Fertilizer use in karongi district

2,453 views
2,306 views

Published on

The Research is ACCESSIBILITY AND FERTILIZER USE .
Case study of NPK, DAP and UREA in Karongi district and was presented by NIZEYIMANA Jean de Dieu under full supervision of Fidele NIYITANGA
in partial fulfillment of Bachelor of Science in AGRICULTURE, department of AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND AGRIBUSINESS IN 2012

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,453
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Fertilizer use in karongi district

  1. 1. 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 DieuSupervisor: Fidèle NIYITANGA Done at Huye, July, 2012
  2. 2. ii DECLARATIONI, NIZEYIMANA Jean de Dieu, hereby declare that this dissertation entitled ACCESSIBILITYAND USE OF FERTILIZERS. A case study of NPK, DAP, and UREA in Karongi districtrepresent my own work and has never been submitted for any degree in this or any otherUniversity. NIZEYIMANA Jean de Dieu Signature………………………………………………………. Date…………………………………………………………….. Supervisor………………………………………………………. Signature………………………………………………………… Date……………………………………………………………...
  3. 3. iiiDEDICATION
  4. 4. ivACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis work was made possible by the support and contribution from many individuals to whom Iam indebted and would like to express my gratitude. First, I would like to express my profoundgratitude to my supervisor Fidèle NIYITANGA, for his inspiring guidance and his assistance toaccomplishing this research.I would like to extend my gratitude to the government of Rwanda for the granted bursary loanthrough Rwanda Education Board and National University of Rwanda. My special thanks arealso expressed to all the teaching staff of the Faculty of Agriculture, particularly in thedepartment of Agricultural Economics and Agri- Business, for their knowledge package,favorable learning environment and cooperation during our stay at National University ofRwanda.I say thanks to Mr Jean Baptiste NGIRINSHUTI and Phn Jean Damascene NSENGEYUKURIfor their financial support and constant encouragement during my studies and especially in theachievement of this research. I extend my thanks to my closed friends, brothers and sisters thedeepest gratitude for their encouragement and support.Lastly but not least, my appreciation and thanks are expressed to my aunt NYIRAMAKUBAOdette, my colleagues MUHIRE Kean Manasseh, TUGIRINSHUTI Gabriel Janvier,TUYISENGE Claude,NGIRUMPATSE Jean Claude ,Mr NSABIMANA Jean Damascene andmy fellow students for their support in one or other way; you have been nice to me and I wishyou all the best and God bless you all.Jean de Dieu NIZEYIMANA
  5. 5. vABSTRACTRwanda is suffering from a structurally food deficit situation which has resulted in low levels ofproduction and, as a consequence, domestic production has not been able to meet food needs ofthe population resorting to commercial imports and food aid which is unsustainable and whichshould be avoided. For the above reason the Government of Rwanda (GoR) has launched a CropIntensification Program (CIP) to increase national agricultural productivity and meet foodsecurity. The CIP towards crops production mainly involves 5 targets; one of them is” Supplyand 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 andanalysis of data from respondents. The researcher used those techniques to collect informationthrough taking a sample of 61 respondents from a population of 28765 farmers of Rubengerasector. This selected sample represented the entire population and acted as a primary source forthis study. Secondary data was obtained from documents as well as other sources of data relatedto the study.Researcher has analyzed mainly two hypotheses stating that: (1) There is easy access and use offertilizers in Rubengera and (2) The farmers access the NPK, DAP and UREA at time and ataffordable price as well as at proximity areas. The results show that there is easy access and useof fertilizers in Rubengera and the farmers access easily NPK, DAP and UREA at time and ataffordable price as well as at proximity areas and the use of fertilizer has contributed to theincrease of output of the farmers who are using fertilizers. The main problems have beenrevealed 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 offertilizer in Karongi district was shown, because of opportunities of voucher program, Tuburaproject and good governance (Local government), there is a hope of increase in agricultureproductivityAfter carrying out this study some recommendations have been suggested, where we recommendthe local government to encourage farmers to work in cooperatives in order to attract many
  6. 6. viinvestors. For Tubura project, the farmers are claiming to pay a high fertilizer interest rate, sothis interest should be revised in order to remain with a big number of farmers.LISTS OF ACRONYMSAISCO : Agricultural Inputs Supply CorporationAISE : Agricultural Inputs Supply enterpriseARMD : Agricultural and Rural Markets DevelopmentBCR : Commercial Bank of RwandaBK : Bank of KigaliBNR : Banque Nationale du RwandaBRD : Rwanda Bank of DevelopmentCATALIST: Catalyze Accelerated Agricultural Intensification for Social andCIP : Crop Intensification ProgramCOMESA : Common Market for Eastern and Southern AfricaDAP : Diammonium phosphateEDPRS : Economic Development and Poverty Reduction StrategyEU : European UnionFAO : Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsGDP : Gross Domestic ProductGOR : Government of RwandaICHA : Impot sur le Chiffre d’AffairesIFAD : International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentIFDC : An International Center for Soil Fertility and Agricultural DevelopmentIFDC : International Center for Soil Fertility and Agricultural DevelopmentISAR : Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du RwandaISAR : Rwanda Institute of Agronomic SciencesMDG : Millennium Development GoalsMINAGRI : Ministry of AgricultureMINECOFIN : Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning
  7. 7. viiMINICOM : Ministry of CommerceNAP : National Agricultural PolicyNFS : National Fertilizer StrategyNPK : Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium fertilizersOCIR : Office des Cultures Industrielles du RwandaRPSF : Rwanda Private Sector FederationSDFDS : Strategy for Developing Fertilizer Distribution Systems in RwandaSPAT : The Strategic Plan for Agricultural Transformation
  8. 8. viiiLIST OF TABLESTable 1: The provenance of fertilizers ....................................................................................... 22Table 2: Distribution of Respondents about knowledge of Voucher ........................................... 23Table 3: Time distribution ......................................................................................................... 26Table 5: Table Partition of respondents on Interest rate on fertilizer .......................................... 26Table 6: Partition of respondents by constraints on fertilizer access and use .............................. 27
  9. 9. ixLIST OF FIGURESFigure 1: Karongi District ......................................................................................................... 18Figure 2: Sex Distribution of Respondents ................................................................................ 19Figure 3: Distribution of Respondents by Education Level ........................................................ 20Figure 4: Distribution of Respondents by Fertilizers use ............................................................ 21Figure 5: Distribution of Respondents by type of Fertilizer........................................................ 22Figure 6: Distribution of Respondents about Receiving Voucher ............................................... 23Figure 7: Distribution of Respondents Seeking for Credit .......................................................... 24Figure 8: Distribution of Respondents about .............................................................................. 24Figure 9: Distribution of Respondents about fertilizers and Subsidy delivery............................. 25
  10. 10. xTABLE OF CONTENTDECLARATION ....................................................................................................................... iiDEDICATION .......................................................................................................................... iiiACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................... ivABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................vLISTS OF ACRONYMS........................................................................................................... viLIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. viiiLIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. ixTABLE OF CONTENT ..............................................................................................................xCHAPTER 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 .....................................................................................................6CHAPTER 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 ................................................................................... 11CHAPTER 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
  11. 11. xi 3.4.1. Data editing and coding ........................................................................................... 17 3.4.2. Data tabulation/charts and software used .................................................................. 17CHAPTER 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............................................................ 28BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 30APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................ I QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................................................ II
  12. 12. 1CHAPTER I GENERAL INTRODUCTIONI.1 BackgroundFertilizer consumption in Rwanda has always been extremely low in both relative and absoluteterms. Interest in fertilizer in Rwanda can be traced back to the early 1970s when Institut desSciences Agronomiques du Rwanda (ISAR) began to conduct fertilizer trials. During the early1980s, FAO funded projects to test and promote fertilizer in the Butare and Gikongoroprefectures; but there was no evidence of a national commitment to promoting widespreadadoption of inorganic fertilizers at that time. By the late 1980s, however, there were documentedsigns of declining agricultural productivity. Interest in the potential role of inorganic fertilizerbegan to grow and many projects that included fertilizer components were launched. During thisperiod, 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% ofimports during this period. Extensive use of 17- 17-17 was stimulated by donors’ (European andJapanese) willingness to offer it as in-kind aid. Consequently, it became the fertilizer used inofficial 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. Thiscontrasts sharply with averages (ranging from 9-11 kg/ha during the last decade) for SubSaharanAfrica in general, which continues to have the lowest fertilizer consumption of any region in theworld. All fertilizer requirements in Rwanda are met through imports because the country has nolocal production of fertilizers. Fertilizer imports evolved from 1,344 tons in 1995 to 9,039 tons in2006. Prior to liberalization, the importation of fertilizer was assured by parastatals throughKenya and Uganda. Between 1998 and 2005, fertilizer was entirely imported by the privatesector. As of November/December 2006, there were three types of fertilizer importers operatingin Rwanda: (a) importers supplying primarily to tea and coffee parastatals against confirmedorders; (b) importers buying in small lots from neighboring countries to satisfy the local demand;
