Since 2004, every round of fertilizer price increase has been accompanied by the introduction of the government's price limit policy. Fertilizer prices have been rising all the way for three consecutive years, which has made the government somewhat helpless. Enterprises shouted that profits were thin and farmers were dissatisfied. It seems that there is no beneficiary of the "price limit" of fertilizer, and the government's "price limit" policy has been questioned by various media, so where is the problem?
Through investigation, the reporter drew a flow chart of chemical fertilizer from raw materials entering the factory to being sold to farmers. Once we calm down and analyze the whole process of chemical fertilizer from production to consumption, we will find that this is a systematic process of policy and market competition, involving all links of the whole market economy, and it is impossible for any single policy to completely control the price of chemical fertilizer. We can only hope that everything we do is more reasonable.
It is difficult for the government to take full responsibility by single means to protect agriculture in ceiling price.
Perhaps the contradiction between price fixing and price increase is becoming more and more prominent, which leads to a view that in a market economy, government departments should not engage in price intervention and price fixing. In fact, at present, the chemical fertilizer industry is one of the industries that enjoy the most preferential policies in China. There are many preferential measures from the prices of raw materials such as coal and natural gas to train transportation, electricity consumption for production and taxation. In addition, according to Article 3 of China's Price Law, the prices of most commodities and services are regulated by the market, and the prices of very few commodities and services are guided or fixed by the government. It should be said that there are reasons and laws for the state to include chemical fertilizers in a few commodities that need price control and implement government-guided price management.
Whether it is to limit prices, suspend export tax rebates, or strengthen thin storage, the purpose of national policies is extremely obvious, that is, to increase the quantity of fertilizers in the domestic market, so as to more effectively stabilize the upward trend of fertilizer prices.
However, judging from the current price limit policy, there is no limit on the raw coal and transportation price of fertilizer production, and neither can retailers. Only manufacturers and regular circulation enterprises are sacrificed. Some fertilizer production enterprises have their own distribution companies, and the prices sold to the distribution companies can strictly implement the price limit regulations. If the distribution company sells externally, it can be unrestricted. In addition, they can charge more transportation fees, sell more tickets for a commodity, and transfer the expenses within the price to the outside. These measures are vividly summarized by the industry as follows: control production but not circulation, control collective but not individual, control wholesale but not retail.
As the chairman of a chemical fertilizer group in Hefei, Anhui said, the country's starting point is good, but the reasons such as many chemical fertilizer circulation links, wide scope, dispersion and difficult management have affected the control effect of chemical fertilizer prices. The implementation of preferential policies involves departments such as price, finance, taxation, railway, supply and marketing, electricity, etc., and it is a complex systematic project with many regulatory areas, and its operability is not strong; If a department and a policy cannot be implemented well, it will affect the overall effect of regulation. The high cost of administrative supervision often leads to the difficulty in implementing the price limit policy, which leads to the final result of price limit is three dissatisfaction: the country is dissatisfied, the fertilizer enterprises are dissatisfied, and the farmers are dissatisfied.
Farmers don't know the price limit, and the price increase has not affected farmers' fertilization level.
The reporter investigated the major grain growers in China and farmers in Weifang, Shandong, Hengyang, Hunan, Yuncheng, Shanxi, Daxing, Beijing and other places in 2005, and found that the increase in agricultural prices has not yet had a decisive impact on farmers' fertilization level.
Most farmers don't know the price limit policy. Because the supervision of the price limit policy focuses on the ex-factory price of production enterprises and the wholesale and retail rate of large and medium-sized circulation and wholesale enterprises, in China, it is the individual retailers in towns, villages and villages, usually the local mom-and-pop shops. According to the reporter's understanding, these final retailers know very little about the national price limit policy, and farmers in pure farmland don't know the price limit policy either. Most importantly, the prices of other consumer goods related to farmers, as well as water and electricity, medical care and transportation, are rising, which makes farmers understand and accept the price increase of fertilizers and pesticides.
