Constraints of Farmers’ Access to Fertilizer for Food Production Final Report CF # 3/08 This study was carried out with the support of the National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Programme By M. Jahiruddin, Principal Investigator M. R. Islam, Co-Investigator M. A. Momen Miah, Co-Investigator Department of Soil Science Bangladesh Agricultural University May 2010
54
Embed
Constraints of Farmers’ Access to Fertilizer for Food …fpmu.gov.bd/agridrupal/sites/default/files/Final...1 Constraints of Farmers’ Access to Fertilizer for Food Production Final
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Constraints of Farmers’ Access to Fertilizer for Food Production
Final Report CF # 3/08
This study was carried out with the support of the
National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Programme
By
M. Jahiruddin, Principal InvestigatorM. R. Islam, Co-Investigator
M. A. Momen Miah, Co-Investigator
Department of Soil ScienceBangladesh Agricultural University
May 2010
2
This study was financed under the Research Grants Scheme (RGS) of the National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Programme (NFPCSP). The purpose of the RGS was to assist in improving research and dialogue within civil society so as to inform and enrich the implementation of the National Food Policy. The NFPCSP is being implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Food Planning and Monitoring Unit (FPMU), Ministry of Food and Disaster Management with the financial support of EU and USAID.
The designation and presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of FAO nor of the NFPCSP, Government of Bangladesh, EU or USAID and reflects the sole opinions and views of the authors who are fully responsible for the contents, findings and recommendations of this report.
May 2010
i
Constraints of Farmers’ Access to Fertilizer for Food Production
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fertilizer is a major input for crop production. Fertilizers that are most commonly used by
the farmers of Bangladesh are urea, TSP and MoP, of which urea alone shares 70-75% of
the total fertilizer use. Fertilizer use in this country has increased over time due to
expansion of irrigation facilities and depletion of soil fertility induced by higher cropping
intensity and cultivation of high yielding crop varieties.
In 2008, a fertilizer crisis had arisen in the country. The farmers could not buy urea fertilizers
in required amounts in time because of insufficient availability. They were unable to buy
non-urea fertilizers like TSP and MoP in needed amount because of the high price. Further
the farmers were not getting expected benefits from the use of mixed and non-urea fertilizers
due to adulteration. Considering these issues, the present study was undertaken in November
2008 for one year with the following objectives: (i) to identify the constraints of farmers’
access to fertilizer, (ii) to evaluate fertilizer marketing systems, and (iii) to suggest
modification of existing fertilizer policies to mitigate the constraints.
Suitable approaches and tools were followed to achieve the objectives of the study. The
approaches included consultation of relevant documents and reports, key informants’
interview (KII), and a household survey. The Upazila Agriculture Officer (UAO) who is
the key person for fertilizer issues at the upazila level and who deals with the projection of
fertilizer demand, its distribution to the dealers and monitoring of sale was interviewed.
The interviews (KII) were conducted in 11 upazilas across the country: Phulpur
Fertilizer Co. (Ashuganj) are running at risk and producing urea much below their
capacities (Khaleque, 2009). The other two factories (relatively new) are not operating at
all times due to shortage of gas supply. This situation merits consideration while
projecting urea fertilizer production for the next year(s).
The country has one TSP factory, with the capacity of annual production of 1 lakh ton TSP,
1.2 lakh tons SSP and 60 thousand tons gypsum. There is one DAP factory which has a
capacity of producing 800 tons DAP/day (Annex. 2). Domestic production of TSP is not at
all adequate to meet the demand of the country. Additional requirements of TSP (about 90%)
and DAP (about 50%) and full MoP (100%) are imported, mainly from USA, Tunisia,
Australia, Jordan, Morocco and China.
All the fertilizer factories in Bangladesh (except KAFCO) are controlled by the
Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation (BCIC), under the Ministry of Industries
(MoI). For urea fertilizer, both production and import are controlled by the Government
7
(BCIC) and for non-urea fertilizers i.e. TSP, MoP and DAP import is accomplished by the
private sector and BADC. During 2008-09, private sector imported 150 thousand tons TSP
and 145 thousand tons MoP, and the BADC imported 75 thousand tons TSP and 77
thousand tons MoP (Table 1).
