Present and future phosphorus use in Europe: food system scenario analyses Kimo van Dijk Oene Oenema & Jan Peter Lesschen Wageningen University, kimo.vandijk@wur.nl Soil Quality staff meeting, Wageningen, Netherlands, 2 October 2014
Overview Phosphorus (P) cycling & challenge Present P flows in Europe Sustainable P use options in society Dynamic food system model Future P use scenario analyses Summary & conclusions
Geological versus anthropogenic cycles Inputs [90% fertilizer, and other mineral P use] Anthropogenic cycle Society Consumers Industry & retail Losses RESOURCE RESERVES Crops Animals Nonfood Direct IMPACTS SINKS Geological cycle
Phoshorus challenge Non-renewable at human time scale Spatially concentrated: geopolitical dependency and tension Relatively low price, but price volatility (2008 case) Lower P-rock quality: decreasing P content impurities (e.g. cadmium, uranium) Pollution and eutrophication Cordell et al. 2009
Phosphorus use in the EU-27 in 2005 Input Flows & stocks in Gg = Mkg = kton P per year Output Detergent, wood, paper & fibers Crops, fish, food products & mineral additives Animal feed, mineral additives & live animals Solid & liquid organic waste Wood, paper & fibers Organic wastes Crops & food products Slaughter residues, solid & liquid waste Live animals Manure losses Mineral fertiliser, seeds & pesticides Soil [150,000] Seeding materials Leaching & runoff
Global fertilizer P consumption 1961-2010 FAOSTAT data 2010
Fertilizer P consumption in EU-27 in 2010 FAOSTAT data 2010
Animal feed P origin in EU-27 in 2005 Source: Miterra-Europe model, CAPRI & FAOSTAT data 2003-2005
Agronomic P balances in the EU Source: Csathó & Radimszky 2012 Estimated cumulative P balances [kg P/ha] of EU countries during 1991 2005 Source: Csathó & Radimszky 2012 Annual regional agricultural P balances [kg P/ha] for EU-15 in 2000
Surplus, kg P 2 O 5 /ha Cumulative surplus, kg P 2 O 5 /ha Average phosphate surplus in Dutch agriculture 1880-2010 90 9000 80 70 Annual Cumulative 8000 7000 60 6000 50 40 30 20 5000 4000 3000 2000 10 0 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020-10 -1000 Year Target 2015 1000 0 1 kg P = 2.29 kg P 2 O 5 Ehlert et al. 2011
Domestic food P supply [kg/ca/year] Domestic food P supply in EU-27 in 2005 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 Domestic food P supply necessary to fullfill human dietary P intake requirements at consumption level Animal Plant Maximum P intake level 0.8 0.6 0.4 Mean EU P intake 0.2 Minimum P intake requirement 0 Van Dijk et al. (in preparation)
Reuse of organic waste in EU-27 in 2005 Based on Barth et al. 2008
Sludge destinations in EU-27 in 2010 Source: P-Rex, FP7 project, www.p-rex.eu; based on Eurostat 2010, Milieu Ltd 2010 & Destatis 2011
P concentrations in rivers and lakes in EU regions, period 1990-2005 Source: European Environment Agency, 2007
Potential phosphorus losses in society Three types of potential P losses: Sequestration: incineration, landfilling, co-firing or use in the cement industry Accumulation: in agricultural soils or the environment Export: flows with unclear destinations Avoidable and unavoidable losses Point and diffuse sources Direct and indirect actors
Transition towards sustainable P use Realign P inputs Reduce P losses to water remove non-essential P inputs (e.g. detergents) match P requirements more closely (precision agriculture) utilise legacy P stores optimise input management minimise runoff and erosion strategic retention zones Recycle P in bioresources avoid wastage improve utilization efficiency adopt integrated production systems Recover P in wastes recover P in societies' wastes produce fertilizer substitutes Redefine P in the food chain influence dietary choice define end-user P requirements re-connect crop and animal production systems Withers, Van Dijk, et al. (submitted)
P recycling potential in EU-27 [Gg P/year] Total Recycled Potential Sewage sludge 297 115 182 Biodegradable solid waste 130 38 92 Meat & bone meal 128 6 122 Total (minimum) 427 153 274 Total (maximum) 555 160 396 Mineral fertiliser use 1448 Manure use 1763 Van Dijk et al. (in preparation)
EU-27 P use scenario analyses
Objectives & research questions To develop a dynamic model for the analysis of the effects of changes in drivers and nutrient management strategies on P dynamics in the food chain. What would be the P dynamics & food production in EU- 27 in case of a stop of P import via Q1: mineral fertilizers? Q2: mineral fertilizers and animal feed? Q3: What are the effects of nutrient management & best management practices (BMPs)?
