Final Report CF # 3/08

Constraints of Farmers’ Access to Fertilizer for Food Production

By M. Jahiruddin, Principal Investigator M. R. Islam, Co-Investigator M. A. Momen Miah, Co-Investigator

Department of Soil Science Bangladesh Agricultural University

This study was carried out with the support of the

National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Programme

May1 2010 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.

May2 2010 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 (Mymensingh), Kalihati (Tangail), Gabtali (Bogra), Ulipur (Kurigram), Kaharol (Dinajpur), Naogaon Sadar, Paba (Rajshahi), Doulatpur (Kushtia), Faridpur Sadar, Chandina (Comilla) and Bahobol (Habiganj).

A household survey of individual farmers and interviews were carried out in three villages under three upazilas: Panihari (Phulpur upazila), Chak-Sekendar (Gabtali upazila) and Harang (Chandina upazila). A total of 75 farmers consisting of 25 in the marginal category (owning <0.5 ha land), 25 in small category (0.5-1.0 ha land) and 25 medium category (1.0-2.5 ha land) farmers in the three villages. A structured questionnaire was followed for

i the survey. Data of fertilizer use and farmers’ characteristics, along with farmers’ response to the constraints of accessibility to fertilizers were collected.

The fertilizer demand in Bangladesh is met by domestic production and import. For urea, a significant portion of the demand is met from local production and for non-urea fertilizers, a significant demand is met by import (about 90% import for TSP, 100% for MoP and about 50% for DAP) which is largely done by the private sector and a small portion by BADC.

In Bangladesh at present there are six urea producing factories, one TSP and one for DAP all which are under the control of Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation (BCIC). The six urea factories have the maximum annual production capacity of 23.2 lakh tons, but the capacity has come down to 12.8 lakh tons production in 2008-09. The rest amount of urea demand is met by import from KAFCO (privately run in Bangladesh) and other countries such as KSA, Kuwait and China.

Regarding fertilizer prices, urea is being sold at Tk.12/kg, with effect from June 2008. Price of non-urea fertilizers was quite high in 2008: TSP 80/kg, MoP Tk. 75/kg and DAP Tk. 85/kg. The new Government has revised its price, now the rate (as of November 2009) is Tk. 22/kg TSP, Tk. 25/kg MoP and Tk. 30/kg DAP. These prices are noted to be affordable to the farmers.

Projection of fertilizer demand is an important aspect for fertilizer availability to the farmers. The Upazila Agriculture Officer (UAO) estimates the fertilizer demand, primarily based on previous year allocation and not based on soil fertility level. A fertilizer demand projection model has been developed under this study, based on soil fertility status of an area. It is simple and useful model, which can be efficiently used as a tool for assessing fertilizer requirement of different crops at different scales (plot, farm, upazila, district and national scales).

Distribution channels for both urea and non-urea fertilizers are similar. The same BCIC dealers lift out the urea fertilizer from the factory gate and buffer godowns, and TSP fertilizer 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 The quality of non-urea fertilizers is often below standard, with more than 80% adulteration for mixed fertilizers (NPKS), above 50% adulteration for privately imported SSP and TSP, and 25-30% adulteration for MoP and DAP. Adulteration might occur at the storage and distribution places. This is an alarming situation. Quality of locally produced fertilizers is quite good.

In 2008, the main constraint of farmers’ access to urea fertilizer was the inadequate availability of fertilizer for introducing the controlled sale system where urea was sold in 4-5 days a week in presence of a Sub-Assistant Agriculture Officer (SAAO). For non-urea fertilizers like TSP, MoP and DAP, the main constraint was found to be high price. However, the situation has much improved and those two constraints are no longer valid. The new Government has withdrawn the controlled sale system and revised the non-urea fertilizer price twice, with 50% reduction each time. Farmers have no complaints about the present sale system of urea (no card/slip, dealers’ shop open 7 days a week). Now the farmers can buy urea in required amount for use in their crops.

From the fertilizer use data, it appeared that farmers were using fertilizers less than the requirement. There were negligible differences for urea, considerable difference for TSP and remarkable difference for MoP, even in 2009 when price of non-urea fertilizer was substantially reduced. This created unbalanced use of fertilizers which produces negative impact on soil fertility and crop yield. The principal reason for lower use of TSP and MoP fertilizers was determined to be the lack of adequate knowledge and motivation about the benefits of non-fertilizers on soils and crops.

Fertilizer use was found to be significantly correlated with farm size (r = 0.844 for urea, r = 0.524 for TSP and r = 0.665 for MoP) and annual income (r = 0.684, 0.477 and 0.596, respectively). So, the marginal farmers use lesser amount of fertilizers than the small farmers, and the small farmers use lesser amounts than the medium farmers. Other characteristics such as age, education, family size, farming experience, training experience, communication exposure and use of organic fertilizers by farmers did not show significant relationship with their chemical fertilizer use.

Farmers are interested in using urea super granule (USG) in rice cultivation since it reduces urea use by 25-30% and increases yield by 20-25%. The lack of adequate availability of USG in the market is a major constraint. Promotion of USG technology would save urea fertilizer demand to a considerable extent.

iii Overall, the study indicates that inadequate availability of urea fertilizers and the high price of non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) were the major constraints for fertilizer access and use in 2008. These constraints have been largely removed in 2009 with the change of fertilizer sale and price policies by the new Government. Now, the major issues are related to fertilizer (non-urea) adulteration, unbalanced fertilizer use and fertilizer use at lower rates by the marginal and small farmers.

Recommendations

Fertilizer supply and distribution  The present policy of urea production, import and distribution under the Government control should be continued.  In the case of non-urea fertilizers (TSP, DAP and MoP), the on-going policy of private sector import mainly distributed by the Government control can be continued. Strong monitoring is needed at storage and distribution points to check adulteration of the fertilizers.

Fertilizer estimation template  The fertilizer template 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.  The present system of urea sale (no slip or card system, dealer shop open all days) is quite good for the farmers to purchase and use in 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.

iv CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. OBJECTIVES 4

III. METHODOLOGY 3.1 Consultation of documents and reports 4 3.2 Key Informants’ Interview 4 3.3 Household survey 5 3.4 Data analysis 5 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Fertilizer supply and prices 6 4.1.1 Fertilizer production and import 6 4.1.2 Fertilizer supply versus requirement 7 4.1.3 Fertilizer estimation template 9 4.1.4 Fertilizer pricing 10 4.2 Fertilizer distribution/marketing systems 12 4.2.1 Urea fertilizer distribution/marketing system 12 4.2.2 Non-urea fertilizers distribution system 15 4.2.3 Adulteration 15 4.3 Fertilizer use 16 4.3.1 Fertilizer use by different categories of farmers 18 4.3.2 Relationship between farmers fertilizer use and their characteristics 20 4.3.3 Fertilizer use gap 21 4.3.4 Unbalanced use of fertilizers 23 4.3.5 Issues related to excess urea use 26 4.3.6 USG technology for reduction of urea use 26

4.4 Stakeholders’ perception on constraints of farmers’ access to fertilizers 28 4.4.1 Access to urea fertilizer 30 4.4.2 Access to non-urea fertilizers 32

V. KEY FINDINGS 33 VI. POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 34 VII. AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 35 VIII. CONCLUSIONS 35 CKNOWLEDGEMENTS 36 REFERENCES 37 ANNEXURES 38

v LIST OF TABLES

No. CAPTION PAGE

1. Amount of production and import of urea, TSP and MoP (‘000 t) 8

2. Projection of requirement, production, import and prices of 8 fertilizers during 2008-09

3. Month-wise requirement and supply of urea fertilizer in 2007-08 9 in Paba Upazilla 4. Fertilizer price in the local and international markets 11

