Across the developing world, women grow much of the food consumed locally, yet they often do so with fewer resources than their male counterparts.
Women farmers in low‑income countries, like India, face multiple barriers: limited access to land, credit, seeds and fertilizers; less access to tools, training and markets; and a heavy burden of unpaid household and caregiving work that competes with farming tasks. Cultural norms and discriminatory laws restrict women’s control over land and decision‑making.
Only about 14 countries grant women equal economic rights to men, and less than 15 per cent of landowners worldwide are women. As a result of these constraints, farms managed by women produce 20 to 30 per cent less than those run by men. The gap is not due to a lack of skill or diligence; it is a gap in inputs.
Fertilizer access exemplifies the challenge. Without credit or land titles, women may be unable to purchase fertilizers or secure loans to do so. Extension services often target male farmers, leaving women without information on optimal application rates or new technologies. Heavy household responsibilities mean that women have less time to attend training sessions or travel to distant markets. When fertilizers are applied at all, they may be spread thinly across plots or at the wrong time, limiting benefits.
Addressing these issues requires changing both systems and attitudes. Programmes that provide microloans and savings groups specifically for women help them purchase inputs and invest in their farms. Training delivered through women‑only farmer field schools or via radio broadcasts can reach those who cannot travel. Secure land rights give women the confidence to invest in soil fertility and long‑term improvements.
The potential gains are significant. The World Food Programme estimates that giving women the same access to resources as men could increase agricultural production by 2.5 to 4 per cent and reduce the number of malnourished people worldwide by up to 150 million. Empowering women to use fertilizers effectively is part of this equation. In Ethiopia and Bangladesh, for example, projects that combine small loans, training on fertilizer micro‑dosing and collective marketing have led to higher yields and incomes for women farmers.
When women control more of their earnings, they tend to invest in their families’ nutrition, education and health, generating ripple effects that extend beyond the field. Industry experts such as Amit Gupta Agrifields DMCC argue that the fertilizer gap is not just a gender issue but a macroeconomic one: closing it can boost food security and economic growth. He notes that fertiliser companies and agribusinesses have a role to play by tailoring products and advisory services to reach women.
Closing the fertilizer gap for women will not be achieved overnight. It involves reforming property laws, revising extension programmes, creating financial products that account for women’s realities, and engaging men in supporting gender equality. It also requires recognising women as farmers in their own right, not merely as helpers. By investing in women and ensuring they have the same tools and nutrients as men, societies can unlock a hidden reservoir of productivity.
Voices in the Fertilizer industry like Amit Gupta Agrifields DMCC for example remind us that empowering women in the field is a smart strategy for feeding communities and building more inclusive agricultural systems. The rewards – more food, greater equality and healthier families – make closing the gap an urgent priority.
