1. Pakistan’s
Fertilizer Sector:
Structure, Institu
tion, Performan
ce and its
Impact
Dr. Mubarik Ali
CEO, Punjab Agricultural
Research Board (PARB)
September 20, 2013

2. Overview of the sector
 Value of fertilizer: USD
3.8 b
 # Processing firms: 8
 Production Capacity:10
mt
 N = 3.80 m t (66.7%)
 P = 0.786 m t (55.4%)
 K= 0.017 m t (58.8%)
 Off take in m t (Imports)
 N – 3.206 (27%)
 P – 0.633 (46%)
 K – 0.021 (71%)
DAP, NP, SSP
Urea
CANSource: National Fertilizer
Development Centre
 Per ha Availability (kg):
 N = 123
 P = 27
 K = 1
 NPK Ratio
 Actual: 1:0.15:008
 Desired: 1:0.5:0.25

3. Urea Production Share by Firm
Source: National Fertilizer Development
Corporation, Engro Pakistan
38%
8%
33%
7%
1%
7%
6%
Urea Production share
Fauji Fertilizers (Goth Machi)
Fauji Fertilizers (Bin Qasim)
Engro
Fatima
Pak Arab (Multan)
Agri Tech (Mianwali)
Dawood Hercules (Skp)
Only FF produces
DAP

4. Urea and Phosphate Market Share by
Firm
44%
9%
27%
6% 9%
5%
Urea Market share
Fauji Fertilizers
National Fertilizer
Marketing Ltd.
Engro Fertilizers
Dawood Hercules
Reliance Group
Source: National Fertilizer Development
Corporation, Engro Pakistan
The above diagram indicates the
share of imported P which was 46%
during 2011-12. Remaining 54% is
marketed by FFC.

5. Yield Response of Fertilizers
Source: Soil Fertili
Research Institute
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Yeild(kg/ha)
N levels (kg/ha)
Fertilizer (Nitrogen) Requirements of
Wheat in Irrigated Areas
230
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Yeild(kg/ha)
P2O5 Levels (Kg/ha)
Fertilizer (Phosphorus) Requirements
of Wheat in Irrigated Areas
190
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Yeild(kg/ha)
N level (kg/ha)
Fertilizer (Nitrogen) Requirements
of Wheat in Barani Areas
14090
Optimum
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Yeild(kg/ha)
P2O5 Levels (Kg/ha)
Fertilizer (Phosphorus) Requirements
of Wheat in Barani Areas
160
60
Optimum
140
Optimum
Optimum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum Maximum
100

6. International vs. Domestic
Prices
Source: National Fertilizer
Development Corporation
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1995-96 2000-01 2005-06 2010-11
$/kg
Nitrogen
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1995-96 2000-01 2005-06 2010-11
$/kg
Phosphorus

7. International Competitiveness
Source: National Fertilizer Development
Corporation, OGRA, Planning Commission of Pakistan
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
$/ton
Urea Prices
International prices
Domestic Prices
Domestic prices+charges
Domestic prices+subsidy
Domestic
prices+charges+subsidies
Subsidy on Feed Gas
during 2011-12 = Rs. 59
b

8. Possibility of Regional Trade
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
$/ton
Subsidized Retail Price
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
$/ton
Unsubsidized retail price

9. Regulatory Environment
 Regulated under the Essential Commodity Act
(ECA), amended in 1973
 Granted complete power to controllers to implement
the Act
 Resulted in barriers to entry:
 Concentration of industry in few hands
 Big investment is required to compete
 Support Services:
 NFDC collects data, bring stakeholders together, formulate
policies
 SFRI conducts long term fertilizer experiment by crops and
eco-regions, tests new materials and develop their
standards, helps farmers to adjust fertilizer doses, and help
regulators through test and reference labs
 Availability of credit

10. Empirical Findings of Demand
Estimation
 Dependent variable: Fertilizer use for N and P
(kg/ha)
 Major factor
 Price Elasticity:
 N: -0.17
 P: -0.004
 Other significant demand determinants:
 Presence of irrigation water (+)
 Farm size (-)
 Education (+)
 Access to off-farm income (-)
 Fertile soils (+)

11. Issues in Fertilizer Sector
 Too much regulation
 Restrictive rules have created cartel in processing and marketing
 Abnormal profits, especially during shortage period
 Public sector control on urea imports (mismanagement creates
shortages)
 Gas shortage creates 35% underutilization of capacity
 Uncertain supply increased operational cost
 No mechanism of transferring gas subsidy to farmers
 Fertilizer subsidy affecting whole Free Trade Regime
 Suboptimal NPK ratio promoted through subsidy on N
 Emphasis on more rather than efficient use of fertilizer
 N use is fast reaching to the optimal level
 No innovation in developing new efficient products
 Efficient methods of application has not been explored
 Resource degradation induced by intensification

12. Soil Depletion
Source: Soil Fertility Research

13. Declining Fertilizer Use
Efficiency
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1980-81 1990-91 2000-01 2010-11
Kgproductionperkgoffertilizeruse
Ratio of Yield/ fertilizer use
Wheat
Rice
Cotton
Source: NFDC

14. Recommendations
 Processing
 Gas distribution proportionate to capacity and modernization
 Gas subsidy only in high int’l price situation, with clear mechanism of how to reflect
it in prices
 Clear gas schedules
 Marketing
 Relaxation of rules to allow small companies in marketing
 Deregulation of imports and Govt. out from marketing even if it is only for imports.
 Clear standards and their implementation for new products, such as
manures, micronutrients, etc.
 Use in Production
 Develop efficient fertilizer use and application
 Test and promote efficient and environment friendly fertilizer products
 More responsive crop varieties
 Computer-based models to determine fertilizer use according to land resources
 Stocks
 Specified stock of fertilizer preserved to be released for crisis period

15. Thank you!