5A. Fertilizer use by different categories of farmers in Boro and T. 19 Aman/T. Aus rice of 2008 in Phulpur, Gabtali and Chandina upazilas

5B. Fertilizer use by different categories of farmers in Boro and T. 20 Aman rice of 2009 in Phulpur upazila

6. Correlation between farmers’ fertilizers use and their 21 characteristics (n=75)

7A. Fertilizer use gap in Boro and T. Aman rice of 2008 in Phulpur, 22 Gabtali and Chandina upazilas

7B. Fertilizer use gap in Boro and T. Aman rice of 2009 in Phulpur 23 upazila

8A. Recommended and farmers’ practice of NPK fertilizers for Boro 24 and T. Aman rice of 2008 in Phulpur, Gabtali and Chandina upazilas

8B. Recommended and farmers’ practice of NPK fertilizers for Boro 24 and T. Aman rice of 2009 in Phulpur upazila

9. N-P-K balance during the years 1989-90 to 2008-09 27

10. Effect of USG application on the yield of wetland rice 28

11. Constraints of farmers’ access to urea fertilizer 29

12. Constraints of farmers’ access to non-urea fertilizers 31

vi LIST OF FIGURES

No. CAPTION PAGE 1. Organic matter, phosphorus, potassium and zinc status of 2 Bangladesh soils

2. Fertilizer consumption during 1980-2008 (average of 5 years) 3 3. Changes in fertilizer price from 1991 to 2009 11 4. Distribution and marketing flowchart for urea fertilizer 13 5. Distribution and marketing flowchart for non-urea fertilizers 14 (TSP, MoP and DAP) 6. Adulteration of different fertilizers 16 7. Trends of fertilizer use (t yr-1) during 1989-90 to 2008-09 17 8. Trends of fertilizer use (kg ha-1 yr-1) during 1989-90 to 2008-09 17

LIST OF ANNEXURES

No. CAPTION PAGE 1. Study sites (upazila): Phulpur, Kalihati, Gabtali, Kaharol, 38 Naogaon sadar, Paba, Chandina, Faridpur sadar, Bahobol, Doulatpur and Ulipur 2. Production capacity of different fertilizer plants 39 3. Template for calculation of fertilizer requirement 40

4. Upazila Fertilizer Monitoring Committee 41 5. Consumption (MT) of different fertilizers in Bangladesh during 42 the last 40 years 6. Salient features of the farmers’ characteristics in the studied 43 areas (n = 75) 7 Total N+P+K input and output in Bangladesh 44 -1 8. N+P+K Balance (kg ha ) in different AEZs of Bangladesh 44

vii Abbreviations and Acronyms

AEO Agriculture Extension Officer AEZ Agro-ecological Zone BARC Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council BAU Bangladesh Agricultural University BCIC Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation DAE Department of Agricultural Extension DAP Diammonium phosphate FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FCO Fertilizer Control Order FPMU Food Planning and Monitoring Unit KAFCO Karnaphuli Fertilizer Co. Ltd. MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoI Ministry of Industries MoP Muriate of potash MMIS Market Monitoring Information Systems NAP National Agriculture Policy NAEP New Agricultural Extension Policy NFNP National Food and Nutrition Policy NFPCSP National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Programme OM Organic matter SAAO Sub-Assistant Agriculture Officer SRDI Soil Resource Development Institute TRT Thematic Research Team TSP Triple super phosphate TAT Technical Assistance Team UAO Upazila Agriculture Officer UFO Upazila Fisheries Officer ULO Upazila Livestock Officer USG Urea Super Granule UNO Upazila Nirbahi Officer

viii CONSTRAINTS OF FARMERS’ ACCESS TO FERTILIZER FOR FOOD PRODUCTION

I. INTRODUCTION

Over the last 2-3 decades, enormous pressure has been exerted on the land resources of

Bangladesh to increase food production for its vast population. Intensification of agricultural land use has increased remarkably coupled with the use of modern crop varieties. This has resulted in deterioration of soil fertility and depletion of organic matter

(Fig. 1). Thus, use of chemical fertilizers and addition of organic manure are important for restoration of soil nutrient base and for sustenance of crop productivity.

The total land area of Bangladesh is estimated to be about 14.84 million hectares (ha) of which 8.29 million ha are used for agriculture. Physiographically, the country comprises three types of lands: floodplains (80%), terraces (8%) and hills (12%). Crop cultivation is intense in floodplain areas. The country has 30 agro-ecological zones (AEZ) based on land form, land types, soil characteristics, and climate. The major crops include rice, wheat, jute, cotton, sugarcane, vegetables, oilseeds, pulses, tuber crops, tobacco and tea.

However, rice alone covers about 75% of arable land and the cropping pattern is mainly rice based, with on an average 179% cropping intensity.

Fertilizer, next to seed, is an essential input to production. Fertilizer use (ammonium sulphate) in this country was introduced in early 1950s when nitrogen deficiency was first identified. Since then as time advanced, new nutrient deficiencies have appeared. Eventually the farmers started to use other fertilizes such as TSP, MoP, and gypsum. Micronutrient fertilizer such as zinc sulphate were introduced in early 1980s and boric acid in early 1990s when zinc deficiency in rice and boron deficiency in wheat were identified.

Fertilizer use in this country has increased over time (Fig. 2), primarily due to increasing cropping intensity accompanied with cultivation of high yielding varieties and expansion of irrigation facilities. Fertilizer consumption is the highest for rice cropping. Fertilizer use can contribute to 50% crop production (Pradhan, 1992). Therefore, it is imperative to Fig. 1 Organic matter, phosphorus, potassium and zinc status of Bangladesh soils

2 4000 Others MoP ) t 3000 TSP o o o

' Urea (

r 2000 e z i l i t r e

F 1000

0 5 0 5 0 5 8 8 9 9 0 0 0 ------0 5 0 5 0 5 8 8 9 9 0 0 9 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 Year

Fig. 2 Fertilizer consumption during 1980-2008 (average of 5 years) provide adequate and timely supply of fertilizers to the farmers so that farmers have good access to fertilizers to ensure higher and sustainable food production.

Farmers’ access to fertilizers may be constrained due to lower availability of fertilizers and lower ability of farmers to buy fertilizers. Fertilizer availability is affected by lack of proper management which is related to demand, supply, marketing/ distribution, and sales system. Low accessibility to fertilizers would lead to low use of fertilizers and in turn would impact lower crop production. Crop production may also be hampered due to farmers’ low access to quality fertilizers. Unbalanced use of fertilizers might be another factor of fertilizer management issue.

In 2008, there were serious complaints from the farmers that they were unable to buy urea fertilizer in required amount and further they had to wait for many hours to buy this fertilizer. During that time urea was sold through a card/slip system i.e. controlled system in a limited period of time. The fertilizer crisis in the country is predominantly noted with urea and the crisis often arises in the peak seasons, February-March for Boro rice, August-September for transplant Aman rice and November-December for rabi crops (wheat, maize, pulses and vegetables).

3 For non-urea fertilizes such as triple superphosphate (TSP) and muriate of potash (MoP) the farmers, especially the marginal and small categories, had sufficiently low access to the fertilizers because of high fertilizer price on one hand and lack of adequate motivation on the other hand. There are more than six million marginal and small farm households in this country who do not produce enough food grains that they require over the year. The situation gets worsen when crop production suffers from inadequate use of inputs.

