Sustainable Phosphorus Management: A Transdisciplinary Challenge

Abstract

This chapter begins with a brief review of the history of phosphorus, followed by a description of the role of phosphorus in food security and technology development. It is then followed by discussions on critical issues related to sustainable phosphorus management, such as phosphorus-related pollution, the innovation potential of phosphate fertilizers and fertilizer production, uneven geographical distribution of phosphate resources, transparency of reserves, economic scarcity, and price volatility of phosphate products. In order to identify the deficiencies in the world’s phosphorus flows, we utilize the “not too little–not too much” principle (including the Ecological Paracelsus Principle), which is essential to understanding the issues of pollution, supply security, losses, sinks and efficiency of phosphorus use, and the challenges to closing the phosphorus cycle by recycling and other means. When linking the supply–demand (SD) chain view on phosphorus with a Substance or Material Flux Analysis, the key actors in the global phosphorus cycle become evident. It is apparent that sustainable phosphorus management is a very complex issue that requires a global transdisciplinary process to arrive at a consensus solution. This holds true both from an epistemological (i.e., knowledge) perspective as well as from a sustainable management perspective. To gain a complete picture of the current phosphorus cycle, one requires knowledge from a broad spectrum of sciences, ranging from geology, mining, and chemical engineering; soil and plant sciences; and all facets of agricultural and environmental sciences to economics, policy, and behavioral and decision science. As phosphorus flows are bound to specific historical, sociocultural, and geographical issues as well as financial and political interests, the understanding of the complex contextual constraints requires knowledge of related sciences. The need for transdisciplinary processes is equally evident from a sustainable transitioning perspective. In order to identify options, drivers, and barriers to improving phosphorus flows, one requires processes in; capacity building that may be changed and consensus building on the phosphorus use practices that must be changed and maintained, along with recognition of how changes in phosphorus use in the current market may be framed. The latter is illustrated by means of the Global TraPs (Global Transdisciplinary Processes for Sustainable Phosphorus Management) project, a multi-stakeholder initiative including key stakeholders on both sides of the phosphorus SD chain which includes mutual learning between science and society.

An erratum to this chapter is available at 10.1007/978-94-007-7250-2_8

An erratum to this chapter can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7250-2_8

Appendices

Appendix: Spotlight 1—Fertilizers Change(d) the World

• Amit H. Roy,
• Deborah T. Hellums,
• Roland W. Scholz &
• Clyde Beaver 

1. International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC), P.O. Box 2040, Muscle Shoals, AL, 35662, USA

   Amit H. Roy, Deborah T. Hellums & Clyde Beaver

2. Fraunhofer Project Group Materials Recycling and Resource Strategies IWKS, Brentanostrasse 2, 63755, Alzenau, Germany

   Roland W. Scholz

3. ETH Zürich, Natural and Social Science Interface (NSSI), Universitaetsstrasse 22, CHN J74.2, 8092, Zürich, Switzerland

   Roland W. Scholz

Due to significant advances in agriculture and medicine in the last century, both food production and global population have increased dramatically. The last 3 years have seen particularly significant benchmarks, with Africa reaching one billion people in 2009 and the world population reaching seven billion in 2011. Looking to the future, FAO (High Level Expert Forum, 2009) and other experts have agreed that the population is likely to surpass nine billion by 2050.

The question that remains in the face of that prediction is whether food production can keep pace with population growth to provide food security for all. More effective use of agricultural inputs—improved seeds, crop protection products and chemical and organic fertilizers can tip the scales in that production goal (Mueller et al. 2012).

The argument that chemical fertilizers have dramatically increased cereal production over the last 50 years seems to be irrefutable. Also acknowledged is that these fertilizers help save the lives of over 3.5 billion people who otherwise would starve given lower agricultural production (Smil 1999; Wolfe 2001; Hager 2008). In 1961—effectively the dawn of modern fertilizer use—global cereal production stood at 877 Mt. By 2010, annual cereal production had increased to 2.4 Gt (FAOSTAT/IFDC data 2012).