The cost for farmers to grow food has not increased. The reporter learned that the amount of chemical fertilizer input by farmers to the land has remained stable because there has been no obvious change in cultivation techniques and crop varieties in various places. According to the figures of the Ministry of Agriculture, the increase in the price of agricultural materials increased farmers' production costs by 39 billion yuan, and the average cost per mu of grain increased by 20 yuan -40 yuan compared with the previous year. However, the price of chemical fertilizer increased by nearly/kloc-0.5% compared with 2004, which partially offset the benefits brought to farmers by supporting policies such as direct subsidies for grain and agricultural materials. However, from the cost of farmers, due to various subsidies, the increase in fertilizer prices has not yet allowed farmers to subsidize food. The owner of a farmer's couple shop in Yuncheng said: As long as it is fertilizer season, even if the price is higher, fertilizer will be bought. Now farmers are rich.
Farmers' agricultural income has also increased. A village-level dealer in Weifang told reporters that the price of fertilizer depends on the price of agricultural products. When the purchase price of agricultural products is high, chemical fertilizers will sell well. Judging from the recent vegetable prices of urban residents, farmers' income from growing vegetables has increased. The investigation of Sichuan Agricultural Transfer Team on 16 counties, 400 households and some farms shows that the production cost of agricultural products has increased obviously, but the price of agricultural products has increased more obviously. The cost per mu of wheat increased by 8.59 yuan, and the net income increased by 10 1 yuan. The cost per pig increased by 38 yuan, and the net income increased by 40 yuan. The data of Jiangxi Province also shows that the purchase price of rice in 2004 was only 0.8 yuan/kg, and most farmers only planted one season of rice. In 2005, rice 14 yuan/kg, 80%-90% of farmers planted double-cropping rice without calling.
According to the survey, the price increase of chemical fertilizer only slows down the increase of farmers' net income, and the current sales price of chemical fertilizer is still within the range that farmers can afford.
The price limit is not the culprit, but the source lies in the soaring price of raw materials.
Many articles commenting on the price-fixing policy blame the price-fixing of fertilizers on the government, arguing that the price-fixing actually contributes to the upward trend of fertilizer prices. In fact, agricultural enterprises are well aware that the purpose of the state's price limit policy is to benefit farmers. However, fertilizer enterprises are faced with a dilemma: on the one hand, the shortage of coal, electricity and oil transportation has not been alleviated, and the production cost of fertilizer has risen sharply; On the one hand, we should undertake the political task of protecting farmers' interests and implement the national price limit.
The person in charge of a large chemical group in Hubei believes that the observation of fertilizer prices mainly depends on two points, one is oil price, the other is food price, the third is cost and the fourth is demand. At present, the increase in fertilizer prices is closely related to cost factors.
The domestic supply and demand situation is not the reason for the price increase. China's fertilizer production and consumption rank first in the world, and it is also one of the big importers, but this does not mean that there is an absolute gap between supply and demand in China.
According to the data released by China Nitrogen Fertilizer Association, the domestic urea supply and demand were basically balanced in 2005. In 2006, due to the further expansion of domestic urea, it is estimated that the new production capacity will be 1.72 million tons, and the domestic urea output will reach about 47.5 million tons. It can be said that the total supply and demand of nitrogen fertilizer in China has been in an overall balance since 2003, while potash fertilizer, diammonium phosphate and compound fertilizer still need to be imported to meet the demand, which is a structural gap. According to the current domestic fertilization habits, the ratio of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in soil fertilization in China is 1: 0.4: 0. 17, and nitrogen fertilizer is the leading product of agricultural fertilizer. The production and marketing rate of chemical fertilizers in China continues to maintain a high level of over 95%, with a total production and marketing rate of 96.5%, of which the production and marketing rate of urea, the main nitrogen fertilizer, is as high as 98. 1%. Therefore, the reporter does not think that the supply and demand situation is the main reason for the increase in fertilizer prices.
The rising cost of raw materials has made production enterprises feel the pressure first. 97% of nitrogen fertilizer in the world is made of synthetic ammonia, and the ratio of synthetic ammonia to nitrogen fertilizer is about 1: 1.6. For example, an enterprise with a capacity of 300,000 tons of synthetic ammonia and 480,000 tons of urea. The raw materials of synthetic ammonia are mainly natural gas, coal and petroleum.