Considering the above points in view, the present study was undertaken in November 2008 for one year to investigate the constraints of fertilizer access and use at farm level.

II. OBJECTIVES

The study aimed at achieving three objectives, as follows: i. To identify the constraints of farmers’ access to fertilizer ii. To evaluate the fertilizer marketing system iii. To suggest modifications of existing fertilizer policies to mitigate the constraints

III. METHODOLOGY

Suitable approaches and tools were followed to achieve the objectives of the study. Data were collected in three ways: (i) consultation of relevant documents and reports, (ii) key informants’ interview (KII), and (iii) household survey. They are briefly described below.

3.1 Consultation of documents and reports Some policy documents viz. National Agriculture Policy (NAP), Fertilizer Control Order (FCO), National Food and Nutrition Policy (NFNP), National Food Policy (NFP) and New Agricultural Extension Policy (NAEP) were consulted. Various reports and publications that related to fertilizer use and management were studied (Karim, 2009; Shah et al., 2008; Kafiluddin and Islam, 2008; Mandal, 2008 and BARC, 2000). These reports and publications have provided some background information.

3.2 Key Informants’ Interview The Key Informants’ Interview (KII) was conducted using a semi-structured questionnaire and persons interviewed were from the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE): Upazila Agriculture Officer (UAO), Agriculture Extension Officer (AEO) and Sub- Assistant Agriculture Officer (SAAO). This interview was accomplished in 11 upazilas

4 across the country: Phulpur (Mymensingh), Kalihati (Tangail), Gabtali (Bogra), Ulipur (Kurigram), Kaharol (Dinajpur), Naogaon Sadar, Paba (Rajshahi), Doulatpur (Kushtia), Faridpur Sadar, Chandina (Comilla) and Bahobol (Habiganj) (Annex. 1).

3.3 Household survey Household survey was conducted in three upazilas: Phulpur, Gabtali and Chandina. It was performed through Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and individual farmer interviews. The Individual Farmer Interview was conducted in three selected villages under three upazilas: Panihari (Phulpur upazila), Chak-Sekendar (Bogra upazila) and Harang (Chandina upazila). The household survey was carried out once in February-March, 2009 in the three villages and once in November, 2009 in Panihari village of Phulpur upazila with the same farmers. Agriculture was the main occupation and rice cultivation was very intense in these study areas.

The household survey included the farmers who were directly involved in rice production activities. A total of 75 farmers consisting of 25 marginal category (<0.5 ha land), 25 small category (0.5-1.0 ha land) and 25 medium category (1.0-2.5 ha land) farmers over the three villages and upazilas were included in the interview. A structured questionnaire was used for this survey. Simple and direct questions, and some scales whenever needed, were used in the interview schedule. Data of fertilizer use and farmers’ characteristics, along with farmers’ response to the constraints of accessibility to fertilizers were collected. Characteristics of farmers such as age, education, farm size, family size, farming experience, annual income, training experience, communication exposure, and use of organic fertilizers by the farmers were collected.

3.4 Data analysis After completion of the household survey, the data were compiled, tabulated and analyzed. Qualitative data were converted to quantitative data by means of suitable scoring wherever required. Correlation analysis was performed for exploring relationship of farmers’ fertilizer use with their characteristics.

5 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Fertilizer supply and prices

4.1.1 Fertilizer production and import Fertilizer demand in Bangladesh is met from both local production and import. It is noted that the local production of fertilizers is decreasing and the import of fertilizers is increasing to meet the increasing demand of fertilizers (Table 1). The most commonly used fertilizers in this country are urea, TSP and MoP, of which urea alone covers 70-75% of the total fertilizer use.

In Bangladesh, there are six urea factories having the maximum annual production capacity of 23.2 lakh tons urea and 12 thousand tons ammonium sulphate (Annex. 2). Ammonium sulphate is especially used in tea cultivation since this fertilizer produces acidity in soil which is favourable for tea growing. The production capacity of urea factories has declined, with a record of 12.8 lakh tons (56% of the maximum capacity) production in 2008-09 (Table 1); the rest amount (about 44%) of urea is imported from KAFCO (Karnaphuli Fertilizer Co. Ltd., Chittagong) and other countries such as KSA, Kuwait and China. KAFCO is run privately in Bangladesh.

Of the six urea factories, four factories such as Natural Gas Fertilizer Factory (Fenchuganj), Polash Urea Fertilizer Factory (Polash), Urea Fertilizer Factory (Ghorashal) and Zia 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

6 (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.

7 Table 1. Amount of production and import of urea, TSP and MoP (‘000 t)

Year Urea TSP MoP Production Import Total Production Import Total Import 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 375 Pvt. 560 250 Pvt. 2006-07 1700 815 2515 60 125 BADC 1 BADC 237 Pvt. 455 290 Pvt. 2007-08 1400 1000 2400 50 168 BADC 69 BADC 150 Pvt. 255 145 Pvt. 2008-09 1280 1220 2500 30 75 BADC 77 BADC Source: Kafiluddin and Islam, 2008

Table 2. Projection of requirement, production, import and prices of fertilizers in 2008-09

Fertilizer Requirement Supply (Lakh MT) (Lakh MT) Production Import Total

Urea 28.50 15.00 13.50 28.50 (4.50 KAFCO) TSP 5.00 0.50 0.50 (BADC) 5.00 4.00 (Pvt.) MoP 4.00 - 0.50 (BADC) 4.00 3.50 (Pvt.) DAP 2.00 1.00 1.00 (Pvt.) 2.00

SSP 1.00 1.00 Embargo 1.00 Gypsum 1.50 0.60 from 0.90 (Pvt.) 1.50 TSP complex 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

8 Table 3. Month-wise requirement and supply of urea fertilizer in 2007-08 in Paba Upazila

Month Requirement Supply (MT) (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.

9 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:

Crop: Boro rice (var. BRRI dhan 29)

Soil nutrient level Fertilizer requirement (kg ha-1) Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Optimum 0-40 0-7 0-23 Medium 41-80 8-14 24-46 Low 81-120 15-21 47-69 Very low 121-160 22-28 70-92

4.1.4 Fertilizer pricing Fertilizer price should be affordable to the farmers so that they can buy the required quantity of fertilizers for use in crop production. The Government always gives high subsidy on pricing of urea fertilizer so that it is within the purchasing capacity of the farmers. Before 10 June 2008, the Bangladesh Government provided Tk 2200.00 subsidy per ton for domestically produced urea fertilizer and Tk 25000.00 subsidy per ton for imported urea. The dealers lifted urea from BCIC urea mill gates at Tk 4800.00 per ton and imported urea from buffer godown at Tk 5300.00 per ton. That time the dealers sold urea among the farmers at the rate of Tk 6 per kg. On 11 June 2008, the government reduced the subsidy on urea and fixed urea price at the mill gate at Tk 10000.00 and at the buffer gate Tk 10700.00. The dealers sell urea among the farmers at the rate of Tk 12 per kg. This price is now on.

Price of non-urea fertilizers viz. TSP and MoP went high in 2006-07 and 2007-08, the main reason was that their rate in the international market was high (Fig. 3, Table 4). In 2008, the rate of TSP was sold at Tk 80/kg, MoP at Tk 75/kg and DAP at Tk. 85/kg. However, the new Government revised the rates twice, once in January and another in November 2009, with almost 50% reduction each time. So the fertilizer prices in January 2009 went down to Tk 40/kg TSP, Tk 35/kg MoP and Tk. 45/kg DAP and it further came down to Tk 22/kg TSP, Tk 25/kg MoP and Tk. 30/kg DAP in November 2009. The Government is giving 15% subsidy to the non-urea fertilizers.