  13. 13. 2and (c) Government of Rwanda (GOR) importing in large quantities for distribution to allcategories of customers.The Strategy for Developing Fertilizer Distribution Systems (SDFDS) in Rwanda builds on therecommendations of the National Fertilizer Strategy developed for the Africa Fertilizer Summitand embodied in the Abuja’s Declaration on Fertilizer for the African Green Revolution, toeffectively support the timely provision of quality fertilizer to farmers in a cost-effective mannerhas been established (MINAGRI, 2007:5).The key objectives of the SDFDS are (1) identify short- and long-term measures needed toaddress supply and demand-side constraints limiting fertilizer use in Rwanda,(2) assignresponsibilities among the relevant stakeholders,(3) establish a time-frame for implementation ofthe strategy, (4) identify performance indicators for assessing the impact of the actions onnational growth, food security and poverty objectives and (5) to estimate the cost ofimplementing the strategy. Kelly et al. (2001a and 2001b) found that the most common reason ofnot using inorganic Fertilizer in Rwanda is the lack of knowledge and the next most common isthe 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 incentivesassociated with fertilizer, there is a human capital constraint that needs to be lifted by improvingknowledge; 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 notpurchase fertilizer because they do not have the physical capital to use it properly (anti-erosioninvestments, animals to provide complementary manure, farming tools and equipment, etc.), theconstraint needs to be addressed for agro-economic potential to be translated into effectivedemand. The Rwanda Bank of Development (BRD) has instituted in 2006 a Governmentinitiative, which entails providing loans to qualified farmers. Organizations for the purchase offertilizer at an interest rate of 8 percent, to encourage fertilizer use. Although the initiative hasresulted in improved access to credit for the acquisition of fertilizers for well-organized
  14. 14. 3producers, many farmers organizations still fail to meet the BRD’s terms and conditions forobtaining loans. Besides, even when farmers have enough income to purchase fertilizer, it mightnot 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 effectivelyin the fertilizer market if there continued to be free or subsidized distribution of fertilizers bydonors 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 of16%) to fertilizer importers. Removal of supply and demand-side constraints in the fertilizersector through policy improvement, demand stimulation and capacity building activities willprovide a favorable investment climate and adequate human capital for fertilizer distributionsystem development. The resulting reduction in transaction costs and strengthened availability,access and affordability of fertilizer in rural areas will constitute a stepping stone towardssustainable intensification of agricultural, household food security and poverty reduction in ruralareas.
  15. 15. 41.2 Problem statement and justificationThe aim of agriculture is to contribute sustainably to the national economy increasingproductivity for self-feeding and for the market. Low soil fertility is a problem throughout most ofSub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Moreover, the drastic reduction in fallow periods and the almostcontinuous cropping without soil fertility restoration has depleted the nutrient base of most soils. Bythe 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 soilerosion is high. These areas include the East African highlands and a number of countries in WestAfrica.Agriculture contributes about 30% of Rwandan GDP in current prices (as of 2005), employeeabout 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 developmentdrives not only from its weight in the economy and the need to produce poverty, but also from itsvery considerable potential for growth and modernization.Under the seven Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a number of targets have been set forRwanda 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 agriculturalsector, 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 theeconomy that will both stimulate economic expansion and make the greatest contribution topoverty reduction. The overriding policy objective for the sector is for rural household incomesto be increased in a sustainable manner and for the sources of income to be diversified while atthe same time, food security is to be strengthened. Agricultural production/productivity has toincrease for the attainment of such objectives. Key interventions under the EDPRS frameworkwill include increasing soil fertility, reducing soil erosion and improving land use, landmanagement and land administration.Farmers are to receive intensive training in the optimal use of external inputs, improved seedsand inorganic fertilizers in particular. Therefore this study aims at analyzing the accessibility offertilizers to farmers and the use of them by farmers.
