Synthèse transnational des programmes de subvention d'engrais en Afrique subsaharienne

By the early 2000s, the urgency to address soil nutrient depletion and the rise in food and fertilizer prices had reignited interest in increasing fertilizer use, leading to the reintroduction of input subsidy programs under a new form. This comparative review of the literature examines the advantages and disadvantages of these input subsidies in an agricultural development context. The most frequent justification for input subsidies in Africa is that they address market failures and imperfections, reducing risks for smallholder farmers. The promotion of affordable fertilizer use is seen as a way to "encourage" farmers to adopt new technologies, allowing them to learn and demonstrate benefits. However, a long list of drawbacks has been reported, including high fiscal and administrative costs, leakage to commercial markets and neighboring countries where price ratios have not changed, and diversion of commercial purchases by farmers who would otherwise pay the full price. The design and implementation of input subsidy programs directly influence fertilizer demand and supply as well as macroeconomic outcomes. In all Sub-Saharan African countries, designs are complex and have evolved over time with experience. Objectives are often "vague" and "variable," with goals that may not be "economic" in the strictest sense. Universal subsidies are actually regressive, favoring those with more assets and a better social status. By limiting subsidies to a specific crop or set of crops, a program targets a region, agricultural system, and household group. The presence of a monitoring and evaluation system and recognition of an exit strategy are key characteristics of "well-designed" subsidies, but they have been largely absent. All studies examined show positive effects on household farm yields and production. However, crops planted have not always been studied, and results are mixed. The progressive increase in agricultural production may, but does not necessarily lead to, outcomes such as increased agricultural income and improved food security. In most cases, except in remote rural areas or those inhabited by poorer farmers, displacement is more likely to occur than attraction. There is relatively less information on the impact of fertilizer subsidies on equity within households, land use, labor use, market participation, and nutrition. Recent electronic voucher programs have not yet received much attention. With the absence of an exit strategy in place, the fertilizer subsidy program will likely remain a short- or medium-term solution in Mali. Key steps must be followed to maximize positive impacts and minimize negative effects of such a program. Firstly, program objectives (economic and non-economic) must be clear and non-contradictory. Secondly, diverse approaches to design and implementation should be tested. Thirdly, results of targeting, as well as program design and implementation, must be aligned with each other and program objectives. Fourthly, a solid monitoring and evaluation system must be established. Finally, there is an urgent need for more empirical evidence to better understand the expected and unforeseen effects of the program, including the new electronic voucher system.