igidr- ifpri - possible ways to rationalize fertilizer subsidies, vijay paul sharma, iim
DESCRIPTION
Indira Gandhi Institute for Development Studies(IGIDR), and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) on ‘Harnessing Opportunities to Improve Agri-Food Systems’ on July 24-25 , 2014 in New Delhi. The two day conference aimed to discuss the agricultural priority of the government and develop a road map to realise these priorities for improved agri food systems.TRANSCRIPT
Fertilizer Subsidy in India:
Key Issues and Concerns
Vijay Paul Sharma, Professor
Indian Institute of Management
Ahmedabad, India
Email: [email protected]
Vijay Paul Sharma
Presentation Agenda
Overview of Fertilizer Production and
Consumption Trends
Fertiliser Subsidy Debate: Who Benefits and
What’s Impact of Subsidy on Farm Income
Concluding Observations & Policy Implications
Vijay Paul Sharma
Fertiliser Sector:
Emerging Trends
Vijay Paul Sharma
Overview of Indian Fertilizer
Market
3rd Largest Producer & 2nd Largest Consumer
Production: 14.7 million tonnes in 2000-01 to 16.65
million tonnes in 2011-12 16.06 million tonnes in
2012-13
Consumption: 16.7 Million Tonnes in 2000-01
28.12 Million Tonnes in 2010-11 25.58 in 2012-13
RISING IMPORTS???
<2 million tonnes in 2002-03 12.4 million tonnes
in 2011-12
Vijay Paul Sharma
Indian Fertilizer Sector vis-à-
vis Global Markets - 2009
India’s Share in Global Imports
World
Imports
Indian
imports
Share of
global trade
Rank
Rock Phosphapte 19.6 5.3 27.0% 1
Phosphoric Acid 4.4 2.6 59.1% 1
Sulphur 28.6 1.8 6.3% 6
Ammonia 14.4 1.6 11.1% 2
Vijay Paul Sharma
Recent Trends
Steep Increase in Consumption BUT
Stagnant Production: Rising Dependence
on Imports/Volatile Markets
Excessive Use in Certain Areas BUT Low
Level of Consumption in Some
Widening Imbalance in Nutrient Use Vijay Paul Sharma
Increasing Gap between
Production and Consumption
Imports
Production
Consumption
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
20
01
-02
20
02
-03
20
03
-04
20
04
-05
20
05
-06
20
06
-07
20
07
-08
20
08
-09
20
09
-10
20
10
-11
20
11
-12
20
12
-13
Imports
(%
of
Cons.)
Producti
on/Consum
pti
on (
Mn
Tonnes)
Vijay Paul Sharma Source: FAI (2013)
Relatively Low Fertilizer Use in
India
Vijay Paul Sharma Source: FAI (2013)
Consumption
(kg/ha)
TE 1989-90 TE1999-00 TE2011-12
Above 200 5
(1.4%)
31
(6.6%)
135
(25.4%)
150-200 21 (5.7) 45 (9.6) 77 (14.5)
100-150 42 (11.4) 94 (20.0) 115 (21.6)
75-100 46 (12.5) 62 (13.2) 57 (10.6)
50-75 70 (19.0) 78 (16.6) 59 (11.1)
25-50 85
(23.1)
80
(17.1)
55
(10.3)
<25 99
(26.9)
79
(16.8)
35
(6.5)
Vijay Paul Sharma Source: FAI (2013)
All India Plant Nutrient
Consumption Ratio
Year N P2O5 K2O
1981-82 6.0 1.9 1
1991-92 6.0 2.9 1
1992-93 9.5 3.2 1
2000-01 6.8 2.6 1
2002-03 6.5 2.5 1
2008-09 5.3 2.3 1
2009-10 4.3 2.0 1
2010-11 4.7 2.3 1
2011-12 6.7 3.1 1
2012-13 8.2 3.2 1
Partial decontrol of
Fertilizers in 1991&
2010
Source: FAI (2013)
Imbalanced Use of Nutrients:
Pre- & Post-NBS Period
State Pre-NBS (2010-11) Post-NBS (2012-13)
Kg/ha N:P:K Kg/ha N:P:K
Punjab 241.6 19.1 : 5.9 :1 250.2 61.8 : 19.2 :1
Haryana 209.4 20.5 : 7.1 :1 207.6 61.4 : 18.6 :1
Tamil Nadu 211.1 2.1 : 0.9 :1 164.6 3.9 : 1.5 :1
A.P. 252.8 3.9 : 2.1 :1 189.3 7.1 : 2.8 :1
West Bengal 160.4 2.0 : 1.4 :1 163.1 2.9 : 1.6 :1
Bihar 173.5 5.8 : 1.9 :1 192.3 30.8 : 10.1 :1
Orissa 59.3 3.3 : 1.7 :1 90.3 6.2 : 2.4 :1
Gujarat 174.1 6.9 : 2.9 :1 109.6 13.2 : 3.4 :1
All India 144.1 4.7 : 2.3 :1 128.3 8.2 : 3.2 :1
Source: FAI (2013)
Increasing Multi-Nutrient
Deficiency
Deficiency of at least 6 Nutrients – N, P, K, S, Zn
and Boron
ing Deficiency of Secondary & Micro-nutrients
– Limiting Crop Response to NPK Application
Extent of Nutrient Deficiency
N (89%); P (80%), K (50%); Sulphur (41%);
Zinc (49%); Boron (33%), Iron (12%), Manganese (5%),
Molybdenum: 13%
Vijay Paul Sharma
Fertiliser Subsidy Debate:
Who Benefits?
