Rabobank’s view on the fertilisers market Global market dynamics and 2020 outlook Dirk Jan Kennes Food & Agribusiness Research and Advisory (FAR) Rabobank International Rabobank’s view on the fertiliser market Demand dynamics Farm inputs – Long term demand drivers remain positive As agri demand growth exceeds supply yield improvement has become imperative Demand Additional 140 million hectares Supply Ha Food, feed, fuel demand 2020 Food, feed, fuel demand 2005 LOW HIGH 30% yield increase YIELD Source: Rabobank analysis [Insert client name via master] 3 Higher and more volatile prices oversupply tight 700 USD / Tonne 600 500 On average 400 higher and 300 more volatile prices 200 100 0 Wheat (US) Source: Bloomberg, Rabobank [Insert client name via master] Corn (US) Soybeans (US) Crop farming: sustainable intensification Farm inputs Crop farming Trade Livestock farming Issues Retail Consumer Investment themes Increase crop per ha, per drop water and per kg nutrient Increasing capital intensity Enabling environment crucial Managing risks (inputs, prices, production, marketing) Enable entrepreneurship in a consolidating world [Insert client name via master] Processing 5 Rising land prices The emergence of the rural entrepreneur Farm inputs – The start of the food & agri chain Fertiliser prices respond fast to improving farm margins Gross value of production & expenses for US corn producer 1000 World Fertiliser market: USD100 billion plus Fertiliser prices respond fastest to the improving fundamentals in ag market 900 800 Potassium (K2O) USD/Acre 700 600 16% 500 400 Phosphorus (P2O5) 300 24% 60% 200 100 Seed Fertilizer, Lime, and Gypsum Chemicals Custom Operations Fuel, Lube, and Electricity Repairs Hired Labor Other Variable Cash Expenses Interest Total Fixed Expenses Total, Gross Value of Production Sources: Global Insight, IFA, Rabobank analysis [Insert client name via master] 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 0 6 Nitrogen (N) US corn farmers see fertilisers and seeds as most important inputs US corn farmers’ spending on seed, fertiliser, agrochemicals, and fuel & electricity 160,00 Seed 140,00 Fertilizer 120,00 USD/planted acre 100,00 Chemicals 80,00 Fuel and Electricity 60,00 40,00 20,00 0,00 2000 [Insert client name via master] 2001 2002 2003 2004 7 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Historical fertiliser demand development explained Area, crop mix and application rate together explain volume of fertiliser market The volume of the fertiliser demand is the product of three components: (1) Area * (2) crop mix factor * (3) application rate = volume of fertiliser market 1. Area: 2. Crop mix factor: 3. Application rate: area dedicated to crops that are fertilised average number of kg of nutrients per ha for actual crop mix with application rates in base year average number of kg of nutrients applied per ha for a specific crop In the following slides you will see the evolution of the market volume of fertiliser in the top left graph. The explanatory factors are given in the other slides: area development in the top right graph, crop mix changes (change of average application rate due to change in crop mix and assuming base year application rates) in the bottom left graph application rate changes in the bottom right graph The average of 2006 and 2007 is taken as the base year for all factors The next step is to include FAR’s prediction for areas in 2020 for the different crops in the model and make an assumption about application rate development from now to 2020. Based on these two items the 2020 fertiliser demand can be predicted. [Insert client name via master] EU27 EU27 = all current EU member states included in all years Market Volume (2006-2007 = 100) Area impact (2006-2007 = 100) 300 200 250 150 200 K 150 N 100 P 50 100 area 50 0 0 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2020 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2020 Crop Mix impact (2006-2007 = 100) Application Rate impact (2006-2007 = 100) 200 300 250 150 K 100 N 50 P 200 K 150 N 100 P 50 0 0 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2020 [Insert client name via master] 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2020 North America North America = Canada, Mexico, United States of America Market Volume (2006-2007 = 100) Area impact (2006-2007 = 100) 200 200 150 150 K 100 N 50 P 100 Area 50 0 0 