全球粮食安全与营养论坛 (FSN论坛)

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?

The objectives are appropriate and also sufficient since they cover practices/expectations from manufacture (ensuring the fertilizers meet the quality standards on heavy metals and nutrient content) to application in the farms (maintaining and increasing food safety)

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

It should cover code of conduct by fertilizer manufacturers, distributors and farmers. It should also provide for enforcement mechanisms and a recognition system for those abiding by the code. To this end, it should provide for institutional arrangements for implementation at the global, regional and country levels.

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?

While concurring with other participants that best audience for the CoCoFe would fertilizer manufacturers, Distributors and farmers (actually misuse of fertilizers happens at the farm, resulting to environmental pollution), I would add that the Government ministries responsible for agriculture, industry, trade and standards should be reached with the CoCoFe. Extension service providers (government, NGOs, Private) would also be part of the audience. 

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?

Since the CoCoFe is not a prescriptive document, it should cover all functions along the fertilizer supply chain. It should provide for code of conduct for manufacturers, distributors and users of all fertilizers be they inorganic, organic or biofertilizers.

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? 

Yes I believe it will promote responsible and judicious use of fertilizers and especially if accompanied by proper implementation and enforcement mechanisms as well as a reward/sanctions system. A lot of sensitization for awareness creation and capacity building the stakeholders will also be required.

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?

The objectives of CoCoFe is appropriate, however, like to suggest some more as follows:

Protect and promote the endogenous knowledge of fertilizer production, such as compositing using the available raw material resources, at the local level.

Create linkage between the industrial bio-products that has characteristic to turn into the compost/ bio manure type of fertilizer to contribute in the livelihood of the communities around the industrial areas (example sugar cane factory) and health of the soil.

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

Though I have not chance to go in detail on the CoCoFe, the maximum impact of the CoCoFe translates through ensuring use of bio-waste (even those releasing from household) to prepare compost/ biomanures. With the increasing urbanization, bio-waste from households are increasing in urban settings whereas, very less effort is made in large scale to turn it into fertilizer. Many country either due to lack of technical knowledge or financial resources are not managing these waste, which finally reaching into river system through sewages. This thing need to consider during structuring CoCoFe. Since I have limited exposure to work in the agriculture sector, I cannot add more on it but having the academic background of Sugar Technology, I can guess, there is ample opportunity to structure CoCoFe thinking it from soil health prospective as well as minimizing the household waste.

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?

I think, Government (Federal, Provincial and Rural Municipality/ Urban Municipality), National Planning Commission, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Local Development, Ministry of Finance, UN agency like FAO, I/NGO working in the field of agriculture, University with Pre-harvest and Post-Harvest Courses, Federation of Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Social Influencers and Community leaders are potential audience for the CoCoFe. Of course, main benefiary of the CoCoFe should not be left out from demand side.

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?

The scope of CoCoFe depends on the country specific situation and base on the soil characteristic. The global CoCoFe should be adjustable depending upon the country need. The main point here is, every country should have capacity to check their soil health on regular basis and Government structure should have capacity to take appropriate decision. There is no question our focus should be on bio-solids and compost, however, every country always has limitation to supply bio-solids and compost since these types of fertilize is not produce in large scale. Sometimes, delivering synthetic fertilizers to farmers become essential under the condition where bio-manures are not available in sufficient quantity. So far possible, if endogenous knowledge on preparing compost fertilizer could be promoted, it can be local solution, which is more cost effective and sustainable. In general, Nitrogen, Potassium and Phosphorous are the usual choice of nutrient for farming but depending on the soil and type of crop planned to planted, another nutrient is also requiring. One of such nutrient would be Zinc for tea plant.

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?

I hope, CoCoFe will certainly assist in promoting responsible and judicious use of fertilizers but it need to be taken care, the code will not just focus on the synthetic fertilizer and also, look other expects like livelihood, sustainability and use of endogenous knowledge. I suggest to add gender dimension also if possible since women are given the responsibility to spray fertilizers in farm in most of the under developed country. Some of such dimension is looking on safety issues or use of innovative technology for spraying fertilizer in farm.

Greetings to you, my humble opinion stipulates thus,

holding to the fact that artificial fertilizers have huge effect on the life of the soil, causes eutrophication in water and the heavy metals contained in such as lead bio-magnify through the ecosystem and which totally affects human health, I think this totally contradicts the objectives of FAO program which is to eliminate hunger, poverty, malnutrition and food insecurity and off-course to improve agriculture, forestry and fisheries in a sustainable way.

there is therefore the need to first of identify the various stake holders involved, the consumers of artificial fertilizers, the producers and entrepreneurs involved and try to school them on the effects of artificial fertilizer on the ecosystem.

