% Series1
42.6% 57.4%
42.6%

1 2 yes
no

Figure 8: Distribution of Respondents
about receiving Credit on Fertilizers

Source: Author

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.

Distribution of Respondents about
fertilizers and Subsidy delivery
Other timely

15%

85%

Figure 9: Distribution of Respondents about fertilizers and Subsidy delivery
Source: Author

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

Perception of Frequency Percent
Respondents on Interest
rate
Other 6 9.8
Agree 35 57.4
Indifferent 10 16.4
Disagree 10 16.4
Total 61 100
Source: Author

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

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 Post- Secondary
1= Kibilizi 2=
Vocational training
Gacaca 3=
Mataba

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

Access and Use of Fertilizers in Rwanda

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Access and Use of Fertilizers in Rwanda

Similar to Access and Use of Fertilizers in Rwanda (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Access and Use of Fertilizers in Rwanda