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2020 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2020 Crop Mix impact (2006-2007 = 100) Application Rate impact (2006-2007 = 100) 200 200 150 150 K 100 N 50 P K 100 N 50 P 0 0 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2020 [Insert client name via master] 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2020 Asia Asia = Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam Market Volume (2006-2007 = 100) Area impact (2006-2007 = 100) 200 200 150 150 K 100 N 50 P 100 Area 50 0 0 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2020 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2020 Crop Mix impact (2006-2007 = 100) Application Rate impact (2006-2007 = 100) 200 200 150 150 K 100 N 50 P K 100 N 50 P 0 0 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2020 [Insert client name via master] 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2020 South America South America = Argentina, Brazil and Chile Market Volume (2006-2007 = 100) Area impact (2006-2007 = 100) 200 200 150 150 K 100 N 50 P 100 Area 50 0 0 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2020 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2020 Crop Mix impact (2006-2007 = 100) Application Rate impact (2006-2007 = 100) 200 200 150 150 K 100 N 50 P K 100 N 50 P 0 0 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2020 [Insert client name via master] 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2020 Conclusion Global demand growth of 2% for nitrogen and 3% for potassium towards 2020 Relative high agricultural commodity prices incentivize farmers towards sustainable intensification Farmers’ instant response to improve yields through increased fertilizer spending not sustainable longer term Long term volume growth expected to significantly lower resulting from lower application rate growth in Asia and Latin America [Insert client name via master] Changing farming best-practices Integrated approach regarding farm inputs necessary Potential depressed farm earnings in coming 3 years might delay the penetration of these innovative farming practices Balanced crop nutrition will gain importance Improved application technology Increased regulation (e.g. EU legislation) Potential depressed farm earnings in coming 3 years might delay the penetration of these innovative farming practices Potential depressed farm earnings in coming 3 years might delay the penetration of these innovative farming practices to materialize beyond 2020 Global demand growth of 2% for nitrogen and 3% for potassium till 2020 Beyond 2020 much lower growth rates for fertilizers likely 13 Rabobank’s view on the fertiliser market Trade dynamics The regional fertiliser (im)balance necessitates trade While nitrogen supply-demand is relatively balanced, phosphates and potash market relies heavily on international trade West Europe Large export region for Potash and Phosphate products 2000 -2000 -4000 North America -6000 14000 10000 6000 2000 -2000 -6000 -10000 Central Europe 2000 1000 15000 12000 9000 6000 3000 0 0 East Asia -1000 7000 Middle East Africa 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 -2000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 -2000 □ Nitrogen balance 2012 □ Nitrogen balance 2016 Large export region for all nutrients Euro/Asia 0 3000 -1000 South Asia -5000 -9000 2000 -2000 Latin America -6000 □ Phosphate balance 2012 □ Phosphate balance 2016 2000 -2000 □ Potash balance 2012 □ Potash balance 2016 -6000 -10000 Major import regions that have large bearing on price dynamics Source: IFA, Rabobank analysis Figures in thousand tonnes [Insert client name via master] 15 Oceania 2000 -2000 Key importing countries India is top importer of fertilisers, followed by USA and Brazil Urea Total traded volume of 40 mt DAP Total traded volume of 16 mt MOP Total traded volume of 43 mt USA 16% Brazil 7% Others 55% Others 29% Others 38% India 48% Brazil 16% India 16% Thailan d 6% Malaysia 5% Brazil 3% France 3% Vietnam 4% Source: IFA 2010 figures, Rabobank analysis [Insert client name via master] USA 19% Pakistan 4% Indonesi a 5% China 12% India 14% Key exporting countries Different industry structures impact supply dynamics Urea - fragmented market Total traded volume of 40 mt DAP Total traded volume of 16 mt Ukraine 6% Russia 11% Lithuani a 5% Others 8% Jordan 5% Others 33% Egypt 8% Tunisia 7% Oman 9% Morocco 12% Qatar 7% China 