Онлайн-консультация, посвященная разработке Кодекса поведения в вопросах управления удобрениями
Dear Stakeholders and Members,
We are tasked with a unique opportunity to mould the future of fertilizer use globally and are seeking inputs on the development of a Code of Conduct for the Management of Fertilizers (CoCoFe).
The creation of the CoCoFe is being proposed to promote the responsible and judicious use of fertilizers in the interest of the following objectives:
- maintaining or increasing global food production;
- maximizing the efficient use of plant nutrients to enhance sustainable agriculture;
- minimizing the environmental impacts from the use of fertilizers including pollution by loss of nutrients via runoff, leaching, greenhouse gas emissions and other mechanisms;
- minimizing environmental and human health impacts from pollutants such as heavy metals in fertilizers;
- maintaining and increasing food safety.
The aim of the CoCoFe is to assist member countries design policies and regulatory frameworks for the sustainable use of fertilizers. The focus is more on discouraging fertilizer overuse whereas a second document, to be developed later, will address scenarios with low or no fertilizer use under the topic of integrated soil fertility management. 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.
Note: The CoCoFe is not designed to provide specific recommendations on field applications of fertilizers, i.e. rates, placement, timing, etc., but rather broader recommendations on what should be considered when designing strategies to manage fertilizers sustainably.
Your input is necessary to allow the Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils (ITPS)1 to better frame the multifaceted needs of all stakeholders who would use the CoCoFe or be impacted by the use of the CoCoFe
This online consultation, through a series of questions, invites you to address the following:
- 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?
- How should be the CoCoFe be structured to have the maximum positive impact?
- 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?
- 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 bio-stimulants, nitrification inhibitors, urease inhibitors, etc., be included as well?
- 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?
Thank you very much for engaging in this critical process. We look forward to receiving your valued inputs to make these guidelines a reality.
Eduardo Mansur
Director Land and Water Division, FAO
Facilitators
Gary Pierzynski, Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils
Debra Turner, FAO
Ronald Vargas, Global Soil Partnership Secretary
Background and process
The recently published Status of the World’s Soil Resources (SWSR)2 report identified ten major threats to our soils that need to be addressed if we are to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Therefore, urgent efforts are required to enable and engage with sustainable soil management (SSM) at all levels.
The Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Soil Management (VGSSM)3 produced by the Global Soil Partnership (GSP)4 is a first step to addressing these threats. Two of these are nutrient imbalances and soil pollution and that involve plant nutrient applications that can be excessive, insufficient, or polluting, none of which are sustainable. Chapter 3.3 - Foster nutrient balances and cycles and Chapter 3.5 - Prevent and minimize soil contamination of the VGSSM provide initial guidance on promoting sustainable nutrient use in relation to soils, agriculture and the environment, however further support is required to implement these recommendations.
The ITPS was tasked to develop the CoCoFe and this online consultation soliciting input on what should be included in a CoCoFe is one of the early steps in the process. This input will be utilized to develop a zero-order draft that will be reviewed by ITPS, followed by further review of a first draft by a panel of experts representing all major partners and stakeholders. The process will then continue with the finalization of the CoCoFe and submission to the Global Soil Partnership Plenary Assembly, the Committee on Agriculture (COAG)5 and, if endorsed, to the FAO Council6.
Achieving SSM will generate large benefits for all, therefore, the availability of comprehensive guidelines on the use and management of fertilizers is of major importance.
-------
References
1 ITPS - http://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/intergovernmental-technical-panel-soils/en/
2 SWSR - http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5199e.pdf
3 VGSSM - http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6874e.pdf
4 GSP - http://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/en/
5 COAG - http://www.fao.org/coag/en/
6 FAO Council - http://www.fao.org/unfao/govbodies/gsbhome/council/en/
- Прочитано 93 комментарии
As I review the previous 4 comments listed below, I am not sure where this forum is leading. When I think of code of conduct for fertilizer I focus mostly on the administrative side, of quality control and access. In that regard my concern is on what host governments can afford with their highly limited budget and make certain whatever regulations can be financially enforced and minimizing any opportunity for "informal income" opportunities by civil officers. My concern is based on most host governments being financially stalled, with poorly paid civil officers and virtually no operating funds. The result could be testing of fertilizer quality being mostly on the honor/gratuity system and access to limited supply of fertilizer requiring some informal payments to gain access. Please review the following webpages:
http://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/financially-suppresse…
http://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/financially-stalled-g…
http://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/impact-of-financially…;
Amanullah, M. Asif and L.K. Almas. 2012. Agronomic efficiency and profitability of P-fertilizers applied at different planting densities of maize in Northwest Pakistan. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 35: 331-341.
