Fertiliser imbalance

Policy changes are needed, not just advice to farmers

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's recent counsel to farmers against indiscriminate use of chemical fertilisers may go largely unheeded unless the policies that encourage improper and unbalanced use of plant nutrients are rectified. The Prime Minister has rightly pointed out in his monthly radio programme "Man Ki Baat" that excessive and inappropriate application of fertilisers is ruining soil health. What he has perhaps overlooked is the fact that the indiscreet nutrient use is attributable more to the government's flawed fertiliser pricing policies than to the farmers' lack of awareness, though that, too, needs to be improved. While the prices of urea, still under government control, have been kept low, barring an increase of just five per cent some years ago, the rates of other fertilisers have gone up steadily. The huge price differential between urea, on the one hand, and phosphatic (di-ammonium phosphate or DAP) and potassic (Muriate of potash) fertilisers, on the other, encourages farmers to use more of cheaper urea than relatively costlier other fertilisers. Soils in most agriculturally advanced regions have already slipped into sickness, requiring progressively higher doses of nutrients to maintain the same level of crop productivity.

The Economic Survey for 2015-16 referred specifically to this harmful effect and said the response ratio, or marginal productivity of fertilisers, has been on the slide since the 1970s due, clearly, to their inefficient use. The grain yield per kilogram of applied fertiliser nutrients has declined from 13.4 kg per hectare in 1970 to merely 3.7 kg in the mid-2000s. The steady increase in fertiliser subsidy, which is now close to 10 per cent of the farm sector's gross domestic product (GDP), has further aggravated the imbalance in the nutrient use since a sizeable part of it goes to urea. What is required, truly, is the need-based use of fertilisers. The notion that nitrogen (N), phosphate (P) and potash (K) should be used in the proportion of 4:2:1 to ensure a proper balance in their application has, of late, been found to be a misconception. The country's apex farm research body, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), has categorically stated in its Annual Report for 2014-15 that the norm of 4:2:1 cannot be generalised for the country as a whole. It applies only to limited areas, notably the intensive wheat and rice growing belt in the north-west. Elsewhere, this standard is wide of the mark. Yet, most government publications continue to harp on the 4:2:1 formula as the yardstick for assessing imbalance in fertiliser application. This should change with more stress on the soil test-based fertiliser use. The soil health cards being issued by the government can come in handy for this purpose.

Admittedly, the government has come out with a New Urea Policy 2015, which will remain in force for the next four financial years, and has also taken some other welcome reforms-oriented measures. These include uniform gas pricing for all urea manufactures and mandatory Neem-coating of urea. However, many of these moves are aimed chiefly at promoting energy efficiency in urea production to reduce the government's subsidy burden. These do not automatically ensure balanced and judicious use of plant nutrients. The only reform that could potentially ensure balanced nutrient application is the introduction of nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) system. Unfortunately, however, its possible gains, too, have been frittered away by keeping urea out of its ambit. Unless urea is also decontrolled and deregulated, the judicious and balanced use of plant nutrients may remain a far cry.