Fertilizer companies, which are controlled by the government from production to sales and now even on profits, hardly make an announcement on investment plan and after a long time there has been some capacity expansion in urea due to revival of closed public sector units. Amid the government’s changed priorities on use of chemical fertilizers, is the industry ready to take the challenge of helping the country meet foodgrains requirement after 20-30 years? businessline speaks to Sanjiv Kanwar, MD of Yara Fertilisers India. Excerpts:
There are a lot of talks about imbalanced use of fertilizer in the country. What is the solution do you see for this?
There has to be an overall assessment on how to improve the balance in the system. It’s easy, because when we look at the consumption that is happening, I think it’s more skewed in favour of nitrogen (N) and less in favour of phosphorous and potash (P&K) — urea prices (MRP) have not been increased for the last 15-20 years and the gap between urea on one hand and DAP and complex (NPK) on the other is quite large. So the farmer is generally going in for more of urea as compared to the P&K fertilizers. Price policy need to be redesigned so that farmers are pushed and encouraged to move in the direction of balanced crop nutrition. That is what will also help go a long way in improving the soil health of the country.
There was a study about yield from fertilizer application. Earlier from one bag of fertilizer, the production used to be more whereas it has declined from application of same one bag. That’s why farmers are using more chemicals. So, can there be a balance of both chemical fertilizer as well as bio-fertilizer?
Absolutely. As we go forward, climate change is a reality. We have seen it in the last 18 months. We did not have enough moisture in India. We did not have snowfall in north India, in the apple-growing region, and we did not have rains as we needed in the plains.
We need to have a mix of mineral fertilizers and bio-fertilizers because both have a role to play, especially when it is under stress conditions. So when you apply a good quality of bio-stimulant, it helps the crop to fight the abiotic stress that it faces during extreme drought conditions. That also helps in improving or protecting farm productivity.
How is the farmer’s acceptability about bio-fertilizers? Because of subsidy, chemical fertilizers are cheaper whereas farmers need to pay more for bio-stimulants.
It has been seen that if production is higher and people have a lot of land, they are ready to adopt this kind of crop nutrients. I think we should keep in mind that the Indian farmer is a business person. They take informed decisions. If a product or a concept is making a difference to improving the farm productivity, they will definitely take a decision in favour of such a concept.
Over the last 4-5 years, the bio-stimulant market has been growing in India along with the mineral fertilizers. So there is an acceptance in the mind of the farmers to use better quality products, better quality bio-stimulants that are available.
How is the regulatory atmosphere in India about approval of bio fertilisers?
I think there is a need to re-look at the regulatory system that we have in place. There is a World Bank report on ease of doing business in agriculture, probably released in 2019, just before Covid pandemic. As per that report, India ranks 97 out of the 101 countries that were surveyed on the time it takes to get new fertilizers registered in India under the Fertilizer Control Order. I think it takes around 897 days as per the report to get a new product registered in India, which is a very long time. It is actually preventing the Indian farmers from accessing innovative fertilizer products that are available to their peers in the global market.
For instance, if we see something which is working very well in China, and we want to launch it in India, it will take me 3-4 years to bring it here. And that’s the gap that builds up between my farmer in India and his peers in the global market, which needs to be bridged.
What is the practice in developed markets?
All agriculturally advanced countries have a general specification of fertilizers — minimum nutrient needed and maximum contaminant accepted (no need to apply for approval each time). So that is how the quality of the fertilizer is assured. And it is very important to keep an eye on the heavy metals, that’s a contaminant, that should not go into the soil. There is a general specification of fertilizers for water-soluble NPKs and it helped in increasing grapes exports out of India.
It seems there is a dilemma at the policy level, whom it should incentivise. Those farmers who are using excessive chemical fertilizers, but also at the same time contributing to the food security of the country. On the other hand, farmers who do not use chemical fertilizers, are also protecting the soil of the country. What is the best way to incentivise?
The ideal way is to take the middle path. Because someone who is doing it right, also needs to be incentivised. But, let’s say somebody is using imbalanced fertilizers. He needs to be incentivised to switch towards balanced fertilizers. For instance, increase the MRP of urea and whatever increase you have here, increase the subsidy on P&K and complex, so that overall costs of production remain the same, and the farmer benefits from that.
Is the fertilizer industry ready to take a challenge of meeting the food production, considering that India’s population has been growing rapidly?
I think the industry is quite well positioned to support growth in agriculture. We are part and parcel of the agriculture sector in India. If we look at what’s happening, the urea production has gone up almost by 6 million tonnes, though mostly by the public sector. There is also increased production of phosphatic, complex. There is a need for enablers to come in.
It’s not only the subsidized fertilizers that have a role to play in improving farm productivity. You need the regulations to allow easier registration of newer fertilizers, bio-stimulants and liquid fertilizers, which will go a long way in improving farm productivity. It’s not just the urea and the complex which can have an impact on farm productivity.
There is a section of farmers who do not accept the government’s claim that one bottle of nano urea is equivalent to one bag of granular urea. The ideal solution can be a mix of both granular and the nano, but one cannot completely do away with conventional bag.
When we talk about nano-urea, we need to keep in mind that it has come through a rather rigorous testing process. It has come through ICAR, which has tested it over a period of 2-3 years. And it’s been launched into the market by a highly respected fertilizer company, IFFCO, which has been at the forefront of fertilizer production in India for the last so many years now. And it is a very serious player. We should not be very quick to make any judgment call at any point of time, because it takes about 3-4 years for a product to be established and accepted. It’s just started.