The use of appropriate source of phosphorus (P) fertilizer at different planting densities has
considerable impact on growth, grain yield as well as profitability of maize (Zea mays L). Field
experiment was conducted in order to investigate the impact of P sources [(S0 = P not applied, S1 =SSP (single super phosphate) S2 = NP (nitrophos), and S3 = DAP (diammonium phosphate)] on
maize growth analysis, yield and economic returns planted at different planting densities (D1 =
40,000, D2 = 60,000, D3 = 80,000, and D4 = 100,000 plants ha−1) at the New Developmental
Agricultural Research Farm of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural University, Peshawar, Pakistan,
during summer 2006. This paper reports the profitability data with two objectives: 1) to compare
agronomic efficiency and profitability of P-fertilizers, and 2) to know whether plant densities affect
agronomic efficiency and profitability of P-fertilizers. Application of DAP and SSP resulted in higher
partial factor productivity (PFP) (63.58 and 61.92 kg grains kg−1 P), agronomic efficiency (AE)
(13.01 and 13.71 kg grains kg−1 P) and net returns (NR) (Rs. 16,289 and 16,204 ha−1), respectively,
while NP stood at the bottom in the ranking with lower PFP (57.16 kg grains kg−1 P),
AE (8.94 kg grains kg−1 P) and NR (Rs. 4,472 ha−1). Among the plant densities, D3 stood first
with maximum PFP (69.60 kg grains kg−1 P), AE (18.21 kg grains kg−1 P) and NR (Rs. 21,461
ha−1) as compared to other plant densities. In conclusion, the findings suggest that growing maize
at D3 applied with either SSP or DAP is more profitable in the wheat-maize cropping system in the
study area.
Nitrogen Rates and Sources Affect Yield and Profitability of Maize in Pakistan
Nitrogen is one of the most important factors affecting maize yield and profitability. To investigate the impact of N fertilizer sources (urea, calcium ammonium nitrate [CAN] and ammonium sulfate [AS]) applied in various amounts (0, 50, 100, 150, and 200 kg N ha-1) on grain yield and profitability of maize genotypes, local cultivars (Azam and Jalal) versus hybrid (Pioneer-3025) field experiments
were done during summer 2008–09 (Year 1) and 2009–10 (Year 2). The N yielded 41 and 26% more grain than the check in Year 1 and Year 2, respectively. In both years, grain yield increased in response to the increase in N application. Application of CAN and AS resulted in more grain yield than urea in Year 1, while no differences in yield were observed in Year 2. The hybrid (P-3025) yielded 30 and 24% more grain than the average of local cultivars in Years 1 and 2, respectively. In Year 1, the net returns (NR) of PKR16262 ha-1 (one US$ = 95 Pakistani Rupees) was obtained with CAN but value cost ratio (VCR) of 3.7 was noticed with urea; in Year 2, both NR (PKR14271 ha-1) and VCR (3.1) was greatest with urea. In both years, the greatest NR was obtained with 100 and 150 kg N ha-1. Application of urea at 150 and 200 kg N ha-1, CAN at 100 and 150 kg N ha-1, and AS at 50 and 100 kg N ha-1 was economical in terms of NR in both years.
Influence of Organic and Inorganic Nitrogen on Grain Yield and Yield Components of Hybrid Rice in Northwestern Pakistan
Field experiments were conducted to assess the impact of various organic sources, inorganic
nitrogen (N) and the different combinations of inorganic N (urea) + organic source on the yield
components (YC) and grain yield (GY) of hybrid rice (Oryza sativa L., Pukhraj) under rice-wheat system. The experiments were conducted at Batkhela (Malakand), Northwestern Pakistan, in 2011 and 2012. Our results revealed that YC and GY ranked first for the hybrid rice when applied with sole inorganic N (urea), followed by the application of N in mixture (urea + organic sources), while the control plots (no N applied) ranked in the bottom. Among the six organic sources (three animal manures: poultry, sheep and cattle; three crop residues: onion, berseem and wheat), application of N in the form of poultry manure was superior in terms of higher YC and GY. When applying 120 kg/hm2 N source, 75% N from urea + 25% N from organic source resulted in higher YC and GY in 2011, while applying 50% N from urea + 50% N from organic sources caused higher YC and GY in 2012. Therefore, the combined application of N sources in the form of urea + organic source can produce good performances in terms of higher YC and GY of rice under rice-wheat cropping system.
I think this is a timely issue in the world. However, the thinking sounds to follow the usual silo-based approach, which only focuses on agriculture. Fertilizers are affecting not only our agricultural system but also others sectors such as water and energy. At the same time water and energy uses are also affecting agriculture (including fertilizer use), positively and negatively. Therefore, I suggest FAO to consider water-energy-food-climate nexus in this fertilizer related analysis.
Mulugeta
В настоящее время это мероприятие закрыто. Пожалуйста, свяжитесь с [email protected] для получения любой дополнительной информации.