Should Nepal Focus on Establishing Chemical Fertilizer Factories or Promote Organic Fertilizers?
April 6, Kathmandu – The issue of farmers not receiving fertilizer on time and in easily accessible ways has been a persistent topic in the Parliament. For the past four decades, the political agenda has included the plan to establish fertilizer factories within the country to address this problem. However, no such factory has been built so far, and farmers continue to struggle to obtain fertilizer conveniently. During the first meeting of the Agriculture, Cooperative, and Natural Resources Committee of the House of Representatives elected on February 3, this topic resurfaced. In a meeting held on Wednesday at the committee hall in Singha Durbar, MPs discussed whether to prioritize establishing chemical fertilizer factories or to focus more on organic fertilizer production.
CPN-UML MP Laxmi Prasad Pokharel noted that the issue of fertilizer scarcity has been raised in Parliament since 1958. He stated, “Recently, this issue has also come up in budget discussions. There is political commitment, and now it is necessary to reach a conclusion. The government must resolve to establish a fertilizer factory within Nepal.” His predecessor, National Independent Party MP Rajeev Khatri, stressed the importance of focusing not only on the purchase of chemical fertilizer but also on the production of organic fertilizer. He argued that if a sufficient amount of organic fertilizer were available, farmers would not have to remain vigilant day and night to obtain chemical fertilizers, avoiding situations where they even face police lathi charge.
Rastriya Swatantra Party (Raswapaki) MP Samina Miya expressed concerns about the health hazards caused by agricultural products grown using chemical fertilizers. She urged the government to formulate agricultural production policies that do not harm citizens’ health. She remarked, “There have been revolutions of all kinds, but no agriculture revolution.” She further added, “If organic fertilizers gain emphasis, they will help preserve the soil’s fertility.” Fellow Raswapaki MP Punam Kumari Agrawal called for the government to focus not only on increasing production but also on protecting soil health.
Another Raswapaki MP, Ashika Tamang, advocated for improving the immediate distribution of chemical fertilizers while emphasizing the long-term importance of promoting organic fertilizers. “It is astonishing that Nepal does not yet have a fertilizer factory,” she said. “Even if chemical fertilizers are not available, every municipality should have cold storage facilities for organic fertilizers.” She also brought attention to discriminatory practices in fertilizer distribution, pointing out, “Not a single bag of fertilizer reaches genuine farmers, while some well-connected individuals have up to five bags.”
During the debate between establishing chemical fertilizer factories and seeking alternatives, Raswapaki MP Sujata Tamang called for clear policies on the matter in the upcoming fiscal budget. She urged, “Let us discuss what can be done regarding fertilizers in the next budget.”
According to CPN-UML MP Laxmi Prasad Pokharel, the dream of setting up a chemical fertilizer factory within Nepal has existed for decades but has yet to be realized. The Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development notes that chemical fertilizer use began in Nepal in 1950. Before that, agriculture was entirely based on organic methods. Initially, ammonium sulfate was imported from India, and later, chemical fertilizers were imported from Russia via National Trading Limited. The government promoted various programs to increase chemical fertilizer consumption at the time. To facilitate fertilizer imports, the Agriculture Materials Company Limited was established under the Ministry of Agriculture in 1965 and remains operational today. Since 1973, the Nepal government has provided subsidies to farmers for chemical fertilizers. Currently, the main imported fertilizers include urea, DAP, potash, ammonium sulfate, single super phosphate, and ammonium phosphate sulfate.
As fertilizer consumption increased, a feasibility study to establish a domestic fertilizer factory was conducted in 1983 with assistance from Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), but the study remained limited. In the fiscal year 2016/17, the government included this subject in its policy and program. Then Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel announced a policy to establish a chemical fertilizer factory in Nepal. Subsequent studies were also undertaken, and the then Ministry of Agriculture assigned the Investment Board to study the factory. A feasibility report carried out by the Development Corporation of Karnataka, India, concluded that operating a fertilizer factory in Nepal using energies other than natural gas was currently impossible.
In May 2023, during then Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’s’ visit to India, the issue was raised at a high-level meeting. On May 31, 2023, at a joint press conference, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed India’s readiness to provide necessary support to establish a chemical fertilizer factory in Nepal. However, the project has not advanced substantially since then. Political parties have continued to raise this issue consistently.
Before the February 3, 2024 election, Raswapaki released a 100-point commitment plan that included fertilizer factory establishment as item 43. The pledge states, “We will prioritize increased investment in chemical fertilizer and agricultural mechanization to achieve significant agricultural production growth and cost reduction. The Nepal government will manage arrangements to increase agricultural production.” Raswapaki has promised to attract energy-intensive industries such as steel, cement, herbal processing, data server stations, and chemical fertilizer industries.
With these electoral promises, Raswapaki won a clear two-thirds majority in the election and formed a powerful single-party government. The issue of a fertilizer factory has once again been raised in parliamentary committees under their leadership; nevertheless, no concrete response has been provided by the government to date.
