Targeting fertilizer subsidies: Five lessons for sustainable and equitable policy reform

By Carly Trachtman and Ruth HillJuly 16, 2026

Key takeaways

• A systematic analysis of 39 national fertilizer subsidy programs suggests major data gaps exist, complicating reform efforts.
• While many fertilizer subsidies are designed to be universal, few meet that standard. Registration requirements, paperwork, and supply shortages often limit access.
• Subsidies are progressive, reaching more poorer households, but this is mainly because those households are more likely to rely on farming.
• Better data are essential for reform. Governments often lack reliable information on who receives subsidies and who benefits most.

Fertilizer subsidy programs remain a common policy tool for promoting food security and supporting agricultural livelihoods in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), though they have serious downsides. They command substantial government resources but do not always deliver economic benefits, often undermine market development, and are linked to reduced water quality, deforestation, and other negative environmental impacts.

Lately, debates over these programs have intensified: many LMICs are seeking to rein in public spending and realize savings by better targeting fertilizer subsidies—even as demands have recently risen for increasing them in response to rising global market prices sparked by the Iran war.

Yet, for policymakers seeking to shape subsidy reform, there is little systematic evidence showing how fertilizer subsidies are currently targeted and how different approaches to targeting perform. To fill this gap, we conducted a systematic analysis of whether and how 39 national fertilizer subsidy programs were targeted. Our findings suggest major data gaps exist on subsidy program impacts, posing significant challenges that must be addressed if reforms are to succeed.

We took away five key lessons from this exercise.

Read More Here