On February 26th, 2005, the National Development and Reform Commission announced the natural gas price reform plan: all oil and gas fields supply industrial and urban natural gas, and the ex-factory price will increase by 50~ 150 yuan per thousand cubic meters; The ex-factory price of natural gas for fertilizer is increased by 50- 100 yuan per thousand cubic meters. For chemical fertilizer enterprises, if the highest price increase per thousand cubic meters is 100 yuan, and the gas consumption per ton of urea is generally 800-900 cubic meters, the production cost per ton of urea will increase by 80-90 yuan.
However, the price of coal used for urea production has increased five times in four years, and the increase in some places is more than that. With the liberalization of coal price, the price of anthracite lump coal rose from about 150 yuan in 2002 to 260-300 yuan in 2003, further to 400-5 10 yuan in 2004 and over 500-600 yuan in 2005. Up to now, the ex-factory price of some enterprises is even as high as that of 800 yuan. Last year, although the state took temporary price-intervention measures to curb the excessive increase in the price of chemical fertilizer coal, chemical fertilizer producers reported that despite the stable price, the quality of coal declined or the supply could not be guaranteed. From the perspective of raw material cost, the cost of coal accounts for 50% of one ton of urea, that is to say, if the price of coal rises by 200 yuan, the cost of urea will increase by 100 yuan.
The staff of the price department of the National Development and Reform Commission admitted that the profit from selling chemical fertilizers at the quasi-price set by the state is really low.
Lack of resources has become the biggest pain for enterprises. In fact, the rise of raw materials is not the most terrible, but the shortage of raw materials is more difficult for production enterprises. In March this year, the reporter saw in Hunan that although urea enterprises in this province offered 1750 yuan/ton, it was difficult to get the goods. Most enterprises in Hunan Province still use coal as raw material. Except for a few large factories, the rest are small factories without restructuring. The high production cost leads to insufficient start-up and affects the local fertilizer supply. In April this year, Zhongyuan Oilfield only arranged a plan of 250 million cubic meters of natural gas for Zhongyuan Dahua, which was equivalent to 60% of the full-load gas consumption of the plant and 69% of the national index, and could not maintain the normal operation of the plant. Therefore, six of the eight devices in the whole plant have been shut down. The enterprise lost more than 40 million yuan in the first quarter. Urea enterprises suffering from the itch of resources are not only in the Central Plains, but also in the whole country. This has become a common phenomenon, and many enterprises have experienced or may still suffer from this kind of resource.
It is understood that the state has arranged for Anhui Sifang Group to plan to use 200,000 tons of coal. In fact, the cash rate of the planned coal is only 50.4%. Chemical fertilizer enterprises need to spend one ton 150-200 yuan to buy unplanned coal, and some coal needs to be purchased from other provinces, saving 25 yuan per ton. The state implements preferential freight rates for fertilizer enterprises, but the railway transportation department has insufficient capacity and enterprises can only wait for wagons. And fertilizer companies can't get in raw materials and products, so they can only buy a wagon at a high price.
From the perspective of market economy, fertilizer enterprises are in an embarrassing state. The raw materials and other means of production used to produce chemical fertilizers are purchased at market prices, and the prices of raw materials, coal and electricity are rising sharply, but the sales price of chemical fertilizers is facing the strict price limit of the country.
What is the upper limit of urea price? In addition to the factors of increasing demand and cost, there is also a very important reason that China has adopted a large number of support policies for the fertilizer industry, including preferential electricity prices and preferential railway freight rates. The value-added tax was first levied from 50% to free in 2004, and the price of smokeless lump coal for fertilizer raw materials was limited to the level of 2005 1 end of the month, and no price increase was allowed. It can be said that because of this series of policies, the cost of our nitrogen fertilizer enterprises is lower than that of the world counterparts. According to the opinions of the Nitrogen Fertilizer Association on the reform of fertilizer control mechanism submitted to the National Development and Reform Commission, if the preferential policies are cancelled and farmers are directly subsidized, the ex-factory price of urea per ton of gas enterprises and coal-fired enterprises will be raised to 1980-20 15 yuan and 2033-2044 yuan respectively, and the retail cost will be raised to 2 154 yuan -265434 yuan.
Price limit leads to negative problems, and it is most important to learn lessons.
The upper limit of urea ex-factory price this year is 1.725 yuan/ton. According to the zero difference rate of 7%, the retail price should be around 1.845 yuan/ton. In fact, the ex-factory price of urea has exceeded 1.800 yuan/ton, and with the transportation and loading and unloading costs, the mainstream retail price has reached 654,300 yuan on average even if dealers no longer increase profits. In fact, the failure of price limit is not necessarily a bad thing. The key is that we can find problems from it so as to improve the fertilizer circulation system more quickly.
The price limit has brought the biggest credit problem in the agricultural field. The price limit is limited to the ex-factory price or the price difference of agricultural companies, which objectively means that enterprises give profits to farmers. This forced transfer of interests leads to unfair transactions, which will inevitably create opportunities for speculators.
Due to the falling price of urea last winter, the industry's judgment of overcapacity this year and the country's restrictions on urea export, all dealers were more bearish on the urea market at the beginning of this year, and no one dared to take 1.540 yuan/ton of urea. Provincial distributors are more likely to reserve urea jointly with manufacturers, that is, through contracts, both parties bear market risks.
With the arrival of fertilizer peak season, manufacturers' prices not only go with the market, but also openly refuse to perform the agreements signed in the past under the guise of price limit, and directly implement them at the highest price limit. The price limit policy stimulated the price of urea. At this time, the circulation enterprises are also dumbfounding to the production enterprises, and can only say that the "contract law" has become the "activity law".
Another key problem is that it is difficult for even large distributors to get fertilizer at the national price limit. It is said that in the first year when the country implemented the price limit, some production enterprises had salesmen, so the monthly income was abnormal 654.38+ 10,000. These costs will eventually be allocated to the product step by step. Because fertilizer production enterprises are the absolute possessors of resources, they have absolute advantages in the game with circulation enterprises. Although its means in the commercial field are understandable, it ultimately affects the interests of farmers. It should be said that this is the biggest credit problem in the agricultural industry.
Terminal sales are difficult to monitor. A person in charge of the Shaanxi Provincial Price Bureau said that at present, the direct selling rate of products of large and medium-sized fertilizer enterprises is less than 5% of the output, and more than 90% of the products are only sold to one or two provincial or powerful agricultural companies, and then sold to county-level agricultural companies, and then sold to township and village sales points or self-employed households. The state stipulates that the price difference between wholesale and retail of chemical fertilizers should not exceed 7%, and it also stipulates that transportation and loading and unloading fees should be reimbursed. This gives fertilizer dealers an opportunity. They often put more than 7% into the freight and handling fees, so that when the zero-zero difference exceeds 10%, the inspectors can do nothing. After two, three or even four or five times of dumping fertilizer, it finally reached the hands of farmers, and the price of fertilizer naturally remained high.
In many areas, the phenomenon of "bundling sales" has also appeared. Using urea to sell compound fertilizer makes the sales price of urea close to the policy price limit, and the distribution of urea is definitely a loss, so the profit can only be transferred to compound fertilizer. "Bundle purchase", "no invoicing" and "false pricing" have also become ways for grassroots distributors to increase profits and reduce costs.
The terminals selling chemical fertilizers are often scattered in various villages, and the sales methods are primitive, so it is difficult for management departments to standardize management.
Enterprises have violated the original intention of the policy because they have to cope with the inspection. When the reporter interviewed Hengyang in March, he also found that urea was available at some dealers. Even a well-known domestic chemical company informed regional distributors to stop delivery. After careful inquiry, I learned that one is to cope with the off-season reserve and price inspection of relevant parties, and the other is that the peak of fertilizer use is coming, and it can still sell at a good price in two days. Enterprises can't be blamed, because in a market economy, enterprises operate for profit, but in order to cope with the pressure of inspection, enterprises invisibly raise the price of urea.
In addition, we can see that many enterprises participating in off-season reserve have announced that they have completed the annual reserve task in June, and only the number of reserve tasks has been completed, so enterprises can enjoy the price advantage of 40 yuan per ton compared with other enterprises when enjoying national policies. However, it is difficult to see whether these enterprises have contributed to stabilizing market prices in the peak season of fertilizer use from March to June. This has caused many agricultural companies that have not received policy support to complain about this. In the audit, the state also lacks the standard to judge the social responsibility that enterprises should bear after enjoying the policy.
