Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Consultative communication on the sustainable use of phosphorus’ COM(2013) 517 final
Date: 2014-01-21
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: environmental impact, phosphorus, pollution control, security of supply, supply and demand, supply balance sheet, sustainable agriculture








C_2014177EN.01007801.xml










11.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 177/78





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Consultative communication on the sustainable use of phosphorus’
COM(2013) 517 final
(2014/C 177/14)
Rapporteur: David SEARS

On 8 July 2013 the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Consultative communication on the sustainable use of phosphorus

COM(2013) 517 final.
The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 January 2014.
At its 495th plenary session, held on 21 and 22 January 2014 (meeting of 21 January), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 155 votes in favour with 4 abstentions.
1.   Summary and conclusions









1.1


This Consultative Communication forms part of a wider debate on how the EU can maintain supplies of critical raw materials in a cost-effective and environmentally acceptable manner for both manufacture and the support of animal and human life in an increasingly populated and competitive globalised world. It provides a well-informed, balanced and sufficient summary of the situation applying to the import and usage of phosphorus-based products, for the production of food stuffs and other essential applications.












1.2


The Commission poses 11 questions to which the EESC provides answers and specific recommendations. The EESC notes the contribution being made by the European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform (ESPP) and likely to result from the work of the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) on agricultural productivity and sustainability. The EESC endorses these initiatives and trusts that their work will be put to good use.












1.3


The EESC commends this approach which, as the Commission notes, is not necessarily aimed at producing specific legislation. Asking the right questions and ensuring that the right data are available to allow others to make better informed decisions may be more appropriate. Best practices must be identified and well communicated to allow others to follow.












1.4


This may require short term market support for new technologies and, where necessary, longer term regulatory support for changes agreed to be essential. Targets for phosphorus stewardship and recycling are likely to be helpful; implementation at national level should be left to those more closely concerned.




2.   Introduction









2.1


Phosphorus is an element essential for life. It can be recycled indefinitely but cannot be replaced. It is widely distributed in the earth’s crust but workable reserves of phosphate rock are concentrated in just a few countries, all but one of these (Finland) being outside the EU.












2.2


Waste products including bio-solids from plants, animals and humans all contain phosphorus; these are recycled to land use to varying degrees to aid waste disposal and to feed crops. Some areas have a surplus, seeing this as a problem leading to deterioration in water quality and eutrophication (growth of vegetation due to an excess of nutrients); others have a deficit and cannot achieve high crop yields. Changing concentrations of people and animals exacerbate these difficulties.












2.3


Problems and opportunities arising from the above received little attention for the first 50 years of phosphate rock usage. Supplies seemed adequate; prices remained stable and low; crop and animal yields soared. In 2008 this changed abruptly. China, seeing a potential domestic shortage, imposed a tax on exports; world prices rose dramatically; food prices were affected; the possibility of ‘peak phosphorus’ having already occurred was mooted.












2.4


Two years later world reserves were re-estimated and increased ten-fold and the problem seemed to vanish, although doubts about the true state of affairs were reinforced. Whatever else, it was time to start asking serious questions.




3.   Responses to questions

3.1   Do you consider that security of supply issues for the EU in relation to the distribution of phosphate rock are a matter of concern? If so, what should be done to engage with producing countries in order to tackle these issues?









3.1.1


Phosphate rock is the primary source of phosphorus to increase crop yields and animal growth and thereby to sustain ever larger populations. Known reserves are concentrated in a few countries. Only those with a marked surplus over their own needs are likely to export. Only a small part (16%) of the tonnage extracted is believed to be traded (Rosemarin & Jensen, European Sustainable Phosphorus Conference, March 2013). Many of the supplying countries are regarded as politically vulnerable. The market is not fully transparent or perfectly functioning. The EU is not self-sufficient and has lost jobs as the production of finished products (fertilisers and phosphorus-based chemicals) has moved to the supplying countries.












3.1.2


This can only be answered on a global basis; if one populous and/or rich high demand country perceives itself to be at risk with regard to the supply of raw materials, including food, then all countries or regions dependent on imports are put at risk. This applies equally to the goods manufactured from the raw materials. Any study must take this into account, in particular where manufacturing patterns have changed and primary demand now lies outside the EU.












3.1.3


The answer to the first question is clearly ‘yes’. The challenge is to find cost-effective ways to increase self-sufficiency. Developments following the 700% price hike in 2008 proved valuable. Although prices have fallen since then, an awareness of ongoing risks has helped stimulate investment throughout the supply chain. Raising awareness of environmental impacts at all stages of the supply chain, and understanding how to minimise these in a cost-effective manner, are equally important. Commission support for research and involvement of stakeholder groups via the EIP and ESPP will be vital.