Dynamic Food System model Mass balance principle Data: Miterra-Europe, CAPRI, FAOSTAT, Eurostat, reports, articles and experts EU-27 at country level, timesteps of one year Entire food system + non-food P imports, exports, losses and internal flows Flows described dynamically as function of sector input Crop P uptake as function of soil P stock and P application
Dynamic crop P uptake
Dynamic crop P uptake Mitscherlich yield response curve: P uptake = [a b * exp (-c* P application )] * d Crop P Yield Response Types (1=high, 5=low response) Crop types CPYRT 1 Vegetables, cut flowers, tree nurseries CPYRT 2 Potatoes, maize CPYRT 3 Sugar beet Oil crops, other root crops, legumes, summer cereals, bulb CPYRT 4 flowers CPYRT 5 Cereals, grassland, fruit tree, citrus trees, olive trees
Scenarios & best management practices The scenarios are: BAU: present (~2005), Business as Usual S1: no P import via fertilizer S2: no P import via fertilizer + compound feed S3: as S2 + BMPs The best management practices (BMPs) are 90 % less: biowaste + waste water P losses (HC) forestry sector losses (NF) slaughter waste losses (FP) stable manure losses (AP) No changes in other drivers and factors, such as population, agricultural area, crop types etc.
2005 2030 2055 2080 2105 2130 2155 2180 2205 2230 2255 2280 Average crop P uptake [kg P/ha/year] Per ha EU-27 crop P uptake per scenario for 2005-2300 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 50 % 25 % BAU SI S2 S3 Van Dijk et al. (in preparation)
2005 2030 2055 2080 2105 2130 2155 2180 2205 2230 2255 2280 Average soil P stock [kg P/ha/year] Per ha EU-27 soil P stock per scenario for 2005-2300 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 BAU SI S2 S3 0 Van Dijk et al. (in preparation)
France Lithuania Luxembourg Ireland Germany Sweden United Kingdom Belgium Czech Republic Italy Bulgaria Malta Denmark Greece Estonia Spain Romania Netherlands Portugal Finland Slovakia Poland Austria Latvia Hungary Cyprus Slovenia Per capita food P supply per Member State per scenario in 2050 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 BAU S1 S2 S3 0.2 0 Van Dijk et al. (in preparation)
2005 2030 2055 2080 2105 2130 2155 2180 2205 2230 2255 2280 Average food P supply [kg P/ha/year] Changes in per capita food P supply in EU-27 per scenario for 2005-2300 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 BAU SI S2 S3 0.2 0 Van Dijk et al. (in preparation)
2005 2030 2055 2080 2105 2130 2155 2180 2205 2230 2255 2280 Average dry matter yield [kg P/ha/year] Changes in dry matter crop yield in EU-27 per scenario for 2005-2300 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 50 % 33 % BAU SI S2 S3 0 Van Dijk et al. (in preparation)
Conclusions for the present state Europe is largely dependent on P imports via: Mineral fertilizers (60%), animal feed & additives (20%), food (10%) & non-food materials (10%) Ongoing P accumulation in agricultural soils, especially in western Europe by P surplusses Various recycling rates, generally low (except manure): Sewage sludge P recycling ranging from 0-90% Compost P re-use ranging from 0-70% Significant P losses via: Waterways: sewage discharge, leaching & erosion Sequestration: incineration, landfilling, infrastructure High potential to improve P use efficiency
Conclusions for future scenarios Soil P is an important stock to take into account in P dynamics, because of its buffering capacity and large size (~150.000 Gg P) A stop on P fertilizer import has a large effect on food production, mainly on the longer term A stop on P import via fertilizer and animal feed makes the effect even more pronounced, causing a larger and earlier drop in food production The effects can be mitigated by the implementation of best management practices in nutrient management Additional data is necessary, especially for downscaling to the regional level
Thank you for your attention Questions? Comments? Suggestions? kimo.vandijk@wur.nl