  16. 16. 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 farmers5. 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.
  17. 17. 61.6 Interest of researchA part from being compulsory for awarding the Bachelor‘s Degree in Agricultural Economicsand Agribusiness, this research will be conducted to explore whether and to what extent theincrease of use of NPK, DAP and UREA, particularly in rural areas is related to the lower levelof socio-economic status observed in rural households in Rwanda, by keeping in mind the scarceresources available (land) and poor farming technology. Also this research will be undertaken atMicro-level (small farmers) because many studies in literature review were conducted toevaluate the use and accessibility of fertilizers at Macro-level (National or provincial level). Thefindings, suggestions and recommendations from this research will also: (1) Helps policymakersat National level to identify the relevant policies and program interventions that are most likelyto improve the use of NPK, DAP and UREA in rural area like Rubengera. (2) Enable policymakers at District level to implement relevant policies basing on current situation in villages andcells 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 scalefarmers and (5) be a documentary tool for students at various levels and other interestedacademicians1.7 Subdivision of the workOur work is subdivided in four chapters. Chapter one, the researcher presents the generalintroduction, chapter two is the conceptual and theoretical work, where key concepts are definedand the researcher different methods of some countries of East Africa and presents also the caseof our country Rwanda used in fertilizer sector, chapter three is methodological approach, i.emethods and techniques used in our research and the last chapter which is chapter four the authorpresents the description of the area of the study, findings and analysis and end by conclusion andsome recommendation.
  18. 18. 7CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW2.1. 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 whichpromotes vegetation, Phosphorous which encourages root growth and Potassium which promotesflower 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 singleor multi-nutrient components (EFMA, 2000).(3) DAP: Diammonium phosphate, (NH4)2HPO4, is manufactured by the reaction of ammoniaand phosphoric acid. Its nitrogen to phosphate ratio makes it an excellent direct applicationproduct or one that blends well with other fertilizer materials to produce a variety of NPKfertilizers (Dr. Bill Griffith, 2008).(4) UREA: Synthetic urea is produced commercially from ammonia and carbon dioxide. Urea iswidely used in the agriculture sector both as a fertilizer and animal feed additive, which makesthe production of urea considerably high in comparison to other fertilizer (Curtis J. Overdah etal, 2002)
  19. 19. 82.2. Fertilizers policies and use in Rwanda2.2.1. Fertilizers policy in RWANDAAll fertilizer requirements in Rwanda are met through imports because the country has no localproduction of fertilizers. Fertilizer imports evolved from 1,344 tons in 1995 to 9,039 tonsin 2006 (MINAGRI, 2007:2). Prior to liberalization, the importation of fertilizer wasassured by parastatals through Kenya and Uganda. Between 1998 and 2005, fertilizer wasentirely imported by the private sector.As of November/December 2006, there were three types of fertilizer importers operating inRwanda: (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 allcategories of customers.There was good evidence, however, of fertilizer import growth in 2000. BNR records showedimports of approximately 6500 tons for 2000–an encouraging sign. At least seven firms wereinvolved in these fertilizer imports during 2000. The GOR made three policy decisions in late1999 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 freedistribution of fertilizers. This law was in response to complaints by private traders that theycould not compete effectively in the fertilizer market if there continued to be free or subsidizeddistribution of fertilizers by donors and NGOs. Economic Development and PovertyReduction Strategy, the National Agricultural Policy, and the Strategic Plan forAgricultural Transformation.The SDRFS( Strategy for Developing Fertilizer Distribution Systems in Rwanda) puts forwardthree priority actions to improve fertilizer distribution systems in Rwanda and increase theavailability, accessibility and affordability of fertilizer to farmers. These actions are: (a)Develop Enabling Policy, Regulatory, and Investment Environments for Fertilizer MarketDevelopment 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
