FAO speaks about ensuring sustainable food production systems at roundtable on use of fertilizers

The National Research University – Higher School of Economics (HSE) held a round table on “How restrictions on fertilizer consumption might affect global agricultural markets”.

Experts discussed how the efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Target 2.4 (“By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality.”) , as well as global trends in “greening agriculture”, the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and organic farming might affect Russian fertilizer producers. Additionally, experts evaluated the prospects of using microbiological fertilizers and IPM globally and in Russia.

In his presentation, the Officer-in-Charge of FAO’s Liaison Office with the Russian Federation, Aghasi Harutyunyan, described the SDG Target 2.4 and one of its indicators, 2.4.1 (“percentage of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture”). According to FAO experts, agricultural production can have a negative impact on the “quality of the environment” as a result of “excessive or inappropriate use of fertilizers". Stable and sustainable agriculture, by contrast, implies that the level of chemicals in soil and water remains within acceptable limits. 

FAO has, therefore, proposed to measure indicator 2.4.1 through a core set of 11 themes for global reporting purposes. One of those sub-themes is “Fertilizer pollution risk”. “Management of fertilizers” has been proposed as the sub-indicator for this theme.  The proposed approach is based on questions to farmers about their use of fertilizer, in particular mineral or synthetic fertilizers, their awareness about the environmental risks associated with fertilizer and manure applications, and their behaviour in terms of plant nutrient management.

According to this approach, farm sustainability in relation with fertilizer pollution risk will be assessed as follows: 

• Green (desirable): the farm does not use fertilizers or uses fertilizers and takes specific measures to reduce environmental risks;
• Yellow (acceptable): the farm uses fertilizers and takes at least two measures from the list to reduce environmental risks;
• Red (unstable): the farmer uses fertilizers and does not take any specific measures to reduce environmental risks.

The discussion helped the participants of the round table formulate a number of theses and proposals.

Firstly, in the daily activities of Russian agricultural producers, the practice of precision farming is increasingly being applied, involving more efficient, rational use of mineral fertilizers thereby reducing the risks of damage to the environment. The majority of Russian agricultural enterprises likely belong to the “green” or “yellow” level in terms of the sustainability of agricultural production.

Furthermore, Russia carries out survey on the use of agrochemicals every five years. Agricultural producers use the results of the survey in planning their crop production activities. The experts tabled a proposal to inform FAO about the legislation in the Russian Federation that regulates these procedures.

Secondly, the panellists expressed concern that, along with the introduction of environmentally sound UN standards to improve the sustainability of agricultural production, many countries in the world introduce non-tariff regulation measures and restrictions on the access of exporters to markets of mineral organic fertilizers.

Lastly, despite the as-yet small volumes of the Russian market of microbiological fertilizers and crop protection products (about 3% of the total), the market demonstrates positive dynamics. There are examples of successful promotion of Russian products in global markets.

The round table was attended by, among others: the Deputy Director of the Department of Plant Production of the Russian Ministry of Agriculture, Dmitry Shtundyuk; Head of the Department of Consolidated Reports and Agricultural Statistics of the Federal State Statistics Service (“Rosstat”), Olga Kharina; Head of the Department of Services in the Field of Plant Protection of “Rosselhoscenter” Andrey Zhivykh; Head of Agronomic Services of “PhosAgro” Lydia Dubrovskikh; Head of Environmental Management, Konstantin Ivanov, and Advisor to the Director General of “URALCHEM”, Nina Khangaldyan; Head of the Department of Rural Development Studies at the HSE Institute for Agrarian Studies and Head of Chair of Socio-economic Geography at Moscow State University Faculty of Geography, Alexey Naumov; Director of the All-Russia Research Institute of Phytopathology, Alexey Glinushkin; Executive Director of the National Organic Union, Oleg Mironenko.

Sustainable agriculture is at the heart of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and first fundamental step to securing zero hunger. While many of the SDGs address issues related to agriculture, SDG indicator 2.4.1 is fully dedicated to it.

There has been considerable discussion over the past thirty years on how to define “sustainable agriculture”. As agriculture contributes to development – as an economic activity, as a source of livelihood and as provider and user of environmental services – the 2030 Agenda suggests that all sectors, including agriculture, be considered from three dimensions of sustainability: economic, social and environmental. 

SDG indicator 2.4.1, defined as the “percentage of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture,” is no different. In the past, it had been defined primarily along environmental criteria. If the soil was bad, or if water was not managed well, then a farm might have been considered unsustainable. In recent years, however, there has been a realization that being sustainable reaches much further, to include economic and social dimensions, and putting farmers in the center. If a farm is not economically sound or not resilient to external shocks, or if the well-being of those working on a farm are not considered, then a farm cannot be sustainable.

This indicator was developed through a multi-stakeholder process involving statisticians and technical experts from countries, international organizations, national statistical offices, civil society and the private sector. It brings together themes on productivity, profitability, resilience, land and water, decent work and well-being in order to capture the multidimensional nature of sustainable agriculture. They are being pilot tested in selected countries from different regions.