10 5000

) Urea g K

0 4000 5

/ TSP k T (

3000 r

e MoP z i l i t

r 2000 e f

f o

e 1000 c i r P 0 9 8 7 6 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 ------0 0 0 5 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Year

Fig. 3 Changes in fertilizer price from 1991 to 2009

Table 4. Fertilizer price in the local and international markets

July-Aug. July-Aug. Nov.-Dec Local Local July-Aug. ‘08 ‘09 ‘09 market market Fertilizer ‘07 (Tk/kg) (Tk/ kg) (Tk/kg) (Tk/kg), (Tk/kg), (Tk/kg) Indian mkt before from Nov.09 Nov.09

Urea 52 17 16 7.50 12 12 8 TSP 79 16 19 (SSP) 40 20

MoP - - 35 7.60 35 25

DAP 80 22 20 14.40 45 30 Source: Fertilizer Market Bulletin, September 2009

Comparing the fertilizer price of Bangladesh with that of India, it is noted that the fertilizer price is lower in India than in Bangladesh (Table 4). This will enable purchase of fertilizers from domestic sources rather than procure it through unofficial routes from India.

11 4.2 Fertilizer distribution/marketing systems

4.2.1 Urea fertilizer distribution/marketing system Urea fertilizer distribution/marketing system is shown by a flowchart (Fig. 4). Urea production, import and distribution are all controlled by the Government. The BCIC appointed dealers at union level, with the allotment by the Upazila Fertilizer and Seed Monitoring Committee, lift out urea fertilizer from factory gate and buffer godown. Very recently (November 2009), 5-9 fertilizer retailers have been appointed at ward/village levels in each union to make fertilizers readily available to the farmers. So, the farmers can buy urea from both dealers and retailers. The Market Monitoring Information Systems (MMIS) under the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) collect and update fertilizer distribution data.

The district level and the upazila level committees monitor fertilizer distribution and sale. In October 2009 the Governmentformed a new Upazila Fertilizer and Seed Monitoring Committee consisting of more than 25 members including local MP, upazila chairman and vice-chairman, UP chairmen, UNO, UAO, ULO, UFO, OC and some others (Annex. 4). The previous committee had only 7 members. It would be difficult to call such a large meeting and take decision in this meeting. The new committee has appointed 5-9 sub- dealers (retailers) in each union. But it is reported that the retailers are not evenly distributed in every upazila. So, the benefits of retailers may not be achieved in all upazilas

12 Local production BCIC import (6 factories)

Factory gate and buffer stocks in district godown

National committee gives allotment to the District Fertilizer & Seed Monitoring Committee

District committee gives allotment to the Upazila Fertilizer & Seed Monitoring Committee

Upazila committee gives allotment BCIC dealers collect to the BCIC dealers at union level fertilizer from factory gate and buffer godown union

Retailers

Farmers can buy fertilizer from both dealers and retailers

Fig. 4 Distribution and marketing flowchart for urea fertilizer

13 Local production Private import ( 1 TSP and 1 DAP factory) (and BADC)

Importers warehouse (godown), factory gate (and BADC godown)

National committee gives allotment to the District Fertilizer & Seed Monitoring Committee

District committee gives allotment to the Upazila Fertilizer & Seed Monitoring Committee

BCIC dealers collect fertilizer from Upazila committee gives allotment warehouse and factory gate;(BADC to the BCIC dealers at union level dealers collect only from BADC godown)

Retailers

Farmers can buy fertilizer from both dealers and retailers

Fig. 5 Distribution and marketing flowchart of non-urea fertilizers (TSP, MoP and DAP)

14 4.2.2 Non-urea fertilizers distribution system Fig. 5 shows the distribution/marketing system of non-urea (TSP, DAP and MoP) fertilizers. These fertilizers are mainly imported and largely by private sector and a small portion by BADC. Unlike urea fertilizer which is dealt by the MoI, the MoA deals with non-urea fertilizers. Distribution channel is mostly same as that of urea that the same BCIC dealers also lift out non-urea fertilizers from factory gate (Chittagong TSP complex Ltd. and Chittagong DAP Fertilizer Co. Ltd.) and importers’ warehouses. Warehouses are located at Chittagong, Narayanganj, Naopara (Jessore) and Baghabari (Sirajgonj). There is a limited number of BADC appointed dealers across the country and they collect non-urea fertilizers from exclusively BADC godown. Farmers can buy non-urea fertilizers from BCIC and BADC dealers and retailers.

4.2.3 Adulteration Non-urea fertilizers, particularly those imported and marketed through private channels are frequently reported to be adulterated. The farmers of Kaharol upazila of Dinajpur district during focus group discussion (FGD) reported that they used mixed fertilizers (NPKS) in rabi crops of 2008 since the price of non-urea fertilizers was very high. It was unfortunate that they did not obtain expected benefits of its use. Similarly many farmers complained about privately imported TSP fertilizer for its effectiveness. It was apparent that the farmers are misled sometimes by the fact that the SSP fertilizers are sold as TSP. The SSP (single super phosphate) contains phosphorus three times less compared to TSP. This SSP is privately imported from India. Farmers buy this fertilizer as the price is low. On the other hand, the farmers are happy with effectiveness of locally produced TSP fertilizer.

Adulteration of fertilizers is clearly evidenced in the SRDI report (2007-08). The scientists of SRDI analyzed several hundred fertilizer samples from market and other sources such as DAE, NGOs, law enforcing agencies, dealers etc. The maximum adulteration was found with mixed fertilizers (81%), followed by SSP (62%), TSP (55%), DAP (31%) and

15 100

80 ) % (

n 60 o i t a r e t l 40 u d A

20

0 Urea MoP DAP TSP SSP MF No. of samples analyzed 216 668 183 628 64 199 No. of samples adulterated 10 175 57 323 40 161 Samples adulterated (%) 5 26 31 55 62 81

Fig. 6 Adulteration of different fertilizers (SRDI report, 2007-08)

MoP (26%) (Fig. 6). They found that locally produced TSP and SSP, and urea irrespective of production and import are minimally adulterated or are not adulterated. Further they added that fertilizers collected from Chittagong port were generally of the expected standard. Thus, it is likely that adulteration of fertilizers might take place in the importers’ storage godown (Chittagong, Naryanganj, Noapara and Baghabari).

Fertilizer demand forecasts are set and supply is monitored by the National Fertilizer Committee (NFC) and under NFC there is a technical sub-committee at BARC which has the mandate to approve new fertilizers, standardization and ensure quality. Fertilizer supply, marketing and quality is regulated by the Fertilizer Control Order (FCO). Strong monitoring and action is needed to ensure availability of quality fertilizers to the farmers.

4.3 Fertilizer use The use of chemical fertilizers in Bangladesh agriculture started with import of 2698 tons of ammonium sulphate in 1951. The use of urea and TSP began in 1957-58. Muriate of potash (MoP) was added to the fertilizer schedule from 1960. As the time advanced, soil fertility declined for increasing cropping intensity (195% at present) accompanied with increasing HYV crops. As a result, fertilizer consumption increased which is reflected in total consumption as well as in consumption per unit area (Figs. 7 and 8). The highest fertilizer consumption occurred during 2005-06 with the record of 40 lakh tons fertilizer

16 4500 Urea

) TSP n

o 3600 t

( MoP e s 2700 Total

u r e z 1800 i l i t r e 900 F

0 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 ------9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2

Year

Fig. 7 Trends of fertilizer use (t yr -1) during 1989-90 to 2008-09

450 Urea TSP ) r MoP y 360 /

a Total h / g

k 270 (

e s u

r 180 e z i l i t r

e 90 F

0 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 ------9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Year

Fig. 8 Trends of fertilizer use (kg ha-1 yr-1) during 1989-90 to 2008-09

17 consumption where urea consumption was 26 lakh tons (65%), TSP 4.5 lakh tons (11.5%), MoP 3.0 lakh tons (7.5%) and others (SSP, DAP, ammonium sulphate, potassium sulphate, gypsum, zinc sulphate, boric acid, N-P-K mixed fertilizers) 6.5 lakh tons (16%) (Annex. 5). It appeared that total fertilizer consumption decreased by 11% in 2006-07 and by 17 % in 2007-08 over 2005-06, and fertilizer management was a major factor for this decline, as discussed in the following section.

4.3.1 Fertilizer use by different categories of farmers Fertilizer use by farmers was evaluated over 75 farmers (25 marginal, 25 small and 25 medium categories) of three upazilas such as Phulpur, Gabtali and Chandina. Fertilizer use by rice was especially taken into account since the crop covers 70-75% of the total fertilizer consumption in this country. The three upazilas under study were rice intensive areas. In these areas farmers hardly use organic fertilizer in rice cultivation.

Concerning urea fertilizer, the three categories of farmers (marginal, small and medium) over the three upazilas used this fertilizer with the range of 156-168 kg ha-1 in 2008 Boro rice showing the order: medium farmers > small farmers > marginal farmers (Table 5A). Some differences were found between the upazilas, with the highest use in Phulpur (171 kg ha-1 on an average), followed by Gabtali (166 kg ha-1) and Chandina (150 kg ha-1) which can be attributed to the difference in soil nitrogen (N) levels that the N level of Chandina upazila (AEZ 16) is at low level while the N status of the other two upazilas (AEZs 9 and 4) are at very low to low levels (BARC, 2005). Similar trend was observed with T. Aman rice in 2008 (Table 5A).

Regarding TSP fertilizer, farmers’ use depended on the land holdings showing that the marginal group used TSP @ 34.8 kg ha-1 (on an average), the small group used 47.9 kg ha- 1 and the medium group of farmers used 55.0 kg ha-1 (Table 5A). The TSP use also varied with upazilas showing an order of Phulpur (51.0 kg ha-1), Chandina (45.5 kg ha-1) and Gabtali (41.2 kg ha-1). This variation is attributable to the motivation gap in use of TSP in three upazilas.

Like TSP use, the farmers having more land used more MoP and the farmers having less land used less MoP. On an average, the marginal farmers applied MoP @ 25.9 kg ha-1, the small farmers applied 32.7 kg ha-1 and the medium farmers applied 44.5 kg ha-1 (Table 6A). Further like TSP use, the Phulpur farmers used relatively more MoP, compared to the Gabtali and Chandina farmers, the rates being 28.3 kg ha-1 and 29.1 kg ha-1, respectively. This variation is an indication of the motivational gap in use of MoP by the farmers of the three upazilas.

18 Table 5A. Fertilizer use by different categories of farmers in Boro and T. Aman/T. Aus rice of 2008 in Phulpur, Gabtali and Chandina upazilas a). Urea (kg ha-1)

Farmer’s Boro rice T. Aman rice category Phulpur Gabtali Chandina Upazila Phulpur Gabtali Chandina Upazila average (T. Aus) average Marginal 166 156 147 156 104 121 90 105 Small 171 169 150 163 133 124 96 118 Medium 176 174 153 168 147 132 126 135 Farmer 171 166 150 162 128 126 104 119 average b). TSP (kg ha-1)

Farmer’s Boro rice T. Aman rice category Phulpur Gabtali Chandina Upazila Phulpur Gabtali Chandina Upazila average (T. Aus) average Marginal 45.9 19.7 38.7 34.8 11.9 13.5 14.7 13.4 Small 50.2 50.6 42.8 47.9 17.1 11.3 22.0 16.8 Medium 56.8 53.3 55.0 55.0 17.1 18.1 30.4 21.9 Farmer 51.0 41.2 45.5 45.9 15.4 14.3 22.3 17.4 average

c). MoP (kg ha-1)

Farmer’s Boro rice T. Aman rice category Phulpur Gabtali Chandina Upazila Phulpur Gabtali Chandina Upazila average ( T. Aus) average Marginal 45.5 9.8 22.5 25.9 7.0 6.7 19.6 11.1 Small 42.7 29.7 25.7 32.7 11.9 7.8 26.9 15.5 Medium 49.0 45.4 39.1 44.5 17.1 9.1 33.1 19.8 Farmer 45.7 28.3 29.1 35.5 12.0 7.8 26.5 15.4 average

19 Table 5B. Fertilizer use by different categories of farmers in Boro and T. Aman rice of 2009 in Phulpur upazila

Fertilizer Boro rice (kg ha-1) T. Aman rice (kg ha-1) Marginal Small Medium Farmer Marginal Small Medium Farmer farmers farmers farmers average farmers farmers farmers average Urea 193 203 211 202 130 136 151 139 TSP 40 47 74 54 15 18 25 18 MoP 37 46 69 51 9 19 26 19

Viewing the fertilizer use in 2009, the situation has improved over 2008 due to improvement of the fertilizer management system. The controlled sale system as operated in 2008 is withdrawn. In the present system, urea is sold all days of the week, with no card or slip system. Farmers can now buy necessary quantity of fertilizers. On the other hand, this year in January with the succession of the new Government, the price of TSP and MoP has been revised; TSP fixed at Tk. 40/kg from Tk. 80/kg, MoP at Tk. 35/kg from Tk 75/kg and DAP from at Tk. 45/kg from Tk. 85/kg. The present non-controlled system of urea sale and lowering of TSP and MoP price have produced a positive effect on fertilizer use. For example, the farmers of Phulpur upazila in 2008 used urea @ 171 kg ha-1 in Boro rice and 128 kg ha-1 in T. Aman rice, and the same farmers in 2009 used urea @ 202 kg ha-1 in Boro rice and 139 kg ha-1 in T. Aman rice, the later shows almost the same as the recommended dose of urea for the crops and upazila concerned (Table 5B).

4.3.2 Relationship between farmers’ fertilizer use and their characteristics Relationship between farmers’ fertilizer use (urea, TSP or MoP) and their characteristics is examined by correlation test, the correlation co-efficient i.e. ‘r’ value is treated as an indicator of their relationship. Fertilizer use was significantly correlated with farm size (r = 0.844 for urea, r = 0.524 for TSP and r = 0.665 for MoP; n =75) and annual income (r = 0.684, 0.477 and 0.596, respectively). So, farm size and annual income had positive influence on fertilizer use. Farmers’ other characteristics such as age, education, family size, farming experience, training experience, communication exposure and use of organic fertilizer did not influence chemical fertilizer use (Table 6). Salient characteristics of the farmers are shown in Annex. 6.

20 Table 6. Correlation between farmers’ fertilizers use and their characteristics (n=75)

Variables Urea use TSP use MoP use

Age -0.026 0.074 0.079 Education 0.045 -0.163 -0.054 Farm size 0.844** 0.524** 0.665** Family size 0.062 0.122 0.090 Farming experience 0.018 0.169 0.188 Annual income 0.684** 0.477** 0.596** Training experience 0.125 -0.013 0.014 Communication exposure 0.149 0.033 0.086 Use of organic -0.009 matter 0.009 0.076

Figures denote ‘r’ values. ** = Significant at 1% level of probability

4.3.3 Fertilizer use gap The fertilizer use gap is calculated as the difference between recommended dose and farmers’ practice of fertilizer use and is expressed as percentage. Farmers’ use rate for all three fertilizers (urea, TSP and MoP) was always lower than the recommendation, although it varied with the upazilas (Table 7A). However, the variation was small in 2008 or negligible in 2009 for the case of urea, but variation was found to be high for TSP and very high variation for MoP, showing an unbalanced fertilizer use. Again, considering upazila variation, the gap between recommendation and use for non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) was wider in Gabtali and Chandina, and narrower in Phulpur. As an example, the farmers of Phulpur upazila in 2008 Boro rice used 22% less TSP than the recommended rate while the Gabtali farmers used 37% less and the farmers of Chandina upazila used 29% less TSP. The corresponding gaps for MoP use in three upazilas were 49%, 69% and 68%, respectively.

The reason for lower rate of fertilizer use is different for urea from TSP and MoP. Urea was less used in 2008 Boro season due to constraints of physical availability for controlled (card/slip system) sale system. TSP and MoP were minimum used due to high price on one hand and lack of motivation on the other.

21 Table 7A. Fertilizer use gap in Boro and T. Aman rice of 2008 in Phulpur, Gabtali and Chandina upazilas a). Phulpur upazila (Boro – Fallow-T. Aman)

Fertilizer Boro rice (kg ha-1) T. Aman rice (kg ha-1)

RD Use Gap Gap RD Use Gap Gap (%) (%)

Urea 209 171 38 18 146 128 18 12 TSP 65 51 14 22 27 15 30 67 MoP 90 46 44 49 56 12 54 82 RD = Recommended dose b). Gabtali upazila (Boro – Fallow-T. Aman)

Fertilizer Boro rice (kg ha-1) T. Aman rice (kg ha-1)

RD Use Gap Gap RD Use Gap Gap (%) (%) Urea 209 177 32 15 145 126 19 13 TSP 65 41 24 37 21 14 31 69 MoP 90 28 62 69 48 8 58 87 c). Chandina upazila (Boro – T. Aus -Fallow) Boro rice (kg ha-1) T. Aus rice (kg ha-1) Fertilizer RD Use Gap Gap RD Use Gap Gap (%) (%) Urea 176 150 26 15 117 104 13 11 TSP 65 46 19 29 27 22 5 18 MoP 90 29 61 68 48 27 29 52

22 Table 7B. Fertilizer use gap in Boro and T. Aman rice of 2009 at Phulpur upazila

Fertilizer Boro rice (kg ha-1) T. Aman rice (kg ha-1)

RD Use Gap Gap RD Use Gap Gap (%) (%) Urea 209 202 7 3 146 139 7 5 TSP 65 53 12 18 27 18 9 33 MoP 90 51 39 43 56 19 37 66

In 2009, virtually no gap existed between recommended dose and farmers’ practice for urea, and for TSP and MoP, although not significant, the difference had reduced. As discussed earlier, the situation has improved because of withdrawal of controlled sale system of urea and reducing the price of non-urea fertilizers. So, the benefit has been reflected in fertilizer use in Boro and T. Aman rice of 2009 (Table 7B).

4.3.4 Unbalanced use of fertilizers Fertile soil is a prerequisite for obtaining satisfactory yield of a crop. A soil is called fertile when it supplies nutrients in an adequate amount, with a suitable proportion. Fertilizers are applied to soil to enhance ability of a soil to supply nutrients to plants adequately as well as proportionately in order to overcome nutrient deficiency and to ensure higher crop yield.

It appeared from the farmers’ fertilizer use data that they used unbalanced amount of urea, TSP and MoP fertilizers across the three upazilas (Phulpur, Gabtali and Chandina). Although the farmers applied less amount than the recommended rate for all three fertilizers (urea, TSP and MoP), the variation was more pronounced for the case of potash fertilizer i.e. MoP and the variation was little for urea. This point has been discussed in the previous section (4.3.1).

The farmers of Phulpur upazila used fertilizers with a N-P-K ratio of 3.4–0.4-1.0 for Boro rice against the recommended ratio of 2.1-0.3-1.0, and 9.8-0.5-1.0 for T. Aman rice against the recommendation of 2.4-0.2-1.0 (Table 8A). The N-P-K ratios for Boro and T. Aman rice in Gabtali upazila were 5.4-0.6-1.0 and 14.5-0.7-1.0, respectively where recommended N-P-K ratios being 2.1-0.3-1.0 and 2.8-0.2-1.0, respectively. In Chandina upazila, the farmers applied fertilizers in a ratio of 4.6 N : 0.6 P : 1.0 K for Boro rice and

23 Table 8A. Recommended and farmers’ practice of NPK fertilizers for Boro and T. Aman rice of 2008 in Phulpur, Gabtali and Chandina upazilas a). Phulpur upazila Nutrient Nutrient Boro rice T. Aman rice status in Recommended Farmers’ Recommended Farmers’ practice soil practice practice practice Dose Ratio Dose Ratio Dose Ratio Dose Ratio (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1) N VL-L 96 2.1 79 3.4 67 2.4 59 9.8 P L-M 13 0.3 10 0.4 5.4 0.2 3.0 0.5 K L 45 1.0 23 1.0 28 1.0 6.0 1.0 b). Gabtali upazila Nutrient Nutrient Boro rice T. Aman rice status in Recommended Farmers’ Recommended Farmers’ practice soil practice practice practice Dose Ratio Dose Ratio Dose Ratio Dose Ratio (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1) N VL-L 96 2.1 86 6.1 67 2.8 58 14.5 P L-M 13 0.3 8.2 0.6 4.2 0.2 2.8 0.7 K L 45 1.0 14 1.0 24 1.0 4 1.0 c). Chandina upazila

Nutrient Nutrient Boro rice T. Aus rice status in Recommended Farmers’ Recommended Farmers’ practice soil practice practice practice Dose Ratio Dose Ratio Dose Ratio Dose Ratio (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1) N L 81 1.8 69 4.6 54 2.3 48 3.4 P L-M 13 0.3 9.2 0.6 5.4 0.2 4.4 0.3 K L 45 1.0 15 1.0 24 1.0 14 1.0

Table 8B. Recommended and farmers’ practice of NPK fertilizers for Boro and T. Aman rice of 2009 in Phulpur upazila a). Phulpur upazila

Nutrient Nutrient Boro rice T. Aman rice status in Recommended Farmers’ Recommended Farmers’ practice soil practice practice practice Dose Ratio Dose Ratio Dose Ratio Dose Ratio (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1) N VL-L 96 2.1 93 3.6 67 2.4 64 6.4 P L-M 13 0.3 11 0.4 5.4 0.2 3.6 0.4 K L 45 1.0 26 1.0 28 1.0 10 1.0

24 3.4 N : 0.3 P :1.0 K for T. Aus rice, the ratios as recommended were 1.8 N : 0.3 P : 1.0 K and 2.3 N : 0.2 P : 1.0 K for the two crops, respectively. The unbalanced use of fertilizers is likely to influence imbalanced uptake of nutrients which causes lower crop yield. This was the situation in 2008.