18% Saudi Arabia 8% Source: IFA 2010 figures, Rabobank analysis [Insert client name via master] USA 26% MOP – oligopolistic structure Total traded volume of 43 mt German y 10% Jordan Others 4% 3% Canada 37% Israel 11% Russia 12% China 25% Belarus 16% Russia 19% Rabobank’s view on the fertiliser market Potash supply dynamics Current oligopolistic structure of industry favors supply side long term Initiatives to break oligopolistic structure fading away Supply side Demand side Medium-term supply expected to remain tight despite currently peaking inventories Recent contract negotiations favored buyer side Key players/price setters Decreasing interest from giant miners Price followers operate in and benefit from strict supply discipline Source: Rabobank FAR [Insert client name via master] 19 Key drivers include – Contract negotiations with India and China sets price bottom – Agricultural commodity prices that drive farm margins Demand in key markets will continue to rise especially where nutrient-balance needs attention Securing stable and timely supply of potash is a key priority of Indian, Chinese and Brazilian governments Winners and losers in potash market Canpotex carries large burden while peers gain market share Observations on capacity utilisation Distinct differences in capacity utilisation for various players Capacity utilisation development World export market share development 120% 45% 40% 100% 89% Observations on potash exports 86% 86% 35% 85% 80% 75% 78% 30% 67% Rising market share of BPC But declining market share of Canpotex 25% 60% 20% 40% 15% 20% 10% 5% 0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Potash Corp Mosaic Belaruskali Israel Chemicals K+S Agrium Uralkali-Silvinit World 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 K+S Source: Company reports, Rabobank [Insert client name via master] 2011 Source: IFA, Rabobank 20 BPC Canpotex ICL Scenario analysis - 2011 Excess supply New capacities and players will have impact on the market Key takeaways and implications India Wildcard China Brazil China Base Case Balanced demand-supply India India Upside Brazil BPC and Canpotex players may try to oversupply the market to discourage competition Overall, pricing dynamics are set to change – Players outside the cartel can distort the market – – Importers will have more supply options Price bottom based on cost of production of marginal producer Market less favourable for independent players Current status Low import reliance of India, Brazil and China Source: Rabobank FAR [Insert client name via master] All 3 scenarios point towards a buyer’s market Brazil China High import reliance of India, Brazil and China 21 General assumptions in 2011 scenarios All three scenarios point towards large potential surpluses Demand Capacity and supply Demand growth at consistent 3% rate p.a. (exception: Chinese demand growth of 5.6% p.a.) Part of demand in China, India and Brazil is fulfilled through strategic investments in greenfield projects 2011 base for world capacity based on IFDC data. Forward expectations based on Rabobank analysis of 63 new projects Capacity developments that are considered in all scenarios (excluding importer driven supply): Source: Rabobank FAR [Insert client name via master] 22 – Greenfield project of BHP Billiton (Jansen); only 1. 2 mt K2O/ 2 mt KCl – Greenfield project of EuroChem; 2.8 mt K2O/ 4.6 mt KCl – – Greenfield project K+S; 1.6 mt K2O/ 2.7 mt KCl Brownfield expansions of Mosaic, PCS, Agrium, Uralkali, Belaruskali; around 6mt K2O Operating rate of 85% assumed for calculating supply Three variables will set the extent of oversupply Importer’s lure to secure stable supply Brazil, India and China collectively import close to 18 million tonnes KCl annually Growing import reliance, frustration from one sided contract negotiations and strategic importance of potash nutrient for long term viability of their growing agri sector represent primary drivers Securing financing for the greenfield projects Response of traditional players to discourage entry of new players Elevated potash prices and profitability has attracted investments from number of new players Capex of at least $1000/tonne needed to build greenfield mine and securing financing may represent key bottleneck in realising production Response of existing low cost players and large volume – Potash Corp and Uralkali- will be critical in limiting the extent of