  20. 20. 9officially declared exempt from ICHA (15%) and entry (5%) taxes making it possible forimporters to market fertilizer at lower retail prices. Also in late 2000, the World BankAgricultural and Rural Markets Development (ARMD) project provided a line of credit atsubsidized interest rates (9% rather than the market rate of 16%) to fertilizer importers. This lineof 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 forthe African Green Revolution. These recommendations also coincide with the Government ofRwanda’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 ruralhouseholds by developing traders’ capacity to supply quality inputs and (c) Stimulate theDemand for Fertilizer with objective of strengthening farmers’ incentives and capacity to usefertilizer (MINAGRI, 2007:23).2.2.1.1 Rwanda and fertilizers privatizationFrom 1994 to 1998, the Rwandan government distributed fertilizers to farmers at no charge dueto the emergency the country faced in the aftermath of genocide. In 1998, the governmentinitiated privatized fertilizer importation and distribution. However, the private sector lacked thecapacity to implement a timely and sustainable agro-input supply system. Fertilizer adulterationwas 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, butleft 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 importationto 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 inplace.
  21. 21. 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.
  22. 22. 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:
  23. 23. 12Demand side constraintsIn Rwanda, farmers’ demand for fertilizers is extremely weak, as it is essentially constrained byinadequate incentives and lack of financial capacity to invest in fertilizer. Inadequate incentivesstem from the minimal profitability of fertilizer use because:Fertilizer use effectiveness is low since the quality and quantity of information availableon fertilizer (dosage; application rate) is inadequate and most farmers are unable to affordor access the comprehensive package of complementary practices needed to get the most outof the fertilizer (e.g., improved seeds).The cost of getting fertilizer to the farm gate at the right time is excessively high, as severalcommunities are completely isolated with no access to roads.Access to output markets is not guaranteed and output prices are generally low and variablebecause there’s limited effective output marketing.In addition, farmers’ purchasing power is extremely weak. In any given year, 30 to 50 percent offarming households in Rwanda fail to produce a marketable surplus. Adding to this is a dearth ofaccess to credit for the acquisition of fertilizer and other inputs because farmers’ knowledge oflending institutions and loan application procedures is inadequate; the agricultural sector is oftenconsidered insolvent and is seen as a high-risk sector (IFDC, 2007:72).Supply- Side ConstraintsGenerally, the farm-gate price of fertilizer is determined by the world price of fertilizer, cost ofprocurement, storage, transport and marketing, the degree of competition in the fertilizer marketand the quantity of fertilizer demanded. The implication for Rwanda, whose demand has noimpact 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 lastfew years and the ethanol boom are all translating into large variations and a generally-increasingtrend in the price of fertilizer. Such effects are directly passed on to Rwanda’s fertilizerimporters, who for the large part, critically lack information on world market conditionsaffecting fertilizer prices and are therefore severely constrained in their bargaining position withoverseas suppliers.
  24. 24. 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
  25. 25. 14CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY3.1. Data collection methods(1) Primary Data collection: Primary methods of data collection methods were used to obtainrelevant information on the research topic. This method involved questionnaires and interviewsguide for all respondents to facilitate deeper discussion and deeper assessments of the situation athand (Williamson et al.1982: 173).(2) Secondary data collection: under this technique, relevant existing documents, reports, journaland other documents related to the topic were critically consulted to cross check the real factsabout the topic.3.2. Sample size and selection3.2.1. Meaning and definition of sample sizeThere are billions of people on the planet and even more plants, insects and animals. To measureall of them would be virtually impossible because of the impossibility of measuring entirepopulations, statisticians collect representative random samples. Estimations based on theserandom samples, depending on their size, supply information that can be extended to largerpopulations based on the laws of probability.Other than the difficult task of measuring every member of a population, availability, time andmoney prevent scientists from measuring everyone.According to Scott (1998), a sample refers to “a part of the population that is selected to respondto the survey”. According to Manheim and Rich(1995:108), a sample population is one in whichevery major attribute of the population from which a sample is drawn present roughly in thesame proportion or frequency with which those attributes occur in that larger population.