This 174 % increase over the past half century was clearly not serendipitous. From 1970 through 2011, global nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (NPK) mineral fertilizer consumption increased by 154 %, from 69 Mt to 175 Mt—a strikingly clear correlation between increased production and broader use of NPK fertilizers (FAOSTAT/IFDC data 2012). Perhaps the greatest evidence for the effectiveness of fertilizer in intensifying food production can be found in South Asia, where progressive use of fertilizer on roughly the same area of land over the past 50 years has produced a 165 % increase in output (FAOSTAT/IFDC data 2012). While there are numerous examples of excessive and inefficient fertilizer use (typically above recommended rates of application) resulting in negative environmental impacts, the larger issue is that low productivity (in large part due to underuse of fertilizers) is resulting in millions of people suffering with malnutrition. Over the same period, Africa, which is plagued by inherently nutrient-deficient soils and the lack of fertilizer use (averaging only 8 kg input of NPK fertilizer per hectare [Abuja Declaration 2006]), experienced production increases of only 60 %—and not through crop intensification utilizing modern agro-inputs, but by extending the area of land cultivated while almost irreparably mining the soils of their remaining nutrients (FAOSTAT/IFDC data 2012).

Among the primary nutrients, phosphorus deficiency in the world’s soils stands out as a major constraint to food crop production in low-input systems such as those in the sub-humid and semi-arid regions of sub-Saharan Africa. Large areas of the developing world’s soils are chronically deficient in phosphorus; legumes, a key to low-input agriculture because of their capability to produce plant available nitrogen through biological nitrogen fixation (BFN), are particularly sensitive to phosphorus deficiency (Parish 1993). Unless phosphorus fertilizers are used in these areas, even the best-managed nutrient recycling system will not achieve the minimum soil phosphorus levels required for good yields.

However, the judicious use of our mineral and chemical nutrient resources alone will not allay future agricultural production concerns. In fact, fertilizers alone will not solve the 2050 dilemma. A more balanced approach to agricultural production that focuses on soil nutrient-supplying capacity, while simultaneously maintaining or improving overall soil quality must rise to the top of production agendas. Integrated soil fertility management (ISFM), which includes the combined use of organic and inorganic (commercial fertilizers) nutrient inputs and soil amendments, can lead to sustainable nutrient management. This nutrient management approach along with improved germplasm and water management must become the production norm of the future in order to conserve soil and water resources, build soil fertility and improve water quality.

Even with widespread adoption of production techniques utilizing ISFM, demand for fertilizers will remain high in the coming years, but could also remain out of reach for many. In 2010, according to FAO (FAOSTAT 2012), global consumption of the major phosphate fertilizers (P₂O₅) was 45.4 Mt (equivalent to 19.8 Mt on a mineral P fertilizer basis), with the least developed countries, as a group, consuming only 1.5 % of that annual total. Clearly, a focused effort is required by all stakeholders to increase the production, availability and responsible use of phosphorus to advance global food security, particularly in the developing world. According to Sattari et al. (2012), mineral P demand by 2050 may range from 14.6 to 28 Mt annually—a range derived based on the anticipated combination of residual soil P, the supplementary use of manure and P recycling efforts. While this range considers the regional variations in historical P use and current soil P status, the anticipated global consumption of mineral P fertilizers in 2050 is projected to be 20.8 Mt, slightly more than current consumption rates. This estimate was derived based on the assumption that farmers worldwide will be applying best agricultural technologies and management practices.

In the same run-up to 2050, global NPK demand is estimated to be 223.1 Mt in 2030 and 324 Mt in 2050, and thus an increase of fertilizer use by 27 to 85 % (Drescher et al. 2011). This and similar estimates are based on current agricultural practices and may reflect the massive food production requirements at mid-century. However, this projected fertilizer requirement is likely to continue to be revised downward with the advent of more efficient fertilizer technologies and the widespread adoption of nutrient-supplying and resource-conserving approaches such as ISFM.

