Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Dear Participants,

I would like to thank each and every one of you for participating and providing your opinion and feedback on the development of a Code of Conduct for the Management of Fertilizers (CoCoFe). We are taking all of your comments into consideration. 

In order to have a better idea of what this code of conduct would be like, please take a look at this link where the same concept is applied to pesticide management: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticid…;

While the two documents will evidently be different due to the nature of the products discussed, does this change some of your responses? Mr. Mulugeta also brought up an important point that should be discussed: What terms and definitions should be included in the CoCoFe?

I have also answered some comments below and would love to hear back from you, keep the discussion going!

Dear Mr. Mulugeta,

The Code of Conduct for Fertilizer Management will provide a framework aimed to guide government regulators, the private sector, civil society and other stakeholders on best practice in managing fertilizers. We believe that this code of conduct will have a beneficial impact on the agricultural sector, but will also have economic and environmental benefits. We therefore hope that through the effective implementation of this code of conduct, we can achieve significant reduction in risks associated with fertilizer use on the environment (which would tackle the points that you mentioned above). I hope that this helps clarify the situation.

Dear Mr. Tinsley,

Thank you for your response, and yes you are right about the code of conduct focusing mostly on the administrative side. The code of conduct will provide a framework that will guide government regulators, the private sector, civil society and other stakeholders on best practice in managing fertilizers. 

I would also like to thank you for the links you shared about the income differences between developed and developing countries, and how these differences can have an impact on the business environment and the tax base for supporting public agricultural services. Your concerns are valid and will be taken into consideration. 

Dear Mr. Darwish,

Thank you for your input. The Code of Conduct for Fertilizer Management will provide a framework aimed to guide government regulators, the private sector, civil society and other stakeholders on best practice in managing fertilizers. While getting input from farmers would be greatly beneficial, they are not the target audience for this document. There will be second planned document that will cover the other concerns. 

Dear Mr. Isingoma,

Thank you for your input, and for your comment about combining objectives 1 and 5. We will be considering your comment. Just to clarify, objective one refers to increasing crop productivity, which in turn would increase global food production. The fifth objective refers to the availability of safe food of expected quality in the markets. 

As mentioned before, the scope of this code of conduct does not permit us to include farmers as the target audience. As Mr. Tinsley mentioned, a code of conduct generally provides us with a framework that would involve the administrative side of fertilizer usage.

Thank you for the rest of your contribution and for pointing out the importance of organic fertilizer in SSA. While utilizing available resources such as organic fertilizers is encouraged and important if proper management practices are used, it is also important to meet the needs of the crops being grown as Mr. Tinsley mentioned. 

Dear Mr. Mohammed,

Thank you for participating in this forum. You mentioned that the objectives might not be relevant for all participating countries. Is there a specific example that you can think of that might need a different set of objectives? 

While this code of conduct might be very general, it is a first step that provides a framework to help in managing and using fertilizers. It would not be country specific. With this information in mind, which nutrient input sources do you think should be included?

Dear Mr. Fuentes,

Thank you very much for your very insightful comments. You mention that the supply side of fertilizers should also be included in the code of conduct, and while we agree on the importance of the matter, we believe that splitting the two issues would be more appropriate. If you look at The International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management linked above, you might get a better idea of what this code of conduct would look like and the kind of information that would be included. With that in mind, do you have any other suggestions? 

Please see my contribution to the CoCoFe consultation below, in the forms of response to the quesions posted on the original note above. 

Thanks.

Given the global scope of the CoCoFe, do you think the objectives are appropriate? If not, how would you add to them or modify them?

In order to make a better judgment on whether the proposed objectives are appropriate, it is necessary to have a clarity on what the goal of the CoCoFe is. A goal can be defined as a broad, general, tangible, and descriptive statement.

With this definition in mind, I can presume that the CoCoFe goal, is “to promote the responsible and judicious use of fertilizers”. If this is the goal of CoCoFe, it seems to be narrowly focused on the use (demand side) of fertilizer, while the stated objectives, specially 3 and 4, related to environmental and health impact, have also mining, production and processing implications; also, 4 is directly related to fertilizer production and beneficiation. The CoCoFe “goal” as stated, with the “aim of assisting member countries design policies and regulatory frameworks for the sustainable use of fertilizers”, would place the regulatory burden on the use (demand side) of fertilizer while neglecting the negative externalities resulting from mining, production and other activities along the supply and value chain, reflected on environmental contamination and negative impact on human health.

Consequently, I suggest to make a small change to the CoCoFe goal to be stated as:  “to promote the responsible and judicious supply and use of fertilizers” where supply embraces the activities of [domestic] production (including mining), processing, blending and all other value added activities along the supply chain; and, demand would include the needs of fertilizer or nutrient sources as feedstock at each stage of the value chain, perhaps emphasizing on the last stage of the supply-demand chains: the agricultural producer/farmer as final user of fertilizer.

Based on the proposed CoCoFe goal of “promoting the responsible and judicious supply and use of fertilizers”, the underlying objectives could be:

1. maintaining a sustainable and environmentally friendly [domestic] fertilizer industry to supply increasing needs of global agriculture to produce more and safe food;
2. Increasing the efficient beneficiation of fertilizer nutrient sources (i.e., phosphate rock, potash(?)) and improve production processes to reduce the negative environmental externalities and improve the quality of fertilizer products;
3. maximizing the efficient use of nutrients fertilizer to enhance sustainable agriculture production;
4. minimizing the effect of nutrients losses via volatilization to the atmosphere (greenhouse gas emissions), runoff and leaching into surface water streams and underground waters, with negative human health and environmental consequences;
5. minimizing the human health hazard related to pollutants and heavy metals in fertilizers, to improve food safety;

Alternatively, these objectives could be narrowed down to 3, as follows:

1. Maintaining a sustainable and environmentally friendly [domestic] fertilizer industry to supply the increasing needs of global agriculture to produce more and safe food.
2. maximizing the efficient beneficiation of fertilizer nutrient sources (phosphoric rock and potash(?)) and improve production processes while minimizing the negative externalities related to environmental contamination and eliminating pollutants such as heavy metals to improve fertilizers quality;
3. maximizing the efficient use of nutrients fertilizer to enhance sustainable agriculture production while  minimizing nutrients losses via volatilization to the atmosphere (greenhouse gas emissions), runoff and leaching into surface water streams and underground waters with negative human health and environmental consequences;

How should be the CoCoFe be structured to have the maximum positive impact?

CoCoFe should be structure in strata according to the different stages of production, supply and demand of fertilizer. Although this stratification can vary from country to country, it is possible to identify a generic supply-demand chain, from production to consumption, which would be applicable to almost any country. The stratification would resemble a cone, starting with general to specifics codes, where the codes of the top strata in the “cone” are applicable to the stratum below. Depending on how a country supply-demand chain is structured, the CoCoFe could start being applied at any strata below the top on the “cone”.

For example, the first stratum of CoCoFe could focus on the production of fertilizer, applicable to those countries with endowed resources to produce fertilizer (natural gas for producing nitrogen based fertilizer, phosphate rock and potash mines). Another stratum could be elaborated to be applicable to the transformation/processing fertilizer industry including blending. Successive strata can be importers, blenders, wholesalers, retailers and consumer or farmers.

On the same talking, for the current consultation to “better mold the future of fertilizer use globally”, must also include the different strata, perhaps in a simultaneous but separate consultation to make the CoCoFe more relevant and effective, otherwise it run the risk of facing resistance at the moment of adoption and implementation at one of more stratum.

Who would be the best audience for the CoCoFe to meet our objectives and how could we broaden and diversify this audience to increase its influence?

In addition to the players in the different stratum mentioned above, it is important to include government officials, specially technocrats and perhaps academicians and the scientific community, specifically those that are working or have worked and relate directly to the players in the different stratum and along the supply and demand sides of the fertilizer market.

What should the scope of the CoCoFe be? Which nutrient input sources should be included; only synthetic fertilizers, or also manure, biosolids, compost, etc.? Should other products such as bio-stimulants, nitrification inhibitors, urease inhibitors, etc., be included as well?

I believe the scope of the CoCoFe should be inorganic nutrient sources/fertilizer since given their physical and chemical characteristics, facilitate standardization and regulation, as compared to inorganic nutrient sources.

Considering the multi-sources of organic nutrients and the erratic nutrient content, depending on the organic sources, it makes it difficult to standardize organic materials as source of nutrients, and therefore regulate it. Organic material should be seen first and foremost, as soil amendment to improve the soil structure to increase microbial activity, water retention and cationic exchange, which facilitate the absorption of nutrients by the plant root; and secondary, perhaps as a not too important source of nutrients supply to the soil and the plants. Nutrient content of inorganic material can be considered a positive externality; therefore, supplementary to inorganic sources, not as the main source of nutrients. This topic of organic nutrient sources has been widely discussed by others in this forum during the past few days.

