Fertilizer in Warehouses, But Not in Farmers’ Hands

On August 23, farmers in Bhurungamari of Kurigram reportedly broke into a fertilizer dealer’s warehouse and took fertilizer. Of the 342 bags stored there, reports indicate that 202 bags of urea and 23 bags of potash were taken. Some of the fertiliser was later recovered.

Breaking into a warehouse and taking fertilizer is unacceptable. There can be no justification for taking the law into one’s own hands. But if this incident is viewed merely as a law-and-order issue, its deeper causes will remain hidden. The fundamental question is: What pushed farmers to such a desperate situation that they had to break down a warehouse door to obtain fertilizer?

This question becomes even more important because, according to the government, there is no shortage of fertilizer in the country. The Ministry of Agriculture has stated that sufficient fertilizer stocks are available and that action is being taken against artificial shortages, illegal stockpiling and the sale of fertilizer at excessive prices. Then why, despite adequate national-level stocks, are farmers’ complaints at the local level so intense? This is where one of the major weaknesses of our agricultural management system becomes apparent.

Having fertilizer in warehouses and ensuring that it reaches farmers on time are two very different things. What matters to a farmer is whether fertilizer is available from the dealer in his union or local market at the right time and at the government-fixed price. National stock figures alone cannot explain that reality.

Recently, farmers in Kaliganj of Lalmonirhat blocked a highway in protest against fertiliser shortages and high prices. They alleged that TSP, DAP and urea were being sold at prices significantly higher than those fixed by the government. In other words, the problem is not simply one of supply. It is also a problem of distribution, market regulation and monitoring.

Another major reality is Bangladesh’s dependence on imported fertilizer. Since domestic production remains below national demand, the country has to rely heavily on imports. When domestic production is disrupted for various reasons, including gas shortages, dependence on imports increases further. As a result, increases in international prices or pressure on foreign exchange directly affect farmers’ production costs.

Under these circumstances, transparency at every stage of the fertilizer supply chain becomes even more important. How much fertilizer did each dealer receive? When did they receive it? At what price did they sell it? And ultimately, how many farmers received it? If such information remains invisible to farmers, opportunities for irregularities will inevitably remain open along the way. But there is another fundamental question: How strong is the political commitment to agriculture? We repeatedly describe farmers as the backbone of the economy in political speeches. But how much priority do they actually receive in budgetary decisions and policymaking?

In the proposed budget for fiscal year 2026–27, Tk 46,821 crore has been allocated to agriculture and food security. Yet agriculture’s share of the total national budget has fallen to around 5 percent. At the same time, a section of agricultural economists has called for increased agricultural subsidies in view of rising production costs and global price increases. This is further complicated by pressure for reforms from international financial institutions. Recent IMF documents have called for making fertilizer subsidies more targeted. In other words, instead of providing the same type of subsidy to everyone, the emphasis is shifting towards prioritizing small and poor farmers. The IMF has also argued for reducing subsidy expenditure and redirecting resources towards more effective and productive sectors. But this is precisely where Bangladesh’s policymakers face their greatest test.
Subsidy reform may be necessary—but not at the expense of farmers’ protection.

The country must strike a balance between international financial discipline and the realities of farmers’ lives. If subsidies are reduced, farmers must receive alternative forms of support, such as targeted cash assistance, agricultural input vouchers, easier access to credit, improved extension services and fair-price markets. Otherwise, subsidies may decline on paper while farmers’ actual production costs rise in reality.

The IMF’s 2024 analysis also discussed alternative measures such as cash assistance or vouchers for small and poor farmers alongside reforms to fertilizer subsidies. Political parties, too, should face a direct question: It is easy to make promises to farmers before coming to power. But once in power, how much political courage is there to ensure affordable production costs, timely access to fertilizer and pesticides, and fair prices for farmers’ crops?

If agriculture is truly a national priority, that priority must be reflected not only in election manifestos but also in budgets, subsidy policies, market systems and administrative accountability. Yet the farmers’ problems do not end with fertilizer. They also face serious risks in the pesticide market. Allegations of counterfeit, adulterated, expired or unauthorized pesticides entering the market have emerged at different times. In some places, farmers cannot obtain the pesticides they need; elsewhere, they suffer losses after purchasing low-quality products. As a result, production costs increase without any corresponding increase in production security.

At the other end of the crisis lies the agricultural market itself. During production, farmers have to bear rising costs for fertilizer, seeds, pesticides, labour and irrigation. Yet after harvesting, they often fail to receive a fair price for their crops. It is therefore entirely reasonable for farmers to ask: If they bear all the risks of production, why should a large share of the profits go to others?

The role of intermediaries has long been debated. When there is a long supply chain between farmers and consumers, a substantial gap can emerge between the price received by farmers and the price paid by consumers. Therefore, simply increasing agricultural production is not enough. We must also create a market system that ensures farmers receive a fair economic return from what they produce.

What Needs to Change

To make agriculture sustainable, several urgent reforms are necessary.
First, the fertilizer distribution system must become digital and transparent. Information on dealer-wise allocation, stock and sales should be made publicly accessible. Farmers should be able to know how much fertilizer a dealer in their area has received and what the government-fixed price is.

Second, effective monitoring at the dealer level must be ensured. Simply conducting occasional drives and fining a few individuals will not solve the problem. To prevent repeated irregularities, an accountable system must be established linking allocation, sales and actual receipt by farmers.

Third, quality control of pesticides and other agricultural inputs must be strengthened. Counterfeit or adulterated agricultural inputs cannot simply be treated as ordinary consumer fraud. Farmers’ incomes, food safety and public health are all at stake.

Fourth, direct farmer-to-market linkages must be strengthened to ensure fair prices. Without better storage, transportation and local market systems, farmers’ incomes will not necessarily increase even if agricultural production rises.

But above all, we must stop viewing farmers merely through the lens of production statistics.

How much did a farmer pay for fertilizer? How much did it cost to produce the crop? At what price was it sold? And after all production costs were paid, how much money actually remained in the farmer’s hands? These should be the real indicators by which agricultural policy is evaluated. Fertilizer looting is not a solution. Breaking into warehouses is not the path to establishing farmers’ rights. But neither will the problem be solved by viewing farmers’ anger merely as a criminal act.

The causes of that anger must be addressed. Today, farmers are crying out for fertilizer. Tomorrow, if those same farmers become unwilling to cultivate their land altogether, the crisis will no longer belong only to farmers—it will reach everyone’s dining table. Because if farmers cannot obtain fertilizer on time, cannot access quality agricultural inputs and cannot receive fair prices for their produce, the damage will not be limited to individual farmers. It will damage the country’s entire food system. For years, we have repeated that farmers are the backbone of the national economy.

The time has come to turn that statement into policy. The real question is not simply whether fertilizer exists in a warehouse. The real test of the state’s agricultural policy, political commitment and administrative capacity is whether that fertilizer reaches the farmer’s field on time, at a fair and regulated price.

[The Writer is a Policy Analyst and Development Practitioner.]