3.1.4


75% of known reserves are in Morocco and Western Sahara (Rosemarin & Jensen, European Sustainable Phosphorus Conference, March 2013). Exports from Morocco dominate world trade. Others supplying the EU include Tunisia and Syria. Russia is a major supplier of rock and finished products. Jordan and Egypt export large quantities. The incentives to strengthen neighbourhood and other bi-lateral treaties are obvious.












3.1.5


This topic has been discussed fully in a recent EESC Opinion ‘Securing essential imports for the EU — through EU trade and related policies’ (1), adopted in October 2013. The need for a coherent, collaborative, holistic, data-based, timely, politically aware and tactically delivered approach across the institutions of the EU on behalf of the Member States is also obvious.




3.2   Is the supply and demand picture presented here accurate? What could the EU do to encourage the mitigation of supply risks through, i.e., the promotion of sustainable mining or the use of new mining techniques?









3.2.1


The EESC supports the Commission in using the current, post 2010, data on supply — and, broadly speaking, on demand, however all must be regarded as ‘indicative’ rather than ‘accurate’. It seems to the EESC highly unlikely, given that known reserves represent less than 1 ppm of the total phosphorus in the earth’s crust, that all the aggregated and exploitable reserves have been discovered — and even more unlikely that extraction and recovery techniques will not improve further. Demand can be reduced by continuing the process of removal from detergents and by more efficient use in fertilisers or by moving to low-meat diets or stabilising populations.












3.2.2


Given the many variables and uncertainties over actual reserves, it is difficult to see that ‘Hubbert curves’ and predictions of ‘peak phosphorus’ are likely to be helpful tools for forecasting in the short term.












3.2.3


The EESC supports technical and financial cooperation with supplying countries to identify new reserves, to reduce the environmental impacts of mining, distribution and processing, to build required infrastructure, including railways and ports, and to increase the degree of local processing to higher added value fertiliser products.












3.2.4


This does not however affect the primary aims of EU policy on phosphorus — to increase self-sufficiency inside the EU and to mitigate the effects of over-use. Improved data on flows within the EU, in particular in Member States where demand is rising, will be critical to developing cost-effective practices and policies. Progress towards sustainable food safety will depend on this.




3.3   Do you consider that the information on the worldwide supply and demand of phosphate rock and fertiliser is sufficiently available, transparent and reliable? If not, what would be the best way to obtain more transparent and reliable information at EU and global level?









3.3.1


World wide data, especially on reserves, are produced by the United States Geological Survey with input from the International Fertilizer Development Center and from other organisations such as the Australian Joint Ore Resources Committee. Given the events of recent years, it can only be hoped that they will improve their performance. The UN Food & Agriculture Organisation has a strong interest in obtaining reliable data; the EU could focus efforts here, including efforts to reduce demand in high consuming countries, essentially in Asia, and supporting the re-assessment of reserves in all supplying countries.












3.3.2


Improved data on demand flows and opportunities to optimise both supply and demand within Europe are also essential; the ESPP provides the most obvious route. Informed and up-to-date input from all affected stakeholders, including Fertilisers Europe, will continue to be critical.




3.4   How should we handle the risk of soil contamination linked to phosphorus use in the EU?









3.4.1


Phosphate deposits contain varying trace quantities of metals, including cadmium, uranium and chromium. These can be removed for food and technical use but the processes are expensive and generate wastes. Common sedimentary deposits contain 25-150 mg Cd/kg P205. Igneous deposits (in Russia, Finland and South Africa) have around 10 mg Cd/kg P205. EU imports are typically low in cadmium, however long term use can lead to a build-up in soil, plants and animals and may therefore constitute a risk to human health. Decadmiation increases costs for farmers in the EU, reducing competitiveness with imported crops where such restrictions do not apply. Phosphate from animal and human waste is low in cadmium but may be contaminated in different ways. The determination of safe levels for all contaminants is therefore critical.












3.4.2


The EESC therefore encourages the Commission to continue and complete all outstanding studies, to undertake new risk assessments where these are required and to make appropriate recommendations, in particular on available decadmiation technologies, costs and applicability to different production routes.












3.4.3


The EESC recognises that farming practices are often localised and may seem imprecise. Technical advice and best practices continue to evolve but are not always well communicated. Change tends to be slow in the absence of strong financial incentives. The sale and use of mixed N, P and K fertilisers does not take into account needs which may vary from field to field. As in other areas, life-long learning is essential.












3.4.4


A move towards ‘precision agriculture’, with greater attention to local needs, availabilities and release patterns, to encompass both natural and synthetic fertilisers, is therefore now essential, with incentives as necessary to encourage change. The EU DGs responsible for both Research and Agriculture will have key roles to play in this process.




