Cover Image
close this bookBriefs for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment - 2020 Vision : Brief 1 - 64 (IFPRI)
View the document(introduction...)
View the document2020 BRIEF 1 - AUGUST 1994: ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
View the document2020 BRIEF 2 - AUGUST 1994: WORLD SUPPLY AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS FOR CEREALS, 2020
View the document2020 BRIEF 3 - AUGUST 1994: WORLD PRODUCTION OF CEREALS, 1966-90
View the document2020 BRIEF 4 - AUGUST 1994: SUSTAINABLE FARMING: A POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY
View the document2020 BRIEF 5 - OCTOBER 1994: WORLD POPULATION PROJECTIONS, 2020
View the document2020 BRIEF 6 - OCTOBER 1994: MALNUTRITION AND FOOD INSECURITY PROJECTIONS, 2020
View the document2020 BRIEF 7 - OCTOBER 1994: AGRICULTURAL GROWTH AS A KEY TO POVERTY ALLEVIATION
View the document2020 BRIEF 8 - OCTOBER 1994: CONSERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
View the document2020 BRIEF 9 - FEBRUARY 1995: THE ROLE OF AGRICULTURE IN SAVING THE RAIN FOREST
View the document2020 BRIEF 10 - FEBRUARY 1995: A TIME OF PLENTY, A WORLD OF NEED: THE ROLE OF FOOD AID IN 2020
View the document2020 BRIEF 11 - FEBRUARY 1995: MANAGING AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION
View the document2020 BRIEF 12 - FEBRUARY 1995: TRADE LIBERALIZATION AND REGIONAL INTEGRATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR 2020
View the document2020 BRIEF 13 - APRIL 1995: THE POTENTIAL OF TECHNOLOGY TO MEET WORLD FOOD NEEDS IN 2020
View the document2020 BRIEF 14 - APRIL 1995: AN ECOREGIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON MALNUTRITION
View the document2020 BRIEF 15 - APRIL 1995: AGRICULTURAL GROWTH IS THE KEY TO POVERTY ALLEVIATION IN LOW-INCOME DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
View the document2020 BRIEF 16 - APRIL 1995: DECLINING ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING-COUNTRY AGRICULTURE: CHANGE OF PARADIGM?
View the document2020 BRIEF 17 - MAY 1995: GENERATING FOOD SECURITY IN THE YEAR 2020: WOMEN AS PRODUCERS, GATEKEEPERS, AND SHOCK ABSORBERS
View the document2020 BRIEF 18 - MAY 1995: BIOPHYSICAL LIMITS TO GLOBAL FOOD PRODUCTION
View the document2020 BRIEF 19 - MAY 1995: CAUSES OF HUNGER
View the document2020 BRIEF 20 - MAY 1995: CHINA AND THE FUTURE GLOBAL FOOD SITUATION
View the document2020 BRIEF 21 - JUNE 1995: DEALING WITH WATER SCARCITY IN THE NEXT CENTURY
View the document2020 BRIEF 22 - JUNE 1995: THE RIGHT TO FOOD: WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED AND POORLY PROTECTED
View the document2020 BRIEF 23 - JUNE 1995: CEREALS PROSPECTS IN INDIA TO 2020: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY
View the document2020 BRIEF 24 - JUNE 1995: REVAMPING AGRICULTURAL R&D
View the document2020 BRIEF 25 - AUGUST 1995: MORE THAN FOOD IS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE GOOD NUTRITION BY 2020
View the document2020 BRIEF 26 - AUGUST 1995: PERSPECTIVES ON EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE IN 2020
View the document2020 BRIEF 27 - AUGUST 1995: NONDEGRADING LAND USE STRATEGIES FOR TROPICAL HILLSIDES
View the document2020 BRIEF 28 - AUGUST 1995: EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS FOR FOOD SECURITY IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
View the document2020 BRIEF 29 - AUGUST 1995: POVERTY, FOOD SECURITY, AND THE ENVIRONMENT
View the document2020 BRIEF 30 - JANUARY 1996: RISING FOOD PRICES AND FALLING GRAIN STOCKS: SHORT-RUN BLIPS OR NEW TRENDS?
View the document2020 BRIEF 31 - APRIL 1996: MIDDLE EAST WATER CONFLICTS AND DIRECTIONS FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION
View the document2020 BRIEF 32 - APRIL 1996: THE TRANSITION IN THE CONTRIBUTION OF LIVING AQUATIC RESOURCES TO FOOD SECURITY
View the document2020 BRIEF 33 - JUNE 1996: MANAGING RESOURCES FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE IN SOUTH ASIA
View the document2020 BRIEF 34 - JUNE 1996: IMPLEMENTING THE URUGUAY ROUND: INCREASED FOOD PRICE STABILITY BY 2020?
View the document2020 BRIEF 35 - JULY 1996: SOCIOPOLITICAL EFFECTS OF NEW BIOTECHNOLOGIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