  26. 26. 153.2.2. Sample size determinationThere 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 apopulation 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 0.052Where:Ss: Sample sizeZ= z value (1.96 for 95% confidence interval)P =percentage picking a choice 4.16%C = confidence interval 5%Correction for finite population Ss 61.265NewSS  newSs   61.13 ss  1 61.265  1 1 1 pop 27873Where pop: Population (27873 farmers)Then, the sample size taken under this research is 61 farmers.
  27. 27. 16To select the sample households for conducting the field study, systematic Random Samplingand Simple Random Sampling were used as sampling techniques. From the entire sector, onlythree (3) cells were selected randomly. Then, Researcher randomly selected households to makea representative sample. Cell randomly selected N of farmers KIBILIZI 21 GACACA 20 MATABA 20 Total number of farmers 61 Source: Secondary Data3.2.3 Sources of DataBailey (1978:29) defines source as one of the materials a researcher uses for collectinginformation during investigation. Source of data are both primary and secondary.(1) Primary Data collection: Primary methods of data collection methods were used to obtainrelevant information on the research topic. This method involved questionnaires and interviewsguide for all respondents to facilitate deeper discussion and deeper assessments of the situation athand (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 realfacts about the topic.3.3. Research instrumentation3.3.1. QuestionnaireA questionnaire is a set of questions designed to elicit information from respondents.(Williamson et al.1982). The questionnaire included questions formulated around the topic ofresearch was designed in English and is carried out by ourselves to the proposed respondent togain needed information.
  28. 28. 173.3.2. DocumentationAccording to Butlolph (1989)”political scientists turn to the written records when the politicalphenomenon that interests them cannot be observed by questionnaire, interview and discussion.“Under this heading, different books, journal, reports and other related documents were carefullyexamined so as to gain more needed information around the research topic”.3.4. Data processing and analysisData analysis and processing is a method of statistical control through which scores as dependentvariable are adjusted to scores or related variable (Grinnel and Williams, 1990). Data processingmeans the transformation of the respondent’s information (views) into meaningful quantitativeanalysis or manipulating the number in order to arrive at the findings. After collecting data fromfield, responses have been entered in computer using SPSS software and analyzed using thesame software, the figures presented in this research have been obtained using excel in order tomake them attractive.3.4.1. Data editing and codingAfter the collection of data from the field the next step is to make data entry in a computer so asto be edited in order to remove accurately the possible errors and Mistakes. Data editing helps toensure the accuracy, consistency, relevance, uniformity for acquiring the correct information tobe 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 alwaysmade for reducing the data from a tailed response to very meaningful information.3.4.2. Data tabulation/charts and software usedThis is a method of presenting the data provided by the respondents into tables, including thenumber of occurrence of responses to particular questions (frequency).Data for more than onevariable 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 dataprocessing and analysis in this research.
  29. 29. 18CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION4.1. Description of research area: RubengeraSituated in the Western Province of Rwanda, Karongi District, Rubengera is the mountainousregion and containing Kibilizi market, one of the big markets in Karongi district. Rubengerashares the border with Rutsiro District in the North, Rugabano sector in East, Bwishyura andGitesi Sector in South and Lake Kivu in West. With the new administrative basic structure, thesector is made up 8 cells and counts the total population of 28765 (Secondary data, 2011). Thesector 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
  30. 30. 194.2. Data and variables4.2.1. Type of data used in researchThe unit of analysis taken under the research is household. To this end, 61 farmers weresurveyed along this research and were interviewed. The research contains a wealth ofinformation collected at the individual and household level; it also includes information oneducation 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 fertilizerparticularly NPK, DAP and UREA taken as the case of study. Also the sensitivity of correlationbetween fertilizers use and change of the production of the farmers in Rubengera sector was alsoexplored in this research. The dependent variable is the use of fertilizers measured in terms ofaccessibility of fertilizers, fertilizers availability, and access on credits, time delivery and otherrelated factors identified in this research.4.3 Data analysis and presentation4.3.1 Distribution of respondents by sexThe results in the following figure show the distribution of respondents by sex where theresearcher meet all categories of sex, among them 31% presents the females and 69% of allrespondents were males. Sex Distribution of Respondents male female 31% 69% Figure 2: Sex Distribution of Respondents Source: Author
  31. 31. 204.3.2 Distribution of respondents by education levelThe results in the following figure show education level of respondents where 45% presentrespondents 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: Author4.4 Testing of hypothesisUnder this effort was made to test the research findings with respect to the hypothesis stated inthe first chapter. The objective was to verify if the findings were in line with the statedhypothesis so that it can be accepted .To proving this the researcher still analyzed the collecteddata basing on the respondent’s views. This was calculated in percentages and frequencies thereby enabling the researcher to test the hypothesis.4.4.1 Distribution of respondents by fertilizers useThe results in the following figure present the distribution of respondents by fertilizers use, it isclear that 95% of respondents joined are using chemical fertilizers and 5% are not using it. Thisis encouraging number because we should expect the increase of the production through use ofchemical fertilizer and this number is using as well as they find the interest than whom that donot use it.
