Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Comments from scientists at the International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI) are below.

Online consultation for developing the Code of Conduct for the Management of Fertilizers

IPNI Scientists

12 January 2018

 

GENERAL COMMENTS

The experience of the International Plant Nutrition Institute has shown us that there are several important policies at the national scale that are important to the advancement of responsible management of plant nutrition. These include:

1. Policies on public and private funding for:

a. Research on agronomy, plant nutrition, and soil fertility

b. Extension of information arising from such research to farmers and crop advisers.

c. Educational programs.

d. Nutrient balances and soil test summaries from national to farm scale.

2. Policies supporting the operation of institutions that:

a. Reward farmers and crop advisers for better management of plant nutrition.

b. Conduct relevant soil fertility research.

c. Certify responsible management of agronomy and plant nutrition.

Only in countries where such infrastructure is present, the proposed CoCoFe has good prospects for success.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

1. Given the global scope of the CoCoFe, do you think the objectives are appropriate? If not, how would you add to them or modify them?

• We suggest changing Objective #1, “maintaining or increasing global food production” to “increasing global food production” on the grounds that “maintaining” is insufficient for nutritional security of human communities, considering UN projections for human population and food demand, and current levels of human undernourishment. An objective of closing the yield gap in areas with declining soil fertility or inadequate use of fertilizers is missing.
• Objectives #1 and #5 could be combined, such that not just the amount, but also the nutritional quality and safety of foods is improved.
• In Objective #2, “Maximizing efficient use” should be “Maximizing effective and efficient use.” The effectiveness in increasing crop yields is key to agricultural sustainability.
• Objective #3 presumes all environmental impacts of fertilizer use are negative. We suggest this objective be changed to state “preventing misuse of fertilizers, reducing environmental harm (caused by pollution through losses of nutrients) and increasing environmental benefits (caused by improved soil health and land productivity sparing land for nature).”
• Since objective 2 already emphasizes sustainable agriculture then is there a need for Objective 3 as written? Or if it’s necessary to emphasize the pollution aspects then they could be combined as they have a cause and effect relation: “maximizing the efficiency of plant nutrient use to minimize the environmental impacts through loss of plant nutrients via runoff, leaching, greenhouse gas emissions and other mechanisms;
• Objective #4 should be changed to “managing risks from non-nutritive elements in fertilizers to levels acceptable for environmental and human health.” Human health benefits of fertilizer must also be highlighted to the target audience. This could be included in Objective 5 as “Maintaining and increasing food quality and human nutrition through optimum use of plant nutrients.
• “discouraging fertilizer overuse”, seems to be the premise of developing this document. If the document emphasizes on overuse of fertilizer, which is limited to certain geographies, it must also focus on under-use of fertilizer, which is more widespread geographically, and its implications on crop productivity, human health and farm income. The perceived “overuse” of a particular nutrient, for example N, is often due to inadequate application of other limiting nutrients. To clear the negative connotation of fertilizer use, “encouraging optimum fertilizer use” should be the focus rather than “discouraging fertilizer overuse”
• The statement on the focus separating scenarios of over use from those of under use, and therefore the approach to developing this code of conduct, should be changed. IPNI’s experience indicates a wide range of input use levels and soil fertility conditions within each of the countries within which it works. These wide ranges suggest that both under use and over use scenarios need to be addressed within each country, regardless of stage of development. A comprehensive code would be more likely to facilitate the transfer of nutrients from regions in surplus to regions in deficit.
• CoCoFe’s aim and focus should go beyond just overuse and underuse (“right rate”) and also address “right source, right time, right place” to optimize impacts on food security, the quality of soil, water and air resources, and environment in general, for the benefit of human family.
• Consider an additional objective: maintaining and increasing productivity of arable soils

