Phosphorus scenario analyses in the EU-27 food system - Kimo van Dijk


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Phosphorus scenario analyses in the EU-27 food system - Kimo van Dijk

  1. 1. Phosphorus scenario analyses in the EU-27 food system Present and future P flows and dynamics Kimo van Dijk MSc, Wageningen University 2nd Scientific European Phosphorus Workshop, Wageningen, 6 February 2013
  2. 2. Introduction  Phosphorus (P) is essential and non-renewable at human time scale  EU has almost no mineral P sources and dependents on import  Transition towards sustainable use of P is necessary: ● Higher P use efficiency & more/better recycling ● 4R principle is usefull: • Reduce the inputs • Reuse organic P rich materials • Recycle wastes • Redefine and redesign
  3. 3. 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 effects of best management practices (BMPs) on food production and P use efficiency?
  4. 4. Dynamic Food System model  Mass balance principle  Miterra-Europe model  EU-27 at country level, timesteps of a year  Entire food system  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
  5. 5. Dynamic crop P uptake
  6. 6. Dynamic crop P uptake Mitscherlich yield response curve: Puptake= [a – b * exp (-c* Papplication)] * d Crop P Yield Response Types (1=high, 5=low response) CPYRT Crop types CPYRT 1 Vegetables, cut flowers, tree nurseries CPYRT 2 Potatoes, maize CPYRT 3 Sugar beet CPYRT 4 Oil crops, other root crops, legumes, summer cereals, bulb flowers CPYRT 5 Cereals, grassland, fruit tree, citrus trees, olive trees
  7. 7. EU-27 P flow analyses & data  Different sources: Miterra-Europe, CAPRI, FAOSTAT, Eurostat, reports, articles and experts  P flow = physical flow x P content  ‘Top down’ data integration VS ‘bottom up’  Assumptions were necessary P flows in the EU-27 food system for 2005 in Gg P/year, showing the imports (I) , exports (E), losses of and internal upward/downward flows between sectors (indicated with square blocks), the width of the arrows representing the magnitude of the flow.
  8. 8. Scenarios & BMPs  The scenarios are: ● BAU: present (~2005), Business as Usual ● S1: future, no P import via fertilizer, BAU ● S2: future, no P import via fertilizer & feed, BAU ● S3: future, no P import via fertilizer, BMPs ● S4: future, no P import via fertilizer & feed, BMPs  The Best Management Practices (BMPs) are: ● BMP-1: 25 % lower P losses in each sector ● BMP-2: 75 % higher crop P use efficiency  No changes in other drivers and factors, such as population, agricultural area, crop types etc.
  9. 9. Per ha EU-27 crop P uptake per scenario for 2005-2300
  10. 10. Changes in soil P stock per scenario for 2005-2300
  11. 11. Total P import, export, losses and balance per scenario in 2050
  12. 12. Per capita food production & processing P flows per scenario in 2050
  13. 13. Total P in food available per capita per Member State per scenario in 2050
  14. 14. Changes in total P in food per capita in EU- 27 per scenario for 2005-2300
  15. 15. Changes in dry matter crop yield in EU-27 per scenario for 2005-2300
  16. 16. Conclusions  The EU-27 is heavily dependent on the import of P via mineral fertilizer (70%), animal feed (20%) and food products.  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
  17. 17. Thank you for your attention Do you have questions, comments or data? Email: