Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Fertilizer policy in Thailand- Nipon Poapongsakorn
Fertilizer policy in Thailand- Nipon Poapongsakorn
Fertilizer policy in Thailand- Nipon Poapongsakorn
Fertilizer policy in Thailand- Nipon Poapongsakorn
Fertilizer policy in Thailand- Nipon Poapongsakorn
Fertilizer policy in Thailand- Nipon Poapongsakorn
Fertilizer policy in Thailand- Nipon Poapongsakorn
Fertilizer policy in Thailand- Nipon Poapongsakorn
Fertilizer policy in Thailand- Nipon Poapongsakorn
Fertilizer policy in Thailand- Nipon Poapongsakorn
Fertilizer policy in Thailand- Nipon Poapongsakorn
Fertilizer policy in Thailand- Nipon Poapongsakorn
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Fertilizer policy in Thailand- Nipon Poapongsakorn

1,363

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,363
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
43
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Fertilizer Policy in Thailand Nipon Poapongsakorn Danop Aroonkong TDRI 26 September 2013 At Apsara Angkor Resort & Conference Center, Siem Reap, Cambodia
  • 2. Outline 1. Objective 2. Summary of findings 3. Fertilizer policies in Thailand 3.1 Trade policy 3.2 Support policy 3.3 Price control 3.4 Tailor-made and site-specific fertilizer projects 4. Conclusion and recommendation
  • 3. 1. Objective  Our main objective is to answer: how do government fertilizer policies affect the fertilizer market in Thailand?  To answer, we focus on: o What were the fertilizer policies in Thailand? What is the rationale? o What were their impacts on the market?
  • 4. 2. Summary of findings 1. Trade policy was implemented to protect companies, fortunately, it no longer exists. 2. Support policy in Thailand has been mostly about providing credits and selling fertilizers at lower-than- market prices. Now, the role of government has been reduced to credit provision through the BAAC. 3. Wholesale price control was implemented during the oil shock in 208, but was unsuccessful and resulted in distortion. After that, the control price is not binding. 4. Farmers’ farms using the recommended site-specific fertilizers have lower fertilizer cost, and for a few crops, higher yields. However, most smallholders do not embrace the suggestions, thanks to the transaction cost.
  • 5. 4. Government policy  3.1 Trade policy: • Started in 1968, government started to impose import taxes and bans on various fertilizers to protect the Chemical Fertilizer plant  Ban on domestic fertilizers  Bans on urea, ammonia sulfate, single-nutrient nitrogen fertilizer imports • Shortage in supply and resulted in high prices of fertilizers • By 1993, all import duties and value-added taxes on fertilizers for agricultural use were at zero percent
  • 6. National Fertilizer Company (NFC) • Objectives:  1) To secure fertilizer supply and reduce price fluctuations for farmers  2) To promote the use of fertilizers and use of appropriate grades  3) To reduce the amount of adulterated fertilizers in the market  4) To increase competition in the fertilizer market • Rationale:  Second world oil shock in 1979-1981 – prices of fertilizers increased as oil price increased.  Around the same time, natural gas was discovered in the Gulf of Thailand • Performance of NFC  Unable to meet demand  Little or no influence in promoting fertilizer use  Low quality and adulterated fertilizers could not be controlled by one single plant  The plant was more of a cartel as most firms had a share holding.  It was not subject to the competition law • Fall of NFC  Unable to service debt after the baht depreciation in 1998  Problems related to the technological design of the plant
  • 7.  3.2 Support policy • 1966: Establishment of the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Co-operatives (BAAC)  Provided credit, but also forced farmers to purchase fertilizers from the Bank’s cooperative • 1974: The BAAC established the Marketing Cooperative For Farmers (MCF)  BAAC asked farmers to buy fertilizer from MCF  A study by TDRI (2010) reveals that BAAC clients reported that MCF fertilizer prices were lower than the market prices and thought that MCF fertilizers were of better quality • Prior to 1998, the Department of Agricultural Extension (DOAE) distributed free fertilizers
  • 8.  3.3 Price control • Objectives:  To lower input costs accrued to farmers and ideally  Prevent dealers and importers from intentionally storing fertilizers to take advantage of the increase in chemical fertilizer prices in the world market by controlling prices. • Rationale:  Prices of fertilizers were surging in 2008.  Being a controlled good, the Price Control Act of 1999 and the Fertilizer Act of 2007 allowed the government to directly intervene. • Impact of price control on the market  At the wholesale level, some large-scale companies stopped giving credit to dealers/wholesalers o Some asked their customers to pay the price difference between the actual price and controlled price in terms of rebate at a later time.  Introduction of other uncontrolled fertilizer grades with similar nutrient contents to the controlled grades o I.e., 16-16-16 as an alternative to 15-15-15 • In January of 2013, price ceiling was relaxed
  • 9.  3.4 Tailor-made (TMF) and site-specific (SSF) fertilizer projects • Origin:  Started by a professor at Kasetsart University, who experimented on farms using tailor-made/site-specific fertilizers. Results were impressive and the government was showed interest. • Objectives:  The TMF project was officially launched in 2011 to promote efficient agricultural production through the use of appropriate fertilizer grades and to reduce farmers’ input costs • Rationale:  The mentioned Kasetsart University professor has tested tailor-made fertilizers on farms and found that cost per rai in the TMF plot was lower than that of the farmers’ plots by about 35-45%
  • 10. • Project was terminated in 2011:  Short period of preparation  Conflict of interest between the Land Development Department and Kasetsart University  Implementation problems for small farmers: o Extra transaction costs to smallholders, i.e., problems with leftover fertilizers, extra labor cost • Project is now called the SFF project, which is more of an information-based program
  • 11. 4. Conclusion  Given the neutral trade policy and no government intervention, the domestic fertilizer prices reflect the world prices • Competition exists as new entrants can start importing due to no import tariffs.  Government intervention has proven to cause shortages and that prices rose  Support policy can potentially increase competition by forcing other firms to reduce price and increase quality  Existing problems: • Policies to encourage appropriate use of fertilizers have yet come to fruition  Implementation issues • Adulterated and low quality fertilizers • Exaggerated advertisements • Still distortion in the output market (rice), thanks to the rice pledging policy
  • 12. Factors explaining fertilizer import: regressions  2.2 Factors explaining fertilizer import: regressions Independent variables Dependent variables Total fertilizer import Total fertilizer import per area Robust Robust (model) (1) (2) priceratio -744331.70** (-5.03) -36.58** (-5.27) ricepledge 491148.20* (1.99) 19.39 (1.61) exchangerate -29926.42** (-2.18) -1.24* (-1.95) agriarea 118.13** (2.63) - (-) year 131211.80** (9.62) 6.45** (10.45) constant -2.60x108** (-9.87) -12644.87** (-10.46) # of observations 33 33 F-stat 2253.60 1428.35 R-square 0.9526 0.9506 R-square adjusted - - D-W test 1.7338 1.7329

×