Thus, all complex fertiliser plants were located at ports to take care of imported raw material, particularly ammonia and phosphoric acid. Emphasis was on high analysis phosphatic fertilisers, say DAP, so that cost of production per unit of phosphate was minimum. Large size plant were encouraged to take advantage of economy of scale. When a second spell of SSP plants was allowed from 1979 to 1987, a minimum output of 200 tonnes per day was stipulated. SSP plants were allowed to come up in the north and the east with an understanding that SSP would be sold within a radius of 250 km to 300 km.

The ministry constantly reviewedthe production and supplied raw material to meet production targets. All phosphate producing plants accepted the ministry's fatherly presence, advise and guidance. In the decade of seventies, as many phosphate plants came up, the ministry involved itself with costing and pricing of phosphates. When the phosphate consumption sagged in 1974-75 and 1975-76, the ministry suggested a subsidy of Rs 1,200 per tonne of phosphate produced.

This helped increase phosphate consumption in 1976-77 and the next two years. With the formation of Fertiliser Industry Coordination Committee (FICC) in 1978, as a wing of ministry of fertiliser, the stage was set for implementing the retention price scheme for complex fertilisers for February, 1979 and for SSP in May, 1982. For 13 years, the fertiliser ministry helped the phosphate industry in every way. The production of phosphates went up to 2.56 million tonnes by 1991-92 which helped achieve a consumption level of 3.32 million tonnes phosphate that year.

Decontrol ofphosphate industry in August 1992 seriously impaired the healthy relationship with the fertiliser ministry. Subsequent central government decisions to entrust the management of ad hoc subsidy for phosphates from October 1992 to the ministry of agriculture and pricing to state government's from October 1992 to April 1997, created a further rift between. The expertise and acumen of the fertiliser ministry, so carefully built up over the 30 years, has remained unutilised for the phosphate industry for the last seven years.

No guidelines were given and the phosphate industry is drifting like a rudderless ship. The performance is pretty poor and the product range of complex fertilisers was changed from time to time by the manufacturers and phosphate output suffered in the bargain. DAP, which was encouraged from 1965 to 1992, suffered a severe setback in the decade of nineties, SSP industry, which showed good promise till 1990-91, has become the worst victim due to unplanned mushrooming of small plants on onehand and total lack of direction in production and distribution process on the other. SSP was contributing 16 to 18 per cent of total phosphate consumption up to 1991-92, has now come down to 13.5 per cent contribution in 1998-99 consumption of phosphate, in spite of capacity of SSP going up from 5.0 to 6.0 million tonnes during the last seven years. There is an urgent need to review its performance and impart clear direction to its future growth which only ministry of fertilisers can do.

The phosphate consumption trend from 1991-92 to 1998-99, which were all good rainfall years, has been extremely wayward, stagnating around 2.8 to 2.9 million tonnes per year for five long years. It has gone up to 3.9 million tonnes in 1997-98 and 4.1 million tonnes in 1998-99, but may remain at that level in 1999-2000. Thus in 10 years, the consumption of the most important crop nutrient has gone up only by 1 million tonne against its own growth from 1.2 million tonnes in 1981-82 to 3.32 million tonnes in 1991-92 inspite of drought in 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. The consumption of phosphate should have reached 6.0 million tonnes by now which was possible due to favourable rainfall. Many reasons are given for this wayward performance of phosphate, some very genuine, but the prime reason is undoubtedly non-involvement of the fertiliser ministry and consequent drifting of the industry.

Phosphate and not nitrogen is the key nutrient to be watched in the coming 10 years as we attempt to double our crop yields. Phosphate plays its own dynamic role in root growth of crop plants, its development, protein formation and protein synthesis. More importantly, phosphate helps in correcting the ill-effects of excessive nitrogen use which is so common.

Phosphate ensures timely maturity of crops which is an important commercial tool in the hands of farmers growing five to six crops in the same piece of land in one year. Indian soils are deficient in phosphate to the extent of 85 to 90 per cent. Today we are in the same positionthat Europe was in a few decades ago. European soils needed phosphate and in quiet a few countries phosphate consumption was higher than nitrogen to set right the balance. Phosphate is the most important nutrient for oilseeds and pulses which only need a starter dose of nitrogen, but a liberal application of phosphate.

Considering these aspects, we need to push phosphate consumption at least to a level of 10 million tonnes in the next 10 years. If 80 per cent of this is to be indigenously produced, then we need a production base of 8.0 million tonnes phosphate against actual production 3.17 million tonnes in 1998-99. This would require 10.5 million tonnes DAP to meet 60 per cent of indigenous phosphate 7.5 million tonnes SSP to contribute 15 per cent of phosphate and 8.0 million tonnes of complexes other than DAP with average phosphate content of 26 per cent. With all this, we would still need to import 4.5 million tonnes of DAP to reach the 10-million tonne phosphate consumption level.

To create thislarge base of phosphate production and to utilise current capacity more effectively, particularly for SSP, the ministry of fertilisers will have to be in the driver's seat. It must come up with a comprehensive paper for promoting growth of the phosphate industry in a planned manner.

The state governments should not be given freedom to decide about phosphate plants, which is a central subject. Even in a decontrolled situation, it is possible to provide proper direction and guidance to this vital sector of our agricultural economy. If it means restoring full authority to the fertiliser ministry in terms of national pricing of all phosphates, management of ad hoc subsidy for phosphates, etc, it should be quickly done in the national interest. In that case, the ministry of agriculture at Delhi will be left free to promote and implement new schemes aimed at increased phosphate consumption in pulses, oilseeds and coarse cereals and to regulate supply and distribution of phosphates which is its primefunction.

Suresh Prabhu is a learned man and a keen student. He is backed up by excellent officials in the fertiliser ministry including FICC. Let us hope that he comes up soon with a comprehensive policy to promote production of phosphates in India in a regulated manner.

The author is a Rama Phosphates director