Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

It is common knowledge that food production has to be increased significantly the next decades to feed a still growing global population. The application of all essential nutrients in a sufficient amount, at the right time and the right way is key to produce food in an enough amount and to avoid negative environmental impacts such as leaching, gaseous losses or run-off. The target should be on one hand side the highest nutrient use efficiency possible and the other side safe products regarding organic and inorganic contaminants not only in mineral but also in organic fertilizers. 

1. Maintaining global food production is not enough. Beside so many millions of starving people, we are facing not only a continuously growing population, but also an increasing demand of renewable raw materials for smart, biodegradable products.

Furthermore, sustainable biodiversity needs to protect a minimum percentage of unproductive areas. We have to support a change in dietary behavior in the well-developed countries, for health reasons. However, we can´t forbid a dietary change in developing countries for welfare reasons. In sum, this can´t solve the challenge.

2. Striving for higher nutrient use efficiency will be and has been the key driver of a more sustainable food production. In the past, step change progress always came with innovation, connected with much better skilled farmers. Social acceptance of modern plant breeding - and protection - technologies is necessary, if they should keep their beneficial role. In addition, digitalization and smart agriculture will help a lot in this context.

3. Preventing misuse of fertilizers (organic and mineral!) to minimize unintended environmental pollution and at the same time gaining the benefits from much higher yields per hectare agricultural land and the given precipitation is possible! Acknowledging and promoting this double target is key for the future of food safety and biodiversity. Satellite tools and smart farming should deliver the necessary transparency and societal confidence in modern agriculture.

4. Minimizing pollutants (organic and inorganic) within the whole food chain (production and logistics and manufacturing) is a basic requirement. Especially in context with nutrient recycling from organic sources like compost, animal manure and sewage sludge the safe and reliable removal of organic pathogens and contaminants is crucial; at the inorganic side a balanced risk management approach needs to be found, between very strict heavy metal limits and not to exclude huge and valuable nutrient source like sewage sludge ashes.

5. Maintaining and increasing food safety: no additional comments beside what I have mentioned in point 4.

The code of conduct should include inter alia:

Ethics of individuals, companies and organisations that are involved in the management of fertilizers.

The code should include criteria for the quality of fertilizers and, in the negative sense, contaminant concentrations in fertilizers.

The code should include criteria for (i) the availability of nutrients and (ii) the time course of availability especially for slow release products.

The code should provide clear mandatory guidelines for labelling as to the elemental composition of fertilisers e.g. P, K etc. (not P2O5, K2O etc.) as well as complexing agents for micronutrients when such complexes are used. The guidelines should include 'country of origin and country of manufacture' in the labelling to minimise the number of trade disputes.

Organic materials e.g. biosolids, biostimulants, N-inhibitors, algal extracts etc. should be included in the code but separate from the traditional inorganic fertilizers and standard fertilizer complexes for micronutrients.

The code should be able to provide guidelines as to the consequences of over fertilization, erosion hazard, pollution of waterways or water bodies or groundwater.

The code ultimately should be adopted to countries participating or belonging to FAO activities. In the first instance, the code will be a 'work in progress' so adoption should not be pushed to avoid adverse or unintended consequences.

English translation below

¡Hola a todos y todas!

Una sugerencia de medir el progreso de la adopción del CoCoFe sería crear criterios e indicadores, sería interesante también crear una especie de sello visando la certificación al cumplimiento de los criterios establecidos como por ejemplo, aumento en el porcentaje de consumo de fertilizantes orgánicos, cantidades (Toneladas), tamaño de áreas utilizadas, tipos de cultivos agrícolas, etc.

Hello everyone!

A suggestion to measure the progress of the adoption of the Code of Conduct for the Management of Fertilizers (CoCoFe) would be to establish criteria and indicators. It would also be interesting to create a kind of seal certifying the fulfillment of the established criteria, as for example, the increase in the percentage of consumption of organic fertilizers, quantities (tons), size of areas used, types of crops, etc.

CocoFe objectives are appropriate.

Introducing micro-dosing technology especially in developing countries is inevitable. The technology can reduce the problem of inadequate use of fertilizers by coming up with a rate that uses smaller amounts of fertilizers which small scale farmers can afford.