• References

• Abuja Declaration: Africa Fertilizer Summit of the African Union Ministers of Agriculture (2006) Africa Fertilizer Summit Proceedings IFDC Special Publication. SP-39, International Fertilizer Development Center

• Drescher A, Glaser R, Clemens R, Nippes KR (2011) Demand for key nutrients (NPK) in the year 2050. Report for the European Commission Joint Research Centre, Brussels. 77p. Available at: http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/NPK

• FAOSTAT/IFDC (2009) Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations (FAO). How to feed the world in 2050, High Level Expert Forum, Rome Available at http://cap2020.ieep.eu/2009/11/3/fao-forum

• FAOSTAT/IFDC (2012) Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAOSTAT database, Rome Available at http://faostat.fao.org

• Hager J (2008) The alchemy of air. Harmony Books, New York

• Mueller MD, Gerber JS, Johnston M, Ray DK, Ramankutty N, Foley JA (2012) Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature 490:254–257

• Parish D (1993) Agricultural productivity, sustainability, and fertilizer use. IFDC Paper Series P-18, International Fertilizer Development Center

• Sattari S, Bouwman AF, Giller KE, van Ittersum MK (2012) Residual soil phosphorus as the missing piece in the global phosphorus crisis puzzle. PNAS 109(16):6348–6353

• Smil V (1999) Long-range perspectives on inorganic fertilizers in global agriculture 1999 Travis P. Hignett Lecture 1 November 1999, International Fertilizer Development Center

• Wolfe D (2001) Tales from the underground: a national history of subterranean life. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge

Appendix: Spotlight 2—A Novice’s Guide to Transdisciplinarity

• Roland W. Scholz &
• Quang Bao Le 

1. Fraunhofer Project Group Materials Recycling and Resource Strategies IWKS, Brentanostrasse 2, 63755, Alzenau, Germany

   Roland W. Scholz

2. ETH Zürich, Natural and Social Science Interface (NSSI), Universitaetsstrasse 22, CHN J74.2, 8092, Zürich, Switzerland

   Roland W. Scholz & Quang Bao Le

Transdisciplinarity (td) is a key term of the Global TraPs project. All activities of the project on all three levels of the project are transdisciplinary processes: the ‘Umbrella project’, the Nodes of the P supply chain including the Trade and Finance Node, as well as the case studies which are launched to better define or to close the knowledge gaps on sustainably P management. In this brief, we (1) provide a brief definition of td, (2) outline one of the twenty-five td case studies that have been successfully conducted at ETH NSSI since 1993; and (3) provide a “model” for a brief description of a planned td case study in Vietnam.

1.1 What is Transdisciplinarity

Transdisciplinarity is a third mode of doing science complementing disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity. It was developed during the last two decades in Europe and is now well accepted in the European academic community.

Fig. 29

Disciplines, interdisciplinarity, multi-stakeholder discourses, and transdisciplinarity

Whereas interdisciplinarity means the integration of concepts and methods from different disciplines, td integrates additionally different epistemics (i. e., ways of knowing) from science/theory and practice/stakeholders. Td starts from the assumption that scientists and practitioners are experts of different kinds of knowledge where both sides may benefit from a mutual learning process. Thus, co-leadership among science and practice based on equal footing on all levels of the project (i. e., the umbrella project, the nodes and the case studies) are needed to assure that the interests and capacities of theory and practice are equally acknowledged.

Transdisciplinary processes (td-processes) target the generation of knowledge for a sustainable transition of complex, societally relevant real-world problems.

Td-processes include joint (1) problem definition, (2) problem representation and (3) preparation for sustainable transitions (see Scholz 2000). In general, td-processes provide an improved problem understanding and robust orientations on policy options or business decisions for the practitioners. Experts from science and practice benefit by getting in-depth insight into the dynamics of complex systems and mechanisms of sustainable transitions.

1.2 A Successful Example: “Sustainable Future of Traditional Industries” in a Rural Pre-Alpine Area

Building partnership ⁵: Both, the president Hans Altherr of the small pre-alpine Swiss state Appenzell Ausserrhoden (AR), and ETH professor Roland W. Scholz, were interested in understanding mechanisms of sustaining traditional industries in rural regions. Jointly, they decided to run a transdisciplinary case study and to take co-leadership on equal footing for a td-process.

