The Fertilizer Procurement Question Is Not Only About Price, It Is About National Food Security

The shortage of chemical fertilizer in Nepal is no longer an accidental problem. It has become a structural crisis that repeats every year, disappoints farmers during the main planting season and raises serious questions about the state’s planning capacity. When the paddy season arrives, farmers are forced to search for fertilizer at cooperatives, warehouses and markets. Yet the government repeats the same answer every year: the procurement process is underway, shipment is being arranged, fertilizer will arrive soon. This repeated pattern is no longer just administrative weakness; it is beginning to look like national irresponsibility.

The recent price difference seen in fertilizer procurement has made the crisis even more serious. According to available details, Singapore-based SS Aditya Birla Global Trading reportedly supplied fertilizer to India at USD 540 per metric ton, while Nepal is said to have agreed to purchase the same fertilizer at USD 900.75 per metric ton. If this information is officially confirmed, the question is not minor: why should Nepal pay USD 360.75 more per ton than India to the same supplier?

For 30,000 metric tons of fertilizer, this difference is not a matter of thousands but of millions of dollars. Ultimately, this amount will be paid from the taxes of Nepali citizens. It is linked to the sweat of farmers, the labor of workers, the tax burden of consumers and the limited public resources of the nation. Therefore, an unusual price gap in fertilizer procurement is not merely a dispute over one contract; it is a sensitive issue connected to the protection of national resources.

Nepal is a landlocked country. Compared with India, Nepal may naturally face higher costs for sea freight, transit, insurance, port handling, inland transport and storage. This is a reality. But this reality alone cannot be used to automatically justify an excessive price gap. If the government has a clear cost basis, it must present it before the public. If transport, insurance, storage, packaging and supply risks have increased the price, the details must be disclosed with documents. If there is no such basis, the matter must come under impartial investigation.

This case once again raises an old question about Nepal’s procurement system. Why is fertilizer procurement always controversial? Why do farmers not receive fertilizer on time? Why are supply sources not diversified? Why is the international market cycle not studied regularly? Why does the government always come under pressure to purchase fertilizer at high prices at the last moment? Finding answers to these questions has now become a national necessity.

Chemical fertilizer is not a luxury good. It is the foundation of food production. When farmers do not receive fertilizer on time, production falls. When production falls, food becomes more expensive. When food becomes expensive, the kitchen of every citizen is affected. Its impact is not limited to the field; it spreads to the market, families, the national economy and food security. Therefore, treating fertilizer management as an ordinary procurement matter is a serious mistake. It is an issue directly linked to national food sovereignty, farmers’ dignity and the credibility of the state.

China, Russia, the Middle East and India are important sources of chemical fertilizer in the international market. China changes its export policy from time to time by prioritizing domestic food security and price stability. Russia and the Black Sea region are also important indicators in the global urea market, although war, sanctions and freight risks continue to create uncertainty there. In such a situation, Nepal must prepare its procurement strategy only after comparing price, availability, transport risks and long-term supply security. Continued dependence on limited suppliers or intermediary channels can be harmful to the country.

The government has said it is trying to bring fertilizer through a government-to-government agreement with India. But signing an agreement is not enough. If fertilizer arrives after the planting season, it has little meaning. Farmers do not need an agreement on paper; they need fertilizer in their fields during the planting season. If supply is arranged only within 120 days after payment, it is natural to ask whether such a schedule can provide relief to farmers during the main paddy season.

Patriotism cannot be limited to slogans. Providing fertilizer to farmers on time is also patriotism. Protecting public money is also patriotism. Increasing food self-reliance is also patriotism. Keeping the state free from vested interests, middlemen and opaque procurement structures is also patriotism. If a state that cannot meet the basic needs of farmers talks loudly about development and prosperity, those slogans sound hollow.

Nepal’s agriculture sector is already in crisis. Young workers have gone abroad. Cultivable land is being left barren. Irrigation remains inadequate. Production costs are rising. Farmers are not receiving fair prices. In such a situation, fertilizer shortages and expensive procurement add further injustice to farmers. No nation can become strong by weakening its farmers. When the field is weak, the economy becomes weak. When farmers lose hope, national self-reliance becomes weaker.

Therefore, the government must not take this issue lightly. First, it must disclose the full details of the fertilizer procurement agreement. Second, it must clearly explain the reported price difference between Nepal and India for fertilizer supplied by the same company. Third, it must reveal the full cost structure, including international market price, freight cost, insurance, transit, packaging, storage and internal distribution. Fourth, the role of all agencies and officials involved in the procurement process must be independently examined.

If the price difference is natural due to commercial terms, the government must present evidence. If not, suspicions of negligence, collusion or the influence of vested interest groups over public funds will naturally become stronger. In such a case, investigation must not be merely formal. It must be fact-based, time-bound and capable of fixing responsibility.

Nepal now needs a long-term national policy on fertilizer procurement. It should pursue multi-year but flexible supply agreements with China, Russia, the Middle East, India and other potential suppliers. It should establish a transparent price monitoring mechanism that compares domestic procurement rates with international market prices. Procurement decisions of Agriculture Inputs Company Limited and the concerned ministries should be placed under public scrutiny. A digital tracking system should be introduced in fertilizer distribution so that it is clear where fertilizer moves from warehouses to farmers.

Most importantly, fertilizer procurement must be farmer-centered, not middleman-centered. The central question today is this: is the state standing with farmers, or is it under pressure from interest groups seeking profit from procurement? This question may sound harsh, but repeated shortages, price controversies and lack of transparency have naturally created such suspicion among the public.

The credibility of the government is proven not by speeches, but by conduct. If farmers receive fertilizer on time, the government appears credible. If public procurement becomes transparent, the government appears accountable. If fertilizer is brought at a fair price after comparison with the international market, the government appears conscious of national interest. But if shortages, controversy and expensive procurement are repeated every year, the people have every right to question the state.

The question raised over fertilizer procurement is not merely a question of price per ton. It is a question of Nepal’s agricultural future. It is a question of farmers’ dignity. It is a question of protecting public money. It is a question of food security. Ultimately, it is a question of whether the nation has correctly identified its priorities.

Nepali farmers have not asked the state for luxury. They have asked for timely fertilizer, quality seeds, irrigation, market access and basic respect. A state that cannot provide even this much has no moral basis to call itself an agriculture-based country.

The government now has only one responsible path: disclose the facts, fix responsibility, reform the procurement system and deliver fertilizer to farmers on time. The real test of national interest takes place in the field. The government’s claims will be credible only on the day fertilizer reaches farmers’ hands during the planting season.