4.1.2 Fertilizer supply versus requirement
The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), in consultation with the Department of Agricultural
Extension (DAE) made its recommendation on the annual requirement of fertilizers
through a field survey. The MoA makes a total exercise of production, import, and price
fixation, as shown in Table 2. When this projection is compared with supply (production +
import) at national scale (Table 1), it shows a gap, with the supply being lower than the
projected requirement (Table 2). But a different situation was observed at upazila level.
For example, in Paba upazila (Rajshahi district) in 2007-08 the annual requirement for
urea was 11600 tons and against it the supply was 8057 tons (Table 3). However, this
lesser amount of supply has not affected the farmers’ accessibility to fertilizers as
expressed by the UAO. It is learnt that the UAO generally places requirement on an
amount higher than the actual requirement as because their experience shows that
allocation/supply is given in amounts less than the demand. Projection of fertilizer requirement is an important aspect of its availability to the farmers.
The Upazila Agriculture Officer (UAO) estimates fertilizer demand for an upazila based
on a survey of cultivable land and crops, ignoring soil fertility level. Every year cropping
intensity as well as use of modern varieties (HYVs and hybrids) is increasing in one hand
and soil fertility is decreasing on the other, which demands more fertilizer requirement.
The cropping intensity (CI) at present is about 179%. High and medium high lands
constitute about 65% of the total arable land where cropping intensity has exceeded 200%.
Nevertheless, every day about 220 ha arable land is going out of cultivation for other
purposes (Karim, 2009). So, these factors need to be taken into account while calculating
fertilizer demand.
Distribution of fertilizer requirement and allocation over the months of a year is also
important. Usually about 60% of the total annual requirement of fertilizers is used during
Boro rice season from January through March. Crisis of urea fertilizer arises commonly in
Boro rice season. Supply of TSP and MoP is more important for rabi crops e.g. potato,
maize, vegetables, etc.
8
Table 1. Amount of production and import of urea, TSP and MoP (‘000 t)
Year Urea TSP MoP
ImportProduction Import Total Production Import Total
2000-01 1883 228 2111 68 363 431 363
2001-02 1546 702 2248 68 341 409 341
2002-03 2057 190 2247 66 328 394 328
2003-04 2164 186 2350 65 369 434 369
2004-05 2200 287 2487 65 451 516 451
2005-06 1700 900 2600 60 374 434 210 Pvt
2006-07 1700 815 2515 60375 Pvt.
125 BADC
560 250 Pvt.
1 BADC
2007-08 1400 1000 2400 50237 Pvt.
168 BADC
455 290 Pvt.
69 BADC
2008-09 1280 1220 2500 30150 Pvt.
75 BADC
255 145 Pvt.
77 BADC
Source: Kafiluddin and Islam, 2008
Table 2. Projection of requirement, production, import and prices of fertilizers in 2008-09
Fertilizer Requirement(Lakh MT)
Supply (Lakh MT)
Production Import Total
Urea 28.50 15.00 13.50(4.50 KAFCO)
28.50
TSP 5.00 0.50 0.50 (BADC)4.00 (Pvt.)
5.00
MoP 4.00 - 0.50 (BADC)3.50 (Pvt.)
4.00
DAP 2.00 1.00 1.00 (Pvt.) 2.00
SSP 1.00 1.00 Embargo 1.00
Gypsum 1.50 0.60 fromTSP complex
0.90 (Pvt.)1.50
ZnSO4 0.50 0.10 0.40 0.50
Amm. sulphate 0.25 0.12 0.13 0.25
MgSO4 0.20 0.20 0.20
Source: Kafiluddin and Islam, 2008
9
Table 3. Month-wise requirement and supply of urea fertilizer in 2007-08 in Paba Upazila
Month Requirement
(MT)
Supply
(MT)
July 450 320
Aug. 945 571
Sept. 900 539
Oct. 518 468
Nov. 1028 630
Dec. 1500 965
Jan. 1750 1543
Feb. 2250 1101
March 1166 728
April 403 350
May 370 437
June 320 405
Total 11600 8057
Source: Upazila office, Paba, Rajshai[
4.1.3 Fertilizer estimation template
Fertilizer requirement of a crop in an area should be calculated based on the level of soil
fertility. It is the best if current fertility level is known based on soil testing information
which is available through oil testing services obtainable from 16 soil testing laboratories
of SRDI, across the country. However, for the estimation of fertilizer demand, the general
fertility level at AEZ or upazila level, as determined by the SRDI (BARC, 2005) can be
used.
