‘Farmers will be provided with easy access to fertilizer and seeds. A feasibility study will be conducted to open a fertilizer factory in Nepal.’ These are topics that almost every finance minister does not miss in his budget speech. This reference to easy supply of chemical fertilizers has been heard every year in the budget speech of every government since 2048 BS. But there is hardly a year when there is no shortage of chemical fertilizers during the cultivation period.

Farmers used to complain about the shortage of fertilizers three decades ago, and the situation is still the same today. No matter which party is the Minister of Agriculture, chemical fertilizers have not been supplied easily. Not only has there been a failure to supply, but there have also been irregularities from time to time.

In the past, fertilizer has not been imported easily due to contracts with unreliable companies, failure to supply fertilizers on time even when making government-to-government (G2G) agreements, failure to supply fertilizers even when making agreements with private companies, increasing the prevailing price for transportation contracts, and having the intention of taking commissions in the tender process.

The import of chemical fertilizers is still continuing from 30 years ago. In 2051, the then Minister of Agriculture and Land Reforms was Radhakrishna Mainali. UML Chairman Manmohan Adhikari, who was leading a minority government in the mid-term elections, was the Prime Minister.

Even then, not only was the issue of fertilizer import not easy, but controversy had arisen. Under the direction of Agriculture Minister Mainali, the Agricultural Materials Corporation signed an agreement with The Napier Connection Company of Canada in 2051 without a tender to import 60,000 metric tons of fertilizer. However, the Napier Company, which had opened the letter of credit (LC) to import the fertilizer, was found to be unreliable.

The fertilizer import became uncertain after the bank concerned gave a notice to cancel the LC because the company was wrong. It was also revealed that there was a company that did not trade in Napier fertilizer. The incident had led to a fertilizer crisis.

When Nepal Bank Limited opened an LC through Standard Charter Bank, the Canadian branch of Charter had sent a notice raising questions about the Napier Company. The bank had informed the Agricultural Materials Corporation that the proposal would be canceled. There was concern that the fertilizer would not be supplied due to the agreement with an unreliable company. An agreement was made with Napier to bring fertilizer to the Calcutta port at 185 US dollars per metric ton.

Officials at the Agricultural Materials Institute were worried about how to proceed now. AC Singh of the institute's procurement department had informed that preparations were being made to bring fertilizer even if it was through G2G. But there was confusion about which country to bring it from.

Jensen, a local representative of Napier in the Idea Group, was 'lobbying' the institute and the ministry that fertilizer could be imported. The institute had claimed that it had signed an agreement with Napier because the price of fertilizer in the international market was cheaper than the prevailing price. But Standard Chartered Bank had informed that the Napier company had not even traded fertilizer in Canada. It was seen that the agreement was made without considering the credibility of the company, while the fertilizer warehouse in Nepal was empty. But the government had claimed that it had fertilizer that could meet the demand until 2052 Baisakh.

Vendors had started saying that there was a shortage of fertilizer in the market. At that time, there was no fertilizer other than 7,000 metric tons of urea in the warehouse. The organization had stated that some fertilizer had arrived in Calcutta and that a tender was being prepared to import more. The tender call made after the shortage of fertilizer made it certain that farmers would not get fertilizer at the desired time.