2. How should be the CoCoFe be structured to have the maximum positive impact?

• The CoCoFe should be structured to provide guidance at the regulatory level to outline the roles and responsibilities of the multiple stakeholders involved in the fertilizer supply chain; and outline 4R Nutrient Stewardship as the framework of sustainable fertilizer use at the technical level.
• As indicated in the aim and focus statements, we agree the CoCoFe should assist policy makers at the regulatory and extension levels to outline the roles and responsibilities of the multiple stakeholders involved in various aspects of fertilizer management including governments, industry, universities, NGOs, traders, farmers organizations, etc.
• CoCoFe should be structured as a set of principles relating management of applied fertilizer materials to impacts on sustainability (economic, environmental, and social). IPNI’s 4R Plant Nutrition manual provides an example of such a set of principles. These principles of 4R Nutrient Stewardship are summarized in a recent two-page article that was targeted for North American nutrient service providers (TWB CropLife article; attached).
• The process of developing CoCoFe should be structured to include involvement of stakeholders with an international focus, such as the International Fertilizer Association and the International Plant Nutrition Institute.

3. Who would be the best audience for the CoCoFe to meet our objectives and how could we broaden and diversify this audience to increase its influence?

• The best audience should be government at the regulatory and policy level and government, Fertilizer Industry, NGOs, University, Farmer Schools at the technical level
• This will differ by country; however, 4R Nutrient Stewardship is an example of guiding principles that scale to address different stakeholders. We suggest such scalability is important for the principles of CoCoFe as well. For maximum effectiveness, the CoCoFe principles should be understandable—and implementable—by all those playing roles in the governance, regulation, and implementation of nutrient management strategies, tactics and practices from the national to the farm and field scale.
• The ultimate fertilizer handlers are the farmers, so they are an important target audience. Farmer associations and all involved directly with them as decision supporters, i.e. field researchers, consultants and extensionists, should be engaged in implementing the code. There is a good example of a broad program developed in Brazil to promote the implementation of best management practices regarding all aspects of the farm that involved different players including bankers, but led by a farmers’ association: http://www.sojaplus.com.br/site/en.

4. What should the scope of the CoCoFe be? Which nutrient input sources should be included; only synthetic fertilizers, or also manure, biosolids, compost, etc.? Should other products such as biostimulants, nitrification inhibitors, urease inhibitors, etc., be included as well?

• All nutrient sources listed above should be included, not just mineral fertilizers. Any substance applied to agricultural land for the purpose of increasing nutrient availability to plants, including those improving nutrient use efficiency, should be included. This would contribute to a more holistic approach on managing resources.
• The CoCoFe principles need to address and emphasize the use of scientific evidence to define efficacy of inputs in providing plant available nutrients, and the efficacy of nutrient application practices in terms of the full set of their impacts on economic, environmental and social components of sustainability.

5. Will the CoCoFe assist in promoting responsible and judicious use of fertilizers? Why or why not? What other suggestions do you have to help the CoCoFe meet our objectives?

• CoCoFe could be successful in promoting responsible and judicious use of fertilizer only when the audience, scope and aims are defined clearly. Sustainable fertilizer use is a global agenda. However, overzealous focus on negative aspects of fertilizer use may alienate stakeholders, including governments who are responsible for feeding large populations from diminishing land areas, making it a futile exercise. The basis of the CoCoFe should be on a rigorous science-based framework like the 4R nutrient Stewardship, and framed through discussion with regional stakeholders with their multiple objectives in mind for the necessary buy-in and implementation.
• IPNI’s experience with the 4R Nutrient Stewardship framework shows a considerable boost in attention to management of fertilizers from those who have been exposed to its principles (primarily agricultural retailers and farmers, and particularly in regions where specific nutrientrelated environmental issues have been dominant; e.g. Lake Erie Watershed).
• We suggest the principles of 4R Nutrient Stewardship, which have been developed based on extensive consultation with stakeholders within the crop nutrition industry, could serve as a starting point for development of CoCoFe, using a process of wider stakeholder engagement, seeking to make the principles accessible to wider audiences.