The fertilizer use ratio has improved in 2009 for withdrawal of controlled sale system for urea coupled with lowering the price of TSP and MoP fertilizers. For instance, in Phulpur upazila, the N-P-K ratios for 2008 Boro and T. Aman rice were 3.4-0.4-1.0 and 9.8-0.5- 1.0, which in 2009 became 3.6-0.4-1.0 and 6.4-0.4-1.0, respectively (Table 8B). However, still the N-P-K use ratio is far from satisfactory. This result indicates that farmers are not motivated to use non-urea fertilizers, chiefly MoP.

The N-P-K use ratios for the small and marginal farmers were found almost same. So, for an adequate use of non-nitrogen fertilizers, fertilizer price and farmer’s ability are not the sole reason. Rather the best reason is knowledge gap or lack of awareness of farmers. Although, farmer’s awareness about fertilizer use has increased due to extension activity, farmers’ adoption of TSP and MoP use has not yet reached the required level.

The present study clearly indicates that farmers are using very low amount of potassium fertilizer for crop production, which is mainly creating an imbalance in the fertilizer mix required for the desired effects. Thus, potassium uptake by crops far exceeds potassium addition through fertilizer. Consequently, a substantial amount of of potassium is being mined from the soil each year. This is in agreement with the nutrient balance (input- output) study of Rijpma and Jahiruddin (2004) who reported a serious mining of K in the country’s soil-plant system (Annex. 7) and they observed that the extent of nutrient mining varied with different AEZs (Annex. 8). Nutrient mining may eventually cause soil degradation and affect crop production.

It is learnt from farmers’ group discussion (FGD) that farmers are using very little amount of organic matter to soil, although it is important for sustainable soil fertility and crop productivity. To supply nutrients for higher crop production, it is not judicious to just increase the use of chemical fertilizers. The organic sources of plant nutrients viz. cowdung, poultry manure, compost, bio-slurry, green manure, crop residues, solid wastes etc. need to be considered in fertilizer scheduling for obtaining satisfactory crop yield without incurring loss to soil environment.

25 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.

26 Table 9. N-P-K balance during the years 1989-90 to 2008-09

Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Year N-P-K ratio (kg ha-1 ) (kg ha-1 ) (kg ha-1 ) 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

27 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 N source Grain yield NUE (kg N rate N Grain yield NUE (kg (kg ha-1) (t ha-1) grain /kg N) (kg ha-1) source (t ha-1) 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.

28 Table 11. Constraints of farmers’ access to urea fertilizer a) KII opinion Sl. Constraints Opinion index No. score 2008 2009* 1 Farmers can not buy urea fertilizer in required amount under 33 0 the controlled (with card/slip) sale system in 2008 and under (60%) the non-controlled (with no card/slip) sale system in 2009. 2 Controlled sale system was cumbersome and farmers were to 36 NA spend several hours in collecting urea fertilizer in 2008. (65%) 3 Farmers use urea fertilizer from their own experiences. 24 23 (44%) (42%) 4 Farmers use urea fertilizer more than recommendation. 15 18 (27%) (33%) 5 Shared croppers use less urea fertilizer in shared land than in 21 15 their own lands. (38%) (27%) 6 Marginal and small farmers can not afford the cost of urea 12 12 fertilizer. (22%) (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. Constraints Opinion index No. score 2008 2009* 1 Farmers can not buy urea fertilizer in required amount 171 0 under the controlled (with card/slip) sale system in 2008 (76%) and under the non-controlled (with no card/slip) sale system in 2009.

2 Farmers were to spend several hours in collecting urea 190 NA fertilizer in controlled sale system in 2008. (84%)

3 Marginal and small farmers can not afford the cost of urea 69 65 fertilizer. (31%) (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

29 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

30 Table 12. Constraints for farmers’ access to non-urea fertilizers a) KII opinion Sl. Constraints Opinion index score No. 2008 2009* 1 Price of non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) is high. 45 30 (82%) (55%) 2 Marginal and small farmers can not afford the cost of 42 36 non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP). (76%) (65%)

3 Farmers use non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) less than 49 42 recommendation. (89%) (76%)

4 Shared croppers use less non-urea fertilizers (TSP and 27 21 MoP) in shared land than in their own lands. (49%) (38%)

5 Farmers do not use balanced dose of fertilizers. 51 49 (93%) (89%) 6 Quality of non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) is 30 29 generally low. (55%) (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. Constraints Opinion index score No. 2008 2009* 1 Price of non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) is high. 191 140 (85%) (62%) 2 Marginal and small farmers can not afford the cost of 195 156 non-fertilizers (TSP and MoP). (87%) (69%)

3 Quality of non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) is 93 84 generally low. (41%) (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

31 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).

32 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

33 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.

34  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.

35 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

36 REFERENCES

BARC, 2000. Bangladesh NARS-2020. A Vision for Agricultural Research. BARC,Dhaka.

BARC, 2005. Fertilizer Recommendation Guide. BARC, Soils Pub. 45, Dhaka.

Kafiluddin, A. and Islam, M. S. 2008. Fertilizer distribution, subsidy, marketing, promotion and agronomic use efficiency scenario in Bangladesh. IFA Crossroads, Asia-Pacific 2008, held in Melbourne, Australia, 16-18 December, 2008.

Karim, Z. 2009. Farm level fertilizer management in Bangladesh. Key note paper presented at the Consultative Workshop on Farm Level Fertilizer Management organized by FAO/MoA, held at CIRDAP, Dhaka, 19 February 2009.

Khaleque, K. A. 2009. Fertilizer – A Big Bother for Bangladesh. Internet Search.

Mandal, M.A. 2008. World Food Security: the Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy – Bangladesh Perspectives. Keynote paper presented at the World Food Day 2008 seminar, organized by the MoA, GoB at the Bangladesh-China Friendship Conference centre, Dhaka.

Nino, Y. 2009. Regional Fertilizer Outlook. Paper presented at the Consultative Workshop on Farm Level Fertilizer Management organized by FAO/MoA, held at CIRDAP, Dhaka, 19 February 2009.

Pradhan, S.B. 1992. Status of fertilizer use in developing countries of Asia and the Pacific Region. In: Proc. Regional FADINAP Seminar, Chiang Mai, Thailand, pp. 37-47.

RAP, 2002. Selected Idicators of Food and Agriculture Development in Asia-Specific Region (1991-2001), RAP Publication: 2002/19, Bangkok, October 2002.

Rijpma, J. and Jahiruddin, M. 2004. National strategy and plan for use of soil nutrient balance in Bangladesh. Final report of short term assignment, SFFP-DANIDA.

Shah, A.L., Rahman, M. S. and Aziz, M. A. 2008. Outlook for fertilizer consumption and food production in Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Agric. Environ. (Special issue) 4: 9- 26.

37 ANNEXURES

Annex 1. Study sites (upazila): Phulpur, Kalihati, Gabtali, Kaharol, Naogaon Sadar, Paba, Chandina, Faridpur Sadar, Bahobol, Doulatpur and Ulipur

38 Annex 2. Production capacity o different fertilizer plants in Bangladesh

Fertilizer plant Location Year of Annual production installation capacity Natural Gas Fertilizer Fenchuganj, 1961 1,06,000 MT urea, 12000 Factory Sylhet MT Amm. sulphate Urea Fertilizer Factory Ghorashal, 1970 4,70,000 MT urea Ltd. Narsingdi Zia Fertilizer Co. Ashuganj, 1981 5,28,000 MT urea Ltd. Sylhet Polash Urea Fertilizer Polash, 1985 95,000 MT urea Factory Ltd. Narsingdi Chittagong Urea Fertilizer Rangadia, 1987 5,61,000 MT urea Co. Ltd. Chittagong Jamuna Fertilizer Co. Sarishabari, 1994 5,61,000 MT urea Ltd. Jamalpur Total annual production capacity 23,21,000 MT urea TSP Complex Ltd. Patenga, 1976 1,00,000 MT TSP, Chittagong 1,20,000 MT SSP DAP fertilizer Co. Ltd. Rangadia, 2006 800 MT /day Chittagong Kharnaphuli Fertilizer Co. Rangadia, - 6,80,000 MT granular Ltd. (KAFCO) Chittagong urea, 1,50,000 MT anhydrous ammonia KAFCO is an export oriented international joint venture Co., with shareholding and support of the Govt. and private sectors of Bangladesh, Japan, Denmark and the Netherlands.