• 1. Joint problem definition: Key representatives (e. g., presidents of industry associations and unions as well as representatives of the communities) formed the steering board. A challenge was to negotiate and define the guiding question. It reads: What are the prerequisites for a sustainable regional economy meeting environmental and socioeconomic needs? Further, three industries, i. e., textile, dairy and sawmilling industry, were selected for in-depth understanding of key mechanisms of sustainable transitions. In addition a Knowledge Integration Group was built to identify communalities and specificities of the three industries.

• 2. Preparing for sustainable transitions: By means of a scientific method (i. e., formative scenario analysis), for each industry a set of different business strategies (including state, community, and multi-stakeholder activities) were constructed. These strategies were evaluated by the different stakeholder groups to gain insights into dissent and consent within and between them. Scientists analyzed these evaluations, compared them to a “data-based multi-criteria sustainability assessment,” and discussed the results with key stakeholders and further interested people. For each industry meaningful business options as well as related latent conflicts (between companies, economic and environmental impacts) were identified. Based on this, a process of mutual understanding was moderated so that consensus could be formed on many issues. The Knowledge Integration Group integrated these results and—together with the head officials of AR—identified potential policy options for the state. The results were published in a book targeting practitioners at regional and national level (Scholz et al. 2003).

• 3. Outcomes and follow-ups: The knowledge generated in the process was used by the practitioners involved in their daily business and policy decisions. Based on the AR-study, the Swiss textile industry launched a study to utilize the favorite strategy from the td-process for new business models (Scholz and Kaufmann 2003). Various concrete projects such as a new wastewater treatment plant for the textile industry, new cooperatives for the dairy industry and (cantonal) forest management followed the study. The study allowed for robust scientific publications on sustainable regional wood flows (Binder et al. 2004), business strategies of traditional industries (Scholz and Stauffacher 2007) or the methodology of transdisciplinary case studies (Scholz et al. 2006)

  • References

  • Binder CR et al. (2004) Transition towards improved regional wood flows by integrating material flux analysis and agent analysis: the case of Appenzell Ausserrhoden, Switzerland. Ecol Econ 49(1):1–17

  • Scholz RW (2000) Mutual learning as a basic principle for transdisciplinarity. In: Scholz RW et al (eds) Transdisciplinarity: joint problem-solving among science, technology and society, Workbook II: Mutual learning sessions. Haffmans Sachbuch, Zürich, pp 13–17

  • Scholz RW, Kaufmann D (2003) Zukunft der Schweizer Textilindustrie. Erkenntnisse einer gesamtschweizerischen Analyse aufbauend auf den Ergebnissen der ETH-UNS Fallstudie 2002, Appenzell Ausserrhoden—Umwelt Wirtschaft

  • Scholz RW et al. (eds) (2003) Appenzell Ausserrhoden Umwelt Wirtschaft Region. ETH-UNS Fallstudie 2002, Zürich: Rüegger und Pabst

  • Scholz RW et al. (2006) Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: historical framework and theory. Int J Sustain Higher Educ 7(3):226–251

  • Scholz RW, Stauffacher M (2007) Managing transition in clusters: area development negotiations as a tool for sustaining traditional industries in a Swiss prealpine region. Environ Planning A 39(10):2518–2539

Appendix: Spotlight 3—The Yen Chau–Hiep Hoa Case Study: Avoiding P Fertilizer Overuse and Underuse in Vietnamese Smallholder Systems

1.1 An Example of How a Transdisciplinary Case Study in the Use Node May be Developed

• Quang B. Le &
• Roland W. Scholz 

1. Fraunhofer Project Group Materials Recycling and Resource Strategies IWKS, Brentanostrasse 2, 63755, Alzenau, Germany

   Roland W. Scholz

2. ETH Zürich, Natural and Social Science Interface (NSSI), Universitaetsstrasse 22, CHN J74.2, 8092, Zürich, Switzerland

   Quang B. Le & Roland W. Scholz

The problem

Globally, unsustainable P fertilizer management challenges for farmers fall primarily into two P use regimes. The first regime is representative of farmers engaged in intensified production to meet the global demand for food. These farmers often apply P fertilizer at higher than recommended rates in order to reduce risks that could limit production. However, if they fail to utilize best soil management practices significant P losses can result from surface water run-off and soil erosion. Included in this group are smallholder farmers engaged in intensified agricultural production of cereals, fruits and vegetables, who often produce two to three crops per year on the same land area. This overuse scenario often occurs in peri- urban agriculture where the smallholder farmers have good access to local traders and markets.