Vijay Paul Sharma
Subsidy Debate??
Fertilizer Subsidy Largely Benefits Manufacturers Gulati (1990), Gulati & Sharma (1995), Panagariya (2001) Gulati
& Narayanan (2003), etc.
Comparison of Domestic & International Prices
Assuming World Price: US$150-200/MT; Actual: US$200->550/MT
Assuming Competitive Market Structure of World Industry
Industry Concentration Very High; Strong Cartels
India Small Country: No Impact on World Prices
Significant Impact on World Prices: Positive Association between
Indian imports and World Prices
Fertilizer Subsidy Benefits Large Farmers and
Commercial Agriculture Vijay Paul Sharma
Market Power of Top-5 Global
Fertilizer Companies
Company Market Power
N P K
Yara + + + + + + -
Mosaic + + + + + + + + +
Agrium + + + + + + +
PotashCorp + + + + + + + +
Kali & Salz Group + + - + + Vijay Paul Sharma
Urea Imports by India &
International Prices: +ve Association
Vijay Paul Sharma Source: FAI (2013)
Concentration of Fertilizer
Consumption: States & Crops
Major States: TE2011-12 Major Crops: 2006
Top 5: 54%, Top10: 83% of Total Use Top 5: 78% of Total Use
Fertiliser Use on Major Crops
& Farm Sizes: Inverse Relationship
0
50
100
150
200
250
Avg. Paddy Wheat Cotton
Kg/ha
Marginal Small Semi-medium Medium Large
Vijay Paul Sharma Source: GoI (2012)
Share in Total Cropped Area vis-à-
vis Total Fertilizer Use: Small vs Large
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
<1ha 1-2ha 2-4ha 4-10ha >10ha
Share (
%)
in T
CA/Fert.
Use
Share (%) in TCA Share (%) in Fert. Use
Vijay Paul Sharma Source: GoI (2012)
Impact of Fertiliser Subsidy
on Farm Income
Vijay Paul Sharma
Fertilizer Subsidy & Net
Income from Paddy
-10000
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Hy
Pb
Assam CG
U.P
.
Bih
ar
India
Odis
ha
Ktk
A.P
.
W.B
.
TN
Jhar
Rs/ha
Current 2010-11 W/O Subsidy
Vijay Paul Sharma Source: Computed from CACP (2012)
Fertilizer Subsidy & Net
Income from Wheat
Vijay Paul Sharma Source: Computed from CACP (2012)
Fertilizer Subsidy Trends (At Current Prices)
Total Subsidy
Subsidy as % of
GDP
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
20
01
-02
20
02
-03
20
03
-04
20
04
-05
20
05
-06
20
06
-07
20
07
-08
20
08
-09
20
09
-10
20
10
-11
20
11
-12
20
12
-13
20
13
-14
(RE)
20
14
-15
(B)
Subsid
y (
% o
f G
DP)
Subsid
y (
Rs. Crore)
Vijay Paul Sharma Source: GoI (2014)
Concluding Observations &
Policy Implications
Fertilizer Subsidy Important for Improving Profitability of
Farming: Yields & Cost of Production
Subsidy Concentrated in Few States & Crops But More
Benefits to Small and Marginal Farmers
Higher Usage of Fertilizer/ha
Higher Area under Fertilizer-Intensive Crops
Higher Share in Fertilizer Use vis-à-vis Share in Total Cropped Area
Complete Withdrawal of Fertilizer Subsidy will Make Farming
Unprofitable
Need to Contain Subsidies: Huge Fiscal Burden, Declining
Fertilizer Use Efficiency, etc.
Better Targeting and/or Rationing an Option
Vijay Paul Sharma
Concluding Observations &
Policy Implications
Direct Transfer of Fertilizer Subsidy: Rationale Not Clear
& even Difficult to Implement (Informal Tenancy, Working
Capital Constraint, 152 Manufacturers vis-à-vis 136 Million Farm
Households, etc…..)
Rationalize Pricing of Fertilizers (Urea) & Effective
Extension Services to Promote Balanced Use of Nutrients
Special Focus of Micro- and Secondary Nutrients: Need
Strong Policy Support
Step Up Domestic Production Capacity: Dependence on
Imports – Highly Volatile Markets & Strong Cartels
Vijay Paul Sharma
Vijay Paul Sharma