An attempt has been made to develop a fertilizer estimation model for crops of an area,
based on the soil fertility level and fertilizer rates for crops, as appeared in the National
Fertilizer Guide (BARC, 2005), following excel programme (Annex. 3). This template is
simple and easy to use for estimation of fertilizer requirement for different crops at micro
and macro levels i.e. farm, upazila, district, division and country levels. The UAO can
consider using this template to estimate efficiently the annual demand of fertilizers.
10
There is a fertilizer dose against the soil fertility status (very low, low, medium and
optimum) of an area or AEZ for each crop, according to the National Fertilizer Guide
(BARC, 2005). This programme had established a link between soil fertility level and
fertilizer requirement. An example is given below:
etc. need to be considered in fertilizer scheduling for obtaining satisfactory crop yield
without incurring loss to soil environment.
26
4.3.5 Issues related to excess urea use
The farmers of Bangladesh have been using an unbalanced mix of N-P-K fertilizers since
a long time (Table 9) which indicates that they are using relatively more urea fertilizers
and less non-urea fertilizers. They are using urea-nitrogen 7-15 times higher than
potassium. A similar observation has been made in the present study. However, it does not
mean that the farmers are using excess amount of urea than the requirement. As per recent
years’ record (Table 10) the farmers of this country are using urea at around 140 kg ha-1
yr-1, which is not higher than the recommended rate of urea for the rice-rice cropping
system. Thus, sometimes we misunderstand about the extent of urea fertilizer use. If we
compare the fertilizer use with the other countries, it appears that Bangladesh is using less
amount of fertilizers compared to many other countries such as China, Korea, Vietnam,
Japan and Malaysia, and is using more fertilizers in comparison with India, Myanmar,
Nepa, Philippines and Nepal (RAP, 2002). Niino (2009) viewed that the farmers of south
Asia including Bangladesh use excess amount of urea. However, these findings cannot be
generalized. It is location specific and depends on the level of farmers’ motivation.
4.3.5 USG technology for reduction of urea use
Use of USG is a modern technology to save prilled urea (PU)-nitrogen in wet land rice
cultivation. The interviewing KIIs and farmers were of the same opinion, “USG is better
than prilled urea (commonly used urea) as a source of nitrogen since it saves urea-nitrogen
use and increases rice yield”. It is largely used in Tangail areas. USG is a granular form of
urea which is prepared from commonly used PU by briquette machine. Thus, properties of
USG are obviously same as that of PU. USG is placed at 8-10 cm depth in the centre of
four rice hills after 7-10 days of transplanting. It is well documented that less than 50% of
the urea applied is absorbed by rice plant and the rest is lost through some processes, e.g.
denitrification, leaching and volatilization. This loss is reduced to a great extent when
USG is used.
Application of USG can save about 25% nitrogen use accompanied with about 20% higher
rice yield (Table 10), and thus it reduces the cost of rice cultivation. The technology has
one disadvantage is that it is labor-some to place urea granule (1 laborer can place USG in
33 decimal or 0.135 ha land in 5 hours time). Recently, the BARI scientists have
developed a cost-effective USG applicator machine which would save labor for its
application. Presently it’s a constraint that USG is not adequately available in the market.