The second regime is characterized by subsistence smallholder farmers who may or may not have access to fertilizers, but cannot afford the inputs. Here P fertilizer is underused, leading to nutrient mining and soil degradation which exacerbates poverty. In both cases, viable options for economically and environmentally efficient P resource use and recycling in smallholder agro-ecosystems require special attention. Vietnam’s smallholder systems in the Red River Delta (fertilizer-overuse, market-oriented) and in the Northwest Mountain Region (fertilizer-underuse, subsistence) will be used as example cases for contrasting two P use regimes.

• 1. Building partnership and Td organization

Science-practice co-leaders from the Province’s People Committees in Son La and Bac Giang provinces, and researchers from science (ETH, University of Zürich etc.) are interested in understanding mechanisms of sustaining traditional industries in rural regions. Jointly, they will decide to run a Td case study and to take co-leadership on equal footing for a td-process. The co-leaders preside over the steering group.

Project groups—Reference groups: The scientific work will take place in project groups spanning the case facets (see session Case Faceting below). The project groups are counterbalanced on the case side with the “so-called” reference groups, which are the committees of stakeholders relevant for the respective case facet (Stauffacher et al. 2008). The reference group regularly meets their corresponding project group to discuss the results and subsequent steps of the work.

Steering group: The group consists of representatives of the scientific disciplines involved in the study topic (e. g., soil and crop scientists, environmental chemists, human-environment system scientists), as well as the representatives of the two provinces. During the problem definition process, representatives of a few (2–3) selected districts/communes will join the steering group. As the study progresses, the steering group will identify additional participants who should be involved in each phase of the project based on the nature of the work (Stauffacher et al. 2008). For this, it seems meaningful/necessary that both locations, i. e., Yen Chau and Hiep Hoa about 12–16 farmers make commitment to be involved in the study and the mutual learning process. These farmers will be key members of the reference groups.

• 2. Joint problem definition

The steering group members (which include the main stakeholder groups) will negotiate and define guiding question, goal and the case areas (system boundaries).

Guiding questions: As a result of science-practice discussion, examples of possible guiding questions could be:

Project year 2013:

What are science-based and society-relevant strategies for P resource use that help improve soil fertility, food productivity and profitability for Vietnamese smallholders of two contrasting P use regimes? What options/pathways/means are available for the transition of current smallholders’ P use to a sustainable use of P?

Goal: Based on these questions, the goal of the case study can be defined so as to provide (strategic) orientations for future development of smallholders regarding P use.

Case definition: The case study should allow to better understand “overuse” and “underuse” of P under certain constraints. The case’s characteristics and contextual factors should allow some generalization for other cases (we are investigating cases for something of general interest). Based on reviewing the existing classification of world farming systems (Dixon et al. 2001), the global pattern of agronomic P balance (MacDonald et al. 2011), and national patterns of climate, soil, demography and land uses, the steering group—presumably interacting with regional case stakeholders—identifies case areas in the Hiep Hoa and Yen Chau districts. Characteristics of these areas are in Table 8. Based on extensive farm survey across the selected areas, a limited number of farms (about 6–8 farms/site) representing major farm types will be selected for further considerations.

