Fertilizer International 495 Mar-Apr 2020
31 March 2020
A new sustainable framework for fertilizers
INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
A new sustainable framework for fertilizers
Concerns are growing about the health impacts of the heavy metals present in phosphate-based fertilizers and their accumulation in soils. In response, regulators and international agencies are currently seeking to limit human exposure to these potentially harmful elements. Encouragingly, a number of sustainable options with minimal market impacts are available, as Mikhail Pleschev, Boris Levin and Juan von Gernet of PhosAgro explain.
The fertilizer industry will need to change in the years ahead. Adapting to increasing consumer concerns about what goes into the food they eat will be a particular challenge. In response to this, regulators are starting to demand that fertilizers – as essential providers of crop nutrients – do not also introduce potentially harmful elements like cadmium and other heavy metals into soils and plants. Meeting this challenge is both necessary and possible, in our view, as everyone will benefit from the ultimate outcome – a more sustainable and healthier food production system.
The European Union (EU) has led the way by recently legislating to introduce limits on cadmium in phosphate fertilizers throughout the single market1 . The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has also been active. It published a code of conduct for the sustainable use and management of fertilizers in 2019. This provides a framework for governments worldwide. Several countries globally are also considering placing limits on cadmium in fertilizers. Russia – the world’s largest grain exporter – has taken a particularly innovative approach by developing legislation for the ‘green’ branding of products. This will include crops grown with ‘pure’ fertilizers.
The EU leads the way
The evolution of the EU’s single market over the last decade has been extraordinary. In recent times, new EU-wide legislation has strengthened and harmonised regulation of one of the world’s biggest markets. The most recent administration, under the leadership of European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, has acted to ensure that all EU legislation is both fit for purpose and reflects current market trends.
This has certainly been the EU’s approach to fertilising products placed on the European single market. Previously, these were regulated by legislation dating back to 20032 . This had become increasingly outmoded as it did not take account of recent market changes and product innovations. Because of this, the European Commission came forward with a new set of proposed rules in 2016. The aim was to open the single European market to organic fertilizers and those sourced from bio-waste, while also strengthening sustainability and environmental protection. These proposals – officially approved in June 20191 – formed part of a wider and more ambitious circular economy policy package.
A key element of the EU’s revised rules was the introduction of new limits on the cadmium (Cd) content of phosphate fertilizers. This was designed to reduce levels of this deleterious element to sustainable levels in European soils. A number of environmental and food safety agencies have determined that cadmium – which occurs naturally in some phosphate ores – poses a risk to crops and human health.
Under the new rules, the EU will introduce a harmonised limit of 60 mg Cd/Kg P2 O5 from 20221 .
The EU also approved a special labelling system that distinguishes low-cadmium products from those with a higher concentration of this heavy metal. The idea behind this is to increase transparency and awareness of the risks posed by Cd – so encouraging manufacturers and farmers to pay attention to the cadmium content of the products they use.
The decision to limit cadmium was seen as a positive first step by many scientists. Nevertheless, experts from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)3 , the British Food Standard Agency (FSA)4 and the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES)5 have all said that even lower limits will be necessary to better protect humans and crops from cadmium exposure.
Environmental pressure groups, including Greenpeace and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), have strongly argued against any cadmium limit above 20 mg Cd/Kg P2 O5 . Safer Phosphates – a business coalition committed to increasing awareness of the environmental risks posed by cadmium – has supported these efforts. Safer Phosphates accepts that the industry must act to reduce the Cd content of fertilizers, a major source of cadmium in arable land, as determined by the International Cadmium Association6 .
Although the EU’s new rules will help protect the environment and prevent the contamination of arable land, it needs to go beyond the limits established in the EU fertilising products regulation in our view. Now is the time to be more ambitious by, for example, matching the stated ambitions of the EU Farm to Fork Strategy7 with clear policies aimed at reducing contaminants in inorganic fertilizers.
Transparency and information must also be incorporated into future policies. This is vital if the risks from heavy metals in mineral and organo-mineral fertilizers are to be clearly described and communicated to the entire value chain. While concrete actions are necessary, education is also needed for all operators up and down the value chain – from farmers to retailers to producers.
A global framework from the FAO
We also believe that limiting levels of impurities in fertilizers requires a clear international regulatory framework. With this in mind, the code of conduct for the sustainable use and management of fertilizers published by the UN FAO in 20198 offers a useful framework in our view.
The code sets out voluntary guidelines relating to the production, trade, policy, regulation and use of mineral, organic and recycled fertilizers. It covers important aspects of agricultural sustainability, nutrient management and the safe use of agrochemicals.