27
Table 9. N-P-K balance during the years 1989-90 to 2008-09
YearNitrogen
(kg ha-1 )
Phosphorus
(kg ha-1 )
Potassium
(kg ha-1 )N-P-K ratio
1989-90 68.6 10.5 6.5 10.6: 1.6: 1
1990-91 66.7 11.3 8.2 8.1: 1.4: 1
1991-92 77.7 10.1 7.6 10.3: 1.3: 1
1992-93 78.8 2.4 7.0 11.3: 0.3: 1
1993-94 80.9 5.2 5.8 14.0: 0.9: 1
1994-95 90.1 0.3 8.6 10.4: 0.1: 1
1995-96 106.0 2.5 8.8 12.1: 0.3: 1
1996-97 110.4 1.6 12.4 8.9: 0.2: 1
1997-98 98.1 1.4 11.0 8.9: 0.2: 1
1998-99 100.2 3.9 12.1 8.3: 0.3: 1
1999-00 113.5 8.3 15.6 7.3: 0.5: 1
2000-01 112.5 9.4 7.7 14.6: 1.2: 1
2001-02 120.5 9.9 14.2 8.5: 0.7: 1
2002-03 121.2 8.8 15.9 7.6: 0.6: 1
2003-04 127.5 10.6 19.2 6.7: 0.6: 1
2004-05 135.7 9.7 20.9 6.5: 0.5: 1
2005-06 142.7 10.7 17.9 8.0: 0.6: 1
2006-07 138.9 8.2 13.8 10.1: 0.6: 1
2007-08 133.3 7.2 12.1 11.0: 0.6: 1
2008-09 139.7 3.6 9.6 14.6: 0.4: 1
28
Table 10. Effect of USG application on the yield of wetland rice
T. Aman rice (BRRI dhan 31), 2006 Boro rice (BRRI dhan 29), 2007
N rate
(kg ha-1)
N source Grain yield
(t ha-1)
NUE (kg
grain /kg N)
N rate
(kg ha-1)
N
source
Grain yield
(t ha-1)
NUE (kg
grain /kg N)0 - 2.80 - 0 - 2.43 -
50 USG 3.80 20.0 50 USG 4.53 28.0
50 PU 3.62 16.4 50 PU 3.46 13.7
75 USG 4.51 22.8 75 USG 5.13 27.0
75 PU 4.45 22.0 75 PU 4.28 18.5
100 USG 4.37 15.7 100 USG 4.46 16.2
100 PU 4.27 14.7 100 PU 4.32 15.1
LSD (5%) - 0.41 - LSD (5%) - 0.78 -
Source: BRRI Annual Research Review, 2006-07
4.4 Stakeholders’ perceptions on constraints of farmers’ access to fertilizers
Constraints related to farmers’ access to urea and non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) were
evaluated through interviewing Upazila Agriculture Officers (UAO) of 11 upazilas and 75
farmers of three upazilas (Phulpur, Gabtali and Chandina). The constraints and the opinion
index score (OIS) against each constraint are stated in Tables 11-12. The constraints as
identified were of primarily two types, one is physical constraint and other is economic
constraint. Physical constraint refers to the insufficient accessibility to fertilizer so that
farmers can not buy required quantity of fertilizers, when needed. Economic constraint
indicates low ability of farmers, especially the small and marginal groups, to buy
fertilizers on cash payment. However, these two principal constraints were found to differ
between urea and non-urea fertilizers. From the start until end of this study i.e. November
2008 to October 2009, some important changes have occurred in fertilizer policies. The
sale system for urea fertilizer has been changed from controlled system to non-controlled
system and price of non-urea fertilizers (TSP, MoP and DAP) has been revised to lower
rates. Thus, comparison has been made between two years (2008 and 2009) for old and
new systems of fertilizer management.
29
Table 11. Constraints of farmers’ access to urea fertilizer
a) KII opinion
Sl.
No.
Constraints Opinion index
score
2008 2009*
1 Farmers can not buy urea fertilizer in required amount under
the controlled (with card/slip) sale system in 2008 and under
the non-controlled (with no card/slip) sale system in 2009.
33
(60%)
0
2 Controlled sale system was cumbersome and farmers were to
spend several hours in collecting urea fertilizer in 2008.
36
(65%)
NA
3 Farmers use urea fertilizer from their own experiences. 24
(44%)
23
(42%)
4 Farmers use urea fertilizer more than recommendation. 15
(27%)
18
(33%)
5 Shared croppers use less urea fertilizer in shared land than in
their own lands.
21
(38%)
15
(27%)
6 Marginal and small farmers can not afford the cost of urea
fertilizer.
12
(22%)
12
(22%)
Scale: 0-5 (0 = Do not agree, 1 = Very low, 2 = Low, 3 = Medium, 4 = High, 5 = Very high)Opinion index varies from 0 to 55 (n = 11 UAOs)* up to October 2009 NA= Not applicable
b) Farmer opinion
Sl. No.