The FAO member states should encourage organic farming as a feasible means to effectively achieve sustainable agriculture and fight food insecurity. This could be through the production of organic fertilizers using farm, poultry and livestock waste and also to encourage environmental education in schools to be able to educate the future generation on the importance of organic farming on the environment. Training could also be given to farmers on the advantages of organic fertilizers over artificial fertilizers.

FAO member states could also place a high tax on the importation of artificial fertilizers and try to give subvention to farmers and train them on how to be able to recycle their farm waste to produce organic fertilizers. 

Thank you

E.s Njie-assam

First of all, I agree with the objectives. For sustaining health, it is necessary to recycle plant nutrients from the various types of wastes like agricultural waste, manure, industrial waste etc. Nowadays, biochar can also be an important contribution for sustainable agriculture as well as minimize environmental problems.

Zahangir

Dear all

My comments are

1. Move beyond the ‘4R’ as these represent an ideal framework only but are unrealistic with current fertiliser technology.
2. Make regulating nutrient losses a priority as N2O emissions and water pollution are globally felt and pose strong risks. Develop a risk matrix with view of the risks of losing fertilisers with view of soil, climate, crops.
3. Consider nutrients in a broader crop system context with mineral fertilisers, repurposed nutrient-rich wastes, N-fixing plants for a holistic approach to nutrient supply of crops and soils.
4. Consider the benefits of improving soil with the addition of organic carbon bound to nutrients (soil biological function, improved root growth, building of soil organic matter etc).
5. Consider amelioration of wastes: most are not ideal crop nutrients with to too fast/too slow release patterns, toxicity, unbalanced nutrient stoichiometry etc. mixing several wastes, adding sorbents (geosorbers, biochar) and other manipulations will be needed.
6. Consider nutrients beyond NPK, as micronutrient deficiencies are more becoming more common and often the effects seen with higher NPK addition is in fact a response to micronutrient ‘contaminants’ in NPK fertiliser, such as Zn.
7. Request more comprehensive testing and long-term experimentation, local farmers experimenting and involvement of the community to ensure knowledge generation with stakeholder involvement.
8. Consider the circular nutrient economy to recycle nutrient-containing wastes at local and regional scales.
9. Advance the next-generation fertiliser concept with aim to optimise nutrient source and release patterns driven by crops rather environmental conditions.

Best wishes

Susanne

• 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?

Objectives are appropriate for me. No changes are necessary in the objectives.

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

In general the code of conduct should be rigid which should not be changed in any circumstances. It should be powerful and strict to take action for any guilty person.

• 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?

Both the farmers who use the fertilizers and the producers who do supply of fertilizers are the best audience for this purpose. The audience can be broadening towards the community people, consumer societies, and the merchants/shopkeepers dealing with fertilizers. They can be given orientations about the contents and theme of the code of conduct. Besides, there should be provisioned of penalty if somebody discard the clauses of code of conduct

• 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?

Code of conduct should be applied for all the fertilizers and manures too. However, synthetic fertilizers are more sensitive than the others from the point of view of health hazards. It is recommended to include the other products too as mentioned above in the scope of code of conduct.

• 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?

I think so. The code of conduct will be supportive to make more responsible to the fertilizer producers and to the farmers too for taking care towards legal provisions. It will be happened because they will be bound with some restrictions under the judicious processes. Actually, people from any disciplines or sectors do not follow the code of conduct in the country. They do not care about it since they feel that the code of conduct is applied only for the fragile persons.

Therefore, the respective government whether from the country, region, or state should strictly follow the legal actions against every guilty person. In the meantime, it should be oriented, disseminated, and trained about the details of the code of conduct through the process of social mobilization.

English version

Best regards. First of all, we would expect a reluctance on the part of producers of artificial fertilizers to adopt restrictive regulations or to eliminate many of the heavy components that they use - which are the majority -, therefore, we would have to see the disposition of these actors, the agencies of international trade and governments. Information and control options remain scarce in many poor and even permissive countries in countries of the second world or in emerging countries. What are the opportunities for small farmers to opt for quality fertilizers or pesticides of low cost? Attitude change consensus - difficult thing - between large industrial fertilizers and pesticides?

Each country or region has its own characteristics to adopt changes in its handling of inputs and eradicate habits leads to adapt particular strategies, taking into account costs, availability and information of new products, this in terms of sustainability and productivity factors for those interested . How binding could be a new Conduct Framework, if in spite of many regulations, the good uses of pesticides are still not being met. The target groups could be from high school onwards and in general enable consumer opinion spaces in In general, large distribution chains, food wholesalers and retailers can demand certifications - giving them a plus to consumers - as well as local structures (of wide participation) to inspect their producers.

The pulse with the large transnationals should be based on the current situation of climate and the state of population growth that needs safe and nutritious food. People have the right to a healthy diet !