39 Annex 3. Template for calculation of fertilizer requirement

Example:

Upazila Phulpur AEZ 9

CD(T/ha) 3 PM(T/ha) 0 Com(T/ha) 0

Chem. fert. reqd. (kg/ha) Manure eq. fert. (kg/ha) Crop Urea TSP MoP Urea TSP MoP T.Aman 143.5 40.0 66.0 CD 29.3 22.5 30.0 Wheat 195.7 80.0 126.0 PM 0.0 0.0 0.0 Potato 208.7 80.0 160.0 Comp 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maize 228.3 120.0 126.0 Boro 260.9 70.0 116.0

Adjusted chem. fert. (kg/ha) Crop Urea TSP MoP T.Aman 114.1 17.5 36.0 Wheat 166.3 57.5 96.0 Potato 179.3 57.5 130.0 Maize 198.9 97.5 96.0 Boro 231.5 47.5 86.0

40 Annex 4. Upazila Fertilizer Monitoring Committee

A. New Committee (October 2009)

Sl. No. Members Position 1 Local MP Advisor 2 Upazila Chairman Advisor 3 Upazila Vice-Chairman Advisor 4 Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO) Chairman 5 Upazila Fisheries Officer (UFO) Member 6 Upazila Livestock Officer (ULO) Member 7 Upazila Rural Development Officer (URDO) Member 8 Upazila Cooperative Officer (UCO) Member 9 Officer-in Charge (OC) Member 10 All UP Chairman Member 11 BADC Fertilizer/Seed Representative Member 12 BFA representative Member 13 BDR representative (Border area) Member 14 Farmer representative Member (nominated by Upazila Council) 15 President, Upazila Press Club Member 16 Upazila Agriculture Officer Member-Secretary

B. Old Committee (Before October 2009)

Sl. No. Members Position 1 Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO) Chairman 2 Upazila Fisheries Officer (UFO) Member 3 Upazila Livestock Officer (ULO) Member 4 Officer-in Charge (OC) Member 5 BADC Fertilizer/Seed Representative Member 6 BFA representative Member 7 Upazila Agriculture Officer Member- Secretary

41 Annex 5. Consumption (MT) of different fertilizers in Bangladesh during the last 40 years

Years Urea TSP SSP DAP MoP Gypsum Zinc Amm. Others Total sulphate sulphate 1965-66 832 200 ------27 ------20 1059 1970-71 2123 749 ------171 ------3043 1975-76 3119 1090 ------221 ------19 4449 1984-85 831801 345670 --- 403 69271 1379 1217 --- 10480 1260221 1989-90 1369237 479767 718 --- 118633 67808 5180 1785 18 2043176 1990-91 1323397 514761 12120 --- 149761 101782 2743 2763 211 2107538 1991-92 1533481 456672 36201 --- 137135 115334 3805 4797 --- 2287425 1992-93 1547407 107002 119828 2010 126083 108140 722 4992 --- 2316184 1993-94 1578955 234185 170608 28675 103875 86051 5200 10036 97 2217682 1994-95 1748459 12294 533485 1837 154240 77161 --- 2491 --- 2640620 1995-96 2045535 111095 596881 --- 155881 103577 1029 8692 --- 3022690 1996-97 2119883 72629 525285 --- 219302 86611 1161 11692 --- 3036563 1997-98 1872725 62382 473295 6778 193496 113430 661 9716 --- 2732483 1998-99 1902024 170247 362370 38633 210748 128215 269 12418 --- 2824924 1999-00 2142100 360000 332000 169000 270000 130000 15400 13500 --- 3432000 2000-01 2111000 405000 121000 94000 133000 140000 15500 13500 13000 3046590 2001-02 2248000 425000 127000 127000 243000 96000 3000 13500 10000 3292500 2002-03 2247000 375000 133000 121000 271000 100000 5000 13500 13000 3278500 2003-04 2350000 450000 120000 200000 325000 120000 6000 13500 26000 3610500 2004-05 2487000 410800 163900 161000 352700 68700 10000 20000 99000 3773500 2005-06 2600000 450000 125000 175000 300000 150000 25000 20000 160000 4005000 2006-07 2515000 340000 122000 115000 230000 72000 26000 25000 120000 3565000 2007-08 2400000 300000 120000 100000 200000 65000 25000 24000 100000 3334000 2008-09 2500000 150000 - 17000 75000 - - - - -

42 Annex 6. Salient features of the farmers’ characteristics in the studied areas (n = 75)

Respondent Range e e r r o o c

Sl. No. Selected Scoring c S

S Categories

characteristics system d Std. e e l No. (%) Mean v b dev. i r s e s s o b P O Young (35) 22 29.3 Actual 5 7 - 1. Age - Middle (36-50) 31 41.4 45.4 13.89 years 0 2 Old (>51) 22 29.3 Illiterate (0) 13 17.3 Can sign only (0.5) 14 18.7

Years of 2 Primary (1-5) 1 -

2. Education - 21 28 5 4.22

schooling 0 Secondary (6-10) 21 28 Above secondary 6 8 (>10) 5

0 Small (<0.5) 33 44 . 4 - 3. Farm size Hectare - Medium (0.51-1) 27 36 0.876 0.821 2 2 . Large (>1) 15 20 0

Small (≤ 4) 23 30.7

No. of 9 1 -

4. Family size - Medium (5-6) 15 20 6.48 2.93

members 2 Large (>6) 47 49.3 Low (≤15) 19 25.3

Farming Years of 0 5 -

5. - Medium (16-30) 40 53.4 23.52 11.55

experience farming 3 High (>30) 16 21.3

7 Low (≤50) 22 29.3 3 3 6. Annual income ‘000’Tk. - Medium (51-100) 30 40 88.27 61.13 - 3

1 High (>100) 23 30.7

Low (≤5) 49 66.2

Training 5 1 -

7. Days - Medium (6-10) 3 4.1 4.77 6.16

experience 0 High (>10) 23 29.7 Low (≤5) 40 53.3

Communicatio Rated 0 5 3 1

8. - - Medium (6-10) 32 42.7 5.99 2.78

n exposure score 0 1 High (>10) 3 4 Low (≤5) 43 57.3

Use of organic 5 1 -

9. ton - Medium (6-10) 21 28 5.24 4.94

matter 0 High (>10) 11 14.7

43 300 Total outputs 250 Total inputs )

a 200 h / g k ( 150 K + P +

N 100

50

0

1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

Annex 7. Total N+P+K input and output in Bangladesh (Source: Rijpma and Jahiruddin, 2004)

AEZ No. 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 50

0 ) a h

/ -50 g k ( -100 e c n

a -150 l a B

-200 K +

P -250 + N P K N -300

-350

Annex 8. N+P+K Balance (kg ha-1) in different AEZs of Bangladesh (Source: Rijpma and Jahiruddin, 2004)

44