oversupply Flexible and buyer friendly contract negotiations may dilute importer’s incentive to make strategic investments in greenfield mines in the short term [Insert client name via master] No dearth of options in the form of developing greenfield mines Fiercer competition may trigger further consolidation in the market 23 Looming oversupply in the market (A look at original scenarios in bullish environment) Extent of oversupply will largely depend on geopolitical factors Certain capacity in 2020 ICL Agrium Mosaic BHP Uralkali [Insert client name via master] 2 1,2 121 24 78 19.5 40 20 Capacity in 2020 2,7 3,4 1,2 2,9 107 38% increase including capacity from Potash juniors and importer driven investments 60 Rio Verde, Brazil Potassio de Brazil, Brazil Aguia Resources, Brazil Verde Potash, Brazil Vale, Canada Vale, Brazil Vale, Argentina Junior mining investments by… SDIC Xinjiang Luobupo Potash, … Junior mining investment by… Zhongchuan mining/Qinghai … 100 80 55% increase including capacity from Potash juniors and importer driven investments Certain capacities (figure1) 120 0 Capacity in 2020 3,4 1,2 2,9 0.4 0,7 Vale, Canada 7.2 19.5 2,7 1,0 0.9 Vale, Brazil 78 Current capacity 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Upside case Vale, Argentina K+S EuroChem PCS Current capacity (2011/12) Wildcard/Downside case 111 Capacity in 2020 20 0 0 0.4 43% increase including capacity from Potash juniors and importer driven investments Zhongchuan mining/Qinghai Salt Lake JV, Canada 20 19.5 2,9 Verde Potash 25% increase excluding capacity from Potash juniors and importer driven investments 40 78 1,2 Vale, Canada 100 80 60 40 3.4 2 Vale, Brazil 2 1,0 Vale, Argentina 2,6 Zhongchuan mining/Qinghai Salt Lake JV 2,7 2,7 Certain capacities (figure1) 60 4,6 Certain capacities (figure1) 5 120 Current capacity 78 80 0,5 Current capacity 100 1,4 0,758 Junior mining investment by India 97.2 120 Base Case Junior mining investment by China Certain capacities considered in building scenarios Potash market outlook: Base scenario Partial supply secured by importers marking gradual shift towards buyer’s market Key takeaways 80000 Tight market until 2015 100% 90% 70000 Build up of excess capacity post 2015 80% 60000 70% 72% 73% 70% 66% Thousand tonnes Overall, India’s import reliance remains same as that in 2010 peak China’s import requirement declines by 11% over 20102020 50000 60% 57% 40000 44% 41% 43% 46% 48% 50% 40% 30000 29% 30% 31% 30% 26% 20000 Brazil’s import demand declines by 82% over 2010-2020 19% 18% 16% 19% 20% 20% 10000 Net loss of 6 million tonnes KCl in import demand over 20102020 10% 0 0% 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Excess capacity on open market (RHS) Excess supply (RHS) Total global demand Total capacity New capacity secured through acquisitions by China, India and Brazil Source: Rabobank FAR, IFDC [Insert client name via master] 30% 25 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Potash market outlook: Wildcard scenario Significant part of supply secured through several strategic investments by importers resulting in strong shift towards buyer’s market Key takeaways 97% 80000 Strong shift away from pure market economics 100% 100% 88% 100% 90% 70000 80% India’s import reliance declines by 82% over 2010-2020 Thousand tonnes 60000 Brazil’s import reliance declines to nil over 2010-2020 China’s imports declines by 28% over 2010-2020 70% 70% 50000 40000 60% 48% 44% 41% 51% 50% 43% 37% 30000 39% 42% 42% 40% 31% 30% 20000 Net loss of 16 million tonnes KCl in import demand over 20102020 19% 18% 16% 20% 22% 20% 10000 10% 0 0% 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2016/17 Excess capacity on open market (RHS) Excess supply (RHS) Total global demand Total capacity New capacity secured through acquisitions by China, India and Brazil Source: Rabobank FAR, IFDC [Insert client name via master] 2015/16 26 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Potash market outlook: Upside case Minimal action from importers to secure supply resulting in continued seller’s market (scenario 1) Key takeaways 80000 Negotiation power of suppliers remains strong 100% 90% 70000 80% Biggest implications for players relying heavily on Brazilian market 60000 Thousand tonnes 70% India’s import reliance further increases by 34% over 2010-2020 China’s import reliance grows by 30% over 2010-2020 62% 59% 40000 44% 41% 42% 50% 46% 44% 40% 