  32. 32. 21The results are justified by the fact that the farmers of Rubengera sector are incited by TUBURAproject 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: Author4.4.2 Fertilizer accessThe results in table below demonstrate where the farmers find the fertilizers from, as it is shown37.7% get the fertilizer from private trader (agro-dealer), 1.6% from cooperatives, 55.7% fromTUBURA and 4.9% from other. There is a connection between Tubura and Agro-dealer becauseagro-dealer has agreements with the project to deliver the fertilizer on voucher, the farmers withvoucher present the paper and they get fertilizer.The results in the following table helped us to confirm easy access of fertilizer, because thefarmers are free to choose where they should take it. If the farmers use fertilizer from Tuburaproject, they go as a group and get it easily on credit contrary to agro-dealer where they presentvoucher offered by MINAGRI and get it at half price.
  33. 33. 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: Author4.4.2 Partition of respondents by type of fertilizer usedThe 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. Theshare of 43% of respondents who are using DAP and UREA is explained by the fact that thecited 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
  34. 34. 234.4.3 Knowledge of Voucher programThe results in the following table present the distribution of respondents about knowledge ofvoucher 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: Author4.4.4 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
  35. 35. 24Even if above 98% know voucher program, some of them said “we have heard it on radio” so itis not surprising to present 93% only are receiving voucher and 7% are not receiving it. Theshare of 93% who receive voucher on fertilizer is explained by the fact that the farmers haveknown it, according to the results presented in provenance of fertilizer, we mentioned Tuburaand Agro dealer; both deliver fertilizer according to the voucher regulations.4.4.5 Partition of respondents about seeking for fertilizer creditBelow two figures present the distribution of respondents about seeking credit and distribution ofrespondents about receiving credit on fertilizers respectively. As presented and found from ourresearch the farmers who sought for credit have received it, it is clear that 57.4% received creditas the same number asked for it and 42.6% did not receive credit as the same number didn’t seekit. 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 offertilizers in Rubengera”. Basing on the results presented describing the farmers who seek forcredit 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
  36. 36. 254.4.6 Fertilizers and subsidy deliveryThe 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 voucherprogram, if a farmer has 0.5 ha is given 50Kg of DAP, 25Kg of UREA and 7Kg of maize. In thispart 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
  37. 37. 264.4.7 Time distributionThe 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 26.67minutes which is about 27 minutes, the mode is 30 minutes, maximum is 50 minutes and theminimum time is 5 minutes. The time is estimated when the farmers are walking on foot. This isjustified by the fact that the agro-dealer is located in the center of Rubengera Sector and this isthe same for the farmers who are receiving fertilizer from Tubura. This has helped us to prove apart 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: Author4.4.8 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
  38. 38. 27The results in above table present distribution of respondents on interest rate on fertilizer, where57.4% agreed with this interest rate, 16.4% are indifferent, 16.4% disagree and the rest 9.8% ofthem have nothing to say on this question. The interest rate which is paid by the farmers onfertilizer is 15% when they get it from Tubura project.4.4.9 Distribution of respondents by constraintsThe 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
  39. 39. 28IV.5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSConclusionAgriculture contributes about 30% of Rwandan GDP in current prices (as of 2005), employeeabout 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 developmentdrives not only from its weight in the economy and the need to produce poverty, but also from itsvery considerable potential for growth and modernization. Under the seven MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs), a number of targets have been set for Rwanda and the country iscommitted to reaching them by 2015(NISR&MINECOFIN, 2007). However, the realization ofthe MDG1 is heavily dependent upon the growth of the agricultural sector, given its importancein the economy of the country. This research has as the main objective to analyze theaccessibility and use of NPK, DAP and UREA in Rubengera Sector and following specificobjectives: (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 therole of local government and private sector in fertilizers ‘distribution (4) Evaluate the constraintsassociated with the use NPK, DAP and UREA by farmers (5) Evaluate the understanding offarmers 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 beenconfirmed by the way the farmers obtain fertilizers through TUBURA and Agro-dealer, as it hasmentioned above the fertilizer is delivered timely on credit through TUBURA accompanied withtechnical assistance and through Agro-dealer with voucher or without voucher.Through the fertilizers use the farmers have improved their production as should be shown byrespondents when the farmers are asked how is the production since they begun using fertilizer,all respondents confirmed that it has been increased.