View the document2020 BRIEF 36 - OCTOBER 1996: RUSSIA'S FOOD ECONOMY IN TRANSITION: WHAT DO REFORMS MEAN FOR THE LONG-TERM OUTLOOK?
View the document2020 BRIEF 37 - OCTOBER 1996: UNCOMMON OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY - An Agenda for Science and Public Policy
View the document2020 BRIEF 38 - OCTOBER 1996: WORLD TRENDS IN FERTILIZER USE AND PROJECTIONS TO 2020
View the document2020 BRIEF 39 - OCTOBER 1996: REDUCING POVERTY AND PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT: THE OVERLOOKED POTENTIAL OF LESS-FAVORED LANDS
View the document2020 BRIEF 40 - OCTOBER 1996: POLICIES TO PROMOTE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE FERTILIZER USE AND SUPPLY TO 2020
View the document2020 BRIEF 41 - DECEMBER 1996: STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE DEMAND FOR FOOD IN ASIA
View the document2020 BRIEF 42 - MARCH 1997: AFRICA'S CHANGING AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
View the document2020 BRIEF 43 - JUNE 1997: THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF AIDS ON POPULATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH RATES
View the document2020 BRIEF 44 - JUNE 1997: LAND DEGRADATION IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD: ISSUES AND POLICY OPTIONS FOR 2020
View the document2020 BRIEF 45 - JUNE 1997: AGRICULTURE, TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE, AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN LATIN AMERICA: A 2020 PERSPECTIVE
View the document2020 BRIEF 46 - JUNE 1997: AGRICULTURE, TRADE, AND REGIONALISM IN SOUTH ASIA
View the document2020 BRIEF 47 - AUGUST 1997: THE NONFARM SECTOR AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT: REVIEW OF ISSUES AND EVIDENCE
View the document2020 BRIEF 48 - FEBRUARY 1998: CHALLENGES TO THE 2020 VISION FOR LATIN AMERICA: FOOD AND AGRICULTURE SINCE 1970
View the document2020 BRIEF 49 - APRIL 1998: NUTRITION SECURITY IN URBAN AREAS OF LATIN AMERICA
View the document2020 BRIEF 50 - JUNE 1998: FOOD FROM PEACE: BREAKING THE LINKS BETWEEN CONFLICT AND HUNGER
View the document2020 BRIEF 51 - JULY 1998: TECHNOLOGICAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUSTAINING WHEAT PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH TOWARD 2020
View the document2020 BRIEF 52 - SEPTEMBER 1998: PEST MANAGEMENT AND FOOD PRODUCTION: LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
View the document2020 BRIEF 53 - OCTOBER 1998: POPULATION GROWTH AND POLICY OPTIONS IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD
View the document2020 BRIEF 54 - OCTOBER 1998: FOSTERING GLOBAL WELL-BEING: A NEW PARADIGM TO REVITALIZE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
View the document2020 BRIEF 55 - OCTOBER 1998: THE POTENTIAL OF AGROECOLOGY TO COMBAT HUNGER IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD
View the document2020 RESUMEN No. 56 - OCTUBRE DE 1998: AYUDA A LA AGRICULTURA EN LOS PAÍSES EN DESARROLLO: INVERSIONES EN LA REDUCCIÓN DE LA POBREZA Y NUEVAS OPORTUNIDADES DE EXPORTACIÓN
View the document2020 BRIEF 57 - OCTOBER 1998: ECONOMIC CRISIS IN ASIA: A FUTURE OF DIMINISHING GROWTH AND INCREASING POVERTY?
View the document2020 BRIEF 58 - FEBRUARY 1999: SOIL DEGRADATION: A THREAT TO DEVELOPING-COUNTRY FOOD SECURITY BY 20207
View the document2020 BRIEF 59 - MARCH 1999: AGRICULTURAL GROWTH, POVERTY ALLEVIATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: HAVING IT ALL
View the document2020 BRIEF 60 - MAY 1999: CRITICAL CHOICES FOR CHINA'S AGRICULTURAL POLICY
View the document2020 BRIEF 61 - MAY 1999: LIVESTOCK TO 2020: THE NEXT FOOD REVOLUTION
View the document2020 BRIEF 62 - OCTOBER 1999: NUTRIENT DEPLETION IN THE AGRICULTURAL SOILS OF AFRICA
View the document2020 BRIEF 63 - NOVEMBER 1999: PROSPECTS FOR INDIA'S CEREAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND TO 2020
View the document2020 BRIEF 64 - FEBRUARY 2000: OVERCOMING CHILD MALNUTRITION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: PAST ACHIEVEMENTS AND FUTURE CHOICES
View the document2020 BRIEF 65 - MARCH 2000: COMBINING INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INPUTS FOR SUSTAINABLE INTENSIFICATION

