India’s Shift to Biofertilisers: Reducing Import Dependency and Soil Degradation

Import vulnerability, subsidy burdens, and soil degradation are driving India’s shift toward biofertilizers and a sustainable bio-pathway.

The Current Crisis and Dependency

• Geopolitical Supply Chain Risks: The closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran has led to an LPG and crude oil crisis in India and also poses a major threat to fertiliser supplies.
  • Unlike crude oil, India has no strategic reserves for nitrogen fertilisers, heightening supply insecurity.
• Import Dependency: India imports 60% of its urea (nitrogen fertiliser) from Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.
  • During the Kharif season (June–July), India faces peak fertilizer demand, increasing dependence on imports.
  • If the Strait remains closed, ships must take a longer route around Africa, increasing the cost of urea for farmers.

The Economic Black Hole- Fertiliser Subsidy Trap

• Subsidy Burden: The government provided ₹18.86 lakh crore in fertiliser subsidies for 2025–26 (over 40% of total subsidies).
• Rising Costs: The subsidy burden is likely to increase further due to external factors, such as rising freight costs and geopolitical tensions (e.g., the Hormuz region).
• Negative Returns on Chemicals: ₹1 spent on chemical fertilisers yields only 88 paise, indicating low efficiency and negative economic returns.
  • Whereas public investment in agricultural R&D generates returns exceeding ₹1 per rupee.
• Allocation Imbalance: Fertiliser subsidies are disproportionately skewed.
  • ₹1.86 lakh crore is allocated to chemical fertilisers, compared with only ₹2,481 crore for the National Mission on Natural Farming (NMNF), indicating a nearly 75-fold disparity.
• Neglect of Sustainable Alternatives: Natural farming and bio-inputs remain underfunded despite their long-term ecological and economic benefits.

Environmental and Soil Degradation

• N-P-K Imbalance: The disproportionate use of Nitrogen (N) relative to Phosphorus (P) and Potassium (K) in fertilisers leads to soil degradation, reduced crop productivity, and environmental harm.
  • India’s fertiliser use is highly skewed, with the N:P: K ratio often exceeding 8–10:3–4:1 against the ideal 4:2:1, mainly due to subsidised urea leading to overuse of nitrogen.
• Negative Impacts of Chemical Overuse:
  • Volatilisation: Chemical fertilisers convert into gases, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Contamination: Excess fertilisers leach into soil, contaminating groundwater and rivers.
  • Denitrification: Soil bacteria convert nitrate into atmospheric nitrogen (N₂)
  • Loss of Soil Health: Continuous chemical use kills beneficial microbes, reducing long-term soil productivity.

Biofertilisers- The Solution

• Definition: Biofertilizers are living microbes (bacteria and fungi) that work in harmony with nature.
• Core Functions: 
  • Nitrogen Fixation: Convert atmospheric N₂ into a form that plants can absorb.
  • Phosphate Solubilization: Convert soil-bound phosphate into a soluble form for plant use.
  • Soil Biology Support: Enhance beneficial microorganisms to improve natural soil productivity.
• Strategic Benefits: Locally produced, cheaper than chemical fertilisers, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve long-term soil health.
• Reduced Import Dependence: Scaling biofertilisers lowers the urea import bill, thereby reducing India’s dependence on Gulf countries.
• Lower Input Costs: Adoption of biofertilisers reduces input expenses, particularly benefiting marginal farmers with limited access to alternatives.

Case Studies of Success

• Sikkim: It is India’s first 100% organic state, which converted 76,000 hectares to organic farming and won the UN Future Policy Award in 2018
• Andhra Pradesh: Over 1 million farmers have adopted Community Managed Natural Farming and Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF), which have significantly reduced input costs within two to three seasons.

Challenges to the Adoption of Biofertilizers in Agriculture

• Fragmented Market Structure: The absence of a national distribution network results in a scattered ecosystem dominated by small regional players, limiting scale, standardisation, and accessibility.
• Erosion of Farmer Trust: The proliferation of substandard or counterfeit products with inactive microbes leads to poor outcomes, discouraging adoption.
• Last-Mile Advisory Deficit: Inadequate extension services and technical guidance hinder the correct application and optimal use of bio-inputs.
• Policy Distortion in Subsidies: Disproportionate subsidies favour chemical fertilisers, creating a skewed incentive structure that disincentivises the adoption of biofertilisers.

Way Forward

• Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) Reform: Shift fertiliser subsidies directly to farmers to enable informed choice between chemical and bio-inputs, promoting balanced nutrient use.
• Strengthening Bio-Input Infrastructure: Establish 10,000 Bio-Input Resource Centres under the National Mission on Natural Farming, with performance linked to measurable soil health outcomes.
• Boosting Innovation & Quality Assurance: Fast-track approvals for new microbial strains while enforcing stringent post-market surveillance to ensure product efficacy and credibility.
• Phased Transition Strategy: Adopt a gradual shift towards biofertilizers to avoid economic and productivity shocks, drawing lessons from crises like Sri Lanka’s abrupt chemical fertiliser ban.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Conclusion

Biofertilisers are not an immediate substitute and will co-exist with chemicals.

• The shift from chemical-heavy to biological-rich agriculture will be slow and vary across crops and regions, making a calibrated transition essential for soil health, productivity, and long-term sovereignty.

DOWNLOAD PDF