Spanish version

Saludo cordial. Ante todo, se esperaría una reticencia de los productores de fertilizantes artificiales a adoptar una normativa restrictiva o que elimine muchos de los componentes pesados que usa - que son la mayoría -, por lo cual, habría que ver las disposición de estos actores, las agencias de comercio internacional y los gobiernos. Las opciones de información y control siguen siendo escazas en muchos países pobres e inclusive permisivas en países de segundo mundo o en emergentes. Cuáles son las oportunidades para los agricultores de pequeñas fincas de optar por fertilizantes o plaguicidas de calidad y de bajo costo? Cabría un cambio de actitud consensuado - cosa difícil - entre los grandes industriales  de fertilizantes y plaguicidas? 

Cada país o región poseen características propias para adoptar cambios en su manejo de los insumos y erradicar hábitos lleva a adecuar estrategias particulares, tomando en cuenta costos, disponibilidad e información de nuevos productos, esto en razón de la sostenibilidad y factores de productividad para los interesados. Qué tan vinculante podrían llegar a ser un nuevo Marco de Conducta, si a pesar de muchas normativas, se siguen incumpliendo los buenos usos de plaguicidas. Los grupos meta podrían ser desde la secundaria en adelante y en general habilitar espacios de opinión de los consumidores en general, las grandes cadenas de distribución, mayoristas y minoristas de alimentos, pueden exigir certificaciones - dándoles un plus ante los consumidores -, así como, estructuras locales ( de amplia participación ) de inspección de sus productores.

El pulso con las grandes transnacionales debe darse en base a coyunturas de la actual situación climática y el estado de crecimiento poblacional que necesita alimentos seguros y nutritivos. Las personas tienen derecho a una alimentación saludable!

Opening Comment

Before being with my commentary, I would like to express my concern and disappointment on the limited commentary being submitted to this forum. Only 15 comments for a forum that is over half completed. Perhaps it is just poor time around the major Christmas/New Year Holidays.

Introduction – Economically Suppressed Economy (Revisited)

for my additional commentary. Having been encouraged by the facilitators comment that the forum was intended to look at the administrative issues surrounding fertilizer usage, allow me to continue where my first comment left off and review the other aspect of a financially suppressed economy, with limited tax base to support public services. That is the need to rely on the private sector for most business activity with an emphasis on the family enterprise system that is in most direct contact with smallholder producers. These are the default service providers that handle the bulk of the agriculture support business, both inputs and marketing, even when there are major development NGOs and public-sector entities trying to assist small farmers, and often boasting how great they are. Given the limited government budgets to provide a regularity service, and the fairly large prospects that when attempting there is greater prospects that the service will be on the honor/gratuity system more providing an informal income opportunity for the civil officers than an effect quality or regulatory control, there really is not much alternative.

http://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/financially-suppresse…

http://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/consumer-price-compar…

http://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/informal-income-oppor…

Private Service Providers – Family Enterprise System

The question is how necessary is such quality and regulatory control over fertilizer and other agronomic inputs in a financially suppressed economy? That is, with the limited purchasing power of an impoverished society, there is tremendous downward pressure on consumer products. Typically, consumer price of locally produced foods will be only 1/3rd or 1/5th that in more developed countries like the USA. For this to happen, the crop production delivery system must be extremely efficient with razor thin profit margins, particularly if fuel prices are at a primum to at least the USA price more in line with European prices, and inputs such as fertilizer and crop protection chemicals are on the world market prices. There is no room for any cumbersome business model as usually found with Government Parastatals or even Producer Organizations. Under these suppressed economic conditions, it is possible for the nominal price the farmer receives be only 1/3rd the consumer price, with the difference representing easily accounted for in packing, spoilage loses, pilferage, shipping costs, etc. leaving only reasonable profit margins for the middle men preforming the essential services.

It should be noted that the private service providers are often condemned as being exploitive of smallholder farmers. However, this done by decree without any supporting documentation of costs of business accounting, including the nearly transparent tripling of ton/km transport costs for working off the tarmac to serve remote smallholder areas. Without any supporting data, such condemnation could be considered slander and those making such claims subject to the host country liability laws governing slander. It should also be noted that those making the slander condemnations usually have a vested interest in promoting government support services and producer organizations seeking donor support, etc.

http://webdoc.agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/ECHO-Private.p…

http://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/private-service-provi…

http://webdoc.agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/Off-TarmacTran…

