Farm input subsidy programmes in Africa have failed to ease rural poverty and benefit small-scale farmers, new research shows. According to a report released by the African Centre for Biodiversity on Monday, ten African governments alone have spent more than US$ 1 billion, almost 30% of their agricultural budgets, on large-scale farm input subsidy programmes (FISPs) since 2000. These programmes, which provide subsidies for fertilisers and seeds (especially hybrid maize), have mainly supported better-off farmers with larger holdings, resulted in an overuse of fertiliser and deteriorated soil quality in the region, the study has found. The paper reviewed farm input subsidy programmes in countries belonging to the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) by exploring the re-adoption of input subsidies after the food crisis of 2007/2008. The authors write that instead of building resilient, sustainable farming and food systems and supporting Africa’s rural poor, these subsidy programmes are largely ineffective, social transfer schemes that create dependency. They argue that FISPs do not help small-scale farmers (particularly the most vulnerable, such as women) who are often side-lined as beneficiaries by district officials and village chiefs. The rural poor often cannot afford to pay the balance of the subsidy or the membership fees of farmer organisations. In addition, they frequently do not meet the criteria of government programmes, such as a minimum land allocation for planting subsidised maize, or provide proof of land tenure. Input suppliers such as seed and agrochemical companies benefit the most as they are awarded large contracts, with guaranteed markets at public expense, the study found. Despite some programmes stretching back more than a decade, rural poverty has not been reduced significantly. In Malawi, for example, there is a net transfer away from rural households using Green Revolution inputs because the additional cost is not always recouped from the sale of the harvest. According to the report, FISPs are also used as tools to gain political favour. This is the case especially in Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia and evidence suggests that significant amounts of inputs are diverted or leaked onto secondary markets by politicians or wealthy elites. In Tanzania, an estimated 60% of all inputs are lost in this way, representing a significant loss of public funds. The programmes also have a negative impact on soil health, the authors warn. The focus on hybrid maize seed has led to increased maize cultivation. In order to get subsidies, farmers expand cultivation onto marginal or fallow land. Instead of practicing sustainable soil fertility management techniques, they are offered incentives to use nitrogen-based fertilisers, which are not appropriate to many of Africa’s agro-ecological zones. The report concludes that FISPs divert resources that could be directed towards localising soil science, research and development and improving extension services and rural infrastructure - public goods with lasting benefits. The report calls for “a transition to agro-ecology to bring about the sustainable food systems of the future, formed through the collective, inclusive and democratic co-generation of the knowledge held by farmers, consumers and African governments, who are meant to serve the interests of their (farming) populations.” (ab)