Integrated organic and inorganic fertilizers-

Plough under crop residuals, adding animal manure, including micro-dosing of industrial fertilizers. These will protect our environment while increasing food production.

Dear Participants,

I would like to thank all of you once again for your contributions to this discussion and for your valuable feedback that will enable us to develop a Code of Conduct for the Management of Fertilizers (CoCoFe). In the last week, we have received 14 contributions and the commentary below intents to further fuel the discussion.

For any newcomers, please look at our last contribution for the link of the International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management in order to have a better idea of the formatting and content of the CoCoFe.

The new comments seem to be related to the comments we have received since the beginning of the discussion and include the change in formulation and phrasing of the objectives, inclusion of regional specificities, changes in the scope and target audience of the CoCoFe, and the inclusion of all relevant inputs and not only synthetic fertilizers. Please know that we are taking all of your comments into consideration.

New and interesting topics have also been received such as:

• The need of having a way to measure or quantify the progress of distribution and adoption of the CoCoFe.
• The Inclusion of various types of wastes (agricultural waste, manure, industrial waste etc.).
• The protection and promotion of endogenous knowledge of fertilizer production at the local level such as composting.
• The acknowledgment of lack of technical knowledge on how to deal with fertilizers and agricultural waste in some areas/ regions.

With these comments in mind, I would like to add that the CoCoFe will attempt to tackle some of the points mentioned above such as bio-waste storage and recycling, and farmer technical assistance.

We would also like to invite you to address the following points:

What would be a good way to measure or quantify the progress of distribution and adoption of the CoCoFe?

Keeping in mind that the CoCoFe will serve as a guiding framework for all Member States, what should be included in order for the code of conduct to help address different stakeholders?  

We are looking forward to further discussions as we jointly explore how we might strengthen the CoCoFe.

Dear Ronald and all,

Thank you for the quick feedback to my original comments. Please review the text below as a matter of response to your question: do you have any other suggestions? In reference to my comment of including the supply side of fertilizer industry in the CoCoFe.

Although I do appreciate the intent of the CoCoFe consultation facilitators to focus only on the use of fertilizer, I want to politely re-emphasize on the need to include the supply and demand side of the fertilizer industry, while supporting the point of view from other panelists who have also seen the need to make CoCoFe holistic by including the supply side of the industry.

To focus only on the use of fertilizer to minimize the negative externalities related to the environment and human health, is to ignore the negative externalities on the environment and human health of the supply side of the fertilizer industry and give a “clean bill of health” to the production and manufacturing processes while placing all potential regulatory  burden that would emanate from CoCoFe, on the use of fertilizer. I do understand and can also appreciate the implications with the industry by addressing those issues in CoCoFe and I can also appreciate the ease of addressing such issues from the user perspective only; but the fact is, that there is a lot the industry can still do to help reduce and therefore minimize such externalities through improvements in the production and manufacturing processes. We know that many of the negative environmental and health hazards from the use of fertilizer have their roots in fertilizer production and manufacturing processes. Focusing on the use (demand) of fertilizer will help reduce such externalities, but having a holistic approach (which entails considering also the supply side of fertilizer), will definitely minimize them.

Therefore if we are to keep as part of the CoCoFe objectives, “to minimize environmental and health impacts from pollutants such as heavy metals in fertilizers”, we need to start at and focus also on the supply side of the industry for an effective minimization of environmental contamination and human health hazards by improving the production and manufacturing processes to reduce or eliminate contaminants (i.e., heavy metals) in fertilizers and perhaps by investing in developing more efficient fertilizer (a new generation of “smart” fertilizer products congruent with crop genetics technological advances); complemented with a more efficient use of fertilizer.

However, if the facilitators of this consultation insist on the CoCoFe focusing only on the use or demand side of fertilizer, I suggest to eliminate the rhetoric of “minimizing environmental contamination and health hazard from the use of fertilizer”, and keep this as an implicit, not explicit objective. Having said that, I suggest to consider the following objectives:

1. Increase food production to supply the increasing needs of more and safer food;

2. Maximize the efficient use of nutrients fertilizer to enhance sustainable agriculture production;

3. Minimize nutrients losses to the environment (GHG, runoff and leaching into surface water streams and underground waters) to reduce contamination and human health hazard.