2020 BRIEF 40 - OCTOBER 1996: POLICIES TO PROMOTE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE FERTILIZER USE AND SUPPLY TO 2020

Balu L. Bumb and Carlos A. Baanante

Balu L. Bumb is a senior scientist in economics and Carlos A. Baanante is director of the Research and Development Division, International Fertilizer Development Center, in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, U.S.A.

In the mid-1960s, when projections of global starvation were common, no one questioned the role of mineral fertilizer (plant nutrients, mainly nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium from inorganic sources) in promoting food production in the food-deficit countries. On the contrary, fertilizer use was an integral part of the technological trinity - improved seed, irrigation, and fertilizer - responsible for bringing about the Green Revolution that helped many densely populated countries, including India and China, achieve food self-sufficiency in the short span of 20 to 25 years. In the early 1990s, however, fertilizer became a target of criticism mainly because of heavy use in the developed countries, where it was suspected of having an adverse impact on the environment through nitrate leaching, eutrophication, greenhouse gas emissions, and heavy metal uptakes by plants. Consequently, fertilizer use per se was mistakenly identified as an enemy of the environment.

THE NEED FOR FERTILIZER

Although fertilizer use can contribute to environmental contamination unless managed properly, it is often an indispensable source of the nutrients required for plant growth and food production. Unless the nutrients removed are replaced in proper amounts from both organic and inorganic sources, crop production cannot be sustained: the soil will become degraded. In many developing countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, nutrient mining has become a serious problem: nutrient removal exceeds nutrient replenishment by a factor of 3 to 4. Because crop residues are used for fuel, fodder, and construction material, nutrient supply from organic sources is limited, and supply from external sources becomes essential. Even for leguminous crops, which can fix nitrogen from the atmosphere, phosphorus and potassium must be externally supplied.

In meeting the twin challenges of food security and environmental protection in the next quarter century, developing countries must increasingly rely on science-based agriculture because there is limited scope for area expansion or grain imports from developed countries. In science-based agriculture, mineral fertilizer combined with other modern inputs plays a critical role.

· Fertilizer use is an integral part of the Green Revolution technologies. The high-yielding potential of improved seeds cannot be realized with the natural reserves of nutrients in most soils; these reserves must be augmented through fertilizer application.

· In the nutrient-poor soils of the tropics, proper and balanced use of fertilizer can create a win-win situation by increasing crop production and preventing soil degradation from nutrient mining.