3.5   Which technologies have the greatest overall potential to improve the sustainable use of phosphorus? What are the costs and benefits?









3.5.1


Phosphorus is a stable non-radioactive element, and can therefore be recycled and re-used indefinitely. It does not exist significantly in the atmosphere but may be lost by soil erosion or water transfer, generally ending its life on the sea bed. Recovery from inland water systems is being investigated as a step towards purification; recovery for re-use needs more attention.












3.5.2


Sustainable use requires life-cycle analysis (LCA) from ‘mine’ to ‘farm’ to ‘fork’ to ‘sea’. Mineral extraction requires large amounts of energy and water, often in areas short of both. Transport and processing require hydrocarbons and generate greenhouse gases. Current wastage is high; only about 15% of mined phosphorus reaches the food that we eat (Rosemarin & Jensen, European Sustainable Phosphorus Conference, March 2013 quote 20-25%; input from ESPP suggests 15% only). This usage is however essential to life of any sort. The process can be optimised but not replaced.












3.5.3


Non-food usage is different. Domestic detergents can be made without phosphates and usage has been greatly reduced. The diversion of crops to biofuels produces a much bigger threat. Energy costs and benefits at all stages must be better quantified. The EESC has looked at some of the social and economic impacts; a full-scale LCA including phosphorus use is now urgently required and policies adapted where necessary.












3.5.4


In all cases efforts must be made to reduce the consumption of primary phosphorus (new inputs, requiring imports to the EU) and to increase the reuse of organic materials (food, processing wastes and composts) and the safe recycling of phosphorus-rich materials currently regarded as ‘wastes’ (animal and human excreta, water waste and sewage sludge). Uses must be developed for by-products produced during processing.












3.5.5


There is a need to identify appropriate routes to achieve the above and to educate regulators, suppliers, farmers, retailers and their customers to adopt the desired new products and practices. Work is on-going to identify commercially viable solutions. The ESPP and other bodies are working closely with the Commission to bring these to fruition.












3.5.6


The Commission and other institutions, agencies and advisory bodies of the EU should continue to identify legislation that needs either review or better implementation in the light of experience or changing external needs. The whole approach to ‘waste’ must be — and is being — reconsidered. As noted in the Communication, the current approach is fragmented and unhelpful and hinders the desired outcomes of reuse and recycling.




3.6   What should the EU promote in terms of further research and innovation into the sustainable use of phosphorus?









3.6.1


The Commission should encourage research where there is a desired outcome but market-driven commercial incentives are unclear (e.g. due to the continuing availability of relatively low cost primary phosphorus) or where there are likely to be unresolved conflicts of interest (e.g. with regard to quality standards for recycled v. virgin phosphate fertilisers) or where national practices within the EU differ sharply (e.g. with regard to current phosphate use and trends in consumption) or where obvious synergies cannot easily be achieved (e.g. with respect to transferring animal and other P-rich wastes from surplus to deficit Member States).












3.6.2


The need for improved communication across the sectors involved, the different legislation applying, and the split and sometimes conflicting responsibilities inside the Commission and other regulatory bodies, should also be recognised.




3.7   Do you consider that the available information on the efficiency of phosphorus use and the use of recycled phosphorus in agriculture is adequate? If not, what further statistical information might be necessary?









3.7.1


Here the answer is ‘no’. There is a clear need for authoritative and less fragmented and more complete information on other contaminants and their sources and uptakes in food, including heavy (and lighter) metals, pharmaceuticals and metabolites, pathogens, associated nutrients, availability, release patterns, overall agronomic efficiency, recycling technologies, environmental impacts and so on.












3.7.2


Statistical data, if available, would be a good start. Education and ownership and acceptance of change will be essential. Partnership between the Commission and bodies such as the ESPP looks the most likely route to achieving this.




3.8   How could the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) on ‘agricultural productivity and sustainability’ help to take forward the sustainable use of phosphorus?









3.8.1


5 EIPs have been launched within the framework of Europe 2020. 3 of these, on agricultural productivity, water and raw materials, will impact the farming sector in general and phosphorus in particular — as will, to a lesser extent, the remaining 2 on smart cities and active and healthy ageing. As a new problem to be solved, the approach to phosphorus could set a model for others to follow.












3.8.2


A High Level Steering Board is in place and a Strategic Implementing Plan (SIP) has been agreed. This will be a success if stakeholders act together and if all stakeholders are represented and actively engaged. The focus is on actions possible within the EU — broadly from ‘farm’ to ‘fork’ — so does not include some topics, as above.