Perhaps organic nutrient sources will required other “CoCoOrgFe” in the future as the industry matures.

With respect to the use of bio-stimulants, nitrification inhibitors, urease inhibitors, etc., I believe they should be part of the discussion and the CoCoFe, since they can help improve nutrient use efficient and help achieve the stated environmental and perhaps the human hazards objectives.

Will the CoCoFe assist in promoting responsible and judicious use of fertilizers? Why or why not? What other suggestions do you have to help the CoCoFe meet our objectives?

Yes, CoCoFe has the potential to promote the responsible and judicious use of fertilizers, but only if the right audience, as discussed before, are brought into the discussion and plenty of time is spent in socializing the CoCoFe among the different stakeholders, which make take different rounds of discussions at different levels and years before the CoCofe comes to fruition and starts being implemented.

Additional comments:

1. The noted statement “The CoCoFe is not designed to provide specific recommendations on field applications of fertilizers, i.e. rates, placement, timing, etc…” is not congruent with the statement “The [CoCoFe] focus is more on discouraging fertilizer overuse” and with some of the stated objectives, especially 2, 3 and 4; the ones related to maximizing efficiency of nutrient fertilizer use and minimizing environmental contamination and the negative effeect on human health. All these are directly related to the 4R of nutrient stewardship, with direct implication to the application of fertilizer by farmers. Therefore it is suggested to revise the objectives or the noted statement should be eliminated or modified to make it clearer.
2. Although we can presume the audience of CoCoFe has a good technical knowledge and background on fertilizer, it is important to start a discussion of "terms and definitions” to be included in the CoCoFe. For example what is considered organic fertilizer and inorganic fertilizer? What are bio-stimulants? Etc.
3. It is important to beware that the regulatory burden from the adoption of CoCoFe, has the potential to impact on the cost of supplying and using fertilizer. This has higher implications for developing countries such as in SSA, considering that in these countries fertilizer production is almost non-existent and its use is low to negligible due to its high transaction costs along the international and domestic supply chains. Therefore, hindering or countering the efforts of international organizations and governments programs aimed at reducing the cost of fertilizer at retail.

I have reviewed presentations of the following scientists, while giving my views/ideas to them on some selected points  thanks:

• Pradip DeyICAR-AICRP (STCR), Indian Institute of Soil Science, BhopalIndia ''The critical limit of exchangeable K varies for soil to soil and crop to crop although K-rating limits are irrespective of crops or soils. Moreover, supply of soil K to plants is a complex phenomenon involving dynamic equilibrium among its various chemical forms''.
• Andrew comment: This means that for adequate usage of k supply, one must consider variations in soil because different agro-ecological zones have different soils. therefore; CocoFer have to consider country different way of fertilizer handling.

From the attachment of the document presented by:

• Dick Tinsley Colorado State UniversityUnited States of America, the first paragraph says that:  ''One of the aspects in promoting more sustainable agriculture for smallholders in developing countries is to promote enhanced nutrient cycling by relying on organic sources of plant nutrients''. the papers goes on to explain the inconveniencies and strong disadvantages of using organic fertilizers, and bulky solid plant materials in banana plantation illustrating misuse and heaviness of using organic fertilizer.
• Andrew comment: i strongly agree with the consern and inconveniencies presented by Dick T. USA; in the two attached documents; it caused me to have a look on advantages and disadantages of using organic and chemical fertilizers, and i learned that one must consider both sides (advantage and disadvantage), not just biasing on one fact.  Also there must be extention agronomists advising farmers the plactice of using fertilizers (chemical or organic fertil).
• Dick Tinsley ''My concern is based on most host governments being financially stalled, with poorly paid civil officers and virtually no operating funds. The result could be testing of fertilizer quality being mostly on the honor/graduity system and access to limited supply of fertilizer requiring some informal payments to gain access''.
• Andrew comment: i gree, with this consern and advise that the cocofer must consider financial aspects of most countries especially developing countries, this means that; before implementing cocofer into action; survies research must be done from selected countries conserning country ideas on how fertilizers (organic and chemical) are being used, aswell  farmers accessibility.
• I request to have a look on the concern presented by Dr. Amanullah Department of Agronomy, The University of Agriculture PeshawarPakistan ''On phosphatic fertilizers P2O5 is written on bags but the recommendations for growers is in the for of P not P2O5. The fertilizers industries just deceived the uneducated farmers in developing countries. I mean if the fertilizers industries write P on the bags insteadof P2O5 the amount percent on bags will decrease and the growers will know the actual amount of P. Likewise the problem of K2O on bags deceived farmers for K required in the form of MOP and SOP''.
• Andrew comment: This concern is very genuine; and it implies that labeling and the content is different, the needed element is very little being engulfed in un needed materials, which cause farmers to pay alot of money un necessarily, we can say; the cocofer must consider farmers losses and fartilizer manufacturers, giving fertilizer standadizations and genuine content inside ''matiere ajuva".
• Talal Darwish National Center for Remote Sensing-CNRS Lebanon; To promote responsible and judicious use of fertilizers, CoCOFe must be presented in friendly and simple way, accessible to decision makers, farmers, housekeepers with possibility of controling food quality and tracing back. I suggest to encourage MS to carry the assessment and mapping of soil fertility, soil and water quality, landuse planning based on land quality and suitability to promote multifunctional landuse only on soils with low background values of heavy metals and absence of pesticide residues and high concentration of nitrates and nitrites.
• Andrew comment: i have realised that most suggestions from different people, have some points in common about fertilizer amendiments, from the above point, i suggest cocofer managers must prepare survey and carry out soil assessment atlist few countries from every continent grobaly.
• Dr. Amanullah Department of Agronomy, The University of Agriculture PeshawarPakistan ''When applying 120 kg/hm2 N source, 75% N from urea + 25% N from organic source resulted in higher YC and GY in 2011, while applying 50% N from urea + 50% N from organic sources caused higher YC and GY in 2012. Therefore, the combined application of N sources in the form of urea + organic source can produce good performances in terms of higher YC and GY of rice under rice-wheat cropping system''.
• Andrew comment: do you know that i did this experiment in 2012; and i fount that mixing organic and chemical fertilizers (NPK),  do better in maize field than sole chemical fertilizer (NPK), the higher grain yield were obtained in fertilizer mixtures than the sole application. This is simply because the dissociation of sole chemical fertilizer were direct and can be finished from the soil by weeds and crops together, but the dissociation of organic fert. is progressive, this means that though it is on small amount, it is keept present in the soil, the progressiveness of organic fertilizer keeps availability of required nutrients at a prolonged period than chemical fertilizer only.
• CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING
• I dont mean that organic fertilizer can replace chemical fertilizer, but i mean that the fore can be the assistant of the latter once the latter is absent or once farmers have no accessiblity.
• In developing countries we dont need a lot of machinery to recycle plant remains to make organic fertilizer, farmers make organic in simple and local way and it help them
• farmers only need local agronomists (abafashamyumvire) and help them to recycle the plant remains, most farmers are not able to buy chemical, and they use organic, here we dont mean that organic fertilizer replace chemical fertilizer.
• Farmers not need lorries and other machines to trasport organic, they trasport by themselves, please the cocofer must not base only on the big farming systems/ modernity/machinery, or big plantations, also consider small subsistance farming systems.

I request to view this Papers: very important

1.THE COMBINED USE OF CHEMICAL AND ORGANIC FERTILIZERS AND/OR BIOFERTILIZER FOR CROP GROWTH AND SOIL FERTILITY

   Jen-Hshuan Chen Department of Soil and Environmental Sciences, National Chung Hsing University 250 Kuo-Kuang Road, Taichung. Taiwan ROC.

2. Soil ferility and organic fertilizers in organic farming

Ivan Manolov 1 (Agricultural University, Plovdiv),

Ardian Maci 2 (Agricultural University of Tirana)

3. 52-Hidayat GY and YC-Rice Science-2016.pdf

Dear All,

Good day!

Management of Potassium (K) bearing fertilisers requires to consider the following approach:

Balancing external application of potassium (K) fertilizers and utilization of soil reserve K is an important aspect of plant K-nutrition as rapid depletion of soil reserve K has negative consequences on soil quality and crop productivity. The critical limit of exchangeable K varies for soil to soil and crop to crop although K-rating limits are irrespective of crops or soils. Moreover, supply of soil K to plants is a complex phenomenon involving dynamic equilibrium among its various chemical forms. The K response in vertisols is often anomalous. These limits in Vertisols are not only higher but differ considerably from crop to crop and location to location. It was found the range of critical limit as 451-799 kg/ha, the lowest being for oilseed crops and highest for vegetable crops. The critical limits obtained from LTFE experiments is at around 315 kg K/ha for some Vertisols. The higher critical limits from soil test crop response experiments are because of the higher yield targets taken in calculating the critical limits. Such higher yield targets are seldom obtained in LTFE trials. Also, there is a difference in the way the calculations are made. The critical limit for rice is 553 kg/ha (range 250-796 kg/ha). There is ample opportunity to increase rice yield in Vertisols if K fertilization is done based on soil test. Experiments done under AICRP (STCR) have shown that the fertilizer K requirement is 34 kg K2O/ha at a soil test value of 350 kg/ha for achieving the yield target of 50-60 q/ha for rice, and this requirement changes to 26 kg, and 19 kg if the soil test values are 400, and 450 kg/ha, respectively. Wheat requires almost similar K fertilization as rice. The K fertilizer requirement for maize crop is much less though. It is only 16 kg K2O/ha at a soil test value of 400 kg/ha and 11 kg K2O/ha at a soil test value of 350 kg/ha. The recommendations for cotton is 38 kg K2O/ha. The K requirement is very high in Maharashtra, and almost nil in Karnataka. Such results are difficult to interpret only on the basis of exchangeable K. Vertisols have also been categorized on the basis of non-exchangeable K content.

With warm regards,

Pradip Dey

Hello,

I have the following opinion as far as CoCoFe is concerned.

This online consultation, through a series of questions, invites you to address the following: · Given the global scope of the CoCoFe, do you think the objectives are appropriate? If not, how would you add to them or modify them?

The objectives are appropriate. These objectives may not relevant for all participating countries. So, country by country prioritization of the objectives is important.

How should be the CoCoFe be structured to have the maximum positive impact?

Learning from other countries strength/weakness and incorporate the impacts to convince officials will have sustainable impact by advising the agricultural departments or ministries or national agricultural research system in a country.

Who would be the best audience for the CoCoFe to meet our objectives and how could we broaden and diversify this audience to increase its influence?

There could conflict of interest bringing different stakeholders in this kind of structure. The member should be neutral public organizations funded by the public and responsible for the whole society. Researchers including extension and policy makers might be enough as member of the CoCoFe.

What should the scope of the CoCoFe be? Which nutrient input sources should be included; only synthetic fertilizers, or also manure, biosolids, compost, etc.? Should other products such as bio-stimulants, nitrification inhibitors, urease inhibitors, etc., be included as well?

Nutrient sources should be based on country by country case. Nutrient recycling should be encouraged first if available. Energy source is required to use compost and biosolids. The use of inhibitors needs more research since their effectiveness depends on several factors.

Will the CoCoFe assist in promoting responsible and judicious use of fertilizers? Why or why not? What other suggestions do you have to help the CoCoFe meet our objectives?

I believe it can contribute for judicious use of fertilizers through research and extension. Availing credit and determining minimum price for crop yields particularly in developing countries will help for better use of fertilizer that can contribute to feed the world and enhance carbon sequestration. There is experience when farmers grow same crop and produce more yield per ha but at the end of the day the price of the produce was not able to cover the cost. This can discourage use of inputs and starvation on the next season. There should be something in this line how farmers can get profit and cover their cost to encourage them to use inputs sustainably.

Thank you letting me participate in an effort to feed the people and to protect the environment.

Yesuf

English translation below

La gestion des engrais doit être confiée à un comité national et local. Le comité national doit comprendre au moins sept personnes :

• 1 représentant du ministère de l'agriculture,
• 1 représentant du ministère de la santé,
• 1 représentant du ministère du commerce,
• 1 représentant des paysans,
• 1 représentant des ONG nationales,
• 1 représentant des femmes,
• 1 représentant des jeunes.

Le comité local doit comprendre 5 membres :

• 1 représentant des services agricoles,
• 1 représentant des paysans,
• 1 représentant des jeunes,
• 1 représentant des ONG locales,
• 1 représentante des femmes.

Un calendrier de gestion doit être confiée aux comités installés qui ne doivent inscrire leur travail que dans un cadre commun et participatif.

Fertilizer management should be entrusted to a national and local committee. The National Committee must have a minimum of seven members:

1 representative of the Ministry of Agriculture,

1 representative from the Ministry of Health,

1 representative of the Ministry of Commerce,

1 representative of peasants,

1 representative of national NGOs,

1 representative of women,

1 youth representative.

The work place committee must have 5 members:

1 representing agricultural services,

1 representative of peasants,

1 youth representative,

1 representative of local NGOs,

1 women's representative.

A management calendar should be entrusted to the established committees, which should only work within a common and participatory framework.