Limit the price first, then the market changes. The highest retail price limit for urea is implemented in Hunan Province, and the retail price does not exceed 1.950 yuan/ton, and some remote mountainous areas do not exceed 2,000 yuan/ton. The average price of Xiangxi 1.900 yuan/ton -2 1.000 yuan/ton has exceeded the maximum price of urea. According to the introduction of the price bureau of Xiangxi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture, the local urea sales did not reach the price difference rate of wholesale 1.5% and retail 4.5% stipulated by the province, which had already exceeded the maximum price limit. The main reasons for the rising cost of urea are capital cost and transportation cost. Many dealers get loan support through credit cooperatives, and the interest is relatively high, and the financial pressure is obviously increased. At the same time, Xiangxi, Hunan is mostly a mountain road, and the transportation cost of urea to the terminal has been high, and these pressure dealers will eventually be passed on to consumers. In this regard, the relevant persons of the State Price Bureau seem very helpless.
There are many similar things all over the country, which makes more enterprises question the supervision of government departments. Due to the increasing cost of raw materials and freight, it is sometimes difficult for enterprises to ensure that the prices of agricultural products are implemented according to the standards set by the government. However, due to the characteristics of centralized production and decentralized sales of agricultural products, it is often convenient for relevant departments to supervise and inspect agricultural products in the centralized stage, but it is difficult to enforce the law in the actual circulation in rural areas. So that the supervision process is not perfect.
Let go? Or supervision? This is really a problem.
Undeniably, after the price increase of chemical fertilizer, it did offset some benefits of farmers' agricultural tax relief, but the overall benefit was improved. Otherwise, fertilizer prices will not continue to rise. This is the main reason why the price of chemical fertilizer is rising instead of falling, and the market supply and demand continue to be strong. This at least shows that the price of fertilizer has reached the time when it can be liberalized. If the fertilizer market is liberalized, the government must supervise it. However, these controls must conform to market rules.
On the whole, the national fertilizer policy in 2006 followed the policies of previous years, and there was not much adjustment on the whole, and it was still the idea of "preferential treatment+price limit" and "increasing supply+restricting export". For the price limit policy, there are popular suggestions in the agricultural industry: cancel the price limit of chemical fertilizers and encourage enterprises to improve the utilization rate of resources and products through subsidies to agricultural enterprises. This can not only ensure the normal profits of chemical fertilizer enterprises, but also reduce the price of chemical fertilizers.
Recently, according to western economic theory, domestic large-scale chemical fertilizer enterprises proposed that production enterprises should build direct sales networks to save logistics costs. However, the single-family farming method in China determines that the sale of agricultural products will inevitably require a huge marketing service network. Therefore, when guiding production enterprises, the state should encourage the reduction of fertilizer production costs, and should not take money to allow production enterprises to repeatedly build fertilizer circulation networks in areas where agricultural materials circulation enterprises have successfully operated. "Urea enterprises should strive to increase technological transformation, improve coal utilization rate and reduce consumption, which is the only way for us to cope with the rising coal price." Xinya Zhang, deputy general manager of Hubei Yihua Group, said this. This is not only his adaptation experience, but also his advice to his peers.
For agricultural products circulation enterprises, the state should encourage them to carry out modern chain distribution business, and for large circulation enterprises that are easy to obtain fixed assets loans, the state can subsidize them by means of discount interest and credit loans; For small and medium-sized circulation enterprises that are difficult to obtain loans, can we speed up the construction of distribution centers through direct subsidies?
At the same time, improving the utilization rate of chemical fertilizer will be the real node to solve the pain of chemical fertilizer. Only 35% of the chemical fertilizers used in agricultural production in China have been effectively utilized. When most farmers sow wheat, they use 50 kilograms of base fertilizer per mu, which exceeds the scientific dosage of 10-20 kilograms, and two-thirds of the fertilizer money is wasted. If the utilization rate of chemical fertilizer can reach 70%-80%, the input of farmers can be reduced by 50%, and then the price of chemical fertilizer can completely follow the market rules.
Fertilizer circulation is a systematic problem, involving all aspects. The government should let go, control the control, and adjust the price change of chemical fertilizer by market means. Only in this way can enterprises, farmers and governments benefit.