· By promoting food production in high potential areas through agricultural intensification, fertilizer use can reduce pressures on marginal lands and forest clearing.

· In areas such as Sub-Saharan Africa where soils are acidic and soil fertility is low, phosphate rock and lime can be used to restore and enhance soil fertility and promote sustainable crop production.

· By creating additional biomass, fertilizer use can help reduce global warming by increasing the sequestration of carbon in soil organic matter.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY CONCERNS

Fertilizer use requires judicious management. Improper and excessive use can harm the environment. High levels of nitrates in drinking water can be harmful to human health, especially for infants less than six months old. Nitrate leaching has been highly correlated with nitrogen applications higher than the agronomic maximum. Eutrophication is caused by the deposits of nitrate and phosphate in lakes, ponds, and other water bodies, leading to excessive growth of algae, which can result in oxygen depletion and fish mortality. Plants take up cadmium from phosphate fertilizer derived from cadmium-rich phosphate rocks, but how cadmium is transferred from phosphate fertilizer to food crops and then to human beings is not well established.

These environmental problems are caused by excessive amounts of nitrate and phosphate in soil or water bodies. While mineral fertilizer is one possible source of these nutrients, other sources include organic fertilizer, animal manure, and industrial and urban wastes. High levels of nitrate in the water have largely been linked to animal manure in many European countries. In the developing countries, high nitrate levels are also linked to sewage disposal, septic tank drainage, and industrial wastes.

Thus, the issue is one of integrated management of all sources of nutrients in agricultural areas, so that total nutrient supply is below the agronomic maximum. Prevention of erosion and runoff is another management strategy that reduces pollution and maintains soil productivity. In the past, the emphasis has been on increased use of fertilizer; the approach now must shift to educating farmers to use organic, inorganic, and biological fertilizer optimally.

Today, the dominant use of nitrogen-based fertilizer in developing countries has led to an imbalance of nutrients in soils. To improve the efficiency of nitrogen fertilizer use and to minimize adverse environmental effects, nutrient balance should be improved by promoting the use of phosphate and potash fertilizers. Moreover, 50 to 60 percent of applied fertilizer nutrients are lost to the atmosphere. Nutrient losses can be reduced by proper timing, application, and placement of fertilizer products and by controlling soil erosion and water runoff. Reducing nutrient losses will promote economic efficiency and protect the environment.

Although fertilizer use has increased rapidly in the last few decades, especially in East Asia, fertilizer use is still too low to cause environmental damage in many developing countries. In some areas, such as Java in Indonesia, Punjab in India, and the Delta region in Egypt, where application rates are high, measures to monitor environmental impact are required to avoid potential damage. Because of low percolation rates, nitrate leaching does not occur from flooded paddy fields, which account for 60 to 70 percent of nitrogen fertilizer use in the East Asian countries, but nitrate contamination of rivers and lakes caused by nitrogen runoff from such fields warrants special attention. High applications of nitrogen in irrigated and high-rainfall areas with light-textured soils and vegetable crops should be managed carefully because such conditions promote nitrate leaching. The World Health Organization has established that nitrate levels in the drinking water should not exceed 50 milligrams per liter of water; where levels are higher, location-specific programs should be introduced.

Fertilizer production, especially nitrogen production, is energy-intensive, and critics argue that scarce energy resources should not be wasted in producing fertilizer. However, fertilizer accounts for only a small fraction of global energy use - 2 percent in 1990. For every 1 million Btus of energy used in the fertilizer sector (equivalent to the energy used in driving a car from Washington, D.C., to New York City), an additional 218 kilograms of grain - enough to provide the minimum calorie intake for one person per year - could be produced. In 1990 the price of natural gas averaged about a dollar per million Btus in many energy-exporting countries. Therefore, converting energy into food security through fertilizer use offers a cost-effective and humane alternative for use of the world's energy resources.