Parastatal and Producer Organizations

These alternative of government parastatals and producer organizations and touted as being ideal and in the best interest of the smallholder farmers. However, this is again done by decree without any accounting or other supporting data comparing the costs of business between them and the competing private service providers. Just a rather arrogant assumption that because they represent the government or farmers, they are automatically competitive with no need to keep track of overhead costs. Certainly, parastatals have been fully discredited for their cumbersome non-transparent business model, and we need not return to the ADMARCs that plagued Malawi for many years. However, the producer organizations may not be much of an improvement. While they claim they can bulk up commodities for sale or inputs for purchase to get the farmers a better price, and this is possible but I have never seen what this means in terms of percent of financial benefit. Is it 1%, 2%, does it go as high as the 35% needed to offset the overhead costs mentioned by the Central Growers Association in Kitway, Zambia. Nor have I ever seen the overhead costs to obtain these benefits to make certain the overhead costs are less than the private service providers thin profit margins. Thus, the proclaimed and envisioned financial benefit remains completely unsubstantiated. Instead there appears a large complaint about not honoring commitments and members side selling the bulk of produce to the “much condemned” private service providers for immediate cash and necessary by the overall financial management strategy of retaining goods in-kind as long as possible, selling only to meet immediate cash needs and needing the cash. The net result is that producer organization rarely have a market volume appreciable exceeding the loan repayments with 90% or more being side sold to private service providers. I don’t think you can substantially impact poverty with that limited market volume. This is than covered up with some exceptional promotional reporting, that rambles on but avoid including the basic business parameters that determine the success and sustainability of an enterprise.

http://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/perpetuating-cooperat…

http://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/request-for-informati…

http://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/financial-management-…

http://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/appeasement-reporting…

Quality control

While one of the important concerns in fertilizer management is quality control and avoiding someone diluting the nutrient content, the question how can this be best done with financially stalled government that would struggle to maintain a fertilizer testing lab to verify the nutrient content of imported or manufactured materials, and fudge the results as an informal income opportunity. For this I don’t have a real answer nor webpage to reference. However, the starting point would be to import only well bagged fertilizer with the manufactures label clearly visible including a date/batch stamp that could be traced and at least the age and expiration date clearly discernable. I would expect the cost of tampering with such bags would not be worth the added value of diluted material, and any breakage bags would have to be sold at a discount. Again, I would expect the private traders would be more concerned with maintain high quality as they rely on repeat customers. One aspect of private sector business model is the importance of inventory control and not get overstocked that ties up needed capital. It also must be noted that some fertilizer like urea, and NH4SO4 can usually be visible identified just by looking at the granular structure, and if someone attempted to dilute the fertilizer with sand this would also be easily seen with quick bag check.

Application rates

Finally, one must look carefully at the recommended application rates and possible need for farmers to adjust them to their specific conditions. In this regard, it must be noted that recommendations are based on small plot analysis aimed at maximum yield, and not the economic optimal yield that provides the farmers the best return on their investment. I would venture that under developed country conditions the optimal fertilizer applications would be 75 to 80% of the maximum yield recommendation, however, under the suppressed economic conditions of most developing counties with the more limited returns they can receive the optimal percent could go as low as 60% of maximum. This might then be further eroded by the operational limits under which smallholder operate particularly if relying mostly on manual labor working with hoes. This operational limit will extend crop establishment up to 8 weeks, with considerable additional compromise in terms of plant populations and quality weeding. All of this progressively costing potential yield and impacting on fertilizer response.

http://webdoc.agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/OperationalFea…

http://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/calorie-energy-balanc…

At this point I have said more than enough and will sign off. I hope you all have a chance to review some of the referenced webpages and additional links within them.

Thank you for putting up with this bit of unrepentant heresy.

Dick Tinsley

Educar Consumidores suggests that you specify the objectives in the following way:

1. Direct all efforts of CoCoFe to guarantee the food health of the population.

2. Maintain or increase world food production; including an effective campaign against waste.

3. Promote and strengthen organic agriculture both at the level of the peasant family, and sustainable urban agriculture.

4. Maximize the efficient use of plant nutrients to improve sustainable agriculture, encouraging organic agriculture

5. Minimize the environmental and human health impacts of contaminants such as heavy metals contained in fertilizers;

6. Increase food safety that fully guarantees food health, which is not reduced to biological contamination but of all kinds of toxic pollutants of agro-industrial origin

The best audience is the consumers in general, the farmers, the women who in general make the decisions of food consumption, the chefs, the health professionals who work in nutrition. Educating final consumers is an essential task for CoCoFe to fulfill its mission.

CoCoFe must include all synthetic fertilizers, biostimulants, pesticides, all inhibitors, attractants, repellents, physiological regulators, defoliants, fungicides, herbicides, genetically modified products, and in general products that have less than 30 years of proven safety study for human and environmental health in the short, medium and long term. All the mentioned products affect the fertilization and environmental health of the soil, which is why they must be taken into account.

CoCoFe should promote the use of fertilizers that guarantee through rigorous studies and controlled by external laboratories and with civil society surveillance, which do not affect human or environmental health in any way. IT MUST BE DECLARED FREE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND SHOULD NOT BE KEPT INDEPENDENT OF THE INDUSTRY.