  40. 40. 29Recommendations 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.
  41. 41. 30BIBLIOGRAPHY I. Books1. 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 Economics5. Omamo, S. W. & Mose, L. O., (2001). Fertilizer Trade under Market Liberalization: Preliminary Evidence from Kenya. Durban 20036. 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 Investments9. Valerie A. Kelly et al, (2001). Fertilizers consumption in Rwanda : Past Trends, Future Potential, and Determinants10. Valerie Kelly and Anastase Murekezi, 2000. Fertilizer response and profitability in Rwanda11. Valerie Kelly et al, (2001). Agricultural Intensification in Rwanda: An Elusive Goal Fertilizer Use and Conservation Investments12. 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
  42. 42. 31II. REPORTS AND JOURNALS1 IFDC (2007). Roadmap for the CATALIST Project to Strengthen Input Market in Rwanda , Alabama 20072 Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Resources, (April 2007). Strategy for Developing Fertilizers Distribution Systems in Rwanda, Kigali 20073 National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (2001). Statistical Yearbook 2001 Edition, Kigali 20014 NISR (2011). Statistical Yearbook 2011 Edition, Kigali 20115 One Acre Fund (2011). Semi- Annual Performance Report May 2011 – October 2011, Rwanda 20126 PSTA II (2009). Final report, Kigali 2009III. ELECTRONICS REFERENCES1 FAOSTAT (2011). Retrieved May, 10, 2012 from http://faostat3.fao.org/home/index.html#SEARCH_DATA2 IFDC (2012). Privatization of Rwanda’s Fertilizer Import and Distribution System. Retrieved July 18, 2012, from http://www.ifdc.org/Projects/Current/PReFER3 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
  43. 43. 32
  44. 44. a
  45. 45. IAPPENDIX
  46. 46. IIQUESTIONNAIRE ACCESSIBILITY AND USE OF FERTILISERS: PERIOD 2008-2011 FARMERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYFARMER INFORMATION IDENTIFICATIONName of ........................................................................................................................respondentRelation to the household (1=self; 2=spouse; 3=son; 4 =daughter; 5=sister; 6= brother; 7= other(specify)Sex Level of schoolingMale NoneFemale 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
  47. 47. 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
  48. 48. 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=no15. If yes to question 14 how? 1=increase; 2=decrease;16. If no to question 14 why? 1=poor quality; 2=come late; 3=otherspecify……………………………………………………………………. 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= No19. If yes to question 18, did you receive it? 1= yes; 2= No20. If no to question 18, why? 1=No collateral/ nta ngwate; 2= I did not seek for credit; 3= I donot know how to apply for credit; 4= Too expensive to pay for proposal writing; 5= Interest ratetoo high; 6= Uncertainty and risk with production; 7=others:(specify)............................................................................................................21. Which of the following describes your perception about credit facilities? Fill with thefollowing:
  49. 49. V1=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 friendly22. 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 knowledgeon 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
  50. 50. VI

×