REFORMING THE FERTILIZER SECTOR

Fertilizer production, import, and marketing has in most developing countries been a public sector function due to underdeveloped private markets, lack of private investment, and concerns about food security. The fertilizer sector has been characterized by protection, subsidies, and price controls. Although this has helped develop fertilizer markets, inefficiencies in resource use and unsustainable fiscal burdens now mandate a change.

In countries where fertilizer use levels are high and the private sector and financial markets are well developed, markets should be liberalized, subsidies removed, and the sector privatized to increase efficiency. Policy and organizational reforms are needed to make fertilizer markets more competitive, including gradual liberalization of trade policies to allow the private sector to compete in the international market. Proper sequencing and phasing of these reforms may pose a challenge because the simultaneous introduction of various policy reforms, including devaluation, subsidy removal, and closure of public sector enterprises, can lead to a drastic reduction in fertilizer use, as happened in Ghana, Poland, Russia, and Zambia. More research is needed to understand the dynamics of policy and organizational reforms.

Where fertilizer subsidies or crop price support programs have promoted excessive fertilizer use, the removal of subsidies and support measures will lead to the convergence of economic and environmental goals by promoting resource use efficiency, reducing fiscal deficits, and minimizing environmental damage.

Although energy consumption is essential for fertilizer production, energy use efficiency must be improved. While a modern plant uses about 30 million Btus per ton of ammonia production, fertilizer plants in many developing and reforming countries use 37 to 61 million Btus. Proper operation and maintenance, revamping of plants, and replacement of old technologies with new energy efficient technologies are essential.

THE POLICY ENVIRONMENT

The policy challenge over the next few years is to manage environmental problems in high-use areas, without losing the productivity benefits of fertilizer. In low-use areas the challenge is to increase fertilizer use in an environmentally sustainable manner. The following measures are appropriate to create a conducive and stable policy environment for promoting fertilizer use and supply:

· Macroeconomic stability, especially stability in the exchange rate, is essential for promoting growth in fertilizer use and supply. Rapid devaluation of domestic currency reduces both fertilizer use and supply by increasing costs and reducing investor confidence. Since many developing countries are not self-sufficient in fertilizer supplies, adequate and timely allocation of foreign exchange for fertilizer imports should receive high priority.

· Pricing policy should be managed so that it generates adequate incentives for fertilizer use by small farmers. Any price distortions should be eliminated. Although fertilizer subsidies should be carefully phased out, a case can be made for a temporary subsidy in those landlocked and food-deficit countries where markets are distorted, infrastructure is inadequate, environmental externalities are positive, and poverty is all-pervasive.

· Efficient and appropriate organizations should be created to ensure that fertilizer reaches the farm on time, in adequate amounts, and at minimal cost. The private sector should have the primary responsibility for marketing and distribution of fertilizer. The government should develop and implement appropriate regulatory and quality control measures for efficient functioning of the fertilizer markets. In those areas where markets are underdeveloped, the government may take the lead in developing markets and supporting infrastructure.

· Limited availability of funds for farmers to purchase fertilizers is a major constraint on fertilizer use. The growing participation of the private sector in fertilizer marketing and distribution mandates that fertilizer dealers also have access to financial resources. Every effort should be made to ensure adequate funds at reasonable interest rates for both farmers and fertilizer dealers.

· To encourage capital investment in fertilizer production and imports, the government should create a market-friendly environment. Fertilizer self-sufficiency per se should not be a cherished goal. Joint ventures between technology-rich developed countries and resource-rich developing countries should receive greater attention.

· Adequate research, extension, and educational support should be provided to farmers. Soil testing and new technologies suitable for targeted application of fertilizer should be encouraged.

· Environmental monitoring mechanisms should be instituted and corrective measures should be introduced. The adoption of appropriate practices and technologies should be encouraged to minimize adverse environmental effects.

Fertilizer use will remain an essential component of future strategies for ensuring food security and protecting the natural resource base. In fulfilling that role, however, fertilizer use should be approached differently in the future. Emphasis should be on growth with management rather than on growth per se, so that the broader goals of food security, agricultural growth, and environmental protection are not sacrificed.