Глобальный форум по продовольственной безопасности и питанию (Форум FSN)

Этот участник внес свой вклад в:

    • Д-р. Davide Ciceri

      Massachusetts Institute of Technology
      Соединенные Штаты Америки
      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?
      Overall the goals proposed are quite broad, and should appeal to the diversified set of stakeholders that includes governments, fertilizer producers and farmers from different geographical areas. However, one possible concern is that the global nature of the document may make difficult reconciling regional specificities (e.g., fertilizer overuse vs. underuse). It is already anticipated by CoCoFe leadership that The focus is more on discouraging fertilizer overuse whereas a second document, to be developed later, will address scenarios with low or no fertilizer use under the topic of integrated soil fertility management. Perhaps drafting one single document with both global and sub-regional goals may result in a more effective policy.
       
      How should be the CoCoFe be structured to have the maximum positive impact?
      I agree with comments from colleagues presented earlier in this forum. The policy would need to consider at least regional specificities. The overall document should contain goals, general measures to achieve the goals and region-specific measures to implement them. Colleagues have already mentioned the importance to take into account the supply side.
       
      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?
      The global nature of the project makes difficult to identify one specific audience. Producers, governments, extension services and farmers should all be able to access the information in the policy. Sometime NGOs have the best opportunities to implement policies in the field, but they may be driven by targets other than those specified in the objectives. It is important to broaden the appeal of the document to the fertilizers producers. The best possible CoCoFe will not be successful if the fertilizer producers are not part of the implementation strategy. Most of the background problems related to climate change, green processing, heavy metals contaminations etc. can only be resolved if the fertilizer supplier identifies new market opportunities and successful business models stemming from those challenges. Objectives, definitions, language and overall structure of the document should therefore take into account the fertilizer industry.
       
      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?
      Again, if the policy is to be global addressing all inputs would seem more appropriate. On the other hand, organic “inputs” are always going to be subject of debate, as evident also from this forum. In my opinion organic inputs may be useful only in specific local situations, but including them in scientifically sound CoCoFe document would overcomplicate the necessary phrasing and wording. I am not qualified to comment on the relevance of bio-stimulants, inhibitors etc., which I am not sure are traditionally classified as fertilizers. As mentioned by colleagues in this forum, it becomes critical to give an appropriate definition of “fertilizer”, “inputs”, “organic” etc. For CoCoFe to be effective, my suggestion is to  focus strictly on “fertilizers”, leaving aside any products that does not fall into that category. Such products can be address by other documents later.
       
      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?
      That will depend on the consensus achieved on the final draft of CoCoFe, as well as the tools envisaged for the implementation of the policy. It would be useful and interesting to include some sort of measurable quantity or evaluation mechanism to track the progress of the distribution and adoption of CoCoFe.