How ASEAN Can Reduce Its Heavy Dependence on Imported Agricultural Inputs

ASEAN’s dependence on food and feed imports has been well studied but it has taken the Iran crisis, and previously the Ukraine War, to highlight Southeast Asia’s reliance on imports of inputs from outside the region that are essential for agriculture. Overall, agriculture in this region is made possible only because of an adequate and stable supply of three important inputs, namely fertilisers, seeds and pesticides (Table 1). High import dependency exposes ASEAN to price shocks, export restrictions and geopolitical disruptions.

Table 1. Estimated Import Dependencies for Key Agricultural Inputs

Fertiliser is the most critical input bottleneck affecting agriculture and food security. China, the Middle East and Russia constitute the bulk of ASEAN’s fertiliser imports, with variations in each source’s dominance depending on the type of fertiliser. The Gulf region accounts for about 11 per cent of fertilisers imported by ASEAN. For pesticide imports, China is overwhelmingly dominant by volume, while for seeds, the US and EU control the so-called “high-value genetics” seeds.

Fertiliser is not a single homogenous input, as shown in Table 2. About half of fertilisers used in the region are nitrogen-based, followed by phosphate (20–30 per cent) and potash (10–20 per cent).  All require large amounts of energy from fossil fuels such as oil and Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) for their production. Rice uses the most fertiliser in ASEAN, corresponding with the large area it occupies in Southeast Asia, followed by maize, sugarcane, oil palm and rubber. These combinations of fertiliser types, sources and agricultural use underscore the vulnerability to global shocks — and the imperative of fertiliser production within ASEAN.

Table 2. ASEAN Member States’ (AMS) Usage, Import Source, and Fertiliser Production Capacity, by Fertiliser Type

Several AMS — namely, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei — have LNG reserves, giving them capacity to produce nitrogen fertiliser (urea) and even export to other AMS. There is no significant production in ASEAN of phosphate and potash fertilisers.

To address the dependency issue, ASEAN should not try to be fully fertiliser self-sufficient, nor should it replace chemical with organic in a hurry. ASEAN needs to avoid the policy disaster experienced by Sri Lanka when it drastically and abruptly changed from chemical to full organic agriculture. A realistic strategy is to reduce import volume, diversify sources, and substitute with smarter locally produced inputs.

One way to reduce volume is by increasing the efficiency of applying fertiliser. New techniques, such as the “Site Specific Nutrient Management” pioneered by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) for rice, reduce the loss of fertiliser through evaporation or inaccuracy in the timing or placement of fertiliser. Scientific research has found that up to 40 per cent of nitrogen fertiliser applied to rice is “volatilised” and not used by the plant.

Efficiency enhancement should be accompanied by substitution and diversification of fertiliser sources. Besides increasing local production of nitrogen fertilisers in countries with LNG sources, ASEAN should also consider securing raw material supply through long-term import contracts, e.g. for potash (Canada, Belarus, Russia) and phosphate (Morocco, China), and developing potash resources found in Laos and Thailand. Alternatives to chemical fertiliser should be further developed, such as biofertilisers based on microbes, and organic fertilisers based on biomass like rice straw, palm oil waste and livestock manure. Other possible actions include developing circular nutrient systems such as bio-waste-to-fertiliser, recovering nutrients from food waste, sewage sludge and livestock waste.

For the longer term, measures that should be taken include “green ammonia” to produce fertiliser using renewable energy, although costs are high, and breeding crop varieties using modern biotechnologies like gene editing to improve fertiliser-use efficiency. Policy reforms will be needed to reduce fertiliser subsidies, to support local industry in the production of biofertilisers and in adoption of circular agriculture practices, and to help farmers improve fertiliser applications. Strategic fertiliser reserves should also be considered based on the positive experiences with the ASEAN Plus Three Emergency Rice Reserve (APTERR).

Current ASEAN policy has been focused on improving agricultural productivity and sustainability, and not on reducing import dependency on inputs. The region must re-orient itself toward building input industries while creating supply independence or enforcing localisation.

ASEAN action is also required on pesticides and seeds, the two other vital agricultural inputs. Pesticide dependency reduction policies need to be reinforced, making Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as national policy, with mandated practice in crops selected by AMS, and accelerating the biopesticide industry through simplified regulatory approval systems. The dependence on imported hybrid seeds will require seed system transformation policies to develop seed production capability and breeding programmes using modern genetic improvement techniques, and to create a single ASEAN seed market. AMS also need to increase agriculture R&D spending, and support public-private partnerships in generating technological innovations.

ASEAN can leverage existing policies such as the Food, Agriculture and Forestry Sectoral Plan, 2026–2030 which advocates the use of regenerative measures for sustainable farming, especially on inputs originating from within ASEAN. ASEAN’s current policy architecture on reducing import dependency on fertilisers and pesticides is fragmented, uneven, and mostly non-binding. There is no single ‘input self-reliance policy’; ASEAN needs to develop a policy that specifically addresses reduced dependency on imported agricultural inputs, concomitant with increased self-sufficiency. Furthermore, mechanisms such as the ASEAN Sectoral Working Group on Crops (ASWGC) can be leveraged to encourage crop fertilisation research coordination, seed exchange discussions, and pest management collaboration.

Current ASEAN policy has been focused on improving agricultural productivity and sustainability, and not on reducing import dependency on inputs. The region must re-orient itself toward building input industries while creating supply independence or enforcing localisation. Geopolitical volatility has exacerbated the chronic agricultural challenges posed by climate change. The overarching goal should be to foster more resilience in food production by stabilising the supply of inputs in the face of compounding global crises.

2026/133