30000 25% 19% 16% 18% 19% 28% 29% 28% 25% 20% 30% 20% 10000 10% 0 0% 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Excess capacity on open market (RHS) Excess supply (RHS) Total capacity New capacity secured by China and Brazil Source: Rabobank FAR, IFDC [Insert client name via master] 60% 53% 20000 Net loss of just 1 million tonnes KCl in import demand over 2010-2020 60% 50000 63% 27 2017/18 2018/19 Total global demand 2019/20 Scenario analysis - 2013 Excess supply Oligopolistic structure will survive and optimise value over volume long term Key takeaways and implications India Wildcard China Brazil China Base Case Balanced demand-supply India India Upside Brazil Brazil China 2013 status Current status High import reliance of India, Brazil and China Low import reliance of India, Brazil and China Source: Rabobank FAR [Insert client name via master] 28 2013 scenario point towards a seller’s market Uralkali has taken the initiative to oversupply the market to discourage competition Overall, dynamics are set to change – Short term price drops play at the advantage to the importers – Opportunities for further consolidation in the global potash market Incorporating latest announcements: Upside Case Revisited Minimal action from importers and delays in more promising capacity additions by incumbents to tighten supply towards 2020 Negotiation power of suppliers remains intact and Canpotex and BPC occupy majority of capacity share Upside case revisited Import reliance of all three importers grows and supply options remain unchanged In fact deferment of two promising mine expansions by Mosiac to add to importers’ woes Total capacity share of Canpotex and BPC 60000 100% 62% 90% 50000 Thousand tonnes Key takeaways 80% 60% 70% 40000 60% 58% 30000 50% 40% 40% 20000 26% 19% 30% 56% 20% 10000 7% 0 10% 54% 0% Maximum upside for potash prices on tight supply 52% Excess supply (RHS) Excess supply (RHS) Total global demand 50% Total capacity New capacity secured by China and Brazil [Insert client name via master] 29 Conclusion Structural shift in supply side requires action from big importers Change on supply side could be irreversible and structural Challenges facing new capacity developments good for the oligopolistic supply structure Spotlight on big importers to build a balanced ‘potash supply mix’ Market entry of new but significant players Host of junior mining projects in various stages of development More competitive pricing of potash likely in future Viability of most of the greenfield potash projects under question current bearish market Immense pressure on junior and senior miners to secure financing This could be a positive news for current players Supply concentration will potentially remain unchanged if big importers stay on sidelines Junior mining projects only viable under more push from importers [Insert client name via master] India, China and Brazil need to improve their supply mix 30 Rabobank’s view on the fertiliser market Urea supply dynamics Factors affecting future nitrogen supply Shale gas has shifted the cost curve for North America triggering new capacity developments; Projects in MEA driven by lowest cost position of the region Regional urea cost of production in 2012 300 9* 250 13* 200 USD/tonne 118* 150 7* 7* 100 27* 50 0 MEA (15%) North America (4%) Central and South America (4%) * Represents current capacity in million tonnes () represents % share in global urea capacity Source: CRU, Rabobank [Insert client name via master] 32 Asia (65%) FSU (7%) Europe (5%) New project activity set to accelerate in the top three importing countries: USA, India and Brazil Potential combined loss of 2.4 million tonne urea imports to top three importers +3.3 +4.2 +26 +19 +7.0 +3.5 +1.2 Major urea importers Lowest cost export oriented capacity Other key production regions [Insert client name via master] 33 China: Key swing exporter of urea Nitrogen fertiliser use in China has been increasing in-line with gains in agricultural productivity Domestic production growth concentrated in energy rich Western region Demand: Nitrogen consumption increase has coincided with productivity gains Supply: China is world leading exporter of urea Metric tonnes of nutrient (thousands) Index (100 = Jan 2006) 180 10,000 160 Drive towards consolidation of Chinese urea industry 5,000 140 0 120 100 Future competitiveness in exports is however questionable -5,000 80 -10,000 N per tonne of harvested produce (total harvest) N per hectare (total sown area) Crop yield (total tonnage per total sown area) Focus to grow on expanding domestic consumption market as tax structure, high cost or production and logistics limit export viability Source: IFA, CNCIC, Rabobank [Insert client name via master] 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 60 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 China nitrogen balance China phosphate balance China potassium balance Total macro-nutrient fertiliser balance Source: IFA, Rabobank 34 India: Largest importer of urea with 26% reliance on imports But expanding domestic production on the back of Urea Investment Policy will bring import reliance down to 16% Government incentivized urea production expansion Minimum RoE of 12% ensured by government Policy applicable for 8 years from start of production Large import substitution if all planned capacities come onstream 35,0 1,3 30,0 29,5 1,2 1,3 1,2 25,0 1,2 1,2 22.2 33% increase in capacity over 2012-2020 20,0 15,0 However, cost and availability of natural gas feedstock remains a question Despite the new capacities, India would still import about 5.5 million tonnes urea in 2020 (down from 7 million tonnes in 2011) 10,0 5,0 0,0 [Insert client name via master] Current capacity Chambal Fertilisers (2011/12) Tata Chemicals 35 RCF KRIBHCO AB Nuvo IFFCO Certain capacity in 2020 USA: Second largest importer of urea with 50% reliance on imports Substantial capacity expansions on the back of low-priced shale gas to bring import reliance down to 37% North America has strongest investment fundamentals outside MEA region However, urea imports to decline to just 6 million tonnes in 2020 from 6.5 million tonnes in 2011 18 16 1.8 14 15.4 0,8 0,3 1,3 12 11.2 37% increase in capacity in North America over 2012-2020 10 8 6 4 2 0 Current capacity (2011/12) [Insert client name via master] Yara OCI* 36 Agrium CF Industries Capacity in 2020 Brazil: Third largest importer of urea with 70% reliance on imports New capacity will help reduce import reliance to 40% Import dependence to decline somewhat by 2020 3,5 1,2 Brazil’s urea imports expected to decline to 2 million tonnes in 2020 from current level of about 2.5 million tonnes 2,9 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,7 1,5 70% increase in capacity over 2012-2020 1,0 0,5 0,0 Current capacity (2011/12) [Insert client name via master] Petrobras 37 Certain capacity in 2020 Trend towards self sufficiency by big importers will start to impact global market balance post-2016 Implications on trade flows, price and supplier strategies 300 20% 18% 250 16% 14% Million tonnes 200 12% 150 10% Keep production cost competitive by building capacities outside high cost regions 8% 100 6% 4% 50 2% Demand Supply (85% capacity utilisation) Total Capacity (Rabo estimate) % Excess supply (RHS) Source: IFDC, company reports, Rabobank 2013 38 2020F 2019F 2018F 2017F 2016F 2015F 2014F 2013F 2012 0% 2011 0 [Insert client name via master] Need to integrate downstream closer to farm gate in key consumption markets Minimise cost for P and K sourcing through upstream integration in NPK marketing Conclusion Global urea market is set to enter an era of oversupply New capacity developments in low-cost production regions Key importing countries driven to reduce their import reliance Strategic routes of the urea value chain partners would need to change [Insert client name via master] US shale gas revolution alters global urea trade flows Delay in capacity expansion resulting from high engineering and construction costs Political instability in MENA can delay expansion capacity Increase in import volumes at international prices has laid out ambitious plans to achieve self sufficiency in urea in India Is it wise to pursue this ambition in light of global urea dynamics and specific state of Indian economy? Brazil will significantly reduce its dependence in urea imports High-cost producers need to strengthen their market position through cross industry partnerships and downstream integration closer to farmers Winners will be those who can achieve low costs of production and/or are placed close to a demand market enabling them to quickly respond to demand dynamics by altering production cycles Market intelligence and access to growers will be key success factors in this case 39 Rabobank’s view on the fertiliser market Thank You!
