This refers to the article published in Pakistan Today dated 21st January 2020 titled “GIDC abolition to increase price disparity in fertilizer sector” by Mr. Hassan Naqvi.
It is interesting to note that FFC is being maligned as the force behind abolition of GIDC. Without prejudice to anyone, the government had put on table the proposal to the fertilizer industry for GIDC reduction. FFC accepted it with the spirit to continue playing its positive role in the best interest of the country. The author himself acknowledges that the total reduction of GIDC would be passed on to the farmers through reduction in the fertilizer prices in equal proportion. The well-meaning move by the government has been twisted through creation of a fictitious scenario whereby in the end the price of fertilizer would return to its present level. The fact of the matter is that FFC had been absorbing the GIDC impact and would continue to absorb the impact through the reduction of GIDC.
Natural Gas being the main raw material for fertilizer production, if its price is increased for fertilizer industry now or at any stage will have corresponding price impact for complete industry as per market dynamics. This would not be a novel situation and happens every time such change in price is implemented by the government. In either case, the beneficiary of GIDC reduction is the farmer or the government (i.e. public at large).
The author has tried to complicate the subject through inclusion of the Gas Development Surcharge (GDS) deficit and increased revenues for the government. These are two distinct issues and combining them serves no purpose except to deliberately confuse the public and the farming community.
It has been wrongly stated and attributed to FFC official in the article that “………decreased rates will bring down competitors’ profit because they were selling fertilizer exclusive of GIDC”. The agreement reached on the GIDC issue is for the benefit of the farming community and to invigorate the agriculture sector. There is no intent of creating disharmony and disparity in competitors.
Conclusion drawn by the author that FFC is sole beneficiary and proponent of the prospective GIDC reduction holds no ground. Authenticity of the content can be judged from the level of knowledge of the author about the subject that while addressing currently one of the most important issues in relation to agriculture sector he is focusing on FFC but does not know that it is not a corporation but stands for “Fauji Fertilizer Company” and at another instance, he refers to it as FCC. Overall the article is an attempt to malign the company or is an effort to mislead public opinion either with ignorance or mala-fide intention. The author is invited to Head Office FFC so that he may be correctly briefed. However, FFC intends serving legal notice to the author.
Col Zaffar Farooq Babur