Fertilizer Production And Marketing In Egypt ... - Abt Associates

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• Great losses for private traders, who have high fixed and operational costs to handle over 70% of fertilizer. • Unfair competition: because PBDAC and the coops are partially subsidized by the Government, they can realize lower margins than those that would prevail under full cost pricing. • Some traders will have to reduce at least some of their operational costs, thus increasing unemployment, social disturbance and political instability. Therefore this changing and unclear policy will have a negative impact on producers and distributors and will affect investments in these activities. On the other hand, the endusers of chemical fertilizer (farmers) still prefer to buy their fertilizer from private traders and agricultural cooperatives for the different field crops, as indicated in Table 6. Table 6: Farmer's Opinions about Best Source for Chemical Fertilizer by Crop Grown (percent) Suppiers Cotton Wheat Maize Rice PBDAC 1.2 1.1 1.7 1.4 Cooperatives 52.2 42.8 33.6 37.5 Private Traders 33.4 44.3 41.6 51.9 Others 13.2 11.8 24.1 9.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source : Source: Morsy Aly Fawzy et al. The Impact of APRP at the Farm Level, MVE/APRP Impact Assessment Report No.28, July 2002. The table indicates that the best sources for fertilizer for the different field crops are the private traders and agricultural cooperatives. PBDAC is considered a best source for fertilizer by a very limited number of farmers. Table.7 indicates that during the APRP period, the preference of farmers to buy fertilizer from PBDAC has declined tremendously, so that there is practically no preference for dealing with PBDAC in the purchase of chemical fertilizer. This is an indication that the change in the policy is against the farmers’ preferences who are currently free to buy their fertilizer from any supplier (See Table 8.). 11
Table 7: Changes in Farmer’s Opinions Preferences about the Best Source of Chemical Fertilizer, 1997-2001 (percent) Suppliers 1997 2001 Difference PBDAC 29 1 28 Cooperatives 46 42 4 Private Traders 16 43 27 Others 9 14 5 Total 100 100 100 Source: Morsy Aly Fawzy et al. The Impact of APRP at the Farm Level, MVE/APRP Impact Assessment Report No.28, July 2002. Cotton Wheat Maize Rice Table 8: Farmers' Freedom to Choose Their Source of Fertilizer (percent) Crop Free Not Free 98 100 100 100 Source: Morsy Aly Fawzy et al. The Impact of APRP at the Farm Level, MVE/APRP Impact Assessment Report No.28, July 2002. 2 0 0 0 12
Page 1 and 2: MONITORING, VERIFICATION AND EVALUA
Page 3 and 4: LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Evolution o
Page 5 and 6: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1998, the MVE
Page 7 and 8: • The design and implementation o
Page 9 and 10: to reduce its share of domestic pro
Page 11 and 12: 600,000 tons/year of urea. Abou Qir
Page 13 and 14: 2.2 Prices Ex-factory prices for th
Page 15 and 16: Figure 1: Distribution of Nitrogen
Page 17: In February 2002, the GOE anticipat
Page 21 and 22: Therefore, there are no collusive a
Page 23 and 24: duty to 0-10 percent and an anti-du
Page 25 and 26: Table 10: Domestic and World Prices
Page 27 and 28: 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 29 and 30: Table A-1 Cotton Growers' Preferenc
Page 31 and 32: Source: Morsy Aly Fawzy et al. The
Page 33: Availability + Lower Price + Higher

Fertilizer Production And Marketing In Egypt ... - Abt Associates

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?