Year Published
- 2008 (0)
- (-) Remove 2009 filter 2009
- (-) Remove 2010 filter 2010
- 2011 (1) Apply 2011 filter
- 2012 (0)
- 2013 (0)
- 2014 (0)
- 2015 (0)
- 2016 (0)
- 2017 (0)
- 2018 (1) Apply 2018 filter
- 2019 (0)
- 2020 (0)
- 2021 (1) Apply 2021 filter
Research Topics
Populations
- (-) Remove Countries/Governments filter Countries/Governments
- Rural Populations (0)
- Smallholder Farmers (3) Apply Smallholder Farmers filter
- Women (8) Apply Women filter
Types of Research
- Data Analysis (0)
- Literature Review (9) Apply Literature Review filter
- Portfolio Review (0)
- (-) Remove Research Brief filter Research Brief
Geography
- East Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Global (0)
- South Asia Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Southern Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Sub-Saharan Africa (2) Apply Sub-Saharan Africa filter
- West Africa Region and Selected Countries (1) Apply West Africa Region and Selected Countries filter
Dataset
- ASTI (0)
- FAOSTAT (2) Apply FAOSTAT filter
- Farmer First (0)
- LSMS & LSMS-ISA (0)
- Other Datasets (1) Apply Other Datasets filter
Current search
- (-) Remove 2010 filter 2010
- (-) Remove 2009 filter 2009
- (-) Remove Countries/Governments filter Countries/Governments
- (-) Remove Research Brief filter Research Brief
This research brief reports on full time equivalent (fte) positions devoted to research and development of major food and cash crops in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Data on fte by country and crop were collected from individual Agricultural Science and Technology Indicator (ASTI) country briefs. ASTI data are obtained from unpublished surveys conducted by CGIAR centers. Our report includes 23 countries in SSA.
EPAR’s Political Economy of Fertilizer Policy series provides a history of government intervention in the fertilizer markets of eight Sub-Saharan African countries: Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, and Tanzania. The briefs focus on details of present and past voucher programs, input subsidies, tariffs in the fertilizer sector, and the political context of these policies. The briefs illustrate these policies’ effect on key domestic crops and focus on the strengths and weaknesses of current market structure. Fertilizer policy in SSA has been extremely dynamic over the last fifty years, swinging from enormous levels of intervention in the 1960s and 70s to liberalization of markets of the 1980s and 1990s. More recently, intervention has become more moderate, focusing on “market smart” subsidies and support. This executive summary highlights key findings and common themes from the series.
On July 10, 2009 at the Italy G8 summit, attendees issued a joint statement pledging to contribute $20 billion towards agricultural development and food security in the developing world over the next three years. This research brief notes the status of the contributions made to the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative and whether any of the $20 billion will be allocated to agricultural research. We conclude that no declarations have been made as of September 2009 on how much of the $20 billion will be allocated to agricultural research, and which types of research will be funded by the initiative.
Nigeria’s experience with fertilizer subsidy programs has been different than that of other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Nigeria is one of the only African countries capable of producing fertilizer domestically. But Nigeria is also large and densely populated. This makes national agricultural policy difficult due to logistical problems with implementation and the unique fertilizer needs of the various agro-ecological zones. This research brief discusses the effects of Nigeria’s input subsidy programs on maize production and fertilizer consumption. It focuses on the years 2000 to 2007, but also includes a discussion of Nigeria’s subsidy history from the early 1970s to 2009. Researchers have had difficulty studying Nigeria’s subsidy schemes due to a lack of data. In spite of decades of authoritarian, centralized leadership, Nigeria’s states have significant power to implement their own subsidies. This complicates any evaluation of a program’s effectiveness, in part due to the variety of subsidies at any given time, as well as inconsistent accounting practices.