Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

IGIDR- IFPRI - Possible Ways to Rationalize Fertilizer Subsidies, Vijay Paul Sharma, IIM

1,485 views

Published on

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.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

IGIDR- IFPRI - Possible Ways to Rationalize Fertilizer Subsidies, Vijay Paul Sharma, IIM

  1. 1. Fertilizer Subsidy in India: Key Issues and Concerns Vijay Paul Sharma, Professor Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, India Email: vijays@iimahd.ernet.in Vijay Paul Sharma
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. Fertiliser Sector: Emerging Trends Vijay Paul Sharma
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. Increasing Gap between Production and Consumption Imports Production Consumption 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Imports(%ofCons.) Production/Consumption(Mn Tonnes) Vijay Paul Sharma Source: FAI (2013)
  8. 8. Relatively Low Fertilizer Use in India Vijay Paul Sharma Source: FAI (2013)
  9. 9. 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)
  10. 10. 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)
  11. 11. 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)
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. Fertiliser Subsidy Debate: Who Benefits? Vijay Paul Sharma
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. Market Power of Top-5 Global Fertilizer Companies Company Market Power N P K Yara + + + + + + - Mosaic + + + + + + + + + Agrium + + + + + + + PotashCorp + + + + + + + + Kali & Salz Group + + - + + Vijay Paul Sharma
  16. 16. Urea Imports by India & International Prices: +ve Association Vijay Paul Sharma Source: FAI (2013)
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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)
  19. 19. 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(%)inTCA/Fert.Use Share (%) in TCA Share (%) in Fert. Use Vijay Paul Sharma Source: GoI (2012)
  20. 20. Impact of Fertiliser Subsidy on Farm Income Vijay Paul Sharma
  21. 21. Fertilizer Subsidy & Net Income from Paddy -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Hy Pb Assam CG U.P. Bihar India Odisha Ktk A.P. W.B. TN Jhar Rs/ha Current 2010-11 W/O Subsidy Vijay Paul Sharma Source: Computed from CACP (2012)
  22. 22. Fertilizer Subsidy & Net Income from Wheat Vijay Paul Sharma Source: Computed from CACP (2012)
  23. 23. 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 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14(RE) 2014-15(B) Subsidy(%ofGDP) Subsidy(Rs.Crore) Vijay Paul Sharma Source: GoI (2014)
  24. 24. 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
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26. Vijay Paul Sharma

×