3.8.3


The EESC agrees with the very broad all-embracing content of the SIP but notes that it lacks clearly defined priorities, mechanisms to resolve legitimate disputes, or timetables for action. There is little discussion of areas where existing EU or Member State policies (to subsidise, or not to subsidise or even allow, specific activities in the pursuit of other goals) have led to economically unsustainable or undesirable outcomes in or outside the EU.












3.8.4


The EESC hopes that the EIP meets its objectives in a timely manner; this would be a useful outcome for phosphorus. Discussion should include nutrient use, fertiliser efficiency, recycling, contaminant levels, manure and other organic waste treatment, transport and use. This should support the work programme of the ESPP. Clearly the two should interact.




3.9   What could be done to ensure better management and increase processing of manure in areas of over-supply and to encourage greater use of processed manure outside these areas?









3.9.1


‘Waste’ is any material seen by its immediate owners as having no or negative value; once a value can be attributed, it becomes a product that can be traded. A fully efficient process would valorise and use all its output streams. Globalisation has made this more complicated to analyse but more pressing to resolve. Plant, animal and human waste streams in liquid and solid form must now be seen as commercial opportunities rather than as costly problems.












3.9.2


This is easier to say than to achieve. Research and new technology will be required; regulations should be adapted to ensure greater clarity and certainty of content for cross-border and internal movements. Financial incentives must be made clear. Local solutions encompassing manure, processed or otherwise, and synthetic fertilisers look the most likely to succeed. Community or regional projects could be developed to solve specific problems, to make good use of investments and to minimise environmental impacts.












3.9.3


Stakeholders in the EIP or ESPP will have a key role in matching global solutions to actual opportunities at farm, community, municipal or regional level; Member States and other representatives of civil society will need to be fully engaged.




3.10   What could be done to improve the recovery of phosphorus from food waste and other biodegradable waste?









3.10.1


The best way to reduce food waste is to ensure that the food is distributed and eaten as part of a balanced and healthy diet by those in need of sustenance. Labelling law and retail practices with regard to ‘quality’ (shape, appearance and size v. taste or nutritional content), portion sizes, ‘best-by’ or ‘sell-by’ dates, and disposal of unsold food all need review. Large scale commercial users (food processors, caterers, restaurants) should minimise waste on normal commercial grounds — and should be required to compost all that they cannot use directly. Industry wide initiatives involving retailers should be encouraged. Domestic food waste can and should be minimised by effective buying and timely use — and that is largely a matter of consumer education. Individual composting of residues is possible in the country, less easy in large cities.












3.10.2


Separated collection of biodegradable waste, apart from garden waste, is generally quite limited and is subject to available budgets and priorities. Composting of anything that cannot be consumed keeps the phosphorus within the food chain and, where this is required, improves soil quality. Attention needs to be given to adding value rather than merely disposing of waste.




3.11   Should some form of recovery of phosphorus from waste water treatment be made mandatory or encouraged? What could be done to make sewage sludge and biodegradable waste more available and acceptable to arable farming?









3.11.1


Solutions already exist for small scale domestic applications, primarily to solve problems of excess phosphorus in remote locations leading to eutrophication in adjacent still water. These are however expensive and seem difficult to adapt to higher-density urban populations. City size often determines what is possible.












3.11.2


Urban waste water disposal is governed by regulations on the quality of the effluent and not on the potential value of specific components. This should be reviewed as a matter of urgency. Retrofitting existing sewage disposal systems can be expensive; providing designs for new investments that add greater value for operators makes better sense. The use of bio-solids on land should focus on optimising crop yields v. meeting disposal limits.












3.11.3


New standards will be required for food use applications, including arable farming, for use alongside synthetic (and therefore more easily quality and performance controlled) fertilisers. Non-food applications (parks, golf courses, urban and industrial landscaping, environmental reclamation, forestry, erosion protection, sea defence, etc.) provide easier outlets.












3.11.4


There is a continuing need for focused research and the development of new cost effective technologies. It is to everyone’s benefit if this is encouraged, funded and publicised at EU level and supported by the identification and effective transfer of existing best practices. Successful technologies generate jobs and open up markets. Efficiencies in food production, distribution, use and waste management help reduce costs for consumers and assist in reaching other targets on energy and climate change.












3.11.5


Road blocks to progress should be removed. Harmonised ‘End-of-Waste’ criteria and a new approach to the definition and control of waste should be developed. Framework directives on chemicals (REACH), soil and water quality, fertiliser and food use and waste disposal should be re-evaluated to ensure that their objectives are still relevant and complete and that they meet the priorities of the EU as it is today, in the globalised world in which we now live. Proper and proportionate implementation at national and local level will be important. The EESC will be happy to assist in this process.





Brussels, 21 January 2014.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Henri MALOSSE




(1)  OJ C 67, 6.3.2014, p. 47-52.