Constraints Opinion index score
2008 2009*
1 Farmers can not buy urea fertilizer in required amount
under the controlled (with card/slip) sale system in 2008
and under the non-controlled (with no card/slip) sale
system in 2009.
171
(76%)
0
2 Farmers were to spend several hours in collecting urea
fertilizer in controlled sale system in 2008.
190
(84%)
NA
3 Marginal and small farmers can not afford the cost of urea
fertilizer.
69
(31%)
65
(29%)
Scale: 0-3 (0 = Do not agree, 1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = High)
Opinion index varies from 0 to 225 (n = 75)* up to October 2009 NA= Not applicable
30
4.4.1 Access to urea fertilizer
Farmers’ access to urea fertilizer, as observed in 2008 Boro and T. Aman seasons, was
predominantly interrupted due to lower availability of this fertilizer to the farmers for
introduction of the controlled sale system. Under the system, the Government dealer
(BCIC appointed) would sell urea 4-5 days a week in presence of a Sub-Assistant
Agriculture Officer (SAAO). Farmers could not buy required quantity of urea fertilizer,
when needed and moreover they had to wait for several hours in collecting this fertilizer
from the dealer. These were the principal constraints for farmers’ access to urea fertilizer,
as opined by UAOs and farmers in 2008 (Table 11). The low fertilizer accessibility
resulted in low use of urea in the crop field, as discussed in section 4.3.1. In the controlled
system of fertilizer sale, the DAE personnels (DD, UAO, AEO, SAAO) were heavily
engaged in fertilizer management activity and they had the minimum opportunity to give
time and effort for their core activities i.e. technology transfer. That time, the Government
administration (UNO, UAO) was also loaded with fertilizer issue.
In January 2009, with the formation of the new Government the controlled system of urea
sale was withdrawn. In the new/present system, the farmers can buy urea all days a week
and thus they can apply urea fertilizer to the field as per crop requirement. From January
until October this year there is no report of fertilizer (urea) crisis, so the new system is
working well. At the end of a day, the fertilizer dealer communicates about sale position to
the UAO.
Economic constraint is relatively a less important factor at present for farmer’s
accessibility to urea fertilizer. Quantity of use is a constraint to be considered. It also
appears that shared croppers, as reported, use generally less fertilizer in shared lands than
in their own lands. The UAOs were of the opinion that some farmers (around 30%) use
excess urea than needed (Table 11), although this is not supported by the findings of
household survey, as described in section 4.3.1
31
Table 12. Constraints for farmers’ access to non-urea fertilizers
a) KII opinion
Sl.
No.
Constraints Opinion index score
2008 2009*
1 Price of non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) is high. 45
(82%)
30
(55%)
2 Marginal and small farmers can not afford the cost of
non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP).
42
(76%)
36
(65%)
3 Farmers use non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) less than
recommendation.
49
(89%)
42
(76%)
4 Shared croppers use less non-urea fertilizers (TSP and
MoP) in shared land than in their own lands.
27
(49%)
21
(38%)
5 Farmers do not use balanced dose of fertilizers. 51
(93%)
49
(89%)
6 Quality of non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) is
generally low.
30
(55%)
29
(53%)
Scale: 0-5 (0 = Do not agree, 1 = Very low, 2 = Low, 3 = Medium, 4 = High, 5 = Very high)Opinion index varies from 0 to 55 (n = 11 UAOs)* up to October 2009
b) Farmer opinion
Sl.
No.
Constraints Opinion index score
2008 2009*
1 Price of non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) is high. 191
(85%)
140
(62%)
2 Marginal and small farmers can not afford the cost of
non-fertilizers (TSP and MoP).
195
(87%)
156
(69%)
3 Quality of non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) is
generally low.
93
(41%)
84
(37%)
Scale: 0-3 (0 = Do not agree, 1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = High)
Opinion index varies from 0 to 225 (n = 75)* up to October 2009
32
4.4.2 Access to non-urea fertilizers
Accessibility to non-urea fertilizers such as TSP and MoP, as observed in 2008, was
constrained by high price of fertilizer which went beyond the buying capacity of farmers,
especially the marginal and small farmers (Table 12). In 1-year time, the price of non-urea
fertilizers (TSP, MoP and DAP) has been revised twice (January and November, 2009)
and the price has come down which, although not significant, has rendered some positive
effect on the scale of its use by the farmers. The lower accessibility to non-urea fertilizers
has resulted in unbalanced use of fertilizers. Low quality non-urea fertilizer is another
factor for low access to or use of non-urea fertilizers. Fertilizer pricing, adulteration and
unbalanced fertilization have been discussed in details in the previous sections (4.1.2,
4.1.4 and 4.2.3).
It is observed that shared croppers have low access to fertilizers due to the tenant system.
The owners usually do not bear the cost of inputs (e.g. fertilizers) and the tenant period is
usually short-term. Many farmers are of the view that that they do not use sufficient
fertilizers in crop field because of unsatisfactory price of farm produce (rice).
33
V. KEY FINDINGS
i. Domestic production of fertilizers is not adequate to meet the demand of the country, so
the additional requirement is met by import. Local production of urea and TSP over the
years has decreased and in return the import has increased. For urea, both production
and import are under the control of the Government (MoCI). For non-urea fertilizers
(TSP, MoP and DAP), import is largely done by private sector and a small portion by
BADC. Distribution channels for both urea and non-urea fertilizers are basically same.
The same BCIC dealers lift out both types of fertilizers (urea from factory gate and
buffer godown, and TSP from factory gate and importers’ warehouse). The BADC
dealers collect non-urea fertilizers from BADC godown only. The farmers can buy
fertilizers both from dealers (union level) and retailers (ward/village level).
ii. Quality of non-urea fertilizers is often below standard. Although use of mixed fertilizers
(NPKS) is encouraging in order to improve balanced fertilization, unfortunately, the
quality of available mixed fertilizers is highly sub-standard (>80% adulteration), and
for SSP and TSP adulteration is above 50%. Privately imported fertilizers are more
adulterated and this happens possibly at the storage and distribution points. This is
alarming. Quality of locally produced fertilizers is up to mark.
iii. Crisis of urea fertilizer had arisen in 2008 due to introduction of controlled system of
fertilizer sale (card/slip system, sale 3-4 days a week). Farmers have no complaints
about present sale system of urea (no card/slip, sale 7 days a week). Now they can buy
and apply urea in required amount for their crops.
iv. Price of urea is Tk. 12/kg, with effect from June 2008. Price of non-urea fertilizers
was quite high in 2008 (Tk. 80/kg TSP, Tk. 75/kg MoP and Tk. 85/kg). The present
Government has revised the price, now the rate is Tk. 22/kg TSP, Tk. 25/kg MoP and
Tk. 30/kg DAP (as of November 2009). The present prices of the fertilizers are
affordable to the farmers.
v. Farmers’ fertilizer use was related to their land holdings, showing that marginal
farmers use lesser amount of fertilizers than small farmers and similarly, small farmers
use lesser amount than medium farmers. Farmers are not using balanced dose of
fertilizers. They are using urea dose close to the recommended dose, TSP dose was
34
lower than recommendation and MoP dose was much lower than recommendation,
creating an imbalance in N-P-K use. This would affect crop yield.
vi. Farmers are using low to very low dose of non-urea fertilizers, with almost no
application of micronutrients which apparently is not due to exclusively high price.
Farmers are not adequately motivated with use of non-urea fertilizers although it is
important to obtain the potential yield of a crop.
vii Farmers are interested in using urea super granule (USG) in rice cultivation since it
reduces use of urea by 25-30%. The one limitation is that it is labor-intensive place
urea in the centre of four rice hills, however recently BARI and some other
organizations have developed urea applicator machine which would solve this
problem. Promotion of USG technology and organic fertilizer use would greatly
reduce the urea fertilizer demand in this country.
VI. POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations are given under major issues, as stated below:
Fertilizer supply and distribution The present policy of urea production, import and distribution under the
Government control should be continued.
For the case of non-urea fertilizers (TSP, DAP and MoP), the on-going policy of
private sector import mainly and distribution by the Government control can be
continued. Strong monitoring is needed at storage and distribution points to check
adulteration of these fertilizers.
The SRDI laboratories (under MoA) can analyze fertilizer samples at random from
market in every six months and report to the National Fertilizer Committee (NFC).
Fertilizer estimation template The fertilizer template as developed in this study can be considered for use by the
Upazila Agriculture Officer (UAO) for fertilizer demand estimation. This template
can also be used from micro to macro levels i.e. from farm to country levels.
Fertilizer prices and sale system Present price of urea (Tk. 12/kg) and that of non-urea (TSP Tk. 22/kg, MoP Tk.
25/kg and DAP Tk. 30/kg) are affordable to the farmers.
35
The present system of urea sale (no slip or card system, dealer shop open all days)
is quite good for the farmers to buy and use required amount of urea for their
crops.
Fertilizer use by farmers Policy support is needed to increase the ability of marginal and small farmers to
buy fertilizers.
Training, field demonstration and motivational work need to be strengthened so
that the farmers can use balanced fertilization.
Use of USG technology and organic fertilizer needs to be promoted to reduce the
use of prilled urea.
VII. AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
i. Growth of agriculture and fertilizer demand over the next 10 years
ii. Potentials and opportunities of using organic fertilizers
iii. Constraints for adoption of balanced fertilization
iv. Impact of climate change on land and soil resources
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
Inadequate availability of urea fertilizer and very high price of non-urea fertilizers (TSP
and MoP) were the major constraints for fertilizer access and use in 2008. These
constraints are largely removed in 2009 for the change of fertilizer sale and price policies
by the new Government. In the new (present) system, urea is being sold 7 days a week,
with no slip/card system and the price of non-urea fertilizers (TSP, MoP and DAP) has
come down with twice revisions. However, still farmers are not using required amount of
non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) which is attributable to the knowledge gap due lack of
adequate motivation approach. This low use of TSP and MoP fertilizers is creating an
imbalance in soil-plant system which in turn would have negative impact on crop yield.
Quality of non-urea fertilizers is often below standard, above 80% adulteration for mixed
fertilizers and above 50% adulteration for SSP and TSP. Urea production (from six
factories) is declining with time and consequently, import is increasing to meet the
demand. Use of USG can save prilled urea use by at least 25-30%. When a fertilizer crisis
it should be investigated immediately so as to suggest any change in policy to solve the
problem.
36
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was carried out under the National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening
Programme (NFPCSP), with financial support of European Commission, USAID, FAO
and Bangladesh Government. I would like to express my gratitude to Mr. Ad Spijkers
(FAO representative in Bangladesh) and Mr. Fiorillo Ciro (Chief Technical Advisor,
NFPCSP) for their nice help and cooperation in carrying out this study.
I would like to extend my gratefulness to Dr. Nathalie Bouche (Economist), Dr. Shaikh
Abdus Sabur (Availability Advisor) and Dr. Lalita Bhattacharjee, (Nutritionist), members
of the NFPCSP Technical Assistance Team (TAT) for monitoring the execution of this
study, and providing suggestions in the questionnaire development and reviewing the
progress reports and technical outputs.
I would like to extend cordial thanks to Dr. Rezaul Karim Talukder (Physical & Social
Advisor) and Dr. Ferdous Alam (Economic Access Advisor) for their constructive
criticism and fruitful suggestions in the review meetings. Special thanks are due to Dr. Nur
A Khondaker (Research Grants Administrator, NFPCSP) for his help and cooperation
throughout the period of this study.
I would like to acknowledge the help and cooperation of the Food Planning and
Monitoring Unit (Ministry of Food and Disaster Management) and the Thematic Research
Teams (TRT). Cordial thanks are also extended to all other people of the Project
Management Unit (NFPCSP) for their cooperation in carrying out this study.
I wish to express sincere thanks to the Vice-Chancellor, and the Head, Department of Soil
Science of Bangladesh Agricultural University (BAU), Mymensingh for all out help and
cooperation during project period.
Prof. Dr. M. Jahiruddin
Principal Investigator of the project
Department of Soil Science
BAU, Mymensingh
37
REFERENCES
BARC, 2000. Bangladesh NARS-2020. A Vision for Agricultural Research.
KAFCO is an export oriented international joint venture Co., with shareholding and support of the Govt. and private sectors of Bangladesh, Japan, Denmark and theNetherlands.
40
Annex 3. Template for calculation of fertilizer requirement