After reviewing Andrew's comments I have to put in a note of concern regarding the emphasis on Organic Fertilizer. There are 2 main concerns one is the volume of organic material available to make organic fertilizer relative to the potential demand. I fear you can only meet a very small fraction of total need through organic material. The second concern is the labor required to collect process and redistribute organic fertilizers, the caloric energy this will require, and will that energy be recovered by the higher yields. I seriously doubt it. Please review the following webpages including links to other pages:

http://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/organic-source-of-nut…

http://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/calorie-energy-balanc…

Thank you,

Dick

Dear Global scientists, I request to present the:

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE DEVELOPING THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF FERTILIZERS, On the attachment below.

On phosphatic fertilizers P2O5 is written on bags but the recommendations for growers is in the for of P not P2O5. The fertilizers industries just deceived the uneducated farmers in developing countries. I mean if the fertilizers industries write P on the bags instead of P2O5 the amount percent on bags will decrease and the growers will know the actual amount of P. Likewise the problem of K2O on bags deceived farmers for K required in the form of MOP and SOP. 

MY CONCERN IS ALSO ABOUT AMMONIUM SULPHATE AND CAN HAVING LESS NITROGEN. BUT THE PRICE OF AMMONIUM SULHATE AND CAN IS HIGHER THAN UREA IS NOT JUSTICE WITH THE GROWERS. IN PAKISTAN THE GOVERNMENT FERTILIZERS INDUSTRY PRICE WAS 50% LESS THAN THE PRIVATE INDUSTRY FERTILIZERS. PRIVITAZATION OF FERTILIZERS INDUSTRY FURTHER INCREASED THE COST OF PRODUCTION AND NEGATIELY AFFECTED YIELD DUE TO HIGHER FERTILIZERS COST. ADULTEATION OF FERTIZERS IS ALSO A BIG PROBLEM. THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY IS TO CHECK THE FERTILIZERS AND HELP THE GROWERS. SOME OF THE BIG PEOPLE MIX DIFFERENT LOW QUALITY FERTILIZERS AND MAKE THEIR OWN NPK FERTILIZERS OF LOW QUALITY. IN NORTHWEST PAKISTAN THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY GIVE K FERTILIZERS AT HIGHER PRICE TO THE GROWES OTHERWISE THEY WILL NOT BUY THE TOBACCO FROM GROWERS. 

THANKS 

AMANULLAH AGRONOMIST PHD 

1. Given the global scope of the CoCoFe, do you think the objectives are appropriate? If not, how would you add to them or modify them?

The objectives are appropriate. But I believe beside policy makers and regulations we should also include and address farmers as fertilizer users to provide capacity building.

2. How should be the CoCoFe be structured to have the maximum positive impact?

It should include the food security issues, public health problems; environment related aspects of nutrient buildup, leaching, migration with erosion-sedimentation, ground water pollution, fertilizer quality and byproducts. It can also include the integrated soil fertility and productivity assessment and management with the concept of balanced state of nutrient in relation to soil and water pools, health hazards, environmental and economic aspects of fertilizer application.

3. Who would be the best audience for the CoCoFe to meet our objectives and how could we broaden and diversify this audience to increase its influence?

Address also farmers, associations and cooperatives of farmers, consumers notably gender, students at all levels (with simplified stories for children and more complicated booklets or leaflets for middle and high schools). Even the university disciplines not related to soil and irrigation/plant production must go through curricula related to food security/fertilizer application interaction and interface with special attention to public health and environmental protection.

4. What should the scope of the CoCoFe be? Which nutrient input sources should be included; only synthetic fertilizers, or also manure, biosolids, compost, etc.? Should other products such as bio-stimulants, nitrification inhibitors, urease inhibitors, etc., be included as well?

Yes in the view of balanced plant nutrition, all these aspects should be included plus the physical ameliorators of water content in the soil as fertilizers and salts might also concentrate in these "polymers" at the depth of their application and create salinity problems.

5. Will the CoCoFe assist in promoting responsible and judicious use of fertilizers? Why or why not? What other suggestions do you have to help the CoCoFe meet our objectives?

To promote responsible and judicious use of fertilizers, CoCOFe must be presented in friendly and simple way, accessible to decision makers, farmers, housekeepers with possibility of controling food quality and tracing back. I suggest to encourage MS to carry the assessment and mapping of soil fertility, soil and water quality, landuse planning based on land quality and suitability to promote multifunctional landuse only on soils with low background values of heavy metals and absence of pesticide residues and high concentration of nitrates and nitrites.