Raising inorganic fertilizer use in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is widely recognized as critical for promoting agricultural transformation in the region. It is now generally accepted by African governments that in order to develop sustainable fertilizer markets and improve farmers’ access to fertilizers, it is necessary to create an enabling environment for private sector investment. The “enabling environment” consists of the policies, laws, and regulations including the institutional infrastructure that guide the conduct of stakeholders (e.g., farmers and fertilizer retailers, importers, etc.) in pursuit of their goals. However, to date, there has been no systematic stock-taking of the types of policies, laws, and regulations that promote versus hinder fertilizer business in SSA. This report describes the current status of enabling environments in the region, reviews the available empirical evidence on the topic, and highlights knowledge gaps where additional research is needed.The report highlights four key findings. First, with the exception of South Africa, there are no current examples in SSA of countries that have competitive, transparent, predictable, and sustainable enabling environments for increased investments in fertilizer value chains. While there are some examples of countries with fairly competitive fertilizer markets but uncertain policy environments (e.g., Kenya and Tanzania), most SSA countries’ fertilizer sub-sectors are still predominantly state-run or heavily state-influenced. While most of these countries allow for private sector involvement in these markets, the incentives for private sector investment are low in many cases due to heavy state control and ad hoc policy environments.Second, while there is a large and growing peer-reviewed literature on the targeting and demand-side effects of fertilizer subsidy programs, which are used by numerous SSA governments to improve smallholder farmers’ access to fertilizers, there is little rigorous empirical evidence on the supply-side effects of the programs, including program effects on private sector investment.Third, compared to the large overall literature on the effects of fertilizer subsidy programs, there has been virtually no rigorous analysis of how other policies, laws, and regulations affect fertilizer enabling environments or the performance of fertilizer sub-sectors in SSA.Fourth, the existing empirical evidence on the impacts of regulations on private sector participation and investment in fertilizer markets in SSA can be grouped into three broad categories: (i) literature that describes the current status of fertilizer regulations in different countries around the globe and infers or predicts the impacts thereof on the private sector and, in some cases, provides anecdotal evidence to support its predictions (a key example being the World Bank’s “Enabling the Business of Agriculture” reports); (ii) studies from outside of SSA on the impacts of deregulation on technology transfer and private sector participation (mostly for products other than fertilizers); and (iii) studies from SSA on the impacts of fertilizer regulations on private sector participation in the fertilizer industry that mainly highlight correlations and descriptive relationships but do not identify the causal effects of the regulations.Given the scant empirical evidence on the effects of laws, regulations, and policies other than subsidies on private sector investment in fertilizer value chains in SSA, there is great need for more research on these topics. The main report highlights specific areas for future research