Less and more clear objectives, will help simplify the elaboration the CoCoFe and perhaps facilitate its vulgarization.

I believe the rest of the points raised in my original comment, still applies.

Thanks.

On Guidelines to Embody a Sound Code of Conduct in Policies Pertaining to Sustainable Soil Fertility

Should suggestions given here are adopted, it must be borne in mind that they are not universal in that some of them may be already included in relevant policies, or they are not relevant due to the type of crop, existing state of the soil, economic constraints, or other factors. Thus, it may be seen as a bag of options from which one may select those best suited to the circumstances involved.

Let us not forget the logical order of our task. Its overall purpose is to enhance sustainable global nutrition by “maintaining or increasing global food production.” Its successful achievement depends in part, on having a sustainable soil fertility. I think there will be a general agreement on the argument thus far.

Now, the use of fertilisers is perhaps the most important means of achieving this objective while its inappropriate application will have the opposite effect as shown by the ruins of the soil in vast tract of land near the now defunct Aral Sea. Thus, our efforts are concerned with a sub-set of  means in use to enhance soil fertility in a sustainable way, and our efforts are concerned with the point 2 to 5 specified in the document on our purpose. I think now I have placed the discussion within a holistic framework, from which to take my point of departure.

Before proceeding, may I point out the last two points, 4 and 5 have a causal link, for certain concentrations of heavy metal and other organic extraneous materials in artificial fertilisers are taken up by food crops and their subsequent consumption is known to have adverse health effects, hence undesirable. I think these two points may be united owing to their causal connection to our health.

The purpose of the code then, has two dimensions. The first would be to identify how the use of fertilisers may enhance soil fertility, i.e., what policy could promote the optimal use of them. Next, it is important to identify what uses of fertilisers would have an adverse effect on soil fertility, environment and health. Together, these will consititute an inclusive code that may be fruitfully embodied in a set of relevant policies.

It would be reasonable to suggest that the possibility of successful agriculture depends on having an adequate and sustainable ecosystem services and the use of crops suitable to an area. Those services include the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air, water supply, air and soil temperatures and indeed soil fertility that depends on its mineral content, general composition and structure. It is established beyond reasonable doubt that the well-being of our environment is essential for an adequate supply of ecosystem services mentioned earlier. Therefore, the use of fertilisers represents a supplementation of a particular ecosystem service to enhance one aspect of soil fertility, viz., its mineral content in a manner that does not adversely affect its other content or structure. Some may argue that as the use of mulch enhances soil porosity, and hence its overall fertility, it may also be included. If this is desired, such fertility enhancements should also be subjected to the same requirements as will be described below.

At this point, let us recall that it is axiomatic that a region’s food culture represents the culture of plants best suited for its soil, climatic and geographic conditions through a long trial and error over a period. Next, well-being of our environment on which ecosystem services depend, have a qualitative and a quantitative dimension. While the former represents its biodiversity, the latter indicates the optimal sustainable population of each individual species in the area. Thus, supplementation of soil fertility should not be undertaken at the risk of diminishing an area’s biodiversity or those optimal populations. Otherwise, one runs into an evil chain of gradually diminishing natural ecosuystem services leading to an increased need for their supplementation that ends in salination and soil ruins as in the areas around the Aral Sea.

So, the proposed code of conduct ought to  ensure that the use of fertilisers pay careful attention to the following considerations:

1. Maintain or enhance the ecosystem services of the area with reference to an optimal as governed by its climate, geography and soil composition so that the crops best suited for the location may thrive. This objective may be achieved in part by ---
2. Using fertilisers to achieve the natural levels for a given soil type the micro-nutrients required for a given crop. Whenever it is possible, one should prefer the use of compost, green manure and similar organic fertilisers.
3. As its counterpart, do not use fertilisers to supplement those micro-nutrients already present in adequate quantities in order to avoid salination and environmental damage
4. Whenever it is possible, undertake soil. Micro-nutrient assays to ascertain the relevant qualitative and quantitative needs of supplementation for the crops involved prior to the use of fertilisers.
5. Ensure that the fertilisers used do not run off out of the cultivated area to avoid their adverse effects on the environment like biodiversity imbalance due to species predomination like algal blooms in water ways andeventually  the sea. Sequential slow-release of fertilisers is often useful in achieving this goal.
6. It would not be sustainable to use fertilisers to increase the soil fertility to cultivate a crop that is unsuitable to be grown in the virgin soil of an area. It is this error that has rendered many areas of once tree-clad Amazons barren and bare today.
7. Whenever possible, it is highly desirable to monitor soil status on a regular basis to ascertain the availability of micro-nutrients required, soil composition and structure (porosity, distribution of larger elements, etc.) as well as soil biology with a view to adjusting supplementation as required.
8. A careful distinction should be made between the use of fertilisers to enhance soil fertility and an ‘increased crop yield’, because the latter will legitimize the use of plant growth accelerators which are known to be endocrine disruptors whose intake poses a very serious threat to human and environmental health.

Here, I will devote a little time to how one may avoid making  the use of fertilisers a possible threat to human and environmental health. While the importance of the former is obvious, the latter may not only directly affect our health (global warming), but could indirectly do so by reducing the availability of ecosystem services, resulting in food shortages. So, in order to “maximise the efficient use of plant nutrients to enhance sustainable agriculture,” the following conditions should obtain:

1. Strict regulation of what each inorganic fertiliser contains with a view to exclude them from containing heavy metals, growth accelerators or any other compound whose effects are known to be injurious to the living, and whose long term effects on the same are not yet known. Such higher standards of purity should be obligatory.
2. In addition to their loss by run-off and causing polution, surface application of dry chemical fertilisers are easily dispersed by the wind especially when they are followed by dry spells. This can pose a health hazzard to people and upset the ecology of the surroundings. Therefore, this practise is to be deprecated. It would be far more effective if inorganic fertilisers in suitably inert depots are ploughed into the soil so that the nutrients they contain are slowly released into the substrate, thus enhancing their effect. As an alternative, the required quantity of inorganic fertilisers may be mixed with organic ones and applied.
3. Inorganic fertilisers are prone to cause leaching, i.e., fertiliser displacing a less reactive metal element from small rock particles in the soilwhile making less nutrientsavailable from the fertiliser and increasing the concentration of some metal whose higher concentration is not desirable. How to deal with this issue is discussed in 1.I to 1.III above. It must not be forgotten that an adequate soil analysis needed here may be undertaken in a fairly simple laboratory for a reasonable cost even though very expensive more sophisticated ones are available.

These are some of the essential actions to be undertaken in the field in real life. The question then is how to motivate the fertilizer users and those who connected with their production and sales as well as  those who control the latter to undertake appropriate actions. Naturally, it is the last group who lays down the norms needed for the purpose and facilitate or hinder their adequate application. So, let us begin with them whose responsibility is to formulate and implement policies that ensures prudent use of fertilisers.

Some useful steps in this direction may involve inclusion of sound use of fertilisers in the curriculum of agriculture education and training, legal instruments to enforce the quality of inorganic fertilisers both with reference to manufacture and sale, trade policy that excludes the import of fertilisers that do not meet those standards, financial and technical support to promote the guidelines given above including more wide spread use of organic fertilisers as much as possible, and particularly practical research into combined farming where maximum amount of ‘crop remainders’ can be re-cycled within a farm. This last is not a suggestion concerned with the ‘cutting edge stuff’, rather it is a request for an enquiry into how the existing good local farm practices may be combined in  some new combinations for a greater food yield with less cost in fertilisers.

As mentioned at the outset, this is only a skeleton to be fleshed out according to what relevant for a given locale. What is applicable to all is the importance of knowing soil structure and chemistry as well as its biology before one decides on crops and fertilisers to be used. Traditional food culture despite its shortcomings often represents this knowledge in its pragmatic manifestation, and should serve as a sound point of departure for further work and gradual improvement.

Hope this would be of some use.

Cheers!

Lal Manavado.

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.

It is time that we move away from general prescriptions for fertilizers' application. With the power of the ICT and rapid soil tests, we need to be specific in applying the precise soil nutrients. Methodologies and applicators must be developed and the farmers must be skilled to move in this direction.

Regards

Pitam Chandra