The code – which is suitable for a wide range of stakeholders – was issued by the UN four years after the most recent edition of its international code of conduct on pesticide management9 . Both codes complement one other, as they form two integral parts of the FAO’s overall strategic objective to balance the demands of increasing food production with the conservation of natural resources.
According to the FAO, the aim of the new fertilizer code is to promote the efficient use of fertilizers, and address other key objectives such as:
- Global food security
- The preservation of ecosystems
- Reducing the negative impacts from excess nutrients in ground and surface waters
- Minimising the negative effects and potential toxicity from contaminants in fertilizers.
The last objective is particularly significant, since it places the negative effects associated with impurities in fertilizers on an equal footing with the harmful effects of pesticides and other environmental hazards.
While the code deals with a range of issues covering the whole life cycle of fertilizer products – including production, distribution, quality management and use – several provisions are specifically dedicated to the problem of contaminants found in fertilizers.
Firstly, the code stipulates that stakeholders should:
“Avoid additions of contaminants in fertilizers that have negative impacts on and potential toxicity to soil, soil biodiversity as well as animal and human health.”
To achieve this, the code calls on governments to:
“Establish evidence based maximum limits for contaminants from fertilizers in soils (for example heavy metals), above which trade and use of fertilizer is controlled due to high probability of soil pollution.”
In other words, policy makers should act to prevent the misuse of fertilizer that leads to the accumulation of contaminants in soils – i.e. they should ensure adequate soil fertility and nutrient supply while at the same time avoiding the take-up of undesirable compounds by crops.
In addition, the code suggests that governments and fertilizer producers need to take joint responsibility for:
“Regulating the composition and quality of fertilizers in terms of: nutrient content; heavy metals linked to the production process and source of raw material; harmful microbes; other dangerous or toxic materials.”
The code also covers recycled nutrients. These include struvite, biochars, and incineration ashes – collectively referred to by the acronym STRUBIAS. It calls for appropriate guidelines and analytical procedures to control the level of heavy metals and other impurities in STRUBIAS prior to their use in plant production. Governments are also advised to minimise environmental effects from fertilizer application by providing training programmes to fertilizer users and retailers.
The code of conduct, being a framework document, provides a unified international set of standards and terminology covering fertilizer use throughout the world. As a next step, The Global Soil Partnership, a special division within the FAO – together with FAO member states and other stakeholders – will now translate this framework into a number of concrete actions and outputs to ensure safer fertilizer use in the coming decades. These are likely to include awareness-raising programmes and further guidelines and recommendations.
Heavy metals regulation beyond the EU
Regulation of heavy metals in phosphate-based fertilizers outside of the EU has been sporadic. This is most likely because of the complexity of the subject. Comparatively lenient limits are in place in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and some US states, for example. However, a growing focus on long-term environmental sustainability is resulting in greater awareness and action. Recently, a handful of countries in Africa – a region seen as agriculture’s next big growth prospect – have either introduced or are considering legislation to limit heavy metals in phosphate fertilizers. Russia, too, is taking a leading role.
In July 2019, the Russian Ministry of Agriculture presented a draft federal law: “On agricultural products, raw materials and foodstuff with improved environmental qualities.” This draft legislation aims to create a unified vision for, and holistic approach to, the production and promotion of Russian goods for the domestic market and for export.
Importantly, the draft legislation distinguishes ‘green’ products as a separate market segment, distinct from either organic food or the mass market. These products are defined by six new national ‘green’ standards. Legislators, however, believe that compliance with these ‘green’ production standards will not create additional barriers for farmers.
Instead, the aim is to ensure that farmers and food manufacturers receive a reliable supply of high quality inputs so that consumers will benefit from healthier food.
Two of these six new standards set out quality requirement for the fertilizers used in the production of ‘green’ products. Essentially, they establish and provide reference values for the purity of mineral fertilizers. Impressively, the limits introduced for some heavy metal contaminants are even stricter than the most stringent requirements of European countries, generally considered the most advanced in terms of environmental safety.
Switzerland, for example, adopted a cadmium content requirement of 21 mg/kg in 1986, and the harmonised EU threshold approved this year is 60 mg / kg P2 O5 . These cadmium thresholds compare to the maximum limit of 20 mg/kg P2 O5 being proposed under Russian legislation. In addition, the maximum level of arsenic – another harmful impurity present in some fertilizers – is half the value specified under EU Regulation (20 mg vs 40 mg per kg dry weight, respectively).
Are stricter cadmium limits possible?
The feasibility of limiting cadmium in phosphate fertilizers depends on three main factors:
- The quality of production raw materials
- The fertilizer manufacturing process
- The resulting level of cadmium exposure.
In our view, a brief analysis of each of these factors shows that even more ambitious limits on cadmium – as many are calling for in the EU – are fully within reach.
Processes and products
Most phosphate in fertilizers is sourced from phosphate rock. This raw material is a naturally-occurring ore mineral. It is generally extracted through open-pit mining and less frequently from underground mines. Phosphate rock contains other elements, in addition to the nutrient phosphorus, with their exact concentration depending on how the deposit was formed.
The most common way to produce phosphate fertilizers involves treating phosphate rock with sulphuric acid (acidulation) to produce phosphoric acid. This is generally reacted with ammonia to produce ammoniated phosphates. Acidulation yields calcium sulphate (phosphogypsum) as a by-product. This has little or no value in most markets and is usually discarded.
Other production routes also manufacture single super phosphate (SSP), nitrophosphate fertilizers and complex NPKs from phosphate rock. SSP production, although using sulphuric acid, yields a product with a lower nutrient content as no waste is discarded during the process. Nitrophosphates, which are produced using nitric acid, retain almost all of the impurities originally found in the phosphate rock.
The EU market – a case study
Given the recent introduction of new legislation, the EU makes a good case study for possible stricter cadmium limits in future. An analysis of production and trade data reveals that around 4-5 million tonnes of P2 O5 in all forms was available for use across the EU-28 in 2016. (This figure includes phosphate rock, phosphoric acid, fertilizer, industrial and animal feed products, but does account for exports.) Roughly 40 percent originated from North and West Africa, 30 percent from the Former Soviet Union, with much of the remainder coming from either the EU itself or from the Middle East and South Africa.
By overlaying phosphate rock trade data with known heavy metals specifications – after accounting for the origin of the product and the manufacturing process – it is possible to estimate the amount of phosphate-derived cadmium. For 2016, the EU-28 average was found to be around 30-35 mg Cd/kg P2 O5 . This is in line with the European Commission’s own estimate of 38 mg Cd/kg P2 O5 for phosphate fertilizers, given that the commission’s estimate excludes feed and industrial products. This analysis also shows that around 10 percent of the total phosphate available for use in the EU (and/or export) was in excess of the 60 mg Cd/kg P2 O5 limit.
Even more striking is that only one country, Italy, was found to have an average cadmium content of around 60 mg Cd/kg P2 O5 for its phosphate supply. Except for Italy, the EU countries with the highest cadmium exposure were Poland, Spain and France. In all three cases, the average cadmium content in their phosphate supply is estimated to be between 40-60 mg Cd/kg P2 O5 . This is explained by a combination of the large P2 O5 requirement of these countries and the origin of their raw materials.
It is notable that all these countries can lower their average cadmium exposure significantly, simply by altering the source material for their phosphates. Poland, for example, showed elevated cadmium levels in 2016 because around a quarter of its P2 O5 was sourced from phosphate rock mined in Algeria and Senegal. Although sourcing from these countries continues, recent Senegalese imports have been from a different mining region close to the Mauritanian border. These are said to contain much less cadmium (reportedly well below 20 mg Cd/Kg P2 O5 ), thereby lowering the country’s average substantially.
Conclusions
The above analysis suggests that, not only are the current limits adopted by the EU achievable, they can also be lowered further in future, if necessary. European industry has already shown that it can mitigate exposure to heavy metals by adjusting its sourcing, without having to alter production processes.
While opponents to the legislation regularly cite the limited availability of low-cadmium concentrates, such phosphate sources are in fact globally abundant in our view. Indeed, many have not even been properly mapped out, and hence are not included in current resource estimates. These include advanced low-cadmium rock projects in Africa, North America, Europe and Oceania which are still seeking financing currently. Their success will ultimately rest upon the ability to secure sufficient market demand for low-cadmium phosphate.
Despite these exacting purity criteria, the proposed Cd and As limits are feasible for the majority of Russian manufacturers of nitrogen, phosphate and potash fertilizers, without additional capital and operating costs, as their products already easily meet these limits. Consequently, those Russian farmers that use domestically-produced crop nutrients will gain the right to market their crop products as ‘green’ at no extra cost.
The proposed ‘green’ labelling should provide Russian agriculture with a distinct competitive advantage in global trade. Increasing awareness of the links between food quality, residual contaminants and sustainable soil management – as discussed in this article – should certainly boost international interest in high-quality, healthy Russian agricultural products.
Conclusion
Looking back, 2019 was a watershed year for the shift towards safer and more sustainable phosphate fertilizers – creating a momentum that is likely to grow in 2020 and beyond. As more countries seek to limit the heavy metal content of their crop nutrient products, the FAO’s new code of conduct for fertilizers will provide a useful framework, while we will continue to monitor and learn from the real world examples set by the EU, Russia and others.
References