Table 8 Regional settings of the two study areas

Case faceting: The goal of faceting is the formulation of a research concept, which is written by the scientists in collaboration with practitioners. Together with the stakeholders, the involved scientists create a general model of smallholder farming system in the two districts with a focus on P use, which allow the application of relevant disciplinary fields and their theories. In order to reduce the complexity and to better analyze the farming practices a ‘faceting’ of the case should be done. Facets (which have to be discussed) could be: ‘Crop-Livestock Production including P fertilizer use and flows’, ‘Household Decision’, and ‘Policy, Finance and Market’. Consequently, three corresponding project groups should be formed. For each case facet, P-use related scientific tasks (subprojects) will be identified. In the presented case, there may be an additional project group which focuses on integrating/synthesizing the results from the subprojects, i. e. the so-called “Integrated Assessment” group. It is expected that the case faceting will jointly identify a couple (common) disciplinary sub-tasks with particularly disciplinary foci, such as:

Crop-livestock production, P fertilizer use and flows

• Current state of P use and cycle in the study of smallholder systems,

• problems in P fertilizer use, P-cycle management with respect to sustaining soil fertility and crop/livestock production,

• potential alternatives for P use technology/practice and (on-farm) recycling

• household decisions,

• social-policy, economic, ecological factors that affect farmers’ decision about nutrient use and management,

• interferences between farmer’s decision-making and other important human agents at higher levels (e. g., provincial department of agriculture and rural development, rural credit agencies, traders).

Policy, finance and market

• Constraints in policy (e. g., subsidy), finance institution (e. g., rural loans/credit institution) and market (e. g., prices of farming inputs and outputs) with respect to smallholder’s P uses,

• potential alternatives for improving these factors.

Integrated Assessment

• Integrated Assessment including conceptual and parameterized system model that integrates the above-mentioned facets,

• scenarios of soil fertility, food productivity & profitability versus P use strategies, evaluation of trade-offs.

• 3. Joint problem representation

System analysis: A special challenge of the td-process is to collaborate with the decision makers and the stakeholders in a way that the system model and what is focused can be understood by all key (practice) case agents. The system model should represent the smallholder agro-ecosystem in a way that all can understand the dynamics of soil fertility and food production in response to changes in P use and other related drivers (e. g., fertilizer subsidies, market prices). The system model will serve as a basis for the construction of case scenarios in the next steps. Moreover, the joint system model construction will result in a shared representation of the constructed case study. This shared constructive aspect should greatly enhance the mutual learning process.

Scenario construction: For each case area, through Td workshops, stakeholders will jointly identify a set of different alternative P use strategies that they would like to evaluate. By means of either the computerized system model or a scientific participatory method so-called “formative scenarios analysis” (Scholz and Tietje 2002), future scenarios of identified outcome variables corresponding to the alternative strategies will be constructed. The scenarios will also be presented in a verbal or visual form that can be understood by the stakeholders and all case agents involved.

• 4. Assessment and preparing for sustainable transitions

The above-mentioned strategies will be evaluated by referring to scientific data to gain insights into trade-offs, e. g., between costs and benefits or environmental impacts and economical cost driven by the alternative strategies. Further and complementary to that, participatory multi-criteria assessment (Scholz and Tietje 2002) will be used. Different stakeholder groups will evaluate the different scenarios. This will serve to identify trade-offs between the stakeholder groups and between different aspects of p-use that may be improved. For each meaningful scenario, tradeoffs (between social, economic and environmental impacts; between different preference systems of stakeholder groups) will be identified. Based on this, a process of mutual understanding will be moderated and consensus can potentially be formed on many issues.

• 5. Outcomes and follow-ups

In the final Td workshops, stakeholders will discuss how the knowledge generated in the process should be used for different societal processes, such as farming practices, policy decisions, sustainability learning in higher education systems, framing of follow-up research activities. As one important follow-up, written products will be prepared both for practice partners (e. g. practice manuals, policy briefs) and scientists (articles in academic journals).

• References

• Dixon J, Gulliver A, Gibbon D (2001) Farming systems and poverty—improving farmers’ livelihoods in a changing world. FAO, Rome and Washington D.C.

• MacDonald GK, Bennett EM, Potter PA, Ramankutty N (2011) Agronomic phosphorus imbalances across the world’s croplands. PNAS 108(7):3086–3091

• Scholz RW, Tietje O (2002) Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

• Stauffacher M, Flüeler T, Krütli P, Scholz RW (2008) Analytic and dynamic approach to collaborative landscape planning: a transdisciplinary case study in a Swiss pre-alpine region. Syst Prac Action Res 21(6):409–422